Moog Music Forum

.....If Alesis could market a 16 voice an. poly at reasonable cost, then surely moog can do a 6 voice.

It should be very simple and stripped down like the memorymoog. Or base it on an Lp style interface to keep the costs down with little hidden in menus.Theres no need for it to be as complex as the voyager.

godzilla wrote:so maybe they will release a taurus? i don't see th point myself, why not just get midi foot pedals + RME?

Why not? I can see three reasons.
First, you wouldn't need all the bells and whistles of the voyager for bass pedal duties. The Taurus 1 was pretty simple, architecture wise, compared to the voyager. Which means that a simpler and therefore less expensive model could be made for this. Which would leave some room for the necessary hardware (the pedal board).
Second, in a live situation, I need the voyager already for leads et all.
And #3: The voyager can probably get close to the Taurus sound, but it still lacks a certain... well... taurusness

What I think would be a great idea is a 'modular' Taurus system. Let me explain:

- The main unit: a pedal board, as sturdy as the Taurus 1's, but without a sound generator - only the pedal board and a couple of foot sliders for filter cutoff and volume control. Oh, and let's make it an octave and a half, while we're at it.
This main unit contains a slightly angled slot for a 19" sound module. This is where a dedicated
19" Taurus sound module
(or any other 19" sound module, like the Voyager RME) could be inserted and MIDI-connected to the main unit.

Both units sold separately for those who only need either the pedal board or the sound module and as a slightly discounted set.

Now you can go and tell me that I'm crazy!

Dom

No you're not crazy, that's what I've been suggesting to Moog Music at least four years ago. A standalone module with the synth electronics would be a great idea.

Many moons ago they had a survey on their website regarding Taurus pedals...

goldphinga wrote:Or base it on an Lp style interface to keep the costs down with little hidden in menus.Theres no need for it to be as complex as the voyager.

I agree that there is no need for it to be as complex as the Voyager, but as an analog purist, I say that it may as well not be analog without a knob per function.
Drawing upon your example, I would say that if Alesis could create a polyphonic that is literally covered with knobs, Moog could create one with a reasonable amount... which is to say, more than 4. ; )

ok we've talked a bit about polyphony
what about other things like number of VCOs per voice, number of keys etc?

i think 2 VCOs is enough for a poly, maybe they could go somewhere between the specs of the LP and voyager? they'd need 2 mod busses, but not as many ins and outs
just filter, volume, pitch (affects all VCOs) and maybe some mod buss ins and outs?

i don't know, there's a lot to think about, there's so many things that you can do by adding extra gear with a mono, but with a poly they have to be built in. i can't see how audio in would be useful on a poly, little things like that could cut costs down

i really don't see what's so great about the Taurus, mind you i've never heard one (not even a sample) and i'm all for controlling the synth engine with different devices (other than a standard keyboard, etherwave pro!) that's why a rack/desktop phatty would work so well! but yeah i really can't see why the taurus is so sort after, but that's just me (don't get me wrong i'd love to have one, it's just i think there are so many other more cool things out there, but i suppose if you already have everything you need something to lust after)

godzilla wrote:i really don't see what's so great about the Taurus

...mind blowing bass.

godzilla wrote:... i really don't see what's so great about the Taurus, mind you i've never heard one (not even a sample) ...

Isn't it the same with almost everything - as long as you don't own or know it, you don't miss it
For an idea what the earth shattering Taurus sounds like I recommend listening to a couple of Genesis records - 'Firth of Fifth' on 'Selling England By the Pound' comes to mind or some Stuff on 'A Trick of the Tail' like 'Dance on a Vulcano' or 'Los Endos'.
Everytime the plastering crumbles from your ceiling, you will know that the Taurus came in

Dom

i really wish moog would beef up their apparel line.
with winter coming, i could use a nice moog/triple fat goose.

Here's my Taurus page with samples. Don't judge by your computer speakers, listen with headphones. Or better yet, listen with a stereo or a 1000W PA with 18" subwoofers

http://www.retrosynth.com/~analoguedieh ... og_taurus/

On a polyphonic, it would have to be three VCOs with 3rd capable of LFO mode or two VCOs with digital LFOs per voice. A lot of my Memorymoog patches exploit the 3rd VCO in LFO mode while tracking the keyboard, that alone gives me a lot of mileage in tone palette. I can get that setup on the two VCO Andromeda because the digital LFOs can be tracked to the keyboard and I can have independent LFOs per voice. Modulation with independent LFOs per voice is a power that has to experienced to be understood.

