Poly Chaining Analog Monophonic Synths: Good or Bad Idea?
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3820 posts since 13 Jun, 2014
Just throwing the question out there, since it appears there are so many cheap and great sounding monophonic synths coming out this year, then a nice way to get a bit of polyphony is to chain some of these up (and I've no idea how). So good idea or terrible idea?
<List your stupid gear here>
- KVRAF
- 23077 posts since 7 Jan, 2009 from Croatia
Good idea if you can afford it. Especially if the synth natively supports polychaining - then you can edit all instances of the synth from just one unit.
-
- KVRAF
- 6409 posts since 22 Jan, 2005 from Sweden
Not all sure about Behringer at least.
Looking in manual of Neutron
"If you have multiple Neutron units, you can connect them in a ‘Poly Chain’ to
produce polyphonic sounds. The Neutron works by sending unhandled notes
to the next in the chain. When the chain runs out, the notes are dropped
(i.e. not played). "
There are nothing documented that second unit with be synced.
Mustn't a unit have memory presets so all parameters are digital, or?
Another conversation we had in another thread suggested that.
But to call it poly-chain, like they do - it's half baked if not.
Looking in manual of Neutron
"If you have multiple Neutron units, you can connect them in a ‘Poly Chain’ to
produce polyphonic sounds. The Neutron works by sending unhandled notes
to the next in the chain. When the chain runs out, the notes are dropped
(i.e. not played). "
There are nothing documented that second unit with be synced.
Mustn't a unit have memory presets so all parameters are digital, or?
Another conversation we had in another thread suggested that.
But to call it poly-chain, like they do - it's half baked if not.
- KVRAF
- 23077 posts since 7 Jan, 2009 from Croatia
Yes, you would need to have digital control over the parameters in order to sync units up parameter-wise. Neutron has analog control, no presets, no DACs between the knob and the underlying circuitry, so it's manual adjustment city!
Some people don't have a problem with that.
Some people don't have a problem with that.
-
- addled muppet weed
- 105553 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
it's part of the fun too to have those minor differences in the notes.
cant deal with that? use digital synths, pay more for a poly synth, or go without.
cant deal with that? use digital synths, pay more for a poly synth, or go without.
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3820 posts since 13 Jun, 2014
LOL, I certainly don't have a problem with it. I was thinking more Behringer Crave than Neutron, although I assume I would lose a lot of bottom end with the Model D style filter if I cranked up the resonance. So unsure, but thinking of the possibilities (especially modular) makes it an interesting experiment.
Last edited by egbert101 on Thu Jan 31, 2019 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<List your stupid gear here>
-
- addled muppet weed
- 105553 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
well, as you say, its modular.
even if you dont want to go full on modular, you can buy small racks for a few additional filters, adding different types for your own needs
doesn't have to be too expensive either, doepfer do plenty of nice filters for around the 100 euro price range, not to mention many other companies. my bastl cinnamon was 85 euro
that's just off the top of my head.
sorry if im not helping the gas
even if you dont want to go full on modular, you can buy small racks for a few additional filters, adding different types for your own needs
doesn't have to be too expensive either, doepfer do plenty of nice filters for around the 100 euro price range, not to mention many other companies. my bastl cinnamon was 85 euro
that's just off the top of my head.
sorry if im not helping the gas
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3820 posts since 13 Jun, 2014
I could indeed, which is why I'll probably do a lot of research into it, until my GAS disappears.vurt wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 3:37 pm well, as you say, its modular.
even if you dont want to go full on modular, you can buy small racks for a few additional filters, adding different types for your own needs
doesn't have to be too expensive either, doepfer do plenty of nice filters for around the 100 euro price range, not to mention many other companies. my bastl cinnamon was 85 euro
that's just off the top of my head.
sorry if im not helping the gas
<List your stupid gear here>
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3820 posts since 13 Jun, 2014
<List your stupid gear here>
-
- KVRAF
- 6409 posts since 22 Jan, 2005 from Sweden
Yes, that is what Behringer manuals say too - but it seems it's about just sending second voice of a chord to next unit.egbert101 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:04 pm Well this guy did it with Behringer Model D's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfxMlYLgkmU
But you most likely need to dial in same sound exactly manually on both, or more units.
I mean if what we mean by poly, same sound but different pitch thingy.
But they have a second option to run in series, since they have audio input that can work as oscillator and do more stuff. so plenty cool things to do having more than one.
Just check before buying Behringer stuff, you get what you expect - two units allowing to dial on one and two get the same sound on second voice etc.
They are extremely affordable units, so they have to cut back on something.
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3820 posts since 13 Jun, 2014
Well, there is another solution which makes things very easy, and doesn't require buying multiple analog synths, and that is to use sampling software such as SampleRobot Pro 6 (https://samplerobot.com/) however, this kinda defeats the purpose of having analog polyphony, unless you have multiple versions to provide variations (which I'm sure is possible).
