Talk me out of buying an Andromeda A6

[soundwave106]

Its one of the very few synths ever made that became somewhat famous for its problems, glitches and such. A whole forum comm was created just to try to help owners deal with its glitches and problems. For its price thats just unnacceptable imo.

 

Eh, the A6 isn't that buggy. I think that the A6's problems was more noted because more synthesizer enthusiasts got into it at first, so all the warts were exposed. With the current OS, a lot of the "bugs" are very esoteric and not something you'd encounter often, or at least are something that you can work around. I've had much, much buggier synths.

 

Theres a very good reason to just say NO. Get a high end synth that was released as a reliable synth for users from the very start. Wether thats a Waldorf, Nord lead 3, or other. (But not Access's replacement for the Virus cause it too was glitch and problem filled when released.

 

Ah, you weren't around for the early, buggy Waldorf Q OSs.

[droolmaster0]

 

Its one of the very few synths ever made that became somewhat famous for its problems, glitches and such. A whole forum comm was created just to try to help owners deal with its glitches and problems. For its price thats just unnacceptable imo. Alesis had been in bussiness long enough making good hardware synths that they should never have released Adromeda untill the problems where corrected. Theres a very good reason to just say NO. Get a high end synth that was released as a reliable synth for users from the very start. Wether thats a Waldorf, Nord lead 3, or other. (But not Access's replacement for the Virus cause it too was glitch and problem filled when released.

 

 

This post is rather silly. So - even if a synth's initial problems have been fixed, we should avoid it for all time? Well, then, people should avoid the Waldorf Q, the Sunsyn, the Virus TI, the Andromeda - and stick to "high end" synths like the Nord Lead 3 ? LOL!

[liveli_hood]

I would have been a fan of A6 at $2150.00. However I did without filters for too long, as to be classified as clueless. The presets may have part of the downfall. The SW hang ups didn't seem to make it any less playable. To be able and tune in a setting with rudimentary knowledge seemed to talk volumes about it's capability, unless the A6 was down to so few sounds. I don't imagine that could be the case with all the people the synth did win over, eventually. Maybe being a light weight, but the criticism seemed over the top. The rumor of financial problems and turning over ownership didn't help, as buyers were holding out for a low price on a synth already made affordable.

[realtrance]

Definitely true! What works for some people will not work for others. I actually like how the layout of the Andromeda works and the modulating options are not actually hard to get into once you get going. The downfall for me was the sound of the Andromeda and the results when tweaking. Having experienced filters from older analogs like my CS-15, Pro-One, and SH-2 and even 80s synths with SSM, CEM and custom filters like my SX-240, SH-101, MKS-50, MKS-70 and SQ-80, I felt the Andromeda's filters were lacking. Couple this with back to back comparisons with the sound of my Mono Evolver desktop -- which the filters sound very warm in comparison to the Andromeda's -- I could not justify keeping it at that price -- though I did get it for a good price from MF for $2150 new. By the way, I am an Alesis synth fan as I have the Fusion and Micron in my sound arsenal. I get along very well with those synths. There is something disappointing about the musicality of the Andromeda filters when tweaked. Indeed the Andromeda is loaded with features and I love this about the synth, but somehow I feel Alesis could have refined the filters a bit to make them sound good. The 24 db filter has such a narrow sweet spot and I don't feel it is as Moogy as the Moog modular it tries to copy. Alesis has put out some really cool products in the past, but they could have done much better with the Andromeda. Having said all that I still need to commend Alesis on trying to be inventive when it might not have been lucrative to do so. I cannot say the same for the other big three synth manufacturers. Roland, Korg and Yamaha would never attempt anything like this.

 

Ah. An expert.

[cosmic.synth]

Ah. An expert.

 

Did I claim I was?

 

The title of this thread is "Talk me out of buying an Andromeda A6".

 

Get off your high horse you freak.

