Talk:Moog synthesizer/Archive 1

Grammar Choice
Corrected some misspellings and changed grammar stylings to American, since that's where this story takes place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.8.110.74 (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge section from Robert Moog?
See instructions at WP:Merge. When you place a merge tag, you are should state your reasons on the talk page.

Disagree - I don't see a reason to merge. This is so far just a WP:DAB page. If you want to build it into something, go ahead, just copy the info from Moog's article here and have at it. The sections you want to merge are quite small, and help readers to understand Bob Moog. If you get something going here, just add a "main article" link to here from the appropriate section on the Moog page. --Blainster 23:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's kind of the point. Build this into an article and make Robert Moog more of a biography. The last 2 paragraphs from the "Development of the Moog synthesizer" section and pretty much all of the "Moog synth in culture" section could start the rudiments of an article over here. I don't suggest we not mention any of that over there, just trim off the fat and put it into an article about synthesizers rather than a person. -- Krash (Talk) 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Article barely satisfactory
This page would benefit from a description of the *development* of Moog synths. Descriptions of the actual *use* of early machines are vague. Moog seems to have created many modular standards: the bio mentions development at Columbia-Princeton -- there's nothing here. Moog's sounds became the standard by which others were judged: why? Why do many artists still consider analog synth sound superior to digital? As it stands the article is barely satisfactory: this genius created something that had an enormous impact on music -- and nearly all future synths -- and the article fails to reveal how that happened. (How did feedback from artists aid Moog in improving his gear?) And the technical side is almost completely missing: did Moog pull these module ideas out of his rear, or were there precursors elsewhere in electronics? Did he invent envelope-generators out of thin air? Low-pass filters existed before Moog: what did he contribute? Who assisted him in his designs? Why were the early oscillators unstable? How were early Moogs *so much better* that the name became synonymous with synths? Or was that just good PR?

This article needs a lot more improvement, and correction. First Walter Carlos, who became Wendy Carlos was a co creator/inventor of the Moog Synth, not just some random musician as the article suggest. Secondly, Walter Carlos was the first to create a whole Album using all electronic/synthesized music. All the other people followed. Third, Stevie Wonder was actually taught how to use the earlier Moogs by Walter Carlos personally. The article also fails to mention Paul Williams who was also one of the first to use the original studio moog configuration, and the the first commercial version of the Moog can be seen in the movie "Phantom Of The Paradise", which also stars Paul Williams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.126.64 (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also: the list of Moog users seems arbitrary and rather pointless. I mean, Glenn Tilbrook? Whatever else the merits of Squeeze's music, synths are hardly the first thing one associates with it. 67.53.242.69 (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Image
Consider using Image:Doug Dino KeithEmersonsMoog.jpg. Bovlb (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitions
I have to concur with the previous comments -- this needs some serious editing. The claim that the Moog was "one of the first widely used electronic musical instruments" is pretty tenuous -- actually, it's a crock, IMO. The electric guitar and the electric organ can both be classified as electronic musical instruments and clearly both electric guitars and electronic organs (e.g. Hammond, Lowrey) were in widespread use long before the Moog was created. Dunks (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The electric guitar and organ are electric, not electronic. The difference is that synthesizers generate sounds using electronic components such as transistors, not by making any physical vibrations with rotating saw esque devices (like electric organs) or vibrating metal strings (like electric guitars). Although there were electronic musical instruments before the Moog modular, such as the Telharmonium, they weren't anywhere near as popular. I believe the Moog modulars were the first to combine filters, envelopes, attenuators and the like with an actual musical keyboard (as opposed to Buchla, who was making modular synthesizers but not listening to the feedback of practical popular musicians so not building in musical keyboards), but I could be wrong. Zoeb (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Moog synthesizers
From the summary, "Moog synthesizer [...] is commonly used as a generic term for analog and digital music synthesizers."

