Synapse The Legend Synthesizer is in the Shop

This forum is for discussing Rack Extensions. Devs are all welcome to show off their goods.
User avatar
The_G
Posts: 549
Joined: 17 Jan 2016
Location: Los Angeles

Post 25 Nov 2016

DONE
Cosmopolis, out now: : https://timeslaves.bandcamp.com/album/cosmopolis! Check out the first single, "City Lights:


User avatar
Skullture
Posts: 538
Joined: 17 Nov 2015

Post 07 Dec 2016

Good find, The Legend is definitely one of the best plugins of the year. :D

User avatar
raymondh
Posts: 1188
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 26 Dec 2016

I wasn't going to buy this synth. Quite a lot of $NZ once converted and I already have Viking.

But it sounds absolutely terrific and when I saw a new update with performance optimisations, and I got a bit of cash for Christmas, I decided to get it.

Synapse Audio sure can be proud of this synth. It really is something special. Excellent presets as well.
Win 10 64-bit | :reason: 10 | Scarlet 18i8 | M-Audio Code 61 | KRK VXT-6 | JX-8P | System-8 | D-05 | JP-08 | Sirin
www.soundcloud.com/raymondhayter

User avatar
miscend
Posts: 1235
Joined: 09 Feb 2015

Post 26 Dec 2016

Do you guys think this will be the synth that finally ends the hardware vs software argument for good?

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5511
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 26 Dec 2016

miscend wrote:Do you guys think this will be the synth that finally ends the hardware vs software argument for good?
Which argument would that be?
Windows 10 | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion

User avatar
fieldframe
Posts: 654
Joined: 19 Apr 2016

Post 26 Dec 2016

EnochLight wrote:
miscend wrote:Do you guys think this will be the synth that finally ends the hardware vs software argument for good?
Which argument would that be?
The one that ended 10-15 years ago? ;)

I think the few people still arguing that software can't sound as "warm" as hardware will continue arguing the same for decades to come.
Welcome to TEST FIXTURE

User avatar
Dante
Posts: 470
Joined: 06 Jun 2015
Location: Australia

Post 26 Dec 2016

Well, I haven.t done an A/B comparison yet, but my impression so far is that my Creamware DSP based MiniMax has it over Legend sonically. So not sure how that weighs in to the debate since DSP is a hardware/software combination.

EdGrip
Posts: 1469
Joined: 03 Jun 2016

Post 26 Dec 2016

It's probably hard to say until you put The Legend through a decent interface into a massive PA. I must try that. That would be fun. XD

chk071
Posts: 520
Joined: 12 Jul 2015
Location: Germany

Post 26 Dec 2016

miscend wrote:Do you guys think this will be the synth that finally ends the hardware vs software argument for good?
I think the more relevant question is whether you like the sound of the Minimoog or not.
:reason: :rebirth:

User avatar
raymondh
Posts: 1188
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 26 Dec 2016

chk071 wrote:
miscend wrote:Do you guys think this will be the synth that finally ends the hardware vs software argument for good?
I think the more relevant question is whether you like the sound of the Minimoog or not.
I think it is one of those questions that will probably never be answered - it is about the ability for software to adequately recreate the sound, the character and the experience of a particular hardware synth, to the point where we don't feel like we wish we had the real McCoy. And that will be different for everyone.

The sound is just one of the requirements. It may not even be the most important one. Certainly a half decent emulation can sound terrific in a mix - it doesn't have to sound perfect. And frankly, when you associate a favourite sound to a well known synth, and then go play the original synth, you can be bitterly disappointed by the boring sound you hear - because it is missing all the studio FX and processing. Those Jupiter 8 intro chords to Thriller would have you believe it was the fattest synth in the world, until you learn about how many multi-tracked layers were involved. Or the Prophet V you bought to make the synth lead on Bette Davis Eyes - no matter how much time you spend programming it, you can't get a sound quite that sweet!

Then there is the character. The imperfections in the original synth (tuning/drift, note stealing, glitches, interaction between oscillators when you play a chord, chorus noise, even failing electronics like a leaky capacitor that makes your synth sound completely individual) that were part of it's personality - when the 'problems' are missing from an emulation, it loses some of it's appeal.

