Moog Music Forum

This thread seems somewhat to be heading towards a "division". Hardware versus Software.

How many times has this been 'argued out' over the years ?

"Sympathetic" software emulation of analogue circuitry will always yield just an approximation, unless all analogue component tolerences, capacitances between PCB tracks, etc, and the real-time interactions of such, are accurately catered for within the software model. And I don't believe that any current soft synths are designed at that level.

As with the original Minimoog, I would suggest that no two hardware Voyagers sound exactly the same. They may be closer than the original Minimoogs in terms of audible differences between units though.

Moog aren't a software design company. However, they appear to be willing to selectively sanction software produced by third parties that meets their stringent 'quality' criteria.

From some of the posts on this thread it appears that there is something of a lack of appreciation for the amount of effort that would be involved in creating software that would emulate "your hardware baby" to the extent that you couldn't tell the difference.

From the software side - I don't think you'll ever get it from Moog.

KB

i agree that this topic is a difficult one, but i will say hands down that i prefer hardware to software.sure, some of the software synths sound great in their own right but compare any software with the equivalent hardware and i have yet to be convinced. theres some way to go until i would consider using my powerbook and a controller as a replacement for any of my hardware synths both on stage and in the studio. theres no way that my computer would have survived my last 3 years on tour, but my synths never failed me once. software comes second place on all levels for me in terms of sound,playability,reliabilty,simplicity,looks. i think anyone who is on this list has a duty to support hardware. hardware is definitely like having a rolls royce. software is like a driving simulator!

Running a soft synth might be a very cheap option, bearing in mind that decent desktops/laptops cost more than a secondhand synth. I agree with whoever said that some people should not have easy access to cheap programs, because of the crap they would churn out, but that's the same as me with my Voyager and Pro-One.

My friend demonstrated Reason to me, it all looked so very confusing, similar to several huge modulators, and he got the program free. Soft synths will not become a collectors item, and probably wont get much when sold on. I also find analogue synthesizers very attractive too.

Just buy a Studio Electronics Omega 8. You could control it from the Voyager and you would be set. Unfortunately, they cost $4500...But they are the bomb.

goldphinga wrote:hardware is definitely like having a rolls royce. software is like a driving simulator!

Whilst I agree with the sentiment just think of the amount of work that would go into a convincing simulation of driving a 'roller'. There'd almost be as much hardware involved as the real thing - the feel of the "clump" of the door closure, the experience of effect of the pressure differential created in the cabin on your ear drums, the tactile feedback of seats and controls, the smell.

A purely software simulation couldn't be created that was convincing. Just like a 'flight simulator', there is no feeling without hardware.

You would need quite a bit of hardware to recreate the simplicity of using an actual synth. By then you would have been better off buying a hardware synth than a soft synth. The main problem with soft synths is eye fatigue!

A purely software simulation couldn't be created that was convincing. Just like a 'flight simulator', there is no feeling without hardware.

You could buy a joystick, pedals even extra screens so you can see all round you. Like getting a keyboard controller to control your soft synth program. It still wouldn't feel right.

Maybe some people would prefer a soft synth, especially if they lack room to keep a real synth, or don't have the money for one. its all about personal preference.

there is a big difference in comparing flight simulators/airplanes and synths/soft synths. flight sims don't actually fly. softsynths do, in fact, create sound.

i trully believe that we are only time away from softsyths that are sonically indistinguishable from hardware. it is only a matter of enough processor power, ram, and programming craft.

what is going to matter is how we as performers and composers interact with these instruments. with creative synthesis, the key is control. the biggest shortcoming in most softsynths that one is require to control them with a mouse or alpha/numeric keyboard. things are getting better with more manufacturers making midi fader controllers and such. imagine, though, something like this: a program like arturia's modular V a few generations from now combined with a customized controller. with a physical control (high bit depth, no stepping) for every physical control. with a central touchscreen lcd display for patching (or some other clever solution for patching). would this be expensive? yes. as expensive as a comparable hardware modular? not even close.

having said that, i still think we are a long way from physical synths becoming obsolete. after all, we still use violins and flutes and other ancient instruments, don't we? but that doesn't stop new and exciting instruments from being created and refined.

i can't wait to see where we're going to go in the next fifty years.

Buy a Moog because it sounds like a Moog (powerful or sweet).

What about the loss in dynamics an overtones during the D/A Coversion?
And what about aliaising on digitals and Software-Synths. Is it gone meanwhile?

Buy a Moog because it sounds like a Moog (powerful or sweet).

I aggree completely. If it suits your needs and if it is within your means.

What about the loss in dynamics an overtones during the D/A Coversion?
And what about aliaising on digitals and Software-Synths. Is it gone meanwhile?

These are temporary issues. Sample rates and bit-depths will continue to increase. Already the Arturia Modular has vastly improved upon aliasing problems.

Eek - are 'aliasing' issues still a problem ? They were certainly something I had to consider in the early 80's (in the days when Nyquist was a necessary consideration) - but surely nowadays the progression of A/D & D/A hardware development has met the challenge as far as audio signal processing, and the human ear, is concerned.

It's been quite a long time for me - I know I haven't "moved" that quickly - maybe technology hasn't either.

Hi Kevin! (and everyone),

Sorry, been away for awhile... I guess I'm the one that interjected the 'soft-synth' angle here...

I do want to make clear that I don't intend to be divisive at all. I'm just new to synths and am exploring ALL of my options -- having fun doing so and merely sharing my experiences!

I don't mean to suggest that soft-synths should replace hardware at all. As a matter of fact I own about 10 different hardware synths, and like many of you, I just cannot convince myself to part with them (though I probably should)

However, and though soft synths (currently) may not be able to quite reproduce that Moog sound, I feel it's only a matter of time before that eventuality is finally realized -- and soon.

I think the questions will then be (and for all intents and purposes are now) centered around matters of convenience, space, and affordability.

Sure, it's nice to drive a Ferrari to work; however, my Dodge Ram truck get's me to the same destination reliably everyday as well -- and much cheaper at that! No, it's not quite as exhilarating to drive, but it certainly get's the job done -- especially considering that I can't afford a Ferrari... well, at the moment anyway.

(I'm not sure the Voyager compares to a Ferrari anyway though...)

However, I think the point is that, I would love to own a Ferrari, yet, I have most certainly found many uses for my Dodge Ram truck as well. I've even found that my truck (yeah, I'm from Texas ) tends to offer me a versatility in utility that I simply cannot achieve with a Ferrari alone -- for a ridiculously cheaper price as well!

Yet, to own both of them would kick major booty I should think. That's why I'm keeping the Ferrari (Voyager) despite the fact that I drive my Dodge (Reason) 90% of the time...

Happy keyboarding!

Well, I still insist that Bob should make us a new Memorymoog. Maybe if we all bug them, they'll do it.

I still think the only way for moog to make a poly in this day and age is to build a hybrid DSP/analogue synth.

What I am getting at is modelling the Oscillators using a DSP chip - digitally, along with all the LFO's, envelopes and mod matrix routing etc and keeping the filters, amplifier and final output stages analogue.

It should be possible to "build-in" a sense of analogue into the DSP Oscillators by digitally modelling all the flaws in the original discreet designs (overheating, power supply fluctuations, drifting oscillators etc) . . . Alesis with the ION have gone down this route a little and several software VST instruments allow you to dial-in noise and extra harmonics to the base sine, saw, square, triangle etc.

Given that you can buy a brand new Alesis Andromeda now for 1600 UK and that has so many more function that we would not need (for instance, we are after just the moog filter so no need to model others etc) I reckon moog could bring in a new memorymoog with DSP based generators and 16 VCF's/VCA's for 2000-2500 UK.

I wouldn't base it on the Voyagers functionality though . . . they would have to keep the signal path, OS and MIDI simple . . . simpler mod routing, 2 Oscillators per voice, only one filter per voice, drop all the CV ins and outs etc, you know, base the design on the original memorymoog and not the new Voyager.

It could look like a Voyager though with the original knobs (although I personally prefer the memorymoog knobs), Hartmann's panel graphics, illuminated wheels, touch surface and display button area but stretched into a 5 octave footprint (although I think the panel would have to be in a fixed position . . can you imagine that crashing down mid gig).

