# Why Don't Synth Manufacturers Just Make New Analog Synths?



## ryanstrong (Oct 4, 2015)

Analog synths go for thousands of dollars, why don't synth manufacturers just recreate them exactly the way they did 25+ years ago? Like is it physically impossible to manufacture? Or... what?


----------



## synthpunk (Oct 4, 2015)

Lots of those parts, chips (SSM for ie) are no longer available.

Something like a Jupiter 8 or CS80 which sold for 5-8K 30-40 years ago would need to sell for far more now.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 4, 2015)

Actually there are quite a few companies making analog synths. They're quite popular today.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 4, 2015)

You'd think they would be bored with themselves by now.
Love to see Studio Electronics sit with a guy like Roland Kuit and save me from building a Eurorack I can't play live with.
Had the privilege of him teaching me Modular IV on my XITE-1 for a year or so.
He made some really sick patches for us.
Dreaming about a 6 voice semi modular in hardware using some of his ideas.
I have several hundred custom modules in DSP.
Wish they were hardware.....


----------



## synthpunk (Oct 4, 2015)

I think Ryan is probably referring to the classic analogs from the past. There is something like the Prophet 6 and Moog Voyager out there now of course, but I would rather move forward than backward. Some of the newish Plug in synths are just incredible.

Another reason is those great synths were designed by designers with great ears but unfortunately some of them are no longer with us or retired. The few that still are are plugging out some good instruments still (Dave Smith, Tom Oberheim, etc.).


----------



## ryanstrong (Oct 4, 2015)

Yeah... AE, I was referencing the Jupiter 8 and the CS-80.


----------



## synthpunk (Oct 4, 2015)

Ask Chim if he misses his 220 lb, temperamental CS80 Ryan 

The U-he stuff does great CS80 sounds, ask rctec. If you still want Hardware the Studio Electronic Omega 8 is pretty nice, and Chim's Solaris is a great pad machine as is the Modulas 002.

Here is the inside of the Jupiter 8, showing just how complicated it would be to reverse engineer it.


----------



## SeattleComposer (Oct 4, 2015)

There is just something fun about turning the knobs, flicking goggle switches, and watching lights glow. Also, hearing something play through an amp into a room, maybe even running through other gear, foot pedals, outboard gear, and what not. I guess it is archaic. But still fun.


----------



## ryanstrong (Oct 5, 2015)

Just seems like with the manufacturing capabilities they have now instead of scouring for a Jupiter 8 and paying $10k for it Roland could make the exact same thing and sell it for half that and make money.


----------



## kunst91 (Oct 5, 2015)

aesthete said:


> I think Ryan is probably referring to the classic analogs from the past. There is something like the Prophet 6 and Moog Voyager out there now of course, but I would rather move forward than backward. Some of the newish Plug in synths are just incredible.



Diva for instance, wow!!


----------



## Ozymandias (Oct 5, 2015)

In the case of Roland, it seems like the Jupiter 80 said it all: Why go to the trouble and risk of reviving an analogue synth when you can build a feature-packed digital one with broad appeal, making use of the same chips and SMT assembly line used for their other products, and put the "Jupiter" name and colours on it?


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 5, 2015)

Brilliant actually but still wont have the audio quality controlled voltages produces.
The main reason I want to build a polyphonic Eurorack is because I can design exactly what I want and dont need to wait for another DSP version of an old analog.

I love Solaris. It's a lead axe, SFX Tool, polyphonic beast doing subtractive analog, FM, Wavetable, etc.
But it's strength is pristine 96k processed audio doing routings analog cannot do.

I always loved the sound Guitarists achieve by striking 2 strings (b and e) and bending the lower b string up to match the pitch on the e string.
Analog wont do that. Solaris does and that detune sound is huge. Pisses off my guitarist.

If you want analog and hate stocking up on rare expensive parts build your own.
Its an extension of your concepts. What could be more musical?


----------



## D.Salzenberg (Oct 5, 2015)

I think it probably comes down to manufacturing costs and profit margins for the major manufacturers. Considering how expensive it would be and that it would be a niche market at those high prices, that's probably why they don't do it.
What was great about the old analog synth's apart from the sounds was that they didn't have presets or a way to save sounds so everytime you used it you were forced to make your own sounds. Difficult to force yourself to make your own sounds with plug in synth's that have thousands of amazing presets.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 5, 2015)

Yes very true.
New Eurorack Modular concepts are like that.
Sure wish they could have snapshot capabilities.


