Okay. I can understand the appeal of owning a vintage synthesizer. And, I can understand the appeal of a great synth like the ARP 2600.

But this????

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=110366060528

I have a Music Emporium (bought out by Musicians Friend) catalogue from 1978 selling a brand new ARP 2600 for $2150.00 USD, less S&H.

IMO, asking $5,999.00 for a 30+ year old electronic instrument is freakin' crazy. Furthermore, anyone paying that price for this synth is either nuts, or has excess money to throw away.

Being a realist I cannot fathom the idea of paying such an exorbitant price for such an old piece of electronic equipment. Regardless if it's place in synthesizer history, it's old and suffering from aging (dielectric break down of it's capacitors for instance).

My argument stems from a musician's POV, not a collector's. It's possible to build a DIY synth to precisely duplicate a 2600 for less than half of the asking price of the unit above, with the added bonus of additional LFOs, increased mod capabilities, and midi if desired.

IMHO, old analog synths are extremely over hyped for what they have to offer.

End of rant.

Cheers!

Excuse the rant. I was having a bad day when I wrote that and just needed to vent a little. It was not my intention to insult anyone, nor start an argument over which synthesizer is better, etc.



I agree that the value placed on certain analogs is very subjective, but there is a line between paying a high asking price because a musician wants/requires THAT sound, and buying the instrument simply for bragging rights, so to speak. High prices place those instruments beyond the means of most musicians who otherwise could use them to their full potential. My apologies to any collectors who may be reading this, but I loath the idea of buying an instrument simply to place it on display as some kind of trophy.



I would say that this too is a matter of opinion. I owned a Moog system 35A for about 12 years, and it was truly a love/hate relationship from the beginning.

In the late 70s I'd been saving up to buy a new car. Despite having built my own modules, to me owning a genuine Moog modular was like owning the Holy Grail. Still, I needed to deal with everyday life, and the old Ford pickup I'd inherited from my grandfather just wasn't "cool" enough for me to drive around in, so I planned on buying a Minimoog after my car purchase.

Back then, whenever I'd visit relatives living in Denver I'd make sure to spend time at a music shop who specialized in keyboards and, most importantly, synthesizers. The owner (who's name I wish I could remember) was kind enough to allow me to play most of the synths in the store. I played the ARP 2600, ARP Odyssey, Minimoog, Oberheim 4-voice, and various other keyboards I can't remember. As much as I enjoyed them all, I still couldn't get over my lust for a modular.

One fateful day (as all stories go) while I was visiting the shop the owner invited me into the store room to show me a new synth someone had ordered. My jaw dropped when I saw that it was a brand new system 15. I wasn't allowed to play it, but just being in the same room with an actual Moog modular was like a fan boy's wet dream. That had cinched it. The new car and all the other synths in the floor room became non existent to me. After discussing prices I placed an order for a Moog 35 (actually, it was a 35A, the one without the fixed filter bank).

I'll never forget the day when I received the phone call telling me that my synth had finally arrived at the shop. I called in sick from work the next day, invited a friend of mine, and drove like a mad man to Denver (speed limits were pretty lax in those days). The cabinet was even bigger than I'd imagined. I must have spent at least 4 hours trying it out at the shop, drooling over every sound it made. If ever I reached nirvana in my young life that was it.

After a careful drive home, my friend (who couldn't understand my excitement) helped me carry it into my apartment. After paying my friend for his troubles by buying him dinner (Burger King) and a 12 pak I raced back home to be with my new found love. I'm almost embarrassed to say, but I was practically giddy with excitement.

Now, the reason I explained my initial reactions at length is because even though I felt as though I'd reached some pinnacle in my life it wasn't long before I became frustrated with the instrument. The first disappointment I had was that it didn't have a pitch or mod wheel. Being a performer, I considered being able to bend pitch while playing was one of the greatest attributes of synthesizers. I began tinkering with my own pitch wheel designs, but I never got them to work quite right. They would always interfere with KBD tracking. As for modulation, an expression pedal I made from a gutted Cry Baby and one of the VCAs took care of that beautifully.

