Sorry if some already do...

...I wonder why companies don't just make more of them, maybe with some optional digital & MIDI controllers. I mean proper vintage style models at a reasonable price. They could even have numerous models/types within one keyboard, since most of them are virtually empty. What's the deal?

Are the design patents still valid for earlier models?

...I know so many musicians hungry for vintage analogue synths, yet when I look inside have hardly anything to them it seems.

That is one loaded question! The answer can be found in our drive for technology and money over and above what can be viewed as "older" but often better alternatives.This is not an absolute but can be seen in many areas. Are flat screens better than CRT...in some ways yes but in others no.Cars are full of tech that causes more hassle than its worth.Studios are going back to tape in some instances because of the benefits.

There is every chance that analogue synths will be made "properly" again but a greater chance that it will remain niche as the synth industry wants it this way. Otherwise this may suggest that the past 20 years have been crap and we will start making our own!!...and we wouldnt want that now! Dave

--------------------
My head hurts!

Quote James101:

---

Sorry if some already do...

...I wonder why companies don't just make more of them, maybe with some optional digital & MIDI controllers. I mean proper vintage style models at a reasonable price. They could even have numerous models/types within one keyboard, since most of them are virtually empty. What's the deal?

Are the design patents still valid for earlier models?

...I know so many musicians hungry for vintage analogue synths, yet when I look inside have hardly anything to them it seems.

---

Yeah, but they want VINTAGE analogue synths! New ones would have ... well ... not much inside them :-)

It seems to be my day for retro-bashing :-) Might pop over to http://www.audioasylum.com/index.html and have a go at the magic-cable believers now!

Monster cables aside, I think the argument for some vintage gear is perfectly valid. It's about the human preference for a certain amount of chaos, like you see everywhere in nature.

Quote James101:

---

Sorry if some already do...

---

They do -- small very niche market though. Doepfer, Modcan, Synthesizers.com, TipTop Audio all produce analogue modular synth modules and controllers, for example

Quote:

---

I wonder why companies don't just make more of them, maybe with some optional digital & MIDI controllers. I mean proper vintage style models at a reasonable price.

---

Too high a cost for too small a market. To do this well would require a lot of custom integrated circuits, and the cost of developing those would not be supported by the potential market. If the market was really still there Roland, Yamaha, Oberheim and so on would still be making them.

Quote:

---

Are the design patents still valid for earlier models?

---

Yes, in many cases.

Quote:

---

...when I look inside have hardly anything to them it seems.

---

Okay... so go build your own if it's that simple... It looks like there'snothing there because most of the complicated stuff has been integrated into a handful of ICs -- VCOs, Filters, VCAs, key assigners, envelope generators, etc.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Try looking inside a CS80...

Quote James101:

---

Monster cables aside, I think the argument for some vintage gear is perfectly valid. It's about the human preference for a certain amount of chaos, like you see everywhere in nature.

---

Oh, Monster Cables are the good guys :-) You wouldn't believe some of the stuff...

I can manage quite enough chaos in the music I play, thank you, without the recording technology chucking its own hammers in. As one who struggled with this stuff when it was all there was, I an decidedly unromantic about its limitations.

>"Okay... so go build your own if it's that simple"

I meant space-wise. I would've thought the amount of 'stuff' inside to copy would have an impact on how doable this is. But why were they so bulky if they could've been made much smaller and lighter?

>"Too high a cost for too small a market."

Strange. I've lost count of the people that salivate about old synths. I know four people who have even bought that crappy Gakken stylophone thing, and I'm not exactly a 'people person'.

>"I can manage quite enough chaos in the music I play, thank you, without the recording technology chucking its own hammers in. As one who struggled with this stuff when it was all there was, I an decidedly unromantic about its limitations."

Well, I suppose a lot of it has to do with personal preference. I like Sun Ra, and some early dodgy recordings where the quality is terrible (technically). I hate digital effect pedals like 80's/90's guitar players used and clinical production. Just cheesey to me. I think electromechanical gear adds qualities and nice impections that can't be introduced by the musician.

Quote James101:

---

I meant space-wise. I would've thought the amount of 'stuff' inside to copy would have an impact on how doable this is. But why were they so bulky if they could've been made much smaller and lighter?

---

The ones that included a keyboard needed a suitably substantial case to support and stabilise it.

The modules tended to have enough frontage to hold the knobs. Anyway, when you spend lots of money, you LIKE to get something in a big wooden box!

Quote James101:

---

... why were they so bulky if they could've been made much smaller and lighter?

---

As has been said above, try looking inside a CS80 -- no spare space whatsoever! I used to own one (why-o-why did I sell it? ). In fact most of the analogue syths I've owned over the years, spanning a little Roland SH-09 to a Jupiter 8, Yamaha CS80, Solina String machine were all stuffed to the gunnels with electronics.

Quote:

---

I've lost count of the people that salivate about old synths.

