Just got the Moog Source
Old 26th May 2011
  #61
Lives for gear
 
Ned Bouhalassa's Avatar
 

Thanks guys for helping me make up my mind: I've got a Source coming my way next week!
Old 15th August 2011
  #62
Quote:
Originally Posted by living sounds View Post
Again, I'm sorry to say it, but "Blue Monday" isn't much better IMO. I don't like the sounds or the music or the arrangement. Just not my cup of tea.
Not saying you have to like New Order, and I'm not denigrating your opinion.

However....

I have extreme misgivings about taking seriously anyone's opinion about analog synthesizers who had to be informed that the song "Blue Monday" exists and had never heard it before.

Which is to say it is difficult to consider someone an expert in vintage synthesizers with opinions worth listening to unfamiliar with that track. It would be like a guitarist making a case that the Stratocaster is thin-sounding and having never heard Hendrix, or someone bashing on a Telecaster saying "oh, I'll have to check out this 'Stairway to Heaven' song you keep talking about... oh the arrangement stinks and the mix sounds demo."

Just making an observation. At least you know Kraftwerk.
Old 15th August 2011
  #63
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Odey View Post
Fat bass machine.. all the way to the top.. I love this synth man. Sounds great.

Here's a track that features the source heavily.. all the way through. Still got the live trumpets to go in there.. but otherwise.. enjoy!
Loved it !
Old 16th August 2011
  #64
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Meeker View Post
Not saying you have to like New Order, and I'm not denigrating your opinion.

However....

I have extreme misgivings about taking seriously anyone's opinion about analog synthesizers who had to be informed that the song "Blue Monday" exists and had never heard it before.

Which is to say it is difficult to consider someone an expert in vintage synthesizers with opinions worth listening to unfamiliar with that track. It would be like a guitarist making a case that the Stratocaster is thin-sounding and having never heard Hendrix, or someone bashing on a Telecaster saying "oh, I'll have to check out this 'Stairway to Heaven' song you keep talking about... oh the arrangement stinks and the mix sounds demo."

Just making an observation. At least you know Kraftwerk.
And very probably a lot of stuff you've never heard of. You can't know everything after all, especially in this day and age. And one tends to ignore things one doesn't like. I could list a lot of music, synthesizer-heavy, too, from that era I like a lot even though I was a small child at the time. But "Blue Monday" - no, not my cup of tea. Come to think of it, I've even written reviews for magazines about synthesizers new and old, blissfully ignorant of the song's existance. :-)
Old 16th August 2011
  #65
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Meeker View Post
At least you know Kraftwerk.
Hard to avoid, really.

*badum-tsh*
Old 16th August 2011
  #66
Quote:
Originally Posted by living sounds View Post
And very probably a lot of stuff you've never heard of.
However "Blue Monday" isn't obscure or remotely off the beaten track. The song is very popular by one of the most pivotal bands synonymous with vintage synthesis and generally considered their best known track.

As I said, in my mind it tends to strain credibility for an expert to be unfamiliar with something as central to the synthesizer zeitgeist as that track. It calls into question a number of things.

Oh well, I'm off to listen to Interzone and Bizarre Love Triangle.
Quote
1
Old 16th August 2011
  #67
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Meeker View Post
However "Blue Monday" isn't obscure or remotely off the beaten track. The song is very popular by one of the most pivotal bands synonymous with vintage synthesis and generally considered their best known track.

As I said, in my mind it tends to strain credibility for an expert to be unfamiliar with something as central to the synthesizer zeitgeist as that track. It calls into question a number of things.

Oh well, I'm off to listen to Interzone and Bizarre Love Triangle.
Look, I've surely heard it somewhere before, just didn't know the title. Just really got zero interest in industrial/wave style music and its peculiar aesthetics.
Old 16th August 2011
  #68
Quote:
Originally Posted by living sounds View Post
Look, I've surely heard it somewhere before, just didn't know the title. Just really got zero interest in industrial/wave style music and its peculiar aesthetics.
Uh.... New Order predates those 90's labels and furthermore sound nothing like that. Probably just before your time because I believe you said you were a younger person.

Some of us older farts grew up on that stuff, so it may be a generational thing going on.
Old 16th August 2011
  #69
Lives for gear
 
roginator's Avatar
 

I own source for about 6 month and got it for a great price of ebay... wont tell how much cause i dont wanna make some guys jump over bridge

anyway ... its is one of finest sounding analog mono synths and its hard to find them cheap in good working condition... but I replaced panels, recaped beast and fixed PW problem...


