otto wrote:Go with the monomachine if your looking for a well thought-out sequencer and you prefer not to use a computer. Go with the evolver if you are looking for diverse and interesting synth that can provide a wide variety of sounds from basic analog or digital to a wild combination.
This is purely opinion but i wanted to love the monomachine but ultimately I kept thinking "I can do this and a whole lot more, a lot cheaper, with a computer". I wasn't overly impressed with the sounds its various synths produced - they seemed very average softsynth sounding to me. The sequencer is great if you are trying to avoid using a computer but if your open to sequencing from a computer.
otto wrote:The evolver is very complex and some people don't like the general sound, others love it. It has so much potential though, that I wouldn't limit it to only being an aggressive sounding synth. You can program it to be and sound very analog and you can program it to sound "crazy". I think they key to understanding the evolver is to build patches from the ground up. When you are just modifying patches it is easy to get lost because of the deep modulation possiblities and just how many paramters are available - it is also easy to lose yourself in trying to use all those possibilities. It is a bit of a "kid in the candy store" synth. You have to learn to pace your self, be judicious and subtle if you want usable, musical results.
Sir Ruff wrote:You honestly could say the same thing about the monomachine. the individual synths are definitely simple no doubt, but to stop there would be missing the point. EVERYTHING can be modulated, so that while each synth may not have the range of parameters than the evolver does, the shear modulating capabilities is at least equal if not great than the evolver, simply because modulation can be continuous or stepped... One of the LFO destination is "parameter" on another lfo! WTF?
And given that you have 3 very distinct synthesis types, that raises the bar substantially.
I'm not arguing in favor of one or another, just pointing out how similar they can be.... I owned a PE for a bit, and never really could see using the step sequencer for anything other than rhythmic sounds (which I tend not to use in my music). Other might love it... The sequencer on the MnM on the other hand is useful enough to make very interesting patterns that will integrate fairly well into another larger DAW sequencer...
I would still am considering getting a monoevolver at this point... But I was unsatisfied with the PE in that (perhaps naively), I thought I was buying a hybrid polysynth that would be my MAIN analogue....
EDIT: reading your last comment-I think a MnM + MEK would be perfect-you can sequence up to 4 of the parameters on the MEK from the MnM sequencer at any given time.... I think that's a much more intuitive way to take advantage of all the mod possibilities on the MEK.... hmmmmm!
otto wrote:If I understand what your saying correctly, the evolver can also have an LFO routed to another destinate to another LFO. The sequencer can also be used as a modulation source rather than just a note on/off type of sequencing. The evolver has really deep modulation possibilities. Of course that's where you get in trouble and spend hours making an unusable patch...
hfinn wrote:Having had both a MEK and an MnM, I can say I prefered the MEK for just flat out weird sounds. It has a knob even for reducing bit rate (down to 2 if I remember correctly.)
Users browsing this forum: abruzzi and 3 guests