---

So we're talking 20, 40, 50? These things would need to sell in the tens of thousands to stand a chance of being economically viable. Not a realistic proposition when software emulations are cheaper, more versatile and easier to work with, especially when the really good ones sound just as good.

Quote:

---

I think electromechanical gear adds qualities and nice impections that can't be introduced by the musician.

---

As a Hammond afficionado I totally agree with you, and I'll never part with my A100 and L122.... but a Nord is much easier to take out and about and sounds just as good through a PA.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Compared to software and digital synths, it just isn't cost effective to do on a big scale any more. Plus I don't think there is enough demand either.
Sure, folk like us are interested, but relatively speaking, we are few.

So niche companies like Doepfer etc can take up the slack that the big companies like Roland etc can't justify the effort for.

On top of that, it was easier to do 20 or so years ago when companies like CEM and SSM etc would make chips with complete oscillators or filters etc on them. So making analogue synths then was almost straightforward. But no one makes those now. So it takes more components to achieve much the same thing. = more expense.

In Korgs case with the Monotron, and Monotribe, I suspect they are testing the waters with a couple of simplistic products. Gauging interest and experimenting with how to make a new generation of analogue synths. And they are simple enough that they can still be mass produced cheaply using readily available surface mount parts.
Korg even encouraged modding the Monotron, by providing schematics and labelling key points of the PCB. Why? Perhaps to see what people really wanted their synths to do.. Thus giving them good feedback to inspire future products. The Monotribe certainly looks to be an evolution of the Monotron, and contains at least 2 features that i've seen people adding to their Monotrons themselves.

Paul

--------------------
Paul

There's plenty of choice for those who have the money, or not. Mini? Voyager, LP, SP are the nearest new Moogs. If you want an interesting mono there's the Evolver, Mopho, Mono Lancet, OB SEM (new), Dark Energy or bits from people like MFB. There are metric tonnes of Eurorack modular pieces available, and per module they're not very expensive either - and as for polysynths, you could do worse than an Evolver, Tetra or Prophet 08. There's even a new OB 4-voice on the way if you have a helicopter to ship it in, and the little Moogs can be polychained if you're mad and have pockets.

Technology is the driving force behind development, not some beardy with a lust for cables dangling off a sonic wardrobe. Organs, stringers, analogues, the DX7 and its conquering of all things knobby, sampling, ROMpling, memories, presets, frustration followed by odd little boxes like the Bass Station et al, Nord Lead and similar... and the march of software. Despite that, there's room for all comers, and the rise of the iPad an other such flashy guff will not trample forever the odd hairy oucast with a soldering iron who ends up making 48-voice polysynths for his mates, etc.

Faced with what is a much, much better choice of new analogue synths than we've had for twenty years, and given that music gear is really pretty cheap at the basic end of things, and there's loads of second-hand stuff about and it's easier to access than ever (eBay>weekly free-ads for some things at least, prices notwithstanding), who cares whether Romaha are never going to make another big slab of black central heating that costs more than a car?

I don't. Nor do most sensible folk I think. Mind you, most sensible folk don't care about synthesizers at all. Crazy people.

there is a big difference between those who want them (many thousands) and those who'll part with money to have them (a few !!).

There are plenty of great options out there already - I've a few new models from Moog, DSI and others. I fancy getting a big modular beast next - and there are quite a few options. Seems to be a pretty healthy time for synths.

Oh God, I'd love a Macbeth.



--------------------
I'm All Ears.

Quote ken long:

---

Oh God, I'd love a Macbeth.

---

I think you mean 'The Scottish Synth', it's unlucky to use the M word

Andy

--------------------
When the going gets weird, the Weird turn Pro.

Um ... this might answer your question

http://matrixsynth.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-schmidt-analog-synth-at-musikm esse.html

... because they'd cost €25,000!

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com

Sitting on my side of the fence as one who works with manufacturers on product planning and design, there's no mass market for analogue. Simples.

Sure, there are loons here and on other forums who lust after analogue but that's a microcosm of the wider market who want good strings, pianos, brass and bass.

And the minority of loons are more than catered for by synths.com, Doepfer, Analogue Solutions, Wiard and more ... plus, of course, slightly more mainstream, Moog and Dave Smith. And now Tom Oberheim's back on the scene with his cute and cuddly SEM.

But the mass production companies aren't going to touch analogue. Why should they - analogue's bloody expensive now and in some ways, that expertise is missing from R+D departments. A decent DSP or FPGA or two these days can make a really creditable analogue sound-alike ... or VA synth. In past times, such a thing would have required a very expensive, custom designed VLSI ($50k a pop for the 'master' chip and hope to God you got it right else another $50k to blow a bug-fixed version) and analogue was cheaper. Not anymore.

Furthermore, market statistics seem to indicate that whilst there is some interest in analogue (i.e. subtractive) synthesis, the MASS market is not really prepared to spend much more than $500 hence the likes of Alesis Micron and Akai MiniAk.

And the MASS market is where the big manufacturers operate. They have to.

