Learn With Me - Hydrasynth: Ep03 - Oscillators 1 & 2

[@bjamminsincebirth3494]

Great videos

[@ChalkWalkMusic]

Thanks for your support: I hope you enjoy the rest of the series!

[@that_Ranjit]

Thank u so much for taking the time to make all these videos. I don't have a Hydrasynth but looking at the sound design capabilities has me wanting one really bad. If you've spent any time with the Arturia Minifreak, what sort of comparison would you make? They both seem great for the price point.

[@ChalkWalkMusic]

Thanks for watching, and for your comment. One thing you might want to do is check out the patch tennis series I made: kzbin.info/aero/PLuh4CHo4ShJdg_61kZyNUoZOAfDUBV2zy . You get to see me and another KZbinr make patches back and forth showing some of the capabilities and workflow. As for my opinions, I think the difference between the two is quite big. The Hydrasynth has a slightly weaker core sound, but a very complex modulation section and the mutants, which add some really unique capabilities, alongside the dual filter and poly aftertouch. The Minifreak has a stronger core sound and a simpler oscillator section, but the oscillator algorithms (and capacity of the second to be a processor for the first) gives easy access to some unusual timbres. Its effects all sound great and generally it feels quite direct. UI wise, the Hydrasynth benefits from a lot of consistency, meaning almost everything is behind a button and the encoder bank. This makes it slightly less direct vs a typical synth and feels like things are behind a menu, but it's a menu you have a lot of physical means to navigate. I would say it's a good approach to handling the complexity, but it makes it less efficient for designing sounds live. I'd characterize the optimal use case as designing complex sounds including a bank of macros you'd use to control it, rather than dialing in sounds on the fly. The Minifreak UI is similar to the Microfreak, but with more controls added to give access to the extra features. The panel controls give you direct access to quite a lot alongside using shift to get to secondary functions. You can design a lot of sounds sticking to the panel in this way. Compared to the Hydrasynth (where" everything is in a menu") you feel a big disconnect when you do need to enter a menu. This doesn't stop you designing sounds live, but it does make situations where you need to go into the menu feel more awkward. The mod matrix is fairly easy to use, though selecting the modulation with a single encoder feels a little slower than it could be. One UI element I like is the macro section; while you only get two macros per patch with 4 destinations each, you can control them with a touch strip; I find this much more natural than turning the encoders. The choice therefore comes down to this; if you want a slightly more immediate, fun and quirky instrument with a broad sonic range, then the Minifreak is it (I haven't even mentioned the arp and sequence which are great). If you want a maximalist subtractive synth with poly aftertouch and an efficient interface to dive deep on, go for the Hydrasynth.

[@tmack729]

@@ChalkWalkMusic This comment alone is more useful than the video that comes up when you search "hydrasynth vs minifreak". Thank you!

[@edoardolai8868]

👏👏👏!

[@ChalkWalkMusic]

Thanks for watching: I hope you enjoy the rest of the series.

[@GertBoers]

... and the next step would have been to assign a LFO+ to Macro slot 1 in the Mod Matrix. ;) (But I know you haven't covered that yet.) So many possibilities with this synth!

[@ChalkWalkMusic]

Thanks for watching, and for your comment. I definitely find myself doing that type of thing often: rather than making multiple mod matrix entries from a single source, I make a macro and use that instead. I've also adopted an approach of placing macros I primarily intend for a human to adjust starting at macro one, and macros primarily for mod matrix use starting at macro 8. As you say: lots of possibilities!

[@feelsinc]

I'm confused about the Macro Assign / Wavescan part ~5:00 This video being my first glimpse at Wavetable / wavescanning synthesis, my immediate thought I have is Ohh you should be able to assign an LFO to modulate the Wavescan position. Is that what you were doing here? Or simply creating an interface to manually edit the wavescan position for live playing?

