Moog Music Forum

Here's my 82 cents on the 921 clone.

Good:
It basically did what it was supposed to, even if it wasn't like a real 921 in feel or sound.
Didn't cost a fortune.
Used decent quality components for the most part. Resistors were mostly good 1% metal film.
Had a high "fool" factor, ie: it looked like a real Moog to most people.

Bad:
Cheap IC sockets. Many frictional contacts. Real Moogs did use sockets, but not for every IC.
Tons of trimmers. More than a real 921.Trims use friction-based contacts too. (more things to fail.)
A CEM 3340 main IC. I thought someone would have said something about this- (Look at the date code.)
Soldering and parts installation could have been much better all around.
No lock-washers anywhere and nothing was tightened well. Selector switches would "wander."
Lack of heatshrinked strain relieving on wires to the panel. (wires might break more easily in time.)
Knobs were not prepped and still had adhesive or areas of backing paper stuck to them.

But my biggest gripe was that the controls felt very different from real Moogs.
Plastic selector switches that felt different and pots that were oil damped.

COTK often used small sized Alpha type pots. Aluminum shafts with non-sealed bodies.
The common pot you'd find on most Japanese electronics in the past 30 years.

Moog modulars were made with larger, higher quality mil-spec pots with solid brass shafts and sealed enclosures.
They're more precise and required more torque to turn (ie: they're stiffer.)

One big problem is that by using these Japanese pots, the shaft sizes are metric not US.
They have slightly smaller diameter shafts than the proper .250" the knobs expect.
So the knob setscrews would be overtightened to take up the slack, but this causes the knobs not to rotate perfectly in a circle.
With the light action selectors, oil damped pots and off-center knobs, it felt weak and "drunk" instead of solid and precise.

I would hope that COTK has improved their construction methods and soldering since I took these photos.
I have doubts they're using any better parts on their front panels tho.

I think they have good intentions, but not a lot of experience with electronics or real Moogs.
I've only seen some early modules too, which may or may not be as things are now.
Then they didn't look like they would age, travel well or stand up to much abuse.
Maybe they're better now, but don't expect them to be just like Moogs in every respect- feel, sound, response, etc.
The front panels look like Moogs, but otherwise they're totally different creatures.

Interesting.

Well, what about the info on their website?

All the info on the "technical" page shows a lot laid out for everyone to see and doesn't look like they're trying to "hide" any kind of "shoddy" work or info:

http://www.cluboftheknobs.com/technical.html

And on the "buy" page it pretty much says that their synths are built to last a lifetime, which is a pretty long time:

http://www.cluboftheknobs.com/buy.html

Also, if the craftsmanship on COTK systems was not quality then wouldn't there be more of a general negative opinion on COTK from everyone in general already? I've heard a lot of good things about COTK from different people on these forums and the video demos online look and sound great, too.

And also, yes, it definitely wouldn't be fair to judge the company on 2 pictures that were taken who knows how long ago and for what exact reasons.

Just saying and throwing that out there!

panorama1003 wrote:Interesting.

Well, what about the info on their website?

Not taking any sides, but there's plenty of websites and ads for all sorts of products and services, but negative issues are generally not shown.

panorama1003 wrote: All the info on the "technical" page shows a lot laid out for everyone to see and doesn't look like they're trying to "hide" any kind of "shoddy" work or info:

http://www.cluboftheknobs.com/technical.html

The photos there aren't very high res, but I did notice they're now using better IC sockets than before.

panorama1003 wrote: And on the "buy" page it pretty much says that their synths are built to last a lifetime, which is a pretty long time:

http://www.cluboftheknobs.com/buy.html

With all due respect, how long is a lifetime?
The lifetime of the maker? The product?
How can one actually say something will last a lifetime if they've never tested it that long?
One way you can tell advertising from truth is to see if they warranty their products for a lifetime.

panorama1003 wrote: Also, if the craftsmanship on COTK systems was not quality then wouldn't there be more of a general negative opinion on COTK from everyone in general already? I've heard a lot of good things about COTK from different people on these forums and the video demos online look and sound great, too.

I agree. I think that if they didn't make them better than the one I had, there would be more negative press.

Still, please don't confuse immediately satisfied customers with longterm satisfied customers.
Products built with high quality parts and to exacting standards will usually last longer.
Not everyone is an engineer or tech and able to tell and none of the COTK stuff is even 10 years old yet.
So it's a bit early to say.

panorama1003 wrote: And also, yes, it definitely wouldn't be fair to judge the company on 2 pictures that were taken who knows how long ago and for what exact reasons.

