Dilemma - G2 engine or Modular Rack?

tlj · Joined: Oct 04, 2005 Posts: 32 Location: Prague

Hello!

I'm new to the forum and browsing the postings has been very useful. But I'm still undecided about whether to go for the G2 engine or modular rack (don't have the budget 4 G2). Here's what the basic pros and cons are for me at present;

G2 engine - PROS; 4 ins, effects modules / area with RAM, USB connection. CONS - Very few except no knobs, might be fragile for gigging.

Modular rack - PROS; Knobs! Probably save alot of time not having to assign Midi knobs and faders on Midi controller (Evolution 449 C), useful for gigging.

CONS - only two inputs, no USB, no RAM dedicated to effects area

I'm a newbie to modular synthesis so I reckon the versatility of the Rack would be more than enough. Interesting to read a post (sorry don't remember who from) saying that the NM is really quite different sounding to the G2. But there are far fewer technical spec details for the Rack than the G2 Engine on the Clavia site. I want to attempt percussion sounds, bass (electro- accustic double bass sound), otherwise I'm not too fussed if the G2 can sound more like accoustic instruments than the NM Rack, or if it can do synth sweeps lasting 3 days as opposed to the Rack's 2. Also I want to use it to mutate a Korg ER1 drum machine and an old analogue synth (Soviet made - no Midi, no lfo's only a filthy filter, screaming circuits, and some warm mid-spectrum sounds). I'd really appreciate any tips or comments about the fundamental differences.

Undecided Tom

Kassen · Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:38 pm Post subject:

I think you summed up the concerns quite nicely yourself, good job!

Yes, it sounds different, which one sounds better will depend on spending a afternoon with both. Aside from that; you list all the concerns, now you need to weigh them; exactly how important are those knobs to you? do you anticipate playing live and if so how often? Do you already have some nice multi-fx or would the G2's delays and reverbs add a lot to your options?

etc...

tlj · Joined: Oct 04, 2005 Posts: 32 Location: Prague

Kassen, thanks 4 the reply. Since first post I've browsed some more, found out more about the specs, still not quite sure though. Would be interested to hear if anyone finds knobs make a big difference to editing Anyway, looks like you got no shortage of knobs to tweak. Nice snap

dasz · Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:39 pm Post subject:

Hey Tom,

I might have a biased opinion about the advantage of knobs, but this applies to the g2 keyboard (& I just sold my Papa Nord Modular Classic Keybaord).

If you care about changing patterns (per slot) aka variations, and doing midi out, and about having your effects (delay/reverb as kassen put it) in one box, go for the g2. if you need knobs, but a dedicated controller (http://www.behringer.com/BCR2000/index.cfm?lang=ENG seems to be popular with G2 owners). Although this solution does not replace having a G2 Keyboard with the amazing panel, but ....

The only reason to go for the old Nord is price, and features (if the features of the old Nord are enough for what you'll need to do, go for it, but then its a discontinued product so don't expect anything new from it).

the dedicated nord knobs do make editing a breeze (especially on the G2, where you hit patch "edit" and use the pathc wheel to select modules and the 3 pages of knobs to edit every parameter). in the nord modular classic, you are limited to editing one parameter at a time, so having knobs in the old modular is not THAT great ... but it is better than an engine, which will not allow you to edit the patch and use knobs to alter the module settings. you would have to midi assign all the controls (which is possible with one click in the g2 editor), but it is not the same ...

/Dasz

Kassen · Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:24 pm Post subject:

I disagree that the only reason to go for the NM would be price; the feature set is simply different and some features might make a large difference for some musicians.

Either way; Personally I never found the knobs on the NM to be all that handy while editing; I do most of my editing on the schreen. I mainly use them while playing to controll changes in the sound and use the jogdial to set parameters. While playing live it is of cource very usefull to know what patch you are in, the G2keyboard also has this but the Engine lacks it. The engine would require some serious thought to use on a stage dependably but of cource it could be done with some planning and practice.

dasz · Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:26 pm Post subject:

Kassen,

I disagree with your statement, as I did mention that if the feature set of the Nord Modular Classic fits your needs, then go for it ...

