The Official Sequential/Oberheim Forum
OTHER DISCUSSIONS => General Synthesis => Off Topic => Topic started by: Shaw on October 08, 2020, 10:10:31 AM
-
Just curious if any of you guys are analog or digital "purists"? What I mean is, is there anyone here who has/uses only analog or only digital synthesizers?
I'm not trying to fire up the old "analog vs digital" debate -- obviously if you have and use only one, you think that one is better suited to your needs. But we don't need to debate the advantages of one over the other -- I think most people here are already well aware of those arguments. And I don't assume that just because you may use only one doesn't mean that you don't see value in the other... like I said, "obviously if you have and use only one, you think that one is better suited to your needs" -- "better suited" doesn't mean objectively better.
Anyway, I'm having thoughts of going down one of these two paths, and wondering what others perspectives may be.
As always, thanks in advance.
-
I'll just take this time to talk about the three digital synth families I like.
FM: DX7
Hybrid: PPG Wave
Sample (w/ analog filters): Emulator
I prefer their dirtiness and character to today's equivalents.
-
I don’t actually care if a synth is analog or digital. If I like the sound and features of a synth then that is enough for me :) I’m not a professional musician, I’m 59, only work 2 days a week and have a certain amount of disposable income so choose to be what I believe Dave would call a ‘synth-head’ ;D
I just enjoy playing and making sounds... I even have a few apps on my iPad to play around with whilst watching the television.... it’s a good job I’m the only person in the house !!
-
Just curious if any of you guys are analog or digital "purists"? What I mean is, is there anyone here who has/uses only analog or only digital synthesizers?
I'm not trying to fire up the old "analog vs digital" debate -- obviously if you have and use only one, you think that one is better suited to your needs. But we don't need to debate the advantages of one over the other -- I think most people here are already well aware of those arguments. And I don't assume that just because you may use only one doesn't mean that you don't see value in the other... like I said, "obviously if you have and use only one, you think that one is better suited to your needs" -- "better suited" doesn't mean objectively better.
Anyway, I'm having thoughts of going down one of these two paths, and wondering what others perspectives may be.
As always, thanks in advance.
All of the hardware synths I currently use are analog, but that's not because I refuse to work with anything else or am a purist in the sense of the term most would use it. In fact, the Minilogue XD becomes less analog the moment I decide to mix in a digital oscillator with the existing VCOs. I'd love to have a Prophet 12 -- thought about buying a module, but then the P5 Rev 4 was announced, so there's a high likelihood that will be my next purchase. My main constraints are physical space, time and money (not necessarily always in that order but the physical space constraint is the hardest to overcome).
The other issue is that digital synthesizers are pretty well represented as virtual instruments. I mean for a virtual instrument to truly come close to hardware analog, HUGE amounts of CPU must be spent and they still don't sound the same. When it comes to digital synths though, they are far more CPU efficient and don't sound much different as a plugin, so for that reason it's harder for me to justify spending much of my limited physical space/time/money on digital hardware synths.
-
It honestly boils down to the individual instrument for me. There are some synths where I go “This would have been perfect if the oscillators were digital.” and others where I say “Why didn’t they just use VCOs if they aren’t going to utilize all the capabilities of digital oscillators.” Etc.
For me it’s about sonic textures. One of my friends suggested to me. Dude, get a Prophet 5, ARP 2600 reissue (somehow), Oberheim Two Voice Pro and Moog Model D and it would be the perfect setup. I’m thinking to myself...that’s a lot of sawtooth and square waves.
-
It honestly boils down to the individual instrument for me. There are some synths where I go “This would have been perfect if the oscillators were digital.” and others where I say “Why didn’t they just use VCOs if they aren’t going to utilize all the capabilities of digital oscillators.” Etc.
For me it’s about sonic textures. One of my friends suggested to me. Dude, get a Prophet 5, ARP 2600 reissue (somehow), Oberheim Two Voice Pro and Moog Model D and it would be the perfect setup. I’m thinking to myself...that’s a lot of sawtooth and square waves.
I suppose “purists” is the wrong word; I really don’t want to imply snobbery or an idea that one is better. But I imagine that there are synthesists out there who own and use either only analog synths or only digital synths solely for the reason that they like the sound of their personal preference better than the other.
I own excellent digital synths, but I always reach for an analogue when I’m going to record something. It’s organic, every note contains minute differences, and they just fit my style of music — classic rock, jazz rock, anything that sounds like Zappa could’ve inspired it... My synth usage generally falls in one of 4 categories of sounds:
- Basses
- Lead / Melody lines
- Pads
- Keyboards
... anyway, I’m talking/typing my way through this thought of whether I just want to just go all analog.
... and yeah, Lobo, you should definitely just get a Prophet 5, ARP 2600, Oberheim TVP and Moog Model D. You would never leave home again.
-
You would never leave home again.
Assuming he's out of the old-school hotel with weird electrical outlets...
Unless you're touring, there's plenty of free soft synths that are good enough. The reason for using digital to me comes down to bells, electronic basses, marimba, and vocals/choirs. Everything else I'd rather use analog.
-
You would never leave home again.
Assuming he's out of the old-school hotel with weird electrical outlets...
Unless you're touring, there's plenty of free soft synths that are good enough. The reason for using digital to me comes down to bells, electronic basses, marimba, and vocals/choirs. Everything else I'd rather use analog.
Vocals & choirs for sure... but if I ever wanted to record that sound, I use Omnisphere... then run it through some outboard gear to “analogue it up” a little bit.
-
It honestly boils down to the individual instrument for me. There are some synths where I go “This would have been perfect if the oscillators were digital.” and others where I say “Why didn’t they just use VCOs if they aren’t going to utilize all the capabilities of digital oscillators.” Etc.
For me it’s about sonic textures. One of my friends suggested to me. Dude, get a Prophet 5, ARP 2600 reissue (somehow), Oberheim Two Voice Pro and Moog Model D and it would be the perfect setup. I’m thinking to myself...that’s a lot of sawtooth and square waves.
I suppose “purists” is the wrong word; I really don’t want to imply snobbery or an idea that one is better. But I imagine that there are synthesists out there who own and use either only analog synths or only digital synths solely for the reason that they like the sound of their personal preference better than the other.
I own excellent digital synths, but I always reach for an analogue when I’m going to record something. It’s organic, every note contains minute differences, and they just fit my style of music — classic rock, jazz rock, anything that sounds like Zappa could’ve inspired it... My synth usage generally falls in one of 4 categories of sounds:
- Basses
- Lead / Melody lines
- Pads
- Keyboards
... anyway, I’m talking/typing my way through this thought of whether I just want to just go all analog.
... and yeah, Lobo, you should definitely just get a Prophet 5, ARP 2600, Oberheim TVP and Moog Model D. You would never leave home again.
And only record on reel to reel tape or direct to wax haha.
-
It honestly boils down to the individual instrument for me. There are some synths where I go “This would have been perfect if the oscillators were digital.” and others where I say “Why didn’t they just use VCOs if they aren’t going to utilize all the capabilities of digital oscillators.” Etc.
For me it’s about sonic textures. One of my friends suggested to me. Dude, get a Prophet 5, ARP 2600 reissue (somehow), Oberheim Two Voice Pro and Moog Model D and it would be the perfect setup. I’m thinking to myself...that’s a lot of sawtooth and square waves.
I suppose “purists” is the wrong word; I really don’t want to imply snobbery or an idea that one is better. But I imagine that there are synthesists out there who own and use either only analog synths or only digital synths solely for the reason that they like the sound of their personal preference better than the other.
I own excellent digital synths, but I always reach for an analogue when I’m going to record something. It’s organic, every note contains minute differences, and they just fit my style of music — classic rock, jazz rock, anything that sounds like Zappa could’ve inspired it... My synth usage generally falls in one of 4 categories of sounds:
- Basses
- Lead / Melody lines
- Pads
- Keyboards
... anyway, I’m talking/typing my way through this thought of whether I just want to just go all analog.
... and yeah, Lobo, you should definitely just get a Prophet 5, ARP 2600, Oberheim TVP and Moog Model D. You would never leave home again.
And only record on reel to reel tape or direct to wax haha.
Nope... that’s where I bow to modern conveniences. I wish I had the resources to record to tape...
I am, however, thinking of recording an album and releasing it on vinyl.
-
It honestly boils down to the individual instrument for me. There are some synths where I go “This would have been perfect if the oscillators were digital.” and others where I say “Why didn’t they just use VCOs if they aren’t going to utilize all the capabilities of digital oscillators.” Etc.
For me it’s about sonic textures. One of my friends suggested to me. Dude, get a Prophet 5, ARP 2600 reissue (somehow), Oberheim Two Voice Pro and Moog Model D and it would be the perfect setup. I’m thinking to myself...that’s a lot of sawtooth and square waves.
I suppose “purists” is the wrong word; I really don’t want to imply snobbery or an idea that one is better. But I imagine that there are synthesists out there who own and use either only analog synths or only digital synths solely for the reason that they like the sound of their personal preference better than the other.
I own excellent digital synths, but I always reach for an analogue when I’m going to record something. It’s organic, every note contains minute differences, and they just fit my style of music — classic rock, jazz rock, anything that sounds like Zappa could’ve inspired it... My synth usage generally falls in one of 4 categories of sounds:
- Basses
- Lead / Melody lines
- Pads
- Keyboards
... anyway, I’m talking/typing my way through this thought of whether I just want to just go all analog.
... and yeah, Lobo, you should definitely just get a Prophet 5, ARP 2600, Oberheim TVP and Moog Model D. You would never leave home again.
And only record on reel to reel tape or direct to wax haha.
