From Graheme Wilson Sent Sat, Mar 24th 2018, 21:41
From Graheme Wilson Sent Sat, Mar 24th 2018, 21:41
Thanks for sharing your reminisces of your first synth. I bought my D5 in 1989 I think, there was a local music shop which was a Roland dealer. I hooked the D5 up to a Voyetra sequencer running on DOS. Finally I was free of the limitations of four track cassette tape as I also bought a synch unit that would stripe one track of the tape. I still recall that magic moment when I tried it and ... it worked. What about another round of "what was your first synth and what did you use it for"? Graheme On 24/03/18 18:25, Brent Busby wrote: > Graheme Wilson <xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx> writes: > >> Roland D20 - The first synth I bought is the D5 that I studied until I >> could program analog sounds into it. The D20 is better because it has >> effects and a disk drive. I worked as an arranger in a studio with >> someone who had a D20 and he also owned the studio. >> >> The unknown synth I played in a Birmingham,UK synth shop many years >> ago, with very little effort I was able to get the sound on "Running >> Up That Hill" by Kate Bush > It's funny how you can get attached to gear just because you've used it > before. My first synth was a Yamaha V50. At the time I got it (1991), > I figured it would get me up and running quickly because it had an > 8-track sequencer, a floppy drive, built in effects, RX-series style > integrated drums. I could add more later, but at least for awhile, I > could get work done on the V50 alone, which I had to, because I was > starting from nothing. > > The cold harsh sound of 4-operator FM was very disappointing, but I > found ways of using it musically. The digital effects (which could > either be completely on or completely off per sequencer track, and only > one global effects patch for all tracks) did nothing to improve the > coldness problem, but I worked with that also. I found that the poor > overworked CPU would actually lag a bit during sequencer playback if you > changed effects settings during play. It was kind of amazing > actually... There would be a stutter, and then everything would be > enveloped in an immense grainy reverb hall, and then another stutter, > and it'd be gone. You could have the sequencer do this on its own with > a program change command in the sequence. It was a great experience in > working with what you have, not what you wish you had. > > I ended up selling it and getting an Ensoniq ESQ-1, another very useful > master keyboard that I already knew a lot about from previous band > experiences, much warmer, more analog. I'm still using an ESQ-1 as a > master keyboard today, and still creating new patches on it all the time. > > But every now and then, I actually miss the V50. I can't quite answer > the question when I ask myself what I need it for. It was just my first > synth, and sometimes I miss it, even its limitations. It wouldn't be so > bad to have now, now that I have warmer sounds available, and it > wouldn't have to suffice by itself like it did before. (A mix done > entirely on V50 is like spending the day in a walk-in freezer.) > > To bring this back on topic and answer the question what five synths > would I like to add: > > 1. Synthesizers.com modular: > For a long time, I actually wanted to avoid modular, because mostly what > I want from analog is all the warm fuzzy tones, like tape left out in > the sun too long. All the modulars I saw offered immense modulation > capabilities, but -- this might sound harsh, so keep in mind it's my > subjective opinion -- when it came to their actual tone, they just left > something to be desired, at least to me. What good is being able to > patch umpteen oscillator modules six ways if in the end, some of the > 70's and 80's fixed routing keyboards you could get end up just sounding > better? Then I heard the dotcom modules. Don't get offended if you > have some other modular and you like the sound of it...but damn, I love > their tone. I'm planning on getting a nice system someday. And then > forget about having any money ever again, because I'll an addict just > like everyone who ends up going down that road. The cops will make me > spend the night in jail for analog modular substance abuse. > > 2. Korg Trident mkI: > Just absolutely gorgeous. A bit specialized and weird (and isn't Korg > just so good at things like that?), but what it does is just beautiful. > > 3. Oberheim OB-Xa: > I already have the OB-8, and you would think that if I was going to get > a second Oberheim polyphonic, I'd want the OB-X so as not to be > redundant and have another CEM board. I thought that too, but I've done > a lot of comparisons, and I think having the OB-8 and OB-Xa together > would work for me. It's not redundant if it's the sound you're looking > for. Of course, if you want to give me the OB-X, I really won't try to > stop you. > > 4. Roland SH-7: > I agree with the previous poster who said that it was the SH-7 for him > even though so many people had told him to get the SH-5. I think I'm in > the same boat. There's something about the SH-7 sound (especially when > using the ring modulator) that just enslaves me. > > 5. Teisco 100F: > It's amazing all the timbres you can get out of this obscure little > thing. They're hard to find, but I think it'd end up being a real > workhorse of a monosynth for me that would end up getting used on > everything. > > 6. (I also want an SH-3A, but those aren't all that expensive, so I'm > sure that should be easy enough...make it #6... Can it still be on the > list if the price isn't so bad?) >