Xpantastic! group photo

Yahoo Groups archive

Xpantastic!

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 23:44 UTC

Thread

Xpander vs. M12

Xpander vs. M12

2010-01-13 by mattvrazo

Ok, this is not really a "vs." but more of a "worth the upgrade?" question.  I am thrilled with my xpander, but have the opportunity to buy an M12 locally.  Obviously, double the voices of the xpander, but also (in my mind) double the potential for voice failure/problems.  However, I am still tempted as the price is less than what they are currently going for.

Although it would be nice to have more voices for the sake of having more voices, I am wondering if others found the M12 to be more gratifying in any other way.  I currently treat the xpander more as a single polysynth rather than a multitimbral/monosynths, so I would imagine having the extra voices would be useful.  I also understand the m12 can double voices too... 

Any advocates for the upgrade or would this be a gratuitous purchase?

Re: [xpantastic] Xpander vs. M12

2010-01-13 by Mark Morton

I have had both. While I don't like the keyboard feel of the M12, I do like the m12- and having a keyboard, any keyboard- slightly better than the xpander. the xpander has an advantage in the cv department- it can be triggered by cv ins, where the m12 can't. But you can build better multis with the the M12. I haven't really used all 12 voices. IIRC the M12 has a page that keeps better track of what modulates what than the xpander. That's about it. If I couldn't have an M12, I woul be super happy with the xpander so the differences are , to me, slight.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:37 AM, mattvrazo <vrazomatt@...> wrote:

Ok, this is not really a "vs." but more of a "worth the upgrade?" question. I am thrilled with my xpander, but have the opportunity to buy an M12 locally. Obviously, double the voices of the xpander, but also (in my mind) double the potential for voice failure/problems. However, I am still tempted as the price is less than what they are currently going for.

Although it would be nice to have more voices for the sake of having more voices, I am wondering if others found the M12 to be more gratifying in any other way. I currently treat the xpander more as a single polysynth rather than a multitimbral/monosynths, so I would imagine having the extra voices would be useful. I also understand the m12 can double voices too...

Any advocates for the upgrade or would this be a gratuitous purchase?


Re: [xpantastic] Xpander vs. M12

2010-01-13 by Jeremy Smith BSc (Hons)

mattvrazo wrote:
> Ok, this is not really a "vs." but more of a "worth the upgrade?" question.  I am thrilled with my xpander, but have the opportunity to buy an M12 locally.  Obviously, double the voices of the xpander, but also (in my mind) double the potential for voice failure/problems.  However, I am still tempted as the price is less than what they are currently going for.
> 
> Although it would be nice to have more voices for the sake of having more voices, I am wondering if others found the M12 to be more gratifying in any other way.  I currently treat the xpander more as a single polysynth rather than a multitimbral/monosynths, so I would imagine having the extra voices would be useful.  I also understand the m12 can double voices too... 
> 
> Any advocates for the upgrade or would this be a gratuitous purchase?  

Hi,

For me the question isn't "How many more voices does it have than the 
Xpander", it's "When will I need more than 6 voices".

In that case, the Xpander is fine, as I use another synth for basses, a 
Crumar Toccata for fine organ sounds, and a HardSID (on a card in an old 
Windows 98 box!) for wierd leads. This leaves me usually:

	*3 voices for sustained leads (eg, all 3 voices playing different notes 
at once and fading out)
	*1 for lead
	*1 for bass
	*1 for background pad.

And if it's good enough for the Human League and Vince Clarke, it's good 
enough!

Jeremy.

Re: [xpantastic] Xpander vs. M12

2010-01-14 by Karl Schmeer

Hi,
I have a M12 and believe it or not, there are times I wish I had an Xpander. It would be nice sometimes to have the CV ins and the output per voice. (Currently my M12 does not have the individual outputs.)   
 
You would think that 12 voices layered up in mono mode would be a thicker solo sound, but it doesn't work that way. With 12 analog voices droning, phase differences start 
canceling out some of the voices. So at the end of the day 6 voices layered up is just as
thick as 12 IMO. 
The M12 advantage shows itself when you are multi channel sequencing. I have had a blast
feeding the M12, a midi sequence from a typical drum machine/sequencer and then replace all the sounds one by one. I usually keep the digital cymbals but the rest of it, can be just stunning to hear.
 
