Razmo's Gear Rant Thread...

[LoboLives]

The Peak is nice but I think I’d wait until they gave us a keyboard version or at least something with more than monotimbrality. I do have a feeling though Sequential’s next offering will blow the Peak out of the water.

[Razmo]

The Peak is nice but I think I’d wait until they gave us a keyboard version or at least something with more than monotimbrality. I do have a feeling though Sequential’s next offering will blow the Peak out of the water.

I agree... I won't buy anything for the next 6 months anyway, as i promised myself not to... and i just bought a Tempest, so I've got plenty of time to think about the next purchase, and see what new goodies will come by... I'm also keen on seeing what the Prophet 12 replacement will be... if it has to compete with the PEAK, Dave needs to start using FPGA for the digital oscillators... that was one area where you could really hear the digital harshness on the Prophet 12... that 11KHz bandlimit... They should really get into the megahertz processing like the PEAK does it... we need a better digital frontend.

[Sleep of Reason]

OK... I did it... again... the old love/hate relationship always end with me running back to her: Tempest...

I found a good deal on a used specimen, like new for almost half the price of a new one, so I'm happy with that.

I finally took the plunge and bought a brand new Tempest today. Perhaps I'm a fool for doing so in 2018...

Edit: Heck, more like 2019! 

[Razmo]

OK... I did it... again... the old love/hate relationship always end with me running back to her: Tempest...

I found a good deal on a used specimen, like new for almost half the price of a new one, so I'm happy with that.

I finally took the plunge and bought a brand new Tempest today. Perhaps I'm a fool for doing so in 2018...

Edit: Heck, more like 2019! 

Well, cool! 

I do not find the TEMPEST a bad drummachine... the problem with it is it's shortcomings in the MIDI department, and a few other things... but the sound is absolutely stunning when you know how to handle the programing well, allocate the voices etc... in fact, even though i know it's Curtis filters, the character of the synthesizer in it somehow sounds more rough... better (in my opinion) then the REV2... REV2 seems more "polite"... if it's because of the Tempest's signal path running thru both hipass, compressor and distortion as well or because of the enhanced envelopes (or both) I cannot tell... it just has another sound character than the REV2.

But still... I'd really wish it had a full MIDI spec, even though I know it's a huge load of work to make that happen... It's very few drummachines actually, that give you full MIDI specs.

I'll live with it as it is... and to be honest... if i could choose just ONE thing to change (fix), it would probably be the single cycle samples that have wrong loop points... but even without any fix, I'll do fine.

I'm really looking forward to giving the REV2 a rest now, and get on with programing the Tempest... learning some drum synthesis tricks.

[Sleep of Reason]

I've been waiting for something to take its place, but it doesn't look like that's happening anytime soon. I'm sure the Linndrum 2 will feature an improved interface and whatnot, but Roger said it won't be ready for some time and I'm assuming it'll be all digital anyhow. I tried the Rytm Mk.II which was nice, yet too limiting in the analog realm for my taste.

The Tempest just sounds like it'll fit into the type of music I make better than its competition. At least I can find examples on Youtube that suggest such, although that could merely be because Elektron & Roland users seem to only want to use their machines to program trite four on the floor beats that couldn't be further from my intended use.

[Razmo]

I've been waiting for something to take its place, but it doesn't look like that's happening anytime soon. I'm sure the Linndrum 2 will feature an improved interface and whatnot, but Roger said it won't be ready for some time and I'm assuming it'll be all digital anyhow. I tried the Rytm Mk.II which was nice, yet too limiting in the analog realm for my taste.

The Tempest just sounds like it'll fit into the type of music I make better than its competition. At least I can find examples on Youtube that suggest such, although that could merely be because Elektron & Roland users seem to only want to use their machines to program trite four on the floor beats that couldn't be further from my intended use.

