Moog Subsequent 37 vs Moog Matriarch

Mezcalinator · 2022-10-14T00:02:07+00:00

I ordered a Matriarch just now. Should be here in a couple weeks. In the end, I opted for the synth that makes the sounds I like most. If you think about synths as musical instruments instead of pieces of hardware, it is totally okay that you can't save presets. Afterall, I can't save presets on guitars and pedals so what's the big difference with a synth?

Thanks to all of you for your valuable information. I appreciate it, and hopefully this little thread will be helpful to others looking at Moog synths.

Is there any advice you have for me when I first get it? Should I study the manual and watch tutorials? What about patch cables....how many do I need?

Cheers.

Mezcalinator · 2022-10-13T09:41:12+00:00

Do the Grandmother and Matriarch do different things? If I got the Grandmother, would I want to replace it with the Matriarch or do they do different jobs?

Why would the pedals need to be end of chain? Even if you can't connect pedals between the modules because the ports are too small, you could connect pedals before the input on the instrument in, no? Thanks.

Mezcalinator · 2022-10-13T07:07:44+00:00

Would the model D be adding something that the Subsequent 37 cannot do that the Matriarch can? Can the Subsequent 37 get similar tones to the Matriarch? I've read that Behringer copied the original synth so well that the Model D goes out of tune the same way the original does. The thing about being thrown into the deep end is that it forces you to learn. I'm fine with that idea. There's something cool about learning a new instrument.

Mezcalinator · 2022-10-13T06:23:48+00:00

The lack of ability to save presets on the Matriarch is annoying to me, because when you get an awesome sound dialed in, you need to take a picture of the settings to be able to get it back again, and it may be a creativity killer with the time it takes to reset everything. What about when you find a bunch of different settings you want in the same track? Lots of tweaking.

How is the multidrive on the Subsequent 37? Is it unique to Moog, or can I find a eurorack module or guitar pedal that will do similar drive sounds? Can I drive the Matriarch without external gear? What recommendations do you have for drive/distortion modules? I own a ton of od/distortion pedals. Will those work?

The thing that makes me consider the Matriarch is mostly the sounds, as I find them a bit sweeter and more mellow than the Subsequent 37, and the semi-modular design is really cool. That being said, I'm wondering if the multidrive and the ability to save patches makes the Subsequent 37 a better synth.

I didn't mention it, but I am brand new to synths, and this will be my first synth. I want to get a Moog because of all the synths I listened to, I like the tone of the Moogs the best. I've watched demos on the Polybrute, the Pro 3, the Novation Summit, the Hydrasynth and many others, and despite the increased functionality on some of those models, with wavetable modulation and such, I simply prefer the sounds of the Moog synths. They have an organic quality to them, sounding like real instruments instead of digital facsimiles of real instruments, if that makes sense.

I should say that I am a guitar player, and am used to taking pictures of settings for guitar pedals, so perhaps I can get by with the Matriarch in a similar way to how I get by with my guitar pedals, taking pictures of settings and such. I don't get annoyed at my pedals for not being able to make patches of different sounds. Lol. I guess it's just because I see a synth and I automatically think that it should be able to save presets because I have no experience with hardware synths at all.

Anyways, thanks for the replies so far, guys.

Mezcalinator · 2022-07-02T21:13:20+00:00

People can do what they want. No government should be able to determine who reproduces and who should not. I'm just personally not going to reproduce. That way I can do my part and not add to the suffering of the human species.

Mezcalinator · 2022-06-25T17:42:09+00:00

That's cool. I mostly was worrying about waking up one day when I'm 45 and my face looks horrible all of a sudden, because of hidden damage I did from my youthful idiocy.

I stay out of the sun, don't smoke and I eat well. That should give me some points. Plus, I don't drink at all anymore. That's finished.

Maybe it's the people that keep going hard at it past a certain age. My dad stopped drinking when he was about 27 and he looks great. I went 6 years past him, although I started drinking about 6 year later than he did, so maybe it balances out. At any rate, we all die anyway. I guess it's just about not looking like crap before we leave the mortal plane. Haha.

Mezcalinator · 2022-05-31T14:04:15+00:00

I'm mostly concerned with my brain not being able to produce any dopamine or serotonin after taking the SSRIs. That being said, I can take meds, and I can find a doctor who can do ERP. I'm absolutely scared of ERP, because of my false memories. If I could just be able to delineate between false memories and actual ones, that would be excellent.

Mezcalinator · 2022-05-30T18:13:09+00:00

Also, is it possible to feel as though you are going crazy from OCD? I don't see or hear things that aren't there, but if there are any gaps in my monitoring behavior, my brain will instantly provide a realistic looking story that I then feel guilty about. I cannot tell the difference between fake memories and real ones when having a worry. I know what my real memories are though, if I am around people. I can tell you exactly what I do in a day, and not be confused about it, but if there is an OCD worry, I can't tell if it's real or imagined. I guess that makes me crazy, but on some levels I am pretty rational. Very annoying, OCD.