> I also understand the m12 can double voices too... 
Oh Yeah, but your Xpander also does this.
 
b.t.w.
I have played the A6 Andromada and DSI stuff. IMO The keyboards on these synths are just as clunky as the M12.  
 
  
Karl Schmeer
  
--- On Wed, 1/13/10, mattvrazo <vrazomatt@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: mattvrazo <vrazomatt@hotmail.com>
Subject: [xpantastic] Xpander vs. M12
To: xpantastic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2010, 10:37 AM


  



Ok, this is not really a "vs." but more of a "worth the upgrade?" question. I am thrilled with my xpander, but have the opportunity to buy an M12 locally. Obviously, double the voices of the xpander, but also (in my mind) double the potential for voice failure/problems. However, I am still tempted as the price is less than what they are currently going for.

Although it would be nice to have more voices for the sake of having more voices, I am wondering if others found the M12 to be more gratifying in any other way. I currently treat the xpander more as a single polysynth rather than a multitimbral/ monosynths, so I would imagine having the extra voices would be useful. I also understand the m12 can double voices too... 

Any advocates for the upgrade or would this be a gratuitous purchase?

Re: [xpantastic] Xpander vs. M12

2010-01-14 by PeWe

Hello Karl !

 >>>

Karl Schmeer schrieb:
>  
>
> Hi,
> I have a M12 and believe it or not, there are times I wish I had an 
> Xpander. It would be nice sometimes to have the CV ins and the output 
> per voice. (Currently my M12 does not have the individual outputs.) 
>
Yep,- in multi patch mode and playing different patches via different 
midi channels, the separate outputs for each voice are a great approvement.

Next,- I have my Minimoog modded w/ keyboards CV and gate outs,- so I 
can trigger one voice of the Xpander by CV/Gate, doubling the Moog, 
using the other 5 voices  w/ midi,- just an example ...
>
>  
> You would think that 12 voices layered up in mono mode would be a 
> thicker solo sound, but it doesn't work that way. With 12 analog 
> voices droning, phase differences start
> canceling out some of the voices. So at the end of the day 6 voices 
> layered up is just as
> thick as 12 IMO.
>
Right, but there�s difference between M12 and Xpander,-  layering all 
the voices (or only 6 maybe) in unison,- the detune page, which the 
Xpander doesn�t have.
It�s only a detail, but also a small advantage, being able to select the 
same single patch in every multi-patch slot, setting the voice 
assignment to unison and easily detune all the voices against each other.

THIS is not possible w/ a Xpander,- instead, you have to copy the same 
single patch to six single-patch memory locations, edit each of these 
for different tunings and store, before you�re able to set up a 
multi-patch-unison-detune sound the way you can do in a M12.
Will say,- you lose 5 more single-patch memory locations in the Xpander 
to do this, but not in the Matrix-12.

B.t.w.,- I never layer the voices that way w/ my Xpander,- so I don�t care.

Voice cancelations are always happening by layering exactly same sounds 
and detuneing �em,- so I prefer layering of slightly different sounds,- 
best different synths,- even these do similar sounding patches then, - 
lets say creating a super saw,- together.

According to the keyboard,- I never liked the keyboards/keybeds of the 
Oberheim synths much,- not in the OBX nor the OBXa or OB-8 and I 
absolutly don�t like the levers for pitch bending,- I prefer wheels,- 
best non sprung wheels,- like the Minimoog has.
So,- the Xpander was best choice for me,- also because of size and weight.

