via sequencer.de
I'll do my best at translating the German :)
The following can be heard:
1) sequence with a filter-Env-Sweep
2) bass with manual filter-Env-modulation
3) polyphonic chords with LFO sweep
4) FM filter demonstration
5) Bass sequence
6) lead-melody
7) resonant filter sweep with resonance
8) Polyphonic 80ies chord sequence
9) Osc FM demonstration
The sequence is always the same: First, Andromeda, followed by MiniMonsta.
MP3 here
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
11 comments:
To reduce spam, comments for posts older than one week are not displayed until approved, usually same day. Do not insult people. For items for sale, do not ask if it is still available. Check the auction link and search for the item. Auctions are from various sellers and expire over time. Posts remain for the pics and historical purposes. This site is meant to be a daily snapshot of some of what was out there in the world of synths.
PREVIOUS PAGE
NEXT PAGE
HOME
© Matrixsynth - All posts are presented here for informative, historical and educative purposes as applicable within fair use.
MATRIXSYNTH is supported by affiliate links that use cookies to track clickthroughs and sales. See the privacy policy for details.
MATRIXSYNTH - EVERYTHING SYNTH
© Matrixsynth - All posts are presented here for informative, historical and educative purposes as applicable within fair use.
MATRIXSYNTH is supported by affiliate links that use cookies to track clickthroughs and sales. See the privacy policy for details.
MATRIXSYNTH - EVERYTHING SYNTH
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nice comparison - very close. I thought
ReplyDelete1 a6
2 gforce
3 lfo not set the same amount, gforce brighter
4 a6
5 a6
6 Gforce, until the end notes a6
7 a6
8 gforce until the second half a6
9 gForce
It seems you are mostly doing retro 80s sounds here, plus the FM stuff. I think the real power if synths is to do NEW sounds and these both have amazing capabilities beyond the Jupiter, Juno, PPG, etc world!
Haha, I WISH my Andromeda could get into PPG territory :D
ReplyDeleteworryingly close really, would you say the A6 is too sterile to have the "personality" of an old analog? I have a Prophet 600 and would say it has a very different/richer/organic sound to any of the VA synths or soft synths I've tried. Replacing the Prophet with a modern analog is attractive for a number of reasons but it does concern me the new breed of analog doesn't sound that different to the VA/Soft competitors.
ReplyDeleteMongooseNZ: Which is funny, because the Prophet 600's parameters are really quite harshly quantised in some cases; its envelopes and LFOs are digitally computed, unlike the Prophet 5's, and it was criticised at the time for having a less smooth, warm sound than its older sibling as a result. If anything, modern analogues would probably sound closer to the Prophet 5, simply because there's much less quantisation - it's trivial to compute 16-bit envelopes at somewhere approaching audio frequencies, for example, and once you're doing that you've pretty much eliminated any audible distinction between analogue and digital parameter control.
ReplyDeleteI think, rather than saying "is the A6 too close to digital?" it's more a case that manufacturing techniques in both kinds of synth nowadays are good enough that a lot of the imperfections that define vintage synths just aren't there any more. Given this, the next stage will be to put them back - and it's going to be much easier to do that digitally than it is with analogue technology, simply because with analogue you start off with total crap and refine it as far as possible without going ridiculously overbudget, whereas with digital you start off basically perfect and then spend power to add imperfection.
...That's a gross simplification, obviously. ;) But you get my drift, I hope.
Gwenhwyfaer: Your points on the 600 are valid and certainly the quantisation caused by the relatively slow read cycle of the CPU affects manual filter sweeps etc. Sweeps by the LFO or envelopes are not similarly affected though(although the envelopes are not the snappiest). I'd agree the 600 has it's faults but it's cheap, sounds great compared to VA stuff(if analog sound is your thing) and is perfectly good if viewed as a synth on it's own merits rather than some pretender to the Prophet5 crown. As the first production synth with Midi it also has a justifiable place in history too.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the control, tuning, envelopes etc. are digital the Oscillators and Filter are analog and sound great imho. It's the core sound that this synth makes that I like, some of the other stuff is annoying hence my comment that replacement with a modern analog is attractive. It is however this very kind of comparison between the A6, an amazing synth from what I've read, and a softsynth exhibiting pretty much no audible difference that concerns me and stops me from buying something like an A6 or a Prophet08.