----------



## willf_music (Nov 26, 2015)

There are a lot of analog synths that are still made today and some are even better than past analog synth.
Minibrute, Doepfer Dark Energy, Akai has a whole range including the Timbre Wolf and Tom Cat, there is a new Korg Arp... the list really goes on.

And of course you can go the whole modular synth route and combine the best of both worlds.

However, I would have to say that most manufacturers probably don't make as many analog synths for a few key reasons.
1. Analog circuits cannot store information. Therefore, no presets. Presets boost sales and help showcase synthesizers.
2. Analog circuits are not nearly as energy efficient as digital circuits.
3. Considering all the manufacturers of digital chips out there now (ASIC, SHARC ...) it is more economical to buy high end DSP chips and program them to do any and everything. Not to mention it takes less skill to program a chip to do 15 different tasks rather than design and build one circuit to do one task.
4. Most people cannot tell the difference between analog and digital when it comes to sound quality. (Nyquist Limits all that...) and the amount of precision to get the full dynamic range of human hearing is more than covered using a 24 bit system.
5. Analog devices are more susceptible to interference and noise. But I doubt this is not a problem anymore.

It used to be a problem that digital synths had higher latency and could not do certain functions such as convolutions and integration but... digital circuits have either gotten fast enough or have a high enough bandwidth now to solve these problems more efficiently.

This is not to say digital trumps all. Analog synths are great... I have one. Analog synths are also a lot easier to fix when broken down as parts tend to stay on the market for longer. But this is why I find Modular synths so tempting you can have both and be spoilt for choice. :/


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 26, 2015)

Chim: "but still wont have the audio quality controlled voltages produces"

Actually I'm skeptical that that would have to be true. Why do the output electronics care whether the waveforms are produced digitally or by CV?

I don't know the answer, but if you look at just the big-ass power supplies on some older stuff, that alone would seem like a bigger fish. Look at the Kurzweil K250, for example: huge power supply, and the two in my garage sounded great when they were working.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 26, 2015)

Wish I knew why my analog low end is more precise and focused.
But until I hear digital or native get that kind of focus I have to stay put.
Digital synths like my Microwave and FS1r are still not replacable with the latest Waldorf DSP stuff or anything Native either.
Im beginning to think when using binary code to produce sound instead of circuits the lower you get the less precision occurs.
Its smeary if that makes any sense.

The only recent DSP hardware that truly impressed me was the HX3 Organ Module.
Every parameter modulates in real time even reverb and these guys even get the sound of the servo engine ramping up on the Leslie. 

But at the end of the day most guys using synths dont use the low end much.
When they do you can still get powerful tones.
Theyre only missing the filter tracking and resonance that blends so well with a bass player or acoustic stuff like cellos and cobtras.
You know what does have the same clarity though..?
Bass Trombones and French Horns......

You gave me a grwat idea Nick.
I want to record some low brass with the analog 3 oscillators synths and see what happens....

Ankyu


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 27, 2015)

You work with analog synths all the time, so I'm going to defer to your opinion of the sound.
(The only analog synth in my studio is the EWI 3020m module, which is digitally-controlled analog. I really like the sound, single-oscillator limitations and all - especially when I run it through my tiny Peavey keyboard amp and mic it.)

But - the only but is about the theory - bass uses more VU than treble. That could go along with my power supply story. Precision... well, sampling theory says you only need to sample twice the freq to know whether the wave's moving back or forth, so I'd have to hear a good explanation of how that would be a digital issue rather than analog.

Hey, aren't there any EE nerds here to straighten me out?


----------



## EvilDragon (Nov 27, 2015)

ryanstrong said:


> Like is it physically impossible to manufacture? Or... what?



It's close to that. Back in the 80s electronic components weren't as precise as today, they had much bigger tolerances which contributes to the whole "no two analog synths sound the same". When you compare oldies versus new analogs, you can verify this to be very true.

Also, slew rate characteristics of today's chips vs the old ones are completely different. Modern chips are responding much, much faster to changes in voltage, which again results in a more precise, surgical, sterile sound. Old manufacturing methods are pretty much that - old and obsolete, and rarely any (if at all) chip factory uses them.

That's why modern analogs don't sound like old ones (unless they use NOS chips, but that again demands a higher price, etc.)


