View other reviews for this product:
esl « he must learn to keep right about Andromeda »
Published on 10/18/13 at 02:27On paper, the characteristics and 16 voice polyphony can impress. In real life, what to do with all these sources and modulation destinations, especially since it is difficult to have a clear vision. 16 tracks, it's nice, but should not make a mountain. I finally, who can do more can do less. We are not obliged to use it.
UTILIZATION
The panel config Andromeda is great. But this synth is so developed should be much more than a small LCD screen to navigate menus and access to all parameters. He has a consistent manual (200 + pages) but it is not very well done. This is something for technicians, not for musicians. As long as we remain in use 'classic', the sound editing is simple and clear. on the other hand, to really use all the mysteries of Andro, must cling. Furthermore, I have never found that creating and editing multi was simple. This is frankly not the feet.
SOUNDS
There's pros and there's cons. No doubt that this synth can make good sound. May even be that in terms of sources, it is unbeatable. on the other hand, you will turn into sharp programmer. Indeed, the architecture of this synth is very complex, including the configuration of filters that can be combined in countless ways through the modulation matrix.
The drawback I see the Andromeda is that all these possibilities of its programming are not simple to implement, it is rather frustrating. Especially since the Andro suffers two major shortcomings: the 4-pole filter (24 dB) is disappointing. The 12db is great, and a real character. It's not like the Oberheim and that's fine. But then 24db, I find it dull. Luckily, these two filters are combined allowing the sharp programmer to make beautiful things. But must hang! The second biggest problem I find with Andro is that bcq lack of fishing. Without even going to compare to a Moog is not a synth slap. Finally, do not expect much of sub-osc.
OVERALL OPINION
After two years of living with my Andro, we separated. I was happy but I do not regret. It is an experience to do, and can be successful if you are willing to spend nights in the program. I find the current very high price occasion.
UTILIZATION
The panel config Andromeda is great. But this synth is so developed should be much more than a small LCD screen to navigate menus and access to all parameters. He has a consistent manual (200 + pages) but it is not very well done. This is something for technicians, not for musicians. As long as we remain in use 'classic', the sound editing is simple and clear. on the other hand, to really use all the mysteries of Andro, must cling. Furthermore, I have never found that creating and editing multi was simple. This is frankly not the feet.
SOUNDS
There's pros and there's cons. No doubt that this synth can make good sound. May even be that in terms of sources, it is unbeatable. on the other hand, you will turn into sharp programmer. Indeed, the architecture of this synth is very complex, including the configuration of filters that can be combined in countless ways through the modulation matrix.
The drawback I see the Andromeda is that all these possibilities of its programming are not simple to implement, it is rather frustrating. Especially since the Andro suffers two major shortcomings: the 4-pole filter (24 dB) is disappointing. The 12db is great, and a real character. It's not like the Oberheim and that's fine. But then 24db, I find it dull. Luckily, these two filters are combined allowing the sharp programmer to make beautiful things. But must hang! The second biggest problem I find with Andro is that bcq lack of fishing. Without even going to compare to a Moog is not a synth slap. Finally, do not expect much of sub-osc.
OVERALL OPINION
After two years of living with my Andro, we separated. I was happy but I do not regret. It is an experience to do, and can be successful if you are willing to spend nights in the program. I find the current very high price occasion.