You need more modulation busses on a poly than you do on a mono. The Memorymoog system is pretty good but I will admit I am spoiled by the Andromeda. Ditch the keyboard, there are plenty of MIDI controllers out there and everybody owns at least one.

The two blows that has kill many aspiring polyphonics is heat and connectors. If you don't pay attention to those, the polysynth will not stay in tune. All those analog electronics on those voice cards accumulate a lot of heat and it must be dissipated. Voyetra was one of the few that got it right. The Prophet-5 started out as the P-10 but accumulated heat from all those components doomed it. Moog (Norlin, not Asheville) struggled with the Memorymoog - it wasn't heat that plagued it, it was those cheap interconnect plugs between the circuit boards. The old Oberheim OB-X and OB-Xa fell victim to connector problems. The OBMx was worse than my Memorymoog at staying in tune - Gibson substituted cheaper caps behind Don Buchla's back and it threw the synth out of tune.

Some could-have-beens didn't make it to market because of these problems. The Polykobol sounded real promising except for its heat and power supply issues.

MC wrote:Here's my Taurus page with samples. Don't judge by your computer speakers, listen with headphones. Or better yet, listen with a stereo or a 1000W PA with 18" subwoofers

http://www.retrosynth.com/~analoguedieh ... og_taurus/

Difficult to deny that the thing sounds great. : )

MC wrote:On a polyphonic, it would have to be three VCOs with 3rd capable of LFO mode or two VCOs with digital LFOs per voice.

That would be very cool, but my guess is that it would make it very expensive.
I have fantasies about a polyphonic where you had full control over all oscillators to the point of being able to assign different waveforms to EACH of the oscillators, or portamento to individual oscillators, etc. within a polyphonic. To me, having 6-8 oscillators which all always play the same waveform, etc. is a little drab. It seems like such a thing would be possible. Still, though... would probably make it more expensive.

MC wrote:I can get that setup on the two VCO Andromeda because the digital LFOs can be tracked to the keyboard and I can have independent LFOs per voice.

The Andromeda has digital LFOs??? Disgusting!! Why??? Man, you just put me off the Andromeda. In my obsessive purist opinion, you can't call a synth an "analog synth" if it has digital components among the basic requisite components.
As I always say... if you're going to have digital anything, why not digital everything?
I would plead that if Moog makes a polyphonic, that they stick to analog components in the audio signal path and the control components as much as they have in other products.

MC wrote:Ditch the keyboard, there are plenty of MIDI controllers out there and everybody owns at least one.

Well, I do own one. I want to protest this concept, but it's hard to... being as that nearly all polyphonics have digital key tracking... I mean, you're right... you might as well use a MIDI board as a control. I hate that you're right, though. Icky.

MC wrote:The two blows that has kill many aspiring polyphonics is heat and connectors.

The CS-80, also plagued, may have been a heat nightmare, but the modest CS-50 has no such problems. Not only are there only 4 oscillator cards, but the inside of the thing is VERY open and spacious... largely empty... and has HUGE vents on the bottom and top. It's like an empty box inside of the thing, basically!

Fwiw, Selling England by the Pound came out several years before the Taurus pedals did.

Kevin Lightner wrote:Fwiw, Selling England by the Pound came out several years before the Taurus pedals did.

Yes, that's correct sir. I stand corrected.
But the Trick of the Tail album is a great Taurus show-off.

museslave wrote: I have fantasies about a polyphonic where you had full control over all oscillators to the point of being able to assign different waveforms to EACH of the oscillators, or portamento to individual oscillators, etc. within a polyphonic. To me, having 6-8 oscillators which all always play the same waveform, etc. is a little drab. It seems like such a thing would be possible. Still, though... would probably make it more expensive.

The Korg Mono/Poly, in poly mode, has some of the features you're talking about-- such as assigning footings and waveforms individually per voice. Of course, it has just one oscillator per voice...

museslave wrote: I would plead that if Moog makes a polyphonic, that they stick to analog components in the audio signal path and the control components as much as they have in other products.

