Let’s try and limit this to audio hardware, lest we get tongue-in-cheek responses such as “Max MSP” or “a computer” or “an atomic clock” Let’s also take out extravagant, wall-spanning $10,000 modular setups while we’re at it. Maybe limit this discussion to just a single box/synth: A single item one could purchase.
You hear a lot about how deep the Octatrack is, and it very well could be “the deepest”, but what do you guys think? What is the machine with the steepest learning curve, and then once you wrap your head around it the possibilities are seemingly endless? (at least that’s how I’d categorize “deepest”, though I’m open to any other interpretations)
I was thinking something else that would come close would be a Fairlight CMI, or maybe even a Yamaha DX7 if you really take the time to learn FM synthesis properly. Playing around with the Arturia CMI V has made me realize it’s really not that deep (by modern standards, anyway…almost feels like a layman’s Octatrack ), while playing around with the DX7 V has made me realize that, yes, FM synthesis is a very deep, fascinating world that can yield some far-out results.
Deepest is still pretty vague. Do you mean the highest number of choices? Or the broadest range of opportunity? Presumably this is for a single voice rather than a groovebox.
I’d go by the number of choices of a particular unit. It seems the most accurate mathematically. Now there’s the matter of synthesis vs sampling, which sampling has an infinite number of choices- while synthesis is still really epic, will always have a finite number of choices.
I agree it is vague! Hence why I opened the floor up to any other opinions. I still stand by my personal definition, though. And by that personal definition I do lean toward the DX7–though I could be biased because learning FM synthesis is something that still eludes me. But it seems wildly, wildly capable if you know what you’re doing.
Number of choices is a good definition too…But then it begs the question “what are choices?”
for an analog monosynth (w/some poly fakery) the arturia matrix brute is quite deep. very large mod matrix and 4 macro knobs where it’s possible to assign every modulator to each of the 4 knobs.
a well spc’d eurorack modular
yamaha Montage is STUPIDLY DEEP but also tg77/fs1r. the montage is ridiculous. i find it tedious to program though. in minutes my neck hurts and i don’t care for the touch screen though it defaults to lot’s of knobs and sliders i still find it kind of just ridicuous but it’s the most deep synth for layering, controling, sequencing etc that i’ve gotten hands on in a while… but it’s wasted on me because i just can’t get into it. we have it work and i just never program it. 8 operator FM, 88 algorithms, mulitple envelopes per operator… and that’s jus the FM part of it. it still has oodles of samples and AWM2 voices and loads of FX etc etc etc
the octatrack is pretty deep
DSI Poly evolver/pro2
oberheim matrix 12
it’s nice to have a lot of options when programming a synth but sometimes just something simple w/good envelopes and a decent filter is more than enough to do something interesting.
This is quite subjective and I suppose “deep” could mean a number of things but two pieces spring to mind: Octatrack and the FS1R.
The FS1R was my first hardware synth. Got it new when they came out back in the late 90s (99?) as a present from my parents for passing some exams and, as some of you know, had to sell it about 10 years ago to fund baby stuff for my 1st born. Back in 99 though I had a tonne more spare time and actually got fairly fluent with the FS1R’s front panel creating some lovely multitimbral patches from scratch that are now lost forever! I guess deep in this sense just means complicated really. Fun times that I remember fondly though.
The OT’s depth, as we all know, comes from doing so much. But what I love about the OT is that there are god knows how many different use cases amongst us which means many of us are still learning things after years of use. I bet the Elektron guys who designed and built the thing probably still get the odd surprise or too from hearing/seeing what some do with it. Sure there are synths and other bits of hear with more menu’s and things but approached in the right way, the OT will grow with you.
Based on my interpretation, OP-1 and OT are both incredibly deep machines, the former for it’s strict limitations, the latter for it’s utter lack thereof.