But that leaves the field open for smaller companies with lower overheads to fill the gap with niche and boutique instruments, be they hard or software. And those companies can fly in the face of convention and make stuff that's not just a.n.other synth (yawn) and that, to me, is very exciting.

As Narco points out, it's actually a pretty healthy time for the adventurous synthesist and you can buy anything from a budget Doepfer Darkstar or Vermona Lancet to a full blown synthesizers.com modular and pretty much anything in between. And if you want a poly, there's the Prophet 08.

And it's effectively cheaper than ever...

Back in 1978, a Prophet 5 would cost you £3,000 (equivalent of £12,000 today +/-, give or take?) but a P08 today is just £1,500. Likewise a synths.com modular - for £1,500, I can buy a mod system from them that craps all over an ARP2600 or Moog 15 (I am tempted!!!).

Not sure I see a problem, to be honest.

Unless the OP's question was really "Why don't they just mass produce analogue synths again ... dirt cheap?"

Because they can't. If they could and if there was a market, they would. But they can't.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

They would if they could, but they can't so they won't.


That beeing said - the Chinese are building quite decent valve amps nowadays; shouldn't Doepfer outsource production of the Dark Energy to China? (if they don't already)

--------------------
* wossname * ...if .sig's were fish, this would stink *

Quote hollowsun:

---

Sitting on my side of the fence ...

---

Steve, where does Korg's Monotron/Monotribe fit in to the equation? How far do you think they'll take it? Obviously the architecture of both is compromised in comparison to an MS10/MS20 but they are pushing ahead - the Monotribe is a significant step up from the Monotron.

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com

Quote jellyjim:

---

Steve, where does Korg's Monotron/Monotribe fit in to the equation? How far do you think they'll take it? Obviously the architecture of both is compromised in comparison to an MS10/MS20 but they are pushing ahead - the Monotribe is a significant step up from the Monotron.

---

The Monotron is cheap and cheerful, doesn't cost much to make and at the price, was almost bound to sell well. If it didn't or had bombed, Korg could take the hit.

But Korg have been quite forward thinking of late ... releasing their 'Legacy' VSTs, for example. I know hardware manufacturers who are almost terrified of software synths thinking that they are A) part of the reason for hardware sales slumping and B) what's the point of doing them when they'll only get ripped of (this, incidentally, is why the old Akai's software sampler never happened!)!

But Korg are boxing clever and adopting the 'boutique' approach whilst also having their 'stock' products including their new Kronos. I think it's a smart move even if these little boxes and their plug-ins are loss leaders... still good advertising and promotion for their other (excellent) products.

I also know one of (the late) Mr Satoh's sons and he's an analogue nerd so that might be another reason for the little analogue boxes.

I am not sure if the Monotron/tribe will lead to an all new MS20-alike in time but I am sure we'll see more quirky little things like this from them but I doubt very much if they'll risk tooling up for a big analogue polysynth - too risky perhaps. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

As an indication of the state of play regarding big analogue polysynths, just consider the Alesis Andromeda. Arguably one of the best polys ever made, its development almost drove Alesis to the wall and it didn't sell well - I am sure all the major manufacturers clocked that.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote hollowsun:

---

Quote jellyjim:

---

Steve, where does Korg's Monotron/Monotribe fit in to the equation? How far do you think they'll take it? Obviously the architecture of both is compromised in comparison to an MS10/MS20 but they are pushing ahead - the Monotribe is a significant step up from the Monotron.

---

The Monotron is cheap and cheerful, doesn't cost much to make and at the price, was almost bound to sell well. If it didn't or had bombed, Korg could take the hit.

But Korg have been quite forward thinking of late ... releasing their 'Legacy' VSTs, for example. I know hardware manufacturers who are almost terrified of software synths thinking that they are A) part of the reason for hardware sales slumping and B) what's the point of doing them when they'll only get ripped of (this, incidentally, is why the old Akai's software sampler never happened!)!

But Korg are boxing clever and adopting the 'boutique' approach whilst also having their 'stock' products including their new Kronos. I think it's a smart move even if these little boxes and their plug-ins are loss leaders... still good advertising and promotion for their other (excellent) products.

I also know one of (the late) Mr Satoh's sons and he's an analogue nerd so that might be another reason for the little analogue boxes.

I am not sure if the Monotron/tribe will lead to an all new MS20-alike in time but I am sure we'll see more quirky little things like this from them but I doubt very much if they'll risk tooling up for a big analogue polysynth - too risky perhaps. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

As an indication of the state of play regarding big analogue polysynths, just consider the Alesis Andromeda. Arguably one of the best polys ever made, its development almost drove Alesis to the wall and it didn't sell well - I am sure all the major manufacturers clocked that.

---

Interesting thoughts. I've always wondered just how big the market is. What does Korg gross in a year? 10s of millions, 100s of millions? How many Kronos' will they expect to sell? 1,000, 10,000, 100,000?

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com

Edited by jellyjim (07/04/11 07:33 PM)

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

software emulations are cheaper, more versatile and easier to work with, especially when the really good ones sound just as good.

