Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12
>>>
Am 16.07.2012 23:47, schrieb Howie Shen:
The way I view the Xpander vs. Matrix-12 is
they were designed for 2 different applications; the
Xpander is a multi-timbral sound module designed with
both CV & MIDI and multiple audio outputs standard
so it can integrate into an analog/digital sequencing
setup. The Matrix-12 on the other hand was designed
for live playing/performing with ability to quickly
setup layers/detuning and have velocity &
aftertouch for expressive playing from it's own
keyboard. Same sounds, just different uses.
Oberheim Xpander came in 1984.
If you go back in Oberheim synth design history,- there was the SEM
module 1st, then the 2-voice, 4-voice, 6- and 8-voice SEM based
polyphonic synths which were very flexible but not stable in tuning,
not very reliable, bulky and storage capacity was very limited.
But this concept designing synths made the Oberheim brand well known
and famous.
Then came the OBX in different polyphonic ( 4-, 6- 8-voice)
configurations,12dB VCFs only,- then the OBXa,- w/ 12 and 24dB VCFs
With the OB-8, their own digital bus was introduces, but no MIDI in
OBX, OBXa and OB-8 (when it was introduced).
I buyed my OB-8 already fitted w/ MIDI,- it was one of the later
ones where the digital controlled "Page 2" features were introduced
already which came as a OS update for the previous models.
In fact, these poly synths were all answers on the Prophet 5,
shortly followed by OBX,- and Roland Jupiter 8 (early 1981) followed
by OBXa.
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.
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.
Looking back to 1986 when the Oberheim XK masterkeyboard was
introduced already,- I think they had all in their pockets already
w/ the developement of the Xpander.
It was the 1st machine w/ that high level of digital control.
As I said in a former post, the Matrix-12, for me wasnt the ideal
gigging synth because of its size and lack of stiffness of its
case,- and because MIDI was implemented in several other keyboards
already, I was easier to travel w/ 1 or 2 Xpanders than w/ a Matrix-12.
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.
I've owned both, but currently still have my
M12. The reason is I love programing slowly evolving
pad sounds so the 6 voices of the Xpander were not
enough...having notes drop out when playing chords
just wasn't satisfying.
Thats true,- but using 3 Xpanders w/ a XK surpasses the usage of a
Matrix-12 ... :-)
OTOH, lack of "spillover voices" in the XK doesnt make 3 Xpanders a
18-voice poly.
But today and w/ a Kurzweil PC3 model, were able to make a 12-voice
poly out of 2 Xpanders.
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.
so I get why the XP is a more practical
package. Again, that's the beauty of Oberheim
designing 2 different machines.
Yes,- and most interesting w/ Matrix-12 over the Xpander is
Dual-Layer Mode w/ voices/voiceboards slightly detuned,- and have to
leyers as physical controllers,- like in the OBX, OBXa and OB-8
models.
Many Oberheim players missed the levers and werent very familiar w/
wheel pitch bend techniques when they had to control the Xpander by
another MIDI keyboard.
In the past, there was lot of discussion whats the best,- wheels or
levers.
Keyboardplayers were devided into 2 parties because of this.
The comment about the Detune feature of the M12
being only good for techno-style "Hoover" sounds is
not very fair.
No one said that, it was a comment on stacking ALL OSCs and detune
and there was no comment on the Matrix-12 being only good for techno
style hoover.
If you think about the lush organic quality of
instruments like the OBX and Yamaha CS80 much of that
is due to the individual voice cards inside being
slightly off from each other. Essentially that is what
the Detune feature on the Matrix allows you to
experience...just like in real life where an ensemble
of 12 violinists playing the same note aren't hitting
the exact same pitch and that's what makes the sound
rich.
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.
P.
|
Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12
Sorry for the typos in that mail,- I
was fast typing and had no time for a re-read.
Must be "theres the option to define which voices"
"different PSU"
:-)
Am 16.07.2012 22:37, schrieb Terje Winther:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
> Also have in mind,- exactly like w/ a Matrix-12, in
Multi-Patch
> Mode, theres the option die fine which voicees will
be triggered by
> CV/Gate and which over MIDI.
> So, cable connections can be permanent and you decide
by creating
> patches.
That is just brilliant! I did not think of that. For a
live performing
musician like me, that is heaven sent.
> BEWARE of the japanese models,- completely differen
PSU and voice
> board design,- not reliable units !
Yes, so I understand! I heard that not even Oberheim staff
could
service the Japanese models, so I will not even attempt!
> ROM chip version can be upgraded to the very last
versions if you
> have a Eprom burner handling the Eproms used in the
Matrix-12/Xpander.
> The images are still available.
Good to know.
Terje Winther
terje.winther@...
|
Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12
The way I view the Xpander vs. Matrix-12 is they were designed for 2 different applications; the Xpander is a multi-timbral sound module designed with both CV & MIDI and multiple audio outputs standard so it can integrate into an analog/digital sequencing setup. The Matrix-12 on the other hand was designed for live playing/performing with ability to quickly setup layers/detuning and have velocity & aftertouch for expressive playing from it's own keyboard. Same sounds, just different uses.
I've owned both, but currently still have my M12. The reason is I love programing slowly evolving pad sounds so the 6 voices of the Xpander were not enough...having notes drop out when playing chords just wasn't satisfying. However, I certainly appreciate that some musicians
don't use the Xpander for chords, but rather as 6 individually triggered monosynths, so I get why the XP is a more practical package. Again, that's the beauty of Oberheim designing 2 different machines.
