Waldorf micro-q?

[Soundastic]

A reputable european music store sells them for 395 euros...now, I am very tempted, but I would like to hear some impressions on it first from those who used it, and also opinions on what/if VSTs could replace it? I have XPhrase and Rapture...would those be similar?

[Yoozer]

Possible replacement : Terratec Komplexer (it can read Micro Q patches). See http://www.keys.de/terrateckomplexer.0.html

 

I found rgc z3ta+ to sound pretty Q-ish in some aspects. It lacks the wavetables, however.

 

I bought the Micro Q when it was released. Later on, I sold it and got a "full" Q rack instead. The differences between these are well-documented:

 

 

aeon must've typed this out a thousand times The Q has 16 fixed voices, expandable to 32 fixed voices, whereas the Micro Q has a variable voice count based on DSP load such that the basic configuration is up to 25 voices, typically 12 in use, expandable to a potential 75 voices. The Q features a step sequencer with 100 editable patterns, whereas the Micro Q does not. The Q features a card slot for additional data storage, whereas the Micro Q does not. The Q features a S/PDIF output, whereas the Micro Q does not. The Q features 2 switch inputs (e.g. Sustain Pedal, Gate In etc.) and/or 2 CV inputs (e.g. Foot Pedal, external controller etc.), whereas the Micro Q does not. The Q features a built-in universal voltage power supply, whereas the Micro Q makes use of an external power supply in the form of a wall wart/line lump. The Q features 2 filters with continuously variable (between serial/parallel) routing, whereas the Micro Q features 2 filters with switchable (between serial/parallel) routing. The Q features an emulation of the classic SSM 2044 VCF, whereas the Micro Q does not. The Q features Xphorm, a means by which you may smoothly morph between any two patches, whereas the Micro Q does not. The Q features HMT realtime tuning, whereas the Micro Q does not. The Q features a pattern-based tap delay, whereas the Micro Q does not. The Q features 2 effects per channel for the first 4 channels in multimode where each slot may be any of the available effects, whereas the Micro Q features 1 effect per channel for the first 4 channels in multimode combined with a single global aux effect. When the MicroQ is in single mode it features 2 effects for the sound. The sound of the Q and Micro Q is not exactly the same for patches that utilize the exact same structure because the codebase for the Micro Q is different.

 

 

The sound?

 

http://www.theheartcore.com/music/qtable2.mp3

[Soundastic]

Thanks Yoozer,

I think that Komplexer is not out yet, though it's advertised as so....

I currently have no hardware synth, I sold everything and went the VST route....which I kind of regret now ....so I was looking for ONE good hardware synth...the uQ seeded a fine choice...i was looking in the varios too...

The Komplexer is interesting too because of the announced Area 61

[niacin]

check Mr Trippler's site for sounds. I would describe it as "liquid". Some have said "harsh and digital". YMMV.

 

http://www.trippler.net/music/Waldorf_microQ/waldorf_microq.html

 

note that the MicroQ keyboard has a universal 110/220v kettle cord power supply rather than the wall wart of the rack version.

 

As for the Komplexer and Area 61 board I am interested in them as a replacement for my MicroQ but there has been no news or any sign of a release of either product since Musikmesse.

[StompBoxLover]

also:

 

http://www.surroundsfx.com/kxlib.html

 

showing of it's slightly demented, yet benign side.