#7

Thanks for posting that.

I was surprised to see Peter Kirn calling the Sub 25 as the best starter Moog for someone who really wants a Moog but hasn’t jumped in yet. To my mind that’s more the Grandmother or Sirin.

1 Like
#8

Agreed. I’d suggest the Grandmother in particular as the Sirin still needs the vst or combos to get to some of the good stuff.

1 Like
#9

i recently played one at the factory, and can confirm it’s the same subsequent engine / architecture / sound, but in a “sub phatty” form factor. sounded fine, but definitely not voyager / taurus / mother sound.

1 Like
#10

Not really. You can access most of the functions from the front panel with the Glide button acting as a shift key. All of the secondary functions make sense too: glide + LFO rate change the LFO shape, glide + oscillator 2 level activate hard sync, glide + amp sustain activated drone mode, saving a preset, switching a preset etc.

The only things you would need the software for would be for assigning the cv inputs to different destinations, storing and recalling presets to and from the hardware, etc.

There are a few others that cant be done by the front panel but can be done via CC, like syncing LFO to midi clock along with specifying time division, etc

#11

This is what I mean by combos, yes. I own a Minitaur. It has the same interface as the Sirin. And I don’t think the Sirin is a good “first synth” for exactly this reason - most beginners don’t comprehend what those functions do intuitively and so won’t use them or really reach for them to find out - especially if they’re hidden behind combos.

These combo shortcuts only make “sense” if you’re already familiar with subtractive synthesis. The Grandmother puts things like hard sync, LFO shape, and drone mode right up front with dedicated switches for playing around with. In my opinion, this makes it a superior choice for a beginner than either the Subsequent 25 or the Sirin/Minitaur.

#12

I was actually replying to the comment saying the Sirin requires the software. It does not. Your first comment was well thought out and broke it down fantastically

1 Like
#13

I agree with your recommendation of the grandma as a much better first synth though. If I had more studio space I’d totally want one.

#14

I think you are spot on. I have the original Sub Phatty & was a little surprised after watching the Loopop video that apart from the very welcome paraphonic duophony it (and the app) is exactly the same. There is mention of a retuned filter but listening closely I can’t hear any difference there. It’s as limited as the SP synthesis wise but I am one of those people that love that sound and find it inspiring to work with. Like you say I tend to have a range of external CC modulation coming from the computer into it to expand the synthesis. One upgrade I wish they’d made is to enable those looping envelopes to respond to clock or sync.

2 Likes
#15

My favourite thing from the Mylar Melodies video was “the middle settings are good too” in regards to the mixer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmSelaSdyPc

1 Like
#16

That video was impressive. My mind was kinda blown when he was sequencing with the Cirklon. Woah!

#17

This is exactly right.

On the “blandness” of the Sub/Subsequent sound, I wonder if this comes from the fact that the oscillators are rock solid, with no drift againt each other I have been able to discern. Moog sell that as a plus point, but I think it does mean there is little unpredictability or interest in the raw sound of the oscillators. Maybe I shouldn’t open that can of worms!

On the Sub/Subsequent 37 you can disguise that blandness either with amazing musicianship (see the brilliant Cory Henry promo videos and stage shows), or to a certain extent by using the undoubted strength of the instrument, which is the easy capacity for complex modulation, with two looping envelopes plus two LFOs each with a very wide choice of modulation source, plus multiple modulators for each modulator, plus three modulation destinations per LFO.

My first thought on seeing the 25 is that by removing an octave of keyboard and a lot of the easily accessible modulation, they have made it a lot harder to disguise the “blandness”. But you make a good point here about who this instrument is really aimed at and for those effectively using this as a module from a computer or some sort of midi controller it could make a lot of sense.

#18

In my opinion, that’s not likely it. I’m quite adept at using modulation to detune and drift oscillators, as well as having many other synths like the Prophet Rev2 and my digital Nords which have very precisely stable oscillators which sound to my ears more versatile and differentiable. Detune and drift and modulate it all you want, it still sounds like a Sub.

