The Limitations of the MatrixBrute

[indiescore]

The Limitations of the Matrixbrute (but it's worth the wait)

It almost feels like sacrilege to talk about the limitations of the Matrixbrute. It’s a bit like marrying a beautiful woman and then after two weeks drawing up a list of her faults. Don’t get me wrong I love the Matrixbrute, but somehow we tinkerers always push a new synth to its limits and want to know what those limits are.
So in random order;

The Panel<> Preset gap
When you save a sound you’ve been working on, the Matrixbrute registers the position of all the knobs. Wonderful…it's a big step up from the old days. But when you then select a new preset, the position of the knobs is still that of the previous sound you worked on. It does not give you a clue about the real positions of the knobs that make up this new preset. The « Panel » switch allows you change between the two different states: the sound of the  stored and recalled settings of the preset and the actual sound resulting from the position of the knobs. This makes understanding how  the sound of a loaded preset « works » not easy because the knobs tell a story that does not relate to the sound you are hearing. You’ll have to do a lot a knob tweaking to get all the knobs to reflect the actual sound you’re hearing. In the process of all this knob tweaking you will mosts probably  alter the original preset. As with all bad things in life you can also see this as opportunity to learn about the soul of the MatrixBrute (;-). Still it remains confusing that at anytime you have to deal with these two ‘states’. Maybe experimenting with the three Potmodes (jump/hook/scaled) in the Midi control center will help somewhat to alleviate this confusion.

External control:
External control of the MatrixBrute is possible but rather limited. To take the effects section as an example, you can control the five basic properties of the effect; Delay time, Regeneration, time/rate, Width/Depth and Dry/wet.
But there is no way you can switch the effects unit from Reverb to Delay external using CC# values. You need to push a button on the the MB to achieve that.
This applies to the Effect unit, the filters, the LFOs and the Sequencer. Anything that uses switches to define a  « state » You can change the state of those units externally so you’re stuck with what’s currently active on the Matrixbrute.

Modulation:
My biggest initial disappointment was that there is no way to make circular modulation routes like on the EMS synthi. On the synthi you could feed an oscillator into a filter and then the output of the filter would be available to modulate other things. On the Matrixbrute there are a number of fixed modulation destinations and once you’ve modulated those it’s the end of the line. You can’t make those modulated destinations reenter the Matrix.  I hope it’s clear what i’m saying. It is very hard maybe to understand this concept without having had hands on experience with the EMS synthi.

On the positive side, there is a fantastic modulation option that you only discover after reading the manual very, very  carefully; it is possible to modulate the matrixpoints themselves!! That is mind blowing,  to such extend that at first I did not want it believe it being possible. As if you’ve suddenly landed in a 3d chess game!
What’s it do? Suppose you are using LFO 1 in single trigger mode to add a little upward pitch push every time you trigger it. You can set the intensity of this modulation on Matrixpoint E1. But now! you can define point E1 as an object of modulation in the extra/ configurable rows of the Matrix!!!! Once you done that you can assign any modulation source to modulate your upward pitch push. Another LFO or…. more interesting….. the modulation row of the sequencer!


The Sequencer
The Sequencer of the MB is a great piece of work, but with a bit of extra work it can be made brilliant:
 It would be great if it were possible to split the sequencer in two parts that be used to modulate/play the oscillators or  or modulate other parts of the Matrixbrute.
There is no way to control the length of individual steps in the the sequencer, It makes the sequencer sound rather mechanical, some people might see that as a bonus, i miss a way to step step length. Yes you can link steps and insert muted steps to create a rhythmic feel but it uses up your steps very quickly…..
Most importantly; there is no simple way to modulate  the speed of the sequencer.  It would make so much difference if the Sequences speed could be modulated using an LFO or envelope. It should be available as a modulation destination on the Matrix. It is also not possible to control it externally using CC#s (although a CC# value seems to defined)  The same is true for the the gate time of the steps. (I don’t care much for the swing option)

Another weakness of the sequencer is that it is very hard to change properties of a step while the sequencer is running. It seems the software running the sequencer is so busy advancing the thing to the next step that it does not spend enough time looking whether the user is pressing buttons. You can press buttons all you want but the sequencer does not respond. So if you want to make alterations you better stop the sequencer first, with takes away much of the creative flow.

