Your not the first person to say this. But the Labyrinth seems everyone is keeping.
1 Like
~10 days in, I find myself going back and forth on the interface. It has some good qualities but some things annoy me. It could benefit from a few āmove aroundā buttons in addition to the main encoder. The mod osc panel knobs and buttons is cool; the mixer sliders are cool. The filter controls - not as cool.
Iām also not sure how really useful the dual filters are, as the āhigh passā mode of filter one is weird and not at all what youād expect from a 4 pole high pass (unless you used the matriarch this way, it works like that does). Itās fine for the matriarch but makes per-voice HPF sorts of patches not work like I expect. The main out HPF works great, but that is not modulatable (thereās a knob, thatās it). Short version is this does not really have a per-voice HPF, regardless of what the filter section controls may look like. The stereo filters are not that useful to me without a stereo source (like the PX has); so about all I can find a use for is Filter 1 in HPF mode with filters routed in serial with the resonance cranked. You have to crank it to hear it do much, unfortunately.
Thereās some deep sound programming here but Iām not sure itās necessarily more than I can do with something like a Rev2. Maybe more FM drone territory can be covered, but I can do that with many other things. You can dial up a pleasing two oscillator saw patch fast, and three oscillator patch with a second or two (gotta tune the mod osc and usually that will need you to hold shift for the fine tune - a mistake there in usability, why canāt I double-press shift to lock it? Some weird choices, too, like no way to route noise to the filter without using the Mod osc for this purpose (I believe noise is digital anyway, and digital noise is routed to the mixer, it just isnāt a mod source). There are some other cool randomization sources and the functions, though; Iād like the control source per mod slot to be more standard (the Summit does this). Iād also like functions (especially slew) to be more standard for mod slots - this is a nice feature.
The raw sound is more pleasant immediately than the rev2, and thatās surely a plus. If I was cross shopping the two that would be hard. If you want instant-gratification a sequential six will probably satisfy you more.
The diffusion delay is cool, but Iād like an additional effect of some sort. I donāt guess a chorus is that necessary. No modulation of the delay parameters is unfortunate, maybe this is coming.
The sequencer is a strange UI (to me) and Iāve started to uncover some of the note hang bugs with it; zeroing out VCF/VCA envelopes seems to cure this but itās still not good. The arp is ok, the note skip stuff requires some menu diving and Iām not sure how useful it would be. The sequencer is transposable, at least, but that requires a quick menu dive to turn on.
Lots of menu functions leave you in the menu page forever unless you back out, and Iām not seeing an option to return you to the patch display after a time - this patch display is where you can see parameter values, so this is probably how it should behave.
Different animal, and entirely different price point. Iāve not spent much time with mine but thatās because making a decision about the Muse is more important.
Not yet ready to make the decision on the Muse, but I may be leaning closer to no today.
2 Likes
people seem pretty divided on the plastic buttons. both in terms of look and feel. I donāt love or hate them. they donāt feel cheap to me though. build quality-wise, Iād put the Muse a notch below my Prophet 5 and OB-X8, but a notch above the Prophet 6, OB-6, and Rev2. the knobs on those wiggle like a sumbitch. the knobs are way more sturdy on the Muse.
I donāt feel itās menu divey. thereās a button or shortcut option for nearly everything. but yeah, if you didnāt read the manual or get shown around a bit or only had a short time with it, it could feel that way.
not every synth is for everyone, thatās for sure (and for the price, youād better love it)! for example, I had the Matriarch for three years and barely used it. the Muse I find very different from the sound of the P5 and OB-X8, though still a quite pleasing and versatile sound.
this annoys me. ābackā doesnāt always back you out of the menu (especially mod map). you would expect it to return you to the patch screen, or eventually time out to that.
there are definitely some mod sources I wish I could use, including this one. that said, Iām not 100% sure the patches Iād create with them would be all that useful, and some can be done other ways.
1 Like
Yeah, Itās not a terrible omission given all the other tools, but ānoise to filterā is such a common thing I like to mess with I was shocked the only way to get it was the mod osc.
Well, I guess you could self-patch the CV outs and ins to route noise, Iāve not tried that - may still require the mod osc be set to noise though. It would be a bit fiddly for a synth like this, too.
once I discovered I liked doing this (courtesy of the Rev2), I was shocked to discover how many synths actually donāt have that option. but as you say, thereās an option to do it here. you can also mod the filter at audio rates, which you canāt even do in many monophonic synths.
I havenāt had a chance to play one yet, so this is theory on my part. However, Iām thinking that the main filter high pass mode is more for combining with the low pass to make different filter responses, and less as a low cut EQ like the final one. More for creating various band pass shapes, etc. Does it not work well for this? From what I understand this is designed to behave like the Moog 904 filter pair with filter controller module from the Moog Modular.
From looking at the voice cards though, it appears that SSI2164 VCA chips were used to create just about everything in the voices, (a good thing in my opinion if not going classic) so the architecture will be a bit different than the Moog Modular, and different circuits. So maybe the Muse just has a different tonal quality.
It should still be able to create the same sorts of responses though. Maybe it needs some extra drive into it in order to get into the same territory though.