Nope... that’s where I bow to modern conveniences. I wish I had the resources to record to tape...
I am, however, thinking of recording an album and releasing it on vinyl.
Yeah that's fairly easier to manage than a reel to reel machine. I had a Teac 80-8 and I was looking into one of those Mara Machines.
https://maramachines.com/machines/#jh110
But the truth is I was in a death metal band and we were working on the Teac 80-8 and honestly we never got anything done. It was just so cumbersome and we were doing everything ourselves and it just ended up sounding like garbage because we didn't know how to work with the medium.
But I have been studying reel to reel recording and recording techniques so I've become more familiar with it.
That being said, I've been working on an album myself that I intend to release on vinyl (mostly just writing/doing some rough sketches/planning for the moment) and honestly....I might actually do it on reel to reel tape and then get it properly mastered.
I guess...for me it's the same way with films...my mindset is digital is excellent for commercial work/rough sketches/demos/ but when you are buckling down and actually investing into a full album with cover art and liner notes and possibly putting it on vinyl....then I'd go for recording to tape....much like how I'd go with shooting a movie on actual film. It's just an odd thought process but it just provides a discipline and focus to the project and gives it an importance rather than just something you recording on your computer in a weekend like everything else.
-
For me it depends on the use case:
Going out to play cover (rock) music ---> Mainly digital, because I have to play multisamples of real instruments (brass, strings, ...)... I add my Rev2 with Strymon effects, just for my personal feeling. But soundwise, my Kronos could handle that pretty much alone.
At home, doing my stuff (that never get's finished) ---> Mainly analog... Rev2, PEAK (yeah, it's a hybrid, that's the reason why I wrote "mainly"), and an Arturia DrumBrute Impact (which I like very much... especially for the money it costs).
If I had to sell something, it would be the PEAK at the moment. I still love it very much... but it's the piece I use at least, as I explained a few days ago in another thread. And with the PolyBrute pre-ordered I would get completely analog at home then. I love the sounds of analog gear more than digital synth. But not because of sound quality or more or less warmth, or other typical arguments... it's just, that I don't have interest in fm, wavetable (besides some experiments, the feature I used at least on my PEAK) or other digital types of synthesis. This are simply not the sounds I'm interested in.
My recording is digital. I use a Scarlett 18i20 3rd Gen, which is all I need for my "hobby needs". I think I will get an OctoPre at some time, since I'm running short of inputs.
-
I'm about 3/4 of an analog purist, but I do like to add some digital pads as a sort of sonic spice.
-
I'm about 3/4 of an analog purist, but I do like to add some digital pads as a sort of sonic spice.
I was waiting for the “impure purist”. :)
-
I'm about 3/4 of an analog purist, but I do like to add some digital pads as a sort of sonic spice.
I was waiting for the “impure purist”. :)
I have fallen. But the fraction should actually be adjusted to 9/10. For me, digital synthesis is a passing mood, an odd exceptional hour. I have many moments when I seriously consider going all-analog, of ridding my music room of all overtly digital sounds. It's not impossible, and the thought brings a sudden bright ray of cheerfulness. I'm only one instrument away from it. If it weren't for the Poly Evolver's superb choir patch....
-
It honestly boils down to the individual instrument for me. There are some synths where I go “This would have been perfect if the oscillators were digital.” and others where I say “Why didn’t they just use VCOs if they aren’t going to utilize all the capabilities of digital oscillators.” Etc.
For me it’s about sonic textures. One of my friends suggested to me. Dude, get a Prophet 5, ARP 2600 reissue (somehow), Oberheim Two Voice Pro and Moog Model D and it would be the perfect setup. I’m thinking to myself...that’s a lot of sawtooth and square waves.
I suppose “purists” is the wrong word; I really don’t want to imply snobbery or an idea that one is better. But I imagine that there are synthesists out there who own and use either only analog synths or only digital synths solely for the reason that they like the sound of their personal preference better than the other.
I own excellent digital synths, but I always reach for an analogue when I’m going to record something. It’s organic, every note contains minute differences, and they just fit my style of music — classic rock, jazz rock, anything that sounds like Zappa could’ve inspired it... My synth usage generally falls in one of 4 categories of sounds:
- Basses
- Lead / Melody lines
- Pads
- Keyboards
... anyway, I’m talking/typing my way through this thought of whether I just want to just go all analog.
... and yeah, Lobo, you should definitely just get a Prophet 5, ARP 2600, Oberheim TVP and Moog Model D. You would never leave home again.
And only record on reel to reel tape or direct to wax haha.
Nope... that’s where I bow to modern conveniences. I wish I had the resources to record to tape...
I am, however, thinking of recording an album and releasing it on vinyl.
Yeah that's fairly easier to manage than a reel to reel machine. I had a Teac 80-8 and I was looking into one of those Mara Machines.
https://maramachines.com/machines/#jh110 (https://maramachines.com/machines/#jh110)
But the truth is I was in a death metal band and we were working on the Teac 80-8 and honestly we never got anything done. It was just so cumbersome and we were doing everything ourselves and it just ended up sounding like garbage because we didn't know how to work with the medium.
But I have been studying reel to reel recording and recording techniques so I've become more familiar with it.
That being said, I've been working on an album myself that I intend to release on vinyl (mostly just writing/doing some rough sketches/planning for the moment) and honestly....I might actually do it on reel to reel tape and then get it properly mastered.
I guess...for me it's the same way with films...my mindset is digital is excellent for commercial work/rough sketches/demos/ but when you are buckling down and actually investing into a full album with cover art and liner notes and possibly putting it on vinyl....then I'd go for recording to tape....much like how I'd go with shooting a movie on actual film. It's just an odd thought process but it just provides a discipline and focus to the project and gives it an importance rather than just something you recording on your computer in a weekend like everything else.
You could always record digital (for the editing convenience) and then bounce to tape... or if you have 500 series gear, the Neve 542 tape emulation is SUPERB.
-
I'm about 3/4 of an analog purist, but I do like to add some digital pads as a sort of sonic spice.
I was waiting for the “impure purist”. :)
I have fallen. But the fraction should actually be adjusted to 9/10. For me, digital synthesis is a passing mood, an odd exceptional hour. I have many moments when I seriously consider going all-analog, of ridding my music room of all overtly digital sounds. It's not impossible, and the thought brings a sudden bright ray of cheerfulness. I'm only one instrument away from it. If it weren't for the Poly Evolver's superb choir patch....
Yeah... I’m on the precipice of such a move myself.
-
If we're talking about oscillators here, the last digital oscillators I had belonged to a Desktop Evolver. Since then, I've had only analog modular oscillators, and a great many of those.
But now, the Pro 3's digital oscillator does what I wished the Evolver's did, and the Pro 3's analog oscillators and modulation matrix are what I wished the Mopho's were. So I'm about to embrace a hybrid instrument for the first time in five years.
-
My sense of digital oscillators and wave shapes is based on ten years with the Evolvers, a month with the Prophet 12, and a little recent experience with the Korg Minilogue XD. Plus a thousand YouTube videos. When in the thick of synthesis, I'm as enamored with digital tones as anyone. I've carried on for years in praise of the PEK, including its aliasing, and have made many videos using it to the best of my improvisational ability. But when I step back from all such music and consider the whole picture, and when I recall the Prophet '08 - its overall quality and the music I've made with it - a distinction consistently strikes me: namely, digital is harsh and analog is warm and smooth. It's the lesson of my latter musical life and experience: digital is harsh and analog is warm and smooth. After ten years of making this music, that's my conclusion. As far as I can understand, it's not based on a prejudice or presumption, but on an honest assessment.
The digital pads I've designed and used over the years have had their own sort of magic, but it's always been a harsh magic. Whereas, whenever I've limited myself to the Prophet '08s, the sonic results have had a memorable gentleness, nobility, and sweetness about them, and with no edges. Hence, I regularly indulge in a daydream in which I have nothing but pure analog instruments, and that all my fundamental tones are derived from that happy limited selection of sawtooth, pulse width, and triangle/sine.
This has nothing to do with the old can-you-tell-an-analog-oscillator-from-a-digital-one? debate. We've had that heated discussion/argument here more than enough times, and it's perfectly fruitless because it goes nowhere. Besides, by now I know nearly all of your positions, and you know mine. But this is not that argument. I'm referring only to the overall effects the two different types of synthesis have on one musician.
It's as if I'm not quite ready to do it yet, but for now, I will enjoy that daydream in the anticipation that possibly, some day, I'll have an all-analog music room and the harshness will have been removed.
-
I can tell you right now, the 08 can sound plenty harsh depending on how you dial it in. Whereas the purely digital synths I've dealt with these days can be plenty smooth and can even be sterile to a fault. However, if I had to point out the biggest difference, I'd say analog is without a doubt more three dimensional, as compared to pure digital. On the flip side, there's plenty of things digital synths can do that analog synths simply can not.
Sounds that fall under terms such as cold or warm can be equally beautiful both innately and more importantly depending on the musical context. Harshness can be desirable depending on if it's called for. Depending on the diversity of your pallet.
-
I can tell you right now, the 08 can sound plenty harsh depending on how you dial it in.
I agree; the Prophet '08 can be harsh if you want it to be. But my point is that the wave forms themselves do not contain the partials that create the harshness (with the possible exception of a very narrow pulse). It generally has to be added to the sound by means of modulation or resonance.
One of the distinctive qualities of the Evolver's digital wave shapes is that many are top-heavy with partials and have moderately soft fundamentals. Hence, there isn't a predominantly recognizable pitch. They then serve more like timbres to be added to the analog wave forms. I've used these tones quite a bit, but they often leave me slightly cringing, sometimes even with an ear ache. I never get this effect from the Prophet '08.
