View other reviews for this product:
HUROLURA « My first synth ... »
Published on 10/28/12 at 11:0861-key, synth-type but very enjoyable to play, so much so that it is the only thing that I still use today, over 20 years later.
MIDI connectors, stereo, pitch bend and modulation (not necessarily a reference, but often better than that found today on keyboards MIDI control input range).
Its side, it is on the principle of D50, D10 Roland was referring to the time. The possibility of "synthesis" are also quite close. Side user interface, the same limitations of the programming buttons, menus, and a screen too small. But Mutable Instruments Shruthi and showed me since we could do much better ergonomically with the same type of elements (and 4 potentiometers and encoders anyway). Subsequently, I associated the MIDI controller kawai to 17 faders MM-16 and it made things easier ...
The main interest for me compared to Roland, is that the basic sound was different and used including waveforms from additive synthesis of K5 (it was also highlighted by the marketing of the time and I was left thinking trap have a simplified engine K5 which is not the case at all, they are just "samples" of the K5).
The integrated effects were not bad for the time. Architecturally, there are 8 or 16 notes of polyphony according to the number of "COD" used in a patch, for 8 parts multitimbral. Percussion sounds also organizable in drums kits.
UTILIZATION
As already mentioned it is within the programming interfaces of the era: the keys numerous enough to navigate through the menus and the combination of blandness input data and a couple of + / - keys. Adding MM16 has made things easier. The manual was in French is pretty good.
SOUNDS
Sound side, it suits me more, I'm long past anything else. You can do nice things for the time, but nothing transcendent. Attempted imitations of acoustic instruments are fairly poor quality but you can get some original sounds otherwise. Again not so bad in the context of the time, but completely outdated today. Against by digital filters are definitely outdated.
OVERALL OPINION
Used for 22 years (!) But today only the keyboard and the ability to make layers and splits MIDI to external devices.
At the time I tried the D50/D10 and D50 but M1 and M1 were off-budget, and I wanted the multitimbral.
The keyboard seemed better and more original sound.
Of course, today with the same budget, I would look elsewhere probably on hand products.
In nine of the era in the same price, I probably lorgnerais rather Juno/PG300 torque, and nine today a Mopho 4x. But it is still my only stayed long enough instrument coupled with a hardware MIDI sequencer.
Only the keyboard part is all that is more valuable compared to keyboards available today, I've tried a good fifty at the last and only MusikMesse Radikal Accelerator, John Bowen Solaris (probably from this which is better), the Studiologic Sledge and Nektar Panorama gave me a good impression compared to my usual K4 ...
MIDI connectors, stereo, pitch bend and modulation (not necessarily a reference, but often better than that found today on keyboards MIDI control input range).
Its side, it is on the principle of D50, D10 Roland was referring to the time. The possibility of "synthesis" are also quite close. Side user interface, the same limitations of the programming buttons, menus, and a screen too small. But Mutable Instruments Shruthi and showed me since we could do much better ergonomically with the same type of elements (and 4 potentiometers and encoders anyway). Subsequently, I associated the MIDI controller kawai to 17 faders MM-16 and it made things easier ...
The main interest for me compared to Roland, is that the basic sound was different and used including waveforms from additive synthesis of K5 (it was also highlighted by the marketing of the time and I was left thinking trap have a simplified engine K5 which is not the case at all, they are just "samples" of the K5).
The integrated effects were not bad for the time. Architecturally, there are 8 or 16 notes of polyphony according to the number of "COD" used in a patch, for 8 parts multitimbral. Percussion sounds also organizable in drums kits.
UTILIZATION
As already mentioned it is within the programming interfaces of the era: the keys numerous enough to navigate through the menus and the combination of blandness input data and a couple of + / - keys. Adding MM16 has made things easier. The manual was in French is pretty good.
SOUNDS
Sound side, it suits me more, I'm long past anything else. You can do nice things for the time, but nothing transcendent. Attempted imitations of acoustic instruments are fairly poor quality but you can get some original sounds otherwise. Again not so bad in the context of the time, but completely outdated today. Against by digital filters are definitely outdated.
OVERALL OPINION
Used for 22 years (!) But today only the keyboard and the ability to make layers and splits MIDI to external devices.
At the time I tried the D50/D10 and D50 but M1 and M1 were off-budget, and I wanted the multitimbral.
The keyboard seemed better and more original sound.
Of course, today with the same budget, I would look elsewhere probably on hand products.
In nine of the era in the same price, I probably lorgnerais rather Juno/PG300 torque, and nine today a Mopho 4x. But it is still my only stayed long enough instrument coupled with a hardware MIDI sequencer.
Only the keyboard part is all that is more valuable compared to keyboards available today, I've tried a good fifty at the last and only MusikMesse Radikal Accelerator, John Bowen Solaris (probably from this which is better), the Studiologic Sledge and Nektar Panorama gave me a good impression compared to my usual K4 ...