[@ChalkWalkMusic]

Thanks for watching, and for your comment. A common use of a wavetable is to have it automatically modulated by an LFO or envelope. In practise though, scanning a wavetable is just another timbral parameter for the oscillators. As you say, in this case I've mapped scanning through both wavetables to a single (manual) macro control. Just like a mod wheel, a macro remains where you leave it, vs returning to a neutral position like a pitch bend. This means you have two options for using it. One is to move it to find a position you like and just play it like that (a variation on the patch), or to treat adjusting it as part of playing. In this case I use the latter approach and use it to adjust the timbre as I play. Note that for the Hydrasynth, I can adjust macro parameters from the mod matrix. I could therefore, for example, map an LFO to the macro which would in turn scan both wavetables. In these early episodes I just try and vary what I do and give quick previews of a few features which I explain and use more later in the series.

[@unclemick-synths]

In your answer to another comment, you mention not having a button to assign aftertouch in the mod matrix. Does that mean aftertouch is limited in its application? I play a Roland AE-30 wind synth and when I control other synths such as the Neutron or MicroFreak, I send the breath as aftertouch and that needs to override the envelope (the breath effectively IS the envelope). Do you think this synth could handle that?

[@ChalkWalkMusic]

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. The aftertouch is freely assignable in the mod matrix, the problem I pointed out was that there isn't a panel button for it; with the LFOs and envelopes you can hold a source button then press a destination button and it'll map; with aftertouch you need to go through the list; my "workaround" to save time is I assign lfo5 which is further through the list so there is less scrolling. As for a breath controller, the mod matrix can accept any CC as an input (since the controller is monophonic I assume you don't necessarily need to use aftertouch). Assuming the controller sends notes (and depending on the gate length, this assumes it just sends a trig) then you could have a very long release on the VCA envelope and have the breath CC adjust the VCA level (which you'd set to 0, filter might work too). If no note ons are sent, you could latch a note instead and do the same mod matrix routing. In other words, I think it should be easy enough to do what you want once you figure out how best to handle the gates.

[@unclemick-synths]

@@ChalkWalkMusic thanks for the detailed reply. The AE-30 can send its breath and motion parameters as almost any CC. I just pick aftertouch because it's the most frequently compatible - the Neutron even has an Assign CV patchbay output that can have aftertouch assigned to it. It sounds like this synth could be an excellent companion. The AE-30 internal sounds are a pain to program and frankly don't sound as good as other synths.

[@bjamminsincebirth3494]

What other synths have this much sound design at this cost?

[@ChalkWalkMusic]

In hardware, I don't think it has much competition; in fact there aren't that many "serious" polysynths at the price. You have the blofeld, minilogue XD, Deepmind, JD-Xi, microkorg, Korg mod trio, Minifreak and the new Roland Sh4D. Sound Design wise I think the Minifreak is the closest, but offers quite a different value proposition. The modwave and wavestate are very powerful synths, but a little more specific in their strengths. The blofeld is powerful, but the UI is far less fluid on use. I'd probably say the Opsix is one of its strongest competitors, despite being very different; a very different feature set and paradigm and much lower build quality but huge sound design potential.

[@Romenet310]

Are you still liking the Hydrasynth?

[@ChalkWalkMusic]

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. Since I got it I've felt in two minds about it. First of all the explorer is very good value in terms of features for cost. The questions are about overall sound (it has something of a "hifi digital" sound mixed with some sort of lofi character) which is surprisingly characterful for a digital synth and you tend to either like or not. Second, there are a few UI/UX quirks; it handles the parameter count well, but it seems to miss a few tricks, e.g no button to assign velocity or aftertouch in the mod matrix, and turning the encoder to assign in the mod matrix does nothing until you hit the button on an empty slot, or adjusts the depth if the slot isn't empty. These quirks, you'll get used to, but for me they make the workflow feel less fluid. It's a good synth, with a lot of depth to it and some unique aspects (the mutants, and the poly aftertouch keyboard) but it's best when you design patches with care then save them to perform with macros you assigned: for live sound design I find it less enjoyable. In short: if you like sound design and the overall sound of the synth, and want a poly aftertouch mini key keyboard, it's probably a good choice. This series will continue next week, so you'll get to see how the rest of it all works if you keep watching.