Maybe what they really should make next?

[Mooger5]

They don't have any vintage engineers or experience with vintage units.

Well, Moog Music could do worse than hire you for technical advisor.

Club of the Knobs?
I've seen their stuff and it was put together and worked very poorly.
Oscillators used a CEM 3340 chip, all other modules were different inside as well.
An extremely cheap copy of something originally put together with mil-spec parts.

About the "extremely cheap" bit, I find that harsh so I´d like to hear a second opinion. If they´re using CEMs and totally different designs that puts me off. They can still be an alternative to dotcoms for euro custommers.
Also, about mil-spec parts in modulars, I´ve read the opposite on the net, just don´t recall where, yet. The author states that inspite of being expensive, Moog modulars were built with average parts and goes on pointing other reasons to justify the high price.
Anyway the Minimoogs certainly weren´t built with those costly mil-specs so we can put them out of the equation.

Mellotrons and new EMS units are very expensive.

This is subjective. These instruments had their role in history much like the Mini and are regarded as "classic". For this you can´t take into account the price of existing mass produced synthesizers. If you want that sound you´ve got to pay for it. £1800 for a VCS3 is a bit pricey for my portuguese wallet but if I was a pro or a hardcore fan I wouldn´t think twice.
I studied music in a small orchestra and when I was told how much certain musical instruments of the classical world cost, my jaw dropped. A bombardino, which is like a small tuba, was 2.000.000$00, or 10.000 € and this was twenty years ago. A good sounding cello starts from 15.000 € upwards and it´s 1000 € for a pro bow alone...
I accept the idea of reissues of classic analogue synths falling in this cathegory. They´re handmade instruments with a specific sound, built for a specific type of music and sold to a specific market.
Heck, if a new Minimoog would cost today the same when it was new in the early eighties, given the evolution of the family income it would be cheaper by today´s standards.
I guess our perception of value is being spoiled by all those things made in China.

No disrespect, but I stand by my opinion- It can't be done to the same degree of quality and/or for a reasonable price.

Well, I still think it´s possible. As much as I respect Mr. Moog´s legacy (or is it worship?), a part of me still thinks a Mini is nothing but a bunch of components inside a wooden case. Therefore no dark science and happily done if you really want to.

There´s this DIY Minimoog here that is looking good http://www.meadowfield.freeuk.com/synth/mini.html

Is the Minimoog design public-domain yet?
A good idea would be selling PCBs to DIYers and let them deal with the costlier issues (logistics, transportation and so on). I imagine third-party small businesses cropping up supplying parts and cases.
In the HiFi world this happens all the time. If you know what you´re doing you can build yourself a Krell KSA-80 for peanuts.
Something like a MidiMini would be fun to build on the kitchen table.

In reality asking Moog Music to reissue the Minimoog would be like asking Volkswagen to relaunch the split-window side-by-side with the new bug. There would be no point to them. I just thought they would be "at home" if they found it a viable project.

[Mooger5]

Orville Gibson has been gone for almost a hundred years and Gibson made a fine guitar for years after his departure.

Fender isn't doing bad either. And Hammond finally got their act together.

Right. With all due respect to Mr. Moog, it´s not like Stradivari died and took the secret with him.

[MC]

Well, I still think it´s possible. As much as I respect Mr. Moog´s legacy (or is it worship?), a part of me still thinks a Mini is nothing but a bunch of components inside a wooden case. Therefore no dark science and easily done if you really want to.

That's why all the imitators thought too. And even Moog Music thought the same thing when Bob left back in the late 70s.

You fail to realize that there is more to designing a musical instrument than just components. When Bob was learning to design theremins in the 1950s, long before synthesizers, he learned the art of VOICING THE CIRCUIT. You substitute active and/or passive components, change the circuit until it sounds GOOD. Bob grew up during the era of tubes and he developed an uncanny ability to voice transistor circuits to resemble tubes.

What tools did he use? Not scopes, not spectrum analyzers, not distortion analyzers - HIS EARS. The VCO, VCF, VCA chain interact with each other more than most designers are aware of. Few people realize that the key to the beef of the original Taurus I pedals comes from the coupling of the VCF/VCA and the overdrive from high drive levels of the VCOs. Many imitators copy the VCF and miss the forest for the trees.