There’s no way to set the start point of the sequencer….which is a real pity as it would create an enormous amount of extra creative options. We’re all so used to being able to set the start and endpoint of samples and  have learned about how to use them. When applied to a sequencer the results will be even more rewarding musically. Especially is start and end points can be flexible, modulated from the matrix. Imagine being able to shift->right a short 4 step sequence within a 16 step sequence.

The Effects
The effects are of rather limited use, somehow they sound dull and uninteresting.  I think we been spoiled by the clarity of modern digital effects. Not everything in the 80th era was perfect. Effects where an afterthought, were now we begin to see effects as an essential part of the sound. There’s only one effect at the time available. I would have gladly payed an extra for the luxury of having four effect available with a routing construction similar to the filter setup.  I find myself using the effects less and less, i reverted to using the Eventide H9 external effect instead. It maintains the stereo output of the Matrixbrute.
There might be a way to give the effects unit an interesting twist by taking the output of the effects send/return (at the back of the MB) and feed that into the external input. You could then use the output of the effect as an additional sound source. I haven’t been able to try this; you need a special cable to pull this of. I would have preferred stereo send/returns for the left and right channel.


Polyphony
Do I miss polyphony? No..... I bought this machine in the full understanding that it is not. I said « yes"  at the altar and there’s no going back. It inspires me having to focus on creating a single voice, that in itself is complex enough.

In an another posting I suggested a  « simple » way to expand the polyphony of the Matrixbrute by creating a continuously  thread/process in the MatrixBrute OS that samples the current sound every few seconds. This sampled sound could then be assigned to one or more of the six to eight extra voices. You could then create a unique polyphonic hybrid machine that plays back 6 or 8 variations of the basic sound you’re developing. Create sound-> assign to voice 2….tweak…assign to voice 3….tweak….assign to voice four.. etc.

It’s a difficult decision to make for the management team as in the coming months the Matrixbrute will face tough competition from a number of new analogue polyphonic synths. (dave smith rev) I hope the team manages to restore from all the setbacks in the previous year that lead to this very long period between announcing the synth and its availability. It must have caused a lot of stress in the Matrixbrute production team.
They should remember that despite all this they managed to create a fantastic synthesizer that’s already a classic. It’s a masterpiece of creativity and an unparalleled example of  technological courage.The build quality of the MB is excellent. In short is the best thing France has to offer at the moment. (forgetting about the wine and the cheese)

I just got this a week ago and I might send it back to guitar center, will give it another two weeks before i decide.......I strongly agree with your observations on the step sequencer and fx.  The fx are a lower priority for me however so not a keep or send back issue but I am struggling with the sequencer.......I got this for sequencing 303 style and for getting into modular territory as well as sound design ambient textures ( the later is working excellent ) Also i am going to build a modular system so this could be the front end .....or. possibly the pro 2....if this goes back

1).  it's painful ( inefficient work flow and tedious ) that the step sequencer can't quantize latch record ,  I don't see a way to hold D key while in record mode w 32nd notes ,  and have the notes record as 32nd notes.....user error?

2). It's a little stiff  sounding without the ability to clock divide a sequence, ratchet, change the quantize per step....again is this user error?  The random mode gets me half way there.

3) The modulation possibilities are awesome, but very global unless you fiddle with setting up per step modulation which is doable but limited and I find getting desired results hit and miss, in this case I realize I am still learning but The Print is so Small on the matrix i am rubber necking forward to see what's going on, SO. font print and that strange grey lED could have been much larger. 


also I had hoped to get a wider range of tones, bell , clean and metal pipe like  punchy,  will work on that and see....anyone else have the same observation?  The wave forms are indeed limited to stock forms...not saying that's a bad thing,


I have moog, dave smith and other synths , so this would round out the studio

thoughts?