The comment about the Detune feature of the M12 being only good for techno-style "Hoover" sounds is not very fair. If you think about the lush organic quality of instruments like the OBX and Yamaha CS80 much of that is due to the individual voice cards inside being slightly off from each other. Essentially that is what the Detune feature on the Matrix allows you to experience...just like in real life where an ensemble of 12 violinists playing the same note aren't hitting the exact same pitch and that's what makes the sound rich.?
Of course if you go overboard with voice-to-voice detuning the effect becomes very noticeable, but it is surprising how
just a subtle use of it can dramatically liven up a sound. So it really is an outstanding feature.
Howie
From: Omar
To: xpantastic@...
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: [xpantastic] The pure size of the Matrix-12
?
before purchasing my Xpander, a good friend of mine let me borrow his Matrix-12 and about the only use case I found the detune to be very nice was when programming pads/strings. with a subtle amount on each of the twelve voices, you get this really nice organic subtle change in thickness and harmonic color when playing chords. this in combination with rotate mode, the same note played never sounds the same twice.
while the same results can be achieved with the Xpander, it's much more cumbersome and not as accessible.
-o
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Terje Winther <terje.winther@...> wrote:
?
> I have owned a M12 for a long time. I find the modulation List a
> great thing,
> but I don't see the detune as that much of an advantage, unless
> you just gotta have a "Hover" type sound.
>
"Hover" type sound! Funny name, but true!
I am too old to be into techno detuned sound (it really sounds "out of
tune" for me), but now and then I have patched up my modulars and
monophonic analogs in a massive collective sound. The idea came from a
reading of what Rick Wright in Pink Floyd did, overdubbing his
minimoog multiple times so he had like 18-20 VCOs sounding. You need
to be careful to really have everything in tune, and play well (or use
sequencers), and you can achive a slightly different sound. It is a
lot of work just to get a slightly different sound, but can be worth
while, as long as you don?t overdo it.
> Often I have adjusted the detunes to what I think is a perfect
> sound, only to
> reset them all to 0 once I play the sound with a band or midi
> sequence context .
>
I agree: detuning should be used very subtly.
|
Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12
before purchasing my Xpander, a good friend of mine let me borrow his Matrix-12 and about the only use case I found the detune to be very nice was when programming pads/strings. with a subtle amount on each of the twelve voices, you get this really nice organic subtle change in thickness and harmonic color when playing chords. this in combination with rotate mode, the same note played never sounds the same twice.
while the same results can be achieved with the Xpander, it's much more cumbersome and not as accessible.
-o
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Terje Winther <terje.winther@...> wrote:
?
> I have owned a M12 for a long time. I find the modulation List a
> great thing,
> but I don't see the detune as that much of an advantage, unless
> you just gotta have a "Hover" type sound.
>
"Hover" type sound! Funny name, but true!
I am too old to be into techno detuned sound (it really sounds "out of
tune" for me), but now and then I have patched up my modulars and
monophonic analogs in a massive collective sound. The idea came from a
reading of what Rick Wright in Pink Floyd did, overdubbing his
minimoog multiple times so he had like 18-20 VCOs sounding. You need
to be careful to really have everything in tune, and play well (or use
sequencers), and you can achive a slightly different sound. It is a
lot of work just to get a slightly different sound, but can be worth
while, as long as you don?t overdo it.
> Often I have adjusted the detunes to what I think is a perfect
> sound, only to
> reset them all to 0 once I play the sound with a band or midi
> sequence context .
>
I agree: detuning should be used very subtly.
|
Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12
I have owned a M12 for a long time. I find the modulation List a
great thing,
but I don't see the detune as that much of an advantage, unless
you just gotta have a "Hover" type sound.
"Hover" type sound! Funny name, but true! I am too old to be into techno detuned sound (it really sounds "out of tune" for me), but now and then I have patched up my modulars and monophonic analogs in a massive collective sound. The idea came from a reading of what Rick Wright in Pink Floyd did, overdubbing his minimoog multiple times so he had like 18-20 VCOs sounding. You need to be careful to really have everything in tune, and play well (or use sequencers), and you can achive a slightly different sound. It is a lot of work just to get a slightly different sound, but can be worth while, as long as you don?t overdo it. Often I have adjusted the detunes to what I think is a perfect
sound, only to
reset them all to 0 once I play the sound with a band or midi
sequence context .
I agree: detuning should be used very subtly. Terje Winther terje.winther@...
|
Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12
Like I said: Lots of expertise on this list! Thanks a lot. Terje Den 16. juli. 2012 kl. 18.36 skrev Omar Torres:
unison does not require multi-mode.
all you have to do is assign all 6 voices to
the same zone (in this case zone 1) and then
set zone 1 to one of the unison modes instead
of rotate or reset mode
much easier than having to mess with multi-mode.
-omar
Terje Winther terje.winther@...
|
Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12
Also have in mind,- exactly like w/ a Matrix-12, in Multi-Patch
Mode, there?s the option die fine which voicees will be triggered by
CV/Gate and which over MIDI.
So, cable connections can be permanent and you decide by creating
patches. That is just brilliant! I did not think of that. For a live performing musician like me, that is heaven sent. BEWARE of the japanese models,- completely differen PSU and voice
board design,- not reliable units ! Yes, so I understand! I heard that not even Oberheim staff could service the Japanese models, so I will not even attempt! ROM chip version can be upgraded to the very last versions if you
have a Eprom burner handling the Eproms used in the Matrix-12/Xpander.
The images are still available. Good to know. Terje Winther terje.winther@...
|
Re: Fw: The pure size of the Matrix-12
Hi Karl !
