I know there are many Elektron owners here. Maybe someone tried both MKI and MKII versions of analog Four and can answer my question.
I owned A4 for couple years now. While I really like the interface, the sequencer and the updates, I am increasingly dissatisfied with its sound - which is the whole point of “Analog” part, right? It just isn’t very good for deep, resonant patches. There is always that gap in high-bass low-treble range. Also, the ladder filter taints many otherwise good patches with extremely distinct and annoying screeching. It seems like MkII version addressed some of these issues. How much better is it? So far I can’t find any reviews that explicitly addressed this question.
I saw Cuckoo’s comparison on YouTube, but he doesn’t push those devices into the territory I’m talkingabout. (Not my video, but those sounds are exactly the kind of stuff I couldn’t recreate on or download for A4.)
A4 mk2 sounds a lot warmer, and the new distorsion is really good. You have to try it, that’s for sure.
Now for me the whole point of the A4 is the numerous modulations coupled with the advanced sequencer : it really makes it possible to quickly dial evolving, complex and alive sounds
Add Performance on top and you get a very deep synth, with direct access to many parameters at once.
A4 mk2 sounds a lot warmer, and the new distorsion is really good. You have to try it, that’s for sure.
Glad to hear that. I wish local stores had it. I will be checking from time to time.
Part of the problem is that most YouTube demos are drenched in reverb and delay and don’t show “classic” sounds, settling for 4-track multi-patch arrangements with lots of glitches, screeches and growling. It’s hard to judge the core sound quality when you have chained effects each of which has a mini-equalizer.
Now for me the whole point of the A4 is the numerous modulations coupled with the advanced sequencer : it really makes it possible to quickly dial evolving, complex and alive sounds
Add Performance on top and you get a very deep synth, with direct access to many parameters at once.
I really love this synth sound !
How many people do you think would buy a cheaper A4 without the sequencer?
Sure, it has a lot of modulations.And it has the best polyphony/unison handling of any analog machine I know. Plus module chaining. Lots of sound design features that I like. But at some point you have to look at the core sounds it produces and especially at its filters. How close do you think anyone could get to replicating the two sounds I liked above (without any FX)?
I wish someone did the same for MK2II. I don’t get how people can say “nah, everything sounds fine” about MK1. Apparently, it’s also been tested with an oscilloscope and it confirms what I hear: waveforms become thinner as they go down the register:
A4 chews up bass, Sub 37 rolls of higher frequencies, and you need to buy “version 2” to fix the issues. Kind of disappointing, considering how much these devices cost.
Meanwhile, I learned to make killer Roland-like basses on OP-1 using its hidden filter.
<span style=“color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: NHaasGroteskTxPro-55Rg, “Helvetica Neue”, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);”>“The Analog Keys uses the same means of analog sound generation as the Analog Four (MkI) , but features circuits fine-tuned for delivering deep bass.”
I was actually going to buy Tempest, but heard a lot of negative feedback about its software and sequencer, so ended up with A4. I haven’t kept tabs on Tempest updates since then. I’m under the impression than it would be a serious downgrade int terms of sequencing, even thought I do like DSI flavor of sound.
It’s funny I actually prefer the Tempest sequencer over Elektron sequencers. I owned an octatrack Mk1 and a digitakt but sold both because the sequencers always felt too stiff whereas the Roger Linn swing of the Tempest feels OG funky to me. Tempest can be a bit noisy but a great instrument nonetheless.