SYNTH LORE: THE KORG POLY 800 +QUIZ

A discussion of my feelings regarding the Korg Poly-800 synthesizer plus a listening quiz shootout between the Korg Poly-800 and the Roland Juno-106.
0:00 Intro
0:32 History
1:26 Visions of running around the stage
2:17 Other keyboard choices
3:10 Specifications and features
3:34 Its biggest weakness!
6:20 More features
7:30 More specifications
11:40 Quiz: Poly-800 vs Juno-106
15:22 Quiz answers
15:43 Summary
16:55 Chocolate pudding example
17:36 Last chance on a classic 80's synth?

[@djdksf1]

I had them both back in the day. They actually made a pretty decent pair, layered up. Punchy transients on pluck or organ-like sounds on the 800, paired with a lush saw/PWM + chorus on the Juno was 80s gold.

[@huntergalloway3944]

I love that old keyboard stand you had in that photo!

[@JeffreyScottPetro]

Yeah, me too. It got a lot of use and never let me down. I can't even remember selling it.

[@SeverityOne]

The comment about the reduced bit depth intrigued me, so I went ahead and looked at the service manual of the Poly-800. Because RAM wasn't really _that_ expensive: microcomputers at the time would easily have 64 kilobytes of memory. If you put that in a 64 patches synth, that would mean a whopping 8192 bits per patch. Well, a small correction: _dynamic_ RAM wasn't that expensive. But dynamic RAM requires extra circuitry, and makes the design more complex, and thus more expensive. It wouldn't work with the system switched off either: the memory contents would be lost. The alternative was to use static RAM, but that _was_ rather expensive. Guess what: from the service manual, it tuns out that the Poly-8000 has two static RAM chips: one of 2048 bits, and one of 2048x8 bits. With 64 patches, that means a mere 256 bits per patch. And with over 50 parameters, that's an average of 5 bits per parameter. A small note: 0-99 and 0-127 both take 8 bits. Possibly, like with the DX7, the designers thought that musicians wouldn't understand strange values like 127.

[@PeranMe]

This was a great idea for a comparison video! Lots of fun, thanks!

[@JeffreyScottPetro]

Thanks.

[@songar06]

Cool video. I think you are being a little hard on the p800. I bought one in 84 for the money I got for my confirmation. It was the only proper synth I could afford. In all these years I changed battery once. No repairs. I still have it up along many more expensive synths. When I play it I’m surprised how good it can sound, especially with good effects. If someone offers you a 106 or an 800 for free, I would suggest you take the 106. But the 800 is still useful in professional studio work. For $300 it’s a good deal, as long as you have a realistic understanding of its limitations. I love mine. I’ll never sell.

[@trebleboost7]

Again so much Nostalgia and synchronicity to my experience. I was so excited to be able and save for this, my first synth, and drove many miles in a snowstorm to a wonderful little store to pick up. Before I first saw it in person, I literally thought the graphic overlay on the version 1 had physical LEDs LOL! I actually gigged professionally with it and my second tier was another Korg, the MS-10! When I got my ESQ-1 that became my primary rig (Ensoniq + Poly that paid my way through college in a cover band and later with drum machine and MIDI filer supported duos and more gigs. I remember the sound well and layered it was cool for pads, and some quasi ‘brass’ stabs and organs solo. In the early days I would create bass + comp loops with the step sequencer and jam my guitar over it. Cracked up that they notated the ‘demo’ sequence in the manual…

[@JeffreyScottPetro]

Thanks for sharing... that's a great story!

[@Shred_The_Weapon]

What you mention, Jeff, about the 800 lacking parameter granularity (thanks for teaching me the term) was also a limitation of the (aforementioned) Roland JX-8p. When manually editing the DCO tuning and filter cutoff rapidly, you can hear the stepping. That was something I found easier to tolerate on the 8p (and when I owned a JX-10) before I bought a Minimoog Voyager (Electric Blue) and discovered its parameter granularity was from 0 to 999 and gad no stepping. When I learned about some of the JX upgrades, I had a daydream that they included adding a digit to the voice edit encoders and increasing the granularity.

