MOTM

periodically there are threads on AH whose intent is largely to 
discover whether people can actually tell the difference between 
various VCOs. this usually springs from a thread on how old Moog 
modular VCOs sound "warmer" than modern or digital ones, and why this 
might be.

the upshot of these threads has invariably been that nobody can 
really tell the difference, and the reasons postulated as to why 
Moogs sound better have turned out to be hogwash - eg, software VCOs 
have measurably more jitter than old Moogs, therefore that theory 
gets discredited (again), etc.

(on a whim i did try swapping output opamps between an Oakley VCO 
(TL072, IIRC) and an MOTM-300 (OP275, IIRC), and i did notice a 
little difference, but i doubt i could tell in a blind test.)

hence, i think even AH has (currently, at least) abandoned the notion 
that the make, model, or vintage of a regular ol' sawtooth oscillator 
makes any real difference to the character of a synthesizer. on to 
blind tests on the filters, then :-) and at least in the last test of 
filters, most people did correctly identify the analogue ones. as to 
*how*....

however there are definitely other differences. MOTM oscillators 
track dead-on over a wide range. it's great to know that my MOTM-300 
will be at exactly the same pitch i left it after a power cycle and a 
suitable warm-up period. the precision makes for great FM. and if i 
want an audio sinewave, the 300 does that trick best (in an 
oscillator). etc...

hth
j

>A recent (unsigned) post asked for WAV files of MOTM VCO outputs,
>presumably for comparison with other VCO makes.  I would be interested
>to know whether anyone thinks that recordings suit this purpose very
>well.  Problems would surely dog this approach, vs. actually having the
>modules side-by-side in the same system and doing A-B listening tests.
>
>The files being compared could have been produced with different
>sampling rates.  The recording levels most likely would have been
>different.  The psycho-acoustic effects of simply playing back the
>*same* recording at different levels of amplification can be
>significant.  If it is indeed reasonable to make comparisons this way,
>it seems to me that the recordings being compared would all have to have
>been made in the same studio with all parameters kept as equal as
>possible (as when Paul S. posts samples of different sounds for
>comparison).  Thoughts?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Richard Brewster
>http://www.pugix.com