| Author |
Message |
dualphin
Joined: Jan 25, 2008
Posts: 105
Location: Vermont
G2 patch files: 4
|
 Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 2:34 pm Post subject:
Modern hardware incarnations of classic monosynths? |
  |
|
As I have been contemplating purchasing the DSI MEK, I have been considering synth design philosophy a lot. I usually swing towards the sonically flexible, somewhat adventurous, experimentation-oriented design. That said, I find it quite difficult to put into words what makes a particular synth unique, what gives it its individual character. Sometimes analogy works best. So this thread is dedicated to exploring the relationship of vintage monosynths to contemporary ones.
There are certain obvious comparisons, eg. Minimoog/Voyager, or Odyssey/Prodyssey, but these are essentially repetitions of a theme. I am interested in how vintage designs find expression in the hardware of today—that means that there has to be some advance, some development, rather than a rehash, or in the case of the voyager, rehash with a kind of retrofitting. It is a question of design philosophy. And this discussion will be very subjective. But let's try to support our opinions with argument.
One rule: the modern synth has to be hardware.
My list of classic monosynths: Minimoog, Odyssey, ARP2600, VCS3/Synthi A, Music Easel, MS20, and Pro-One (as an afterthought).
My list of comparisons:
Minimoog: Voyager (obviously), Prophet '08? This is a hard one.
Odyssey: DSI MEK, Prodyssey (cheating)
ARP2600: Macbeth M5? Another hard one.
VCS3/Synthi: Nord G2 (thanks e80)
Music Easel: DSI MEK? G2?
MS20: ???
Pro-One: DSI MEK???
Harder than I thought. I kind of think the most interesting question is the Minimoog—a very uninteresting synth with an incredible sound. The P08 answer to that one seems wrong, as it is a reworking of another classic design.
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts about the question itself?
d
_________________
dualphin!
Heaven is not attained, it is built - |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
EdisonRex
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 07, 2007
Posts: 4579
Location: London, UK
Audio files: 172
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 3:06 pm Post subject:
Re: Modern hardware incarnations of classic monosynths? |
|
|
| dualphin wrote: |
One rule: the modern synth has to be hardware.
My list of classic monosynths: Minimoog, Odyssey, ARP2600, VCS3/Synthi A, Music Easel, MS20, and Pro-One (as an afterthought).
My list of comparisons:
Minimoog: Voyager (obviously), Prophet '08? This is a hard one. |
The Voyager and the new Prophet are nothing like one another. They both kick ass. I own a Voyager and I am quite happy with it, it does what I ask of it, and I understand it. Instead of a Prophet I have a Poly Evolver.
| Quote: |
Odyssey: DSI MEK, Prodyssey (cheating)
|
I don't know about this.
| Quote: |
ARP2600: Macbeth M5? Another hard one.
|
I own both. The M5 is NOTHING like a 2600. It actually blows a stock 2600 out of the water IMO. There are souped up restored 2600s that will cost more than an M5. Ken builds good instruments. But it isn't at all a 2600.
| Quote: |
VCS3/Synthi: Nord G2 (thanks e80)
|
I have no opinion.
| Quote: |
Music Easel: DSI MEK? G2?
|
what's wrong with a Buchla? Too expensive?
I have had one of these since 1980. I think there are a few modular kits that catch some of the signs of this unique instrument. Nobody except Korg has tried to reproduce this as far as I can tell. I am sure someone else has more information. Lots of kits emulate the MS-20s super-popular sounds. Cheap and cheerful, as they say.
| Quote: |
Pro-One: DSI MEK???
|
The MEK is as unique as the others.
| Quote: |
Harder than I thought. I kind of think the most interesting question is the Minimoog—a very uninteresting synth with an incredible sound. The P08 answer to that one seems wrong, as it is a reworking of another classic design.
Any thoughts?
|
I don't think the Minimoog was uninteresting. I couldn't afford one, but I was very interested in it back in the day.
Any thoughts about the question itself?
d[/quote]
_________________
Garret: It's so retro.
EGM: What does retro mean to you?
Parker: Like, old and outdated.
Home,My Studio,and another view |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
dualphin
Joined: Jan 25, 2008
Posts: 105
Location: Vermont
G2 patch files: 4
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 3:22 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Edison,
You wrote: | Quote: | | The M5 is NOTHING like a 2600. |
What do you mean by this? How do they differ? I know the M5 has 2 filters, one 24db. But I am thinking about all the integrated mixers, the reverb, the basic appearance. It seems that the M5 is more like the 2600 than like, say, the Music Easel. To put it another way, what vintage instrument is the M5 most like, if not the 2600? Riddle me this.
