Moog Sub 37 Paraphonic Analog Synthesizer (NAMM Sneak Preview)


At the 2014 NAMM Show, Moog Music will be introducing the Sub 37 Paraphonic Analog Synthesizer.

They’ve released a PDF of the front panel, via the Moog user forum.


Features (Unofficial):

  • Arpeggiator
  • Paraphonic
  • Glide
  • Dual LFOs
  • Dual Oscillators
  • Sub-Oscillator
  • Noise
  • Feedback circuit
  • External audio input
  • Filter with Multidrive
  • Dual ADSR envelope generators
  • 37 note keyboard

A unique aspect of the Sub 37 is that it’s paraphonic, which means that you can control multiple notes, but that oscillators go through a shared filter path. This differs from standard polyphonic synths, where each individual note that you play has its own complete synth voice. We’ll have to see how Moog has implemented paraphony with the Sub 37 at the NAMM Show.

Official specs, release date and pricing details are to come.

48 thoughts on “Moog Sub 37 Paraphonic Analog Synthesizer (NAMM Sneak Preview)

  1. I may be in the minority, however I find it increasingly difficult to become excited about these retro synths in 2014. Bob Moog was a pioneer and bringing the future into the present. Currently, Moog is bringing the past into the present.

    And I find Moog synths generally limited in their sonic range. Yet we shall see I suppose.

    1. Compare it with for example saxophones. Those resemble the ones from earlier years. No one however disputes the sound of either the Selmer Mk6 or a Martin Handcraft or Committee, to name just a few models of two brands.

    2. Yeah. And fender should have stopped making telecasters in the fifties, strats should have died in the sixties and Gibson should never have resurrected the les Paul with humbuckers. Let’s not even get started with those silly classical musicians playing archaic centuries old instruments….

      1. That is not an intelligent argument. Those instruments have a place, a unique sound, they are called classical instruments for a reason. And even with classical instruments, you have to wonder if the full breadth of their sonic possibilities have been explored by merely making the same instrument over and over again.

        You can keep regurgitating the same synth in various iterations, yet that is not moving the science nor the art. Much of this is built on nostalgia and some on ignorance. My Apple IIc was great for its time, yet I much prefer my Mac tower! Get it? Probably not.

        1. You can keep regurgitating the same guitar in various iterations, yet that is not moving the science nor the art.

          Analog synths have become classical instruments for a reason, because they sound great.

    3. I’m agree with your statement…however I think that you missed the point …and It is so simple…its because yesterdays future it is today…and as the sex pistols may said…No future!…but I’m happy with it as well with Moogs idea of the future it is the same as 50 years ago….

    4. Actually, i agree… I practically lost a limb saving for a moog phatty and had been dreaming about one for years only to be thoroughly underwelmed when i actually played it… All the sounds just seemed so ‘classic’ and there was little room for exciting sonic mistakes thru experimentation. The filter was lush tho… I’ll prolly get a moogerfooger to get that back ( i sold it and bought a bass station two which is much more fun!!)

  2. When the Sub Phatty came out, our studio bought one because it sounded different and had some very unique features (beat frequency and osc reset are insanely useful). Sadly, we didnt use it much, due to the 2 octave kayboard and where we had to put it in the studio (high up on a shelf.) It didn’t make sense to have all those real-time controls if you have to distance yourself from them with a midi controller to play it.

    Forward to the sub 37 teaser… This is the Moog synth I’ve wanted since the little phatty came out. The sub phatty oscillators, MORE keys!!!!, an extra LFO, Knob per function interface, and less menu diving. This synth may end up being the first true classic synth moog has designed since Robert Moog passed. I’m selling my sub phatty to buy this.

    Also, I hear they are going to release another product at Namm as well: the Theremini.

    1. Goku,

      Do you have first hand knowledge on the specifications or are you relying on the scant information available thus far?