Is there a citation for that? I've spent quite a lot of time reading about synths and I can't recall a time where someone has called another brand of synth a Moog. Moog's are also notoriously analog, and so to claim that Moog is a common generic term for digital synths is quite a stretch.98.155.77.72 (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Moog Constellation Ensemble
I am surprised this article doesn't contain anything referencing the Constellation Ensemble, a group of mostly-unreleased synthesizers. The ensemble included two keyboard synthesizers, the monophonic Lyra (designed by Bob Moog with employee Jim Scott) and the polyphonic Apollo (designed by Dave Luce) that was released as the Polymoog, and one bass pedal synthesizer, the Taurus I. I am hoping this article will contain this in the near-future. For right now, here is the background:

Moog came up with this concept as its response to the Yamaha/Electone GX-1 synthesizer, that which premiered at the 1973 NAMM show and was released to the public in 1975. Moog hoped to have its version on sale as both the complete ensemble and as separate units by early 1974, however, production problems surfaced early with both the Lyra and the Apollo. Less than ten Lyras were known to be made, while about less than five Apollos were built. Keith Emerson used both the Lyra and the Apollo on the Emerson, Lake & Palmer album Brain Salad Surgery; these can be heard on the songs "Jerusalem," "Benny the Bouncer" and "Karn Evil 9: 3rd Impression."

The project reportedly ended up costing Moog lots of money. The Lyra was never commercially released in its original form; only surfacing after repeated developments as the Micromoog in 1975, and as the larger Multimoog in 1978. The Apollo eventually became the Polymoog Synthesizer, also released in '75.

Go here: WikiPro1981X (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Moog Constellation Ensemble at brain-salad-surgery.de

I'm concerned
This page seems very much of a rambling nature. As a matter of fact, I don't see why this page should even exist--this is the kind of information that should go into the Moog Music history page. We already have separate pages for every synthesizer mentioned on this page. Eddievhfan1984 (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: We know the rambling nature of Wikipedia article which didn't yet reach to maturity. It is often caused by peep hole editing without consideration of total balance. Such chaotic state should be improved by copy&edit technique, but I have not yet the motivation to do it. In the future, someone may do it. --Clusternote (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

well, the pics could be better too. that one with the 960s... did it not occur to anyone to move the lump of mic stand out of the way? the cup I can sort of understand, but an unused mic stand? come on.....

duncanrmi (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Garbled half-sentence in Product Development
The Minimoog was the first product to solidify the synthesizer's popular image as a "keyboard" instrument and the most monophonic synthesizer sold approximately 13,180 units between 1970 and 1981 Notreallydavid (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moog synthesizer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100621130143/http://www.music.umich.edu/research/stearns_collection/keyboards/page12.htm to http://www.music.umich.edu/research/stearns_collection/keyboards/page12.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105210817/http://www.bobmoog.com/1969/08-29.html to http://bobmoog.com/1969/08-29.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Pictures are not accurate
Hi All,

(This is my first time starting a talk page, so please forgive mistakes and provide feedback.)

The pictures of Moog synthesizers on this page are not representational. Probably the most inaccurate is the main picture "Moog synthesizers 2007." Those are Moog effects pedals (a line of accessories Moog produced), and while they fall into the category of synthesized music generation, they are not representational of current Moog or the history of Moog. All of those pedals have actually been discontinued. For a more accurate example of Moog synthesizers, you can look at their website: https://www.moogmusic.com/products/Modulars

I would be happy to provide alternate photos, but I would need to verify use rights.

Theearthling (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

First pop or rock single to feature a Moog
According to moogfoundation.org, the actual first pop or rock single to feature a Moog was Hal Blaine's single Love-In (December) released on 3 June 1967, almost four months prior to The Doors's late-October Goin' Back. Although Love-In (December) also featured on Blaine's late-September 1967 album Psychedelic Percussions, the source points out that the single was released months ahead of the album. --2003:EF:13DB:3B62:A9AE:5B61:2530:3F3D (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to Submit to Untutored, Ignorant Pronunciation of "Moog" (rhymes with Vogue)
When it comes to a man's name, and the same name for his company and invention, promulgating ignorant pronunciations by "consensus" is CRAP.