NOW .... ITS PERFECT --- KEEPER FOREVER!!

it have super fast envelopes and they are digitally generated also it have FAT SOUND and one of nicest filters

no thin , no slow, no bad..... for a mono I would give it 9 of 10 for sound (my moog modular and RSF kobol expanders are 10 of 10) ..so.......
Old 16th August 2011
  #70
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by roginator View Post
it have super fast envelopes and they are digitally generated also it have FAT SOUND and one of nicest filters
Envelope waveshapes are analog not digital.

They used a voltage controlled integrator, with CVs from the cpu controlling the transition time and direction. So the output is a pure analog wave and can be quite snappy. Slick, compact, and elegant EG design.
Old 17th August 2011
  #71
Lives for gear
 
roginator's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real MC View Post
Envelope waveshapes are analog not digital.

They used a voltage controlled integrator, with CVs from the cpu controlling the transition time and direction. So the output is a pure analog wave and can be quite snappy. Slick, compact, and elegant EG design.

hmm -- thanx for update ----

I was pretty sure that cpu is generating ADSR ---
but i believe you since i was just messing around analog part of source !!!


D
Old 18th August 2011
  #72
Lives for gear
 
Ossicle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real MC View Post
Envelope waveshapes are analog not digital.

They used a voltage controlled integrator, with CVs from the cpu controlling the transition time and direction. So the output is a pure analog wave and can be quite snappy. Slick, compact, and elegant EG design.
That's very detailed info, thanks! Could you share us the source? (no pun intended

The env's have this clicky and very snappy character. It's almost violent, yet musical. Love'em.
Old 18th August 2011
  #73
Lives for gear
 

I am the source - I analyzed the schematic. I'm an EE.

See 1st attachment. Near the bottom is a section labeled Contour Generator.

There are two CVs labeled FLT CNTR LEVEL (near R196) and FLT CNTR RATE (near R199). The 3080 OTA (U44) is configured as a voltage controlled resistor that charges capacitor C57. The actual envelope originates from C57 which is a true analog signal. FLT CNTR RATE varies how fast C57 is charged, while FLT CNTR LEVEL varies the final charge voltage of C57. You can create the separate attack, decay, sustain, and release stages of a complete EG with just these two CVs.

The contour of the EG is converted to a TTL compliant signal via LM393 opamp (U41B). If you view the 2nd attachment in the section labeled OCTAVE CONTOUR & MODULATION INTERFACE, this TTL signal (labeled FILT CNTR) is monitored by the CPU via the 74LS367 (U32). This way the CPU can detect the completion of any EG stage and transition to the next one.

Very slick, compact, and elegant design. And it can be expanded beyond a four stage EG by software. I'm surprised they didn't patent this circuit, I've never seen it anywhere else.
Attached Thumbnails
Just got the Moog Source-mooga4.jpg   Just got the Moog Source-moogd4.jpg  
Old 19th August 2011
  #74
Lives for gear
 
dougt's Avatar
 

Interesting. I wonder why they just didn't use the simple 556 dual timer EGs from the Micro/Multi...
Old 19th August 2011
  #75
Lives for gear
 
Ossicle's Avatar
 

@ The Real MC

Thanks for that! While I confess I don't understand the half of it, it's really nice to see someone taking that kind of trouble instead of spreading empty rumours around the web.
Old 19th August 2011
  #76
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dougt View Post
Interesting. I wonder why they just didn't use the simple 556 dual timer EGs from the Micro/Multi...
If you try to replace the passive resistance ADSR controls with CVs from a cpu, you'd end up with a more complex circuit and severe CV feedthrough problems. Oberheim tried it and had to get Doug Curtis of CEM fame to design a suitable voltage controlled ADSR IC (predecessor to the CEM3310) for their FVS SEM polysynth programmer.

Also this design reduces parts count for the ADSR CVs. With a VC'd 556 you'd need four CVs with associated S&H circuits, this design used half the S&H's.
Old 6th April 2012
  #77
ValhallaDSP
 
seancostello's Avatar
 

Bumping an old thread...

Anyone have the chance to compare the Source to the Minitaur?

I tried the Minitaur in a store today, and would have bought it right then and there if the display model could be sold (apparently it couldn't). The filter/VCO interaction is like a slightly more polite version of my Rogue. Very smooth controls. The 3-stage envelopes are closer to the Minimoog and Prodigy than the Source, but it seems like it would be worth comparing the Source to the Minitaur as a computer controlled bass synth.
Old 6th April 2012
  #78
I thought what I'd do was
 
Word's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by seancostello View Post
Bumping an old thread...

Anyone have the chance to compare the Source to the Minitaur?