[mildbill]

Even for someone very experienced, two weeks is a very short time to fully explore a synth as complex as the A6.

 

Of course, if the sound of the filters is your main concern, (it sounds like it was), and it turns out you don't like them, then it might be enough time.

 

The filters are very complex though, and can have different sounds depending on how you configure them, whether or not you're using filter FM, feedback, and so on.

[cosmic.synth]

 

Even for someone very experienced, two weeks is a very short time to fully explore a synth as complex as the A6. Of course, if the sound of the filters is your main concern, (it sounds like it was), and it turns out you don't like them, then it might be enough time. The filters are very complex though, and can have different sounds depending on how you configure them, whether or not you're using filter FM, feedback, and so on.

 

 

Yep. The filter is the basis of the sound for me...and it outrightly did not have what I was looking for.

 

It took me only 10 minutes to like the sound of the filters on the Oberheim Matrix-1000 or the Evolver without even delving into the modulation possibilites. I am glad you like your Andromeda, mildbill. Wish I could have liked it.

[droolmaster0]

 

Even for someone very experienced, two weeks is a very short time to fully explore a synth as complex as the A6. Of course, if the sound of the filters is your main concern, (it sounds like it was), and it turns out you don't like them, then it might be enough time. The filters are very complex though, and can have different sounds depending on how you configure them, whether or not you're using filter FM, feedback, and so on.

 

 

There are two very different points here - one is whether one has completely explored and become conversant in all of the features of a synth, and the other is whether one has spent enough time with it to know whether one likes the sound it produces. I'd say that 2 weeks is not a very short time to explore the latter.

[mildbill]

I'm only saying that 2 weeks might not be enough time to know what sounds it's capable of producing.

[droolmaster0]

 

I'm only saying that 2 weeks might not be enough time to know what sounds it's capable of producing.

 

 

Well, that's probably true. But I'm of that attitude that I'd rather have the sweet spot on my synths be a little larger than this tiny little one that I can only find for brief moments when I've become conversant with the most esoteric features of the synth. given that I have a choice, I think I can usually (not always) come to a pretty good opinion within 2 weeks, if I have ample time to spend on it. Sometimes much less time than 2 weeks is needed.

 

Interestingly I think that the Andromeda is probably one that I should have spent more time with before I sold mine. Sometimes gear lust does that to you. I'll probably pick up another one at some point.

[mildbill]

I'm a slow learner. I've had the A6 for over two years now, and I'm still discovering nooks and crannies that can have a significant effect on the sound (filters included).

 

I've had my Q rack for much longer than that, and have barely scratched the surface of it.

 

Sometimes, I'll come up with something that I think sounds great on the A6, and at other times, I'll think to myself 'Damn, I've got VA's that sound better than this'.

 

 

 

Some synths, like the Virus, sound good right away to a lot of people, and while I like the Virus line, it doesn't have anywhere near the depth of the Q or A6.

But it does have a large sweet spot.

 

 

I think there's probably some inverse correlation between the size of the sweet spot and the depth of a synth's architecture.

Large sweet spot = simpler synth that's not as capable of moving away from that spot.

Small sweet spot = complex synth capable of moving far from what's pleasing to the ear.

 

Then again - there's probably a lot of simple synths that people think sound bad too.

[droolmaster0]

I'm a slow learner. I've had the A6 for over two years now, and I'm still discovering nooks and crannies that can have a significant effect on the sound (filters included). I've had my Q rack for much longer than that, and have barely scratched the surface of it. Sometimes, I'll come up with something that I think sounds great on the A6, and at other times, I'll think to myself 'Damn, I've got VA's that sound better than this'. Some synths, like the Virus, sound good right away to a lot of people, and while I like the Virus line, it doesn't have anywhere near the depth of the Q or A6. But it does have a large sweet spot. I think there's probably some inverse correlation between the size of the sweet spot and the depth of its architecture. Large sweet spot = simpler synth that's not as capable of moving away from that spot. Small sweet spot = complex synth capable of moving far from what's pleasing to the ear. Then again - there's probably a lot of simple synths that people think sound bad too.