My question is not so much, which new instruments are like old ones. (Nor, which are better or worse.) I mean instead, what interesting characteristics of the old instruments are brought out in, modified by, or innovated upon by the new ones? How are the innovative designs of the past innovated upon today?
And nothing is wrong with the Music Easel. But is there a modern hardware synth that is anything like it?
I know the Minimoog and Voyager are great instruments, they just seem pretty uninteresting to me as far as signal paths go.
d[/quote]
_________________
dualphin!
Heaven is not attained, it is built - |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
dualphin
Joined: Jan 25, 2008
Posts: 105
Location: Vermont
G2 patch files: 4
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 3:36 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
and this is supposed to be fun.  
_________________
dualphin!
Heaven is not attained, it is built - |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21959
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject:
Re: Modern hardware incarnations of classic monosynths? |
|
|
| dualphin wrote: | | As I have been contemplating purchasing the DSI MEK, I have been considering synth design philosophy a lot. I usually swing towards the sonically flexible, somewhat adventurous, experimentation-oriented design. That said, I find it quite difficult to put into words what makes a particular synth unique, what gives it its individual character. Sometimes analogy works best. So this thread is dedicated to exploring the relationship of vintage monosynths to contemporary ones. |
At first there was a very limited number of affordable stage instruments available. That did change.
As for what makes each of these unique.. well.. frankly many of these weren´t that good at all. The myth is often bigger than it should be. Keep in mind that we must decide if we are discussing these devices as if we were collectors or musicians.
There is a point to make about the playability of these vintage instruments. The ergonomics were all over the place and some instruments were better live instruments than others. We are talking non presets and live patching here. You might want an Arp Odyssey for some stuff, a Minimoog for other stuff and the MS-20 for whatever it feels suitable for. The difference in sound between these mentioned and others of that period simply meant you had to have a little bit of this and that in order to get access to a reasonable range of sounds.
| dualphin wrote: |
There are certain obvious comparisons, eg. Minimoog/Voyager, or Odyssey/Prodyssey, but these are essentially repetitions of a theme. I am interested in how vintage designs find expression in the hardware of today—that means that there has to be some advance, some development, rather than a rehash, or in the case of the voyager, rehash with a kind of retrofitting. It is a question of design philosophy. And this discussion will be very subjective. But let's try to support our opinions with argument.
One rule: the modern synth has to be hardware.
My list of classic monosynths: Minimoog, Odyssey, ARP2600, VCS3/Synthi A, Music Easel, MS20, and Pro-One (as an afterthought). |
I would split these into the patchable hybrids and normalised stage instruments with built in keyboards. Obviously the single VCO class differs from the dual ( or 3 ) VCO monosynths and then there were the duophonics.
My list is a bit different. Some Rolands, like the Roland SH-5, the Octave Instruments Cat series, the Obie SEM class devices, a few of the mono/duo Yamahas as well as the Korg PS series should be mentioned. As for the MS20, it was in fact part of a full range of nice cheap ones. If you look at the full MS series it looks darned good. 
As for the relationship..
| Quote: | | So this thread is dedicated to exploring the relationship of vintage monosynths to contemporary ones |
Hmm.. let me think..
Some of the vintage design choices aren´t really vintage at all. They are as modern as they were back then and still valid.
_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
dualphin
Joined: Jan 25, 2008
Posts: 105
Location: Vermont
G2 patch files: 4
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 3:41 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
and I am thinking about commercially available synths (though the Easel wasn't, was it?).
d
_________________
dualphin!
Heaven is not attained, it is built - |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
EdisonRex
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 07, 2007
Posts: 4579
Location: London, UK
Audio files: 172
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 3:41 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Oh, how to describe my M5N? Haha.
Think about building a classic system with modern parts. And also make the controls have features that the old classic systems couldn't even do.
The oscillators on the M5N don't sound at all like the 2600. The M5 has two filters, neither is like an ARP filter. Okay it has a reverb pan but heck, that's just classic.
It's not laid out at all like the 2600 either, and it is much larger. Ken builds substantial instruments. Yes, it uses sliders, but it has a good number of knobs. The signal path isn't at all like the 2600's.
