He does make some really good products. From the various thermines, and the moogerfoogers, to the voyager and his lattest creation the Piano Bar. Most of the products Moog music makes are good but expensive. But then again pretty much everything he makes aside from the piano bar is built with voltage controled technology.
My theroy on why he is not making more keybords, is probabaly because Dr. Moog does not want his company to become a major palyer in the music industry. After I read an article on the Rise and Fall of Moog Music, and the Start of Big Briar now Moog Music. I have a better understanding of the man. Here is a guy who likes to build electronics and sell them to various people. After wittnessing the rise and tragic fall of his first company, he did not want to repeate the same thing for a second time. Big Birar was a small company, and my guess is he wants to keep Moog Music a small company too. Which I can understand. Besides it would be too hard for him to compete in todays market anyway.
Look at Dave smith and Roger Linn they both have small companies and only make one product. Roger Linn with his Adrinalinn now in it's second form and Dave Simths Evolver and now polyevolver. The both had compaines that eventually failed as well, and have learned from their mistakes.
So I can understand why Dr. Moog may not build a new synthesizer. At least he has accessories for the voyager to expand it. As for building a new modular synth, I fgure since he has produced a mini modular system for the voyager, I don't really see the need for a larger modular synth.
Will Moog Music make a more affordable synthesizer?
Mal,mee3d wrote:Personally I would rather see a rack version of the Voyager . . less all the wood and Touch surface and the other items that add to the expense . . . selling for about £699 (or less), that way you could buy one per note of poly you required and then have the midi route to each?
That is a really great idea! I would never be able to afford full polyphony, but even just one more voice would make the voyager a completely different instrument. A rackmount "expander" would be the perfect way to do this. It wouldn't need to have any controls, just the soundboards from a voyager, midi in out and through, and audio outs. Everything could be slaved to the master voyager and all the audio outs could either go into a micromixer or you could build that mixer circuit into the slave voyager. In a perfect world, it would sell for $1000 US, but I would be willing to pay a little more. Just imagine! The software is already able to do this if you have the resources to own more than one voyager. I'll put my order in for 2 expanders, please!
FreqOut
Hey Guvnor
I filmed the Turnkey training session . . . I will be editing it shortly for Nick so you'll get to see it again.
With regards Bob Being an "older Gent" and wanting to keep it simple , I think there is some truth in that, but not because of age but more to do with Bobs way of doing things - like all good designers and engineers he likes to get to the end result via the simplest route and not over complicate the process.
The Voyager started off as a performance synth with no patch memory, it was only after feedback at various shows that moog decided to add the facility . . . which in my mind has over complicated the unit and lead to a lot of failures.
If you imagine the voyager without the centre programming/Touch screen panel and the wheels up on a non-hinged panel (like the Rogue) you have an idea what the prototype looked like - you can see it at the "Lords of the Mini" Yahoo website.
Moog could probably just release the prototype design as is . . .
Having personal interviewed Bob and recorded over 10 hours of interviews and talks I get the impression that there is a side of the Voyager that is totally alien to him and pretty much nothing to do with him . . . people should really be addressing some of these questions to either Axel Hartmann or Rudi Linhard.
If you look back in history and know a little about moog you will discover that all the more unreliable moogs were not actually designed by Bob, either he was busy being an ambassador for the company or he had left . . . virtually everything after Bob's departure from moog music was over engineered and unreliable and in the end, it killed the company.
My guess is that while Bob is head of engineering moog will continue to be a boutique, keeping things simple and do-able but there may come a time when moog moves on . . . . and that will be a sad day!
Mal
I filmed the Turnkey training session . . . I will be editing it shortly for Nick so you'll get to see it again.
With regards Bob Being an "older Gent" and wanting to keep it simple , I think there is some truth in that, but not because of age but more to do with Bobs way of doing things - like all good designers and engineers he likes to get to the end result via the simplest route and not over complicate the process.
The Voyager started off as a performance synth with no patch memory, it was only after feedback at various shows that moog decided to add the facility . . . which in my mind has over complicated the unit and lead to a lot of failures.
