Will Moog Music make a more affordable synthesizer?

[miket156]

I always thought the Memory Moog was a great sounding synth. But it was troublesome from what I understand, not very reliable from what I remember. I don't know how many were built or sold, but I don't believe it ever gained the wide acceptance like the Prophet 5. This is not say that the Prophet 5 was a "better" synth than the Memory Moog. In the late sevenities and early eighties I considered Moog, Sequential, and Oberheim the big three of synth makers. I owned several from each company and still have a Prophet 5 and two Moog products. No Model D anymore. The Model D was the "standard" for mono synths, whereas Oberheim and Sequential had the poly synth market. The Memory Moog could shake the walls.


Mike T.

[Don]

Mike, back in the day I was a student at the Center for Musical Experiment at UCSD. There, we used a DEC PDP-11 and used a program by a man named John Chowning to synthesize sounds and music. It could take weeks to design the input, hours to type in the data, and days for the computer to get the results. A misplaced decimal point could ruin everything.

Chowning sold his software to Yamaha. They were able to place all of the software on a few chips and create an interface that was easy to use (compared to what we had to do with the original software) although complex compared to the analog synths at the time.

The polyphonic synths of the time--Memory Moog, Polymoog, Prophet, Oberheim, and some ARPs, were very expensive. My guess is that including inflation, the prices for those wonderful beasties would be around $10,000 today. For that you got polyphony of a half-dozen notes or less, questionable stability, and original sounds that didn't sound like any traditional instruments. Add to that some bad financial moves by some of the manufacturers.

And in the middle of all this, out comes the Yamaha synth that used Chowning's invention which used frequency modulation to obtain musically useful sounds: the DX-7. It sounded like "real" instruments, had tons of polyphony, and was half the price or less than those other synths. Moog fell. Oberheim shrank and began a downward trend. Sequential fell. ARP fell. Of those, Oberheim sort of survives and Moog has been reborn.

The analogs fell because of a generational change that demanded "reality" rather than originality. This eventually led to the primary form of synthesis today, sample playback. But the lower prices for more capability has enabled those of us who are interested in the beautiful sounds created by analog to support the rebirth of analog, such as the Voyager.

[miket156]

You could get realistic sounding instruments from an Oberheim or a Prophet 5. If you can find a copy of Christopher Cross's "Sailing" album, give it a listen. The entire "Orchestra" was two Oberheims. Sounded as authentic as it could get without hiring the Boston Pops for that time period. I remember the DX7 when it was introduced. Although the instruments were realistic, I thought it was THIN sounding, the user interface was poor and not intuitive. I didn't buy one. I think that board was an instrument for the majority of musicians and people that had music as a hobby because of its price much more than its sound. This is not to say it was a "Bad" instrument, it wasn't. It also wasn't for me. I was one of the few that could afford to have 2 Oberheims, a Prophet 5, and a number of other analog synths in those days. It IS true that the early Prophets were unreliable and drifted out of tune. The Oberheims were more reliable and didn't drift out of tune very much, but they were very expensive. The number of people that could dish out 4 or 5000.00 for an Oberheim or 3000 to 3500 for a Prophet were few compared to how many that could spring for a DX7. The reality was (and still is) what the market is willing to pay. Sequential, Oberheim, and Arp all made poor financial and product decisions. Most of them opened their businesses on a shoe string to begin with. The DX7 did not put those companies out of business. They managed to do that themselves, with help from the "reality" you mentioned.

I do agree with you for the most part, but I think you're giving the impact of the DX7 more credit than it warrants.


Cheers,


Mike T.

[analogcontrolfreak]

What if Moog remade the Polymoog Keyboard? Instead of trying to remake the Memorymoog. I could see this as an idea for a new polyphonic moog.

As for an alternitive to the Voyager why not just create a new micromoog?

[mee3d]

I think there was also a shift in sound from the mid '80's onwards . . Pop music in the UK had become predominantly synthy, with guitar music (punk and classic rock) taking a back seat.

Up until that point other then the prog rockers like Keith and Rick the polysynth had pretty much been used as a pad machine, something to add extra non-hammond tones to a mix . . . a bit of strings etc.

80's Pop music reinvented the synth but most players like Nick Rhodes or Vince Clarke were not up to the skill level of some of the previous rock keyboard players and therefore created their sound using layered monosynths. At this point people were starting to look for more evolving sounds, sounds that changed as you held the notes down.