There's no doubt that the digital harshness can be useful. Even tonal dissonance can be a means of applying an effective tension to a piece of music that propels it forward, in that the dissonance needs to be resolved. But, in my personal musical pursuits, harshness and dissonance must be controlled, or else they overwhelm beauty, which is a most delicate creature.
I don't think the standard analog wave forms have been sufficiently explored. There are many tones yet to be created by combining, for example, different pulse widths, as well as by combining multiple pitches of a triangle or sine wave. In other words, analog synthesis can be practiced with an additive synthesis method, thus blurring the lines between the two.
Pardon the self-promotion, but here is an example. This carillon patch sounds like a digital patch, but it was made by two Prophet '08s.
https://youtu.be/XYkS3LgRRqA?t=308
-
I don't think the standard analog wave forms have been sufficiently explored.
That's a good point to make and one that's oft overlooked by synthesists in search of the next best thing. Besides, look at the endless inspiration an instrument as fundamentally set as the acoustic guitar has bestowed upon the world. Even with the most bread and butter synth we're blessed with an overabundance of timbral variety.
-
I don't think the standard analog wave forms have been sufficiently explored. There are many tones yet to be created by combining, for example, different pulse widths, as well as by combining multiple pitches of a triangle or sine wave. In other words, analog synthesis can be practiced with an additive synthesis method, thus blurring the lines between the two.
Indeed... and this is the Zone of Tones that I most enjoy making music with... (that might be the name of a future album “Zones of Tones”)....
I was thinking about this this morning.... The sine wave produces the most fundamental tone. And very generally speaking, as waves start to have more peaks and valleys within one cycle, the less emphasis there is on the fundamental tone and the more upward harmonics are introduced. Sometimes those harmonics are pleasing, and sometimes not.
@SacredSynthesis’ point is congruent with this. Because while you can combine 3 OSCs all with different shapes and even different octaves, every addition is still very founded in the fundamental tone — Squares contain more harmonics than sines or triangles, and saws contain even more harmonic content than squares... but the analog synth shapes will always contain more a fundamental tone than many shapes you see in a lot of wavetable synths...
... and this is one of the reasons I like the Moog One so much. 3 OSCs each can be set at various octaves and each has shape modulation Saws, Triangles and Squares — as well as a in-between shapes between square and saw.... and it’s all modulatable. There’s lots of exploration to be had there.
-
Looks like I'm the odd man out so far...
My synths were purely digital from 1983 when I got my DX7, which was subsequently joined by a TX802 and SY77, all the way through to 2011 when I got a Slim Phatty. That Yamaha trio remained my main instruments for more than 30 years until I got my 002 in 2014.
The 002 was subsequently joined by a Voyager and OB-6, but it was very telling that when I got a Montage 7 in 2017 it quickly established itself as my main instrument, the one I play every day. It seems I never lost my love for Yamaha FM even in the face of some really good hybrid and analog synthesizers.
-
Looks like I'm the odd man out so far...
My synths were purely digital from 1983 when I got my DX7, which was subsequently joined by a TX802 and SY77, all the way through to 2011 when I got a Slim Phatty. That Yamaha trio remained my main instruments for more than 30 years until I got my 002 in 2014.
The 002 was subsequently joined by a Voyager and OB-6, but it was very telling that when I got a Montage 7 in 2017 it quickly established itself as my main instrument, the one I play every day. It seems I never lost my love for Yamaha FM even in the face of some really good hybrid and analog synthesizers.
Nothing odd at all... just different perspective (which is what I was soliciting)... Do you still have the analogs: Slim Phatty, Voyager and OB-6?
-
My synths were purely digital from 1983 when I got my DX7, which was subsequently joined by a TX802 and SY77
Ah, yeah! I started out with a DX100 and a pair of TX81Zs, and I had an all-FM setup for about a year. I got in a lot of TX802 hours in the college music technology studio, but it was out of my league as a poor college student, whereas you could snag a used TX81Z for $200 in 1990.
In the late 1980s-to-early 1990s, remember that the industry considered analog synthesis dead. Moog, ARP, and Sequential were gone; Yamaha had basically taken over with the DX7 and its descendants, and I longed for an M1. My college music technology professor talked about analog instruments as the past, and there was no real sense that they'd come back.
My first foray into analog was a used Akai AX73, purchased at Kick and Associates in Grand Rapids for $450 circa 1991. They also had a Juno 106 for $550, and a Prophet 5 for $900. I chose the Akai because of its 6-octave keyboard, and the Prophet was way out of my price range. But back then, it was used analog or digital.
-
Nothing odd at all... just different perspective (which is what I was soliciting)... Do you still have the analogs: Slim Phatty, Voyager and OB-6?
Yes, I still have them all.
The Slim Phatty sat unused for a long time and, unfortunately, has developed a problem where oscillator 2 is permanently about half a semitone out of tune, even after running the full calibration routine. The SY77 is currently out of action thanks to the usual floppy drive failure (needs a replacement drive belt) and it needs a new backup battery. The DX7's keyboard is rather tired after 30 years of use, and the volume slider is scratchy. The TX802 still works perfectly.
It'll be interesting to see if the new line-up lasts as long as the previous Yamaha trio: I'm happy with all of them, and don't feel the need for any further changes.
-
In the late 1980s-to-early 1990s, remember that the industry considered analog synthesis dead. Moog, ARP, and Sequential were gone; Yamaha had basically taken over with the DX7 and its descendants, and I longed for an M1. My college music technology professor talked about analog instruments as the past, and there was no real sense that they'd come back.
A friend of mine (a university professor who knew Ikutaro Kakehashi personally) had a complete Roland System 700 with an additional filter/VCA block so it could be played polyphonically. He used to call it the poor man's Moog modular. After doing the switch to digital in the shape of a Korg T1 and (IIRC) a Yamaha FX-20 Electone he gave the System 700 to a museum :o because he was fed up with the constant need to tune it.
-
And, since there are a good number of qualified synth heads in this chat... FPGAs?
Would anyone consider new FPGA based synths the modern middle ground? Still solidly digital? Approaching Analog?
At the sample rates that FPGAs can reach (well above audio rates), aliasing doesn’t exist, but that’s only a part of the “analog magic”... the other part is oscillator drift and component tolerances. To my knowledge, no one has yet created a FPGA based synth where they are programming all of these minutiae into the system. And I’m not suggesting that FPGAs are only useful in their ability to emulate analogs — not at all, but I think that would be a good start.
The UDO Super 6 comes to mind first. It sounds stellar, and George is pushing into new territory with his binaural signal path where he carefully controls the phase alignments of the left and right paths to create unique spatial effects.
-
Because while you can combine 3 OSCs all with different shapes and even different octaves, every addition is still very founded in the fundamental tone — Squares contain more harmonics than sines or triangles, and saws contain even more harmonic content than squares... but the analog synth shapes will always contain more a fundamental tone than many shapes you see in a lot of wavetable synths...
Exactly. This is one of the reasons - the strength of the fundamental - that combining analog octaves remains basically pleasant, rather than harsh: a pitch is easily discernible. And yet, if you combine a standard pitch triangle with one or two triangles tuned to very high pitches off the octave, you actually create a new timbre, much like a digital wave shape. There is a huge amount of room for experimentation in this area, and I've honestly never come across a trace of interest in it.
This is an example from the Prophet '08. I slowly introduce the upper pitches at the mixer over about 75 seconds; they're produced on a P'08 Module and have a lot more reverb than the flute-like patch on the keyboard unit (Again, pardon the self-promotion, but my YouTube channel has been highly experimental in this direction.):
https://youtu.be/WzBVP5RCNVI?t=150
-
Looks like I'm the odd man out so far...
I think this thread is open to enthusiasm in both directions. We're not preaching analog here, but only expressing a prefernce for one or the other.
-
https://youtu.be/WzBVP5RCNVI?t=150 (https://youtu.be/WzBVP5RCNVI?t=150)
Some gorgeous tones there! Well done!
-
Thanks. 100% Prophet '08. And in light of your future P5/10 Keyboard-Module combo, it shows the advantage of having separate units, rather than just different layers on a single instrument. That is, you can design the differences more easily and process them differently.
-
And, since there are a good number of qualified synth heads in this chat... FPGAs?
Would anyone consider new FPGA based synths the modern middle ground? Still solidly digital? Approaching Analog?
At the sample rates that FPGAs can reach (well above audio rates), aliasing doesn’t exist, but that’s only a part of the “analog magic”... the other part is oscillator drift and component tolerances. To my knowledge, no one has yet created a FPGA based synth where they are programming all of these minutiae into the system. And I’m not suggesting that FPGAs are only useful in their ability to emulate analogs — not at all, but I think that would be a good start.
The UDO Super 6 comes to mind first. It sounds stellar, and George is pushing into new territory with his binaural signal path where he carefully controls the phase alignments of the left and right paths to create unique spatial effects.
The Super 6 is one synth I really felt let down by. For me the binaural signal path felt more like a gimmick than anything else. Also it's one of the few times I went "Why didn't you just use VCOs?" simply because it doesn't feel like George took these FPGA oscillators to their full capabilities compared to something like the Summit. In fact I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would by a Super 6 over a Summit.
-
And, since there are a good number of qualified synth heads in this chat... FPGAs?
Would anyone consider new FPGA based synths the modern middle ground? Still solidly digital? Approaching Analog?
