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

[Catilyne <catilyne@icicle.net>]

Um, wow!  Would you mind if I forwarded that over to my wife?  It might 
help me justify all this gear sitting around my living room....  ;)

Seriously though, I can't really take credit: I'm just an information 
pack-rat.  I'm not the one who actually went through the architecture and 
figured out the clock timings, or the reliability of the chips.  Those are 
the guys who really deserve the pats on the back.

         -c-


At 02:22 PM 10/7/2003 -0600, Jesse Ray Lucas wrote:
>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
> > >
> >