Vintage Synth Explorer Forums

"the envelopes on the CS15 aren't as fast as the CS10"

Sir Ruff wrote:"the envelopes on the CS15 aren't as fast as the CS10"

Are you sure? (I'm getting a cs-15 and was worried about that rumor).

You stick with the CS15 dude. It's a great synth.

braincandy wrote:still rue the day I sold my FS1r.

Tell me about it. I started checking ebay for another one as soon as I got back from UPS after I sold the one I had. Big, big mistake that was.

JSRockit wrote:

Sir Ruff wrote:

Analog Freak wrote:Anything involving any variation on the word "beats" really gets my dander up.

yeah, I've never liked beets either.

Yeah, if someone says another thing about drum beats...I'm going go wackjob on em.

I get a lot of people, when they find out I have synths and stuff, ask me "oh, so you make beats?" And then I try to explain that yes, I start out making a beat, then a bassline, then a melody, et cetera. It is slightly annoying to have people reducing everything you try to do in the course making a song to the simplistic phrase 'making beats', but I guess that's what happens when people only listen to generic corporate hip-hop (no offense meant to non-boring hip hop).

I was just joking...I actually have no problem with someone saying I make beats...because that is basically what I do... it's not jazz or anything... it's pretty basic.

JSRockit wrote:I was just joking...I actually have no problem with someone saying I make beats...because that is basically what I do... it's not jazz or anything... it's pretty basic.

I'm more annoyed by the inaccurate word choice (for instance, there's no way playing a synth lead line or a guitar solo can fit into the phrase "making beats" in my mind) than I am by people not being impressed by the complexity of what I do or whatever. Because nothing I do is too awful complex either; it's all just rock-n-roll.

So I guess this gripe actually belongs in my ever-expanding grammatical annoyances folder.

nadafarms wrote:

Sir Ruff wrote:"the envelopes on the CS15 aren't as fast as the CS10"

Are you sure? (I'm getting a cs-15 and was worried about that rumor).

it's exactly that-a stupid rumor started by someone who clearly never used both... prolly a cs10 owner who wanted to feel better about not owning a cs15!
Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but the cs5/10/15/30 are identical internally

Sir Ruff wrote:

nadafarms wrote:

Sir Ruff wrote:"the envelopes on the CS15 aren't as fast as the CS10"

Are you sure? (I'm getting a cs-15 and was worried about that rumor).

it's exactly that-a stupid rumor started by someone who clearly never used both... prolly a cs10 owner who wanted to feel better about not owning a cs15!
Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but the cs5/10/15/30 are identical internally

I think people say that because the CS-15 envelopes don't have an extra knob called 'Initial Level'. Its probebly still a rumor.

Sir Ruff wrote:Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but the cs5/10/15/30 are identical internally

Not quite. Interestingly there are different envelopes in the things; the CS-15 uses flip-flops and transistors, but the 10 (or 5, or both, I can't remember) use custom ICs. Not sure about the 30 off the top of my head.



On topic, I hate the following:

"The CS series monosynths are thin and weak sounding." Right. As though everything needs a 24dB Low-pass ladder filter.

"Why do you need so many keyboards?" because a) I like them, b) they are all different, and c) if it wasn't synths it'd be something else. I'm a man, geeky obsessing's what we do - cars, beers, synths - whatever. Why do you need so many shoes???

"The Juno (6/60) has DCOs and can't sound as good as the Jupiters (etc.)" Oh well. They still sound good to me. Maybe I'm thick or my ears are made of cabbages.

"There's no point having old drum machines when you can sample them. Samples aree just as good." Some truth to this, but there is variation in beats when using old analogue machines, and there's nothing like bashing away on a proper old box; much more fun than using a sampler and nasty computer.


Hmm.

I think its great that the CS series have those 12bd multimode filters. Like you said most analogue gear has 24bd filters and they don't tend to offer the extra modes (BP and HP) that a CS offers. Anyway, the 12bd filters don't stop the CS monosyths from sounding fat and warm. The quallity of Yamaha's VCO's are amazing so meaty sounds can still be had. The VCO's used in the CS monosynths seem more stable than most others. For example, my Roland SH-09 was always going out of tune and my CS-10 and 4 VCO CS-40M were more stable! The CS monosynths seem very well designed.

nathanscribe wrote:

Sir Ruff wrote:Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but the cs5/10/15/30 are identical internally

Not quite. Interestingly there are different envelopes in the things; the CS-15 uses flip-flops and transistors, but the 10 (or 5, or both, I can't remember) use custom ICs. Not sure about the 30 off the top of my head.

ok... well, maybe I am wrong then. Never heard the technical argument before. silly yamaha... the question that next arises then is: "how much faster is the 5/10 than the 15 and maybe 30?"

interestingly (on the CS-10 thread which is where all of this should prolly be discussed!:roll: ), Mad theory posted some examples of the cs10... it actually does sound snappier than my cs30, but I didn't want to believe it obviously hard to tell without hearing direct comparisons.

(moving this over to CS10 thread)

1. The envelope attack on the Andromeda is too slow.
2. 2001: "That SH-32 is a toy!" 2007: "Man, that SH-32 is a steal!"
3. 1997: "That XP-80 is incredible!" 2007: "That XP-80 is nowhere NEAR as good as the Fantom-X!" etc. etc. -- if an instrument's good, it's good forever, ditto if it's not good, and there are VERY few of those.
4. The Virus is too dark.
5. Digital is too thin.
6. Analogue is too beefy.
7. That synth only sounds good if it's awash in effects.
8. That synth sounds better without effects.
9. FM is too glassy.
10. The synth is full of bugs! (call an exterminator)
11. It has a terrible interface (use it for a few years, then get back to me)
12. It should always be left on.
13. It should be turned off after a few hours.
14. The keyboard's too plastic (it's a synth, not a piano!)
15. You have to sit on the keyboard to get aftertouch (cf. the settings page? Jim?)
16. The synth doesn't do "X." (not all synths do everything; work with what's in front of you!)
17. I can't get it to run as a VST in Logic/Sonar/etc. (is it supposed to?)
18. the onboard fx suck (usually not, reprogram them!)
19. the onboard patches suck (usually not... make better if you think you can!)
20. there aren't enough outs (did you look at the back of the synth before buying?)

That'll do, my top 20, Merry Xmas everyone! <G>

My most hated misconception about synthesizers are that they don't exist.

A symphesizer, what's that?

What do you think 90% of the sounds in the mainstream pop and rap garbage you listen to was made with?(if we count samplers and romplers)

"The poly section on the MG-1 is stupid/useless"

"The poly section on the MG-1 is like a limited 3rd oscillator"

I think the poly osc is really usefull. I can use it for chords obviously, but it also allows cool layer-ish effects like with osc-1 on alot of glide and none on the poly (obviously).

The point is that it isn't a limited oscillator. It's a neat, different oscillator that really opens up the possibilities of the synth.