All I can say is, I dont have much use for the "all OSCs in
unison-detuned" sound.
Im absolutely not into that techno supersaw thingy !
So,- Hoover is the right term and if Id urently need it,- Id get
it from all kind of VST stuff or such.
Well, all just a matter of taste though.
:-D
PeWe
Am 16.07.2012 19:32, schrieb Karl Schmeer:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Hi All,
>unison does not require multi-mode.
>all you have to do is assign all 6 voices to
>the same zone (in this case zone 1) and then
>set zone 1 to one of the unison modes instead
>of rotate or reset mode
>much easier than having to mess with multi-mode.
-omar
This is true. You can set all thezone stuff up ( globaly)
in the master page
section, however these settings are notoutput with a
patch dump.
Patch dumps only send single patch and multi patch
settings, none of the master
stuff.
>dont know what the difference w/ the Matrix-12 and
the 2nd voice board is
>though ...
AFAIK The Matrix 12works the same way as the
Xpander.Youcan assign
any number of voices ( up to 12 )toone of the 6
Zones.
> M12 - Xpander Comparison
I have owned a M12 for a long time. I find the modulation
List a great thing,
but I don't see the detune as that much of an advantage,
unless
you just gotta have a "Hover" type sound.
Often I have adjusted the detunes to what I think is a
perfect sound, only to
reset them all to 0 once Iplay the soundwith a band or
midi sequencecontext .
Best
Karl
|
Fw: The pure size of the Matrix-12
Hi All, unison does not require multi-mode.
all you have to do is assign all 6 voices to
the same zone (in this case zone 1) and then
set zone 1 to one of the unison modes instead
of rotate or reset mode
much easier than having to mess with multi-mode. -omar This is true. You can set all the?zone stuff up ( globaly) in the master page section, however these settings are not?output with a patch dump.? Patch dumps only send single patch and multi patch settings, none of the master stuff. don?t know what the difference w/ the Matrix-12 and the 2nd voice board is
though ... AFAIK The Matrix 12?works the same way as the Xpander.?You?can assign? any number of voices ( up to 12 )??to?one of the 6 Zones.?? M12 - Xpander Comparison I have owned a M12 for a long time. I find the modulation List a great thing, but I don't see the detune as that much of an advantage, unless you just gotta have a "Hover" type sound. Often I have adjusted the detunes to what I think is a perfect sound, only to reset them all to 0 once I?play the sound?with a band or midi sequence?context . Best Karl
|
Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12
Ah, yes.
Typed form my head here and youre right !
Am 16.07.2012 18:36, schrieb Omar Torres:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
unison does not require multi-mode.
all you have to do is assign all 6 voices to
the same zone (in this case zone 1) and then
set zone 1 to one of the unison modes instead
of rotate or reset mode
much easier than having to mess with multi-mode.
|
Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12
unison does not require multi-mode.
all you have to do is assign all 6 voices to the same zone (in this case zone 1) and then set zone 1 to one of the unison modes instead of rotate or reset mode
much easier than having to mess with multi-mode.
On Jul 16, 2012, at 12:32 PM, PeWe < ha-pewe@...> wrote:
?
>>>
Am 15.07.2012 17:28, schrieb Terje Winther:
?
:-)
Very interesting to read about the Xpander. The
seperate outputs and CV/gate pr. voice input is very
intriguing for me. I can see a lot of uses for that in my
modular setup, as well as an extension for my minimoog.
And of course for great polyphonic chords. I already have
a MIDI master keyboard and one of those Roland CV
keyboards, and I am building myself a polyphonic MICI-CV
controller, so the possible uses are endless.
Having a master keyboard with an arpeggiator seems like
a good idea. I mostly rely on analog step sequencers, and
since they can interface directly with the Xpander, that
would be a lot of creative fun. Two of the moog modular
sequencers equals 6 rows of notes, the same as the Xpander
inputs. Seems to be a perfect match!
Also have in mind,- exactly like w/ a Matrix-12, in Multi-Patch
Mode, there?s the option die fine which voicees will be triggered by
CV/Gate and which over MIDI.
So, cable connections can be permanent and you decide by creating
patches.
As a polyphonic MIDI CV/ interface,- I use the trusty vintage Roland
MPU-101 which never failed here since I buyed it new,- but 4 voices
only.
I see the occasional Xpander for sale here and there,
but noticed in several ads a reference to various versions
of the Xpander.
US and japanese versions.
There were also early US versions w/ a 24dB low pass filter only and
later ones were w/ multi moder filter.
I?d say most US XPanders are w/ multimode filters.
BEWARE of the japanese models,- completely differen PSU and voice
board design,- not reliable units !
I tried to find more info regarding this, but all I
could find was details about different versions of the
internal ROM chips for voices, cassette interface and
frontpanel (?) It may be that the various "versions" they
are refering to are 110V and 220V versions, or are
Japanese, European and American Xpanders different? It
seems to be the same voice cards on all of them.
See above.
ROM chip version can be upgraded to the very last versions if you
have a Eprom burner handling the Eproms used in the
Matrix-12/Xpander.
The images are still available.
One last question: is there a monophonic alternative on
the Matrix-12, where all 24 VCOs are played monophonically
in unison?
Well, each patch used in a slot of a Multi Patch can be set to
unison/mono,- so it?s practically 6 monophonic synths in a Xpander.
These "synths" together can be played in unison on the smae MIDI
channel too in a multi patch,- or each one monophonic on different
MIDI channels,- or any mix of key assignment modes.
The kay assignement modes in multi patch mode are similar to the old
4 - an 8-voice Oberheims composed from SEM modules.
