47

[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 :slight_smile:

48

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).

49

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

50

[font=Calibri","sans-serif]For me the Mono’s sequencer outweighed the capabilities of the A4’s. Sound locks don’t interest me because I will rarely if ever use the Mono for drums. Micro timing also doesn’t interest me. I am happy to have my step sequences locked to a 16th or 32nd grid and I will always record my live playing straight into my DAW. The extra tracks of the Mono are far more useful to me and I never had a requirement for a great sounding synth (already have that area covered) just had to be acceptable for compositional work when used standalone (which the Mono easily is).

51

Where I currently live there are no music shops near me that would stock an Elektron product (or any synth for that matter). Also it is difficult to determine the sound of a device from You Tube videos. If a synth is demoed playing the type of music you like you will tend to be drawn to it and if demoed playing music you are not keen on you can get turned off.
So I bought the Mono via a shop which offers a 30 day money back service. The 30 days are over and I still have the Mono. If you read my posts carefully you will find that I have never said that I am unhappy with the Mono or intended to get rid of it. Every synth I have ever owned has strengths and weaknesses and as long as the strengths outweigh the weaknesses I have generally been happy with them. My initial post was an expression of surprise not utter disappointment.

52

For me the Mono’s sequencer outweighed the capabilities of the A4’s. Sound locks don’t interest me because I will rarely if ever use the Mono for drums. Micro timing also doesn’t interest me. I am happy to have my step sequences locked to a 16th or 32nd grid and I will always record my live playing straight into my DAW. The extra tracks of the Mono are far more useful to me and I never had a requirement for a great sounding synth (already have that area covered) just had to be acceptable for compositional work when used standalone (which the Mono easily is).

It’s great that you post here and say the things you have - I can’t see how anyone could be insulted as you’ve been nothing but laid back and polite.
It’s obviously challenging to read negative opinions regarding sound and fx when in actual fact your main reason for buying the Monomachine was for it’s sequencing abilities and not necessarily it’s sound. To top that off you say sound locks don’t interest you because you will rarely, if ever use the MM for drums. That’s a bit confusing… I take it you mean parameter locks? …and in which case, they can be vastly configured and are intrinsic to the workflow of Elektron machines. The way they work and can be used is a pretty big selling point.
All being said though, I can kinda get why you still might want a Monomachine but for the things you need it to do and what you appear to be interested in having it do for you, it’s a bit of a waste of an instrument in my opinion.

53

Sound locks is a feature specific to the A4 whereby a new sound can be loaded on ever step (the A4 also features sound patches which can be saved). This feature allows you to have a pseudo drum kit on one track. Not the same thing as parameter locks.

54

Sorry, my bad - I interpreted in relation to MM as that’s what the thread is about not the A4, hence my confusion… and yeah, you are correct about sound locks on the A4 (I use them for all sounds and tweak parameters within them too)

I previously suggested you might prefer an A4 just because of your comments about the sound of the MM.

Back to the Mono…!

57

When I first got the mono machine I tried playing it like a traditional synth making traditional patches Ect. In that case, I do agree it sounds rather weak and bland. However once you get a great melody going and start using Plocks and slides you realize the potential of this unique piece of gear.
The key to the MnM is the the Sequencer is an integral part of sound designing process. I can see allot of situations where the MnM might not fit in. However for me in my out of the box set up it has changed everything for the better. Most of my songs use all 6 internal slots and 6 ext midi channels.
Of course I use allot other synths as well as the MnM internal synths, but you could make a great song on the MnM alone. It really is a song writing power house, combine it with a few samplers and multi track recording in your DAW of choice and you are on your way.

58

you think you know all about it already, good luck with that

m3 m3 m3 i dont believe you :dizzy_face:

59

I am sorry clunky but having owned something for a long time does not wash with me as a valid argument for anything (except maybe the reliability of a product). Reminds me of being at school where the second year kids think they are superior to the new boys.

What don’t you believe about the M3? The M3 has a greater number of parameters which the user can adjust so the simple maths tell me that it must have a greater number of permutations for sound design (not that I think having lots of parameters to adjust is a major influence of the sound quality of an instrument - not much you can adjust on a piano).

My son has borrowed my Virus (again) so cannot currently compare waveforms (and with regard to the Virus, whilst I consider that it has a better sound engine and FX compared to the Mono, I am not saying that it is a better musical instrument). I am sure that nobody seriously believes that sampling Virus waveforms and loading them into a digipro machine will enable the Mono to sound like a Virus

To be honest when reviewers like Nick Batt say “lets listen to the raw waveform and then look at the waveform on an oscilloscope” I think Why!, just go ahead and play the finished sounds. To me the sound quality of an instrument is determined by all of its parts: oscillators, filters, envelopes, LFOs and any onboard FX (interestingly the DX7 does not have filters or FX).
[font=Calibri","sans-serif]I also think that as soon as you hit the play button on the sequencer you move into the area of how you can make an instrument perform and remember that step modulation (parameter locking in Elektron speak)is not exclusive to the Mono and is even possible from a keyboard via velocity, aftertouch, pitch bend and mod wheels, sustain and expression pedals etc. (though not to the extent that Cenk employs it).

60

I agree entirely with the above. I think the crux of this discussion is what people consider to be the fundamental reason why the Mono sounds weak when played like a traditional synth.
I suppose it could be argued that Elektron has provided the synth engines most appropriate to being sequenced and step modulated. I certainly find that basic tones suit arpeggiation better than fuller tones (thinks of Popcorn).