My impressions of the Mono

bluewolfse7en · 2015-03-21T15:42:09.000Z

So let’s all agree the MM is weak.
Everyone’s genuine attempts to help the OP are met with a know it all attitude.
What does that leave us with?

Yet another pointless thread!

Housecliche · 2015-03-21T15:44:09.000Z

@stickhit I’d be interested in how to define ‘weak’ in relation to the raw, unsequenced sounds of the MM.

So on my bench I have an MM. Virus, Nova, and Waldorf microQ. If I play a single OSC wave on each at middle C - help me understand what I’m listening for in the MM that characterises it as “weak”. Any particular engine or waveform I should choose?

I’m pretty sure the MM won’t win a Supersaw Shootout with these guys - so help me keep it fair - how do I spot the weak sound (for my own education).

Stickhit · 2015-03-21T16:34:51.000Z

Yes it is indeed possible to make any synth sound thin. A lot of synths (particularly analogues) have a comfort zone in which they sound great but fall away as you move outside that zone.

I suspect that it will take a lot more time and effort to create good sounds on the Mono compared to other digital synths I have owned. I think the sweet spots are smaller, the gaps between the sweet spots are larger, the filter envelope less capable etc.etc… Although they are basic building blocks, not all oscillators and filters are created equal. Sure, different synths sound different and rightly so. However, all instruments have a sonic quality and like for like instruments are normally ranked by their sonic quality (which is why some acoustic guitars cost a lot more than others) . The sonic quality of synths is normally determined by the sound of the oscillators and filters as opposed to how easy it is to step modulate them. Having said that sound quality is definitely subjective and I am sure my ears are no better than anyone else’s.

In my humble opinion a good synth is one where it is easy to create good sounds and a better synth is one where it is easy to create a wide range of good sounds. But then again I am bit lazy and prefer to spend more time pondering which notes I should play as opposed to endless tweaking in an effort to get a decent pad sound. Of course some people might think that a good synth is one where you have to work hard to get a good sound. And of course good synths don’t necessarily come with a tightly integrated, easy to use step sequencer, arp and step modulator.

I will certainly have fun using the Mono, I have already explored all the tips and various pieces of advice and I am sure I will make some good sounds that will sit well in a mix. (though I don’t think the Mono has the capability to match the [font=Tahoma",“sans-serif]extraordinarily strong sounds I can make with some of my other synths). I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.
[font=Tahoma”,"sans-serif]Thanks for all your attention guys and have a good day, I have got to go now and make some music (with my Mono of course).

Stickhit · 2015-03-21T17:23:20.000Z

""Housecliche"":

@stickhit I’d be interested in how to define ‘weak’ in relation to the raw, unsequenced sounds of the MM.

So on my bench I have an MM. Virus, Nova, and Waldorf microQ. If I play a single OSC wave on each at middle C - help me understand what I’m listening for in the MM that characterises it as “weak”. Any particular engine or waveform I should choose?

I’m pretty sure the MM won’t win a Supersaw Shootout with these guys - so help me keep it fair - how do I spot the weak sound (for my own education).

Thought I should reply to this.

I own a Virus TI Snow (can’t speak for the A, B, or C) and in comparison to the Mono I find the FX to be a lot better (a really nice phaser and reverb), the filters have a wider range and better sound tweakability and the individual oscillators and wavetables are more distinctive (cleaner sounding). The net result being that the Virus is capable of a wide range of great sounds, from sublime electric piano type sounds to lush pads, punchy bases and edgy leads (the Mono sounds a bit soft in the mid range to my ears though you can compensate with the EQ which is more powerful on the Mono than on the Virus). I also think the Virus responds better to modulation (more musical over a wider range). Obviously the Virus vocoder is pretty naff.
[font=Calibri","sans-serif]There are over 6000 presets for the Virus, an awful lot of them sound so so and are repetitive, but there are many great and varied sounds among them. Programming the Virus (via Virus control) is a breeze and there are so many quick ways to come up with a nice sound (just adjusting the ring modulation depth gets you into nice bass territory). I would be extremely surprised if you cannot detect a sonic quality difference between a Virus TI and the Mono.

[font=Calibri","sans-serif]The Mono with a Virus engine, that would be an absolute classic.

bluewolfse7en · 2015-03-21T19:11:49.000Z

Funny but I’ve read a lot of threads that attack the Virus, suggesting that stripped of its FX it sounds crap. Personally I think it’s a wonderful machine & yes it’s FX do shine compared to the MM. I’d have to place a lot of Plocks on the MM to compete with the Virus’s Dly engine for eg.

Interesting point is that if you take the MM, the Virus, the A4 & choose a Saw wave. No fx, filter flat, no sub Osc, no mod etc. there’s very little to tell them apart! Try it!

