Xpantastic!

Hey All,

Has anyone ever seen the Remote Control unit for the Matrix 6R? 
There is a 5 Pin DIN input on the front panel that says REMOTE.
This is not midi I/O. The Manual says it's for a rack mounted remote 
control programmer, that will make programming much easier.
 
Karl

Karl

Tom Dunn (an ex-Oberheim employee) that i bought my 6R from had one
when i came to buy the 6R and told me they
were prototypes and never went into production)

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Karl <shire03@...> wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> Has anyone ever seen the Remote Control unit for the Matrix 6R?
> There is a 5 Pin DIN input on the front panel that says REMOTE.
> This is not midi I/O. The Manual says it's for a rack mounted remote
> control programmer, that will make programming much easier.
>
> Karl
>
>

Thanks Tony, I have always wondered about that.

Karl

--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Cappellini" <cappy2112@...> 
wrote:

>
> Karl
> 
> Tom Dunn (an ex-Oberheim employee) that i bought my 6R from had one
> when i came to buy the 6R and told me they
> were prototypes and never went into production)
> 
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Karl <shire03@...> wrote:
> > Hey All,
> >
> > Has anyone ever seen the Remote Control unit for the Matrix 6R?
> > There is a 5 Pin DIN input on the front panel that says REMOTE.
> > This is not midi I/O. The Manual says it's for a rack mounted 
> > remote control programmer, that will make programming much easier.
> >
> > Karl
> >
> >
>

how complete was this oberheim prototype?  did you get a photo of it by any chance?  weve got an access matrix programmer in that were going to sell in the near future (its on our website if anyone wants to see detailed photos).  its a nice box, especially if youve got a matrix1000, but it doesnt give access to all parameters (like modulation routings).  
mini

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
VINTAGE SYNTH DEALER
-We Buy, Sell & Trade Analog Synths
-Huge Selection, Years of Experience, Reliable Service
-Visit us at http://www.123synthland.com (redirects)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -





________________________________

To: xpantastic@yahoogroups.com

From: cappy2112@...
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:44:44 -0700
Subject: Re: [xpantastic] Matrix 6R Remote?







Karl

Tom Dunn (an ex-Oberheim employee) that i bought my 6R from had one
when i came to buy the 6R and told me they
were prototypes and never went into production)

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Karl <shire03@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> Has anyone ever seen the Remote Control unit for the Matrix 6R?
> There is a 5 Pin DIN input on the front panel that says REMOTE.
> This is not midi I/O. The Manual says it's for a rack mounted remote
> control programmer, that will make programming much easier.
>
> Karl
>
>







_________________________________________________________________
See what people are saying about Windows Live.  Check out featured posts.
http://www.windowslive.com/connect?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_connect2_082008

I dont know how complete it was. I bought that 6R in the early 90's.

> how complete was this oberheim prototype? did you get a photo of it by any
> chance? weve got an access matrix programmer in that were going to sell in
> the near future (its on our website if anyone wants to see detailed photos).
> its a nice box, especially if youve got a matrix1000, but it doesnt give
> access to all parameters (like modulation routings).
> mini

Hi,

I was wondering why the Xpander, made from 'crummy' Curtis chips, can 
out-sound any of the VST soft synths I've heard.

The conclusion I came to is this: The right pair of ears, but not just 
that - enough technological knowledge to influence prototyping.

As an example, Stevie Wonder was instrumental in some synth creations. 
Kraftwerk were too. And Thomas Dolby. And I guess Tom Oberheim has great 
ears.

Are the soft synth creators not using the best producer's or artist's 
ears? Or is analogue circuitry just better-sounding? Or have I just not 
heard the best soft synths?

Jeremy.

I think the answer hides in physics in that sense that the chips are not only designed for 
music, but they happen to produce harmonics and noise that comes naturally, i.e., non-
intended from the electron movements in the analog chips. All software synths are digital 
and thus discontinuous, on the contrary. And, forgetting the analog amplifiers and 
loadspeakers, they can only reproduce what has been programmed, without variation and 
individuality. Best software synths are quite near approximations of what can be measured 
and thus imitated. I don't think the sound of analog synths are a result of just a good pair of 
ears and continuous analog circuitry, but their sound is also a result of some lucky natural 
phenomenons, which all we may still not be able to measure and reproduce exactly with a 
software. This is how I see it.

.. and original is original, no matter if it sounds "better or worse", which is somewhat 
subjective ofcourse.