With the Matrix-12 you have the detune page, w/ the Xpander you
won?t.
There?s the workaround copying the same patch to different
single-patch memory slots and fine-tune the OSCs differently, then
store again.
Then, if you put ?em into multi patch slots and set ?em to unison,-
that?s it for all 6 voices in the Xpander in munison/mono and
detuned.
I don?t know what the difference w/ the Matrix-12 and the 2nd voice
board is though ...
PeWe
|
Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12
>>>
Am 15.07.2012 17:28, schrieb Terje Winther:
:-)
Very interesting to read about the Xpander. The
seperate outputs and CV/gate pr. voice input is very
intriguing for me. I can see a lot of uses for that in my
modular setup, as well as an extension for my minimoog.
And of course for great polyphonic chords. I already have
a MIDI master keyboard and one of those Roland CV
keyboards, and I am building myself a polyphonic MICI-CV
controller, so the possible uses are endless.
Having a master keyboard with an arpeggiator seems like
a good idea. I mostly rely on analog step sequencers, and
since they can interface directly with the Xpander, that
would be a lot of creative fun. Two of the moog modular
sequencers equals 6 rows of notes, the same as the Xpander
inputs. Seems to be a perfect match!
Also have in mind,- exactly like w/ a Matrix-12, in Multi-Patch
Mode, theres the option die fine which voicees will be triggered by
CV/Gate and which over MIDI.
So, cable connections can be permanent and you decide by creating
patches.
As a polyphonic MIDI CV/ interface,- I use the trusty vintage Roland
MPU-101 which never failed here since I buyed it new,- but 4 voices
only.
I see the occasional Xpander for sale here and there,
but noticed in several ads a reference to various versions
of the Xpander.
US and japanese versions.
There were also early US versions w/ a 24dB low pass filter only and
later ones were w/ multi moder filter.
Id say most US XPanders are w/ multimode filters.
BEWARE of the japanese models,- completely differen PSU and voice
board design,- not reliable units !
I tried to find more info regarding this, but all I
could find was details about different versions of the
internal ROM chips for voices, cassette interface and
frontpanel (?) It may be that the various "versions" they
are refering to are 110V and 220V versions, or are
Japanese, European and American Xpanders different? It
seems to be the same voice cards on all of them.
See above.
ROM chip version can be upgraded to the very last versions if you
have a Eprom burner handling the Eproms used in the
Matrix-12/Xpander.
The images are still available.
One last question: is there a monophonic alternative on
the Matrix-12, where all 24 VCOs are played monophonically
in unison?
Well, each patch used in a slot of a Multi Patch can be set to
unison/mono,- so its practically 6 monophonic synths in a Xpander.
These "synths" together can be played in unison on the smae MIDI
channel too in a multi patch,- or each one monophonic on different
MIDI channels,- or any mix of key assignment modes.
The kay assignement modes in multi patch mode are similar to the old
4 - an 8-voice Oberheims composed from SEM modules.
With the Matrix-12 you have the detune page, w/ the Xpander you
wont.
Theres the workaround copying the same patch to different
single-patch memory slots and fine-tune the OSCs differently, then
store again.
Then, if you put em into multi patch slots and set em to unison,-
thats it for all 6 voices in the Xpander in munison/mono and
detuned.
I dont know what the difference w/ the Matrix-12 and the 2nd voice
board is though ...
PeWe
|
Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12
there are American manf units and Japanese manf units.
It's my understanding that the Japanese? ones are more prone to build quality issues. But I cant confirm that myself.
All right, thank you, very useful information. So just two hardwave versions, then. That should be easy. I notice that all Xpanders for sale these days are Japanese versions. And yes, to play all voices in monophonic you just need to set your main zone to "unison" mode. there is uni-high, uni-low, and uni-reset modes
Great, thanks! Will try that as soon as I get the new DAC.
__
|
Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12
there are American manf units and Japanese manf units.
It's my understanding that the Japanese? ones are more prone to build quality issues. But I cant confirm that myself.
And yes, to play all voices in monophonic you just need to set your main zone to "unison" mode. there is uni-high, uni-low, and uni-reset modes
On Jul 15, 2012, at 11:28 AM, Terje Winther < terje.winther@...> wrote:
?
Thanks! Very interesting to read about the Xpander. The seperate outputs and CV/gate pr. voice input is very intriguing for me. I can see a lot of uses for that in my modular setup, as well as an extension for my minimoog. And of course for great polyphonic chords. I already have a MIDI master keyboard and one of those Roland CV keyboards, and I am building myself a polyphonic MICI-CV controller, so the possible uses are endless. Having a master keyboard with an arpeggiator seems like a good idea. I mostly rely on analog step sequencers, and since they can interface directly with the Xpander, that would be a lot of creative fun. Two of the moog modular sequencers equals 6 rows of notes, the same as the Xpander inputs. Seems to be a perfect match!
I see the occasional Xpander for sale here and there, but noticed in several ads a reference to various versions of the Xpander. I tried to find more info regarding this, but all I could find was details about different versions of the internal ROM chips for voices, cassette interface and frontpanel (?) It may be that the various "versions" they are refering to are 110V and 220V versions, or are Japanese, European and American Xpanders different? It seems to be the same voice cards on all of them.
One last question: is there a monophonic alternative on the Matrix-12, where all 24 VCOs are played monophonically in unison?
Terje
Den 14. juli. 2012 kl. 16.06 skrev PeWe: ?
That?s a cool read, Terje !
