its called hipass-filter what you are searching for hehe
pair the A4 with a Minituar or Mono Lancet 
I donāt get the obsession.
There are perfectly good basses to be had from my Triton Studio, Monomachine, A5000 Sampler, MS20, Microbrute, A4 and physical modelled synths like Scuplture (which i use an awful lot for bass sounds oddly enough).
Everything has its own colour and certain synths will be best used for different applications depending on the need at the time.
That said deep / fat bass can be an outright pain in the ass to mix ( the sole reason for selling my Subphatty ) for example and you can get huge bass out of 4 OP FM synthesis and machines like the CZ1000 that are perfectly serviceable.
Hell my Ashbory Bass with its meagre 18" neck scale can rock out some wonderfully woody and deep upright like tones but seriously it isnāt the be all and end all of electronic music production.
All in my humble opinion of course (but all this speculation is just silly and rather pointless).
srsly.
The filters still affect the spectrum when they are āopenā. The signal path is never āopenā in the sense that itās not affecting the waveform and the spectrum. In other words, there is no way to hear that āraw sound of the oscillatorsā that is under debate.
The mentioned link to the analysis from another thread shows the signal at the output jacks - not the raw oscillator signals - at some filter settings that are assumed to pass the signals unaffected. But they donāt.
The ladder filter is not like your favourite VA filter. 
[ul]
[li]With resonance turned down to zero, the frequency response is like a big wide bump across the spectrum. A bit weaker in the bass and the treble, a bit stronger in the mid octaves. This is why a classic acid sound gets so in-your-face midrange-ish when the resonance is turned down and the filter opened. Itās a useful sound, especially in that context, but itās not a sound unaffected by the filter. And as you might have noticed, the chosen default value of the resonance (when resetting a soundās parameters) is not zero.[/li]
[li]As resonance is turned up a little bit, the general frequency response flattens a bit. There is not a big wide bump anymore, but the resonance peak has still not appeared. This is probably where the filter would be considered sounding the most āopenā, but it still affects the signal from the oscillators. [/li]
[li]Further turning up the resonance creates a stronger peak that takes over your life in ways you already know.[/li]
[/ul]
Much has been written about what āfatā or āwarmā would mean - or could not mean - in the context of raw oscillator signals. And Iām still truly interested in hearing more opinions on that complex matter. In fact though, most oscillators behave very very similarly and quite analytically correct, otherwise they simply wouldnāt work! The distinctive characters of different synths are created almost solely in the following stages of mixers, filters, amplifiersā¦ while the raw oscillator signals can never be heard (apart from in modular systems).
Still people seem eager to describe raw oscillator sounds! 
Good point. Btw, look at the signal from a violin or a piano in a scope. That raw sound of the string looks just terrible!
A far more important question is- are some of the AKās black keys fatter than the others?
I donāt get the obsession.
There are perfectly good basses to be had from my Triton Studio, Monomachine, A5000 Sampler, MS20, Microbrute, A4 and physical modelled synths like Scuplture (which i use an awful lot for bass sounds oddly enough).
Everything has its own colour and certain synths will be best used for different applications depending on the need at the time.
That said deep / fat bass can be an outright pain in the ass to mix ( the sole reason for selling my Subphatty ) for example and you can get huge bass out of 4 OP FM synthesis and machines like the CZ1000 that are perfectly serviceable.
Hell my Ashbory Bass with its meagre 18" neck scale can rock out some wonderfully woody and deep upright like tones but seriously it isnāt the be all and end all of electronic music production.
All in my humble opinion of course (but all this speculation is just silly and rather pointless).
[/quote]
Dude, youāre preaching to the choir! 
yeah a4 is getting me some of my favorite basses. really thuddy kicks and lots of timbral variety.
one cool thing about the a4 is you can be really focused with your sound sculpting by layering tracks into one voice. try making a really āthinā mid rangy voice on track, copy that and make another thatās mostly low endā¦this is why iād did source tracks on all tracks because iām lazy.
i do think the a4 can get a bit muddy, especially if youāre loose with what frequencies you cut out, which is what iām guessing they āfine tunedā - but i like to think of it as gel/coherence and overall my ears like it.
to be honest though, i dunno where the whole analog = bass thing came from, yeah, some moogs do nice bass, but give me a yamaha FM synth, or the monomachine. Analogās good at not aliasing a high frequencies + sounding good when you go above the headroom available i donāt think it has some magic bass property.
This discussion arises fro elektron statement that it has ātweakedā something in order to improve the sound, If elektron didnāt made that state or clarified it these deep, fat, warm discussion wouldnāt exists.