Too bad that the barbarians outnumber the respectful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsusky (talk • contribs) 17:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge
The company known as Moog Music (and its various guises over the years) has released dozens (hundreds?) of synthesizers. Having a single generic article to cover them is confusing and unnecessary. Instead, I propose:


 * we merge any useful, salvageable parts of Moog synthesizer into appropriate articles about specific synthesizers - such as Moog modular synthesizer, Minimoog, etc


 * merge any other salvageable information into Moog Music

. I'm proposing this as part of a general long-term effort to clean up coverage of electronic musical instruments on Wikipedia. Popcornduff (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * we redirect Moog synthesizer to Moog Music, Moog modular synthesizer, Robert Moog, or a disambiguation page.


 * There is no doubt these articles are a mess and fully support a restructure, thank you very much. However, having a hard time parsing your intentions,...not sure Moog Music is a more common google search term, less still Moog modular synthesizer. My preference, though open to argument, is that this article is written in summary style, branching out into daughter pages. ps, would gut most of Moog Music into "list of Moog synthesizers", which seems match to part of what you are saying re "appropriate articles". Ceoil  (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, what I am trying to say is support the restructure and proposed architecture, but would prefer if Moog synthesizer remained the anchor page. Ceoil  (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I guess we're both having trouble understanding each other. What do you mean by "anchor page"? Popcornduff (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The page which all the sub articles spin out from. Think the Punk rock page and all its sections beginning with a "Main article" template. Ceoil  (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to keep any sort of generic Moog synthesizer article, though. We can summarise the history of Moog synthesizers generally on the Moog Music page.
 * This isn't a perfect comparison because it's a completely different industry, but take, for example, Sega. Sega made various game consoles, such as the Sega Genesis, Dreamcast, etc, which have dedicated pages. There's no need for a Sega console page to summarise them. Their history is summarised as part of the company history on the Sega page. Popcornduff (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Very different semantically, though the same in substance. If I was searching, it would be for "Moog keyboard". Only specialists would ever have heard of "Moog mucic", which is anyway a horribly named company, and reminds of easy listening. Although there are, as you say, hundreds of vesrions, most people think of them as one, and will search for the synth. Sega is known as having a more diverse product range. Ceoil  (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, here are some more examples.
 * We have a Ford Motor Company article, and articles for notable Ford cars such as the Ford Ka and Ford Focus, but no generic Ford car article - we don't need one.
 * We have a Heinz article, and articles for notable Heinz products such as Heinz ketchup and Heinz Baked Beans, but no generic Heinz foods article - we don't need one.
 * We have a Fender Musical Instruments Corporation article, and articles for notable Fender models such as the Fender Stratocaster or Fender Telecaster, but no generic Fender guitar article - we don't need one.
 * We have a Roland Corporation article, and articles for notable Roland instruments such as the Roland TR-808 and the Juno 106, but no generic Roland synthesizers article - we don't need one.
 * I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I'm not saying that we should structure the Moog stuff like those articles simply because that's how those articles do it. Instead I'm using these examples of structures that I believe make sense and are sufficiently similar to the Moog product lines.
 * I'm not sure what your point is regarding the fact that you'd search for "Moog keyboard". That seems to be an issue of setting up appropriate redirects and so on. Popcornduff (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Grand, and yes redirects will work, just really dislike the company name and dont think its the most natural search term. Support merge, and look forward to improvement on the range of articles. Ceoil (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree with Popcornduff. There is no need for this article, and its existence will only serve to keep it unwieldy and problematic. All notable and relevant topics would be better served in dedicated articles pertaining to specific models, series, or systems, if not in the Moog Music or Robert Moog articles. synthfiend (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, since we seem to have consensus, I've redirected Moog synthesizer to Moog modular synthesizer. In the end, there was nothing to merge; the previous version of Moog synthesizer contained very little beyond reams of original research.

I am now wondering if we should now move Moog modular synthesizer to Moog synthesizer. I'll start a new conversation about that on the Moog modular synthesizer talk page. Popcornduff (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 17 December 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 12:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Moog modular synthesizer → Moog synthesizer – The term "Moog modular synthesizer" is presumably used to differentiate the first Moog synths from later models, such as the Minimoog. However, I suspect that "Moog synthesizer" is the WP:COMMONNAME for Moog modular synthesizers.

Coverage of Moog in mainstream sources overwhelmingly refers to the "Moog synthesizer" to mean the original modular synthesizer. Examples: Guardian, New York Times, BBC, Telegraph, Independent, LA Times, NPR. Also the official Moog Foundation site.

