Moog Music Forum

LivePsy wrote:How come other manufacturers can make a living from making modular??? Why not Moog?

Relative number of employees might be part of it. A lot of modular mfr's, if not the majority, are essentially one-person operations, or very close to it. That means much lower overhead expenses, which means it's easier to make a living on a relatively small volume of sales.

There's more to the picture but this should not be overlooked in answering your specific question...

I think that a new Moog modular would have more buyers than the Taurus 3, CP-251 or Moog guitar.
Probably more than their new VCF too.
Also, a modular would be expandable and buyers would continually be purchasing additional modules in the future.
Modules would also be sold to go into existing systems made by other makers.

I agree with Kevin, above. Not to mention the fact that these modules would genuinely bear the name Moog would probably be an additional selling point in their favor...

I just got snookered into building a Modular as many of you have.

I want Moog Modular but not something assembled with piece parts of a Voyager (I already have that). I want Olderschool discrete components (where possible). As so, I'm buying a number of MOS-LAB modules:

Otherwise, I believe that the market is ripe (I can't wait to raise another $250 to fund the next module). But Amos is right, 9/10th of those making Modules are small shop; invite your buddies over to solder up a few dozen a month or so, 6-8 week wait time.

The exception being Doepfer.

But the utility of Modular fits well with my 'modern' Moog gear.

If you're interested in falling out of your chair and wanting one, check out MOS-LAB-8 (their entry level system). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMTouJJP51A

I'm merely picking up an OSC set and a the A low pass filter. Otherwise, the beauty of this marketplace is that most support the Synth.com power connector an 5U is comfortable.

If Amos is suggesting that it's not worthy...he obviously knows something that we dont.

However, I don't see why they couldn't offer a module with the same circumstances as they did with the Taurus III. We want one, we need to pay for it.

With that being said, they could make limited edition modules, one at a time.

The question is....which one to start with first? Something traditional or something brand new?



My suggestion: Why not START by offering modifications to people who want their Moogerfoogers mounted in modular formats, and then begin market research that way. I can already announce Im ready to have at least two of mine refitted. I'll even loan mine back to Moog for research purposes!

Bring back the Moog Modular!



For every one of us that owns a synth module from another company, and especially those of us that have desires to expand, We are making those other companies money that Moog could be making. Snooze=Lose








Edit:
Congrats, EM!

Why can't someone build a modular with digitally controlled analog patching like this:

http://www.solid-state-logic.com/music/ ... 20x-patch/

A modular synth with software that stores knob settings like the voyager and virtual patch cords. Basically a modular form of the voyager.

There's still a contradiction in your wise words, MC. What is so different about the business model that Macbeth can make a few hundred and survive, but Moog have to make thousands?

I'm not trying to urge Moog to do anything, I just want to know why Moog see the need to stick to preset conventional synths. Others can do it?

Cheers,
B

unfiltered37 wrote:Why can't someone build a modular with digitally controlled analog patching like this:

http://www.solid-state-logic.com/music/ ... 20x-patch/

A modular synth with software that stores knob settings like the voyager and virtual patch cords. Basically a modular form of the voyager.

I've got nothing against digital control and memories of analog, voltage controlled circuits. As long as the digital side can match the extremely high resolution of the analog side.
The minimum resolution of parameters should be like Bob Moog chose for the Voyager: 16384 possible values for each control voltage, at least. More would even be welcome.
Especially when you consider that the Voyager was designed over 10 years ago. In this day and age, where computer power and memory prices are so low, there would be absolutely no reason to accept anything less than that.

In fact, if such a "virtual modular" synth could exist, combining the amazing possibilities of digital modulation matrix with real analog sound it would be fantastic. A bit similar to an Alesis Andromeda, come to think of it.

