OBERHEIM SYNTH group photo

Yahoo Groups archive

OBERHEIM SYNTH

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 23:39 UTC

Thread

Matrix 6R Spillover vs. Matrix 1000 Group Mode

Matrix 6R Spillover vs. Matrix 1000 Group Mode

2010-11-14 by fylthymcnasty

Hello, I am a new Matrix 6R owner, and I want to expand it to 12 voices by adding another unit.  I have read that the 6R and 1000 sound slightly different (though this is highly contentious) and I want to minimise that difference as much as possible when using two units together, obviously.

So, I have a choice between the two to buy, they both seem well priced, so that is not a factor, nor is the extra space taken by the 6R.  What I want to know about is how well each of the "added polyphony" systems work, and if one is superior to another.  I must admit that I much prefer the idea of alternating notes that adding the 1000 would bring (I understand that I would need to have the 1000 chained first as the "master" in this situation).  But how well do two 6Rs work together?  Once the maximum 6 voices is reached it spills over to the second unit, but I'm not sure if this will happen simply at a note off message (which is undesireable) or after the VCA envelope release frees the voice.  Basically I'm concerned that I'll be playing say, all six notes, with a long release, lift my hands to play another six notes and it will play the new chord on the same machine because all six note-offs have been receieved, the effect being that the release will be cut on the first chord, rather than switching to the second machine to play the second chord, as the first plays out on the first machine.  

Any advice is greatly appreciated!  Sorry to jump straight in with a question, but I need to know, and this seems like the best place there is!  Also, I'm very happy to see that BCR2000 template in the files section - can't wait to try that out!

Cheers, Fylthy

RE: [oberheim] Matrix 6R Spillover vs. Matrix 1000 Group Mode

2010-11-14 by Nicole Massey

I may be completely mistaken about this, but this is how I remember voice
allocation working on the 6r.

When you play a note, and then repeat that same note the 6r plays that note
on the exact same oscillator that it did previously until more than six
notes are played, in which case it will shift to another note for that
oscillator. What this implies to me that in playing twelve notes the first
six will play on the first machine and then the next six will play on the
second machine, just like this is a twelve note polyphony machine. I of
course may be mistaken, since I didn't know it had this mode, much less use
it at any time.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: oberheim@yahoogroups.com [mailto:oberheim@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of fylthymcnasty
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 12:15 AM
To: oberheim@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [oberheim] Matrix 6R Spillover vs. Matrix 1000 Group Mode

  

Hello, I am a new Matrix 6R owner, and I want to expand it to 12 voices by
adding another unit. I have read that the 6R and 1000 sound slightly
different (though this is highly contentious) and I want to minimise that
difference as much as possible when using two units together, obviously.

So, I have a choice between the two to buy, they both seem well priced, so
that is not a factor, nor is the extra space taken by the 6R. What I want to
know about is how well each of the "added polyphony" systems work, and if
one is superior to another. I must admit that I much prefer the idea of
alternating notes that adding the 1000 would bring (I understand that I
would need to have the 1000 chained first as the "master" in this
situation). But how well do two 6Rs work together? Once the maximum 6 voices
is reached it spills over to the second unit, but I'm not sure if this will
happen simply at a note off message (which is undesireable) or after the VCA
envelope release frees the voice. Basically I'm concerned that I'll be
playing say, all six notes, with a long release, lift my hands to play
another six notes and it will play the new chord on the same machine because
all six note-offs have been receieved, the effect being that the release
will be cut on the first chord, rather than switching to the second machine
to play the second chord, as the first plays out on the first machine. 

Any advice is greatly appreciated! Sorry to jump straight in with a
question, but I need to know, and this seems like the best place there is!
Also, I'm very happy to see that BCR2000 template in the files section -
can't wait to try that out!

Cheers, Fylthy

Re: Matrix 6R Spillover vs. Matrix 1000 Group Mode

2010-11-14 by bernard.escaillas

Hello,

I think the spillover won't work in the way you expect.
Actually, i have not tested it myself since i only have one M-6R and one M-1000 (poor me ;)
But don't expect undocumented features... Moreover, Oberheim did change the spillover mode to 'unit mode' in the M-1000. This leads me to think they found that the Spillover mode was not satifying...

