MKS-50 and Matrix 1000 - Anyone own both?

[Lava Lamp]

It's been a year since I posted a thread looking for suggestions on a cheap analog polysynth. The Matrix 1000 and MKS-70 were in my budget and I ended up winning a Matrix this past summer on eBay.

 

Well since it looks like the MKS-70 has increased significantly in value since then, I've been on the lookout for the single DCO MKS-50. I found one on the Bay and it should be arriving within the next couple of weeks.

 

For the people that have owned both, what are the differences in sound? I've read all the reviews at HC and Synth Site, just looking for some more opinions from the veterans.

 

Thanks.

[gilwe]

Are you refering to the differece between MKS-50 and MKS-70 ?

 

I own the MKS-70 and owned an Alpha Juno 1 which is the keyboard version of the MKS-50, AFAIK.

 

They are very different in sound. I mean not SO different, they are both Roland DCO based synths, but the Alpha Juno 1 sounds much less refined to me. I can do very nive Roland strings, brasses and basses, but the MKS-70 is a whole world of sound colors !! Actually, not many synths are as versatile as the MKS-70. While Alpha Juno are really considered at the bottom level of Roland Ananlogs, I find the MKS-70 just at the top with the Jupiter 8 !

 

So, yes, they are different. Get a MKS-70.

 

BTW, if you were refering to the Matrix, well, I got the Matrix 6R as well (which is supposed to have the same sound as the 1000), and again, I like the MKS-70 better. I haven't managed to program the 6R very much, but I can say the MKS-70 attracts me much more, being more gentle and again, refined

 

The MKS-70 proves that DCO can act like an advantage in some cases, and not a disadvantage as compared to VCO's as I guess much of the MKS-70 clarity is a result of the DCO.

[Sealed]

I have an Alpha JUNO-1 (MKS-50 keyboard), MKS-70 and Matrix-1000.

 

If you like deeply synthesized sounds, go for Matrix. It's a great DCO analog synthesizer, and I especially like the Filter-FM feature that creates various kind of effective, distorting atmospheric sounds.

 

Alpha JUNO-1 is a very simple synth, but its single but multiple-wave oscillator gives very fat sounds, combined with the good analog filter.

 

MKS-70 has synthetically better features - 2DCO, 12-polyphonic and XMOD/Sync. Easy to use and versatile enough.

 

Both MKS has the great Roland chorus - it makes anything fat.

[gilwe]

Are you using any controller to program the Matrix ?

 

Any recommended software controller/editor for it ?

 

 

Thanks

[idiotboy]

...you might already know that SoundDiver can edit the Matrix. There's no release version of SD for Mac OSX though.

 

There are also presets for the Peavey PC1600 MIDI controller box on this page.

[Don Solaris]

I have/had all of them. Let me explain it in a different way:

 

Alpha Juno - a real bad boy, mostly doing nasty (and unique) stuff - including the legendary Hoover.

MKS70 - a shy girl, innocent and beautiful.

Matrix 1000 - a Druid, capable of doing a lot of spells & magic other analogs can only dream of. As a real Druid, requires a lot of education / meditation before first results appear.

 

I've seen people dropping their Matrix 6R / 1000 for dirt cheap just because they got tired of presets. Forget the presets. If you don't plan to spend at least 6 months learning Matrix, i guess it is best to look elsewhere.

[gilwe]

Do you guys know a source on the net where the Matrix technique is well explored, showing how to program and use the Matrixes to their max ?

[Don Solaris]

Originally posted by gilwe Do you guys know a source on the net where the Matrix technique is well explored, showing how to program and use the Matrixes to their max ?

AFAIK no such page. It would take a book - pretty thick one.

 

I remember in 1995 i bought Matrix 6R and made most of sounds without thinking too much of what i was doing. This is completely wrong approach. There were two reasons for this: 1) didn't had the manual 2) wasnt interested in synthesis. Later i even sold it.