At the sample rates that FPGAs can reach (well above audio rates), aliasing doesn’t exist, but that’s only a part of the “analog magic”... the other part is oscillator drift and component tolerances. To my knowledge, no one has yet created a FPGA based synth where they are programming all of these minutiae into the system. And I’m not suggesting that FPGAs are only useful in their ability to emulate analogs — not at all, but I think that would be a good start.
The UDO Super 6 comes to mind first. It sounds stellar, and George is pushing into new territory with his binaural signal path where he carefully controls the phase alignments of the left and right paths to create unique spatial effects.
The Super 6 is one synth I really felt let down by. For me the binaural signal path felt more like a gimmick than anything else. Also it's one of the few times I went "Why didn't you just use VCOs?" simply because it doesn't feel like George took these FPGA oscillators to their full capabilities compared to something like the Summit. In fact I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would by a Super 6 over a Summit.
Interesting take. The binaural signal path to me seems anything but gimmicky. To me it produces a lovely stereo effect that I don't think any other synth can recreate. Have you read through the manual? http://udo-audio.com/downloads/UDO_Super6_Manual_V2.0.pdf
I haven't done a lot of reading on the Summit's use of FPGA OSCs... how do you feel the Summit is superior?
-
And, since there are a good number of qualified synth heads in this chat... FPGAs?
Would anyone consider new FPGA based synths the modern middle ground? Still solidly digital? Approaching Analog?
At the sample rates that FPGAs can reach (well above audio rates), aliasing doesn’t exist, but that’s only a part of the “analog magic”... the other part is oscillator drift and component tolerances. To my knowledge, no one has yet created a FPGA based synth where they are programming all of these minutiae into the system. And I’m not suggesting that FPGAs are only useful in their ability to emulate analogs — not at all, but I think that would be a good start.
The UDO Super 6 comes to mind first. It sounds stellar, and George is pushing into new territory with his binaural signal path where he carefully controls the phase alignments of the left and right paths to create unique spatial effects.
The Super 6 is one synth I really felt let down by. For me the binaural signal path felt more like a gimmick than anything else. Also it's one of the few times I went "Why didn't you just use VCOs?" simply because it doesn't feel like George took these FPGA oscillators to their full capabilities compared to something like the Summit. In fact I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would by a Super 6 over a Summit.
Interesting take. The binaural signal path to me seems anything but gimmicky. To me it produces a lovely stereo effect that I don't think any other synth can recreate. Have you read through the manual? http://udo-audio.com/downloads/UDO_Super6_Manual_V2.0.pdf
I haven't done a lot of reading on the Summit's use of FPGA OSCs... how do you feel the Summit is superior?
More variety in the wavetables. The ability to scan the wavetables. Better Fm capabilities. Bi-Timbral. etc.
-
More variety in the wavetables. The ability to scan the wavetables. Better Fm capabilities. Bi-Timbral. etc.
Well, bonkers... I got some reading and YouTube watching to do.
... back to our topic, would you consider the Summit a digital OSC that blurs the lines into the analog realm?
-
More variety in the wavetables. The ability to scan the wavetables. Better Fm capabilities. Bi-Timbral. etc.
Well, bonkers... I got some reading and YouTube watching to do.
... back to our topic, would you consider the Summit a digital OSC that blurs the lines into the analog realm?
I would say it’s close...but personally for me I think digital synths should focus on their own sound rather than trying to emulate analog characteristics. That’s just me though. I may actually pull the trigger on the Roland System 8 finally because of this. Even things like the Nord Lead A1. They have a unique sound to them when used correctly...just as analog gear has a unique sound itself. Too many demonstrations of these digital say this are “Listen to this sawtooth pad!” “Check out this PWM bass”. Ugh...NO! In fact this was a huge detriment to the demonstrations of the Prophet X. Listen to the demo on Kraft music...it’s almost all the synth engine and no samples.
People need to embrace digital synths for their ability to go beyond the capabilities of traditional analog....simply trying to emulate analog gear does a huge disservice to these instruments and really robs people of hearing something unique.
I really really hope Sequential do a VCO/Wavetable based synth next. Preferably with two VCOs and two Wavetable oscillators But truth be told, I’d almost prefer if they came out with a Wavetable only or even Linear FM 8 operator based synth and embrace that sonic character.
I guess that’s why I’m not swoon over the reissue of the Prophet 5 and 10. I don’t really want another sawtooth or square wave, doesn’t matter if it’s from Sequential, Moog or whoever...but if there is to be another VCO based Sequential synth I want it to somehow offer me something new. Be it combining it with digital oscillators, having an MPE keyboard, bi timbrality or even multitimbrality etc.
-
I guess that’s why I’m not swoon over the reissue of the Prophet 5 and 10. I don’t really want another sawtooth or square wave, doesn’t matter if it’s from Sequential, Moog or whoever...but if there is to be another VCO based Sequential synth I want it to somehow offer me something new.
They could use a triangle core VCO instead of a sawtooth core VCO. I can't think of a single keyboard-based synthesizer that has a triangle core VCO. It's hard to tell the difference by ear, maybe the sine is a bit purer. But the triangle core shines when you FM two or more of them.
Sacred S is right when he says that analog waves haven't been sufficiently explored. This is way true. Keyboard synth companies like Moog and Sequential leave a lot of cool techniques on the bench.
-
People need to embrace digital synths for their ability to go beyond the capabilities of traditional analog....simply trying to emulate analog gear does a huge disservice to these instruments and really robs people of hearing something unique.
In some ways, virtual analog may have almost created its own distinct category, because a lot of folks (particularly EDM producers) pursue specific traits or sound characteristics from VA synths that, via their origins, started as a by-product of attempting to emulate analog but turned into more than that. In other words they don't really pursue a digital sound or an analog sound as much as they pursue the characteristic sound digital makes when it is asked to behave as analog.
I think that market is what synths like the Waldorf Kyra seek to fulfill.
-
I would say it’s close...but personally for me I think digital synths should focus on their own sound rather than trying to emulate analog characteristics. That’s just me though. I may actually pull the trigger on the Roland System 8 finally because of this.
I’m guessing you mean that you like the System 8’s core sound as opposed to it’s Jupiter and Juno emulations?
I might have told you this before, but the keybed on that thing is horrid...
People need to embrace digital synths for their ability to go beyond the capabilities of traditional analog....simply trying to emulate analog gear does a huge disservice to these instruments and really robs people of hearing something unique.
I didn’t mean to state that digital synths should only emulate analog synths; I just think that would be a good place to start.
For example, a wavetable synth where you remove the aliasing (through super high sample rates) and model the inconsistencies of analog envelopes and LFOs would probably sound stellar.
I really really hope Sequential do a VCO/Wavetable based synth next. Preferably with two VCOs and two Wavetable oscillators But truth be told, I’d almost prefer if they came out with a Wavetable only or even Linear FM 8 operator based synth and embrace that sonic character.
I think just like we, as synthesists, have sounds and types of synthesis that we gravitate toward, so do synth manufacturers. I bet Dave has never really done a full on FM synth because he just doesn’t care for the sound or style of synthesis.
I guess that’s why I’m not swoon over the reissue of the Prophet 5 and 10. I don’t really want another sawtooth or square wave, doesn’t matter if it’s from Sequential, Moog or whoever...but if there is to be another VCO based Sequential synth I want it to somehow offer me something new. Be it combining it with digital oscillators, having an MPE keyboard, bi timbrality or even multitimbrality etc.
Yet the Prophet 5 isn’t, in my estimation, just another sawtooth or square wave... it has a tried and true sonic character that is difficult if not impossible to replicate in other synths. A sonic character that most of us find pleasing.
I guess that’s why I’m not swoon over the reissue of the Prophet 5 and 10. I don’t really want another sawtooth or square wave, doesn’t matter if it’s from Sequential, Moog or whoever...but if there is to be another VCO based Sequential synth I want it to somehow offer me something new.
They could use a triangle core VCO instead of a sawtooth core VCO. I can't think of a single keyboard-based synthesizer that has a triangle core VCO. It's hard to tell the difference by ear, maybe the sine is a bit purer. But the triangle core shines when you FM two or more of them.
Sacred S is right when he says that analog waves haven't been sufficiently explored. This is way true. Keyboard synth companies like Moog and Sequential leave a lot of cool techniques on the bench.
You’re talking about modern synths, right? I mean, didn’t the Memorymoog, OB-X and early Sequential boards all have triangle core VCOs?
.... and between you and Sacred Synthesis, I’m gonna need to buy an oscilloscope. :)
People need to embrace digital synths for their ability to go beyond the capabilities of traditional analog....simply trying to emulate analog gear does a huge disservice to these instruments and really robs people of hearing something unique.
In some ways, virtual analog may have almost created its own distinct category, because a lot of folks (particularly EDM producers) pursue specific traits or sound characteristics from VA synths that, via their origins, started as a by-product of attempting to emulate analog but turned into more than that. In other words they don't really pursue a digital sound or an analog sound as much as they pursue the characteristic sound digital makes when it is asked to behave as analog.
I think that market is what synths like the Waldorf Kyra seek to fulfill.
Yeah... VA could be a third category outside of Analog and digital... in my mind they are the Rave Machines.
Someone will certainly disagree with this, but I would not, however, put the Super 6 or Summit in that category — simply because that super-saw-rave-VA sound is not the core sound of those synths.
-
I've been trying to like the Summit. The many videos I've listened to remind me of the old demonstrations of the Prophet 12. The two instruments sound similarly dry to my ears, even the complex pads. I like its size and its pair of outputs, but I'm just not taking to its overall personality.
-
I've been trying to like the Summit. The many videos I've listened to remind me of the old demonstrations of the Prophet 12. The two instruments sound similarly dry to my ears, even the complex pads. I like its size and its pair of outputs, but I'm just not taking to its overall personality.