Instruments like the DX7, PPG Wave 2.3 and Korg Wavestation came at a time when people wanted greater clarity from their sound, although it had been possible to create excellent bell tones from some of the more expensive analog synths like the memorymoog or matrix 12, these instruments were very expensive and still considered "fat", "warm" or even "muddy".

The other thing to consider is MIDI . . . this really did change the face of keyboards . . now it was possible to sequence instruments easily and reliably.

With regards analogs emulating real instruments, you only have to listen to an Oberheim Expander or Matrix 12 to know that it was very possible to get realistic sounds from an analog synth - the strings and brass sounds on a Matrix 12 are quite something.

Mal

[ebg31]

As far as analog synths (expensive and cheap) that can emulate the real thing, I'm convinced that any of them can "try" to do it. The one I currently use is the Roland JX-10, which bears many of the presets inherant in in its predecessor, the JX-8p. It only cost at least a fifth of what a Memorymoog, Prophet 5, OB8, or Jupiter 8 would cost.

While it does have some nice organs, bells, strings, choirs, basses and pianos (some of which sound like the RMI Wakeman used on "Long Distance Runaround,") they're not true simulations of those instruments. I've come to conclude that those presets on analog synths were shooting for the wrong audience, when analog isn't really meant for novice synthesists.

Only used a DX7 a couple of times, when I didn't know what it was meant to do, but I did find it to be a nice synth Like an example of how, in an economical instrument, the manufacturers have to sacrifice quality to produce cheap instruments that do tons of stuff. I doubt the sound quality of the DX7 is the same as the Wave 2.3.

[mee3d]

Hey ebg31

I totally agree with you when you say the keyboards you listed can "only try" to emulate real instruments. Sat in my studio I am lucky to have a memorymoog, a Jupiter 8, an OB-8 . . . I also have a Matrix 12, Yamaha CS-60, Korg Polysix and PPG 2.3 and waveterm B . . . I have also owned in the past countless Prophet 5's, polymoogs and an Elka Synthex.

Now you are right when you say these presets were shooting at the wrong audience but you have to remember that when these synths were new . . . that twinkly not-quite-piano sound was hot and that slushy soft almost-string like sound was the business.

It was instruments like the DX7 and samplers like the PPG that made us realize that analog synths just didn't sound like real instruments and conversely when the new breed of clean sounding sample players came out . . the M1, the D50, Kawais K series etc we realized that if you want fat, lush analog sounds you need to use the real thing.

With regards the sound quality of the DX7 compared to the PPG, well at the time one instrument cost £1000 and the other £12000 but I bet the output stages are as good as each others . . . the DX7 created it's sound using dedicated audio circuitry . . the PPG 2.3 is an 8bit sampler and there's quite a bit of zipper noise (12bit with the waveterm B) . . . actually although I currently don't have a DX7 in my setup, playing my PPG I would say the Yamaha had a cleaner higher fidelity output!!

Mal

[miket156]

I think that the old analogs were better at producing some sounds than they weer at others in terms of being realistic. I always felt that an Oberheim had the best string sounds in the late seventies and early eighties. But the front panel on the OBX series had less controls than a Prohet 5, so the Prophet was better able to produce more synth sounds because it was more flexible. The Oberheims were fatter sounding, had great Polyphic Portamento, and a nice sample and hold. I have a Prophet 5 Rev 3.2 and its cleaner than the Oberheim's were and better at producing individual instruments, like a solo cello or viola. The lead synth and filter sweeps are pretty cool too. Sound effects pretty insane. The Oberheim's shined with fat Orchestral patches, horns and bass lines that would shake the walls.

No one synthesizer could do everything better than all the others or they would have probably put everyone else out of business.


Mike T.

[vorlon42]

What's involved with rolling out a new product? Market research. Product research and development. Building prototypes. Testing. Feedback from current and potential customers. Reworks. Trips to NAMM shows. And hope that it sells enough units to recoup the investment. It takes lots of time and money to roll out a new product. And frankly, I think Bob would happer staying at home, designing circuits and tinkering in his workshop.

I don't remember when or where he said it, but Dr. Moog once said, "I am not a salesman. I am an engineer." He's nearing (or at) retirement age. And he's been burned by the music biz once, with the original Moog Music. I can certainly understand his reluctance to roll out a new product.

That said, what would be the ideal "next product"? One that fills a hole in the market. One that's affordable. And one that provides added value compared to competing or similar products. (Quality doesn't come cheap.)