minimoog voyager vs model d

You are here

Moog minimoog model d.

• Synthesizers

Soon, for the first time in 35 years, you will be a able to walk into a shop and buy a brand-new Minimoog. But will it be as good as the original? Find out in our exclusive review.

I was brought up to believe that if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it’s a duck. In contrast, there’s a segment of the analogue synth community that would have you believe that it’s only a duck if it’s at least 35 years old. They’re wrong, of course, and now those nice people at Moog Music (who know the odd thing or two about ducks) are going to attempt to prove it to you.

Leaks concerning the new duck, sorry, I mean the new Minimoog... reached the outside world on the setup day before this year’s Moogfest. The news spread rapidly and within hours it was as if someone had kicked a hornets’ nest of speculation, comment, learned pronouncements and criticism from many who were, in all likelihood, a few thousand miles away from any of the instruments and any of the facts. But at that point almost nobody outside of the factory had seen — let alone played — one of the new instruments, and what people actually wanted to know was, is this the rebirth of the world’s most iconic monosynth, or just a modern reinterpretation of a classic?

To answer this, I placed one of the new Minimoogs (pre-production unit, serial number 0007, in case you’re interested) next to my original Minimoog (serial number 11235) and my immediate reaction was ‘bloody heck!’ (or, more accurately, an unprintable invitation to copulation) because it wasn’t obvious that the new one was not just a well-preserved original with a handful of well-installed modifications (see box). The attention to detail is astounding. It’s not just a question of the company sourcing or remanufacturing the right knobs and switches, using the right fonts and materials for the panel, or getting the shape and feel of the performance wheels right, it goes right down to minutiae such as positioning the screws in the right places, recreating the unnecessary but attractive cosmetic grooves in the woodwork and chamfering the base plate in the same way as the original. My eyes were telling me that I was simply standing in front of two Minimoogs, so this was a very good start.

Oscillators

In principle, there’s nothing remarkable about the Minimoog’s three oscillators. Osc 1 and Osc 2 produce six waveforms — triangle, shark’s tooth, ramp, and three flavours of pulse — while Osc 3 offers the same set but with the shark’s tooth replaced by a sawtooth wave. All three offer six footages including a low-frequency option, with detuning of ±7 semitones on Osc 2 and Osc 3. Finally, you can detach Osc 3 from the keyboard so that you can use it as a modulator running at a constant frequency for vibrato and filter modulation.

To compare the oscillators on the new synth with those of my original I opened the signal path of both synths as much as possible (maximum filter cutoff frequency, zero emphasis, maximum sustain levels, and no modulation) and tested each waveform generated by each oscillator in turn, both at mixer levels of 5 and 10. Starting with the triangle wave on Osc 1, I couldn’t detect any meaningful differences between the two at any octave. The same was true of the shark’s tooth. Moving on to the ramp wave, the same delicious fart was produced at low frequencies, and the same strident tone at high frequencies. The first difference appeared when I played the square wave. Both synths were well calibrated so the same hollow tone was generated but, at its highest frequencies, the new Minimoog was subject to a low level of background noise and buzz, while my 40-year-old beastie was rather cleaner. The interference was related to pitch, which gave me a clue to its possible source, and I was then able to track it down to a tiny bit of leakage from Osc 2 into Osc 1’s signal path. (I later discovered that Osc 3 leaks slightly into Osc 2 to create the same noise but Osc 3 is unaffected by either of the others.) I don’t want you to worry about this... the artifact only becomes audible when conducting a forensic analysis of the oscillators, but I was curious about it, so I discussed it with Trent Thompson at Moog Music, who told me, “This is common in the original Rev 2 oscillator board, which was the most common of the three major board designs and the one on which the new Model D is based. Because no changes were made to the sound engine, these artifacts are still present. When comparing our prototype and the pilot production units to our vintage synths (serial numbers 3212 and 8785) all of the units performed similarly. Minimoogs like yours with serial numbers above 10175 have a different oscillator card design and they sound and behave slightly differently.”

Moving on, the second pulse wave was also indistinguishable from my Minimoog’s, and the only waveform that was audibly different was the narrow pulse. In truth, I was amazed that I had gotten this far without hearing differences in timbre, since my Minimoog hasn’t been tuned, scaled or calibrated in the last three decades nor, in stark defiance of common wisdom, has it needed it. But the duty cycle of the third waveform on mine is not the same as that of the new model, so maybe I should look into this one of these days.

Continuing the analysis, I obtained the same results when comparing oscillators 2 and 3; the first five waveforms were the same as my Minimoog’s, while the narrowest pulse had a slightly different timbre. So I decided to compare the outputs of the narrowest pulse waves generated by all six oscillators at my disposal, and found that they all differed from one another by tiny amounts. I should have guessed that this might be the case: this is an area in which the smallest variations in component values and calibration can have an audible effect, and I have no doubt that, if we wheeled in another few Minimoogs, all would differ to a degree. As Confucius (who was remarkably prescient) once said, “a life devoted to searching for two identical Minimoogs is a life wasted”. After all the hours of detailed analysis of the oscillators and comparisons between them, I found just two functional differences between the synths. Firstly, the detuning ranges of Osc 2 and Osc 3 are wider on the new model and, secondly, while neither synth approaches the 10s maximum glide time quoted in the specification, the maximum is a tad longer on my Minimoog. Neither of these is an issue.

Like the oscillator section, the mixers on the two synths appear to be identical, with the standard five sources together with their dedicated on/off switches. However, the new model hides a modification here. In the past, many players connected the Minimoog’s unused audio output (either High or Low, as appropriate) to its external signal input, thus creating a feedback loop whose gain was affected by both the output volume and the external signal input volume. The results could range from nothing (the latter set to zero) through mild overdrive, to complete screaming, uncontrollable mayhem. To save you the cable, the new Minimoog contains an internal signal path that replicates this when nothing is inserted into the external signal input. Of course, you can still filter and shape signals from other sound sources but, like the original (and for obvious reasons), you can’t do this and generate overdrive simultaneously.

While still in the Mixer section, I also compared the noise generators of the two synths. Spectrally, they are very similar in both their white and pink modes, although the level (at a given mixer setting) is lower on the new model. This could be a benefit; adding a tiny bit of chiff noise was always tricky on my Minimoogs, and having a bit more room for manoeuvre at low levels will be nice.

The Filter, Amplifier & Contour Generators

Next we come to the fabled Moog 24dB/oct low-pass filter and, again, the two synths appear to be identical here. You have control over filter cutoff frequency, emphasis (which leads to filter oscillation when set close to maximum), and the amount of control exerted over the cutoff frequency by its dedicated ADS(D) contour generator. Three switches then allow cutoff frequency modulation and provide either 0 percent, or approximately 33, 67 or 100 percent tracking.

I started my tests by checking the frequency responses of the two synths’ filters, and found that the new Minimoog has a slightly wider response than mine, but the difference is so small as to be immaterial in the real world. I also checked the tracking by making the filter oscillate and playing the keyboard, and was amazed to find that the tracking errors were identical to within 2 to 3 Hz across the whole keyboard. That was a remarkable result.