That is exactly why I chose to get the TEMPEST for the third time... because it's very different to any other drummachine... You have to decide what kind of drummachine you want... if you want fast editing, more "standard", then the TEMPEST is not the right choice I think... the engine is simply too deep... TEMPEST in my view, is a sound designer's drummachine... it'll take effort to program the sounds, but you can get so many more types of percussion from this than most other drummachines i know of... especially if you want some analog stuff in it. In fact, I chose this because i do NOT want to make only "four on the floor" drums... I want to be creative with the engine, and come up with unique sounding percussion kits usable not just in electronic dance music, but also all other types of genres.

Yes... it does have quite a few quirks and bugs, but it's sound character and depth outweigh it... especially if you can live without a full MIDI spec.

[megamarkd]

Yes... it does have quite a few quirks and bugs, but it's sound character and depth outweigh it... especially if you can live without a full MIDI spec.

Well from what I've been told by a Digitakt owner, MIDI control of complex drum machines isn't really an option these days.

[Razmo]

Yes... it does have quite a few quirks and bugs, but it's sound character and depth outweigh it... especially if you can live without a full MIDI spec.

Well from what I've been told by a Digitakt owner, MIDI control of complex drum machines isn't really an option these days.

With Tempest there are several reasons why it is a daring task... First off, you have 32 sounds... So you cannot give each sound its own MIDI channel to operate on, thus making CC and program change not possible... A project has 16 beats, all having 32 sounds built in... If you on top of that require that all drums be triggered on a single channel (normally 10) you would be even more in trouble... It is a monstrous ordeal to make a full MIDI spec'ed drummachine.

But Tempest is so limited it will not even send out much MIDI... It wont send any of its physical controllers... But again; with 32 sounds it would serve no point, because what would the reason be, if it cannot know where to direct this data when a DAW send it back?

So it do not send anything but note on and off plus clock messages and some basic SysEx dump messages... It will not send pad pressure, slider position or slider pressure... In general, it receive more messages than it send, but it is a long way from being able to create a full fledged editor and remote control for Tempest... You cannot even use the most basic controllers from a DAW... In no way are you capable of recording sliders or pad pressure data in your DAW track and play it back... Only simple note on with velocity... Thats it...

So Tempest is a drummachine to be used stand alone, as a performance instrument really... Maybe synced by a DAW instead... Luckily that is exactly what I inteded anyway as I am off the MIDI grid when making music... I only use MIDI for creating the raw sounds, thats it, and luckily I have my editor for creating the sounds, so I'm fine

[megamarkd]

Yes... it does have quite a few quirks and bugs, but it's sound character and depth outweigh it... especially if you can live without a full MIDI spec.

Well from what I've been told by a Digitakt owner, MIDI control of complex drum machines isn't really an option these days.

With Tempest there are several reasons why it is a daring task... First off, you have 32 sounds... So you cannot give each sound its own MIDI channel to operate on, thus making CC and program change not possible... A project has 16 beats, all having 32 sounds built in... If you on top of that require that all drums be triggered on a single channel (normally 10) you would be even more in trouble... It is a monstrous ordeal to make a full MIDI spec'ed drummachine.

But Tempest is so limited it will not even send out much MIDI... It wont send any of its physical controllers... But again; with 32 sounds it would serve no point, because what would the reason be, if it cannot know where to direct this data when a DAW send it back?

So it do not send anything but note on and off plus clock messages and some basic SysEx dump messages... It will not send pad pressure, slider position or slider pressure... In general, it receive more messages than it send, but it is a long way from being able to create a full fledged editor and remote control for Tempest... You cannot even use the most basic controllers from a DAW... In no way are you capable of recording sliders or pad pressure data in your DAW track and play it back... Only simple note on with velocity... Thats it...