Hey There Jeremy,
First off, I agree that Tom's accumulated experience with synth 
design created an incredibly sounding synth. 

I have spent a great deal of time trying to figure this out myself.
Bottom line: The Oscillators are always slightly out of tune and out 
of sync with each other. As PeWe has pointed out in other posts you 
can pile up digital emulations and all you get is a louder version of 
the tone. Doing this with the M12/expander creates a sound which 
seems to be almost alive, as the waves drift with each other and 
never lock up in a synchronous way. BTW Every once in awhile they 
will go 180 degrees out of phase with each other which will almost 
mute the tone. Re-tuning or Layering two voices together will fix 
this most of the time 

Experiment:
Set up a drone patch by turning the VCA2 all the way up. Go to master 
page turn all but one of the voices off. Trigger a tone in the lower 
octave. Run an autotune and listen carefully. As time goes on the 
oscillators will slowly drift in tuning creating a wonderful 
chorusing sound. The rate at which this happens is not a constant 
thing. Depending on warm up time and ambient temperature the rate at 
which this happens will be different. This will cause each note 
played on an analog synth to be slightly different. So your ear does 
not get bored with sound.  The digital emulations try to model this 
but I suspect other feature in the design take first chair.  

This motion of the sound gives all analog synths their distinct 
sound. Back in the 80's there was a lot of complaining about this, 
because guys who were trying to synthesize an orchestra could not 
pile up more than a few voices before the sound became muddy. 
Demanding more precision in their instrument's tuning, pushed 
designers to the DCO and finally complete digital emulation.  
 
Karl



--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, Jeremy Smith <jeremy@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> 
> I was wondering why the Xpander, made from 'crummy' Curtis chips, 
can 
> out-sound any of the VST soft synths I've heard.
> 
> The conclusion I came to is this: The right pair of ears, but not 
just 
> that - enough technological knowledge to influence prototyping.
> 
> As an example, Stevie Wonder was instrumental in some synth 
creations. 
> Kraftwerk were too. And Thomas Dolby. And I guess Tom Oberheim has 
great 
> ears.
> 
> Are the soft synth creators not using the best producer's or 
artist's 
> ears? Or is analogue circuitry just better-sounding? Or have I just 
not 

> heard the best soft synths?
> 
> Jeremy.
>

Hi,

I was wondering why the Xpander, made from 'crummy' Curtis chips, can
out-sound any of the VST soft synths I've heard.

Or have I just not
heard the best soft synths?

Jeremy.

Hey PeWe,

I think I know why Curtis chips have his rep. There is a reveiw of the 
M12/expander on a large retailers site. It trys hard to convince you 
that buying an old synth is a bad Idea, and what you should do is buy 
one of their new digital wiz-bangs. Yha Whatever man!
Sadly, Doug Curtis has passed away so I don't think there will be 
anymore of these chips available. I keep wondering how Dave Smith is  
dealing with this. Anybody Know?

Karl

--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:

> I don´t know what makes you believe Curtis chips are "crummy".
> These are nothing else than miniaturized analog circuits and 
> without 
> these you would have never seen any polyphonic analog synth in a 
> compact design.
>

PeWe wrote:
> >>>
>
> Jeremy Smith schrieb:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was wondering why the Xpander, made from 'crummy' Curtis chips, can
>> out-sound any of the VST soft synths I've heard.
>>
>
>
>
>
> I don´t know what makes you believe Curtis chips are "crummy".
> These are nothing else than miniaturized analog circuits and without 
> these you would have never seen any polyphonic analog synth in a 
> compact design.
Hi,

I didn't mean they were bad. But there's a review of the Xpander which 
says they "Screwed the t**s off crummy Curtis chips" to get the best sound.

I was just going on 2nd-hand opinion, but I personally think they sound 
great.

Jeremy.

PeWe wrote:
> >>>
>
> Jeremy Smith schrieb:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was wondering why the Xpander, made from 'crummy' Curtis chips, can
>> out-sound any of the VST soft synths I've heard.
>>
>
>
>
>
> I don´t know what makes you believe Curtis chips are "crummy".
> These are nothing else than miniaturized analog circuits and without 
> these you would have never seen any polyphonic analog synth in a 
> compact design.
>
>>
>> Or have I just not
>> heard the best soft synths?
>>

Just to clarify, the review I said stated that the same Curtis chips sound better in one synth (Xpander) than another made by another (poorer talented) company.

