Whats next?


#21

MI should seriously considered doing some desktop effects boxes or pedals.


#22


#23

What are you thoughts about modules vs. standalone devices pichenettes? I feel like modules were peaking 2014-1016 while standalone devices are 2017… small devices with build sequencers (0-coast, Roland so-02, digitakt, new rytm/a4 mk2, korg volca, dsi as-01, circuit mono station, op-z, po-32, mpc live, monologue or (small company) malekko manther, mr.D and bFF ) vs modules… all devices released in the last two years.

Many new devices are rather small table top devices. I’m personally more exiteted about these new devices with innovative sound sources compared to modules… but maybe its just me, losing overwiew about all the new modules…

I would love to see a standalone mono synth with braids influences :slight_smile: and maybe combined innovative sequencer with Mutable Instruments touch.

Im very sure something like braids (selectable oscs with few parameters) and an analog filter would be very, very successful. Next to nord lead you are the only person having selectable OSCs with 1-2 parameters that are sounding very musical (Braids).

I’m also wondering why not more successful, innovative poly-Synths are around… Something like Amibka (with variable digital oscillators) should be possible for around 700-1100 Euro, no? (3-5 Voices). I might be completely wrong with real production costs… if so, sorry…

I know about Dreadbox, who released a poly 4 voice synth for 1200… It sounds very new, probably because of its very musical effects… But shouldn’t it be possible to release a poly synth for a lower or similar price with more innovative functions (like ambika)? Im very sure a poly synth with a lot of modulation sources, while being innovative, will be very successful.

I feel that poly synths is still a category that isn’t successfully answered by big companys (there is only miniloage, deepmind, peak and very expensive DSI synths) and that there are still a ton of posibbilites to be successful and intuitive …

There is for example 0-coast which sold over 3000, which finally brought west coast to a compact table top device. Imagine this device with savable patches and a bit more accessible user interface… … Shouldn’t it be possible to do such a device (maybe with digital brain instead of analog) and analog for 700< euro?

Again sorry for my very uninformed suggestions. I don’t know anything about the synth marked and just try to think loudly. I’m probably just talking about what I want… :smiley: Some device that has 3-4 parameters as inovative sound source (like op-1) combined with an innovative sequencer :slight_smile: I’m somehow bored of most eurorank modules :slight_smile: Seeing the tenth boring oscillator or some very unintuitive sequencer controlled with 2 knobs… …

I feel that the OP-1 is very successful in introducing a lot of different synth algorithm with just a few parameters. All 4 parameters generate very musical results. The only thing OP-1 lacks is a musical, more or less advanced sequencer. (elektron + op-1 = <3) :smiley:

Mixing up a lot of things… Sorry again :slight_smile: just wondering what your thoughts about the current electronic music market are…


#24

I don’t have any plan to make standalone units.

See a pattern in all the desktop devices you mention? They are all manufactured by big players. I can’t really compete with a 150€ Volca. Speaking of price and competition, Mutable Instruments cannot make a classic architecture poly synth that would be competitive price-wise (or significantly different) from the Novation Peak or Waldorf Quantum. “But small company X is doing it for Y€!” The fallacy here is that small company X is probably not in good financial health (in Eurorack land too, I’m seeing more and more companies making interesting devices, but not profitable enough to sustain a company).

Braids would be a bit out of place in a fixed architecture device - not even half of the models give interesting results when processed by an analog filter. Some others are more interesting when going into resonators, or as modulations, or just nothing - but what’s the point of putting a signal processing block on a device when half of the settings don’t call for it? This is something I find increasingly ugly - the accumulations of unrelated things that do not feel as a whole. I could see the reasons for this in a module, but not in a fixed architecture synth.

More generally, I don’t want to be in the position of deciding on a voice architecture - making modules has filled me with doubts about the “digital oscillators into analog filters” thing. I’m still in search of a recipe that would make an original non-subtractive voice architecture. Physical modelling… maybe. Korg should hire me to make a modal synthesis Volca! Until I find something, I’m fine with “outsourcing” the job of deciding voice architecture and ideal combinations of ingredients to the musician :smiley: .


#25

When I saw the Studio Electronics / Roland collaboration I considered what a Mutable Instruments / Roland ‘boutique’ collaboration could look like. Maybe a stand-alone take on Elements with a set of auxiliary modulation sources. One thing I considered was an on-board mic / contact mic and sampler / looper, where the mic recording could be sampled and associated with each step of an on-board sequencer, where in the audio could be assigned to the exciter input or enveloped followed as a CV source.


#26

That’s an interesting quote for me. You talk about Braid’s algos right?
So far I mostly used the fm, wavetable, Harm and physical modelling modes and rarely had the feel that I want to put that through a filter.


#27

Same here. A lot of Braids’ models are almost “complete” except for modulation, at least if you compare it to classic subtractive that will always need multiple building blocks. Many of the models can use a bit of filtering, but it’s closer to what you’d do with an EQ for me, in the sense that I use it mostly as a tone control, to reduce certain frequencies, or boost others, not as an actual sound shaping device.