Need 1U Rack gear. What should I get?

[cryophonik]

Tauntek firmware upgrade is incredibly cheap and easy to install. It fixes everything wrong with the Matrix-1000. Awesome choice.

I just checked the prices for the Matrix 1000 and damn! Total shocker. Last time it was on my radar people where throwing them out for 200-300 bucks.

I’ve been eyeing the M1000s for a while now as well and the asking prices have skyrocketed. I’ve actually been watching several of them in my area, some that have been on the market for several months, and they just aren’t selling for those ridiculous asking prices ($1300-2000). I’m tempted to start making some lowball offers to see if they’ll come to their sense, but I’m not holding my breath.

[ghettosynth]

Tauntek firmware upgrade is incredibly cheap and easy to install. It fixes everything wrong with the Matrix-1000. Awesome choice.

I just checked the prices for the Matrix 1000 and damn! Total shocker. Last time it was on my radar people where throwing them out for 200-300 bucks.

I’ve been eyeing the M1000s for a while now as well and the asking prices have skyrocketed. I’ve actually been watching several of them in my area, some that have been on the market for several months, and they just aren’t selling for those ridiculous asking prices ($1300-2000). I’m tempted to start making some lowball offers to see if they’ll come to their sense, but I’m not holding my breath.

That's just crazy for a Matrix 1000. I honestly don't know why anyone would want one when you can get a Rev 2 desktop for the same money.

[Uncle E]

Matrix-1000's will sell for $700-800 these days. That's still kind of a lot for a synth-on-a-chip but it's one of the best options, given the requirements of this thread.

[ghettosynth]

Matrix-1000's will sell for $700-800 these days. That's still kind of a lot for a synth-on-a-chip but it's one of the best options, given the requirements of this thread.

Yeah, certainly. Don't get me started on the dearth of rack gear. Now that I want to use mine again it's pissing me off that I can't buy cool stuff that is small and cheap and mounts in a proper rack.

[Uncle E]

MAM MB33 and Will Systems MAB-303 were cool, cheap little synths. Crap 303 emulators but great for SH-101-type sequenced parts.

[counterparty]

Distressor or an API 2500+

[Big Mouth Strikes Again]

Matrix-1000's will sell for $700-800 these days. That's still kind of a lot for a synth-on-a-chip but it's one of the best options, given the requirements of this thread.

Yeah, certainly. Don't get me started on the dearth of rack gear. Now that I want to use mine again it's pissing me off that I can't buy cool stuff that is small and cheap and mounts in a proper rack.

I'm so lucky that I bought my Matrix-1000 twenty five years ago for $250. At the time everyone dismissed the Matrix-1000 as a budget "synth on a chip" that was completely overshadowed by Oberheim's Xpander. But that's not really a fair comparison. For starters, the Xpander is a beast of a synth compared to the single rack space Matrix-1000. The Xpander does sound great. But I sold mine because I just didn't have room for it.

The envelopes on the Matrix-1000 are not as musical sounding as the ones in the Xpander. And the Matrix-1000 filter is both far more limited and less musical sounding than the plethora of filters in the Xpander.

But IMO, the Matrix-1000 sounds better than my Prophet REV2. The Matrix-1000 sounds rawer and more convincingly analog. But if I was paying close to the same price for each, I would buy the REV2 in a heart beat.

[cryophonik]

The Matrix-1000 sounds rawer and more convincingly analog. But if I was paying close to the same price for each, I would buy the REV2 in a heart beat.

Yeah, that’s the thing that really keeps me from spending much on a M1000. I already have a 16-voice Rev2 (and Prophet 6 and PolyBrute), so I don’t see the M1000 offering a whole lot more. The funny thing for me is that, unlike the OP, I have no more open spaces in my racks, but I have this glaring single empty input on my Pulse 16 that is just begging me to buy a single output synth (that I don’t need and don’t have space for).

[ghettosynth]

I didn't mean that I don't have vintage 1U rack gear to fill a space, I meant that I'm disappointed that people making new stuff that wipes the floor with the M1K are not putting it into rack gear. I don't think that the M1K sounds better than the Rev2. I'm not a huge fan of any of the CEM3396 derived synths, but I would still choose a Rev2 over an M1K at that price.

I'm not a huge fan of Oberheim in general beyond the X-Voice/SEM and the OB8. They're all CEM based and have a certain sameness to them. The exception being the Xpandr/M12 which has some nice tricks regarding the CEM filter. To be clear though, it's the tricks that I like, not the CEM filter.

Keep in mind that I'm not a CEM filter lover and never have been. It's a flavor, I like it now and then, but I don't get all excited about it. I'll probably end up with a CEM3328 filter in my modular just because I have a bunch from dead Mirages, but it's low on the build list.

[Uncle E]

I have this glaring single empty input on my Pulse 16 that is just begging me to buy a single output synth (that I don’t need and don’t have space for).

Promars

[Uncle E]

I'm not a huge fan of Oberheim in general beyond the X-Voice/SEM and the OB8. They're all CEM based and have a certain sameness to them. The exception being the Xpandr/M12 which has some nice tricks regarding the CEM filter. To be clear though, it's the tricks that I like, not the CEM filter.

OB-1 and OB-6 are awesome. Bottom of my Oberheim list is the OB-Xa, such a boring synth. Xpander has got to be the most ridiculously shaped sound module (if it can be called that) of all time.

[ghettosynth]

I'm not a huge fan of Oberheim in general beyond the X-Voice/SEM and the OB8. They're all CEM based and have a certain sameness to them. The exception being the Xpandr/M12 which has some nice tricks regarding the CEM filter. To be clear though, it's the tricks that I like, not the CEM filter.