AdamJay · 2015-03-21T19:30:15.000Z

""Stickhit"":

Every tool may be a weapon but some tools make better weapons than others.

No need to gut a pig with a tommy gun.

As far as FX, sure the FX on the MonoMachine aren’t lush and big, but I happen to like the way they sound. They’re a bit trashy and that makes them somewhat unique. I look at them in the same light as a mid-range boutique fuzz pedal.
Does it sound like Eventide? No. Does it sound like anything else? Not really. And that’s a good thing.
I’m not saying that I use the MonoMachine for its FX (even though I find its strengths in FX stacking and the various routing options), but that I appreciate that the FX don’t sound like a Virus.

Fortunately for me if I want a nice lush reverb on MnM I just feed it into the Analog Four. And if I want to trash up the Analog Four, I can feed it into the MonoMachine. But this is all beside the points being made here.

allyourblood · 2015-03-21T21:22:25.000Z

I will say this: I can definitely concede that when playing the MM for the first time/day/week (beginning with an initialized machine or two), the potential for creating something glitchy, fizzy, brittle or just outright noisy… is pretty dang high. I would even say it’s easier for me to arrive at one of these destinations substantially sooner than it is on any of my other synths (barring the inclusion of my FM stuff, which I stink at programming), even today. Of course, when I need something like that in a hurry, guess which machine I switch on first?

I think it’s fair to say that a lot of folks (not necessarily the OP) associate these glitchy, bright, brash properties with a “weak” synthesis engine, or one that is “less than” in some ways, to others. Save for a few of the more vanilla sounds (unison saws, simple single OSC leads, non-mangled FM stuff, etc.), I have a difficult time making my MM sound like any of the other synthesizers I own; it’s just too different in how its sounds are filtered and processed. However, most of those other synths can sound relatively similar to one another with a moderate amount of coaxing; there is a lot of overlap between them, in what they are capable of and how quickly and easily you can get them there.

The MM sits outside of that zone, at least when it comes to the second part (how quickly and easily you can get it to sound like something you’re familiar with). I can see that turning folks off. Many of us like to grab a new synth and build some “standard patches” (by our own criteria) and see how it compares to our other stuff. The Mono is probably gonna fall short here, without a heap of patience and manual diving, for the average new user.

The above has been my experience, and because of it the MM is a favorite of mine. It’s unique, quirky, and occasionally a source of massive frustration (eight years in and this still never truly goes away!). I bet I’m not the only one here who finds the MonoMachine to be one of the most rewarding instruments they’ve ever used. It’s almost temperamental at times, but endlessly interesting, too.

Rady_Valkov · 2015-03-21T22:50:56.000Z

What’s going on here? Pros & cons of the MnM… It’s all about the time you would spend on exploring its unique nature… Adam Jay is here… Glad to see you here, man - one of my favourite techno artists! ‘Bracing for Impact’…mmm. I’ll post a pattern entirely made on the MnM inspired by Adam Jay… MnM is capable of God knows what! Like the woman of your dreams - she gets better and better, reveals more of her beauty gradually to such extent, that one day things get really messed up…

The Monomachine is a time-eating monster, making sonic dreams come true and you always feel rewarded… That is my experience, that is my opinion…

clunky · 2015-03-22T03:14:20.000Z

""Baddcr"":

[quote=“bluewolfse7en”]So let’s all agree the MM is weak.
Everyone’s genuine attempts to help the OP are met with a know it all attitude.
What does that leave us with?

Yet another pointless thread!

These pointless threads are becoming more prevalent it has to be said!

Not entirely sure what to do about it, the rational outcome of this thread should have been:

I see, MM is different to most other synths so while my experience will help, it might not get me as far as I think in this case
So, hang on, I’m not actually just picking up a synth and using it, I actually have to build the architecture of the synth first? And the MM allows me to do that in a huge variety of ways - WHOA!!
Holy crap balls… when set up right this synth is anything but weak - thanks guys!!!

[/quote]
digital punch line

yes point 2 when the penny drops and you realize its almost modular, in that you can feed audio and trigs into each other, set individual lfo and env trigs turn on a few arps with odd speed X and play.

Stickhit · 2015-03-22T12:11:46.000Z

Now that I own a Mono I am no longer surprised that I have not found any videos showing the Mono being played (as per one of the Elektron demos for the A4K), all the videos I have watched show the Mono being sequenced.

Because I sit behind an 88 note weighted keyboard my first reaction to any sound (except percussion) is always to run my hand up and down my keyboard. When looking at Lem’s Immortal patterns I can see that the man has been extremely resourceful and creative in making some great patterns but I also noticed when I dissected the patterns that the individual sounds he used in the patterns don’t particularly lend themselves to being played in isolation on the keyboard.