Worth experimenting anyway. 
From looking at the voice cards, they are built in very similar ways to the Sequential voice cards. Obviously the circuits will be different between them. However, theyāre using the same types of discrete components, SSI chips, etc. as many (most) Sequentials use, so the overall audio quality should absolutely NOT differ between them. That said, of course the overall sound will appeal to different people due to personal tastes.
I would wager that it will take a bit more effort to get sounds one likes out of the Muse though than say a Sequential. Itās definitely a programmerās synth, where say the P-6/OB-6 are much more limited, highly curated (function-wise) to immediately just sit within their respective āsweet spotsā.
Absolutely nothing wrong with preferring the immediate synth if thatās oneās things, but I donāt see how the Muse could possibly sound inferior when programmed to oneās tastes. Maybe not superior either, but I canāt see it being deficient based on whatās inside of it, and the flexibility that it presents.
There are actually quite a few synths that I see people say donāt sound great, that just need some extra programming.
IMO itās valid to have varying types of synths like this. I love to dig into a synth and program sounds, but I also value just being able to sit at something and have it immediately sound good.
2 Likes
The HPF is just weird, looking at an analyzer it actually boosts 45hz fundamental by a couple (2-3) dB when it is turned up to a cutoff of around 90hz. I wasnāt really looking at the analyzer just judging by ear, but itās there.
There is maybe only -8 dB of 45hz fundamental when the cutoff is turned up to 3 khz; and the (smallish) resonant peak (if turned on, this acts this way with no resonance) can be used to verify that the on-display cutoff point is accurate.
I am reminded of the Rev2ās filter in 2 pole mode, actually, and not much at all like how something like the Summitās HPF works. You also canāt completely close it in HPF mode, but you canāt do that with either Filter1 or the overall HPF; some fizz always gets through. It doesnāt quite approximate a bandpass filter, either.
Strange. You can use it for (somewhat muted) formant type sounds, but the resonance when in HPF mode is very mild. Not useless, but not quite what I expected. I guess I just patched around it most of the time with the Matriarch - it seems to work exactly the same in the Matriarch, FWIW. Maybe thatās how a 904b always worked (though I thought that was non-resonant?) - Iāve never had the pleasure of using a Moog modular.
Edit: I guess if I could just turn the HPF up even higher it would work about like I expect; with a bit of resonance with the filters linked they seem to work more or less how I am used to hearing a bandpass work.
I must say it is really nice to have that and also have the overall master HPF.
1 Like
Correct, the modular 904 High Pass is non-resonant. When combined through the Filter Coupler module, you can tweak the bandwidth and ceter frequency of the resulting band pass.
The Low Pass 904 is of course resonant.
Of course the modular modules were all discrete designs, while the Muse uses a lot of ICs. I see some matched transistor pairs in there too. Overall, Iād say the Muse is going to have a much more refined, tight, stable sound compared to the original modular modules. Not bad, but definitely different leaning toward modern. Which IMO suits the synth. If one wants the sound of a MiniMoog grab a Model D. If one wants a Moog modular, get a Moog modular, or one of the many recreations in Euro for example.
Edit: Looks like the Matriarch and Grandmother use the same exact filter circuits and very similar components to the Muse. Matched transistor packages for the ladders, 2164 for voltage control etc. Itās possible that older modern Moogs might have used the Cool Audio version of the 2064, or maybe used OTAs for voltage control. Iād need to take a closer look. Either way theyāre going to function nearly the same.
So, for those saying the Matriarch or Grandmother sound better than the Muse, the only thing that I think could be responsible for that is gain structure before the filter. One will need to tweak the drive in order to make them sound similar if thatās the goal. Itās going to be in the sound design. Want the Matriarch to sound more like the Muse? Back off the levels going into the filter. Want the Muse to sound like the Matriarch? Boost the levels instead.
The Muse is using all state of the art analog components and ICs. SSI chips are the absolute best synth-ICs available. It also uses the DG series of switches and muxes, which are the best of their type. Matched transistor pair packages are all quite highly specced these days (even the more basic ones). This results in stability, tight tracking, temperature stability, etc. The discrete components all look pretty standard too. The only thing that I would change in some modern higher end synths (and this is just me, as everyone has used the same for years) is op amps. Everyone uses TL06x and TL07x op amps. Theyāre not bad, but there are some really nice ones available for super accurate DC applications, and very nice audio applications. They wouldnāt need to be used everywhere, but in the mixers, CV circuits, and audio outputs, they would improve things a bit in some cases. Thatās just me though.
Basically the Muse is an excellent MODERN synth using Moog circuit designs, and some of the best parts around for building an analog synth. The same parts used in other modern high end synths like the new Sequentials, the 3rd Wave, Super 6/8/Gemini, etc. So, if any of those are considered good synths, then the Muse really should be on that list too IMO. 
The one thing that Iāve been reading that Iām really curious about is the knobs though. They LOOK like the same Cosmo knobs that Moog has used for a long time. The ones on my Grandmother Dark version were high quality, and I believe Moog still uses actual Cosmo knobs as of the GMA and Matriarch.
