Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12

Terje Winther

Record you first part. Setup another track
and record another layer or part with the same
patch on the same synth. Layering is such a
simple but often forgotten technique that doesn't
just apply to layering different synths. You
can layer the same synth as many times as
your heart desires (and your DAW track count
allows) :)

Ahh.... Memories. The 1970s, my first synth (multimoog) and a 4-track reel-to-reel tape deck.

I actually did some of this on my first solo CD, playing the minimoog several times by hand.

It really works. Just ask W. Carlos.

_._,___

Terje Winther

terje.winther@...

Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12

Terje Winther

#1188

So you have never played with a jazz guitarist, have you? Just
kidding: I have played with one, and even though he sometimes uses
chords that I hardly grasp how to do, it is still so many chord
notes omitted that at least 6 notes should be plenty.If you listen to the guys like Lyle mays, Joe Zawinul and Wolfgang
Dauner p.ex.,- it?s pretty clear 4 voices being enough if the key
assignment modes work correctly and the performer is a good player.Yes, that is true. The instruments learn you to think. There is a
different playing technique on a piano, an organ, a mellotron or a
polysynth. I like that: it keeps your mind sharp to find solutions.

For the old "pre Xpander" Oberheims, there was nothing than a mono
cassette player/recorder, the cassette interfaces in the synths and
the only "sequencer" available was the little 8-step sequencer in  the 4, 6 and 8 voice models featured by SEM modules and OBX as well
as OBXa were cassette interface only synths too.The cassette interface is still there on the Matrix-12. Rather strange
(and cute!) to see that huge polysynth, and then cassette interface.

IMO, Xpander layered /midied to DX-7 sounds KILLER !Great! I will give that a try.



Terje Winther
terje.winther@...

Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12

#1186

I refer people to Carlos, that usually opens some eyes and ears.

Show quoted text

On Jul 17, 2012, at 4:47 PM, Omar Torres wrote:

?

I was referring multiple tracks of the Xpander
being recorded. Its amazing how people sometimes
think that just because a synth only has 2-4-6?
voices, thats all they are limited to.

Record you first part. Setup another track
and record another layer or part with the same
patch on the same synth. Layering is such a
simple but often forgotten technique that doesn't
just apply to layering different synths. You
can layer the same synth as many times as
your heart desires (and your DAW track count
allows) :)

-omar

---
sent from iPhone

On Jul 17, 2012, at 3:43 PM, PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:

?

Yep,- especially w/ the very accurate emulations of Minimoog (Minimax), Prophet VS (Vectron), Prophet V (Profit-5), Juno 60 (Uknow7) and ARP Odyssey (Prodyssey) and John Bowen?s beautiful ZARG synths,- all polyphonic, running on my Sonic Core XITE-1 DSP machine and together w/ my hardware instruments,- all aliasing and latency free in SCOPE mode.

And there?s OPX Pro II VSTi too, which is a good replacement for my OB-8.

Works all in realtime, no DAW tracks necessary at all, except for OPX Pro II and the recording.

But there?s no real replacement for my Xpander up to now as also my Minimoog sounds different when compared w/ Minimax.

Anyway, there are lots of options always w/ todays technology and the technology from the past.
I like to have both options.

Am 17.07.2012 21:07, schrieb Omar Torres:

?

and lets not forget the wonders of layering

multiple tracks of the same synth in your DAW...lol

-omar

Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12

#1187

开云体育

They run on the XITE-1 DSPs and its not all.

Im running a STS-4000 sampler w/ 32-voices or Vocodizer w/ 4 voices in addition and Vectron Player w/ 8 voices as well as Lightwave v5 8voices.
B2003 is full polyphony, Minimax I use like the original monophonic.
Profit-5 5 voices, Prodyssey 5 voices, Uknow7 8voices.
In addition, 2448X mixer and 4 aux FX, Mic/DI source, Phones destination, 8 busses to ASIO, 8 ADAT channels input, 4 ADAT channels output, 2 ASIO flt.32 inputs (Presonus Studio One Prov2 and Reason 6.02 rewired, but separate output channels), XITE-1 rear line input for Kurzweil PC361, the other hardware instruments connected to my Nuendo(RME) 8 I/O (ADI 8Pro) AD/DA.
XITE-1 MIDI In source, 2 sequencer MIDI sources and destinations, 1 MIDI merger 4 in 1 , MIDI monitor, and WAVE Source for the entertainment (any media player).
I use EQ and dynamics in some STM 2448X channels too.

