At 9:29 AM -0500 08/06/02, Paul Schreiber wrote:
>
>The last paragraph in the User's section ∗specifically∗ states, the
>>MOTM-490 is NOT a Minimoog filter, and DOES NOT sound like a Minimoog.
You mean in the MOTM-490 manual you hadn't put up yet?? :)
>So, no Rick Wakeman, but you goy Wendy Carlos :)
Wendy Carlos is the last person I'd ask about "replacing equipment"!!
As far as Wakeman is concerned, he had Squire to do the job my Mini-Moog
most often does (no, I never listened to his solo stuff). Imho, its pitch
is too unstable for leads. I also use it for "FM" patches which are
inherently dissonant.
>To ward off the NEXT question: in order to ∗sound∗ like a Mini, you have
>to >integrate BOTH VCF and VCA, as the two interact.
That's what I've heard, but I don't know how subtle or complex that
interaction is, or whether or not the difference is worth the real estate.
Otoh, the "rising filter" effect is noticeable, but I don't know if its the
EG or the filter itself. Anyone have an answer??
At 6:59 PM +0000 08/06/02,
elhardt@... wrote:
>
>You just need to patch up a
>sound to the point where it sounds great. Whether a Mini
>can or can't duplicate it is a non-issue.
It's not if you are already using a Mini to make certain sounds. If you
don't care about being able to reproduce those sounds, only then, does it
become a non-issue.
At 9:44 AM -0500 08/06/02, J. Larry Hendry wrote:
>
>I don't own a Mini, but I do own a Micro. And, I can say without
>reservation it is my favorite non-modular mono-synth of those I have owned.
>Unlike modular, which I am still struggling with, the Micro provides me
>>with instant gratification and a uniquie sound I have been unable to
>>duplicate on other synths.
I often feel that way about my SH-101 which is inarguably a piece of crap
-- too crappy to be ever be replaced by MOTM. While I never found modular
programming to be a struggle, I can't play notes on a keyboard using both
hands. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.
>So, is a MiniMoog worth the inflated prices they bring today? Apparently,
>as they continue to trade regularily. My guess is you have to own or have
>owned one to really appreciate why. Personally, I have yet to be able to
>turn loose of that kind of cash for something that old (I bought my Micro
>for $100 before analog was back in style).
I think I paid $300 for my Mini, but old is a definite factor. When it
breaks (not if it breaks), I might not be able to fix it. You can't buy
op-amps in cans. One of the reasons I chose MOTM was its build quality.
If I didn't care about reliability, I could buy a hundred Doepfer modules ;)
The same goes for my Garfield Dr. Click. It's about 20 years old, and it
works fine now. The problem is that it contains a couple hundred logic
chips -- in a couple hundred sockets. That, and with a length of chain, it
could keep a boat nicely in place. As soon as ST releases their pulse
divider module, I'm buying at least one of them, and the Dr. Click is out
of here!
I'm one of those annoying people who sticks to his word like velcro, and
even though I said I was going to wait until I can finish everything before
placing another motm order, the way things are going now, I'll probably
have to settle on more "meat and potatoes" before the year is out.
Although right now, I shouldn't even be taking the time to write this
email!!
>I think it would be great to hear from MOTMers who own both to tell us why
>thay "must keep" the Mini or why they are considering selling it at today's
>inflated prices to finance more modular.
What I have to decide for myself is keeping the Mini a practical decision,
or am I in love with a wooden keyboard that says "Moog" on it. Chances are
I will probably keep it. Since it has a Calzone case, I could just put it
in storage.
>Most of the time I used to spend using my synths has been replaced by
>>building and wiring cabinets, doing metal design work, converting Blacet
>>modules, running a web site, and the list goes on.
Well, it's certainly appreciated!! Still, I completely understand your
point, and it goes back to the reliability issue. I would rather spend
more time producing and less time on future repairs.
I'm also thinking of moving to the city, so I'm also big on downsizing --
replacing the tower Mac and Digidesign with a TiG4 and Metric Halo, keeping
fewer than four mixers, selling off some vintage tube gear, perhaps even
replacing hardware with software, etc.
In comparison to a pile of different keyboards, MOTM is actually space
efficient!!! That's right, I just used "MOTM" and "space efficient" in the
same sentence without using drugs. How is this possible?? First off, MOTM
modules can be mounted vertically and they are only about 4" deep.
Secondly, using a flexible set of modules with a multitrack eliminates a
certain redundancy. With a 440, 420, and 490, you could "replace" a Pro
One, MS-20, and a mono Moog, with only two 300's as opposed to six. Keep
in mind that at this point I don't own a single analogue polysynth.
One thing that does take up a great deal of horizontal space is my
collection of stomp boxes and non-rack effects, but I don't think there is
anyway around that -- you can't integrate software plug-ins with a hardware
modular. I think an anti-gravity interface should be added to the 500
series -- that way I can leave my Biphase and Space Echo floating around in
mid-air tethered only by patch cords :)