---

I really don't understand how you can say this. Software does not sound the same, it sounds inferior. On simple boring patches, yes it can sound very similar, but is it really possible to recreate a Boards of Canada album on that awful arteria CS80 monstrosity?

Its the same with a lot of synths; a basic sine wave and the emulation copes well, but you cant get great sounds with character out of it.

Perhaps this is the sonic equivalent to the 'uncanny valley' problem in visual effects; when something (like a sid chip or waldorf wave) is far away from its natural state then it is easily accepted. However, when it gets very close to what it attempts to emulate then we find it disturbing and somehow 'wrong', despite the fact that it appears on the surface to be very similar.

Thats an interesting point jonny (just wiki'd uncanny valley')

I started out years ago on analogues, junos, 101, akai samplers etc . Like a lot of people, i sold the lot when PCs started to get powerful enough to run vsts, and like many was seduced by the power, flexibility, and full recall abilities of soft synthesisers.

But recently realised it never quite got there. And when my mate brought a few analogue bits round for a jam it became obvious. Theres just something not quite right. Its hard to put a finger on it, and im sure blind tests etc, let alone the 'man on teh street' couldnt tell, but theres something imperceptibly wrong.

Hes also got an andromeda in the meantime out of interest (and a system 100m (b'stard!) He never lost the 'faith'.

So ive slowly getting back into the real analogue hardware, kicking myself i sold it all for relatively peanuts years ago.

Some synths, like reaktor for example, are brilliant in that they do stuff no real synths ever could. And id much rather use kontakt than my old Akai S2000, edited breaks on the 2x16 line LCD was some form of guantanemo bizness.

But your moog/101/303 emulations just dont cut it IMHO. The arturia stuff was all awful imo.

And theyre just no fun; mousing around, staring at screens. i bought a novation cotnroller but still not the same...

Softsynths do get a lot nicer when put through a real desk though.

(knowingly posted in vintage and not kvr to avoid 20 page arguments )

Cheers

--------------------
http://www.paradigmx.com

Edited by Paradigm X (08/04/11 08:46 AM)

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

software emulations are cheaper, more versatile and easier to work with, especially when the really good ones sound just as good.

---

I really don't understand how you can say this. Software does not sound the same, it sounds inferior. On simple boring patches, yes it can sound very similar, but is it really possible to recreate a Boards of Canada album on that awful arteria CS80 monstrosity?

Its the same with a lot of synths; a basic sine wave and the emulation copes well, but you cant get great sounds with character out of it.

Perhaps this is the sonic equivalent to the 'uncanny valley' problem in visual effects; when something (like a sid chip or waldorf wave) is far away from its natural state then it is easily accepted. However, when it gets very close to what it attempts to emulate then we find it disturbing and somehow 'wrong', despite the fact that it appears on the surface to be very similar.

---

I think software synthesis is incredible. I mean there's no two ways about it. I remember when somebody first told me about Re:Birth (it was the early days of the Internet, things didn't go viral, you didn't get Facebooked or Twittered and there were no blogs, so you still found out a lot of things because people actually told you!) and I knew he didn't know much about technology so I simply didn't believe him, I just humoured him instead! How wrong I was.

But ... whilst it all might sound the same (ish, sometimes) I know it isn't the same. For me it's like people who get body kits for their cars to make them look like sports cars. Well it looks like a such-and-such but it isn't.

Of course if I can't hear the difference on somebody else's record then what's the difference? None. My preference for hardware synthesis isn't as a listener of music it's as a creative musician.

The defense of software synthesis often assumes, I think, that the only important modality in music is sound. It isn't! As far as composition and performance goes there are many other important things. A musical instrument is just that, an instrument with which a performer has a physical relationship which effects his performance and hence the music created.

@johnny h: Thanks for bringing the "uncanny valley" hypothesis to my attention, I'd never heard of it. Fascinating stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com

Of course that's just me though! Anybody else can do whatever they want to! It's whatever gets you making music that matters at the end of the day.

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com

I agree. I really don't think that virtual synths sound anything like analogue synths except for the basic sounds (e.g. if you listen to a snippet). But why would they? They're not analogue!

There's more natural sounding and changeable (unstable) noise mixed in with the sound of analogue synths for a start. They're more unpredictable, prone to suprising outbursts. All the stuff that control freaks would rather do without. I prefer instruments that need taming, like animals.

hi all,

fascinating reading. i especially like the point about the 'uncanny valley'. i knew of it wrt visual animation but hadn't thought of it wrt audio. very insightful.

i think it's necessary to step back and 'de-romantify' analog synths for a second. and i say this as a member of the club: the first two synths i bought were analog (chroma polaris, last of the ARP design line); since then i've owned a memorymoog+, a prophet t8, an oberheim obsx, and currently own a doepfer ms404, a marion msr2, and 3 (they were on sale so cheap, i coulnd't stop myself) oberheim obmx modules (and i'm sure i've forgotten some synths somewhere along the way).

