Razmo's Gear Rant Thread...

[BobTheDog]

I'm at that time of year again where I look at my synth related gear and think I don't use most of this stuff I might as well get rid of it.

So I'm thinking of keeping:

Nord G1, G2 and drum.
Kronos
Integra 7
Origin
PEK
MatrixBrute
MB2S and eurorack stuff.
MPC Live
Push 2

Everything else is going to go to regain some space.

[proteus-ix]

I'm at that time of year again where I look at my synth related gear and think I don't use most of this stuff I might as well get rid of it.

So I'm thinking of keeping:

Nord G1, G2 and drum.
Kronos
Integra 7
Origin
PEK
MatrixBrute
MB2S and eurorack stuff.
MPC Live
Push 2

Everything else is going to go to regain some space.

What are the everything else's?

And do you really not need any other DSIquential than the PEK? 

[Sleep of Reason]

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.

You'd be losing a lot of work that you've done on presets, but the PX can fill in the shoes of the REV2 and much more. As for a desktop, a VCO synth would do more to fill in your analog needs. Seems like the most logic well rounded setup. 

[Razmo]

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.

You'd be losing a lot of work that you've done on presets, but the PX can fill in the shoes of the REV2 and much more. As for a desktop, a VCO synth would do more to fill in your analog needs. Seems like the most logic well rounded setup.

I've had the thought of PX doing basically what the REV2 does, but I would be afraid that the digital frontend would introduce aliasing, especially in the high frequency content... I can hear the same 11khz harshness in the PX as in the P12... So I would not want to replace the REV2... A VCO synth will not be able to have the same complexity as the REV2 which is very important to me... I want deep engines, and that is why I chose REV2 over both P6 and OB6... There are only one synth that rival it, and that is MOOG ONE .. And I will not pay that price for a poly analog VCO synth.

Anyway, I have taken my decission... One synth per project, and no limits on the number of synths to choose from... Even if I did find three cool synths, I know that new stuff will trigger my GAS in the future, so no need to create a hardwired setup that will be broken sooner or later anyway.

[Shaw]

I've had the thought of PX doing basically what the REV2 does, but I would be afraid that the digital frontend would introduce aliasing, especially in the high frequency content... I can hear the same 11khz harshness in the PX as in the P12... So I would not want to replace the REV2... A VCO synth will not be able to have the same complexity as the REV2 which is very important to me... I want deep engines, and that is why I chose REV2 over both P6 and OB6... There are only one synth that rival it, and that is MOOG ONE .. And I will not pay that price for a poly analog VCO synth.

So it seems if you’re looking to start with a 3 machine setup, a good combination would be a PX, and Rev2 desktop module and the Tempest?

[Razmo]

I've had the thought of PX doing basically what the REV2 does, but I would be afraid that the digital frontend would introduce aliasing, especially in the high frequency content... I can hear the same 11khz harshness in the PX as in the P12... So I would not want to replace the REV2... A VCO synth will not be able to have the same complexity as the REV2 which is very important to me... I want deep engines, and that is why I chose REV2 over both P6 and OB6... There are only one synth that rival it, and that is MOOG ONE .. And I will not pay that price for a poly analog VCO synth.

So it seems if you’re looking to start with a 3 machine setup, a good combination would be a PX, and Rev2 desktop module and the Tempest?

If I was to create a three machine setup, that would probably be it... but I'd have one less than i really want because I want either a P12 or what ever will replace it too... I most certainly want a hybrid with a digital front end, giving me FM, Wavetables etc... I need more options for raw oscillator sounds if I'm to create a hardwired setup. The REV2, P12. Tempest and PX would be optimum for a hardwired setup for me.... but I know that new stuff will come out later that will do something nice, and then I'll be back at changing stuff again... this is why I like the idea of just using a single synth for a project... But actually I'm toying with the idea right now, to actually make it a "two synth setup"... or rather; one drummachine and one synth... I really need the percussion to be playable via an integrated sequencer, and no synth can really guarantee this feature... so I think I'll just stick with that way of doing it... Then I need not buy any modules anymore... only synths with keys and drummachines with sequencers. This seems like the best tradeoff for me... I do not have much desktop space available, and fitting a keyboard and a drummachine is about as far as it will go really... i need access to both easily...