 

Few months ago i rememberd of Matrix and the fact i never explored this machine. I downloaded Matrix 6R manual, carefully examined it and got so excited realizing what "tools" this thing has inside. I bought one on eBay for 180$. I was so excited that i started writing patches on a piece of paper, weeks before it actually arrived.

 

In short - if you got interest / fascination in synthesis, you don't need "technique" book. All you need is to learn the manual (what is OSC Sync, FM, ramp, tracking generator, etc.) and think of Matrix as expressing tool for your programming ideas.

[Lancaster]

Originally posted by gilwe Do you guys know a source on the net where the Matrix technique is well explored, showing how to program and use the Matrixes to their max ?

 

Here's some Matrix 1000 stuff:

Editor:

http://www.squest.com/Windows/Instruments/matrix1000/

 

Editor:

http://home.hccnet.nl/mark.strijbos/syn/m2001/

 

Very old editor:

http://www.harmony-central.com/Software/Windows/matrixed.html

 

New OSX editor ! :

 

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/audio/matrix1000programmer.html

 

Owner's manual:

http://www.vintagesynth.com/index2.html

 

more stuff:

http://www.physicsenterprises.andrews.edu/~clark/emusic/oberheim/matrix1k.html

 

Lots more groovy M1000 stuff out there. As you can tell, I'm a fan of it, it's still a favorite after all these years.

 

[grumphh]

About the Matrix 1000/6r:

 

I own it, and yes, it does have many possibilities for sound shaping, but on the other hand personally i feel that the filter (and possibly the sound) is lacking in "depth".

 

That means, i think it is great for "electronic" stuff with all the modulation possibilities and the two oscillators, but lacks the immediately "friendly" sounds you get from the Juno (i used to own a 106 once, so that's what i base my impression on.)

 

So to me they are more or less equal, but just good at doing different things, so i guess it comes down to what sort of sounds you want from your synths.

Roland cheesy juicyness, or dryer electronic tones...

[clusterchord]

mks50/aJuno can do hoover, some nice reso organs and organ-like polysynths with those harmonics from extra waveforms, but FAT it aint under any circumstances. a single envelope and single oscillator wouldnt pose a problem (like on axxe), if the filter n oscillator werent so weak.

 

i had one for yrs (aJuno2) and it must have the lamest thinnest analog strings i've ever heard.

 

 

go M1000 instead, or Matrix6R or MKS70.

[Mook]

Agreed. I had an MKS50 and a Juno 60 it is not!

 

Can't say I've had either of the Matrix, though I'd think for the money you can't go wrong.

 

Recent 6R's I've seen for sale in the UK haven't been alot more than 1000's so I might pick one up for some analogue poly duties...

[Don Solaris]

 

Originally posted by Mook Agreed. I had an MKS50 and a Juno 60 it is not!

 

Well i managed to pull out Solina sounding string out of Alpha Juno:

 

http://www.rolandsynthesis.com/tmp/AlphaString_DRY.mp3

[jonashton]

What you're getting in either case (MKS, JUNO, or Matrix 1000) are analog oscillators that are digitally tuned. Having owned a Roland Jupiter-8, I appreciate all too well a board that stays in tune and doesn't weight a ton. What gives them their individual character are the filters and modulation capabilities. I looked at the MKS-50 and MKS-70 to add to my rig and layer with my Matrix 1000's but I didn't see that adding other DCO based poly synth to my Oberheims would add anything to them. This is especially considering that the Matrix 1000 has far more modulation capabilities than the Rolands.

 

I have 6 white faced Matrix 1000's that I control with an Oberheim XK controller and I layer sounds from a Yamaha FS1R (wicked awesome machine) across the multiple zones of the XK. I use a Kurzweil K2661 for everything else. For mono/leads I have a Frostwave Filter that I use with one of the Matrix 1000's and the FS1R and I usually have 1 zone of the XK set aside for basses and lead sounds that I mangle with the Frostwave.

