> I was quite suprised at how similar I could get these two filters to sound > with low level inputs. This is important to note! The '420 is designed *on purpose* to overload the filter, because that's what the MS-20 did (does). > I just used the sawtooth output of the MOTM 300 as > input to both filters. With no resonance on either filter, the difference > between the slopes was evident though. I could hear more harmonics coming > through on the MOTM. Correct. Now put *two* '420s in series, both on LP! > > Both filters seemed to have non-linearities as the resonance was cranked. > I can't quite describe the character of each in words but both were very > cool sounding. The '420's Q is a function of the input level. High high input levels, the Q is shifting as the input waveform. Freaky! > > Maybe another way of describing the difference was > that the MOTM sounded more "muscular" than the Moog when overloaded. > Again, both were very musically useful and interesting. Nice to hear that the humble '420 is holding it's own against Dr. Bob. > > I tried using a sample & hold with a slow sawtooth input on both filters to > get them jumping around the frequencies to hear differences. I was again > surprised at the similar sound I could get out of the MOTM at low input > levels. The Moog sounded a tad bit better in this situation wtih the > resonance cranked getting just a bit more of the classic strong "beeoow" > sweep sound. The upcoming '440 will 'beeoooww' as well. Paul S.
Message
Re: More MOTM/Moog comparisons
2000-01-03 by Paul Schreiber
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.