[sdiy] Another 'view' of the Church of Moog

[phil macnutt]

 Ian,
i suspect you are correct about the tracking.  i bet the arrick vcos stayed together, but the moog vcos started spreading out a little, resulting in a bit more detune.  i'll have to repeat the experiment with a single vco.

phil

On Tuesday, April 18, 2006, at 09:11AM, Ian Fritz <ijfritz at earthlink.net> wrote:

>At 04:38 AM 4/18/06, phil macnutt wrote:
>
>>as a life member of the Church of Moog, the first thing i did when i 
>>received my Arrick modules was to do an AB test against my Minimoog.  I 
>>set up an identical patch, 3 osc slightly detuned, sawtooth, typical of a 
>>realy ripping lead that you would use to melt the voice coils in the house 
>>PA.  I played a note about in the middle of the keyboard on the mini, then 
>>adjusted the Arrick until the sound was identical (to ears, not a 
>>scope).  The arrick sounded full and excellent.  BUT, then i started 
>>walking down the keyboard  toward the bass end on both synths.  the Arrick 
>>responded as expected, linear, precise, great sound.  The mini?  well, as 
>>i walked down, the sound started getting a little richer and fuller and 
>>thicker, and all those adjectives that we use to describe the Moog.  It 
>>just got really warm on the bottom half.  who knows why.  It was not a big 
>>difference, but enough to be very obvious.  i listened in headphones, a 
>>stage amp, and my stereo, and it was the same in !
>>  all three.  maybe my mini has a a bad transistor or something...
>>phil (who's back on due to excellent topics of late)
>
>Did you try to get them to sound the same at the low end?  Maybe the Moog 
>VCOs aren't tracking accurately.
>
>What you are describing could be effects due to using two oscillators, 
>rather than "warmth" of a single one.  Also, are you listening to the 
>oscillators directly, or is there something in the path that might be 
>changing the frequency response slightly?
>
>   Ian
>
>
>
>
>>On Monday, April 17, 2006, at 08:49PM, Paul Schreiber <synth1 at airmail.net> 
>>wrote:
>>
>> >Here is another perspective of the Kenneth vs Kevin 'debate'. And trust 
>> me, no
>> >one has more experience on this very subject than me :(
>> >
>> >I should first preface this with the following: Moog synthesizers are 
>> THE REASON
>> >I switched from being a chemistry major (and I was damn good, rated #2 
>> overall
>> >in Texas high schools, even though I was in a class of 160 people) to an EE
>> >major. I'm sure there are many folks, who back in the say 1970-1974 era 
>> were
>> >total ELP/Moog geeks. Well, I got you beat :) I used to write Bob *fan 
>> letters*.
>> >The love of Moog synths got me not 1 but 2 EE degrees, 9 patents and still
>> >"keeps me going" even today. My lifelong dream was to own a Moog 
>> modular, it
>> >took me *36 years* to get one. And I thought about it every one of those 36
>> >years, too.
>> >
>> >Now, my personal 'like' of the Moog is *not* "how it sounded". In fact, 
>> I don't
>> >think they "sound" all that great. I mean, they are OK, but the 
>> 'problem' is
>> >that Moog never really made many different sorts of modules (he didn't 
>> *have
>> >to*). What *did* impress me more than anything else was that Bob was an
>> >*engineer*, he *designed* these. It wasn't "magic", it was *calculated*. 
>> This is
>> >the attraction of chemistry: if you do A and B and C, then D *will* 
>> happen (in
>> >high school, D was always some sort of explosion).
>> >
>> >In the 70s, being a Moog freak meant lots of Moog records, and THAT 
>> meant a good
>> >stereo. Which I never really had, could not afford it. But I read Stereo 
>> Review,
>> >Hi-Fi Recording, all the 'stereo audiophile' stuff. I used to giggle when
>> >non-engineers would describe stereos like fine wine. Sure, the magazins 
>> always
>> >had a "geek section" of specs and FFTs and whatever. But what struck me 
>> as odd
>> >was such data was always *dismissed*. Even when it was obvious, like the 
>> FFT
>> >showed high IM distortion the reviewer NEVER said "Well, the high IM 
>> distortion