OB-1 and OB-6 are awesome. Bottom of my Oberheim list is the OB-Xa, such a boring synth. Xpander has got to be the most ridiculously shaped sound module (if it can be called that) of all time.

Yeah, the OB-1 and OB-6 are both much closer to the original SEM (not CEM) that came before all of the CEM based stuff. Everyone used CEMs after a point in the 80s, even Roland used them except in their filters. As much as I bash on Roland, I give them props for not giving in there, even if I do think that the latter filters (MKS-50 on) aren't very good. Moog too, they never game up on the ladder filter. I'm not a Moog fanboi but the filters have always sounded good.

[Big Mouth Strikes Again]

I'm not a huge fan of Oberheim in general beyond the X-Voice/SEM and the OB8. They're all CEM based and have a certain sameness to them. The exception being the Xpandr/M12 which has some nice tricks regarding the CEM filter. To be clear though, it's the tricks that I like, not the CEM filter.

Keep in mind that I'm not a CEM filter lover and never have been. It's a flavor, I like it now and then, but I don't get all excited about it. I'll probably end up with a CEM3328 filter in my modular just because I have a bunch from dead Mirages, but it's low on the build list.

Not all CEM filters are created equal. The Sequential Pro One, Oberheim OB-Xa, and Elka Synthex all use versions of the CEM 3320 chip. The Prophet 5 rev3, the Waldorf MicroWave Rev A, the Roland MKS-80 rev4, and the Roland SH-101 all use the CEM 3340.

My Pro One, MKS-80, and MicroWave sound NOTHING like my Matrix-1000 and Prophet REV2. There isn't any such thing as a single CEM "flavor." Sure, the same chip numbers naturally sound similar. But, for instance, you can't really compare a 3320 and a 3340.

[ghettosynth]

I'm not a huge fan of Oberheim in general beyond the X-Voice/SEM and the OB8. They're all CEM based and have a certain sameness to them. The exception being the Xpandr/M12 which has some nice tricks regarding the CEM filter. To be clear though, it's the tricks that I like, not the CEM filter.

Keep in mind that I'm not a CEM filter lover and never have been. It's a flavor, I like it now and then, but I don't get all excited about it. I'll probably end up with a CEM3328 filter in my modular just because I have a bunch from dead Mirages, but it's low on the build list.

Not all CEM filters are created equal. The Sequential Pro One, Oberheim OB-Xa, and Elka Synthex all use versions of the CEM 3320 chip. The Prophet 5 rev3, the Waldorf MicroWave Rev A, the Roland MKS-80 rev4, and the Roland SH-101 all use the CEM 3340.

No, more or less they are, with some limitations. The 3340 is not a VCF chip at all but is a VCO chip. The SH-101 never used a CEM filter and, in fact, to the best of my knowledge Roland has never put a CEM filter in any of their designs, VCOs, yes, VCFs, no. I don't believe that they have used SSM chips either. Like Moog, they have always used their own filter designs. The SH101 uses the IR-3109, the same filter chip that is in the Juno 6/60.

The CEM-3389 does sound very much like the CEM-3396. They are essentially the same technology as far as the filter is concerned. If you're hearing dramatic differences it's not likely related to the filter design.

Oh, but don't take my word for it, from the CEM-3389 datasheet: "The VCF is the same patented filter used in other Curtis products, designed for good sonic characteristics and no output loss with increasing resonance. "

With all due respect, I'm not really looking for a lesson on CEM chips. I have been building with them for a few years and have had numerous, and still have a few, synths that use them as both oscillators and filters. I know what I like and I don't like CEM (filter) chips. I especially dislike late model CEM chips like the 3389 and 3396.

But, for instance, you can't really compare a 3320 and a 3340.

Agreed there, since the 3320 is a filter and the 3340 isn't.

[Big Mouth Strikes Again]

No, more or less they are, with some limitations. The 3340 is not a VCF chip at all but is a VCO chip. The SH-101 never used a CEM filter and, in fact, to the best of my knowledge Roland has never put a CEM filter in any of their designs, VCOs, yes, VCFs, no. I don't believe that they have used SSM chips either. Like Moog, they have always used their own filter designs. The SH101 uses the IR-3109, the same filter chip that is in the Juno 6/60.

You are right about the MKS-80 rev 4 not using a CEM filter. It's funny, because I've had my MKS-80 for 30 years and I was always told that the rev 4 uses a CEM filter and the rev5 uses Roland's IR-3109. But I was wrong on both counts. The MKS-80 rev 4 uses the IR-3109 filter and the rev 5 uses the IR-3R05 which is the same filter/VCA chip used in the JX-10 and MKS-70.

I love the sound of the filter in my MKS-70. I should get my MKS-80 rev 5 fixed. If it uses the same filter in the MKS-70, I might prefer my rev 5 to the rev 4 (even though everyone always says the MKS-80 rev 4 sounds the best).

You are also right about the CEM-3340. That is indeed a VCO chip. I learned my lesson. Don't rely on Wikipedia for details about CEM chips.

The CEM-3389 does sound very much like the CEM-3396. They are essentially the same technology as far as the filter is concerned. If you're hearing dramatic differences it's not likely related to the filter design.

To my ears, the CEM-3389 filter/VCA used in the Sequential Prophet VS and MicroWave Rev A sounds nothing like the CEM-3396 used in the Oberheim Matrix-1000. The sound of the resonance in particular is night and day different. When turned up high, the resonance in the Matrix-1000 has a high pitched whistling quality and none of the silky richness of the filter resonance in the Prophet VS and MicroWave Rev A.