Then the experience. The sweet spot you find with the filter knob, that make a fairly bland sawtooth sound silky smooth and almost wet. The membrane keys you have to hit repeatedly before it rewards you with one of the 32 maximum patches. The visual delight of all those knobs, switches and sliders. You sit in front of it and it feels like you're in a sonic control centre. And that might be exactly what it takes to free your mind for the creative ideas to flow.

All of these things mean different things to different people. YMMV.

Hardware is so immediate for performance, you can play music instantly. But recording is the inverse - soft synths are way more immediate - hardware has to be recorded, then compensated for latency, and if you have to re-record then you have to recreate the same sound on the hardware first, and so on... Frankly the only real benefit I think in recording hardware synths (apart from their sound) is you're not loading your PC CPU to render the audio.

All these dimensions -- I don't think there is any clear winner.
If you are inspired to make (and complete) song with software, you're done. If a hardware synth is what it takes to unleash your creativity, then that's the answer. Just like the best DAW is the one you use most often, the same is true of hardware and software synths.

I think the only think indisputable, is that music is so much easier to produce (record/mix/master) with the technology and options we have now, than it ever was with my old Tascam Portastudio :D

One of the things I like so much about Reason, is the rack paradigm. The cables, the retro UI, the fake screws that have no impact to the music you make with it. It is this user experience that adds so much to the enjoyment of making music. And retro synth emulations - like The Legend - are not just great for making music, but inspire me to go researching the Model D and read up about the synth, how it has been used, revisions etc. It's so great having our own virtual synth museum :)
Win 10 64-bit | :reason: 10 | Scarlet 18i8 | M-Audio Code 61 | KRK VXT-6 | JX-8P | System-8 | D-05 | JP-08 | Sirin
www.soundcloud.com/raymondhayter

EdGrip
Posts: 1469
Joined: 03 Jun 2016

Post 27 Dec 2016

Which reminds me of a thing I often think - 127 steps of control was alright in the 80s, but isn't it time for a backwards-compatible MIDI 2.0 with far higher resolution available for controls?
Even my Alesis Ion, which I had about a decade ago, had rotary encoders with thousands of steps. At the time, I thought that would quickly be a new standard, but here we sit in 2016 controlling analogue filter models in 127-step increments. It's bullshit, I tell you!

User avatar
eXode
Posts: 670
Joined: 11 Feb 2015

Post 27 Dec 2016

EdGrip wrote:Which reminds me of a thing I often think - 127 steps of control was alright in the 80s, but isn't it time for a backwards-compatible MIDI 2.0 with far higher resolution available for controls?
Even my Alesis Ion, which I had about a decade ago, had rotary encoders with thousands of steps. At the time, I thought that would quickly be a new standard, but here we sit in 2016 controlling analogue filter models in 127-step increments. It's bullshit, I tell you!
Some synths offer 14 bit control already by combining two parameters (NRPN, I believe), which gives you 128 x 128 = 16384 possible values.

User avatar
miscend
Posts: 1235
Joined: 09 Feb 2015

Post 27 Dec 2016

EnochLight wrote:
miscend wrote:Do you guys think this will be the synth that finally ends the hardware vs software argument for good?
Which argument would that be?
That software still has a long way to go to sound convincingly like hardware.

People still swear by the sound of their $2,500 Access Virus keyboards which are apparently worth every penny and can't be touched by plugins. And as for vintage analogue synths like the Model D MiniMoog, these are treated like they are living objects with souls, that can't be replaced by the cold, sterile and harsh sound of software synths.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7815
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 27 Dec 2016

miscend wrote:
EnochLight wrote:
miscend wrote:Do you guys think this will be the synth that finally ends the hardware vs software argument for good?
Which argument would that be?
That software still has a long way to go to sound convincingly like hardware.