Maybe the sound engine of the Mono is more suited to being multitrack sequenced as opposed to playing individual sounds, which is fine by me and I can certainly adjust to that. There are plenty of synth presets where my first reaction would be to apply an arpeggiator.

I don’t think the Mono is different to most other synths (it has no feature which is new to me), overall it reminds me of the Korg Radias. Obviously the way Elektron implement features is different to the way other manufacturers implement the same features. The Mono is far from being the only synth that allows you to do things in a huge variety of ways WHOA!! (download the manual for the Korg M3 if you don’t believe me).
[font=Calibri","sans-serif]If you think the thread is so pointless why bother responding ?

Housecliche · 2015-03-22T13:10:32.000Z

I don’t think it’s pointless I just think you set yourself up for some “stick” (pun intended) when you posted on a forum populated by Elektron “enthusiasts” and proceeded to mostly deride a much loved machine. To be fair, I appreciate your honesty and fresh perspective - maybe just a question of presentation and tone that hurts folks in the butt sometime. It’s fine to say you don’t like something on here, you just have to tread on eggshells a bit - welcome to the Internet.

As an aside - the .com has its 30th birthday this year - 30 years of interwebz - we’re still learning how to talk to each other in this relatively young medium.

Stickhit · 2015-03-22T15:35:02.000Z

I thought the Elektronauts forum the most appropriate place to post my comments because I knew the Mono would be defended, which is only fair. I don’t normally post such adverse comments but the Mono really did surprise me soundwise. It is not a cheap synth and with only 6 note polyphony on a digital synth I expected something stronger, even considering it basically dates back to 2004.

I did an awful lot of research prior to purchase, including going back over 200 pages of the old forum (after deleting other candidates I still had to choose between the Mono or the A4). I had seen previous comments about the Mono’s sound (and the same responses) repeated a number of times, although many complainants used the phrase “too digital” which led me to believe some people were expecting it to sound like a Moog.

I don’t wish to offend anyone, but I still stand by my initial comments, sound and FX wise I don’t think that the Mono is amongst the best that’s out there (though I am sure that it could be providing the exact sound some people are after).

I was never looking for advice on how to make the Mono sound better. Its inherent sound quality will not be improved by the length of time I own it (though my ears will become more used to hearing it), by exhausting all possible parameter and trig combinations or by learning how to play the trumpet or violin (though I am sure I would appreciate the Mono more after hearing myself play a violin). Like any synth, a software update or component change is required to alter the basic tonality of the instrument.
[font=Calibri","sans-serif]I think that the Monomachine is a fine musical instrument and to match what it excels at you would have to buy one of the other Elektron boxes (and even then you may not equal it, which is why I chose the Mono over the A4).

jasl · 2015-03-22T19:59:58.000Z

""Stickhit"":

Now that I own a Mono I am no longer surprised that I have not found any videos showing the Mono being played (as per one of the Elektron demos for the A4K), all the videos I have watched show the Mono being sequenced.

Because I sit behind an 88 note weighted keyboard my first reaction to any sound (except percussion) is always to run my hand up and down my keyboard. When looking at Lem’s Immortal patterns I can see that the man has been extremely resourceful and creative in making some great patterns but I also noticed when I dissected the patterns that the individual sounds he used in the patterns don’t particularly lend themselves to being played in isolation on the keyboard.

Must say I am not in the least surprised to read your post above. I am now really wondering what research you did before buying one, what you actually wanted to get from a Monomachine; what or how you expected it would perform as a synth and mostly, why do you still own it?
I am not being rhetorical or trying to wind you up - I am genuinely interested because I think you would have been much happier with an A4!

rikrak · 2015-03-22T20:23:26.000Z

""Stickhit"":

I recently purchased a Monomachine SFX60+ MkII. Wow, the sound engine is definitely weak and the FX are poor (apart from the delay which is OK). Even if I had purchased this in 2004 my opinion would have been the same (especially if I compare it to say a Yamaha EX5R which came out in 96).

Still I did my research and was not expecting or needing a sonic powerhouse. The sequencer/arp is sweet and with a bit of movement and complimentary tracking I will be able to come up with some useable sounds. Plus, with up to 12 midi tracks, I can use what the mono is good at, drive other instruments and VSTs.

I like the layout, my encoders seem fine and the buttons are OK but a little noisy. The display is excellent and most of the controls and menus are very immediate and well thought out. Though I don’t understand why the file menu is inside Global or why you would need 8 Globals in a snapshot. Also it is strange that the level encoder can’t be used to scroll through the longest lists (snapshots, kits and digibanks).