I took the photos around July 2005 to document them.
Now you know.

Please note that I've suggested COTK may be making them better than before.
Seeing the better IC sockets on their technical page confirms this.

I'm simply saying that the ones I saw needed considerable improvements then.
I have no idea if they're still using 30 year old CEM3340 chips in their VCOs or cheaper quality pots than real Moog modulars.
I just posted the pics and shared my experiences with an early modular of theirs (several modules, not just two.)
My POV is from working on higher quality machines requiring restoration 20-30 years down the road.
With that in mind, I don't see how realistic one can be in saying they'll last a lifetime, but If COTK lasts for your lifetime, great.
I hope you last for more than 20-30 years too.

Good points. I understand what you're saying, and I can tell you have a lot of experience, and that a lot of people know you on these forums

I just simply wanted to bring up these points of views also, for a more critical conversation on the subject!

But no disrespect at all or any kind of doubt at all towards you on my part just so you know

Like I said I just like to ask questions for a more specific conversation!

FWIW, I have many products here 30-40 years old. 8-track player, a number of Realistic police scanners, stereo equipment, etc. The pots in the 8-track machine are scratchy, but then it's also a JCPenny branded machine, which I understand to have been a re-branded Panasonic, which weren't exactly known for quality, even back then. That's the only problem with it, scratchy pots. Actually, sliders. I've seen Japanese rotary pots last 30+ years with no problems, but it's rare. Even the pots in my Sansui AU-9500 amp were starting to get scratchy, which is why I got rid of it. (Couldn't find suitable replacements for a lot of the switches and custom quad stacked pots). So while the cheap pots may last 40 years, don't expect them to with regular use. I am forced to believe my RS Pro scanners are a fluke when it comes to cheap pots lasting a long time.

On topic, I believe that COTK could not maintain the relatively affordable prices they do while using $15-$30 pots and Switchcraft jacks, normally costing $2.50 each for a hundred. I will say, somebody has learned to solder over there, though.

Wasn't at all surprised by the CEM3340. COTK makes an ensemble chorus module populated with MN300x BBDs whose datecodes are in the 1970s!

Using a CEM3340 as the core of the VCO and calling it a 921 is a S T R E T C H

I don't know. It kind of seems like sometimes some people are maybe a little too critical.

Like kevin lightner said earlier, not everyone is a synth tech.

So, it kind of seems like sometimes comments like "Wasn't at all surprised by the CEM3340. Using a CEM3340 as the core of the VCO and calling it a 921 is a S T R E T C H" are overly critical.

I mean wouldn't you think that a company that is making these type of systems are VERY aware of what they're doing, and what type of parts they're using, and if using these certain parts they were using was truly "shoddy", they wouldn't do it that way?

link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slOj_I9LtIQ

panorama1003 wrote:I don't know. It kind of seems like sometimes some people are maybe a little too critical.

Like kevin lightner said earlier, not everyone is a synth tech.

So, it kind of seems like sometimes comments like "Wasn't at all surprised by the CEM3340. Using a CEM3340 as the core of the VCO and calling it a 921 is a S T R E T C H" are overly critical.

I mean wouldn't you think that a company that is making these type of systems are VERY aware of what they're doing, and what type of parts they're using, and if using these certain parts they were using was truly "shoddy", they wouldn't do it that way?

link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slOj_I9LtIQ

The only reason MC said that about the CEM3340 is because Moog did not use that chip. That chip is an early analog osc chip...it was used in the Memorymoog, which in turn was heavily criticized because people felt (rightfuly so) that it wasn't a TRUE Moog oscillator.

@voltor07,

I see.

Thanks for that insight!

panorama1003 wrote:@voltor07,

I see.

Thanks for that insight!

You are most welcome. FWIW, I am not a synth tech...just a hobbyist who works a lot building and fixing electronics.

About 25 years ago I had a Moog Modular, it was given to me for demonstrating purposes at that time and I made also some recordings with it. Unfortunately it had to be returned. Now I own a COTK Moog clone Model 15 and an additional cabinet. COTK makes great stuff and the sound is really comparable. Only COTK's price is more comfortable compared to an original Moog. Another advantage, I could use it immediately and not to make some electronic restorations first.

The original System 15 (and others Moog made of earlier model numbers 10, 11, 12) had single panels across the bottom. They are the same height as the half-size CP panels but full width on the P-cabinet. So the COTK design is historically correct - at least in looks!