New User experience with AF2 vs Wavestate

Elektron Gear Analog Keys/Four
#1

You might be thinking… what, these are totally different machines! Of course they are. The Analog Four, MKII (A42) is a complex analog synth with an incredibly deep and functional performance sequencer, while the Wavestate is a digital “ROMpler” that also has a deep “wave sequencer” that seems designed mostly to create evolving motion pads (yes, and much more). The point of this post is not to compare the uses, quality, or logic of buying one over the other. If it were that, I suppose I’d be posting in “other gear.” This post (and topic) is about the usability of the two machines, especially for someone who’s just had a few days to begin to learn the A42 (and has had the Wavestate for the better part of a year now) because one thing both instruments have in common is their incredible depth and potential and needing to read the manual for both instruments (and going back over the manuals in places several times),

The first thing I want to do is give a shout-out to Dan Phillps over at Korg, who is one of the designers of the Wavestate and hangs out on the Wavestate thread at Gearslutz and keeps us well informed about improvements, and clearly listens to the feedback he receives there (and probably other places). Way to go Korg, and Dan!

Immediate accessibility favors the Wavestate, strongly. Definitely closer to the “1 knob or button” per function. Once you make your way around the Wavestate, though, the deeper functionality is accessible only from diving into a very small and not at all user friendly screen and OS. The A42 is just the opposite, which is what I realized today, and which prompted me to write this. While their is very little about the A42 that is “obvious,” once you start to figure out the layout of the box, including the screen’s menus and navigation, the user interface makes alot of sense. My gut reaction is that Elektron built the A42 buttons and knobs and screen very intentionally to get you as much hands on control as possible while using the machine and realizing size is a very important consideration as well. It seems like, with the Wavestate, Korg decided on the hardware considerations (including the screen), and then built the user interface around those considerations (like my old Roland JV-1080 rack-mount sampler synth).

The way the A42 works, while complicated, just makes sense. I don’t find this to be the case with the Wavestate. I’d consider selling the Wavestate, if it wasn’t otherwise so dang cool in terms of what it can do that no other synth I’ve seen really can do. Dan at Korg also said there is a Mac/PC-based editor coming, so maybe that will help, but I’m not thrilled with having to use my Mac to get into its full potential. Likewise, I have barely touched Overbridge on the A42, but might use it for moving lots of sounds around into sound pools, etc… I’ll put it this way, while learning the Wavestate, I almost never saved my own presets. While using the A42, I have almost no interest in its presets, and have been having a blast starting from scratch to learn how to create my own from the ground up.

In sum, I find both the A42 and the Wavestate to be somewhat intimidating and intriguing, but I really only find the A42 inviting. I will be creating a lot of my own stuff on the A42, whereas the Wavestate sits in my studio right now as a preset player.

Just my thoughts so far. I still have a TON to learn, and looking forward to it!

2 Likes
#2

Aside: I really dislike “A42” as an abbreviation for the A4mkii / A4mk2.

2 Likes
#3

I hadn’t thought of that. I think A4.2, not A.42, but can see your point. I guess I hate typing A4MkII, cumbersome. What about AF2?

2 Likes
#4

THAT one. :heavy_check_mark:

1 Like
#5

I have an Analog Keys and a Wavestate.

While there’s a lot to love about the Wavestate, it does make me appreciate Elektron’s design acumen and build quality (for which one pays a lot more, obviously). The Wavestate sends you continually back to the same few buttons, which are not particularly accessible, visible, large or pleasant compared to the rest of the buttons on the synth.
The screen on the WS is better - larger and clearer - but it’s also more reliant on it, because of the nature of the synth and because the overall design is less ‘readable’. After a few months with the AK, I don’t really need to look at the screen a lot of the time. There are many menus, but they’re not often nested more than one layer deep.
That’s not to say the AK is perfect. By God, I wish it had an extra octave of those lovely keys! And some of the voice tweaking parameters (assigning modulation sources like aftertouch, velocity, mod wheel etc) are buried a bit deeper than they should be. And of course, another few voices would be great. Overall, it hits a sweet spot for me though – I’ve realised I’m a ‘player’, and really appreciate things like aftertouch and nice keybed…

#6

Good thoughts all. I don’t have the Keys, so I cannot attest to the quality of the keybed, but its not hard to guess that they are much better than the Wavestate (which are really subpar and one of the biggest criticisms leveled at the WS). I am not a “player” (more into sound design and creation), so I don’t care at all about the keyed, also because I use the beautiful keyed on my Kronos to control my other synths. I really wish the WS had a module version, although I do sometimes take the WS out of my studio to focus on it alone. Also, maybe the screen is smaller on the AK, but I just compared the screen on the WS and the A4Mk2 and they are pretty close to the same size.

I haven’t really gotten far into modulation source manipulation on the A4 yet because I’ve been using it all on its own to get to know it (so mod wheel, aftertouch and velocity) don’t mean much yet. I can say that, while the WS seems to have a huge number of ways to modulate sources and destinations, it is (to me anyway) one of the things I dislike most about the WS. The setup is just not intuitive at all, and there’s no reason it should need to be so complicated or difficult to see what sources and destinations are at play. On the other hand, one thing I like about the WS is that the screen’s window and parameter change automatically when you touch a button. Very cool. I also like that on both, you can specify tracks (A4) or lanes (WS) that have different lengths, speeds, etc., so you can create incredibly complex patterns pretty quickly.

One thing I did have fun with last night, though, after incorporating my A4Mk2 into the rest of my system, was running WS sounds through my A4 and manipulating both on the fly. Super fun.

#7

I agree the WS modulation system is unnecessarily cumbersome.
The sequencer is the magic there. I’ve never used another instrument where the sequencer can be so much of the sound design — it’s such a different paradigm from Elektron, a really interesting contrast. I like using the WS sequences almost like very long and complex envelopes… very fun sound design.