Jeremy.
-- 
Jeremy Smith BSc (Hons)
Managing Director, San Fran Systems LTD.
http://www.sanfransys.com/

IIRC, I read somewhere that some company wanted a minimum order of
20.000 chips 
to start making them again...
 
There´s a lot of great analog synths out there getting older...
 
Should we start a poll for how many chips we could consider buying?
 
/Attila

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

From: PeWe [xpantastic@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: 24/8/2008 3:35:13 PM
To: xpantastic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [xpantastic] Re: Synthesiser audio (musician's) feedback as
important as technological brilliance? (theory)




AFAIK, Dave Smith is using CEM filters only and these are available.
In addition he has NOS chips in stock from the past.
It also can be, there are the chips he needs in production for his
company, - depends on count of pieces in the end.
The schematics and tech specs for nearly all CEM chips are available in
the web.

Karl schrieb: 

	Hey PeWe,
	
	I think I know why Curtis chips have his rep. There is a reveiw
of the 
	M12/expander on a large retailers site. It trys hard to convince
you 
	that buying an old synth is a bad Idea, and what you should do
is buy 
	one of their new digital wiz-bangs. Yha Whatever man!
	Sadly, Doug Curtis has passed away so I don't think there will
be 
	anymore of these chips available. I keep wondering how Dave
Smith is 
	dealing with this. Anybody Know?
	
	Karl
	
	-


	
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=18373499/grpspId=1705032144/
msgId=544/stime=1219580063/nc1=3848621/nc2=3848644/nc3=5286672>

attila publik wrote:
> IIRC, I read somewhere that some company wanted a minimum order of 
> 20.000 chips
> to start making them again...
>  
> There´s a lot of great analog synths out there getting older...
>  
> Should we start a poll for how many chips we could consider buying?
>  
> /Attila
If so, not only on this group, because there's lots of Curtis-based synths.

Maybe MatrixSynth blog?

Jeremy.

Hi All,

Since we are on the subject, I would like to point out that it seems to 
be a curse for a company to build an entirely analog polyphonic synth. 
Oberheim was sold right after the M12/Xpander and years later, Alesis
was also sold right after the introduction of the A6. I truly hope Dave 
Smith has better luck.(Although he seems up to the task)   
The expense of the hardware / software development seems to outweigh
the number of units sold. So, if you are lucky enough to have one of 
these vintage beauties, Please take good care of it.

Karl

Hi PeWe,
OK, I should have said entirely analog signal chain. BTW my 
schematics show the Chroma, as not using any CEM envelope generators 
but rather generating these functions in software. (being a natural 
evolution from the multiplexed architecture of a hybrid Analog/ 
Digital synth).  
Thanks for the link. It is a good read, but I am pretty careful about 
where my money goes. I have been a little sloppy lately because I 
finally have my house paid for. The V-Synth  was defiantly an  
impulse buy.
You sound too well versed in electronics to be only a musician. Whats 
your backup job? Also, what do you think of the JoMox stuff?

