Moog Music Forum

Indeed, the old geniuses have returned - Moog, Smith, Oberheim. And wouldn't it be fabulous if Pearlman joined them (if he's still in the land of the living) and reproduced an Arp Odyssey, Axxe, or 2600 with memory? Until then, I'd say the DSI MEK is the winner in the Odyssey category of small analogs, along with the LP.

An Arp Odyssey 2010 would be interesting.

The only synth-related thing that Al Pearlman did since ARP was endorse WayOutWare's 2600 softsynth.

Pearlman is still alive and well, but in his 80s.

Of any of the synth pioneers, Pearlman is the most distanced from popular music culture. He admitted that he could never relate to musicians, during the ARP days he preferred to be locked in the lab and let his PR staff deal with musicians.

Pearlman lost a fortune to the ARP debacle and does not care to relive that business.

Don't be disappointed if Pearlman doesn't pop up in the reissue business.

I guess it was a nice "what if" pipe dream while it lasted.

The re-issued SEM is very cool. I wonder what would it take for Tom to built a Two-voice synth (maybe even 4-voice)...

I mean the SEM is already there, so he needs two (or four of these), a keyboard, a nice case (no plastic please) and system to connect all of these inside. Don't care about memory, just give us the 2-voice and deliver us from digital. LMAO.

ikazlar wrote:The re-issued SEM is very cool. I wonder what would it take for Tom to built a Two-voice synth (maybe even 4-voice)...

I mean the SEM is already there, so he needs two (or four of these), a keyboard, a nice case (no plastic please) and system to connect all of these inside. Don't care about memory, just give us the 2-voice and deliver us from digital. LMAO.

I'll bet you that will happen. The first purpose of the original SEM modules was to add a voice to monophonic synths. There will definitely be the capability built-in to those SEM's for multi-voice synths.

There have been these "new analog" polysynths such as the Andromeda, and the new Voyager which retains the Minimoog name. Based on the Voyager's success, that is one thing that prompted Oberheim to get into it. Even if the original (now old or passed away) founders aren't around, there are the designs and with today's technology--depending on the market--look for more retro synths that have those qualities that vintage synth collectors have been trumpeting their old synths for.

What will happen to the vintage market when a 2600 comes out, that is a great or improved 2600? Will the prices drop?

Tom Oberheim himself referred to the resurgence of interest in analog synthesizers. He knows the market now exists. I would be very surprised if he didn't jump into it again and produce a complete synthesizer or two.

oh, my, god!

"vintage" means only "old", "not of the current technological era", "belonging to a nostalgic time, when things are supposed to have been better just becauise they belonged to that era".

That's the meaning of the world.

This is the last time I clarify it.

Once this clarification is taken into account, your question makes no sense, at least made to me. I didn't say that.

Please read carefully my posts before commenting them.

The OBX-A is better built and sounds better than a OB-8 and far better than a Synthex. Stop.

It's about "good", "bad", "better".

"Vintage" has nothing to do with it, since the two Obies and the Elka all belong to the same "technological era".

One last request: may we please limit the discussion to synths each of us really uses or used?

Thx

Electrong wrote:

ikazlar wrote:The re-issued SEM is very cool. I wonder what would it take for Tom to built a Two-voice synth (maybe even 4-voice)...

I mean the SEM is already there, so he needs two (or four of these), a keyboard, a nice case (no plastic please) and system to connect all of these inside. Don't care about memory, just give us the 2-voice and deliver us from digital. LMAO.

I'll bet you that will happen. The first purpose of the original SEM modules was to add a voice to monophonic synths. There will definitely be the capability built-in to those SEM's for multi-voice synths.

There have been these "new analog" polysynths such as the Andromeda, and the new Voyager which retains the Minimoog name. Based on the Voyager's success, that is one thing that prompted Oberheim to get into it. Even if the original (now old or passed away) founders aren't around, there are the designs and with today's technology--depending on the market--look for more retro synths that have those qualities that vintage synth collectors have been trumpeting their old synths for.

What will happen to the vintage market when a 2600 comes out, that is a great or improved 2600? Will the prices drop?

I don't think that the prices will drop. If a new 2600 comes out, then people will put it under the oscilloscope (literally and metaphorically) and they will analyze every single harmonic. They will probably find differences and they will probably bitch and moan, in various fora, that the original ARP 2600 was better, had more oomph and so on.

Most of these people are biased towards vintage synths, that they are the holy grail to own. In most cases this is a psychological bias: people refuse to let go of that period for various reasons. On the other hand, very few people will go into trouble to find why a synthesizer sounds the way it does. After all, why should they do it? If it sounds great, who cares?

I belong to the people who want to see old designers doing new stuff again. It gives people more choices!

