Moog Music Forum

LektroiD wrote:

Voltor07 wrote:Are we suggesting that the LP Stage III should be a polysynth? If so, I'm all for a "test the waters" approach.

Polyphony would mean omitting the pitch CV input, I guess that's no biggie though.

Crap, i forgot about that. they'd need e.g. 6 pitch cv ins, same for gate! so much for that aspect.

I guess you could still have a single pitch CV for mono-modulation though. Same for gate when using the synth in mono/unison modes (which they will probably have.)

CTRLSHFT wrote:

superd2112 wrote:Had mine for just over a month now, and there are only 2 things I wish it had - a 2nd LFO, and an on-board noise source.

Add CP-251, problem solved.

Yeah man, you gotta get a CP-251.

And I have to get the CV expansion for the LPte. Hmmm....

I don't think the LPIII should be a polysynth, but I do think it would be cool if they did a polysynth with a modified Phatty engine.

peterkadar wrote:
Yeah man, you gotta get a CP-251.

And I have to get the CV expansion for the LPte. Hmmm....

I don't think the LPIII should be a polysynth, but I do think it would be cool if they did a polysynth with a modified Phatty engine.

I agree.. LP3 does'nt need poly.. it is it's own beast. And hell... I need a CP-251, a CV espansion for the LP... a VX-351 and 352... I'm way behind on my CV gear..

What's the cost of the Little Phatty or the Voyager for that matter? How much of it is the actual circuit board with the components on it.

I ask because I wonder how much it will cost for an 8 or 12 voice Poly. I think from a realestate perspective, the LP has 2 OSCs because adding a third would add a requirement for more controls (a detune button), components on the board, and fractional cost. Maybe 2 was good enough considering that the LFO was separate?

I just question how Dave Smith can sell the Poly version of his kbds for $2,000. Sure, they are made in China, mass produced, sold through every outlet going, etc. but still. The engineering in his product is no less complicated than Moog. I'd argue that his OS is even MORE complex with all of the Modulation options, the Sequencer dual this and that, layers, etc.

So maybe Moog can produce something south of $3,000... we're all sitting around thinking that it will need to be a multiple of the current cost but perhaps once the engineering tooling, code and testing is all worked out, it's just a bit more than the Voyager?

Moog seems to have gotten alot of mileage out of the two line display (MP, LP, T3), maybe they don't need the fancy bit mapped display like the Voyager has.

Just wondering.

:EMwhite

EMwhite wrote: I just question how Dave Smith can sell the Poly version of his kbds for $2,000.

DSI uses curtis chips, which are basically all-in-one synths. They are exceptionally cheap compared to making a discrete circuit for oscs, filters, envs, and so on.

Volume may have some impact on pricing, but DSI is hardly a huge company. It just comes down to cost of manufacturing chip synths are way less. The filters sound different, the oscs sound different, etc. The build quality is actually very high on DSI stuff though, save for maybe their little debacle with encoders, which I haven't experienced.

CTRLSHFT wrote: DSI uses curtis chips, which are basically all-in-one synths. They are exceptionally cheap compared to making a discrete circuit for oscs, filters, envs, and so on.

Ah the Curtis chips. I thought they were just used for filters but I suppose that's your point, that it's one chip vs. a ladder (?)

It's hard for me to imagine what a PolyMoog would sound like at this point. I have some patches on my Voyager, piped through a 105m that absolutely shake the house. Difficult to see how that single note can be multiplied across a four note sus chord.

Here's hoping...

:EMwhite

EMwhite wrote:

CTRLSHFT wrote: DSI uses curtis chips, which are basically all-in-one synths. They are exceptionally cheap compared to making a discrete circuit for oscs, filters, envs, and so on.

Ah the Curtis chips. I thought they were just used for filters but I suppose that's your point, that it's one chip vs. a ladder (?):EMwhite

Sure...just the filter...and oscillators, envelopes, VCA's...Did I mention the oscillators are DIGITALLY CONTROLLED as opposed to VOLTAGE CONTROLLED?

Voltor07 wrote:Did I mention the oscillators are DIGITALLY CONTROLLED as opposed to VOLTAGE CONTROLLED?

