Moog Music Forum

I wouldn't say "widely," as so few people even know what a Novachord is. However, I also have seen evidence that John Hanert was involved with its design. I have seen the Williams name in two places. I'm still looking for the first, as it is in a document from that time. The second is on obsolete.com:

"The Hammond Novachord was manufactured by the Hammond Organ Co in the USA from 1939 to 1942, designed by Laurens Hammond and C.N.Williams. A total of 1096 models were built."

I would not stand by one quote that I had read on the internet... (especially since I have seen the model count at 1069 as well) I have read the name elsewhere, hand-written, in a Hammond related document.

With the paucity of information concerning the Novachord, I hardly think profanity was necessary. ; )

www.recondite-media.com/novachord

Mark Vail's book has a chapter on the Novachord with a picture of Laurens Hammond and John Hanert with a Novachord. Hanert is playing the Novachord.

Yes! Vail... :::shakes head::: calls the Novachord a relative of the B3... and then goes on to say the Novachord "lacked a tone-wheel generator." It didn't LACK a tonewheel generator any more than it lacked string plucked by quills, pipes, humbucker pickups, the need for rosin, or a air bag to squeeze. But, in general, it's a good article... especially because he talked to Mike Fulk.
Hanert is not only pictured, but frequently referenced in the text.

museslave wrote:... as the first big polyphonic synthesizers (oberheim excluded) implemented divide down technology.

So the Yamaha GX-1 (1974) and the one-off T.O.N.T.O. (scanned keyboard with assigned Moog Modular voices in 1971) weren't big polyphonic synthesizers?

I guess I should have been more specific... by "big" I meant "popular," and "mass produced." The relevant point is not when the first polyphonic synthesizer was ever invented (because it was far before the seventies) but rather that divide-down was favoured first.
Admittedly, I had forgotten that the GX-1 was of that vintage... but that's only one year before the Polymoog hit production... and how many GX-1s were there? Like... two? Three? And TONTO... there was only ONE TONTO... and I've never heard that TONTO featured a scanning keyboard... in 1971? That's pretty danged impressive for 1971. My understanding was that Oberheim was the first to implement a digital scanning keyboard for a polyphonic... but perhaps I'm wrong.
Any big modular could be considered polyphonic... it's only the keyboard controller that really makes it so..
The point of the matter is that the polyphonic that made the biggest initial impact and the one that was the first to hit the market and be available to all was the Polymoog... which was divide down. The CS-50 (which came out before the CS-80, and was the next step after the GX-1) came out a year or so later. Even the Omni, which really doesn't merit mention in my opinion, was divide down.
I remember seeing that the Eminent Solina, which was bought by ARP and released in 1974 or 1975 was actually built before that. Of course, it hardly counts as a synthesizer... but still. Again, divide down. : )

Nick D Kent,

THe Phantom X-8 isn't a 70's era synth. Or was that the point? lolol.

museslave wrote: Divide down gets a bad name because so many manufacturers, trying to make a buck, started directing ALL of the notes through a SINGLE FILTER AND ENVELOPE...

Including Moog with the Polymoog...... Except they did it worse by putting a truly polyphonic instrument thru a single filter and envelope! It's only polyphonic if you bypass the filter or select a preset.

::: plugs ears ::::

La la la I am not listeninggggg...

I still want to get a polymoog! : ) (well, provided that its local, in perfect condition, fully operational, and relatively inexpensive... which is a little like saying I would like one if it fell from heaven into my studio)

the jd800 has beautiful strings:

http://www.bluesynths.com/modules.php?n ... tent&id=20

my favorites are pad1
http://www.bluesynths.com/modules.php?n ... ile&id=216
and padnew2
http://www.bluesynths.com/modules.php?n ... ile&id=205

a terrific site for much more synths and sounds

I've always really liked the sound of the JD-800. Truly digital at its best.

