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

[Paul Schreiber]

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.