MOTM

Paul, check out this thread! ;-)
http://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1568

Damn yoooouu! You couldn't wait until AFTER my modules ship? ;)



On Sep 2, 2008, at 12:33 PM, JohnLeightonRice wrote:

> Paul, check out this thread! ;-)
> http://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1568
>
>


NOTICE: This electronic mail message and its contents, including any attachments hereto (collectively, "this e-mail"), is hereby designated as "confidential and proprietary." This e-mail\ufffdmay be viewed and used only by the person to whom it has been sent and his/her employer\ufffdsolely for the express purpose for which it has been disclosed and only in\ufffdaccordance with any confidentiality or non-disclosure (or similar) agreement between TEAC Corporation or its affiliates and said employer, and may not be disclosed to any other person or entity. \ufffd
\ufffd

 


\ufffd

> Damn yoooouu! You couldn't wait until AFTER my modules ship? ;)
>> Paul, check out this thread! ;-)
>> http://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1568

I don't lose a lot a of sleep over Eric's ranting.

Paul S.

Sorry Paul. I was thinking it was all in good fun and didn't stop to think
that there might be some possibly negative history lurking around. I'm such
a noob. I'll shut up now and go back to getting my power supply wired up and
mounted! ;-)

John

-----Original Message-----
From: motm@yahoogroups.com [mailto:motm@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Schreiber
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 1:06 PM
To: MOTM List; Jeff Laity
Subject: Re: [motm] FYI: new 5U / large format sub forum over at Muff's

> Damn yoooouu! You couldn't wait until AFTER my modules ship? ;)
>> Paul, check out this thread! ;-)
>> http://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1568

I don't lose a lot a of sleep over Eric's ranting.

Paul S.


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Paul has friends all over. Like his old buddy Peake, keeper of the  
Moog Family Honor.

http://www.electro-music.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28557&postorder=asc

On Sep 2, 2008, at 7:16 PM, John L Rice wrote:

> Sorry Paul. I was thinking it was all in good fun and didn't stop to  
> think
> that there might be some possibly negative history lurking around.  
> I'm such
> a noob. I'll shut up now and go back to getting my power supply  
> wired up and
> mounted! ;-)
>
> John

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Laity <synthetic@...> wrote:
>
> Paul has friends all over. Like his old buddy Peake, keeper of the  
> Moog Family Honor.
> 
> http://www.electro-music.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28557&postorder=asc
> 

That was some funny reading.  To some of those people can I just say
"GET A LIFE!".

If Bob Moog could have made oscillators that drift less and circuitry
that was quieter back in the 60's, he would have!  So now you want to
purposefully reproduce those old circuit designs?  Have fun!

The whole reason I buy MOTM is because Paul is one of the very few
people that use modern circuit designs and high quality components. 
Certainly some components are chosen for "vintage" sounds but
otherwise MOTM is as state of the art as it gets in analog synthesis.

I wonder if some of these guys use old PC's to cruise the internet
because the new ones just make everything look too harsh.

Ivan

>If Bob Moog could have made oscillators that drift less and circuitry
>that was quieter back in the 60's, he would have!  So now you want to
>purposefully reproduce those old circuit designs?  Have fun!
>
[snip]
>
>Ivan

Ivan,
Why be so dismissive? It's great that there are so many modules to choose from, nowadays. While the old Moog VCOs were not intentionally unstable, the fact remains that they have a distinct sound. Personally, I am not interested in duplicating that sound -- certainly not to the extent of getting unstable VCOs -- but I understand that some people are.

John

>Why be so dismissive? It's great that there are so many modules to choose from, nowadays.


The plethora of modules is a great thing. To each their own. 

My point was the people dismissing Paul/JH's "Moog-like" filter because it wasn't an exact clone. And then goin on how they can only use those "true" Moog circuits. 

Back in the day they weren't designing circuits for that "special" sound. They were designing them as best as possible given the componentry and understanding at the time. But now years later it is that "magical" design. Alrighty then...

Ivan

>>Why be so dismissive? It's great that there are so many modules to choose from, nowadays.
>
>
>The plethora of modules is a great thing. To each their own. 
>
>My point was the people dismissing Paul/JH's "Moog-like" filter because it wasn't an exact clone. And then goin on how they can only use those "true" Moog circuits. 

Oh! Sorry, I missed that, obviously reading too quickly. Looks like I agree with you, then. :-)


>Back in the day they weren't designing circuits for that "special" sound. They were designing them as best as possible given the componentry and understanding at the time. But now years later it is that "magical" design. Alrighty then...

What you say is true, but sometimes the old stuff has something magical about it. An example that I like to mention is Tom Oberheim's comment on the evolution from OB-X to OB-Xa to OB-8; each synth was cleaner and theoretically "better" than the previous model, but in retrospect he decided that the earlier ones have more character. (I think this story comes from Mark Vail's book.) I suppose the 2/4/8-voice has the most character of all.

John

Ivan writes:
>>That was some funny reading.  To some of those people can I just say "GET
A LIFE!".<<

My thoughts exactly.  I had to drop in a post to point out that so much of
the B.S. they're spouting has already to shown false by me in past
ridiculous threads like that.  The problem is some people's brains don't
have the ability to aquire information and modify their thinking.  Posting
on these forums is like talking to people with Alzheimer's disease.  Since
the magical 901 oscillator was brought up in that thread, I of course had to
point out all the falsehoods that people keep bringing up.  Facts: the moog
waveforms aren't different than everybody elses, the 901 doesn't sound
different than others, there is not more jitter in it, and drift can easily
be programmed in.  They just can't seem to learn simple child-like concepts.

