The Official Sequential/Oberheim Forum
OTHER DISCUSSIONS => General Synthesis => Other Hardware/Software => Topic started by: LoboLives on May 08, 2018, 10:40:24 AM
-
Something I've noticed, a lot of synth heads seem to really gravitate and lust after reissues of older analog gear like the CS-80 and Jupiter 8 but one synth that seems to kind of fall off and on the radar is the Synclavier.
Let's look at the specs (courtesy of Vintage Synth.)
"The first version appeared in 1977/78 but was soon replaced by the Synclavier II in 1980 with a new "partial timbre" sound editing feature (it tweaks the harmonics), built-in FM and additive synthesis, sampling, 64 voice polyphony, 32MB of waveform RAM (expandable to 768), 32 outputs, music-notation printing, multitrack sequencing, and digital hard-disk recording. In 1984 a third model was introduced and became the most infamous version of the line-up. The new features included a full sized and weighted keyboard with velocity and aftertouch which replaced the previous model's plastic keyboard, and 128 voices polyphony. An optional DSP effects package including time compression/expansion was available for the Synclav as well. There was also a standard onboard arpeggiator and a robust sequencer with up to 200 tracks and its sampler had the ability to record and output at up to 100 khz!
The typical Synclavier system consists of a durable 76-note keyboard peppered with 132 illuminated buttons and a single control knob, connected to a rack-mounted CPU running NED's own 16-bit ABLE operating system plus the nostalgic mid-eighties looking mono-chromatic computer monitor/keyboard. Patches, sound files, sequences and samples are stored to 5.25" diskette, hard disk or in some models, magneto-optical drives."
Now although there have been some VST emulations, neither the UVI Beast or Arturia Synclavier V are complete Synclavier recreations. In most cases sampling is gone as is the sequencing.
My question is why is the Synclavier not as revisited or lusted after by synth fans or even synth manufacturers looking at doing clones or recreations? Although a lot of the features are common in workstation type synths I don't know a synth on the market currently that is essentially a complete hardware synthesizer with on board sampler, sequencer, music notation software and has a dedicated or proprietary DAW and editor software.
What's everyone's thoughts on the Synclavier? Why is it just not as mentioned as much when talking about synths we want or want to see recreated?
-
Speculation:
People want classic synths recreated to chase a dose of nostalgia. Lots of people used to have ARP Odyssey and Minimoog and Roland Juno Whatever, so those things are reissued in some form. But Synclavier was a unicorn. Nobody actually had one. Enough people are curious enough to buy a VST or app, but it's not special to enough Gen Xers to warrant a reissue.
See also: Fairlight CMI.
-
Speculation:
People want classic synths recreated to chase a dose of nostalgia. Lots of people used to have ARP Odyssey and Minimoog and Roland Juno Whatever, so those things are reissued in some form. But Synclavier was a unicorn. Nobody actually had one. Enough people are curious enough to buy a VST or app, but it's not special to enough Gen Xers to warrant a reissue.
See also: Fairlight CMI.
Oh I agree but it's bizarre to me that people lust after things like the Jupiter 8 or CS-80 and want clones of them.....yet the Synclavier is more powerful than either of those things....even more powerful than the Fairlight CMI.
-
Oh I agree but it's bizarre to me that people lust after things like the Jupiter 8 or CS-80 and want clones of them.....yet the Synclavier is more powerful than either of those things....even more powerful than the Fairlight CMI.
Powerful has nothing to do with it, was my speculation. The question is: Did you have access to it when you were younger? That's it. If you didn't have access to a Synclavier back in the day, then you don't care if you have one now.
All of us already have basically infinite access to what would have been considered "power" in 1980. It's not a motivator.
-
Oh I agree but it's bizarre to me that people lust after things like the Jupiter 8 or CS-80 and want clones of them.....yet the Synclavier is more powerful than either of those things....even more powerful than the Fairlight CMI.
Powerful has nothing to do with it, was my speculation. The question is: Did you have access to it when you were younger? That's it. If you didn't have access to a Synclavier back in the day, then you don't care if you have one now.
All of us already have basically infinite access to what would have been considered "power" in 1980. It's not a motivator.
A lot of people didn't have access to a CS-80 either yet people lust for them.
-
I've never played a Synclavier, although I've certainly heard one enough times, having been a Tony Banks fan. But I've never been seriously interested in the instrument for the simple reason that - like so many other digital instruments - its capabilities were too vast. I've never been drawn to the sort of synthesizer that "does everything". I much prefer large but simpler instruments that I can grow to know like the back of my hand. For that reason alone, the Synclavier was never of interest to me, even though it was manufactured somewhat in my area.
-
A lot of people didn't have access to a CS-80 either yet people lust for them.
Touché
-
You didn't see them in pop music videos too much, which could account for them not being remembered as an 80's classic sound, despite the synth series being used on some of the biggest pop albums and singles of the decade. Ask anyone who grew up in that decade if they know what a DX7 is and they usually know. If you could put a guitar neck on to one and rock around stage with it, then too you know we'd all know it. Or if it was played by guys with cylindrical step pyramid hats. Or if it was used to score an animated film that advanced a form of Japanese entertainment in the west. Or if it wasn't taken on by Frank Zappa as a way to do away with musicians when he stopped touring, which logically should have had everyone going "wtf it that thing Frank is now using?". All of those factors contributed to it not really being remembered as the most advanced synth to ever be produced prior to the introduction of computer aided digital synthesis and audio workstations.
I found out about the Synclavier because of Frank Zappa, but I know I totally forgot owning one when I found out how much they cost....then got an M1 few years later and thought "This is as close as I'll ever get to a Synclavier", heheheh.
-
What megamarkd said. Plus: the current retro wave is mostly focusing on analog synths and drum machines. What might also run against its appeal is the fact that a fully-featured Synclavier is quite complex, which is not the reason why many people move towards hardware synths these days.
