1

I often hear these words being used to describe sound but I’m not completely sure what they mean in terms of synths. And I’m interested in what makes a synth sound vintage or modern.
So, for example, the Sub 37 is often described as sounding modern with the Matriarch described as sounding vintage. What are people referring to? Could the Sub 37 sound vintage? Could the matriarch sound modern?

2

“Vintage” doesn’t have anything to do with sound, just how old a device is in a collector market. “Vintage” is purely a market consideration.

The Matriarch is very much a modern synth, with its USB plug…

3 Likes
3

For me, when describing those two synths, the Sub lineup oscillators are pretty stable sounding, although you can dial in some LFO to loosen it up, and rolling off the oscillators quite a bit in the mixer helps also. They also have a more cutting sound, and the bass is tighter. The Matriarch oscillators just sound like they have a little more movement to then. It just seems to have that overall warmer and gooey sound. The bass also just reminds of a vintage synth. You can get good bass out of it, but it has a little different flavor.

They both definitely sound like Moogs, but they are definitely different synths with different flavors. And it makes sense that the Matriarch is more vintage sounding, it’s circuits were based off of vintage Moog Modular circuits. The Subs are contemporary Moogs, where they wanted to make a vary stable synth, but they are still fairly flexible. I think they are both great, it’s just a pick your flavor thing.

2 Likes
4

I’m not sure about those specific instruments tbh but often the characteristics of vintage gear lend toward less stability/consistency. So tracking might not be as good, synths might require frequent retuning (and therefore are often out of tune), and multiple oscillators will drift more independantly from each other.

Often when people describe analog synths as sounding ‘modern’ they mean clinical - i.e. very stable oscillators, everything in tune - less of an organic presence.

Some will prefer one over the other, or different characteristics in different situations.

2 Likes
5

Sequential seems to use the vintage=less stable oscillator description, as part of their overall definition of vintage, in their marketing. Dave Smith designed the original in the 70s, so he ought to know:

Sequential.

To make the Matriarch sound more vintage, by the above definition, just avoid exercising the calibration procedure, and over a period of time the oscillators should get less stable. Or be sure to record it before it’s fully warmed up (15 min.).

I’ve never owned a Sub 37 but if it also takes time to stabilize the oscillators, just record it while its still cold.

Or get a Sequential synth with Vintage knob.

Or to remove all doubt, get an old synth

6

Are you unable to discern a difference in general sound / character when listening to them?

7

Some fun reading on the other kind of vintage.

Vintage often means Moogish, and the Sub37 vs Matriarch discussion seems to center on the Matriarch’s VCAs, which are supposed to be more like the vintage modular VCAs than the Minimoog’s. But as others are noting, “vintage” can mean “won’t stay in tune” or other things that were considered bad back then and are considered charming today.

2 Likes
8

Hmm, perhaps not pitch drift, a lot of vintage synths have very stable pitch - ironically sometimes better than modern synths. My System100m and MS10 are extremely stable, as is my MC-202 and TB-303s.

When I built my first x0xb0x it sounded markedly less alive and organic compared to a 303, I modified it to be less “plasticy and stiff” but none of it was related to pitch, but the filter, waveshape, VCA and power supply.

I really don’t like the sound of Arturia analogue stuff, it also has this kind of plasticy and stiff quality to it, I never bought any but every demo I heard was enough to tell. Obviously though this is personal taste, some people love that sound.

Another thing which possibly contributes to vintage/modern sound is things like how hard the filter is being driven, internal headroom and mixing, and even just good old fashioned noise floor.

4 Likes
9

I tend to think that a lot of what people hear as ‘vintage’ is a combination of subtle pitch instability, saturation, and certain EQ profiles (low mid emphasis, not much sub or 10k+). The latter 2 are more a result of the recording technology and mixing style of past eras than the instruments themselves IMHO.

4 Likes
10

Curve ball time.
Ive got a sub 37. Its ‘modern’ takes no time at all for the VCOs to warm up to stability, literally a few seconds. But, you can set it up do the oscillators drift with each new note played. So it can be super accurate or all over the place.

Ive got a Pittsburgh SV-1, another modern synth. it takes about ten minutes for the VCOs to warm up and become stable enough to tune. No joke. Sublime filter, incredible sound.

Ive got an MS20 vintage 1978. Takes up to 20 minutes to reach stability, depending on how often I use it. Even then, its wobbly. Its a noisy synth too, the noise floor is noticeable.

My vintage SH101- stable oscillator all day every day any day. I dont even think about it.

Which one sounds ‘vintage’ or ‘modern’ depends entirely on the patch, the recording method, processing, and musical context.

Can the sub 37 sound ‘vintage’? Yes.
Can the SH101 sound ‘modern’ ? Yes.

Its not what you got, its what you do with it.

7 Likes
11

Maybe that’s visually led on your behalf?

I’ve had a good few analog synths now, and the PolyBrute is right up there with what it can put out. It does have a modern approach, and aesthetic, but strip it back and roll your own, it’s fantastic.

12

I’ve got a Sub37 and a Matriarch, and a Sirin… they all sound analog, and/or vintage to me. Nothing about any of them says ‘modern’ to me.

‘Modern’ that I own, that springs to mind with that term, would be my Novation Peak, Arturia Microfreak, MC-707, Digitone and a few others.

13

No but I did not really listen to any PolyBrute (or MatrixBrute) demos, as it is way too big for my limited space, I think it looks really nice. My comment about the sound quality was mainly to do with Drumbrutes and the mini/microbrutes, the microfreak sounds quite nice in the demos I heard.

1 Like
14

I’ve got a modern Polivoks (built in 2018ish) that uses new old stock components from the 1980’s and is put together according to adapted schematics from the late 1970’s. So it’s a modern vintage synth built out of vintage parts using modern techniques.

It sounds broken.

And by broken I mean amazing.

5 Likes
15

the differences in between soma and teenage engeneering, its just a matter of taste case closed

1 Like
16

SOMA is the modern one, right?

2 Likes
17
18

basically they both cohexist in same time, neither one is “modern” than other, one is digital and hipster, the other is tankie and hipster

3 Likes
19

Im a synth child of the late 70s and my family definitely say im vintage. Vintage to me is something that has warmth and character. They may something else :rofl::rofl::rofl:

20

You’ll know when you’re gear is vintage, because you’ll be on first name terms with the nearest synth repair shop.

4 Likes