Stylistically, it resembles a 2600 but I think that's just style. My M5N is painted in beige and black.
_________________
Garret: It's so retro.
EGM: What does retro mean to you?
Parker: Like, old and outdated.
Home,My Studio,and another view |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
dualphin
Joined: Jan 25, 2008
Posts: 105
Location: Vermont
G2 patch files: 4
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 3:34 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
electro,
| Quote: | | Keep in mind that we must decide if we are discussing these devices as if we were collectors or musicians. |
I am discussing as a designer.
| Quote: | | I would split these into the patchable hybrids and normalised stage instruments with built in keyboards. |
Absolutely. I realized this later.
| Quote: | | oSme Rolands, like the Roland SH-5, the Octave Instruments Cat series, the Obie SEM class devices, a few of the mono/duo Yamahas as well as the Korg PS series should be mentioned. |
Okay, you mentioned them. Any ideas for modern comparisons?
Obviously, the SEM and the SEMblance/Semtex, but I was also thinking maybe the FR XS?
You know, there is maybe a spectrum, conservative to adventurous. (How to define that?) Minimoog=conservative, Odyssey=adventurous? And also there is the question of modulation routings, how they are arrived at: mod mixers, switches, multiple mod sources, accessible from one spot on the panel, or scattered about.
Really, the differences on one hand are minimal, but on the other hand, within this small range, there is a lot of diversity. Perhaps there is more diversity now? And the range of design is magnified? I realize that in limiting the contemporary examples to hardware creates an artificial frame, as the real advances now are in software, and the old monosynths were the state of the art for performance instruments. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to expand the question to include software, while keeping the original hardware examples, categorized into normalized mono/duophonic w/keyboard on one side, and patchable semi-modular on the other.
So as the older instruments I mentioned are performance instruments, it would make sense to consider them in comparison to performance-oriented software or hardware. And why not include the modular synthesizers, as well.
And it must be noted, I am young, a second-generation user, who only knows this older gear as vintage, and has limited experience with it. But out of curiosity and enjoyment I am trying to figure out if these older interfaces, in their relationship to the sounds produced, had essential qualities, and if these essential qualities can be seen in today's designs. And I am speaking in terms of modern designs which are not simple imitations of the past. What are the essences of these much-vaunted instruments, and can we find these essences today?
Broadening the inquiry, and barring modern "rereleases" and clones, some possible comparisons:
Buchla 200> Experimentalist, academic, not so much performance oriented, though could be programmed for performance. So, Max/MSP etc.
Moog Modular, Roland 100> Reaktor, that Phys. Modeling Modular software
VCS3/Synthi> Nord NM, G2
Minimoog> This is a hard one. Simpler modulations, but very musical, instrumental sound. Virus Ti?
SEM> Flexible mod routings in a little box, maybe the FRXS? Or maybe the evolver tabletop or Blofeld?
I think part of the fun for me for this is trying to define my question. And I admit, I am playing language games, out of a playful curiosity. I am quite sure there are no essences involved, but I like to imagine there are. And obviously, the morphology I am using is extremely amateurish.
I think, EdisonRex, you are speaking as a musician, and of these instruments as instruments, and not as objects of design. And your comparisons/contrasts are very practical. I think from that perspective, you are quite right in your judgments.
As an aside, or more to the point in a certain way, is there anything you wish the M5 would do but doesn't? Not to find fault with it... rather, I am trying to understand your perspective in terms of my own. So I am asking you to be somewhat speculative. I, in turn, might think more practically.
| Quote: | | The Voyager and the new Prophet are nothing like one another. |
I agree in many respects. Nor is the original Minimoog like the P08. Monophonic, discrete, vs. polyphonic, CEM's. I suppose I was thinking in terms of modulation routings, and I was thinking about the Prophet 5/10, rather than the 08. There we have very musical design. I feel somehow that Smith and Bowen's designs have certain commonalities with Moog's. As if the PolyMod concept is a kind of expansion of the concept original Minimoog's mod routings. How to define that concept?
Anyway, got to write a paper.
d
_________________
dualphin!
Heaven is not attained, it is built - |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21959
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 8:44 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Modern hardware incarnations of classic monosynths? |
Well, there are many near clones of certain "vintage" designs, but the way I see this the dominating trend is that most synth designers will pursue ideas that makes their instruments fairly original.