I tend to use the g2 panel extensively as I have RSI and my mousing is quite limited ... thus I use the panel as a "great" substitute for mousing ... it takes patching to a different level. But you can try it and experience it for yourself ... it is quite worth it (anyone who has seen me tweak will agree)...

I find great value in being able to patch with a panel and not a mouse (not just for necessity but for actual tactile experience)... connected to a pc/mac or not ... It is more natural (for some, and mabe not others)

Just my $.02. In the end it all depends on how your like work (with a mouse or without) no disagreements or agreements are necesarry ...
/Dasz

mother misty · Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:04 am Post subject:

Hi,

I've to agree with Dasz, besides that I really appreciate the following stuff (G2 only)
> MIDI-Modules: now you can modulate anything, and not just modules that has mod-inputs. Also very usefull for controlling external gear (G2 as a midi-controller)
> 4 global audio busses: you can route (audio) signals between slots now, also very usefull
> Processing power: a G2 has alot more DSP power compared to a G1
> Mic input with preamp
> Performances

7om · Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:53 am Post subject:

tlj,

You are not going to like this comment, and it may offend some others here as well, but my feeling is that you will find yourself frustrated with either option. The hardware interface of the G2 keyboard is not to be underestimated. Yes, you can use other controllers, but it is not nearly as elegant, and thus user friendly, as the interface of the G2 itself.

With regards to the Modular Rack, I think you will find it frustrating that Clavia is no longer updating the software. I don't know what computer you are using, I'm guessing a PC. Not sure how well this software works with XP, or if you are even using XP, but it is not specifically supported by Clavia. As the Mac and Windows OS's continue to update, you could find yourself locked to an earlier version in order to support your Modular Rack.

I am certainly sympathetic to the financial constraints, which is why I mention these concerns. I would hate to see you spend even this much money on a piece of gear that is new for you, only to find yourself frustrated with aspects of your exciting new purchase. Is a software synth like Reaktor not a good option for you?

I'm just saying these are points worth considering. With that, I brace myself for the oncoming assault.

G2DREAM · Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:05 pm Post subject:

Nothing to declare, just the fact that the editor of the modular 3.03 works fine
under Windows XP. Nothing more apart the fact that i love both my micro modular and my g2 engine.

Kassen · Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:10 pm Post subject:

ian-s

tlj · Joined: Oct 04, 2005 Posts: 32 Location: Prague

Thank's to all who have posted replies. All very helpful. OM 7 wrote; 'Is a software synth like Reaktor not a good option for you?' 1) From what I've read and heard, the Modular editor is more user friendly and intuitive than Reaktor. 2) CPU - I've got a relatively fast processor (Athlon 2800 333Mhz), and I don't have a problem running 3- 4 soft synths at a time with some effects and I want to keep it that way, not have one application hogging all the power - two stereo channels of hardware modular synth straignt into the mixer should add a very large demension to my possibilities and hopefully sounds. 3) If I invest in the Modular, I'm sure to dedicate a lot of time to it!

Right now I'm leaning towards the G2 Engine; USB (don't like the idea of reconnecting Midi cables when switching from editing to performing mode), effects area, internal audio and Midi routing between slots, 4 audio ins perhaps outweigh the advantages of having the knobs. Sure, I'd prefer to be using knobs rather than a mouse for patching, but I reckon for quite a while I'd mostly be using the mouse anyway. Anyone prefer the basic sound on the NM? This is probably down to the modules. but anyone find it 'grittier', better at certain sounds?

mosc · Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:13 am Post subject:

I have been very busy and not able to check out this thread before. I have a G2X and used to use the NM Keyboard. To me, you should get the G2 Engine and get with it a Behringer BCR2000 when you could afford it. That will get you the encoder knobs. Once you get used to the encoders on the G2 the old pots on the NMs seem totally obsolete.

The reverb and delays in the G2 are invaluable. and the superb MIDI processing modules are too much to give up too, IMHO. Also, the control sequencer in the G2 is a tremendously useful module. Nobody mentions it, but I actually like and use the DX7 emulation.