People still swear by the sound of their $2,500 Access Virus keyboards which are apparently worth every penny and can't be touched by plugins. And as for vintage analogue synths like the Model D MiniMoog, these are treated like they are living objects with souls, that can't be replaced by the cold, sterile and harsh sound of software synths.
And yet the Access Virus IS 100% a software synth. Go figure...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
miscend
Posts: 1235
Joined: 09 Feb 2015

Post 27 Dec 2016

raymondh wrote:
chk071 wrote:
miscend wrote:Do you guys think this will be the synth that finally ends the hardware vs software argument for good?
I think the more relevant question is whether you like the sound of the Minimoog or not.
I think it is one of those questions that will probably never be answered - it is about the ability for software to adequately recreate the sound, the character and the experience of a particular hardware synth, to the point where we don't feel like we wish we had the real McCoy. And that will be different for everyone.

The sound is just one of the requirements. It may not even be the most important one. Certainly a half decent emulation can sound terrific in a mix - it doesn't have to sound perfect. And frankly, when you associate a favourite sound to a well known synth, and then go play the original synth, you can be bitterly disappointed by the boring sound you hear - because it is missing all the studio FX and processing. Those Jupiter 8 intro chords to Thriller would have you believe it was the fattest synth in the world, until you learn about how many multi-tracked layers were involved. Or the Prophet V you bought to make the synth lead on Bette Davis Eyes - no matter how much time you spend programming it, you can't get a sound quite that sweet!

Then there is the character. The imperfections in the original synth (tuning/drift, note stealing, glitches, interaction between oscillators when you play a chord, chorus noise, even failing electronics like a leaky capacitor that makes your synth sound completely individual) that were part of it's personality - when the 'problems' are missing from an emulation, it loses some of it's appeal.

Then the experience. The sweet spot you find with the filter knob, that make a fairly bland sawtooth sound silky smooth and almost wet. The membrane keys you have to hit repeatedly before it rewards you with one of the 32 maximum patches. The visual delight of all those knobs, switches and sliders. You sit in front of it and it feels like you're in a sonic control centre. And that might be exactly what it takes to free your mind for the creative ideas to flow.

All of these things mean different things to different people. YMMV.

Hardware is so immediate for performance, you can play music instantly. But recording is the inverse - soft synths are way more immediate - hardware has to be recorded, then compensated for latency, and if you have to re-record then you have to recreate the same sound on the hardware first, and so on... Frankly the only real benefit I think in recording hardware synths (apart from their sound) is you're not loading your PC CPU to render the audio.

All these dimensions -- I don't think there is any clear winner.
If you are inspired to make (and complete) song with software, you're done. If a hardware synth is what it takes to unleash your creativity, then that's the answer. Just like the best DAW is the one you use most often, the same is true of hardware and software synths.

I think the only think indisputable, is that music is so much easier to produce (record/mix/master) with the technology and options we have now, than it ever was with my old Tascam Portastudio :D

One of the things I like so much about Reason, is the rack paradigm. The cables, the retro UI, the fake screws that have no impact to the music you make with it. It is this user experience that adds so much to the enjoyment of making music. And retro synth emulations - like The Legend - are not just great for making music, but inspire me to go researching the Model D and read up about the synth, how it has been used, revisions etc. It's so great having our own virtual synth museum :)
I think you are right. The experience will never be the same because real hardware has more immediate and tactile hands on control. And also because hardware synths have real circuits with real electrons flowing them, affected by humidity, temperature, oxidation & ageing capacitors, this gives them a life and a character that cannot be recreated in software. When you twist knobs on a software synth UI the result is always the same. On any given day a hardware synth will never sound exactly the same and twisting the knobs will always surprise you with slightly different results.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7815
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 27 Dec 2016

miscend wrote:
raymondh wrote:
chk071 wrote:
miscend wrote:Do you guys think this will be the synth that finally ends the hardware vs software argument for good?
I think the more relevant question is whether you like the sound of the Minimoog or not.
I think it is one of those questions that will probably never be answered - it is about the ability for software to adequately recreate the sound, the character and the experience of a particular hardware synth, to the point where we don't feel like we wish we had the real McCoy. And that will be different for everyone.

