On Fri, 2010-12-31 at 18:11 +0100, Nick Copeland wrote: > > OT: I never noticed any difference for the sound quality, of > different > > versions of the Prophet 5, but I guess everybody heard about stable > or > > unstable tuning for different versions of the Mini Moog ;). > Revisions > > could have different qualities. [OT end] > > There were two major releases of the Prophet-5, one with Curtis chips > and > later one with SSM chips. The Curtis had rather wild temperature > senstivity > and so was replaced. Anybody who has used both found the newer models > to sound a lot thinner and some would prefer the > sensitivity/unreliability of > the former to get the sound quality.
I know two releases with a little bit different design for the potentiometers in the case. > > The MiniMoog is a bit more esoteric, they did not used anybodies > chipsets > but mostly discrete components. Legend has it they the board layout > was > changed at some point and even though the design was the same those > in > the know did not appreciate the new sound. > > I am pretty sure the Oberheim went through the same issues as SC. The > big Rolands are a separate issue - I think they used there own > chipsets but > I could be a bit wide of the mark. > > Kind regards, nick. I guess my Oberheim Matrix-1000 will use CME micro chips and I guess a Roland Juno-106 will use CME too and perhaps SC and Moog (at least for later synth) did use those chips too. To be continued Ralf _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