I propose we move this article to Moog synthesizer and add a hatnote to point readers to Moog Music if they're looking for another kind of synth manufactured by Moog. Popcornduff (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 17:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging and . --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK



PAGE ]]) 17:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 18:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that move from Moog synthesizer→Moog modular synthesizer was a result of a discussion with consensus, you should probably leave your proposal up for more than just three days before calling it unambiguous. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * Sure thing. Popcornduff (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * do you have a link to the previous move dicussion? ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the discussion right above this one. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * yes, per COMMONNAME, but this is getting confusing, had preferred Moog synthesizer as the main article from the start. Ceoil  (talk) 05:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. This does not appear to be a significant improvement. Proposal apparently reverts a previsous consensus move. No WP:COMMONNAME evidence given by proposer. ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , No WP:COMMONNAME evidence given by proposer? I wrote above: Coverage of Moog in mainstream sources overwhelmingly refers to the "Moog synthesizer" to mean the original modular synthesizer. Examples: Guardian, New York Times, BBC, Telegraph, Independent, LA Times, NPR. Also the official Moog Foundation site.
 * What "previous consensus move" does this contradict? Popcornduff (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * the improvement is that modular is very unlikely to be in any search term. Previous move is irrelevant and anyway was more about consolidating content; we should treat this proposal on its merits. Ceoil  (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am apparently suffering from vacation mush mind. I'll take another pass at this shortly. ~Kvng (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * After review, I'm still opposed. There were, of course, many synthesizers developed by Moog and his complany which could be described as Moog synthesizers. The obituaries cited by are quite handwavy with terminology. This article covers only the early models, a subject which is accurately described by the current title. I think Moog synthesizer should be a disambig page that resembles Moog_Music. ~Kvng (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , I originally drew the same conclusion. When I proposed merging the Moog synthesizer and Moog modular synthesizer articles, I proposed redirecting Moog synthesizer to another article for exactly the reason you give here, ie Moog produces lots of synthesizers.


 * However, I now think moving the page is the right thing for the following reasons:


 * WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not sure what you mean by the sources being "handwavy"; in every example I provided, the term "Moog synthesizer" unambiguously refers to Moog modular synthesizers.
 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - I think both criteria apply here: A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term and A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. Popcornduff (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Handwavy in that there seems to be an assumption in these obituaries that there is only one Moog Synthesizer. The articles are about Robert Moog by soft journalists so can be forgiven for not being precise about his technology. I assume articles about synthesizers or Moog synthesizers are more precise with terminology. ~Kvng (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , forgive me, but are you actually reading the sources in question? You say "there seems to be an assumption in these obituaries that there is only one Moog Synthesizer", but with the exception of the LA Times, every single one also mentions the Minimoog. Other synths, such as the Micromoog, are also mentioned. Does the overwhelming focus in these articles on the original Moog synthesizer not also help demonstrate the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Popcornduff (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the term "Moog synthesizer" is also abundantly used by specialist sources - for example in the very title of the book Analog Days: The Invention and Impact of the Moog Synthesizer, which is cited extensively in the synthesizer article (and whose author is quoted in the LA Times article). I can provide more examples if you like. Popcornduff (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WRT the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC claim, a Google image search on "Moog synthesizer" shows a great abundance of non-modular models. ~Kvng (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. I support the move from 'Moog modular synthesizer' to 'Moog synthesizer' on the basis that Moog produced many semi-modular and non-modular synthesizers and thus the term 'Moog synthesizer' sounds like a much better universal term to me to encompass their synths. Does that make sense? Thanks! Lordsatri (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Lordsatri. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

synthesizers threatened the jobs of session musicians
Well, Pete Townshend explicitly stated that he found it very liberating to be able to create orchestral accompaniments all on his own: "I don't know how to write for a real orchestra. It's easier for me to simply sit down with my synthesisers and create the sounds directly, right on the spot. And somehow the results are better, anyway. I can get a precise, tight arrangement with perfect balance and intonation."