For me it didn't offer much over and above what I can already get with the Rev2 having watched a few videos of the Summit. Also, since using the Pro2, I find it annoying when I can't see the envelopes displayed on a screen. It's something that I never missed until I had it, then I can't do without it :)
-
Would anyone consider new FPGA based synths the modern middle ground? Still solidly digital? Approaching Analog?
I don't see anything special about the use of FPGA's: they just give the designer a tremendous increase in the amount of computing power available, at the cost of being very difficult to program.
The Peak/Summit and Super 6 are just another twist on the hybrid theme (digital oscillators into an analog signal chain) with the advantage of no aliasing - but then the 002 effectively dodged that problem with its variable sample rate.
The Kyra is a virtual analog.
It'd be nice to see an FPGA used to do something different that's computationally demanding, such as programmable physical modelling as found in Yamaha's VL-1 and VP-1 or Logic's Sculpture.
-
I've been trying to like the Summit. The many videos I've listened to remind me of the old demonstrations of the Prophet 12. The two instruments sound similarly dry to my ears, even the complex pads. I like its size and its pair of outputs, but I'm just not taking to its overall personality.
For me it didn't offer much over and above what I can already get with the Rev2 having watched a few videos of the Summit.
Yeah, totally different creatures, but still, no competition. The Rev2 sounds like a far superior pad synth.
I'm constantly looking into other instruments, most recently the Korg Prologue. But it never fails that, after hours of research and trying to mentally force another brand synthesizer into my set up, I realize all over again that the DSI/Sequential instruments alone are perfect for my needs. Drats!
-
Someone will certainly disagree with this, but I would not, however, put the Super 6 or Summit in that category — simply because that super-saw-rave-VA sound is not the core sound of those synths.
To my ears, the Super 6 does sound pretty VA, but in a very good way. The super saw sound definitely comes to mind when I think of VA synths, but I also think of bands like Depeche Mode, who have used the Virus for much of their modern work since at least the mid 2000s.
-
Doesn’t sound like a REV2 to me....
https://youtu.be/UvIOuDd0Xgk
-
I still think it would be interesting to do a recording of various analog synths and to have people try and determine what sound came from which synth. I mean if these things “Have their own sound.” Then it shouldn’t pose a problem. I think it be fun to see how many come up with excuses why they didn't get the answers right. Same with that Prophet 6/Prophet 5 blind test.
At the end of the day though I think it’s the Fender/Gibson/Marshall complex of synths. People go for a brand name over functionality...sometimes even admittedly so.
-
There's a massive difference between listening to recordings and actually playing/listening to a synth plugged directly into your monitors. If you don't get that by now, then you have entirely too much gear as is & should sell it all aside from the PX. Although the only thing you really needed was that Kronos you sold...
-
The Kyra is a virtual analog.
It'd be nice to see an FPGA used to do something different that's computationally demanding, such as programmable physical modelling as found in Yamaha's VL-1 and VP-1 or Logic's Sculpture.
If you've ever owned a Virus Ti2, you know how quickly complex sounds and FX can rob the polyphony. I haven't had my hands on a Kyra, but supposedly this is the big advantage of FPGA -- tons of polyphony and FX with no voice stealing (128 voices, 8 part multitimbral and 9 effects per part) and does all that while always running cool.
-
I still think it would be interesting to do a recording of various analog synths and to have people try and determine what sound came from which synth. I mean if these things “Have their own sound.” Then it shouldn’t pose a problem. I think it be fun to see how many come up with excuses why they didn't get the answers right. Same with that Prophet 6/Prophet 5 blind test.
At the end of the day though I think it’s the Fender/Gibson/Marshall complex of synths. People go for a brand name over functionality...sometimes even admittedly so.
The problem with the comparisons I've seen so far, for example with VST vs real analog emulation, is that they are biased toward finding sounds on the underdog synth that are good examples for comparison, or comparing each within a certain range of sound design, etc.... rather than pushing both synths to their absolutely limits and judging based on that.
-
I don't care what sounds like a what. I agree that it's pointless to buy a synthesizer primarily because it sounds just like another synthesizer, just as it's pointless to prefer an analogue synthesizer if a digital one sounds just as good. I'm not interested in emulating other instruments or recreating the past for the past's sake. I just know what sounds good to my ears.
I thought the Prophet 12 sounded terrible for years, all from listening to YouTube videos that seemed determined to break the sound barrier. Then I had one on loan and figured out how to warm it up, and ended up loving the thing. The same was true, in fact, with the Poly Evolver. All the old videos emphasized the most brutally caustic sounds and effects, and so I couldn't stand the thing. Then I bought one (entirely as an act of trust in DSI) and realized it had a very wide sonic breadth, and could be as warm as melted butter.
Perhaps the same is true, now, with the Summit and Prologue demonstrations. Perhaps they're largely unreliable for discerning the true character of the instruments. But that's the only option for many of us, who don't live near synth-carrying music stores.
It's difficult making the big decision for or against a synthesizer based on YouTube videos alone. And because it seems as if most synthesists are especially interested in wild, shrill, or complex noises and sound effects, it's doubly difficult to make such a musical judgment. But whether it's a brand new release or a re-issue of an old classic, it's all the same to me: does it sound good or not? I might be as happy with a Novation Summit as with an ARP 2600. All that matters to me is its pure musical charm and potential.
-
There's a massive difference between listening to recordings and actually playing/listening to a synth plugged directly into your monitors. If you don't get that by now, then you have entirely too much gear as is & should sell it all aside from the PX. Although the only thing you really needed was that Kronos you sold...
If people want to play with dinosaurs then more power to them.
-
I take it back, you should sell that Triassic PX and invest in some cutting edge soft synths with 40,000 parameters. ;)
-
I take it back, you should sell that Triassic PX and invest in some cutting edge soft synths with 40,000 parameters. ;)
I’m sorry I hurt your feelings.
-
How can you hurt my feelings when I'm simply following your logic?
-
How can you hurt my feelings when I'm simply following your logic?
I’m a hypocrite deal with it.
-
Ok fellas... have a beer and be friends.
Remember: drummers are the real enemy.
-
I've deleted a long, rambling accounting of my "journey" with digital synths and instead will say, while I'm certainly no purist, I'm very much an analog kid. The new P5 is a dream come true, and I'm saying this as someone with a rev 3 P5 and two P6s in my life. But... and this is partly aimed at Sacred S, I can easily suggest that discovering the world of downloadable User oscs on the Prologue has given that synth a whole new life in my world. It's a gorgeous analog synth - it can do freaky and weird, but it can also do utterly beautiful. Granted, the (digital) User oscs I've downloaded are meant to sound analog, as names like "1973" and "Waves" give away, but I think this is the synth that (mostly) puts my worrying about analog vs digital aside (humans, eh!). I play the Prologue, I think, "Yep, sounds great." I'll program it as much with the User oscs now as with the "normal" oscs. All that and the fact that the Prologue and my P6 sound quite natural together - one doesn't sound like the other much to my ears, but they're pals for sure.
-
I've deleted a long, rambling accounting of my "journey" with digital synths and instead will say, while I'm certainly no purist, I'm very much an analog kid. The new P5 is a dream come true, and I'm saying this as someone with a rev 3 P5 and two P6s in my life. But... and this is partly aimed at Sacred S, I can easily suggest that discovering the world of downloadable User oscs on the Prologue has given that synth a whole new life in my world. It's a gorgeous analog synth - it can do freaky and weird, but it can also do utterly beautiful. Granted, the (digital) User oscs I've downloaded are meant to sound analog, as names like "1973" and "Waves" give away, but I think this is the synth that (mostly) puts my worrying about analog vs digital aside (humans, eh!). I play the Prologue, I think, "Yep, sounds great." I'll program it as much with the User oscs now as with the "normal" oscs. All that and the fact that the Prologue and my P6 sound quite natural together - one doesn't sound like the other much to my ears, but they're pals for sure.
I’m tempted to get a 16 voice Prologue and have it modified to only have 8 voices. I was talking with a shop here and they said it would be pretty easy to do.
-
I'm definitely not interested in the freaky or weird, Ant, but I'm glad to hear that one more person thinks the Prologue can be beautiful. It will remain an instrument I'm moderately interested in. It has a simplicity that fascinates and impresses me.
-
I can easily suggest that discovering the world of downloadable User oscs on the Prologue has given that synth a whole new life in my world. It's a gorgeous analog synth - it can do freaky and weird, but it can also do utterly beautiful.
Prologue pushes a lot of my buttons, and I've given it a pretty long look. I think that the Evolver primed me for hybrid synths. Even though I've settled on a Pro 3, it would have been fun to take the Prologue's Multi Engine SDK for a spin. I guess I could get a standard Pro 3 and a Minilogue XD, but I really need to focus.
-
I can easily suggest that discovering the world of downloadable User oscs on the Prologue has given that synth a whole new life in my world. It's a gorgeous analog synth - it can do freaky and weird, but it can also do utterly beautiful.
Prologue pushes a lot of my buttons, and I've given it a pretty long look. I think that the Evolver primed me for hybrid synths. Even though I've settled on a Pro 3, it would have been fun to take the Prologue's Multi Engine SDK for a spin. I guess I could get a standard Pro 3 and a Minilogue XD, but I really need to focus.
I think as much as the Korg Pro/Minilogues can offer polyphony, the modulation options available on the Pro-3 far outweigh the extra voices if you are a patch programming fiend. You can grab an NTS-1 and have most of the Multi Engine that is in the XD and Prologue then run it into the Audio-In on the Pro-1 (or any other synth setup which allows Ext-In ;) )
-
I can easily suggest that discovering the world of downloadable User oscs on the Prologue has given that synth a whole new life in my world. It's a gorgeous analog synth - it can do freaky and weird, but it can also do utterly beautiful.
