Moog Music Forum

Silly? No not at all. I like the fact, that the panel is in the right angle, and the steel looks fantastic on the subphatty. Black and wood cheeks is only for the sub37 tribute ok, for the stage version, i prefer the plastic cheeks and the steel look. I only dislike the buttons. They look and feel a bit cheap, when illuminated. I prefer the buttons from my Monomachine.

Kenneth wrote:Am I the only one who thinks the Little / Sub Phatty chassis is a little silly? I know Moog probably don't want to spend the extra cash on a new design, especially when they can use the leftover materials from the discontinued Little Phatty, but I was hoping to see something a little more "form follows function" with this one. I don't like using gear that looks ridiculous.

If you mean the side/back views, then yes I agree, IMHO it doesn't look great. But nobody knows what this one is going to look like yet so we may be in for another nice surprise

Well, if they put it into a Voyager/Minimoog style case with tilting panel it's really going to add to the cost.

If I'm Moog, I wouldn't deviate from the Phatty design. So many parts in common between the original Tribute, Stage, Sub, and possibly this. Extruded aluminum in so many colors (which, yes, some find ridiculous); but like the original iMac and now the iPhone, many variations to choose from; there has to be one that you can live with. People thought Steve Jobs was crazy when he first said "no more serial ports, no more floppy drives, and look at these 5 colors".

Ecosystem of cases already done, pitch/mod wheel carriers already done, hardware already done, packaging (boxes and styrofoam inserts) for distribution also. Nobody is NOT going to buy the new product because of it's form factor... but of course, I could be all wrong , If it does look like the pics and if people trip over themselves to buy this as it appears the interest might dictate, this form will solidify the shape as iconic, just as the Minimoog / Voyager has. Just my opinion.

We will hopefully know for sure as of about midnight Eastern when SonicState drops their video.

Sneak peek...

ooohhhh, I must admit I do love the silver panel with wood end cheeks

that looks really nice! I was hoping for the blue lights of the original little phatty tribute, I never really cared for the Amber/ yellow lights but that's the very last on my wish list. hopefully some audio demos tomorrow! WOO HOO!

It's too bad I'm not a rich & trendy hipster so I could be the one in the photo...

I'm pretty stoked on that look, the black face, amber lights, wood sides and silver back will match my taurus 3 quite nicely i think… perfectly, actually.

please, please, pleeeease ship with CV Out

If you'll remember, the Polymoog was considered "polyphonic". Now the term paraphonic (probably invented for the Roland 505) has been applied. There were two non-mass-produced synths in the 1960s that had polyphony into a single filter, which were also considered polyphonic. It' hard to play hard semantics here, but if you run a Prophet V into a wah wah, is it still polyphonic? Don't forget something many people have forgotten - a synthesizer does not mean oscillator>filter>amplifier. It HAS meant that since the Minimoog, but I long for systems that don't fall into that trap. A synclavier is polyphonic but has NO filters. So - consider the definitions fall apart at times... just be sure we're not limiting our thoughts to uninspired existing designs that have sold well!

BrianK wrote: Now the term paraphonic (probably invented for the Roland 505) has been applied.

I just questiond Moog for putting a Roland made name on one of their products. Roland marketing in those late 70's made up a few new names like Paraphonic, Compuphonic, CompuRhythm, Micro Composer and a few others like Space Echo, Revo, Boss.
Right from the Roland Paraphonic GS/GR-500 owners manual:


Reading the original description that Roland made up you can almost see where the confusion came from. Roland describing Paraphonic as an instrument capable of playing several tones at once. Most of those late 70's stringers were also capable of playing several tones at once. Like the organ/string/brass of the Moog Opus 3, or Arp Omni. And most of these like the Roland had several parallel outputs of the different sections.
Enter in a Gordon Reid article for SOS back in 2000. Gordon mistakenly believes since the Opus/Omni/RS-505 and a bunch of other Paraphonic machines have a single filter and little or no individual articulation, this must be what others refer to when referencing paraphonic. Yet in an earlier 1997 article, he gushes over the Roland GR/GS-500 and how it has all this individual articulation.

Regardless of anyone's definition, I find it strange Moog would put a Roland name on one of their products. Might as well put Compuphonic on the Voyager or Space Echo on the delay and call all the Moogerfoogers, a Boss pedal.

Was not sure if Moog was aware of the origin.


But the Sub37 looks nice so far. Guess if I ever purchase one I'll just put some black tape over the Roland reference.

Its so beautiful… Shame its not shipping with CV out, but everything else is a winner…

Amos - buddy, pal, mate, if you put shuffle on the Sub 37 Arp could you please also put it into the Taurus 3 arp… and if it's it not to much to ask, while you're in there, can we add another option to make the arp "off beat" e.g.: tempo synced 1/8th arp triggering notes on the off beat only, or just the last two out of a set of triplets etc?

ITS GOT AFTERTOUCH!!!!

Yup! It's a winner!

Eden.

So it seems that the paraphonic implementation in the Sub37 allows for independent pitch control of the 2 oscillators rather than 2 sets of oscillators feeding a common filter and amp. This assumption is based on what Amos said starting around 5:00 into the Sonic State video. If I'm correct then this is less than I expected but still interesting. I want one and will also keep my Sub P.