"I would soon be able to compose and orchestrate very seriously, without the expense of using real orchestras or the barrier of working with orchestrators ..."

https://petetownshend.net/musicals/electronica I would have put this information in the article, only P.T. mostly used ARP synthesizers, Fairlight and Synclavier, and not Moogs. --BjKa (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , that would be a better inclusion for the Synthesizer article which has more information about synths threatening orchestras etc... but really it would be better if we could find a source that isn't a WP:PRIMARY source if possible. Popcornduff (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The Moog Ladder Filter
I am in motion to synch eng and german articles of sound / synthesis. I would propose to add the famous ladder filter, since this component appears to be important because it is used still today in many implementations, even in software. But neither in the german nor in der english WP it has an own artice, while many third class DJs today have. So I would propose at least a forwarding to this section. 46.88.164.100 (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Based on the citations in the section, the ladder filter does appear to be independently notable. Not everything independently notable needs its own article but I do think this subject deserves better treatment than as a subsection of a "Trivia" section here. As a start, I have promoted it to a top-level section. ~Kvng (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it doesn't seem independently notable. I don't even think the recent additions are worth including and have deleted them. Popcornfud (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * you misread me. the ladder filter does appear to be independently notable. ~Kvng (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , whoops, sorry for misreading you. But I doubt it's independently notable, based on all my reading. It's famous as far as synth filters go, but that's not saying much. But hey, go ahead and prove me wrong with an extensively cited section/article full of juicy content, by all means. Popcornfud (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I also said Not everything independently notable needs its own article. ~Kvng (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, and that I did not misread. I'm just clarifying my position, which applies to both an article and a subsection, as I said above. Popcornfud (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just catching up with your recent edits. You've removed a bunch of cited material about the filter. I thought you liked cited material. ~Kvng (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK, here we go again...
 * Wikipedia likes cited material - I have nothing to do with it. But the citations have to be reliable (see WP:RS), and the material has to be of encyclopaedic value (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). I didn't think any, or much, of the content met both those criteria, it was poorly integrated into the article, and some of it is already covered anyway. Popcornfud (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you be upset if I took a crack at restoring this material in a more integrated manner? I think that would be a better outcome than just deleting it. ~Kvng (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry for the late reply, I completely forgot about this.
 * Regardless of how well it’s integrated into the page, I have concerns about the quality of the sources. If you disagree with my assessment, you could take these sources over to another discussion page and have some other experienced editors check them out. A simpler solution might be to just find information about the ladder filter from a known high-quality source, such as Sound on Sound. Popcornfud (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have restored the section since it has good information, and the text is supported well enough by the cited sources. It's not like there are other sources contradicting the ones we have... If the concern is that the sources could be improved, then we should be in the improvement business. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether better sources can be found, sources should be of a minimum standard before they're used on Wikipedia. I'm not convinced these sources meet that requirement, but as I seem to be outnumbered here, I've attempted to integrated the information properly into the article. I'm loath for this article to become another dumping ground of indiscriminate technical data, like most electronic instrument articles. Popcornfud (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can't have technical stuff? Then why do we have a giant page with instructions on displaying a mathematical formula? Above, you mentioned using Sound on Sound as a source, but instead of integrating such a source, you demoted the ladder material from having its own section. The ladder should indeed have its own section. Further sources include Mike Barnes writing for UAudio, John Baccigaluppi writing for TapeOp the Trevor Pinch/Frank Trocco book Analog Days, page 80 – a book we are already citing. Pinch and Trocco have given the ladder circuit an in-depth discussion over multiple pages. We can cover it in two paragraphs under their own header. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say Wikipedia shouldn't have "technical stuff". I said it shouldn't be a dumping ground of indiscriminate technical data, per WP:TECHNICAL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Technical information about electronic musical instruments belongs in articles, but should properly integrated.
 * And please don't attack me for not going off and finding sources for stuff you guys are advocating to include. The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide sources for those claims, not me. I think I've done more work to source claims on this article than any other editor in its history.
 * Should the ladder filter have its own section? I think the information we have about the ladder right now fits pretty well where it is, with information on its development in the Development section, its function in the Modules section, and its influence in the Impact section. If the article ends up groaning with quality, well sourced information about the filter, perhaps it would be deserving of its own section or even its own article. Popcornfud (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And please don't attack me for not going off and finding sources for stuff you guys are advocating to include. The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide sources for those claims, not me. I think I've done more work to source claims on this article than any other editor in its history.
 * Should the ladder filter have its own section? I think the information we have about the ladder right now fits pretty well where it is, with information on its development in the Development section, its function in the Modules section, and its influence in the Impact section. If the article ends up groaning with quality, well sourced information about the filter, perhaps it would be deserving of its own section or even its own article. Popcornfud (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Should the ladder filter have its own section? I think the information we have about the ladder right now fits pretty well where it is, with information on its development in the Development section, its function in the Modules section, and its influence in the Impact section. If the article ends up groaning with quality, well sourced information about the filter, perhaps it would be deserving of its own section or even its own article. Popcornfud (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Should the ladder filter have its own section? I think the information we have about the ladder right now fits pretty well where it is, with information on its development in the Development section, its function in the Modules section, and its influence in the Impact section. If the article ends up groaning with quality, well sourced information about the filter, perhaps it would be deserving of its own section or even its own article. Popcornfud (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's what you called "indiscriminate technical data":"An essential component of many of his synthesizers is a voltage-controlled filter developed by Robert A. Moog himself, which was patented in 1966. It consists of transistors, which switch through one or more load capacitors depending on a control signal and thus change the cut-off frequency of a 24 dB low-pass filter. Because of its special sound, it is often copied and used in various ways in today's synthesizers. There are extensive copies of the original as well as modifications in analog and hybrid synthesizers, as well as digital implementations as software in DSPs, FPGAs and VST and are the subject of scientific considerations."