So Tempest is a drummachine to be used stand alone, as a performance instrument really... Maybe synced by a DAW instead... Luckily that is exactly what I inteded anyway as I am off the MIDI grid when making music... I only use MIDI for creating the raw sounds, thats it, and luckily I have my editor for creating the sounds, so I'm fine

Oh wow, that is a bare minimum indeed!  Cheers for the run through.  I've seen Tempests for sale 2nd hand many times and have come close to purchasing one, with the Digitakt also in the back of my mind.  I'm used to the flexibility of the MIDI implementation of RY30 with the fun of controlling filter and decay plus it's separate channels for different instruments, making it great for sequencing with many sequencers at once, though mine has died and it's quite a task to replace that functionality without finding another or plonking a good amount of money on one of the RM30's a particular eBay seller has (and then losing the onboard sequencer).  It's a shame that nothing seems to have the ability do set multiple channels to one kit.  Although the Digitakt does have a fairly comprehensive list of parameters controllable via MIDI, using it with a DAW is what I've been told is a no-go (fortunately not my world) and it definitely doesn't have multiple channels per kit (very much my world)....

I hope you find an workflow with your Tempest that you are comfortable with!

[Razmo]

Yes... it does have quite a few quirks and bugs, but it's sound character and depth outweigh it... especially if you can live without a full MIDI spec.

Well from what I've been told by a Digitakt owner, MIDI control of complex drum machines isn't really an option these days.

With Tempest there are several reasons why it is a daring task... First off, you have 32 sounds... So you cannot give each sound its own MIDI channel to operate on, thus making CC and program change not possible... A project has 16 beats, all having 32 sounds built in... If you on top of that require that all drums be triggered on a single channel (normally 10) you would be even more in trouble... It is a monstrous ordeal to make a full MIDI spec'ed drummachine.

But Tempest is so limited it will not even send out much MIDI... It wont send any of its physical controllers... But again; with 32 sounds it would serve no point, because what would the reason be, if it cannot know where to direct this data when a DAW send it back?

So it do not send anything but note on and off plus clock messages and some basic SysEx dump messages... It will not send pad pressure, slider position or slider pressure... In general, it receive more messages than it send, but it is a long way from being able to create a full fledged editor and remote control for Tempest... You cannot even use the most basic controllers from a DAW... In no way are you capable of recording sliders or pad pressure data in your DAW track and play it back... Only simple note on with velocity... Thats it...

So Tempest is a drummachine to be used stand alone, as a performance instrument really... Maybe synced by a DAW instead... Luckily that is exactly what I inteded anyway as I am off the MIDI grid when making music... I only use MIDI for creating the raw sounds, thats it, and luckily I have my editor for creating the sounds, so I'm fine

Oh wow, that is a bare minimum indeed!  Cheers for the run through.  I've seen Tempests for sale 2nd hand many times and have come close to purchasing one, with the Digitakt also in the back of my mind.  I'm used to the flexibility of the MIDI implementation of RY30 with the fun of controlling filter and decay plus it's separate channels for different instruments, making it great for sequencing with many sequencers at once, though mine has died and it's quite a task to replace that functionality without finding another or plonking a good amount of money on one of the RM30's a particular eBay seller has (and then losing the onboard sequencer).  It's a shame that nothing seems to have the ability do set multiple channels to one kit.  Although the Digitakt does have a fairly comprehensive list of parameters controllable via MIDI, using it with a DAW is what I've been told is a no-go (fortunately not my world) and it definitely doesn't have multiple channels per kit (very much my world)....

I hope you find an workflow with your Tempest that you are comfortable with!

I'll be using it stand alone basically... I decided to go away from composing with MIDI thru a DAW, simply to get rid of all that MIDI overhead... If I need tight timing of stuff like percussion, basslines or sequences, I'll be sending MIDI Clock messages via MIDI DIN from the Tempest (or to it) to two other synths, so that I can get a rhythm, a bassline and one more track going in sync... these sequences will then be recorded live into my DAW via audio, manipulating the sequenes in realtime... the rest like pads and other melodylines and FX will be recorded in live via other layers.

This also takes the MIDI sync out of the DAW equation which is what I would like... DAW's have always given me sync problems no matter if it's DIN or USB... using clock from hardware to hardware will hopefully stop that.

