Tonverk vs S-4

Elektron Gear Tonverk
1

Thinking about an end of chain sampler. I wonder where both those overlap, in what way they differ and things one or the other can‘t do.

Anyone own both? S-4 seems to be way ahead in terms of modulation any rhythmic granularity.

They both have a comb filter but the S-4 seems to be ahead here also.
Effektwise the Tonverk is on top.

How is the Distortion of both units. Both are digital. But do you really need an AH+FX if I have a Tonverk or S-4. don‘t they both have a compressor too?

Any thoughts?

2

I could understand a comparison between OT and S4, as there is a similarity.
Apart from the sequencer :wink:
But in my opinion, Tonverk is in a different league to the S4.
What are you planning to do?

3

You see more similaritys between OT and s-4? In what way.

I would like to have an end of chain mangeler. The granular rythms in s-4 and comb filter are nice. Obviously tonverk has more effekts but it can‘t do all the granular stuff and modulation.

1 Like
4

the sequencable lanes in the tonverk are better. there are just way more of them and that gives you a lot options for locking in parameters. like in the polyend mess.

the torso has great effects but no sequencable lanes. however the modulation is quick to implement. the wave function and the lfos are so quick to add and if you work out the scenes there is a lot to explore

there is overlap in both. i like both.

sorry that doesn’t really answer your question but they are both very powerful as end of chain units

5

that’s such an open question in itself, and then the way you work and how you’d use it opens it up even more.

If you have the funds maybe just order one and give it a go? Bypass the analysis, maybe a quick compare of the manuals and then plonk. Just an idea - I’m sure either would be ace.

6

have both and it’s merveilleux!

4 Likes
7

Have both of them, they have overlaps for sure but they’re completely different workflows. The Ring filter on the S4 isn’t a comb filter but at 48 band resonant filterbank and it has a very distinct sound (after a while it’s hard to get a sense of it not overly masking source material with its sonic characteristics) which doesn’t sound like the TV comb, though who’s to say if Elektron make their filterbank effect have resonant params in future.
Fundamentally S-4 is a tape/ sample player with sculpting modules in the chain following and an insane modulation + track routing setup. As the S-4 devs put it they’re working on developing an instrument not a groovebox, whilst the Tonverk is much more a groovebox.
S-4 does have a poly mode which most closely works like the TV single player but it’s got its own quirks. It’s ADSR & filter (a separate filter on the poly machine itself not Ring) are strange at times, and the following modules in the chain work paraphonically. There’s no internal sequencer for poly either.
Convoluted answer but TLDR I don’t think the comparison is worth it, I wouldn’t really reach for one box to try and do anything I do on the other box, running the TV into the S-4 and resampling back onto a TV track though, that’s a dream.

1 Like
8

does S4 sync well to Tonverk?

9

There is a thread that compares Tonverk to other samplers, but from bevore the update. After it got Grainer I think it should specifically to Granular samplers like the S4. Also both have pretty wide range of tools for sound shaping.
I got the S4 and i am underwhelmbt by its quality. Elektron stuff is a different kind in this regard.

S4 seems to lock values to specific values that keep tonal and rhythmic sync unless you don‘t want that.
I don‘t know how syncable and controlable the grainer engine is.
Is there sny way on tonverk to mimic the resonant filter of the s4? It gives such a good haptic sound.

Compare.

10

I have both, and the fundamental difference is that for now at least, the S4 grains the incoming signal in real time, whereas the Grainer on the Tonverk needs a sample.

I really like both, I use the S4 as a 4-track tape recorder, plus to mangle the incoming signal, from the Tonverk and other sources.

I don’t think they can really be compared, but in any case the two are very complementary in my opinion.

2 Likes
11

Thats interesting that you feel they can‘t be compared apart from live mangeling.

Do you feel the soundshaping passibillities are vastly different to one another?

12

For me they are quite different. Still new on the TV, but the workflow, fx and modulation possibilities are very different on each device… so the output can differ a lot with the same sample, for ex.

2 Likes
13

This is critical (as with all gear comparisons).

Often a list of specs only tells half the story - it’s what the device affords that’s as important.

I see the S4 as being created primarily for soundscaping and mangling - experimental and organic exploration - sometimes of a live source.