----------



## willf_music (Nov 27, 2015)

EvilDragon said:


> It's close to that. Back in the 80s electronic components weren't as precise as today, they had much bigger tolerances which contributes to the whole "no two analog synths sound the same". When you compare oldies versus new analogs, you can verify this to be very true.
> 
> Also, slew rate characteristics of today's chips vs the old ones are completely different. Modern chips are responding much, much faster to changes in voltage, which again results in a more precise, surgical, sterile sound. Old manufacturing methods are pretty much that - old and obsolete, and rarely any (if at all) chip factory uses them.
> 
> That's why modern analogs don't sound like old ones (unless they use NOS chips, but that again demands a higher price, etc.)



I second this and to be honest, this is something people wanted back in the 70s and 80s. Many people did not like dealing with synths that would drift in and out of tune. But this also contributed to a lot of nonlinear characteristics of older circuits and components.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 27, 2015)

But drift and slew rates can be in the digital model, right? That's why models don't sound identical to the originals, leaving aside that originals don't sound like other originals.

I'm still not convinced that's the whole story, and why Chim says his analog bass is more precise and focused - although I'm open to being persuaded.

Of course, we all know that analog circuits have a sound. I've posted before that back in the '90s, Sequential Prophet 2000 samples imported into the much cleaner Kurzweil K2000 just didn't sound right. (I still have a working Prophet 2002+ in a rack, along with a large carton full of MIDI City's floppy disks for it - and it still works.)


----------



## willf_music (Nov 27, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> But drift and slew rates can be in the digital model, right? That's why models don't sound identical to the originals, leaving aside that originals don't sound like other originals.
> 
> I'm still not convinced that's the whole story, and why Chim says his analog bass is more precise and focused - although I'm open to being persuaded.
> 
> Of course, we all know that analog circuits have a sound. I've posted before that back in the '90s, Sequential Prophet 2000 samples imported into the much cleaner Kurzweil K2000 just didn't sound right. (I still have a working Prophet 2002+ in a rack, along with a large carton full of MIDI City's floppy disks for it - and it still works.)



Well I do agree with you for the most part. From what I understand as an engineer that works with digital audio a lot (making software, acoustics simulations) I think that most people are "hearing things" and could not hear the difference in A/B testing. The one characteristic that is very unique to analog circuits that is difficult to reproduce and that digital circuits don't do is self oscillation. :/

Maybe I am wrong though and there might be a few other behaviours.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 27, 2015)

I'm thinking of an explanation for what Chim says. He uses a lot of synths, and he's a player so he's likely to be intimate with them.

No not that way, you know what I mean.


----------



## Polarity (Nov 28, 2015)

aesthete said:


> Ask Chim if he misses his 220 lb, temperamental CS80 Ryan
> The U-he stuff does great CS80 sounds, ask rctec.



U-he Diva can do great CS80 (listen to Luftrum 11 soundbank) and Jupiter8 as well emulations.
And if you are after CS80 sound tone without the 220 libs and its being prone to breakdowns why don't try the Memorymoon ME80... it's so cheap but surprisingly close to the original, especially about the polyphonic aftertouch expression, that was (I believe) the most appreciated feature by Vangelis about this synth.
http://www.memorymoon.com/me80.htm
I will soon get it myself, I just played a bit with the demo version a week ago.
Just my 2 cents


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 28, 2015)

If you cant hear any differences you dont need circuit based analog.
Its only truly needed for the parts DSP chips cannot emulate.
Microsft and Apple synths are fine for recording.
Just dont try and use them next to a real drummer bass or guitarist.
Those Dogs Dont Hunt.


----------



## Polarity (Nov 28, 2015)

Never said I don't hear any differences... actually I hear them.
But don't want to get crazy behind the "only vintage analog synths or die!" life style...
don't have the money, don't have the space, don't have the patience for their problems, don't need them only to create my music...
Now, I like very much the new Prophet 6 and PRO 2 but not sure if I'll ever buy them however.
I'm more possible to an eventual PRO 2 desktop version though.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 28, 2015)

Polarity said:


> don't have the money, don't have the space, don't have the patience for their problems



not to mention the weight. I couldn't wait to get rid of my Rhodes Chroma. The thing weighed a ton.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 29, 2015)

Hell yeah 
Those giant dinosaurs are not really worth the trouble.
Which is why I use rackmounted alternatives.
3 Multiwave Oscillator SE-1X for that ultimate low end.
Yamaha FS1r for ultimate FM synthesis.
Waldorf Microwave for Wavetable synthesis.
They take up as much room as a Tower. Totally quiet and covers the analog digital apex of the 90s.
Nothing since then is really an improvement.
With the exception of Euro rack advancements.