Isn't it true that once you get into polyphony in synthesizer designs, there is no way to avoid introducing some, if not alot, of digital control into their functionality and operation?

To me, (and we've talked about this subject elsewhere on this forum) this added digital element is a possible explination why most every polyphonic synth I've ever heard sounds distinctly different (beyond simply having multiple voices and alot more modules) than an average monosynth. Compared with the monosynths I play, the polys I've used all have a sort of "digital" sound or feel... call me crazy...

This is why I'd personnaly rather not see a new Moog polysynth (although i'm fairly certain that they're likely already designing one... the next Moog will be the new MemoryMoog I'm sure). I sort of like the fact that the Moog company can still be identified with traditional analog (mono)synthesizers-- and that they haven't (yet) tried to market their version of a hybrid synth, virtual modeling synth, drum machine or other products that stray from their past product identity.

eric coleridge wrote:The Korg Mono/Poly, in poly mode, has some of the features you're talking about-- such as assigning footings and waveforms individually per voice. Of course, it has just one oscillator per voice...

One of the reasons why I love my Mono/Poly, despite the rampant digital aspects, and late release year. : )
As I always say: Yes, it "only" has one oscillator per voice... and it would be more powerful if it had more, but it is perfectly useable and wonderful with "only" one osc per voice. : )
Incidentally, in keeping with MC said, the Mono/Poly gets very warm, even with four oscs.

eric coleridge wrote: Isn't it true that once you get into polyphony in synthesizer designs, there is no way to avoid introducing some, if not alot, of digital control into their functionality and operation?

Well, that depends on whether you demand variable-pitch oscs, or not. : )
The PS-3100 is wholly without digital aspect, because divide-down removes the need for key tracking. This is one of the reasons I rant about it so much... it does everything any other polyphonic does (except individual osc portamento), while maintaining pure undigital operation not only in signal path, but also control path and keyboard. THAT is why it is amazing!
Variable pitch oscs, of course, require some way to direct key events to the various oscillators. I personally think it should have been possible to devise a way to do this without a computer, but the computer was the logical choice as a means to this end. The Yamaha CS-50, one of the earliest consumer models to do this, uses the digital involvement ONLY to this end... which is why it retains its delightfully analog sound. (both signal and control paths are analog)

eric coleridge wrote:To me, (and we've talked about this subject elsewhere on this forum) this added digital element is a possible explination why most every polyphonic synth I've ever heard sounds distinctly different (beyond simply having multiple voices and alot more modules) than an average monosynth. Compared with the monosynths I play, the polys I've used all have a sort of "digital" sound or feel... call me crazy...

I don't think you're crazy at all! I know what you're talking about, and it has driven me mad trying to figure out what it is. I honestly believe that it might be the popularity and constant use of polyphonics during the 80s, and the ways in which they were used, that has lent a digital association to synthesizers in polyphony in general. This is why I find myself constantly multi-tracking my Minimoog... because it's what was done in the early days, the association it generates is NOT of the digital-sounding eighties.
Even the PS-3100 can generate that association if played in certain ways... and especially the minute you turn on its chorus function.

eric coleridge wrote:This is why I'd personnaly rather not see a new Moog polysynth (although i'm fairly certain that they're likely already designing one... the next Moog will be the new MemoryMoog I'm sure). I sort of like the fact that the Moog company can still be identified with traditional analog (mono)synthesizers-- and that they haven't (yet) tried to market their version of a hybrid synth, virtual modeling synth, drum machine or other products that stray from their past product identity.

You know, I think I'm with you.
The reason I keep saying "I hope it isn't (this) or (that)," is because it would be SO easy for them to create something that cannot escape sounding modern (or at least eighties) in polyphonics. The more functionality, especially modern functionality, you lay atop it, the more likely you are to get something that just sounds like a run-of-the-mill modern polysynth (except with great filters, of course).
There is no point in Moog merely slapping the brand name on something that every other synth company is making... except that it'll make them money. Ugly.

till wrote:Give the team at Moog time to breath before doing another good synth. It takes plenty of work to do a synth right. And Moog's R&D is not done by 20 engineers.

Actually 3 (+ Eric). They are working hard and things are sounding very Moog