Its amazing and the XITE-1 load is ~50% !

Im just figuring out MIDI realtime control by MIDI learn and storing MIDI CC presets permanently for the single devices.
Kurzweil PC361 is ideal.

You wont believe, but my machine is a rackmount PC, Intel dual core D945 slightly o/c-ed from stock speed 3.4GHz to 3.832GHz on a ASUS P5WD2 Premium mainboard, Mushkin Redline RAM running at 902MHz, Corsair HX520W PSU, WD Caviar Black 24/7 hardrives, EVGA Nvidia 9500 graphics runing 2 Samsung 22" screens.
OS is Win XP Pro SP3 32Bit ...
Presonus Studio One Pro v2 or Reaper 4.25 host VST stuff and Reason is rewired to the host.
Works like a charme and total recall.

Best is using SCOPE 5.1 (Im using 32Bit version) standalone, not XTC mode.
For recording, I send MIDI to the Scope devices via sequencer MIDI sources and record using the busses of the STM 24/48X mixer assigned to ASIO channels,- thats all.

In Scope mode, the latency between XITE-1 and the computer is 1ms at max. via PCIe and the ASIO latency depends on the buffer size,- Im using 4ms/44.1KHz,- because is not the fastest PC.
The Scope devices themselves have no latency if driven directly from XITE-1 MIDI Input,- a few samples.

I have a 2nd old PC set up right now and connect it to the 2nd ADAT In of XITE-1,- so it can run a Modular III w/ some voices in addition on my old Creamware 15DSP card which will be mixed on XITE-1.

Here are 2 pics of working realtime projects,- 1 w/ Reaper 4.22 and the other w/ Presonus Studio One Pro v2,- both w/ Reason rewired.

I hope the links work.
Theres just an article at Scoperise mag about "hi tech museum" gear form the past which shows most of my old gear,- and the XITE-1 etc.
Click everything named "Buds ..."

In september, there will be another one explaining what Xite-1 replaces for realtime work,- also for gigging, together w/ screenshots etc..
The pics above are from april this year, shortly after I received the XITE.

For my purposes, it runs so well Im now thinking about aquireing a older laptop w/ PCIexpress card slot to control XITE-1 and buy the PCIexpress/HDMI cable interface,- just only for portability.
Scope 6 comes w/ Copperlan MIDI and OSC control surface support, so for the future, I see a touch screen and MIDI over LAN also for the hardware,- theres the KISS Box !

:-)

Am 17.07.2012 21:47, schrieb Tony Cappellini:

Show quoted text

All running on 1 machine at the same time??

Hard to believe.
Which OS?

Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12

#1185

I was referring multiple tracks of the Xpander

being recorded. Its amazing how people sometimes

think that just because a synth only has 2-4-6?

voices, thats all they are limited to.

Record you first part. Setup another track

and record another layer or part with the same

patch on the same synth. Layering is such a

simple but often forgotten technique that doesn't

just apply to layering different synths. You

can layer the same synth as many times as

your heart desires (and your DAW track count

allows) :)

-omar

---

sent from iPhone

Show quoted text

On Jul 17, 2012, at 3:43 PM, PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:

?

Yep,- especially w/ the very accurate emulations of Minimoog (Minimax), Prophet VS (Vectron), Prophet V (Profit-5), Juno 60 (Uknow7) and ARP Odyssey (Prodyssey) and John Bowen?s beautiful ZARG synths,- all polyphonic, running on my Sonic Core XITE-1 DSP machine and together w/ my hardware instruments,- all aliasing and latency free in SCOPE mode.