I needed a standalone device of a specific size that could also add something to my computer based setup and the Mono fits the bill. All in all it should keep me amused and hopefully will contribute to my music making.

100% agree with all of this and the Monomachine is my favourite synth of all time.

bluewolfse7en · 2015-03-22T20:26:41.000Z

[quote=“” jasl""]

I am not being rhetorical or trying to wind you up - I am genuinely interested because I think you would have been much happier with an A4!

[/quote]

+1

Stickhit · 2015-03-22T21:01:11.000Z

For your information my requirement was for a small, standalone device (i.e. it could be used to compose at least the backbone of a song), which also added something to my main setup (I didn’t want a device which I only used when I go away).

The only feature I could identify that added something to my main setup was a very hands-on step sequencer which would allow me to input notes via my keyboard. There is not many items that fitted my requirements and I chose the Mono over the A4 because the Mono provides 12 tracks of sequencing against the A4’s 4 (I don’t do CV).

As I have purchased a Mono I think I am entitled to express my opinion of it. What surprises me is that the responses I should be getting should be on the lines of “hell no, in my opinion the synth engine and FX on the Mono sound just as good as or better than synth X, Y, Z.” I think it is telling that a lot of responses start with “the Mono makes a weak first impression”.

I know you guys love and make great music with the Mono and, believe it or not, I expect I will to. It is just that I think that a less biased response to my critique would have been something like “Yes, in comparison to other digital synths the synth engine and FX are not the Mono’s strongest points BUT the huge advantages it offers elsewhere will make this of little consequence once you have learned how to make the most out of the Mono”.

Please, every time I adjust the Mono’s filter my ears tell me that it is not as pleasant as when I adjust filters on other digital synths or VSTs.

Stickhit · 2015-03-22T21:44:03.000Z

The thing I have seen highlighted several times is that some people think the sound is weak, other people don’t think the sound is weak, and other people initially thought the sound was weak but have since changed their minds.

Obviously the people who think the sound is weak in comparison to other digital synths are wrong because you say so. Amen.

bluewolfse7en · 2015-03-22T21:59:53.000Z

[quote=“” Stickhit""]

For your information my requirement was for a small, standalone device (i.e. it could be used to compose at least the backbone of a song), which also added something to my main setup (I didn’t want a device which I only used when I go away).

Both the A4 & MM fit this description.

The only feature I could identify that added something to my main setup was a very hands-on step sequencer which would allow me to input notes via my keyboard. There is not many items that fitted my requirements and I chose the Mono over the A4 because the Mono provides 12 tracks of sequencing against the A4’s 4 (I don’t do CV).

A4, way better sequencer & you can input via midi keyboard.
Sequencing external kit is obviously a major issue

As I have purchased a Mono I think I am entitled to express my opinion of it.

Absolutely

What surprises me is that the responses I should be getting should be on the lines of “hell no, in my opinion the synth engine and FX on the Mono sound just as good as or better than synth X, Y, Z.” I think it is telling that a lot of responses start with “the Mono makes a weak first impression”.

[b]I think the responses are honest.
I think people are just saying, ‘hey man, yeah it’s a little different, stick with it & you’ll get it’

Interestingley the default filter settings on the A4 are dialed in a bit, think the MM would have benefitted from this also.
[/b]

I know you guys love and make great music with the Mono and, believe it or not, I expect I will to. It is just that I think that a less biased response to my critique would have been something like “Yes, in comparison to other digital synths the synth engine and FX are not the Mono’s strongest points BUT the huge advantages it offers elsewhere will make this of little consequence once you have learned how to make the most out of the Mono”.

I think from what you’ve said, the A4’s Osc, filters & fx would be more to your liking. Maybe try one out. Obviously you’d have to look elsewhere for midi sequencing duties should you decide to switch.

Please, every time I adjust the Mono’s filter my ears tell me that it is not as pleasant as when I adjust filters on other digital synths or VSTs.

Filter design is definitely different. I really like it., I can get some crazy stuff with high Q & modulating wofs & bofs .
However I think it’s fair to say you get more conventional results with the A4 or the Virus.
MM is unique IMO.

[/quote]

Anyway, have fun exploring it, hope it works out for you

Stickhit · 2015-03-22T22:09:38.000Z

Not my intention to insult anyone and if you feel I have insulted you then I apologise.
As you have just stated (and I believe I also stated earlier) sound is subjective so maybe neither of us are wrong.
I was only ever expressing my opinion and I never expect people to agree with my opinion no matter what the subject (I am kind of partial to lively debates though).

pselodux · 2015-03-22T22:15:10.000Z

With all due respect, in your pre-purchase research, did you think it sounded weak? If so, why did you decide to buy it?