Prologue pushes a lot of my buttons, and I've given it a pretty long look. I think that the Evolver primed me for hybrid synths. Even though I've settled on a Pro 3, it would have been fun to take the Prologue's Multi Engine SDK for a spin. I guess I could get a standard Pro 3 and a Minilogue XD, but I really need to focus.
Why not combine a Pro 3 Keyboard and later a Minilogue XD Module? That would create a fairly compact instrument with a massive sonic range.
-
Why not combine a Pro 3 Keyboard and later a Minilogue XD Module? That would create a fairly compact instrument with a massive sonic range.
You can grab an NTS-1 and have most of the Multi Engine that is in the XD and Prologue then run it into the Audio-In on the Pro-1 (or any other synth setup which allows Ext-In ;) )
I wouldn't rule out either of those options, but I suspect that the Pro 3 is just going to lead to more Eurorack.
-
I had originally started this little thread so I could off-load some of my thought process on you guys. I had been considering a couple of things: 1) paring down my synths (for space reasons 3 is an optimal number for me), and 2) whether I wanted to go all analog.
As for the first issue, I have pretty much decided to pare down my synth collection to just 3. Any more than that, and I just end up having synths sitting in a storage closet that don’t get played.
I have ditched the all analog idea. Even though I generally love and prefer my analogs, I would surely miss not having a digital synth around for those timbres.
-
I feel,the same way, Shaw. Three seems to be the magical instrument number. And for the analog-digital breakdown, one hybrid is enough digital for me, beside two analogs.
The great challenge in designing and maintaining the right set up comes from the lure towards getting the new exciting equipment. My tongue hangs out with each new instrument; but that's just idiocy, because all the new instruments are not what I need. So, I think it's prudent to apply the breaks most of the time. We have to discern between what we crave as it's dangled before us in all its glittering glory, versus what we know in our calm intellects will serve our regular needs.
-
I feel,the same way, Shaw. Three seems to be the magical instrument number. And for the analog-digital breakdown, one hybrid is enough digital, beside two analogs.
The great challenge in designing and maintaining the right set up is in the lure towards getting the new exciting equipment. My tongue hangs out at all the new instruments; but that's just idiocy, because all the new instruments are not what I need. So, I think it's prudent to apply the breaks most of the time. We have to discern between what we crave as it's dangled before us in all its glittering glory, versus what we know in our calm intellects will serve our regular needs.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/44b56a3ffc7de9f23b2fb461165e9d62/tenor.gif)
-
Amen, brother!
-
For me it was about emulating the Carpenter/Howarth setup with modern gear. More recently though I’ve been slightly shying away from that idea as I’ve been listening to more and more soundtracks and experienced more tonal variety that inspires me but I think if I stick to my original plan I should be more than satisfied.
Some would say emulating the Carpenter/Howarth setup is gluttony and stupid but I figure the setup is absolutely perfect and while I can’t get exactly the same setup with modern gear, I wouldn’t need anything else once the setup is completed.
-
Count me in the three synths is the magic number camp. I figure my Kronos, an analogue or digital polysynth, and a monosynth would suit me well. Thankfully I haven't fallen into the modular hole though at times I am very close to the edge.
-
I’ve decided on my 3 (do I really need to say “for now, at least”? We all know we are addicted, and we all know that prevailing winds can change)... and it is cheating a bit for me to say “three”...
- Moog One — this thing is a beast, and “greater than the sum of its parts” definitely applies here. And it has a large number of parts. It is essentially a 16v analogue with a mod matrix that approaches the Kurzweil VAST architecture. The mod matrix (with the latest firmware) allows for functions!
- Prophet X - It’s just intensely capable. And I feel as if I have only just scratched the surface.
- The Prophet 5 — this is where I am cheating with the word “3” because I really intend to get both the Keyboard (which I have ordered) and the module (“_______”) to create a bitimbral / stereo P5. Yes, I know that’s “overkill”, but if I’m limiting myself to 3 synths...
Anyway, this thread, though we rambled, and griped, and got out of tune as we are wont to do, played a good part in that decision making — thank you all for your contributions.
Will let you know when my P5 arrives. My SW guy tells me, based on my place in the SW line, I am looking at mid-November. Fine by me. No rush. Please make mine with care.
-
That's an impressive threesome - restrained but musically powerful. Excellent choices, Shaw.
-
That's an impressive threesome - restrained but musically powerful. Excellent choices, Shaw.
:)
Hopefully I can stop “trading synths” (as my wife calls it) and start making music.
-
I'm definitely not interested in the freaky or weird, Ant, but I'm glad to hear that one more person thinks the Prologue can be beautiful. It will remain an instrument I'm moderately interested in. It has a simplicity that fascinates and impresses me.
They sound really good, I was at a gig before the zombie acopolypse took over and was listening to this amazing sounding synth so I went up to the keyboard player at the end and asked what it was and it was a prologue.
-
It is essentially a 16v analogue with a mod matrix that approaches the Kurzweil VAST architecture. The mod matrix (with the latest firmware) allows for functions!
Could you explain that statement a little bit more? Are the functions all that goes into VAST directions, or is there more to it?
Unfortunately I don't have a Moog One and played it only three or four times at Thomanns before it was removed from their showing room. And there never was time to dive in deeply...
-
It is essentially a 16v analogue with a mod matrix that approaches the Kurzweil VAST architecture. The mod matrix (with the latest firmware) allows for functions!
Could you explain that statement a little bit more? Are the functions all that goes into VAST directions, or is there more to it?
Unfortunately I don't have a Moog One and played it only three or four times at Thomanns before it was removed from their showing room. And there never was time to dive in deeply...
I'll try to answer that. First, what I liked about Kurzweil's VAST was 2 things: 1) almost anything could modulate anything else, and 2) because of the functions, the complex modulations could be achieved (using various functions a+b, a-b, a/b, (a+b)/2, (a/2)+b... where a and b could be anything from a long list of modulation sources). This offered some very nice modulation capabilities that ranged from subtle to wild.
As for the Moog One... It's very capable in terms of modulation. The modulation section of the manual alone is 11 pages. And I'm not sure what the limit on modulation slots is (I've never run out, though I think someone said 40, but again, not sure)... and modulation setups can be independently saved and recalled in new presets.
Every slot has a source and destination (of course), but add to that a "controller" and a "transform". So you could have an LFO (Source) modulate filter cutoff (destination) with an amount scaled by velocity (controller) and then square that result (transform) to create an almost parabolic effect.
Originally the Moog One's mod source / controller / destination list looked like this:
(http://modulatable.com/files/mod1.png)
(http://modulatable.com/files/mod2.png)
(http://modulatable.com/files/mod3.png)
But the newest improvements came with Version 1.3 which added some Function to the transform list as well as new source and destinations... and if you just read the manual, you would miss it because the cool stuff in Version 1.3 was detailed in release notes but the manual wasn't changed.
Here's the relevant portions of the release notes:
(http://modulatable.com/files/mod4.png)
(http://modulatable.com/files/mod5.png)
(http://modulatable.com/files/mod6.png)
VAR 1 - 10 allows for some powerful capabilities. For example, have a complex modulation row modulate (with complexity) another modulation row.... up to 10.
Or create a modulation setup where you have the same Source / Controller / Transform sent to a Var, and then that Var is used as the source in several rows (so you don't have to repeat the source / controller / transform work on each row) AND have that VAR modulate each successive row by different controller / transform amounts....
And the list of transforms and functions very much reminds my of what the K2xxx was capable of. It's different, but it reminds me of the depth that was available in the Kurzweil. Just reading through that list gives me tons of ideas. And other parts leave me scratching my head wondering what the hell I would do with that.
And keep in mind, a lot of that modulation capability in the Kurzweil was often (by me at least) put to use to make the machine sound more analog / organic. With the Moog One, you have this capability in an analog machine.
... and this is why I am unlikely to ever part with the Moog One. It's near mathematically impossible for me to explore all of it's possibilities.
-
I know the VAST Architecture from my PC361. I think it is pretty much the same as in the Kxxxx Series. And yeah... it's absolutely powerful. But programming it on the synth screen is hell...
What you say about the Moog One update sounds pretty good to me. What I find most interesting are the VAR1-10 controllers in combination with the functions. If I get this right, this should allow functions of functions of functions, etc. ... I like the idea that I could express nearly any mathematical function this way and apply that to a synth parameter. You could build the mother of all envelopes this way. That would be the point in my life where all the Analysis lessons in school and at university would pay off ;D
Unfortunately I will never own a Moog One... at least not if I want my wife to stay with me until we're old ;-)
-
What I find most interesting are the VAR1-10 controllers in combination with the functions. If I get this right, this should allow functions of functions of functions, etc. ...
Exactly. The VAR 1-10 can be both sources and destinations. So imagine them as "re-usable modulation / function boxes" that can both send and receive information.
Unfortunately I will never own a Moog One... at least not if I want my wife to stay with me until we're old ;-)
That's a choice only you can make...
Years ago, I played in a bar band in Asia... and the bar owner used to tell the singer of one of the other bands... "boy, life is about choices... and you gotta chose: Do you wanna be Elvis or Aunt Jamima?" (the singer was a white dude who always wanted to wear a dew rag while singing).
-
Also it's one of the few times I went "Why didn't you just use VCOs?" simply because it doesn't feel like George took these FPGA oscillators to their full capabilities compared to something like the Summit. In fact I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would by a Super 6 over a Summit.