i LOVE the weird, quirky, and above all unnatural sounds that analog/subtractive synthesis can achieve, particularly in the hands of a skilled programmer. that said, we should remember that for the first few decades of analog synthesis (late 40s thru late 60s) the holy grail was making them sound like real instruments. the high (or low, depending on your point of view) of this was 'switched on bach' by the sexually ambidextrous walter/wendy carlos.

a few synthesists of that era gloried in the weirdness of analog for analog's sake. i'd particularly recommend to the younger folks checking out the soundtrack to 'forbidden planet' (still one of the best sci-fi films of all time, a retelling of 'the tempest' by one w.shakespeare) by louis and bebe barron. l/w, many of the bbc radioworkshop mavens (notably the dr.who musos) used analog synthesis to create otherworldly stuff. but it didn't sound like real instruments. that was the point. later the german school of electronic musicians l/w embraced the limitations of analog synths, and turned them to strengths: tangerine dream, ash ra tempel, kraftwerk, klaus schulze, etc.

when the dx7 came out, it was embraced because FM was able to get closer to the sound of real instruments than any subtractive synth had before. not close enough to my ears then (i knew someone who bought the first two dx7s on the west coast o/t us in 1983 but i passed) or most ears today but way closer than before.

to me the real end of the mass market for analog synths came somewhere between the roland d50 and the korg m1. the rompler came of age between those two milestone. with a few notable exceptions (brass comes to mind) it is very difficult to tell the difference between a good rompler (equiv, sampler) and the real thing.

and this brings me to the real point: most musos are interested in writing songs more than in sound sculpting or creating unreal timbres that never existed in nature. programming a complicated analog synth (say, one with more than just a dozen controls) is a talent that many have likened to a science project. for people who just want to dial up a good marimba/string/oboe/... sound, the rompler is quicker, easier, and WAY cheaper. particularly for those musos who are working in film or library music, where time is money, and delivering what the producer wants when he wants it, that's the clincher.

for those of us who still persevere in the wacky world of analog synthesis, the rewards are manifest. however, we're few, we're a little fey, and manufacturers aren't going to indulgee a handful of crazy knob heads (meant in the best possible way) except in the boutique (dave smith, analogue solutions, etc) market.

all that said, to repeat my concluding remarks from that other thread on this topic, there's no excuse not to be making the music you're hearing in your head with the amount of gear (new and especially used) on the market. even a four-operator FM synth can do sick and depraved sounds in the hands of a sick and depraved musician ;-).

cheers,

d

--------------------
"Patsy had the drug tolerance of Keith Richards and the moral rectitude of Brian Jones." - Dr. Walter Bishop, "Fringe"

I agree with much of what you said. For me, the "romance" is not so much in the sound - softsynths can sound great, but you have to work to put in the "life" and animation that a real analog synth, warm with electricity flooding through it's veins has, otherwise you're left with bland, static, digital and lifeless perfect saw waves etc - no, it's actually the usability of those machines.

I'm tired of a mouse interface where I can control one parameter at a time, and have to focus my eyes just to hit that tiny spot in the right place and drag the mouse in particular directions. I'm tired of the visuals overwhelming the ears in terms of attention. I'm tired of buying all kinds of remote control boxes and having to assign parameters to knobs, not have them grouped correctly, not labelled and trying to remember which control does what, of using a knob to control an on/off button, or weird value ranges assigned and many many more annoyances.

The real beauty of those machines (or at least many of them) is that while the features were simpler than we are used to, they had a dedicated, custom-developed control surface with appropriate controls and labelling, everything was always in the same place, you could program by touch and feel, you can reach out, easily skip around the parameters, control multiple things at once, especially crucial things like filter amounts, filter envelope amounts and other controls that interact a lot.

Softsynths are great, and they have all kinds of advantages over those old, certainly over-romanticised analog beasts, and I'm sure if I ever got some sexy time with some of my old synth crushes I may well be disappointed, at least a bit.

But I really think the mouse/pointing device is a bad control mechanism that up to now has made sense with computers because it's the best we had as a generic controller. Now we are starting to StarTrek-it-up a bit in terms of the public acceptance of touch screens and the work companies like Apple are doing in to making that experience tactile and responsive, maybe we'll finally be able to get away from the mouse a little.

yes, the 'one parameter at a time' editing blows. and not in the good way. ironically, it was roland and korg that in the mid-late 80s moved to this type of i/f on their hw synths. it was horrible. then roland intro'd the jd800, which was and is a knob-head's dream, but priced it at $2995 in late 80s money. too much money, too few sales, bye bye.

this is why the 90s synth revival was such an unexpected reprieve to many of us. synths started having live front panels with filter and envelope controls, routing matrices, etc. and they brought back arpeggiators a/o step sequencers. as i said in another thread, it's led to what i think is a new golden age of electronic music, notably in the chill area.