 

hmmm - to my ears (subjective as they are) the Q has a large sweet spot. I love it's cold, sometimes almost warm at times, German (there is this core sonic similarity in some of these German synths that I like) sound - but it also has a tremendous depth to it - so at least I loved it immediately, but am still learning its subtleties...now with a Q+, which is still mostly the same.

 

I don't think that there is any correlation really between the complexity of a synth and the size of its sweet spot - I do think that complexity can make up for a slightly smaller sweet spot, and sometimes also (to my taste), not enough complexity can sour me on a great sound.

 

I do find though that if there is something in the core sonic character of a synth that annoys me, that, if anything, learning the subtleties of the synth doesn't help much. the damn thing usually still annoys me.

[cosmic.synth]

I wonder why it's often they can't make a complex synth with a large sweet spot.

 

Actually I think my Evolver has a wide sweet spot and as far as modulation possibilites go, it can be as complex as they go. I know there is a lot that goes into a synth's architecture. But when you do the following three things 1) turn off the effects, 2) take away the multiple LFOs keeping only one, 3) use just one or two envelopes and cannot get a satisfying sound when just tweaking the filter and cutoff, then I would say the synth does not agree with you. That's how I went about approaching the Andromeda.

 

I think mildbill is in agreement with me that the Andromeda can sound pretty crappy unless you can dial into that narrow sweet spot. I did notice that if you want to get more of an analog sound on the Andromeda, you need to keep that cutoff very, very low as well as the two offsets, VCF envelope amount and VCO levels all very low. Even then I notice in the upper ranges of the keyboard, you encounter a weird beating effect. I don't even get this from my digital samples on my Ensoniq SQ80 -- I do get artifacts on that synth in the upper ranges -- but with the Andromeda I notice the upper ranges don't sound like my other analogs.

 

For me the sound didn't equal the price. Perhaps I would have kept the Andromeda if it cost $500.

[ChromaLord]

My biggest argument NOT to by an Andromeda is that its an Alesis.

I've never used, owned, or tried a piece of gear from that company that I didn't get the immediate impression I was using a toy.They include the ADAT, DM-PRO, Andromeda, Masterlink and others

[Dave Bryce]

somehow I feel Alesis could have refined the filters a bit to make them sound good.

We thought we did...

 

We spent an extraordinary amount of time on the filters. They were endlessly tweaked, tested and reworked by more than a few of the best designers and programmers in the industry (including forum member Real MC). Most of them seemed to really enjoy them. I remember demoing the 24dB filter for Bob Moog, who had given us guidance on it - he seemed to like it...although I suppose he could have just been being polite....

 

I mean, c'mon - we set out to build an amazingly powerful polyphonic analog synth - one of the nastiest ever...the dream machine of a bunch of lifelong synth weenies...do you really actually think that we forgot to check and see if the filters sounded good?

 

I actually adore the Andromeda's filters - both of them. They're one of my favorite things on the synth - learning how to use the two of them together has become somewhat of an art form for me. However, I've never been a fan of either the Matrix 1000 or the MKS50 at all, so I guess that just goes to show that in the end, taste is entirely relative.

 

I understand that it didn't work for you, but please consider having the perspective that maybe it just didn't appeal to you. That doesn't mean it sucks...it just doesn't appeal to you. Nothing wrong with that.

 

At the end of the day, it's all about what lets you make music.

 

dB

 

Interesting footnote: the design team for Ion/Micron/Fusion and the design team for Andromeda were mostly a different set of people.

[mildbill]

You guys did a great job on the filters. Like I said before, I prefer the 12 db, but it's probably just that I've spent a lot more time with Oberheim stuff than with Moog.

 

It's been a long, long time since I heard a synth and said - 'Man, I don't like the sound of this thing, and I know I won't be able to work with it'.

