The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Synths for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Why Don't New VCOs Sound as Good as Old VCOs? Keyboard Synthesizers
Old 22nd April 2018
  #391
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HUBA View Post

Someone needs to explain why it's so important to crusade neonriders supposedly flawed thinking and to make sure his one actual question is kept unanwered. If you like new synths then use them and be happy. I couldn't care less about what other people think about me being happy using my modern sounding synths and neither should you. Grow up
His "actual question" is based on a flawed premise, which essentially states "everyone agrees" old synths sound better than new ones, he says this was an undebatable point, so there must be a reason. His reason centers on oscillators (which is why he titled this thread the way he did.).

Many of us reject the premise outright, so there's no "actual question" in his OP to answer.

However, a new question with a premise questioning whether or not new and old synths are markedly different in how they sound, and why, would be fodder for a discussion point.
Old 22nd April 2018
  #392
Lives for gear
 

The problem with this whole thread is that it starts out with an absolute lie -- stating casual impression as a given -- and then evolves from there.

Since the original premise is completely false, no matter how totally the poster and his friends try to cover it up, all the rest of the subsequent argument is spurious and completely untenable.

And any obsession over the little details in presentation is ridiculous.

Continues to fail the Turing test.
Old 22nd April 2018
  #393
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
His "actual question" is based on a flawed premise, which essentially states "everyone agrees" old synths sound better than new ones, he says this was an undebatable point, so there must be a reason. His reason centers on oscillators (which is why he titled this thread the way he did.).

Many of us reject the premise outright, so there's no "actual question" in his OP to answer.

However, a new question with a premise questioning whether or not new and old synths are markedly different in how they sound, and why, would be fodder for a discussion point.
Exactly!

If “old vintage synths” could be defined with a measurable set of characteristics that defines a sample population from the entire spectrum of all “vintage synths” then this would be an interesting study.

But we don’t know if this phenomenon that the OP is opining on is the result of hearing damage, speakers, the room, converters, the specific synth etc etc it’s really just magical thinking, divination and superstition.
Old 22nd April 2018
  #394
Lives for gear
 

Or just too much vaping and bad beer, more likely.

BTW I'm from Brooklyn originally, but when I visited in the '70's it was the Jamaican Posse gangs who lived there and people hit little old ladies over their heads to steal their purses (like my grandma...man she was a mean purse-stealer!).

But now..... life there has grown chill, and meaningless. I can't go back. It would drain my soul instantly.

I'd need daily infusions of Todd Barton demos of the BEMI at Control to survive.
Old 22nd April 2018
  #395
Lives for gear
 
Gnalvl's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
When you become so desperate you have to adjust other people's quotes to reflect your opinion, you've lost the argument.
Let me explain something that seems to have been entirely lost on you for the past 3 pages:

The sole point I've been arguing since page 4 was merely the objective fact that neonrider addressed the rest of the signal path in his OP.

For some strange reason you quoted me to argue whether or not neonrider's OP was a logical fallacy, which is entirely irrelevant to anything I had argued up to that point. This is particularly strange, since you claim the entire point of your posts is to address mine.

The only reason I bothered replying was to humor you and see by what bizarre logic you believed your silly arguments to be relevant to anything I was saying.

4 pages later you're still desperately trying to disprove points I never argued which aren't relevant to anything I was posting about when you entered the thread. I'm still not sure why you believe I should care about anything you're saying.


Quote:
Originally Posted by trashman View Post
It only matters inasmuch as his premise was being denied throughout thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
His "actual question" is based on a flawed premise, which essentially states "everyone agrees" old synths sound better than new ones, he says this was an undebatable point, so there must be a reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by realtrance View Post
The problem with this whole thread is that it starts out with an absolute lie -- stating casual impression as a given -- and then evolves from there.

Since the original premise is completely false, no matter how totally the poster and his friends try to cover it up, all the rest of the subsequent argument is spurious and completely untenable.
Once again, it's an entirely false premise that a question with a false premise cannot be answered.

