Members ae5 Posted June 9, 2004 Members Share Posted June 9, 2004 does it sound just as nice/fat? the obvious things of it being new (and thus not likely to need maintenance soon) and having midi i/o built in are real nice. if it sounds as good as the old ones i think i'm sold. also is it worth it to get the annaversary edition over the regulr performer one? if so what are the advantages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Prog Posted June 9, 2004 Members Share Posted June 9, 2004 I can't tell the two apart. I'd do the new one. Even Rick Wakeman uses a new one. It's made by Moog and Bob Moog is right there, so at least it's authentic! I think it has 512 locations for patch memory, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 13ghostsofscoobydoo Posted June 9, 2004 Members Share Posted June 9, 2004 The Voyager covers all that the mini did, plus a whole lot more. Take into account that it's newer and under warranty. If you add the cp251 and vx351 you open a whole new world. The only difference between the Signature/Performer/Anniversary is aesthetics (wood type, colors, free bags, lamps, length of warranty etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members coyote-1 Posted June 9, 2004 Members Share Posted June 9, 2004 I did a gig this past weekend which my brother attended. He asked what keyboard I'd like next, and I said "I have all I can handle, but if I could get a new Minimoog.... " He's now calling me every day, trying to persuade me to buy the thing! Originally posted by ae5 does it sound just as nice/fat? the obvious things of it being new (and thus not likely to need maintenance soon) and having midi i/o built in are real nice. if it sounds as good as the old ones i think i'm sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fancy Fingers Posted June 9, 2004 Members Share Posted June 9, 2004 Originally posted by paostby I can't tell the two apart. I'd do the new one. Even Rick Wakeman uses a new one. It's made by Moog and Bob Moog is right there, so at least it's authentic! I think it has 512 locations for patch memory, too. Yes he does, I saw him in concert last week with an original mini and a voyager! Interestingly, he favoured the old moog, using it 9 times out of ten, despite the hassle of not having presets and dialing in the sounds between songs. For me this proves it must have some extra magic over the voyager. In fact, it sounded much better too, and I came to that conclusion BEFORE I was able to get closer to the stage and see which was which! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alex D Posted June 9, 2004 Members Share Posted June 9, 2004 I have heard the filter section sounds slighty different between the two. Not better or worse just a little different texture. Could be becasue of the age of the parts, like degrading or they just couldn't produce a exact copy that came with the first run mini moogs. That and doesn't mini have the ability to produce a sine wave and voyager doesn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ae5 Posted June 9, 2004 Author Members Share Posted June 9, 2004 you can store presets!!!?!what, are the knobs digital? if not how does it store presets? so i can dial in weird sounds and SAVE THEM? i'm friggin sold if this is the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members analogaddict Posted June 9, 2004 Members Share Posted June 9, 2004 Originally posted by ae5 you can store presets!!!?!what, are the knobs digital? if not how does it store presets?so i can dial in weird sounds and SAVE THEM?i'm friggin sold if this is the case. Yes, you can store presets. There Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ae5 Posted June 9, 2004 Author Members Share Posted June 9, 2004 Originally posted by analogaddict Yes, you can store presets. There Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jimmyzegg Posted June 9, 2004 Members Share Posted June 9, 2004 Originally posted by NightChildren I am putting my money on a MacBeth M5. It is way more loaded than the Moog. I also beleve that Ken uses better parts. The pots are unreal. I am sure the sliders and the pots on the M5 will be top-notch. I have considered, and played a Voyager. I have had my hands on an M3 a few times. For needs here, MacBeth's M5 is more top-notch than the Voyager. If I were rich, or crazy, I would own both. Since I am poor and the purchase equals a year of HARD saving, the M5 is a more logical purchase. I am dying to see a real picture of the thing. The price is also on my mind. I am guessing it will be in the range of the Voyager. I do think both synths will be considered almost instant collector's items. Hey NC....no offense dude, but the M5 commercial wasn't exactly ontopic here....this person obviously wants a Minimoog of some kind....and the Macbeth can't replace a Minimoog any more than a Minimoog can replace an M5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Texas Noise Factory Posted June 9, 2004 Members Share Posted June 9, 2004 Originally posted by Fancy Fingers Yes he does, I saw him in concert last week with an original mini and a voyager! Interestingly, he favoured the old moog, using it 9 times out of ten, despite the hassle of not having presets and dialing in the sounds between songs. For me this proves it must have some extra magic over the voyager. In fact, it sounded much better too, and I came to that conclusion BEFORE I was able to get closer to the stage and see which was which! interesting. logic tells me that he's had an original minimoog for 30+years now, and since the layout of the Voyager is a bit different, it's probably easier for him just to use the original synth that he recorded with rather than trying to mess with the voyager to get the exact same sound... If anything, I'd think that was the extra magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ae5 Posted June 10, 2004 Author Members Share Posted June 10, 2004 i've heard of macbeth sound systems, and motm, and modcan, and doepfer, etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Is. Posted June 10, 2004 Members Share Posted June 10, 2004 Originally posted by