Behringer Analog Synth

[VariKusBrainZ]

Was this posted?

https://youtu.be/caMT4BYFCCk

[VariKusBrainZ]

I'm very curious to actually see some demos of this synth in action. I'm starting to get the feeling that its going to be way too fiddly with all of the menu diving. I've always hated that aspect of the Andromeda. The thing I love about the Juno-106 (and the Minibrute, and the Minilogue, etc...) is the simplicity and immediacy of it. Synths like the Virus and Waldorf Q are somewhat of a happy medium, allowing you to get a lot done without too much scrolling through menus. I really had to talk myself into tolerating the interface of the Blofeld. Its like exploring a vast cavern with only a penlight. For more involved synthesis, I still find both Eurorack and VSTis to be a much more pleasant experience. I'm not necessarily saying I won't get one, but I don't really think a synth with so much of the interface buried in software can be considered a spiritual successor to the Juno-106.

There's a cross platform editor

[deastman]

I'm very curious to actually see some demos of this synth in action. I'm starting to get the feeling that its going to be way too fiddly with all of the menu diving. I've always hated that aspect of the Andromeda. The thing I love about the Juno-106 (and the Minibrute, and the Minilogue, etc...) is the simplicity and immediacy of it. Synths like the Virus and Waldorf Q are somewhat of a happy medium, allowing you to get a lot done without too much scrolling through menus. I really had to talk myself into tolerating the interface of the Blofeld. Its like exploring a vast cavern with only a penlight. For more involved synthesis, I still find both Eurorack and VSTis to be a much more pleasant experience. I'm not necessarily saying I won't get one, but I don't really think a synth with so much of the interface buried in software can be considered a spiritual successor to the Juno-106.

There's a cross platform editor

True, I guess I had momentarily forgotten about that part. It still remains to be seen how good the editor is, but that could go a long way towards making up for the little display. Of course, that still takes it out of Juno-106 territory, and into something which requires you to load up your iPad app next to your synth every time you want to program a new sound.

[IncarnateX]

Here is an updated spec list on basis on your comments and some overseen schematics. Thanks for contributing.

Onboard:

-12 voices
- 2 Juno inspired dcos + noise osc. DCO 1 has seemingly a layerable saw and pulzewidth controlled square. DCO 2 seems to be an extended Juno sub (likely a phase locked square) with an unknown tone mod feature. DCO sync and voice unison detune options.
- 3 loopable envelopes with three different curves each (easily accessible from the one on the font panel). VCA, VCF and an assignable Mod. The front panel indicates that the mod may be assigned to dco 1 and 2 pitch as default and can be controlled from the panel.
-A 2 pole/4 pole filter + an additional hpf (not stepped like the Junos and not per voice but summed). Juno style env depth, lfo depth, keyboard tracking + env inversion botton at the front panel.
-Arpeggiator + 32 step sequencer with gate time control on front panel...and swing! (Jay )
-An extensive mod matrix with 15 sources and 67 destinations (as far as my counting goes). Seems you can have 8 chains going at once.
-Keyboard aftertouch
-Effect section with 4 parts and 30+ types of effects each (according to Uli). Can be bypassed for pure analog signal path)
-All parameters are wi fi-controllable and editable though pc and tablet editors
-USB, Midi connectors.

Not onboard:
-A split, layer or multimode function according to the article (wtf?!)
-Additional subs
-Motorized faders (big surprise )
-Built in Coffee machine
-Virtual babe that blows you in the morning (damn!)
-A high price?

[Daags]

with the greatest respect ... using a multitimbral synth, in the fashion you described - recording a part at a time via a single stereo output - is pretty much retarded ? ... how is this materially different from separately recording four monotimbral presets ? that you can preview the four parts together via the same stereo out, unmixed ? ... not what i would call an efficient workflow, if that's how you roll. different folks different strokes i guess.

lol.


not sure how to respond to this, so I'll just be serious. Yes, it would be very useful to be able to create four different patches at once while monitoring them through the stereo outputs. I mean.. if you think that writing a part, creating a patch for it, recording it, and then repeating the process four times is preferable, more power to you.

Maybe you're one of these people that has their priorities in reverse. Mastering>mixing>arranging>sound design> composing.

Not sure if you actually make music or not, but here is a very useful tip for you. If you don't allow yourself to do much mixing, but instead rely on writing, arranging and sound design to make something sound good, when you get to the mixing and mastering, it will be much easier, and sound much better.

no... no priorities in reverse. mixing is part of the writing process. sound > mixer > record/arrange > final mix > master

and many times, it is simply sound > mixer > record > light master .... as i do live sets and record in a similar fashion. I know, crazy right ?

if that's 'reversed' priorities to you, so be it ... but like i said, writing four parts within the same stereo output being fed into the same mixing channel (if at all in your case), only later to be recorded separately and then mixed ... it just does not strike me as efficient in anyway. and it's strange to me, that you would accuse others who have a more traditional, direct approach - as you did with your first posts on this topic - as being people who don't actually make music ... hehe. ok buddy.

[Daags]

Uli asked how many of us would like to have a desktop/rack version.
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/12047032-post2662.html
Go there and reply if you want that to happen.

oh sweet baby jeebus, yes.

[Uncle E]

not sure how to respond to this, so I'll just be serious. Yes, it would be very useful to be able to create four different patches at once while monitoring them through the stereo outputs. I mean.. if you think that writing a part, creating a patch for it, recording it, and then repeating the process four times is preferable, more power to you.