I love my Xpander since I buyed it as a 1st owner and, surprisingly, it is one of the most reliable analog synthesizers I ever owned incl. my Minimoog D.
While I gave up touring w/ the Minimoog already 2nd half of the 80th, I?d go on the road w/ the Xpander up today because it didn?t need service much within 24 years.
I only had to replace a CEM signal generator many years ago and now a few tact switches need replacement too.
I collected all kinds of parts for refubishing my Xpander and it will be done somewhere this year even it plays like the 1st day.
In fact, it was in the hands of roadies twice a year for many weeks, traveled in trucks and planes, in the cold and in the heat and it never failed in a studio or on a stage.
It?s a super reliable piece of gear and also my VFD displays shine bright up to now.
The smaller form factor of the Xpander makes it more reliable than the Matrix-12 because the case of the Matrix-12 isn?t the most stiff and stable one.
Circuit boards bend on transport.
I shortly aquired a Oberheim XK, already w/ a better PSU and chips in sockets, which now waits for tact switches replacement since I?ve found the switches.
I?ve connected it to the Xpander and, yes,- the behaviour of that keyboard is perfect for the Xpander so I can say, both offer what the Xpander lacks,- the action, the levers and a arpeggiator I had in my Oberheim OB-8.
The 6 voices are enough for any music, even 4 voices in a Oberheim 4-voice were enough to play any chord we know in the diatonic system.
The modulation page in the Matrix-12 offers better overview for modulation sources and destinations, that?s true, but I can live without it.
The detune page is another story,- but my workaround is a good analogue stereo modulation device offering fat chorus for these sounds.
P.ex. a old Rocktron Prochorus is a 6 voice analogue tap delay in 1st order and these taps are modulated by a LFO.
There?s a feedback circuit too for the flanging type stuff,- but the best is, you can place each of the taps to left, right or center individually in the stereo field.
So, when using the Xpander voice panning in addition,- the result is pretty similar to what comes out of a Matrix-12, the voiceboards stacked and detuned.
Can also be done w/ digital multi FX units like a Digitech Studio 400 or similar.
Don?t underrate you?d get CV/GATE inputs for each voice in a Xpander and w/ the Matrix-12 you won?t.
Owning the Minimoog featured w/ CV/GATE outputs, is breeze to link 1 voice of the Xpander to the Minimoog?s keyboard and plying w/ sounds which were formerly created w/ a Minimoog and a Oberheim SEM module.
And there are the single outputs for each voice you?d need a hardware option for the Matrix-12 if you want that.
best
PeWe
Am 14.07.2012 15:13, schrieb Terje Winther:
? Thanks to all on this list for the kind help in debugging the Matrix-12.
The kindness and the high level of expertise is really appreciated.
I have learned a lot.
I have also had a little bit of time to play with the Matrix, and I
can see why many people prefer the Xpander. The Matrix-12 is huge in
all manners of the word. It is physically big, heavy, and just the
depth from front of the keys to the rear is staggering. Most other
analog polysynths are small by comparison. Also, the sound when using
all 12 keys are almost over the top. I originally thought that having
an Xpander with "only" 6 voices would be limiting, but now I know that
used in a musical context, that is plenty. Also: the Xpander do not
have to boggle with the dual voice cards, the keyboard and all that.
Thinking about it, I am not really sure I want a Matrix-12, but I must
say that I am getting really interested in getting myself an Xpander.
My music is typically "old school", and I use a lot of analog modular
synths, step sequencers and floating pads, and the Xpander would be
perfect for that kind of music. The depth of modulation is really
good, and I must say that for once the sale pitch is correct: it is
almost like a polyphonic modular synth. I don?t know many other analog
synths that can modulate the VCOs with so many modulators, and have
the modulators being modulated by something else, that in turn are
modulated again. Just having two different LFOs for each of the VCOs
pulse width modulation is already luxury, and when you start using
several moving modulation patchs into pitch, pulse width and VCF
cutoff fluxuation, the livelyness of the sound is just beautiful.
Technically I am also quite impressed with the tuning stability (when
it works...). On the scope I can see how the pitch correction works in
the first few minutes after power-up, and how it works while I am
playing. I know how hard it can be to have analog VCOs track over 5
octaves (I regulary calibrate my own modular VCOs), so yes, I am
impressed by what this machine can do.
I see on the ?net that an Xpander will easily cost me around 3.000
dollars, while a Matrix-12 is only marginally more expensive. Hm. I
will have to do some more repair work before I can even consider
buying one. So one day, then.
Terje Winther
terje.winther@...
|
Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12
Thanks! Very interesting to read about the Xpander. The seperate outputs and CV/gate pr. voice input is very intriguing for me. I can see a lot of uses for that in my modular setup, as well as an extension for my minimoog. And of course for great polyphonic chords. I already have a MIDI master keyboard and one of those Roland CV keyboards, and I am building myself a polyphonic MICI-CV controller, so the possible uses are endless. Having a master keyboard with an arpeggiator seems like a good idea. I mostly rely on analog step sequencers, and since they can interface directly with the Xpander, that would be a lot of creative fun. Two of the moog modular sequencers equals 6 rows of notes, the same as the Xpander inputs. Seems to be a perfect match!
I see the occasional Xpander for sale here and there, but noticed in several ads a reference to various versions of the Xpander. I tried to find more info regarding this, but all I could find was details about different versions of the internal ROM chips for voices, cassette interface and frontpanel (?) It may be that the various "versions" they are refering to are 110V and 220V versions, or are Japanese, European and American Xpanders different? It seems to be the same voice cards on all of them.