And there?s OPX Pro II VSTi too, which is a good replacement for my OB-8.

Works all in realtime, no DAW tracks necessary at all, except for OPX Pro II and the recording.

But there?s no real replacement for my Xpander up to now as also my Minimoog sounds different when compared w/ Minimax.

Anyway, there are lots of options always w/ todays technology and the technology from the past.
I like to have both options.

Am 17.07.2012 21:07, schrieb Omar Torres:

?

and lets not forget the wonders of layering

multiple tracks of the same synth in your DAW...lol

-omar

Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12

#1184

Yep,- especially w/ the very accurate emulations of Minimoog (Minimax),
Prophet VS (Vectron), Prophet V (Profit-5), Juno 60 (Uknow7) and ARP Odyssey
(Prodyssey) and John Bowen?s beautiful ZARG synths,- all polyphonic, running
on my Sonic Core XITE-1 DSP machine and together w/ my hardware
instruments,- all aliasing and latency free in SCOPE mode.All running on 1 machine at the same time??

Hard to believe.
Which OS?

Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12

#1183

开云体育

Yep,- especially w/ the very accurate emulations of Minimoog (Minimax), Prophet VS (Vectron), Prophet V (Profit-5), Juno 60 (Uknow7) and ARP Odyssey (Prodyssey) and John Bowens beautiful ZARG synths,- all polyphonic, running on my Sonic Core XITE-1 DSP machine and together w/ my hardware instruments,- all aliasing and latency free in SCOPE mode.

And theres OPX Pro II VSTi too, which is a good replacement for my OB-8.

Works all in realtime, no DAW tracks necessary at all, except for OPX Pro II and the recording.

But theres no real replacement for my Xpander up to now as also my Minimoog sounds different when compared w/ Minimax.

Anyway, there are lots of options always w/ todays technology and the technology from the past.
I like to have both options.

Am 17.07.2012 21:07, schrieb Omar Torres:

Show quoted text

and lets not forget the wonders of layering

multiple tracks of the same synth in your DAW...lol

-omar

Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12

#1182

and lets not forget the wonders of layering

multiple tracks of the same synth in your DAW...lol

-omar

---

sent from iPhone

Show quoted text

On Jul 17, 2012, at 2:11 PM, PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:

?

Who says a 4-note chord is simple ?

With the Xpander you?d have 6 notes anyway and w/ the Matrix-12 you have,- guess what (?) ...

I mostly play 2 keyboards at a time and have 2 hands only, each w/ 5 fingers,- fortunately these are all existing up to now ... :-)

With 5 fingers, I can use 6 voices at max., using the thumb pressing 2 keys occasionally.

Am 17.07.2012 19:50, schrieb robert hall:

?

oh no-
i hope we don't limit ourselves to simple 4 note chords-

harmonic colours like those based on modes of limited 'transposition (a la messiaen)

are wonderful backgrounds for spacey ambient stuff.

thanks,

rob

Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12

#1181

开云体育

Who says a 4-note chord is simple ?

With the Xpander youd have 6 notes anyway and w/ the Matrix-12 you have,- guess what (?) ...

I mostly play 2 keyboards at a time and have 2 hands only, each w/ 5 fingers,- fortunately these are all existing up to now ... :-)

With 5 fingers, I can use 6 voices at max., using the thumb pressing 2 keys occasionally.

Am 17.07.2012 19:50, schrieb robert hall:

oh no-
i hope we don't limit ourselves to simple 4 note chords-

harmonic colours like those based on modes of limited 'transposition (a la messiaen)

are wonderful backgrounds for spacey ambient stuff.

thanks,

rob

Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12

#1180

oh no-

i hope we don't limit ourselves to simple 4 note chords-

harmonic colours like those based on modes of limited 'transposition (a la messiaen)

are wonderful backgrounds for spacey ambient stuff.

thanks,

rob

Show quoted text

--- On Mon, 7/16/12, Omar wrote:

From: Omar
Subject: Re: [xpantastic] The pure size of the Matrix-12
To: xpantastic@...
Date: Monday, July 16, 2012, 8:28 PM

?

