| br>In simpler days, I could instantly tell whether a synth sound on a record was a Minimoog (portentious), Oddysey (funky) or Roland (cold) etc. Not possible now, with any confidence of course. But I wonder whether it is possible to characterise an essence for each classic manufacturer, either by a characteristic technology, architecture or aural interest? Here goes (and leaving out the things in common such as their boring semi-clones that had no individuality):
Buchla: Vactrols. + Uncertainty (slow noise)
EMS: Diode filter. + shallow 30Hz cutoff filter on FM + Joystick manipulation of two modulations at once
Moog: transistor ladder filter + premixed waveshapes (Moog sharktooth, Moog 1 waveshapes) + stacked oscillators
ARP: op-amps + parallel processing chains (2500, prosoloist, chroma) + sync
Yamaha: focus on suppress first few harmonics in favour of next few. (GX1 tracking BP, CS* sine +dual filters, FM, PM) + Ring mod + more interesting envelopes
Roland: suboscillator + chorus leading to supersaw
Steiner: breath control
Franco: transistor arrays (3046, 3054, 3096, 3086, etc in SalMar Consturction)
Marshall: CMOS (4600 etc)
Korg: part count reduction ?
Sala (Trautonium): ribbon, subharmonics, frequency shifter
Fricke/Reuter4Ohler (Variophon): pulse forming
All these fit into the generations of technology: discrete, opamps, transiator arrays going to OTAs, logic, and then ASICS then DSP.
These generations alliwed the succession if approaches to synthesis: 1960s large modulars, early 70s performance minis, mid 70s formant arrays, late 70s polyphonic, 80s FM, Sample based and synth chips, and finally PM, virtual analog and convolution approaches. br> br>