Or they could just have released an updated version of the blofeld with a one knob per function interface … it would have been very nice !! I hope for them that the Quantum will sell well.
1 Like
Yeah the Blofeld design and interface was always a head scratcher for me.
Not intuitive at all. Why they didn’t adopt the Q/XT interface that came before it was strange
great demo
Quantum will get you into Wave teritory for sure --buy with confidence
1 Like
mmm…sounds a lot like Nave
I have a theory that the Quantum may be infact just an iPad mounted in the middle, running a revised version of Nave, being surrounded by nothing more than a huge midi controller.
I love a good conspiracy theory 
Which brings up an interesting point — is the price of the Quantum worth it? I mean, I do prefer a dedicated hardware instrument over the (often frustrating) piecemeal of a hybrid software/controller type setup; however, the hardware does need to compete with the total cost of a software system if it’s to be considered. That said, obviously the sky is the limit for how much one could spend; but for all practical purposes, you’d be hard-pressed to spend this much money on a computer, controller, soft synth, and audio interface of your choice, which would be yet more flexible.
And with Waldorf’s reputation, I’d be worried that there wouldn’t be enough support for an instrument as boutique as this going forward… I don’t know.
Cheers!
Ya, I mean, take a synth like the Novation Peak, for instance — yes, it’s two grand, but when I compare that to my iPad setup (LinnStrument, iConnectAudio4+, various apps, and of course the iPad itself), I’m in for about $2500.xx. So the Peak comes in at roughly the same price point, less the controller, while also boasting the stability of dedicated hardware, a robust and tactile interface, and built-in connectivity… Deal!
I’m not so sure the Quantum can compete directly with its software adversaries in the same way. Don’t get me wrong, it looks solid and sounds great. I’m just saying…
Cheers!
Not a fair comparision IMO. Computer and screen is still a computer and screen. Its not an instrument at least not for me. The way like a good guitar or piano is an instrument. I’m not saying that Quantum is that, its tough to decide it without hearing and touching the device. But if it is, it can be well worth the money for the people who appreciate these things. Good synths can be pricey and thats a good thing because it pushes the boundaries of what is possible.
Well, it’s a fair comparison in the sense that I already acknowledged the benefits of hardware over software for the very reasons you’ve stated above; and indeed I own many fine and (arguably) expensive boutique instruments myself, both acoustic and electronic. However, there’s a tipping point beyond which one has to ask themselves whether or not the proverbial juice is worth the squeeze (wink).
Take my aforementioned iPad rig for example — I chose an iPad as the brains of my live synth rig primarily for its aesthetic: i.e. it doesn’t protrude like a laptop monitor and look like I’m checking my email (smirk). It’s also more flexible than a hardware synth, in the sense that I can change synths whenever I want and easily adopt new ones as technology inevitably pushes those boundaries you mentioned. Granted, my setup is a kludge of different components and does suffer from the odd bug, but they’re all harbored neatly in a custom road case, and therefore appear and function as one cohesive instrument, with the added benefit of being able to replace any given component should something break or be rendered obsolete. Etc. Now I’d be willing to trade that for the stability of a comprehensive hardware system, but only to a degree.
My point was simply that the Quantum seems to exceed this ratio of expense vs functionality. When the hardware breaks, can it be fixed or replaced? When the protocol changes, can it be updated? Or is it really just a glorified iPad or Surface Book wrapped in a really expensive MIDI controller (which was the original statement I was responding to)? At any rate, I’m just making conversation…
Cheers!
1 Like
Questions well worth asking in our day and age. For 4000 EUR synth as well as for 400 EUR synth. Maybe even more for the latter because of how casually ppl are trashing cheap electronics these days. According to this new way of thinking - everything has to be new, shiny, cheap and disposable next day. Where do the synthesizers go to die?
I feel we’re at risk of going off on a tangent here, but this does somewhat tie into what I was trying to say. I mean, my primary guitar, with which I make my living, is worth more than this synth; but I have every intention of playing it till the day I die, and as long as it’s well-maintained and doesn’t get run over by the tour bus, it should easily make it the distance (and let’s hope that means decades to come—ahem). But what happens when the screen goes on the Quantum in a few years? Hell, Apple couldn’t even fix the start button on my old iPhone for a lack of parts (smirk).