Imagine if a newbie started a thread saying:
"Hey guys I'm new, and I heard the DX7 was used for the synth part of Jump. I love that song, it's so much better than other 80s rock songs and makes all my friends swoon. Should I buy a Reface or find a vintage DX?"
And then comes 10 different versions of the GS troll response:
"lololol OP's question is invalid because it's based on the false premise of the DX7 being used on jump"
It's a dumbass answer because you can easily move on with the question and discuss the topic regardless of the OP failing to cite the correct synth. Anyone could politely explain to him his mistake and point him towards an entry level poly that will get him close to the sound he wants.

Either way, we all understand that it's his subjective taste to love the song Jump and dislike other 80s rock songs. Even if he believes incorrectly it's an objective fact that other songs are inferior, we can still suggest which synths in his price range could adequately reproduce the sound of Jump. In fact, you don't even have to like the song Jump to answer the question.

Likewise, even if neonrider believes it's an objective fact that old synths sound better, it has no effect on our ability to answer the question. The idea that many users on Gearslutz prefer the sound of vintage synths is not remotely new, nor is the idea that it's their subjective taste.

These are not things that require debate to understand the question; the actual premise that neonrider subjectively prefers the sound of vintage synths is easily understandable. Thus if you sympathize with the idea of vintage synths sounding different or preferable, and you know anything about the makeup of synths, you could venture a guess as to what is causing these differences.

If you don't believe vintage synths sound different, or prefer the sound of new synths, no one is forcing you to read the thread or participate in a discussion where you don't agree with the premise. If you want to debate whether old vs. new synths sound better, you are free to create your own thread addressing exactly that point.
Old 22nd April 2018
  #396
Lives for gear
 

I think it's mainly the dust.
Old 22nd April 2018
  #397
Deleted User
Guest
So, tell us why the Earth is flat ... objectively speaking.

You don’t seem to understand the fundamental difference between Object and Subject. Subjective and objective.

“Likewise, even if neonrider believes it's an objective fact that old synths sound better, it has no effect on our ability to answer the question.”

Wow. This is a breathtaking statement. It is at the core of a crises in western thought that is becoming a cancerous rot to the point of catastrophe.

You cannot seriously engage in converstions about the flavor of the cheese that the moon is made of.

This is NUTTINESS at a profound level.

If today’s children want to engage in extended adolescent magical thinking that’s one thing. But to demand that reasoned adults, who expect some imperical evidence, or even a coefficient reflecting an analysis of datasets, waive this reasonable expectation in the name of a “relativism” between object and subject is cognitive dissonance at best, PATHOLOGICAL at worst - and just AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN.

We, as a civilization didn’t bleed for 500 years to free ourselves from the CHAINS of superstition, magical thinking, tyranny to abandon it all to a nefarious cultural cult and phenomenon of bullying all into accepting subject as object = “the emperor’s new clothes”.

I WANT EVIDENCE that there is even any substance to this conversation.

Where is the evidence?

The panties on the floor?
Social media?
Some crazy notion of “narrative logic” which DOESN’T actually exist?
Many opinions?

Something more than the tingling sensation going up your leg.

Last edited by Deleted User; 22nd April 2018 at 06:41 PM..
Old 22nd April 2018
  #398
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnalvl View Post

For some strange reason you quoted me to argue whether or not neonrider's OP was a logical fallacy, which is entirely irrelevant to anything I had argued up to that point. This is particularly strange, since you claim the entire point of your posts is to address mine.

The only reason I bothered replying was to humor you and see by what bizarre logic you believed your silly arguments to be relevant to anything I was saying.

.
Actually, many of your posts have been logical fallacies - many of which I cited.

The reason I posted in the first place was because, "for some strange reason", you took it upon yourself to decide what NR "meant to say", but didn't.

And most important, in trying so hard to carry his water, for several pages, you were imparting YOUR view upon his. His point of view is not the same as yours, what he meant to say was what he said, it's right there in his two posts.

If you had been more mature about it, you'd have started your own conversation supporting your view; you'd have gotten a different result. Instead, you began lashing out at everyone - which is probably something you do as habit.

However, it appears you still believe you have the ability to get into NR's mind and figure out he didn't mean to say what he's said - twice.

You feel picked on and now, as the tone of your posts, especially the last few, show - defensive and churlish; your arrogance has gotten the best of you - you can't accept it, or you just don't get it, not sure which.