 

With six M1K's I can set each of them to unison and chain them together to play a 6 note chord. That's 12 DCO's stacked on each key and there is nothing that FAT on the market aside from the Oberheim Xpanders and 6 Xpanders would cost a fortune compared to 6 Matrix 1000's, not to mention the space they would take up. With multiple Matrix 1000's you have so many options for layering and splitting up to a 36 voice mega analog or even set each unit in unison and layer all 6 for a mono sound of 36 voices or 72 oscillators on 1 note. I've read that you can also group any 6 voice synth with the Matrix 1000's group mode so you could possibly do that with the MKS-50 as well.

 

The MKS-50 is a good sounding synth and they are cheaper than the Matrix 1000's. You'd get more polyphony for the $ by going after a MSK-70 for just a little more money than the 50. Important thing to remember is that you have different filters so you'll get a Roland and Oberheim sound with the ability to layer them together for your own unique textures and soundscapes.

[Don Solaris]

Originally posted by jonashton With six M1K's I can set each of them to unison and chain them together to play a 6 note chord. That's 12 DCO's stacked on each key and there is nothing that FAT on the market

That's pretty sick....

[grumphh]

Originally posted by jonashton What you're getting in either case (MKS, JUNO, or Matrix 1000) are analog oscillators that are digitally tuned. Having owned a Roland Jupiter-8, I appreciate all too well a board that stays in tune and doesn't weight a ton. What gives them their individual character are the filters and modulation capabilities. I looked at the MKS-50 and MKS-70 to add to my rig and layer with my Matrix 1000's but I didn't see that adding other DCO based poly synth to my Oberheims would add anything to them. This is especially considering that the Matrix 1000 has far more modulation capabilities than the Rolands. I have 6 white faced Matrix 1000's that I control with an Oberheim XK controller and I layer sounds from a Yamaha FS1R (wicked awesome machine) across the multiple zones of the XK. I use a Kurzweil K2661 for everything else. For mono/leads I have a Frostwave Filter that I use with one of the Matrix 1000's and the FS1R and I usually have 1 zone of the XK set aside for basses and lead sounds that I mangle with the Frostwave. With six M1K's I can set each of them to unison and chain them together to play a 6 note chord. That's 12 DCO's stacked on each key and there is nothing that FAT on the market aside from the Oberheim Xpanders and 6 Xpanders would cost a fortune compared to 6 Matrix 1000's, not to mention the space they would take up. With multiple Matrix 1000's you have so many options for layering and splitting up to a 36 voice mega analog or even set each unit in unison and layer all 6 for a mono sound of 36 voices or 72 oscillators on 1 note. I've read that you can also group any 6 voice synth with the Matrix 1000's group mode so you could possibly do that with the MKS-50 as well. The MKS-50 is a good sounding synth and they are cheaper than the Matrix 1000's. You'd get more polyphony for the $ by going after a MSK-70 for just a little more money than the 50. Important thing to remember is that you have different filters so you'll get a Roland and Oberheim sound with the ability to layer them together for your own unique textures and soundscapes.

Welcome back ADSR

 

Oh, and by the way, you gave me a great idea: Finally having a JP 8 and hearing its nice sound i i'll strive to accquire 11 more of these so that i can put them in unison and have a six-voice duotimbral monster synth...

Now all i need is a 6" tape with the corresponding recorder to capture that sound in all its glory

 

[Lava Lamp]

Thanks for all the replies.

 

Well I got the MKS-50 this past Friday, so I can directly compare it to my Matrix 1000.

 

The sound is similiar to my Novation Super Bass Station, it cannot get nearly as fat as the Matrix 1000. It's low end just isn't as deep and full. Overall the sound is thinner with less depth than the Matrix 1k.

 

The filter is a little more luquidy squishy sounding than the Matrix 1k's dryer sounding filter, but the Matrix filter has a lot more range. Both synth's filters aren't that exciting.

