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