However, I certainly appreciate that some musicians don't use the Xpander for chords, but rather as 6 individually triggered monosynths,-

Oh no, they probably use it for both and multitimbral chords, just like the Matrix-12.
How many notes do you need to play a chord, even a long envolving one and in a musical context ?
According to music theory, you need exactly 4 voices to play every chord,- skip the root.

yea, I was gonna say, I use mine for every type of synth sound. from mono-basses, to percussion, to thick pads, to buzzy resonant stabs, to leads, to modular noises, etc. etc.

6-voices is plenty for chords, although if you are doing lots of quick chord changes, then yea you'll hear it cut off, but that's nothing a little delay fx with a nice feedback tail on it can't fix up in a jiffy. pretty common when dealing with poly-analogs.

-o

Re: Fw: The pure size of the Matrix-12

#1179

Thanks Karl.

I look forward to hearing my Hoover when I get home.

Now, does anyone have a Kenmore patch? :-)

Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12

#1178

Great conversation, glad to see the art of programming sound still alive!

Show quoted text

On Jul 16, 2012, at 11:54 PM, PeWe wrote:

?

>>>

Am 17.07.2012 05:28, schrieb Omar:

?
if you are doing lots of quick chord changes, then yea you'll hear it cut off

The Xpander must be programmed carefully to make voice steal as much inaudible as it can be.
The interaction of keyboard assign modes, envelope trigger modes and the behaviour of (the programmable) sustain pedal scaling is very important.
In most cases, there?s no general rule and it?s all about reverse engineering of a patch and experimenting until it satisfies.
But as a slightly general rule for fast chord changes,- don?t use long releases and pay attention what the sustain pedal does to which envelopes and if you are in "rotate mode" w/ the voices.
In opposite to most other poly synths, the sustain pedal as a modulator doesn?t cause infinite sustain when stepping on the pedal depending on which parameters are been modulated by MIDI CC64.
So, it can be used as a combined decay/release pedal instead of a simple sustain pedal which gives much more musical results.
According to the Xpanders factory patches volumes, I had to re-program every little bit to my taste,- these were only starters for me, then turned to different patches for different purposes.

It?s definitely a machine for programmers and keyboardplayers who don?t fear programming.
The Xpander is the synth I learned most about analogue synth programming,- even I own and owned earlier synth models like Minimoog D, Prophet-5 and the OB-8.

IMO, if you own a Minimoog D and a Xpander, it covers most you can get from a analogue synth.
There ?s the lame behaviour of Xpander envelopes for percussive sounds though.
I always compensate by layering w/ FM synths like DX7mkII, TX-816 or TG77.
If I need more modular weirdness, today I use the Sonic Core Modular III in SCOPE.

P.

Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12

#1177

开云体育

>>>

Am 17.07.2012 10:14, schrieb Terje Winther:

So you have never played with a jazz guitarist, have you? Just kidding: I have played with one, and even though he sometimes uses chords that I hardly grasp how to do, it is still so many chord notes omitted that at least 6 notes should be plenty.

If you listen to the guys like Lyle mays, Joe Zawinul and Wolfgang Dauner p.ex.,- its pretty clear 4 voices being enough if the key assignment modes work correctly and the performer is a good player.
Is all about these guys werent only players but arrangers and had/have knowledge music wise.
Theres Hindemith and so there are the 4 voices ... :-)

These instruments were designed without having sequencer work in mind,- they were made to play and perform.
There were no computers and DAW sequencers available at that time.
I remember touring w/ a Commodore SX64 and a small program Gerhard Lengeling (Notator and Logic mastermind together w/ Chris Adams) coded for a very few early Prophet 5 owners here, just to make sysex data transfer available,- and the sequencer solutions for this computer were, eeehmmm,- extremely basic, buggy and cumbersome.

