@AutomaticGainsay Thanks for all the videos on the nyx! I pre-ordered as soon as I could and appreciate all of the videos to get an idea of what it's about before I get my dirty mitts on it.
I'm posting it on my Patreon account today, and the second part of it tomorrow. Sooooo... if you were a Patreon supporter, you'd be able to watch it immediately! Otherwise, it's going to take a couple of days... EXTORTION! Sorry. :D
Hearing Dreadbox instruments always exicites my ears. Ok yes they are quite basic in architecture but they sound f%$*ing massive. There is something slightly unpredictable and brash about the sound that i can't quite put my finger on. P.S. that sync is a nasty mo'fo !!!!
Adamski A. I agree but regarding the Nyx specifically, I wouldn’t say it’s architecture is limited. With the dual oscillators with glide and sync + dual filters, 3 envelopes, LFO, and modulatable reverb, it offers a lot of features just on the surface alone.
I sold my Erebus v3 to fund this and I’m glad I did. The Erebus is great but I prefer the experimental nature of the Nyx. And it’s reverb is a lot more lush compared to the more lofi echo of the Erebus. Obviously in a perfect world I would have both, but studio real estate is at a premium these days 😭 I will miss the analog clock in the Erebus’s patch bay though.
Do you consider the core oscillator sound the same on both the nyx v2 and erebus v3? Contemplating picking up both, but not if the same basic sound besides features are the same. Thanks!
I don't know, but if I asked myself this question, I'd answer "Nyx 2." Which is not to say that the Erebus 3 isn't awesome, just that the Nyx 2 serves my personal purposes better.
Depends on what you want out of a synth. I see the Erebus as a more lead and bass machine that can be pushed into more experimental and lush territory, whereas the Nyx is more experimental and lush in nature but can handle leads and basses as well. Depends on what’s more important to you and what you need. I sold my Erebus to find this and I don’t regret it, but I make more experimental kinds of music that the Nyx is perfect for.
The pissing match in the comments was highly entertaining, AG is going hard in 2019! Lol If I may add..I was born in ‘71. So yes...the best things were made in the 70’s! hahaha
'71 here too! Rock on! Honestly, the pissing match and that whole thread was quite depressing and unnecessary. I can often appreciate some flame wars every now and then but this time... it almost spoilt my watching experience. Real or fake troll, the good old saying of never feeding him works marvellously.
well made video - thumbs up from me! ... but what annoys me personally in such videos in general: here, the individual components of the synthesizer are presented in their raw form - I would rather wish something musical. The sound quality on RUclips is so bad that no one can make a realistic picture. Decorated with effects for a really fat sound.
Well, thank you. The thing about synthesis is that synthesis isn’t about sound quality. A lower-fidelity example of a timbre is still that timbre. This is why we can listen to LPs or tapes, or even wire recorders. I discovered early on that a Minimoog recorded on even something as awful to reproduction as a wire recorder, still has the unique timbral characteristics of a Minimoog… enough to be recognizable. So, when I first started this process on RUclips 13 years ago, that was my motivation. Irrespective of what compression algorithms, etc. RUclips was using, the timbral differences were largely discernible. Today, RUclips sounds many times better than it did 13 years ago. But even in comparing my old Minimoog videos to my newer Minimoog videos, the Minimoog qualities stand out. And since I’ve done over 500 demonstrative videos of at least 70 different synthesizers here, I feel pretty confident that the unique timbral and even tonal qualities of these synths come through. As for music: I try to do a little music with each instrument. For the Nyx, for example, the first video I released was entirely musical. All of the themes are musical examples of the synthesizer serving all of the different timbres in all of the frequency ranges (excepting drums, usually). That’s the part where I get to have fun. But my videos aren’t about my musical applications, my musical production, or quality recording techniques. My videos are designed to give the viewer a sense of what each function is going to sound like individually so that they can imagine what they could do with all of them together. My purpose is not to “make the synth sound good.” I personally believe that if the synth doesn’t sound good to your ears without any effects at all, it’s not a synth worth having. Literally any synthesizer of any type can be made to sound good with the right studio effects. Any musical snippet can make a synth sound fantastic with a master programmer, talented musician, and skilled production. But that’s not what these particular videos are for. I’m here to show you what the synth literally does, and literally sounds like when it’s doing it. And I, and apparently millions of other people, think that’s what’s happening. :)
As usual instructive and enjoyable but...your Ident is SO long. Jeez Louse if you were imparting the meaning of life or what happened immediately before or after the Big Bang I'd have to seriously question how much I really wanted to know. Keep up the good work 😎
They are consistently 30 or so seconds long in all of my videos... and they are also instructive. The music in each theme was created using the synthesizer being demonstrated, and all parts (except drums, usually) are that synthesizer. The theme lets you hear the synthesizer in action. But why does it happen on every single video in a series? Because a lot of people will selectively watch a video focusing on one topic they need information on.
