Why do analog synths suffer from maintenance problems?

[Dan South]

I've heard endless horror stories about analog synths failing in the middle of a concert, even catching fire on stage. I've also heard caveat emptor warnings about buying vintage synths.

 

My question is, why are these synths so unreliable? They're manufactured from solid state components, like amplifiers and radios. Amplifiers and radios work fine year after year. Why are analog synths so finicky? Were they designed improperly? Were the components of low quality?

 

Also, will today's analogs such as the Andromeda and Voyager suffer from maintenance problems in the long term, or has electronics engineering improved significantly since the days of Memorymoogs and OB-Xa's?

[JimmieWannaB]

Solid state does not always equate to digital. Many solid state components are analog. They were originally used as replacements for vacuum tubes (talk were problematic and failure prone, just be glad you aren't dealing with a tube based synth).

 

I'm not sure about the horror stories you've heard on analog synths, but the basic nature of analog equipment is that it "drifts" with time requiring alignment and often consumes more power than digital.

 

Concerning design, I have to assume that synth manufacturers ran into the same problems as the video manufacturers I've worked for did - the more you make of something, the more chance you have to shake out the bugs and improve the design. I have to assume that analog synths were a bit of a niche market where thousands (maybe only hundreds) of units vs. hundreds of thousands of units were sold.

[Dan South]

Originally posted by JimmieWannaB:

Solid state does not always equate to digital.

Solid state NEVER equates to digital. Digital devices (like AND gates and multiplexors) are built from complex analog circuits. My question is about analog synths. I don't know of any synths that were tube based. All of them were either completely solid state analog or solid state analog controlled by a microprocessor (for patch memory, etc.)

 

Your point about quality increasing as the number of units manufactured increases is a good one. Does that imply that today's analog synth manufacturers can learn from the mistakes of the past?

[Unisys]

I'm not sure about them old analogues but I know if I shelled out $2600 for a new Andromeda and it caught fire on stage I'd have to Bin Laden on Alesis' ass !

[JimmieWannaB]

Does that imply that today's analog synth manufacturers can learn from the mistakes of the past?

You would hope so. Unfortunately, if my current employer's track record is as indication, no. We are always amazed when a new product comes out with the same problems that were fixed numerous times in the past. You have no idea how frustrating it is to see a design flaw that was first resolved in the 70s reappear.

[Superbobus]

My question is, why are these synths so unreliable? They're manufactured from solid state components, like amplifiers and radios. Amplifiers and radios work fine year after year. Why are analog synths so finicky? Were they designed improperly? Were the components of low quality?

Probably because you don't kick a radio from a stand or because people don't fill up a radio with beer. I remember once on a student party gig these assholes thought my Rhodes was a bar table! You should see their faces when you grab them by their shirt to tell 'em to show some respect... Luckily no booze went in there and lucily it wasn't an analog on electricity.

[burningbusch]

The Vintage Synthesizers book has a lot of good info regarding reliability. The U.S. manufacturers were largely one or two person startups. They were under-funded and often had to ship in order to pay the bills, even if the product wasn't 100%. They also tended to use more untested, bleeding-edge components. The key chip suppliers, SSM and Curtis were very small companies as well, as I understand it. While internally they are solid-state, externally there are plenty of mechanical pots, switches and key contacts that are big contributors to the reliability problem. Also, it's not uncommon to find power supplies that are way off spec. The components can only take so much, then they'll fail.

 

You didn't buy a synth in the 70s-80s and place it in your home studio. These were purchased by working musicians who gigged as much as possible in order to pay it off. The years on the road were followed by years of neglect when analogs fell out of favor. Most Hammonds and Rhodes pianos that have been heavily gigged have problems and aren't worth much either as a result.

 

As I posted in the Voyager thread, the new Moog synth is pretty remarkable in terms of quality. Similarly the SE Omega 8 is flat out one of the best sounding analog polys I've ever heard. Both were shipped with software that wasn't fully baked, but soundwise and from a quality standpoint I'd put them up against anything out there today. It will be interesting to see how the European synths hold up over the next 20-30 years. My experiences with them to date have been a mixed bag.

 

Busch.

[Bobro]

Originally posted by Dan South:

I don't know of any synths that were tube based. All of them were either completely solid state analog or solid state analog controlled by a microprocessor (for patch memory, etc.)

Metasonix is the only current tube-based synth company I know of.

 

Here you will find the names of some old synths that used tubes.

 

Personally, I enjoy the fact that I, who can't play piano to save my life, can play my all-analog-no-chips mono-synth and most pianists I've met couldn't. Left hand flying to the tuning knob non-stop, can't let your attention wander for a second; it's like driving a three-on-the-tree without syncromesh, with wacked alignment and soggy brakes, with a hamburger and a cigarette in one hand. Love it!

 

-Bobro