For the old "pre Xpander" Oberheims, there was nothing than a mono cassette player/recorder, the cassette interfaces in the synths and the only "sequencer" available was the little 8-step sequencer in the 4, 6 and 8 voice models featured by SEM modules and OBX as well as OBXa were cassette interface only synths too.
Also OB-8 and until the MIDI retrofit came.

There was some kind of a larger digital sequencer early made by Oberheim, but Im not sure it worked well or not,- I think the very 1st affordable and usable digital sequencer from Oberheim was the DSX for the digital bus of the OB-8 and after the drum machine DMX was out.

Also this was an answer to a Yamaha system,- QX-1 & TX-816 plus DX7 as the (programmer) controller and a RX (?) drum machine,- this before the Yammi masterkeyboards (KX88/76) came,- a system I own up today.

Indeed! Amazing how even two "not-so-good" polysynths can sound very good if you layer sounds on them. Do this on good polysynths, and it is hard not to put a smile on your face when playing.

IMO, Xpander layered /midied to DX-7 sounds KILLER !
Ive seen a studio session artist in munich mid 80th doing ALL studio sessions w/ this rig and without any 8-Bit sampler.
He was very busy nearly all day and made crazy income !!!

P.

Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12

#1176

开云体育

>>>

Am 17.07.2012 10:22, schrieb Terje Winther:

Interesting. You probably cant have both on the same synth, ultrapercussive sounds (very short envelopes) and long, evolving sounds (very long envelopes) because analog circuitry seems to have some limits.

You cannot have it w/ THIS synth because much stuff is software generated,- almost any "VCA" out of the 90, the envelopes and LFOs as well as ramp generators ...
And there was the IBM processor the most powerful at that time and the Xpander needed 2 of these ...
In fact they advertised the Xpander being twice as powerfull as a IBM PC.

Now, the Xpander has 2 of these processors and the Matrix-12 also, but twice the voices !
I always wondered if this might have influence on the lameness of the digital emulated components in the Matrix-12 and when all 12 voices are in use simultaneously.
But I never compared and maybe someone else chimes in here on this point.

There were other analog synths/expanders being more punchy and percussive,- Memorymoog and Roland MKS80 (which I sold 1 year ago).

Lately however, I have discovered that adding a tiny, tiny amount of attack time to percussive sounds can add a "whoomp" at the start that really makes wonders with the sound. I have also done some experiments with various envelopes from different brands (easy when you have a modular) controlling the same sound, and hear the differences. It seems the the slope affects the sound just as much as how fast the envelope is (This is only relevant in very short sounds, of course). Through this I have also come to appreciate "slow and inferior" envelope generators, because they can be used to shape sounds that "faster and better" envelopes cant. I too can hear that the Matrix-12 envelopes are not splitting fast as my minimoog, but Oberheim synths have always had this good quality of "whoomp", or force in the envelopes that I appreciate.

You can do "percussive" sounds w/ a Xpander as well as a Matrix-12,- but these arent that snappy and/or punchy compared to some other analogues from that time.

The Moog, Sequential Circuits and Roland envelopes were snappy until Rolands MKS70 came out w/ DCOs and combined VCF/VCA chips and the Oberheim envelopes were snappy in the times there were discrete circuitry and SSM chips in the synths,- or more CEM chips.

Compared to these kohortes of CEM chips you find in a Memorymoog, Prophet 5, Jupiter 8/MKS80, OBXa and OB-8,- in the Xpander and Matrix-12 there isnt much.
The fact, also the multi mode filter is only a signal generator chip driven by software, comes in addition.

And that technique was of course well perfected later on, in those ROM-sample-attack + analog sound instruments that came later.

Yep, but IMO, FM synthesis is much more lifelike than static short samples ...
But youre right some way,- layering Xpander w/ EMU Proteus (FX) worked very well for me toom- but I had the options using FM or (ROMpler) samples.

P.

Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12

Terje Winther

#1175

IMO, if you own a Minimoog D and a Xpander, it covers most you can get from a analogue synth.
There ?s the lame behaviour of Xpander envelopes for percussive sounds though.

Interesting. You probably can?t have both on the same synth, ultrapercussive sounds (very short envelopes) and long, evolving sounds (very long envelopes) because analog circuitry seems to have some limits. Lately however, I have discovered that adding a tiny, tiny amount of attack time to percussive sounds can add a "whoomp" at the start that really makes wonders with the sound. I have also done some experiments with various envelopes from different brands (easy when you have a modular) controlling the same sound, and hear the differences. It seems the the slope affects the sound just as much as how fast the envelope is (This is only relevant in very short sounds, of course). Through this I have also come to appreciate "slow and inferior" envelope generators, because they can be used to shape sounds that "faster and better" envelopes can?t. I too can hear that the Matrix-12 envelopes are not splitting fast as my minimoog, but Oberheim synths have always had this good quality of "whoomp", or force in the envelopes that I appreciate.

I always compensate by layering w/ FM synths like DX7mkII, TX-816 or TG77.

And that technique was of course well perfected later on, in those ROM-sample-attack + analog sound instruments that came later. I think it is called "instrumentation", and it really works well.

Terje Winther

terje.winther@...

Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12

Terje Winther

#1174

Xpander was a logical consequence because MIDI became very popular and they wanted to come up w/ the best MIDI implementation every seen before, but combined this AGAIN w/ the half modular design well known from Oberheim SEM modules, the multimode filter, as also all "Page 2 the functionality" from the OB-8 went into the featurelist of the Xpander.

Yes, that is how I see it as well: the Xpander being the peak of the development of their analog polyphonic line.

When they came up w/ the Matrix-12 in 1985 already,- my impression was, they thought CV/GATE was out of fashion or not necessary anymore because MIDI dominated.
Ditching single voice outputs and CV/GATE connectors was a big saver of production costs.

Oh, yes: I lived back then, and clearly remember the "MIDI-war" between all manufacturers. The marked suddenly flooded with synths, and it was tough competition.

I sold my OB-8 because of the Xpander and discovering I was able to re-produce my OB-8 patches on the Xpander by manual re-programming, both side-by side and using earphones.
That was a? 6-week programming, but also big learning of the Xpander.

Nice! Good work.

That?s true,- but using 3 Xpanders w/ a XK surpasses the usage of a Matrix-12 ... :-)

Now, now: don?t tempt me ?:-)

How many notes do you need to play a chord, even a long envolving one and in a musical context ?
According to music theory, you need exactly 4 voices to play every chord,- skip the root.

So you have never played with a jazz guitarist, have you? Just kidding: I have played with one, and even though he sometimes uses chords that I hardly grasp how to do, it is still so many chord notes omitted that at least 6 notes should be plenty.

The discussion about complex, evolving chords with long release is interesting, though, because that is important in some type of music. Various solution excists, and I appreciate all input on the matter. Careful programming, well thought out performance and of course various types of delay are good examples of solutions.

Best string-, brass- and warm pad sounds by using Matrix-12 in dual layer mode and using the detune page !
But, I always liked layering/stacking different synths more than stacking and detune voices of the same synth.
This includes same type of patches in these different synths.

Indeed! Amazing how even two "not-so-good" polysynths can sound very good if you layer sounds on them. Do this on good polysynths, and it is hard not to put a smile on your face when playing.

_,_._,___

Terje Winther

terje.winther@...

Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12

#1173

lol, or like I said, just use some delay and problem fixed!

:)

-omar

---

sent from iPhone

Show quoted text

On Jul 16, 2012, at 11:54 PM, PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:

?