The next problem I had was with polyphony. I would make some great sounding patches that I wished I could play polyphonically, only to be trapped in playing one note at a time.

The final blow was when poly synths came out with patch memory. I remember thinking, "WOW! It's polyphonic AND you can save up to 32 patches and recall them whenever you want? That's for me!"

For the latter half of the 80s my once precious Moog sat unused in the corner of the studio. By 1990, one of the EGs and the two filters in the 923 module had stopped working and all of the pots were dirty and scratchy. I could have fixed them myself, but I saw no reason to. I finally sold it in 1991 to a friend for $1500.00. I could have asked for a lot more, basing the higher price on a number of reasons, but I decided to be reasonable and sold it for what I considered a fair price.

Don't worry, the story does have a happy ending. My friend restored it to it's former glory and still has it to this day.

And I have no regrets for having sold it. Don't get me wrong, I loved the sounds I got out of it, and no other synth I've played sounds like it. But though some may consider it odd, I actually miss my Korg Poly 6 much more than I miss my 35A. Despite the Moog's superior sound sculpting capabilities the Korg offered an immediacy to it's functions and playability that the 35A did not (plus it had a great sound of it's own as well).



Given the chance, would I buy another Moog modular? The answer is no. As wonderful as the synth was (and don't judge by my complaints above -- I really did enjoy the instrument) I don't feel I need it in my music. No modern day synth can duplicate it's sounds, but there are some that can have the same "flavor" without being an exact copy, and that to me is more important.

If I were to shell out $6K for an analog I'd go for a Macbeth M5N. It's definitely not old analog sounding, but rather, is capable of a wrenching, horrible, soul destroying sound that thrills me no end.



I wouldn't disagree with anyone's choice in sound since that is a personal aspect of their musicianship and all around taste in music. If a particular instrument gives you the sound you want (and if you're lucky enough to own that instrument) then any argument to the contrary would be completely pointless.

As an example, I'd like to mention a cousin of mine. He began playing the guitar at around 12 years old, and through the decades has become an extraordinary musician. However, he absolutely abhors electric guitars. For what ever reason, he feels that the only true guitar sound is that of an acoustic guitar, and the sound of an electric guitar is an abomination.

I see a distinct parallel between him and someone who believes that the only worthwhile synth sound is that of old analogs.

True, despite technology there's no way an electric guitar can precisely duplicate the sound of an actual acoustic guitar.

True, with modern analog synths it would be impossible to duplicate every sound of an older analog, especially one like a Minimoog.

But, and this is just my personal opinion, I feel that the people in both categories above are limiting their musical pallet. Please don't misunderstand, I appreciate and respect their choices in sounds and instruments. But in the case of my cousin, I feel that he could express his talent just as beautifully and soulfully on an electric guitar as he does on an acoustic.

My point is, the choice to have THAT sound in one's music is much more important to the musician/programmer than it is to the listener. And, IMHO, this is where the hype comes in. It's not so much coming from the musicians who favor their old analogs, but rather, from the many naive people who've never even played such instruments, yet take opinions/reviews as laws cast in stone. They tend to believe that THAT sound is THE ONLY SOUND and that's why older analog sells for such high prices.

Again, older analog synths sound wonderful, but they are not going to make anyone a better musician simply by owning one. I say, give the struggling musicians who can do something creative a chance to own one, rather than setting prices that only collectors and those with disposable $$$ can afford.



Even if I had the means I wouldn't do it for two reasons:

First, I'd have to decide if it would be an exact copy, or one with added features. I'd have to consider adding one or two LFOs, deciding whether or not to include midi, and if so, possibly patch memory. If I were to include those features, right off the bat there would be people complaining that it's not a true ARP 2600.

Second, if it were to be an exact ARP 2600 clone, then it would be even more of a boutique item.

In either case, it would have to be a labor of love, and I'm just not willing to dedicate that much of my time on something like this anymore.

