Thank you this series, as well as the PolyBrute series. This starts my third time watching through in as many years, and I learn something new with each pass. Truly, these are the most in depth explorations of both instruments that I have come across. Thanks for offering your invaluable expertise to all of us!
Marc! You made me buy this beast! Thank you thank you! I started out in 1973 with a Synthi A which I still have and love dearly but I have to say that the the Matrixbrute is my favourite synth now. Thanks for all your interesting, and humorous, videos over the years, please keep up the good work. Thank you once again.
I really like how well the outtro tune for this series transitioned to the Automatic Gainsay outtro. It was nearly seamless - completed the rising note sequence of the series outtro with the AG outtro, at the same tempo and everything! Great job, AG. I really appreciated it.
THANK YOU SO MUCH for noticing that. To be honest, it's just by chance. I usually put the AG outro's first beat on the next beat after the music of the closing sequence, but this time it really worked out gorgeously.
I have owned this beast since its release and having such a comprehensive tour is extremely useful. It adds a lot to my own exploration of it, and puts a lot of things into perspective. Thanks a lot ♥
Mine's arriving today - after much research and considering alternatives i kept coming back to this gorgeous looking synthesiser - inspired by wedream2 video when is enough enough ( synths ) which introduced me to the MB.They're becoming extinct so i had to stop procrastinating and go for it.I've hired a crane to help unload it and thought i'd better get cracking with familiarisation and this channel is superb in every aspect - even musically demonstrating the sounds rather than random sqwuarks and buzzes that most people do that just don't inspire or excite - this does ! Thanks Marc.
Thank you so much! I’m glad to help! Yes, as time passes, I have begun to realize that this synth is really one of the great analog synths ever made. I recently sat down with it and became re-obsessed. It is so powerful and great-sounding… I will never get enough of it. Plus, as weird as the polyphony is, I am really inspired by the unique outcomes.
Great video as always Marc. It was your demo video that convinced me to try a minibrute many years ago and I've been in love with the sound of Arturia analog ever since. Thanks.
Yes! I was really looking forward to you doing a series on this synth. Always love your videos, and I love everything I've seen so far from the Matrixbrute. Thank you for your indepth approach to synth demo-ing. With synths, it's the details that matter.
This whole series is a total gamechanger! Just awesome - I would have needed this for so much equipment! Thanks a lot! (Only thing I would have mentioned 2 years earlier is the camera angle. Your hand often blocks the view to some important things, like seeing indicators or the amount of change in combination with what you can hear - but anyway these videos are extremely helpful!)
Marc - thanks so much for your diligent work doing up these videos. It's a joy to experience your enthusiasm as it is to learn from your sharp observations. Watching your videos is like opening a present with a friend who's as excited as you are to see what's inside. I'm a fan. Can you tell? Thanks.
Spot on Marc....I have the voyager RME and the brute, if i had to pick one it would be the brute because of functionality .....the sequencer....and the possibilities as well as it very aggressive and can do voyager esc drones and bass and so much more with modulation ...still,love the moog but the brute offers a lot more
The oscillators are quantized to half steps, I think you meant you can use the fine tune to get quarter tones. Also wave folding is pretty traditional if you used buchla or serge synthesizers.
hey Marc wonderful video I was wondering how does the matrixbrute compared to the mfb Dominion 1 sound and fatness wise the Vintage analog sound like the mfb or is it modern sounding synth
Yes! At last! This synth seems to me like a great real instrument, i mean, there's a lot of analog synth on the market, to all prices, but i really reach for a "moog like" , yes, that's it, a real instrument. Thanks for your videos Marc....as usual
Planning on getting one next year. I'm curious as to how a single oscillator can produce multiple simultaneous waves ....is there a name for this type? Are there drawbacks? (Why wouldn't this be more common or standard?) I'm also curious if it's possible to modulate the waveform levels+"tricks" with the matrix to produce wavetable-esque tones.
Dane Xoth When a VCO produces multiple waveforms, they're all derived from a single waveform by various forms of waveshaping. Typically, the "core" of a VCO will be a triangle or a sawtooth, and then these will be shaped into the other waves. Fixed architecture synths then either have a switch to select which one of these to use, or a mixer to blend them together. Modular VCOs provide them as separate outputs, which you can then patch wherever you want. The only downside is that they can't have separate pitches (other than octaves), so they can't be detuned into intervals or for "fatness". The upside is that you get more timbral options without the expense of another VCO.
I feel there was such a missed opportunity with this synth. It's a great concept but if there is a paraphonic mode, there should be paraphonic sequencing and have multiple sequences and patches playing at once. Also the sequences should be able to be chained in order to form songs. It sounds good but it just seems like there was a lot of details that were left out in regards to the sequencer. Speaking of, I wonder if Marc will go into the sequencer at all since I know he's not big on them (even bypassing the incredible Two Voice Pro sequencer.)
You're not the first to express the desire for polyphonic sequencing. I suppose that is a reasonable desire, but to be honest... the people I know who do sequencing have so many sequencing opportunities that I'm always confused as to why they need all of their synths to all have sequencing abilities. But that may be because I don't engage in the sequencing that many do these days. The music I've recorded with the MatrixBrute thus far didn't include sequencing. But yes, I WILL be doing videos on the sequencing functions.