This also release me from constantly thinking about what synths to get for a hardwired setup... plus I've got the first "pairing" already; REV2 and Tempest... then I can stop thinking about the next piece until the time is right and I want to get something new.

[Sleep of Reason]

The combination of a REV2, Tempest, P12 or PX strikes me as having too much redundancy. All those can do really interesting complex sounds that the P6 or OB6 can't generate. An analog front end doesn't matter as much when you have that much going on in the sound. However, there's times when playing the OB-6 that I find an almost amplified acoustic instrument character to it that wouldn't quite be found in the others. I guess what I'm trying to say is that its more natural fluctuations is the reason to have a VCO synth in your arsenal.

Anyway, that's just my two cents from experimentation with trying to streamline my setup.

[Razmo]

The combination of a REV2, Tempest, P12 or PX strikes me as having too much redundancy. All those can do really interesting complex sounds that the P6 or OB6 can't generate. An analog front end doesn't matter as much when you have that much going on in the sound. However, there's times when playing the OB-6 that I find an almost amplified acoustic instrument character to it that wouldn't quite be found in the others. I guess what I'm trying to say is that its more natural fluctuations is the reason to have a VCO synth in your arsenal.

Anyway, that's just my two cents from experimentation with trying to streamline my setup.

Certainly... but then again, the other synths are also capable of lots of interesting timbres... which only underlines the point... I will never stop looking at "other girls" when it comes to synths obviously (now that the debate on female synth names has been brought up several times he he)... thus... two synths... a drum machine and a synth for a project... and the rest on display until used again in a later project.

I actually have the same problem as kids and toys... it bores me after some time, but if you put it away for a year and take it forth again, it's suddenly interesting again... that's just how it is with me and synths, so the best solution is to never put a limit on the number of synths, but instead put a limit on how many I use for a given project.

Some day I may get an OB6... or/and a P6... who knows...

[Razmo]

I actually just found the 3rd "synth" for my setup anyway... I do not see any harm in having a third device, as long as everything is operated from the device itself, and allow for realtime tweaking of sounds... that is what is important to me.

Having just one synth to play with has a few disadvantages, namely that two things will be missing from most synths that I need; Samples and Percussion.

I still want to swap these three devices with others for each project I'll be doing, but I decided that these three devices must cover these three basic overall needs... Synth, Percussion and Samples.

I've been rather divided in my view on getting a Prophet X... mainly because I would rather have a P12 instead of the PX's downgraded digital oscillators... what I wanted was the two sample oscillators, but what I wanted to use it for is actually vocal phrases, my own acoustic stuff (loops) and digitally generated drones.

I can match these requirements much cheaper, and actually also better performance wise, than with a PX... if I get a KORG KaossPad 3+ ... it has a perfect size for my little space, and has extremely advantageous realtime performance features... plus it can make on the fly loops via microphone from all my acoustic stuff... and i can import prepares samples of drones via SD card... I'd b able to make realtime tweaks on the pad using a lot of fun FX, reording the performance directly into my DAW Audio tracks... much of this I would not be able to do with the PX... and it's a fraction of the price of an X.

I might get an X anyway some day, but taking the KP3+ instead will allow me to get a complete 3-device setup running right now, which is very tempting.

This also make all three devices completely selfcontained... none needs to be controlling the other via MIDI for using them, though I'll probably sync the via clock from the Tempest so that I can match the BPM on all... that would keep everything in sync.

I'll do this... i can feel this is the right way to deal with the situation

[LoboLives]

I think it's awesome to try and experiment with different setups. I'm not sure if I would limit the number of synths myself but I do think that some interesting combinations might prove to be very successful in finding your own voice, especially if each instrument has a dedicated purpose and sonic quality. It's also good to change things up periodically anyway to avoid tonal fatigue.