[SoundRider]

First thought ... if you got this synth to complement your Moog, Dave Smith etc. instruments, you have done it right. It's basic sound is intentionally different. It can do sounds, which the others can't and vice versa

Second thought ... it seems, the both of you could need some more time ...

IMO the sequencer is okay and I think, Arturia will listen to us users and issue updates. They have done so already. Maybe they will improve the live recording mode too - or have already. Have you checked the version of the firmware?

You can achieve bellish sounds ... here is a thread about it ... https://forum.arturia.com/index.php?topic=90708.msg140750#msg140750

The wave forms are indeed the typical ones ... but since you have Moogs and others, I would suggest to compare the basic wave forms of the MB to the others and listen carefully. I did it and there are - yes ... minor - differences, but they are there.

The mixing of the wave forms generated by one VCO is different compared to the mixing of wave forms from differnet VCOs. Background ... one VCO generates phase synchronised wave forms, which add differently compared to wave forms generated by VCOs, which are off-phase. Try to mix on the MB saw and square and listen carefully. You will find that the sound is thinning out at some places and changing it's character. You can not achieve this effect with two Moog VCOs. Well ... the difference is not dramatic, but in combination with the filters, this can be important, because the filter can emphasize this difference

This said ... the most of character in subtractive synthesis is generated by the filters and that is, where the MB shines.

Try also the options of audio-FM and you will find new sonic territory. Try also the different noise modes, which are available as audio-FM too. There is much, what Moogs and the others don't provide. That was the reason, why I got my MB in the first place

[indiescore]

First thought ... if you got this synth to complement your Moog, Dave Smith etc. instruments, you have done it right. It's basic sound is intentionally different. It can do sounds, which the others can't and vice versa

Second thought ... it seems, the both of you could need some more time ...

IMO the sequencer is okay and I think, Arturia will listen to us users and issue updates. They have done so already. Maybe they will improve the live recording mode too - or have already. Have you checked the version of the firmware?

You can achieve bellish sounds ... here is a thread about it ... https://forum.arturia.com/index.php?topic=90708.msg140750#msg140750

The wave forms are indeed the typical ones ... but since you have Moogs and others, I would suggest to compare the basic wave forms of the MB to the others and listen carefully. I did it and there are - yes ... minor - differences, but they are there.

The mixing of the wave forms generated by one VCO is different compared to the mixing of wave forms from differnet VCOs. Background ... one VCO generates phase synchronised wave forms, which add differently compared to wave forms generated by VCOs, which are off-phase. Try to mix on the MB saw and square and listen carefully. You will find that the sound is thinning out at some places and changing it's character. You can not achieve this effect with two Moog VCOs. Well ... the difference is not dramatic, but in combination with the filters, this can be important, because the filter can emphasize this difference

This said ... the most of character in subtractive synthesis is generated by the filters and that is, where the MB shines.

Try also the options of audio-FM and you will find new sonic territory. Try also the different noise modes, which are available as audio-FM too. There is much, what Moogs and the others don't provide. That was the reason, why I got my MB in the first place

thanks a lot for the thoughtful input......I will check out the link to bell sounds.....I spent about 5 hours last night and I ended up in some real way out there amazing sonic territory with some deep ambient evolving textures ...but so far I really need that step sequencer to improve I think to justify 2K.....I might get a pro 2 and compare both to see which one sticks for my studio.......your right there really isn't anything sounding real close to this , will have to dig in more .......funny thing about this synth, there is almost zero menu diving but for 4 options in mod
however I find my self diving into the controls to get good sounds ....some will find joy in this ,  as inside synthesis mentioned in his you tube review this synth does not have a wide sweet spot, it can easily sound bad, but it can also sound amazing with the right user tweaking

[BobTheDog]

If you think the MB doesn't have a wide sweet spot then stay away from the Pro2!

[SoundRider]

More thoughts ...

IMO the MB is more of a live-performance instrument. I like the sequencer of the MB, because it provides more features, then other "integrated" synth-sequencer, but for more complex sequencing I use other gear like Elektron units or even a MPC.