This will force me to seriously get into the Tempest sequencer usage... Everything will be edited from the front panel, except for the creation of individual sounds (as I described earlier)... the same goes for my REV2... both machines are hooked up to my DAW only for my editor, and that is done via USB (no need for MIDI echo or anything, just plain SysEx going back and forth), while DIN handles all the SYNC stuff.

It's a bit different to how I made music in the past, being 100% MIDI driven... and it does have some disadvantages, but I'll deal with that.

[Razmo]

It actually dawned on me yesterday, how much of Tempest most cool live features are impossible to utilize via DAW because it receive almost no MIDI control messages... the pads themselves have pressure sensitivity which can really liven up sounds after they have been triggered... this pressure data cannot be send via MIDI, and thus not received.

Another thing is the FX sliders... both position and pressure can really liven up tracks too, especially when recorded into a sequence... again, none of these controls are sent or received... these can also be recorded into a track, but it will not be possible if using it with a DAW sending the note ons.

These features are what gives you the ability to induce a more human feel into your rhythms... and that's very important in my case... with a DAW you'd just have yet another static sounds track, except for what liveliness you can induce via velocity.

I know that there are a few CC's that you can send to the Tempest from a DAW, but these are mainly for beat-wide parameters... also stuff like Pitch-Bend (mainly for the synth part of Tempest I guess) can be received, plus ModWheel, BreathControl and Expression... but again; for the Synth stuff only.

The biggest thing I could wish for in Tempest would probably be a real master reverb and delay... it's hard to get any FX on Tempest unless you start to mess with individual outputs, which is a shame since only the Main output has distortion and compressor on it... so you cannot create kits with dedicated FX applied...

[Shaw]

It actually dawned on me yesterday, how much of Tempest most cool live features are impossible to utilize via DAW because it receive almost no MIDI control messages... the pads themselves have pressure sensitivity which can really liven up sounds after they have been triggered... this pressure data cannot be send via MIDI, and thus not received.

Another thing is the FX sliders... both position and pressure can really liven up tracks too, especially when recorded into a sequence... again, none of these controls are sent or received... these can also be recorded into a track, but it will not be possible if using it with a DAW sending the note ons.

These features are what gives you the ability to induce a more human feel into your rhythms... and that's very important in my case... with a DAW you'd just have yet another static sounds track, except for what liveliness you can induce via velocity.

I know that there are a few CC's that you can send to the Tempest from a DAW, but these are mainly for beat-wide parameters... also stuff like Pitch-Bend (mainly for the synth part of Tempest I guess) can be received, plus ModWheel, BreathControl and Expression... but again; for the Synth stuff only.

The biggest thing I could wish for in Tempest would probably be a real master reverb and delay... it's hard to get any FX on Tempest unless you start to mess with individual outputs, which is a shame since only the Main output has distortion and compressor on it... so you cannot create kits with dedicated FX applied...

I think you essentially answered your own question above... record audio. I’ve been doing more of that as well.  Happier with the results.  Small timing imperfections are what make the music groove.

[Razmo]

It actually dawned on me yesterday, how much of Tempest most cool live features are impossible to utilize via DAW because it receive almost no MIDI control messages... the pads themselves have pressure sensitivity which can really liven up sounds after they have been triggered... this pressure data cannot be send via MIDI, and thus not received.

Another thing is the FX sliders... both position and pressure can really liven up tracks too, especially when recorded into a sequence... again, none of these controls are sent or received... these can also be recorded into a track, but it will not be possible if using it with a DAW sending the note ons.

These features are what gives you the ability to induce a more human feel into your rhythms... and that's very important in my case... with a DAW you'd just have yet another static sounds track, except for what liveliness you can induce via velocity.

I know that there are a few CC's that you can send to the Tempest from a DAW, but these are mainly for beat-wide parameters... also stuff like Pitch-Bend (mainly for the synth part of Tempest I guess) can be received, plus ModWheel, BreathControl and Expression... but again; for the Synth stuff only.

The biggest thing I could wish for in Tempest would probably be a real master reverb and delay... it's hard to get any FX on Tempest unless you start to mess with individual outputs, which is a shame since only the Main output has distortion and compressor on it... so you cannot create kits with dedicated FX applied...