Karl

--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:
>
> Hmmm,- the Matrix12 and the Xpander aren´t entirely analog 
polyphonic 
> synths.
> Entirely analog polyphonic synths were the SEM based Obies, OBX and 
> OBXa, the Prophets, the Jupiter-8, Memorymoog, ARP/Rhodes Chroma 
and 
> Elka Synthex ...
> 
> All synths which generated envelopes, most VCAs, ramps and so on by 
> software aren´t entirely analogs at all.
> 
> Entirely analog synths are manufactured up today, Moog Voyagers,- 
the 
> modulars,- and these can be configurated to be polyphonic, but this 
> becomes very expensive then,- for the user !
> 
> But it´s not impossible to do it, see Doepfer, Cwejman, Synthesis 
> Technology and some more exotic small companys,- and they all have 
their 
> customers. Why ? Answer: They keep it small.
> 
> IMO, the companys like Sequential, Oberheim and Alesis had to give 
up 
> because of some kind of mismanagement in the marketing strategys. 
Their 
> product pallette grew up too fast,- there were a lot of shitty and 
> unneccessary "small boxes" synths and drumachines been manufactured 
by 
> the big companys in the past.
> Products like Sixtrak, Studio400, Jupiter6, Matrix 6 keyboard, OB-
SX 
> made me laugh in the past as also all these little midi helpers 
like 
> Strummer and so on.
> The Prophet10 was a unneccessary product and the T-8 suffered from 
the 
> cheap oscillatorts from the Sixtrack, but Sequential died by the 
Prophet 
> 2000 sampler. Sampling was too expensive at that time and a niche 
market 
> already covered by EMU in the professional range and then the 
Mirage 
> came as the killer in price.
> 
> For pros, the price was never the main factor in buying gear or 
not,- 
> but swap the market w/ tons of cheap gear to make music/noises,- 
all 
> start to "produce" and the fee for work in the music biz goes down, 
also 
> for the pros.
> 
> Meanwhile, the biz is down worldwide and there are tons of (bad) 
music 
> for free as also illegal copys all arount ...
> Now, we have the situation of much more musicians, less jobs, small 
fee 
> but also a request of more knowledge tech wise and a never ending 
> learning curve.
> "Please do everything imaginable w/ your professor like knowledge 
and 
> all your gear, but don´t ask for money. Be happy w/ the credits you 
> eventually get if the stuff will be released". That seems to be the 
rule 
> today.
> 
> Kill the pro music biz and you kill the willingness to invest in 
high 
> quality gear for a adaquate price which results in a more or less 
junk 
> market of electronic noise generators,- hardware or software.
> 90% I see is crap, bad coded or built from cheap parts,- no 
reliability 
> at all, no guarateed future and all made for the masses.
> 
> On the other side: The crowd is satisfied w/ this, users of gear as 
also 
> customers of music.
> 
> As you, Karl, I think it´s good to take care of the vintage 
beauties if 
> you own these,- and as long as you can.
> But in some future, it can also become a nitemare which you cannot 
> afford if you don´t take care on your biz and the music biz itself. 
It´s 
> also important to take care for the machines don´t dominate you and 
your 
> creativity.
> 
> No one buys any music because you have one or more vintage synths. 
Even 
> if it sounds better, it can be a crappy song p.ex. and if it´s not, 
> there´s always someone needed who´s able to recognize the 
difference in 
> sound and this within a mix !
> 
> I´ve found this some time ago and it´s worth to read IMO ...
> 
> 
> http://users.rcn.com/thefront/gearaholic.html
> 
> 
> 
> Karl schrieb:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Since we are on the subject, I would like to point out that it 
seems to
> > be a curse for a company to build an entirely analog polyphonic 
synth.
> > Oberheim was sold right after the M12/Xpander and years later, 
Alesis
> > was also sold right after the introduction of the A6. I truly 
hope Dave
> > Smith has better luck.(Although he seems up to the task)
> > The expense of the hardware / software development seems to 
outweigh
> > the number of units sold. So, if you are lucky enough to have one 
of

> > these vintage beauties, Please take good care of it.
> >
> > Karl
> >
> >
>

Hi  PeWe, 
Some random Thoughts:

--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:
>Entirely analog synths are manufactured up today, Moog Voyagers,- 
>the modulars,- and >these can be configurated to be polyphonic, but 
>this becomes very expensive then,- for >the user !

I can't count how many times I considered duplicating the M12 with a 
modular and came to the conclusion it just wasn't worth it.

--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:
>But it's not impossible to do it, see Doepfer, Cwejman, Synthesis 
>Technology and some >more exotic small companies,- and they all have 
>their customers. Why ? Answer: They >keep it small.

Yes, but I bet they lose interest. Synthesis technology discontinued 
their kits. And is now having a subcontractor build the newer 
modules. B.T.W.  Is it not staggering the number 
of  modular synth companies seen on matrixsynth?

--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:
> For pros, the price was never the main factor in buying gear or 
>not,- but swap the >market  w/ tons of cheap gear to make 
>music/noises, - all start to "produce" and the fee >for work In the 
>music biz goes down, also for the pros.

Do you  remember when the Korg M1 came out. Suddenly many 
contemporary musicians 
( strings , horns etc…) found themselves out of work.  I can remember 
this causing a union strike or two.

--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:
>Meanwhile, the biz is down worldwide and there are tons of (bad) 
>music for free as also >illegal copies all around ...
>Now, we have the situation of much more musicians, less jobs, small 
>fee but also a >request of more knowledge tech wise and a never 
>ending learning curve. 
>"Please do everything imaginable w/ your professor like knowledge 
>and all your gear, >but don't ask for money. Be happy w/ the credits 
>you eventually get if the stuff will be >released". That seems to be 
>the rule today.

Yes I agree, I have given up the notion of making any serious money 
in the biz.

