Jump to content

What can the Little Phatty do that the Voyager can't?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Originally posted by turretg

I want one of each.

 

That's the way! :D

 

The knobs on the LP actually send out control voltages (like a Minimoog) rather than have their positions sampled (like the Voyager and other synths with program memories). How they do it on a machine with presets, or if it even matters, I don't know. That's the main difference, along with a way more aggressive filter overload with it's own paramater adjustment.

 

You are supposed to want both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by mrcpro


The knobs on the LP actually send out control voltages (like a Minimoog) rather than have their positions sampled (like the Voyager and other synths with program memories).

.

 

 

HUH!!! Can this be true? For REAL?? Sounds like Moog is screwing us with the Voyager only so that the LP can sound better than it should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It won't have anything to do with the sound per se, but it's supposed to more directly connect your knob movements to the synth.

 

From chief engineer Cyril Lance in an interview in Keyboard mag: "What I've implemented is this. When you select a paramater, the knob actually injects the control voltage right into the circuit in analog..." And he trademarked it.... Moog calls it Real Analog Control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by mrcpro

You
are
supposed to want both.

 

Well, it's not working for me. :D

 

75 percent of their tonality is similar.

 

The LP architecture doesn't lend itself to modular interfacing, and that would have been the ideal set up for control voltages. IIRC the Voyager doesn't work all that well with modular either. Some components can't be CV controlled.

 

One other difference between the Voyager and the LP that matters to me is that the Voyager has aftertouch. If you are an old style- multi-keyboardist, you probably need aftertouch.

 

So it's really a compromise, which ever way you go.

 

Don't get me wrong. Both products are great. But with hindsight, they could have spaced out the siblings a little better if they wanted them to appeal to different markets strongly. As it is, LP is more like Voyager-lite.

 

Jerry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So if you use those controls during live performance and are dissatisfied with existing knob-synth connectivity, it might be useful. Otherwise it's not important.

 

Originally posted by mrcpro

It won't have anything to do with the sound per se, but it's supposed to more directly connect your knob movements to the synth.


From chief engineer Cyril Lance in an interview in Keyboard mag: "What I've implemented is this. When you select a paramater, the knob actually injects the control voltage right into the circuit in analog..." And he trademarked it.... Moog calls it Real Analog Control.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by coyote-1

So if you use those controls during live performance and are dissatisfied with existing
knob-synth connectivity
, it might be useful. Otherwise it's not important.

 

 

It would be interesting to find out if this also smooths out CC data..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To be clear about things I wasn't really advocating a Little Phatty over a Voyager, just listing it's differences. I mean check it out- a synth with, what.. four or five knobs with this new technology sharing functions, or one with several times as many that's pretty much one knob per function. And a lot more functions. I like more knobs and more functions. The Voyager is the one to have if money's no object.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by mrcpro

It won't have anything to do with the sound per se, but it's supposed to more directly connect your knob movements to the synth.


From chief engineer Cyril Lance in an interview in Keyboard mag: "What I've implemented is this. When you select a paramater, the knob actually injects the control voltage right into the circuit in analog..." And he trademarked it.... Moog calls it Real Analog Control.

 

 

One explanation someone game at the Moog forums:

 

"Instead of quantizing knob values all the time, like the Voyager, the LP hands over control of the selected parameter to the potentiometer which changes the value directly from the pot = no quantization if you use a knob as a performance control.

 

Values are still quantized however (at a very high rez BTW) for patch storage and recall."

 

Considering the Voyager is sampling the pots with 14 bit resolution (versus MIDI's usual 7 bit), I've never experienced the slightest issue with the responsiveness of the knobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Main differences:

 

1) LP has an assymetric soft clipping circuit (overdrive).

2) LP has RAC - CV from knobs directly to circuits.

3) LP's filter CV passes through the portamento slew generator like its supposed to...V-ger's dosen't.

 

Also, compared to the V-ger, the LP loses an oscillator, a filter, mod routing, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sorry- I should let this one go but I 'm quite amused - and maybe I'm missing something.

 

I own a Voyager and have never noticed any zippering or latency with turning a pot due to the sampling/scanning nature of how this works as is true for all my processor based analogs. I'm pretty sure most digitally controlled analogs (A6, Proph 5, PEK etc.) work this way.

 

Along comes the LP with a new technology called RAC. As I understand it you preset which function(s) you want going to the 4 programmable knobs and then when you turn the knob the control voltage goes directly to that circuit. Isn't that a analog decoder/dmux that allows for this? It's great that you don't need to scan these 4 knobs with a processor after pre-routing the function with a switch first but...RAC? Huh?

 

I love Moog synths BTW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Markyboard


I own a Voyager and have never noticed any zippering or latency with turning a pot due to the sampling/scanning nature of how this works as is true for all my processor based analogs. I'm pretty sure most digitally controlled analogs (A6, Proph 5, PEK etc.) work this way.

 

You can get it wrong (I've got a Prophet 600 around here somewhere ;) ) but other than that one, I've never been aware that I'm not actually physically tuning an oscillator or opening a filter on other well made synths that hide zipper noise. And of course you aren't on anything with patch memory. But just knowing that you actually directly control things on a LP might make you feel more connected... dunno I haven't tried one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by carbon111


3) LP's filter CV passes through the portamento slew generator like its supposed to...V-ger's dosen't.

 

 

A stock V-ger doesn't but Moog does offer a fix for this. I have it in my V-ger.

 

Haven't heard a LP yet but am real curious to try one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by The Real MC

A stock V-ger doesn't but Moog does offer a fix for this. I have it in my V-ger.

 

 

Good to know! Maybe I'll be tempted to grab a V-ger down the road now...

 

 


Haven't heard a LP yet but am real curious to try one.

 

 

Its a fun little beast!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...