I think you essentially answered your own question above... record audio. I’ve been doing more of that as well.  Happier with the results.  Small timing imperfections are what make the music groove.

I think it depends on what type of music you're doing if quantize is necessary. For Ambient music it's not really a big deal, but if it's electronic percussion or Berlin School like basslines or sequences, then a sequencer with quantize function is a must have for me... also longer parts with very repetitive playing can be tiresome to do "by hand", and a sequencer will do it for you... and in other situations, like with advanced arpeggios it may even be impossible to play them live.

What I do like about live audio recording though is, that the result tend to get much less repetitive and dynamic... there is hardly any parts that sound the same, and it also sometimes gives off unpredicted but good results since i often improvise stuff along the way... all in all... doing audio recording usually makes the whole arrangement easier to listen to because of the less repetitiveness.

And then of course there is the big advantage that you can use the same sound source as many times as you wish, and record all performance tweaks directly... no need for troublesome automation via MIDI anymore etc.

all in all, its just better this way... for me at least.

[Razmo]

I think I've finaly come to a conclusion on how to tackle my future compositions... studio wise that is.

In the past I had loads of synths, but completely drowned my overview and focus on too many synths and cable connections... it was a lot of fun and i learned a lot about a lot of machines, but only on the surface... i never really got around to making any long term music projects with all that gear because of the sheer amount of stuff.

Lately I was thinking about getting just three synths... three really deep and quality synths and stick with that, but i know that my interest in gear will never go away... at some point I will fall in, and buy more stuff anyway... it happened for the last 30 years, so why would it ever stop? might as well get realistic.

When I bought my Tempest and hooked it up along with my REV2, i started to get this irritating feeling again, that "three would not be enough in the long run", and all the negative thoughts about cables and a spoiled overview surfaced again... i really hate that kind of OCD like thinking, but it just happens... every time.

When I think back on the last 6 months, where I decided NOT to buy anything new, and focus ONLY on the REV2, all that went away, and I've never been more productive during those 6 months creating my REV2 soundset... and I believe it stems back from my homecomputer time, where I worked mainly on Commodore 64 and AMIGA computers... I'm used to having ONE machine, and pour all my focus on just ONE machine, trying to get as much out of it as at all possible... I begin to feel the same way about synths.

The problem is that I also have GAS... and always will... so i think now, that the way for me to go is simply to use only ONE synth at any one time, for a given musical project... doing the best with that one synth that I can. When you do harddisk recording it's not really a big problem as I can reuse the same synth over and over again. No, I will not be able to do everything with just one synth, but I can do enough... the last 6 months and all the sounds i made have shown me, that even a simple analog synth like the REV2 can give you enough variety that you can in fact create whole scores with it, and it's a fun challenge actually.

But with the GAS also being an issue, I've decided that I'll buy other synths in the future... i already bought the Tempest as you all know, so the GAS has started already... I'll simply invest in a tall keyboards stand for my living room, and place any synth i do not use on display there... then I can come back and work on other synths as i see fit, but only using one at a time for a project.

The only thing extra that I'll be using is external FX (mainly reverb), but for that I use plugins... I do not want any other hardware cluttering up my small cozy working area, and it also gives me most freedom as plugins can be realtime on tracks, and changed along the way as i see fit... a bit of EQ as well, also via plugin.

The synths I intend to buy will mainly be ones that has keys on them, as i like the idea of everything in one box... a few synths might not come in a keyboard version (like PEAK and Tempest for example), so I'll probably get a compact master controller for these cases.

Before I made the fantasy programs for the REV2 I would never have thought I'd be able to create so varied sounds for Ambient music... i thought that I would have had to have at least 3-4 synths complimenting each other, but I can see now that this is not the case... so using this scheme in the future seems to be my thing.