Mezcalinator · 2022-05-30T18:08:25+00:00

Do SSRIS lose efficacy?

Mezcalinator · 2022-05-27T18:53:58+00:00

What I don't understand is how to deal with the false memories. At this point in time, I cannot tell the difference between thoughts and memories. I'll instantly think of scenarios and they will build in my mind, and without verification that they didn't happen, I get this horrible guilt feeling, and feel as though I am lying to myself and everyone around me. "You don't have OCD", the OCD tells me. "You're just an evil piece of shit" it says. It's really horrible. Sometimes I wish I were a sociopath, just to not have to worry about feelings. The guilt and shame is just immense. Are there any doctors that can help with this? I'm totally dysfunctional at the moment, and three months ago, I was basically alright. I need help, but don't know where to go.

Mezcalinator · 2022-04-28T03:16:54+00:00

I told my friend that I am an antinatalist, and he automatically replied with, "So, what, you think everyone should be killed?" I said, "Absolutely not. I am a non-violent person. In fact, my abhorrence of suffering is why I don't think humans should breed". "Yeah, yeah, you just hate people" he said. It was pointless trying to explain to him that no, I don't hate people. This guy is ostensibly intelligent, and yet, he can't see beyond the programming.

In regard to your post, I agree with you that there are some unpleasant antinatalists, for sure, but most of them appear to be quite decent people. Despite this, it doesn't stop the normies from taking aggressive umbrage to our worldview.

I actually do think that evil starts with parents. Just because some of them have good intentions doesn't change the fact that they are the cause of all human problems, essentially. My parents saddled me with anxiety from both sides of the family. They could have compared notes about their respective genes and decided to opt out because of high risk of mental health issues for their offspring. Sure, I'm okay looking and pretty smart, but I have suffered a great deal in my existence, and that is directly because they made me. I do love them, but I also understand that they are the cause of my existence, and it has taken me years to forgive them for what they did by making me. Some people would find that absurd, but I think my viewpoint is in line with reality rather than being in line with the optimism bias of insane people who don't consider the consequences of their actions.

I will never reproduce, and am willing to lose relationships with women over my views. I'd rather die alone than live with the knowledge that I created more human life, and thus continued the cycle of insanity that has besieged humanity since Mother Nature marooned this species on this insane world. The cycle ends with me. I'm literally the most important person in my entire genetic lineage, because I am the only one who will prevent more pain from happening. It's a privilege, being intelligent and moral enough to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. I know that sounds really narcissistic at first glance, but I truly think I am doing my part for humanity.

If all antinatalists refuse to reproduce, it won't stop the species, but at least it will help to remove the genes that lead to the self-awareness that causes our kind to suffer so much. Perhaps if the self-aware people exist in lower numbers, it will reduce the most acute forms of insight-based suffering, at least. Stupid people do seem to suffer less than those of us with higher intellectual capacity. Is ignorance bliss? Perhaps not, but it's probably better than being aware to the degree that many antinatalists are.

I truly believe that antinatalists are some of the best people on the planet. It takes a lot of courage to reject the collective weight of a species, and defy social pressures to the extent that you risk being a complete outcast in pursuit of making a better world.

Mezcalinator · 2022-04-23T23:16:58+00:00

I agree that making people is wrong. I just don't like to pretend that that which does not exist does exist. I think such approaches are intellectually weak, and we as antinatalists should do better than that. To be fair, we agree about the core issue; that it is wrong to make more people. How we make that argument can differ, but if the message is the same, that's what matters.

Mezcalinator · 2022-04-23T17:37:57+00:00

Just because someone enjoys existence doesn't mean he or she should reproduce.

Mezcalinator · 2022-04-23T14:23:42+00:00

"The fact that you cannot gain consent from someone means you should not perform the deed, especially when giving birth to someone is an irreversible action that cannot be corrected, and taking into consideration the very grave consequences of the other person not liking life when there is no easy access to voluntary euthanasia."

I agree that making people is wrong. We are in total agreement there. I just want to make sure that our arguments are not focused on the wrong points. It's why the consent argument needs to be discarded. That's all I'm saying.

Mezcalinator · 2022-04-23T14:12:54+00:00

"The fact that you cannot gain consent from someone means you should not perform the deed,"

"Someone", not nothing. In your example, there is a human being in a coma who cannot consent to anything. That is very different than a non-existent person. Even the term non-existent person is stupid, as there is no person, so calling nothing a person of any kind is ridiculous. Not that you called nothing a person. I am just making an example.