Nonetheless, the characteristic of the filter that (for me) defines the Minimoog is a quirk — probably serendipitous rather than a design decision — that causes the amount of emphasis to decrease with decreasing cutoff frequency. This is hugely important for some patches because dialling in emphasis (or resonance or ‘Q’) on many low-pass filters — including the Minimoog’s — attenuates the lower frequencies contained within the signal, and bass sounds can become undesirably thin and gutted. But, if the keyboard tracking is switched on, the Minimoog’s emphasis decreases as you play lower and lower, so you can have a resonant sound in the mid and upper registers that nonetheless retains all of its body and depth when you play low notes.

So how did the two Minimoogs compare? I switched off the oscillators on both synths and caused the filter to oscillate by maximising the emphasis, switched on both Keyboard Control switches so that the filter tracked the keyboard 1:1, and then tuned the top A on the keyboard to A=440. Then I played. Initially, the results were disappointing; I could play downward on my Minimoog for fewer than 20 semitones (to around 150Hz) before the emphasis diminished to the point that the self-oscillation was gone but, on the new model, I could play down to the lowest note on the keyboard and the self-oscillation was still going strong at 50Hz and below. Consequently, when I created the same resonant bass patch on both synths, mine sounded deeper and richer. I was about to write to Moog about this when a thought occurred... Could it be that the maximum gain in the filter feedback loop that creates the resonance is different on the new model? I checked and, sure enough, my Minimoog’s filter started to oscillate when the emphasis knob was at a setting of 9 or thereabouts, whereas the new synth’s started to oscillate at around 8. So I backed off the emphasis on the new one and, at a setting of a little over 8, I could duplicate the response of my synth. I can’t tell you how relieved I was. The Minimoog is probably the world’s most iconic bass synth and, had I not been able to duplicate the filters’ responses, there would have been something horribly amiss.

Next, I tested the filter’s dedicated ADS(D) contour generator and found that the famous, snappy Minimoog minimum attack time of around 1ms has been retained on the new model, with maximum attack and decay times of around 7s and 30s respectively. These compare with 9s and 30s on my Minimoog, which is fine.

Following the filter, the signal passes to the audio amplifier with its own ADS(D) contour generator and, when testing this, I was happy to find that the minimum attack is again around 1ms, with the longest attack and decay/release durations of around 10s and 24s respectively, compared with 14s and 30s on my Minimoog. Seeing a pattern emerging, I asked Trent whether the shorter maximum contour times were a design decision. He explained that, “The old Allen-Bradley Type J pots (which are no longer available) typically had more resistance than they were rated for and, for example, the 1MΩ audio pots were often more like 1.2MΩ. Because of this and manufacturing tolerances, a vintage Model D may have slightly longer time constants than the markings on the front panel and the new Model D.”

But much more important than differences in the contour times is the anomalous way in which both of the original Minimoog’s contour generators respond to rapid playing. When you play the first note in a passage, the voltage of the attack phase goes from zero to its peak in the time determined by the attack parameter. Later, provided that the Decay switch is On, the note enters a release stage when you release the note. But if you play a second note early in the release phase, the next attack peaks a little higher than the first, and the third is a little higher than that, and so on. The consequence of this is that, when played rapidly, many Minimoog patches become slightly brighter and louder than they remain when played more sedately. Many players seem unaware of this, but it can be a huge benefit because, to an extent, it imitates the way that players of acoustic instruments such as brass, woodwind and strings tend to play a bit louder and a bit more brightly when playing rapidly. So, does the new Minimoog exhibit this behaviour? I was delighted to find that it does, which is a testament to the accuracy with which the original has been recreated.

Now we come to the area in which the new Minimoog differs most from the old: the modulation section. The original Minimoog had no dedicated LFO so, to obtain vibrato or wah, you had to place Oscillator 3 into its Lo mode, switch off its keyboard tracking, switch off its contribution to the audio signal path, and then route it through the Controllers section and the modulation wheel to either the pitches of Oscillators 1 and 2, or the filter cutoff frequency, or both. So, although the instrument had three oscillators and was often lauded for that reason, it only had two if you wanted to apply any form of cyclic modulation to the sound.

Although you may missed the changes at first glance, a closer look reveals that the two quarter-inch sockets (Glide and Decay) next to the keyboard have been replaced by a knob that determines the frequency of the new, dedicated LFO, as well as whether it generates a triangle wave (when the knob is in its lower position) or a square wave (when pulled up). Furthermore, two extra switches have been added unobtrusively to the Controllers panel, and these now offer you a choice of five modulation sources rather than the two (Osc 3 and noise) of the original: Osc 3 or the filter contour when the modulation mix knob is turned fully anti-clockwise, or pink/red noise or the new LFO when the knob is turned fully clockwise, or any of the four possible mixes. Hang on a second... That’s just four sources. The fifth is any signal that you apply to the Modulation Src input on the rear panel which, when a cable is connected, replaces the noise. Interestingly, the noise signal can also be output from this input when you use a suitable cable, so you can simultaneously insert an external modulator and obtain a noise signal that you might choose to route elsewhere. But if you want the new Minimoog to respond in the same way as the old one, you just select Osc 3 and Noise as the modulation sources, and all is as it was in 1971.

More Extra Bits

Elsewhere, the front of the new instrument is as before. The master tune control is still where it should be, as are the A=440 tuning oscillator, the master volume control, the main output on/off switch, and the headphones output together with its dedicated volume control. But when you look around the back, it’s clear that there’s more here than meets the eye. In particular, the new Minimoog now boasts CV outputs as well as inputs, with beguiling names such as pitch, velocity and aftertouch. So, perhaps we should next turn to the keyboard itself.

One of the things that set the original Minimoog apart from its competition in the 1970s was its 44-note F-C keyboard. Unfortunately, this tended to deteriorate over the years, with the key levels becoming uneven, the throw of the keys increasing, and key clicking increasing as the rubber stops underneath the keys (the bushings) began to perish. All could be restored by replacing these bushings, which isn’t hard, but it’s a longwinded and fiddly job that few players attempted, so many vintage Minimoogs now have uneven, lifeless and often clattery keyboards with dirty contacts that don’t always play correctly. Fortunately, the keyboard on mine hasn’t deteriorated to this extent, but I can’t claim that it’s perfect and, if it has lain unused for a while, it takes a few widdly-widdly solos before every key will make proper contact again. Comparing this to the Fatar keyboard in the new model (which is the same as was used in the Voyager) was interesting; the new Minimoog has a lighter action and a somewhat shorter throw (the distance from each key’s rest position to its maximum depression), and these can change the way in which the instrument responds when played quickly. After a while I noticed that I had begun to compensate for this by playing in a slightly more staccato style, thus allowing the voltage of the release stage more time to drop from the sustain level so, for the first hour or two, my fingertips were asking my brain whether they were playing a ‘real’ Minimoog. But, after that, all was fine.

