Why not Multi-timbral?

The Lounge Other Gear
#21

I just think about how great it is to have streaming on the Octatrack.
Heh, in Ableton I load every thing into RAM since I have 32GB.
It’s the giant touch screen that makes me think of the MPC as a computer. Or the processor that makes me see the Maschine+ for what it truly is, a DAW.

But your points about convergence are very valid.

There is also such thing as “bad multi-timbral” aka every single Waldorf multi-timbral synth implementation. Not making copies of the patches from the library and putting them into a performance kit that, when the patches are edited, would not overwrite the original patches in the library. Other companies do it too. Nord and Elektron have avoided it, thankfully.
It made me real happy to see that Audiothingies avoided this with their latest bitimbral synth. There is hope.

4 Likes
#22

properly implemented multitimbral synth is called groovebox. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

2 Likes
#23

I don’t understand the point of such a comment. But, okay, well Nord’s been making grooveboxes since 1994.

3 Likes
#24

almost there.
the only thing they lack is full-blown sequencer.

also, Novation Supernova was a notable machine of this kind.

1 Like
#25

Nice thing about the SuperNova was that a separate copy of the preset was stored in the multitimbral performance kit, so nothing was ‘outta-wack’ when loading the original preset or the performance. And each of its 8-parts has its own 7 effects (not global sends). But later we got the 4-part KS synth, then the 1-part MiniNova…

3 Likes
#26

If I’d hesitate a guess, it’s that the hardware edge when it comes to digital synths, is the way you interface and work with them. Multi-timbrality provides a workflow that adds convenience in terms of features, but not in flow.

Those that do offer multi-timbrality, usually then with a sequencer, have for one reason or other not always gained a strong following. Consider the groove box market, where multi-timbrality is still a thing. Despite the fact that the modern groove box really offers you all the tools you need to make great music, there’s no consensus on which one got this right. There’s always something.

I for one don’t think we really want this complexity in hardware. We want dedicated, single purpose units that do their thing stupid well, with an interface software can never match, and sometimes with a sound as well, if you’re going all in VCO VCA VCF Sequential for example.

But we still think we want it. So we still buy it :slight_smile:

5 Likes
#27

Back in my day we only had one timbral. Heck, we didn’t even know what a timbral was, because there weren’t enough of them to worry about.

5 Likes
#28

And when I was young, Tim and Bral hadn’t even met. One was in the navy, the other was a nurse. Now there’s World War II-story Hemingway never told us.

2 Likes
#29

Well, not sure how are the new revisions, but back when I had one you couldn’t even synchronise the arpegiator to an external clock, so that would be a start.

2 Likes
#30

On clock speeds and ram, one of the constraints is how much of an operating system you need to have on the chip. For a synth, you’d like the software support layer that talks to hardware inputs and outputs to be very simple, because that makes latency and, even more importantly, jitter, much smaller. Yes, you can get ARM processors with a couple gigs of RAM in the price range needed for a mid-range synth these days, but in order to get the full power of the hardware, you’re often looking at running a full linux box under the hood. If you want a microcontroller where your code is really running right on the metal, the options are much more limited, because places where most teams use microcontrollers don’t need that much CPU. Also, a lot of the tricks that the chip designers use to pack that much capability into their chips basically require an OS to manage them, because a lot of general purpose hardware is being repurposed very quickly. Building a microcontroller version would need a lot more hardware duplication, driving the price up. Also worth remembering that bill of materials cost is a fraction of retail cost. Adding a €10 part to a synth may add €50-80 to the final price. Real CPUs also tend to require much more board and peripheral support, so it’s not just going from a €4 part to a €10 part, it’s also adding €10 in other components, €10 in board manufacturing costs, and €4 in assembly costs to deal with high-density ball-grid array packages and additional testing requirements, so an additional €200-€500 in retail cost.

9 Likes
#31

This pretty much answered my question. Put it all into perspective. Thank you.

#32

IMO it’s the market and this is us. There might be not enough musicians, who demand it :wink:

IMO it’s not a point of cost or technical challenge … just some examples:

  • Blofeld: 16 x multi-timbrality
  • Virus TI2: 16 x multi-timbrality

Both not breaking the bank and the Blofeld is quite affordable.

Examples from the past:

  • My old Prosynth (Marion Systems, Tom Oberheim) is a hybrid between a kind of digital controlled VCOs and analogue filters, and gives me 8 voices, which can be used polyphonically or as single timbres. Not too expensive.
  • My favorite of all time would be the Matrix 12, an analogue machine, where each voice in a patch could be a completely different timbre, and it provided multi-timbrality as well.
1 Like
#33

This! Elektron has almost perfected multi-timbrality – it just makes so much sense hitting one button to change track on DN/A4 and I think having endless encoders makes so much sense here as the values are reflected onscreen instead of on the knobs. I’m comparing this with the Nord style of multi-timbrality, which involves keyboard splits and all sorts of workflow hassles that just get in the way of making music. Plus, the fact that changing to another part/track is not reflected by the knobs put me off ever using it. I’d rather multitrack parts.

3 Likes
#34

The synths are mostly for show anyways, to give the impression the nodding zombie “performing” isn’t actually just letting a playlist run while they surf porn. Why bother with all that code? Besides if you have those voices you might want to use them, and the you’ll encounter brick walls like “counterpoint” and “arranging” and “music theory” all that scary stuff. You might need some actual skills. That doesn’t move product!

#35

I wonder if the same bunch of people learn to play today, like yesterday. I’m an old timer and I truly enjoy playing a great board, but I wonder if them youngsters would appreciate a Prophet 5 in the same way.

And I truly mean that in a well-meaning curious way. I really have no preconception of the answer.

1 Like
#36

Agree. If you’re going multi-timbral today, Elektron nailed it. Tempest is pretty close as well. Cause it kind of works the same :slight_smile:

2 Likes
#37

Generally agree… except in the case of the Nord Lead 3. It’s a pleasure building layered patches and seeing the patch settings instantly when changing timbres and automating parameters. Definitely has a flow if you can appreciate the audio character. That way would be the logical future for multi timbral hardware over/or in combo with the elektron screen method.

The Integra 7 also does multitimbral rompler better than most as the effects are per part and the editor makes things pretty streamlined. I guess software eats it nowadays though I don’t own any rompler vst’s.

I always wanted to try an Alesis Andromeda for the ability to separately sequence 16 analog oscillator patches at once, though a bit suss on that garish interface and again the lack of visual feedback on loaded sounds.

To me the beauty of multitimbral synths is in the layering abilities within one device. It is more streamlined that separate devices for that process. So still relevant for some imho.

3 Likes
#38

Many of the high quality multitimbral synths of yesteryear were also expensive upon release.

Show of hands: how many here have recently purchased new, 2 or 3 synths costing $2000-5000? This is why we don’t have these nice things. Even the Virus TI was $2800 when it came out 16 years ago.

2 Likes
#39

Yamaha, Roland and Korg still make affordable multi synths (e.g. Yamaha MX49).

A big driver these days is perceived fashion, hence monotimbral digital synths and putting CV I/O on everything.

2 Likes
#40

Because DAW’s can do anything and new physical samplers and synths are usually pure luxury items (1:1 reproductions of 70s instruments) or fun toys that are aimed at amateurs (everything that’s cheap). There’s really not much a market to make a box that would compete with a fully fledged DAW, because those boxes will always fall short in comparison. There are some who’ve tried, sure (MPC One comes to mind), but I’m willing to bet that they’ve been far less succesful than many other devices more limited on paper but are intuitive to use and powerful enough to make music with.

2 Likes