I also own a DSS-1 and it´s a quite cool machine, but imo too complex to
handle/program. The problem of my DSS-1 are the disk loading errors, if
one byte of the waveform isn´t loaded correctly, the entire Loop will be
destroyed. That often appears on my "OBX-Strings"-Disk, which i mainly
use. But overall is the sound of a DSS-1 very cool and very fat!
Of course, the MS2000 is also so seen not bad, and one is able to do a
lot of cool things with it, but it is -in my opinion- not "that" Synth,
it has for me only a backround function. I mainly use it for
re-programming interesting sounds of older songs, because it is almost
easy and very simple with this machine and one comes very fast to a
result (presupposed, one knows, how one has to deal with it). If I am
content, then I (mostly) take over the parameters to another Synthesizer.
The best analogue Synthesizer which i ever had was my Waldorf Pulse! It
was hard to program and only monophonic, but it had -that- sound which i
call "analogue": Hard, sharp, pressureful, in the mix penetrationable,
absolutely not comparable to devices like DW´s/MS2K! There was -really-
no Bassline or Lead which i wasn´t able to re-program 1:1, the same, if
the original sound was from a Moog/Arp/whatever. If Waldorf would ever
have released a 8-Voice polyphonic Synth based on the Pulse, I would
have bought it immediately!
Greetings
Stef
jezzthomas wrote:
> //posted this a few days ago, but for some reason it did not get through//
>
> Not side by side, but I have owned a Polysix, a DW8000, played about
> with a MS2000 and currently own a DSS1
>
> IMO, it's down to the filters.
>
> The MicroKorg is basically a MS2000 engine, and the MS2000 is
> basically a re-engineered MS20. It's sharp and bleepy. A very extreme
> filter, I think 2-pole. I've not owned any of these, but from playing
> about with them, I would say that they are very different beasts from
> a DW8000
>
> The Polysix has a superbly smooth filter. IIRC, it's the same filter
> chips as a Prophet-5, and much better than it's close rival, the
> Juno60. The Juno has a better oscillator section though. Both the Juno
> and Polysix have rather distinctive sounds, and you can often hear
> both of them on albums recorded about 1982-3, notably Simple Minds'
> New Gold Dream.
>
> The DW8000 is a strange one. It's a complete failure at what it sets
> out to do - basically to use complex waveforms as the basis fo the
> sound instead of simple ones. The piano waveform for instance does not
> sound like a piano, and you don't have the control that you need to
> shape the sound into piano shape. The filter is on the weak side - it
> neither has the smothness of the polysix, or the nastyness of the
> MS20. But despite the failings of the DW range (I understand the
> DW6000 is just plain crap), the DW8000 does have a good (but again
> very distinctive) feel and sound to it. But it either works for you or
> not - It's a love it or hate it synth.
>
> The DSS1 is everything that the DW8000 wanted to be and wasn't. If
> you're familiar with a DW8000, you'll recognise most of the
> programming parameters, but inside, it's a different beast
> alltogether. You sample your own waveforms, the new-improved 2-4pole
> filter has all the qualities I loved in the Polysix, and it sounds
> fan-tas-tic, all this without really coloring the sound so you can
> tell what it is in a mix. Of all the older Korgs, the DSS1 is the one
> synth you just cannot argue with. It is awsome.
>
> I know that Korg included a lot of the old DW waveforms and then some
> on the MS2000, but they will sound different with the MS2000 filter -
> it's no substitute for a DW8000
>
> --- In DW8000@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Rinass <st@r...> wrote:
> > yazzofever wrote:
> >
> > > The korg microkorg boasts 64 of the dwgs waveforms of the old
> dw-8000.
> > > I have the microkorg and these waveforms sound AWESOME!! I have been
> > > told that essentially the microkorg sounds just like the dw-8000. is
> > > that true?
> > >
> > > has anyone ever checked them out side by side?
> > >
> > Nop, the DW (i have the EX) sounds imo totally different compared to
> the
> > KORG MS-2000 (which is nearly the same like the Microkorg). The DW
> > sounds after all better, more "analogue" (who�s surprised: the DW/EX
> > -is- analogue, except the Wavetable-Oscillators, the MS2K/Microkorg has
> > a (slow) DSP inside). Can�t understand why the MKorg/Ms2K should
> have 64
> > different "DW"-Waveforms; the original DW has 16 WF (together with
> > OSC2=so seen 256 WF). The MKORG has so seen four Oscillators and the
> > DW/EX 8000 eight.
> >
> > I think that the DWGS-Waveforms are rather unuseful on the newer
> > machines, they�re imo only good for emulating weird organs. The
> > MS2K/MKorg is good for short leads and effects while the DW has more
> its
> > strenght in smooth strings/"emulating" flutes etc and -some- basslines
> > and afterall it sounds more "fat". So they�re imo absolutely not
> > comparable together. The MS2000-DSP-driven Synths from KORG are,
> > referred to the sound, so seen "alone" between all other KORG
> > Synths=>they sound good, but not like KORG (bcoz of this was the
> MS2K so
> > seen a big flop, they wanted to produce a MS20-successor, but it
> didn�t
> > succeed and the Microkorg/Legacy Pack is the rest of this era) . Ever
> > heard a MS20, Polysix, Mono/Poly? I know, they are expensive (specially
> > the MS 10/20, but i don�t know why the Polysix is nowadays such
> > expensive=>it isn�t -that- special machine, as everyone believes!)....
> >
> > Greetings
> >
> > Stef
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> ∗ Visit your group "DW8000
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DW8000>" on the web.
>
> ∗ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DW8000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DW8000-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> ∗ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>