But using Zebra2 HZ and Omnisphere 2.1 with that hardware covers everything I ever need.

I'd rather see these giant companys stop wasting resources trying to trick new generations and maybe create a hardware version of new concepts.


----------



## Rctec (Nov 29, 2015)

There is a big difference between the discrete transistor synth like a MiniMoog or and ARP 2600 and an integrated circuit based poly synth like a CS80 or a Prophet 5. The discrete one's will just have more focus in the bass end, the top end is better and the whole thing is more punchy. And the sound of either has proven to be truly timeless.

Plus, there are two very radically sounding Prohet 5s: the first run with the SSM chips and the second with the Curtis chip set (and most analog ploys used those Curtis chips - even some early Roland Super Jupiters...). I had both, since the SSM (serial number 26) was always breaking down, and I had to have a reserve, since I was trying to actually make a living with the damn thing... And the SSM one sounded dramatically different - and to me, much better. I know Peter Gabriel still hangs on to his original Prophet 5. John Bowen managed to emulate both characteristics very well for the Scope platform (DSP based), and they even got fairly close to a Mini Moog. ...fairly close...

I remember speaking with Urs Heckmann while he was modeling my Mini for "Diva" and him saying that analog, by its nature of everything really happening in real-time with signal flowing in a straight wire was "perfect" and trying to build imperfections into digital emulations was barking up the wrong tree. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to emulate the inherent pleasing non-linearity of analog circuits, which, of course, Urs has done very successfully in his designs.

And the Euro-Rack market has matured in sonic quality to a tremendous degree. I'm using an Euro-rack system right now where I first and foremost went for the sonic quality and then added all the crazy, sound-mangling modules only after being convinced that the core sounded great, and that my signal chain was as good as it can be, before hitting the D to A's.
The only problem is the size and density of the knobs and modules. The large MU systems are made to perform with, you can actually get your fingers around the knobs...

But "Diva" gives me a polyphonic Mini Moog, and that's hard to beat in hardware.
"zebra" is obviously my go-to synth, and I haven't run out of being inspired by new discoveries.

And even Moog is making modular systems to the original spec again. And they sound truly incredible, compared to my 40-year old systems. There is a clarity and cinematic quality that is hard to beat, and certainly can't be beat by a mid -80s synth full of integrated circuits.
On the other hand, it's precisely because all of these synth sound so very different that it becomes such fun to do electronic scores these days. If the Moog Modular are the thick oil paint in a Van Gogh, a SSM Prophet 5 is like a David Hockney watercolour. Who'd say "No" to having either one on their wall?


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 30, 2015)

A most historical post.
Would love to see a shot of that wall..

Zebra2 HZ is the synth I can run into my Scope DSP XITE-1 rack and out to my IEMs and arrange and write on wherever there's an AC outlet.
Thanks to those great Diva Filters I find myself trying to program Zebra2 HZ sounds on Solaris or my other hardware.
Funny that Zebra2 is the only synth I have that can emulate all of that Pete Townsend VCS Modular stuff.
One group I worked with told me not to worry about covering Townsends parts and just play the piano parts.
They were surprised since their former mates claimed it was a studio trick. Not able to reproduce live.
Guess they never tried Zebra2 HZ....


----------



## Nachivnik (Mar 5, 2016)

chimuelo said:


> Hell yeah
> Those giant dinosaurs are not really worth the trouble.
> Which is why I use rackmounted alternatives.
> 3 Multiwave Oscillator SE-1X for that ultimate low end.
> ...



I have to tell you that I've returned to this post a number of times for ideas about high quality used equipment. Thanks for your post!


----------



## snowleopard (Mar 5, 2016)

I still would like to see someone make a MIDI shell that looks like, say, a CS-80. Almost the same sliders, knobs, buttons, and have those dedicated to the CS-80v. This would have no guts, be much lighter, and could drive the CS-80v on a laptop. This seems like a win-win for artists looking to have as close to the real thing as possible. Urs made a demo of sorts of this with Diva, but he still had a computer built into it. I'm thinking SYOC (Supply Your Own Computer). Something like Zebra would be much more challenging, of course.