The action isn’t the only thing that’s changed about the new Minimoog’s keyboard because it now generates velocity and aftertouch CVs. These aren’t connected internally so, unless you insert cables into the velocity and aftertouch outputs on the rear panel and route them somewhere sensible, nothing will happen. On the Minimoog itself, you can choose from the four CV inputs — loudness, brightness, pitch and modulation source — but you can’t apply aftertouch as a multiplying factor to the modulation amount provided by the mod wheel. This is such an important feature of pressure-sensitive synths that there had to be a reason for its omission, so again I posed the question to the chaps at Moog. “The mod wheel on the Minimoog is implemented as a shunt to ground, which means that it’s not voltage controllable,” Trent told me. “Changing this would have required a redesign of the entire modulation section, which would have introduced a series of other issues and artifacts requiring yet further redesign. So while this may at first seem like an omission, the decision was based on preserving the legacy circuits; we didn’t want to risk introducing subtle artifacts that could have compromised the Model D’s character and magic.” While I’m disappointed that pressure-sensitive modulation isn’t possible using the Minimoog in isolation, I applaud the decision. There must have been a great temptation to expand its facilities at the expense of authenticity but, for me, restraint was the better course of action.

By this time, I was itching to stop analysing and begin playing the new Minimoog properly, so I created some of my favourite Minimoog patches on both synths and, with appropriate care, I was able to duplicate them on each to within a gnat’s wotsits of one another. This was when I uncovered another small difference between the two synths. On a vintage Minimoog, the bottom note outputs 0V, which means that switching on the keyboard control (tracking) switches has no effect on the filter cutoff frequency when playing this note. But the bottom note on a Minimoog is an F, which doesn’t conform to the modern V/Oct standard that decrees that 0V should be generated by a C, so Moog decided to make the bottom key of the new Minimoog output 0.5V. This means that, if you hook it up to another V/Oct synth, they’ll play in tune with one another, but is also means that switching on keyboard tracking when playing the bottom F causes the filter cutoff frequency to shift upwards by up to five semitones. To overcome this, Moog has added a Power On Command (see box) that allows you to determine which note will generate 0V, but this shifts the pitch CV throughout the whole of the instrument so, while it can recreate the historical filter response, it simultaneously causes the oscillators to detune by five semitones! That isn’t much use, and it’s much easier to leave the CV alone and set the cutoff frequency knob to a slightly different position if you’re going to recreate a patch with filter tracking on.

Finally, it was now time to step far beyond the limitations of my Minimoog. To begin, I connected the new one’s velocity CV output to its loudness CV input, and its aftertouch CV output to its filter CV input, trimmed their responses using the small knobs alongside the outputs, and discovered what a delicious instrument a touch-sensitive Minimoog is. I also connected a selection of TRS expression pedals to the CV inputs, and found that I could control the pitch, loudness and filter cutoff frequency — and even create my own modulation signals — using these. I then hooked up my SH101 to the Minimoog’s pitch CV and V-Trig inputs and used the SH101’s arpeggiator and sequencer to drive the Minimoog. (I think that I lost a few hours of my life here!) Of course, the Minimoog doesn’t allow you to do things such as send a single output CV to multiple CV inputs without using an external multiple, nor can you receive multiple CVs at a single CV input without using an external CV mixer. So I placed it next to a small modular panel containing a selection of multiples, CV mixers, VCAs and an LFO, all of which allowed me to control the loudness and brightness using both velocity and aftertouch, simultaneously using aftertouch to add vibrato, tremolo and wah, and much more. I was straying perilously close to Moog Modular territory and, before I realised it, the sun was coming up.

Conclusions

Sometime before the announcement at Moogfest, I had discussed the philosophy of re-releasing classic synths with the good people at Moog Music and I proffered the view that, in my ‘umble opinion guv, any recreation of the Minimoog should remain true to the original, and that they should resist the temptation to update it beyond a small handful of features necessary to ensure its relevance in the 21st Century. I’m therefore delighted to confirm that the extra facilities on the new Minimoog don’t detract from its identity in any way. Just set the modulation controllers to Osc 3 and Noise, and you have an almost precise recreation of the original synth. And, whether you use it to play a single bass note that rolls across the fens or a solo of such dazzling complexity that even Dream Theater would be embarrassed by it, the new Minimoog also sounds no more different from mine than any other would. In other words, it really IS a Minimoog.

There will be the doubters, of course. There will also be those who, for whatever reason, think that it sounds clever to say that they ‘played a real Minimoog in a shop once, and the new one sounds nothing like it’. Ignore them, and remember the ducks. If it looks like a Minimoog, plays like a Minimoog and sounds like a Minimoog, it’s a Minimoog. Call me a Philistine if you wish but, were I given the choice between the new Minimoog with all of its extra facilities or a heavily used and potentially unreliable vintage instrument at the current hyper-inflated prices, I would have no hesitation whatsoever in choosing the former.

Check out the SOS Tutorials video course on the Minimoog Model D .

The Rear Panel

I’m not a fan of external power supplies because their cables tend to be too flimsy and their connectors too unreliable for live use. Consequently, it came as a disappointment to find that the new Minimoog has an external PSU, which Moog claim makes the instrument more stable (which I believe) and makes it easier for you “to travel with your Minimoog Model D” (which is rubbish). However, I was much happier when I saw that the connection between the mains and the PSU is a standard IEC cable and, rather than use the usual flimsy bell wire, barrel plug and socket, the connection between the PSU and the Minimoog is a robust cable terminating in a locking 4-pin XLR plug, which eliminates most of my objections. But you’ll have to be careful not to lose this power supply. It provides three rails at +15V, -15V, and +5V, and you’ll not be able to rush out and buy one in the local electrical store when you find that you’ve left yours at home on the day of the gig.

I have just one criticism of the new Minimoog. Although MIDI is welcome, and you can even use the new Minimoog as a basic MIDI/CV converter, its implementation suffers from some significant omissions, most notably that neither MIDI modulation nor aftertouch are received at its MIDI In. The consequence of this is that you can’t sequence a performance with any expression other than velocity and pitch bend.

For some people, this might render its MIDI capabilities almost pointless, so I asked Moog to explain. Trent told me, “If we had ported the design to SMT [surface mount technology], expanding the MIDI capabilities would have been a logical decision because it would already have been a redesign. In fact, we evaluated a number of possibilities — including this one — during the research phase, but in our view, these would have introduced a number of other issues that would have required even further redesign and, as you know, we were committed to not changing the sound engine. The MIDI implementation is quite minimal but this was deliberate, because any further implementation would have compromised the instrument.” It’s hard to argue with this reasoning.

Power On Commands & SysEx

The new Minimoog offers a number of global functions that were, for obvious reasons, missing from the original. You choose between these one at a time by pressing different key combinations when switching on the instrument. So, if you want to change the MIDI channel and the key priority, you have to switch it on twice with different keys held. A reset function allows you to clear everything and start again if you get lost. These parameters will also be available via SysEx once the specification is finalised, together with the ability to create alternative tuning tables.

