That's hilarious! As I was reading your rant about subtlety, I was thinking how apt is was in the case of Korg's 2600. It's entire appeal is those little details that are lost in a mix but readily apparent when you are using it on its own. Then you go and ruin it all by proving you have ears of cloth! Very disappointing.with the voices panel, I've routed things through the preamp, through the SEM filter etc). Whatever it is, it doesn't represent what I heard on the hardware.. in terms of small nuances and thus it isn't as pleasurable to play and experiment with as the hardware was. Even the Behringer clone was more engaging sounding to my ears, though that one I felt didn't quite do the original justice either. It was a bit off somehow.. the Behringer is more beefy and probably hits the various circuits a bit harder than the original (or then there's just way more saturation everywhere).
_______________________________________________
Something I've discovered in trying to fit the 2600 into a few songs is that some of the factory sounds have patch cords that don't do anything. A lead patch I was working on today had about 10-12 patch cords but I was able to remove 5 of them without it having any effect on the sound. They were going to outputs that didn't have an input or to parts of the synth that weren't in the signal path at all. That's very sloppy work in my book. I thought maybe they were being used to pump the output level up or something but not even that.
I've actually surprised myself how easily I have got my head around this thing. I think it kind of forces you to work in a more deliberate way, which I am fine with, and that helps you come to grips with it quickly. It's not exactly easy, and it takes a bit of time, but it's definitely worth the effort. I'm really diggin' it at the moment.
Statistics: Posted by BONES — Mon Aug 05, 2024 12:15 pm