I think the problem is the limitation. Such a MIDI controller would be dedicated to one VI synth. But whenever someone has tried to create a "do-all" MIDI controller for numerous other soft synths, it's been too much for many to get their head around.

The next big step may be for someone like Spectrasonics to create a hardware based controller that controls Omnisphere, with a mix of dedicated sliders and buttons, but also requiring some mouse/iPad control. Not quite like the OMG-1, which had an Apple Mini built into it, plus two iPads and 2 iPods, plus 3 keyboards, all of which was overkill. That would break the bank. But the sweet spot of no internal sound production, and just the right dedicated knobs, sliders and buttons to control a very popular soft synth, is in there somewhere, and someone is going to figure it out.

As to hardware, I get the feeling Dave Smith is doing just fine. I'm waiting for the Waldorf guys to re-release the Wave. I have a Q and love it, but it's not a Wave (the XTK was cool, but it wasn't a Wave either. Blofeld has more sounds, but way less control). I would think a Wave II would be a huge hit, no?

If Urs is right about greatness of sound over a sound as true to analog as possible (and I agree), then someone might build a new digital sounding, digital hardware, performance/programming friendly synth. Sort of like a DX1, but even more sliders maybe? I don't think the target audience has quite got there yet. I'd like to see Roland take the next step with the V-Synth along these lines, but don't expect it to ever happen.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 5, 2016)

I don't know. I used to use those old synths and they were always a project in and of themselves. It's great if you have staff and plenty of room and money to maintain them, but honestly I don't miss those analogue days one bit ("bit" -- get it?).

I hauled a Rhodes Chroma all over the country, and my back doesn't miss that either!

Don't get me wrong. I like the sound of bass hitting 2 inch tape at 15 ips as well as anyone, but analogue was a drag. Aligning tape heads. Cleaning tape heads. Demagnetising tape heads...

ugh


----------



## Cowtothesky (Mar 6, 2016)

The synth explosion in the 80's were due to demand. There were a lot more local bands playing back then - today, there are lots of DJ's in the market. If you had a band in the 80's, you had to have a keyboardist, and therefore, had to buy the latest synth. The popular music at the time demanded itThere was an incredible market for synths around $2,000 or less, designed for the gigging keyboardist on modest income. Of course, the really great synths were pricey, $10k+, but they were generally for the studios, not the gigging keyboardist.

I had a triple keyboard tier stand when I was gigging - a sampler (at the time - Ensoniq Mirage), an FM synth (DX-7), and an analog - Korg DW8000. I'd upgrade as newer synths would come out. Most keyboardist in my area, had at least 2 synthesizers on stage, but it was normal to see 3 or 4 at the time.

So, when you have all these people buying multiple synths, they could manufacture enough to justify the lower prices. Today, it is a small niche market. So, the return on investment warrants high prices which lowers demand. It's a vicious cycle. :(


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 6, 2016)

I don't get the OP. There are many very good analog synthesizers being built every day: Moog Sub 37, Mother-32, DSI Prophet-6, OB-6, Pro-2, Arturia Minibrute, Matrixbrute, Modal synths, Dominion, Korg Odyssey, MS-20 mini, etc.


----------



## EvilDragon (Mar 6, 2016)

Cowtothesky said:


> analog - Korg DW8000



That's a hybrid actually. Digital oscillators (not DCOs).


----------



## Cowtothesky (Mar 6, 2016)

EvilDragon said:


> That's a hybrid actually. Digital oscillators (not DCOs).



True. I started with the Poly61, then upgraded to the DW8000. I still considered it an analog, but it is a hybrid. I wish I still had it.


----------



## synthpunk (Mar 6, 2016)

Very true Ned, perhaps he is referring to the battleship style poly analogs/hybrids like the CS-80, Jupiter 8, OB-8, Chroma, Voyetra 8, Synthex, etc. I don't think we have really had one of those since the Andromeda (not a favorite of mine), although some of the new Dave Smith, and Modal stuff comes close.

As I pointed out early on early in the thread many of those designers are retired or gone (some may argue Axel Hartmann, Tom Oberheim, and Dave Smith may be the last*)*, and the parts availability landscape is so different now.

After owning nearly every analog/hybrid at one time for me it's a matter of taste and workflow. U-he, Serum, Omni, Virus Ti, Retrosynth, Alchemy, Reaktor, etc. can do about 90% of it for me as they are tastefully done and the workflow is very convenient. I'm happy with that as my evil eurorack system stares back at me saying it. 