From the manual, i understand that :

Press six keys : device 1 plays the six notes
Press a seventh key : device 2 play the seventh note

There is no mention of polyphony management during note tails, only for key press events. So, I can only imagine that in your case :
Press six keys : device 1 plays the six notes
Release all keys, and during long release sound
Press one key : device 1 steels from one of the six still playing note to play the new one.

The Matrix-1000 could be a better choice in your case (btw the manual states you can stack up to 6 M-1000 !!), because it works as:
each new key pressed is played in turn by the next device in the stack.

In you case again:
Press six keys : device 1 plays notes 1 3 5 on voices (1-2-3), device 2 plays notes 2,4 & 6 on voices 1, 2 & 3
Release all keys, and during long release sound
Press one key : device 1 plays note 7 on voice 4.

But don't trust me blindly, ask if someone with two M-1000 can test it for real...

RE: [oberheim] Matrix 6R Spillover vs. Matrix 1000 Group Mode

2010-11-14 by LarryS

irrespective of all the spillover and sound concerns, if you have a 6R, then
you probably oughta add a 6R just to keep things alike and interchangable.

On a recent discussion, we spoke of how the 6R has no Midi-volume built in.
That's not all, but that's big enough.  IOW, the two different units sound
'alike' whenever they CAN, but on some patches they can't if you expect to
have much midi control.

And if you are using midi for your control (no right or wrong, it's just a
choice), then a 6R and a 1000 are not gonna work and play together nicely
because of those reasons.

Personally, I have two M1000s and would never own another 6R again.  But
that's just me.

Larry
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oberheim@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:oberheim@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fylthymcnasty
> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 12:15 AM
> To: oberheim@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [oberheim] Matrix 6R Spillover vs. Matrix 1000 Group Mode
> 
> Hello, I am a new Matrix 6R owner, and I want to expand it to 
> 12 voices by adding another unit.  I have read that the 6R 
> and 1000 sound slightly different (though this is highly 
> contentious) and I want to minimise that difference as much 
> as possible when using two units together, obviously.
> 
> So, I have a choice between the two to buy, they both seem 
> well priced, so that is not a factor, nor is the extra space 
> taken by the 6R.  What I want to know about is how well each 
> of the "added polyphony" systems work, and if one is superior 
> to another.  I must admit that I much prefer the idea of 
> alternating notes that adding the 1000 would bring (I 
> understand that I would need to have the 1000 chained first 
> as the "master" in this situation).  But how well do two 6Rs 
> work together?  Once the maximum 6 voices is reached it 
> spills over to the second unit, but I'm not sure if this will 
> happen simply at a note off message (which is undesireable) 
> or after the VCA envelope release frees the voice.  Basically 
> I'm concerned that I'll be playing say, all six notes, with a 
> long release, lift my hands to play another six notes and it 
> will play the new chord on the same machine because all six 
> note-offs have been receieved, the effect being that the 
> release will be cut on the first chord, rather than switching 
> to the second machine to play the second chord, as the first 
> plays out on the first machine.  
> 
> Any advice is greatly appreciated!  Sorry to jump straight in 
> with a question, but I need to know, and this seems like the 
> best place there is!  Also, I'm very happy to see that 
> BCR2000 template in the files section - can't wait to try that out!
> 
> Cheers, Fylthy
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>

Re: Matrix 6R Spillover vs. Matrix 1000 Group Mode

2010-11-14 by fylthymcnasty

Thanks man, that was exactly what I was afraid of... which is pretty useless, rarely would anyone want to actually play 12 notes at once, but switching chords without notes dropping during the note release, that to me is what higher voice systems are all about.  Little wonder they changed it when they released the Matrix 1000!