Doesn't look anything like indiscriminate technical data to me. It kinda looks like prose.

I'm happy that you have been improving this article, but two heads are better, not to mention three heads. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not good prose.
 * It introduces the filter as if it hasn't already been discussed twice in the article.
 * It contains some information already covered, such as the fact that Moog patented it, and the fact that it is a noted part of the instrument's sound.
 * It contains vague and unsourced claims, such as mention of its "special sound" (what does that mean?) and the claim that it is "subject of scientific considerations" (what does that mean?)
 * What do DSPs, FPGAs and VSTs refer to?
 * It was, altogether, a lump of confusing claims dumped into the article without much concern for context or readability.
 * I've attempted to fix these problems and place these bits of info into their proper context, so I'm not sure what we're even arguing about right now. If you think there's more good stuff to cover in the sources you mention above, by all means add it. Popcornfud (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a fine critique and good pointers for how to improve this material. Your initial approach, however, has been to delete stuff that doesn't meet your reading of Wikipedia standards. Addressing these points is the sort of improvement I was asking your permission to do. I'm not sure why, just trying to find a way to work productively with you, I guess. But you're not having it. ~Kvng (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So I put the work in to find a compromise you seem happy with - and you still hit me with WP:OWN accusations? Is this your idea of the carrot and stick? It isn't OWNy behavior to ask that article additions meet fundamental Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS. I'm on the fence about these sources, but if the consensus is that the sources are acceptable then that's OK with me. Popcornfud (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't had time to evaluate your changes. Undoing someone else's contribution so that you can do it your way is an WP:OWN behavior. Your interpretation of WP policies is overly rigid and virges on WP:LAWYERING. With the possible exception of www.96kHz.org (which I don't support removing since it makes a point and does no harm), I don't have a problem with the sources here and neither does so that's at least a weak consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I link to Wikipedia policies because I believe my edits around removing poorly sourced content are in line with those policies. In other areas of Wikipedia I regularly work in, such as WP:VG, which see much more activity from experienced editors than articles about electronic music equipment, these sorts of reverts are normal and uncontroversial.
 * I should add that perhaps my assessment of the sources in this case was wrong, as evidenced by two editors disagreeing with me - hence I'm no longer contesting their inclusion in this article, though you are still pissed off about it, seemingly.
 * If you think I'm misinterpreting Wikipedia polices you should seek more opinions or take it to WP:ANI or whatever you think is best. At this point it's clear our conversations are unproductive. Popcornfud (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've tried a few angles and haven't found a way to work productively with you. I have had to remove articles where we've had conflict from my watchlist to keep my WP:VOLUNTEER work here fun. ~Kvng (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * From memory, most of your attempts to "work productively with me" have been to insist we keep poorly sourced content. That just isn't how Wikipedia works, but that's not my fault. Take it to WP:ANI. Popcornfud (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm going to continue, when necessary to try and work this out with you directly. The first rule of ANI is don't. ~Kvng (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think I'm misinterpreting Wikipedia polices you should seek more opinions or take it to WP:ANI or whatever you think is best. At this point it's clear our conversations are unproductive. Popcornfud (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've tried a few angles and haven't found a way to work productively with you. I have had to remove articles where we've had conflict from my watchlist to keep my WP:VOLUNTEER work here fun. ~Kvng (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * From memory, most of your attempts to "work productively with me" have been to insist we keep poorly sourced content. That just isn't how Wikipedia works, but that's not my fault. Take it to WP:ANI. Popcornfud (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm going to continue, when necessary to try and work this out with you directly. The first rule of ANI is don't. ~Kvng (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm going to continue, when necessary to try and work this out with you directly. The first rule of ANI is don't. ~Kvng (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Article focus
What is the focus of this article? Development of Robert Moogs modular systems? Modules? Technology? ''Moog's company R. A. Moog Co. (later known as Moog Music) produced numerous models from 1965 to 1980. It was the first commercial synthesizer, and is credited with creating the analog synthesizer as it is known today.'' Exactly, there is no particular Moog synthesizer, there are many individual modules that were sold individually, or grouped as systems (IIIP, Model 10/15/35/55 etc.). I suggest (and i would volunteer, FWIW) to split the article accordingly, into development / history, and resulting systems. At the very least, the title seems wrong, "Moog modular synthesizer system" etc. would be my quick idea for improvement. UniversalNation (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think the article is fine as it stands. Reliable sources consistently refer to the concept of a "Moog synthesizer", which may comprise different models and systems. Adding reliably sourced information about different models would be welcome though, as long as it remains encyclopaedic and doesn't turn into lists of technical data. Popcornfud (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My view is that this article should cover all the modular forms of Moog synthesizer. Other articles exist for discussing the man, the manufacturing company, and the more famous examples of non-modular Moog synths. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed - to clarify, when I said "different models" above, I meant different models (ie sets of modules) of the modular synth. Popcornfud (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks to both of you, i'll see when i get to introduce these "Model xy" sets of modules.UniversalNation (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Clones
There are various hardware and software clones/emulations of the Moog modular synth that are being produced. Moreover, a whole modular synth format is based around it as well, which is called Moog Unit.

I think it could also be used to demonstrate that there is persistent interest in these Moog modular synths, despite the fact, that they've been around for more than 50 years. This is alongside the fact, that Moog Music themselves have been producing reissues for years now, sparking more interest not only in the Moog-manufactured modular synths, but also in clones, due to their more affordable prices.