The filters still affect the spectrum when they are āopenā. The signal path is never āopenā in the sense that itās not affecting the waveform and the spectrum. In other words, there is no way to hear that āraw sound of the oscillatorsā that is under debate.
The mentioned link to the analysis from another thread shows the signal at the output jacks - not the raw oscillator signals - at some filter settings that are assumed to pass the signals unaffected. But they donāt.
The ladder filter is not like your favourite VA filter.
[ul]
[li]With resonance turned down to zero, the frequency response is like a big wide bump across the spectrum. A bit weaker in the bass and the treble, a bit stronger in the mid octaves. This is why a classic acid sound gets so in-your-face midrange-ish when the resonance is turned down and the filter opened. Itās a useful sound, especially in that context, but itās not a sound unaffected by the filter. And as you might have noticed, the chosen default value of the resonance (when resetting a soundās parameters) is not zero.[/li]
[li]As resonance is turned up a little bit, the general frequency response flattens a bit. There is not a big wide bump anymore, but the resonance peak has still not appeared. This is probably where the filter would be considered sounding the most āopenā, but it still affects the signal from the oscillators. [/li]
[li]Further turning up the resonance creates a stronger peak that takes over your life in ways you already know.[/li]
[/ul]
Much has been written about what āfatā or āwarmā would mean - or could not mean - in the context of raw oscillator signals. And Iām still truly interested in hearing more opinions on that complex matter. In fact though, most oscillators behave very very similarly and quite analytically correct, otherwise they simply wouldnāt work! The distinctive characters of different synths are created almost solely in the following stages of mixers, filters, amplifiersā¦ while the raw oscillator signals can never be heard (apart from in modular systems).
Still people seem eager to describe raw oscillator sounds!
Good point. Btw, look at the signal from a violin or a piano in a scope. That raw sound of the string looks just terrible! [/quote]
Thanks!
Finally someone goes on topic with detailed and relevant info. Though youāre deliberatelly evading the point asked and concentrating your reply on teaching me the semantic difference between aboslute RAW sound, and the āas RAW as possible sound a user can get with your circuitsā wich is a different matter.
When we āopenā the filters etc as you suggest we get the closer possible to the raw sound, it is āour RAW soundā as customes because the machine doesnt let us go further, if the oscillators detached from the circuitry sound fatter than an ARP 2600 is not the point since we cant possibly know/hear or benefit from it, the point is how fat is the sound we CAN hear through the outputs regarding pure waves. I REMARK; not only fat, itās easy to fatten the sound with all the stuff in the A4, like using the hipass+ressonance+keytracking, but that doesnt make the Square wave sound and behave like a Square in lower frecuencies.
on the other hand itās commonly known that filters are allways affecting the waveforms in most synths. Who cares, thatās been never my point.
Does the AK OSCs (not going to say raw, but "as raw as you can get out of the audio outputs ") sound rounder, more consistent across the octaves, warmer, fat, or whatever you want to call it compared to the A4 thanks to the finetuned circuitry?
I just repeat the question with semantic corrections so it can be finally understood by some here. But i really dont expect anyone to reply thatā¦ elektron knows the difference but thereās obviously marketing and bussiness things that would make it not very convenient to claim that the new synth sound ābetter/fatter/supercalifragilisticoespialidosoā than the ānot so old oneā, if that was the case.
What i will never understand, and whatās in essence the cause of so many people disliking or not completelly liking the A4 (yeah, there is way more people around the world that are not here posting all day, that have an opinion on this as well), is why so much emphasis in your marketting about the analog glory (also called āMythā in this thread repeteadly) with sentences like this from the latest newsletter
āThe warm and deep tone represents the pinnacle of analog synthesisā
When lateron reading your posts guys seems like that analog factor is irrelevantā¦
Iām really surprised how this company has evolved since i got my sidstation and it was an indie dev company unknown in most of the worldā¦ and not surprised in a very good way in some aspects.
I Opened this thread seeking for some advice to evaluate if i keep investing in elektron (4 machines, almost 4k of my money to your pockets) by upgrading from A4 to an AKā¦ I couldnt imagine myself acting like this when one of my customers comes asking for technical details about my new products with the intention to upgrade to a suposedly better oneā¦
All these pages are making me think less about buying the new toy (AK), and even more about letting the A4 goā¦ If one of my sellers turns a client that wants to upgrade into a client that wants to go away i would be worried, or the seller would.
Well one thing most of us can agree on is that decreasing the pulsewidth makes a sound thinner sounding right? If iām not mistaken, the a4 oscs seem to have a reduced pulsewidth in the lower octaves.