So I guess maybe I should sell the 6R and get two 1000s instead... I must say I'm surprised this is the more attractive option.  Is the sound really that different?  Everyone seems very happy with their 1000s... so I'm guessing I won't be disappointed with the switch.

Larry, you say you'd never own a 6R again... why is that?



--- In oberheim@yahoogroups.com, "bernard.escaillas" <bernard@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Hello,
> 
> I think the spillover won't work in the way you expect.
> Actually, i have not tested it myself since i only have one M-6R and one M-1000 (poor me ;)
> But don't expect undocumented features... Moreover, Oberheim did change the spillover mode to 'unit mode' in the M-1000. This leads me to think they found that the Spillover mode was not satifying...
> 
> From the manual, i understand that :
> 
> Press six keys : device 1 plays the six notes
> Press a seventh key : device 2 play the seventh note
> 
> There is no mention of polyphony management during note tails, only for key press events. So, I can only imagine that in your case :
> Press six keys : device 1 plays the six notes
> Release all keys, and during long release sound
> Press one key : device 1 steels from one of the six still playing note to play the new one.
> 
> The Matrix-1000 could be a better choice in your case (btw the manual states you can stack up to 6 M-1000 !!), because it works as:
> each new key pressed is played in turn by the next device in the stack.
> 
> In you case again:
> Press six keys : device 1 plays notes 1 3 5 on voices (1-2-3), device 2 plays notes 2,4 & 6 on voices 1, 2 & 3
> Release all keys, and during long release sound
> Press one key : device 1 plays note 7 on voice 4.
> 
> But don't trust me blindly, ask if someone with two M-1000 can test it for real...
>

Re: [oberheim] Matrix 6R Spillover vs. Matrix 1000 Group Mode

2010-11-15 by Paul Cunningham

I have three Matrix-1000s and this kind of thing doesn't happen in group mode. It works pretty well in fact. -pc

On Nov 14, 2010, at 1:14 AM, fylthymcnasty wrote:

> Basically I'm concerned that I'll be playing say, all six notes, with a long release, lift my hands to play another six notes and it will play the new chord on the same machine because all six note-offs have been receieved, the effect being that the release will be cut on the first chord, rather than switching to the second machine to play the second chord, as the first plays out on the first machine.

Re: [oberheim] Re: Matrix 6R Spillover vs. Matrix 1000 Group Mode

2010-11-15 by Paul Cunningham

This is correct. Basically it assigns round-robin style until all the voices on all synths are used (in my case 18 voices!). -pc

On Nov 14, 2010, at 12:28 PM, bernard.escaillas wrote:

The Matrix-1000 could be a better choice in your case (btw the manual states you can stack up to 6 M-1000 !!), because it works as:
each new key pressed is played in turn by the next device in the stack.

In you case again:
Press six keys : device 1 plays notes 1 3 5 on voices (1-2-3), device 2 plays notes 2,4 & 6 on voices 1, 2 & 3
Release all keys, and during long release sound
Press one key : device 1 plays note 7 on voice 4.

But don't trust me blindly, ask if someone with two M-1000 can test it for real...

Re: [oberheim] Re: Matrix 6R Spillover vs. Matrix 1000 Group Mode

2010-11-15 by Paul Cunningham

In my opinion, there is more variation between each Matrix6/6r/1000 unit, than the unit models themselves. Each of my Matrix-1000s sound slightly different, but it's pretty subtle. I take advantage of it by using two of them with the same patch for stereo effect. It's quite dramatic. -pc

On Nov 14, 2010, at 4:39 PM, fylthymcnasty wrote:

So I guess maybe I should sell the 6R and get two 1000s instead... I must say I'm surprised this is the more attractive option. Is the sound really that different? Everyone seems very happy with their 1000s... so I'm guessing I won't be disappointed with the switch.

Re: [oberheim] Re: Matrix 6R Spillover vs. Matrix 1000 Group Mode

2010-11-15 by Charles Massey

That's what makes analog synths so fat!


