Vintage is overrated. Lesson learned(rant)

[fas1piano]

overrated? yes, owning vintage gear is overrated by hobbyists. a lot.

- let's assume that a vintage synth sounds and feels as much better as a late seventies fender rhodes in good shape sounds better than a clavia nord stage.

- let's also assume someone is interested in making actual music (sequenced or hand played), not some braindead stuff that can only be distinguished by quality of engineering from gazillions of tracks that sound the same.

- and let's assume that most people are musicians/home studio owners. not professional studio owners or sound engineers dedicated to recording other people only.

what does the assumed higher quality of gear owned by a musician possessing vintage gear do for the music?

who would pay 30 usd to listen to dr. lonnie smith on a nord? - quite some people, as this has happened. same for hancock or for stevie wonder or...

would people pay that money to listen to an average good amateur playing a wonderful rhodes or hammond? how many excellent musicians even have or had excellent gear?

so, a year of hard practice, lessons and playing will do A LOT more for a musician than some gear hunt. and the money and effort spent on gear obsession actually lowers the quality of the hobbyist's music by taking away from musical advancement.

[Synthbuilder]

Was that an extensive mod [to the Voyager]? May I ask what the main changes were?

It was a very extensive modification involving a couple of extra circuit boards inside. But unfortunately I'm not able to give any details about it since I was working with help from Moog Music and I signed an NDA with them.

But it added an extra dual VCA board to allow full control over the mod buss levels, increased the usefulness of the aftertouch, altered the overdrive characteristics of the filter, improved the ADSR shape, and made the VCOs more Minimoog like. I passed on the information to Moog and it may be that some of it was used in updates to the Voyager. It was certainly gratefully received at the time.

Tony

[Shy]

I much prefered the sound of MoogPhatty. It was as bouncy as anything, not as bright as the SH2, but it does not have any envelope sound artifacts. That the SH2 example is brighter is irrelevant to me, as I can always EQ the sound in the mix to add as much brightness as I wish. So let no one get hung up on the extra 3dB of brightness here or there. These are irrelevant differences, perhaps revealing different signal chain designs, than any intrinsic failure to meet 'analogue' sound criteria.

Exactly. The Little Phatty's envelopes are great, and as far as the supposedly "lacking" high-end, that's not a problem at all since I can just slightly boost the top end with an EQ to make it to sound just like synths that are more "sheeny" by default. There are no artifacts caused by that whatsoever, it doesn't sound "artificial", and EQing this synth's very balanced overall sound (no over-bass/treble/mid like most vintage synths, including the "sheeny" ones) is much easier.

[Synthbuilder]

what does the assumed higher quality of gear owned by a musician possessing vintage gear do for the music?

Aside from the all the other UI and sonic aspects of older gear - remember that a lot of people really enjoy owning something that is old. There is a beauty in a lot of older gear - something that is not replicated in newer instruments. This alone is enough for many people to warrant the purchase price.

Much like owning a vintage car or antique vases.

[fas1piano]

remember that a lot of people really enjoy owning something that is old

true, i can relate to that and i love certain old and/or beautiful instruments. one of my best friends is a luthier and just entering his shop is magic. also, i could have saved myself some trouble if did not like old architecture as much.

however, to stay inside the analogy, only few people would argue that using old cars they will arrive faster and more comfortably or that antique vases keep the flowers fresher than new ones.

[Uncle E]

It was a very extensive modification involving a couple of extra circuit boards inside. But unfortunately I'm not able to give any details about it since I was working with help from Moog Music and I signed an NDA with them.

Not a problem. That sounds like much more than I'm capable of tackling, anyway. I do hope we see an Oakley-ized Voyager some day!

[Uncle E]

only few people would argue that using old cars they will arrive faster and more comfortably or that antique vases keep the flowers fresher than new ones.

Fortunately, there's so much more to those experiences than driving fast and keeping flowers fresh. I agree with your basic premise but you took it too far bringing up Rhodes, you can't replace the feeling of those tines resonating beneath your fingertips.

btw, the last time I saw Herbie Hancock, he was playing a 9' grand piano.

[Synthbuilder]

however, to stay inside the analogy, only few people would argue that using old cars they will arrive faster and more comfortably or that antique vases keep the flowers fresher than new ones.

I sort of agree with what your saying too. I have no vintage gear these days. For me it's about getting the music down and I can do that much quicker with my small modular and a few choice VSTi.

But I know many people who love using their old gear. It inspires them and leads them down paths they wouldn't probably go with Logic and few softsynths.

Tony

[living sounds]

Thanks for all the examples! But I don't think any sound quite as agressive in their envelope and balanced in the frequency department as well as nicely textured at the same time. Also, from my experience the differences become more apparent when you start mixing. More complex sounds make it clearer as well.

It's true that the trigger pulse in the SH-2 is much more audible. I like it, it adds "snap", but I can see where you're coming from.

