1000 with Moog Voyager

just about to bye a 1k and just wanted to see if anybody had used one with Minimoog voyager. any help would be great thanks.

no,
but im sure it will work.

the mpc is a great sequencer and it's control anything with a decent midi implementation just fine.

plus you can sample notes from the voyager and make great programs.

plus, i hear people who make hip-hop like both these machines, so you should have an ez time trying to sound like everyone else

(just kidding on the last bit.)

If u spent dat much on da voyager I know u got cake 4 da 2000xl mcd why even play wit da 1000 is tuff 2 don't get wrong

vladdymac wrote:If u spent dat much on da voyager I know u got cake 4 da 2000xl mcd why even play wit da 1000 is tuff 2 don't get wrong

I would even go as far as sayin' - buy a mpc4k.

just about to bye a 1k and just wanted to see if anybody had used one with Minimoog voyager. any help would be great thanks.

What help? Do you see the envy in my eyes?

Man, go get them stuff and enjoy that mean machine.
Just twist them knobs

I wouldn't spend the cash on a Voyager. Sure it's a classic synth but you're limited. A Korg Triton, Roland Fantom, or Yamaha Motif would be a much better investment. With that much money you could get a Korg MS-2000 and a Motif rack.

"I wouldn't spend the cash on a Voyager. Sure it's a classic synth but you're limited. A Korg Triton, Roland Fantom, or Yamaha Motif would be a much better investment. With that much money you could get a Korg MS-2000 and a Motif rack."

Interesting point of view.. A real musical instrument, with balls, character and heritage verses something that plays samples (other peoples samples) [obviously excluding the MS-2000 VA]. I agree the Voyager and Mofit are equal in one area: they are both mono-timberal; its just a shame the Mofit was not designed to be so but rather, was shipped without the ability to be played multitimberally without serious timing issues..

You mention these guys being a 'better investment'. What do you imagine they will be worth in 10 years time? Maybe this will help:

Roland D50
----------
1987 $2000, Today $373 (From PrePal.com)

MiniMoog
--------
1971 $2000, Today $3000 and upward..

I would never suggest that anybody purchase an instrument based on future value. Buy an instrument/ gear to use today. If you use it well, its no matter what the resale is... you got your value in USE.

I'm not saying you should not buy a Voyager... in fact, I think the voyager is a much more enjoyable instrument than any of current "workstations" on the market today... Buy what you think you will use. If you can not use it, sell it and try something else.

Also think of this:

MPC 2000 then: $2000
MPC 2000 today: $700
T

"MiniMoog
--------
1971 $2000, Today $3000 and upward.."


There was a time not long ago that you could buy as many Mini's as you could stand for $700. There was a time when no one wanted them.

It all follows a fairly predictable trend. Some equipment, usually about the 15 year mark, is pretty much discarded, either for newer technology or the persons are cleaning out. New entrepreneurs in the music industry find that the pretty much the only stuff they can afford are these "cheap" discards. They take them and breath new life into them. Many become stars/popular. It's not necessarily the fact that they scored old equipment, but a lot of it is based upon their desire to do something good with the limited amount of resources they are using. It's the drive, it's the experimentation, and it's the persistence that drives them and their equipment to the top.

the voyager is gangster. nobody hate. you can run all your samples through it to get crazy sounds. the 1000 is good for this because you can resample from the main stereo outs. not sure about the other MPCs. im sure the 4k does it.

Hi

"It all follows a fairly predictable trend. Some equipment, usually about the 15 year mark, is pretty much discarded, either for newer technology or the persons are cleaning out."

Not sure if I agree with this. The trend that you mention was a one off and resulted from the analogue to digital transition. A new technology arrived that offered poly and features that cost a fortune with analogue synths. People started buying because of specification sheets and not the sound. Synth buyers lost direction for a few years..