In addition, Obies keyboard synths are relatively large beasts.
I never toured w/ a Matrix-12, but I got probs w/ the stiffness of the 
enclosure of my former OB-8 in the past,- maybe a prob which also 
happens w/ a Matrix-12.
With the OB-8, this stressed the circuit boards mounted on the bottom of 
the case.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
>  
> Oh Yeah, but your Xpander also does this.
>  
> b.t.w.
> I have played the A6 Andromada and DSI stuff. IMO The keyboards on 
> these synths are just as clunky as the M12.  
>  
>   
> Karl Schmeer
>   
>

Re: [xpantastic] Xpander vs. M12

2010-01-14 by Mark Morton

Having owned a M12 for over a decade and a polyevolver for 3 years, I disagree with the statement that the polyevolver keyboard is "just as clunky". Can't speak to the A6. Specifically, keydepth on the polyevolver is noticeably deeper and more satisfactory. In all cases the SOUND of the M12 is superior however but it is the worst keyboard depth I have experienced. Although some of the arp synths, like the Quadra were close. YMMV.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:06 AM, PeWe <ha-pewe@...> wrote:


Hello Karl !

>>>

Karl Schmeer schrieb:

Hi,
I have a M12 and believe it or not, there are times I wish I had an Xpander. It would be nice sometimes to have the CV ins and the output per voice. (Currently my M12 does not have the individual outputs.)

Yep,- in multi patch mode and playing different patches via different midi channels, the separate outputs for each voice are a great approvement.

Next,- I have my Minimoog modded w/ keyboards CV and gate outs,- so I can trigger one voice of the Xpander by CV/Gate, doubling the Moog, using the other 5 voices w/ midi,- just an example ...

You would think that 12 voices layered up in mono mode would be a thicker solo sound, but it doesn't work that way. With 12 analog voices droning, phase differences start
canceling out some of the voices. So at the end of the day 6 voices layered up is just as
thick as 12 IMO.

Right, but there´s difference between M12 and Xpander,- layering all the voices (or only 6 maybe) in unison,- the detune page, which the Xpander doesn´t have.
It´s only a detail, but also a small advantage, being able to select the same single patch in every multi-patch slot, setting the voice assignment to unison and easily detune all the voices against each other.

THIS is not possible w/ a Xpander,- instead, you have to copy the same single patch to six single-patch memory locations, edit each of these for different tunings and store, before you´re able to set up a multi-patch-unison-detune sound the way you can do in a M12.
Will say,- you lose 5 more single-patch memory locations in the Xpander to do this, but not in the Matrix-12.

B.t.w.,- I never layer the voices that way w/ my Xpander,- so I don´t care.

Voice cancelations are always happening by layering exactly same sounds and detuneing ´em,- so I prefer layering of slightly different sounds,- best different synths,- even these do similar sounding patches then, - lets say creating a super saw,- together.

According to the keyboard,- I never liked the keyboards/keybeds of the Oberheim synths much,- not in the OBX nor the OBXa or OB-8 and I absolutly don´t like the levers for pitch bending,- I prefer wheels,- best non sprung wheels,- like the Minimoog has.
So,- the Xpander was best choice for me,- also because of size and weight.

In addition, Obies keyboard synths are relatively large beasts.
I never toured w/ a Matrix-12, but I got probs w/ the stiffness of the enclosure of my former OB-8 in the past,- maybe a prob which also happens w/ a Matrix-12.
With the OB-8, this stressed the circuit boards mounted on the bottom of the case.



Oh Yeah, but your Xpander also does this.
b.t.w.
I have played the A6 Andromada and DSI stuff. IMO The keyboards on these synths are just as clunky as the M12.
Karl Schmeer



Re: Xpander vs. M12

2010-01-14 by swisstony123456789

--- In xpantastic@yahoogroups.com, Karl Schmeer <shire03@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I have a M12 and believe it or not, there are times I wish I had an Xpander. It would be nice sometimes to have the CV ins and the output per voice. (Currently my M12 does not have the individual outputs.)Â Â  

Interested in a swap??

Re: Xpander vs. M12

2010-01-14 by mattvrazo

Good answers all 'round... I think I am probably satisfied with the xpander as it is, short of a few drops notes on long chords occasionally (8 voices would be perfect!)  I never use the CV/gate or multi-outs, but definitely prefer having them over not. (as I would definitely have to sell the xpander to fund the m12) 

One thing I haven't figured out:  What does the mod-matrix page look like on the M12?  Is it just a seperate page showing the routings of everything?  I have never seen a picture of it.