-
There is the Pacarana, connect a keyboard and away you go (After months of head scratching): http://www.symbolicsound.com/cgi-bin/bin/view/Products/Pacarana
Metasynth gets you quite a bit of the way there as well: http://www.uisoftware.com/MetaSynth/
-
edited - BobTheDog beat me to it
-
Lobo Lives, from what I've seen of it, I think I'd like to have one. Why not so much talk of it relatively speaking? I'm not sure, but I also don't try too hard to figure it out. Like Chysn said, it's familiarity probably. I mean more people mention they would like to have a Corvette than a Ferrari.
-
... Although a lot of the features are common in workstation type synths I don't know a synth on the market currently that is essentially a complete hardware synthesizer with on board sampler, sequencer, music notation software and has a dedicated or proprietary DAW and editor software....
To me, a combination of a Motif XF, Montage & Cubase seems to fit the bill you describe, and it exists. The Montage can be configured to to run off the XF sequencer. That sequence could then be prepped for notation on computer. Which is fine as it doesn't require performance-grade response time. Integration between these 2 and Cubase is pretty tight. While the on-board XF song sequencer is "just" 16 tracks, its pattern sequencer is quite interesting. Still 16 simultaneous, but, each track has what could be used as 16 "takes". Montage can do a primitive 64-layer additive.
I have NO idea about raw sound quality comparisons. But, the Montage's stated spec of up to 192kHz output seems potentially competitive. And while the XF is technically able to record audio to its sequencer, it's generally significantly easier to use a computer for this, too.
As it seems you've looked into those, what's missing there from your contemporary Synclavier?
-
... Although a lot of the features are common in workstation type synths I don't know a synth on the market currently that is essentially a complete hardware synthesizer with on board sampler, sequencer, music notation software and has a dedicated or proprietary DAW and editor software....
To me, a combination of a Motif XF, Montage & Cubase seems to fit the bill you describe, and it exists. The Montage can be configured to to run off the XF sequencer. That sequence could then be prepped for notation on computer. Which is fine as it doesn't require performance-grade response time. Integration between these 2 and Cubase is pretty tight. While the on-board XF song sequencer is "just" 16 tracks, its pattern sequencer is quite interesting. Still 16 simultaneous, but, each track has what could be used as 16 "takes". Montage can do a primitive 64-layer additive.
I have NO idea about raw sound quality comparisons. But, the Montage's stated spec of up to 192kHz output seems potentially competitive. And while the XF is technically able to record audio to its sequencer, it's generally significantly easier to use a computer for this, too.
As it seems you've looked into those, what's missing there from your contemporary Synclavier?
The fact I'd have to get a Montage, Motif and Cubase as opposed to a single system that can do all this.
-
What are the 2 most significant elements that you would like to see in one instrument?
-
In other words, what do you see as the needed defining characteristics of a modern day Synclavier?
-
Workstations are the existing modern equivalents to the Synclavier.
This assertion is based on the following. I'm eager to test it.
- The only workstation I know is Motif XF
- I only have a vague notion of what the Synclavier is.
-
This topic is fascinating in light of the release of the Prophet X. For so many reasons:
- Dave Smith had a significant role in various building blocks fundamental to the formation & evolution of workstations. (polyphony, patches, sequencing, keyboard, microprocessors, midi) Today, we have his expression of this, in our time.
- What is a workstation? Is a production-sequencer a fundamental definition of it?*
- Yamaha retires their workstation.
- Sequential returns to sampling. Big-time.**
- If a workstation means inclusion of a production-sequencer, will a keyboard workstation stick around? (Kurz & Korg have top-end ones, & Yamaha & possibly Roland have mid-tier ones.)
- Akai reintroduced a pad workstation.
- The changes in computer ability and folks’ changing absorption of those changes influences this.***
- In light of the ease of managing deep sampling & MIDI arrangement on a computer, would we have the patience to learn an instrument with great power, but great learning curve.
—
* I think so. In fact, Yamaha called the Motif a Music Production Synthesizer. They call the Montage a Music Synthesizer. They did maintain their groove-capture & playback sequencer. (They did try to make it more user friendly. I think they did in the removal of production sequencer & sampler sections; and appreciable growth of the digital synthesis department. Besides a quick perusal upon release, I don’t know if it reached a successful place.) In opinion, Montage & Prophet X are the most neighboring instruments these two companies have had in quite a while. AND they are so different. Amazing, really.
** Sequential's sequencer is to keep the focus on live playing & sound shaping. It's not for groove capture & arrangement.
*** Today, a computer cannot totally imitate a performance keyboard. On sound, low-level latency, dedicated UI, management of components, and time-investment/longevity of constant. … Of course, computer wins on size, flexibility, multi-purpose use, file management, and other ways.
-
Wow @dsetto great analysis. I've been asking some of the same questions. I'm going to make some overly general statements about something I know almost nothing about, so feel free to rip this apart.
1. Synthesizers are a tough business. My boss has always wanted to get into the music industry but concluded that it was very difficult to make money. The demand for high end instruments just isn't there. At the low end you need to compete with entrenched players who have done this much longer than you have. DSI bucks the trend by being super small, thus having low instrument development costs.
2. The synthesizer business is extremely faddy. Why is Yamaha exiting the workstation business? I think it's because of Ableton Live. Ableton enabled a loop based musical composition style where you slowly morph a step-based pattern over time. Yamaha's sequencers were linear and song based. That's considered old school and not competitive in the market. I think this is one reason DSI hasn't done a real workstation. I think only the Tempest has the Ableton style sequencing that's all the rage.
3. People are moving away from the one keyboard to rule them all. It could be that salaries are stagnating in the USA. People are connecting a bunch of cheap gear instead of buying a single big instrument that can do it all. I think the analog trend contributed to the balkanization of gear in addition to the rise of the (cheap) computer as the nerve center of a studio (because of Ableton again and earlier, the ability of computers to replace a rack of effects boxes).
