Does Komplexer replace a Q 100% ?

I did a little search and apart from digging deep into threads I didn't find anything too elaborative.

I miss my Q. So I was thinking of picking up either a Micro Q or perhaps my first VSTi in quite some time - Komplexer.

From Trippler's demos I notice that Komplexer seems less trashy and aggressive sounding. Is this an accurate assessment?

Stefan, you say Komplexer has replaced your Micro Q in the studio - are you happy with this?

I think so. The frequency curve seems to be a little different. In opposite to the hardware you can however deactivate the bass boost if you want the higher frequency ranges to be accentuated.

Not sure if my statement in these terms is of any value. I fear you must ask people who really make music combining different synths I still use the microQ live and because Komplexer is on the PC I haven't rackmounted it so far between the sessions.

The special frequency response of the mQ makes it quite assertive even at lower levels in a session where most others use analog gear or more grumbly sounding VAs. It's always good for some silvery pads, even the basses, that might appear weak if played solo, sound quite goog in a band context.

Because I don't have a laptop I couldn't test Komplexer live so far.

I don't however miss the mQ's wicked multimode with it's various limitations in the studio. here the Komplexer offers clearly more comfort.

Thanks Stefan. I guess the other folks here got rid of Komplexer. Must not be that good.

Nothing can replace a Q! Long Live The Q!!

^ That had BETTER be foamy cider.

^ That had BETTER be foamy cider.

Of course.

Blimey, the wife!

Don't you have Komplexer Pighood?

Alas, no....I have a m*c.

Hardware has a lot of advantages - the Q/microQ are two of them.

I tried a demo of Komplexer a while back and thought it was OK, but no replacement for the real deal.

If I had the choice between Komplexer or no Q emulation at all, I'd take the Komplexer. But the Q, and especially the micro-q can be had easily enough, and I'm pretty biased towards hardware.

There's always the Blofeld to wait for too.

I can't imagine what sort of DSP hit a true Q emulation would produce...

Komplexer sounds REALLY REALLY good, it is fantastic.

I would imagine it would, but it wouldn't have nearly as many mod possibilities as the real item.

Not that much if coded properly. The Q is only 3 Motorola 56303's if I remember correctly, 1 of which is dedicated to the FX, so there's only 2 used on the synth engine. A quad core Intel could beat the crap out of that many times over, even running an OS on top of it.

Of course, having code run well on Intel platforms is a seperate art to coding for Motorola DSP's. Korg can certainly manage impressive levels of polyphony for their stuff, and Novation did ok too. Although Komplexer isn't terrible for CPU usage, it's not that good either. I think they could do better there. But you get the impression that Komplexer was done to keep some cash rolling in between bankruptcies, and that spending lots of time to get CPU gains wasn't their top priority. I don't know what sales figures are like either, but it seems like Terratec have done a fairly poor job of marketing it too.

As for the sound, ignoring the fact that converters will change the sound somewhat, it seems pretty close to the Q sound to me. Close enough that I'd have no interest in the Q at least. But I've never A/B'd them..

I can't even demo Komplexer, since it's peecee only.

Intel Mac? Then you have a PC.. Bootcamp or VMWare Fusion (supposedly a lot better than Parallels) www.vmware.com/products/fusion/

Pre-Intel. Can't afford to upgrade for the foreseeable future.

WTF is that other stuff? Bootcamp, etc...whaa?

Bootcamp is Apples free product. http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/

It creates a boot loader that lets you select between Windows and Mac when you start the computer. So you can choose to load Windows instead, and it'll be just like you owned a PC with Windows.

Fusion/Parallels take advantage of technology on newer Intel CPU's to run a virtual OS with minimal slow down. That means you can launch Windows on OSX and use it like it were a Mac application.. so you can use both at the same time. From a latency/CPU usage angle Bootcamp would be better, but you wouldn't be able to use OSX at the same time with that (well, in theory you could by loading a hacked OSX inside VMWare on Windows, but that's another matter!)

Thanks for the info. By the time I get around to upgrading, those products will be long long LONG in the tooth.

Thanks for the info. By the time I get around to upgrading, those products will be long long LONG in the tooth.

But, on the positive side, so will the CPU's. So you'll maybe be up to 8 and dual 16 (2x8) core systems within the next 2 years.

Along with speed comes price tag. For the time being, I'll make do with my lowly G5...and my yellow thing.