The sound is just one of the requirements. It may not even be the most important one. Certainly a half decent emulation can sound terrific in a mix - it doesn't have to sound perfect. And frankly, when you associate a favourite sound to a well known synth, and then go play the original synth, you can be bitterly disappointed by the boring sound you hear - because it is missing all the studio FX and processing. Those Jupiter 8 intro chords to Thriller would have you believe it was the fattest synth in the world, until you learn about how many multi-tracked layers were involved. Or the Prophet V you bought to make the synth lead on Bette Davis Eyes - no matter how much time you spend programming it, you can't get a sound quite that sweet!

Then there is the character. The imperfections in the original synth (tuning/drift, note stealing, glitches, interaction between oscillators when you play a chord, chorus noise, even failing electronics like a leaky capacitor that makes your synth sound completely individual) that were part of it's personality - when the 'problems' are missing from an emulation, it loses some of it's appeal.

Then the experience. The sweet spot you find with the filter knob, that make a fairly bland sawtooth sound silky smooth and almost wet. The membrane keys you have to hit repeatedly before it rewards you with one of the 32 maximum patches. The visual delight of all those knobs, switches and sliders. You sit in front of it and it feels like you're in a sonic control centre. And that might be exactly what it takes to free your mind for the creative ideas to flow.

All of these things mean different things to different people. YMMV.

Hardware is so immediate for performance, you can play music instantly. But recording is the inverse - soft synths are way more immediate - hardware has to be recorded, then compensated for latency, and if you have to re-record then you have to recreate the same sound on the hardware first, and so on... Frankly the only real benefit I think in recording hardware synths (apart from their sound) is you're not loading your PC CPU to render the audio.

All these dimensions -- I don't think there is any clear winner.
If you are inspired to make (and complete) song with software, you're done. If a hardware synth is what it takes to unleash your creativity, then that's the answer. Just like the best DAW is the one you use most often, the same is true of hardware and software synths.

I think the only think indisputable, is that music is so much easier to produce (record/mix/master) with the technology and options we have now, than it ever was with my old Tascam Portastudio :D

One of the things I like so much about Reason, is the rack paradigm. The cables, the retro UI, the fake screws that have no impact to the music you make with it. It is this user experience that adds so much to the enjoyment of making music. And retro synth emulations - like The Legend - are not just great for making music, but inspire me to go researching the Model D and read up about the synth, how it has been used, revisions etc. It's so great having our own virtual synth museum :)
I think you are right. The experience will never be the same because real hardware has more immediate and tactile hands on control. And also because hardware synths have real circuits with real electrons flowing them, affected by humidity, temperature, oxidation & ageing capacitors, this gives them a life and a character that cannot be recreated in software. When you twist knobs on a software synth UI the result is always the same. On any given day a hardware synth will never sound exactly the same and twisting the knobs will always surprise you with slightly different results.
And you describe exactly why I'm using 100% software synths these days!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
raymondh
Posts: 1188
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 27 Dec 2016

selig wrote:
miscend wrote:
raymondh wrote:
chk071 wrote:
miscend wrote:Do you guys think this will be the synth that finally ends the hardware vs software argument for good?
I think the more relevant question is whether you like the sound of the Minimoog or not.
I think it is one of those questions that will probably never be answered - it is about the ability for software to adequately recreate the sound, the character and the experience of a particular hardware synth, to the point where we don't feel like we wish we had the real McCoy. And that will be different for everyone.

The sound is just one of the requirements. It may not even be the most important one. Certainly a half decent emulation can sound terrific in a mix - it doesn't have to sound perfect. And frankly, when you associate a favourite sound to a well known synth, and then go play the original synth, you can be bitterly disappointed by the boring sound you hear - because it is missing all the studio FX and processing. Those Jupiter 8 intro chords to Thriller would have you believe it was the fattest synth in the world, until you learn about how many multi-tracked layers were involved. Or the Prophet V you bought to make the synth lead on Bette Davis Eyes - no matter how much time you spend programming it, you can't get a sound quite that sweet!

Then there is the character. The imperfections in the original synth (tuning/drift, note stealing, glitches, interaction between oscillators when you play a chord, chorus noise, even failing electronics like a leaky capacitor that makes your synth sound completely individual) that were part of it's personality - when the 'problems' are missing from an emulation, it loses some of it's appeal.