Again, it just seems like a lofty price point for something that’s not likely to last forever, yet isn’t exactly “disposable”. Especially when you consider that it will almost certainly be outpaced by technology sooner than later, and could easily be replaced by software at a fraction of the cost even now.
For me anyway, the Quantum walks a worrisome line between boutique and high-tech.
Cheers!
3 Likes
Have you made your decision about Eurorack vs Quantum?
I had the chance to play with a Eurorack in a store in Vienna.
I‘m thought everything thru. I decided go the path of the modular. I‘m sure the Quantum will be freaking awesome. But the Eurorack can be upgraded individually, and I already have a lot of digital Synthesizer.
I will build a system that‘s similar to the Quantum, but with less voices. (If you interested in the modules I will use let me know).
The Eurorack will be more expensive as the quantum, but it will be not just another synth, I plan a synth, with physical modelling options, that can be used to manipulate other incoming synth signals.
Waldorf need to put together a good demo of this thing if they expect to sell any at that price
I laid my hands down on it in frankfurt. software version said 0.2, so there might come some iterations until release. I was impressed by the unique design, its the antithesis to moog and dsi. but it comes at a price and I dont mean the 4000 Euros. its the user interface. it remainded me much of a software synth: lots of functions on different menu pages. when you turn a knob it feels more like turning a midicontroller knob than a direct control thats hardwired to a analog synth. creativly, I think there is a danger of getting lost by the lack of boundaries. the sound is huge, but in an arrangement, it also demands a lot of space. it doesnt even try to sound like a analog synth, which is ok, but I was asking myself, if the huge amount of work that went into incorporating analog filters was really worth it, as when you compare it to software synths like monark or the u-he stuff, I couldnt hear or feel that huge amount of difference. but Im sure there are musicians that are just looking for a beast like this.
2 Likes
Thanks for the mini review
I am now wondering if it is indeed actually the worlds most expensive iPad and midi controller 
I got insight a month or so back, into why Waldorf put the analog filters into the Quantum. The Quantum is part of Waldorf’s long line of top end digital synths – the Wave, Q and Q+, each successor to the previous. One of the things that distinguished the Q+ over the Q, and a reason many preferred the Q+ was the polyphonic analog filters. The Quantum follows in that heritage. It’s just that now they’re all dual analog filters. It’s in the ear whether that is all justified.
Thank you goatofneptune for writing up your reaction to the Quantum.
Beyond sound design, i’m wondering what Waldorf has left to do? It seems, though i have no absolute knowledge of this, that Waldorf has all the major features in and ‘working’. Last thing i saw was purchase release in June, but Waldorf has been patient with release which is a good thing in my opinion.
There should be more info on release date and all at Superbooth in six days.
1 Like
I am now wondering if it is indeed actually the worlds most expensive iPad and midi controller
Well, when you think about it, 4000 Euros ist not expensive. When you buy a surface book with an audio-interface, a decent Masterkeyboard, a large MIDI-Controller and a Software like Omnisphere, you have to pay about the same amount of money. But you will have a mess of different Hardware-Boxes and not an instrument with a streamlined workflow that you will probably get with the quantum. OK, you can’t check mails with it, but I think this is a plus 
2 Likes
wow, thats some early sh*t right there. I guess there are some surprises up ahead with this instrument…
1 Like
Rolf had mentioned audio over USB in one of the videos – as one of those not promised features.
I assume there is no hardware change (or at least nothing beyond component tweaks) so like putting front panel controls on for the two added effects. There is room on the front panel but i really don’t think it will happen. (Or the three hidden LFOs.) You can add that stuff with an external midi controller anyway and the extra USB connector is ready for that.
What other goodies would you consider? I would suppose that software upgrades are possible if the Q sells in any volume and ‘has legs’.
Some more sound demos (in case it wasn’t posted somewhere previously):
… still it somehow reminds me on a kind of giant midi-controller-ipad-dock …