The multi does not have its own copy of the sound, its only a reference to the original sound? So if you change the sound, its changed in every multi ?
I read the manual:
So, think of a Part as a Patch combined with some additional
Parameters that together, make a playable configuration.
It’s worth remembering a Part has a reference to a
Patch but does not contain it (i.e. it does not take a copy of
it). So when using Patches in various Multis, it makes sense
to make a note of where the Patches are used so that if you
change the Patches later, you are not making unintentional
changes to another Multi; you can always copy a Patch if
you think you may need to share it across Multis with later
variations.
I remember from the micro q, that i could not address all synth settings while in multimode, not sure if this is possible on the kyra, it just has this multimode available to it, i would expect it to listen to 8 channels at the same time, with also layer /split of the individual channel.
well…if you get to use a MIDI controller next to your 1 synth, then I’d say MPC Live. It actually is my current setup (MPC+Faderfox+Zoom MS50+6 channel mixer).
Without the Faderfox I might think of MPC X, but certainly wouldn’t try anything live on the Live (pun accidental)
Not having actually tried it, for a 1-box, not just 1-synth setup, I would go with MC-707
And in product after product, Waldorf refuses to do what Nord has been doing since the 90s. And that’s why they don’t get my money anymore. Multi mode is always an after thought. And it slows down the workflow considerably.
Even very affordable synths like MicroMonsta 2 get this right.
From the manual it reads that it allows full parameter control on all midi channels, and that individual sounds could be exhanged via program change, or the whole multi could be changed, its at least improved to a micro q, where only one sound had full parameter access.
Without a good accessible sequencer, this 8 part multi thing might be unpractical to operate.
I kind of disagree. Multi on Blofeld along with Machinedrum sps1 MK2 is a joy, super powerfull and super fun. It may take some time to organize your patches depending on complexity but it is so much you can do with it once setup. I would say that the only part it takes some time is naming patches.
As for 1 synth techno setup, I would probably go for a microModular, but obviously you would need a midi controller along with it, but that makes it still one synth techno setup I guess ^^
Other strong options would probably be an A4 mki, a Dave Smith Tetra, a Digitone, or even an Octatrack mki
I haven’t try an electribe2 synth yet but probably that could be also used as such, wouldn’t it?
I think if you’re playing “modern” techno and not trying to sound like 80s or 90s classic artists, the rytm is basically perfect. I never purchased one because the instruments always seemed to push me towards techno even when I didn’t want to.
Wildcard/fun answers would be digitone or korg esx-1. Of course a sampler like digitakt/OT can do anything.
I hear that. And perhaps with some foresight, arranging some blocks of the patch memory in ways that keep thing organized to begin with, would help.
I.e Patches 1-10 are for one tune/multi. Patches 11-20 dedicated to another multi/tune. If you want to do a live set, it all adds up.
Though it is unfortunate because it zaps your patch library memory as well. Something like the A4 has 4,000+ patch memories, and they are left intact when you start using multis(kits), which give you up to another 512 patch memory locations (4 tracks X 128 kits) per project.
The truth is there are better ways to do this. Some companies did it the right way from the beginning (Nord, Elektron), some figured it out along the way and made the shift (Access), but Waldorf still pushes out $3,000 synths with this built in headache.
So, if I’m picking “one synth” for the technoes, I prefer it to be as frictionless as possible since I am going to have to lean hard on its multi-mode to make the most of the single box.
Remember that using Multi on Blofeld doesn’t demand your patches in any specific order as you can call them in whatever order you want. Also the browser allows grouping by type, etc. It is a pain renaming, that’s right, at it may not be the easiest one to get stuff organized, but it’s modulation capabilities and sound design options are worth more than the hassles it may have, at least for me. My budget is far away for top ranges from Waldorf as even second hand still hard to reach and justify, but Blofeld can do so much for its cost actually.
But yeah, you have some valid points there
Blofeld sounds amazing but the multi mode made me homocidal after I made a multi that referenced two patches I was using in another multi, and then ruined a track that was in progress due to the archaic scheme.
There is a better way for hardware.
I would only use ordered organization to prevent such facepalms.
For now I just use the Largo VST
A modern multi mode update from Waldorf would have me buying an Iridium the moment it dropped.
I’m not sure if I have ever experienced that, but definitely worth trying. It may just be down to my multis not sharing sounds between them. So first multi is used for track1 and also uses kick1, the second multi is for track2 and also uses kick2, etc… It may be somehow archaic but don’t forget it has been around for quiet while already. In any case definitely not an excuse.
My personal favorites for this would be the Digitakt, Digitone, or Syntakt. (even though I don’t have a Syntakt yet) It’s really the perfect form-factor for this type of thing, and perfect feature set on each one.
The A4, Rytm, Octa, MNM and MD would all do the trick too.
The LXR-02, Perkons, Modor Drum thing, Spectralis, etc. would probably also do nicely on their own. (maybe some effects added)
of such contest xD