Moog Sub Phatty - lower cost Moog with big features

[beats me]

what I like about the sub vs little phatty, is the knobs are not layered.
Everything you need is right on the surface.

I have a slim phatty and absolutely love it, and it might seem trivial, but I would like to have access to resonance and cutoff simultaneously. Granted I can use an external controller, but I'd rather it be available.

That said, I actually like the LED encoders on the little/slim phatty's.
I like that they update per preset.
It's a modern convenience I prefer.
I also like to see the values bouncing around when a sequencer is driving it, visual feedback is nice.

So it sounds like you lose out on something useful in either version.

[JuanSOLO]

If I had no Slim Phatty at this point, and was thinking about buying a monosynth,
I'd get the Sub Phatty.

[continuous]

This looks awesome! Yes awesome. I bought a Dark Energy last year, so much noisy fun. I would def have considered this if it was available at the time.

It's so refreshing to be able to step away from the computerbox and make some noizzzzze with something stand-alone and self-contained. Very therapeutic.

On that note... Hey the 30th anniversary of MIDI is upon us (http://thequietus.com/articles/11189-mi ... nniversary) personally I don't understand CV yet.

[djadonis206]

This would be cool if there was no keyboard attached so that it could be racked. I'm sure something like that is in the works

Even so, I doubt I'll be hooking this one up. The A4 has cured any and all symptoms of GAS. Plus, I'd be hard pressed to buy another synth that DOES NOT have a sequencer attached. The Elektrons have spoiled that for me!

[digid]

I like this perspective from Chris Randall @ Analog Industries:

http://www.analogindustries.com/blog/en ... 8818532987

"I understand the purpose of the product, of course, because (despite all evidence to the contrary) I'm not a fucking retard. But it'd be nice to see them take a risk on inventing something new for a change rather than re-hashing 35-year-old tech. Yet again."

[kitekrazy]

I don’t have any Moog hardware and I’m sure they sound great for what they are, but I refuse to believe you can’t get the same sound dropping the same total $$ on a handful of softsynths which would also give you a lot more flexibility and sound range.

Yes but it's probably less fun. This thing obviously is about hands on control (please note how elegantly i avoided stepping into the analog vs digital trap). If only the form factor wouldn't be so stupid. Gonna wait for the release of a rack or desktop version.

Also zero latency with hardware gear vs. software.

[JuanSOLO]

And vintage Moog and many other quality vintage synths cost a fortune.
I applaud the efforts.
New, under warranty, more affordable, and I like that Moog is sticking to what they do best, making a quality synth thats does that one thing better than most.

For anologue invention there's plenty of modules to go around.

I have a few ideas, but what are you thinking would be new/fresh/inventive?

[beats me]

I like this perspective from Chris Randall @ Analog Industries:

http://www.analogindustries.com/blog/en ... 8818532987

"I understand the purpose of the product, of course, because (despite all evidence to the contrary) I'm not a fucking retard. But it'd be nice to see them take a risk on inventing something new for a change rather than re-hashing 35-year-old tech. Yet again."

Lot of the same sentiment in the other responses, Moog doing the same thing it always has done with very slight differences.

[oblique strategies]

Personally, I want to have some instrument(s) that I can get lost in that are almost exclusively right-brain focused. Something that you could just about play in the dark: pure physical memory (this hand goes here to control this parameter). That is something usually offered by traditional instruments.

I owned a Minimoog for years, & it has held its position as one of my favorite instruments to play. Sure other things deliver other sounds, & some may even deliver the same sounds, but they won't deliver the same physical or sonic experience. I'm sure most guitar players would rather play a well-made guitar than a sampler. And one of the things I consider myself to be a is a Moog player.

Turn off your mind, relax & float downstream...

[jimmynitcher]

All I know is that Flying Lotus track is shite! Moog must have been really happy with that lol.

[Sage]

I'm sure most guitar players would rather play a well-made guitar than a sampler.

A better analogy is a guitarist would rather play a good guitar into a simple valve amp than use modelling that attempts to replicate every amp under the sun. And I have more fun playing my Telecaster than any other feature packed guitar I've owned.

[beats me]

All I know is that Flying Lotus track is shite! Moog must have been really happy with that lol.

I didn’t like the Flying Lotus song either, but I’m not a fan of Flying Lotus in general. So what do I know.

But regardless I don't think it would sell anybody on the new Moog. Didn't hear any must have or groundbreaking sounds in there.

[DJTIVA]

Cool new product from Moog. This could become my third Moog. Already having a Voyager and a Minitaur but this one sounds a little bit different and would match the others well.

People who really think they can get the sound of a pure analog synth with their softsynths are mostly wrong. I dont say that either is better or worse then the other but the sound is different. The most important difference is that here you get a real instrument that you can touch and turn the knobs on it. Softsynths have no value to me because you change them often and you have no relation to them as they are fully virtual. I prefer having something in my hands.

[beats me]

Cool new product from Moog. This could become my third Moog. Already having a Voyager and a Minitaur but this one sounds a little bit different and would match the others well.

People who really think they can get the sound of a pure analog synth with their softsynths are mostly wrong. I dont say that either is better or worse then the other but the sound is different. The most important difference is that here you get a real instrument that you can touch and turn the knobs on it. Softsynths have no value to me because you change them often and you have no relation to them as they are fully virtual. I prefer having something in my hands.

If you have the money and you’re into hardware and Moog then that is cool. I have an irresponsible amount of redundant Apple hardware. And just like Apple their shit isn’t cheap, but if you’re looking to get an entry level Moog (what are there, like 3 in the $1,000ish range?) it’s confusing and it sounds like each has their shortcomings. They should just slap the best features of all 3 in a single unit, maybe offer it with or without a keyboard and be done with it. Then move on to their $2,000+ flagships. The way it is now it just reeks of milking things and trying to squeeze more money out of users.

I’m sure the sound is great and unique and I see the advantage of having instant hardware access to parameters, but what I meant by getting a similar sound out of software is the sound of an actual Moog isn’t going to be career changing if you know your software plugins well.

[JuanSOLO]

@beats, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise but maybe share a perspective on where some are coming from when it comes to Analogue hardware vs Software.

Sure it would be great to have a polyphonic Moog with mono mode, and all the features packed in.
Yet this kind of defeats the purpose, and would be hella expensive.
That purpose being, you buy this one thing, it does that one thing better than the rest.
It's SO stupid simple you dont really need presets, but it's cool if they give you room for 6, because ideally you will only use your favorite 6 that you have slowly crafted over time. You will know this thing like the back of your hand, and dialing in a new patch will be a simple as tuning a guitar.
These limitations become more of a conducive element to creating, as opposed to having limitless abilities to achieve creation.
Did I say it sounds bad ass?
Did I say it doesn't tax your CPU?
It also responds to program changes from Live clips effortlessly and Live never hiccups as a result of that.
Outboard synths are hella fun to sequence using Live, and you dont have need any screen space to tweak them.

Dont get me wrong, I can make some pretty killer bass patches in Operator, but when I got a Moog, it turned into, whats the point of ever wasting my time dialing in Operator.

In the studio, maybe things are a bit different.
Yet when thinking of how I want to be a live performer, my custom rig and custom style becomes important too.

Lastly I would consider Moog's entry level synths the SlimPhatty or the Minataur.
Compared to the money I have spent on software, I could have both synths for less, and once having them, my software is what becomes redundant and lacks freshness.

For me, what I dont understand about outboard synths these days, is that there is still a market for VA synths.

That said, I'm still on the fence about a freaking iPad, that SAMPLR app is calling me.