If you imagine the voyager without the centre programming/Touch screen panel and the wheels up on a non-hinged panel (like the Rogue) you have an idea what the prototype looked like - you can see it at the "Lords of the Mini" Yahoo website.
Moog could probably just release the prototype design as is . . .
Having personal interviewed Bob and recorded over 10 hours of interviews and talks I get the impression that there is a side of the Voyager that is totally alien to him and pretty much nothing to do with him . . . people should really be addressing some of these questions to either Axel Hartmann or Rudi Linhard.
If you look back in history and know a little about moog you will discover that all the more unreliable moogs were not actually designed by Bob, either he was busy being an ambassador for the company or he had left . . . virtually everything after Bob's departure from moog music was over engineered and unreliable and in the end, it killed the company.
My guess is that while Bob is head of engineering moog will continue to be a boutique, keeping things simple and do-able but there may come a time when moog moves on . . . . and that will be a sad day!
Mal
-
analogcontrolfreak
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 8:59 am
- Location: Frederick, Maryland
So basicly the Minimoog was the only synth of Moog Music Inc. that Bob worked on and produced? That would explain why he's only made a new minmoog synthesizer. Same goes for the Thermines, since that's what he built when he started R.A. Moog in 1958.
And with the Moogerfoogers takeing the best parts of the modular synthesizers and making them into effects pedals aka stomp boxes.
And with the Moogerfoogers takeing the best parts of the modular synthesizers and making them into effects pedals aka stomp boxes.
Actually . . . the minimoog itself was not strictly designed by Bob Moog. He was away for a few weeks and someone else put together the prototype Model A out of broken modular pieces (anyone remember the name of the chap?).
So, yes the electronics were designed by Bob but the idea of the minimoog came from someone else . . . I think I remember reading Bob didn't think that a portable moog would catch on!
it was originally called the Minmoog.
Later he got involves with the final design and commisioned 10 Model C units to be made and apparently while he was away again the production team made the first 50 and these where to become known as Model D's.
Anybody out there know all the story?
Mal
So, yes the electronics were designed by Bob but the idea of the minimoog came from someone else . . . I think I remember reading Bob didn't think that a portable moog would catch on!
it was originally called the Minmoog.
Later he got involves with the final design and commisioned 10 Model C units to be made and apparently while he was away again the production team made the first 50 and these where to become known as Model D's.
Anybody out there know all the story?
Mal
-
analogcontrolfreak
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 8:59 am
- Location: Frederick, Maryland
I read part of that story in "Analog Days" But can't recall everything. So aside from thermines the only other instrument Bob worked on was the modular synthesizer? I wonder why? I always thought modular synths were cool. Aside from being rather large and quite expensive. Espically some of the more modern types. like the ones from synthesizers.com and technosauraus. Even those built by Moog Custom enginerreing.
-
babaoreilly
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 4:35 pm
You can DIY you know, it is a lot cheaper, you just have to nerd out and learn alot about frequencies and voltages and responses and complex algebra.
Child stuff
The expensive part is the manufacturing, the casing, the metal work, the keyboard. If you can live with really ugly looking stuff you can make very cool things.
A polyphonic synth is just a big stack of many mono synths with a microprocessor saying who goes next and a mixer to mix them all togethor.
Each voice is really a full synth of it's own. Dr. Moog could probably design it easily, it is manufacturing them that is too much work.
So instead, make a hit record, buy like 32 mini moog voyagers and have someone design an interface to control them polyphonically It could probably be done too.
Child stuff
The expensive part is the manufacturing, the casing, the metal work, the keyboard. If you can live with really ugly looking stuff you can make very cool things.
A polyphonic synth is just a big stack of many mono synths with a microprocessor saying who goes next and a mixer to mix them all togethor.
Each voice is really a full synth of it's own. Dr. Moog could probably design it easily, it is manufacturing them that is too much work.
So instead, make a hit record, buy like 32 mini moog voyagers and have someone design an interface to control them polyphonically
It could probably be done too.[quote="babaoreilly"]A polyphonic synth is just a big stack of many mono synths with a microprocessor saying who goes next and a mixer to mix them all togethor.
