old and new synths

markus.berzborn at t... wrote:
>
>
> > > I stress the fact that is - still in production - says quite a bit
> > for this module.
>
> That's right! Finally, someone's speaking up for EMS, but has Tomita ever used
> these synths? I know that Klaus Schulze still has a Synthi A on stage (saw it at
> his last concert in May this year) and the European avantgarde liked EMS
> products a lot (Stockhausen, Henze etc.). Timeless stuff!

No, Hideki Matsutake owns one. Other famous names are Eno and Jarre.
Dealers have them in Japan new but they are obscenely expensive after
all the customs duties and dealer markups.

anyway that first line was taken as a tease, it initially refered to a
virtual synth only a couple years old

>
> > they are worth quite a bit, and the very expensive Lintronics retrofit
> > done to it is considered by many in the business as the best polysynth
> > (though the Andromeda complicates the ranking)
>
> Hooray for Lintronics! It's terrific, everyone owning a Memorymoog should update
> it this way!!

Its certainly easier if you are in Germany... anyway the point is they
saw great value in this design and compensated for the electronics of
their day pushing the envalope shall I say a bit too much by replacing
them with improved electronics.

> > I've got a Serge, they are still around
> > just like 25 years ago (but pricey!)
>
> Congratulations!
>
> > 2. I was teasing Roland for not attempting their surely more challenging
> > and harder to digitaly simulate Jupiter 8 (because its less IC chip
> > reliant and has more side effects from a hot signal path). Kind of like
>
> Why a digital simulation of the Jupiter 8? It's just pointless. Get the
> (reliable) Super Jupiter rack mount unit, and there you go...

Well don't tell me my point was they chose the Jupiter 6 as their
goal for digital simulation...
What can I say about the Super Jupiter... I have the later revised
version, its okay and full featured (modern MIDI, layering, velocity,
aftertouch)... the main thing I was pointing out is that the Jupiter 8
had in most peoples minds the best sound of the Jupiters, so its ironic
they chose a less ultimate synth as their goal.

> > I'm sure there were times and situations slightly more conductive, but
> > there was never a time where you could easily go into a shop and buy a
> > Moog Modular and take it home try it return it (...actually I was in
> > a shop in Japan now where you could do something like build your own
> > Moog, Doepfer, RS, etc. then and there.. though I didn't inquire about
> > their return policy)
>
> Can you buy an Aston Martin or a Bristol at a shop across the road? The answer
> is no, and you probably know why.
>

exactly, some mass market stuff is fine. most will get the job done, but
to be successful in this market you have to appeal to people with plans
other than making sonically superb synth music, so the goals of this
gear are to satisfy people with quite different general goals (like the
plethora of groovebox products out now).

I don't want to project a false image though, I'm not saying that if you
get certain gear you are sure to be lame, or definitely not using some
gear makes your music good! My point is that certain gear has a side
effect of adding some often pleasing results just by being used, their
shortcomings might bhe hidden strengths. Then I rant about the trap
theat newer synths are either rom-based and pretty static and the so
called improvement with modeling analog sound via DSP computing not only
lose a more varying character with a more static linear plastic one, and
perhaps worse, chose as a goal middle of the road 15 to 20 year old chip
based analog synths as they cvan come several degrees closer with those
and skip a bunch of useful features than the more distinctive and
powerful vintage synths. All sorts of progress came about in 15+ years,
even in the last days of analog synths have been for the most part
ignored, my point is that roland (and before them Clavia and then later
others) settled for something just "good enough" to sell back in 1996. I
would have liked something that attempts to show the power of DSP and
the advancements made in the last 15 years. I'm sorry I don't consider a
compromised middle of the road sound a good enough tradeoff for an
easier to maintain synth. I don't consider building in a reverb or
arpeggiator to hide a mediocre basic sound a real asset. I don't think
throwing in a circuit board to simulate an analog synth into a ROMpler
or adding a filter input is integrating todays technologies.

nick
http://welcome.to/synths