 

The last thing I remember thinking that about was some type of early single-cycle waveform Ensoniq thing. I also thought that about the Mirage - first time I heard it, I thought it sounded like crap.

 

 

Even then, sometimes those things can grow on you. First demo I heard of the Ion sounded pretty crappy - flat, no character, too 'in your face', etc., etc. But having worked with one for a while, I've grown to really like it.

 

DB: in another thread - http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1904561

 

we were just saying it would be cool if the former Alesis teams could re-group and split off as separate companies.

 

Maybe you guys should make a comeback?

[Dave Bryce]

DB: in another thread - http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1904561 we were just saying it would be cool if the former Alesis teams could re-group and split off as separate companies. Maybe you guys should make a comeback?

Yeah - then we could build the rack version...and the 8 voice version...and the 8 voice rack...

 

Sadly, those teams are kinda scattered (although more than a few of them work for Line 6 and M-Audio now). The Clan Synth folks are all over the place...although we did just manage to get together for dinner at NAMM last month.

 

dB

[cosmic.synth]

I understand that it didn't work for you, but please consider having the perspective that maybe it just didn't appeal to you . That doesn't mean it sucks...it just doesn't appeal to you. Nothing wrong with that. At the end of the day, it's all about what lets you make music.

Dave, I really tried to like it, honestly. I never said the Andromeda sucks, just that the sound and filters did not agree with me. I understand you and the development team put a lot of hard work into the Andromeda to get it right. Take solace in knowing that perhaps 99% of the folks who have an Andromeda like it, and I am probably in that 1%. I know you helped in the Evolver's development also. I love the Evolver! Somehow the Evolver got the filter that I like and the Andromeda did not. It's true the sound of the Andromeda did not appeal to me. This thread is about talking someone out of buying an Andromeda, so I did not just start a thread to bash Alesis or the Andromeda -- in fact, I have and dig the Fusion and Micron. I can say my opinions are based on me having played and used the Andromeda for two weeks, and I did not just throw out the usual *yada yada yada* about all the bug fixes, reliability issues, etc. that people generally do who have not played the instrument. The sound of the filter is what I did not like on the Andromeda and I was comparing it to the filters on synths that I do like -- CS-15, SH-2, SH-101, Perfourmer, Matrix-1000, MKS-50, MKS-70, DW-8000. Anyways, happy synthesizing!

[Dave Bryce]

I never said the Andromeda sucks, just that the sound and filters did not agree with me.

Mmmm...not exactly....although it is true that you didn't use the actual word "sucks".

 

I wouldn't have said anything at all had you not written the line about how we "could have refined the filters a bit to make them sound good". That's what caused my post. I have a big problem when I see someone suggesting that there's empirically something wrong with something they don't like....which, unless I'm missing something (always possible) is what that sentence very clearly states.

 

We went out of our way to make the filters sound good. IIRC, that may be one of the aspects of the synth on which we spent the most time.

 

I understand you and the development team put a lot of hard work into the Andromeda to get it right. Take solace in knowing that perhaps 99% of the folks who have an Andromeda like it, and I am probably in that 1%.

Oh, it's more than 1%, I'm sure...but then again, nobody makes an instrument that eveerybody likes...not that I've found, anyway.

 

The ones that always make me shake my head are the people who say it has no low end or that the presets suck. It has a ton of low end (yeah, like we would miss that ), and the presets are meant to represent all sorts of musical styles to show off the possibilities of the instrument. It's not meant to be dependent on it's presets, is it?

 

Speaking of which - for those of you who may not know it, the preset banks can be overwritten. You can't store/write an individual program, but you can do a custom user bank, and then copy that over either of the preset banks...

 

dB

[soundwave106]

The ones that always make me shake my head are the people who say it has no low end or that the presets suck. It has a ton of low end (yeah, like we would miss that ), and the presets are meant to represent all sorts of musical styles to show off the possibilities of the instrument. It's not meant to be dependent on it's presets, is it?