Are the ones on the Muse actually different? Iād love to know. Iām a total nerd for physical controls, knobs, switches, jacks, etc. Iād be disappointed if the Muse used cheap knockoffs for some reason.
Cosmo still makes knobs, and in large quantities shouldnāt be all that expensive for a company like Moog.
By the way, Iām not trying to argue against anyoneās opinion of this synth. 
Iām just trying to sort out the empirical side of things for myself. I donāt own one, or Moog stock, so how people feel about it is up to them. There have been some comments that make me scratch my head a bit though that are counter to what seems to be the actual case at least from a build, design, and component point of view. Just trying to sort it out for myself āout loudā.
5 Likes
Hi all. Was wondering: can the Muse do something like the Xpander does where you can fully open the VCA (well in the Xpanderās case, it was the second VCA)? I miss that functionality from the Xpander and was curious if the Muse covers that ground.
I see you can have custom waveshapes for the LFOs which is pretty cool. I am missing a modulation heavy synth from my setup and I think the Muse fits the bill. The demos havenāt blown me away, but I hear enough that I think I can coax what Iād want from it.
Not user waveshapes though.
Not sure Iād call Muse āmodulation heavyā, and if its sound is not your thing, take the time to check Arturia PolyBrute 12 and Novation Summit, maybe.
1 Like
Oh, no? Itās weird, the manual references āuser customizable waveformsā for LFO 1+2.
Also, it seems to have a mod matrix that is almost identical to the Moog One, complete with transform functions, but with less LFOs and fewer mod slots. I would say modulation is definitely one of its strong suits.
You might be right. The fact that they are quickly assignable make them all the more useful I guess.
And it effectively has 4 CV inputs which together with the mod map, can add a ton, those CV inputs are a big appeal to me over something like the pb12
Yeah, thatās the usual sour-grapes-disguised-as-this-new-synth sounds bad thing, I donāt think itās based in much reality. I donāt know how many people have the two side by side but I do and that comparison was short because it was obvious the only way youāre getting them to diverge is to lean on features the other doesnāt have - assuming you are volume matching, of course, and if you arenāt youāre wasting your time. You arenāt slamming a mixer with four oscillators and noise on the Muse, but you donāt have such easy to reach ring mod in the Matriarch, either. And, of course, polyphony.
These look identical to me, down to the size of the knob skirt. There are some unskirted knobs but these tend to be things like encoders (and those werenāt on the Matriarch, of course). They feel identical to use with the caveat that the Muse knobs have more resistance to turn; thatās the pot though not the knob, and I prefer that feel to the almost frictionless feel on the Matriarch.
Iāve not pulled the knobs to be perfectly certain, but I havenāt felt compelled to as they feel identical to me. Knob feels is absolutely not a thing one can knock the Muse for, they got this very very right (and I sure wish Sequential had managed to hit that mark with their older synths).
Iām not sure what you mean here - to make it louder? The main VCA wonāt go past 100%, but you can get more loudness by using the (pre-filter) mixer overload. You can set a percentage between envelope VCA control and Drone though, which works a bit like the VCA slider on some semi modulars (you can dial up a half-strength drone and still have envelope control on top), so that might work a bit like you mean.
I think it has about as much available modulation as the Summit does; well, less the panel knobs for FM and LFO1/2, but then it has the mod osc and quickly routable pitch LFO. The macro vs the animate buttons. I think itās pretty close even if Iād give the āwinā to the Summit.
Both include a mod routing and a controller for that routing in the same mod slot which I think should be the future standard rather than requiring you use two slots for the same function. Also, functions that reshape either the mod source, the control source, or both are very useful and open up some interesting options (slew, comparator, scale, etc).
The waveforms are ultimately more simple on the Muse, of course, though you can make them sound less simple with the special LFOs (that work at rates up to 1khz and can be per-voice). The main oscillators take to being modulated from these digital LFOs just fine, too.
I do wish the mod osc had a triangle; it has a sine - I know this is a weird thing but Iām just more used to triangles as mod sources. The digital LFOs can fill this need, though.
3 Likes
thx
Not to make it louder, but to make it drone. On the Xpander, if you turn up VCA2, you get a drone as if the VCA is just entirely open and itās great for creating soundscapes and beds. āYou can set a percentage between envelope VCA control and Drone though, which works a bit like the VCA slider on some semi modulars (you can dial up a half-strength drone and still have envelope control on top), so that might work a bit like you mean.ā This sounds close to what Iām referring to yeah.
Iāve not experimented with it a ton, but setting that percentage to 50/50 it seems like the drone is pre-filter, which may be what you had in mind.
Turning dynamic voice allocation off and turning down the number of voices on that layer to 2 or 3 gives you more control over the drones (as does slapping unison on).
Actually I guess I canāt tell if drone VCA is pre or post filter, as closing the filter with the master knob would work the same either way.
For me, proper pot catch up without parameter jumps is a must for a bitimbral synth.
Can anyone confirm that the current FW has no setting of the pots behaviour and parameters are jumping?
1 Like
Or for any synth with presets.
Iād love encoders with surrounding leds Ć la midi fighter twister to become a standard.
2 Likes