What can I say... I'm silly.

A few things I can think of:

* As praxis and others mention, playing style and perf controls
* Filters and gain structure, see mono vs mini vs pro logues
* Modulation and sequencing

..on the digital question.. play a Korg Prophecy and report back

As ZeroCrossing said, there's lots of digital oscillators in Eurorack. That's where I find most of the interesting stuff happening in modular these days. Prophecy and the Korg Electribes are (mostly) monophonic digital voices.

This is where I've been surprised by my euro journey..

I started with a view of wanting quality analog mono voices and percussion, but must now be at least 60% digital voices. I'm a complete MI, NE and Qu-bit fanboy :D

MicroFreak is a great example of some of this innovation graduating to fixed architecture synths too.

Not pointing the finger at anyone in particular, and its probably elsewhere in this thread that I am not inclined to read but... stupid question.

Its like asking why someone would want a monphonic trumpet. The nuance in how notes connect and the technique involved are key to saying something other than do re mi in music. Its kinda equivalent to asking why someone would want a polyphonic instrument: But how can you effectively control the slur, legato, articulation and detache as you shape sequences of notes for each voice when you are responsible for all of them at once on an instrument that doesn't know which one is which?

Answer to why you would want / need both: because music.

I demand polyphonic breath control..

Sure I could manage 3 or 4 voices!

Thank you, i now found how to.

The only answer is:

So you can take 2 oscillators and detune them....than what?!

I'm just referring to the thread title: I have no explanation for that, but I know why I still have a few analog mono synths.
I used to think that there had to be something there, that analog synths are increasingly popular and more expensive.
So I bought and sold a lot of synths at the time and at the same time I worked with many newer things like Omnisphere, Sylenth etc ... Honestly - my conclusion is - from an acoustic point of view it doesn't make much sense to use expensive monophonic analog synthesizers.

Maybe it is haptically helpful for some people, I also love the old devices for such reasons and have therefore kept a few of them.

In any case, there is no real advantage of monophonic sound generators over polyphonic - almost all polyphonic synths can also be operated monophonic, in reverse it becomes difficult.
I still have a lot of old synths - mono and poly - hanging around here because they look chic and vintage, but when I produce music I don't usually use them because it is easier on the computer and sounds just as good.
btw.
Are there any digital monophonic synths? except the 90s modeling things from Yamaha (VP - VL) and Korg (Prophecy)?
just out of curiosity

I don't understand why we have more mono analogs then I can even think of... But almost no poly analogs? I get there harder to make, but it seems like a goldmine.. if they can charge 3 or 4 grand on mono's, I'm sure companies can figure out a poly synth? Even if they can't, can't they just copy some old synths schematics for the note priority software and other poly stuff?

I would love to see small companies like make noise and Erica synths make a nasty poly for themselves.

- Meeblip, the original one and the Geode
- Korg NTS-1
- Modal Craft 1.0 and 2.0
- L.L. Electronics Oddulator (Ok, only two built...)

Probably a few more, if you count 303 clones and similars (TB-3, BassBoy+ etc.).

Cheers,
Bert

ah, thanks - interesting!
More than i thought.

For studio use what one needs is really only one voice from different flavours palette of mono synthesizers to stack on top of each other or multitrack over and over if needed. No need to buy hardware poly for that as it is more expensive and brings nothing else to the table (except more voices). For the price of one hardware poly one could get a few monos each with different character. For composition one can still use VA or SW poly synthesiser. However on stage, especially if one plays in a band poly probably is better.

That’s a bit of b.s. right there, it is. I mean, if that works for you, then I applaud you, but when you are playing a polyphonic synth, you just have a totally different mindset. Could you layer a mono to achieve the same thing? Yeah, but I can’t imagine you’d get the same fluid performance. Not without a lot of work. I’m not saying a mono isn’t better for things. Of course they are, but having at least one decent analog mono synth is really crucial for me. If you can’t afford one, there are some pretty decent VAs like the KingKORG that will do a pretty good impersonation.

The 3 or 4 grand monos are pretty high-end boutique objects. If you look at the market more closely, you’ll find that most analog monos these days can be had for a fraction of that. I’m not sure what the mean is... maybe $800?

It does seem like there are only a few developers who dare tread in the analog poly arena. My guess is that they don’t feel like they could make them at a price where they’d sell enough of them. MFB just came out with their Synth Pro, but when I last visited that thread, people where having a hard time getting them. I think when Behringer starts putting them out we’ll have a nice renaissance of analog polys. I fully admit that I would not be able to resist a CS80 clone. Right now I have a Prophet 6 and a 16 voice REV2. I love them a a lot. I have a few hybrids as well, and they can be coaxed to provide pretty good renditions of an analog poly sound. I especially feel like my 002 can get there.

and now I actually think of a digital monosynth that I even own - the Roland A-01. 8bit digital - I totally forgot about it. So far I haven't been able to do anything useful with the device, except to use it with the K-25m as a Bluetooth controller. however, the sequencer is reasonably nice. The synth is not particularly interesting imho

Hi,

It's funny, I actually found that my 3 and 2 tier synth rigs no longer have a mono synth.