The best designers in pro audio use their ears to voice a circuit. Mike Adams' letter following Bob's death introduced Cyril Lance as the guy Bob proclaimed "he thinks like I do!". While Cyril did not have enough opportunity to study under Bob, I have faith that Moog has someone on board who shares the design philosophy of Bob.

[Kevin Lightner]

It isn't a matter of secrets, it's a matter of finances.
(and with several errors in the mini schemos, it's hard to say how close dupes have come.)

It's like Ferrari.
They cannot produce a $6000 sports car any longer.
They did originally. They should know how.
But it can't be done at that price any longer even though they did originally.

Fender started making guitars in Mexico to compete, raising their US models cost.
Gibson has had all sorts of problems financially also.
Hammond (correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't make any tone-wheel organs, which is what their legacy was built on.
They all went cheaper to survive while other companies caused competition.
They also raised prices on their existing lines.

I'm sorry that you need 2nd opinions instead of experienced ones.
I had a Club of the Knobs synth here.
As i unpacked it, it fell to pieces.
No lock washers and they shook themselves apart.
Soldering was horrible. Cheap IC sockets, pots, etc.
Gain levels were inconsistent, fit and finish poor, on and on.
The power supply was underrated and was the wrong type to use to begin with.
Several modules had errors like transistors in backwards, which means they could have never passed testing or quality control.
Maybe they've improved things since, but that is truly what I found when I had one here.

[museslave]

What I think this comes down to is this:

Some of us think in a general sort of logical sense that since these devices were made, and mass produced in the past, they should be able to be made now. It seems ridiculous to think that such things cannot be done now, especially since technology has advanced, the materials (but not necessarily components) used to make the devices still exist, etc. It is hard to conceive of the notion that something built in the past simply cannot be built again for a reasonable price, because it was in the past.

However, the other side is not saying that it conceptually cannot be done, but that it cannot be done with the market climate of today, the economic arrangement of today, the competitive corporate structure of today... all of which would unnaturally force prices into unreasonable places.

I suppose we can be resigned to the truth of this.

We can also remember that an entrepreneur USED to be the person who figured out how to do what couldn't be done... although, these days, that sort of entrepreneur is ALSO in short supply.
And probably pretty expensive. ; )

[Mooger5]

I suppose it´s the same old optimistic vs pessimistic arguement. Of course is each party consider themselves as realistic

Goodbye for now.

[MC]

Fender started making guitars in Mexico to compete, raising their US models cost.

Their custom shop is making a fine guitar and there are folks willing to pay for them. They still make a decent tube amp, whether built domestic or overseas. With Leo long gone, someone there is doing something right.

Gibson has had all sorts of problems financially also.

As did RA Moog when Bob was around.

Hammond (correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't make any tone-wheel organs, which is what their legacy was built on.

Well Moog isn't making VCOs from ua726s or CA3019s either.

[Mooger5]

It's like Ferrari.
They cannot produce a $6000 sports car any longer.
They did originally. They should know how.
But it can't be done at that price any longer even though they did originally.

This is fundamentally true, but I´d like to leave a note: The prices of luxury items are always hyped. Arguably if an F50 reached the market for half of the original price it wouldn´t be as well regarded. And Ferrari could do so, but won´t. There´s a reputation to maintain and a handful of customers to satisfy. And money to earn. The same accounts for yachts, houses, haute cuisine and art.
I keep bringing HiFi to the conversation because it´s what I´m most familiar with, there´s a paralel with electronic musical instrument manufacturing and it´s where this phenomenon achieves absurd heights.
There´s a well-known story of a High-End manufacturer that, when sales started to drop because of the astronomical prices, launched a new $2000 solid-state amplifier that, according to the ads, sounded like an amp costing ten times more. The press and the people who bought it raved about how fantastic the amplifier sounded and how could a High-End manufacturer launch such an "affordable" unit. That is, until someone discovered the webpage of an obscure Hong-Kong manufacturer that was offering the very same model for their domestic market for $200. The High-End guy had just rebadged the case and limited to tell the truth: the amp sounded like another amp costing ten times more. He just didn´t tell the whole story...
Rebadging is old news. It´s called outsourcing, I think. But such a huge margin of profit was never heard of before. Obviously the people and the press felt hoaxed and jumped from rave to rage about the amplifier and that was it for that smart fellow.

