Waldorf Streichfett & vintage string synth comparison (part 1) 

People that actually make records: "What an affordable tool. Streichfett is a Godsend." Collectors that don't: "Not analog. Streichfett cancelled. Back to my Chartreuse."

Huh? What are those holes at the bottom side? I have one of the first 50 units and it doesn't have those. :/

Mexeu e nada

Waldorf has a much more scooped midrange, which makes it sounds more wispy, less sweet, less in-your-face. I wonder what a good analog eq boosting generously around 800Hz would do to mitigate the differences.

I like both and I guess I would prefer the Waldorf Streichfett in a production meant to sound more "clean". I allways want a dirty feel to my recording since I am actually a fan of dirty details like cracks and blips and small parts with background noise, therefore I guess alot of people would hate some of my old analogue gear. My Yamaha Cs-5 synth does occasional hard scraping sounds, and that sounds amazing in an indie, post punk or synth popsong but if I would like to do something sounding clean it would take alot of retakes and mixing to make it right. But... I can use my other synths for that or even some free vst´s. I guess a tube amp and a streichfett, and maybe some effects here and there can make it feel closer to the real thing, but it would never get the rock and roll dirtyness and the feeling of a majestic or grumpy old age machine that an old string machine would do. In the end its easier and cheaper to use annnd produce with a streichfett and occasional effects, but it feels more genuine and dirty with an old machine. And... its easier to mix a clean signal so streichfett wins most of the times, but it is not and will never be that old dirty bastard you love for its unique quirks.

the waldorf sounds bigger but muffled. the logan is more open and sweet.

The Waldorf is close enough. How does one even find a working Logan in decent condition that is affordable in the 1st place? When you actually use such a tool within a song that incorporates more sounds, the delta between the new and the classic shortens quickly. Even the sounds from the Logan in this comparison has been converted to digital, for the purposes of making this video. And in the end ... both are converted to analog when they play thru our speakers to hear back. How much does each one cost? How portable is each one? How obtainable are they? The Waldorf wins hands down. Thanks for demonstrating. :)

Great video. The striechfett does a great job at capturing that 70’s & 80’s string sound plus affordable rather than paying thousands of pounds for the original string machines today.

The Logan is Warmer.

The Logan sounds like the Streichfett but run through a high resonant filter in a way. There's that resonant sound.

How about Streichfett sound compared to Crumar Performer, or VP330, does it come close to those? I know the original analog is best, but if you can't get the original analog, is Streichfett an excellent substitute?

i have the Behringer VC340 which has some pretty good analog strings, but i just ordered a used Streichfett, as I feel like, although not analog, it has some cool flexibility and range, while still staying within that Vintage String Vibe. I feel like it really has the ability to hit some of those Pink Floyd studio sounds, that were probably several different synths, or synth patches, layered together. I'm into it.

Waldorf sounds mellow, more like a Solina; guessing this is what it's emulating. Would like to hear it beside a Solina.

In direct comparison, the Logan sounds much better to my ears.

5:20 Equinoxe 4 :)

Couldn't you put the Waldorf through a filter to get it even closer?

2p - about 4 years ago I had a Logan in for repair, it uses 3 "phaser" chips - two had died, I managed to find replacements. I think also the Logan is due for a re-cap. Consider these when you are over come with GAS ;)

Quite a few of my friends have commented on this video and I understand why they will go with the Streichfett because it's available and it sounds good. As they know I have a Logan String Melody II and in the mix it sounds great. I have used VST string instrument emulations and when I compare the sound of the final mix the Logan String Melody II wins every time for me. The Streichfett is great if you can't get a vintage string synth but if there is a choice the vintage one wins

clicking through string synth videos and hearing 'ay-up'. caught me very of guard.

you've got me sold on the waldorf. thanks

Biggest and only streichfett problem: the ensemble modulation depth is far to much. Would be easy to fix with another firmware Version. 😢

Nice comparison! Streichfett is an homage to classic string machines, but I'd be happy to see a new, touch sensitive version, switchable between fixed and sensitive response. That feature would've made that little box even more amazing.

Actually, Streichfett sounds pretty good, different good. And it does more sounds than shown here. Logan sounds good, too

Great to have such comparison side by side however, in my opinion the unit doesn't have that subtle 'soul' presence like the original does. Would rather stick to my vintage polysix and run it through keystone phaser for that vintage stringer sound rather than buy this

hmmm interesting. The old machine`s OSC`s sounds more rounded in the mid n bottom ends whilst the effects sound more Lo-Fi than the Waldorf module although on a machines like these that actually sounds better methinks

Great review nice to hear a northern accent on here.

The volume of the Streichfett is lower than the Logan here, which gives it less punch. One thing also: you did not mention some of the blending possibilities of the Streichfett that can really make it sound very rich , it’s not just 2 by 2.

Dissapointing sound from the Streichfett. It's okay but really doesn't sound much like the Logan.

This is a very honest comparing video. Well done 👍

have you tried the Waldorf STVC?

its streich-fett, not strikefett

There is a sort of digital noise/distortion when the fett is played. Sound is not colder, it just has like extra digital dithering or something...

Thanks a lot for this, basically, most differences are due to the effects...if one gets a good phaser / chorus and the Streichfett .... here we go...

So I want to achieve something very similar to what you've done here. Only I want to use the streichfett with the DSI PROPHET 08, and or my Prophet 12 so how are you playing the streichfett thru the DSI MOPHO? How have you connected the two? And what setting is the MOPHO on to play the streichfett ?

Very useful demo. Thanks for this.

QuirqUK.What string machine do you think sounds more similar to the Streichfett? The Arp solina or the Logan SM ?Thanks for the video!!!

waldorf sounds distant, logan sounds more present. waldorf seems to have some delay or reverb.

They sound the same to me

7:38 Wow

Close but no cigar. If it's trying to copy, then it fails, but if it's to approximate old string machines, then it scrapes in. The Logan is brighter, crisper, and those higher frequencies are what the ensemble works best with.

Interesting how at 9.40 the Logan's ensemble creates phase cancellation which make it slightly lighter than the Waldorf, though when both switched off the Logan sound is slightly bassier. Nice comparison. It would be interesting to test other old string machines too, however, the Waldorf is very good for a little portable box. Great tech video, thank you.

do you sing? your speaking voice sounds exactly like boy george

night and day

Hard to even really compare when the old one sounds so much better...

Take the same cheesy sound, divide it up / down 1 or 2 octaves and call it “violin”, “viola”, and “cello”. That’s cheapness! I like how you pronounce “ Streichfett”, btw: “strike fat”. :D Good review anyway.

Logan sound is airy, open, full, very natural and analogue, Waldorf is a china toy with bad, chemical, unnatural and bored digital sound. Nothing more than a cheap toy for everyone. Logan is a holy grail for best musicians with SOUL.