Waldorf Pulse 2

[Agathodaimon]

I use these

Hhahahah that's cheating!!

[Uncle E]

Now that we've suddenly got so many analogs, this would be a nice time for Waldorf to bring back some of their AFB16 version of total integration for the Pulse 2.

[Agathodaimon]

Now that we've suddenly got so many analogs, this would be a nice time for Waldorf to bring back some of their AFB16 version of total integration for the Pulse 2.

Ehh not as scary about it, as about Moog Prodigy, am pretty sure that will sell off all charts within weeks, god I wish I had that synth..

[Uncle E]

Ehh not as scary about it, as about Moog Prodigy, am pretty sure that will sell off all charts within weeks, god I wish I had that synth..

I have 2 original Prodigy's, the Minitaur and Sub Phatty are better.

[himalaya]

Hhahahah that's cheating!!

Why? It's a virtual pen and paper.

[Ingonator]

There is still no way to convince that a modern analog synth is better when it does have no patch memory (at least for non-modular synths). The argument that this makes you more "creative" is just stupid IMO.
When i had a Minimoog model D it was real fun at the beginning but after a while the missing patch memory was becoming more and more a PITA. For more complex synths than a Minimoog (like e.g. a Pulse 2 or Bass Station II) it would be even worse.

I am happy to have NI Monark as a Minimoog replacement now (not only due the fact it has patch memory) and i also like the 100 patch memories in my Moog Slim Phatty. I have tested the Sub Phatty and like the sound and the many knobs but the missing display, the small keyboard and the limited patch memories are a turn off for me. The display in the Slim Phatty is not big but big enough to do the job like e.g. display the patch name.

A Korg MS-20 Mini would be a different thing as saving the cable connections of the patch panel would be difficult except in the software version.


Ingo

[Agathodaimon]

Ehh not as scary about it, as about Moog Prodigy, am pretty sure that will sell off all charts within weeks, god I wish I had that synth..

I have 2 original Prodigy's, the Minitaur and Sub Phatty are better.

Look I absolutely love the Sub Phatty and the Minitaur!! But wow 2 original Prodigy's, if you are willing to sell one please send me a personal message

[himalaya]

There is still no way to convince that a modern analog synth is better when it does have no patch memory (at least for non-modular synths). The argument that this makes you more "creative" is just stupid IMO.

It'n not about being 'better', Ingo. It's simply economics. Synth with no memories = cheaper price and less development time. We live in times when people want stuff for the cheapest possible price - but still preserving good quality. So here they are. Obviously, like you mention, having no memories on a synth design like Pulse 2 would make no sense as this is a multi-page design. But simple synths like Minibrute can do without memories easily (and be very affordable). Even more complex synths like SE Boomstars can be quickly navigated and lack of patch storage is not a huge issue, at least for me.

Additionally, I don't think anyone is making an outright argument that synths with no memories will make anyone more creative by default. Perhaps it's more about coming to terms with the fact that a synth we just bought does not have memories - so how can we overcome this seeming shortcoming and still make sounds and music? We just become ruthless, by not caring too much if the brilliant lead we have just created will be lost forever when you need to create a bass sound now. It builds a confidence that we can make any sound on the spot - think it, then make it.

That's the motto with synths that do not have patch memories. Then, because sounds need to be made on the spot, you may develop a greater technique since you can't rely on stored patches - they need to be created in situ - which has the possibility of being more creative since you are always tweaking the synth. Although, it may be that by doing so, each sound is rubbish ("oh, shit, I can't recreate that fat lead I made last week") but it may be that you stumble upon cool new sounds quicker if you were to rely on a long list of presets. To me it's very evident as I use both methods - synths with presets and synths with no way to store presets.

Changing working methods can lead to new creative outcomes ( as in, abandon presets for one session, and instead start the session with a blank canvas and create then record sounds as you go on).

Obviously being able to store presets is the best option - and for live situations it's a must - but considering all factors, with the financial side taking first place, I can live with a few synths that do not have memories.

[Ingonator]

The discussion about patch memories in analog synths somehow belongs to that discussion about using presets or not (see at instruments forum) and my POV in that discussion is quite clear. People should use what fits best for them and after all doing your own sounds and/or using synths without presets will not automatically make your music really better.

Not to forget that if nobody would use presets all sound designers would be jobless...

For me there is also no huge difference if presets or soundbanks are provided in form of a patch book. Those are still presets...