I tried the Minitaur in a store today, and would have bought it right then and there if the display model could be sold (apparently it couldn't). The filter/VCO interaction is like a slightly more polite version of my Rogue. Very smooth controls. The 3-stage envelopes are closer to the Minimoog and Prodigy than the Source, but it seems like it would be worth comparing the Source to the Minitaur as a computer controlled bass synth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaZof...eZFjSlilYQUyo=

@:32
Old 6th April 2012
  #79
Lives for gear
 
Ned Bouhalassa's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by seancostello View Post
Anyone have the chance to compare the Source to the Minitaur?
A number of differences: Source allows for more subtle detuning between the oscillators; Source offers one more waveform (triangle) per osc; Source has noise as source; Source allows you to transpose both oscillators independently; Source has extra LFO waveform (square); Source is much more expensive (but looks way nicer, IMHO).
Old 6th April 2012
  #80
Lives for gear
 

Source also has variable pulse width (Minitaur is square not variable pulse) but Source will not produce the low end OOMPH of the Taurus.
Old 6th April 2012
  #81
Lives for gear
 
Ned Bouhalassa's Avatar
 

I respectfully strongly disagree. The Source offers some very serious bass.
Old 6th April 2012
  #82
Lives for gear
 

The Source is single handedly the synth i regret the most selling, anyways wouldn't the LP be a lot closer in design to it?
Old 6th April 2012
  #83
Lives for gear
 
gordonmerrick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ned Bouhalassa View Post
The Source offers some very serious bass.
I will second this--this thread's return from the dead came at the same time that i've been recording more with the source and it really does just sound so damn good--unfortunately mine now seems to be tracking funny in the top octave...
Old 7th April 2012
  #84
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real MC View Post
...Source will not produce the low end OOMPH of the Taurus.
Fair enough. And there are about 500 sounds the Taurus will never be able to make due to its voicing limitations that the Source can effortlessly.

So, it depends what you want. That Taurus bass sound or the power and versatility of the Source.
Old 7th April 2012
  #85
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ned Bouhalassa View Post
I respectfully strongly disagree. The Source offers some very serious bass.
Agree, but it ain't no taurus.

I have source, t1, and t3 here.
Old 7th April 2012
  #86
I own a source. The mini is better. All over....
Old 7th April 2012
  #87
Lives for gear
 
Ned Bouhalassa's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real MC View Post
Agree, but it ain't no taurus.

I have source, t1, and t3 here.
Fair enough.
Old 7th April 2012
  #88
Gear addict
 

Can the model d cross into taurus territory?
Old 7th April 2012
  #89
Gear interested
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwrecordings View Post
I own a source. The mini is better. All over....
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwrecordings View Post
I own a source. The mini is better. All over....
That's not a very original thought, given the Mini's pedegree. Kind of the easy way out. A true programmer wouldn't always choose a Mini either, given the pros and cons of each. A veteran and programmer I know would take the Source.

The Source (and Pro One and some other vintage monos) are, like so many of those vintage pieces, excellent in their own right. It's not really fair to make blanket statements. There are sounds on the Source that the Mini won't do as well, and vice-versa. And the Source is easier to midi and in some ways more flexible and useful in some applications.

Also untrue that a Source is a Mini with memory; they cover much of the same ground but are still different in some respects. That's part of the charm of so many of the vintage pieces, each with their own distinct, excellent characters.

By far the closest comparison is between a Source and Memorymoog; the Source is the one-voice cousin, of the same vintage. Much like the Pro One and Prophet 5, despite the rhetoric.

Same thing with the Taurus: it sounds great but no way in hell the Source isn't too, if you know what you're doing.

Larry used to use a Source on some of the overdubbed/unreleased reel to real tracks at the Garage that i remember hearing around '83-85. Definitely show-stoppers and first class heard over the world's best system, period. No need to compare to anything else, and no one was thinking "if only it were a Taurus".

Gwen Guthrie - Ain't Nothing Goin' On But the Rent - YouTube

Steve Arrington - Dancin' In The Key Of Life - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvPZo52X5vo

FYI Jr. Vasquez, a true Garage-head from back in the day, will play a set in it's honor at BAM in Brooklyn this weekend. Would like to be there for that.
Old 7th April 2012
  #90
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDEED View Post
Can the model d cross into taurus territory?
Nope.

To be fair, a Taurus won't cross into model d territory either.

Both are mutually exclusively unique.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
jonnypowell / Electronic Music Instruments & Electronic Music Production
56
petridisc / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
2
bcgood / Electronic Music Instruments & Electronic Music Production
0
alyi / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
1
rdm_hero / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
0

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.