Waldorf Pulse 2: officially released (OS updated to v1.18)

[david.beholder]

for $799 there are a lot of things w/better interfaces that fall right in there..

Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks that P2 has amazing sound, but $800 bucks is too expensive for it and doesn't justify price.

*scratching head*

Considering that price in DE is 500e and excluding german vat it's only $546.
Pittsburg modular is cheaper.
Novation BSII is cheaper.
Etc.

[stikygum]

I've owned a Pulse 1, but am I the only one that hears the Pulse 1 in some of these demos? Granted there weren't long demos of the Pulse 2 doing Pulse 1 sounds, but I can hear them in there. I'm pretty dang happy about what Waldorf did with the Pulse 2. I think it can do classic Pulse sounds, but is so much more versatile. Plus I think it's much more portable. I hated how I always felt like I had to have the Pulse 1 in a rack to use it. Having it lay flat like the Blofeld makes it much easier to use. I know some people like racks, but those are big and bulky and not portable. A big LCD screen is very nice also.

There aren't any modern analogs with 3 analog Oscillators selling for $800. There are others with sub oscs on them, but not 3 like the Pulse 2 and some of the classics.

I think most people are spoiled nowadays with cheap analogs, expecting everything to be budget sub-$500.

[Ingonator]

for $799 there are a lot of things w/better interfaces that fall right in there..

i used to have a pulse. bought new for $500 i think?? it was 1999 i think.. a nice synth. did the job. nice sparkling top end and a buttery bass. filter wasn't really full of character though.

In Germany it is 499 € including VAT. That's around 670 $.
Without 19% VAT it would be 404 € (= 546 $).

Usually with several products it's the Europeans have to pay more, also due to the VAT which is 19% in Germany (and even more in other countries AFAIK like up to 25% in Norway).

AFAIk the Blofeld was more expensive in the US too at the beginning and got cheaper and closer to the german price later.


Ingo

[Ingonator]

Because I like the sound of the original. That and I reckon people will have been expecting the Pulse2 to be a Pulse1 with additional features - the shared name and Waldorf saying the Pulse2 would be backwards compatible suggested that to be the case.

Well, let's reserve judgment until the two can be evaluated side-by-side. Ingo, while a fine programmer himself, is certainly putting his own spin on these patches and there might not be such big differences once Pulse 1 patches have been imported into a Pulse 2.

Just had a look at the "P1 legacy mode" of the Pulse 2. Based on the manual that mode activates the controller assignment of the former Pulse 1 model.

Also found this in the manual (Appendix at page 58 ):
"If you want a more aggressive sound, simply turn up the oscillator volume levels so that they are just below the saturation point. The mixer's output
signal will crosstalk with the filter frequency and produce a rougher sound."

Maybe i did this wrong as i just turned the Osc volume up to maximum.
I'll test with a single Osc and turn up the volume more carefully.

also from the manual:
"You can achieve typical analog synthesizer distortion by overloading the connected mixing console's input. You can also experiment by patching
effects processors between the Pulse 2 and your mixer."

I had used the level that was below what would be called "clipping". Maybe i just have to turn up the volume a bit more.
I have also used a direct connection to the line input of my audio interface, instead of connecting to my small analog mixer first.

I alao noticed that the sound directly from the synth is more "raw" then when it is recorded but that seems to be a general problem when recording analog synths.

I could easily change that by adding several effects (e.g. EQ, Compressor etc.) to the recorded audio but as already mentioned i wanted to give raw demos without any "cheating". Of course also adding the Drive in the Pulse 2 makes a difference.

Because I like the sound of the original. That and I reckon people will have been expecting the Pulse2 to be a Pulse1 with additional features - the shared name and Waldorf saying the Pulse2 would be backwards compatible suggested that to be the case.

The fact that patches are compatible does not always have to mean that also the sound has to be 100% identical. There were other examples for that in the past.

As i don't own a Pulse 1 i could not finally proof that they sound differently (also see what i just posted at the beginning of this post).

As someone that never used a Pulse 1 the Pulse 2 sounds great on its's own.
I would also not say that the last 3 demos i posted (those that uses only features from the Pulse 1) are sounding "weak" in any way.