And then there is the big picture of too many people obscessing over such
details and yet they have nothing to show for it.  A lot of it comes from
trying to compensate for lack of talent in the synthesis and music side.  I
have to point out again that nobody has put out any quality synth album, and
maybe no synth album at all based on a Moog modular in close to 3 decades
now.  So all that inane talk about how great their Moogs sound, when all
they're being used for is wall decorations collecting dust, is just a waste
of time.  I've gotten by without owning a 901 oscillator, or authentic
Minimoog filter, and it hasn't hindered me.

John Mahoney writes:
>>What you say is true, but sometimes the old stuff has something magical
about it. An example that I like to mention is Tom Oberheim's comment on the
evolution from OB-X to OB-Xa to OB-8; each synth was cleaner and
theoretically "better" than the previous model, but in retrospect he decided
that the earlier ones have more character. (I think this story comes from
Mark Vail's book.) I suppose the 2/4/8-voice has the most character of
all.<<

Yes, that's from Mark Vail's book.  But the problem is some people keep
making up baseless fantasies about individual components in the synth.  The
Moog may sound different because a number of things ranging from it's
filter, exponential VCA, low voltage levels with slewing and distortion.
But saying things like the Moog has magical waveforms has already been shown
false.  And of course there are years of history on these forums of people
failing blind listening tests, something else they can't seem to learn from.
So in the end it comes back to "get a life".

-Elhardt
"The current revival in analog synthesizers has spawned a lamentable
abundance of mechanically repetitive, amelodic, soulless, robo-porn tracks
that are banal at best and enervating at worst." - record reviewer

Hi All,

It seems subjects like this bring out an utter lack of humility and 
orginality (and no lack of drama and judgment) from everyone involved. 
Do we really need to waste more time on this, and divide our already 
small community into the talented geniuses and the mouth-talking 
idiots? It's inane, banal, insipid and repetitive!

Scott Deyo
The Bridechamber
contact@...
http://www.bridechamber.com
Jealous Edison Record Kompany
http://www.jealousedison.com

On Sep 3, 2008, at 4:47 PM, Kenneth Elhardt wrote:

> Ivan writes:
>  >>That was some funny reading. To some of those people can I just say 
> "GET
>  A LIFE!".<<
>
>  My thoughts exactly. I had to drop in a post to point out that so 
> much of
>  the B.S. they're spouting has already to shown false by me in past
>  ridiculous threads like that. The problem is some people's brains 
> don't
>  have the ability to aquire information and modify their thinking. 
> Posting
>  on these forums is like talking to people with Alzheimer's disease. 
> Since
>  the magical 901 oscillator was brought up in that thread, I of course 
> had to
>  point out all the falsehoods that people keep bringing up. Facts: the 
> moog
>  waveforms aren't different than everybody elses, the 901 doesn't sound
>  different than others, there is not more jitter in it, and drift can 
> easily
>  be programmed in. They just can't seem to learn simple child-like 
> concepts.
>
>  And then there is the big picture of too many people obscessing over 
> such
>  details and yet they have nothing to show for it. A lot of it comes 
> from
>  trying to compensate for lack of talent in the synthesis and music 
> side. I
>  have to point out again that nobody has put out any quality synth 
> album, and
>  maybe no synth album at all based on a Moog modular in close to 3 
> decades
>  now. So all that inane talk about how great their Moogs sound, when 
> all
>  they're being used for is wall decorations collecting dust, is just a 
> waste
>  of time. I've gotten by without owning a 901 oscillator, or authentic
>  Minimoog filter, and it hasn't hindered me.
>
>  John Mahoney writes:
>  >>What you say is true, but sometimes the old stuff has something 
> magical
>  about it. An example that I like to mention is Tom Oberheim's comment 
> on the
>  evolution from OB-X to OB-Xa to OB-8; each synth was cleaner and
>  theoretically "better" than the previous model, but in retrospect he 
> decided
>  that the earlier ones have more character. (I think this story comes 
> from
>  Mark Vail's book.) I suppose the 2/4/8-voice has the most character of
>  all.<<
>
>  Yes, that's from Mark Vail's book. But the problem is some people keep
>  making up baseless fantasies about individual components in the 
> synth. The
>  Moog may sound different because a number of things ranging from it's
>  filter, exponential VCA, low voltage levels with slewing and 
> distortion.
>  But saying things like the Moog has magical waveforms has already 
> been shown
>  false. And of course there are years of history on these forums of 
> people
>  failing blind listening tests, something else they can't seem to 
> learn from.
>  So in the end it comes back to "get a life".
>
>  -Elhardt
>  "The current revival in analog synthesizers has spawned a lamentable
>  abundance of mechanically repetitive, amelodic, soulless, robo-porn 
> tracks
>  that are banal at best and enervating at worst." - record reviewer
>
>  
>

On Sep 3, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Ivan wrote:
> I wonder if some of these guys use old PC's to cruise the internet
> because the new ones just make everything look too harsh.

i don't know about that, but even though i've got broadband, millions- 
colour depth, and HD resolution, i still make sure you can browse my  
site(s) on Lynx. haha.
---
Suit & Tie Guy
suitandtieguy.com
stgsoundlabs.com