Re: [xpantastic] Re: Xpander vs. M12

2010-01-15 by William Cason

The modulation page looks like:
 
MOD        SOURCE     AMOUNT       DEST
4              LEV1           +57                VCF FREQ
 
You can adjust the AMOUNT and DESTwith the encoders, similar to setting mods in a matrix-6.  You clear a mod routing by pressing the SOURCE and the CLEAR button at the same time (I wonder, how do you do it in an Xpander?).  I always use this page to see what the mods are and how many I've got left, hard for me to imagine not having it.
 
For me, polyphony/multitimrality are very important which is mainly why I chose the M12.  I do lots of sequencing and often use several mono voices and one or two polyphonic voices simultaneously  That usually eats up most or all of my M12 voices.   I also like to double up mono voices, one each panned on separate left/right channels on my mixerboard.  Gives a very nice "no effects" stereo sound... but eats voices.
 
I've wished from time to time that my M12 had the CV options.  Had a pro-one once that I could have midi'ed...
 
I modded my M12 to have the ind outs.  If that weren't possible, I'd have gone with an Xpander (or two!).   Ind outs are very important to me too.
 
Of course anyone is lucky to have either of these...
 
 

--- On Thu, 1/14/10, mattvrazo <vrazomatt@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: mattvrazo <vrazomatt@...>
Subject: [xpantastic] Re: Xpander vs. M12
To: xpantastic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 1:25 PM


  



Good answers all 'round... I think I am probably satisfied with the xpander as it is, short of a few drops notes on long chords occasionally (8 voices would be perfect!) I never use the CV/gate or multi-outs, but definitely prefer having them over not. (as I would definitely have to sell the xpander to fund the m12) 

One thing I haven't figured out: What does the mod-matrix page look like on the M12? Is it just a seperate page showing the routings of everything? I have never seen a picture of it.

Re: [xpantastic] Xpander vs. M12

2010-01-15 by Karl Schmeer


--- On Thu, 1/14/10, Mark Morton <;marmorton@...> wrote:

>From: Mark Morton
>Subject: Re: [xpantastic] Xpander vs. M12
>To: xpantastic@yahoogroups.com
>Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 4:42 AM

>Having owned a M12 for over a decade and a polyevolver for 3 years, I disagree with the >statement that the polyevolver keyboard is "just as clunky". Can't speak to the A6.
Yeah, I'll give you that, the DSI keyboard is the best of the bunch. Key rattle just bugs me.
You just gave me an idea. I think I will put a piece of felt inside the case above the keys on the M12 and see if that helps. I have seen this on other keyboards.
>Specifically, keydepth on the polyevolver is noticeably deeper and more satisfactory. In all
>cases the SOUND of the M12 is superior however but it is the worst keyboard depth I >have experienced. Although some of the arp synths, like the Quadra were close. YMMV.
I really dislike the keyboard too. The only good thing I could say is, the pressure mod works great. This is a good argument for the Xpander.
Karl Schmeer


Re: [xpantastic] Re: Xpander vs. M12

2010-01-15 by Karl Schmeer

--- On Thu, 1/14/10, swisstony123456789 <repoman123@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: swisstony123456789 <repoman123@...>
Subject: [xpantastic] Re: Xpander vs. M12
To: xpantastic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 5:51 AM


  





--- In xpantastic@yahoogro ups.com, Karl Schmeer <shire03@... > wrote:
>
> Hi,
>> I have a M12 and believe it or not, there are times I wish I had an Xpander. It would be >>nice sometimes to have the CV ins and the output per voice. (Currently my M12 does >>not have the individual outputs.)Â Â  

>Interested in a swap??
Nahh,  But thanks for asking. 
 
All though, If the dough and opportunity came along, I would get an Xpander.
 
Karl Schmeer

Re: [xpantastic] Xpander vs. M12

2010-01-15 by Karl Schmeer


--- On Thu, 1/14/10, PeWe wrote:


From: PeWe
Subject: Re: [xpantastic] Xpander vs. M12
To: xpantastic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, January 14, 2010, 4:06 AM







>Hello Karl !


Hey PeWe !


