of course you realize this is a very general and vague question, but here's
my opinion:
the "fatness" of a synth comes primarily from its filter. the eml filter is,
to my ears, pretty sterile sounding, and recalls test equipment. it is very
nice in the higher frequencies, but doesn't do bass notes justice in my
opinion. of course, the eml has one more oscillator than a minimoog (4
total) so you can get a slightly thicker sound off the bat.
the moog is pretty much the epitome of a "fat" sound. there are many
different moogs, and i'm assuming you're referring to a minimoog,
memorymoog, or small modular. any moog will have a very nice filter and
sound great.
the arp originally came with a moog clone filter. arp was taken to court by
moog, and had to change to a different type. if you like the moog sound, i
suggest getting an older arp or having it updated to the moog-type filter.
that said, the later arp filter is nothing to scoff at.
as far as versatility goes, it depends on model. let's assume you're
speaking of an eml 101. because of its patchability, as well as great
internal routing, it would be more versatile than a minimoog or odyessey,
but probably equally versatile to the new moog voyager or an arp 2600. if
you have other synth gear the eml will integrate better with it.
all of these synths are great though, and require a good amount of playing
to make judgements. i had an eml101 (mostly for making textural sounds) and
sold it to buy an ems synthi. i kept my moog rogue, which is great for
classic analog sounds.
/\/\/\--->luther
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 03:13:16 -0000
> From: "spogfrawne" <spogfrawne@...>
> Subject: Moog vs. Eml 101
>
> Would you guys say the EML is Fatter sounding and more
> versatile than the Moog or ARP?
>