4. The successful big players follow the money. Korg and Roland have $500 offerings that fit well into the tabletop studios of today. I'm thinking of Minilogue, Boutique series, JD-Xi (a real albeit only four track workstation), Volca, etc. Their workstations are adding step sequencing (Korg Kross, for example).
5. The real advantage of an all-in-one workstation is that if it's well designed, the work flow can be very intuitive and friction free. That's what I love about DSI gear in general and don't like about the work stations from the Big Three.
Sadly I have no interest in Ableton style compositions but I can't get a good linear sequencer anymore. So I have to get old Ensoniq gear. I'm interested in a more classical style (which is now considered film soundtracks). That's all done with terabyte sample libraries standing in for an orchestra and a computer.
-
I think you are all hitting the nail on the head in regards to workstations. My thing with the Synclavier is it wasn’t just a powerful synthesizer but it had amazing sampling capabilities and on board sequenceing. If that wasn’t enough it had dedicated software for further editing and sequencing. What I’m saying is I don’t think there is a single unit that can do all this. You would essentially have to have different pieces of gear and software to make up various elements. For me what makes the Synclavier so remarkable was it was a dedicated system.
https://goo.gl/images/kiVZvk
-
So maybe the lesson here--or the answer to "why don't people remember Synclavier fondly?" and "why aren't there any modern equivalents?"--is that the all-in-one system wasn't a very good idea.
I've always had a hard time with workstations. I've owned a few, and never really bonded with them. I always preferred one or more synths and an external sequencer (historically, an MMT-8). There are so many choices out there, and so many of them are good, that the odds of one instrument having the synth engine you like + the sampling engine you like + the sequencer you like + the effects you like are pretty slim.
-
tumble2k, when Yamaha went Montage, Ableton was also the reason I figured. And I figured it was because of the “new” ability to easily & successfully change time. … And while my primary workflow is simply audio, MIDI sequencing maintains unique creative approaches. So, while it’s generally secondary for me, I prefer intra-instrument sequencer for tightest capture. But, that’s nitpicking. Each different arranging platform is one more thing to learn.
Lobo, I agree there is no single instrument that does it. And I concur that a powerful synthesizer, powerful sampler, & powerful production sequencer in one instrument with top-notch action, and action choices is nice. But, I would also need it to be a “platform”. Something that has been around for a while, and I feel will stick around for a while. And will be supported long after that. My time investment matters. So, if a Modern Synclavier came out tomorrow - first off, it would be too expensive. Then, I wouldn’t trust it until I knew it had no perceptible latency, even under sequencer duress. It’s one thing to have no perceptible latency when it’s a simple voice; another thing when it’s got a full sequence going.
Based on where I was, when I was ready, the Motif XF was the choice for me at that moment in time. It was pre-Kronos, pre-Kurz PC3K, & Forte. I considered Kronos, but I could perceive lag when disk streaming light was on for piano. Forte literally just got a sequencer a few months ago. I’m way too entrenched and pleased where I’m at.
XF has its pedigree. Excellent action, both kinds. No lag for what I’ve done thus far. Excellent build. Something I can sink my time investment into.
chysn, generally speaking, I do tend to be suspicious of all-in-ones. It’s a funny paradox I suppose that I do appreciate sequencers in instruments. (Be they keyboard or pads.) … But, with those comes file management, and learning. Luckily, there’s a running old-school theme in file management across these sequencer-instruments. … And the sequencer can lay dormant till called upon.
-
LoboLives, out of curiosity, what's your primary creation DAW?
-
I think you are all hitting the nail on the head in regards to workstations. My thing with the Synclavier is it wasn’t just a powerful synthesizer but it had amazing sampling capabilities and on board sequenceing. If that wasn’t enough it had dedicated software for further editing and sequencing. What I’m saying is I don’t think there is a single unit that can do all this. You would essentially have to have different pieces of gear and software to make up various elements. For me what makes the Synclavier so remarkable was it was a dedicated system.
https://goo.gl/images/kiVZvk
A modern PC / Mac does all of this, keeping in mind of course that most of the original instruments mentioned here were, in fact, computer-based: the Fairlight CMI used Motorola DOS with light-pen extensions, the Synclavier used Scientific XP/L (and later Mac OS), and the Crumar / DK Synergy used a Kaypro II running CP/M.
There are modern equivalents which run Windows Embedded or Linux, and QNX!
-
I think you are all hitting the nail on the head in regards to workstations. My thing with the Synclavier is it wasn’t just a powerful synthesizer but it had amazing sampling capabilities and on board sequenceing. If that wasn’t enough it had dedicated software for further editing and sequencing. What I’m saying is I don’t think there is a single unit that can do all this. You would essentially have to have different pieces of gear and software to make up various elements. For me what makes the Synclavier so remarkable was it was a dedicated system.
https://goo.gl/images/kiVZvk
A modern PC / Mac does all of this, keeping in mind of course that most of the original instruments mentioned here were, in fact, computer-based: the Fairlight CMI used Motorola DOS with light-pen extensions, the Synclavier used Scientific XP/L (and later Mac OS), and the Crumar / DK Synergy used a Kaypro II running CP/M.
There are modern equivalents which run Windows Embedded or Linux, and QNX!
But they don’t come with an actual keyboard that has on board synthesis and sequencing. You are speaking about the software part. Unlike the Fairlight CMI the Synclavier could be played stand-alone without the need for a computer. In fact it was a primary instrument for Tony Banks for Genesis. He didn’t bring the whole system with him.
-
LoboLives, out of curiosity, what's your primary creation DAW?
Right now I’m warming up to Ableton but I currently use Studio One.
-
Why are you interested in the sequencer integrated with a sound-generating keyboard?
-
@dsetto Ah it's the pitch/time shifting that put Ableton on the map! That makes sense. I should look at the Motif XF to see if it suits my needs. I'm a little gun shy after my experience with the MoXF. Do you like the sequencer on the Motif?