Vintage Minimoog Mods

The additional features on the new Minimoog are not unprecedented because, in addition to all manner of upgrades to their boards and power supplies, a number of companies have offered after-factory mods for original Minimoogs. At various times and places these have included:

• Ten-turn tuning pots.
• Oscillator cross-modulation.
• Sub-oscillators.
• Pulse-width modulation.
• Pitch contouring.
• Ring modulation.
• Transposition.
• Lin/Log glide.
• Filter bypass.
• Inverted contours.
• Oscillator/filter cross-modulation.
• Additional LFOs.
• Illuminated pitch-bend and modulation wheels.
• Pitch-bend central ‘dead zone’.
• Feedback/external input switch.
• CV & Gate outputs.
• It looks like a Minimoog...
• It sounds like a Minimoog...
• It IS a Minimoog...
• ...with extras!
• Second-hand Minimoogs just became less valuable. (No, you’re right, that’s not a ‘con’.)
• The MIDI implementation is not as comprehensive as you might wish.
• Don’t lose the PSU — it’s not a common AC/DC converter.

It’s a Minimoog... a Minimoog with extras. Don’t be a numpty and claim that you tried one and it sounds nothing like the real thing. You might think you’ll sound knowledgeable, but you won’t, and you’ll be wrong. It’s a Minimoog with extras. What’s not to love?

information

£3599 including VAT.

Source Distribution (0)20 8962 5080

[email protected]

www.sourcedistribution.co.uk

www.moogmusic.com

Moog Music +1 (828) 251 0090.

New forum posts

• Re: Please critique the first movement of my symphony in D major Exalted Wombat > 24 Apr 2024, 23:32 Music Theory, Songwriting & Composition
• Re: Behringer umc1820 v Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 2ndGen N i g e l > 24 Apr 2024, 23:16 Recording: Gear & Techniques
• How to renew an Acustica Audio Nebula 4.5 Subscription?? dbfs > 24 Apr 2024, 22:12 Mixing, Mastering & Post Production
• Korg Sound on Sound recorder - no sound Floretta > 24 Apr 2024, 21:50 Forum FAQs
• Recreating Hysteria by Def Leppard caderoberts > 24 Apr 2024, 21:32 Recording: Gear & Techniques

Active topics

• How to renew an Acustica Audio Nebula 4.5 Subscription??
• Korg Sound on Sound recorder - no sound
• Recreating Hysteria by Def Leppard
• Superstrange sound coming from one speaker only
• SynthfestUK2024
• MusiKraken now supports MIDI 2.0
• MOTU DP very slow loading
• Interface to line mixer to reduce latency?
• Reveal Sound Spire 33% at SOUND7!
• SPL launch Phonitor 3

Recently active forums

• Recording: Gear & Techniques
• Mixing, Mastering & Post Production
• New Products & Industry News
• Music Business
• Windows Music
• Apps & Other Computers/OS
• Guitar Technology
• Keyboards & Synthesis
• DIY Electronics & Studio Design
• Live Sound & Performance
• Music Theory, Songwriting & Composition
• User Reviews
• Remote Collaboration
• Self-Promotion

Create an account

Moog Minimoog Model D review

A legendary analogue synth resurrected circuit by circuit.

• £3249

MusicRadar Verdict

While bringing back all the characteristic sound of the original Minimoog, Moog has simultaneously added some elegant modifications.

Moog has once again nailed that classic vibe will make this appeal to a new generation of synth players.

The fact that neither MIDI modulation or aftertouch are available at the MIDI In port is a mild disappointment.

MusicRadar's got your back Our team of expert musicians and producers spends hours testing products to help you choose the best music-making gear for you. Find out more about how we test.

Moog Minimoog Model D

Released in 1971, the Minimoog was the essential Prog keyboard, the world-beating bass sound behind Michael Jackson's Thriller and the Disco revolution that preceded it, and later, the synthesizer of choice during the rise of '90s French House and Post-Rock.

Lost in the shuffle from digital synths to software, there was a period in the late-'80s/early '90s when a vintage Model D could be yours for a few hundred dollars. Now an original unit can set you back well over £5,000.

The Model D's original brief was to give keyboard players of the early '70s a way to combat the dominance of your Marshall -stacked guitarist on the other side of the stage.

But after a while keyboard players discovered that the breadth of the design could also produce otherworldly atmospheres, incomparable basslines, and serve as a unique vehicle for processing external audio.

While all of this is certainly still on offer with the 2016 version, right off the elephant in the room is whether Moog 's painstaking recreation gets it right. The succinct answer is yes.

This doesn't mean you won't notice some variation between the old and new models. Line up ten Minis in a row, and you are almost guaranteed to hear and feel differences in terms of sound and performance.

Proof of the pudding

In the wake of the Voyager and the more recent Sub 37, what features to bring to a newly revived Model D was probably a far bigger consideration for Moog than whether it could pull it off at all. At its heart, this version is still a three oscillator monophonic synth with white/pink noise, the most desirable filter design on the planet and the consistently celebrated left to right user-friendly interface. The integrity of that design has largely been maintained, so let's examine what's different with the new version.

The first decidedly unsexy, yet notable, feature that the new machine brings to the table is an external power supply. Many Minimoog players and technicians have credited the original's power supply as one of the chief reason for the its infamous tuning issues. While ambient temperature shifts were also a factor, fluctuating power was known to send vintage Model Ds into histrionics.

The keyboard action is responsive and refined, unlike the stiff and inorganic response of the original.

The current models are now being shipped with a locking 4-pin XLR connector which, while difficult to replace quickly should you mislay it, delivers stable 100-240 VAC; 50/60Hz juice.

The 44-key Fatar spring action keyboards included with the new Minimoog are of the same high quality as those seen on the Voyagers. The action is pleasantly responsive and refined, unlike the stiff and inorganic response you'll find on a vintage model unless it's been expertly refurbished or exquisitely cared for.

To the far left you'll find the familiar groundbreaking pitch and modulation wheels that have since graced most synthesizers.

Both are the white, ridged versions that are most commonly associated with the instrument but neither wheel features spring-loaded action. Instead the pitch wheel snaps back to its traditional centre-detent position while the mod wheel moves freely. It should also be noted that the mod wheel on this particular synth does not transmit or receive MIDI data.

We are mods

One of the most common modifications made to the original Model D once MIDI began to rule over the '80s, was a MIDI DIN jack whacked onto the rear chassis. The Voyager logically had MIDI onboard when it was first released, and the new Model D has a somewhat limited implementation of the standard as well. MIDI In and Out (Note, Velocity, Pitchbend and Sysex) as well as MIDI Thru jacks are available. Aftertouch and modulation at the MIDI In port, however, are sadly not on offer.

The next notable change is in the range of modulation options that Moog has built into the synth. In days of old, oscillator 3 was commonly employed as a modulation source, but for the 21st century edition Moog has added an LFO to the proceedings.

Controlled by a half-size pot alongside the traditional glide and decay switches, the new Model offers both triangle and square wave modulation. To select the square wave, all you have to do is gently pull up on the pot, and the built-in switch will lock into the secondary position. Rotating the pot will then control the rate of the LFO - a nicely executed design.

Additionally you can cable in an external modulation source via the rear panel's 1/4 Mod Src. jack point, thus making the new Mini even more attractive in terms of its modulation possibilities.

