MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

921 vs 901 ..a little Audio of the Mos-Lab/Synth-Werk Clones
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> 5U Format Modules Goto page 1, 2  Next [all]
Author 921 vs 901 ..a little Audio of the Mos-Lab/Synth-Werk Clones
josaka
A little sequence trying out the 921/901 yesterday..



A sequence playing Mos Lab 921ABBB+921 Vs Synth-werk901ABBB. all oscillators running through same filters mixers ADSR output/input etc.
1.921b saw
2.901 saw
3.921 saw
4.901 saw/tri
5.921b + 921 Saw/tri
6.901ABBB messing.. little detuning
7.921ABBB +921 messing.. little detuning
8. All in.
JohnLRice
Thanks for the comparison, they all sound great to me and I don't think you can go wrong with any of them! thumbs up
josaka
yep.. the main point of this quick rough n ready post .. with a few effects the difference between osc becomes pretty minimal.. especially for 16th's sequencer music..
kindredlost
i agree. The differences are difficult to detect when a fast sequence and envelope sweeps are involved like in the sample.

...since you actually HAVE these variations to choose from, then why not do a more drone flavor? Maybe a nice simple melodic line which fades from one set to the other. The differences might be a bit more apparent, especially if you affect an octave switching a few places in the melody. Tuning drift and spread are more interesting to me than the subtle differences between waveforms.

Thanks for doing this!
EMwhite
One thing I noticed is the drift across that large octave range between the base notes and the upper notes.

Agree that the sequence is fast but also wanted to throw in that a aggressive cutoff, any resonance and a fast moving envelope further masks the OSC characteristics. Unless the two sawtooth waves are markedly different, you might not even see (on scope) or hear (on raw waveforms) anything significant.

I've compared the SW 901abbb against Model 15 921 and see slight diffs on the scope, certainly different voltage output per waves on the 901 and the features of course are noticeably different. But I'm playing on a Liberation keyboard; small octave range so as much time as I spent looking at and listening to raw waveforms, I didn't do the comparison any justice.

So much to do, so little time.
EPTC
josaka wrote:
A little sequence trying out the 921/901 yesterday..


Yes! Exactly what I've been hoping someone would do!

THANK YOU, JOSAKA

Can't wait to listen. Great looking camerawork, too.
Analog Music
kindredlost wrote:
Tuning drift and spread are more interesting to me than the subtle differences between waveforms.

Thanks for doing this!


Yes we need more drift thumbs up
Synthoholic
At some point though it seems like it is going to circle right back around to the presence of off-key notes.

Has Bob gone on record talking about the difference between the oscillators or the desire to recapture what he ultimately redesigned?
josaka
kindredlost wrote:
i agree. The differences are difficult to detect when a fast sequence and envelope sweeps are involved like in the sample.

...since you actually HAVE these variations to choose from, then why not do a more drone flavor? Maybe a nice simple melodic line which fades from one set to the other. The differences might be a bit more apparent, especially if you affect an octave switching a few places in the melody. Tuning drift and spread are more interesting to me than the subtle differences between waveforms.

Thanks for doing this!


it was a 2 minute job smile just spur of the moment.. trying to finish an lp.. and had the two sets (901/921) locked to the same sound.. also had the arp running which truncated the notes.. probably not for this sort of thing.
josaka
had them for a while now.. my general conclusion.

the 901 are more akin an 808 and the 921 are more akin to a 909.
(obviously not as big a difference ! )

both great
..one has a slightly rounder deeper sound..
the other tiny a bit harder (but with sync and PWM.)
trentpmcd
josaka wrote:

..one has a slightly rounder deeper sound..
the other tiny a bit harder (but with sync and PWM.)

Actually, even with this sequence, that is what I heard. Well, I don't know about the synch and not PWM since you were using mostly saw, but I did catch the roundness of the 901, reminded me of the old song "Popcorn", while the 921 sounded a little harder to my ear. Since everyone else was saying that it was hard to hear the difference, I thought maybe I was crazy. I guess it wasn't just me imagining it.

Thanks for the comparison.
josaka
tbf .. with effects/eq its negligable.. partly why I did the video.. people screaming about authentic moogs clones and whatnot smile...put them in a mix !..

I may do more showing the differences.. ..the sync(mighty) and pwm on the 921 and more 901 detuning _ adding more waveforms for that "HUGE" sound
JohnLRice
I just saw this and thought I'd throw it into this thread FWIW. I don't think it's the best test since if his 901's are indeed a little hotter on the output, doing a little pre-attenuation before the mixer to match the levels would have been a good idea?