Each voice is really a full synth of it's own.[/quote]
That's one way to do it, and rather expensive at that.
PAIA made a very crude but workable polyphonic synth kit decades ago. it had a scanning keyboard. This looked at the keys and figured out how many keys were depressed and which was high, low, and in between. Then it would send the signal path from one key into a sample & hold module, effectively recording and playing back one note. This was repeated for each note of the scan. The result was what was basically a monosyth being able to produce polyphonics.
My unit only had enough computing power, S&H modules, etc., to produce three note polyphony, but this was before the Polymoog, before the DX7, and even before the Prophet 5. Of course, this produces limitations such as the fact that you won't have the unique individuality of individual sound sources/ note.
However, if you are interested in a true polyphonic instrument with many similarities in sound quality to the Moogs, there is something which I can recommend: the Oberheim Matrix series.
Each module produces only 6-voice polyphony, but you can link I believe up to six of them together, giving you a 35-voice analog synth with digitally controlled oscillators and memories. For saving space you can use mostly Matrix 1,000s which are the same as the Matrix 6 keyboard or 3-space Matrix 6R but with more memory spaces and no on-board programming. You can program through the Matrix 6 or 6R, or via computer.
Right now I have a 6R and 1000, and if you run it through a nice PA, is kicks butt!
You should be able to get any of these, a Matrix 6, 6R, or 1000, for under $300 each. It is an amazing bargain.
Each voice is really a full synth of it's own.[/quote]
That's one way to do it, and rather expensive at that.
PAIA made a very crude but workable polyphonic synth kit decades ago. it had a scanning keyboard. This looked at the keys and figured out how many keys were depressed and which was high, low, and in between. Then it would send the signal path from one key into a sample & hold module, effectively recording and playing back one note. This was repeated for each note of the scan. The result was what was basically a monosyth being able to produce polyphonics.
My unit only had enough computing power, S&H modules, etc., to produce three note polyphony, but this was before the Polymoog, before the DX7, and even before the Prophet 5. Of course, this produces limitations such as the fact that you won't have the unique individuality of individual sound sources/ note.
However, if you are interested in a true polyphonic instrument with many similarities in sound quality to the Moogs, there is something which I can recommend: the Oberheim Matrix series.
Each module produces only 6-voice polyphony, but you can link I believe up to six of them together, giving you a 35-voice analog synth with digitally controlled oscillators and memories. For saving space you can use mostly Matrix 1,000s which are the same as the Matrix 6 keyboard or 3-space Matrix 6R but with more memory spaces and no on-board programming. You can program through the Matrix 6 or 6R, or via computer.
Right now I have a 6R and 1000, and if you run it through a nice PA, is kicks butt!
You should be able to get any of these, a Matrix 6, 6R, or 1000, for under $300 each. It is an amazing bargain.
-
babaoreilly
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 4:35 pm
hmm, that sounds interesting. It sorta sounds like multiplexing.
I thought, the reason poly synths became possible in the 80's, was mainly because they were able to manufacture most of the discrete components into ICs that needed only a few extra components. Ie you could squeeze a filter down into a chip and a couple of resistors and capacitors. That way you could have a bank of them that only took up a small circuit space. That is how my Korg Polysix is actually, it is really just 6 mono synths in it and a processor that decides which voice is active. When you put unison on you are listening to 6 synths at the same time.
In digital emulation, it is really literally just like that. You have a 'counter' that counts the polyphony, when a voice goes free you just flip a bit, when you exceed the polyphony you steal a voice that you decide is not needed anymore. It is quite cheap to build a full synth per voice in software (at least, manufacture wise) but it's computationally expensive if you try to go non-linear with it.
I didn't know there was any other way to do it really. All polyphonic synths I know of had a synth circuit for each voice using ICs. But I am probably pretty young to the crowd here I have seen a Prophet 10 *once*. I have seen a real moog *once*. But I have studied there schematics alot.