I guess my question is really: is it only the imperfections in the old components that make analogs sound like we think they should? Can a modern analog without those imperfections make "that" sound or are we stupid to pay the extra for an A6 or a Prophet08 when a Virus or a Waldorf Q would sound the same.
I don't care if a Prophet08 sounds just like a 5, I don't expect it to but does it sound better/closer than a Virus/Q/Novation/etc.etc?
If we want analog sounds should we just have a few classic analog synths and let the digital synths make digital sounds the analog stuff can't do?
I recently played a LittlePhatty in a music shop and was pretty disappointed. It certainly does sound nice but I just didn't hear that certain Moog sound to it that you instantly recognise in an old Moog.
And the answer to your question may well end up being: yes, unfortunately, it really is. Given that not every vintage analogue sounded the same, perhaps the only surviving examples are the good ones? Perhaps the ones that sounded relatively bland got hacked up for spares instead of being preserved? In which case, most of the new ones wouldn't sound like the fantastic old ones that made it down the ages. I think what I'm arguing is that we're more likely to recreate those lost or fading glories once we crack the secret of modelling individual components digitally, complete with historically accurate tolerances on each of them. That level of emulation is currently impossible; it probably won't end up possible until we can afford to devote a single multi-BIPS core to each stage of a softsynth (oscillator, filter, etc) and run it at 1MHz or more... but you know those days are going to come someday. On the other hand, they may never show up again with analogue; you may never get the precise blend of component values that made That Sound(TM) again, no matter how much you chase it down...
ReplyDeleteDoes that make sense?
And to follow that thought, maybe we have simply arrived at the point where we can make analogue kit relatively imperfection-free, and digital kit relatively imperfection-rich, and the absolute levels of imperfection in there are pretty much the same in each case... so that both analogue and digital kit is now pretty close to "ideal" analogue. Which means, of course, that it sounds a bit too good to be really interesting. ;)
ReplyDeleteThat makes perfect sense. Your comment:
ReplyDelete"maybe we have simply arrived at the point where we can make analogue kit relatively imperfection-free, and digital kit relatively imperfection-rich, and the absolute levels of imperfection in there are pretty much the same in each case"
especially so.
Also a good point that most old analog synths sounded at times very different from another example of exactly the same model. I've read countless variations on a theme of blog postings from people saying they've sold a Jupiter8 which sounded just ok, regretted it, bought another and been overjoyed to find out this one sounds way better.
In some ways it is disappointing that a modern analog is not the perfect replacement for my aging, quirky Prophet or any other classic analog. In some ways though the relative success of the algorithmic emulations of those classics means that the sounds, or a very close approximation, are available to far more people than their expensive physical counterparts.
I suppose it is best to take each synth, be it hardware or software, on its own merits as an instrument. If you like the sound of a Roland System100 and it fits in your music then great, if you like the Waldorf Blofeld or a Prophet08 or some obscure free vst then great.
It does support the conclusion I was starting to come to though that the new breed of analog just doesn't seem to be any better at sounding like the old kit than the VA stuff. From that point of view it's a shame(although I understand why) the modern "genuine article" is so much more expensive than the VA/softsynth.
Thanks for your thoughts. Now I'm regretting selling that VirusC :)
Cheers.
MongooseNZ:
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, the Waldorf Q is really terrible at making sounds like these. It is much better suited towards making nice digital timbres. Neither the filters, nor the oscillators, behave in any way similar to that of old American synths like Moogs and Oberheims.
I've actually had more luck getting timbres like these out of the Waldorf Microwave XT.
I've heard the same about the Q and listened to some great demos of it. It's got a rich, powerful, clean sound and the mod possibilities are impressive.
ReplyDeleteThe Virus was actually very nice too after you got past the endless trance patches. I can't say I thought it sounded particularly analog though.
I still have a Novation AStation which for it's size and price just blows me away. It doesn't sound analog either really but the range of sounds it can make mean it's well worth keeping.
Ah well, back to trawling EBay for an MS20 and a cheapish Moog.......
The Virus is actually very capable of doing convincing analog emulations. Check out this track, for instance:
ReplyDeletehttp://perkristian.net/music/perkristian_viruskb-equinoxe5.mp3
Be sure to check out the rest of perkristian.net for lots of other great clips.