So the question is seemingly clear to me.

best regards

Ha, me too!
I actually used to have one (mostly for the sequencer and the CV-gate out), but sold it again - found the sequencer too clumsy to use.

Cheers,
Bert

I guess that i understand why poly’s weren’t the norm back in the 80s... price and all. but now even as manufacturers do the whole reheating of everything that came before rather than “NEW” stuff.. economy of components can’t be price limiter it was.. so no reason to NOT at least provide a decent POLY MODE for all these re-creations. Seems like nostalgia price gouging to me. As we have seen with some.. its an empty box with a small raspberry pi in some cases LOL

Could you explain the filters and gain structures to me in a simplified way?

Im curious as to how much they differ, given polys often have a mono and unison mode, as well as appear to share similar or further modulation and sequencing capabilities in certain cases due to multitimbrality or digital architecture.

I'll sample anything.

My take is why would anyone want an analog poly, given the infinite options you have for that in digital/FM, VST, sampling... I would have to noodle the knobs on a real Prophet 5 while playing pads to know what it feels like and get a hint of the possibilities, but that kind of thing has always sounded super cheesy to me - it depends a bit of the music genre you're after I guess.

A mono synth is a different instrument to a poly synth, I don't know what else there is to say or why even ask why someone would want a mono ?

10 years ago most people laughed at anything paraphonic , now look at how important they've become ! I remember arguing with a mate who had a blanket opinion that all synths with a paraphonic filter were crap, even back in the 80's I saw them as just a different instrument.
You can't achieve the sound a paraphonic synth makes on a poly and you can't achieve some mono textures in the same way on a poly either.

All different instruments !

Violin, sax and trumpet are all mono instruments and those players are some of my biggest influences to the extent that I read their sheet music often.

Fits perfectly with my mono semi-modular collection - which by definition has patch points for CV and is unquantized otherwise it'd be digital.

First rule of CV is it's mono which may seem like a limitation but you gain an analog sequencer workflow which to me is the most creative process I have found yet beyond my main instrument - piano.

Even my poly synths I often run in unison for extra mojo,

I found that doing poly with a mono synth by overdubbing single notes sounds a lot different than a poly playing the same chord...

A lot more work though!

Lucky they make duophonic synths are well, like the CS-40m!

There is absolutely no reason for monos to exist except for price. And modulars are stupid (and stupidly expensive for a full rig). They are basically only good (really good) for sound design.

I have several monos: Sequential Pro One (the original), Waldorf Pulse 1 and 2, Moog Subsequent 25, Minitaur, and Slim Phatty (I'm selling the Minitaur and Slim Phatty now that I have the Subsequent 25) and my favorite of all, the cheap little DiY kit the Shruthi from Mutable Instruments. As an aside, the same people who laughed at the Shruthi and said it sounded like crap ate up Mutable's Eurorack digital oscillator that was based on much of the same technology. F-ing snobbish modular weenies. They are beyond ridiculous.

Anyway, as much as I like the sound of my monos (which is the only reason I own them,) every time I call up a patch on one of these units I immediately want to play chords (except of course for bass sounds). And so I get frustrated. I'm like WTF?, I can play only one note at a time! Even more frustrating, because the Pro One doesn't have patch storage, I never actually use it in a song even though it sounds fantastic. I just extensively multisample Pro One patches that I can then play back either monophonically or polyphonically in Kontakt. And I can call up the same patch and have it sound identical to the last time I used it whenever I want.

This is like complaining that a drummer can’t play chords. A lot of synth sounds don’t sound right if you play chords. It’s cool to have the option of course, but I often find myself sticking to mono on a lot of patches I make on polyphonic synths.

For sure but that kind of goes to the idea of 'what's the point in mono synths' when polys can be so capable at playing that role.

The biggest of advantage of monos at one time was breadth of sound design options but with the Polybrute/Summit/Super 6/etc. you're not giving up much in the way of modulation with a poly synth.

The monos I like the most tend to have unique features absent from my poly options - the Norand Mono with a built in sequencer and simple modulation, the SH-101 for being dumb as hell with a giant sweet spot (though if I had a Juno-60 playing the dumb as hell role I'm not sure I'd use the 101 so much but I'm not spending $4k on one), the Matriarch for its stereo filter and delay more than anything.