--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:
>Kill the pro music biz and you kill the willingness to invest in 
>high quality gear for a >adequate price which results in a more or 
>less junk market of electronic noise >generators,- hardware or 
>software. 
>90% I see is crap, bad coded or built from cheap parts,- no 
>reliability at all, no guaranteed >future and all made for the 
>masses.
>On the other side: The crowd is satisfied w/ this, users of gear as 
>also customers of >music.  

Yes we have gone in reverse with these crappy MP3 formats.  Which 
makes me pause when considering an apple bit box.

I notice the kids would rather spend hours faking it with games like 
Guitar Hero  than to actually learn to play a real instrument. Being 
a musician does not hold the charm it once did. Now the kids want to 
be game programmers. A decision most regret when they discover the 
long hours, low pay, and the shear tedium of testing a game. 

Karl

At 10:42 AM +0000 8/25/08, Karl wrote:
>they all have
>>their customers. Why ? Answer: They >keep it small.
>
>Yes, but I bet they lose interest. Synthesis technology discontinued
>their kits. And is now having a subcontractor build the newer
>modules.

I believe a small bit of (gentle) correction is in order here. I have 
a number of completed MOTM modules, as well as a much larger pile of 
still unbuilt kits.

Yes, Paul discontinued the kits. However, that's not due to lack of 
interest. In fact, there is still a decent amount of friendly and 
good natured protest on the mailing list about that. However, the 
accurate story about the reason the kits were discontinued is that 
they were an unbelievably large amount of work to package and stock, 
especially considering that MOTM is Paul's second job and not his 
first one. Another factor is that now that there are no more kits to 
worry about packing (tens of thousand of resistors to be sorted and 
counted, thousands of knobs, hundreds of front panels to be kept in 
stock, etc.) Paul can do what he enjoys most and does best, which is 
designing synth circuits. This means that there will be more, and 
more varied, modules available in the future and an increasing rate 
of module production.

As to the subcontractor, that's because all the new modules are 
surface mount technology rather than through-hole technology. Them 
new parts is tiny, and they're much better assembled by computerized 
manufacturing lines. It's still analog, it's just really small. The 
benefit of this is that modules will now be able to be kept in stock 
at all times, be quicker to manufacture and possibly cost less over 
time.

You say that MOTM discontinued the kits like it's a bad thing while 
in actuality it was a business and life decision made so that Paul 
wouldn't have to spend the rest of his life sorting resistors into 
piles. You say subcontractors are building the modules like it's a 
bad thing while in actuality farming out some of the work means Paul 
can do the more fun and more interesting work of designing incredibly 
cool new modules. I mean really, were you mad at Paul when he had a 
manufacturer etch his circuit boards rather than having him do it 
himself in his basement?

No more kits = better and stronger MOTM and not that the company is 
in decline. That there are many modular makers means there's a large 
demand for "real" synths, even in today's climate of cheap and 
ubiquitous soft synths. It's a great time to be a modular synth 
enthusiast.

And besides, there are now more MOTM modules out in the world than 
there are Moog modules. It's hard to argue with that!


         Seth (MOTM fan) Elgart (who also owns an Xpander and two Matrix 6Rs)



http://www.edgetonerecords.com/elgart.html - new album
http://www.ilike.com/artist/Seth+Elgart - next album
http://www.myspace.com/sethelgart
http://boxoftextures.blogspot.com/ - thoughts on music blog  <--New

Ok Seth,

MOTOM was one of the few still making electronic kits, with a quality I 
have never seen before and  probably will never see again. It just bums 
me out, and I got carried away.

My apologies

Karl

At 12:02 PM +0000 8/26/08, Karl wrote:
>MOTM was one of the few still making electronic kits, with a quality I
>have never seen before and probably will never see again. It just bums
>me out,

Well, you're absolutely right about the quality thing, and I am also 
bummed out about it. However, if it's a choice between more and 
better modules on the one hand and kits on the other, I'll be able to 
live without the kits.


>and I got carried away.

I have no problem with getting carried away at all!


>My apologies

None needed. I just wanted to make sure everyone knew that MOTM was 
still alive and well and thriving.




          Seth




http://www.edgetonerecords.com/elgart.html - new album
http://www.ilike.com/artist/Seth+Elgart - next album
http://www.myspace.com/sethelgart
http://boxoftextures.blogspot.com/ - thoughts on music blog  <--New