One last question: is there a monophonic alternative on the Matrix-12, where all 24 VCOs are played monophonically in unison?
Terje
Den 14. juli. 2012 kl. 16.06 skrev PeWe: ?
That?s a cool read, Terje !
I love my Xpander since I buyed it as a 1st owner and, surprisingly, it is one of the most reliable analog synthesizers I ever owned incl. my Minimoog D.
While I gave up touring w/ the Minimoog already 2nd half of the 80th, I?d go on the road w/ the Xpander up today because it didn?t need service much within 24 years.
I only had to replace a CEM signal generator many years ago and now a few tact switches need replacement too.
I collected all kinds of parts for refubishing my Xpander and it will be done somewhere this year even it plays like the 1st day.
In fact, it was in the hands of roadies twice a year for many weeks, traveled in trucks and planes, in the cold and in the heat and it never failed in a studio or on a stage.
It?s a super reliable piece of gear and also my VFD displays shine bright up to now.
The smaller form factor of the Xpander makes it more reliable than the Matrix-12 because the case of the Matrix-12 isn?t the most stiff and stable one.
Circuit boards bend on transport.
I shortly aquired a Oberheim XK, already w/ a better PSU and chips in sockets, which now waits for tact switches replacement since I?ve found the switches.
I?ve connected it to the Xpander and, yes,- the behaviour of that keyboard is perfect for the Xpander so I can say, both offer what the Xpander lacks,- the action, the levers and a arpeggiator I had in my Oberheim OB-8.
The 6 voices are enough for any music, even 4 voices in a Oberheim 4-voice were enough to play any chord we know in the diatonic system.
The modulation page in the Matrix-12 offers better overview for modulation sources and destinations, that?s true, but I can live without it.
The detune page is another story,- but my workaround is a good analogue stereo modulation device offering fat chorus for these sounds.
P.ex. a old Rocktron Prochorus is a 6 voice analogue tap delay in 1st order and these taps are modulated by a LFO.
There?s a feedback circuit too for the flanging type stuff,- but the best is, you can place each of the taps to left, right or center individually in the stereo field.
So, when using the Xpander voice panning in addition,- the result is pretty similar to what comes out of a Matrix-12, the voiceboards stacked and detuned.
Can also be done w/ digital multi FX units like a Digitech Studio 400 or similar.
Don?t underrate you?d get CV/GATE inputs for each voice in a Xpander and w/ the Matrix-12 you won?t.
Owning the Minimoog featured w/ CV/GATE outputs, is breeze to link 1 voice of the Xpander to the Minimoog?s keyboard and plying w/ sounds which were formerly created w/ a Minimoog and a Oberheim SEM module.
And there are the single outputs for each voice you?d need a hardware option for the Matrix-12 if you want that.
best
PeWe
Am 14.07.2012 15:13, schrieb Terje Winther:
? Thanks to all on this list for the kind help in debugging the Matrix-12.
The kindness and the high level of expertise is really appreciated.
I have learned a lot.
I have also had a little bit of time to play with the Matrix, and I
can see why many people prefer the Xpander. The Matrix-12 is huge in
all manners of the word. It is physically big, heavy, and just the
depth from front of the keys to the rear is staggering. Most other
analog polysynths are small by comparison. Also, the sound when using
all 12 keys are almost over the top. I originally thought that having
an Xpander with "only" 6 voices would be limiting, but now I know that
used in a musical context, that is plenty. Also: the Xpander do not
have to boggle with the dual voice cards, the keyboard and all that.
Thinking about it, I am not really sure I want a Matrix-12, but I must
say that I am getting really interested in getting myself an Xpander.
My music is typically "old school", and I use a lot of analog modular
synths, step sequencers and floating pads, and the Xpander would be
perfect for that kind of music. The depth of modulation is really
good, and I must say that for once the sale pitch is correct: it is
almost like a polyphonic modular synth. I don?t know many other analog
synths that can modulate the VCOs with so many modulators, and have
the modulators being modulated by something else, that in turn are
modulated again. Just having two different LFOs for each of the VCOs
pulse width modulation is already luxury, and when you start using
several moving modulation patchs into pitch, pulse width and VCF
cutoff fluxuation, the livelyness of the sound is just beautiful.
Technically I am also quite impressed with the tuning stability (when
it works...). On the scope I can see how the pitch correction works in
the first few minutes after power-up, and how it works while I am
playing. I know how hard it can be to have analog VCOs track over 5
octaves (I regulary calibrate my own modular VCOs), so yes, I am
impressed by what this machine can do.
I see on the ?net that an Xpander will easily cost me around 3.000
dollars, while a Matrix-12 is only marginally more expensive. Hm. I
will have to do some more repair work before I can even consider
buying one. So one day, then.
Terje Winther
terje.winther@...
|
Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12
Thats a cool read, Terje !
I love my Xpander since I buyed it as a 1st owner and,
surprisingly, it is one of the most reliable analog synthesizers I
ever owned incl. my Minimoog D.
While I gave up touring w/ the Minimoog already 2nd half of the
80th, Id go on the road w/ the Xpander up today because it didnt
need service much within 24 years.
I only had to replace a CEM signal generator many years ago and
now a few tact switches need replacement too.
I collected all kinds of parts for refubishing my Xpander and it
will be done somewhere this year even it plays like the 1st day.
In fact, it was in the hands of roadies twice a year for many
weeks, traveled in trucks and planes, in the cold and in the heat
and it never failed in a studio or on a stage.
Its a super reliable piece of gear and also my VFD displays shine
bright up to now.