True but I think there's a 0% chance that Midas would have forgotten to add dedicated outputs. They're a mixer company, after all, and I/O's is what they do.

[Uncle E]

I wouldn't be surprised if it had multi timbral USB audio outs like the Virus/Overbridge

This would be incredible!

[david.beholder]

True but I think there's a 0% chance that Midas would have forgotten to add dedicated outputs. They're a mixer company, after all, and I/O's is what they do.

This thing has common HPF, it should have only main outputs

[Uncle E]

With the greatest disrespect to anyone really arguing that or that people are retarded

Perhaps he meant the literal use of retarded, as in the DeepMind12's outputs have been retarded.

[Daags]

in terms of what i meant, well two things to keep in mind. it is said in the context of his statements, and it was said with a disclaimer of giving him as a person some respect. with those two things in mind, i stated his proposed working method seems retarded to me.

Well, to me this seems another one of those "people who fart around with keyboards vs. people who make music" situations. Yea, if you can never finish a track and you just want to play around, multitimbral is not a big deal. But if you are interested in making music with an efficient workflow and without spending a ridiculous amount of money, multi-timbrality is a big deal.

And lack of more outs is not a big deal. If you had 4 parts to going and your track was 4 minutes long, that's 16 minutes of recording. Go relax for a spell, or tweak the knobs as they record.

kool that he has his own preferred way of making music, but if he has to exalt himself by creating an absolutely false dichotomy and putting others who work differently down as 'people who fart around with keyboards' I imagine he has a thick enough skin that he can handle someone disagreeing with his working method and suggesting it is perhaps not the smartest or most efficient way to go - or at the very least - not as much smarter or efficient than ye olde 'traditional' [1 part > 1 mixer channel > record] way of making and performing music as he thinks it is. he ultimately still proposes bouncing each part down individually ... so in the long run, the gains are minimal as far as i'm concerned... i'm still going to end up mixing each part. if this is the difference between 'farting around' and 'making music' ... then, ...uh... i like turtles.

he states people who work differently to him are farting around getting nothing done, i state his alternative seems retarded to me. different folks different strokes, and i put it down to that within my post. end of story really. no need for a pussywhipped cuck like incarnate to wade in with some arbitrary nonsense about the world's population and blah blah blah mickey mouse meme's. at least stillshaded replied on topic.



ymmv.

god bless america.

[IncarnateX]

Perhaps he meant the literal use of retarded, as in the DeepMind12's outputs have been retarded.

In what sense would that be? Can find any definitions that gives any obvious sense to this statement.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retardation

Well, I think the expression was Daag's translation of Stillshadeds view upon one part at a time recordings contra multitimbrality.

Whatever it means, anyone taking that stand above could try connect the outputs to his ass and open his mouth to hear whether the sound gets more non-retarded using an empty skull as loudspeaker.

[IncarnateX]

in terms of what i meant, well two things to keep in mind. it is said in the context of his statements, and it was said with a disclaimer of giving him as a person some respect. with those two things in mind, i stated his proposed working method seems retarded to me.

Well, to me this seems another one of those "people who fart around with keyboards vs. people who make music" situations. Yea, if you can never finish a track and you just want to play around, multitimbral is not a big deal. But if you are interested in making music with an efficient workflow and without spending a ridiculous amount of money, multi-timbrality is a big deal.

And lack of more outs is not a big deal. If you had 4 parts to going and your track was 4 minutes long, that's 16 minutes of recording. Go relax for a spell, or tweak the knobs as they record.

kool that he has his own preferred way of making music, but if he has to exalt himself by creating an absolutely false dichotomy and putting others who work differently down as 'people who fart around with keyboards' I imagine he has a thick enough skin that he can handle someone disagreeing with his working method and suggesting it is perhaps not the smartest or most efficient way to go - or at the very least - not as much smarter than ye olde 'traditional' way of [1 part > 1 mixer channel > record] making and performing music as he thinks it is.

he states people who work differently to him are farting around getting nothing done, i state his alternative seems retarded to me. different folks different strokes, and i put it down to that within my post. end of story really. no need for a pussywhipped cuck like incarnate to wade in with some arbitrary nonsense about the world's population and blah blah blah mickey mouse meme's. at least stillshaded replied on topic.



ymmv.

god bless america.

Oh, and I thought you meant that Stillshaded thinks people who decline multitimbrality are "retarded". What a wonderful mess and confusion we got here. KVR at it's best

[Daags]

Perhaps he meant the literal use of retarded, as in the DeepMind12's outputs have been retarded.

In what sense would that be? Can find any definitions that gives any obvious sense to this statement.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retardation

Well, I think the expression was Daag's translation of Stillshadeds view upon one part at a time recordings contra multitimbrality.

Whatever it means, anyone taking that stand above could try connect the outputs to his ass and open his mouth to hear whether the sound gets more non-retarded using an empty skull as loudspeaker.

incarnate, does your missus know you're on the internet talking shit ? ... shouldn't you be cleaning the kitchen, or polishing her strap-on or something ?

[IncarnateX]

no need for a pussywhipped cuck like incarnate to wade in with some arbitrary nonsense about the world's population and blah blah blah mickey mouse meme's. at least stillshaded replied on topic.

Oh dear. And here I was thinking I initially was defending your stand on Stillshades' view on whether people who decline multitimbrality are musicians or not. As said. What a wonderful confusion.