Talk:Minimoog Voyager

The 2 modulation busses are not (sound) effects but modulations of the sound. keyboard velocity to sound character and many other things can be done in this section. This should be changed. I am a user of the Moog Voyager for years and have 25 years synth experience. --Qwave 20:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for image
I've tried to look up a public-domain image for the XL model, but no luck. Anyone got any sources? Thanks. Eddievhfan1984 (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not quite like the original
Several interesting images found here: http://www.retrosynth.com/~analoguediehard/studio/keyboards/moog_voyager/ These are oscilloscope traces comparing same settings played on voyager and original minimoog simultanously. Lets just say there are some glaring differences, far from subtle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.178.205 (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirection (28 November 2018‎ ) and bulk deletion (6 December 2018‎) without any prior discussions
Your prior edits lacked the honest explanations and the prior discussions. This article should be verified by searching sources. Please discuss before bulk deletions. --Clusternote (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi. I think you might not be aware of the Wikipedia rule here.
 * Please see WP:BURDEN. It's up to you to provide sources for the section I deleted. All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.Popcornduff (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Currently I try to verify and add citations on article. Please stop bulk deletion while my verification. --Clusternote (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Why don't you find all the sources you need, and then restore the text? Popcornduff (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Your prior redirection was inappropriate because you didn't try to form a consensus on Talk page, so I undid your redirection and try to verify contents. Please don't bother my effort. --Clusternote (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal of false material: best practices?
How does one prove that something never existed?

All of the information in this article about the supposed 1996/1997 Electric Blue Voyager is fiction. However, citation is difficult, as much of it is absence of evidence rather than evidence of absence. Here's what I have so far.

1. None of the four citations given constitute proof. The linked articles exist and are from authoritative sources, but upon reading, the articles themselves bear no mention of this device. In at least one case, the author of the cited article can be contacted for personal verification of the absent reference. However, I don't know how a personal and unpublished interview can be cited authoritatively, if it can be at all.

2. Historical records, including material from the Bob Moog Foundation archives and the Bob Moog document collection at Cornell University, extensively document the history of the Voyager's creation, and there is no evidence of development before 1999. At least one interview with a Moog engineer states that Bob wasn't even considering building a new synthesizer until 1998 at the very earliest, being under the impression that nobody wanted an analog synthesizer in a digital world. It is vanishingly unlikely that a fully realized and purchasable Voyager existed before this date, but again, it's absence of evidence.

3. There exist photographs of the first Voyager prototype, an extremely primitive non-working early design barely recognizable as a Voyager. It was shown at trade shows in 2000 as a proof of concept, but again, its existence disproves nothing about the possible existence of a 1997 Voyager.

4. We cannot cite the fact that Minimoog collectors would be willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for one of these instruments if they existed, and no photograph or documentation exists of any such machine being up for sale or even searched for. This is once again absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.

The one provably wrong assertion is the timeframe of the naming contest, which happened years later and for which documentation in the BMF Collection and numerous other places exist. But that only addresses one small part of this fictional presentation.

In sum, a preponderance of information on the topic that doesn't mention this instrument is not the same as proving it never existed.

How does one deal with editing material that is completely false, complete with multiple citations that look authoritative at first glance but are actually irrelevant? Does one simply delete it all? If so, is one immediately burdened with the task of replacing it with accurate and properly cited information?

Please forgive the naivete of my question; this is my first experience with anything more than fixing typos and dates. I've just spent a year editing and fact checking a book about the Minimoog in all its forms, and in all my research neither I nor any of my colleagues have seen any mention of this device outside this one article... which many neophytes will automatically take as gospel.

I am very upset, but I don't want to be "bold" and delete the material if that's not the proper approach, and I won't have time to document a corrected version until after the book is published this fall. Help? Mrspiral (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)