Apart from routing an external audio source into the Minimoog's legendary 24dB per octave filter, one of the most common techniques used by Model D players was to route the output of the synth back into its input to overdrive the signal and create phat amounts of distortion.

In its latest iteration, Moog has normalled this connection for you internally. So with nothing connected to the External Input Signal jack, the audio out is sent back into the Mixer's input. All you have to do is ratchet up the External Input and you'll see that familiar Overload light begin to flicker.

The new Minimoog features a series of Power-On commands, initiated by holding a series of keys while powering up. For example you can now enable legato triggering with the latest version of the synth by holding down a D Minor chord (D3, F3, A3) as you switch the synth on.

In this instance, the Contour Generators are only triggered if all notes have been released. This means that a second note played while a first is still being held will maintain the same Filter and Loudness settings. To turn legato mode off and re-enable multi-triggering (where each note played sends new trigger signals to the Filter and Loudness generators...), hold down a D Major chord (D3, F#3, A3, MIDI) when turning the Minimoog back on.

Other Power-On commands include Note Priority (last, low, and high), MIDI channel determination, MIDI velocity curves (soft, medium, and hard) and custom tuning options (pythagorean C scale, Wendy Carlos 12-tone harmonic scale, and Harry Partch 43-tone scale).

Legacy maintained

When Bob Moog and in-house engineer Bill Hemsath created the Minimoog, their hope was that the instrument would serve as a scaled down, affordable entry point into the realm of electronic sound.

The original price of $1,195 ($7,100 in today's money) was a hard ask. Even now you'd have to consider whether it's worth the investment with the sea of synths available today. But if you're after a monophonic keyboard, the answer may well be yes.

The analogue craze notwithstanding, software simulations still pale in one respect or another to lighting up a true beast of an instrument like this. And while it's clear that Moog is trading on its heritage by reissuing this synth in the 21st century, the demand for the sound of the Model D has never really gone away.

"We enjoyed each other's company a lot – we were in it for the duration of our lives": Stevie Ray Vaughan's tech Rene Martinez remembers his boss, friend and blues guitar legend

“Stevie Wonder told me I needed to do 5 hours a day to get good at piano”: Super-producer Raphael Saadiq on taking advice from a legend, his love of Teles and creating musical history with Beyoncé and D’Angelo

Kölsch: "I have this obsession with instruments that don’t sound very good. They have more soul than glitzy, modern-sounding VSTs"

Most Popular

Moog Minimoog Model D vs Voyager, Mano a Mano

Synthesist Starsky Carr shared this series of videos, comparing the new Moog Minimoog Model D vs the Minimoog Voyager .

The videos cover the sound of the oscillators, modulation options, overdrive and the filters.

If you’ve used the Minimoog Model D and the Minimoog Voyager, leave a comment and share your thoughts on how they compare!

13 thoughts on “ Moog Minimoog Model D vs Voyager, Mano a Mano ”

Pfft! Voyager all the way.

I love hearing both the Model D and the Voyager compared but what I really want is to hear how different the two synths can be made to sound. I want to know how much difference there is and what I can achieve on one that I can’t, equally well, on the other. I bought both, so help me justify the uniqueness of each. It will take me a while to know each synth well enough to do this myself. I would also really appreciate convincing arguments that a Modal 008 is so different from the Moogs, that I should buy it next! I need all the arguments I can get to help me answer the inevitable question that I will face: “Why do you need this one?”

I have a model d and a 008. The 008 is definitely different enough, but the 002 is still my favorite Modal. If you bought both, I wouldn’t rely on anything anyone here tells you. It should be a personal decision. Each person will click with a synth differently. I would argue not to get too left brained about it, because regardless of specs or capabilities, if they both take you to different places, that’s what is important. The end result is what is important. A lot of people lose sight of that. For me, what is important is usage. If I find myself not using a synth on a consistent basis, then that is a good reason to part ways with it. It’s just taking up space at that point.

So you would go with 002 over the 008? Tell me more. You have my attention. I’m impressed with both. However, keeping with the current article, I am going to try many of the things I hear and see inthe this great comparison video. It makes me wish that there was a new Moog poly synth to add to the mix.

I think it depends on the genre of music you intend to make and what other gear you have. I like the 002, because it can generate some unique sounds, which would be useful for industrial/IDM/etc. The 008’s filter choices are great. The panning bugs me, but there are ways around it. That said, I would part with my Modals before I parted with my pro 2 or P12. I guess a similar comparison is p12 verses p6 or ob6. It really is all about personal preference. If you have a synth store near you, you should go play with one or both.

Thanks for the reply. I love synths that can do something unique that is difficult with other synths. In terms of synths I own, I’m slowly becoming a collector, not just owner. I don’t want to turn this into a list that looks like bragging. It’s enough to say that other than modular, I’ve pretty much got everything covered. I would like one day to sell my evolver desktop for a PolyEvolver, maybe my Analog 4 for the Analog Keys, though I’ve heard arguments not to do this. I love MFB, and Dreadbox but my next synth will definitely be a Roli 49. Anyway, I did play the Schmidt a couple of times at Music Messe – loved it! I also played both the 002 and 008 but 5-10 minutes is not enough time to decide. That’s why your comment interested me. Are the 002 and 008 different enough from all of the rest to justify or should I hold out and take a chance on a MacBeth Elements. This is one really different and powerful synth. And if I decide Modal – which one? The module interests me but I think I have to pay the difference and get the keyboard for the extra buttons, knobs and sliders. So, if you had lots of synths and had to decide between 002 and 008, which would you choose and why? Remember, I’ve already played them both so I’m not completely new to how they sound. Feel free to have opinions about timbres, nuances. I will try to recall from my own experiences. Thanks again. This is very helpful.

I myself have over 30 synths and maybe a little more than 10k invested in modular. That’s a rough estimate. It might be more. At this point, there is obviously overlap in my studio, and if I never bought another synth, I would spend the rest of my life discovering new things about each synth that I own. That said, I find myself using the 002 a lot more than the 008. It makes weirder sounds, which works for the type of music that I produce. NAMM is just around the corner. I would hold off on any big synth purchases until then, unless you’re aiming to make use of Sweetwater’s holiday financing or something (however, you were at Musikmesse, so I doubt it). I own a poly evolver and a desktop evolver. I just got a poly evolver rack, which I’ve poly chained with my PEK. It unlocks a lot in doing so. I will likely poly chain my desktop to make a 9 voice PEK at some point. Sometimes I wish I had picked up an A4 instead of the Keys. I’d probably use it more. That said, the monomachine is my most used Elektron synth. Anyway, in terms of quick usage, I find myself choosing between the p12 or the 002 a lot of the time. If I were to task the 008 with something, I may also go with the Andromeda, OB6 or P6. Now that I have the PE rack, I guess I should throw the PEK into the mix….and I just picked up a second P08, so the poly chained pair goes into the mix as well. I feel the 008 is less unique, but I’ve still gotten some really amazing material out of it that I’d be hard pressed from another synth. They’re all great, and there is no easy answer. It really comes down to what you intend to do with it. If it’s IDM, 002 is undoubtedly the best choice….ps…dive into modular. you won’t be sorry, but your bank account will.