Forgive me if I'm presuming, but it seems like you're suggesting that because technology has progressed, it doesn't make sense that some are excited about the older technology. But the problem with that perspective is that it assumes that the value of these instruments is in technological progression... and it is not. Musical instruments are valuable for how they sound, what they do, and how they inspire. When technological progression in musical instruments left beauty, pleasing aural characteristics, and human interaction behind and started making cheap and powerful sound-producing products with immediacy for consumers, musicians threw on the brakes and started moving backward to find electronic instruments that were expressive, beautiful-sounding, and inspiring. After a decade and a half, companies took the hint and went back to creating this 1970s technology. And yes, this is 1970s technology. The oscillators used in analog synthesizers weren't models of 1950s technology, as that was too primitive and ill-suited for the instrument. Even 1960s technology, which sounded great, had practical concerns. When designers make analog synthesizers these days, the model is more likely 1970s technology, often 70s IC technology.
@@automaticgainsay I have been building synths since 1973. I am just amazed at how nothing special can be a selling point today. Yep, I am jaded. Not the first 'nudie pic' for me.
DB, this view is shared by nearly everyone who was working in synthesizers in the 1970s. At that time, the vision for the future made the current technology seem limiting... and that's a reasonable premise. By the time everyone realized that something important had been left behind in the rush to power and function and immediacy, the culture had moved on. Analog oscillators ARE special to people who embrace the way that their shortcomings produce pleasing aural outcomes. If that is not you, that's totally fine. But certainly you must realize that this isn't a situation where people are making something out of nothing. PISSING MATCH TIME! It's not the first 'nudie pic' for me, either. In fact, I was a historian for the Bob Moog Foundation for half a decade, and am currently a historian for Buchla. While I wasn't building synthesizers in 1973, I've been studying them and their history since 1983. I've played Walter Sear's Moog modular. I've played Stevie Wonder's CS-80. I've played the first Buchla. I've demonstrated Michael Boddicker's System 55. I've demonstrated a 1967 Moog modular owned by a professor who attended the first Moog seminar in 1965. I was a Hammond Novachord owner 20 years ago. I've been demonstrating synths for decades and have done so for most of the major brands. If I'm excited about a simple oscillator, it's not because I'm seeing my first "nudie pic.' :)
@@LarsBjerregaard I agree. They have been a staple of almost every synth for 50 years. The OSCs in the NYX sound identical to those in a Moog and those in a PAIA kit. A square wave is a square wave (&etc). Now if you want to rave about complex waveform generators and filters, well I'll be as exited as many newbies are about these oscillaors.
@AutomaticGainsay Thanks for all the videos on the nyx! I pre-ordered as soon as I could and appreciate all of the videos to get an idea of what it's about before I get my dirty mitts on it.
Pretty impressive! How ever my piggy bank for Dreadbox was spent on my two Abyss I bought for Left/Right duties.
Getting ready to put my order in, just hearing it for the first time. Incredible
Very good review, appreciate your thoroughness
Had the first NYX and it was a monster. Blade Runner all day.
going to need that next nyx video immediately sir
I'm posting it on my Patreon account today, and the second part of it tomorrow. Sooooo... if you were a Patreon supporter, you'd be able to watch it immediately! Otherwise, it's going to take a couple of days...
EXTORTION! Sorry. :D
@@automaticgainsay Capitalism√ :] ( ...& like the US, you also offer this 2nd tier pseudosocialist option )
Looking forward to the next part! (for multiple reasons)
Hearing Dreadbox instruments always exicites my ears. Ok yes they are quite basic in architecture but they sound f%$*ing massive.