Perhaps because nontraditional waveforms are where this synth really shines. To my ears (at least from online examples), the Super 6 is the most characterful hybrid synth to hit the market in ages. However, I don't like how limited it is, especially in the small amount of waveforms it can store. The oddest thing of all is that the second oscillator can't do anything beyond the traditional waveforms... If Udo decides to release a more deluxe version, then I'll certainly consider it. I wasn't that impressed with the 2144 in the PX (that the S6 also uses), but as I said, the PPG Wave and Emulator are still the best sounding in their field imo, so there's obviously more to it than simply using the 2044 chip (or one based off it).
-
I keep forgetting about the Nonlinear Labs C15. It's got to be the most interesting digital synth (of any ilk) on the market. I just don't see much of a market for the price it's going for... but personally I'd much rather sink my money into that than a Super 6 for example. They should really think about a more affordable module if it's not in development already. It's basically already partly a module anyhow.
-
I keep forgetting about the Nonlinear Labs C15. It's got to be the most interesting digital synth (of any ilk) on the market. I just don't see much of a market for the price it's going for... but personally I'd much rather sink my money into that than a Super 6 for example. They should really think about a more affordable module if it's not in development already. It's basically already partly a module anyhow.
They should really think about midi too.
-
I keep forgetting about the Nonlinear Labs C15. It's got to be the most interesting digital synth (of any ilk) on the market. I just don't see much of a market for the price it's going for... but personally I'd much rather sink my money into that than a Super 6 for example. They should really think about a more affordable module if it's not in development already. It's basically already partly a module anyhow.
That’s a really expensive VST.
-
I keep forgetting about the Nonlinear Labs C15. It's got to be the most interesting digital synth (of any ilk) on the market. I just don't see much of a market for the price it's going for... but personally I'd much rather sink my money into that than a Super 6 for example. They should really think about a more affordable module if it's not in development already. It's basically already partly a module anyhow.
That’s a really expensive VST.
With no midi lol
-
That’s a really expensive VST.
I totally agree, but same goes for pretty much all the digital synths on the market such as the Solaris, etc. Personally I don't hear anything in the digital (including hybrid) realm that really touches the C15. Having owned some of the top of the line more recent digital & hybrid synths (that you've also owned) such as the Quantum, Prophet X, P12, Montage, Jupiter X, I always end up feeling I've spent too much versus what I can accomplish with the relatively cheap or free software I already own. Thus I never keep them and I'm kinda (or rather hopefully) done going down that rabbit hole. When I sit in front of my P10 I have no regrets at all. It fits a very specific role that matters most to me.
With no midi lol
No LFO either. ;)
-
With no midi lol
No LFO either. ;)
As a VST, it is starting to suck...
-
As a VST, it is starting to suck...
It's one beautiful sounding VST, that's for sure. I would seriously recommend you listen to the first track of this ↓ when you get a chance.
Fantastic new album called ‘Oz’ by Rob Appleby as strettara. All three musical pieces are influenced by minimalism, Steve Reich and Philip Glass and were made exclusively with the Nonlinear Labs C15.
https://strettara.bandcamp.com/album/oz
-
As a VST, it is starting to suck...
It's one beautiful sounding VST, that's for sure. I would seriously recommend you listen to the first track of this ↓ when you get a chance.
Fantastic new album called ‘Oz’ by Rob Appleby as strettara. All three musical pieces are influenced by minimalism, Steve Reich and Philip Glass and were made exclusively with the Nonlinear Labs C15.
https://strettara.bandcamp.com/album/oz
It sounds great it's just impractical without MIDI.
I understand what the creator was going for.....but he's wrong.
-
As a VST, it is starting to suck...
It's one beautiful sounding VST, that's for sure. I would seriously recommend you listen to the first track of this ↓ when you get a chance.
Fantastic new album called ‘Oz’ by Rob Appleby as strettara. All three musical pieces are influenced by minimalism, Steve Reich and Philip Glass and were made exclusively with the Nonlinear Labs C15.
https://strettara.bandcamp.com/album/oz (https://strettara.bandcamp.com/album/oz)
Oh it definitely sounds nice... but nothing that can't be done with Reaktor. In fact, I'd bet it IS a Reaktor synth in a dedicated hardware shell... brilliant concept, but it needs MIDI.
-
I don't think there's any debate here. I'm simply talking about hardware synths on the market.
-
I don't think there's any debate here. I'm simply talking about hardware synths on the market.
Yeah, I actually considered it (partly because it is so different), but at the end of the day, I came to the conclusions that -- for me, at least --
a) it's over-priced, and
b) I'd regret not having MIDI.
-
As a VST, it is starting to suck...
It's one beautiful sounding VST, that's for sure. I would seriously recommend you listen to the first track of this ↓ when you get a chance.
Fantastic new album called ‘Oz’ by Rob Appleby as strettara. All three musical pieces are influenced by minimalism, Steve Reich and Philip Glass and were made exclusively with the Nonlinear Labs C15.
https://strettara.bandcamp.com/album/oz (https://strettara.bandcamp.com/album/oz)
Oh it definitely sounds nice... but nothing that can't be done with Reaktor. In fact, I'd bet it IS a Reaktor synth in a dedicated hardware shell... brilliant concept, but it needs MIDI.
It definitely started as a Reactor synth, not sure how things have changed since the first version though. I'm pretty sure the whole idea to begin with was you loaded a new synth and changed the overlays, so offering "dedicated" controls as long as you like buttons!
-
Well, my transition to a 3 synth setup is complete (assuming Dave and Co. can send a batch of Prophet 5s to SW... pretty please, Dave?).
I sold my last synth today that didn't fit in the Trilogy (Moog One, Prophet 5, Prophet X) -- my Prophet 12 is off to a new home. She will be missed.
... and I suppose I remain a hybrid purist.
-
That's a fun Trilogy Shaw. Did you feel the P12 was too much over lab with the PX?
-
That's a fun Trilogy Shaw. Did you feel the P12 was too much over lab with the PX?
I wouldn't call it "overlap"... not at all... I had just resigned myself to a 3 synth setup (mainly due to space concerns), and the Moog One & Prophet 5 are certain keepers. So I had to choose only one other. Since I have so much attachment to the PX -- and I have other ideas for sample projects to do with it -- I couldn't see parting with it. And its stereo filters are fabulous.
In fact, though I started this thread to flesh out whether I wanted to just go all analogue (and I came very close to doing that), at the end of the day, I am going all "stereo" -- each of the 3 synths will be capable of true stereo synthesis.
-
Not a purist here as I prefer sonic variety, but I'm also looking at minimizing my setup to three instruments. Just trying to find the magic permutation. Current thinking is along similar lines (although with a slightly lesser pedigree):
1. Prophet (Pro 2 or Rev 2) for analog poly
2. Moog (Grandmother) for analog mono/modular (w/ a few bits of Euro kit)
3. Sample-based workstation (considering Korg Krome EX) for digital pallette and sequencing.
@Shaw: curious as to your reasoning for letting go of your Kronos (if I'm remembering correctly) considering your current goal.
-
Oh, my apologies, Shaw, if you didn't have a Kronos. I may have confused you with another member.
-
Oh, my apologies, Shaw, if you didn't have a Kronos. I may have confused you with another member.
I never owned a Kronos... I’m offended! (Just joking)
I had a Roland Fantom, and like all Rolands, I didn’t get along with it.
-
Not a purist here as I prefer sonic variety, but I'm also looking at minimizing my setup to three instruments. Just trying to find the magic permutation. Current thinking is along similar lines (although with a slightly lesser pedigree):
1. Prophet (Pro 2 or Rev 2) for analog poly
2. Moog (Grandmother) for analog mono/modular (w/ a few bits of Euro kit)
3. Sample-based workstation (considering Korg Krome EX) for digital pallette and sequencing.
@Shaw: curious as to your reasoning for letting go of your Kronos (if I'm remembering correctly) considering your current goal.
Solid line-up. Keep in mind, I don’t consider 3 a magic number. 30 would be great too... but I only have room for 3.
The Pro 2 is isn’t really a poly... I’d lean toward the Rev 2. The Grandmother is a very solid choice. Lot’s of sonic character there for leads and basses.
And didn’t Korg just announce a new synth — Nautilus? I don’t know enough about them, but I can’t figure out the sonic difference between it and the Kronos.
-
In fact, though I started this thread to flesh out whether I wanted to just go all analogue (and I came very close to doing that), at the end of the day, I am going all "stereo" -- each of the 3 synths will be capable of true stereo synthesis.
I think being a 'stereo purist' makes sense; it probably makes a more significant difference than the analog/digital question. I think I'd rather have true stereo on a digital synthesizer than mono on an analog. I do think true stereo makes a bigger difference with analog. I make digital patches stereo on my Montage, and it helps. But it's not the same as stereo with the Rev2.
-
Not a purist here as I prefer sonic variety, but I'm also looking at minimizing my setup to three instruments. Just trying to find the magic permutation. Current thinking is along similar lines (although with a slightly lesser pedigree):
1. Prophet (Pro 2 or Rev 2) for analog poly
2. Moog (Grandmother) for analog mono/modular (w/ a few bits of Euro kit)
3. Sample-based workstation (considering Korg Krome EX) for digital pallette and sequencing.
@Shaw: curious as to your reasoning for letting go of your Kronos (if I'm remembering correctly) considering your current goal.
Solid line-up. Keep in mind, I don’t consider 3 a magic number. 30 would be great too... but I only have room for 3.
The Pro 2 is isn’t really a poly... I’d lean toward the Rev 2. The Grandmother is a very solid choice. Lot’s of sonic character there for leads and basses.