A synth (or musical instrument) will only rise in value if it has captured a unique moment in time that can never be reproduced. This is were nearly every digital synth ever produced fails - I can not name a single digital synth that is regarded as collectable or has become valuable after production has stopped. Digital synths get improved; more features, less cost, leaving nothing behind for us to then start craving for. They never released a MS-20 mark II - it is gone for ever. Even when a digital line finishes, it is never dead because it is just code. Even the 15 year old Roland D50 has just been re-released as they have just ported the code to a new platform. Tell me: who on this list would class Microsoft Word version 1 as desirable or 'a good investment'? Same goes for digital synths...

TFunk13 mentions the Yamaha Motif. But again, they have just released the Motif ES which fixes the timing issues and brings more features. The old Motif has nothing over the new one - the old one is dead and in 10 years even the ES will be going for $200 as Yamaha will have some new product that shows the old version for what it is: a piece of dated software running on an antiquated DSP (from a 'in 10 years time' perspective). This will never happen to the Voyager.

btw, I do appreciate that TFunk13's use of the word 'investment' was probably not in the strategic financial sense, but rather, 'you get more for your money'.

punkdISCO wrote:Hi

"It all follows a fairly predictable trend. Some equipment, usually about the 15 year mark, is pretty much discarded, either for newer technology or the persons are cleaning out."

Not sure if I agree with this. The trend that you mention was a one off and resulted from the analogue to digital transition. A new technology arrived that offered poly and features that cost a fortune with analogue synths. People started buying because of specification sheets and not the sound. Synth buyers lost direction for a few years..

A synth (or musical instrument) will only rise in value if it has captured a unique moment in time that can never be reproduced. This is were nearly every digital synth ever produced fails - I can not name a single digital synth that is regarded as collectable or has become valuable after production has stopped. Digital synths get improved; more features, less cost, leaving nothing behind for us to then start craving for. They never released a MS-20 mark II - it is gone for ever. Even when a digital line finishes, it is never dead because it is just code. Even the 15 year old Roland D50 has just been re-released as they have just ported the code to a new platform.
.

I agree with most of what you are saying... Though s synth like the DX7 may prove you wrong. Those beast have been steadily rising in value over the years. Even though there are softwares that run the DX7 OS (or almost identical OS) the DX7 is still sought after because it plays nice, and is useful.

A good point is that synths like the Tritons, Motif etc... for the most part emulate and have little character (compared to a minimoog or and EMAXI).
T

If you want an affordable analogue monophonic synth, I suggest taking a look at the Dave Smith Instruments Evolver. It has digital effects, filters and oscillators which you can use if you want, but you can turn them off and just stick to analogue goodness.

Affordable, and capable of quite some nastiness. (I own one)

i still cant understand the obsesion with analouge, i hear a moog and i think great, it sounds like a moog, i hear someone do something cool an old yamaha DX synth i think that sounds fukcing amazing
for me 'real' digital synthersizers beat analougue hands down
by real i mean not reliant on pcm sh*t

Which moog are you hearing...

Hi Garth

"i still cant understand the obsesion with analouge, i hear a moog and i think great, it sounds like a moog"

Im surprised that you have played with a Moog and was not blown away by it; I was which is why I own one . I guess it is just a personal thing and very difficult to actually describe why you prefer analogue because it would take a whole day to write the email. Dynamics is a good starting point: Play the same note on a basic patch on a DX synth all day until your head starts pounding. Now play the same note on a basic patch on an analogue synth - every note will be subtly different so you dont suffer ear fatigue. Basically, analogue is easy and instant: everything you do sounds good. With a digital synth you have to work at it..

"i hear someone do something cool an old yamaha DX synth i think that sounds fukcing amazing"

Yeah, but FM synths are a type of synthesis in their own right, and yes, FM is very cool. I used to own a FS1R (FM Daddy) but the interface sucked so got FM7 instead (awesome!). However, a FM only track is going to sound VERY cold/lifeless and I wouldn't't give your ears too long until the start to bleed!

"for me 'real' digital synthersizers beat analougue hands down by real i mean not reliant on pcm sh*t"

The 3 main digital technologies are: 1) VA - no comparison with the real thing! 2) FM - out on its own 3) PCM - okay, I dont like these either but I guess they are okay for bread and butter sounds. To the day I die I will never understand how a complete genre (Hip Hop) be built around PCM (romplers)..

See you.