Perhaps a good approach is to intentionally stick with a setup for 5 years and produce as much content as possible. Then force yourself to get a new setup for the next 5 years and do the same. That is of course if your intention is to put out actual albums or composed pieces rather than just patches.

[Sleep of Reason]

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.

I think you're right. Either way it nails the sound I want for it and I don't think it would be improved by changing the filter like some other DSI synths. I wasn't planning on using it as a synth, but heck, it sounds so darn good that it's going to take the place of my REV2 in my setup. I'll lose 10 voices, some LFOs, a B layer, and some waveshape modulation; however, all the things you mentioned plus the fact that it's a drum machine, has more/better envelopes, and has two digital OSC more than makes up for it. The Tempest and OB-6 is all I really need to make music right now. I'll have to wait and see what Sequential has up their sleeves with the P12 replacement as a digital front end synth with SSI2144 filters would be welcome. My interest also depends on if the module has all the knobs this time around.

One thing I'm still wondering about the Tempest, is there specific entire screen samples pages to scroll through? I'm guessing not, which is a shame.

[Razmo]

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.

I think you're right. Either way it nails the sound I want for it and I don't think it would be improved by changing the filter like some other DSI synths. I wasn't planning on using it as a synth, but heck, it sounds so darn good that it's going to take the place of my REV2 in my setup. I'll lose 10 voices, some LFOs, a B layer, and some waveshape modulation; however, all the things you mentioned plus the fact that it's a drum machine, has more/better envelopes, and has two digital OSC more than makes up for it. The Tempest and OB-6 is all I really need to make music right now. I'll have to wait and see what Sequential has up their sleeves with the P12 replacement as a digital front end synth with SSI2144 filters would be welcome. My interest also depends on if the module has all the knobs this time around.

One thing I'm still wondering about the Tempest, is there specific entire screen samples pages to scroll through? I'm guessing not, which is a shame.

I'm not certain i know what you mean, but the only place to scroll thru samples is in the oscillator sections.

And... yes... I thought so... then I'm not the only one who can hear a difference to the Tempest even though it has the same Curtis chips.... I'd be damned though, if I parted with my REV2 because of that, but that is probably because I'm into ambient pads... 6 voices simply do not cut it for everything, and i have to admit, that doing my bank of presets has made heavy use of the Shape parameter for getting certain tones (especially the plucked string and bowed string sounds). Still, I wish that the REV2 had the Tempest's analog HiPass filter per voice, and also the Filter Feedback... also the extra snappy envelopes would have been very nice to have.

I'm wondering if the sound character is because of other parts after the Curtis chips... maybe better OpAmps were used, I do not know... it just sounds "stronger" in a lack of better words.

[Razmo]

Allright... I've now ordered the KORG KaossPad 3+

This was the third device in an attempt at creating a 3-device setup that would allow for each to cover a certain aspect of a project:

1. The Synth
2. The Drummachine
3. The Sample Player

Any of these three will be subject for exchange on different projects, but I believe it will mainly be the Synth that will actually be exchanged because finding as advanced drummachines as the Tempest, with analog/hybrid specs will be long in between.

The Sample player may be exchanged, depending on the availability of other devices being available that cover the basics. Currently there are none really that will offer anything worth of an exchange, and that is because the KaossPad has a really nice live manipulation control via it's X-Y pad and loads of performance oriented effects, along with the sampling capabilities... this is also the only device that I'll accept being 100% digital... at least until a KaossPad with analog filter built in is a reality.

Having the KaossPad take care of vocal samples, nature samples and various drones etc. also lets me postpone the need for a Prophet X or Quantum until later on... there are other more important synths to look for when samples can be handled by the sample player.

