Are the Analog Four and Syntakt's analog synths very different?

Hi,

I was just wondering…both having actual analog synths, is there much difference between the sound of the Analog Four and the Syntakt on that part? Are you able to produce the same sounds on both devices analog-wise, or are there pretty big differences in what you can achieve sonically?

Never owned or played an Analog Four, probably someone here has used both :slight_smile:

Regards.

Yes, they are very different!

A4 has a lot more parameters, so you can explore a lot more areas. It can also play chords + arps, and has synchronized LFOs, AM, and a loooot of modulations. Internal routing, as well.

Syntakt has many flavors (not all analog btw), but all narrowed a bit, so it’s more immediate.

1 Like

The Machines on the Syntakt are more similar to the Machines on the Rytm than the Four.

The voices on the Four are far more flexible with more oscillator waveforms, variable sync, feedback, two filters, noise, sub oscillators with several interval options, loads of LFOs (including dedicated ones for pitch and PWM modulation). Plus you have full independent control of two whole oscillators with individual subs per voice. Plus you can daisy-chain the voices. Plus you can pass an external signal in place of an oscillator. Their noise source has its own tilting eq and bit crusher.

In contrast, the Syntakt and Rytm Machines give you a set of controls which are more like macros; some quirky waveforms, fewer LFOs, just one filter. They have sync, for some oscillator options, but you have limited control over it; no filter feedback. They sound great tho’; just less flexible.

5 Likes

Thanks for your answers guys, although it doesn’t exactly dampen the spurious GAS I have for an A4 MkII :wink:

That thing produces quite some nice tones!
Still, around 1500 euros for that thing…worth it probably, but the wallet dictates otherwise ATM. We’ll see. Maybe I should just be content with exploring the Syntakt first as I am still discovering that device :wink:

1 Like

… and even Rytm and Syntakt /sound/ very different …

1 Like

Why don’t you consider yourself second hand? It’s a good way to explore the synth, and you can still sell it back later, that you like it or not.

3 Likes

That’s a good remark. I do have the tendency however to buy stuff new and pristine., I hardly go secondhand until other options are exhausted. Takes longer to acquire it that way, but that’s just who I am. Probably stems from former experiences of ‘buying what turns out to be someone else’s problem’. Still, getting a secondhand one and replacing it with a new one if I like it…hmm, I might need to consider that option.

2 Likes

I know this is highly subjective (and probably debated to death) but… anyone care to comment on the basic sound quality of the analog Syntakt engines versus the A4? I had an mk1 A4 many years ago and didn’t think so highly of its basic sound character. I love the Syntakt analog engines though, and just from memory they sound more lively than the A4 (mk1 at least).

The MkII did seem to make the right noises to me. The reason I threw this discussion up was after listening to an old video with Cenk showing the MkII version. It made sounds I really liked, and I was thinking ‘wait…Syntakt (which I have) also has analog voices…am I just lacking in skill right now, or does the Analog Four really create other sounds the Syntakt can not?’.

2 Likes

I have an A4 MKII and to me, the oscillators and filters of the Syntakt sound better. Less Lo-Fi, more Hi-Fi …

There are plenty of possibilities to make things sound broken, ugly and lo-fi on the A4, personally I use the 2nd Filter where possible to make it sound as hi-fi as possible :wink:

And then it starts to shine and sound great.

4 Likes

I have both Analog boxes (mk 1). Can confirm the A4 sounds… uninspiring? Hard to find a word to describe it. Even when scanning through the factory patches and other official sound packs there’s a common tonality in the voicing which is lacking something. The voice architecture is actually quite unusual, and somewhat inflexible (fixed level sub-osc, serial filters that cannot be bypassed, etc), which may add to the ‘unique’ character of it. Conversely I’ve made synth patches on the Rytm with little effort which sound full and lively in spite of the extremely limited options available.

3 Likes

That’s the word how to describe Analog Four.