>>>

Am 17.07.2012 05:28, schrieb Omar:

?
if you are doing lots of quick chord changes, then yea you'll hear it cut off

The Xpander must be programmed carefully to make voice steal as much inaudible as it can be.
The interaction of keyboard assign modes, envelope trigger modes and the behaviour of (the programmable) sustain pedal scaling is very important.
In most cases, there?s no general rule and it?s all about reverse engineering of a patch and experimenting until it satisfies.
But as a slightly general rule for fast chord changes,- don?t use long releases and pay attention what the sustain pedal does to which envelopes and if you are in "rotate mode" w/ the voices.
In opposite to most other poly synths, the sustain pedal as a modulator doesn?t cause infinite sustain when stepping on the pedal depending on which parameters are been modulated by MIDI CC64.
So, it can be used as a combined decay/release pedal instead of a simple sustain pedal which gives much more musical results.
According to the Xpanders factory patches volumes, I had to re-program every little bit to my taste,- these were only starters for me, then turned to different patches for different purposes.

It?s definitely a machine for programmers and keyboardplayers who don?t fear programming.
The Xpander is the synth I learned most about analogue synth programming,- even I own and owned earlier synth models like Minimoog D, Prophet-5 and the OB-8.

IMO, if you own a Minimoog D and a Xpander, it covers most you can get from a analogue synth.
There ?s the lame behaviour of Xpander envelopes for percussive sounds though.
I always compensate by layering w/ FM synths like DX7mkII, TX-816 or TG77.
If I need more modular weirdness, today I use the Sonic Core Modular III in SCOPE.

P.

Fw: The pure size of the Matrix-12

#1172

Hi Tony,

If memory serves, the Roland Juno Alpha was famous for this.

This tutorial shows the programming of one.?On the Matrix 12 No less :-)


?

Best

Karl
___________________________
From: Tony Cappellini <cappy2112@...>
To: xpantastic@...
Sent: Mon, July 16, 2012 10:43:33 PM
Subject: Re: [xpantastic] The pure size of the Matrix-12


The comment about the Detune feature of the M12 being only good for
techno-style "Hoover" sounds is not very fair.I've been a fan of electronic music since the late 70s.
I have to admit I've never heard the reference to "Hoover sounds".

Would someone point me to an MP3 or YouTube example of that?
(a time reference within that mp3 or video would be helpful too)

thanks

Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12

#1171

开云体育

>>>

Am 17.07.2012 05:28, schrieb Omar:

if you are doing lots of quick chord changes, then yea you'll hear it cut off

The Xpander must be programmed carefully to make voice steal as much inaudible as it can be.
The interaction of keyboard assign modes, envelope trigger modes and the behaviour of (the programmable) sustain pedal scaling is very important.
In most cases, theres no general rule and its all about reverse engineering of a patch and experimenting until it satisfies.
But as a slightly general rule for fast chord changes,- dont use long releases and pay attention what the sustain pedal does to which envelopes and if you are in "rotate mode" w/ the voices.
In opposite to most other poly synths, the sustain pedal as a modulator doesnt cause infinite sustain when stepping on the pedal depending on which parameters are been modulated by MIDI CC64.
So, it can be used as a combined decay/release pedal instead of a simple sustain pedal which gives much more musical results.
According to the Xpanders factory patches volumes, I had to re-program every little bit to my taste,- these were only starters for me, then turned to different patches for different purposes.

Its definitely a machine for programmers and keyboardplayers who dont fear programming.
The Xpander is the synth I learned most about analogue synth programming,- even I own and owned earlier synth models like Minimoog D, Prophet-5 and the OB-8.

IMO, if you own a Minimoog D and a Xpander, it covers most you can get from a analogue synth.
There s the lame behaviour of Xpander envelopes for percussive sounds though.
I always compensate by layering w/ FM synths like DX7mkII, TX-816 or TG77.
If I need more modular weirdness, today I use the Sonic Core Modular III in SCOPE.

P.

Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12

#1170

>>The comment about the Detune feature of the M12 being only good for >>techno-style "Hoover" sounds is not very fair.

I've been a fan of electronic music since the late 70s.

I have to admit I've never heard the reference to "Hoover sounds".

Would someone point me to an MP3 or YouTube example of that?

(a time reference within that mp3 or video would be helpful too)

thanks