I couldn't help but notice that a previous editor took out a phrase containing the word 'phat'. This is a typical example of how to make WP more BLAND, less USEFUL to the end-user.
Consider who might read and use the information in this article: they will know, or want to know, the word 'phat'. While it will never be in a "formal" dictionary, it is well-known amongst people working with electronic sounds. In fact, Moog recently introduced an instrument called the "Little Phattie". Did that editor know that? Did they care?
I've been using synths for decades. I understand them from the atomic level, up through the electronics, and their use in creating and recording music. This edit was an example of how non-experts make WP more BLAND. And it was a arbitrary, thoughtless tweak. Twang 16:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the editor before you had read the articles on synthesizers, Moog, and Moog sythesizers before editing the article. While the little phatty is listed as newly released, the only reference close to phat is the Taurus having a fat bass sound. The term phat is used nowhere in any of the 3 articles on the subject and its main contributer. -- Creol(talk) 20:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)