 

Speaking of someone with a preset or two in the current bank, in hindsight there are gaps in the presets even as demo material. A few dry sounds would've been nice, same with a few more "simple" analog sounds. Probably a few gee-whiz trance sounds would sell the synth better these days, but hey, what can you do.

 

On another forum, someone challenged the synth bass worthiness of the A6 by pointing to a song with a simple, dry, single osc square wave+sub bass type sound (of which I responded with a similar enough patch)... it seems to surprise that person, for all its gadgetry, the A6 does a pretty good version of this.

[Darkstorm]

The andromeda can be a great synth. But poster wanted reasons not to buy. Lol. Anyway, the numerous glitches it had when I was ready and able to buy expensive synth is what prevented me from getting one and getting a Access Virus KC 61 key synth instead.

[cosmic.synth]

Mmmm...not exactly....although it is true that you didn't use the actual word "sucks". I wouldn't have said anything at all had you not written the line about how we "could have refined the filters a bit to make them sound good" . That's what caused my post. I have a big problem when I see someone suggesting that there's empirically something wrong with something they don't like....which, unless I'm missing something (always possible) is what that sentence very clearly states. We went out of our way to make the filters sound good. IIRC, that may be one of the aspects of the synth on which we spent the most time. Oh, it's more than 1%, I'm sure...but then again, nobody makes an instrument that eveerybody likes...not that I've found, anyway. The ones that always make me shake my head are the people who say it has no low end or that the presets suck. It has a ton of low end (yeah, like we would miss that ), and the presets are meant to represent all sorts of musical styles to show off the possibilities of the instrument. It's not meant to be dependent on it's presets, is it? Speaking of which - for those of you who may not know it, the preset banks can be overwritten. You can't store/write an individual program, but you can do a custom user bank, and then copy that over either of the preset banks... dB

 

I actually complimented the Andromeda for having plenty of low end if you read through all my posts on the subject. There are actually some outstanding presets that I liked on the Andromeda...the ones that sounded like Vangelis-type CS-80 emulations and there were a couple of very meaty and Moogy bass presets. On the whole I could have done without all the effects drenched patches and those arpeggiator influenced ones. There were way too many of them. I thought they could have thrown in more choir type patches and definitely more Tomita type vocal sounds. The Andromeda purports to mimic that Moog Modular filter and I did not hear any of that. On the whole, the Andromeda filters (as I thought and you can disagree with me here) neither emulated a good Oberheim or Moog sound except for a few bass patches.

[cosmic.synth]

A lot of Roland or softer sounding synths in there. The Andromeda can do that, sort of, with some modulation tricks but it takes a *lot* of work. Incidentally, to show how tastes differ, I never really used the Matrix 1000 much when I had it (though I didn't mind it, it just didn't inspire). Synths like the MKS-80, that I actually didn't care for much, some praise. I like the Waldorf Pulse and you hear people slag that for one reason or another. Go figure, eh?

Yeah all the synths I listed have that vintage character. The Andromeda has some interesting filters...though I felt it did not have that essence of an analog filter that I'm used to. I am not the only one to feel this way about those filters.

[synthetica]

Interesting thing about the A6, I remember reading this a while back on one ogf the synth forums. Someone at the time was complaining about the filter sounds of the A6 not sounding Moog enough or squelchy enough for their tastes. It turned out this person didn't realize there were different routings for the filters or different types. He was just playing a preset and turning the cutoff knob. As soon as others clue'd him in and once he learned how to actually "use" the filters of the A6, it was then he realized he could get the Moog like filter sounds he was after and thought the synth then sounded great. Just thought this was appropriate for the conversation here.

[pighood]

I don't understand why some people want the A6 to be something it's not. It's plenty sufficient at what it does on its own. That's why it shall remain in my studio until The Four Horsemen arrive.