I also have both Digitone and M:C and sometimes I wonder whether I need both or I should sell my M:C, but then again, M:C is so direct and instant fun. On the down side, I don’t spend the time playing with the Digitone while I’m noodling my M:C. Anyway, if I ever let one go, it would be the M:C obviously.
1 Like
The digitone isn’t the most powerful FM synth but it is rather flexible in my opinion. If you want nasty/growly here’s something EDM-y I made a few years ago using just the digitone for synthesis (drums by rytm+OT): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMt1JLhsO7U
1 Like
Actually I’m the one who hijacked the thread 
Thanks for the replies, I get your points: it’s a different beast. I guess I should find a way to try it to make a decision.
I used both FM7 and FM8 on regular basis, but I’m really after hardware. I’m not looking for DX7 regular patches, keys and bells… I want to make mostly beats, and soundscapes/pad)
I own a TX81Z which I sequence with an Octatrack.
I’m considering EssenceFM of course, PreenFM, TX802, Sonic Potion LXR, etc and… the Digitone, because it seems really convenient and fit my budget.
“decently” as in as it should without issue. Anyone?
I’ve got no problem for slaving the m:c with my digitakt.
1 Like
Absolutely, no issues here
1 Like
Works absolutely perfectly. I used that combo for an online gig without any hiccups.
1 Like
Thanks for the confirmation. Good to know.
1 Like
Did you post that gig online by any chance? I’ve read quite a few comments lamenting only one lfo per track. I reckon the OT’s LFO’s can more than compensate for this apparent limitation.
No, it was shared live and never put up on YouTube. Probably for the best, seeing as we did it peak lockdown from our sofa with no filming gear and it looked shite haha.
Three midi LFOs per track on OT, so you can go nuts. Just note that midi LFOs are not as high resolution as the ones for internal tracks. Also, don’t forget that with p-locks you can utterly change everything per step, so you might not really need all those extra LFOs.
Edit: Missing the vital word ‘not’.
1 Like
P-locks and conditionals are not a substitute for LFOs IMHO.
Edit: to be clear, I don’t have a problem with one LFO per track on the Cycles, I think it’s a brilliant and focused groovebox. Just that LFOs add much more to the sound design capability than p-locks do. LFOs can vary a sound ad infinitum, p-locks can infinitely vary within the scope of the available synthesis but will still repeat after 64 steps.
I don’t really get the fuss about this. Yeah, it’s only got one LFO per track, but there’s velocity mod and plocks on the sequencer as well. Also, knob per function, so use of hands as modulators is encouraged.
For a £300 groovebox with 6 tracks I think it’s pretty well featured. Yes, it’s limited, but I’d suggest people that don’t like limitations probably avoid buying £300 grooveboxes.
3 Likes
I would disagree. I would need way more modulation options if it weren’t for p locks. Most times you would use sample and hold you can get the same effect with p locking. Also p locking the parameters of the lfo makes it even more capable.
Both are great, but they are different things.
the patch randomiser on the Preen will leave you wondering why all synths don’t have that feature…
although you can easily while away hours just flicking through it until you find something good, then polishing and saving…
1 Like
Seconded. I own a DN, a M:C, and a FM2. The DN is by far and away my favorite, but the FM2 can be had a similar costs to the M:C right now.
The FM2 definitely lets you predictably break out of the M:C’s box. But it does this at the expense of a sequencer and sometimes your sanity. The M:C is like being locked to a scale — you can only play “good” notes. Perhaps counterintuitively, this safety lends a ton a freedom to experiment and explore, but you can only go so far.
FM2 (or DN) is, in this analogy, like opening up a full chromatic keyboard. You can go anywhere* but it adds in a ton of “bad” notes. You may find yourself spending way more time trying to find “sweet spots” than actually composing music. FM synthesis, generally, can be particularly harsh in this way as, until you get a lot of experience with it, it’s not obvious which algorithm to choose or what op to tweak to get the change in sound you want.
All that said, if you’re interested in FM, it’s better to take the leap with a DN or FM2 than go with a M:C. Its simplicity does a lot to obscure the fact that FM is even happening under the hood. You won’t get better at FM practicing on a M:C.
As others have mentioned, the NI FM8 plugin is really good for experimenting and learning
FM with a fantastic interface for half the cost of anything mentioned above.
* In the characteristic FM soundscape, anyway.
3 Likes
Patch radomisation on an FM synth sounds like playing a fruit machine - rarely profitable!
Even more reasons to get DN. It works really well for new ideas. Per page randomisation FTW!
the thing is it has some rails to restrict just HOW crazy it gets - like you can say “I want a pad” or “I want a percussive sound” for example.
it’s also super quick, so you can just push the button and when it makes a horrible atonal noise save it immediately… sorry, I mean, generate another patch.
It’s a surprisingly good way to work out what’s going on in FM patches you like as you try and knock the rough edges off, and a good way to make a patch library if you have some spare time.
The SID synth I have has the same and it is a great feature on there too. Both of them have pretty endless mod destinations, it would probably be less useful on a simpler synth, but they sometimes throw up things I just wouldn’t have imagined to do.)
6 Likes
I didn’t say that in all seriousness.
I sometimes use randomisation on my Nord G2 after building complex patches, but the morph and cross morph functions are usually more predictable and productive.
1 Like