Learn With Me - Minifreak: Ep01 - Overview & Paradigm

In this video, I talk about the overall design and concept of the synthesizer and a little about the features I'm most interested in exporing.
In this series of videos you'll join me as I learn the ins and outs of the Arturia Minifreak. I'll demonstrate my end to end learning and exploration process starting with the basics of how to use the synth, through all the features, and ending with some sound design demonstrations.
Episode 00 - First Impressions - • Learn With Me - Minifr...
Episode 01 - Overview & Paradigm - • Learn With Me - Minifr...
Episode 02 - Oscillator Basics - • Learn With Me - Minifr...
Episode 03 - Filter Section - • Learn With Me - Minifr...
Episode 04 - Envelopes - • Learn With Me - Minifr...
Episode 05 - LFO Basics - • Learn With Me - Minifr...
Episode 06 - Oscillators 1.1 - • Learn With Me - Minifr...
Episode 07 - Oscillators 1.2 - • Learn With Me - Minifr...
Episode 08 - Oscillators 2 - • Learn With Me - Minifr...
Episode 09 - LFO Shaper - • Learn With Me - Minifr...
Episode 10 - Mod Matrix - • Learn With Me - Minifr...
Episode 11 - Effects - • Learn With Me - Minifr...
Episode 12 - Macros - • Learn With Me - Minifr...
Episode 13 - Arpeggiator - • Learn With Me - Minifr...
Episode 14 - Sequencer - • Learn With Me - Minifr...
Episode 15 - Rhythmic Pad - • Learn With Me - Minifr...
Episode 16 - Cinematic Swell - • Learn With Me - Minifr...
Playlist - • Learn with Me - Minifreak
For more content like this, Subscribe now - kzbin.info?su...
If you'd like to contact me to request a certain video, or for anything else, email me at the address in the channel details in my channel's about section.
#learnwithme #arturia #minifreak #synthesis #sounddesign #tutorial

[@qwe1231]

Great value synth, nice hands-on controls for adjusting sounds on the fly. I just wish I liked the sounds more than I do. For the same price I think the Hydrasynth Explorer has better sounds (and makes for a great, inexpensive MPE controller!) but its better for sound creation than tweaking sounds live. For a beginner or someone in their first band I'd choose the Arturia (or a new model or old model MicroKorg), but for getting the best sounds and subtlties from MPE patches and softsynths at home it'd be the Explorer.

[@ChalkWalkMusic]

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. On the whole, I'm not that enamoured with the sound of the Hydrasynth. I found the effects to be a little lack lustre and the filter models to feel a bit flat (my point of comparison at the time was the Opsix, which has really nicely modelled filters). Complex sound design is definitely a strength on the Hydrasynth side, but at the same time, I find myself constantly wishing it sounded more like Pigments or Zebra (which it makes an excellent controller for). Poly aftertouch is certainly a nice feature and can add a lot, but it seems to be gradually working its way back into the synth market, so my guess is, that won't be such a draw soon enough. The Minifreak definitely doesn't compete with the Hydrasynth on specs (far fewer LFOs and envelopes, a single filter, 2 oscillators and no "mutants": a big strength of the Hydrasynth) yet I find it is a case of having enough for a lot of uses. By this I mean: you can dial in sounds quickly and make tweaks fast, while also having enough depth to design more complex sounds (though I do wish it had an extra 2 LFOs and envelopes with extra rows in the mod matrix). That's not to say it's ideal for maximum sound design scope, but between the second oscillator's ability to modulate the first, the great sounding effects and the very accessible mod matrix, you have something that's quite compelling. This is all without mentioning the arp and sequencer, which I'd say are exceptional. All in all, the Hydrasynth Explorer and Minifreak aren't best suited for the same people, I'd say. The Minifreak suits someone who wants something more performance focused and immediate; the Hydrasynth is for someone who wants to dive deep into designing sounds. The world (and my setup) definitely has space for both to coexist.