The DSI Evolver series if brilliant. These are modern and very versatile instruments. Even the desktop Evolver is really nice, but the current winner in the desktop segment is the Waldorf Blofeld. The Evolver concept doesn´t really truly shine unless you get it stuffed into something like MEK or PEK. Keep in mind that I´m not saying that the Evolver dektop brick is a bad product. Far from it, but the concept works better in the keyboard synth form factor.
The Korg Radias is absolutely excellent. I recently sold my own ( no more space in the project studio right now) but I´ll pick up at least one later secondhand.
As for analog monosynths, I still have some of the old ones, but I´ve decided to invest in the dotcom modular system. The dotcom modules are very cheap, very well made and sounds great.
http://www.synthesizers.com/
I think the conclusion is that the hardware synth makers are obviously investing a lot into making original and very musical designs. The software synth market is currently dominated by vintage clones and too much mindless hype. Many of the better softsynths are of course very good and there is nothing virtual about them. These are true instruments.
_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21959
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 11:00 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Minimoog=conservative, Odyssey=adventurous? |
Not really. IMO, these are both slightly different takes on a no-nonsense performance synth. The layout and routing + controls are all still valid. If you ignore for a moment that these synths were designed using oldish technology, then there is nothing vintage or obsolete about the product design as such.
However, if we take a look at many mid 80s to mid 90s synths, then the product design will very often be full of failed concepts and very dated ideas.
Many of these instruments had decent sound engines but everything else including the interface was a swamp of hungry albino alligators. This doesn´t mean that the music made with such instruments will be awful but rather that the instruments themselves were kinda sad.
Early samplers had pretty much the same sickness as the digital synths of the same period but these were still often quite fun. Instead of relying on stupidity alone, the instrument designers would use instinct and silly new ideas. The sound engines in early samplers are often brilliantly cool. The interfaces would suck though. 
_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
EdisonRex
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 07, 2007
Posts: 4579
Location: London, UK
Audio files: 172
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 4:29 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I think, EdisonRex, you are speaking as a musician, and of these instruments as instruments, and not as objects of design. And your comparisons/contrasts are very practical. I think from that perspective, you are quite right in your judgments.
As an aside, or more to the point in a certain way, is there anything you wish the M5 would do but doesn't? Not to find fault with it... rather, I am trying to understand your perspective in terms of my own. So I am asking you to be somewhat speculative. I, in turn, might think more practically.
Quote:
The Voyager and the new Prophet are nothing like one another.
I agree in many respects. Nor is the original Minimoog like the P08. Monophonic, discrete, vs. polyphonic, CEM's. I suppose I was thinking in terms of modulation routings, and I was thinking about the Prophet 5/10, rather than the 08. There we have very musical design. I feel somehow that Smith and Bowen's designs have certain commonalities with Moog's. As if the PolyMod concept is a kind of expansion of the concept original Minimoog's mod routings. How to define that concept?
|
I think both as a musician and as an engineer, but ultimately to me what makes a good instrument is the ease of which I can get my head around it enough to make music come out of it. And by music, this to me is both the notes, but also the timbre. In the case of "old school" analogues like the M5N, the inherent signal flow is probably more significant to me than the characteristics of the components. That said...
The EGs in the M5N are great, the range switches make them extremely useful. Too bad there isn't a third one. The dual LFO is very well thought out as well. I find VCF1 which is the 12dB transconducting opamp one to be a little thin. I am using my SSM2044 filter more than VCF1. The VC panning section after the reverb pan is a fairly good thing. Ultimately I'd like to use my TH quadrature oscillator (when I get around to building it) with the outputs to achieve some old school Orban Parasound effects.
It has taken me a lot more work to get my head around the PEK, on the other hand. The signal flow is convoluted, the list of options is enormous, and it's a modern instrument in the deepest sense. I don't like that external patching to and fro is so bounded. When I played the new P08, I was struck by how much more practical it felt to work with. Much more comfortable. I have actually found the PEK to be one of the most challenging designs to get my head around in years. I've had more luck with the Neuron than the PEK, and the Neuron is totally alien (additive with weird nomenclature) in comparison to the waveform-analog-bastard PEK.
And I bought the breakout box for the Voyager, but all that really gets me is access to the control surfaces in order to use the Voyager as a master to other synthesizers, which I am not that much into doing. I can see where it would be useful in live performance but I haven't been doing that much live performance lately (past 4-5 years).