I'm sorry that you need 2nd opinions instead of experienced ones.
I had a Club of the Knobs synth here.
As i unpacked it, it fell to pieces.
No lock washers and they shook themselves apart.
Soldering was horrible. Cheap IC sockets, pots, etc.
Gain levels were inconsistent, fit and finish poor, on and on.
The power supply was underrated and was the wrong type to use to begin with.
Several modules had errors like transistors in backwards, which means they could have never passed testing or quality control.
Maybe they've improved things since, but that is truly what I found when I had one here.

I guess it wouldn´t be fair if I said that you just had ONE to back-up an experienced opinion. That looks like a very creditable list of facts that the prospecting buyer won´t certainly ignore. I have nothing to do with them but for my particular sake of patriotism and the analog industry in general I surely hope they´ve improved things since. I´ll try to take a peep inside their headquarters and with your permission, face them with these critics (just won´t say who did it). If you´re a good listener, bad crticisms are good criticisms. You can use them to find the right path.

Ok, I´ve got this twenty year old devil that wants the computer to play with the Mini... monsta. See you soon!

[eric coleridge]

[quote="Mooger5]Ok, I´ve got this twenty year old devil that wants the computer to play with the Mini... monsta. See you soon![/quote]

I hope this doesn't mean what I think it does. I'm scandalized.

But more to the topic here-- I think that many people here are worring un-neccesarily... I mean, there are lots of new analog synths being produced today, and the old ones aren't exactly disintegrating. I mean, c'on, so you have to replace some tantalum caps... that's not so terrible is it? People here are making it sound like every part on a MiniMoog is on it's last node.
Many old stereos, 50 years or more, still work. Why shouldn't a babied synth play for at least as long?

Moreover, There aren't that many parts that can't be substitued are there? Aren't we exagerating a little? Maybe the most notable obsolete synth components are the SSM and Curtis ICs and they themselves were second generation synth technology, an emulation of purely discrete circuits, and don't exactly count (to me). What else? Some transistors or op amps that can be substituted? I'm sure this situation will worsen, but there are a lot of parts out there, even obsoletes.

It seems like, as mr lightener has alluded to, it's more about maintaining enough experienced knowlegable technicians who will know how to build/repair these instruments to the level of detail that was once common i.e. the club of the knobs matter-- incidentally--thanks for this info, I had no idea and was thinking of buying into this moog re-issue at budget prices dream. How can they sell "replicas" of Moog modular with curtis chips? crazy.

One can still buy very choice examples of virtually any vintage synth, restored or otherwise, at manageable prices. Vintage electric guitars are far more expensive than vintage synths (not to even mention vintage classical instruments, as someone did above, that routinely sell in the tens of thousands).

Or you can just buy a brand new analog synth. They're not that different from their vintage predessesors... I mean the Voyager was designed by Bob Moog afterall... you don't get much bluer blood than that.

Alot of people on this topic have been bringing up the idea of a vintage synth archive--- haven't you guys come across these places on the internet yet? there are already many such places, notably auditiesfoundation.com, who are preparing and maintaining for the twilight of analog,

so it will never comepletely die...

[Mooger5]

What it means is that my young stepson is more interested in this VST version of the Minimoog than the real thing so I have to share the home computer and can´t use the internet while he´s playing with the damn thing.
So what´s so scandalous about that?

[snip] so it will never comepletely die...

I agree but I think the topic of the thread was if a Moog Music reissue of the Mini could be their next product. While there will be plenty of Minis around in the near future, I´d welcome a brand new one if it sounded vintage enough. Hunting for a Mini in decent shape for a reasonable price is becoming tiresome.

[latigid on]

I think you mean:

http://www.audities.org/audities/index.html

I love analog instruments, even though they cost more and take more effort to maintain, it's totally worth it. Of course it's their choice, but I don't like it when people hermetically seal and wrap their "collectors items" in cotton wool and store them away for twenty years, not enjoying the opportunity to play and feel the analog goodness.

