Arturia Matrix 12 vs Jupiter 8?

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Instruments Discussion
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

fmr wrote:
ghettosynth wrote: The original Matrix 12 does not sound better than the original Jupiter 8. The M12 is much more programmable, and, is capable of more nuanced sounds in many respects. However, it has very slow software envelopes and despite having many modes, a relatively weak filter by comparison.
Weak filter? In what terms? I noticed several times (based on your comments) that for you a synth is essentially about snappy envelopes and screaming filters. In those two parameters, I agree the Jupiter may win.

But in terms of versatility (and for me a synth has to be taken for the whole, and the filter is just ONE module, which is there just to take frequencies off), the Matrix-12 has much more to offer - starting with 15 filter modes, where the Jupiter only has two. And a powerful matrix modulation, and tons of VCAs, and modulations sources. The envelopes may not be the fastest, but there are five, and ramps too. Besides, I am not interested in millisecond records - they were fast enough to get really snappy sounds, at least to my ears.

So, as much as I respect the Jupiter-8 (which was a great synth, indeed) the Matrix-12 sounded better IMO (fatter, capable of the most majestic pads I have ever heard, and capable of really evolving sounds). There may not be a sound that defines the Matrix-12 (because it is capable of so many), but if there was one, it would certainly be one of those majestic pads. Yes, I was referring to the originals, when I said the Matrix-12 sounded better than the Jupiter-8, and I say that having experiencing both.

Anyway, both Arturia emulations are also great, IMO. but of course I was delighted to finally have an emulation of the Matrix-12.

Yeah, as beely points out, the M12 was never regarded as fat. People regularly complained about the envelopes in the M12, they are very slow. Moreover, they are annoyingly linked to the limits of the cpu and vary in their timing when you use too many of them.

The modes of the M12 are nice, sure, but the low pass modes just do not have the character of the Roland IR3109. Please do not diminish my opinion by trying to state what synths are to me, you don't know me. The M12 is still a CEM based synthesizer with slow software envelopes. It is capable of many nuanced sounds, as I said, but it is by no serious definition, "fat."

The essence of my point is quite clear. Today, compared to many plugins, the M12 is just average in terms of programability. Multimode filters are kind of ho-hum, and really, often you want to use more than one in series, a common option in today's softsynths. This does not diminish the M12, which is amazing, but it's amazing because all of that was done in hardware, well, except for the envelopes and LFOs. If you like the M12 for nostalgia reasons and want a copy of it, well, then the Arturia is your choice. But, if you just want a powerful pogrammable poly with lots of modulation and multimode filters, there are many choices and most of then have a better U/I than Arturia's M12.

As I said, for most things that the M12V can do, you're probably better off with Massive. It has more interesting filter modes, the filters can be serial or parallel, it has a complex modulation system, its envelope display is much better and the envelopes are really interesting with the morph section, its oscillator section is much more versatile. I could go on.

Post

If I were wanting the functionality of the Matrix-12, I'd start with Zebra. The XMF filter in Zebra has all the Matrix-12 filter types... except you get 3 entire XMF filters, plus each one has multiple character modes.

Post

pdxindy wrote:If I were wanting the functionality of the Matrix-12, I'd start with Zebra. The XMF filter in Zebra has all the Matrix-12 filter types... except you get 3 entire XMF filters, plus each one has multiple character modes.
Sure, Zebra is another good example of a modern highly programmable poly. I didn't think to recommend it because I don't have it. I don't like its U/I, and I'm not blown away enough by its sound like I was Diva and ACE, and later Bazille.

The specific recommendation wasn't the point so much as the fact that it's become quite standard to build powerful programability into plugins, so, if you want multimode filters, there are a lot of choices.

Post

Zebra is one of the best synths available today (no comparison between it and Massive), and I'm comfortable at saying this since I am an early adopter (started using it when it was in pre-launch version 1.0). But it is not the Matrix-12, and the fact it has filters that have similar configurations doesn't make it so, automatically. This is diversion.

We were not comparing Matrix-12 to Zebra, but to Júpiter-8. The original Matrix-12 marked an era, and it wasn't just for the multimode filter (here comes again the obsession for the filters). By today standards it may be regarded as limited (personally, I still find it is more advanced than the vast majority), but so does the Júpiter-8, personal preferences apart. And while we are being discussing fatness (whatever that means), I personally would not describe the Jupiter-8 as fat, either. And I'm not alone. Many described the Roland synths as clean and surgical sounding (thinner) than the american ones, like Moog and Oberheim.