So perhaps the biggest strength of the M5N is that unlike the Voyager, each module on the M5N is totally accessible and 100+ jacks make it really easy to use pieces of it with other instruments. It's not so easy with any of my others except maybe the Wretch, but even that has limitations not unlike the Voyager's.
I have long considered hacking into my SE-1X to install patch points on it, but that's more of a pipe dream at this point than anything else.
_________________
Garret: It's so retro.
EGM: What does retro mean to you?
Parker: Like, old and outdated.
Home,My Studio,and another view |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
ark
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
Posts: 679
Location: New Jersey
Audio files: 13
G2 patch files: 31
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 5:30 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| elektro80 wrote: | The Korg Radias is absolutely excellent. I recently sold my own ( no more space in the project studio right now) but I´ll pick up at least one later secondhand.
|
Never having used a Radias, I am curious to know what the Radias can do that the G2 can't. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21959
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 5:45 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Well, I´d say nearly nothing, but it is a very different design. The Radias is a good performance synth. The architecture is not as open as the G2 of course but it is quite good. It also sounds really great. I think the Radias has shown that there is still hope for Korg after all. It is not perfect and a few of the design choices are a bit weird. It is both a performance synth and a beat box sequencer looping thingie. The good thing is that they didn´t fuck up anything vital here so IMO the Radias is a really successful design.
I don´t think that it is fair to compare the G2 with the Radias. I mean, the G2 is basically a couple of large rooms filled with synth modules and then some, and the Radias is just a cute little performance synth with a drum synthish sequencer tuned for polka madness thrown in. The G2 is italian espresso injected into your brain and the Radias is a tuna sandwich spiked with crack. It´s as simple as that. 
_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
ark
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
Posts: 679
Location: New Jersey
Audio files: 13
G2 patch files: 31
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 5:58 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| elektro80 wrote: | | I don´t think that it is fair to compare the G2 with the Radias. I mean, the G2 is basically a couple of large rooms filled with synth modules and then some, and the Radias is just a cute little performance synth with a drum synthish sequencer tuned for polka madness thrown in. The G2 is italian espresso injected into your brain and the Radias is a tuna sandwich spiked with crack. It´s as simple as that. |
In other words, not simple at all 
Before buying my G2, I considered a Radias and also a Korg R3. I actually used the G2 on stage this past weekend, but I realize it will be a long time before I can do musically interesting things with it beyond the presets. Now, of course, the reason I picked the G2 was that ultimately I think I will learn more by using it than I would with a Radias; so I guess I was asking this: Once I've learned enough that I can make the G2 do what I want (within its limitations, of course), will it be as useful as a stage instrument as the Radias would have been? I suspect that the answer is yes, with two possible exceptions: (1) 3- vs. 4-octave keyboard, which I can solve by playing it through a different keyboard such as the E-Mu Xboard 49 that I already have; and (2) sequenced drums, which I can get in any of a number of other ways including a laptop.
In other words, I am guessing that there is not much about the Radias that gives it an intrinsically different sound palate from the G2.
(incidentally, this afternoon I realized that I can use the speed with which I take my finger off a key to control the sound, which I think could be very cool for plucked string sounds) |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21959
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
The Radias is not completely successful. The matching keyboard looks great but they missed out on an opportunity at making something really great.
The interface works amazingly well, but it is still slightly too cramped. They should have made it a tad bigger and turned it into a modern desktop PS design ( with wooden sides?). The should have ditched the keyboard altogether and instead made a 76 key matching midi keyboard controller with aftertouch, two joysticks, pitchwheel + modwheel and a few button controls. Such a controller would be perfect for many of us and not only for Radias owners. They should have ditched all the cheap schizo models and kept the PS Radias as the entry point model for synths. OK, I might have allowed them one cheaper polka preset model.. but that is all.
_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21959
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| ark wrote: |
In other words, I am guessing that there is not much about the Radias that gives it an intrinsically different sound palate from the G2. |
Ahh.. uhh.. well.. in fact it does... It really does.. Not in the sense of more complex patches but the Radias has a soul of its own. It is no way better than the G2 but it is different and different is good.
This review gives a fair understanding of what it is about:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr06/articles/korgradias.htm
I´m tempted to mention the Blofeld yet again. If the Waldorf dudes ever decide to revisit the Blofeld design and turn it into a better Radias then they would rule the world.