Laters
I thought, the reason poly synths became possible in the 80's, was mainly because they were able to manufacture most of the discrete components into ICs that needed only a few extra components. Ie you could squeeze a filter down into a chip and a couple of resistors and capacitors. That way you could have a bank of them that only took up a small circuit space. That is how my Korg Polysix is actually, it is really just 6 mono synths in it and a processor that decides which voice is active. When you put unison on you are listening to 6 synths at the same time.
In digital emulation, it is really literally just like that. You have a 'counter' that counts the polyphony, when a voice goes free you just flip a bit, when you exceed the polyphony you steal a voice that you decide is not needed anymore. It is quite cheap to build a full synth per voice in software (at least, manufacture wise) but it's computationally expensive if you try to go non-linear with it.
I didn't know there was any other way to do it really. All polyphonic synths I know of had a synth circuit for each voice using ICs. But I am probably pretty young to the crowd here
I have seen a Prophet 10 *once*. I have seen a real moog *once*. But I have studied there schematics alot.Laters
-
little doodler
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:32 am
Or just buy a Studio Electronics Omega and control it from a Voyagerbabaoreilly wrote:You can DIY you know, it is a lot cheaper, you just have to nerd out and learn alot about frequencies and voltages and responses and complex algebra.
Child stuff
The expensive part is the manufacturing, the casing, the metal work, the keyboard. If you can live with really ugly looking stuff you can make very cool things.
A polyphonic synth is just a big stack of many mono synths with a microprocessor saying who goes next and a mixer to mix them all togethor.
Each voice is really a full synth of it's own. Dr. Moog could probably design it easily, it is manufacturing them that is too much work.
So instead, make a hit record, buy like 32 mini moog voyagers and have someone design an interface to control them polyphonically
Hmmm, that's the same type of linkage that Korg is rumored to have provided on the 4-voice MS2000's. What I read in one ad is that the MS2000 key version can control an MS2000R for 8 voices of polyphony. Is this true?Don wrote:However, if you are interested in a true polyphonic instrument with many similarities in sound quality to the Moogs, there is something which I can recommend: the Oberheim Matrix series.
Each module produces only 6-voice polyphony, but you can link I believe up to six of them together, giving you a 35-voice analog synth with digitally controlled oscillators and memories. For saving space you can use mostly Matrix 1,000s which are the same as the Matrix 6 keyboard or 3-space Matrix 6R but with more memory spaces and no on-board programming. You can program through the Matrix 6 or 6R, or via computer.
Right now I have a 6R and 1000, and if you run it through a nice PA, is kicks butt!
You should be able to get any of these, a Matrix 6, 6R, or 1000, for under $300 each. It is an amazing bargain.
Anyway, I have yet to use anything from Oberheim, but that sounds fascinating. Can the Matrix 1000 be programmed with a Matrix 6, or 6R? That's how people use the Yamaha DX7 to program the TX7.
"The greatest thing we ever have is the will to survive," - Eric Benjamin Gordon, 2001
Thank you Lord for Doctor Robert Moog!
http://www.ericbenjamingordon.com
http://www.myspace.com/ericbenjamingordon
http://cdbaby.com/cd/ebgordon
Thank you Lord for Doctor Robert Moog!
http://www.ericbenjamingordon.com
http://www.myspace.com/ericbenjamingordon
http://cdbaby.com/cd/ebgordon
[quote="ebg31"]Anyway, I have yet to use anything from Oberheim, but that sounds fascinating. Can the Matrix 1000 be programmed with a Matrix 6, or 6R? That's how people use the Yamaha DX7 to program the TX7.[/quote]
The 1000 can be programmed with a 6 or 6R. It can also be programmed and have patches stored and recalled with various computer applications.
I play my 6R and 1000 combination with a rare Lync 4 keyboard controller. Through a good PA I can knock over walls.
Many of the early polyphonic synths had "top octave" chips with other chips that divided the signal producting lower octaves. One chip produced an entire top octive.
Unfortunately, this resulted in a rash of very cheap synths with limited polyphony and one important problem. You see, our ears don't work with perfect math. Notes over several octaves theoretically should be multiples of each other, but iour ears like to hear them a few 100ths of a note (known as "cents") off. These cheap synths sound grating and out of tune. Many synth toys for kids are still made this way.