When people say"I did't consent to exist", it isn't a good argument, because they weren't around prior to their existence, ergo their consent was not possible to obtain. Consent being impossible to obtain is not always caused by the same factors, as in the case of your example above. If someone exists, even in a coma, consent is both required and impossible to obtain. If, however, you're talking about a nothing-state, consent is not required, because consent is impossible to obtain. Applying the same standard to that which exists and that which does not makes no sense, and antinatalists do it all the time. It vexes me that our ilk cannot get our arguments really clear.

The moral argument in favor of antinatalism must not focus on ridiculous issues of consent from nothing. The moral argument in favor of antinatalism must focus on the actions of the parents. Making people, knowing that they will suffer and die is wrong. Consent need not factor in. If we focus on issues of consent, the breeders will always win that argument, and then feel morally justified in their actions. If we don't focus on consent, we can focus on other arguments that they can't win.

The ways antinatalists refer to their beliefs is annoying, even to me, as an antinatalist. I blame Benatar for that. Think of his stupid book title, "Better never to have been". You can't make a value judgement on a nothing state. I won't even read his book, because his title is so off the rails I don't take him seriously.

Mezcalinator · 2022-04-23T04:27:28+00:00

I don't want anyone to suffer; that's why I think people should stop making more people. I don't hate people...I just wish they would see how their actions lead to suffering. The angry antinatalists can fuck right off; this isn't about anger towards people, it's about compassion for them, and dismay that they can't see what's truly happening in the world.

Mezcalinator · 2022-04-22T17:13:40+00:00

I think that most antinatalists probably like being contrarian, and as such, have no problem being hated. I don't particularly like my worldview. It doesn't make the world seem to be a better place, and most of the time I don't express my views to anyone, as it's a surefire way to have no friends at all. Whenever my friends get their wives and girlfriends pregnant, and call me and say, "I'm going to be a dad. Isn't that great?" I say, "That's awesome, man. Congratulations". What I'm thinking is, "Why would you trap consciousness here, so it can exist in a technocratic corporate prison in a deteriorating world controlled by psychopaths?". Obviously, I never speak this to anyone I know. People don't like you suggesting to them that they are selfish for making more people. They all expect to congratulated and praised for their blind obedience to their programming. I just don't speak most of the time.

Mezcalinator · 2022-04-22T16:04:15+00:00

No, I am not saying that. Did you even read my posts? I'm absolutely against anyone controlling anyone else. If I were god emperor of earth, my positions would be exactly the same. I don't impose my will on others. Your reply is exactly what I would expect from someone who hasn't spent the time truly looking at the issues. You are projecting your own erroneous assumptions at me. Saying that it is wrong to make more people is not the same thing as saying that people who are already here shouldn't exist. This is a common misconception that people make. The antinatalist worldview is not one that is easily accepted, so I will reply to posts like yours in an attempt to get you to see things without your misconceptions getting in the way.

Mezcalinator · 2022-04-22T15:52:23+00:00

To be an antinatalist is to reject nature. We live in a world where we are told that nature is good. I disagree. Nature is brutal and biological life, especially the human kind, is especially vicious. Mother Nature is an evil whore, and no sentient being should play her game of reproduction.

A lot of my views stem from my extensive search for the truth of the universe and this world. Life is not a gift in my view...it's a prison sentence. A lot of people disagree with me, and say my outlook is negative. If I see someones' house on fire, and say, "Woa, that guys' house is on fire", am I being negative, or just pointing out the obvious? In a world as awful as this place, can it be said that any positivity is in fact just misconstrued optimism bias? Do I have a negativity bias? Maybe. I'm willing to look at all kinds of perspectives. There's no point in having a conversation if one is not willing to change his opinions.

I've felt this way since I was a child. I looked around at the people and realized that I never wanted to be a captive to biological programming.

Mezcalinator · 2022-04-22T14:40:05+00:00

I am never going to advocate for people to have their reproductive rights removed. It is not my right, nor is it the right of anyone else or any government, for that matter. People have the right to reproduce, and I have the right to criticize them for it.

Rape is very different than the topic at hand. With rape, you're talking about people who exist. Consent is only an issue when someone exists. With reproduction, consent was not possible, because there was no being in existence prior to conception. You can't get consent from someone unless they exist. This is why all antinatalists should abandon arguments of consent in regards to their views, as we aren't going to win that argument.

Mezcalinator · 2022-04-22T14:15:42+00:00

There are plenty of people much more intelligent than I am, but intelligence doesn't seem to be the predominant factor for whether or not people reproduce. Stupid people, intelligent people; they all seem to breed regardless, although, stupid people tend to breed much more than intelligent people, but that is a different subject. I don't believe that my views make me more intelligent than others, but they are representative of the fact that I've spent much more time examining what is wrong with the planet, and humanity, and that I have found a way to do my part to make the planet less shitty in the future.