As for the sound, it's the patches that make the sound.

I have Kurzweils, a real Moog Modular, Kyma, Rolands, Yamahas, Korgs, and an attic full of stuff. I've said this before. If I could only have one synth, it would be the G2. When I perform live, that's all I take. I can setup in about 3 minutes.

dasz · Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:49 am Post subject:

Just before I got my original empty G2, someone told me that the only bad thing about the G2 is if you already have a NM Classic, you will stop using it.

He was right, I stopped using Papa Nord ....

/Dasz

Axiom · Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:47 am Post subject:

mosc · Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:32 am Post subject:

Kassen · Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:41 pm Post subject:

dasz · Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:12 pm Post subject:

Kassen,

As usual, I am not suprised by your statement.

It's ironic because it is not even my statement, but someon else's, someone I have great respect and admiration for ...

If you read between the lines, the reason one stops using a NM1 in favor of a G2 is the usability improvements (I'm a user interface developer and designer who cares a great deal about usability) of the G2, in both h/w and editor.

Also, the number of new modules (fx, switching, multiplexing, voltage sequencer) for me (and agruably for others) make a big difference ...

This is all I am going to say on this subject, unless someone asks me a question.

We should merely present both sets of features, and tlj should decide for himself ...
/Dasz

Kassen · Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:43 pm Post subject:

mosc · Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:23 pm Post subject:

dasz · Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:30 pm Post subject:

Kassen · Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:23 pm Post subject:

Kassen · Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:29 pm Post subject:

Tim Kleinert · Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 1:12 am Post subject:

I seem to agree with both camps here.

On the one hand, I love the interface and concept of the G2, and the breadth of possibilities it offers. Like Howard said, it has replaced my entire live rig -keyboards, processing, weird stuff, clicktracks for the drummer-whatever. I played a 40 gigs tour this year, and the G2 (with an additional keyboard controller) was all I had to take along. How great it that?

On the other hand, I strongly agree with Kassen in that there is, IMO, something "strange" with the sound character of the G2 and that alot of TLC is needed to make it musically satisfying -for my personal tastes. This is very time-consuming and therefore often hard to sustain for me, as synthesis is something I have to fit in next to a full schedule as a jazz pianist and conservatory educator.

I've heard that the NM has a different sound character, although I unfortunately never heard one. But that's an issue I would definetely check out.

So, for me personally, it has been a trade off between convenience and sound. It's a trade-off that made sense in my case.

Axiom · Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 1:41 am Post subject:

I can get Kassen point of view even if I can't agree totally on it. I use G2X both for educational purposes and playing. I do Progressive Metal, so nothing related to trance and rnb Wink

There are some aspects of modular that, actually, aren't more confortable for live performances but i'm pretty sure that can be improved at all.

I'll show you an experience I had recently. I had to prepare some patches for a gig and, actually, I only have G2X as synth after sold other for lack of space on my room. I wouldn't speak about sounds at all because, for this specific song, I need a lot of acoustic sounds.. so, instead of using patches that "resembles" acoustic instruments I've choose to go into another direction using patches that fits into this song but aren't acoustic.

My main issue was patch changing. There are a gap between patches so I've choose to group them into a performance to avoid that but moving along them without making them sounds together has been more complicated as I expected. Sadly, patch variations wouldn't be so useful to me in this case because I had to change between different kind of sounds with their different architecture.

I'm usual to change patches using a footswitch and, till today, I haven't find a way to do this properly (well, i've found how to switch through variatons but my implementition crash the synth).

Those are "gig oriented" point of view that, imho, can be improved on future releases. well.. i'm actually dreaming of a more complex environment with both PCM Osc and Wavetable Osc blocks Smile

Those can give a nice boost to the moduar.

Just my 2 cents.

Luca

p.s.:
don't flame each other Wink

We're just talking about a product, a great tool and companion for musicians and sound designer... but its just a tool Smile

If "it rocks" or "it sucks" is only a point of view relative to how we use it.

peace.