Jimmyzegg Hey NC....no offense dude, but the M5 commercial wasn't exactly ontopic here....this person obviously wants a Minimoog of some kind....and the Macbeth can't replace a Minimoog any more than a Minimoog can replace an M5. I don't own a Macbeth or a Moog of any kind, but I think not only is your comment unwarranted, it's incorrect. From the looks of things, the M5 could easily replace a Minimoog, although I do agree that the opposite isn't true. Ken designs his synths with a Moog-like analog discrete sound in mind, and the M5 is very feature-rich. Granted, it's a rackmount unit and not a complete performance synth like the Minimoog, but small tabletop racks and 3 octave MIDI controllers are easy to come by. It's worth mentioning, anyway. As an aside, I think that if I ever buy another synth (besides possibly hopefully upgrading to a G2X someday) it would be a small analog modular or semi modular system. Actually, the Cwejman S1 looks pretty neat to me since it's just such a unique piece. The M5 is also very intiguing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Analog Kid Posted June 10, 2004 Members Share Posted June 10, 2004 actually, the M5 isnt a rackmount design anymore, and i would expect it to cost more than the Voyager Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kirumamoru Posted June 10, 2004 Members Share Posted June 10, 2004 Actually, if I recall correctly, the knobs are analog, but their output goes through a high-resolution A-to-D conversion (16 bits?) which then can be stored as patch information. Then the digital signal goes through a D-to-A conversion before being sent to the sound-making circuitry. Which, you know, seems awfully unanalog to me. But hey, if it works, and people are happy, fine. I just think it's interesting that for such a hyped analog synth, there is this huge digital component that's integral to the sound-making experience. Kiru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members clusterchord Posted June 10, 2004 Members Share Posted June 10, 2004 i'm really interested in M5 as well, but i wouldnt say "model x can replace a minimoog" so easily. It's been tried over and over again, and nothing comes close, except voyager in some aspects of sound. to address some other reply here; it is not enough to immitate arhitecture (3osc, ladder filter etc) and have discrete components to sound like a mini.. some people who have both or tried both say, compared to mini, voyager has if only slightly slower envelopes, a bit different sounding filter altough more capable (2 filters in a series actually, but with single resonance control), and it is less fat. "less" as within the moog world (neat picking). moogheads usually define distribution of moog fatness like this: moogmodular/R.A.Moog Minimoog (early) > Minimoog Model D (standard) > Voyager Also about comparison of M5 and Voyager; once you're in the realm of high quality analogics, qualifications like "better" or "worse" adhere to individual taste only... so onto the macbeth site for me, gotta see whats new Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members keanu reeves Posted June 10, 2004 Members Share Posted June 10, 2004 Originally posted by clusterchord a buncha {censored} i agree with. i concur! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Is. Posted June 10, 2004 Members Share Posted June 10, 2004 Originally posted by clusterchord i'm really interested in M5 as well, but i wouldnt say "model x can replace a minimoog" so easily. It's been tried over and over again, and nothing comes close, except voyager in some aspects of sound. to address some other reply here; it is not enough to immitate arhitecture (3osc, ladder filter etc) and have discrete components to sound like a mini.. Well, it depends on how you define close. What I'm saying is that the M5 could (probably, it's not technically out yet) cop any sound a Minimoog could, and with an extremely similar tonality. Would it be a 1:1 emulation of a Minimoog? No, of course not. Would you be able to hear the difference if the two were side by side? Sure. But the real trick is - would people (even synth enthusiasts and even most Moog owners, probably) believe that the sounds coming out of an M5 were actually coming out of a Minimoog if that's what you told them? I believe the answer is that in almost all cases, that's a lie people would believe, and in the end, that's what counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fancy Fingers Posted June 10, 2004 Members Share Posted June 10, 2004 Originally posted by Texas Noise Factory interesting. logic tells me that he's had an original minimoog for 30+years now, and since the layout of the Voyager is a bit different, it's probably easier for him just to use the original synth that he recorded with rather than trying to mess with the voyager to get the exact same sound... If anything, I'd think that was the extra magic. hMM. I'm not so sure. I thought the voyager was the same as the original but with some additions, many of which actually make it more suitable for scene work (presets, touch pad, velocity sensitive keys etc). So why would he need two minimoogs anyway, especially if he only uses the voyager once during the whole concert? Perhaps he's sponsored and has a deal with moog where he is paid to prominently display the voyager... but he won't give up the original Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members funkstar Posted June 10, 2004 Members Share Posted June 10, 2004 Originally posted by Kirumamoru Actually, if I recall correctly, the knobs are analog, but their output goes through a high-resolution A-to-D conversion (16 bits?) which then can be stored as patch information. Then the digital signal goes through a D-to-A conversion before being sent to the sound-making circuitry. Which, you know, seems awfully unanalog to me. But hey, if it works, and people are happy, fine. I just think it's interesting that for such a hyped analog synth, there is this huge digital component that's integral to the sound-making experience. Kiru I believe you're correct about the conversion resolution. I also believe that