So if you want easy polyphony of your analog synths, but as a preset, but minus the subtle changes for every note, then you can sample your single monophonic synth, and turn it into a polyphonic sampled preset.
So if you want easy polyphony of your analog synths, but as a preset, but minus the subtle changes for every note, then you can sample your single monophonic synth, and turn it into a polyphonic sampled preset.
<List your stupid gear here>
-
- KVRAF
- 6409 posts since 22 Jan, 2005 from Sweden
In a daw you can always render one note at a time, and playing polyphonic and splitting that to tracks each note.egbert101 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:32 pm Well, there is another solution which makes things very easy, and doesn't require buying multiple analog synths, and that is to use sampling software such as SampleRobot Pro 6 (https://samplerobot.com/) however, this kinda defeats the purpose of having analog polyphony, unless you have multiple versions to provide variations (which I'm sure is possible).
So if you want easy polyphony of your analog synths, but as a preset, but minus the subtle changes for every note, then you can sample your single monophonic synth, and turn it into a polyphonic sampled preset.
It's basically what Wendy Carlos did for Clockwork Orange film(but tape in those days with mono synths). Doing full film score like that, that is cool.
But also plan to play guitar like with a wah or octaver into external input and play with notes from sequencer having guitar as one oscillator. Do swells and alls kind of things.
You can also bias VCA so it lets signal through all the time to play regular with other type of effects. Or set VCA to oscillate and loop retriggering itself.
Or use other synth outs as inputs - even doing polyphonic stuff from that synth into this one. Or run several in series of these units if you have a couple.
These little units open up for so many things with that open architecture patch bay.
I'll get my Neutron tomorrow so looking forward to that.
Last edited by lfm on Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- KVRAF
- 25311 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
I would for sure go for it if Behringer released a relatively cheap digital controlled analog monosynth that could polychain including adjusting controls on the master and the slaves responding.EvilDragon wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 3:20 pm Yes, you would need to have digital control over the parameters in order to sync units up parameter-wise. Neutron has analog control, no presets, no DACs between the knob and the underlying circuitry, so it's manual adjustment city!
-
- KVRAF
- 3080 posts since 17 Apr, 2005 from S.E. TN
The issue of "partial programmability" was present in the first gen oberheim 4 and 8 voice poly synths which I quite liked but had to be carefully thought out for effective live use.
Those things we're a combination of possibly the first poly scanning multiplex keyboard, controlling a rack of either 4 or 8 SEM modules, and a "programmer" module with lots of knobs and voltage outputs and digital memory to remember IIRC maybe 16 or 32 patches. Common things such as filter cutoff voltage out from the programmer were wired in parallel to all the synths so you could control all the filter cutoffs with a single knob and save it to a patch
However, that programmer module could not control every single switch and knob setting on the SEMs, so with an 8 voice to get it to act like a "second generation" poly synth, you had to set all the "non programmable" controls the same on all 8 modules, and then you could control the rest of the stuff with only 1 knob per function from the programmer module.
With modern semi-patchable gear could do similar with lots of spaghetti, maybe if the synth has filter CV input, run an external CV source in parallel with all yer synths, etc.
If you hardware hack and add lots of control inputs to the synths you could make a "non memory" global controller with a simple box full of knobs and buffer opamps to wire to all the synths. Depending on how elaborate you get, would determine how much still has to be set up manually on each individual synth in yer homebrew polystack.
It would be a lot of trouble but would give a person plenty to do in his spare time.
I think something like that, rather than adding separate jacks for control inputs, it may be better to add maybe multipin locking amphenol connectors to each synth, so your programmer module would only need 1 snake connection per synth. Still lots of spaghetti, but nothing near as bad as many cables per synth
Those things we're a combination of possibly the first poly scanning multiplex keyboard, controlling a rack of either 4 or 8 SEM modules, and a "programmer" module with lots of knobs and voltage outputs and digital memory to remember IIRC maybe 16 or 32 patches. Common things such as filter cutoff voltage out from the programmer were wired in parallel to all the synths so you could control all the filter cutoffs with a single knob and save it to a patch
However, that programmer module could not control every single switch and knob setting on the SEMs, so with an 8 voice to get it to act like a "second generation" poly synth, you had to set all the "non programmable" controls the same on all 8 modules, and then you could control the rest of the stuff with only 1 knob per function from the programmer module.
With modern semi-patchable gear could do similar with lots of spaghetti, maybe if the synth has filter CV input, run an external CV source in parallel with all yer synths, etc.
If you hardware hack and add lots of control inputs to the synths you could make a "non memory" global controller with a simple box full of knobs and buffer opamps to wire to all the synths. Depending on how elaborate you get, would determine how much still has to be set up manually on each individual synth in yer homebrew polystack.
It would be a lot of trouble but would give a person plenty to do in his spare time.
I think something like that, rather than adding separate jacks for control inputs, it may be better to add maybe multipin locking amphenol connectors to each synth, so your programmer module would only need 1 snake connection per synth. Still lots of spaghetti, but nothing near as bad as many cables per synth