Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: MOTM

previous by date index next by date
previous in topic topic list  

Subject: Re: More MOTM/Moog comparisons

From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
Date: 2000-01-03

> 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
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.


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
> 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.