On Nov 15, 2010, at 1:05 AM, Paul Cunningham wrote:



In my opinion, there is more variation between each Matrix6/6r/1000 unit, than the unit models themselves. Each of my Matrix-1000s sound slightly different, but it's pretty subtle. I take advantage of it by using two of them with the same patch for stereo effect. It's quite dramatic. -pc

On Nov 14, 2010, at 4:39 PM, fylthymcnasty wrote:

So I guess maybe I should sell the 6R and get two 1000s instead... I must say I'm surprised this is the more attractive option. Is the sound really that different? Everyone seems very happy with their 1000s... so I'm guessing I won't be disappointed with the switch.




RE: [oberheim] Re: Matrix 6R Spillover vs. Matrix 1000 Group Mode

2010-11-15 by LarryS

> -----Original Message-----

> Larry, you say you'd never own a 6R again... why is that?
> 
> 


Ok, let's see what I can remember.

The 6R came out at a time (87?) where the whole world was beyond midi-fying
everything as was switching over to the Keyboard + Module format.  Look at
all the modules you can control with a REMOTE keyboard!  Yamaha was big on
this; Ensoniq was a real player at the time, too.  Oberheim took their
Matrix 6 apart and sold the keybed separately (with some additional logic)
as the Xk-1.  Being the type I was, I bought the separate components, Xk-1
and M6R, rather than the M6 synth.

Still have the Xk, BTW.  It's built into a "project" of mine that I still
use.

I really can't fault them for eating up 2U of rack for 6 voices.  After all,
for the electronics of the time, that wasn't such a problem.  Every synth
manufacturer was offering their wares in modules.  I have many yet today.

But the #1 irritant for me was the fact that midi did NOTHING on the 6R.
Patch and note... that was it.  The sales pitch was that through the matrix
mod section, anything could be routed to anything... and that's true...
except it's making virtue of necessity.  You HAVE to route it to make it do
anything.

So where lots of other modules had volume and pitchbend already integrated,
the 6R did not.  If you want to control volume via Midi, you have to route
the midi signal to VCA2, thus LOSING a useful component of your synthesis
engine for the mundane task of volume.   Either that, or run 40' of
roundtrip noisy cable from my synth rack to a rocker pedal by my "remote"
keyboard.  

This is silly.  If the emphasis was all this 'remote control' then why make
it so hard to remotely control the thing??  And I was even using a pretty
darned good graphic editor (Opcode Galaxy) that made programming really
sweet.  When used in the same rack with a Yamaha TX802 and a Kurzweil
1000PX, it was definitely the boat anchor to mess with.

On other modules, including the M1000, midi volume just *worked* and it was
not a chore to get it to work.  Pitch bend just *worked* and it didn't have
to be programmed-in every patch. 

I don't know the first thing about decisionmaking at the factory, but it
appears that feedback got to them.  When the M1000 came out, it seemed they
were trying to make up for past sins.  1U in size.  That was great.  It had
1,000 patches built in.  Name the module that comes close to THAT.  Rubber
buttons instead of membrane switches.  And midi integration on more than
just patch/voice.  It was basically what the 6R SHOULD have been. 

So I have 2. Love 'em.

And with the pricepoints being so similar; the rack size being half; plenty
of choice patches; my editor/librarian software still works; and a useful
midi volume;  why would I ever want to go back to a 6R?  Ain't gonna happen.

Thereya go.  Howzzat?

Larry

RE: [oberheim] Re: Matrix 6R Spillover vs. Matrix 1000 Group Mode

2010-11-15 by Nicole Massey

One correction -- the 6r is three spaces, not two. You can fit three 1000
modules in the same space. I have one of both.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: oberheim@yahoogroups.com [mailto:oberheim@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of LarryS
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 7:51 AM
To: oberheim@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [oberheim] Re: Matrix 6R Spillover vs. Matrix 1000 Group Mode

  



> -----Original Message-----

> Larry, you say you'd never own a 6R again... why is that?
> 
> 

Ok, let's see what I can remember.