          1. I’ve heard they’re coming out with a Mooger Booger or a Mooger Burger. The second is a sandwich on just one single bun.

    2. Agreed!

      The two octave keyboard and that giant landing pad of a pitch/mod wheel assembly was a deal breaker for me on the Sub Phatty even though I really like the sound of it, so 37 full-sized keys and a bunch of additional features is a great iteration of the concept.

      Although I have no clue how much all this is gonna cost us, that Bob Moog “TRIBUTE” moniker on the front panel is making my wallet a little nervous. 🙂

  3. Well done moog for copying the Volcas.
    I am sure we are going to be congratulating them again on a very high price tag .
    Dave smith has left moog way behind .The next thing we know ,moog will be telling us how their ,
    paraphonic is implemented better ,than rivals polyphonic, and of course such superior build quality.

    We have lots of choices and might won’t be this one.

    1. copying the volcas? i don’t see a batteries or ribbon controls…
      just because its a synth its a copy?

      and I’m sorry where are you finding cheap prophet 12’s?

      1. You include prophet 12s as a responce. Did I reference that model? no I didn’t . It is amusing that top of the range synth is picked to attempt to discredit a point I make.
        Waldorf and Korg are using paraphonic .Moog must be upset by market share being taken off them by companies who know what people want and know what people can realistically afford .
        Please use Mopho 4x as an example? I imagine this paraphonic moog will cost more than a polyphonic Mopho 4x.

    2. Nothing about this new Moog is copying the volcas. Nothing. Everything about the synth, from the oscillators, filters, dual LFOs, keybed, overdrive, overall sound, construction, and market….. completely different..

    3. Dave Smith is able to release polyphonic analog synths simply because he was able to arrange special run of Curtis ICs before Doug Curtis passed away. Without those chips, they’d be unable to release affordable poly instruments.

      The analog resurgence has stalled unless a company is willing spend the money to make new analog filter and oscillator chips.

  4. Amos (from moog) commented on facebook, that you will only get two notes from the parophonic mode, there will be no split arcitechture like old string machines. Still excited though!

    1. This “paraphonic” term is sooooo funny if you are Greek.
      “Paraphonic” and “paraphonos” are greek words and mean something/someone that sings out of tune and sounds really bad! So, if you say “you will listen to a paraphonic synth now” … everyone will start running away to avoid it! … Sing out of tune and they will say: “Hey! You are paraphonos! ” It really contains a very negative message, musically speaking.

  5. korg poly-800 used one filter back in the 80’s, nothing new here.
    its a cost saving measure as well as something different, at least to the current generation of synth users.

    1. Yep, this must be the successor to the Little Phatty in the lineup, slotting perfectly between the Sub Phatty and the Voyager. A very smart, safe and welcome move.

  6. If Korg were to bring out a new 4 note paraphonic synth based on an expanded Volca keys, with a proper keyboard, they would clean up. They’d probably be able to do it for half the price of this too,

    However, this looks great. I’ve owned a Little Phatty and a Voyager, neither of which turned me on (although the Voyager is excellent), but maybe this will be the modern Moog I’ll buy.

    1. It would be more surprising if everyone ‘was’ talking about the built in sequencer, considering its not explicitly mentioned anywhere on the synth or in the above unofficial features. The ‘Step’ and ‘Rec’ function could be for creating arpeggiator patterns. But then again they may be for a step sequencer, but wouldn’t that section be labeled ‘Arpeggiator/Sequencer’?

  7. Now this i’m looking forward to, anything remotely poly/para & from Moog is all good in my books. I must admit i was a little underwelmed by the sub-fatty, perhaps it was because i tried at my local music shop using headphones and not thru a P.A. This thing looks impressive and should sound good & of course being paraphonic be able to play chords with analog voicing(s), always nice.