The thing I need the KaossPad 3+ for are generally looped stuff that I can fade in and out directly during recording via the device itself, and manipulate in real time as well. This will be stuff like strange voices/chants/talk etc. that cannot be created synthetically. It also include sustained sounds of acoustic stuff like rattlings/steps/flowing water/wind etc. and the last thing is drones of any kind, both harmonic and inharmonic drones made both by acoustic sounds but also digitally generated ones... in general we're talking about sounds that cannot be changed in pitch during play, as this is not possible on KP3+ ... also, I'm NOT a fan of pitch shifting samples as it makes them sound weird, unless it's drones, but that can be fixed in the sample editing software if I want to. I may use it also for acoustic percussion loops that I record myself (since they will need to be perfectly timed to a certain BPM).

The thing I like about the KP3+ is that it works more like a four track stereo tape recorder... a loops length is determined by the BPM, so this means that all samples must be very carefully created to allow for seamless loops, but I've got software to do just that, so it's not a big problem. Actually all the four tracks you can have, has their loops playing continuously even if the play mode is where you press a button to hear it, and release it to stop it... it'll keep playing "underneath" meaning that any sample playing will always stay completely in sync with each other... it also makes fading the sound in and out more random... it makes the typical "static sample start" problem go away... me like!

All tracks are also in stereo, which is a must... and all the 150 FX in the KP3+ will be of great use to manipulate the sounds in real time as needed... perfect for when I record stuff live into my DAW.

The software that is controlling the KP3+ is also really handy... it will dump samples on the fly via USB, so no need to mess with taking the SD card in and out all the time.

I can also fire one-shot samples from a pad if I like, which is also quite handy... and the device itself is nice and compact, fitting perfectly into my limited desktop space.

The only "bad" thing is the preparation of the samples... because the KP3+ works as a tape machine, the samples actual length (the loop sample) will always be determined by the BPM. therefore, if samples are to play back at their original pitch, the sample must have been specifically prepared to fit the BPM... thus all four samples, if loops, must have exactly the same sample length... if not, some of them will be transposed accordingly. This makes the need for some serious loop mangling techniques, but I've got the proper software for this... the longest sample length is almost 13 seconds per sample which is quite alright, but to have it that long, you'd have to be at 74BPM ... with natural sounds and drones that does not matter, but it may be a challenge with rhythmic stuff...

I tested the software to see how many samples a 16 measure at 74BPM would be, and it's exactly 622.702 samples long... about 12.97 seconds... so any sample not exactly that size will have to be time stretched to that exact size... if not, then seamless looping is not possible... you need to know exactly the size of a sample for any given BPM you will be using in the KP3+

How I will organize my samples I'll have to think more about... especially if all samples in my coming library need to be playing at original sample speeds, and be capable of being mixed in the KP3+ it will have to be standardized... not sure yet how to go about it.

But all in all; it's the best cheap solution right now. It'll allow me to finally get realistic natural sounds into my compositions... that sound of waves on the beach... the sound of the wind... thunder... chanting monks or complex drones... all with a good measure of ways to manipulate in real time to make the samples much more expressive and adaptive.

It's not a melodic approach to samples like it would have been with a Prophet X or Quantum, but i think that is good because the preparation time of samples for that would be huge compared to this ... there are still some preparation, but much of it can be batch processed or fixed quickly and easy... this also means, that when i finally some day get a Prophet X or Quantum, that i can focus on these with only melodic samples in mind, and leave all the other stuff to the KP3+

end of rant... just a "short" update to let you know what's going on in my head (and that's always a lot I'm afraid).

[megamarkd]

I bought my KP3+ many years ago with the thought it would be a simple sample looper but now use it more for effects.
 Something about the KP3+ you might not know is can't keep it's samples in sync very well.  It doesn't take long for looping samples to fall out of time and need retriggering often.  But if you don't really mind about that then it's not a problem and the machine is great.  If you are running drones and other ambient textures then the resample function is cool for morphing them as they are effected while running the pad motion looper.
Load times from card can be awhile if you have long samples but I've never really messed around with running them in from the software (no computer in my room let alone my rig).