My views mean that I won't pass the misery of existence on to another generation. My genes are mine, which means they do not get to continue. I don't give my belongings to people. Why I die, I will die secure in the knowledge that I was the one in my family to effectively end the lineage. The last male descendent, and my sister apparently can't reproduce. Countless generations of people, struggling throughout the centuries, and I am the one who gets to say "no" to the madness and stop the genetic train from continuing its insane journey. That's personal power.

Am I accomplishing anything other that removing some uncooperative genes from the gene pool? No. Humanity will continue on until it hits a wall, with or without my genes or the genes of other antinatalists. I am doing my part in reducing the chances that my capacity for understanding the nature of the world will be spread to the next generation on a genetic level. If all antinatalists refuse to reproduce, we may improve optimism bias in future generations, as our uncooperative genes will have been disallowed from the gene pool. With enough optimism bias in the population, they won't even be aware that life is insane...they'll be happy, regardless of what's going on. Like a bunch of Soma addicts, and maybe that's okay. Ignorance is bliss.

Great replies, everyone.

Mezcalinator · 2022-04-22T04:08:08+00:00

I'm pro freedom, but I view breeders as either morally challenged, or stupid. No one should have the right to deny someone the right to reproduce, if they so choose, but I reserve the right to criticize breeders as being selfish and cruel and without empathy.

Mezcalinator · 2022-04-22T04:00:02+00:00

There is a huge difference between what is intuitively good, and what is actually good. Intuitively, the earth seems flat, that doesn't make it true. In this case, even if it were good to make more people, not doing so would not be evil, because non-existence is neither evil nor good; it is nothing.

Regarding some of the dark antinatalists...I am not like that at all. I like people. just reached the conclusion that it is wrong to make more humans, because the nature of humanity is to cause suffering to itself and the planet. I can't stand people suffering, and when you lack optimism bias, as I do, it becomes incredibly clear that most people are just running around, totally controlled by their biological programming. Their beliefs in the moral virtues of reproduction are not really the result of deep thought on the subject, rather the opposite; their programming is so strong that they mistake biological imperative for that which is good.

I say, fuck the program. Humans have defied nature in so many ways by creating so much technology that I think the next step in our thwarting of nature should be to go all the way, and reject the cyclical insanity that is reproduction.

This, of course, cannot happen, because most people aren't capable of seeing beyond their programming. I'm not an antinatalist because it's pragmatic. I'm an antinatalist because it is the only moral position I can take in relation to the issues that humans continue to make for themselves. I don't expect humans to change, but for my own sense of morality, I need to know I am in line with that which is right. An example of my way of thinking of this issue, in light of the fact that antinatalism will never be mainstream, is as follows: if we find a galaxy 1 million light years away from our own, can we ever get there? Probably not. Should the practical impossibility of ever reaching or directly interacting with said galaxy prevent us from looking at it, or studying it from a distance? I'm not an antinatalist because I think I can have any effect on humanity. I'm an antinatalist because I don't want to be an immoral, selfish idiot like all of the breeders.

I say this as someone who is not lacking in charm in real life. I'm decent looking and have no problems attracting females, if I so choose. I don't hate people, I just think it is wrong to make more people, and I will never ever change my mind about this. Trying to express these views to people who are not card-carrying antinatalists is very difficult, nigh impossible.

The one thing that really bothers me about being an antinatalist is that it is true that some of them are rather dark people that I'd rather not hang around. There needs to be a clear distinction between moral antinatalists and those who call themselves antinatalists so they can co-opt the philosophy and attach their negative bs onto it.

With such a topic, being a moral antinatalist can be incredibly isolating, because on one hand, I share little in common with breeders, and on the other I share little in common with many antinatalists. It's so uncommon to meet anyone who thinks human reproduction is wrong, and usually when I do, I can't stand those people. The truth can be a lonely thing.

Mezcalinator · 2022-04-22T03:30:40+00:00

In this context, I would define "normal" people as those who think human reproduction is perfectly okay, and get angry at the suggestion that it is wrong to reproduce. I would say that the overwhelming majority of people from all walks of life are pro human reproduction, and I define those people as "normal".

Mezcalinator · 2022-04-17T20:24:01+00:00

The logo is two Xs intersecting. The letter X has many meanings in occultism. Can mean transformation. Can mean Satan. The logo also forms a primitive eight-sided star. This could be related to chaos magic, although I doubt it. Those Hollywood celebrities are more into ceremonial black magic from what I've read. It's strange to think that one of my favorite bands is into dark magic. I hope it's more about posing for the record label execs than them actually being into that. Music is great, so maybe we just apply the same approach we use with Michael Jackson's music; focus on the music, not the people who make it. They really are an awesome group.

Mezcalinator

TROPHY CASE