There is something slightly unpredictable and brash about the sound that i can't quite put my finger on.
P.S. that sync is a nasty mo'fo !!!!
Adamski A. I agree but regarding the Nyx specifically, I wouldn’t say it’s architecture is limited. With the dual oscillators with glide and sync + dual filters, 3 envelopes, LFO, and modulatable reverb, it offers a lot of features just on the surface alone.
I sold my Erebus v3 to fund this and I’m glad I did. The Erebus is great but I prefer the experimental nature of the Nyx. And it’s reverb is a lot more lush compared to the more lofi echo of the Erebus. Obviously in a perfect world I would have both, but studio real estate is at a premium these days 😭 I will miss the analog clock in the Erebus’s patch bay though.
Do you consider the core oscillator sound the same on both the nyx v2 and erebus v3? Contemplating picking up both, but not if the same basic sound besides features are the same. Thanks!
Just picked up one to go with my Erebus v3, Nymphes, and Typhon. Now if Dreadbox would only come out with their Moog DFAM equivalent....
I'm a little disappointed you didn't talk for ten minutes about square waves.
Square waves kick ass.
Thanks for posting, Marc! Wondering if the tuning better on Nyx V2 than the Erebus V3.
In my experience of both, I don't think I've experienced that one was better than the other, but in the future, I'll compare!
I never had any issues with my Erebus v3.
I want to see a video where you actually fill the whole 10 minutes with nothing but talk about square waves.
Square waves are UNNATURAL.
They are an AFFRONT.
Nyx - in Greek mythology the female personification of the night and the daughter of chaos. Just saying
JaySpirit Nyx is the sister of Erebus as well
@@mimijin Erebus, Έρεβος in Greek, means darkness
Should I buy a Nyx 2 or Erebus 3?
I don't know, but if I asked myself this question, I'd answer "Nyx 2." Which is not to say that the Erebus 3 isn't awesome, just that the Nyx 2 serves my personal purposes better.
Depends on what you want out of a synth. I see the Erebus as a more lead and bass machine that can be pushed into more experimental and lush territory, whereas the Nyx is more experimental and lush in nature but can handle leads and basses as well. Depends on what’s more important to you and what you need. I sold my Erebus to find this and I don’t regret it, but I make more experimental kinds of music that the Nyx is perfect for.
Mark - have you noticed a big difference in the sound tonally from Nyx v1 to Nyx V2?
The pissing match in the comments was highly entertaining, AG is going hard in 2019! Lol
If I may add..I was born in ‘71. So yes...the best things were made in the 70’s! hahaha
:::bows:::
'71 here too! Rock on! Honestly, the pissing match and that whole thread was quite depressing and unnecessary. I can often appreciate some flame wars every now and then but this time... it almost spoilt my watching experience. Real or fake troll, the good old saying of never feeding him works marvellously.
10:10 That sounds like something that would be used in a Kansas song :D
well made video - thumbs up from me! ... but what annoys me personally in such videos in general: here, the individual components of the synthesizer are presented in their raw form - I would rather wish something musical. The sound quality on RUclips is so bad that no one can make a realistic picture. Decorated with effects for a really fat sound.
Well, thank you.
The thing about synthesis is that synthesis isn’t about sound quality. A lower-fidelity example of a timbre is still that timbre. This is why we can listen to LPs or tapes, or even wire recorders. I discovered early on that a Minimoog recorded on even something as awful to reproduction as a wire recorder, still has the unique timbral characteristics of a Minimoog… enough to be recognizable. So, when I first started this process on RUclips 13 years ago, that was my motivation. Irrespective of what compression algorithms, etc. RUclips was using, the timbral differences were largely discernible.
Today, RUclips sounds many times better than it did 13 years ago. But even in comparing my old Minimoog videos to my newer Minimoog videos, the Minimoog qualities stand out.
And since I’ve done over 500 demonstrative videos of at least 70 different synthesizers here, I feel pretty confident that the unique timbral and even tonal qualities of these synths come through.