I would like to see a 16 voice split keyboard with the ability to dual sounds and the MURF filter sequencer built-in. On the output stage I would like to see the moogerfooger phaser built in (reverbs are cheap to add on externally) as the original memorymoog is just to raw a sound without a chorus/phaser/delay/reverb on the end and having FX built-in helps to sell a unit in the store (besides being great analogue quality).

Just my thoughts.

Mal
(Come on Bob, you can do it!)

Hi,

the Voyager is a hybrid instrument as well, in a sense that it has MIDI, digital patch storage, blah blah. Of course the path is analog and that is what really matters. I don't see any reason why a future Memorymoog should be built differently. Sure it would be expensive but so what?

I wouldn't be interested in buying a DSP-modelling from Moog. Alesis did a fantastic job with the Andromeda but I personally think that was the demise of the company as we knew it. I don't think that Moog has a similar problem mainly because Bob Moog would be involved. If the Andromeda was made by Moog it would sell for more, it would be bought by many more and so on. You get the idea. The A6 is my favorite instrument and to be honest I doubt that Moog can make such a complex instrument without getting into modular stuff.

For a new Memorymoog I would like to see the following:

1. 3 VCOs like the Voyager with all waveforms available simultaneously.
2. Hard and Soft Sync, Linear and Exponential FM
3. 3 LFOs with parameters for rate, shape, delay, blah blah. S&H. Sync to key or MIDI.
4. Dual, switchable 12dB/24dB filters with serial/parallel configurations. Cutoff frequency and resonance modulation. Bypass mode.
5. The ability to modulate the filters independently.
6. The ability to send VCO 1 to a filter and VCO 2 to another filter
7. Provision for VX-351/CP-251 connection or even better built them in
8. The MuRF is a welcome addition as well as is the Phaser and the Ring Modulator
9. Modulation Matrix (something like 50x50 would be nice). Yum
10. Three EGs. Loopable with switchable segments. Analog or digital I don't care as long as they are well implemented and very snappy.
11. 4 x Multitimbral. I don't need more.
12. 16 voices. I could use more but it would be VERY expensive. Maybe a voice expansion would be nice like in the Oberheim OBMx
13. Fancy stuff is welcome, tactex pads, X-rays, plexiglass touches, ribbon controllers, mod wheels, envelope followers, boolean logic
14. 6 outs, CV ins and outs like in the Voyager
15. The same tilt panel as the original Memorymoog
16. A decent LCD and decent graphics. Not like the Hartmann Neuron, LCD is extremely small, fonts even smaller. Built quality is great, however.
17. Lots of great presets (American and European sets)
18. A comprehensive and sweet sounding delay is very welcome and much more useful that any other effect.
19. Exotic woods, different colors, and editions. I would LOVE to see a white synthesizer. I would buy it in a heartbeat. (Sigh)
20. Dual arpeggiators with up, down, up&down, and user patterns. This is a MUST.
21. Possibly, a nice implemented 16-step sequencer.
22. THE MOOG SOUND.

I have an itch in my wallet. Mr Bob, can you do something about it?

Well for moog I think a Poly machine is a problem, as they are a small outfit and R&D cost for such a unit would probably put them out of business again (like the memorymoog and the later SL-8 did the first time round).

Naturally if costs were not an issue i would want all those items you listed, and to keep the whole thing analog but it isn't going to happen so moog have to come up with an idea to keep costs down.

We can all have huge wish lists but this is not helpfull as it's just fantasy.

Personally . . . I like my poly's to be simple . . the original memorymoog and it's peers (Roland Jupiter 8, Oberheim OB8 etc) are simple to operate - switch it on, dial up a patch, tweak the filter and play - I would leave all the mod routing and the extra things you listed to a monosynth where it's more cost effective.

Regarding Hartmann . . . if you own a Voyager and an A6 you are looking at his panel design /graphics on both . . . Having played the Neuron for a solid 4 hours at the UK distribution company "Turnkey" I wasn't impressed by the build quality as I managed to break (and I mean snap off) 2 of the little red joysticks - I did like the machine though and if it ever gets to a price that I can afford I would buy one but it's not a gigging instrument for sure.

Mal