Surely Pearlman helped them before he passed.
Korg isn’t even in the name of the ARP 2600 Reissue. They resurrected them.
It’s ironic to be calling out someone else for their interest in a 70s synth clone when you are defending a 70s synth clone.coolshirtdotjpg wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:59 pmNot all of us want to cosplay 70s prog rock.
As someone with a Synthi reissue, a Minimoog reissue, a big 5U system, and a Korg 2600 on order, I found that really funny.
Synthbaron's probably correct. The 3620 electronics and MIDI interface are already on the 6Upanel, so there's no need to sell a KBD with this.
Korg expressly denied that there would be a 2600 mini to follow the full size. Beware of GS threads where things get twisted and distorted over 100 pages plus. What starts out a hypothetical more often than not becomes something seen as true. Gotta read ALL the pages to see the evolution if you really want to get as close to truth as possible on an internet forum. And sometimes dive into the supposed 'sources' mentioned. Have done all that, as all things ARP are of interest to me.
Would you care to share the easy explanation?
Agree they've done a nice job on the formfactor and case construction. It's 6U, not 7. The single large panel front prevents ears, but increases overall strength and quality, IMO. As you say, will be easy to put in a more 'vintage' case if desired. It's the classic desktop wedge -or- rack mount we've seen many times before. So no worries for the desktop guys. We've seen this top overlap as a design element on many synths. For example, the phenol. it's not as strange as it once was.blw wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:53 amThis is one of their best panels, I think. Excepting the kludgy 1/4" jacks, but its a prototpye. I've never understand anyone's love of lighted sliders--they seem quite cheap to the touch to me--but every pot on every one of the Behringer synths has been a disappointment to me, so this will be no better or worse. I think the omission of speakers was smart. Makes some sense on a full version, but mini speakers pushing air for analog synths makes me sad. What are they, 7U? I like the rack ears, too. DIY cabinet for vintage vibes, or rack it up. Sucks a little if you are a desktop guy, but someone will make side panels for it. The sound doesn't need to be spot on for this to be cool. The interface makes it inviting. Seems like a nice product.
This was my shot at being positive so I don't feel bad for ridiculing their Moog and Roland modules. Still not cancelling my Korg preorder.
As I said, you have to read a couple hundred pages of mostly drivel at GS to get to the root of much of what is later seen as truth. So to start, it was not a "trade show rep" , but a Guitar Center upper level mgr, website designer -or updater- which started the whole 2600mini brouhaha. The images posted are very rough in details, as would be expected of an early rev, hey, we're thinking about this Korg might have sent to their key distributors, of which GC must be included. We both agree that a mini could still show up in the future. What I don't buy is that this is some kind of planned leak to test the market. That's not in line with how Korg, and most Japanese companies of all types, roll.blw wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:32 pmWould you care to share the easy explanation?
It seems quite plausible to me that a trade show rep either wouldn’t know or would be told not to blab about a mini release if Korg’s strategy was to sell a run or two of the $4000 version first. It also seems quite plausible that they have no plans to release a mini, of course. I just wouldn’t have thought to take a corporate denial at face value.
Osc 3 already has Pulse width in the original, Osc 1 doesn't. It's not just adding two jacks. You have to add at least one slider too. Each additional column you add means all the others get closer together. You have an absolute max available of 17.5" to fit the rack standard.
Yes. The sounds of the second part are clearly digital effect and not what a 2600 sounds like. IMO still sounds good, have respect for Rob K, but leaving off the spring reverb was a sound mistake. I can understand why Uli chose it though. Because it's not going to affect sales in any important way, and he knows that. And it *will* reduce warranty and customer 'upkeep' costs. So a win for him, but at least a small loss for buyers.No analogue reverb is part of the sound though, and that's where I think it fails a bit in copying the original.
No, it's not 3340 based. Rob makes that clear in the Part 2 video. But a few other things he says *do* fit into why you're asking. And why you mention the 101.
Osc 3 PWM.
LEDs on this type sliders are easily changed. Whether Behringer have used separate current limit resistors for the different colors is the only technical challenge -and its a low/easy one- you'll have if you want all one color. I'm sure the modders will have the pertinent current limiting resistors identified within a short time of units out in the wild.dml wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:00 pmI liked the color coding of the sliders on the Odyssey but I'm not such a fan of them on the 2600. Being a completely patchable synth I find it completely meaningless, unless you plan on never using patch cords. I would've preferred a single color of LEDs (white/light blue) or none at all. Think I'll keep it dimmed until the holiday season! Im really looking forward to hearing a final production model.