 

The chorus is nice for widening things but it does have an annoying out-of-phase flanging thing going on in the background.

 

One thing about the Matrix that is slightly annoying is the buzziness of it's overall sound that cannot be removed, and I don't mean humming or low s/n ratio.

 

Overall, it certainly sounds more musical than than most of the VAs I've used, but I like the Matrix a little more.

 

Sucks the M1k cannot be controlled from the frontpanel. I use Matrix 2000 and Jlib editors, and when altering a software parameter, there is always a slightly delay. Anyone else experience this? Routing CCs to the Mod Matrix is the only way around this, it seems, though not really the same thing.

[jonashton]

Originally posted by grumphh Welcome back ADSR Oh, and by the way, you gave me a great idea: Finally having a JP 8 and hearing its nice sound i i'll strive to accquire 11 more of these so that i can put them in unison and have a six-voice duotimbral monster synth... Now all i need is a 6" tape with the corresponding recorder to capture that sound in all its glory

 

 

Ok I can take a joke and even sarcasm but your comment is ridiculous. Since you're into sarcasm why don't you direct your comments to Tom Oberheim who designed the Matrix 1000's and the Xpanders with the capability of being grouped together. Or better yet, why not direct your sarcasm to Dave Smith who designed the evolvers and poly evolver racks with the capability of being chained together to increase the voice count. Or if you're even more bold, call up Clavia and tell them that putting the capability in the Nord Lead 3 to stack all of it's voices in unison was a bad idea.

[clusterchord]

 

With six M1K's I can set each of them to unison and chain them together to play a 6 note chord. That's 12 DCO's stacked on each key and there is nothing that FAT on the market aside from the Oberheim Xpanders and 6 Xpanders

 

 

this "strenght in numbers" rhetoric, when it comes to analogs, is totally absurd. sounds like argumentation for pissing match - talking about number of oscillators per note reminds me of high school kids discussing horse power on speedcars or who s got a longer .

 

where in the hell are u gonna find musical use for playing 12DCOper note, and polyphonically at that ? talk about massive overkill.

 

Unison as a function in general, and overstressing its importance is nothing but pure hype. out of 100 different musical applications, when using analogics, it comes into play maybe five times. very little to do with real musical value of the instrument.

 

a well designed VCO is fat and rich by itself - look at old moogs or some old rolands. them don't need a bloddy unison or doubling to put out something of substance.. sound of a good quality single VCO is beautiful. contrary to the popular logic, two VCOs or more aint "better", they're just a different sound, "better" for different applications. (of course, some weaker osc do need at least two to put out anything acceptable). so, if a single oscillator sounds good and "fat" - then the synth is fat. so matrix1000 cannot enter that arena even if it had twice as much dcos.

 

 

btw, as far as DCO unison is concerned, you gotta be aware VCOs have one huge advantage there - they don't show all the nasty uniform beatings coming from fixed ratios of unison detune that create resonant peaks/walleys, because each of the VCOs has a little life on its own, so you get effect of "diffusion" or, using buzzword lingo, you get huge fatness. so i'll take a unison on a VCO than on a DCO any time.

[grumphh]

Originally posted by clusterchord this "strenght in numbers" rhetoric, when it comes to analogs, is totally absurd. sounds like argumentation for pissing match - talking about number of oscillators per note reminds me of high school kids discussing horse power on speedcars or who s got a longer . .... a well designed VCO is fat and rich by itself - look at old moogs or some old rolands. them don't need a bloddy unison or doubling to put out something of substance. .... so i'll take a unison on a VCO than on a DCO any time.

Yup to the first one

 

But to the second one i can say that the JP4 in some cases benefits from the unison - as opposed to using its chorus. It gets a very powerful sound indeed.

 

And a "hell yeah" to the last snippet. Unison on my DCO synths is not particularly nice, and i actually only discovered the usefullness of unison when i got the JP4

[Lava Lamp]

Okay, so what's an inexpensive analog polysynth with VCOs? I don't think such a thing exists, maybe some obscure Siel or that Voyetra 8 I see sometimes on eBay?