I'm not of the older-is-always-better camp, but let me quickly add that SOMETIMES IT IS. Vintage synthesizers often present designs that have been tried and found true, and most importantly, that were developed during an era when music was far more sophisticated and demanded far more of the musician, regarding both composition and performance. Nowadays, electronic music is so predictable it's pathetic. A sequence, a programmed boom-chic percussion pattern, a few dreamy chords, and a melody that is as thematic and distinctive as canned soup. Played on an organ or piano, such music would be painfully dull. A cat walking on a keyboard could do far better. And countless contemporary instruments have been deveolped that well serve such musical monotony.

Contrary to this, vintage synthesizers offer an extremely refreshing alternative, a way out of the monotony. If they represent a "return" to anything, it's not a mindless return to the past, but a preference for a type of instrument sophistication that serves musicality and that has been fairly perfected, thanks to years of trial and error. So, while, I don't subscribe to the older-is-always-better philosophy, the fact is, in many cases it positively is better. In the same way, change is not always better. Change is often dreadfully bad, and anyone who supports change for its own sake is a perfect idiot.

If it's of any help to the discussion, here's a dictionary definition of "vintage" that expresses what many of us mean when we refer to vintage synthesizers.

"Characterized by excellence, maturity, and enduring appeal; classic."

Does that not well describe a Minimoog or an Arp Odyssey?

I've come to prefer vintage instruments that have been updated with modern technology. In other words, rather than the model D, give me the Voyager. Rather than the Prophet 5, give me the Prophet '08. I'd also prefer to have a modernized Juno 6 or 60, even though old ones in excellent condition can still be easliy found. Pardon me, but rather than a VCO, I'll take a DCO. Yes, some quality may be lost, and it may be something of an electronic compromise. But having an otherwise analog instrument that stays in tune is a very important musical improvement - a change for the better that takes advantage of the best of the old and the new.

I haven't been sold on DCO's over VCO's, except on the prices. If they were both priced the same I bet you would take a second look and even often prefer the VCO's. Almost every single synth that I've played has had a better sound if it was older. Even the same types of synths. An older Mini sounds better than a newer one. I've played OB-8's and OB-Xas and the older one sounds better. Jupiter 6 and Juno 106, the Jupiter 6 sounds better. The thing that makes a Matrix 12 or Xpander so great isn't the fact that it is newer than an OB-Xa. It is all the routing and mod possibilities that they have over the much more limited ones of the OB-Xa. You can set various filter mods on the oscillators and have some very deep pads going on. I bet the Jupiter 8 is really deep too. I don't know if I'd miss the band pass filter that the JP 6 has, but I might.

Ever since polyphonic synths have come out, with the Prophet 5, there has been somewhat of a compromise between the feature set per voice and the polyphonic features (number of voices, types of arpeggiators, etc.). That's why the modulars and the early mono synths like the SEM and the Minimoog and the 2600 always will rule, because the limitation of only one (or perhaps a split voice utilizing different oscillators on a 2600 or Sonic 6 with the "2" voices) voice is offset by the incredible sounds, and multiple oscillators available. I almost feel like I'm compromising whenever I play a poly synth. But I'm not much of a keyboard player anyway. I suppose a poly synth with a nice keyboard would win over many players more accomplished at the keyboard.

I have a Voyager Old School and a Prophet '08. I prefer the sound of the Voyager, but in the end, the Prophet wins out for me, for not needing to be repeatedly retuned. What's the use of a superb sounding instrument if it's out of tune?

Twenty years ago I had a Model D. It was a fabulous instrument, but the constant retuning was a pain in the neck, especially during live performances. When I first bought the new Voyager, I was expecting modern technology to have resolved this probelm. I was quite surprised and disappointed.

With the Prophet '08, I wouldn't worry if I had to perform after the instrument had been warming up for only fifteen minutes. No way, with the Voyager.

I see your point on the tuning aspect of it..

Electrong -

I agree with you. Mono synths definitely have their place and are in some ways superior to poly's. A melody played on a poly can sound very sloppy, due to the slight running together of notes. But the combination of both mono and poly covers all the bases. A melody on a Voyager, combined with an accompaniment on a Prophet and bass on a Taurus, makes for one magnificent sound!

The Analog Organist wrote:Tom Oberheim himself referred to the resurgence of interest in analog synthesizers. He knows the market now exists. I would be very surprised if he didn't jump into it again and produce a complete synthesizer or two.

Tom was a late bloomer because he had no idea that his old SEM modules were popular in modern music.

His SEM re-issue is a great idea but I hope he made a few important improvements. On the original SEM some of the parameters - notably filter resonance - could not be programmed. If you've ever worked with the programmer in a SEM polysynth you will notice that certain parameters could not be stored.