And didn’t Korg just announce a new synth — Nautilus? I don’t know enough about them, but I can’t figure out the sonic difference between it and the Kronos.
I don‘t think there will be much sonic difference, because they said they took the nine engines of the Kronos and put it in another housing with another UI running on the same old touch screen. Less hardware controllers while you don‘t see as much information on the new menue screens as you see on the Kronos. As an Kronos owner, I can‘t really see the point in this instrument... it‘s just that they can sell it cheaper. There is still nothing new... and that‘s exactly NOT what I hoped for.
-
... Less hardware controllers while you don‘t see as much information on the new menue screens as you see on the Kronos. As an Kronos owner, I can‘t really see the point in this instrument... it‘s just that they can sell it cheaper. There is still nothing new...
That's what I had thought, but since I put zero effort into researching it, I didn't want to tell tales.... So it's the Kronos engine in a cheaper package. A good move to increase market share, but as you said, yawn, nothing new.
-
... And The There Were (Two Out of) Three...
(http://modulatable.com/files/2of3.jpg)
-
The Pro 2 is isn’t really a poly... I’d lean toward the Rev 2.
Yeah, I'm fudging here. Some might argue it's not truly analog either. But the P2 gives me a decent Sequential sound pallette and the ability to play simple chords. This is reasonable for me because I'm not a keyboard player, and presumably the Korg could fill the polyphony gap where needed. Plus, I already own the P2. :)
That being said, I think the Rev 2 is a nearly perfect instrument as an analog poly, and an 8-voice would probably suffice for me. If I can part with the P2, it will be for a Rev 2.
-
... And The There Were (Two Out of) Three...
(http://modulatable.com/files/2of3.jpg)
Wait . . . are you eliminating another synth? Or am I completely off base . . .
-
... And The There Were (Two Out of) Three...
Wait . . . are you eliminating another synth? Or am I completely off base . . .
No, I’m awaiting the arrival of the Prophet 5.
-
The Pro 2 is isn’t really a poly... I’d lean toward the Rev 2.
Yeah, I'm fudging here. Some might argue it's not truly analog either. But the P2 gives me a decent Sequential sound pallette and the ability to play simple chords. This is reasonable for me because I'm not a keyboard player, and presumably the Korg could fill the polyphony gap where needed. Plus, I already own the P2. :)
That being said, I think the Rev 2 is a nearly perfect instrument as an analog poly, and an 8-voice would probably suffice for me. If I can part with the P2, it will be for a Rev 2.
You could also make an argument for the Pro 2 + Rev 2 + Korg flavor of preference, and drop the Grandmother.
... just a thought.
-
Yup, that's another permutation I've considered because the P2 has greater sonic diversity. And just when I think that's the way to go, I play the Moog and say to myself, What were you thinking?!
-
Yup, that's another permutation I've considered because the P2 has greater sonic diversity. And just when I think that's the way to go, I play the Moog and say to myself, What were you thinking?!
Yep... hard choice.
a mother 32 + the Pro 2 might be a happy medium.
-
Not sure if you're all familiar with the videos of Tim Shoebridge, but there's an interesting (in my opinion :) ) video here where he looks at making the Moog One sound 'more vintage'.
https://youtu.be/Vg8A2HuzbL0
-
Not sure if you're all familiar with the videos of Tim Shoebridge, but there's an interesting (in my opinion :) ) video here where he looks at making the Moog One sound 'more vintage'.
https://youtu.be/Vg8A2HuzbL0 (https://youtu.be/Vg8A2HuzbL0)
Tim does great videos. I've done similar tricks by using a random LFO as the Source + Random Keyed as the Controller, but I like his solution better as it saves you from sacrificing the LFO.
-
I found it very interesting as I’d no idea just how deep you can go with the Moog One. As a long time software developer it appeals to me :)
It also makes me wonder if there’s any limits to what Moog can do with this synth!
-
I found it very interesting as I’d no idea just how deep you can go with the Moog One. As a long time software developer it appeals to me :)
It also makes me wonder if there’s any limits to what Moog can do with this synth!
I wasn't joking when I said earlier that it was like having Kurzweil's VAST architecture in an analogue poly.
-
The 5 has arrived!
Without any hype or fluff, it sounds superb. I've never owner / played / touched a vintage Prophet 5, but this one to me is just a hoot to play. You pretty quickly get lost turning knobs and exploring. Any anyone who said the knobs on this thing are serious, that was an understatement. This is easily one of the most solid feeling synths on the market.
Anyway, here it is at home...
(http://modulatable.com/files/3of3.jpg)
Also, I wanted to convince myself that I really do want the module so that I can create a stereo pair, so I did a quick little recording test. Nothing fancy, just a sound we are all familiar with. Recorded once in mono, then recorded a second time with slight variations in filter, envelopes and LFO and panned hard right with the original panned hard left.
Oh yeah... I definitely want the stereo pair.
Here are the recordings... no effects, just leveled for volume. Recorded at 96/24, bounced to 48k .mp3
First the mono: http://modulatable.com/files/P5_Tom_mono.mp3 (http://modulatable.com/files/P5_Tom_mono.mp3)
Then the stereo: http://modulatable.com/files/P5_Tom_stereo.mp3 (http://modulatable.com/files/P5_Tom_stereo.mp3)
-
Shaw, are you trying to create a financial crisis for me? I know what you're up to.
By the way, congratulations. She looks and sounds gorgeous.
-
Shaw, are you trying to create a financial crisis for me? I know what you're up to.
By the way, congratulations. She looks and sounds gorgeous.
Sorry dude, not trying to create troubles.
Don’t you have multiple prophet 8s? .... ???
-
I'm sticking with a two synth setup, the P10 and Jupiter X. Originally I was disappointed with the JX as I wanted it to do everything including convincing analog, so I packed it up shortly after I got it. Then this weekend I decided to break it out and was stunned at the digital sounds I was able to get out of it. I figure with the P10, my analog needs are completely satisfied, so why does the JX need to compete in that area? Sure, I could use Roland's cloud service and get the same results, but honestly the JX is probably the funnest piece of equipment I've had when its niggles are not getting in the way.
I've got everything I need covered with this setup, except I could use a drum machine with extensive external polyphonic sequencing options. I've always went for coolness over functionality with my drum machines/groove boxes, but I probably should resist this urge moving forward... An intuitive UI should be key this time around.
-
Sure, I could use Roland's cloud service and get the same results, but honestly the JX is probably the funnest piece of equipment I've had when its niggles are not getting in the way.
Only thing is the Roland cloud VSTs, as good as they sound, are poorly optimized CPU nightmares. I had the cloud service for a while and at the time Roland was giving perpetual use of 2 instruments if you held the subscription for a year (which made it a decent deal). I kept the Juno 106 and the JV1080. The other day I decided to load up the JV1080 -- sounds great but the Cubase resource meter, which was not showing unreasonable averages, kept spiking, and it was the only instrument track loaded (the CPU is a 6 core i7-5930K, not a slouch). It wasn't affecting the sound (no popping), but if I see something like that during the initial creation of a track, I pull the plug-in because so much is going to be added later, things like Ozone on the master. I don't like to start out with low CPU headroom.
None of this would be an issue for me on the Jupiter-X, as it doesn't have the overhead of a PC operating system and can handily do multiple sounds. But, I only have room for one more full size KB and that slot is reserved for the P10.
I think you're doing the right thing, the Roland boards have a sound that works well in a mix. If I get a Roland synth, they are going to have to come out with a module with immediacy in the controls, and not the Jupiter Xm. But, that's a limitation of my physical studio space and my own priorities.
Right now I'm actually VERY pleased with what my new P12 module has brought into my studio, it brought the digital mojo I needed and then some. I was really tempted to pull the trigger on a Kodamo Essence FM MKII when I saw they are temporarily discounted to about $1300US... but I can get lots of good FM sounds out of the P12 with a programming model that works like my other subtractive synths, and the workflow benefit of that plus the analog filter is priceless to me. Over the last few days I've been sampling various sounds from the P12 into TAL Sampler (sampling plugin that allows you to emulate old chips like EMU II etc and dirty up the samples). So much fun!
-
Then the stereo: http://modulatable.com/files/P5_Tom_stereo.mp3 (http://modulatable.com/files/P5_Tom_stereo.mp3)
That's some serious business there…
-
Then the stereo: http://modulatable.com/files/P5_Tom_stereo.mp3 (http://modulatable.com/files/P5_Tom_stereo.mp3)
That's some serious business there…
I know, right?!?!
I mean the prophet 5 sounds deadly in mono, but paired with a stereo module???? oh mama...
I will do some more stereo recording examples for you guys.
-
I've got everything I need covered with this setup, except I could use a drum machine with extensive external polyphonic sequencing options. I've always went for coolness over functionality with my drum machines/groove boxes, but I probably should resist this urge moving forward... An intuitive UI should be key this time around.
Went with the MPC One as it does everything I need and is certainly the most bang for the buck.
-
Here's another Prophet 5 mono vs stereo recording. This time th eProphet 5 is sitting in a (as of yet unfinished) mix with drums and bass (a guitar solo in this section will be forthcoming)...
Anyway, like last time, same preset, slight (very slight this time) variations to the filter, filter envelope, and LFO... then hard panned left and right. Also with the mono version, also the synth parts are again gain matched.
http://modulatable.com/files/P5_7mix_mono.mp3 (http://modulatable.com/files/P5_7mix_mono.mp3)
http://modulatable.com/files/P5_7mix_stereo.mp3 (http://modulatable.com/files/P5_7mix_stereo.mp3)