 

My only experience with analogs is with these synths with DCOs - Super Bass Station, MKS-50, and the Matrix 1000 (my fave of the 3, in both flexibility and sound quality).

 

Virtual Analogs definately have their advantages, but the only ones that sound somewhat analog IMO are the Nord Modular and the Alesis Ion. But both of those synths still don't have that almost 3D depth that even the Matrix 1000 has. (Never tried the Virus, but I've tried all of the cheaper VAs.)

 

So what's a good analog polysynth with VCOs?

[grumphh]

 

Originally posted by Lava Lamp Okay, so what's an inexpensive analog polysynth with VCOs? I don't think such a thing exists, maybe some obscure Siel or that Voyetra 8 I see sometimes on eBay? My only experience with analogs is with these synths with DCOs - Super Bass Station, MKS-50, and the Matrix 1000 (my fave of the 3, in both flexibility and sound quality). Virtual Analogs definately have their advantages, but the only ones that sound somewhat analog IMO are the Nord Modular and the Alesis Ion. But both of those synths still don't have that almost 3D depth that even the Matrix 1000 has. (Never tried the Virus, but I've tried all of the cheaper VAs.) So what's a good analog polysynth with VCOs?

Hey, you don't need VCO's to have a good sounding synth - often it's just a different flavour, and as mentioned, VCO's behave slightly different from DCO's when in unison.

A good DCO synth will sound better than a cheap VCO synth, so it isn't that simple.

 

But an all time cheap classic VCO synth is of course the Korg Polysix, but then again, that one only has one VCO per voice and very few modulation options so it does limit your sound shaping options. Usually two VCO's per voice (and modulation options) tend to take you into higher price territory...

[clusterchord]

 

Originally posted by Lava Lamp Okay, so what's an inexpensive analog polysynth with VCOs? I don't think such a thing exists, maybe some obscure Siel or that Voyetra 8 I see sometimes on eBay?

it exists. Prophet 600 and Chroma Polaris are two examples. then you got the little 3octave AKAI VX600 (using the same analog chips as polaris and xpander)

 

for gentler, and smoother sound you can check out the almost entirely discrete based Jupiter 4.

 

also, for a little bit more (but still under a grand) you can get Jupiter 6. again, versy versatile and powerful analog, especially considering the going rate.

 

then, in rack, you got MKS80 Rev4 and Rev5, if bought wihtout the programmer board, they go well under a grand too.

 

 

without getting further in detail, most of them sound different from one another, there's a lot of info and demos on this forum for each of them, if u use the search function a bit. for demos go to our kss synth demo thread.

 

(Voyetra 8 goes for 1.5 to even 2k. its a very capable polyphonic, but the price is also dictated by it being an extreme rarity)

 

Originally posted by Lava Lamp So what's a good analog polysynth with VCOs?

that depends on how much money u can afford to spend, and what type of sound you're looking for. various jupiters, oberheims, prophets, yamaha cs.. you cant go wrong with any of them..

[Lava Lamp]

Good suggestions, but I only have space for rack synths. Knobs would be helpful, but I don't necessarily need them.

 

I guess maybe the MKS-80 is the best bet.

 

I tried to be happy with a Supernova II Rack, but even that didn't sounds as good as the Matrix 1000. I think the Micro Q sounds better anyway.

 

Thanks again.

[clusterchord]

cool. remember two revisions sound different..

 

in short, if you want punch, bass, cutting sounds for seqenced/arpeggiated lines, leads, go Rev4. if you want warmth, nice strings/pads and rich polysynth sound, go Rev5.

 

both are nice.

 

 

if u cant afford/find a programmer, there are other options like standalone UI boxes a la Peavey 1600, Behringers etc, or, you can just use a software editor. there are several avail on th enet, and - free.