The smaller form factor of the Xpander makes it more reliable than
the Matrix-12 because the case of the Matrix-12 isnt the most
stiff and stable one.
Circuit boards bend on transport.
I shortly aquired a Oberheim XK, already w/ a better PSU and chips
in sockets, which now waits for tact switches replacement since
Ive found the switches.
Ive connected it to the Xpander and, yes,- the behaviour of that
keyboard is perfect for the Xpander so I can say, both offer what
the Xpander lacks,- the action, the levers and a arpeggiator I had
in my Oberheim OB-8.
The 6 voices are enough for any music, even 4 voices in a Oberheim
4-voice were enough to play any chord we know in the diatonic
system.
The modulation page in the Matrix-12 offers better overview for
modulation sources and destinations, thats true, but I can live
without it.
The detune page is another story,- but my workaround is a good
analogue stereo modulation device offering fat chorus for these
sounds.
P.ex. a old Rocktron Prochorus is a 6 voice analogue tap delay in
1st order and these taps are modulated by a LFO.
Theres a feedback circuit too for the flanging type stuff,- but
the best is, you can place each of the taps to left, right or
center individually in the stereo field.
So, when using the Xpander voice panning in addition,- the result
is pretty similar to what comes out of a Matrix-12, the
voiceboards stacked and detuned.
Can also be done w/ digital multi FX units like a Digitech Studio
400 or similar.
Dont underrate youd get CV/GATE inputs for each voice in a
Xpander and w/ the Matrix-12 you wont.
Owning the Minimoog featured w/ CV/GATE outputs, is breeze to link
1 voice of the Xpander to the Minimoogs keyboard and plying w/
sounds which were formerly created w/ a Minimoog and a Oberheim
SEM module.
And there are the single outputs for each voice youd need a
hardware option for the Matrix-12 if you want that.
best
PeWe
Am 14.07.2012 15:13, schrieb Terje Winther:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Thanks to all on this list for the kind help in debugging
the Matrix-12.
The kindness and the high level of expertise is really
appreciated.
I have learned a lot.
I have also had a little bit of time to play with the
Matrix, and I
can see why many people prefer the Xpander. The Matrix-12
is huge in
all manners of the word. It is physically big, heavy, and
just the
depth from front of the keys to the rear is staggering.
Most other
analog polysynths are small by comparison. Also, the sound
when using
all 12 keys are almost over the top. I originally thought
that having
an Xpander with "only" 6 voices would be limiting, but now
I know that
used in a musical context, that is plenty. Also: the
Xpander do not
have to boggle with the dual voice cards, the keyboard and
all that.
Thinking about it, I am not really sure I want a
Matrix-12, but I must
say that I am getting really interested in getting myself
an Xpander.
My music is typically "old school", and I use a lot of
analog modular
synths, step sequencers and floating pads, and the Xpander
would be
perfect for that kind of music. The depth of modulation is
really
good, and I must say that for once the sale pitch is
correct: it is
almost like a polyphonic modular synth. I dont know many
other analog
synths that can modulate the VCOs with so many modulators,
and have
the modulators being modulated by something else, that in
turn are
modulated again. Just having two different LFOs for each
of the VCOs
pulse width modulation is already luxury, and when you
start using
several moving modulation patchs into pitch, pulse width
and VCF
cutoff fluxuation, the livelyness of the sound is just
beautiful.
Technically I am also quite impressed with the tuning
stability (when
it works...). On the scope I can see how the pitch
correction works in
the first few minutes after power-up, and how it works
while I am
playing. I know how hard it can be to have analog VCOs
track over 5
octaves (I regulary calibrate my own modular VCOs), so
yes, I am
impressed by what this machine can do.
I see on the net that an Xpander will easily cost me
around 3.000
dollars, while a Matrix-12 is only marginally more
expensive. Hm. I
will have to do some more repair work before I can even
consider
buying one. So one day, then.
Terje Winther
terje.winther@...
|
Re: The pure size of the Matrix-12
I think the Xpander would be the most useful for
you Terje since you use so much CV/Gate stuff already.
?
Also, the fact that it has separate outs means it
can be very useful in a live situation.
?
WT
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:13
PM
Subject: [xpantastic] The pure size of
the Matrix-12
?
Thanks to all on this list for the kind help in debugging the
Matrix-12.
The kindness and the high level of expertise is really
appreciated.
I have learned a lot.
I have also had a little bit of
time to play with the Matrix, and I
can see why many people prefer the
Xpander. The Matrix-12 is huge in
all manners of the word. It is
physically big, heavy, and just the
depth from front of the keys to the
rear is staggering. Most other
analog polysynths are small by comparison.
Also, the sound when using
all 12 keys are almost over the top. I
originally thought that having
an Xpander with "only" 6 voices would be
limiting, but now I know that
used in a musical context, that is plenty.
Also: the Xpander do not
have to boggle with the dual voice cards, the
keyboard and all that.
Thinking about it, I am not really sure I want a
Matrix-12, but I must
say that I am getting really interested in getting
myself an Xpander.
My music is typically "old school", and I use a lot of
analog modular
synths, step sequencers and floating pads, and the Xpander
would be
perfect for that kind of music. The depth of modulation is really
good, and I must say that for once the sale pitch is correct: it is
almost like a polyphonic modular synth. I don?t know many other analog
synths that can modulate the VCOs with so many modulators, and have
the modulators being modulated by something else, that in turn are
modulated again. Just having two different LFOs for each of the VCOs
pulse width modulation is already luxury, and when you start using
several moving modulation patchs into pitch, pulse width and VCF
cutoff fluxuation, the livelyness of the sound is just
beautiful.