@chysn That makes so much sense that all in ones fail because they need to be stellar at all they do. There are exceptions. I have the Teenage Engineering OP-1. It's pretty lame as a sequencer, audio recorder, sampler, synthesizer, and beat maker. But the fact you can do all of that in an airplane seat without a manual makes it amazing. I will never part with it, partly because of its size, but also partly because it's so damn cute and fun to create on. The Synthstrom Deluge looks interesting too. It's a world class sequencer that can generate probably mediocre tones, but it can be thrown into a backpack.
On the other side of the spectrum is the Ensoniq ASR-10, that is still coveted today because of its unique sound, easy-to-use linear sequencer, and quality effects. The UI is conceptually simple but cumbersome compared to a computer.
I love workstations. I think it's because my first serious keyboard was an Ensoniq MR-76. I just started recording music as soon as I got it.
-
Why are you interested in the sequencer integrated with a sound-generating keyboard?
For me I think that there’s something unique about it. Especially in today’s market. I almost never use my DAWs sequencers, I almost always use the internal sequencers on my synths or an external midi sequencer.
However, stuff like the Fairlight And Synclavier And even more obscure stuff like the Waveframe Audioframe really peak my interest. Most manufacturers skip on board multitrack sequencers as they expect other companies to figure that area out with their own products. Rightfully so I suppose but the idea of a high quality hardware synthesizer that not only has re synthesis and sampling capabilities but on board multitrack sequencing and a dedicated software program. I think there would be something really special about a dedicated DAW program that works exclusively with a specific hardware synth (which can also operate stand-alone).
-
Sitting in the train, I just hat time to read about the Synclavier.
Am I missing something? But I can't see what this sing does, that a Kronos couldn't do? A Kronos has a Sequencer, it can do Sampling, FM, you could produce Songs with it to that point where you burn your title on a USB-CDROM drive.
I really don't get it. Please enlighten me ;-)
-
I think you are all hitting the nail on the head in regards to workstations. My thing with the Synclavier is it wasn’t just a powerful synthesizer but it had amazing sampling capabilities and on board sequenceing. If that wasn’t enough it had dedicated software for further editing and sequencing. What I’m saying is I don’t think there is a single unit that can do all this. You would essentially have to have different pieces of gear and software to make up various elements. For me what makes the Synclavier so remarkable was it was a dedicated system.
https://goo.gl/images/kiVZvk
A modern PC / Mac does all of this, keeping in mind of course that most of the original instruments mentioned here were, in fact, computer-based: the Fairlight CMI used Motorola DOS with light-pen extensions, the Synclavier used Scientific XP/L (and later Mac OS), and the Crumar / DK Synergy used a Kaypro II running CP/M.
There are modern equivalents which run Windows Embedded or Linux, and QNX!
But they don’t come with an actual keyboard that has on board synthesis and sequencing. You are speaking about the software part. Unlike the Fairlight CMI the Synclavier could be played stand-alone without the need for a computer. In fact it was a primary instrument for Tony Banks for Genesis. He didn’t bring the whole system with him.
The Synclavier processor keyboard has no onboard synthesis; it connects to this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/NED_Synclavier_II_rear.jpg/1600px-NED_Synclavier_II_rear.jpg)
like this:
(http://www.synclav.com/S2-Dec-2007-3-level-16v-C-MIDI-L-IMI-HD-D66-eBay-pic-1.jpg)
or this (VPK shown, using Prophet-T8 pressure-sensitive keybed):
(http://designingsound.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Synclavier-6400.jpg)
The difference between this and the Fairlight was that it _was_ possible to travel with the Synclavier II without bringing along a monitor (serial terminal with keyboard), but the core IS in fact still a computer, and boots off floppies.
http://www.synclav.com/about-Synclav.html
The Hartmann Neuron also falls into this category, but that does not make it any less a PC on the inside, simply because an external monitor is not required.
-
I think you are all hitting the nail on the head in regards to workstations. My thing with the Synclavier is it wasn’t just a powerful synthesizer but it had amazing sampling capabilities and on board sequenceing. If that wasn’t enough it had dedicated software for further editing and sequencing. What I’m saying is I don’t think there is a single unit that can do all this. You would essentially have to have different pieces of gear and software to make up various elements. For me what makes the Synclavier so remarkable was it was a dedicated system.
https://goo.gl/images/kiVZvk
A modern PC / Mac does all of this, keeping in mind of course that most of the original instruments mentioned here were, in fact, computer-based: the Fairlight CMI used Motorola DOS with light-pen extensions, the Synclavier used Scientific XP/L (and later Mac OS), and the Crumar / DK Synergy used a Kaypro II running CP/M.
There are modern equivalents which run Windows Embedded or Linux, and QNX!
But they don’t come with an actual keyboard that has on board synthesis and sequencing. You are speaking about the software part. Unlike the Fairlight CMI the Synclavier could be played stand-alone without the need for a computer. In fact it was a primary instrument for Tony Banks for Genesis. He didn’t bring the whole system with him.
NED's core product was always a discretely built computer. Synthesis was based on AM and FM, later sampling was added if you paid for the upgrade (first in mono, then in the mid-80s in stereo). Tony Banks—who was mostly a preset-only user of any synth—never paid for the sampling upgrade, as Syco originally promised him that it would be included for free in a future update when he paid the immense sum for his Synclavier II. Slightly pissed off by that, he became an Emulator user instead for sampling purposes ever since the Emulator I had been released.*
All by itself, the Synclavier keyboard is nothing but a dedicated hardware controller. Most people kept using the system for its audio quality. Therein lies the only difference to modern DAW setups which process audio at 64 bit resolution, as the system (not the keyboard controller) was basically operating in a hybrid manner, meaning that all audio processing and mixing happened in the analog realm. NED used so-called multiplying D/A converters, which are also used in SSL mixing consoles for volume automation to compensate for the 16 bit resolution (of the sample audio signal; loudness EGs were based on 12 bit resolution for the sample engine, and on 8 bit resolution for the FM engine) and to guarantee the output of a fully dynamic range, no matter how quiet the original digital signal was. They did that basically because analog technology was much higher developed for those purposes at that time than the still extremely expensive digital technology with its bit depth limitations.