At any rate, where else can you argue with emmy award-winning composers with 40 years of synth experience and get away with it

Have a nice day, and try to listen to what's being said instead of constantly looking for a fight.
Old 22nd April 2018
  #399
Lives for gear
 

Old 22nd April 2018
  #400
Lives for gear
 

It's the dust, I'm sure.

My old digitals sound better than my new analogues. Anyone coming into my room notices this right away. I have a drawer in my bureau to store the undies.
Old 22nd April 2018
  #401
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by neonrider View Post
I don't want to debate *if* they do. That much is obvious. Every non musician I have over to my house I do a little test with. Play a key on a new VCO synth (P6, OB6, "D" etc). Then play a key on a classic.

There's never any contest. Jaws drop. Eyes widen. Goosebumps appear. Panties drop, sometimes.

The question is why. Why do old VCOs sound so much better that even to amateurs it's never any contest? Or even old DCOs? The Deepmind has no emotional effect on people whatsoever. The Juno makes them swoon. Etcetera.

Sure--you can put a soft synth or anything quite frankly--through $10k of high end processing. But that defeats the purpose.

I appreciate the analogue renaissance. I love it. But. The only new poly that gets close to the old ones in tone is the Dreadbox Abyss. The Mini or modular reissues nail it, but that is exactly the old design.

Is it clocking, pitch control, amps, signal chains? All the above?

For example, in the P6/OB6, it seems like the autotune, or algorithmic cv control of pitch, is sampling and holding, somehow forcing, the start phase of voice--there's a weird kind of artificial forced phasing that sounds very unnatural, very weak, it's very noticeable. The voices don't smush into each other. I have no idea, though, I'm not an engineer. I just know it sounds...off. Nice, but not AS nice.

Is it even fair to call something that has total locked control of pitch or phase etc a "VCO"? Again, I have no idea. I just know I'd rather have a real autotune I press now and then than...this constant, ever-present DSP control of the oscillator that appears to be basically what these new VCOs do. Do we need a whole new word for them? Oscillator fascism?

Hold forth.

Because the older equipment is 'military grade' sound equipment. It was made during times when they needed our bodies in the fox holes and stuff. ww1 ww2 vietnam war etc etc

Today everything is smart guided. By lasers and satellites. They don't require our bodies as much as anymore.

The higher the grade the sound signal, the more nourishing it is to our muscles systems.

But since it's a Facebook/videogame/programming station infrastructure now, and because the general public can't tell the difference between the two, they don't make em like they use to.

Think American Muscle cars. They were built like tanks during war times. Just like the audio equipment.

Look at the Fairchild Compressor. It looks like a piece of military equipment, because it was designed by designers and manufactures who just came out of War a few years before.



Not too many ppl in this world can even clone their performance through a brand new issue.

Those were World War audio/electical engineers/designers who created those things.
Old 22nd April 2018
  #402
Lives for gear
 
shreddoggie's Avatar
All these threads go into deep excrement to stroke beards, split hairs, and endlessly postulate about idiotic premises.

I have plenty of old synths (with old VCOs in them) that sound lovely - I prefer them but I can't say that it is just the VCOs because it is not MODULAR so I cannot hear them in isolation (point #1 ).

I have owned many new synths that I was less compelled by (modern-weak) and have kept a few that I do like (modern-juicy) - in both cases the VCOs are also part of a complex circuit. (point #2 ).

I have experienced first hand some ISOLATED modular VCOs of recent provenance that sounded HOLY FREAKING JEEBUS - that is one spicy oscillator. (point #3 ).

The question is: age vs quality for 14 pages? WTF? NO. (point #4 ).

Really - Jeebus fellas... Just go buy a really great current modular VCO that will empty your bowels or topple your shack given sufficient amplification and move on with your lives. (point #5 ).
Old 22nd April 2018
  #403
Lives for gear
 
daviddever's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by synthesia1073 View Post
Because the older equipment is 'military grade' sound equipment. It was made during times when they needed our bodies in the fox holes and stuff. ww1 ww2 vietnam war etc etc

Today everything is smart guided. By lasers and satellites. They don't require our bodies as much as anymore.