Donāt get me wrong, i love my a4 and am perfectly capable of getting nice bass sounds out of it, but i think what i mentioned above is what people experience as thin sounding oscs for bass.
The filters still affect the spectrum when they are āopenā. The signal path is never āopenā in the sense that itās not affecting the waveform and the spectrum. In other words, there is no way to hear that āraw sound of the oscillatorsā that is under debate.
The mentioned link to the analysis from another thread shows the signal at the output jacks - not the raw oscillator signals - at some filter settings that are assumed to pass the signals unaffected. But they donāt.
The ladder filter is not like your favourite VA filter.
[ul]
[li]With resonance turned down to zero, the frequency response is like a big wide bump across the spectrum. A bit weaker in the bass and the treble, a bit stronger in the mid octaves. This is why a classic acid sound gets so in-your-face midrange-ish when the resonance is turned down and the filter opened. Itās a useful sound, especially in that context, but itās not a sound unaffected by the filter. And as you might have noticed, the chosen default value of the resonance (when resetting a soundās parameters) is not zero.[/li]
[li]As resonance is turned up a little bit, the general frequency response flattens a bit. There is not a big wide bump anymore, but the resonance peak has still not appeared. This is probably where the filter would be considered sounding the most āopenā, but it still affects the signal from the oscillators. [/li]
[li]Further turning up the resonance creates a stronger peak that takes over your life in ways you already know.[/li]
[/ul]
Much has been written about what āfatā or āwarmā would mean - or could not mean - in the context of raw oscillator signals. And Iām still truly interested in hearing more opinions on that complex matter. In fact though, most oscillators behave very very similarly and quite analytically correct, otherwise they simply wouldnāt work! The distinctive characters of different synths are created almost solely in the following stages of mixers, filters, amplifiersā¦ while the raw oscillator signals can never be heard (apart from in modular systems).
Still people seem eager to describe raw oscillator sounds!
Good point. Btw, look at the signal from a violin or a piano in a scope. That raw sound of the string looks just terrible! [/quote]
Thanks!
Finally someone goes on topic with detailed and relevant info. Though youāre deliberatelly evading the point asked and concentrating your reply on teaching me the semantic difference between aboslute RAW sound, and the āas RAW as possible sound a user can get with your circuitsā wich is a different matter.
When we āopenā the filters etc as you suggest we get the closer possible to the raw sound, it is āour RAW soundā as customes because the machine doesnt let us go further, if the oscillators detached from the circuitry sound fatter than an ARP 2600 is not the point since we cant possibly know/hear or benefit from it, the point is how fat is the sound we CAN hear through the outputs regarding pure waves. I REMARK; not only fat, itās easy to fatten the sound with all the stuff in the A4, like using the hipass+ressonance+keytracking, but that doesnt make the Square wave sound and behave like a Square in lower frecuencies.
on the other hand itās commonly known that filters are allways affecting the waveforms in most synths. Who cares, thatās been never my point.
Does the AK OSCs (not going to say raw, but "as raw as you can get out of the audio outputs ") sound rounder, more consistent across the octaves, warmer, fat, or whatever you want to call it compared to the A4 thanks to the finetuned circuitry?
I just repeat the question with semantic corrections so it can be finally understood by some here. But i really dont expect anyone to reply thatā¦ elektron knows the difference but thereās obviously marketing and bussiness things that would make it not very convenient to claim that the new synth sound ābetter/fatter/supercalifragilisticoespialidosoā than the ānot so old oneā, if that was the case.
What i will never understand, and whatās in essence the cause of so many people disliking or not completelly liking the A4 (yeah, there is way more people around the world that are not here posting all day, that have an opinion on this as well), is why so much emphasis in your marketting about the analog glory (also called āMythā in this thread repeteadly) with sentences like this from the latest newsletter
āThe warm and deep tone represents the pinnacle of analog synthesisā
When lateron reading your posts guys seems like that analog factor is irrelevantā¦
Iām really surprised how this company has evolved since i got my sidstation and it was an indie dev company unknown in most of the worldā¦ and not surprised in a very good way in some aspects.
I Opened this thread seeking for some advice to evaluate if i keep investing in elektron (4 machines, almost 4k of my money to your pockets) by upgrading from A4 to an AKā¦ I couldnt imagine myself acting like this when one of my customers comes asking for technical details about my new products with the intention to upgrade to a suposedly better oneā¦
All these pages are making me think less about buying the new toy (AK), and even more about letting the A4 goā¦ If one of my sellers turns a client that wants to upgrade into a client that wants to go away i would be worried, or the seller would.[/quote]
I fully agree with all of your sentiments. I too, have owned every Elektron machine at one point or another. I recently sold my A4; I was on the fence about it for a long time. But right after I heard of the AKās supposedly ābetter-ability to handle-bassā from Elektronās very own marketing, I sold asap.