2 Likes

A4 >>>>> ST analog synth machines (raw, dual, etc.)

it’s way much fatter and deeper with the sub oscillators, the two filters, the multi dest. LFOs, unison posibility… etc… is much more of everything.

IMO, and highly subjective, A4 is faster and snapier in terms of attack. I mean, the punch and attack from bass patches in the A4 is more instantaneous and piercing than the bass sound from ST, either the analog or the FM ones.

1 Like

Thanks for all the reponses guys…helps dampen the GAS (although the A4 still looks like a fun machine!) and diverts it back to the original quest of obtaining a DTII to complement the DNII and ST :slight_smile:

1 Like

A4 is probably still Elektron’s deepest synth for sound design (there’s a dedicated thread with this very title where you find loads of examples). But that means that it has a rather steep learning curve and can sound bad easily. Even if you manage to program a patch that you like or find one in the preset bank, it’s still kinda hard to perform it, since only changing a few parameters a bit can already make the patch sound weird. Even something simple as a filter sweep can sound disappointing, since there’s two filters interacting that can produce a wide range of timbres.

Syntakt on the other hand is really limited and straightforward but sounds nice without much effort. And takes some work to make it sound bad. It’s almost the exact opposite imo.

So if you’re mainly interested in getting pleasing, fat sounding standard mono patches without much effort that you can also easily perform with, ST is your machine. If you like to tinker with sounds for hours and get lost, know a lot about synthesis and would love to have tons of modulation and almost modular like options, A4 is your machine.

I’ve owned both and like both of their sounds. A4 has something unique and led me to kinda naive and thin sounding patches that I found really beautiful and couldn’t produce on any other machine. But I never got anything done with it, since I just couldn’t perform these patches despite the fantastic performance setup. ST on the other hand has become my go to machine for analog basses (plus is still my main drum machine, even if I use ST samples on DT most of the time right now).

If you feel like trying out an A4, buy a used one. The current price is really high, but used prices for MK II have been hovering around 900€ for years now. If you can live with the display and knobs, MK I is incredibly cheap for what it does.

3 Likes

It’s perhaps a bit of effort, but the A4 is very stable on the used market, so you could buy one used and consider it a trial period. Check it out, follow a bunch of tutorials, see if it’s right for you…and if it is, sell for about what you paid, and buy your shiny new one.

Edit: oh I guess you already got this advice…

Echoing everything that’s been said. I sold my ST but it’s much more immediate and simpler than A4.
It’s bigger sounding if you just want to fire up a DVCO or RAW patch and play a mono sound. For deeper sound design or poly stuff, it’s a no contest obviously. That said, I have been criminally neglecting my A4 because of its learning curve.

I think a4 is the most inspiring synth elektron made. It is a full synth, not a preset or machine tweaker. It sounds beautiful and doesnt sound lofi at all. You can make it sound lofi of you want to though.
I bought a4 mk1 when it came out, bought a4 mk2 later and now I have 2x a4mk2. It is too much, so i decided to sell 1 and buy a heat + fx, the fx block is missing on a4, that is where st shines.

I live in the netherlands, if you do too, i can sell you mine)

3 Likes

That’s an understatement :smile:

Having both boxes, I never compared the pure oscillator sound.

While the A4 has way more parameters you can controll, it doesn’t have as many osc types.

Edit: let me rephrase this: the Syntakt has a pre set combinations of how the two oscillators interact with each other. On the A4 you can mix them but also do amplitude modulation from one osc to the other.
Again, more controllnon the A4, but easier sweetspots on the Syntakt. End of edit.

I’d say sound wise taken just the controls both share the results may be similar.

But as mention in earlier responses, the shaping possibilities are very different.

The Syntakt will feel limited coming from a pure synth, but gets the job done very well!

If your looking for a deeeeeeep synth, the A4 is the way to go.

1 Like

A4 sounds a bit “constrained” compared to AR synth machines (which I believe they’re comparable to the ST) they sound more lively with more headroom.