Nedim wrote:Pecca wrote:Moss was/is a lovely engine with physical modelling. - but...
There are much cheaper options these days (if you can handle a computer).
Cheaper or no cheaper, they cant do what MOSS can, please tell me one
that can, i'll be thankfull but something MOSSlike, not other stuff.
Regarding standard subtractive analogue-modelling, anything with two or three standard oscillators and two filters should basically be able to do what the Moss does, and some will sound better. For example, for standard subtractive analogue modelling usage my Virus [subjectively] blows the Moss right out of the water, sonically.
However, Moss has many unique features and strengths that are not seen in any other synths. In my view these are:
• The physical models (Organ [three drawbars per oscillator], Brass [three brass models, plus two horn models, and a reed brass], Reed [five sax models, plus two double-reed models, a bassoon, clarinet, two flute models, a pan flute, ocarina, shakuhachi, two harmonicas, and a reed synth], Plucked Strings, Bowed Strings, and finally Electric Piano), each with individual flexible modulations and settings.
• The possibility of creating a hybrid of physical modelling AND standard analogue-modelling within the very same patch (one for each of the two main oscillators, although a couple of the physical models require both oscillators for mono-oscillator usage due to requiring higher DSP).
• 4 freely assignable LFOs, and the modulation/assignation possibilities within each LFO are really quite powerful.
• 4 freely assignable EGs, and 1 additional Amp EG (5 in total). Again, the modulation/assigning and ADTSR (sic, T is an additional slope before Sustain kicks in) possibilities within each EG are very flexible.
• Comb-filtering, oscillator sync, cross-modulation, resonance modelling, ring-modulation and semi-advanced FM. Most synths offer Sync and Ring-mod, but not the others. The comb-filtering and cross-modulation can come across as being harsh if not programmed correctly or tamed, though, and the FM is prone to zipper artefacts when not modulated by an LFO or EG. Some of these models can be limited in use to the average programmer as they can be hard to program correctly and achieve usable sounds, but they can be used for very unique ones if you explore them.
• Waveform modulation of the saw-wave. No other synth I know can do this (apart from the Radias). It splits the saw-wave into two and modulates the phase of one of them (via LFO or similar), giving a pulse-width motion type effect, gently rocking between one octave and another. It's quite different to sounding like anything else, a very nice effect. Great for brassy type sounds, or thickening up a sound without any messy detuning.
• Although the sub-oscillator is limited to just the basic saw/sq/tri/sin wave, I think it's enough to call it a third main oscillator as it has its own very flexible pitch modulation possibilities (albeit that's all it has). The Virus's sub-oscillator, on the other hand, can be only tri/sq, and is permanently locked/pitched two octaves below Oscillator 1, so you can see how much more flexible the Moss is in this circumstance.
• In addition to the usual LowPass, HiPass, Band-Pass filter types, a unique fourth filter type is available: Dual Band-Pass, with individual modulations or slave usage for each band.
• The mixer is very flexible, and you have two amplifiers available which can be each modulated via other modulators (the main Amp EG, or the other 4 EGs or 4 LFOs, or other dynamic modulators, etc). Unfortunately you can't pan each amplifier, so it's still summed to mono afterwards. This is the same with all synths I've tried, though. But I wish it wasn't.
• The available LFO shapes are better than average, and the modulation possibilities are excellent. (The Zoop phenomenon!)
• Different tuning scales are possible (Equal temp, Pure Major, Pure Minor, Arabic, Pythagorean, Kirnberger, etc. etc), although to be honest most of us in the West will use Equal temperament 100% of the time.
Moss's weaknesses, albeit in my own view:
• It can have a tendency to sound very digital/characterless. An MS-20 it ain't.
• The filters could perhaps have done with a little higher headroom, although you can compensate by programming around it accordingly (lowering internal patch levels, etc.)
• The learning curve is pretty big, and probably offputting to most. Takes a long time to get into it if you're new to synthesis.
• It has only 6-voices.
• Some DWGs (single-cycle PCMs) would have been nice to increase the standard subtractive oscillator sonic possibilities.
• Zipper artefacts are apparent with manual manipulation (although it has to be said that LFO and EG modulations are completely zipper-free). I only mention this because my 10-yr old Virus is a beaut to tweak in realtime, as all knob movements are interpolated for smooth, zipper-free output. However, no other synths I know can do the same as the Virus in that aspect.
• The physical models can sometimes be hard to make them sound natural. I think ideally you'd need a breath controller for some models.
• Often needs effects to bring the overall sound up to speed.
My subjective 2¢.
Timo
