>
>
> From: Joe <jmelnyk@...>
> Reply-To: elektron-users@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 17:42:25 -0400
> To: elektron-users@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [elektron] Re: MonoMachine versus other sequencers
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 02:02:09PM -0700, Gene Schwartz wrote:
>> Why should one forget that entirely? It's not all of the picture, but
>> surely
>> it's SOME of the picture!
>
> agreed! but the point is that features aren't always *everything*. I never
> would have thought that my MD could make string sounds, given its
> feature list, but it can.
>
Yes - that is certainly true that the feature list is not the whole picture.
I'd say that, in a way, the strength of a user interface can be defined as
how well it integrates the feature list - is the synth more or less than the
sum of its parts. And that assessment is, to some degree, subjective. My
Virus C has lots of features, but I have been using it rarely, and am going
to sell it very soon. Objectively, the feature list of the Monomachine is
smaller, but I find it to be much more inspirational.
>> It really cannot be worked around easily.
>
> it can depending on what you're trying to do. if you want some simple
> interleaving then you can work around it by chaining a couple patterns
> together. but more complicated free-form sequences are pretty much out
> of the question unless you're prepared for some serious pattern memory
> consumption and a bit of arithmetic (no to mention time!).
Right - and, not having tried going this route, I suspect that you'd still
be quite limited even if you took the time...In addition to polyrhythms, you
are limited to the degree to which one track can modulate another, which
powerful sequencers like the p3 give you in spades. But, of course, there is
no reason that one cannot sync up the 2 and use both sequencers
simultaneously for the best of both worlds.
>
>> This is true. And a lot of times certain features are the key to
>> creative
>> exploration. And it is also inspirational to work within different
>> envirnoments at different times, because sometimes you get stale
>> always
>> thinking the same way.
>
> agreed. I think Roonan's point is in fact exactly what you state - that it
> may not be the ideal sequencer, but the package as a whole is a great
> environment that causes you to think and create things a certain way. and
> this might be a new and exciting way to some people, even though it does
> have its limitations.
>
And I don't disagree with that at all...perhaps I was defensive in inferring
this nuance. To me it just seems obvious - liking the Monomachine, and
wanting to integrate other ways of working are not mutually exclusive at
all.
>> The spectralis sounds like it will be unbelievable...who knows, maybe
>> the
>> interface will be awkward, and it will wind up being less than the sum
>> of
>> its parts. But it sure looks like it will do a lot, and that the
>> sequencer
>> will be very powerful. It's also pretty expensive ($2500).
>
> yes, it seems wicked expensive to me. the features always seem kind of
> vague when I read it; but then again, so were the Mono's before it
> was released. but anyway, it does sound like it will be quite a machine
> to have.
>
> Joe
>
yeah - very expensive. there isn't a manual online at this point, and the
features do seem a bit vague, but the sequencer seems to be very powerful -
it does allow you to cross modulate, as I recall, and the patterns (32) can
be of different lengths.And the filtering seems very strong, and you can
also load your own samples and play them through the analog filters, etc. Of
course, the interface may suck - I've been playing around with a quasimidi
309 (the main quasimidi guy I think is the force behind the spectralis), and
while I think that it sounds really good (much dirtier than the machinedrum,
which isn't a bad thing - they sound pretty nice together), the interface is
awful compared to the machinedrum.
I have to confess though, I'm starting to save for it...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]