I wonder if there will be another musical technology revolution, meaning in 20 years time we'll all be scrapping over the last DX-7s!!!


I think some people are forgetting that Moog DID re-issue the Minimoog D; it's called the Minimoog Voyager, and was designed by Bob to supply the demand for vintage Model Ds. Sure, it's not EXACTLY the same, but I bet if you were, for example, a television collector fanatic, and asked Sony to re-release their 1971 Trinitron CRT TV so you could watch your favourite shows in the style of the 70's, they'd tell you where to go.

[Mooger5]

You fail to realize that there is more to designing a musical instrument than just components.

I´m realizing now that I need to be more careful with my words to avoid unecessary misunderstandings.
I am well aware that certain audio circuits that look good on paper and measure well in the lab do not sound as musical as certain others. I own two valve amplifiers, one of them based on single ended triodes. These amps produce an amount of second order distortion that just sounds great to my ears.
Recently I modded my two-way loudspeakers to run on capacitorless crossovers, presented the idea to the engineers in an audio forum and they´re all saying the speakers can´t possibly sound right. Well, I´m sticking to it because they sound better than before. Whether I´m hearing things or I´m being unconciously stubborn because it was MY idea is a risk I can take. What counts is that I´m happy with my modded loudspeakers and that´s all.

So, what I meant with the "bunch of components inside a wooden case" was: Given that some of the original parts may no longer be available, once an alternative circuitry is developed that sounds close enough to a vintage Mini, it should not be regarded as an impossible task by the average DIYer once kits or PCBs are available. It´s all in the context, I think.

About the Taurus 1, I´ve been studying some schematics and after experimenting with my Rogue´s filter caps I´m beginning to suspect the Taurus 2 may not be an exact copy of the Rogue therefore may sound closer to the Taurus 1 than most people believe. Also, I think I got my Rogue to sound closer to the Minimoog just by changing the capacitor´s values. The filter may have lost some bandwith but it sounded really cool.
I may be wrong or I may be rediscovering the wheel. I need a little advice from more knowledgeable people.
Another thing: That ARP cloned filter error that limited the response to about 12KHz? I´m beginning to think it was intentional.

More on this later.

Cheers!

[eric coleridge]

What it means is that my young stepson is more interested in this VST version of the Minimoog than the real thing so I have to share the home computer and can´t use the internet while he´s playing with the damn thing.
So what´s so scandalous about that?

My apologies, sir. Mini-monsta in some parlances could could de-note a far less innocent diminuitive... and I was agast to learn that this "mini" so urgently needed the attention of your computer for some sort of play... so much so that you were making it matter of public forum......Talk about misunderstandings... again, my sincerest apologies...

[eric coleridge]

So, what I meant with the "bunch of components inside a wooden case" was: Given that some of the original parts may no longer be available, once an alternative circuitry is developed that sounds close enough to a vintage Mini, it should not be regarded as an impossible task by the average DIYer once kits or PCBs are available. It´s all in the context, I think.

For one, I don't think the average DIYer would have the access or ability to hand select components where required.

I can't sufficently calibrate my Mini let alone build one (granted I'm far below average in many respects, minimonsta notwithstanding).

[Mooger5]

Apologies accepted. Man, that was the sickest misinterpretation. I was here totally clueless thinking about what the hell I had writen. In portuguese we rarely use such terms as "mini" or "little" . There´s a thread about the Little Phatty name and I it took me some time to understand what was all the fuss about. I thought there were obese people feeling ridicularized or something.

My "bunch of components inside a wooden case" statement was also adressed at people with the knowledge (and the ear - thanks MC ) to redesign synth circuits to not feel intimidated by the Mini´s humongous reputation as the best sounding analog synth ever.

Eric, from your posts to the Moog sound addiction thread I thought you were building a modular "from scratch".
If you want my advice, selecting components is really no big deal and you can always ask here for help. There are schematics and kits around to make you more familiar with electronics that may be very rewarding.

Did you know about this? Altough it´s for novices, there are great sounding projects following the 1V per Octave rule. it´s a great source of information.
http://www.musicfromouterspace.com/anal ... age=ANALOG
Click on the Soundlab Mini-Synth page. Listen to the sound samples. Have fun.