Yeah, it does seem like all comparisons need to be made on the Model D’s turf. The Voyager is incredibly unique in that it has discrete analog components, where it’s parameters are also *fully controllable* via midi CC. As opposed to lots of IC’s and digital control with an analog signal path, or discrete components with just simple Midi note control.

Just on price alone, you can get a used Moog Voyager Keyboard or RME for $1500 off the bay and the cheapest I have seen a Model D go for is $2500.00. The Voyager has midi and presets too. Kind of a no brainer, really. Nice to hear a side by side comparison though!

model d reissue has midi.

Well, the Model d has simple note on midi. Correct? The Voyager has full cc midi implementation, and you can integrate automation of all the parameters within your DAW.

I have a 400D and a Sub37 and they both have a great sound. But there’s something special about the controls on a 43 year old machine. Something like (I imagine, a powerful car or a wild animal) it’s capable of doing something unexpected.

Now that purists have had their fair share of vintage re-releases by several big brands in the past couple of years, it’s perhaps time for Moog to return to Robert’s quest to try to create something better and new to blow our minds. A Voyager using SMD technology or Minimoog/Voyager Eurorack modules (e.g make have 3~4 VCO and create more filter combinations) would also be welcome as a side dish. (or just wait for a DSI MiniMoog 6 ?) Till then, still happy with the RME.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Remember me Not recommended on shared computers

Forgot your password?

• The Keyboard Corner

Moog Voyager and Model D compared

By brenner13 March 22, 2014 in The Keyboard Corner

• Start new topic

Recommended Posts

This vid is from 2011, and I'm sure it's been discussed here before (I did a search, but KC only goes back for two years), but I've become Moog obsessed and must own one very soon. Anyway, I certainly want to smoothly sweep between the waveforms, but listening side by side, a well kept classic has a more interesting raw sound and characteristic filter sweep to my ears.

I'm terrified to walk into any music store that might have some analog jewel which would most certainly suck my soul right into the circuit board and I'd not be able leave without it.

Link to comment

Share on other sites.

• Created 10 yr
• Last Reply 10 yr

One area the video points out is the modulation possibilities of the Voyager. This is further enhanced if you plan to add CV tools like the 251 and/or 351 modules.

These "Modular Expansion" tools is one reason I chose a Voyager.

I've played many Minis although I never owned one.

I've played a half dozen Voyagers in music stores, and without exception, could not get them to sound worth a donkey's wheeze. Where was all that legendary fatness? I started to fear that I had lost my programming mojo.

Another area of difference between the 2 machines is the Voyagers stereo output, the spacing control, and how these relate to the "Dual Lowpass" or "HiPass/Lowpass" configuration of the filters. This can have a huge affect on tone.

Voyager is a more sophisticated instrument....perhaps a certain amount of tone was sacrificed for that.

AND you can save "Donkey Wheeze" as a patch!

I used to own both but I chose to sell the V as I was not digging it as much as the MM. I sat them both down together and I dialled in all my fav sounds of the MM and tried to emulate them (even looking at the waveforms in an oscilloscope prog) and I thought I got as close as possible but I dunno the MM just has a more ballsy feel the way the envelopes worked was more snappy too

I do think the V is a good instrument in its own right and the filter sweep and controls are awesome.. but I think something is missing. There is a mod which allows the V to achieve a tighter square wave (slew mod).

I felt the same way when I compared the DSI PEK with my ARP ProSoloist thought I had those sounds done and dusted but just some mojo with the originals...

Here's another Model D vs Voyager thread from a while back.

Scroll down the page to where I link to a filter and oscillator comparison on SoundCloud. I recorded some raw waveform sounds and a few filter settings from both instruments. Nothing scientific, just a quick A-B. Marino and I bashed the "which is better" question around a bit and agreed: the Voyager oscillators are more "pure" and the filter(s) more harmonic. The Model D oscillators are richer harmonically and the filter is smoother, but in your face.

The Model D and Voyager are the same but different. They're unquestionably Moog instruments. While I'm delighted to have a functioning Model D, the Voyager is still my go-to synth for everyday recording, simply because it offers more colors. Preset storage is a plus. Combined with the VX-351 and CP-251 one has the foundation of a very powerful modular system.

brenner13, you may want to wait a bit until the Moog Sub 37 hits the market. Looks like a monster.

[video:youtube]

9 Moog things, 3 Roland things, 2 Hammond things and a computer with stuff on it

Ooh, this "37" is the thang that got me so Mooginated in the first place. I'm just ultra-analyzing all options while trying to decide what to sell in order to sneak an analog piece of gear past my financial conscience. The newer stuff is probably more to my liking with all the extra modulation capabilities and the presets at a touch of a button as Oyarsa presents. Mate_stubb and orangefunk reiterate what I'm hearing with the beef of the classics.

not sure if I'm the most qualified guy to chime in here, since I don't really have anything modern to compare with my vintage stuff. I did pick up a Casio XW-P1 recently (paid about half what it goes for new) but I only use it with my band.

honestly, whenever I've been on the brink of buying one of the newer synth offerings I've managed to stumble onto a good deal for something vintage.

monosynth-wise, I have a Moog Prodigy and an ARP Axxe. together they cost less than the price of a used Lil' Phatty, and they each have different things they're good at. the addition of a few effects really makes them come alive.

the main problem is when they need repairs. I can fix most of the smaller problems, but I have a few keyboards waiting their turn on the workbench that might be beyond my abilities.

Doc Tonewheel

Mark schmieder.

Eugenio Upright, 60th Anniversary P-Bass, USA Geddy Lee J-Bass, Yamaha BBP35, D'angelico SS Bari, EXL1,

Select Strat, 70th Anniversary Esquire, LP 57, Eastman T486, T64, Ibanez PM2, Hammond XK4, Moog Voyager

Talk about agendas! I finally watched the initial video linked at the top, and they consistently play the Voyager an octave higher than the Model D at the start (on the raw waveforms), to get across the impression that the latter is phatter. Yet the Voyager does sound smoother on the resonance filters, where they use the same settings.

After that, they proceed to compare apples and oranges, and the guy on the left can't play very well so that accentuates the Voyager's less than stellar showing.

Which video? The one at the top from 2011, or the new one for the Sub-37?

The Sub-37 is the one I am commenting on.

GovernorSilver

I'm fully prepared for the possibility that I may pick up a Sub-37 and sell the Voyager, even though the latter has and extra oscillator (which I don't use very often).

Sub 37 and Sub Phatty, however, do have a sub oscillator, which is kind of like a 3rd oscillator

I've played a half dozen Voyagers in music stores, and without exception, could not get them to sound worth a donkey's wheeze.

Guitar Center had a Voyager about five years ago, and it was the only Minimoog that I've ever played. But I felt like my experience was very much the same. I've seen videos where players are really ripping, so I attribute it to lousy speakers and perhaps lousy presets (even though I did a bit of knob twiddling while I was there).