As for DIY-ing one I don't think $3000.00 is an unreasonable estimate. One could design it from the ground up, or use a wide variety of available circuit designs. For example, there's already a few ladder VCF clone designs to chose from out there. The key to duplicating the sound and characteristics of the 2600 would be in tweaking the circuits (a far more intricate technique than simply trying to patch a sound). I would even make a few small changes in the design, such as replacing the coarse and fine sliders with pots to facilitate tuning (a change that wouldn't affect the sound, BTW).

Who knows. Maybe some day if the DIY bug bites again I'll consider such a cloning attempt.

"Igor! Fire up the lightning electrodes and bring me my soldering iron!"

Cheers!

Speaking of overpriced synths, I remember when I got my first analog.

SH-101 in red with the handle for $600 (and a custom hardshell flight case) I was so giddy when it arrived in the mail, I sat there for days just noodling around.

Unfortunately It got a lot of hate from people around me (KEYTARS.. GAY? I THINK NOT) and eventually I got to caught up in software and it got less and less attention from me...

I wish I still had it

Now days if I had the chance to have another piece of analog hardware... I trade in my soul and never look back. (prolly gonna go to guitar center this summer and see if they take souls for Little Phatties)

Sorry for the long absence, the old body needed some medical "tune ups" to keep me going.



I know you're kidding about the crazy part, but nonetheless as you yourself have stated it's a matter of connecting with an instrument that's important to a somewhat serious degree. In the late 70s the only synth I had was the 35, and as much as I loved creating beautifully exotic sound textures I was bound by the inability to take my treasured synth on the road. I did haul it to two separate performances only to have it mistreated and the cabinet damaged (though slightly) each time.

When I acquired the Korg I felt as though I'd been liberated in a very important way.

True, after a few years of creating sounds on my Moog modular the Polysix almost felt like working with a toy, but it also inspired me to take what limited options I had to be as creative as possible (it was a true case of less is more). I ran that little lady through a myriad of FX pedals and the end result was always pleasing to both myself and the audience.

Then there was the issue of polyphony, which was still a big deal in the early 80s (as an example of how uninformed the public was in 1981, every non-musician friend I had still didn't know what a synthesizer was). Even keyboard players I knew, who were much more proficient at playing than I was, would be surprised that I could play chords on my Polysix.

Not to go off into a nostalgic rant, but it was such a different time back then. Even the most limited synth was like a TARDIS to most working musicians. If your keyboard could do filter sweeps and LFO bloops and bleeps then you had your audience in the palm of your hand. You were doing things that they could only hear on the radio or vinyl LPs. I remember one instance where a friend of mine did a horrible rendition of Lucky Man on a Moog Rogue and got a standing ovation.

I agree with you that old analog has a distinctive audio characteristic that has yet to be reproduced in any modern gear (though I'm hoping the new SEM will sound as lush as the original).

And as far as the Polysix is concerned, I'll stick my head onto the chopping block and say that I like the SSM filter sound a bit more than I like the 904 (which, just to be clear, isn't the same as the Minimoog D).

But when all is said and done, it's not what toys we have, but what we do with them that counts.

Don't you agree...?

Ha ha.

Well, yes, I agree. Of most importance is how you connect with an instrument. If a musical instrument inspires you to create music, and makes you happy... that is the most important thing.

However, a lot of people (I am convinced not you) use that as an excuse to defend shit equipment or shit music.

Anyone can sound great with great equipment, but it takes a talented person to sound great with shit equipment. : )

The thing about polyphony is that anyone who sought polyphony should have been disappointed with the sacrifices that were needed to make it. When I compare polyphonic synths to monophonic synths, it is quite apparent that great sacrifices were made to generate polyphony. I didn't know that when I got a Juno 106 in 1985 and mocked Moogs for being monophonic, but I was young and stupid. ; )

I understand how thrilling polyphony was back then. I'm a bit younger than you, but I was caught up in the progression of synths, and thought monophony and analog were horribly limited and limiting.

But the point where synthesizers were viewed as devices to emulate other devices and designed to be complex to program is the point where I recognized that synth companies AND synth users had gone astray.

THAT is encyclopedic, that is. Succinct and nails it.