[@Gerald_Daniel]

Again, a very independent video, also since you're probably one of the first to mention POLY 800's rough parameter resolution, instead of the monophonic VCF. Of course I've also JU-106. A voice too causes probs again because a filter peak is quieter and no longer has the full range towards the bottom, but that's managable. Is it really the case that the FX section of the POLY800 II does not produce a real flanger? I assumed, it were identical to the DS8 & DW8000. The DS8, of which I own 2, allows the selection of various modulation effects by name on a large display, including phaser, flanger, chorus & other FX, well done & deeply editable.

[@kaiwetronic]

One funny feature not everybody knows about the Poly-800 is the fact that, used as a master keyboard, what you play on the keybed goes to midi channel 1, and the sequencer to midi channel 2... With 1000 note polyphonic sequences I was able (before getting an Atari STE) to program 16 bar loop tracks for my Sound Canvas, with full drums, bass, piano or guitar plucks, etc, and still be able to play solos live at the same time... The trick that made it possible was to set different key ranges for each instrument, with the same midi channel (2 ) in the SC-55. The solo part set on channel 1... It was a nightmare to program, but the results were amazing...

[@JeffreyScottPetro]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[@kaiwetronic]

@@JeffreyScottPetro Needless to say, the maximum amount of notes the Poly-800 can transmit over midi is 8 at the same time (keyboard+sequencer), and of course, you have to mute the synth... What I can't remember is if the joystick action affects only what you play on the keyboard or the sequenced notes as well, when it transmits midi...

[@FLH3official]

Thanks for the vodeo. For those who want a part of the Poly 800 experience, Full Bucket makes a free plugin clone of it.

[@stephenanthonythomas3533]

Love the history segments. I knew they cut corners. But didn’t know what, or why. Bc the architecture was laid out so differently. I saved all Summer in 1985 to buy one and got a mk1 on blow out. As the mk2 came out. My Poly 800 became a workhorse, Along with my trusty MG1 (radio shack moog) and VL-Tone you’ve mentioned before, I borrowed a guitar player friend’s flanger pedal and I was in heaven in my little 80s bedroom studio.😆 I’d Ping pong tracks between 2 boom box cassette recorders using a flat of old AMWAY lecture cassettes!😆😆

[@JeffreyScottPetro]

That's cool, thanks for sharing.

[@HazeAnderson]

you coined a new term ... the "Synth Eighties!" 😆👍

[@JeffreyScottPetro]

Not sure if I was the first, but thanks.

[@Jinji11]

Thanks again. Grateful for the insight’s. Planning on watching/listening again tomorrow to hear the details I skimmed over. Your knowledge is invaluable ✨🌊💫🌊✨

[@JeffreyScottPetro]

Thanks, appreciate that.

[@lassel1644]

A bit unexpected post but very interesting. I have of course seen the Poly 800 hundred times over the years but never considered it.

[@johnhawranick8097]

Great video! I had both iterations of the Poly-800 (The Mk I was reverse key colors) and the Juno. I agree with everything you said. Sometimes I have to bite my tongue when I hear people talking about the 800 like it will blow most other synths from the 80s away. It's and OK synth with some unmatched features (certainly for the price) and I would never mock someone for wanting one, but make sure you manage your expectations. Keep up the great work!

[@JeffreyScottPetro]

Thanks, appreciate the comment.

[@group-music]

I prefer the Poly 800 because it has 2 oscillators.

[@SpikesStudio3]

I sold a poly800 to a struggling, young, talented musician to use as a controller for his akai sampler about a hundred years ago. I charged him a bag of weed and 4 of his demo tapes. Its a bit convoluted, but i did a good thing. Loved the stick on the 800 though.