Too bad its so big and UGLY

Too bad its so big and UGLY

jd990, not so big only ugly

museslave wrote:I guess I should have been more specific... by "big" I meant "popular," and "mass produced." The relevant point is not when the first polyphonic synthesizer was ever invented (because it was far before the seventies) but rather that divide-down was favoured first.
Admittedly, I had forgotten that the GX-1 was of that vintage... but that's only one year before the Polymoog hit production... and how many GX-1s were there? Like... two? Three? And TONTO... there was only ONE TONTO... and I've never heard that TONTO featured a scanning keyboard... in 1971? That's pretty danged impressive for 1971. My understanding was that Oberheim was the first to implement a digital scanning keyboard for a polyphonic... but perhaps I'm wrong.
Any big modular could be considered polyphonic... it's only the keyboard controller that really makes it so..
The point of the matter is that the polyphonic that made the biggest initial impact and the one that was the first to hit the market and be available to all was the Polymoog... which was divide down. The CS-50 (which came out before the CS-80, and was the next step after the GX-1) came out a year or so later. Even the Omni, which really doesn't merit mention in my opinion, was divide down.
I remember seeing that the Eminent Solina, which was bought by ARP and released in 1974 or 1975 was actually built before that. Of course, it hardly counts as a synthesizer... but still. Again, divide down. : )

There's no question that Moog Music's first polyphonic synth, the Polymoog was based on divide down technology as were some Korgs. Certainly the Moog name received much publicity though of course Tom Oberheim had his synths at roughly the same time. One can note that Roland chose not to call their divide-down technology "polyphonic", rather "paraphonic". On the other hand, besides Oberheim and Yamaha you had modular builders Emu and (ex-Moog staff)Polyfusion (note the "poly" in their name) also implementing voice allocated technology in the mid 70s. Emu's technology eventually found it's way into the Sequential Prophet 5.

As for the GX-1, the actual number is still in the double digits but at least 40 were built and it was shown outside Japan in 1975. By 1977 the CS-80 was available retail. The CS-50 came out at the same time.

Malcolm Cecil presented his polyphonic scanned keyboard technology at AES in 1971. It output individual channels of CV/Gate. The practical area that he was seeking funds or licensees to develop was mainly the cost to build per unit. His prototype cost a huge amount of money to construct. Then the next issue was clearly was what would it drive if you didn't own TONTO. In hindsight it was Tom Oberheim who had both answers a few years later. Cecil and Margouleff eventually bought a bunch SEM modules to augment TONTO's polyphony though they also had a number of identical custom built complete voice modules before that. TONTO has a 10 channel CV/gate bus system installed and accessible in every cabinet. His keyboard has mono touch and velocity though I don't know if the initial version had those features. Cecil later worked on patch storage but did not implement it.

While Tom Oberheim's technology was independently developed Malcolm Cecil felt Yamaha took unfair advantage of his development group's efforts. He says they presented themselves as wanting to license his patented technology but then after studying it in depth apparently their legal department decided they could do something similar without licensing his patent and they did just that.

nicholas d. kent wrote: Emu's technology eventually found it's way into the Sequential Prophet 5.

Hello,

The keyboard used by Oberheim for the SEM-based n/Voice and the
Prophet 5's board was licensed from E-mu. In addition, both instruments had several developmental influences.
Tom Oberheim at one point worked directly or indirectly for Arp.
Arp developed the 4023 filter in it's Odyssey Mk1 from the 1047 Multimode
in the 2500 series synths. The filter in the SEMs (and later OBX) was developed from the Arp's 4023.
Dave Rossum at E-mu provided a great deal of impetus for the P5, including the SSM filter chip (2040).
An interview with him can be found here:


http://www.siliconbreakdown.com/rossum_interview.htm


Regards,


-Lawrence

nicholas d. kent wrote:There's no question that Moog Music's first polyphonic synth, the Polymoog was based on divide down technology as were some Korgs.

My primary point was that divide-down polyphony preceeded CV polyphony... specifically for the purpose of pointing out that the response to divide-down as some sort of "fake synthesizer polyphony" is silly.

nicholas d. kent wrote:Certainly the Moog name received much publicity though of course Tom Oberheim had his synths at roughly the same time.

Any idea when either first began working on polyphony? I can't remember in the case of Moog (although I know the Apollo is older than the Polymoog) and I have no idea in the case of Oberheim.

nicholas d. kent wrote:One can note that Roland chose not to call their divide-down technology "polyphonic", rather "paraphonic".