Returning to software, any modern good software synthesizer (not just Zebra, I could easily name like 10, at least) will completely fade any of the past synths. The emulations are what they are, and have to be regarded for what they are. If I was going to choose soft synths only by absolute criteria, no emulation would come as first choice. But the discussion is about Matrix-12 vs Júpiter-8.
Last edited by fmr on Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:12 am, edited 4 times in total.
Fernando (FMR)

Post

I agree, the Jupiter doesn't really sound fat, but powerful in a more sophisticated, clear and well defined way.

Did it have a built-in chorus? Just wondering because the Jupiter also did light spacey silky pads well...

Post

I love the Jupiter 8 and have owned the real thing in the past. I also got Arturia Jupiter 8V and Matrix-12V.
While i am a huge fan of the Jupiter i do not think it is really comparable to the Matrix 12. The Matrix has tons of features not found in the Jupiter (especially the multimode filter and modulation options) and sound wise they do not seem to be really comparable.
Some of the more special filter modes like the 3-Phase, the Notch and the combined modes (e.g. "3Phase + 1 Low" which is really nice IMO) have a unique sound and could deliver great results not really possible with e.g. the Jupiter 8.
On the other hand the Jupiter 8 has it's own sound that is great too IMO.

Concerning "fatness" The real Jupiter 8 is still better than the current emulations while i have not checked the new Roland JP-08 module myself yet (which is hardware and so far not available as a plugin).
I originally planned to get a JP-08 but got both an Ensonoq ESQ-1 and a Korg DW-8000 (both hybrid synths with analog filters) instead.
With Matrix-12V at the "Voices" page you could set the tuning (semitones and fine tune) and panning for each of the 12 voices, you could use up to 12 voice unison (!!) and you could also use different patches for certain voices (comparable to what is possible in the Unison of DUNE 2 and Xils Lab Syn'X 2) and created layers and/oe splits that way (at "Zones" in the "Voices" tab/page you could define key ranges for up to 6 different zones and assign a zone to each of te 12 voices).

Many complained about a not so good low end in Matrix-12V and that the effects are not so great.
I agree to all of that and for improving the low end i normally use Waves OneKnob Phatter which works better than an EQ for that task. Under the hood One Knob Phatter is also more like just an EQ.

Concerning effects with many synths i prefer using external ones anyway. Currently some of my favorites (besides Waves One Knob Phatter) are ValhallaÜberMod (Chorus + Delay), ValhallaVintageVerb (Reverb), Lexicon MPX Native Reverb, Waves H-Delay, ArtsAcoustic Big Rock Phaser, Waves Renaissance EQ and Waves H-Comp.
Ingo Weidner
Win 10 Home 64-bit / mobile i7-7700HQ 2.8 GHz / 16GB RAM //
Live 10 Suite / Cubase Pro 9.5 / Pro Tools Ultimate 2021 // NI Komplete Kontrol S61 Mk1

Post

I suppose, people who (not seldom for nostalgic reasons) are interested in the J8 sound, don't need the M12's flexibility and additional features. They just want that famous sound and simple/fast to use intuitive interface - of the hardware that is :hihi:

Maybe Arturia are already working on a Matrix 6 emulation 8)

Post

fluffy_little_something wrote:I suppose, people who (not seldom for nostalgic reasons) are interested in the J8 sound, don't need the M12's flexibility and additional features. They just want that famous sound and simple/fast to use intuitive interface - of the hardware that is :hihi:
Pretty much, and the reverse is true as well. People who want the M12, which doesn't have a famous sound, are lured by the promise of powerful programability hidden behind an, excellent for the time but terrible by today's standards, U/I.

That's my point, don't be fooled, it's not THAT powerful by today's standards.
Maybe Arturia are already working on a Matrix 6 emulation 8)
I can hardly wait.

Post

ghettosynth wrote: Pretty much, and the reverse is true as well. People who want the M12, which doesn't have a famous sound, are lured by the promise of powerful programability hidden behind an, excellent for the time but terrible by today's standards, U/I.
What's your problem with the Matrix-12? I can accept that you don't like it, but you can't make statements as if they are absolute trues - it's your opinion, which worths as much as anyone else's.

The sound of the Matrix-12 may be not famous TO YOU, but it certainly is to a lot of others, or it would not be one of the most sought after synths, even today. And the powerful programmability is still powerful for today standards, and surpass the majority of the software synths available. The UI, though, is in fact terrible for today gorgeous graphical UIs standards, indeed.
Fernando (FMR)

Post

For those who are interested in buying the real thing (Matrix 12 and Jupiter 8 ):

http://www.ebay.de/itm/Vintage-Oberheim ... SwA4dWNYVo

http://www.ebay.de/itm/VERY-RARE-ROLAND ... SwuTxV-mRe

While the Matrix 12 is much more complex the Jupiter 8 still seems to be much more expensive (along the most expensive vintage polysynths). Sometimes a Matrix 12 seems to be available for half of the price of the Jupiter 8 (which is actually more or less true for the offers above).
Ingo Weidner
Win 10 Home 64-bit / mobile i7-7700HQ 2.8 GHz / 16GB RAM //
Live 10 Suite / Cubase Pro 9.5 / Pro Tools Ultimate 2021 // NI Komplete Kontrol S61 Mk1