Part of it, I think, is the waveshape from the continuously variable oscillators as opposed to the traditional Moog multi-tapped discrete oscillator architectures, a large part of it is the filter which has a very opinionated character of its own, and another part of it are the distortion and feedback circuits which have some sort of a resonant bandlimited feel to them - I describe here what they sound like, not what they necessarily are. Taken as a whole, there’s a very significant departure from the classical Moog architecture. Again not bad, not good, just different.

#19

Yes maybe you’re right.

It’s an instrument of paradoxes, bland yet distinctive, it can sound wild yet it always feels like it’s always under very tight digital control.

I have a love/meh relationship with mine. Mostly meh when it’s sitting on the shelf taking up a lot of space for its two VCOs; mostly love when I’m actually playing it though.

1 Like
#20

One thing I love about the Subsequent 37 which I suspect will be true about the Subsequent 25 is the overall feel of the instrument - the wooden ends, the knob resistance, the general panel layout, it’s all really a cohesive, fun to play whole that invites tweaking, knob turning, and generally getting “into” it. You’re spot-on about the space the '37 took up, though - these are fairly deep for their width.

#21

I have the sub patty that has the same layout as this. It is definitely better when your at your computer. Its great for full on midi production…get your sequence going and do knob tweeting recorded to automation and adding arps and lfo’s and other via the daw. by itself keyboard is small and the shift options are not fun. happy to see the wood ends. the plastic rubbery ends on mine got broke down and got all sticky and are a pain to clean off.

#22

My first big piece of hardware was the Subsequent 37, and over the last year and a half, I’ve really come to love the thing. I wouldn’t call it bland at all, but rather “particular” or “not the classic Moog sound”. I think studiodc’s got it right, that the filter has a very particular character to it, and the whole thing is warmer than most, with the high end tapered off even when the filter is fully open (as compared to most analogue synths). For that reason, I was frustrated by it after a few months of owning it.

But I never sold it, and I’m back to being firmly in love with it, for a few reasons. First, it is just a lovely thing to tinker with, from its beautiful looks to its excellently laid out front panel to a keybed I like to play. Second, it is full of sweet spots and sounds great almost no matter where you’ve got it dialled in (contrast that to a number of synths I’ve had that have restricted ranges where they shine).

The biggest reason of all, though, is that I finally figured out what the Subsequent 37 was for when I started pairing it up with a loud setup. I was going to trade it for the Matriarch when it came out, but when I paired Matriarch and SS37 together, the SS37 cut perfectly as a lead overtop of the Matriarch, and sounded beautiful to boot. And then when I started jamming with an acoustic drummer, I tried one or two synths first, but quickly realized the SS37 was the best choice in a live setup, again because it was able to cut through and still sound warm. Plus, the multidrive, mixer drive, and pre-wired external drive give you a lot of harmonic flexibility that just works in these bigger setups.

So now I’m back to using it all the time. It doesn’t sound like a classic Moog, but that’s an advantage for a modern setup, and there are always classic-sounding units out there. For anybody considering the Subsequent 25 but not for space reasons, I’d strongly recommend picking up a Subsequent 37 for the more complete panel and extra octave range. In my opinion, it’s an underrated synth, especially if you have the privilege of not relying on it for all your synth sounds and can just let it be what it’s good at being.

5 Likes
#23

That’s essentially how I use synths in the studio, so that’s good to know. Thanks. I guess at this point I need to decide whether there’s anything about the sub25 that’s worth the extra $500.

#25

i watched the loopop and other then the wood ends i could of not tell you what was different then the sub phatty.

edit: hold on the 2-note paraphonic is defiantly different. but other than that?

#26

There’s definitely overlap, but (if I remember correctly) the Little Phatty is a little brighter in the high end, and the Subsequents have more drive and modulation options.

1 Like
#28

I don’t have any direct experience of the Little Phatty so can’t comment personally. But if you can sift through the noise, there are a couple of good threads about precisely this topic on GS.

There are also some very good Starsky Carr videos on youtube comparing the Sub 37 to other Moogs (Voyager, Mini and Grandmother), which while not directly on point will give you a good flavour of the Sub sound / feature set and how it sits in the Moog family.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that the Sub filter doesn’t “open all the way” , and as has been pointed out above, that is a big feature of the sound of the Sub series.

1 Like