I knew that if I were to stick with the A4, Iād much rather have the AK version with the improved bass. This, FOR ME, is very important. Nobody knows how different the AK will sound besides the Elektron folk & those privy; thatās become quite apparent. But your inquiry about what exactly was changed, and how it affects the sound is totally appropriate. I have the same damn question. This is the WRONG place to ask it though unfortunately, which kind of makes this forum useless to me for the most part.
Just wait, like me, for the release I guess.
I think the āwait to hear the danged thing youāre forking $1-2 grand for, before you hand over the moolahā should apply to just about any new purchaseā¦except for the few gas-inflicted people that are healthily required to get the production lines movingā¦
Youāre all focused on the deep-fat oscās , or lack there-of, as if there arenāt any other aspects to making a final purchase decisionā¦stop staring at the DEEP-FAT belly button!
And you are focused in not reading what people writes, no one said that the ONLY important thing is deep or whatever you call bass. Most of the ones that, like me, are dissapointed with this issue, have stated several times that they (like me) love the machineās other aspects/features. Those are different things.
If youāre not interested in this matter, itās easy, join a thread that interests you
Also. People seem to confuse this subject with making Bass sounds only, the lower end, is also essential for some pads and so many stuff.
Im starting to think that the problem is that iāve grown hearing so many analog fatness glory and old vinylā¦
Octo wrote:
Thanks!
Finally someone goes on topic with detailed and relevant info. Though youāre deliberatelly evading the point asked and concentrating your reply on teaching me the semantic difference between aboslute RAW sound, and the āas RAW as possible sound a user can get with your circuitsā wich is a different matter.
The topic title and the original post gave the impression that the oscillators were the main point here, Iām sorry for not picking up the thread properly.
Does the AK OSCs (not going to say raw, but "as raw as you can get out of the audio outputs ") sound rounder, more consistent across the octaves, warmer, fat, or whatever you want to call it compared to the A4 thanks to the finetuned circuitry?
On many sounds, many users would probably say yes.
On some other sounds there is no such difference.
But the oscillators themselves are not fundamentally changed.
When lateron reading your posts guys seems like that analog factor is irrelevantā¦
Iād never want to suggest such a sad thing.
Thanks MR!!
sicenrelly!
And yes, the issue may either have been the naming of the thread or my poor english that confused some people. In that case, my apologies!
And excuse me if my reply quoting you sounded personal against you specfically. I quoted you at first but the rest was not related to you at all. In fact, i very much apreciate your contribution to the matter discussed here.
And this clarifies almost everything for me.
Almostā¦ can we know if the OSCs waves PW gets as thinner at lowe frequencies as with the A4?, i mean like the oscilloscope screenshots discused in page 1
Anyway, iāll get my hands on an AK next week i guess so iāll be able to check it out by myself.
Pulsewidths can vary a little bit with frequency (even more so on the Transistor Pulse waveform, where also the waveform itself varies with frequency) due to the circuit design. No expected difference with the Analog Keys on that point.
Itās important that sounds are compatible between the two instruments, so no fundamental differences in waveshapes etcetera are to be expected.
Have fun with the Keys!
Pulsewidths can vary a little bit with frequency (even more so on the Transistor Pulse waveform, where also the waveform itself varies with frequency) due to the circuit design. No expected difference with the Analog Keys on that point.
Itās important that sounds are compatible between the two instruments, so no fundamental differences in waveshapes etcetera are to be expected.
Have fun with the Keys![/quote]
Thanks, that clarifies it all!
Is there then possible to implement some kind of modulation that auto-corrects the PW parameter when you go lower in octave to āfakeā that classic analog fatness at lower frequencies? a kind of āvintage/purist/classic/fatā mode based on parameter locks, ala live recording microtimingsā¦ just an idea. If it shuts some voices like mine i guess itās worth investing some time into this
Or is that already possible to settup with the current modulation architecture?
Oh and yes, i didnt said it in those posts because it wasnt the matter, but iām sure iāll have a lot of fun with the AK, as i said itās not only the sound, but the performance. Iāve been never comfortable with the minikeyboard and a master keyboard attached to the A4, and the AK while maintaining the same basic interface, thanks to itās bgger size, things can be more spread and less cluttered. Looks a lot more confortable and inspiring.
This!
+1
Soundcloud compression does not sound deep, fat or warm and I would not rely on it to compare an apple to an orange never mind to compare a hypothetical sublte difference in fatness of a sound beteen two machines. Iām down for a blind 24 bit wave file test thoā¦