Some other pages about synths have sections dedicated to clones and emulations, for example Yamaha CS-80, Prophet-5, Roland Jupiter-8 or Roland Juno 60. Would it make sense to add a short section about these? I have already done this for the Hungarian version of this page, so it's just a matter of translating it to English. StingR (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , absolutely, as long as they're sourced to reliable secondary sources. See WP:RSINSTRUMENT for a (non-exhaustive) list of reliable sources if you need somewhere to start. Popcornfud (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ! I already have sources set up in the Hungarian version and I tried to use as many secondary sources as I could. Is it a problem however, if I use articles from Synthesizers.com written by the founder of the company, Roger Arrick? He is the one who basically defined what Moog Unit is. While Moog modular synths have been around for decades, technically the format based on it didn't really exist before about the year 2000, as no other company wanted to make modules adhering to such panel formats till then. He actually wrote great articles about this format, how and why he changed things compared to the original and why he wanted to create this format in the first place. An example of such article: https://shop.synthesizers.com/pages/moog-compare. Unfortunately I have been unable to find secondary sources of such detail regarding what the Moog Unit is and how it is relevant to clones. The only secondary sources I could find were more like summaries, such as https://www.attackmagazine.com/technique/technique-modular-synthesis/different-flavors-of-modular-synthesizers/ or https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/sos-guide-choosing-modular-synth StingR (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , not sure about Synthesizers.com. I'd recommend asking at WP:ALBUMS or WP:RSN and see what others think. Popcornfud (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, I'll do that then. StingR (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry, but I've reverted most of your recent additions to the article. Many of the sources you provided either were determined to be unreliable in past discussions (such as Synthtopia) or, I suspect, would be deemed unreliable after some discussion - or they're suboptimal WP:PRIMARY sources, such as Moog. Additionally, there's a fair amount of WP:CITEOVERKILL - long lists of citations after a claim that make it hard to figure out where, exactly, claims come from.
 * Determining reliable sources for audio equipment articles is kind of tough. What I would recommend you do at this point would be to take the list of sources you want to use here to WP:ALBUMS or WP:RSN and see if we can get some new consensus on which ones are reliable for Wikipedia and which aren't. We can then update WP:RSINSTRUMENT and find new ways of re-adding the material I removed. Cheers. Popcornfud (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , now that you've said it I realized that Synthtopia is indeed a bad source, becuase basically anyone can send in "news". Indeed it is hard to find not only good sources, but anything that can even be considered as a source. Most of these Moog clones are an extremely niche thing and the best "sources" one can find about these are discussions on forums. Obviously those are a no-go on Wikipedia.
 * I have already started a discussion over at WP:RSN regarding the Synthesizers.com articles and the consensus was that those articles can be used only for extending information available on sources considered reliable. I tried to use Sound on Sound and Attack Magazine articles as bases and add in the extra details about the 5U/MU format from the Synthesizers.com site. Maybe I should have arranged the citations in a better way. Here is the said discussion.
 * I guess one of the sources you belive would be considered unreliable is alongside Synthtopia is Synth Anatomy, I presume because most of the articles there are companies' press releases and that is self-serving marketing.
 * Alternatively, because of the bad quality of potential sources, perhaps this topic should not be covered in such a detail here on Wikipedia after all. Rather, it could be a better idea to sum things up with a few more details than your current edit. What do you think? StingR (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for being understanding and thanks for making that post.
 * Alternatively, because of the bad quality of potential sources, perhaps this topic should not be covered in such a detail here on Wikipedia after all.
 * I think you're on the money here. There's a temptation to go into deep nerdish detail on these things but Wikipedia is written for a general audience (see WP:AUDIENCE). If it isn't a subject covered by reliable secondary sources we probably don't need to dwell on it too long. Popcornfud (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , no problem. Since then I have actually found 2 articles on the Behringer clone on MusicTech.net. Maybe this one is worth a mention as it's the most accessible out of all hardware options. By the way, I think Synthesizers.com might worth a name-dropping as well, because the Attack Magazine article directly mentions the company as an example. It also mentions MOTM and Modcan, but those are different things. 5U height, but different widths compared to Moog. I think we should ignore those as it would start to get into that nerdy thing again as you said. StingR (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're on the money here. There's a temptation to go into deep nerdish detail on these things but Wikipedia is written for a general audience (see WP:AUDIENCE). If it isn't a subject covered by reliable secondary sources we probably don't need to dwell on it too long. Popcornfud (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , no problem. Since then I have actually found 2 articles on the Behringer clone on MusicTech.net. Maybe this one is worth a mention as it's the most accessible out of all hardware options. By the way, I think Synthesizers.com might worth a name-dropping as well, because the Attack Magazine article directly mentions the company as an example. It also mentions MOTM and Modcan, but those are different things. 5U height, but different widths compared to Moog. I think we should ignore those as it would start to get into that nerdy thing again as you said. StingR (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , no problem. Since then I have actually found 2 articles on the Behringer clone on MusicTech.net. Maybe this one is worth a mention as it's the most accessible out of all hardware options. By the way, I think Synthesizers.com might worth a name-dropping as well, because the Attack Magazine article directly mentions the company as an example. It also mentions MOTM and Modcan, but those are different things. 5U height, but different widths compared to Moog. I think we should ignore those as it would start to get into that nerdy thing again as you said. StingR (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)