Re: OT -- oberheim matrix 1000 vs. matrix 6 ???

["Jesse Ray Lucas" <jlucas@neoprimitive.net>]

Posts like Catilyne's about the Oberheim synths are what keep me coming 
back
to this list.  Amazing!


----- Original Message -----
From: "Catilyne" <catilyne@icicle.net>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: OT -- oberheim matrix 1000 vs. matrix 6 ???


> 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
> >
>