It wouldn't even have to have digital modulation. Just digital control of analog signal routing. Resolution wouldn't have to matter since it's analog. And while we're dreaming why not automated knobs/switches a la flying faders. I'm not a fan of the alesis, sounds digital to me. The Hartmann neuron sounds more organic to me than the A6.

unfiltered37 wrote:It wouldn't even have to have digital modulation. Just digital control of analog signal routing. Resolution wouldn't have to matter since it's analog. And while we're dreaming why not automated knobs/switches a la flying faders. I'm not a fan of the alesis, sounds digital to me. The Hartmann neuron sounds more organic to me than the A6.

I was merely mentioning the A6 because of its very versatile modulation matrix. I'm neither endorsing, nor discounting it.

As for automated knobs, I've always wondered why it was never implemented on any analog (read that knobby) synths ? It would be sooo cool. Much better than "pass thru, or immediate" knobs behavior settings, and much more visual too! Not to mention much a more precise indication of actual knobs position than a few LEDS around them (à la Little Phatty).
Sure it would be expensive, but it would be sooo cool...

How about this for a nutty idea?

A small variety of common (shared) PCBs that could be configured for various tasks by means of inserting pre-programmed PICs or ASIC chips.
Only the panels, controls and jacks would have to be different module to module.

For example, a board with a PIC (a digital CPU chip) could be configured as an ADSR, LFO or other CV generating or modifying module.
Various front panels with different feature sets could be made, but the same board could drive any of them.

This way, one could have 2, 4 or 8 LFOs, dual or quad envs, quad lags and so forth.
Only the panels and main chip would change, keeping costs down.

Another common board could support an ASIC (analog chip) that could be configured as a VCO, VCF, VCA, ring mod, phasor, etc.
Again, only different panels and the main chip would need be changed.

This way, one could get the integration that the A6 had by using ASICs and a CPU, but shared board technology that cuts down on assembly and parts costs and welcomes future designs or modules built upon the same platforms, whether analog or digital.

I don't see any reason why an env or LFO couldn't be realized digitally this way.
PICs often have A/Ds and D/As and high clock rates.

ASICs are now much cheaper to produce than when the Andromeda was designed.
They can duplicate almost any analog circuit with few, if any external components.
A module could be analog to the core.

Moog could even make both digital and analog VCOs this way and the digital ones, like the various envs and LFOs, could remember their settings and be programmable.

As for programmable patching, it might be possible to have an internal analog patching buss and modules that send and receive digital identifier signals when first patched in.

So patch cords would make a patch as normal, but those pathways would actually be hooked up and recalled via a wide analog buss using analog switch ICs.

Those modules intended to go in existing modulars could have jumpers hooking the front panel jacks directly to the module's inputs and outputs, thus bypassing the shared analog buss located elsewhere in the Moog cabinet.
So modules could be programmable when installed in a Moog cabinet, but work as normal if installed in, say, a Synth.com cabinet.

I know, crazy and complex idea.
Sort of a cross between a standard modular and a programmable Arp 2500 or Buchla 200e.

Whew! Some brainstorming that was!

It'll always be the dream...

EricK wrote:If Amos is suggesting that it's not worthy...

I definitely did not mean to suggest that! Only adding that production overhead is another factor to consider. It's a complex question... but a very good one!

Amos wrote:

EricK wrote:If Amos is suggesting that it's not worthy...

I definitely did not mean to suggest that! Only adding that production overhead is another factor to consider. It's a complex question... but a very good one!

Yes. And I wonder what the profit margin of all those small operation modular companies must be ? I'll bet very thin in the end. I think that for most, if not all of them, it's much more a labour of love and passion for modulars than a real money-making enterprise. Far from me to suggest that Moog Music employees aren't passionate about their work, au contraire, but as Amos as stated they have bigger concerns money wise than a small "basement" operation.

Kevin Lightner wrote:How about this for a nutty idea?

I have no idea what you're talking about, but it sounds cool and kinda like this:

http://www.anamodaudio.com/ats1.html

They call this an "analog computer" that emulates the sound of different tape machines with the same analog components configured in different ways. Probably completely different than you're idea. But if moog were to go modular, I do think they should come up with something completely new.