Working on: The Jupiter Bluff ; Driven Away

Main axes: Kawai MP11 and Kurz PC361

DAW Platform: Cubase

HammondDave

'55 and '59 B3's; Leslies 147, 122, 21H; MODX 7+; NUMA Piano X 88; Motif XS7; Mellotrons M300 and M400’s; Wurlitzer 206; Gibson G101; Vox Continental; Mojo 61; Launchkey 88 Mk III; Korg Module; B3X; Model D6; Moog Model D

I bought the Prophet 12 a few weeks ago, but have been working so much overtime at my day job that I haven't really had a chance yet to use it in the studio. It is incredibly inspiring when just playing it casually though, and it is pulling ideas out of my head in a way that has me really excited about it being an inspirational tool.

I agree. It's one of the very few keyboards that I have become addicted to.

Steve Force

Steve Force,

Durham, North Carolina

My Professional Websites

The Real MC

People who dismiss the Voyager for not sounding like a model D are missing the Big Picture. The Voyager is capable of a huge palette of sounds that the model D can only dream of. The controllers and modulation options open up a world of sounds.

As a machine, the Voyager is way beyond the Minimoog D,- much, much more possibilities.

2 different synths and probably best to have both.

I have the D and don´t have a Voyager because it´s not urgently necessary for me,- but I wait for a Sub37 rackmount unit.

Indeed. And if you want "balls" "rasp" etc, run the prefix mix out to the boutique rasp box with the flavor you want, and back through the dual filters. Bob knew exactly what he was doing with Voyager.

Yes, I'm aware of all of that. I'm very careful before I sell anything of the quality of a Voyager. I was going to wait until I had PRODUCTION time with it (which I haven't had yet) to see whether passing it through dual filters helps. I have no intention of getting into C/V stuff at my advanced age; time is precious and I'm trying to simplify my life right now. So it would be "in the box" or via the new 500 series Moog modules.

I originally thought I'd dig the Voyager for its extended capabilities, but I'm not likely to use them. The XY-pad is kinda cool but I'm not using it as much as I thought I would. I simply don't feature synths in the foreground that much anymore, so I look more for stuff that sits with everything else rather than dominating. Thus I reach to the Voyager more for synth bass parts, sine wave stuff, and effects. Not much for leads; I'd rather mangle a guitar part these days than have a prominent lead synth.

  I've become Moog obsessed and must own one very soon.

People still buying into their past reputation, while it's not necessarily the same as it was back in the day.

@Hammonddave, did you buy a P12?

I wish.... If I had an extra 3 grand lying around. I could not keep my hands off it at NAMM.

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

• Existing user? Sign In
• MPN YouTube
• Create New...

The Bit Depth

Minimoog Model D: Alternatives, Clones, Reproductions, and VSTs

Analog Synthesizer for the Masses

Moog has a long, storied history of creating some of the most iconic analog synthesizers of all time. One of their most well-known creations is the Minimoog Model D. Originally released in 1970, the Moog Model D was the first compact synthesizer ever released. Prior to its release, synthesizers were monumental modular behemoths that were almost impossible for a layman to use. The Minimoog Model D changed all of that with its easy and functional layout. Minimoogs are famous for having ‘no bad settings,’ meaning wherever you turn the knobs you’ll find a usable, unique and characteristically quirky sound.

The Minimoog has been used on countless classic recordings by everyone from Bernie Worrell of Parliament-Funkadelic to Gary Numan, Kraftwerk, Dr. Dre, Herbie Hancock, Trent Reznor, Kevin Parker, Depeche Mode, Mac Miller, Vangelis, Jack Antonoff and many many more.

Moog Vintage, Voyager and Reissue

A vintage 1970s Minimoog Model D is a beautiful sight to behold, but currently sells for between $5,000 and $8,000 used. Moog reissued the Model D in 2016. According to Reverb.com, these reissues sold consistently on the used market for around $3,000 but as of 2022 they are even more expensive than the original 1970s units, sometimes fetching as much as $9,000. 

Other options produced by Moog include the MiniMoog Voyager and MiniMoog Voyager XL.

The Voyager was designed by Moog Music as a tribute to the classic Minimoog Model D. The original Minimoog was discontinued in 1981. In 2002, the company released the Minimoog Voyager. The Voyager was discontinued in 2015.

The Voyager features three oscillators, a noise generator, a mixer, a low pass filter, a high pass filter, and an audio amplifier. It features a 61-note keyboard with velocity and aftertouch. The synthesizer features a 49-note ribbon controller and a CV/Gate output. It also features a MIDI input, MIDI output, and MIDI thru. The Voyager is available in several models including the Voyager, Voyager Select, Voyager Performer, Voyager Old School, and Voyager Rack Mount. 

Budget Reproductions

Behringer model-d.

The Behringer Model-D, released in 2016 is a faithful reproduction of the Minimoog Model D in a compact, Eurorack compatible format. Priced at approximately $300, the Model D is the simplest budget-friendly choice for anyone who wants a hardware Minimoog.

The Model D is a great choice for anyone looking for an affordable and easy-to-use analog synthesizer. It is also a great choice for those who want to expand their modular setup with a CV-compatible synth.

The Model D is a true analog synthesizer featuring a pure analog signal path based on authentic VCO, VCF, VCA, and ladder filter designs. The Model D also features a dedicated and fully analog triangle/square wave LFO. The Model D is a semi-modular synthesizer: some audio and CV signals are available via patch cables. It is a monophonic synthesizer with three VCOs that can generate sawtooth, triangle, and square/pulse waveforms. The VCO can be modulated by the LFO, envelope generators, and the keyboard. The Model D has a 24 dB/octave low-pass filter with resonance. The filter can be modulated by the LFO, envelope generators, and the keyboard. The Model D has two envelope generators. The envelope generators can be used to modulate the VCA, VCF, and the pitch of the VCO. The Model D has a noise generator that can be used to modulate the VCF. The Model D has a ring modulator that can be used to modulate the VCO. The Model D has a MIDI input and a MIDI output. The Model D can be powered by a 9V DC power adapter.

• Semi-modular design completely negates the need for patching
• Raw power and affordability 
• Ergonomic front panel interface 
• Capable of producing everything from fat bass pulses to smooth pads and blistering leads 
• Simulations of traditional instruments, including brass, strings, and woodwinds

Roland SE-02

Roland’s answer to the MiniMoog is the SE-02, released as part of their Boutique Synthesizer series which includes faithful reproductions of some of their classic synths like the Juno-160 and the TR-808. Fully analog, the SE-02 comes in at around $450 new. While it is pricier than its Behringer competition, it cannot be denied that Roland is renowned for their robust and sturdy gear which seems to last for decades without breaking. Behringer, on the other hand, does not have a reputation for making robust gear. The Roland Boutique modules can be used with a K-25m keyboard (sold separately) which negates the need for MIDI keyboards or other connections.

The Roland SE-02 analog synthesizer module is packed with three voltage-controlled oscillators, each with its own sub-oscillator. The oscillators are temperature-stabilized with automatic tuning to keep them from drifting. The sub-oscillators are square wave only, but the main oscillators can generate sawtooth, square, and triangle waves. The oscillators can be synced together for thick, rich tones.