One of the most interesting stand-alone step sequencers could be the "Komplex Sequencer" by KOMA Elektronik.

I don't know your music/sound style, but for me the MB has many sweet spots, which are spread over a wide field of sonic territory.

Well, if I compare the MB to my Voyager, I would say, the Moog seems to be one big sweet spot in comparison, but it will allways sound like the typical Moog. The MB seems to be more versatile, more of a chameleon, with more shades, soft shades, rough shades, exotic shades ...

[indiescore]

More thoughts ...

IMO the MB is more of a live-performance instrument. I like the sequencer of the MB, because it provides more features, then other "integrated" synth-sequencer, but for more complex sequencing I use other gear like Elektron units or even a MPC.

One of the most interesting stand-alone step sequencers could be the "Komplex Sequencer" by KOMA Elektronik.

I don't know your music/sound style, but for me the MB has many sweet spots, which are spread over a wide field of sonic territory.

Well, if I compare the MB to my Voyager, I would say, the Moog seems to be one big sweet spot in comparison, but it will allways sound like the typical Moog. The MB seems to be more versatile, more of a chameleon, with more shades, soft shades, rough shades, exotic shades ...

you nailed it on the moog, i have the voyager rack and its good old reliable....the filter  growl ....famous ......but the matrix brute is so much more, and moremodern sounding more aggressive.....I was a working guitarist for many years and got into film scoring in the late 2000,s .....I have done ambient scores to gritty guitar , to more middle of the road hybrid orchestral / synth stuff....but i fell in love with electronica , ambient, etc....and what's possible in that world and enjoy that the most....

[indiescore]

If you think the MB doesn't have a wide sweet spot then stay away from the Pro2!

yes pro 2 can sound like a cheap toy in a heart beat.....LOL.....however I happen to be very familiar with DSI stuff so I can finesse that one.....but....talk about narrow sweet spot the prophet 12 is a 3K tin can out of the box, i tried it and sent that back...I did find a few superb sounds though.....lol

[stephenm]

I'll add one to the list:  the MatrixBrute has two S&H's, but no way to trigger the envelopes from them.  Don't see a way to fix this either.

[Speedball030]

Did a subjective blog post about the Matrixbrute shortcomings, http://mrfprod.blogspot.com/2018/07/arturia-matrixbrute-cons.html

What do you think?

[Lunatic Sound]

I am happy, someone else also found the missing LFO Triplets to be a major problem. I cannot agree on your last point, as I always make my presets in Panel Mode and find the way, that is being handled, great.

[guyaguy]

Did a subjective blog post about the Matrixbrute shortcomings, http://mrfprod.blogspot.com/2018/07/arturia-matrixbrute-cons.html

What do you think?

Subjective response:

The "VCO1 < Noise > VCF 1" Modulation Knob Bug:
Yeah a bit annoying

Lack of Envelope Control:
Looping would be cool, although the 1 shot LFO covers this a bit.

Pitch Wheel Dead Zone:
Haven't encountered this

There is no preset editor:
With a great physical UI I haven't wanted one.
A VST for automation would be nice though.

No way to name presets on the synth itself:
Not something I need
 
MIDI Control Center (Preset management software):
Haven't used it

Rate knobs for LFO 1 and 2 does not support triplets:
It does, you just have to unsync it and dial it in manually

No preview of target preset before overwriting:
I tend to start programing a new patch by choosing an init patch and then selecting Panel mode, then saving to that init patch. That way I see all of the parameters and don't risk overwriting a saved patch. But sometimes I end up finding a nice patch while twiddling around from a saved patch and in that scenario a compare function would be nice.

[stephenm]

TAP tempo does not work!  This is a biggie and is difficult to miss - how does code this broken get out of QC?

[Lunatic Sound]

It should work. Maybe you left MidiSync turned on?

[stephenm]

Every time I press it, it mutes steps and changes the sequence length.

[DrJustice]

Every time I press it, it mutes steps and changes the sequence length.

Yup, it's a known bug. I have submitted a ticket, and I suggest everybody who want tap tempo to work does the same.