The 6R came out at a time (87?) where the whole world was beyond midi-fying
everything as was switching over to the Keyboard + Module format. Look at
all the modules you can control with a REMOTE keyboard! Yamaha was big on
this; Ensoniq was a real player at the time, too. Oberheim took their Matrix
6 apart and sold the keybed separately (with some additional logic) as the
Xk-1. Being the type I was, I bought the separate components, Xk-1 and M6R,
rather than the M6 synth.

Still have the Xk, BTW. It's built into a "project" of mine that I still
use.

I really can't fault them for eating up 2U of rack for 6 voices. After all,
for the electronics of the time, that wasn't such a problem. Every synth
manufacturer was offering their wares in modules. I have many yet today.

But the #1 irritant for me was the fact that midi did NOTHING on the 6R.
Patch and note... that was it. The sales pitch was that through the matrix
mod section, anything could be routed to anything... and that's true...
except it's making virtue of necessity. You HAVE to route it to make it do
anything.

So where lots of other modules had volume and pitchbend already integrated,
the 6R did not. If you want to control volume via Midi, you have to route
the midi signal to VCA2, thus LOSING a useful component of your synthesis
engine for the mundane task of volume. Either that, or run 40' of roundtrip
noisy cable from my synth rack to a rocker pedal by my "remote"
keyboard. 

This is silly. If the emphasis was all this 'remote control' then why make
it so hard to remotely control the thing?? And I was even using a pretty
darned good graphic editor (Opcode Galaxy) that made programming really
sweet. When used in the same rack with a Yamaha TX802 and a Kurzweil 1000PX,
it was definitely the boat anchor to mess with.

On other modules, including the M1000, midi volume just *worked* and it was
not a chore to get it to work. Pitch bend just *worked* and it didn't have
to be programmed-in every patch. 

I don't know the first thing about decisionmaking at the factory, but it
appears that feedback got to them. When the M1000 came out, it seemed they
were trying to make up for past sins. 1U in size. That was great. It had
1,000 patches built in. Name the module that comes close to THAT. Rubber
buttons instead of membrane switches. And midi integration on more than just
patch/voice. It was basically what the 6R SHOULD have been. 

So I have 2. Love 'em.

And with the pricepoints being so similar; the rack size being half; plenty
of choice patches; my editor/librarian software still works; and a useful
midi volume; why would I ever want to go back to a 6R? Ain't gonna happen.

Thereya go. Howzzat?

Larry

RE: [oberheim] Re: Matrix 6R Spillover vs. Matrix 1000 Group Mode

2010-11-15 by LarryS

<giggle>
thanks!

20 years.
Memory fades.

;-)

L.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oberheim@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:oberheim@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nicole Massey
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 8:15 AM
> To: oberheim@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [oberheim] Re: Matrix 6R Spillover vs. Matrix 
> 1000 Group Mode
> 
> One correction -- the 6r is three spaces, not two. You can 
> fit three 1000
> modules in the same space. I have one of both. 
>

RE: [oberheim] Re: Matrix 6R Spillover vs. Matrix 1000 Group Mode

2010-11-16 by Nicole Massey

That's what my Matrix 6R does as well, just so y'all know.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: oberheim@yahoogroups.com [mailto:oberheim@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Paul Cunningham
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 12:01 AM
To: oberheim@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [oberheim] Re: Matrix 6R Spillover vs. Matrix 1000 Group Mode

  

This is correct. Basically it assigns round-robin style until all the voices
on all synths are used (in my case 18 voices!). -pc

On Nov 14, 2010, at 12:28 PM, bernard.escaillas wrote:


	The Matrix-1000 could be a better choice in your case (btw the
manual states you can stack up to 6 M-1000 !!), because it works as:
	each new key pressed is played in turn by the next device in the
stack.
	
	In you case again:
	Press six keys : device 1 plays notes 1 3 5 on voices (1-2-3),
device 2 plays notes 2,4 & 6 on voices 1, 2 & 3
	Release all keys, and during long release sound
	Press one key : device 1 plays note 7 on voice 4.
	
	But don't trust me blindly, ask if someone with two M-1000 can test
it for real...

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.