Uh, you seriously think that lol? Ok, I’ll avoid giving you advice next time.
Yes, I seriously think it’s a or b (loyally devoted user or someone plugging the synth), as I said, but I was mainly thinking about the other guy who, whenever I read “Motas 6” in this forum, sure enough, it’s usually him posting and the praise has been overwhelmingly glowing. I’m sorry, though, if that comment rubbed you the wrong way. And the Motas does look interesting. I think I said so above to the other guy.
Wait, did you order one of these!?
Indeed I do.
What is more interesting than a Lyra (and their other Organismic models) in terms of modulation?
Yeah, they are still getting to my order though. They’ve been hit with a few unexpected delays but mine should ship next week. 
3 Likes
Similar to threads on the pro-3 or matriarch being overwhelming glowing, Everyone just hypes without talking about the negatives so it’s going to be difficult to get an unbiased opinion. Only reason I’m the person who keeps mentioning it is because other than Prints, I don’t think anyone else on this forum owns one and if I don’t ever mention it, it’ll probably stay that way.
You want a synth that can make interesting sounds, the Motas is my recommendation but I don’t even really want you to buy it because as said before, I’m happy keeping this sound to myself 
oh, sorry that I got that forbidden planet wrong. The Matriarch is a living beast in this discepline, especially if you patch some fm and ring tone tunes. but it can do everything else as well.
built quality and keybed is absolutly fine with the matriarch, dont let the colors fool you. what I found to be an important update from the grandmother is that the gm only has an unbalanced output while the matriarch has two balanced outputs: so no need to use a di box for longer cable connections.
the issues i found are in the midi implementation: when I used it to receive midi clock via usb from a daw and convert that to a cv clock, its sometimes not very stable, especially when the tempo is changing. but its fine, when you just trigger the matriarch via midi. moog might repair this via a firmware update, but you have to be patient …
the other thing that is a bit annoying is that many important cv jacks are on the back and hard to see if you bend over the synth.
for the pro 3: the harsh sounding videos were exactly what turned me off. the new wavetable oscillator seems to be very dominant. this is not my cup of tea.
1 Like
I went with the Matriarch because I already have preset synths, and wanted a gatekeeper for modular world, that I can sequence with Digitone.
Matriarch is the best sounding synth, that I have ever had, even while having quite a lot of modulating options; it just seems to always be able to maintain all of that fertile natural freshness of its sound; no matter how kinky patches you try to torture it with, it never starts whining. It always sounds like it is enjoying what you are doing to it.
I have had a lot of good sounding synths, that you have a hard time to find a good sounding spot in the patch you have in mind, and oftenly the spot you can find is a compromise, and while I enjoy that kind of workflow too, it is sometimes too laborous, and I give up trying to perfect the idea I had in mind. Matriarch on the other hand is a perfect companion in improvising gigs; I can trust, that I always find what I am looking for, and it always sound good.
And the delay is an instrument of its own. Oh my god it sounds good to me.
5 Likes
Ooh, that actually scares me a bit — midi trouble. But, come to think of it, I heard Pro 3 users on the Gearslutz forum complaining that the midi was not rock solid there either. I forget what the particulars were — latency maybe.
well, its not too bad and only concerns me for midi-cv-conversons so far. I get my tracks done and use a retrokits rk006 for syncing. i do as much as possible in cv as midi is always a bit tricky, being a serial protocol.
Looks like a useful tool — I’ve also been wondering how I could work with a DFAM — but I’m not sure I’d want to deal with a bunch of 1/8" midi jacks.
I’m curious about the sonic characteristics between the two synths. Based on the scant demos I’ve heard, the Motas reminds me of the Manther. purely based on sound, how would you compare it to the Pro 3? or any other analogue monos for that matter? the sound of modern DSI has never quite gelled with me, therefore thinking the Motas might be a better choice, all depends on whether it has a certain character I will love, can’t tell from the few demos that are out there.
I know you didn’t ask me but I thought I’d offer my opinion and will be curious to see how it lines up with what Prints has to say…
I think the Motas definitely leans towards vintage in terms of character and if I was going to compare it to any one companies sound, I’d say it leans towards Roland in character, it can sound modern too but it never gets that ultra polished / plastic sound that a lot of modern analog synths have which I personally can’t get along with. The Motas has the iconic characteristics that’re at least to me, the appeal of analog over digital…
I find it difficult to stay brief about it but also just wanted to emphasise how flexible it is in terms of character, gain staging at many points, a mixer that can be overdriven, filters that respond very differently depending on how hard you hit them, the feedback can be create for subtle changes in character and the clipping options at the end of the signal path. I’ve been able to get the filter to sound like the 101, 303 (of course) and even those classic ms20 screams.
I’m going to be doing some more demos of it soon, just need to finish re wiring my studio… Are there any particular sounds you’d like to hear that’d help in making your decision?
1 Like
thanks very much for the detailed reply. I’ll respond in the Motas thread just so I don’t derail this thread further into pure Motas chatter
1 Like
good idea haha… sorry to everyone if my constant recommendation of this is getting old 
1 Like
dfam has no midi, its cv, but you can perfectly joyn it with a matriarch.
If I were a professional keyboardist with a lot of work to do, I might lean towards the Pro 3 because of presets and it does sound pretty good for leads, bass, and misc. synth tones/FX that don’t require 4-note or more chords. This guy is a pro, a bit opinionated about what you ought to practice if you want to be a “serious” player, but his skills are undeniable. The comment “Meh, Xenophone is better” cracked me up, because Carlo actually did a Xenophone video and it’s still on his channel. Xenophone may be oh so great but Carlo bought the Pro 3 anyway so there you go.
The Matriarch I did try in person, and no Youtube video does justice to how loud and bassy it can be through decent monitors. It can also do gentler tones, as one would expect from Moog ladder filters and their characteristically smooth response. I see the Pro 3 also has some CV connectivity, but the Matriarch’s 90 patch points give you a lot more flexibility for cross-patching w/ DFAM or whatever. MIDI is a bit questionable, as mentioned earlier, but the CV aspect seems solid.
1 Like
great point - a question though: assuming you have the A4 already, would you also get a Pro 3, do you see any reason for this additional purchase? Or does the A4 cover the whole analog spectrum. Thanks!
I have the A4 mk2, that is IMO superior to mk1 for many reasons, but especially the new overdrive circuit. Envelopes and the many routings make it a killer of a synth, not to mention the sequencer.
I love encoders, as when you load a patch you don’t have jump in values.
I don’t know Pro3 at all (I have an OB-6 though), but I’d say the main interests would be the sound + number of direct controls.
It may take more work/experience to find A4 sweet spots, I’d say.
1 Like