* 'I've had a basic Synclavier system for a long time. I bought it instead of the Fairlight originally because it was promised that they would have the sampling section out in a couple of months, and I thought the basic synthesiser part was better than the Fairlight's. As it transpired, it didn't come out till about four years later and when it did you had to mortgage your house in order to put a down-payment on it, so I avoided it.
'At the same time E-mu brought out the Emulator 1 which was nice 'n' cheap by comparison and was pretty good. I had such trouble with the Synclavier — it was about two years before I could really use it properly. There was lots wrong with it and I couldn't get anything done about it. I got extremely angry: it was depressing, having an instrument that represented such an incredible outlay lying there useless. Since then, I've always thought that the more expensive a piece of equipment is, the more likely it is to go wrong.
Source: http://www.muzines.co.uk/articles/and-then-there-was-one/1926
-
I see. I guess the Synclavier is much to do about nothing.
-
I see. I guess the Synclavier is much to do about nothing.
Well, I would believe people saying it has its own sound due to the multiplying D/A converters, but that's of course completely unrelated to the workstation aspect, which you'll find covered for much less money and weight these days.
Edit: I added a source to my previous post.
-
But, the question "What is the future of the Synclavier Legacy?" is interesting. Especially in light of such an intriguing real-time, deep, hi-fi sampler synth in the instant'n'good time-stretch era.
The greater pointed details were enlightening, DD & PD. And awesome photos.
I maintain the anachronistic position of valuing a no-lag sequencer capture of a no-lag sound source. There are other reasons others value higher. These include: an enclosed entity, that if kept working, will stay working together.
Lobo, what is that you find intriguing about having a production sequencer integrated with a sound-producing keyboard?
The main reason I’ve committed to my workstation is because:
- no-lag playing of samples on a great action.
-
tumble, The OP-1 seems awesome. Like the old awesome analog Casio of the same size, but evolved as a minimalist fun workstation. (At least that’s my impression of it from a quick glance.) From what I know today, and not really knowing a MOXF, I would use a MOXF with an editor. That will get you a better sense of under the hood. Do you still have yours? Capability-wise, the MOXF is very similar to the XF. It’s mainly a more constrained UI in a wonderfully more portable package. If you have specific questions, I’ll gladly give ‘em a shot.
I'm uncertain about casually recommending a Motif XF to someone. Conceptually, I know it fairly well. I know if I stick with it, my time investment will pay off. It comes at a cost, but with a benefit I believe in. And, I enjoy the process and discovery.
At this time, I find recording audio as my preferred capture & arrangement approach. Because I’m fastest with it. … But, every time I check out the on-board sequencer I dig it.
As alternatives were released, I stuck with my motif xf because I knew it and enjoy it. The reason I gave myself was because of it’s no-lag playback of 4GB of open-ended, user customizable sound with satisfying action on a instrument that’ll have spare parts for a while. … In theory, it could go 128 levels deep, and could have 8-wide round robin. But, that is a task & half to manage. Big time . The rest was tasty gravy, on the side. (The sequencer, the user arpeggiators, the sampler.)
With each passing year, I learn more, gain greater command of it, and by now, I’m committed. … I’m writing so much I think because I really am captivated by the X - but, I’m out to sea. And, I found this thread’s question very interesting, here, on this forum, amidst the X. … Full circle really. I began reading forums, and reading The Analog Organist searching for a new polyphonic analog in a time of scarcity - while a new Andromeda had just turned to mist. And the Synclavier’s legacy was fading. Well, we’re on a different point of this synced wave.
-
I've always loved the idea of the OP-1, but I've never been able to justify it to myself. My experience with trying to be portable started with the Yamaha QY-10. That thing was weak in just about every area, but it could be carried anywhere, well before anybody had cellphones or tablets.
Nowadays when I go on trips, I have an iPad Mini and a QuNexus. I'd speculate that any hard-core Synclavier user in 1982 would have gladly put the Synclavier on the curb in favor of an iPad with Korg Gadget and a QuNexus.
-
I'd speculate that any hard-core Synclavier user in 1982 would have gladly put the Synclavier on the curb in favor of an iPad with Korg Gadget and a QuNexus.
Either that or about any laptop-driven DAW environment or something like the Kronos.
-
I'd speculate that any hard-core Synclavier user in 1982 would have gladly put the Synclavier on the curb in favor of an iPad with Korg Gadget and a QuNexus.
Either that or about any laptop-driven DAW environment or something like the Kronos.
Oh, without question, that. But I'm saying that they'd have tossed their Synclaviers for something that, by today's standards, is a pretty chintzy setup.
-
I'd speculate that any hard-core Synclavier user in 1982 would have gladly put the Synclavier on the curb in favor of an iPad with Korg Gadget and a QuNexus.
Either that or about any laptop-driven DAW environment or something like the Kronos.
Oh, without question, that. But I'm saying that they'd have tossed their Synclaviers for something that, by today's standards, is a pretty chintzy setup.
Yes, I think so too. I wouldn't even call it chintzy, though, just practical. One reason being that every single iPad provides tons more computing power than any Synclavier.
-
I'm thinking it's all about the user interface. The OP-1 has a terribly simplistic synthesizer engine, but it's easy and fun to access, and it sounds good. I suspect that the Yamaha QY was not so strong there. On the OP-1 you can get up and running quickly.
I suspect the Synclavier had a decent UI too, but as the instrument has a ton of depth, it would take a while to get good at using it.
Regarding the iPad, the power of the iPad is amazing, but the UI is not. All of the different apps are designed by different people. The iOS design guidelines do not unify the UI in all of the apps at least compared to the OP-1 interface. I find this terribly difficult to work with. Maybe if I stay within Korg Gadget I'd enjoy using the iPad more. I used Caustic on Android and was terribly unimpressed.
