Waldorf MicroQ (or Blofeld) vs Q

Anything about hardware musical instruments.
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

I've searched and found some people saying the sound is different, but I wanted to see if anyone here has experience with both. Does the Q really sound much better? And if so, why?

Thanks guys.
Last edited by aplats on Fri Feb 12, 2010 7:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post

The only differences are that microQ has less polyphony than a newer Q (which have dynamical voice allocation, in contrast to the first Q which had fixed 16 notes of poly), and that you can't blend the two filters between parallel<->serial on mQ. Also Q has a better FX section. Everything else is the same.

Post

Are all the FX's better, or does the Q just have more? I would think they use the same code--however, I think the micro Q shares a DSP for effects as well as everything else.

Post

Q has a little bit more effects, and more DSP power for them, so yeah, they sound a bit better.

Post

All right, cool and thank you! I have a chance to get a blue microQ for $300, so I'm hoping it's worth it to go with that and lose on the effects a bit (as opposed to spending $400 more for a Q or Blofeld). I'll use Aether and the Uhbiks for my effects if the onboard effects are that terrible.

Post

Uhbiks are love :)

Thought Blofeld is also a wicked little bastard. I want it. I tried it, it's so much love there :D

Post

DragonSagoth wrote:The only differences are that microQ has less polyphony than a newer Q (which have dynamical voice allocation, in contrast to the first Q which had fixed 16 notes of poly), and that you can't blend the two filters between parallel<->serial on mQ. Also Q has a better FX section. Everything else is the same.
Ah- no.

1) The Q's polyphony is still fixed; however, you can add 16 voices through an expansion board. A stock mQ claims up to 25 voice polyphony; in real world situations, it's closer to 12 or 13- or at least it was with the patches I'd make.
2) The series/parallel blend on the mQ does work if I remember; I'm not sure as I sold mine a couple years ago.
3) With the mQ you have the first FX as a part effect and the second one's global for the whole instrument. The Q has two independent FX for each part.
4) The control scaling's different, Q patches imported into a mQ need the filter parameters turned down to get the same results.

Finally, the Q has a PPG filter emulation that the mQ doesn't. Plus, you can get Qs with analog filters (the Q+). And, you have the step sequencer that the mQ doesn't have.

ew
A spectral heretic...

Post

ew wrote: Ah- no.

1) The Q's polyphony is still fixed; however, you can add 16 voices through an expansion board. A stock mQ claims up to 25 voice polyphony; in real world situations, it's closer to 12 or 13- or at least it was with the patches I'd make.
2) The series/parallel blend on the mQ does work if I remember; I'm not sure as I sold mine a couple years ago.
3) With the mQ you have the first FX as a part effect and the second one's global for the whole instrument. The Q has two independent FX for each part.
4) The control scaling's different, Q patches imported into a mQ need the filter parameters turned down to get the same results.

Finally, the Q has a PPG filter emulation that the mQ doesn't. Plus, you can get Qs with analog filters (the Q+). And, you have the step sequencer that the mQ doesn't have.

ew
Voices shouldn't be a problem for me, since this isn't my only synth (I may not even use it in multi-mode). That sucks about the import scaling. I don't know much about the PPG filter... they call it legendary--is that so?

I'm wondering if you use less power (only single-mode), can it dedicate more to the effects. I'm sure the effects are probably static on their sound no matter how much processing you're doing.

By the way, why did you end up selling yours?

Thanks!

Post

I own a Waldorf q Key 32 voices and i used to own a Micro Q.
They are similar but different .

From the Waldorf FAQ :

1- Maximum delay length and reverb room size is smaller on the microQ and the reverb is poor on the micro Q.

2-Filter self oscillation. The microQ just doesn't, which is often easily worked around. Alongside with that the filter model generally is different from the Q which would be most noticeable at or around the point where self-oscillation would start on the Q.

3-The PPG filter.

4-The Filter Routing _interpolation.

4-The Q has eight independent FX units arranged in four pairs. The microQ has four independent FX units and one global FX.

5-The step sequencer (underrated imho)

6-The XPhorm. (To morph between 2 sounds , amazing for FX)

I can tell you they sounds different and imho , the Q is one of the best digital synth i ever owned (Still have Nord modular G2 , access Virus B). the interface on the Q is superb (one knobs for almost every functions).

Personally i would go for a Waldorf Q rack or the keyboard version , the Micro Q is a pain to use and the Q just sound better (imho) , thats why i sold it.

Btw the Q can do amazing analogue emulation if you program it.
The env are super snappy, the osc are rich with a lot of bottom end and a lot of different filters to choose from. It can sounds very digital and harsh but it can be warm and lush.

Post

@ew - Phoenix editions of Q have dynamically allocated polyphony. Series/Parallel blend is not possible on mQ, as above manual quote confirms.

I totally completely forgot about PPG filter emu on the Q. Also forgot about XPhorm.

Post

Thanks for the responses so far. Anyone else have experience with both? And what makes the PPG filter so nice? I've been trying to find demos on youtube, but not much luck.

Post

Maybe I should finally sell off my K5000S and get the Q... I just don't want to regret getting rid of a rare piece like that.

Post

aplats wrote:I'm wondering if you use less power (only single-mode), can it dedicate more to the effects. I'm sure the effects are probably static on their sound no matter how much processing you're doing.
No. There's so much CPU allocated for FX.
By the way, why did you end up selling yours?
I wasn't using it that much in recent years. And nowdays, Komplexer loaded with the original mQ wavetables will get me within 95-96% of the mQ's sound. This was the first experiment I did with actually replacing my mQ in existing tracks with Komplexer; it worked out amazingly well :)
DragonSagoth wrote:@ew - Phoenix editions of Q have dynamically allocated polyphony
The Q (and mQ for that matter) always had dynamic allocation between parts, which is what I think they're referring to here.
Series/Parallel blend is not possible on mQ, as above manual quote confirms.
My bad :oops:

ew
A spectral heretic...

Post

aplats wrote:And what makes the PPG filter so nice?
PPG filter was SSM 2044 chip (it was also used in Korg Polysix, Mono/Poly, Trident and also some other vintage synths like Siel Opera 6), it's regarded as exceptionally warm sounding filter, with very special resonance characteristics. You should hear it for yourself :)

The best way to do this is to hear sound demos of aforementioned synths.

Post

DragonSagoth wrote:
aplats wrote:And what makes the PPG filter so nice?
PPG filter was SSM 2044 chip (it was also used in Korg Polysix, Mono/Poly, Trident and also some other vintage synths like Siel Opera 6), it's regarded as exceptionally warm sounding filter, with very special resonance characteristics. You should hear it for yourself :)

The best way to do this is to hear sound demos of aforementioned synths.
Perfect! Thank you.

Post Reply

Return to “Hardware (Instruments and Effects)”