>>>


>Right, but there´s difference between M12 and Xpander,- layering all the >voices (or only 6 maybe) in unison,- the detune page, which the Xpander >doesn´t have.
>It´s only a detail, but also a small advantage, being able to select the >same single patch in every multi-patch slot, setting the voice assignment >to unison and easily detune all the voices against each other.

Yes, your right, You can really explore tuning relationships between sounds here.
Big +

>B.t.w.,- I never layer the voices that way w/ my Xpander,- so I don´t care.

You know, I use multi alot and sometimes notice a differences between patches played in single and multi mode. Especially LFO and Env rates.
You, or anyone ever noticed this?

>Voice cancelations are always happening by layering exactly same sounds >and >detuneing ´em,- so I prefer layering of slightly different sounds,-
Good Idea, Different waveform could not cancel each other out completely.

>best different synths,- even these do similar sounding patches then, - >lets say creating a super saw,- together.
Yes


>In addition, Obies keyboard synths are relatively large beasts.
>I never toured w/ a Matrix-12, but I got probs w/ the stiffness of the enclosure of my >former OB-8 in the past,- maybe a prob which also happens w/ a Matrix-12.
>With the OB-8, this stressed the circuit boards mounted on the bottom of >the case.

You have hit on an important point here!!
NEVER PUSH REAL HARD ON A MATRIX 12 FRONT PANEL. My appologies for shouting but:
The High voltage of the VFD board gets pushed into the upper voice board and will fry the upper voice board.

It would not be a bad Idea to put an electrical insulator of some sort, on the back of the VFD board.

Karl Schmeer



Re: Xpander vs. M12

2010-01-15 by mattvrazo

Yes, this is one annoying omission on the xpander, but easily resolved like you said with the multi-patch.  The simple brilliance of this feature was only something I just realized.  I tend to let my VCOs drift out of tune for a more organic sound, but I realized this would never be like the OB-Xa for example.  
In deciding to sell the OBxa, I decided to see how similar the xpander/obxa could really be.  I set up a multi-patch and changed the osc tunings ever so slightly for each of the 6 voices, and the result was a very pleasing and animated sound.  The ability to change the basic parameters of all 6 voices at once (or individually) from the single page is pure genius...  I'm sure most of you know this, but it was very satisfying figuring out the feature.  Shame you can't also change the modulation parameters as a group, but I guess there's only so much that CPU could do.  
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Right, but there\ufffds difference between M12 and Xpander,- layering all
> the voices (or only 6 maybe) in unison,- the detune page, which the Xpander
> doesn\ufffdt have.
> It\ufffds only a detail, but also a small advantage, being able to select the
> same single patch in every multi-patch slot, setting the voice assignment to
> unison and easily detune all the voices against each other.
>
> THIS is not possible w/ a Xpander,- instead, you have to copy the same
> single patch to six single-patch memory locations, edit each of these for
> different tunings and store, before you\ufffdre able to set up a
> multi-patch-unison-detune sound the way you can do in a M12.
> Will say,- you lose 5 more single-patch memory locations in the Xpander to
> do this, but not in the Matrix-12.

Re: Xpander vs. M12

2010-03-09 by analogholic

Well, this is something I asked myself like 3 years ago when a Matrix-12 showed up for sale locally.

Got in contact with a great musician, who said:
"Used to own the Xpander, but got the M12 and have never looked back."
The reason was LAYERING! 

I LOVE the sound of Oberheims, and thought maybe the Xpander + OB-Xa would be a better combo than just the M12. 

But I got the M12 afterall (and an OB-Xa later:) ) and I am REALLY glad did that. I can just agree the statement above about layering.

I´ve done pads on the M12 in "dualmode" that literally blow me away. 
Could never do this on the Xpander. Well I could "almost", but 3 voices only.
It took me a while to get the hang of it...but damn :)
Also it layers well, something I don´t think my OB-Xa does, due to different characther in sound and of course that it´s way less flexible.

To me (and others) the design REALLY comes to life in the M12.

IMO. it´s a little bit like comparing a CS-60 to a CS-80, or rather a JX-8P to a JX-10.

And add the detune functions..no contest.

Wouldn´t mind an Xpander as well though for live gigs :)

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.