btw, i went to wikipedia to double check the last name of the barron's and found this writeup that seemed so cool i'm copying it here as further encouragement to analog heads who've never heard the 'forbidden planet' score to check it out. come on, it was inspired by norbert wiener (who, ironically, helped spawn the financial crisis of a few years back by figuring out the mathematics of white noise and brownian motion, but don't hold that against him ;-)

"Forbidden Planet's innovative electronic music score, credited as "electronic tonalities"—partly to avoid having to pay any of the film industry music guild fees—was composed by Louis and Bebe Barron. MGM producer Dore Schary discovered the couple quite by chance at a beatnik nightclub in Greenwich Village while on a family Christmas visit to New York City; Schary hired them on the spot to compose his film's musical score. While the theremin (which was not used in Forbidden Planet) had been used on the soundtrack of Alfred Hitchcock's 1945 film Spellbound, the Barron's electronic composition is credited with being the first completely electronic film score; their soundtrack preceded the invention of the Moog synthesizer by eight years (1964).
Using ideas and procedures from the book, Cybernetics: Or, Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine (1948) by the mathematician and electrical engineer Norbert Wiener, Louis Barron constructed his own electronic circuits that he used to generate the score's "bleeps, blurps, whirs, whines, throbs, hums, and screeches".[8] Most of these sounds were generated using an electronic circuit called a "ring modulator". After recording the basic sounds, the Barrons further manipulated the sounds by adding other effects, such as reverberation and delay, and reversing or changing the speeds of certain sounds.[12]
Since Louis and Bebe Barron did not belong to the Musicians Union, their work could not be considered for an Academy Award—in either the "soundtrack" or the "sound effects" categories. Curiously, MGM declined to publish a soundtrack album at the same time that Forbidden Planet was released. However, film composer and conductor David Rose later published a 7" (18 cm) single of his original main title theme that he had recorded at the MGM Studios in Culver City during March of 1956. His main title theme had been discarded when Rose, who had originally been hired to compose the musical score in 1955, was discharged from the project by Dore Schary sometime between Christmas 1955 and New Year’s Day.[citation needed]
The soundtrack was finally released on a vinyl LP album by the Barrons for the film's 20th anniversary in 1976, on their own PLANET Records label (later changed to SMALL PLANET Records and distributed by GNP Crescendo Records). The LP was premiered at MidAmeriCon, the 34th World Science Fiction Convention, held in Kansas City, MO over the Labor Day weekend in 1976, as part of a 20th Anniversary celebration of Forbidden Planet held at that Worldcon. The Barrons were there promoting the album's first release, signing all the copies sold there; they also introduced the first of three packed-house screenings that showed an MGM 35mm fine grain vault print in CinemaScope and sterophonic sound. A decade later, their soundtrack was released on a music CD in 1986 for the film's 30th Anniversary, with a six-page color booklet containing images from Forbidden Planet, plus liner notes from the composers, Louis and Bebe Barron, and Bill Malone.[12] The soundtrack is also available on disc one of the album Forbidden Planet Explored."

--------------------
"Patsy had the drug tolerance of Keith Richards and the moral rectitude of Brian Jones." - Dr. Walter Bishop, "Fringe"

Well this has been an interesting thread, but and I have been following and agreeing with pretty much most of the sentiment. I too love true analogue synths and agree that vituals do NOT share the same depth of tone and subtlety..
But here's the news guys.. Having just spent 3 days in Frankfurt on the Schneiders Buro stand I can honestly say that I have never known a time where there has been so much choice of analogue.. It's been like being in a sweet shop
Analogue synths from every corner of the Globe.. Home grown delights from Analogue solutions and Analogue systems, tons of Doepfer stuff as well as MFB, Moon modular and too many others to mention.. Seriously guys, we've never had it this good!.. On top of all of that there was the absolutely awesome Schmidt all Analogue Polysynth for those in possesion of more than €10000.. Expensive, yes, but what an incredible machine
The moral to this story is stop waiting for the big boys to lead the revolution or you will miss the party the rest of us will be having(he says going home with a new Telemark)

BTW, pics to follow when I can get to a proper computer



--------------------
MBP 17", PC 100(Nubus Protools) Motu 896, X-Station, Logic9, Reason6, Korg legacy, ACE, Alchemy, Emax II, E-Synth, Evolver MEK, Waldorf Pulse and Blofeld, AS Telemark, AS Leipzig-S

Quote dubbmann:

---

we should remember that for the first few decades of analog synthesis (late 40s thru late 60s) the holy grail was making them sound like real instruments. the high (or low, depending on your point of view) of this was 'switched on bach' by the sexually ambidextrous walter/wendy carlos.

---

Eh??!

Wendy was quite opposed to 'replicating' instruments on her big Moog but keen on capturing the essence of baroque instruments in her work and also bringing a new sensibility in interpretation to baroque with the exploitation of new timbres. She then went on, post SOB Moog, to explore more interesting textural territories using microtonal scales on her DK Synergy.

