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

[phil macnutt]

 Paul has it down cold.

I represent the listening side, as i don't know anything about circuit design, all i can do is listen and see what sounds better, so i thought i'd offer a little info here.

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)


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.
>
>
>
>
>