As for music: I try to do a little music with each instrument. For the Nyx, for example, the first video I released was entirely musical. All of the themes are musical examples of the synthesizer serving all of the different timbres in all of the frequency ranges (excepting drums, usually). That’s the part where I get to have fun. But my videos aren’t about my musical applications, my musical production, or quality recording techniques. My videos are designed to give the viewer a sense of what each function is going to sound like individually so that they can imagine what they could do with all of them together. My purpose is not to “make the synth sound good.” I personally believe that if the synth doesn’t sound good to your ears without any effects at all, it’s not a synth worth having. Literally any synthesizer of any type can be made to sound good with the right studio effects. Any musical snippet can make a synth sound fantastic with a master programmer, talented musician, and skilled production. But that’s not what these particular videos are for. I’m here to show you what the synth literally does, and literally sounds like when it’s doing it.
And I, and apparently millions of other people, think that’s what’s happening. :)
Dotying with Dread
As usual instructive and enjoyable but...your Ident is SO long. Jeez Louse if you were imparting the meaning of life or what happened immediately before or after the Big Bang I'd have to seriously question how much I really wanted to know.
Keep up the good work 😎
They are consistently 30 or so seconds long in all of my videos... and they are also instructive. The music in each theme was created using the synthesizer being demonstrated, and all parts (except drums, usually) are that synthesizer. The theme lets you hear the synthesizer in action.
But why does it happen on every single video in a series? Because a lot of people will selectively watch a video focusing on one topic they need information on.
Ban on oscillator torture!! let's boycott all manufacturers including synch features on their synth!!!
Awesome 1950s technology !!! wow ! Why do people get so excited over simple oscillators.
Forgive me if I'm presuming, but it seems like you're suggesting that because technology has progressed, it doesn't make sense that some are excited about the older technology. But the problem with that perspective is that it assumes that the value of these instruments is in technological progression... and it is not. Musical instruments are valuable for how they sound, what they do, and how they inspire.
When technological progression in musical instruments left beauty, pleasing aural characteristics, and human interaction behind and started making cheap and powerful sound-producing products with immediacy for consumers, musicians threw on the brakes and started moving backward to find electronic instruments that were expressive, beautiful-sounding, and inspiring. After a decade and a half, companies took the hint and went back to creating this 1970s technology. And yes, this is 1970s technology. The oscillators used in analog synthesizers weren't models of 1950s technology, as that was too primitive and ill-suited for the instrument. Even 1960s technology, which sounded great, had practical concerns. When designers make analog synthesizers these days, the model is more likely 1970s technology, often 70s IC technology.
@@automaticgainsay I have been building synths since 1973. I am just amazed at how nothing special can be a selling point today. Yep, I am jaded. Not the first 'nudie pic' for me.
I'll shorten Marc's answer: Because they *sound* great! Not because they're simple.
DB, this view is shared by nearly everyone who was working in synthesizers in the 1970s. At that time, the vision for the future made the current technology seem limiting... and that's a reasonable premise. By the time everyone realized that something important had been left behind in the rush to power and function and immediacy, the culture had moved on.
Analog oscillators ARE special to people who embrace the way that their shortcomings produce pleasing aural outcomes. If that is not you, that's totally fine. But certainly you must realize that this isn't a situation where people are making something out of nothing.
PISSING MATCH TIME! It's not the first 'nudie pic' for me, either. In fact, I was a historian for the Bob Moog Foundation for half a decade, and am currently a historian for Buchla. While I wasn't building synthesizers in 1973, I've been studying them and their history since 1983. I've played Walter Sear's Moog modular. I've played Stevie Wonder's CS-80. I've played the first Buchla. I've demonstrated Michael Boddicker's System 55. I've demonstrated a 1967 Moog modular owned by a professor who attended the first Moog seminar in 1965. I was a Hammond Novachord owner 20 years ago. I've been demonstrating synths for decades and have done so for most of the major brands. If I'm excited about a simple oscillator, it's not because I'm seeing my first "nudie pic.' :)
@@LarsBjerregaard I agree. They have been a staple of almost every synth for 50 years. The OSCs in the NYX sound identical to those in a Moog and those in a PAIA kit. A square wave is a square wave (&etc). Now if you want to rave about complex waveform generators and filters, well I'll be as exited as many newbies are about these oscillaors.