For those looking to hear a Minimoog...

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:22 pm

Occasionally there have been posts on this forum requesting to hear a Minimoog, or samples thereof. (Call me pedantic, but I'm going to call it a Minimoog instead of a "Minimoog D," as ALL of them were Ds for decades, and it has only seemed to become important to make that distinction since Voyager came out. Well, a Voyager is a Voyager, and a Minimoog is a Minimoog, despite Moog's desire to connect the Voyager to the Minimoog name!)

ANYWAY... I have posted me noodling about with my Mini, if you want to hear one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY2AeD0Tn4Y

Thanks!

bonescan · Post by **bonescan** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:23 pm

Cool video, thanks for posting it

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:41 pm

I will shortly be posting similar videos I made with a Micromoog and a Sonic Six... so people who haven't had these devices can compare for themselves concerning the "Moog Sound." : )
I've already got a Korg PS-3100 on YouTube, and I'm also working on a video for the Roland SH-1000.
It's about time people started hearing these devices before buying them. : )

eric coleridge · Post by **eric coleridge** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:28 am

Awesome video. I can't wait to see the others.

I have a Sonic Six that broke down immediately after I got it, and it's still waiting in line for repairs. I'd really like to hear what it sounds like again. I'm considering selling it (once it's repaired) and a multimoog to help raise funds to buy a Mini.

If I may, one suggestion I would make (please disregard if you don't agree) is to mic the sound coming from an amp or sound system rather than recording directly. I think you can get a better idea of a synth's specific sound this way. Like guitars, or other electric instruments, many synths can end up sounding very similar when recorded directly to tape or pc or whatever.

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:40 am

Well, my goal is to provide the most accurate portrayal as I can... I don't want to color the sound at all, I want to portray it as it is. My fear would be that if I were to use a mic and an amp, you might be hearing the mic, the room, or the amp as opposed to the Mini.

eric coleridge · Post by **eric coleridge** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:16 am

Yeah, that's a tricky problem, taking account of variables like mic and amp, etc.

But at the same time, without playing through an amp, you can't really record an accurate impression of the synth as one would hear it while playing it live.

Don't you think it's a little difficult to distinguish between synths that are recorded direct? A direct sawtooth or square from most any synth, for instance, will sound almost exactly the same-- and not much if any different from a software synth;

Which defeats some of the purpose of showcasing the unique resonant qualities of the Mini in the first place.

But when you hear the Mini in a room, side by side with virtually any other synth (even a Voyager), it can be like night and day.

Anyway, that was still a great video-- I didn't mean to get over critical about your recording technique. Thanks again for posting it; looking forward to the others.

analogbass · Post by **analogbass** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 5:52 am

Whichever way the sound was recorded is an accurate and clear representation of a Mini.

Using the same method with other synths would allow by far the best possible means of comparison-do the same thing with as many other synths as possible...

Here's one using a Memorymoog; the differences with a Mini are obvious IMO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSeMfBpN ... ed&search=

Good example of Sequential's brighter, sharper & leaner sound, compared with Moog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBNsbfxb53o

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:31 am

Thanks, analogbass, for the Memorymoog link!
I have been looking to hear a Memorymoog on it's own for a very long time.

This Memorymoog video sort of demonstrates my point (for me, at least). It sounds very much like this is being played through an amp or system, as well as having reverb on it. As a result, it is hard for me to really distinguish the timbral characteristics as well as I might like to. Of course, it might be that it's not quite loud enough... and certainly reverb (while a very nice effect for some) can totally change the quality of a sound... but still... I found myself really straining to examine the sound of the Memorymoog.

I would agree with you in a sense, though Eric... it's important to hear what a particular synth can sound like in a room, and through various amps and microphones.

It's funny about analog polyphony. For me, polyphony is a factor that REALLY makes one synth sound like another. It takes some interesting functionality, unique filters, or something else to really distinguish some polyphonic synths from another. I suppose because there is so much more aural information.

In this instance, I really wanted to hear the juicy aural characteristics of the Moog... :::cringes::: i.e. the "fatness," and I could tell it was there, but not well represented by the recording.

In general, though... for the first time, I really wanted a Memorymoog (despite the digital interface). : )

Yay for people posting synthesizer demonstrations! If any forum member here wants to start doing analog (fully, hopefully... or at least analog signal path) synthesizer demos like those I've done, and this Memorymoog one, I have a group on YouTube called "Analog Synthesizers," and I would LOVE to post your videos!

analogbass · Post by **analogbass** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:39 am

-It would be hard to discern fatness on any synth with the nature of the sound quality.

-The polyphonic oscillators of early 80s synths had some similar sonic characteristics due to the use of the same & similar CEM chips-Memorymoog, Prophet, Oberheim, Roland, Chroma, Voyetra, etc...the oscillators have a somewhat darker, more electronic, sharper more aggressive and less organic warmth than monophonics. It's a matter of degree, both sound great; which is better is a matter of taste.

The polyphonic filters mitigated some of the oscillator similarities though.