The higher the grade the sound signal, the more nourishing it is to our muscles systems.

But since it's a Facebook/videogame/programming station infrastructure now, and because the general public can't tell the difference between the two, they don't make em like they use to.

Think American Muscle cars. They were built like tanks during war times. Just like the audio equipment.

Look at the Fairchild Compressor. It looks like a piece of military equipment, because it was designed by designers and manufactures who just came out of War a few years before.

Not too many ppl in this world can even clone their performance through a brand new issue.

Those were World War audio/electical engineers/designers who created those things.


I see very little overlap here between the (massive) hand-cranked, machine-wound transformers (see Triad Historical Archive) of the Fairchild compressors**, and the purpose-built DIP IC semiconductors used throughout a typical vintage analogue synthesizer, say, an OB-XA. I've used both, but they're generations apart in terms of engineering.

Furthermore, lighter weight and power consumption / dissipation are as much a practical consideration for military purposes as overbuilt reliability, so I wouldn't lazily dismiss optimization of either factor as a crass, cost-saving measure. Ask anyone who served in the deserts of the Middle East which they'd prefer.

And as much as I understand the behavior of both switching and linear power supplies, there's no doubt that there are venues out there* whose wide power and voltage swings favor switching supplies on the basis of reliability–so you'll never get a chance to compare some modern devices (designed with these constraints in mind) with their practical linear-supply equivalents, on the basis of this very practical consideration alone (e.g., a DSI OB-6 with a linear supply, or an original OB-X with a switching one).

* - in places that lacked basic services as recently as three decades ago.

** - from the Triad catalog:

Quote:
We call attention to the HS-11 and HS-1, affording 20-20000 frequency range and adequate shielding in less than half of the cubic volume of comparable pre-war (WWII) designs
Equals reduced copper - so even these companies were looking at cost / weight / volume optimizations over three generations ago.
Old 22nd April 2018
  #404
Lives for gear
 
Gnalvl's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
His point of view is not the same as yours, what he meant to say was what he said, it's right there in his two post.
Are you arguing that his post does not contain the words "Is it clocking, pitch control, amps, signal chains? All the above"?

No? Then you have entirely failed to disprove or address anything I've said in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
If you had been more mature about it, you'd have started your own conversation supporting your view
Why on earth would I do that?

I don't have a view on the engineering or design factors which might cause a difference between old and new synths. I came to this thread simply because I was curious what other people had to say on the subject. The only reason I posted was because I was annoyed that people are attempting to shut down the discussion with objectively false statements and bogus strawmen about the OP.

The fact that you still don't understand this shows just how far off in lala land all of your participation here has been.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trashman View Post
But to demand that reasoned adults, who expect some imperical evidence, or even a coefficient reflecting an analysis of datasets
Except no one expects empirical evidence or data sets to prove someone's subjective opinion about tools used for the highly subjective practice of making music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trashman View Post
I WANT EVIDENCE that there is even any substance to this conversation.

Where is the evidence?.
Then why are you on Geaslutz? And in this thread of all places?

The vast majority of threads on this forum are based entirely on subjective opinion with absolutely no evidence of any sort. On rare occasions a thread will attempt to present psuedo-scientific tests supporting personal preference of one gear over another, but those are the exception to the rule and are typically labeled as such in the thread title.

This is not a scientific lab, this is an internet forum. The scientific method is not a requirement to submit one's opinion here, much less ask a question. We don't need a newbie to submit empirical evidence of his musical tastes when he asks for suggestions on a starter synth, nor do we need empirical evidence to prove one's preference for vintage synths when he asks what makes the differences in their sound.
Old 22nd April 2018
  #405
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnalvl View Post
Are you arguing that his post does not contain the words "Is it clocking, pitch control, amps, signal chains? All the above"?

No? Then you have entirely failed to disprove or address anything I've said in this thread.


Why on earth would I do that?

I don't have a view on the engineering or design factors which might cause a difference between old and new synths. I came to this thread simply because I was curious what other people had to say on the subject. The only reason I posted was because I was annoyed that people are attempting to shut down the discussion with objectively false statements and bogus strawmen about the OP.

The fact that you still don't understand this shows just how far off in lala land all of your participation here has been.