• Three voltage-controlled oscillators for massive analog tone
• Voltage-controlled 24dB lowpass filter
• Dual-gainstage amplifier
• Command center with high-grade knobs and switches
• 16-step sequencer

GuinGuin MME

The MME is a great sounding synth voice that gives you the classic Minimoog sound with added features and flexibility. The MME is based on the circuits of the original Moog Minimoog. It has all of the features of the original plus extras to boot. AS with any faithful Minimoog reproduction, you get three epic-sounding oscillators, a noise generator, a mixer, a ladder filter, and two envelopes.

If you are interested in the classic sound and functionality of the MiniMoog in Eurorack format and love to solder, the GuinGuin MME is probably right up your alley. The MME is 55€ for the PCBs, PCBs + panel set costs 120€ and with the rare parts for 145€.

• Eurorack compatible Minimoog clone
• DIY Project that must be soldered
• Three oscillators
• Noise Generator
• Ladder Filter
• 2 Envelopes

Soundforce SFC-Mini Minimoog Software Controller

The Soundforce SFC-Mini Software Controller has the precise look and feel of all the classic hardware Minimoog buttons, knobs and sliders. But it’s actually a USB controller that can be used in conjunction with Arturia’s Mini-V software instrument, Native Instruments Monark plugins and G-Force Minimonsta. Available in a myriad of colors, the SFC-Mini is a sleek, affordable and lightweight option for achieving the tactile feel of playing with a vintage synth but without the hassle of dealing with heavy and potentially fragile hardware.

Soundforce SFC-Mini

• USB MIDI controller for Minimoog software emulators
• Works with Arturia’s Mini V, NI’s Monark, G-Force’s Minimonsta, and more
• ​​Class compliant MIDI via USB 2.0

Behringer Poly D

Behringer’s Poly D is the Minimoog that never was. Based on the classic design of the monophonic Minimoog, the Poly-D offers four voices of polyphony so that you can use the classic Model D sound to create rich chords. In addition, the Model D offers a host of other features like onboard effects such as Chorus and Distortion.

Additionally, the Poly D has a built-in sequencer and arpeggiator. Unlike the Model D, the Poly D includes a keyboard, so it can work as a standalone unit without any external gear. It comes housed in a wooden chassis that screams of vintage vibes.

• Analog 4-Voice Polyphonic Synthesizer with 37 Full-Size Keys
• 4 VCOs, Classic Ladder Filter
• LFO, BBD Stereo Chorus, Distortion
• 32-Step Sequencer and Arpeggiator

Softwar​​e Emulations (VST/AU)

​​moog minimoog model d app.

Once Moog discontinued production of its Model D reissue, they released their extremely affordable Model D iOS app . 

The app makes creativity easy and intuitive, especially compared to other synth apps which have too much going on, or aren’t very visually appealing. Minimoog Model D has editing controls made specifically with finger control in mind

You can’t edit the presets that come with the app unless you buy them from Moog, who charges $0.99 for each and $4.99 for a package of 8 presets. Presets are grouped into categories like Lead, Bass, Percussion, and more, which is useful if you want to find a sound you need quick, and no doubt about it, Minimoog’s presets are professional quality. 

The app is also IAP-friendly, offering presets, sound sample and loop packs, optional in-app recording, and more to expand its capabilities. Through it all, there’s a gentle hiss like the vintage synths of old. But it doesn’t sound cheap; it has a modern minute or so delay and a stereo looper. More detailed settings include the “LFO deepening the modulation” slider, a slide-off button, as well as other modulation routings. The interface itself is easy to read and highly intuitive, with a pseudo-tactile feedback to the physical control sliders and buttons. It is designed to look like a “supermodel” style analog synth, and the graphic interface manages to capture the essential functions and minimal aesthetics of Moog’s classic hardware instruments. Minimoog Model D is great for beginners, as well as analog-style synth addicts and advanced players who want a classic sound. 

To sum it all up, if you want to take the plunge and create a cheap, yet totally usable analog synth that sounds great and is easy to use, the Minimoog Model D App is the synth for you.

Arturia Mini V

The Mini V uses digital technology to recreate the sound of an analog synth. The Mini V uses the same proprietary technology found in other Arturia products. This is a very powerful synthesis technique that allows you to create sounds that are impossible with other types of synthesis. The Mini V features everything you’d expect from a Minimoog emulator but also has quite a few added features.

The Mini V has an arpeggiator, which is a powerful tool for creating musical phrases. The arpeggiator can be set to play up to 8 notes at a time, and can be set to play in a variety of different modes, including up, down, up/down, and random. The arpeggiator can also be set to play in a variety of different rhythms, including quarter notes, eighth notes, triplets, and sixteenth notes. The arpeggiator can also be set to play in a variety of different speeds, from very slow to very fast. Unlike the original,the Mini V also has a built-in effects processor. The effects processor can be used to add reverb, delay, chorus, and flanging to your sounds. 

GForce MiniMonsta

A compelling software model of the legendary Minimoog, the GForce MiniMonsta boasts all of the features you’d come to expect: 3 oscillators and the 4-pole 24dB/octave filter. The MiniMonsta is fully programmable and is included with 6000 factory presets. For fans of Prog Rock, you may be excited to learn that Rick Wakeman of Yes fame designed many of these patches.

Unlike the original Minimoog which is decidedly monophonic, the MiniMonsta is capable of polyphony and has additional LFO & ADSR for modulation of almost every parameter.

Native Instruments Monark

The Native Instruments Monark is a synth plugin. It is a faithful recreation of the Moog Minimoog, a classic synth. It adds a few extra things including an on-board effects rack that is setup for delay, chorus, and phaser. The filter has 4 different sorting options: 36dB LP, 18dB LP, 36dB HP, and 18dB HP. Monark’s only saving grace is in its ability to sync to tempo. Other than that the plugin is not very flexible. That being said, it captures the monophonic, bass sound like no other plugin can. It is such a unique sound it is hard to describe. It is warm and slightly garbled, but it is still clear as day. The plugin goes for $99, but is also included in Komplete 9, Komplete 9 Ultimate, and Maschine 2.0.

Synapse: The Legend

The Legend (VST/AU/Reason Rack Extension) is the Minimoog Model D made new again by a developer with a reputation for greatness in oscillator and filter modelling, two absolutely essential components in recreating any analog synth.

The Legend features extremely accurate software emulation, even factoring in external conditions such as temperature and the influence of the power supply on the circuitry. Some extra bells and whistles have even been added that the original lacks including built-in effects like delay and reverb. 

As with some of the other VST offerings, The Legend allows for polyphony with either four notes, or Unison, with one monophonic note comprised of four stacked unison pitches.

In Conclusion

Today it’s easier than ever to get the classic sound of the Minimoog at almost any budget. From low-priced iOS apps to VST plugins, budget-friendly reproductions, and hardware units heavily inspired by the original, there are a plethora of options available and something that’s sure to appease even the toughest of critics.