-The sonics were different in that clip, but I could still make out the general characteristic. That could be harder to do without already being familiar with the sound though.

eric coleridge · Post by **eric coleridge** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:02 pm

The example of the Memory Moog you posted is a room recording, and yes, it does showcase the MemoryMoog's sound very well. This is what I'm saying... It's my opinion that the differences would not be so clear had this Memory Moog been recorded directly. It's not even as if this recording is particularly good (it's not), but just taking account of the sound of the synth in a room gives, to me, a better impression of it's "true" sound.

The second example you posted sounds like a direct recording, but there is a bunch of processing on top of the synth to simulate ambience. I'd prefer to hear a synth dry, but even the simulation helps to bring out the characteristics of the Pro-one.

I'm not saying that everyone should always record a synth one way or another, but just for the purposes of sharing what a synth sounds like, I find some techniques work better than others.

Heres another good example of a room (or maybe room + direct) recording of an Odyssey, MiniMoog, and Prophet 5 where you can clearly hear the individual characteristics of each synth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-YRyBFn7HI

I understand that in theory, directly recording a synth should give the best indication of it's sound. But after listening to countless samples of various synths on sites like bluesynth, it's occurred to me that maybe this isn't the best way to hear any specific synth. They just tend to sound very very similar. I know from experience how varied different synths can sound, so I attribute this homogenizing to recording technique.

Just an opinion...

I think theres a similar phenomena with guitars. If you record a bunch of different guitars direct to recording without any amplification you're not going to get much sense of their differing tonalities. The amplification is just a neccesary part of what brings out their tone.

analogbass · Post by **analogbass** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:03 pm

Of course using the same recording technique is preferred, but until someone does a lot of this themselves, these clips are pretty good IMO. A lot of the character can be gleaned despite the variances in recording.

I thought of including Colbeck's examples but found that the other clips are more accurate despite being from different sources because Colbeck's not using similar sounds on each synth, for the most part, nor is the recording quality any better than the others.

This has been posted previously; it's a nice site for analog audio comparison clips:
http://www.bluesynths.com/modules.php?name=Sounds

Sweep · Post by **Sweep** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:42 pm

Slightly at a tangent, but looking at the You-Tube links I also noticed this, on the Synthi 100:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU-_d2hD ... ed&search=

One man's valiant fight with technology. I haven't had so much fun watching a video since I watched Father Ted the other night.

On the other hand, give the Synthi 100 to a woman who knows what to do with it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRNgXOMY ... ed&search=

(just over half way through).

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:36 pm

eric coleridge wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-YRyBFn7HI

I am the guy "Automatic Gainsay" who commented on that.

I think theres a similar phenomena with guitars. If you record a bunch of different guitars direct to recording without any amplification you're not going to get much sense of their differing tonalities. The amplification is just a neccesary part of what brings out their tone.

I would not buy a synth that only sounded good or like itself through an amp or specific amp. Or, especially, through effects. In my opinion, analog synths should not require coloration to achieve desired tone... they are, after all, supposed to be devices to create and shape sound.
This is not to say a Mini doesn't sound great through a tube amp, etc... but unlike guitars which REQUIRE amps, synths shouldn't require them or other effects.
While a live sound is indicative how a synth will sound in a live setting, in my personal opinion, a synth need not be recorded in a live setting to sound good or like itself. I daresay if you have two synths that have similar saw waves, they're both going to sound similar again when you put them through the same amp and play them in the same room.

eric coleridge · Post by **eric coleridge** » Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:17 pm

I agree with you to an extent, but I disagree that the amplification isn't part of the sound of a synth. To my ears, it's just like a guitar, fender-rhodes, organ or any electric instrument.
The reason I feel this way is because:
I would venture that almost no one could consistently identify any one particular monosynth (or polysynth, if you prefer) in a blind listening test from a number of directly recorded samples.
I'm sure alot of people will disagree with this. I don't think I'll ever have the chance to scientifically prove what I'm saying, so I'll just say it's my opinion.

At the same time, I'm sure that many synth enthusiates who have played a wide range of synths would have no problem identifing particular synths in a "live" blind listening.

I know I would have no problem picking out a Minimoog, Odyssey, MS20, SEM etc.... if these synths were each played in the room with me. I think I'd also do pretty well identifing synths from room recordings.

So this leads me to believe there is something about the act of amplification that "completes" a synths sound, like it does with a guitar.

Which isn't to say I don't like the sound of directly recorded synths, I do.

roboctopus · Post by **roboctopus** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:13 am

I doubt that people could identify synths in a blind test with a room recording any more than they could or could not with a direct recording. BUT, I think you can tell a difference, direct or amped, between even raw triangle waves. For instance, filters opened up, ran straight into the mixing board, I can tell a difference in sound between my Roland Juno 60 and my Moog Prodigy (these are the only synths I have, so that's the extent of the testing I can do.) Just like I can tell a difference in sound when I plug in my Telecaster and my Strat straight into the mixing board. They just sound different. Different wood, different pick-ups (same strings.)

To my ears, the only thing an amp does is add another tonal characteristic to the existing sound. Same for whatever room you're in. Different rooms, different sound. To postulate that synths won't sound much different before they are amplified but will sound different after they are amplified doesn't make much sense. At least, that's my way of thinking.