Then the experience. The sweet spot you find with the filter knob, that make a fairly bland sawtooth sound silky smooth and almost wet. The membrane keys you have to hit repeatedly before it rewards you with one of the 32 maximum patches. The visual delight of all those knobs, switches and sliders. You sit in front of it and it feels like you're in a sonic control centre. And that might be exactly what it takes to free your mind for the creative ideas to flow.

All of these things mean different things to different people. YMMV.

Hardware is so immediate for performance, you can play music instantly. But recording is the inverse - soft synths are way more immediate - hardware has to be recorded, then compensated for latency, and if you have to re-record then you have to recreate the same sound on the hardware first, and so on... Frankly the only real benefit I think in recording hardware synths (apart from their sound) is you're not loading your PC CPU to render the audio.

All these dimensions -- I don't think there is any clear winner.
If you are inspired to make (and complete) song with software, you're done. If a hardware synth is what it takes to unleash your creativity, then that's the answer. Just like the best DAW is the one you use most often, the same is true of hardware and software synths.

I think the only think indisputable, is that music is so much easier to produce (record/mix/master) with the technology and options we have now, than it ever was with my old Tascam Portastudio :D

One of the things I like so much about Reason, is the rack paradigm. The cables, the retro UI, the fake screws that have no impact to the music you make with it. It is this user experience that adds so much to the enjoyment of making music. And retro synth emulations - like The Legend - are not just great for making music, but inspire me to go researching the Model D and read up about the synth, how it has been used, revisions etc. It's so great having our own virtual synth museum :)
I think you are right. The experience will never be the same because real hardware has more immediate and tactile hands on control. And also because hardware synths have real circuits with real electrons flowing them, affected by humidity, temperature, oxidation & ageing capacitors, this gives them a life and a character that cannot be recreated in software. When you twist knobs on a software synth UI the result is always the same. On any given day a hardware synth will never sound exactly the same and twisting the knobs will always surprise you with slightly different results.
And you describe exactly why I'm using 100% software synths these days!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I guess when you're a professional using this stuff all day every day, the things we amateurs find novel you pros would find frustrating haha :)
Win 10 64-bit | :reason: 10 | Scarlet 18i8 | M-Audio Code 61 | KRK VXT-6 | JX-8P | System-8 | D-05 | JP-08 | Sirin
www.soundcloud.com/raymondhayter

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5511
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 28 Dec 2016

The Access Virus is a great example - hello, software synth built into a custom MIDI controller LOL! And I'll say this, I saw Richard Devine's holiday Tweet the other day (see below) and, while it certainly looks "cool", it gave me a stomach ache when I remembered how much of a pain in the ass it is to manage all of that hardware's inter connectivity, let alone portability. It's absurd.

Thank the Swedes for Reason!

https://t.co/Z3njxXTkCG
Windows 10 | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion

User avatar
miscend
Posts: 1235
Joined: 09 Feb 2015

Post 28 Dec 2016

EnochLight wrote:The Access Virus is a great example - hello, software synth built into a custom MIDI controller LOL! And I'll say this, I saw Richard Devine's holiday Tweet the other day (see below) and, while it certainly looks "cool", it gave me a stomach ache when I remembered how much of a pain in the ass it is to manage all of that hardware's inter connectivity, let alone portability. It's absurd.

Thank the Swedes for Reason!

https://t.co/Z3njxXTkCG
That video gives me serious gearlust!

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7815
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 28 Dec 2016

miscend wrote:
EnochLight wrote:The Access Virus is a great example - hello, software synth built into a custom MIDI controller LOL! And I'll say this, I saw Richard Devine's holiday Tweet the other day (see below) and, while it certainly looks "cool", it gave me a stomach ache when I remembered how much of a pain in the ass it is to manage all of that hardware's inter connectivity, let alone portability. It's absurd.

Thank the Swedes for Reason!

https://t.co/Z3njxXTkCG
That video gives me serious gearlust!
Gear lust on it's own makes no sense to me these days. Of all the music I made on Moog and Arp gear in the late 70s, I was totally limited and yearned for a simple poly synth. By the time I got my hands on a J8, Prophet 5, CS-80 I was making music I loved rather than working with gear I lusted after.