[@geoffk777]

Ok, you missed the elephant in the room, which is that the Poly-800 is not actually a polyphonic synth. It's a paraphonic synth, with all voices sharing a single filter. So it can't properly articulate voices and lines as you would expect. It s also very thin in 8-voice mode, so is best considered as a 4 voice synth. Finally, the joysticks tend to break over time. In all, it's hard to recommend one in 2024, and I say this as an original Mk1 owner. If you like the sound, than theres a free VST called Fury-800, which I definitely do recommend.

[@ShallRemainUnknown]

A bit lazy of me not to research on my own, but if only one filter shared between all eight oscillators, what even would (re)trigger the filter envelope? I'm not sure you could properly call this a subtractive synth, if each voice doesn't have it's own per-note filter.

[@geoffk777]

@@ShallRemainUnknown It depends on how it's ser. Usually, it set for single triggering,where the first key struck will trigger the filter envelope and it won't retriggee until that key is released. You can also set multiple triggering, where every struck key retriggers the envelope. Neither mode works very well, and the best approach is to avoid big filter sweeps as much as possible.

[@ShallRemainUnknown]

@@geoffk777 Ah, makes sense, at least you have option of either method, thanks. Sounds like Juno, for example, made LOTS more sense for only ≈$225 more back then ($1,100 MSRP vs. $800 MSRP, minus average ≈25% discount)! (Plus Juno had all the realtime interface, and better construction, although lost two voices.)

[@geoffk777]

@@ShallRemainUnknown Actually, in 8-voice mode, the Poly-800 has only one oscellator pervoice, so it sounds thin and terrible. It's really a 4-voice synth. So it loses to the Juno in pretty much every way.

[@ShallRemainUnknown]

@@geoffk777 Ha, I understand what you're saying; so, while technically it's 8-voice/8-oscillator, in practice it's only 4-voice/8-oscillator. Interesting point! (And it NEVER has 8 or 4 true, independent subtractive synth voices.)

[@PurpleMusicProductions]

Man I really dig the Synth Lore Series! If for nothing else the history alone is worth its salt. I tanked the test as I only got 5 correct 😂 I may have to see if I can find a 800 for a bargain just to have a piece of history.

[@HazeAnderson]

I just put my name on the test and turned it in without answering any of the questions! 😂

[@JeffreyScottPetro]

Thanks, appreciate the comment.

[@organfairy]

I have a mark 1. I have never seen the 'granularity' as a problem as long as the range for the values is useful. Some synthesizers has a 0-256 range, but a big portion of it is useless, so you always use like 80-130. Another factor is that the Poly 800 has up and down buttons for values, so if you had to step from 0 to 127 using those it could get pretty time consuming. Your head would probably explode if you should play my big Technics organ: Some of its parameters has the values 0, 1, and 2 and that's it 🙂

[@JeffreyScottPetro]

Great point about the useful range on many parameters. Thanks for the comment.

[@AndyVonal]

14/20 ain't bad!

[@JeffreyScottPetro]

I created this episode 3 or 4 months ago. I just took the quiz and got the same score. Thanks for the comment.

[@Shred_The_Weapon]

I just made a mistake of thinking it was a question of odd and even.

[@RoyChartier]

A proper comparison would have been with the Roland JX-3P.

[@MegaBadgeman]

What about complete voices? Does the mark II version have a full set of filters.

[@geoffk777]

No, both the Mk1 and Mk2 are pataphonic, with all voices sharing a single filter.

[@Shred_The_Weapon]

That actually relates back to the Mono/Poly.

[@funkmachine6420]

Wow I only got 5 wrong!

[@Novit-Terminus]

IMHO, the Korg Poly 800 is one of the worst sounding synths ever made unless you love organ sounds. Terrible oscillators-thin and reedy-and a crap filter with zero oomph. This was my first synth and when I dumped it, no love was lost. Leave it far, far behind.