Post

Ingonator wrote: While the Matrix 12 is much more complex the Jupiter 8 still seems to be much more expensive (along the most expensive vintage polysynths). Sometimes a Matrix 12 seems to be available for half of the price of the Jupiter 8 (which is actually more or less true for the offers above).
I think that this is quite telling. It wasn't always true BTW. For a long time, even past the analog heyday, M12s were much more expensive than the J8. In fact, J8s were very cheap at one point, M12s were never cheap.

Post

ghettosynth wrote:
Ingonator wrote: While the Matrix 12 is much more complex the Jupiter 8 still seems to be much more expensive (along the most expensive vintage polysynths). Sometimes a Matrix 12 seems to be available for half of the price of the Jupiter 8 (which is actually more or less true for the offers above).
I think that this is quite telling. It wasn't always true BTW. For a long time, even past the analog heyday, M12s were much more expensive than the J8. In fact, J8s were very cheap at one point, M12s were never cheap.
In 2004 i bought a Jupiter 8 with MIDI for 2000 € (and sold for around 2200 € so only sligthly more...). A real bargain by todays standards.

Todays second hand prices are insane. Recently someone sold a Moog Source for several thousand $ (not sur which price exactly). Here is an offer for a Moog Source for 2999$:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Moog-Source-Vin ... Swqu9VEimE
Compared to new Moog synths like e.g. Sub 37 this is far too expensive IMO.

Anyway some more "underrated" synths like e.g. my Ensoniq ESQ-1 and DW-8000 could be bought quite "cheap". I paid around 800 € for both together. I paid additional 20 € for a new battery and updated OS chips (OS 3.53) for the ESQ-1.
The ESQ-1 also included a ROM cartridge with 320 patches.
Ingo Weidner
Win 10 Home 64-bit / mobile i7-7700HQ 2.8 GHz / 16GB RAM //
Live 10 Suite / Cubase Pro 9.5 / Pro Tools Ultimate 2021 // NI Komplete Kontrol S61 Mk1

Post

Was just listening to two of those long Matrix 12 videos on YT, somehow the sound does not appeal as much to me. Not sure, maybe it has to do with YT compression or whatever, the highs in particular don't appeal to me. The more muted sounds are dry and funky, though, nice.
It had velocity and aftertouch, unlike the J8 (was surprised to read that it lacked both).

Post

Ingonator wrote: Anyway some more "underrated" synths like e.g. my Ensoniq ESQ-1 and DW-8000 could be bought quite "cheap". I paid around 800 € for both together. I paid additional 20 € for a new battery and updated OS chips (OS 3.53) for the ESQ-1.
I agree, and I think that you brought up two fascinating choices. I've had several instances of both over the years. The last ESQ-1 I picked up, which I still have, was about $70. I don't remember when exactly, but it was just a few years ago, maybe five, time flies.

So, taking these two synths, I would say that the DW is to the J8 as the ESQ is to the M12. To my ears, there is no doubt that the DW has a much better filter. The Korg AD2069A filter is right up there with the IR3109. It's the same filter that's in the DSS-1, another underrated synth, although they are quite large and floppies are a real problem. It's rather sad that the AD2069A never made it into a proper analog polysynth. The DW has a useful, but fairly straightforward architecture. It's oscillators are similar in concept to the ESQ-1, digital wasn't yet a dirty word.

The ESQ, on the other hand, has a very similar filter to the M12, a CEM-3379. It's much less interesting, and of course doesn't have all the modes. But the ESQ has a powerful architecture compared to the DW. With three oscillators and four envelopes and extensive modulation routing, it's really quite powerful. I also think that the digital oscillators here give it quite a bit of sound flexibility and I prefer the ESQ1 to the M6 for that reason.

Mark my words, the DW will increase in price more than the ESQ. Because, at the end of the day, that sound character is the thing that's more difficult to replace.

Post

fluffy_little_something wrote:Was just listening to two of those long Matrix 12 videos on YT, somehow the sound does not appeal as much to me. Not sure, maybe it has to do with YT compression or whatever, the highs in particular don't appeal to me. The more muted sounds are dry and funky, though, nice.
It had velocity and aftertouch, unlike the J8 (was surprised to read that it lacked both).
Right, this is a common response, it's not the YT compression. As far as features go, the J8 doesn't compare at all to the M12 but there is at least a half a decade of synth development between the two and the majority of that development was in the early microcomputer era, so that's like five dog years of development to you and me.

Post Reply

Return to “Instruments”