MD has
1 Like
As does the MnM (function + yes on machine selection)
EDIT:
@elenacortes wait how do you do this on MD? Same as the MnM?
1 Like
@jw Yes, the same 
1 Like
I see what you mean.
Yeah, you have to be methodical, like “I always save in the +Drive before saving in the Pool” and it’s OK.
Don’t remove or overwrite a sound in the Pool obviously.
It’s not that much practice, in the end.
Sure, first-world problems. I just don’t like getting in a logical mindframe when I want to make tunes.
1 Like
They are both amazing.
I’d describe the A4 as a perfectly deep 4x mono synth with psudo poly and FM and the perfect amount of ins and outs. I believe it has DCO’s through analog filters which has a nice smokey vibe and it is capable of deep basses.
However it is very stuck in it’s character, it sounds like an A4 and the sweet spots are not simple to find, but massively rewarding all together.
It does not sound like a VCO synth and it struggles to emulate that.
The AR has a lot of what Syntakt has machine wise with the new update.
It really makes it feel complete sonically. I’ve had it since the day you could buy one.
As previously stated, dead easy drum machine with quick workflow and can go full beast mode or sound very clean.
Color samples nicely, but not a lot of sample parameters and the existing ones come with quirky limitations.
Sample management and project management are now easier with Transfer, but sometimes things dont work and get real wacky.
Pads are another fun way to play scenes and performance macros.
Synthesis wise the Dual VCO sound very much like a VCO synth with all the buzzy electrical magic.
Parameters are hella limited and focused on the RYTM so you got to get creative.
For example that ZUBR video above takes precious time to try and make, but rewarding as hell.
In short the RYTM is a boomy VCO analog monster with a glaze of sampling.
The A4 is the might be the best 4x mono synth at that price range that rewards those who aren’t afraid to dig in. It does a million different things.
4 Likes
I have more pleasure doing synthesis on the Rythm than A4.
Mostly using dual VCO and those new 1.7 synth provided. AND single cycle like mono synth with sample.
It’s really incredible how it could sound without much investment into it, just with proper sample.
And I don’t use it for drum, just synthesis.
The A4, I really like it, but it require more work, clearly rewarding, but I have low energy and I need quick rewarding things and the rythm provide me that.
For the syntakt diff, there is huge difference.
I have less pleasure with synthakt. It’s a good one, but the rythm as really something. In it’s simplicity. Those tons of different synthesis and all those limitations.
I’m more in love with the Rythm despite it’s a wrongly distorted born kids 
Nothing looks good which is how I see it 
2 Likes
If you like the machine structure on the MnM where you start with a fresh and random palette and explore its possibilities- then I’d go for an AR.
If you want an open world experience with each INIT and wander off in different directions, go with A4
3 Likes
I don’t have an A4 and i was thinking to get one to pair it with my AR
I find the osc synthesis on the AR including the 1.70 update very basic and sounding a bit dull, this is why maybe it is more immerdiate and require less energy.
I always thought that the A4 was more complete and less basic than Rytm regarding oscillators and synthesis
My humble opinion
I’ve read your opinions and I’m leaning more toward A4, I still admire AR, but I wonder if the composite with the sample can be reproduced with OT+A4? I know it requires a more patient struggle.
This!
1 Like
Definitely less basic on the A4.
If you want option yes you have tons of options on the A4 on oscillator side, and hidden lfo.
Dull sounding the Rythm… Mhhh I would not use that word, but quite too simple, too limited and straightforward yes.
if you not have a drum synth or modular the Rytm is great way to go. I bought and A4 before Rytm and enjoy it as well.
Both good options, but if you already have MM I think Rytm might be a better choice to add something different. I have both and I like them both, I was considering selling the A4 for a while but after forcing myself to use it more I’m liking it more. It definitely takes more work to get good results than the Rytm which is hard to make sound bad.
2 Likes
A4 is more like a (semi) modular synth and in comparison to a Eurorack system it’s a great organized choice of modules in Analog hierarchy and it’s the same with every good Synth….the slightest change in settings can have a huge impact on everything you hear and feel, basically the A4 is full of sweet spots but they’re interconnected and deep in settings, I think if some would buy a Eurorack Module with limited control scheme on basic parameters it would be no success because with a good synthesizer you can try to go over the edges to fulfill every feeling or boundary, desired.
if you feel the A4 is basic and a no surprise box you should consider to know that you’re not able to tame the A4 because it can have all Identities and therefore you aswell.
it’s the most complex Analog 4 Voice
1 Like
Welcome aboard friend. Frankly you can’t go wrong with either one. Although as you alluded to, perhaps the A4 would be the best fit to get those pad and Ambient sounds. It’s also pretty good at being a drum machine too. However the Rytm is regarded by quite a few producers as the best drum machine available right now, sooooo toss a coin?
I don"t have proper advice to give in this thread as my Elektron experience is limited to MDUW and few hours with an AR. However I wanted to react to what you call a “good synth”.
You seem to take for granted that a good synth has wide parameters ranges and allow for extreme sonic explorations. On the opposite, I think good synths do not necessarily have to have a huge amount of possibilities.
I have two examples in mind: Roland Juno and Minimoog. They will not allow sophisticated sound design, but their sweet spots are wiiiiiiide. On top of the limited amount of features, this is related to the “calibration” of their parameters. One could call them limited, yep.
On a more personal note, even if I like sound design, I must say that with the years, I’ve found out that limitations help me having things done. I feel they allow me to focus on music, not on the tool. It’s a bit like using a hammer for putting nails and not just for juggling with a hammer… Now I totally get that many of us do like juggling with the tools And I must says that in the years I used to do so, I also liked how limitations forced me to be creative (remember : MDUW…)
This is true with other instruments too. Telecaster, Precision Bass, Wurlitzer… they are dead easy to use yet they are iconic and everywhere. Musicians use them in a straightforward way, sound engineers just know how they should sound… easy.
Bottom line: to me, more is not always better
3 Likes
framing a decent set of controls into a preset and you’ll have tons of most interesting complexity regarding the modulation capabilities but what I mean is you’ve to treat the whole Analog line like a sensitive tune control on a minimoog for instance…or filter frequency amount while self oscillating, because that would immediately destroy that particular mood.
ever since on Elektrons the controls are so sensitive and in some ways interconnected that you have to be focused to be precise and calm down on the controls and you’ll find yourself playing patches without even looking at anything only there to control like 10% of one or 2 controls in a patch, that’s basically after the first learning curve (trust in operations) after that period, Elektrons won’t stop growing in complexity, it’s the opposite.
the more time you spend on the machines, more dopamine will be produced, the mix between the unexpected and self control. idk 
some patches can be treated just like your euro oscillator and some can be pushed thru the Analog Drive Pedal for instance. 
it’s rewarding to listen to the A4 in different ways and to re create inspiring sounds
3 Likes