> Has anyone ever looked at a moog modular on a scope? Spikes, overshoots, crosstalk everwhere. It looks like an electron battlefield.> Dangerous, dangererous! I have seen *other* people being flamed and hunted to the end of the world for remarks like this. I'm curious if Peake will start a 4-years-long anti-Arrick campaign for Moog-bashing now. As for that review, I was *surprised* to see it on that huge public forum AH, posted by somebody who really likes that system in general. I guess in a less heated climate, such a review would not cause so much ripple at all. The effect is magnified by those gentlemen who always demonize MOTM for being "overspec'ed". If it wasn't for them, and their emphasis that you can get the same quality from ".com" for less, it would not create such a fuzz. So I feel sad for the reviewer who has caused more trouble than he intended. But it's not his fault (and you can hardly blame Paul either, for quoting from the biggest public web forum for analogue synthesizers - it's like taking a clip from a big newspaper and showing it around in the family). It*'s the fault of those who make a "good vs. evil" affair out of it. They are feeding the flames higher and higher, and then they are surprised when the first big explosion happens on a side they didn't expect. Just my opinion, of course. JH.
Message
Re: [motm] Re: modules review
2002-06-19 by jhaible@debitel.net
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.