Technically I am also quite impressed with the tuning stability
(when
it works...). On the scope I can see how the pitch correction works
in
the first few minutes after power-up, and how it works while I am
playing. I know how hard it can be to have analog VCOs track over 5
octaves (I regulary calibrate my own modular VCOs), so yes, I am
impressed by what this machine can do.
I see on the ?net that an
Xpander will easily cost me around 3.000
dollars, while a Matrix-12 is
only marginally more expensive. Hm. I
will have to do some more repair
work before I can even consider
buying one. So one day, then.
Terje
Winther
terje.winther@...
|
The pure size of the Matrix-12
Thanks to all on this list for the kind help in debugging the Matrix-12.
The kindness and the high level of expertise is really appreciated.
I have learned a lot.
I have also had a little bit of time to play with the Matrix, and I
can see why many people prefer the Xpander. The Matrix-12 is huge in
all manners of the word. It is physically big, heavy, and just the
depth from front of the keys to the rear is staggering. Most other
analog polysynths are small by comparison. Also, the sound when using
all 12 keys are almost over the top. I originally thought that having
an Xpander with "only" 6 voices would be limiting, but now I know that
used in a musical context, that is plenty. Also: the Xpander do not
have to boggle with the dual voice cards, the keyboard and all that.
Thinking about it, I am not really sure I want a Matrix-12, but I must
say that I am getting really interested in getting myself an Xpander.
My music is typically "old school", and I use a lot of analog modular
synths, step sequencers and floating pads, and the Xpander would be
perfect for that kind of music. The depth of modulation is really
good, and I must say that for once the sale pitch is correct: it is
almost like a polyphonic modular synth. I don?t know many other analog
synths that can modulate the VCOs with so many modulators, and have
the modulators being modulated by something else, that in turn are
modulated again. Just having two different LFOs for each of the VCOs
pulse width modulation is already luxury, and when you start using
several moving modulation patchs into pitch, pulse width and VCF
cutoff fluxuation, the livelyness of the sound is just beautiful.
Technically I am also quite impressed with the tuning stability (when
it works...). On the scope I can see how the pitch correction works in
the first few minutes after power-up, and how it works while I am
playing. I know how hard it can be to have analog VCOs track over 5
octaves (I regulary calibrate my own modular VCOs), so yes, I am
impressed by what this machine can do.
I see on the ?net that an Xpander will easily cost me around 3.000
dollars, while a Matrix-12 is only marginally more expensive. Hm. I
will have to do some more repair work before I can even consider
buying one. So one day, then.
Terje Winther
terje.winther@...
|
Re: only one board active
Hi Karl, It is a long shot, but try reflowing the solder on the socket of the DAC.
Ya might get lucky.
Yes, familiar technique. Long shot, but I tried it anyway. No change, however. I have ordered a new DAC. Hopefully that will be the last obstacle. Terje Winther terje.winther@...
|
Re: only one board active
I have one of the DAC chips if you need one.
Doug
synthparts.com
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In xpantastic@..., Karl Schmeer <shire03@...> wrote:
Hi Terje,
It is a long shot, but try reflowing the solder on the socket of the DAC.
Ya might get lucky.??
Best
Karl
________________________________
From: Terje Winther <terje.winther@...>
To: xpantastic@...
Sent: Thu, July 12, 2012 10:59:39 AM
Subject: Re: [xpantastic] only one board active
??
Hi all,
Thank you very much for all the feedback and the hints of what to do.
After a day??s break from the Matrix-12, I once again got into it with
renewed energy.
I *might* have found the error, but I am not sure. To recapture:
Today a took both voice cards and swapped positions of the "board ID"
tag (strap). Earlier there was always voice 7 - 12 who failed, and
after the swap, voice 1-6 failed.
So there is no doubt now: There is an error on the voice card.
I swapped the straps back to the original positions, and inserted the
cards and tried a few other options:
- I tried new 4051 ICs at UX06 and UX07 on one of the voices. No change.
- I tried new TL084 at UX08 at one of the voices. No change.
- U108 (LM311) have been swapped. No change.
- I have swapped all critical ICs U812 to U815 with the working voice
card. No change.
- I have swapped the processor U907 and the timer IC U921 with the
working voice card. No change.
Voice card two (the upper card) fails on all 6 voices as regard to
VCOs, VCFs and VCAs. It comes close, but not perfect (off by as much
as 0,5 - 3 notes).
On the other hand, this is what is working:
- There is sound from all 12 voices (if I override the automatic
tuning and turn all voices manually on)
- All 12 voices responds to keyboard, levers and such
- All 12 voices change sound according to the stored programs, and
changes done on the front panel
- All voices pass tuning of PW (Pulse Width) and RES (filter resonance)
So I started backtracking to other ICs, and I might have found the
error:
U811, the 3140 DAC chip. If I swap this between the voice card with
tuning error and the working voice card, the tuning error follow the
chip. Kind of strange, since all other activities also goes through
that chip, and all other activities work as they should. Moving ICs
before and after U811 changes nothing, but moving the 3140 DAC makes
the tuning error move as well.
So I am tempted to borrow a 3140 chip from the other Matrix-12 to see
if I can have this Matrix-12 completely working. If so, then I have to
start sourcing a replacement - which seems to be quite difficult.
Any hints appreciated.
Thanks for the feedback on the heat of the ICs. They get somewhat hot,
but I can touch them without getting burned, so it is probably OK. The
power supply regulators also get somewhat hot, but the hearsinks seems
to be able to handle it.
Terje Winther
terje.winther@...
|