I'd say that in the pioneering days of early synthesis in the 50s and early 60s, synths were exploited for their 'weirdness' and the 'new' sounds and textures they could create - you referenced the Barrons but also Daphne Oram, Delia Derbyshire, the Radiophonic (which you also mentioned), Tristram Cary, Peter Zinoviev, Morton Subotnik were pushing the boundaries and prior to them the Schaeffers and Vareses and Stockhausens and their musique concrete/pure electronic offerings (depending whether they came from the French or Cologne school of new electronica). No imitative synthesis there!

The late 60s (and the success of Wendy's SOB) saw the release of a raft of truly awful 'Switched on..." albums by nobodies ('Switched on Christmas', 'Switched on country', 'Switched on classics', 'Switched on marching band', etc.) where the [ ****** ] set in and the synth was exploited, quacking duck filter sweep stylee for its gimmickry. The early 70s also saw some appalling synth records released as well (Chicory Tip anyone ... 'Popcorn'?). Little or no imitative synthesis, just crass, gimmicky sounds that did the cause of the synth no good at all!

It was in the 70s and the commercialisation of synths (many built for organists to sit atop their organs ... oo-er no missus) that we saw 'flute' and 'oboe' presets (even the ARPs had patch sheets to show you how to set up flute and trumpet, etc., sounds) and then we saw string synths and then we had polysynths with strings, brass, organ, etc., presets with people doing albums where the 'orchestration' was done entirely on analogue synths.

I have no problem with that per se - there's a skill in creating the sound and playing and arranging it appropriately and the likes of Larry Fast and Isao Tomita (and to an extent, Vangelis) and others did a fine job of blending synthesised 'traditional' sounds with real 'out there' synth sounds. The Berlin school of electronica (Tangs, Schulz, etc.) as well. I used to do much the same as well (though not with the same skill!).

Quote dubbmann:

---

i'd particularly recommend to the younger folks checking out the soundtrack to 'forbidden planet' (still one of the best sci-fi films of all time, a retelling of 'the tempest' by one w.shakespeare) by louis and bebe barron. l/w, many of the bbc radioworkshop mavens (notably the dr.who musos) used analog synthesis to create otherworldly stuff.

---

But that was a different time - 50s and 60s when synths didn't really exist. They were making "otherworldly stuff" with test oscillators and equalisers and tape machines roped into being echo units, etc., and in the case of the Barrons, they built their own stuff, designing a little box of electronics to make just one specific sound or particular range of sounds. And often these boxes didn't work as anticipated but the Barrons exploited those quirks. Daphne Oram also built her own 'synth' ... it wasn't a synth as such but an electronic music generator. The Radiophonic was also very inventive. Then they acquired EMS synths which were lousy at imitative synthesis (they were never intended for that being the brainchild of UK avant gardists ... the keyboard was optional don't forget!) so the RW exploited them for what they were.

Innovative synthesis died, in a way, when Robert Moog attached a music keyboard to all his synths (the contemporaneous American synth innovator at the time, Don Buchla, like EMS, also eschewed the traditional keyboard) and the synth became a 'keyboard' instrument rather than a unique electronic musical instrument in its own right; it became something to play chromatic melodies and bass lines, etc., on rather than a truly new instrument to create a truly new kind of 'music'.

Rather contentiously, one could argue that the MiniMoog was the worst thing that ever happened to 'real' electronic music because it set the trend for monosynths being 'leadline' instruments, something to really go head to head with the lead guitarist, something keyboardists couldn't really do before with their Rhodes and Hammonds however hard they tried. And then polysynths (based on the MiniMoog) allowed keyboardists to be a string and brass section (up to a point ... but close enough). Keyboard players were required to have a synth that could do strings, brass, etc..

But as we've gone through the various mutations over the decades, whilst the vast majority of people buy a 'synth' (or sampler ... now predominantly software) for realistic strings, brass, piano, basses, drums, woodwinds, whatever, we arrive at a point when there is STILL a desire for more experimental electronica.

At the risk of a plug the mods may object to, I myself am returning to my roots so to speak (raised on the Barrons, RW, Subotnic, early post-WWII experimental electronica, EMS VCS3s and AKSs (on which I cut my teenage synthesis teeth), homemade synths, etc.) and am now making my own Kontakt sample-based 'machines' with the ethos of that pre-synth era firmly in mind with non-standard electronic music machines designed very specifically to step outside the mainstream ...



http://www.hollowsun.com/HS2/sli/oscillosine



http://www.hollowsun.com/HS2/sli/broken

http://www.hollowsun.com/HS2/sli

Ok... they're in software but that doesn't mean they have to sound sterile. They're not sample libraries as such but true synths with organic sounding valve-generated samples at their heart. The GUI paradigm might not be to everyone's liking here but it brings with it benefits such as automation, etc., that wouldn't be possible in hardware.

And I could make these in hardware - I know enough seriously skilled old school engineers, some of whom date back to those halcyon days, one of which was a principle designer at EMS and another younger chap well versed in ancient valve technology such that what he doesn't know could be written on a pinhead ... but you can add a few noughts onto the price!

Which is the point I am making...