[Razmo]

I bought my KP3+ many years ago with the thought it would be a simple sample looper but now use it more for effects.
 Something about the KP3+ you might not know is can't keep it's samples in sync very well.  It doesn't take long for looping samples to fall out of time and need retriggering often.  But if you don't really mind about that then it's not a problem and the machine is great.  If you are running drones and other ambient textures then the resample function is cool for morphing them as they are effected while running the pad motion looper.
Load times from card can be awhile if you have long samples but I've never really messed around with running them in from the software (no computer in my room let alone my rig).

I can imagine the problem of samples running out of sync if you use samples of different lengths... even if you have two samples with the same BPM and length, the sample size will most likely not be the same... even one sample off on one of them would make them drift apart at some point... and if it also shift the playback speed to match the lengths, it would also introduce drifting... I bet it's because the four samples are actually free running that they start to drift apart.

I'll be making a lot of tests regarding this anyway... and i have the tools to make all my loops the exact same number of samples in length, so I should be able to figure out if it still drifts in that case.

Anyway, as all four samples will go thru the same FX, I'll probably use only one sample at a time for most stuff... in fact, the only reason to use more than one would be live fading in and out some percussion loops over time... but if that shows to be impossible due to drifting, it does not matter... I've got the Tempest for percussion.

The main uses for the KP3+ is a single seamlessly looped drone/ambience/phrase that I can fade in and out, plus tweak live on the XY pad... so the biggest question is if it can play a sample looped seamlessly... I'm extremely demanding with this... the loop must be EXACTLY as it was when I edited it in Soundforge or other loop editing audio software... I'll hear even one sample off in most cases

[Sleep of Reason]

I'm wondering if the sound character is because of other parts after the Curtis chips... maybe better OpAmps were used, I do not know... it just sounds "stronger" in a lack of better words.

I've been absolutely loving the sounds the Tempest is capable of. It makes me question if it could be improved by a different filter such as the SSI2144. My current opinion is that it would not. Take the D-50 for example, to me it still has its place whereas more advanced keyboards that are more straight up ROMplers such as the M1 are severely outdated. I find the Tempest reminds me of a much improved D-50, especially considering it's a hybrid. The samples and waveforms are amazing for transients. I'm actually glad I don't have to fuss with importing an endless amount of samples to sort through. I just wish there was blown glass and woodwinds samples, unless they're there and I happened to miss them... The buzzy waveforms are unfortunate, but I would never use them completely bypassing the filter anyhow. I think the filter is fantastic for snappy/percussive sounds and the overall grit adds to the character in a way that's desirable in a drum machine. Folks seem to want a Tempest X, but I think it would lose a lot of standout character with higher fidelity samples, a lusher filter, and no analog oscillators.

[Razmo]

To me, the filter is not the most impotant on a drummachine since it is not the most important factor... The only thing the filter has to have is a self resonating one, since that is all important for kick sounds  if you need Tempest for synth sounds too, it is a different matter.

To me, the samples would have been more useful if they were different... In their full state, but as building blocks it may not matter as much. And even if I agree that it is nice to be free from having to decide on your own samples to put in, I would still have liked the option to change the samples to some that I myself find more suitable for my personal use... Not because I want to keep changing them, but rather to put in my own set, and then never change them again. But truly, there is also an advantage having it stay a ROMpler... Especially when I want to release a soundpack for the tempest.

I actually think that if I could choose one single thing to change on Tempest, it would be its lack of a digital FX processor... I would love if it had a digital insert FX per voice with dedicated percussion FX like decimator, distortion, ringmod, compressor, chorus, flanger, phaser, EQ, bit crusher etc. Fully tweakable in the ModMatrix... And then two master FX with sends from each voice for Delays and Reverbs.

This would really enhance the Tempest into something really cool... Yes you can assign individual FX via the outs, but it really complicates matter a lot with cables and a mixer and having to set the FX independently... I much prefer the "FX is part of the program" approach. Especially when FX parameters can be controlled from the ModMatrix.