I'm fairly young-born right about the time Moog went away for while- i didn't have the evolutionary walk thorough synth history, starting myself on the emulative boards of casio, yamaha and the like. I loved the cheesy, fake strings, brass, etc. but eventually grew bored with it... eventually my moment of clarity in the world of electronic music, and by association synthesizers, came when I saw the documentary MOOG and adopted Dr. Moog's description of the synthesizer, paraphrased, a synthesis of electronic components, as my credo.

I would gladly trade in every poly I had ever owned to get a real, vintage Mini. Not because it's a Moog, but because every recording I've ever heard of one has made me want it more and more- it doesn't make an unpleasant sound- and it's what I feel would suit me best.

That is the irrefutable argument for the 'elite' *cough* synths. they are elite because they are the cream of the crop, the best of their breed (no not the best synthesizer of all time) but in it's element, in the vein of what it was meant to do and to be. Like you've said, and what should be obvious, for what they do they were worth the high price that they were when they were made and still are worth a 'reasonable' price of finding one today- which is what the heart of this thread was about!

but the argument: poeple can say- "oh, the minimoog is so cliché!" "all you can do with one is make duck farts and Kraftwerkian zaps!" Chances are none of those people have even played a mini in their LIVES! And they're jealous they don't have one, more likely! These were the best of their kind, i think i said that, i'm going insane.. but there are varied opinions, and people have the right to them- regardless of how stupid they are! This is not to say that new synths are worthless and that old ones are the Pure and Immutable Canon of synthesis. Again, they all have a place. Even an OB•SX

As far as value, and selling prices, there are a lot of gougers, schillers, etc. on ebay, which was inevitable from the start. Greed is the 2nd most common universal vice. I think the local market will come around- i mean, i've gotten some VERY reasonable deals on craigslist or by word of mouth- or people will stop selling their stuff and realize they need to drop it down a notch... meh.

I agree with both of you. Old analog sounds beautiful and is in a league all it's own.

The only thing I don't quite grasp is the fierce dedication to "that sound". Again, it is unique only to older gear and it's wonderfully warm and organic and completely lacking from it's modern day counterparts.

But it's still limited. Also, it occupies only a niche in an entire musical composition (unless one is dedicated enough to create a master work such as Isao Tomita's using older synths).

The thing that gets me is that I've read so much in so many different forums about how synth XYZ is such a wonderful instrument, yet in the next sentence they describe how great it is to be able to duplicate such-and-such sound they heard on someone else's recording.

FFS, where is the creativity?

I can understand a person being in a tribute band wanting to duplicate his/her favorite sounds as close as possible. In fact, it's a necessity to own the same gear in order to get the sound as close as possible.

But unless someone is dedicating their talent to duplicating someone else's efforts, then why bother with a finicky piece of gear that may be more trouble than the benefits it offers sonically?

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not bashing old gear in the least (as far as sound goes anyway).

A couple years ago, I was interested in picking up a Little Phatty. I'd read all the reviews, but being how I am, I needed to try it out first hand before making my decision. I had hoped that it would at least have the sound of a mid 80's Moog.

When I finally got to try one out I was shocked. The sound was definitely analog, but it had absolutely no character of any old Moog I'd ever played. It wasn't cold, per say, but it lacked a certain depth that I find difficult to describe. I definitely wasn't hoping for a MiniMoog sound, but despite it's nice layout and mod options this little board just didn't inspire me at all.

My point is, I like to seek out unique sounds. If I'm going to invest in old gear then I'm not going to do so because I want to replicate what someone has already done. If said old gear will inspire me sonically to create something new then I feel it is definitely worth the cost and trouble of maintaining it.

However, if something new comes along that touches me in the personal creative sense then I will pursue it first.

Case in point: I have a friend who purchased an original M5. From every thing I've heard that he's sent me I find myself getting more and more GAS for one. Despite it's architecture it absolutely doesn't sound like an ARP 2600, but from the diverse sounds I've heard from my friend's samples I find this instrument more tantalizing than buying an old synth. I just may order one before the year is out.

Old stuff is great. It sounds great. It looks great. And when it works it feels great. And if its sound is what you need for your musical endeavors then I say by all means go for it.

But, IMHO it's just not the end-all be-all of analog synthesis.

Cheers!