Except no one expects empirical evidence or data sets to prove someone's subjective opinion about tools used for the highly subjective practice of making music.



Then why are you on Geaslutz? And in this thread of all places?

The vast majority of threads on this forum are based entirely on subjective opinion with absolutely no evidence of any sort. On rare occasions a thread will attempt to present psuedo-scientific tests supporting personal preference of one gear over another, but those are the exception to the rule and are typically labeled as such in the thread title.

This is not a scientific lab, this is an internet forum. The scientific method is not a requirement to submit one's opinion here, much less ask a question. We don't need a newbie to submit empirical evidence of his musical tastes when he asks for suggestions on a starter synth, nor do we need empirical evidence to prove one's preference for vintage synths when he asks what makes the differences in their sound.
“Likewise, even if neonrider *********believes******** it's an ********objective********* fact that old synths sound better, it has no effect on our ability to answer the question.”

Synth Theology leads to a Syntheocracy.

Anyway, I’m diving into a Boomstar hunt now.

Good debate.

Laters ...
Old 22nd April 2018
  #406
Lives for gear
 
Gnalvl's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trashman View Post
Synth Theology leads to a Syntheocracy.
Where is your evidence of this? If anything, this thread is but one example of how opinions on synths are so varied that a single set of beliefs will never somehow "rule" over others.

Moreover, the suggestion that you can somehow stop users like neonrider from believing in their opinions is ridiculous.

Still, this obviates the clear subtext behind so much of the protest in this thead. In reality it wasn't OP's words which prevented discussion of the topic, it was the fact that many users simply could not stomach his personal preferences or writing style long enough to address what he asked, and preferred to disrupt the thread rather than allow his "theology" to go unchecked.

For your part, at least you were somewhat honest about where you hangups were. I can say the same for those who chose to protest his objectively non-existent failure to acknowledge the rest of a synth's signal path instead of addressing what they truly disagreed with.
Old 22nd April 2018
  #407
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnalvl View Post
Where is your evidence of this? If anything, this thread is but one example of how opinions on synths are so varied that a single set of beliefs will never somehow "rule" over others.

Moreover, the suggestion that you can somehow stop users like neonrider from believing in their opinions is ridiculous.

Still, this obviates the clear subtext behind so much of the protest in this thead. In reality it wasn't OP's words which prevented discussion of the topic, it was the fact that many users simply could not stomach his personal preferences or writing style long enough to address what he asked, and preferred to disrupt the thread rather than allow his "theology" to go unchecked.

For your part, at least you were somewhat honest about where you hangups were. I can say the same for those who chose to protest his objectively non-existent failure to acknowledge the rest of a synth's signal path instead of addressing what they truly disagreed with.
Evidence for what? A joke? A play on words?

Belief goes with subjectivity.

Empirical evidence goes with objectivity.

He can believe whatever he wants. He can dogmatically end debate. It’s a dogma and a theology. No debate? No proof? Just belief and popularity of an idea? This is not rational or reasonable.

I challenge you or him to establish this fact with evidence and proofs. Test it. Reproduce it. Then we’ll have a theory. Not a law.

Right now, we have a laughable dogma based on a subjective belief that is being posed as objective fact.
Old 22nd April 2018
  #408
Lives for gear
 
Gnalvl's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trashman View Post
I challenge you or him to establish this fact with evidence and proofs. Test it. Reproduce it. Then we’ll have a theory. Not a law.

Right now, we have a laughable dogma based on a subjective belief that is being posed as objective fact.
Firstly, if you think I'm out to prove old VCOs sound better, that's a laughable interpretation.

Secondly where is it written that someone needs to prove or establish anything to ask for others' opinions on synths?

Spoiler alert: it's not.

You're demanding this arbitrary requirement be met where it exists in no other thread, seemingly because his particular personal preferences offend you and you can't get past it. It's hardly an objective reaction.
Old 22nd April 2018
  #409
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by daviddever View Post


I see very little overlap here between the (massive) hand-cranked, machine-wound transformers (see Triad Historical Archive) of the Fairchild compressors**, and the purpose-built DIP IC semiconductors used throughout a typical vintage analogue synthesizer, say, an OB-XA. I've used both, but they're generations apart in terms of engineering.