I do realize it's horses for courses, and still enjoy spending time on huge modular systems when I visit friends - but I've yet to make anything listenable on those adventures. In contrast, nearly everything I've made with Reason makes me smile when I listen back to it.

So yea, I'd love to have a wall of modulars if just to harken back to my early years, but I KNOW I'd never make much music with it compared to what something like Reason allows me to produce. From a pragmatic angle, Reason gives more band for the buck in a BIG way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5511
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 28 Dec 2016

selig wrote:Gear lust on it's own makes no sense to me these days. Of all the music I made on Moog and Arp gear in the late 70s, I was totally limited and yearned for a simple poly synth. By the time I got my hands on a J8, Prophet 5, CS-80 I was making music I loved rather than working with gear I lusted after.

I do realize it's horses for courses, and still enjoy spending time on huge modular systems when I visit friends - but I've yet to make anything listenable on those adventures. In contrast, nearly everything I've made with Reason makes me smile when I listen back to it.

So yea, I'd love to have a wall of modulars if just to harken back to my early years, but I KNOW I'd never make much music with it compared to what something like Reason allows me to produce. From a pragmatic angle, Reason gives more band for the buck in a BIG way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
This X1000. I've owned a room full of hardware at one time (not nearly as full as Devine's video, but close). All I can remember is how much of a bitch it was to mess with MIDI cables and setup. My productivity is currently an order of magnitude greater than it ever was with all of that hardware.

Still, I can see the attraction. My studio never looked so cool as it did when I had all of that hardware!
Windows 10 | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live | Roland System 8 | Roland TR-8 with 7x7 Expansion

User avatar
raymondh
Posts: 1188
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 28 Dec 2016

selig wrote: <snip> Of all the music I made on Moog and Arp gear in the late 70s, I was totally limited and yearned for a simple poly synth. By the time I got my hands on a J8, Prophet 5, CS-80 <snip>
Oh come on, you're just showing off now :D
Win 10 64-bit | :reason: 10 | Scarlet 18i8 | M-Audio Code 61 | KRK VXT-6 | JX-8P | System-8 | D-05 | JP-08 | Sirin
www.soundcloud.com/raymondhayter

User avatar
raymondh
Posts: 1188
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 28 Dec 2016

EnochLight wrote:
selig wrote:Gear lust on it's own makes no sense to me these days. Of all the music I made on Moog and Arp gear in the late 70s, I was totally limited and yearned for a simple poly synth. By the time I got my hands on a J8, Prophet 5, CS-80 I was making music I loved rather than working with gear I lusted after.

I do realize it's horses for courses, and still enjoy spending time on huge modular systems when I visit friends - but I've yet to make anything listenable on those adventures. In contrast, nearly everything I've made with Reason makes me smile when I listen back to it.

So yea, I'd love to have a wall of modulars if just to harken back to my early years, but I KNOW I'd never make much music with it compared to what something like Reason allows me to produce. From a pragmatic angle, Reason gives more band for the buck in a BIG way.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
This X1000. I've owned a room full of hardware at one time (not nearly as full as Devine's video, but close). All I can remember is how much of a bitch it was to mess with MIDI cables and setup. My productivity is currently an order of magnitude greater than it ever was with all of that hardware.

Still, I can see the attraction. My studio never looked so cool as it did when I had all of that hardware!
Hey Dylan - I still remember that picture you posted in bed with your Juno! Was brilliant!
Win 10 64-bit | :reason: 10 | Scarlet 18i8 | M-Audio Code 61 | KRK VXT-6 | JX-8P | System-8 | D-05 | JP-08 | Sirin
www.soundcloud.com/raymondhayter

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7815
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 28 Dec 2016

raymondh wrote:
selig wrote: <snip> Of all the music I made on Moog and Arp gear in the late 70s, I was totally limited and yearned for a simple poly synth. By the time I got my hands on a J8, Prophet 5, CS-80 <snip>
Oh come on, you're just showing off now :D
I didn't actually own any of that gear though, but it was nice to have unabated access to it for a time. [emoji12]
Nice to have great synths like legend to play with, and it's much cheaper than my Mini Moog!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 2 guests