Source or Little Phatty?

BoomBoomClap · Post by **BoomBoomClap** » Mon May 29, 2006 3:54 am

I have been very interested in the Source lately, but it has been brought to my attention that the Little Phatty will be available for a relatively similar price.

So is it worth the little extra for the Phatty or should i just go with the Source?

goldphinga · Post by **goldphinga** » Mon May 29, 2006 5:49 am

Ive owned a source for ten years and its a great board. Its very raw, upfront, and also very portable. Thing is these boards are getting old and though mine still sounds great, ive had a couple of instances of it breaking down on gigs which i just cant afford to have happen anymore. The phatty will sound great(like the voyager) and the reliability will be second to none. Id say pick up the phatty for def and try a source at some point and add one to your collection if you feel necessary.

peas

MarkM · Post by **MarkM** » Mon May 29, 2006 10:00 am

That makes sense.

eric coleridge · Post by **eric coleridge** » Mon May 29, 2006 7:25 pm

Even though eveyone who owns one loves them, there are a few very important, if not critical things missing from the Source. The most obvious is knobs. The Source is well designed + constructed, so programming it isn't at all difficult. But as a performative experimental synthesizer it's no good. It has a top notch sound, but to me, the reason synthesizers are so desirable is the fluidity of their sound. Theres nothing cooler than an analog synth with all of the controls layed out in front of you, begging to be perfomed while you play at the keyboard. The Source is missing this straight forward interface. For this reason alone, I would never buy a Source. For some people, it doesn't matter so much.

The Phatty at least has contols for each section, which is a whole lot better, IMO.

Also, though, the Source is missing all but the most basic CV access (to say nothing of MIDI). The second coolest thing about synths, to me, is the way they can interact with other instruments, controllers, and external sounds. Theres no CV for the VCF/VCA or audio input on a Source.

The Source does have arpeggios and a sequencer, but these features can be easily reproduced through CV or Midi control.

IMO the Source is no match. So, especially if this is going to be one of your first synths, I say go with the Phatty. On top of everything else, the Performance Edition Phatty will be nearly the same price as a Source, and it's brand new.

I just wish the Phatty looked as cool as a Source...

space_nerd · Post by **space_nerd** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:59 am

A question about the Source:
has it any zipper noise as you tweak the filter cut-off for example?
I'm asking this because, this is an early digital parameter access synth and the proccessors weren't so fast back then-thanks

erasokamotesk · Post by **erasokamotesk** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:59 am

totally agreed with you

MC · Post by MC » Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:43 pm

space_nerd wrote:A question about the Source:
has it any zipper noise as you tweak the filter cut-off for example?
I'm asking this because, this is an early digital parameter access synth and the proccessors weren't so fast back then-thanks

No zipper noise when tweaking the filter. They implemented the cutoff (and detuning) with double the bit resolution as the other controls.

It's an early digital parameter access synth, but Moog had the foresight to implement higher resolution for the parameters that count.

Impossible Sound · Post by **Impossible Sound** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:05 pm

One of the 'undocumented features' of the Source is that it can re-heat your leftovers!

Seriously, the power supply gets so hot that it's uncomfortably warm to the touch.

I loved my Source, but I'd go with the awfully named new synth.

museslave · Post by **museslave** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:04 pm

MC wrote:No zipper noise when tweaking the filter. They implemented the cutoff (and detuning) with double the bit resolution as the other controls.

It's an early digital parameter access synth, but Moog had the foresight to implement higher resolution for the parameters that count.

This is why I am not fond of the Source.
This is a little like the projection TVs of the 80s, or computer music of the late 80s, or any technology that is used to "make cheaper" or "make more convenient" previous technology.
Why, exactly, do we have to tolerate the digitally implemented filter cutoff (low res, or even high res) at all? It's not like that interface IMPROVED on the Moog filter sound... it didn't. However, it made the interface more convenient for those who were performing... kind of... but more importantly to Moog and casual consumers, it made everything SIMPLE. PLUS, it made it so the Moog looked "in pace with the times," which is... pointless. Would you like to have a synth whose primary cool control is limited JUST so the whole synth is a little easier? Or, so that your can show your friends your "futuristic" synth? I wouldn't.
If you care at all about "zipper noise," I'd suggest investing in a fully analog synth.
(although I haven't heard about how well the new analog-simulating Moog knobs work...)

eric coleridge · Post by **eric coleridge** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:46 pm

museslave wrote: This is why I am not fond of the Source.
This is a little like the projection TVs of the 80s, or computer music of the late 80s, or any technology that is used to "make cheaper" or "make more convenient" previous technology.
Why, exactly, do we have to tolerate the digitally implemented filter cutoff (low res, or even high res) at all? It's not like that interface IMPROVED on the Moog filter sound... it didn't.