Furthermore, lighter weight and power consumption / dissipation are as much a practical consideration for military purposes as overbuilt reliability, so I wouldn't lazily dismiss optimization of either factor as a crass, cost-saving measure. Ask anyone who served in the deserts of the Middle East which they'd prefer.

And as much as I understand the behavior of both switching and linear power supplies, there's no doubt that there are venues out there* whose wide power and voltage swings favor switching supplies on the basis of reliability–so you'll never get a chance to compare some modern devices (designed with these constraints in mind) with their practical linear-supply equivalents, on the basis of this very practical consideration alone (e.g., a DSI OB-6 with a linear supply, or an original OB-X with a switching one).

* - in places that lacked basic services as recently as three decades ago.

** - from the Triad catalog:



Equals reduced copper - so even these companies were looking at cost / weight / volume optimizations over three generations ago.
That's a lovely photo!

I think any engineer from that time would marvel at having a synthesizer that is under a glass surface (on an iPad); generates no heat during use; is incredibly portable, with more voices than were imaginable; with more precise filters; virtually no unwanted noise in the circuit; no moving parts to speak of, or wear out (or collect dust!) and so on.

The only thing they'd object to was the use of glass, as an unfortunate but necessary compromise. They'd expect the weight and fragility introduced with that interface to be replaced, eventually, by another, lighter, just as transparent but more comfortable surface that would provide the same design flexibility as the glass one presently does.

By their standards, a Minimoog Model D or Korg MS-20 under glass on a little device like the iPad (or even iPhone) would be an absolute, sought-for miracle!

They would consider complaints we have about it uninformed, and incredibly ignorant and entitled.
Old 22nd April 2018
  #410
Lives for gear
 
NEXUS-6's Avatar
 

This thread needs more fairy dust!!
Old 23rd April 2018
  #411
Lives for gear
 
GeorgeHayduke's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trashman View Post
..
I WANT EVIDENCE that there is even any substance to this conversation.

...
Why don't you find a way to assess it for yourself? You've not had a chance to evaluate this for yourself?

Otherwise, for instance, play a Polysix against any new popular polysynth. If you can't 'spot the old sound' then I suspect that no 'evidence' shall suffice.

Then you can decide whether to chuck the old one for sounding too dusty and smeary, or not. And then you can report back in the thread.

Last edited by GeorgeHayduke; 23rd April 2018 at 01:45 PM..
Old 23rd April 2018
  #412
Lives for gear
 
SetuT's Avatar
 

you guys ...
Old 23rd April 2018
  #413
Here for the gear
 

I think the polysix is a crap synth and I cannot for the life of me understand why people love them.
Old 23rd April 2018
  #414
Lives for gear
 
Synth Buddha's Avatar
Christ, I need to stop logging on to this site.
Old 23rd April 2018
  #415
Lives for gear
I'm going to post a picture of my bare, bony Lilly white ass.......I'm serious.....wait for it......
Old 23rd April 2018
  #416
In related news ...
Old 23rd April 2018
  #417
Lives for gear
 
GeorgeHayduke's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by datacicada View Post
I think the polysix is a crap synth and I cannot for the life of me understand why people love them.
I've said elsewhere, if you want to do contemporary stuff, you might not want to invest in the Polysix despite the 'vintage' moniker. It just sounds old

I totally get if people don't like it. But the reason for that is probably that it sounds, well, old.

See what I did there..?
Old 23rd April 2018
  #418
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by datacicada View Post
I think the polysix is a crap synth and I cannot for the life of me understand why people love them.
... and it was crap even when new, a budget synth that sounded thin and wheezy, like te jx3p I owned at that time.
Old 23rd April 2018
  #419
Lives for gear
 
magikroom's Avatar
Whether they sound better or not, I know one thing...Since getting rid of most of my old gear, I don't have the cost's associated with keeping them running anymore. I'm happy with the newer gear and the only older stuff I have now is a Juno 6 and JX-3p...DCO's and happy with them...Oh...and a Cheetah MS6 sitting in a box with a broken voice.
Old 23rd April 2018
  #420
All the synths on this are Korg Polysix:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump