Moog Music Forum

I just found out that the Voyager is monophonic. Are all Moog synths monophonic? Does Mr. Moog plan on a new polyphonic synth in the future?

Here's a question for you Rush fans. I thought Geddy lee used the minimoog. A lot of his synth work is chordal, like the intro to Subdivisions. Did he use another analog synth for that?

Yes, all Moog instruments currently in production are monophonic. Though, the Voygaer can TRANSMIT polyphonic MIDI information.

There have been "two voice" Moog instruments in the past, but the only two polyphonic Moog synths were the MemoryMoog and the PolyMoog (though some wouldn't classify the PolyMoog as a true "synthesizer"):

MemoryMoog:
http://www.synthmuseum.com/moog/moomem01.html

PolyMoog:
http://www.synthmuseum.com/moog/moopoly01.html


Geddy Lee make great use of the Oberheim 8 voice for the original polyphonic work with Rush. Reference:

http://www.rush-signals.com/rush/geddy_gear.html
http://www.synthmuseum.com/oberheim/obe8voice01.html

Holy cow thanks, those links are awesome. You really answered my questions.

So, what does everyone here prefer. Monophonic or polyphonic?

And why isn't the Voyager polyphonic?

I come from a very old school long before there was (afordable) polyphony to be had. My first "poly" pieces were done one track at a time (on this thing called a reel-to-reel recorder) and built up over MANY hours of time.

I'm a pretty old dog, and don't much like learning new tricks, so while I own one (and haved owned MANY) polyphonic instruments, I prefer monophonic.


The Voyager is monophonic because of cost and the end price that the market would bear. What you have in front of you is a very powerful one voice analog machine, at a price that reflects the quality. If that were to become, say a 5 voice machine, you should expect to pay upwards of 4 times the price.

what about the opus?

elirentz wrote:what about the opus?

Ahh! I forgot about the Opus.

mpulver wrote:

elirentz wrote:what about the opus?

Ahh! I forgot about the Opus.

Wasn't the Opus more of a 'glorified' string machine/organ - albeit analogue, with a "filter". I did actually own one myself circa 1982. Polyphonic = YES - Synth = NO

IMHO

KevB

Kevin Bowden wrote:

mpulver wrote:

elirentz wrote:what about the opus?

Ahh! I forgot about the Opus.

Wasn't the Opus more of a 'glorified' string machine/organ - albeit analogue, with a "filter". I did actually own one myself circa 1982. Polyphonic = YES - Synth = NO

IMHO

KevB

That's a kinda tough concept, Kev. After all, the Polymoog, as well as the ARP Solina, Omni, Quartet, pianos and various gear by other companies was based on electronic organ technology that had come into vogue by the mid-70's. If the Omni can be considered a "string synthesizer," it's hard not to refer to the Opus the same way.

Eric.

I suppose we start getting into the meaning of the word synthesiser.

In that respect I must acknowledge that the Opus is indeed a polyphonic "synthesiser" !

The Opus 'synthesised' an approximation of 'natural' bowed strings, blown brass and "air driven" organ - which it was specifically designed to achieve. It also offereded control over 'a limited number of sound shaping parameters' allowing modification of the basic core sounds "at a relatively high-level".

Getting perverse, my bass guitar is also a synthesiser as it allows me to reproduce sounds made on my Voyager.

KevB

kidgloves2 wrote:Are all Moog synths monophonic? Does Mr. Moog plan on a new polyphonic synth in the future?

1. no they aren't: the Polymoog is basically polyphonic, and I use a 6-voice polyphonic Memorymoog; 3 VCO par voice , and a mono modus option which gives 18 VCO's. That's the bomb...
2. About new polyphonic MOOG synths: nothing heard about yet, but that should be the bomb too - with multitimbrality and polyphony: imagine a MOOG Voyager with 16-voice multitimbrality ánd polyphony. Wow...

Please Sir Bob, I hope you read the forums...

Everyone always accuses synthesizers that implement divide-down technology as NOT being synthesizers. I'm not sure at all why this is... perhaps a TRUE definition of "synthesizer" should be codified. (and quickly, before people forget that synthesizers started out WITHOUT COMPUTERS.)

Anyway... I'm a big fan of the Hammond Novachord (1939-1942), which was the first keyboard device to implement divide-down technology. Don't immediately assume it was an organ... it wasn't. Hammond created the Novachord not to mimic pipe organs, but to create a new lexicon of sound with a futuristic technology. There are no tabs or drawbars or instrumental names on the Novachord. It was designed to create new sounds.
It's easy to decide that anything previous to modular synthesizers isn't a synthesizer... but there are several electronic devices that were created previous to the modulars that were created as electronic instruments that implemented electronic technology to create and shape as-yet-unheard sounds. The Novachord being among the first.

In fact, I'd like to purchase a Polymoog from anyone looking to sell one!

what about the liberation? im sure it's polyphonic after all it's half organ

I've been working with a complete Roland System 100 for some time now, and I just prefer the clarity of a monophonic synthesizer. You get a very
concentrated sound. You're able to create textures and passages that have a distinct motion within a mix, I think.

Polyphonics have an important place, though, and I've heard some amazing things done with Prophet 5's and Jupiter 8's, for example, but if you're interested in achieving the essence and feel of early electronic music (such as myself), you're best off working with monophonics. There's a limitation with monosynths that can make what you're doing far more challenging and rewarding, rather than just reaching for a chord which easily takes up more space within the context of a song or recording.

Exactly!!!

Well, the way I see it, a polyphonic *synthesizer* consists of a number of uniquely definable voices. Voices each granted their own oscillators, filters and VCAs with which to be independently programmed. With this basic set of tools at your disposal, you can craft a wide variation of sounds based both on the maximum number of possibilities of the configuration of the voice, and the skill/imagination of the programmer.

Now, on the other hand, a string machine, or a PolyMoog for instance that ustilises divide down technology, actually uses a base sound source, and a single filter to run everything through. These voices are not 'programmable' in a sense of being able to go to the far reaches of your imagination. They are limited to a few modulations on a basic theme. The same applies to PCM based digital synths as well IMHO. You get a few researched presets with which to play music. Your music is not limited, but your ability to *synthesize* any sound you want IS.