-
I must be having a bad day. Lots of "terriblys" in my last post. :D
@dsetto, I sold my MoXF to get the Prophet '08. Are you using the sequencer on your Motif? I wonder if the workflow is the same as on the MoXF. I felt the MoXF was designed by committee to save the company money. Every operation took too many button presses, required me to go back and forth between the soft buttons and the buttons on the front panel, and didn't make sense. Such a shame really. Some of the sounds were hauntingly beautiful. I'll bet Yamaha put much more effort into their flagship.
-
I'm not using the sequencer. ... I find audio faster & more effective.
And I think this is at the core of this thread's truly significant question.
-- How many people want a production sequencer integrated into their instruments?
-- And why?
-
I'm not using the sequencer. ... I find audio faster & more effective.
And I think this is at the core of this thread's truly significant question.
-- How many people want a production sequencer integrated into their instruments?
-- And why?
I think it depends on the instrument in question for me. Something that’s multitimbral then yes. Why? Because it’s nice to get away from a computer and not have to rely on a DAW. Same reason why I dig hardware midi sequencers. I guess I just want to have a hardware midi sequencer and controller built into one system. Not having to hook an external controller up to a Carbon or Engine or whatever. In fact one of the main reasons I decided against the Montage is because of its lack of sequencer. For me I want the computer to or hardware recorder (be it reel to reel or digital) to record the audio. I just want to hit play and play some leads or chords over top while the sequence is gong, manipulate the hardware gear (filter cutoff etc) and adjust the mixer levels on the Soundcraft all while it’s being captured as audio. That’s why I likely won’t buy a synth without some kind of built in sequencer on board.
I’m not adverse to using a DAW’s midi sequencer such as Ableton or Digital Performer but I just prefer to have it on board something like a Kurzweil or just anything multitimbral. Even if it’s just 8 or 10 tracks.
-
I thought a lot about your question @dsetto and wondered if I had anything to add that I haven't said already.
I think that when I get inspired by a certain sound I first wonder what it would be like layered with some other voice. So I split the keyboard. Usually I soon want to lay down an arpeggiated line and combine it with a melody. The bitimbral DSI synths since the P12 have an onboard sequencer that can do that quickly.
Now if I want to chain sequences to form a real composition I need to switch to a DAW or start recording in audio or both. The disadvantage if working with audio directly is that it's not easy to seamlessly concatenate the individual sequences end to end. Using a DAW means I need to turn on my computer. Both can get in the way of the flow of ideas.
Having a production sequencer on the board can keep me on the keyboard longer. It doesn't eliminate friction, however: you still need to specify the tempo and time signature.
If I have acoustic instruments, I'm going to make the transition to audio sooner than later. However if the synth is can handle more timbres than two, I can possibly finish the entire piece on the synth. If so, this is the experience with the least amount of friction, especially if the sequencer user interface is well designed.
Having said all of that, the best keyboard sequencer I have used was on the Ensoniq MR series and ZR series I mentioned earlier. I was writing music within minutes after first starting it up. The downside is that you couldn't edit the sounds from the front panel! What a shame.
-
I thought a lot about your question @dsetto and wondered if I had anything to add that I haven't said already.
I think that when I get inspired by a certain sound I first wonder what it would be like layered with some other voice. So I split the keyboard. Usually I soon want to lay down an arpeggiated line and combine it with a melody. The bitimbral DSI synths since the P12 have an onboard sequencer that can do that quickly.
Now if I want to chain sequences to form a real composition I need to switch to a DAW or start recording in audio or both. The disadvantage if working with audio directly is that it's not easy to seamlessly concatenate the individual sequences end to end. Using a DAW means I need to turn on my computer. Both can get in the way of the flow of ideas.
Having a production sequencer on the board can keep me on the keyboard longer. It doesn't eliminate friction, however: you still need to specify the tempo and time signature.
If I have acoustic instruments, I'm going to make the transition to audio sooner than later. However if the synth is can handle more timbres than two, I can possibly finish the entire piece on the synth. If so, this is the experience with the least amount of friction, especially if the sequencer user interface is well designed.
Having said all of that, the best keyboard sequencer I have used was on the Ensoniq MR series and ZR series I mentioned earlier. I was writing music within minutes after first starting it up. The downside is that you couldn't edit the sounds from the front panel! What a shame.
One thing that always puzzled me....if DAWs are so popular...why does something like RADAR exist?
http://www.izcorp.com/products/radar/
I have an old Roland VS-2480 recorder and let me tell you it's pretty nice to have a dedicated system for recording. It's clunky but it still works. Still....Radar is well over $20-30k for it's system....is there a market these days for a dedicated computer system/recorder that has it's own synth engine/on board sounds and dedicated controller?
-
There is something about a purpose made music product that keeps the user in the zone I guess. I found using computers almost distracting due to them having so many purposes. I like to have a box-per-function. Sometimes two boxes. Was running two of those Zoom 8 channel recorder until recently; replaced them with an AW4416. I know I'm in the minority with my workflow, but meh, different strokes for different folks. Funny thing the box vs boxes is a mate gets me around with my Microgranny for sampling sessions coz he's too cheap to pay for a granular synth plugin.
Thinking about the Synclavier, I remember Zappa made big deal about going around buying up all the bootlegs of his shows and digitally remastering them for rerelease. I'm wondering if he used the Synclavier for the remastering? I have a couple of copies of bootlegs from the Filmore East days and also bought a few of the Beat The Boots release and in my opinion a lot of the original bootleg recordings (even my tape copies) were better, though that's as much an indication of the ability of the engineer as it is the quality of the AD converters on whatever device they used.
-
Mike Thorne's got a few Synclavier production anecdotes on his site: https://stereosociety.com/production-commentaries
-
tumble - I hear you on keeping workflow friction low. That’s probably one of the key aspects that’s at the heart of this thread’s question.