if anybody thinks that they can control a pot to within 1 part in 65 thousand, then they are mistaken. That would amount to less than a third of a second of angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kirumamoru Posted June 10, 2004 Members Share Posted June 10, 2004 Originally posted by funkstar I believe you're correct about the conversion resolution. I also believe that if anybody thinks that they can control a pot to within 1 part in 65 thousand, then they are mistaken. That would amount to less than a third of a second of angle. Heh... that's a pretty damned fine increment. Of course, I think that the convenience of saving the patches far outweighs the inclusion of the A-to-D and D-to-A conversions... but then again, I don't worship pure analog the way some people do. So it might not bother me... or you... but I'm surprised that I haven't heard more people bitching about it. Kiru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mrcpro Posted June 10, 2004 Members Share Posted June 10, 2004 OK, I'm going to go into an area I really don't know much about (but it's been explained to me by techs) so feel free to correct anything here The early non-programmable analogs have pots and switches that are directly connected to the circuits that they control. On anything that's programmable, they're not. All the control hardware is connected to a section of a synth's circuitry that's separate from the sound production area. These knobs and switches are being constantly scanned by processor that's looking for a change in position, and when you adjust... say, filter cutoff...the processor sends that information to the filter circuitry. When you save a sound, the processor notes the position of each knob and stores that as digital information that's later recalled as voltage. So...in order to give the illusion that you are actually adjusting filter cutoff on a programmable machine, a lot of things have to be in place...fast scanner speed, good D/A converters, proper software. You can tell when things aren't right if you hear stairstep artifacts when you move a knob in real time. On a vintage machine like the original Minimoog, of course, everything's smooth as butter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members psychoschism Posted June 10, 2004 Members Share Posted June 10, 2004 ae5, check your pms OK here is my opinion, as a user of both, side by side. fwiw i have an early version mini, discrete version (non-ua726). yes they are a bit more animated, uncontrolling and drifty than the later minis...i've had both. so i must admit the mini is bassier than the voyager. the waveforms sound a bit different too. the voyager is smoother up high which is actually better for leads. the mini is "rounder" so better for thick basslines, especially funk. both have that "growl" (from the filter). the filters are pretty similar. the mini is a bit more brasher while the voyager is smoother, perhaps a bit lusher. the envs are pretty similar. they are both clicky. the lack of a true release on the minimoog's envelope is annoying sometime. the voyager doesn't have this problem. the voyager also has a real lfo which the mini does not. further more the voyager offers sync, tons of cv ins and outs (via the expansion box). the interface on the original mini is much more immediate (mainly due to lack of parameters). you can sit at it and get a good sound in 5 seconds. the voyager takes more work but once you get used to it can act similar. the touchpad on the voyager is VERY nice. i was sceptical when i first saw it, especially in the middle of the keyboard, but it works extremely well and works as a great "controller". also the continuously variable waveforms on the voyager can lead to some cool sounds. the voyager obviously has a lot more going for it: nice midi controls, filter seperation (great for fx) and more modes, a *killer* look with the anniversary edition =) etc. still, the mini has what counts: unbeatable sound and immediate, hands-on interface. so if you're looking for pure sound and nothing but it, from a discrete analog purist point of view, get the old early minimoogs and be prepared to tune and maintain it occasionally. its worth it...something i'm willing to put up with. but if you want a pretty good analog sound, a monosynth that is ultimately flexible (makes a great front-end for a modular *plus* you can link voyagers for multiple voices if you've got the cash =) ) and more then get the voyager. btw yes macbeth products do rock as well:) bye, shawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mrcpro Posted June 10, 2004 Members Share Posted June 10, 2004 Thanks, Shawn Hey, is there much difference in keyboard feel? I've never played a Voyager, but I'm wondering if that might be a reason why Rick Wakeman seemed to prefer his old Minimoog... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Learning67 Posted June 10, 2004 Members Share Posted June 10, 2004 Originally posted by Fancy Fingers So why would he need two minimoogs anyway, especially if he only uses the voyager once during the whole concert? Perhaps he's sponsored and has a deal with moog where he is paid to prominently display the voyager... but he won't give up the original it wouldnt be Rick Wakeman without two mini's on stage! So many live shots of YES...thats his setup. It would be like seeing Keith without the big modular (which I bet he could replace with a voyager for everything he does live!) Im pretty sure there are tunes where there are two synth lines going at once, thus requiring two synths. It also allows him to have two sounds available so he doesnt have to change patches as frequently. He uses his left hand to play keyboards more than he does to move knobs and sliders or press buttons. I bet he has all the sounds programmed into the voyager just in case the mini freaks on stage. Plus, he has the $, the roadies, the technicians, and the responsibility to entertain a large enough crowd to warrant having two mini's onstage. Rick aint no minimalist. PS never tried a voyager, but gosh I love my minimoog..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.