The TV will excel at sequenced rhythmic creations and melodic composition, primarily with samples that have been captured/multisampled in advance.

They may both use similar (even the same) tools to achieve this, but I don’t think you’re likely to end at the same result.

So whether the TV can resonate the same as the S4 is almost a moot point to some degree.

2 Likes
14

S4 is about modulation, FX are just drive, reverb, delay (resonant filter if you’re into it, but everything sounds the same to my ear), whereas the Tonverk has a ton of different FX and more to come. Not the same workflow, but both are lovely and very complementary.

1 Like
15

yes, and you have a whole sequencer in TV and no sequencer at all on S-4

Edit: ah, i see you added the word ‘sequenced’… so same idea, yes…

2 Likes
16

Yea this is the key thing for me.

TV is at its heart an Elektron box - which is ALL ABOUT the sequencer - everything else is there to be used by it - consumed by it.

S4 feels almost intentionally antithetical to that - it’s probably more comparable to an effects pedal than a groovebox.

5 Likes
17

true

18

i have them both and i can safely say there’s almost no overlap.

(as you probably know because you have it, but highlighting for other readers) the granular engine on S-4 is way more complex, it’s realtime, and pitch modulation + quantization + 4 modulators with an insane amount of shaping possibilities (yes, shaping the modulator wave itself) makes it lightyears ahead compared what TV offers. (and I’m just talking about the Mosaic device, not evne taking Rings into account)

on the other hand, the POLY machine of S-4 is quite basic with a mediocre filter (an obviously you need an external sequencer to be able to sequence it)

granulation-wise, there’s fundamental differences between realtime granular fx (which is based on a constantly refilled buffer, which S-4 has) and buffered granular fx (where buffer is prefilled, like TV) and they produce very different results.

i’ll be brutally honest, i’m slightly disappointed with the grainer machine. and i didn’t even have high expectations (it wouldn’t be a GR-MEGA ofc), but i expected at least to be able to control the pitch of grains (even if it was a simple 1 octave up/down shift) but it’s not there (hopefully they add it)

that being said, TV is a keeper because of all the other things it can do, not what grainer can (or rather can’t) do.

so for anyone that got hyped by the grainer machine ALONE in an oddly specific scenario where you consider selling S-4 to get a TV with the money, i’d vote against it. using both would be a very very nice combo though. (and this is coming from someone who almost always keeps a project “constrained to a single box” despite owning lots of gear, mainly because of laziness and lack of proper studio space, and also creativity thriving in constraints etc etc but even i will hook them up together and use S-4 as a send fx + field recording player that can mangle sound to the hell and back)

besides granulation, S-4 has one of the nicest saturators i’ve seen/heard in any gear i own (and i bought and sold all generations of analog heat ahah). even the dirtshaper in TV feels very boxy and lacking definition despite the rectification algo it has.

so all in all, S-4 feels more like it belongs to a realm of modular (crazy modulation possibilities, to the extent of “sequencing” through modulation), or maybe even a norns-like world, where it’s very good at doing something probably only it can do, and it’s more like a “tool” in your toolbelt. (master of one)

and TV is a global citizen, a proper groovebox that can do almost everything (jack of all trades, master of none. well maybe except sequencing, elektron sequencer is the king of sequencers :sweat_smile: ) so it’s very welcome to have “some” granular action there, but it shouldn’t be a deciding factor on that particular subject alone.

if it matters, i travel quite frequently and i can only get only 1-2 pieces of “relatively portable” music gear with me. since i acquired it, S-4 permanently occupies one of those slots. but i can safely say TV will probably be the second device i’ll bring along most of the time (instead of a rotation between M8, Deluge, DTII, DNII, Push3SA etc)

i know this sounded like i praise S-4 a lot, but believe me i’m being objective. there’s a lot of things i hate in S-4 and lots of decisions from devs that i don’t agree with, but still even at its current state, it fills a very particular gap i have in my (g)ear, and it’s currently irreplaceable for me, at least for now.

16 Likes
19

Pairing S-4 and Blackbox filled the sampling gap in my setup and somehow puts out any GAS of Tonverk so far

3 Likes
20

This combo is a killer. Blackbox for its size and number of inputs is a gem for vacuuming little bits and pieces of sounds and loops in my studio as well.

1 Like