For kicks, I just spent some time exploring my motif sequencer with a quickly on-board sampled/prepped piano I made last night. ... I get close to neat things. With a template ready to go, or if you're quick with finding sounds, it's great for super quick in-the-moment capture. Sequencer tempo change in that environment is fun. And then there are 2 banks of 8 mute buttons & volume sliders. So, that becomes fun for performance & re-envisioning. (I suppose this could be recorded and used from there.) ... But, I don't know how to edit & arrange with it. And, I don't want to learn. Seems like a chore. ... If I were to actually rely on this as a capture workflow, I'd need to learn how to properly track out using the 16 outs. ... And yet, there truly is a unique feeling to playing & capturing & adding in one box. I don't how to explain it. And a 16-part keyboard sampler allows for capturing a wide set. And while it's a good feeling, the drag of my ineptitude of arranging with it or exporting the isolated tracks keeps it - for me - as an alternative approach for another day. … At this moment, I’d rather begin & end with the same arranging platform. I’m sticking with my XF because I enjoy its sound design features. I think Yamaha was smart with their evolution of the Montage: less arranging sequencer, more synth. And strangely, I’m wanting to keep my relic. ... Though I’m not one of them yet, I’d imagine there are folks that make good use of in-board keyboard sequencers. I do pretend mine is a primitive Cubase on an midi-interface-specced Atari with a primitive screen, pre-mouse Texas Instruments era. So I go do audio on my DAW.
A hardware sequencer is kind of like a monophonic synthesizer. The comparitive limitation can be an opening. And its strength can be spellbinding.
-
A hardware sequencer is kind of like a monophonic synthesizer. The comparitive limitation can be an opening. And its strength can be spellbinding.
Bingo! That's another reason for not wanting an all encompassing wonderbox (ie: music-computer). That said, I got way too much hardware, or so I'm told ;)
I've wondered, with a maxed-out E-Mu Ultra if you couldn't do what a Synclavier? 128MB of ram is enough for about 10min of stereo in 44/16 and I have tried to master a track on my e5000 years ago. Not that I really knew what I was doing and all the sample processing is not in realtime, so it was very much trial and error.
The on-board sequencer is terrible though, no editing at all in the box, it was what prompted me to get the Q-80 (I do miss that little black box).
-
Yesterday when taking a key sound in my workstation to the next level, I stumbled on an idea. Perhaps inspired by this thread, I said*, let's build a quick track to check out the sound in context. I repeated & built on what I'm comfortable at. I was able to quickly get a solid, good feel & sound thing going - with a midi sequencer. ... In a micro sense, I think the 480 ppqn quantizes my groove in a fine pop way. ... The next thing I personally have to get going is to steer clear from cheese. ... Cheese can't be inherent in the machine. Must be the man.
* to absolutely no one.
-
What do you mean by "cheese" in this context?
-
Cheese. Corny. Hackneyed. Not in a good way. Says the ego... ever battling Id, wants, tools & methods.
It relates to this thread's subject of modern versions of Synclavier, presets, and allocation of tools & 3rd parties in our creative processes.
Specifically: My workstation has its strengths and weaknesses. I have had to and continue to put in effort to attenuate multi-source cheese resonance. (From Man, machine, and folks that have populated "creation" morsels.)
However, integrity and commitment eclipses cheese criticism.
-
A hardware sequencer is kind of like a monophonic synthesizer. The comparitive limitation can be an opening. And its strength can be spellbinding.
Bingo! That's another reason for not wanting an all encompassing wonderbox (ie: music-computer). That said, I got way too much hardware, or so I'm told ;)
I've wondered, with a maxed-out E-Mu Ultra if you couldn't do what a Synclavier? 128MB of ram is enough for about 10min of stereo in 44/16 and I have tried to master a track on my e5000 years ago. Not that I really knew what I was doing and all the sample processing is not in realtime, so it was very much trial and error.
The on-board sequencer is terrible though, no editing at all in the box, it was what prompted me to get the Q-80 (I do miss that little black box).
The E-mu Darwin was the HD recorder equivalent (though to be fair, the architecture was a bit different than the EIV); if you consider the requirements for a block-storage based audio sink, they're quite different than those required for a samples-in-RAM player.
-
@dsetto, thank you for writing up your impressions of using the Motif to capture ideas. I'm trying to remember what the MoXF was like, and I seem to remember having troubles with setting up the sound for each track, and that killed my flow (like, totally dude!) You had mentioned that "if you're quick with finding sounds, it's great for super quick in-the-moment capture." I don't believe I ever got to that part. I watched a Youtube video of this incredible musician laying down tracks on a Motif, but he had the sounds set up already.
This is where the Ensoniq MR was incredible. Normally you audition sounds using category selector and patch selector knobs. When you find a sound you like you tap "Send Sound" and then tap the track number. That assigns the sound. Then you hit Record + Play to record the part. That's pretty natural and doesn't require a lot of training.
Arranging was crazy simple too. You get a number of sequences. You can select which sequence you're working on by tapping the corresponding sequence button. When you want to create a song you hold down the song button and tap the sequences in the order you want, for example 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 for a standard ABABCAB form. Again, not a lot of training necessary.
I've heard people complain that you can't edit the sequence on the Ensoniq, which is something that I don't really care so much about as long as I can punch in, punch out, and step record. There's nothing like MIDI event editing to kill that flow.
Anyway I feel the Ensoniq MR was a high point of a UI for music composition. An additional feature was that the keyboard would remember all of your noodling (up to 32KB), and if you decided that something you just played was worthwhile you could send it to the sequencer and build a composition based on it. Brilliant!
