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@...

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

开云体育

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.

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

开云体育

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.

开云体育

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.

开云体育

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.

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

开云体育

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

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 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?

开云体育