Certainly to their credit. The paraphonic model is the model that caused all of this anti-divide-down unrest. : )
If those who are resentful towards Omnis and String Synths, etc. had had their first analog polyphonic experience on a (working) Polymoog, or especially a Korg in the PS series, (or even the Soina or early Roland string synths which featured VCA per note) things might not be so anti.

nicholas d. kent wrote:As for the GX-1, the actual number is still in the double digits but at least 40 were built and it was shown outside Japan in 1975.

I had no idea there were so many! I'll be the first to dismiss the readily-accessible websites as sources of valid information, but someone on Synthmuseum.com suggested over 7 were built. With the keyboard being in the many-tens-of-thousands range, I would be really shocked if they made so many. Not saying they didn't, just saying. : )

nicholas d. kent wrote:By 1977 the CS-80 was available retail. The CS-50 came out at the same time.

I have read conflicting information on this. It was my understanding the CS-50 came out in 1976... and the CS-80 came out later in 1976. Obviously, they were both from the GX-1 technology, and developed simultaneously... as they are basically different versions of the same synthesizer.

nicholas d. kent wrote:Malcolm Cecil presented his polyphonic scanned keyboard technology at AES in 1971. It output individual channels of CV/Gate.

Was it an analog scanning? Do you know how it worked? I'm very curious about this. Despite my lack of technical electronics knowledge, I've always felt that it MUST be possible to create an analog polyphonic keyboard that could output more than two notes.

While Tom Oberheim's technology was independently developed Malcolm Cecil felt Yamaha took unfair advantage of his development group's efforts. He says they presented themselves as wanting to license his patented technology but then after studying it in depth apparently their legal department decided they could do something similar without licensing his patent and they did just that.

The Yamaha polyphony is wonderful in the CS-50. It's horrible that they acquired it in that way, though. The interesting thing (that I would be surprised about if it existed in Cecil's technology) is the fact that the CS-50 cycles through oscillators. If you press a note four times in a row, you'll get a different oscillator each time. It makes for a greatly more varied sound... but would be irritating in a modular context. Or, even in a keyboard context... like the Korg Mono/Poly... in which it can be a really cool effect if you have the different oscillators set to different wave forms.
In fact, let me just say that the Mono Poly might just be one of the greatest polyphonics in ONE sense, which is to say unlike MOST polyphonics (Oberheim, of course, excluded) (CV OR Divide Down), it allows individual control over the waveform and pitch of each oscillator. Sadly, Korg went the paraphonic route. If they had gone the route of their earlier polyphonics and gave each of the four oscillators its own filter/VCA/ENV, it would have been ASTOUNDING.[/quote]

museslave wrote:

nicholas d. kent wrote:There's no question that Moog Music's first polyphonic synth, the Polymoog was based on divide down technology as were some Korgs.

My primary point was that divide-down polyphony preceeded CV polyphony... specifically for the purpose of pointing out that the response to divide-down as some sort of "fake synthesizer polyphony" is silly.

In typical implementation it does create a major barrier in creating a voltage controlled system. (as you mention later with lack of pitch modulation of each osc) While people today are still interested in vintage string-synth family units with divide down technology it's telling how few actually build anything using it. And I might add that much of the attaction really lies in the often excellent ensemble fx these units use to improve the sound.

museslave wrote:

nicholas d. kent wrote:Certainly the Moog name received much publicity though of course Tom Oberheim had his synths at roughly the same time.

Any idea when either first began working on polyphony? I can't remember in the case of Moog (although I know the Apollo is older than the Polymoog) and I have no idea in the case of Oberheim.

I don't know the start dates though LWG has a good point. I think both Malcolm and I connected the dots wrong and assumed since Tom Oberheim did the duophonic keyboard for the 2600 that he also did the keyboard for the X-Voice when it was Dave Rossum.

museslave wrote:

nicholas d. kent wrote:One can note that Roland chose not to call their divide-down technology "polyphonic", rather "paraphonic".

Certainly to their credit. The paraphonic model is the model that caused all of this anti-divide-down unrest. : )
If those who are resentful towards Omnis and String Synths, etc. had had their first analog polyphonic experience on a (working) Polymoog, or especially a Korg in the PS series, (or even the Soina or early Roland string synths which featured VCA per note) things might not be so anti.