  8. I loved the sound and feel of the Sub Phatty so this looks great with the extra keys. I think I’m saving my pennies now (since I think resurrecting my Micromoog after several go-rounds looks like it’s not gonna happen.) Can’t wait to get my hands on this…

  9. bah if moog would release a ” alaschmidt synth with step sequencer 8×2 , dual arp , poly voices (8) semi modular patch and aftertouch 37 kb ” they will kill others competitors but yet they burn their advance and Credibility with such lil’ synth which will be upgrade each years (as little as the heirs of tolkien , each year an another shitty movie ) .companies make money not music even DSi or MoOg …
    definetly i will not buy moog synths due to their commercial policy !

  10. It’s clear to me now that some people think…and I’ve always suspected this but this discourse brings it to a head…that all mono synths can be put into one group and compared against each other. By that logic, great guitar players who have multiple guitars are “idiots” or whatever.

    We’re talking about *analog* synths here. It’s not programming a DSP chip. It’s trying to arrive at a sound by shunting raw voltage through electrical components. Each synth designer is going to approach this differently and there are a hundred “correct” ways to do it. Even Dave Smith’s methodology is “correct”, but I think comparing to his work is disingenuous because he uses DCOs to meet a price point. You may be fine with the sound of DCOs (they don’t sound *bad* at all), but if you’re looking for pure analog (and all the bad and good that comes with it, i.e. pitch instability), you need VCO.

    (If you’re rich/successful) there’s a reason to have the Waldorf Pulse, the Volca, and this. Each sound mostly different and will have different uses for your production/performance career. For the same reason the guitar player has multiple guitars.

    If you don’t understand or agree with this, you have to face a sad fact here: you don’t appreciate analog synths, nor understand the value of them and why we like them. You could save yourself a lot of time, a lot of embarrassment on forums, and a lot of money, if you just switch over to soft synth plugins and be done with it.

  11. I really hope they make a rack version. I have too many keyboards in my studio. I would like to upgrade my slim phatty to a sub phatty, or this guy, but I don’t want another keyboard. Rack version please!!!!!!!!

  12. As a slimphatty owner, this looks a lot like an updated version of the slim phatty that’s simply bringing the under the hood and undercontrolled features out to the main board.

  13. Hope they stick with white on black. Whilst it looked interesting when it first came out, I don’t think the Sub Phatty is a classy as the black panel.

    This new synth reminds me very much of the Multimoog.

  14. I’m pretty used to this sort of function as my ARP 2600’s 3620 keyboard is duophonic. So… there’s two CV pitch outputs, but a single gate. I guess I’ve got 30 some years of experience playing with it, and it’s almost the same thing as what Moog is describing here. Typically I route each CV to one oscillator, and the third oscillator is a LFO or drives the filter at audio rate to create formants.

    Is it better than monophonic? Sure. You can stab thirds or fifths for emphasis and such. It’s not the same as polyphonic at all though.

    However, most of the time I find it more useful to have all 3 oscillators to do stuff with and stay in mono.

    So it’s useful when it’s useful, but it’s not something you use all the time. I’d say the main use is being able to say, hey yeah, it’s duophonic, and people go, oh wow, duophonic.

  15. I know this might seem trivial, but when the heck is Moog going to get a different case/design for their synths? This is the third recycle of the phatty case. Even though most Moogs look somewhat similar, they had something that differentiated them from one another. The Phatty never looked “sexy” to me and seems cumbersome to transport in that it sticks out like it does.

  16. A synth with real analog circuits is future proof … in that it can easily be tweaked into sounding perfectly within any style of music, even ones that haven’t been realized yet. A Minimoog is always sought for it’s sound in modern music productions of today, you can’t say that about a Rompler from the 90’s.

    Moog has introduced many improvements that analog is very good at, getting feedback distortion from putting the signal path back into it’s external input has been made a lot more convenient, stretch tuning for beating continuity, giving us a choice of how many poles in our filter, and many more advancements.

    If you want a patch with loads of modulations and midi synced LFO’s you can get that with many soft synths, but it won’t sound like a Moog.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *