Support |
De nada! No trouble at all. (eh, so I'm a synth geek.... ;) -c- At 02:52 AM 10/7/2003 -0400, Fsksync@aol.com wrote: >THANKS VERY MUCH for this post- very helpful indeed! > >Tim F > > > >In a message dated 10/6/03 10:58:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >catilyne@icicle.net writes: > >>At 09:37 PM 10/6/2003 -0700, dylan wrote: >> >> >i've heard a matrix 6 before. it sounded so fat and warm, >> >the horns and basses especially. THAT's the sound i want. >> > >> >i have never heard a matrix 1000. would it give me that >> >same fat, warm sound?? the synth sites online say it's "the >> >same" as the matrix 6r. but there HAS to be some technology >> >differences, to fit it all in 1 rack space. >> >>Hi Dylan, >> >>First of all, get yourself over to the Matrix Synth group at Yahoo >>(MatrixSynth @yahoogroups.com). There's been a bunch of discussion >>regarding this very topic, and a quick scan of the archives will confirm >>you don't have to take what I'm saying at face value. >> >>I have the Matrix1000, and have played with the Matrix6r a few times >>(although not directly head-to-head). There are some differences, but >not >>nearly as many as you'd expect. General consensus is that the 6r sounds >a >>little fatter, but primarily only because of the master clock crystal. >The >>1000 uses a single crystal which is then split across the six DCO's. The >>6r has separate crystals for each DCO. Therefore, each of the >oscillators >>on the 6r is a miniscule amount out of sync with the others, giving it an >>overall sound that's a little more fat. >> >>Also, while both the 1000 and 6r are based on the CEM 3396 voice chips, >the >>6r uses the 'wide-body' version, and the 1000 includes the 'narrow-body' >>version. Some chip connoisseurs will argue the difference that the wide >>version sounds very slightly better. That said, I can tell you that my >>1000 sounds pretty f*cking massive. I've had it for over a decade and >I've >>never once felt shortchanged in the 'analogue' department. >> >>To the plus side for the 6r is the fact that it is bi-timbral, allowing >you >>to send a different mono patch to each of its 2 separate outputs. No, >you >>can't really do stereo, unless you kludge something with two completely >>different versions of the same patch. The 1000 is only mono with a >single >>out (OBLoopReference: however you can easily multiply this by layering it >>using the looping device of your choice <*grin*>). Both devices are >>six-voice polyphonic. >> >>As far as good things about the 1000, you already mentioned that it takes >>up less real estate (1u as opposed to the 6r's 4u). The 1000 is said to >be >>sturdier all around with much better build quality, since evidently >>Oberheim subbed out the construction of the 6r's to a contracter. I can >>say that on the Matrix Synth list I've seen many more reports of 'weird' >>hardware behavior on the part of the 6r's than I ever have from the >1000's >>(and that after the 1000's were in production at least three times as >long >>as the 6r's -- there have to be far more 1000's out in the >>field). Relatedly, it is evidently far easier to obtain replacement >chips >>for the narrow-body version of the CEM 3396 than the wide-body version >used >>by the 6r. So, the 1000 is less likely to fail, and if it does it's >easier >>to get replacement parts. >> >>Finally, in the 1000's favor is the fact that you've got 1000 patches to >>start with -- 200 of which are user-editable. And the majority of them >are >>actually pretty darn good (they ought to be: Oberheim took the best >>submissions from existing Matrix6 owners to make up the patch >>bank). That's the one thing I hear 6r owners pining about the most. >While >>you can download the patches in sysex format and load them into the 6r a >>bank at a time, it's so much nicer just to have them at your fingertips. >> >>So, in summary: 6r is a liittle fatter, but not great deal, and >bi-timbral >>across two outs. 1000 is less likely to break and easier to fix, with 1k >>of patches as your starting point. >> >>Hope that helps... >> >> -c- >> >>_____ >>"i want to reach my hand into the dark and *feel* what reaches back" >> -recoil >