If I could chose another thing to change, it would be to have some ways to modulate the samples more... Ringmod, FM and Sync between the two sample oscillators like on the Evolver. Currently, the options of modulating the samples is very few, which further makes the urge for changing the samples themselves bigger. I am aware that this limitation is because of the custom sample chip not having these features built in, but there could have been made up for this with a dedicated digital insert FX after the sample chip... A bit like the Character section on the Prophet 12.

But I'll just dream on... And yes, I would like to see a new take on the Tempest... Not without the analog oscillators, but rather one with two analog oscillators (curtis), paired with two digital sample ones with their own SSM clone chips from the PX and user sample option, and a digital FX engine like described above... I'd also like the synth removed, and a more "one voice per drumsound" approach... 16 individual sounds/voices, and a FULL MIDI specification for these 16 sounds being individually controllable from their own MIDI channel, with a mode to play all sounds from a single MIDI channel as well... Essentially seeing the drummachine as sixteen monophonic synths in multimode.

[Sleep of Reason]

Can't say I agree at all with your assessment of the filters not being hugely important for a machine like the Tempest, yet I totally agree about the annoyance of "one voice per drum sound." Being forced to record chords in a per note fashion is fairly annoying, but just a few hours ago I found out you can only MIDI out picking one of the 16x2 sound pads, thus I can only sequence another synth monophonically. Pretty stunned about that, which is the one real irksome negative for me.

[Razmo]

Can't say I agree at all with your assessment of the filters not being hugely important for a machine like the Tempest, yet I totally agree about the annoyance of "one voice per drum sound." Being forced to record chords in a per note fashion is fairly annoying, but just a few hours ago I found out you can only MIDI out picking one of the 16x2 sound pads, thus I can only sequence another synth monophonically. Pretty shocked about this and is the biggest negative for me.

i did not mean that the filter is unimportant... I actually meant that the TYPE of filter is not as important (in my opinion)... if it's Curtis or another type is not that crucial I think because the filter in many cases is mostly used to dampen the sound... almost like a sort of "EQ" ... also percussion sounds are so short that a filters character is not so much evident when you hear the drumsound, compared to synth sounds... but a filter is essential nonetheless. This is my experience from all the other times I had the Tempest, and programmed sounds on it.

If the synth part of Tempest is crucial for your use though, I could see why another filter might be attractive.

I knew about the monophonic MIDI sequencing track by the way... and also Tempest's lack of polyphonic sequencer tracking... but I don't really mind this... it becomes a problem when you want to use the built in synth with the sequencer, i know, but i treat my Tempest as a drummachine... not a synth... i see the synth part as an extra bonus, nothing else... if i want to do synth sounds, i use a dedicated synth for this, because Tempest's synth IS limited in many regards, especially if you also use it as a drummachine at the same time... it simply do not have enough voices for this, and I'd rather save the voices for percussion duties, rather than synth duties.

About the MIDI sequencing of external gear... I've been thinking about using that even if it's monophonic, simply because sequencing a bassline would be handy this way... and in that case, a monophonic sequencing is enough... basses do not need polyphony... I've had thoughts about throwing a small desktop analog monosynth at the Tempest for this.

[Sleep of Reason]

Then what would you say makes the biggest difference between the character of analog drum sounds? Perhaps this? Even though it's hard to compare due to there being no 4-pole mode on the Rytm, I found its filter to be weak and not to my liking for creating drum sounds regardless of its limiting engine restrictions. How the filter is designed/tweaked makes a massive difference as far as I can tell. Whatever it is, I suspect an updated cleaner version will not have the same amount of desirable textural character. Furthermore, I like the filter for the synth side as well because using the samples as attack transients, makes for great gritty D-50-esque type sounds that are rarer to come by.

I was originally considering adding maybe a AS-1 or SE-02 for monophonic basslines, but so far I've been able to create quite busy sounding arrangements even with its six voice limit. Also I've been able to create bass that's fatter than I expected especially when adding in the digital sine waves. Then I thought about the possibility of using it to sequence my OB-6 if I ever needed to run a stripped down rig sometime, yet it looks like that won't be happening...