They are still great-sounding analog oscillators, with the the benefits (and downfalls) of digital control. Don't get me wrong, I love my Moogs, but I love the DSI stuff as well. My Prophet '08 is a great sounding synth, and it can do things get sounds that my Moogs simply can't. If you can get a well-built , great-sounding American-made synth for a great price, then what difference does it make if it uses chips vs. discrete components?

A great synth is a great synth - regardless of who's name is on it, or what components lie beneath the hood.

The best thing (for me) about DSI is how well their gear compliments my Moog gear. To me, Moog and DSI are like peanutbutter & chocolate - each good on their own, but truly great when combined.

I would say Moog is the peanutbutter and DSI is the chocolate

superd2112 wrote:

Voltor07 wrote:Did I mention the oscillators are DIGITALLY CONTROLLED as opposed to VOLTAGE CONTROLLED?

They are still great-sounding analog oscillators, with the the benefits (and downfalls) of digital control. Don't get me wrong, I love my Moogs, but I love the DSI stuff as well. My Prophet '08 is a great sounding synth, and it can do things get sounds that my Moogs simply can't. If you can get a well-built , great-sounding American-made synth for a great price, then what difference does it make if it uses chips vs. discrete components?

A great synth is a great synth - regardless of who's name is on it, or what components lie beneath the hood.

The best thing (for me) about DSI is how well their gear compliments my Moog gear. To me, Moog and DSI are like peanutbutter & chocolate - each good on their own, but truly great when combined.

I was merely pointing out the reasons behind DSI's lower prices. I wasn't bashing them. Quite frankly, I prefer the Moog sound, but can appreciate the Prophet 08 for what it is. It is a different sound, and it costs about as much as a Voyager RME...but there are more factors between WHY there's such a difference in price than just the filters, and I was pointing them out.

Sound quality comes first, but other factors are also very important. I, too, prefer the "Moog sound" (Ah - so others admit there is such a thing.), but what good is a high quality of tone if the instrument goes out of tune? I'm quite surprised that Moog oscillators, after all these years, are not more stable. Even when practicing at home for a few hours, I have to tune and re-tune my Voyager several times. Whereas, my DSI synthesizers with their DCO's never - I repeat, NEVER - have to be tuned from the moment I turn on the instruments. I'm pleased and impressed with both the Prophet '08 sound and the stability of its oscillators.

I wonder if the Prophet '08 is the closest we'll ever get to an eight-voice polyphonic Moog, or at least to a reasonably affordable one.

EMwhite wrote: It's hard for me to imagine what a PolyMoog would sound like at this point. I have some patches on my Voyager, piped through a 105m that absolutely shake the house. Difficult to see how that single note can be multiplied across a four note sus chord.
Here's hoping...
:EMwhite

A thing to consider is that the hugeness factor can actually decrease in some ways when you start adding polyphony/unison, as you get a bit of phase cancellation.

...It'll still sound enormous though. HPF will probably be appropriate to allow it to fit in busier mixes.

CTRLSHFT wrote:

EMwhite wrote: It's hard for me to imagine what a PolyMoog would sound like at this point. I have some patches on my Voyager, piped through a 105m that absolutely shake the house. Difficult to see how that single note can be multiplied across a four note sus chord.
Here's hoping...
:EMwhite

A thing to consider is that the hugeness factor can actually decrease in some ways when you start adding polyphony/unison, as you get a bit of phase cancellation.

...It'll still sound enormous though. HPF will probably be appropriate to allow it to fit in busier mixes.

Yeah.. I'm sure someone would try it.. But I would'nt be playing chords with those huge 3 OSC bass patches. Plus you could always play around w the filters to get the sound/size you want out of it. I'm more interested in what else it could be able to do. Like pads, strings, polyphonic melodies. We all know the LP and Voyager have incredible bass, but I would'nt necessarily be buying a poly Moog for the bass. I'd be buying it for everything it could do that the LP and Voyager can't.

I personally won't use anything but the Taurus III for bass...the thing is amazing! But for pads and some leads, a Moog polysynth would be awesome...though considering this thread has been derailed, (imagine that), I'll get us back on track by saying, Little Phatty Stage III...features? A divide down poly mode?

Voltor07 wrote:Little Phatty Stage III...features? A divide down poly mode?

They could even use digital envelopes, like those of the mp 201 for the VCAs of divide down poly mode. And when not in poly mode, they could be used as lfo's or midi to CV (polyphonic CVs anyone?) with CV out. There is always room for more jacks.