_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21959
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 6:27 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| ark wrote: | | Once I've learned enough that I can make the G2 do what I want (within its limitations, of course), will it be as useful as a stage instrument as the Radias would have been? |
Yes, I think so.. but still I wonder if comparing these two is a valid approach after all. The G2 is different and it is best suited for tweaking existing patches rather than live on-stage patching. Think back, that is why people bought the Odysseys and Minimoogs and the SH5s and not ordered airdrops of full Moog Modular synths. Uhh.. but still.. an analog modular can be patched live with success. The G2 is not like that.
A point to make is however that if you want a Berlin School TD step sequencer you simply patch and save this on the G2 and you play that patch on-stage. If you need a typical vintage style stage monosyhth you patch this up with the G2 and then play the patch on stage. You build instruments with the G2. 
_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
dualphin
Joined: Jan 25, 2008
Posts: 105
Location: Vermont
G2 patch files: 4
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:38 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I loved the Radias when I played it at Moog Music in Montreal. I thought it would be perfect for John Carpenter-style soundtracks with a modern brightness/clarity/digital graininess.
d
_________________
dualphin!
Heaven is not attained, it is built - |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
dualphin
Joined: Jan 25, 2008
Posts: 105
Location: Vermont
G2 patch files: 4
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:43 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I wonder if there is a way of thinking about synthesizers in terms of their place in synth evolution.
d
_________________
dualphin!
Heaven is not attained, it is built - |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
dualphin
Joined: Jan 25, 2008
Posts: 105
Location: Vermont
G2 patch files: 4
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:44 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Like, how designs differ from what came before... and if later synths differ in the same way. . .
d
_________________
dualphin!
Heaven is not attained, it is built - |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
GovernorSilver
Joined: Apr 26, 2004
Posts: 1349
Location: Washington DC Metro
G2 patch files: 1
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:24 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
The Voyager has a touchscreen which measure X-Y position, and "Area" (how much of your flesh is in contact with the screen). All three parameters have corresponding control voltage signals AND assignable MIDI CC parameters.
No touchscreen on the Minimoog.
Sound is also different but that is because of availabity of certain chips used in the old Minimoog vs. the Voyagers.
_________________
Current and recent work on Soundcloud
Some old stuff on VIRB |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
EdisonRex
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 07, 2007
Posts: 4579
Location: London, UK
Audio files: 172
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:18 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| dualphin wrote: | Like, how designs differ from what came before... and if later synths differ in the same way. . .
d |
I think there is plenty of stuff written about the evolution of certain product streams. However there are a lot of different streams and many of those streams are independent to some degree.
_________________
Garret: It's so retro.
EGM: What does retro mean to you?
Parker: Like, old and outdated.
Home,My Studio,and another view |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
blue hell
Site Admin
Joined: Apr 03, 2004
Posts: 24488
Location: The Netherlands, Enschede
Audio files: 298
G2 patch files: 320
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:31 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
For computers there is this, would be nice to have such a thing for synths.
_________________
Jan
also .. could someone please turn down the thermostat a bit.
 |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
elektro80
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 21959
Location: Norway
Audio files: 14
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:01 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
If we are talking synths as in mass market products then I guess the concept of evolution/progress/innovation in the field of synthesis will be a bit messed up. The mass market products available at any time doesn´t truly say that much about the field as such. There is however of course a certain amount of innovation going on inside companies like Roland, Korg, Waldorf and others but a huge part of that innovation is about making products that can be sold to a specific market. And you gotta throw in the marketing itself. In many cases the only innovative feature to certain products would be the marketing.
EdisonRex pointed out the concept of product streams. A very good point indeed.
Another point to make is the user patterns and the community side to this.
I´d say that a certain amount of innovation should be contributed to the users of synths.
_________________
A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"
MySpace
SoundCloud
Flickr |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
ark
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
Posts: 679
Location: New Jersey
Audio files: 13
G2 patch files: 31
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:46 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| elektro80 wrote: | | Once I've learned enough that I can make the G2 do what I want (A point to make is however that if you want a Berlin School TD step sequencer you simply patch and save this on the G2 and you play that patch on-stage. If you need a typical vintage style stage monosyhth you patch this up with the G2 and then play the patch on stage. You build instruments with the G2. |
Yes, I'm beginning to realize that. It's a meta-instrument. Which means that not only do I need to think about playing music and composing it, but also about composing the instruments on which to play it. Scary.
And if you don't want to put a laptop on stage, forget it.
On the other hand, the things you can do with it! |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Forum index » Discussion » Schmooze
FAQ
Calendar
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Chat Room