Dave Peck
JohnLRice wrote:
I just saw this and thought I'd throw it into this thread FWIW. I don't think it's the best test since if his 901's are indeed a little hotter on the output, doing a little pre-attenuation before the mixer to match the levels would have been a good idea?



Yes, a better way to compare these would be to use two CP3 mixer modules, one for the set of three 901Bs and another for the set of three 921Bs. And if the 901s are louder, the three level knobs on the '901' mixer channels should be slightly lower than the three inputs on the '921' mixer, so the levels and amount of overdrive match on both mixer modules. Then the outputs of the two mixers should be alternately patched into the filter to hear the comparison. And of course some screen shots of the wave forms would provide a good amount of info.
josaka
thats a terrible demo.. you can plug in a .com which is muuuch louder and people dont say that sounds much better.. seems like he even ends up saying there is a difference..
Rex Coil 7
josaka wrote:
A little sequence trying out the 921/901 yesterday..

A sequence playing Mos Lab 921ABBB+921 Vs Synth-werk901ABBB. all oscillators running through same filters mixers ADSR output/input etc.
1.921b saw
2.901 saw
3.921 saw
4.901 saw/tri
5.921b + 921 Saw/tri
6.901ABBB messing.. little detuning
7.921ABBB +921 messing.. little detuning
8. All in.
HOT DAMN!!!! I CAN FINALLY HEAR THE DIFFERENCE!!!!

#2 KILLED IT!! Especially down in some of the lower notes, where it got sortof "vocal" sounding.

This comparison really helped me to learn what to listen for with the Moog VCOs. Well done, and THANK YOU!

Trampoline
josaka
I will do some cleaner examples at some point.. minus the effects(which pretty much nullify the differences)
Rex Coil 7
So what would have happened had you put some Q106s into the comparison? Y'know, making all of the levels equal and doing your best to make everything the same, what types of differences would the Dot Coms show against the 901/921? I know the Dot Com sine is pretty wimpy, but if using the saws on all of the VCOs, what would the difference be?

Would it be that midrange component?
josaka
I have done an osc comparison test.. at some point I will post these up for fun.. I recorded the SAW/PULS of 901 /921 /.com /ATC1 /Krisp TZ /Omega 8 /SE1X /Kobol doing the same sequence .. still have a bunch more to add..(fenix/xpander/cs80/EML 101/EML model 500/Korg 800DV/CAT/Prophet/Hordijk HRM+Sync Osc/Corsynth 104 etc etc)
Rex Coil 7
josaka wrote:
I have done an osc comparison test.. at some point I will post these up for fun.. I recorded the SAW/PULS of 901 /921 /.com /ATC1 /Krisp TZ /Omega 8 /SE1X /Kobol doing the same sequence .. still have a bunch more to add..(fenix/xpander/cs80/EML 101/EML model 500/Korg 800DV/CAT/Prophet/Hordijk HRM+Sync Osc/Corsynth 104 etc etc)


eek!









we're not worthy applause
RussiaZero23
josaka wrote:
tbf .. with effects/eq its negligable.. partly why I did the video.. people screaming about authentic moogs clones and whatnot smile...put them in a mix !..

I may do more showing the differences.. ..the sync(mighty) and pwm on the 921 and more 901 detuning _ adding more waveforms for that "HUGE" sound


I loved the test and heard a difference between them but i hoped you included the poor lonely Q106 in there to see if that can stand with those two VCO sets.

Maybe one Q106 and 2 LFO++ might work or just 3 Q106?
I just want to get away with out selling kidneys or blood but my ears keep telling me the direction.
josaka
cant be arsed to wire back in the .coms... and dont have any lfo++..

...but tonight started a 3 osc comparison.. did 901 vs SE1X and will add 921 and 3x kobol might chuck in 2xATC1 as well for a laugh.. what a waste of time smile
RussiaZero23
Did you get rid of all the Q106? Just wondering if the switch was that dramatic?

I would say keep the ATC1 out of that fight it might end up hurt.Maybe Omega8 as its not very common and many demos are few and far between.
josaka
Quote:
ATC1 out of that fight it might end up hurt..


think you might be surprised.. the ATC sound better than the omega if anything..

the 106 was a space thing.. rather have seven or 8 moog clones over 4 .coms

kept other stuff like 2 corsynth 104 ...
RussiaZero23
I had the ATC twice but I have never owned or played with the Omega.

I had other gear that sounded better or did a better job then the ATC.
Not saying the ATC was bad just not as good as some of the gear I had to replace it. I would have loved keeping it but it did not make it.

I was hoping the Omega from what I was told from friends that owned them was that it has a ballsy sound very punchy with a modern sound boarding on Vintage.
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> 5U Format Modules Goto page 1, 2  Next [all]
Page 1 of 2
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group