Hydrasynth

[ReleaseCandidate]

Yes, the Hydrasynths have everything that makes a HW synths good and feel like a 'real' instrument. I've also never thought that the difference between poly AT and 'normal' AT really is _that_ big.

[zerocrossing]

Yes, the Hydrasynths have everything that makes a HW synths good and feel like a 'real' instrument. I've also never thought that the difference between poly AT and 'normal' AT really is _that_ big.

If you get it, it’s huge. I’m mostly a guitar player, but I really started getting into synths back in the early 90s. I got an Ensoniq TS-10, which has a great keybed that included polyphonic aftertouch. At the time, all my previous synthesizers had been pretty cheap, like a Korg Poly-800. Someone actually gave it to me. I noticed the change right away. I assumed it was something good synths have, as I knew the CS-80 had it. I had that synth for over a decade, but when I started branching out and including new instruments, I was disappointed to find that many didn’t, or even have aftertouch at all. I instantly noticed it. They felt sort of dead to me.

I don’t have a Hydrasynth because I already have a good polyphonic aftertouch synth that I use as a controller. The Hydrasynth seems really good to me, but I’ve got that type of thing covered in software. If my controller were ever to die, I’d buy one in a heartbeat.

[ReleaseCandidate]

Yes, the Hydrasynths have everything that makes a HW synths good and feel like a 'real' instrument. I've also never thought that the difference between poly AT and 'normal' AT really is _that_ big.

If you get it, it’s huge. I’m mostly a guitar player, but I really started getting into synths back in the early 90s.

I'm a guitar (and bass) player too, but I started learning the guitar at the end of the 80s and started using soft-synths 20 years ago and hardware synths just because I'd like to play without a computer.
Poly AT vs. AT really is like string bending vs. the whammy bar.

[maschinelf]

Anyone with experience using the desktop (or any of the keys versions with the same control panel) and the explorer, which would you go for and why?

For such a powerful synth that rewards exploration, I'd imagine that the extra controls on the desktop would be very useful, and my foremost reason for wanting this synth is creating my own sounds. Also I have enough keyboards already and an alternate input method like the pads on the desktop is nice to have. Yes poly-AT with keys is a plus point for the explorer not present in my other keyboards and likely more expressive than with pads, but afaict the pads and keys are functionally the same or is there some difference in their respective implementations that I should be aware of?

I also read that the desktop has a more solid metal build. The battery-powered option on the explorer is something I probably won't use that often but always good to have. One last thing, I'm not into eurorack and none of the hardware I currently own has cv io but the cv inputs on the desktop can supposedly take audio signals, which again can be super useful.

I guess it's obvious from the above that I'm leaning towards the desktop. So what I'm asking is is there enough in there to justify the price difference, or is the explorer good enough? And in practice how much of a difference does the difference in the panel layout actually make?

[WatchTheGuitar]

I’d say if you’re not too bothered about getting it new then quite a few desktop versions appear on eBay used for less than the price of a new Explorer.

[maschinelf]

I'm in India so the chances of finding a used one are quite low. That said I don't mind the extra cost if there's a significant advantage. From the physical appearance there seems to be enough of a difference but it also depends on how well it's actually implemented on the more limited panel of the explorer.

Edit - apart from the other obvious difference i.e. pads vs keys

[maschinelf]

I'm leaning more towards the explorer now .. I feel the price difference more than makes up for the trade-off in the master controls. I'd also assumed the control panels on the desktop and keyboard versions were the same but realised the desktop is also missing the extra filter and arp controls. The price difference would be totally justified if they were the same but slightly less so as is. Another thing, I read (and checked in videos and pictures) that the pads on the desktop are quite bright even when dimmed. Plus even though the explorer is mini-keys and it's always nice to have an alternate way of playing, I'm just more used to keys so it would be more useful overall.

The only bummer is 4 master control knobs instead of 8 so more page-flipping, and I wonder if there's a way to assign them to an external controller.

Anyone who's used or owns either or both, or the other models, I'd still like to hear your thoughts. TIA.