I do have a few demands when it comes to the synths I'm going to get though... for some reason, 100% digital synths tend to bore me, but i do not think it's because they are digital, it's rather because most of them are so advanced that they an do most everything, and that defies my "genes" when it comes to working under certain limits... thus also big workstations simply bores me to death... i also want polyphony... no monosynths because the lack of polyphony will be devastating on the flexibility, especially in Ambient music that needs loads of pads... Also, I seem to lean towards synths that are at least Hybrid synths, or fully analog... they must have preset memory though, and be relatively easy to edit (preferably with MIDI specs that allow for editors).

Synths that are definitely on my list so far are:

Prophet 12
Prophet X (if the user sample software will be fully functional for ALL features)
Prophet 6 Keyboard
OB 6 Keyboard
Poly Evolver Keyboard
DeepMind 12
PEAK
Quantum

Maybe I'll even set up a small rack system for a few older racksynths I'd like to use again... like Waldorf Microwave for example...

I recall a Commodore 64 game that also happens to be the game with my favourite C64 game music ever that would fit my scheme well... the game was called "One Man and his Droid" ... I'm now the "One Man and his Synth"

[BobTheDog]

maybe I should give it a woman's name

Maybe Sycorax?

How the hell did you find that name!? ... i had to look it up, and it's obviously a hag in a play called Tempest... a hag is a fantasy creature as well, so yes! ... her name will be Sycorax! ... I think I'll name a patch that!

You need to have studied Shakespeare

[Shaw]

maybe I should give it a woman's name

Maybe Sycorax?

That should be a mandatory thing — naming your synth after a woman (unless you’re a woman, of course).  It just seems a natural fit.  In the way that some languages (French, Spanish, Russian, etc.) assign genders to inanimate objects.

[megamarkd]

maybe I should give it a woman's name

Maybe Sycorax?

That should be a mandatory thing — naming your synth after a woman (unless you’re a woman, of course).  It just seems a natural fit.  In the way that some languages (French, Spanish, Russian, etc.) assign genders to inanimate objects.

I tend to agree that synthesisers are female.  Even the short version is a homonym of a shortened female name, Cynthia-> Cynth.
(Apologies to Razmo for the slight thread hijacking to discuss aesthetics!)

[Shaw]

(Apologies to Razmo for the slight thread hijacking to discuss aesthetics!)

Razmo’s thread has been hijacked for much worse. Every time I think of doing my own “Gear Rant Thread”, I just read this one... I’m often on a similar trajectory as Razmo anyway, so it’s easier to just read his frustration and move on. 
Not long ago I pared down to one synth — the PX.  Recently, due to GAS and self reflection, I resigned myself to the notion that one won’t do it for me... so I am back to collecting.

[megamarkd]

(Apologies to Razmo for the slight thread hijacking to discuss aesthetics!)

Razmo’s thread has been hijacked for much worse. Every time I think of doing my own “Gear Rant Thread”, I just read this one... I’m often on a similar trajectory as Razmo anyway...

Yeah I realise it get's hijacked/sidetracked often, I do tend to lurk on this thread also.  Just thought I'd be polite about adding what is essentially the same as a "favourite colour" comment.

[Razmo]

It is a rant thread, so a few steps off track is quite alright... I often get irritated myself, when I am asked to stay on topic, especially if what I write is related to the topic  ...

Admitted... It is a hard decision... But it will not be more than one to three devices at any one time because I have only three stereo analog inputs to my soundcard, and in no way will I ever introduce a mixer again in hardware.

I am actually thinking it may rather be two devices... Simply one synth and a drummachine per project, mainly because I need the sequencer function of a drummachine for the occational percussion.

I would like to fill in a third device so that all inputs are used though, but I do not feel I would need something save for maybe a kind of sample player... I do not have space for a Prophet X on my desktop though unless I exchange the REV2 for a module version... And that means that the Tempest and Prophet X will allways be two of the machines, and the third would be exchangeable... But the third would always have to be a module then.

It would all be so much easier to simply just use one synth per project and deal with the limitations, than have to blow my mind with these configuration thoughts over and over again...