There is also no guarantee that a fully knobbed synth will deliver better results than the matrix editor in the Pulse 2 which works nicely IMO, same to the approach in the Little Phatty/Slim Phatty (which BTW got LED rings to show the values saved with the current patch).
In the editing matrix of the Pulse 2 you got tabs (the 6 buttons at the left) with clear separations of the different parts of the synth (oscillators, filter, envelopes, Arp, VCA etc.) and 6 knobs for each of those tabs. Only for some deeper editing (e.g. mod matrix) you really need "menu diving" while the way the mod matrix is done is done in a quite clever way with 8 slots at a single page of the display.

A fully knobbed Pulse 2 with dedicated controls for ALL features would be HUGE, very expensive and IMO not really more easy to use than the current interface.
There is also no really clever solution to integrate a fully knobbed way of implementing a mod matrix with multiple slots except having small displays for each of the sources and destinations.
The way of the Bass Station 2 with using the keys of the synth for routing purposes is an interesting way but maybe not easier than having modulation slots on a graphical display. I don't get why you have to activate Osc Sync from one of the keys and having a on/off LED at the Osc section. Why not just having a small button besides that LED?

IMO the layout of the editing matrix is much better than in the Pulse 1 where you had a slightly confusing arrangement of the parameters, a single button to select the tabs and a Shift button due to having double assignments for some knobs.


Ingo

[himalaya]

People should use what fits best for them and after all doing your own sounds and/or using synths without presets will not automatically make your music really better.

Absolutely. Use what you want.

Not to forget that if nobody would use presets all sound designers would be jobless...

Who cares for preset designers. Let people make their own sounds.

[Uncle E]

Look I absolutely love the Sub Phatty and the Minitaur!! But wow 2 original Prodigy's, if you are willing to sell one please send me a personal message

PM sent.

[zerocrossing]

There is still no way to convince that a modern analog synth is better when it does have no patch memory (at least for non-modular synths). The argument that this makes you more "creative" is just stupid IMO.

It'n not about being 'better', Ingo. It's simply economics. Synth with no memories = cheaper price and less development time. We live in times when people want stuff for the cheapest possible price - but still preserving good quality. So here they are. Obviously, like you mention, having no memories on a synth design like Pulse 2 would make no sense as this is a multi-page design. But simple synths like Minibrute can do without memories easily (and be very affordable). Even more complex synths like SE Boomstars can be quickly navigated and lack of patch storage is not a huge issue, at least for me.

Additionally, I don't think anyone is making an outright argument that synths with no memories will make anyone more creative by default. Perhaps it's more about coming to terms with the fact that a synth we just bought does not have memories - so how can we overcome this seeming shortcoming and still make sounds and music? We just become ruthless, by not caring too much if the brilliant lead we have just created will be lost forever when you need to create a bass sound now. It builds a confidence that we can make any sound on the spot - think it, then make it.

That's the motto with synths that do not have patch memories. Then, because sounds need to be made on the spot, you may develop a greater technique since you can't rely on stored patches - they need to be created in situ - which has the possibility of being more creative since you are always tweaking the synth. Although, it may be that by doing so, each sound is rubbish ("oh, shit, I can't recreate that fat lead I made last week") but it may be that you stumble upon cool new sounds quicker if you were to rely on a long list of presets. To me it's very evident as I use both methods - synths with presets and synths with no way to store presets.

Changing working methods can lead to new creative outcomes ( as in, abandon presets for one session, and instead start the session with a blank canvas and create then record sounds as you go on).

Obviously being able to store presets is the best option - and for live situations it's a must - but considering all factors, with the financial side taking first place, I can live with a few synths that do not have memories.

I agree with this... though I have to admit that sometimes it's frustrating when bouncing around from project to project in the studio. That's how I like to work. I'll create Live project files with groups of instruments and a basic framework and use it as a launch pad for improvisation. So when I'm working with the Minibrute I know that if I'm going to return back to a project, I have to make a patch sheet or take a picture... or just start from scratch. Mostly I start from scratch because I enjoy that part of the process anyway, but it can be a speed bump to getting down to actually playing.

[zerocrossing]

Polaroid? What's that? :D:D

Indeed!

Real synthesists use pen and paper!

Must be some sort of photo app for the iPhone.

[Aural Chaos]

To me, talking about using personally programmed presets vs. commercial (or included) ones is quite different than talking about the ability to use presets at all...

[zerocrossing]

https://soundcloud.com/n2s1/messe13-wal ... impression

here is a demo..

Interesting. Sounds pretty raw in a good way... not sure if it's something that needs to be in my studio though. I think Waldorf's biggest issue is that a lot of other companies have all hit the market with inexpensive and good analogs like the Minibrute and MoPho that a lot of guys like me already have a pretty packed collection of such things.