[maschinelf]

Finally went with the explorer and quite happy with my decision. My immediate impression is that yes there is more menu diving but a lot of the most important parameters are in the first few pages. The midi implementation is very comprehensive though so it's easy enough to get around that somewhat. And also an editor available which I'll probably buy at some point unless a better/cheaper option comes along, and there's no urgency. Also so far have liked what I've heard and its also different enough from my micromonsta to warrant hanging on to that. And the price difference with the desktop one helps with that too.

[Alex_Longard]

Is it possible for anyone to borrow Explorer or Desktop in Munich for a week to test?
Ordering in the store I can’t do without testing, since the finances are very limited, and according to the descriptions on the forums it is not clear, and I want to check whether it is possible to use the functions of the synth blindly.

[WatchTheGuitar]

New v2.0 firmware out
https://youtu.be/Merf2J0AuL8
lots of options for quantising envelopes, glissando, LFOs etc, per voice modulation. Bit reduction / crushing. Optional sustain pedal sostenuto functionality lets you sustain a chord, hold pedal then solo over it without the new keys played also sustaining. More subtle vibrato options so stepping less obvious. Effects bypass is pretty useful for recording. Step offset option on arpeggios so doesn’t always start on first note played.

Hydrasynth now has 1280 patch storage slots over 8 banks on all models, not just on the deluxe.

My number one ask for the next firmware iteration would be options to smoothly change patches either via sound A continues its normal decay as you come out of the menu or switch to a sound B or maybe even sound A morphs to sound B. That dead air between patches kills the mood, makes the thing seem so sterile even if I whack an external delay bus on it.

[Big Mouth Strikes Again]

I don’t have a Hydrasynth because I already have a good polyphonic aftertouch synth that I use as a controller. The Hydrasynth seems really good to me, but I’ve got that type of thing covered in software. If my controller were ever to die, I’d buy one in a heartbeat.

I took piano lessons for 15 years and still practice scales, Hanon, and Bach Two-Part Inventions (for fun counterpoint exercises) every day. And I could care less about aftertouch. In fact, I turn off the aftertouch setting on my Virus T12 keyboard controller. I don't even know whether my Casio Privia "upright" electronic piano generates aftertouch.

If I'm playing a two-handed part, I would much rather overdub the mod wheel or knob mappings than enter aftertouch via the keyboard. I suppose polyphonic aftertouch could be cool. But I love my Virus T12 keyboard and plan to hang on to it for the rest of my life. So that rules out polyphonic aftertouch. Moreover, I've disabled monophonic aftertouch for 20+ years so I don't think I'll miss polyphonic aftertouch.

[WatchTheGuitar]

I even turn off velocity in a few patches, especially for arpeggiated stuff or if I want classic Juno style keys or pads. Horses for courses.

[BBFG#]

Still, the axiom I'll add here for velocity/aftertouch capabilities is;

"Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."

Beware of companies cheating us of capabilities while pricing those products as if they had them for their bottom line. Or equally, give us the illusion that it's there but so inferior of application that it's not worth the idea anyway.

More importantly, if you never can imagine why you would ever need it, then don't become an unrealized shill for their bidding...

I believe if one is really as trained as they say in classical traditions and form, that release velocity would be a major sticking point much more than it currently is.

MIDI 1 should be fully implemented for the prices they expect to get. And MPE should be advanced as quickly as possible to full realization.

Seems like this synth eludes to a closer version of these implementations rather than a negotiation of what they don't want to implement.

[flatline_horizon]

Poly AT was the killer feature that convinced me to buy the Hydrasynth. All things considered, I prefer it to be available, but would not choose hardware based on it, and focus more on the workflow of getting a patch to sound decent. Digital is harder.

[zerocrossing]

Poly AT was the killer feature that convinced me to buy the Hydrasynth. All things considered, I prefer it to be available, but would not choose hardware based on it, and focus more on the workflow of getting a patch to sound decent. Digital is harder.

Funny, I purchased the Hydrasynth Deluxe to use solely as a controller for its Polyphonic Aftertouch. I don't find digital to be harder, though I'd rather use a software editor for any complex instrument.. OK, well I'd rather use a software editor for pretty much every instrument, but that's another story.