>> >made the oboes sound really bad". I thought this was *very strange*, 
>> that here
>> >is all this data taken with very expensive Bruel & Kjer (sp?) test 
>> equipment
>> >costing $100,000 (at Tandy, we had a B&K reference mic that was flat 
>> from 20Hz
>> >to 20Hz that cost $9,000. In 1977 dollars, the price of a CAR).
>> >
>> >So went I went off to college, I was always thinking in the back of my 
>> mind:
>> >look, there's a *reason* for hearing A from circuit B. It's not "magic", 
>> it's
>> >freakin' parts soldered together. Sure, in some cases the *specific 
>> reason* is
>> >HARD TO UNCOVER (I was talking to the Apogee DAC guys once, and they 
>> discovered
>> >an op amp vendor had redesigned the die to enlage the ESD protection 
>> diodes,
>> >which "changed something" and the DACs "sounded different" past a 
>> certain date
>> >code. The vendor thought they were nuts, but they toook die photos and 
>> hooked up
>> >the Audio Precision and there was like a 0.2dB difference in the *5h 
>> harmonic*.
>> >Was that it? Maybe).
>> >
>> >When I first started poking around the AH group, I just so happened into 
>> this
>> >same sort of discussion (Moog versus the rest). Well, I quickly found 
>> out that
>> >there was a small (but vocal) group that basically stated the Church of 
>> Moog (my
>> >description) is not to be defiled. Which means: Look, it IS MAGIC, OK? 
>> Because
>> >we *need for it to be magic*. If it's not magic, then we can't be gurus 
>> of the
>> >Church of Moog. Which reminds be of an old Kilbran comic: a king is high 
>> on the
>> >castle looking down at his subjects, who are ignoring him. He's shakes 
>> his fist
>> >and yells, "I'm the king! You have to do what I say, or I can't be the King
>> >anymore!".
>> >
>> >See, in the music business, there is a premise. This premise is the #1 
>> selling
>> >tool. This premise is also in golf and tennis. The premise is: if YOU 
>> want to
>> >sound like (or play like) 'X', then you *MUST OWN* the *exact same 
>> stuff* as X.
>> >Because HOW  CAN YOU sound like X any other way? The flaw in this is of 
>> course:
>> >X generally sounds/plays like X no matter what. In many cases X thought 
>> what he
>> >had *was crap*, until the #1 record hit (ie Eddie Van Halen's guitar 
>> used on the
>> >first record).
>> >
>> >What I call "pure musicians" (non-technical) desire some sort of 
>> 'seperation'
>> >from "everyone else". In fact, we *want* musicians (especially the 
>> really good
>> >ones) to be seperate from us (there is something "magical" about them). You
>> >can't play the flute reading about the flute, and building flutes. You can
>> >*understand* the flute, though.
>> >
>> >What am I driving at? That there are people in the music business that 
>> *depend*
>> >on the *magical aspect of equipment*. Old stuff is ALWAYS better than 
>> new stuff,
>> >even though at one time, IT WAS NEW. (Why is a '68 Telecaster better 
>> than one
>> >you buy tomorrow? Is a 2006 Telecaster going to be better than a 2012
>> >Telecaster?). I was completetly caught off-guard with the backlash I 
>> received
>> >(not just from Kevin) anout Moog. Roland? Big deal. Korg....meh. But Moog:
>> >that's a different story.
>> >
>> >I have my dream Moog 55 sitting right here. In fact, 4 of the modules are
>> >Beaver/Krause RA Moog modules. I even have custom made Sonic Arts patch 
>> cords :)
>> >But compared to a similar MOTM system? Sorry, MOTM blows it away. The 
>> 1970 Moog
>> >sounds like a 1970 stereo and 1970 records. Yes, it has a certain 
>> timbre. But
>> >noise and dynamic range? Ha! VCO stability and tracking....pfffftttt! I 
>> have to
>> >turn off the A/C or it goes nuts, and this is with 921s. The VCAs are 
>> not bad,
>> >but they have lots of CV feedthrough. An this is with new Poer One 
>> supplies and
>> >new wiring (the original Moog power supplies were HORRIBLE).
>> >
>> >I personally think VCOs have little to do with the "Moog sound". It 
>> think it's
>> >the VCF>VCA chain more than anything else.
>> >
>> >Paul S.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>