The 1000 can be programmed with a 6 or 6R. It can also be programmed and have patches stored and recalled with various computer applications.
I play my 6R and 1000 combination with a rare Lync 4 keyboard controller. Through a good PA I can knock over walls.
Many of the early polyphonic synths had "top octave" chips with other chips that divided the signal producting lower octaves. One chip produced an entire top octive.
Unfortunately, this resulted in a rash of very cheap synths with limited polyphony and one important problem. You see, our ears don't work with perfect math. Notes over several octaves theoretically should be multiples of each other, but iour ears like to hear them a few 100ths of a note (known as "cents") off. These cheap synths sound grating and out of tune. Many synth toys for kids are still made this way.
-
babaoreilly
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 4:35 pm
Don I'd like you to try my emulator and see what you think of it. I use modelling of ideal electronics circuits (except oscillators). It is only monophonic right now.
It is alias free too.
It is a VST so you will need a host to try it though. If you are interested I'd like someone who has alot of experience with real synths to try it and see if it sounds ok or like a cheap toy.
It is alias free too.
It is a VST so you will need a host to try it though. If you are interested I'd like someone who has alot of experience with real synths to try it and see if it sounds ok or like a cheap toy.
-
Chuck Wagner
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:42 am
There should be a new Memorymoog
At a recent staff training session at Turnkey the conversation went something like this;
staff:"Dr moog we all love the new mini, but what we would all love to see is a polyphonic moog. Whats the position on that?"
Bob Moog(after a long pause with his head down he lifts it and says;
"we could build one........but we're not going to"
Then quickly moved onto another subject.
If such is truly the case, it would be, in my opinion, a mistake not to bring back the greatest analog Polysynth that was ever made. I am the original owner of one, and yes, I take it out on gigs and people go nuts over it because nothing sounds like a Memorymoog.
If Dr. Moog built a new instrument using discretes, rather than curtis based devices (even if the physical size were huge) it would most surely capture the music industry by storm and I would be first in line to get one.
Though I think the Voyager is very cool, I have not enough use for a monophonic analog synth and could not justify the cost.
Please consider building a new Memorymoog.
staff:"Dr moog we all love the new mini, but what we would all love to see is a polyphonic moog. Whats the position on that?"
Bob Moog(after a long pause with his head down he lifts it and says;
"we could build one........but we're not going to"
Then quickly moved onto another subject.
If such is truly the case, it would be, in my opinion, a mistake not to bring back the greatest analog Polysynth that was ever made. I am the original owner of one, and yes, I take it out on gigs and people go nuts over it because nothing sounds like a Memorymoog.
If Dr. Moog built a new instrument using discretes, rather than curtis based devices (even if the physical size were huge) it would most surely capture the music industry by storm and I would be first in line to get one.
Though I think the Voyager is very cool, I have not enough use for a monophonic analog synth and could not justify the cost.
Please consider building a new Memorymoog.
Discrete Memorymoog; welcome back CS-80
What you're talking about would probably wind up containing a slew of circuits and programmers, not unlike the Emerson modular, or -more appropriately - the Yamaha CS-80. Such a synth would be really cumbersome, not only to build, but to afford, transport and maintain.
I'm sure one reason the original Memorymoog was so popular, dispite its own quirks, is that it wasn't quite so tough to buy, transport and keep in tune. I think that plays a part.
I'm sure one reason the original Memorymoog was so popular, dispite its own quirks, is that it wasn't quite so tough to buy, transport and keep in tune. I think that plays a part.
"The greatest thing we ever have is the will to survive," - Eric Benjamin Gordon, 2001
Thank you Lord for Doctor Robert Moog!
http://www.ericbenjamingordon.com
http://www.myspace.com/ericbenjamingordon
http://cdbaby.com/cd/ebgordon
Thank you Lord for Doctor Robert Moog!
http://www.ericbenjamingordon.com
http://www.myspace.com/ericbenjamingordon
http://cdbaby.com/cd/ebgordon