I find your comments on "cheese" very interesting. You're taking full responsibility for the cheese factor while at the same time acknowledging the Motif's role. The MoXF had a bunch of arpeggiators that were pure cheese. I had a ball discovering all of the different arpeggiators for the different patches. Then I got tired of them. When I wanted to create my own stuff they just got in the way. I think arpeggiators sell a lot of keyboards, but a great instrument needs to have great sounds not great arpeggiators. Just having them associated with a patch pulls the musician in a trite direction. So I blame the machine not the man!
Sorry this post had nothing to do with the Synclavier. The only thing I can say is that when you take something like the Ensoniq and add sampling, audio recording, and mastering you get a very complex beast indeed. The UI for that used to be a recording studio. Now it's a DAW.
-
Sitting in the train, I just hat time to read about the Synclavier.
Am I missing something? But I can't see what this sing does, that a Kronos couldn't do? A Kronos has a Sequencer, it can do Sampling, FM, you could produce Songs with it to that point where you burn your title on a USB-CDROM drive.
I really don't get it. Please enlighten me ;-)
Yes, the Kronos is particularly suited to emulate a Synclavier!
(Been researching on the Synclavier for a couple days now, and ran across your unanswered post).
1) One special aspect to designing sounds on the Synclavier is its implementation of additive synthesis. You have up to 24 harmonics to dial in, although many patches use far fewer than that. This was because of a more interesting way to alter a sound's color: Each of those harmonics can be subject to FM... in other words, each additive harmonic is basically a 2-op FM unit! And for each carrier or modulator, you can choose waveforms other than sine (tri, squ, saw, pulse). Moreover, you can select the phase for each of them... changing the phase of an FM modulator significantly affects the resultant sound. And of course there was an envelope for each modulator so the partials can evolve over time and via real-time controllers.
2) But besides using simple waveforms when designing a patch on the Synclavier, you can also use samples. There are 12 "partial timbres" (oscillators), per Syn patch. If you assign a sample to one of these oscillators, you yet have the ability to apply FM to it. Sound familiar? (It's Yamaha's RCM synthesis found on the SY/TG77).
3) Another nifty trick is the use of "frames" in its partial timbres. The manual refers to the frames in a movie as an analogy, but you can also see them as "steps" in a parameter sequencer. For each partial timbre (oscillator), you can sequence the individual harmonic volume or FM amount, and choose how long to crossfade between each step into the next. Outstanding control of a timbre.
:o
All of the above synth techniques can be done in the Kronos MOD7 engine!
What a Kronos cannot do is render MIDI in music notation or analyze then resynthesize a sample using additive FM.
But to be fair, even NED's own Synclavier Go! app cannot do these...
-
Wow, I already forgot about this post from two years ago ;D
So I'm not completely wrong, when I say, the Kronos is the hardware instrument that comes closest to a Synclavier?
-
psionic11,
Is such additive technique you describe hard to do on the Kronos? Those workstations always looked intimidating to me ;)
So I've tried with some limited success getting the additive sounds I want with the P12 and making use of the 8 oscillators in stack mode to get the first 8 most important partials. But the process of doing that is sort of a pain. I noticed Novation recently added the ability to add in partials (and phase) into their new wave editor for Summit. You just draw them in. If you carefully draw in the relative heights (as that which you would see in an oscilloscope spectrum of a particular sound you crave) then you end up with a reasonable representation of that sound. It's a little tedious as well, but pretty neat.
-
It may be possible on a PC4 or Forte (with the new FM engine) to emulate a Synclavier... I'm going through the manuals to see, as I don't own either.
As well as watching videos, I just got Synclavier Go! for my iPad Pro, which is connected via USB to my Kronos. Makes it easy to play the Go!, to compare its sound to the Kronos, try out FX, and to examine the partial timbre parameter values to guide my emulation attempts.
I'm using the MOD7 engine in the Kronos. This is the FM engine that can also load in 6-operator DX7 patches, but the individual oscillators don't have to be tied together into an algorithm. Each program has 2 engines, so that means a MOD7 program can generate 12 different sine waves. I made 6 programs called
Add 1-12
Add 13-24
Add 25-36
Add 37-48
Add 49-60
Add 61-64 (engine only goes up to 64th harmonic)
An oscillator's ratio goes from 1 to 64, which correspond to the natural harmonic series.
In those programs, the 12 harmonics are assigned to 6 sliders and 6 knobs.
In order to have access to all 64 harmonics at once, I arranged the programs in a Combi.
In that Combi, each program has its own volume slider, making it an additive monster, a kind of hyper drawbar organ. For example, I can lower the volume of just the Add 25-36 program, etc.
And yet, I can still access each program's own individual sliders and knobs while in the combi,* so I have pretty quick access to all 64 harmonics.
(*For Kronos owners, go to the combi's Control Surface and select the Tone Adjust tab/button. On the upper right of the screen, you can choose which Timbre (program) to make active so that the sliders and knobs now control those parameters.)
=======
I made a MOD7 UI in MidiDesigner, and I know that each phase parameter has its own SYSEX value, but I didn't include that in my UI because it's not something you'd normally want to access in real-time.
Or so I thought until now.
Watching various Synclavier videos has inspired me in the usual way... "ooh, can I do that on the Kronos?". Now I'm entertaining the thought of making another MOD7 UI, but based on the Synclavier layout. MOD7 has most all the ingredients, even going so far as using the step sequencer to emulate the Synclavier's frame by frame option. For FM'ing samples by frame, I'll have to step outside MOD7 and use the Wavesequencer piped into a MOD7 engine (which can receive audio IN). Thankfully the WS also spits out SYSEX.
I think I'll call the UI...... Synkronos. Or maybe Synkronier is better? What do you think? ;)
-
Workstations are the existing modern equivalents to the Synclavier.
This assertion is based on the following. I'm eager to test it.
- The only workstation I know is Motif XF
- I only have a vague notion of what the Synclavier is.
;D
Nonlinear Labs C15 is very similar in concept, not traditional DX algo but sine Osc being manipulated by ASIC’s/code. The layout is kind of similar as well, lots of buttons to select or activate, and a few knobs to adjust.