If you want a more distorted sound you could still use the Drive modes (Tube + Fuzz) in the Pulse 2.


Ingo

[Acid Mitch]

not sure how well it'll sell priced at the higher end of the market for this new crop of monosynths.

Hardly higher end. NOt as expensive as Boomstars, SEMs. Moogs and the like.

for $799 there are a lot of things w/better interfaces that fall right in there..

They may have "better" interfaces but they have far fewer features.
Of the cheaper competition your talking about which ones have 3 oscillators, multimode filter with switchable 12/24 db slopes , paraphonic mode , unison , 8 slot mod matrix, unique PWM modes , 2 overdrive circuits ?
The more I look at it the less like the competition it appears, and that's without talking about the sound.

i used to have a pulse. bought new for $500 i think??

You must have got an end of line clearance deal or something. The price was £599 , which is more than the Pulse 2 costs

[Acid Mitch]

I hated how I always felt like I had to have the Pulse 1 in a rack to use it.

Rackmount synths tend to be like that.

[Acid Mitch]

I think most people are spoiled nowadays with cheap analogs, expecting everything to be budget sub-$500.

Aye, Pulse 2 is excellent value for money.

[Ingonator]

I think most people are spoiled nowadays with cheap analogs, expecting everything to be budget sub-$500.

Ayre, Pulse 2 is excellent value for money.

As i just mentioned don't forget that in Europe, especially Germany, it is a lot cheaper (around 130$ cheaper in Germany) which for the US i guess will change in the future.
Besides that it's not like europe is a small market...


Ingo

[Acid Mitch]

the shared name and Waldorf saying the Pulse2 would be backwards compatible suggested that to be the case.

But companies rarely put out a version 2 (or 3) that sounds like the original.
I can think of a few of exceptions but there seems to be far more instruments where the later revisions had a different sound, no matter what the marketing says.

[Acid Mitch]

As i just mentioned don't forget that in Europe, especially Germany, it is a lot cheaper (around 130$ cheaper in Germany) which for the US i guess will change in the future.

THat ( $130) works out about an extra £80. (I'm in UK)
There are already deals on it from shops and even with the extra £80 you could pick one up for £500. I still think that's great value for what your getting.

[Ingonator]

THat ( $130) works out about an extra £80. (I'm in UK)
There are already deals on it from shops and even with the extra £80 you could pick one up for £500. I still think that's great value for what your getting.

Isn't it possible to order at Thomann from the UK?

http://www.thomann.de/gb/waldorf_pulse_2.htm


Ingo

[david.beholder]

There aren't any modern analogs with 3 analog Oscillators selling for $800. There are others with sub oscs on them, but not 3 like the Pulse 2 and some of the classics.

I think most people are spoiled nowadays with cheap analogs, expecting everything to be budget sub-$500.

Sure it has 3 osc, but at the same time it has only 6 knobs, no keyboard etc i.e. no justification of +$300 -controls&keyboard

Btw, who don't like "cheap analogs" and "cheap modulars"?

[hakey]

The fact that patches are compatible does not always have to mean that also the sound has to be 100% identical.

True.

As someone that never used a Pulse 1 the Pulse 2 sounds great on its's own.

It doesn't sound bad at all.

However, aside from the paraphonic stuff, I haven't heard it do anything that couldn't have been done with *a leading software synthesizer*. The same couldn't be said of the original.

It would be a shame *if* the distinctive character that set the Pulse1 apart has been in lost in the translation to Pulse2.

[david.beholder]

Hardly higher end. NOt as expensive as Boomstars, SEMs. Moogs and the like.

They are so boutique and handmade, you need to buy redwood table with glossy finish to put one of them on it.

But on other hand, there is 10 Minibruts to 1 Boomstar got sold, so it's completely different business model.

[hakey]

Hey Ingo, did you mention a beta forum for the Pulse?

Could you ask whether the Pulse 2 *exactly* reproduces Pulse 1 patches when in P1 legacy mode? If it's a close approximation, could you find out what the differences between the revisions are - filter, env speed/resolution?