I sort of think a different scenerio happened. People heard the late 70s heard the more expensive Yamahas, Oberheims and Sequentials and those met both the sonic and performance standards people expected when they lusted after a polysynth.

museslave wrote:

nicholas d. kent wrote:As for the GX-1, the actual number is still in the double digits but at least 40 were built and it was shown outside Japan in 1975.

I had no idea there were so many! I'll be the first to dismiss the readily-accessible websites as sources of valid information, but someone on Synthmuseum.com suggested over 7 were built. With the keyboard being in the many-tens-of-thousands range, I would be really shocked if they made so many. Not saying they didn't, just saying. : )

Well Forrest lists quite a number of names that used one. Some might have used the same unit (John Paul Jones sold Emerson his and then I think Zimmer bought it?) but there are quite a number of name artists in different countries who recorded on one. And the main market was concert halls needing a state of the art organ. UK Sound on Sound columnist quite notoriously bought his in the 1990s from an classified ad from Australia. I beleive it belonged to some rich guy who just wanted a really deluxe instrument to fool around with. Yamaha Australia said about 20 were shipped out of Japan.

museslave wrote:

nicholas d. kent wrote:By 1977 the CS-80 was available retail. The CS-50 came out at the same time.

I have read conflicting information on this. It was my understanding the CS-50 came out in 1976... and the CS-80 came out later in 1976. Obviously, they were both from the GX-1 technology, and developed simultaneously... as they are basically different versions of the same synthesizer.

The 76 date for the CS-50 was found in a CS-50 service manual. Keyboard Magazine Japan lists 4/77 as the street date for all 3 in Japan. They showed all 3 at NAMM in 6/77. So while they might have quite logically gotten the 50 working first, the 50, 60 and 80 were actually presented and released at the same time

museslave wrote:

nicholas d. kent wrote:Malcolm Cecil presented his polyphonic scanned keyboard technology at AES in 1971. It output individual channels of CV/Gate.

Was it an analog scanning? Do you know how it worked? I'm very curious about this. Despite my lack of technical electronics knowledge, I've always felt that it MUST be possible to create an analog polyphonic keyboard that could output more than two notes.

It was a scanned keyboard. If I'm lucky I have it in a taped interview with him, though I'm not sure if that's when we discussed it. I don't understand the nuances of his implementation. It put out multiple standard CVs and gates they could patch into their modular. He explained what Oberheim and Rossum did was method he explored but couldn't build a functional prototype of. What came across is he felt that while Yamaha managed not to infringe his patent they couldn't have gotten a working system without understanding how his system worked.

museslave wrote:

While Tom Oberheim's technology was independently developed Malcolm Cecil felt Yamaha took unfair advantage of his development group's efforts. He says they presented themselves as wanting to license his patented technology but then after studying it in depth apparently their legal department decided they could do something similar without licensing his patent and they did just that.

The Yamaha polyphony is wonderful in the CS-50. It's horrible that they acquired it in that way, though. The interesting thing (that I would be surprised about if it existed in Cecil's technology) is the fact that the CS-50 cycles through oscillators. If you press a note four times in a row, you'll get a different oscillator each time. It makes for a greatly more varied sound... but would be irritating in a modular context. Or, even in a keyboard context... like the Korg Mono/Poly... in which it can be a really cool effect if you have the different oscillators set to different wave forms.
In fact, let me just say that the Mono Poly might just be one of the greatest polyphonics in ONE sense, which is to say unlike MOST polyphonics (Oberheim, of course, excluded) (CV OR Divide Down), it allows individual control over the waveform and pitch of each oscillator. Sadly, Korg went the paraphonic route. If they had gone the route of their earlier polyphonics and gave each of the four oscillators its own filter/VCA/ENV, it would have been ASTOUNDING.

Yamaha did some interesting work with note priorities. They might very well have wholly come up with those particulars.

FWIW Korg's divide down synths came out years before the Mono/poly. It's kind of interesting that it and the Polysix were released at the same time. So it was like the Monopoly was a new twist on quasi-polyphony (note the tentative "mono" in the name) and the Polysix was their stripped down Prophet 5 answer.