DING. That's where I'll be putting my money. Although that Instruo I-ō47 Filter / Resonator filter looks pretty nice too.by TheDegenerateElite » Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:36 am
It seems weird that Keeble gets involved to increase the quantity of his own designs that he can manufacture at once, only to develop a 2600 that makes his modules less desirable. Maybe he and Behringer are planning 2500 modules instead?
Excellent post, very informative. As someone who has no experience with the 2600 though and thus no emotional attachment to it I wonder how much absolute faithfulness to the original sound really matters. It certainly looks to be a great instrument and it's hard for me to care if it sounds more like a Yamaha Grand than a Steinway, so to speak. Presumably, people who want a more exact copy will be getting the Korg version.KSS wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:46 pmNo, it's not 3340 based. Rob makes that clear in the Part 2 video. But a few other things he says *do* fit into why you're asking. And why you mention the 101.
I have been trying for years now to get it understood that small things matter. Of course everybody knows that, but it seems that the synth community keeps picking the same small things to notice and as a result, doesn't notice the other small things which are actually leading to the IMO false conclusions.
So let's talk about a couple small things Rob actually mentioned in the video. The matched SMD expo pairs. (Don't worry, this is *not* going to be an SMD v TH diatribe!) First he mentions that due to them being better matched, they have wider accurate range. He should know better. The matching has only to do with thermal compensation and *not* expo/log conformity. Besides, the 'unmatched' PNP/NPN pairs used by ARP in the originals were good for the same 7-8 octave range he notes in the video. Often even more. Though it's also true that the basic VCO design suffers from inaccurate CV summing over temperature variations and input voltage range. This is a separate thing from the tempco of the pair itself. It has to do with the lack of an opamp on the input, instead summing directly into the expo pair. It is true -as Rob says- that these B-Oscs should have better thermal compensation than the originals, and that's a good thing.
The next thing Rob mentions is that they 'improved' the speed of the OPAs to get better waveforms, and especially into the higher ranges. WhyTF would you want that!!? Big mistake, IMO. When you clone, you need to adopt the mindset of the original designers. Unfortunately, most people find this *really* hard to do. Especially engineers. Whose job it is to 'improve' things. What makes a synth OSC distinctive is often its waveform's failure to meet the 'ideal' spec for that type, and more importantly, how that waveform changes over the range of expected use! Not to mention that the original 2600 OSCs usually reach easily to 35KHz, with many going even higher. Trying to maintain the waveshapes more accurately to an ideal (Rob didn't actually say they-he did this, but he has written before many times it being part of his 'upgrades' on other projects) up to a higher range is a small thing that leads you to hear 3340 where none is used. It will also later add to the digital reverb in a bad way, but that's another issue.
The next small thing that Rob mentioned that stung hard was his statement that they balanced the VCA expo and linear CV to have equal effect at similar voltages. Now this is going right to the core of what makes a 2600, and really most synths, the unique and special beasts we love. Always beware when someone tells you they improved the EGs or VCA of a synth. They'll say the EGs are not part of the audio chain, but that's absolutely false in actual practice. Note Rob did *not* say this, he *did* say they improved the VCA response in relation to the EG and AR CV inputs. And it's an easy guess that he also 'upgraded' the OPA in the VCA. As again, that is one of his standard GOTOs. But both of these changes completely change the character of the synth. Not that you can't find the same sounds. Or at least similar. But that you won't find them with the same ease.
All too often the character is engineered right out of the sound chain. On purpose even. But they don't realize that's what they're doing, because each small change is for the better when looked at alone. And that's how you end up hearing a 101 or 3340 out of a 2600 clone. And the mathematical accuracy of the reverb only adds to the result in a negative way. Did anyone else notice we didn't get any dry sounds?
Now to be clear, I think this synth sounds good, and is at least somewhere along the ARP arc soundwise. I won't say it's better or worse than an ARP or KORG 2600. But it *is* different. And the saddest part of that -for me- is that based on what Rob told us, there were some small choices made which made that difference bigger than it would otherwise be. Please notice that there's no B-hate in this, only technical explanations for resulting sounds.
A very large part of what makes the 2600 so great is its gain staging, and how everything fits together in its basic architecture. Thank Alan Pearlman mostly (for he designed the front panel and thus the basic architecture)-and David Friend a little- for that, and then Thank Dennis Colin for putting it all together, using Alan's Expos and his own genius to give us something worth talking about 50 years later.