It's not impossible that the sequencer might be updated to allow entry of multiple notes for the Paraphonic and Duo Split modes. But even without that, it's pretty cool for an on board sequencer, being more hands on that anything before it. It goes as far as being a "performance sequencer" in that it's dead easy to change the sequence in real time while it's playing. I Duo Split mode, the sequencer will play the lower half of the keyboard and the upper half can be played manually. There's also the Matrix Arpeggiator which is a great performance. Lot's of fun to be had - not a missed opportunity at all IMO (I hope for the multiple note entry in a future firmware version though...). For traditional, or more complex, song building, I'd much rather use a DAW to sequence it.
They have nice filters on their hardware..I like their softsynth collections too..Pretty much the only softsynths I use are Arturia, U-He and G-Force..they emulate the stuff I can't afford really well..This is a good price too for what it gives you
OH GOD IT HAS BEGUN! *Priests are gathered in the vatican basement praying to stop Satan from spawning from Marc's Matrixbrute* The sun is red and the rivers fill with blood.
Hard to put credence in this guy when he fundamentally misunderstands the function of the FINE TUNE knob. It in no way gives you access to microttunal scaling. That would be a control function anyway, not an oscillator function.
Well, first, let's be clear that you're not watching a video about the sounds that this synth makes overall. You're watching a video that is focusing on a specific functionality of this synthesizer. What you see here is more like showing you a tool in a set of tools, as opposed to "this is what this synth sounds like." Second of all, Ataris had extremely limited sound production capabilities based around a square wave. Your characterization is not only inaccurate functionally, but also aurally. This is kind of like saying "why are people still using these honking clarinets for stuff?" It's apparent that you think synthesizers have "moved beyond" analog sounds, and it's simply not true. Analog synthesizers, especially of this level of functionality, are capable of making a vast variety of non-8 bit-sounding sounds.
MayDay, you haven't watched one demonstration like mine. Because there aren't any. I would encourage you to explore my other demonstrations... the ones that are complete... in order to better understand what is happening here. Again, you're only hearing raw oscillator sounds. In synthesizers, oscillators largely generate harmonic-rich output in order to have a lot of harmonics to filter. Without a filter, an oscillator is GOING to be bright, and even grating. There is nothing wrong with software synths, but there is no such things as an "analogue" one. If you're comfortable with a software interface, and the fact that it is very challenging for software to give true analog sound and outcomes, that's fine. But equating analog-emulative software to analog hardware is disingenuous. If you really believe there is no difference, it is a reflection on your discernment, I'm sorry to say. Lastly, nothing good ever came from someone making decisions about what studio tools OR musical instruments they were going to acquire based on price. (that goes for people who buy stuff because it is expensive AS WELL AS people who buy stuff because it is cheap) I can't comment on who has made what video for what reason, but neither me, nor my viewers, tend to make decisions based on aesthetic alone.
IMHO the difference in sound between the Voyager and the Model D is very much like that between the CD and the SACD. In other words, in a double-blind test it would come out FAPP nonexistent. It only shows up when the tester knows which signal is which, i.e. a placebo effect (which is a very _strong_ effect, BTW, when it's heard it's very obvious, you'd swear on your mother's grave you can hear the difference). Imagine a couple of records, one using the Model D, the other the Voyager, and people buying massively one over the other because of the sound difference. Impossible, will never happen.
Bob didn't make the Voyager as a duplicate of the Minimoog. The Minimoog and the Voyager not only have different functions, not only have different circuits, not only were built out of completely different components, but also are literally nothing alike in design. For your assertion to be true, these two devices would have to sound exactly alike irrespective of being wholly different. And that's... well, kind of outrageous. Secondly, there are different types of comparison between two devices. Almost any synthesizer can "make a sound like" another synthesizer. It is, for example, very challenging to discern which sawtooth belongs to which synth because the differences can be very minor. But they can, in various instances, be major. The fact that they can be similar or hard to discern individually does NOT mean that the differences are irrelevant, or that they "sound the same." A synthesizer isn't a waveform, and it isn't a filter sweep. Each individual component, and its perhaps tiny variances, ADD UP to a different sound. And, in addition to that, different functionality and how that functionality is generated makes a HUGE difference. Synthesizers without presets actually direct their signal path THROUGH THE POTS... whereas synthesizers with digital patches do not. It makes a difference in sound, but more importantly, it makes a difference in how the device operates. A knob turn on a digitally-controlled knob can have staggeringly different outcomes than an analog pot. There are also issues of noise, saturation, pitch variance, waveshape variance, and etc. that may be subtle to the listener in specific instances, but add up to an overall tone or behavioral characteristic. Overall, a person may not be able to discern a sawtooth from a Voyager or a sawtooth from a Minimoog (although I suspect that a frequent Minimoog user would be able to, because they ARE different), but individual instances of functionality aren't how synths are used, and what defines the sound of a synth is a summation of its sound and functionality when played. Lastly, you're basically saying that all of us who love the tone and functionality of the Minimoog are deluded, and the Voyager, a completely different synthesizer with a completely different design in every single way literally sounds identical to the Minimoog.
