I don’t really need two old Moog mono synths and would like to make some room and have money for something else cool.

So which would you keep/sell, Prodigy or Rogue?

tallchris wrote: Thu Jan 25, 2024 1:26 pm I don’t really need two old Moog mono synths and would like to make some room and have money for something else cool.

So which would you keep/sell, Prodigy or Rogue?

For my workflow, I'd keep the Rogue and ditch the Prodigy. The CV stuff has never been that appealing to me, and they tend to go for a bit more than the Rogue's (which have some slight market saturation with the very similar Realistic MG-1.)

The Rogue also has the advantage of being the same circuitry as the Moog Taurus II system, so if you find yourself wanting THAT sound (granted, very different from the Taurus I), the Rogue will 100% get you there when recording.

tallchris wrote: Thu Jan 25, 2024 1:26 pm I don’t really need two old Moog mono synths and would like to make some room and have money for something else cool.

So which would you keep/sell, Prodigy or Rogue?

Tough call. They are each missing like two key ingredients. I guess it depends on which matters most.

It’s a no brainer for me though. I’d keep the Prodigy because the envelopes are more flexible and the Osc have more waveforms that can also be more than a single octave apart. Just sucks it doesn’t have noise.

Controversial opinion: I actually like the Micromoog more than the Rogue despite it only having a single Osc (with a Sub Osc). The ability to modulate the wave shape is pretty good at faking the slightly out of tune dual Osc thing you otherwise can’t get with a single Osc. Filter Mod by Osc switch rules too!

Ok everyone, this might not be a "small" question but here goes.

FM llllllllllllllllllll posted a link to an old Greg Sage interview in Tape Op I haven't read in literally over 20 years but as is usually the case, something I hadn't noticed or processed before jumped right out at me [emphasis mine]:

Greg Sage wrote: There were a lot of pro-audio stores in the Northwest that were really interested in taking some of my stuff, but we get into these arguments because they insisted that the trend was balanced outputs. I work with unbalanced out in a balanced environment. If you are running a small signal like a microphone over 25 ft., yeah, you need to balance it, but I mean, where it's a trend where if you sell something that's unbalanced out it's not considered the flavor of the month. I don't even bother competing because I build all sorts of circuits. I've built a lot of balanced equipment and personally I just use, myself, what I think sounds the best. Unbalanced out is the way to go, all my equipment in the studio has been switched over to unbalanced in and unbalanced out except for microphones. I kept my cable lengths under 12-14ft. and the amount of punch and clarity you gain that way is just unbelievable. You can argue with people all day long about how good this is, but they don't use their ears. They just talk about what they read; I use my ears to design equipment.

Ok what. Seriously. If it were anyone but Greg Sage saying this, I'd probably immediately dismiss it but as a Wipers fan I cannot get it out of my head and like most other sound folks prone to mind-blowing and vague statements like this.

I think the reason I'm intrigued is that A.) for years balanced signal path vs unbalanced was considered pro vs consumer and B.) specifically in this article he just throws it in as a side-note/shit bomb and despite it being categorized as a tutorial at the top, no technical evidence is cited to support this kind of claim.

So I ask you, is this a thing? How on earth could this be measured and quantified?

Some people just don't like the sound of transformer balanced signals. Transformers will impart some sort of distortion to the signal. Whether that's audible or not depends on a lot of factors.

For an active balanced signal, there is also going to be some distortion or phase shift added. It's just the nature of adding another active element in the signal path. Again, depends on a lot of factors.

Therefore, I do agree with the notion that simpler is generally better. There's almost no reason to add extra balancing and debalancing stages to gear if the runs are short, i.e. in the typical studio environment.

I've got a power amp that puts out 300w @ 8ohms. I've got two cabinets: 1x15 8ohm 300w and a 2x12 8ohm 100w. I want to use the power amp for both (not at the same time). Without blowing up the 2x12, do I just need to make sure to never put out more than 1/3 power? Is this advisable? Is there another way to ensure safety without using a different power amp? Am I overthinking this?

cakes wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2024 10:43 am Am I overthinking this?

You're gonna be fine. You're way more likely to blow a speaker by using an UNDERPOWERED amp than an overpowered one, as counter-intuitive as that sounds.

MoreSpaceEcho wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2024 11:00 am

cakes wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2024 10:43 am Am I overthinking this?

You're gonna be fine. You're way more likely to blow a speaker by using an UNDERPOWERED amp than an overpowered one, as counter-intuitive as that sounds.

Hard disagree.

To the OP: I would probably just not use the 300W amp with the 100W 2x12. Volume controls are not linear and so turning it up 1/3 of the way does not mean an even 100W of power.

welp here's this old debate again

"underpowered is worse:" square wave distortion/clipping generated by amps working too hard is known to destroy speakers (and amps)

"overpowered is worse:" pushing speakers past their rated ability to handle the power will blow them

In my experience regarding live sound, every tech I have ever worked with closely has stated that you want more power on tap than the speakers are rated for to avoid the square wave clipping.

Because I have heard both most of my life, I have tended to just try to match whenever possible and lean towards the side that says you want more amp power than the speakers are rated for but that very obviously does NOT mean that you need to GIVE those speakers the whole 100% of power.

The speakers that have gone out on me over the years have not been caused by either situation that I'm aware of as they were usually either a mfg-suggested combination as a head w/ a matching speaker cabinet, a combo amp, or self-powered PA speaker.

I'm w/ FM MSP here, it seems highly unlikely to me you'd ever send so much power to your speakers that it would potentially damage them as the pain threshold would surely back you off before that happens. I think there are a lot of other considerations like matching impedance (you have done this) as well as using speakers that are meant for the specific application (like don't drive a ton of super low-end sub bass to guitar speakers).

Dr Tony Balls wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2024 11:17 am

MoreSpaceEcho wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2024 11:00 am

cakes wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2024 10:43 am Am I overthinking this?

You're gonna be fine. You're way more likely to blow a speaker by using an UNDERPOWERED amp than an overpowered one, as counter-intuitive as that sounds.

Hard disagree.

To the OP: I would probably just not use the 300W amp with the 100W 2x12. Volume controls are not linear and so turning it up 1/3 of the way does not mean an even 100W of power.

Sorry, I was being a little obtuse. I doubt I would ever dial in that much power, because then I'd go def. Would the amp even get to put out too much power relative to volume? Is there a dampener that could be used between the power amp and speaker cab?

Edit: to the answer above, that is what I understand, as a laymen.