Ned Bouhalassa said:


> I don't get the OP. There are many very good analog synthesizers being built every day: Moog Sub 37, Mother-32, DSI Prophet-6, OB-6, Pro-2, Arturia Minibrute, Matrixbrute, Modal synths, Dominion, Korg Odyssey, MS-20 mini, etc.


----------



## SeattleComposer (Mar 6, 2016)

I got to play with the OB-6 and Modal synths at NAMM. Amazeballs. I definitely am in the market for the OB-6 now. Beautiful, beautiful sounds and endless possibility. It would be cool and save some dough if they would do a rack or desk version of that. The Modal synths are also very, very tasty pieces of kit that look and sound luscious. True analog with added digital features and very solidly built - they "feel" like an analog synth.


----------



## owenave (Mar 22, 2016)

@chimuelo Have you got to put your hands on the new Dave Smith / Tom Oberheim Analog OB6 yet? I loved the OBX's and did programs for Oberheim for them back in 70's. The Demo on You Tube from Namm sounded hot... I would love to have one of those.


----------



## owenave (Mar 22, 2016)

SeattleComposer said:


> I got to play with the OB-6 and Modal synths at NAMM. Amazeballs. I definitely am in the market for the OB-6 now. Beautiful, beautiful sounds and endless possibility. It would be cool and save some dough if they would do a rack or desk version of that. The Modal synths are also very, very tasty pieces of kit that look and sound luscious. True analog with added digital features and very solidly built - they "feel" like an analog synth.



I used to own an OBX and OBXA and even developed some programs for Oberheim. I loved them and really loved hearing the demo video of the OB6 from Namm.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 22, 2016)

Not yet.
I can't use another board, but would love a rack version of the 2 Gods new baby....
Got to talk to T.O, at NAMM at the Soniccore booth where Solaris made it's debut.

Even OJ came down from Carson City to check out the XITE-1 and Solaris.


----------



## chimuelo (Mar 22, 2016)

The original prests on my OBX were awesome so thanks.
Cassette backups........we came a long way.

My favorite preset was the polyphonic portamento full tilt descending kind of like REOs Riding The Storm Oug intro only much fuller and much longer....
Truly a fat bastard.


----------



## owenave (Mar 22, 2016)

chimuelo said:


> Not yet.
> I can't use another board, but would love a rack version of the 2 Gods new baby....
> Got to talk to T.O, at NAMM at the Soniccore booth where Solaris made it's debut.
> 
> Even OJ came down from Carson City to check out the XITE-1 and Solaris.



Yeah all of my synths are rack mounts except an old Korg M1 I use as a controller.
I would love to have a rack mount of the new O6.
I also would love to find a reasonable priced Roland MKS-80 to replace the one I had to sell about 8 years ago in a moment of poverty. Almost killed me to do.


----------



## owenave (Mar 22, 2016)

chimuelo said:


> The original prests on my OBX were awesome so thanks.
> Cassette backups........we came a long way.
> 
> My favorite preset was the polyphonic portamento full tilt descending kind of like REOs Riding The Storm Oug intro only much fuller and much longer....
> Truly a fat bastard.


I programmed some songs for that REO album. I was renting my OBX thru SIR during those days and sometimes I would deliver myself according to the client. And I would load the factory sounds in. 
By factory I mean the ones that first went out before I was hired to program some for Oberheim. They paid me to load in some good sounds to use for a couple of their songs. I had about 20 cassette's full of presets for the OBX. I also did sounds for Chicago, even some Pipe Organ Sounds for Ray Manzarek of the Doors. I actually made more money doing sound programing for analog synths back then than playing.That and renting the OBX.


----------



## synthpunk (Mar 22, 2016)

Studio Electronic did custom rack mounted conversions for synths back in the day, including Minimoogs, SEMS, Prophet5, Oberheim's (I believe Eric Persing has one), and even the Jupiter 8.

Here is the Minimoog they did for Kraftwerk.






A Prophet 5 rack





Rack mounted Ob-8







owenave said:


> Yeah all of my synths are rack mounts except an old Korg M1 I use as a controller.
> I would love to have a rack mount of the new O6.
> I also would love to find a reasonable priced Roland MKS-80 to replace the one I had to sell about 8 years ago in a moment of poverty. Almost killed me to do.


----------