Now as for EQ, I tried to use the Phatty in a music context for a few months, using very good analog EQs, but it just didn't work for me. You cannot EQ something in that isn't there in the first place, and there is more to the sound of a circuit than more high end. There is so much gear that measures esentially the same in frequency response (sweep) tests, but still doesn't behave the same with dynamic (music) material. To my ears (using the synths) the SH-2 is a lot more textured, rich, organic, alive or whatever sounding.

I can see that for certain styles and tastes the Phatty is better suited though.

http://www.electric-himalaya.com/stuff/ ... synths.wav

clip 1 - synth A - I feel this one is the closest to the SH2 example.
clip 2 - synth B - not bad but darker. It hasn't got that top shine of Sh2. This is closer to the MoodPhatty example, perhaps.
clip 3 - synth C - using 4 pole LPF. Close to phatty but not quiet. Not as bright as the SH2
clip 4 - synth C - now using 2 pole LPF. The sound is as bright an lush as SH2, with the filter open, but it is diffrent at the start, when the filter is closed. Lacks a bit of body.
clip 5 - synth D - is as bright as SH2, it is not as bouncy though. This sound is spoiled by automation artifacts. When I tweak the cutoff knob manually the sound is clean, but when i automate it, I get some strange artifacts. I left it in the mix, since I liked the overall sound (it's just spoiled by that noise).

Now, the SH2 example you posted was nice, full bodied with a nice top end, but I just don't like that kind of envelope response, since I can hear the envelope snap in between the notes. That's not good for me. Ok, the envelope is fast, but I don't want to hear it. All I want to hear is the sound itself. Nothing else. This was especially annoying when the filter was fully opened. There is that 'flapping' noise, which should not be part of the sound.

I much prefered the sound of MoogPhatty. It was as bouncy as anything, not as bright as the SH2, but it does not have any envelope sound artifacts. That the SH2 example is brighter is irrelevant to me, as I can always EQ the sound in the mix to add as much brightness as I wish. So let no one get hung up on the extra 3dB of brightness here or there. These are irrelevant differences, perhaps revealing different signal chain designs, than any intrinsic failure to meet 'analogue' sound criteria.

[living sounds]

I'm not convinced there's enough, or any, difference between the quality of a TX7 and a plug in like Toxic III or Octopus. (never made the jump into FM8)

Try playing one. It's really cheap, I got mine for like 40 bucks or so. After modding the analog output stage it sounded even better. But then I was never happy with the FM-plugins in the first place.

[living sounds]

Take a look at many of the offerings at:

http://www.musiczeit.com

It would fit in there with all the rest of us. Berlin School inspired electronica.

Thanks alot, looks and sounds great!

[tomg]

however, to stay inside the analogy, only few people would argue that using old cars they will arrive faster and more comfortably or that antique vases keep the flowers fresher than new ones.

I sort of agree with what your saying too. I have no vintage gear these days. For me it's about getting the music down and I can do that much quicker with my small modular and a few choice VSTi.

But I know many people who love using their old gear. It inspires them and leads them down paths they wouldn't probably go with Logic and few softsynths.

Tony

Tony? Yo Dude. Long time no see.

Crystal sent me a PM a week ago. It's good to see some of the old SDIY gang on KVR. So How have I missed you all this time?

Ohhhh I see 213 posts.. You're a ghost.

[living sounds]

It is interesting that no clone of the TB303 sounds exactly like an original. All of them get very close, but in any AB testing, you can normally spot the original. Why this is, is a whole forum of opinions, and we'll probably never get to the bottom of that. But capacitive ageing, capacitor and resistor construction, circuit board layout and different manufacturing processes all must play a small part. Each on their own imperceptible but added together in a whole instrument and they become more apparent.

I think your clone sounds great. Still on my list for things to build one day.

I've read somewhere that the sound of the 303 has something to do with the power supply being undersized and getting too much current draw at certain settings, resulting in the very chracteristic artifacts. No idea if it is true though.

[Hovmod]

I just decided to turn down this:



...and go for this instead:



Vintage may be overrated, but it's more fun than merely ten years old...

[living sounds]

I'm dead serious. Many vintage units lack the sheer synthesis power to do lots of modulations and snappy envelopes. Try doing something basic thing like a percussive e-piano on a vintage analogue - it will sound absolutely terrible. Modern synths are far better music instruments overall. The Andromeda A6(not a vintage) is probably the only analogue that does nice pianos because its got digital envelopes and LFOs.

The Polaris does great pianos. So does the MKS-80/Jupiter-6. I don't like the digital envelopes I've heard so far very much, they seem to produce strange artifacts, less punch and are not as organic. I'm not a big fan of the Andromeda either. I've got a very old cheap mostly discrete analog piano (half dead, unfortunately) lying around somewhere, this thing has the best piano envelopes I've heard on anything other than a Rhodes. Very fast, very natural.

Also, generalized statements like "modern synths are far better music instruments overall" aren't very helpfull, I think.