I agree. It didn't improve anything. Plus, I would guess that Moog's decision to implement digital interface had much less to do with simplicity or keeping up with technology (as they were the first to use this interface) as it did with the 80s trend of reducing production costs. Even though this interface did become the prevailing look in 80s designs, it seems to me that it was initially motivated more by economics than by aestetics or ergonomics. Then, as it is today, one knob (or four) is much cheaper than 10 or 20. I don't think 1 knob with 30 functions is particularly more simple than 30 knobs with dedicated functions. It's less simple because you're always 1 step further removed from the function you're trying to execute. Instead of turning a knob, you have to press a button and then turn the knob.
It's a little like the stereos made in the 80s that have two buttons to raise and lower the volume, they feel cheap, they break easily, and they don't accomplish the task as well as one volume knob would. But they probably lowered reduction costs, so they were used on even some expensive stereos.
It's a shame. Especiailly on a great sounding analog synth that needs to have realtime direct control in order to use it to it's greatest potential.

rachel · Post by **rachel** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:28 am

Don't forget, moving from 20 knobs to 1 or 4 or whatever may have
been a cost cutting exercise, but someone then had to write the software
for the new design. Moog took a precedent with this and mostly got it
right with the Source, but at the same time, probably had a big impost in their
R&D department that cost them a lot, but then other companies were able
to exploit and refine the designs to produce their own 80's monster.

So, Moog were the first, but really didn't get the benefits of the technology
the other players had.

rachel

godzilla · Post by **godzilla** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:20 am

and that was nearing the end of the orignal moog company, soon they were to fall to the digital synths that bore the horrid interface that they themselves (moog that is) had come up with.

but many years later people got so fed up with the interface that a reborn interest in analog synths allowed the moog to rise again.

it's like they saw their demise coming and built a fail-safe within it.

aside from conspiracy, making the source all those years ago would have given them the resources to make the little phatty now, and probably the voyagers memory storage as well.

Amos · Post by **Amos** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:40 pm

museslave wrote:(...)
(although I haven't heard about how well the new analog-simulating Moog knobs work...)

Ahoy!

Just a quick note to clarify that the Little Phatty knobs are not "simulating" analog - they are the real deal. Here is why:

Of course if you want digital patch memory you need to sample the knob position as a digital value and then store it. Whereas if you want full analog control, the knob (potentiometer) must be connected directly to the sound circuit, with no digital conversion (quantisation that causes zipper noise).

On the LP, the pots are switched into direct connection with the sound circuit by a digital switching matrix. When you press e.g. the Filter Cutoff button, the Filter section pot is switched into direct connection with the filter so you have completely real analog control. at the same time, the value of the pot is also being sampled digitally at high resolution, so that you can store the changes you make. So, it is really a hybrid of pure analog and digitally-controlled analog, that allows for the best features of both.

Cheers,

Amos

thewaag · Post by **thewaag** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:38 pm

Get the LP!

I have a Source--the second one that I have owned. The first one I gave away because the touch pad went out (this was before they were again made available on ebay). I purchased another on ebay last summer.

It worked fine for 3 days (that was my approval time limit), then the filter began to stay open at all times. Finally got that fixed about a month ago (bad chip). Now the sawtooth wave on oscillator one has gone out, and I think that the synth is now beginning to display symptoms of Crazy Source Syndrome. I just can't keep up with the tech bills.

I love the Source, but it is becoming a liablilty.

For this reason, I sold my spare Model D and purchased a Little Phatty. It will be under warranty, and it is using new, currently available parts.

If you have tech abilities, by all means buy a Source. If you don't (like me) you will be happy until the unit starts showing it's age and draining your pocketbook.

analogbass · Post by **analogbass** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:34 am

The Source sounds great.

-Having one data-entry wheel's excellent, no liability at all and just as quick as knobs. IMO most users will tell you it's a non-factor; I might even prefer it.

-Reliability's not a problem-as with any vintage synth as long as you treat it right (no gigs, don't move it). There will always be a few horror stories about any vintage synth but i've seen NO problems with it. The only minor issues the touch-pad eventually wearing out; new replacements are available on Ebay.

-Midi: easy and cheap to midi a Source using a Kenton pro-solo or similar.

-Which is better: it's going to be subjective, they will NOT sound the same. Basically the only way is to get both synths, compare them head-to-head and then decide which to sell or keep both. Moogs for the most part all sound great but somewhat different, which is why some of us end up with a variety of models. Direct comparison's the only reliable way, because opinions & tastes vary too widely to be useful. Some people's opinion's ARE more accurate, but it's hard to know which ones to trust just reading online.

Link:
http://www.moogmusic.com/forum/viewtopi ... b27eb03b72

Moog Music Forum

Source or Little Phatty?

Source or Little Phatty?

Source or Phatty