Making a true analogue synth can be done and there are people who can do it. But it's an expensive and risky venture and not at all 'mass market' which, sadly perhaps, is where the major manufacturers operate. And who can blame them - they invest £millions into R+D ... they need an ROI for their bean counters and shareholders. It's business and this is 'The Music Business'. But....

Smaller operations can maybe afford to be more innovative and think a bit more laterally whether that's in hardware or software.

But don't dismiss software just because it's software and/or you've had a few bad experiences - it IS possible to create living, breathing, wheezing, organic beasts if you do it properly.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote hollowsun:

---

At the risk of a plug the mods may object to....

---

Indeed... steady on there young man!

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote hollowsun:

---

At the risk of a plug the mods may object to....

---

Indeed... steady on there young man!

Hugh

---

Boo!

We love Steve! We love Steve!

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com

Quote hollowsun:

---

The early 70s also saw some appalling synth records released as well (Chicory Tip anyone ... 'Popcorn'?). Little or no imitative synthesis, just crass, gimmicky sounds that did the cause of the synth no good at all!

---

Interesting that the track you pick out as "appalling" is just about the only synth instrumental that Joe Punter would immediately recognise, and could even whistle the tune for you! (And could have too, before Crazy Frog)

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Interesting that the track you pick out as "appalling" is just about the only synth instrumental that Joe Punter would immediately recognise, and could even whistle the tune for you! (And could have too, before Crazy Frog)

---

Oooh... I'd plump for 'Oxygene' for the Joe Punter Whistlage Award

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Quote hollowsun:

---

The early 70s also saw some appalling synth records released as well (Chicory Tip anyone ... 'Popcorn'?). Little or no imitative synthesis, just crass, gimmicky sounds that did the cause of the synth no good at all!

---

Interesting that the track you pick out as "appalling" is just about the only synth instrumental that Joe Punter would immediately recognise, and could even whistle the tune for you! (And could have too, before Crazy Frog)

---

Indded!
I think that he also underestimates the value of both Popcorn and cheap crappy keyboards.

I believe this combination flew under the radar of 'serious' musicians but went straight to the hearts of the wannabees. Some of these played for a while, then got bored and moved onto something else. The others started to get frustrated by the limitations and as they were now hooked, felt compelled to go further. They would have been totally daunted by a full on mega-knob analogue - hey that has a nice flow

Personally I'm a keyboard man through and through. Even if I bend things later I need that firm structure as a base. I've tried working with slippery wobbly noises as the starting point and simply can't get anywhere with them.

It's very much horses for courses. My softsynth of choice is Yoshimi. I understand how to make the sounds I want with it, and while I sometimes give a nod to 'real' sound-alikes, mostly my sounds are pretty far out. I dare say it would be possible to create these in hardware, but to do so I think I would have to sell several more houses than I have - and I don't quite have one!

--------------------
It wasn't me!
(Well, actually, it probably was)

Some years after roland had been making digital synths a reporter comented to "Mr Roland" < I cant remember his name> that the digital keyboards didnt have as much "oomph as his older anolog gear"
His answer was you spend 2000 making one note great or 2000 making 24 notes sound ok. If customers could afford to spend 2000 per note I could afford to make a digital keyboard that sounded as good as the old keyboards.

As far as mass producing a keyboard goes a cpu and a dsp is much cheaper and easyer to make than balancing all the anolog curcuits
needed for a synth.

Having said that the latest from Dave Smith of Sequential Circuits
is your mass produced analog synth.


"your wish is granted!!"

--------------------
If only reaper was on the atari platform

Quote Chevytraveller:

---

BTW, pics to follow when I can get to a proper computer

---

Ok here goes.. all these are current analogue synths
































And finally, the mighty Schmidt 8 Voice Polysynth




Really, I cannot remember at time when there was so much choice..

--------------------
MBP 17", PC 100(Nubus Protools) Motu 896, X-Station, Logic9, Reason6, Korg legacy, ACE, Alchemy, Emax II, E-Synth, Evolver MEK, Waldorf Pulse and Blofeld, AS Telemark, AS Leipzig-S

per Desmond -- YES!!! It's not so much the sound produced by analogue synths, but the fact that there's all the knobs & switches. While these can be utter arse-pain in the studio (trying to reset everything to do a punch-in fix), when playing live it's a dream to be able to shift parameters, whether nuance or whacking a knob waaaay over mid-note. Some digitals can be set up for this (I get reasonable results from my JX-305, & the PG-10 for my old D-20 gives at least some immediate access), but generally breadth is sacrificed for depth as far as linear controls.

For the record, Bob Moog was never really happy with keys (a digital interface for all that analogue). Which made me recall the performance piece "Variations V" -- what more could I want but Merce Cunningham's troupe dancing to a John Cage piece with Bob Moog on electronic sounds?? Here's a bit -- the chrome stands scattered around the stage are Theremin antennae, & supposedly there were also photocells involved:

http://movimientolaredsd.ning.com/video/john-cage-variations-v