[@Mahenounet]

Hi ! Bought a used Hydra last year and the parcel got lost (!!!). That was a sign : I then got a used Minifreak instead, ahah ! Regarding the sound, I second you and ChalkWalk.... When I first listened to the demos I was very impressed by the Hydra. But now the more I listen to them, the more I feel the sound... Kinda flat indeed. Strange. A bit like when I listen to the Blofeld with the built-in reverb. Why did my opinion change over the time ?? I heard similar testimonies about the Minifreak. I remember listening to the review of Stimming who was underwhelmed by the Minifreak sound. It's true it doesn't sound as "full" as, for instance, a Roland Zen Core instrument. But it has a different scope, right ? Anyway. All of those are great in their own way ;) What counts is what we do with them, FOCUS ! ;)

[@Mahenounet]

Regarding Aftertouch... I was extremely thrilled by it, at first. But actually I personally find it pretty difficult to measure / control on a keyboard of this size. I am probably not a good enough player. Maybe with training, curve tweaking, relevant patches... Already quite some work tweaking the sounds, macros, and playing proper music :)

[@ChalkWalkMusic]

@@Mahenounet I think aftertouch is a pretty tricky subject. First there is the keyboard and synth side to it: how much travel does it have; how much force is required to activate, and how deep into the key do you have to press before it triggers. These then translate to the control aspect: how does the force curve you apply translate to aftertouch message values. Finally is the question of how those values get applied to the voices. Most keyboards have a very distinct aftertouch region below the "bottom out" of the key, which is the case for the Hydrasynth. Similar to a lot of other aftertouch keybeds, it takes a reasonable amount of force to activate. In this sense, aftertouch is entirely distinct from velocity, or rather controlled separately. From a force curve perspective, I think you can learn to use any of the curves, but in my experience there was always one that felt most natural from day one. For me, the purpose of the curve is the same as the purpose of a velocity curve on a keyboard: for my sense of light, medium and hard pressure to map linearly into the value space. From a sound perspective, I find that it's very easy to go overboard with poly aftertouch, resulting in a sound that is overly sensitive to the additional pressure. Similarly, it's important to have the sound react in a way that feels intuitive to the player, which is very dependent on the type of sound. As an example, "keys" type of sound you want a very different response to a pad sound. This also leads in to the final aspect: how you play poly aftertouch physically. In practise, it's not easy to independently control the pressure applied by each finger. A lot of the force can end up coming from the wrist, which is common, and your 4th and 5th finger share a tendon; this means that it's not just a technique aspect, but also a physical one. This means that while you can pick out voices in turn using poly aftertouch, it's not that easy to do such modulation across all your fingers at once, especially when the amount of force required to activate the pressure dimension is high (this is where the osmose and new polybrute have an advantage). Given the potential subtlety of motion, you can also find that different extents of poly aftertouch control are available to you depending on what notes you are playing and the type of sound. The main (mechanical) ways I use poly aftertouch are: one hand playing monophonically with aftertouch, the other playing without; both hands playing a chord with pressure applied to one or other as a "block"; pressure applied to one hand or other; biasing the weight towards the left or right side of the hand accentuating the upper or lower voice in that hand; biasing the weight across the entire pair of hands, accentuating the higher or lower voices of the whole chord. You'll note that the more expressive of these (the last two) are only really usable when holding a two handed chord for an extended period of time. In other words, they work best when used with pad sounds. Secondly, I find that for many sounds, having velocity and aftertouch do (significantly) different things makes it even harder; in reality I often have them be functionally very similar, or I just skip out on the velocity aspect entirely and rely solely on aftertouch. TL;DR: If you set your expectations correctly, and choose the right use cases, and design your sounds with that in mind, poly aftertouch can be approachable and quite compelling.

[@ChalkWalkMusic]

@@Mahenounet I definitely agree that is always tempting to focus on "the core sound" of a synth too much. There are a lot of synths out there who are sold primarily on their core sound, and always feel great to program and play. At the same time, we can forget that the outcome (in music) is often 50% composition, 20% sound design, 15% mix, 10% mastering and 5% core sound of the instrument. That's to say you usually have much more to gain by refining your composition vs replacing your synth.