NAMM 2013 Day Three And Other Stuff...

Yesterday was my last day at NAMM (I don't go on Sunday, as the words "fucking ridiculous" can only be uttered so often before people start thinking I have Tourette syndrome) and my mobility was somewhat hindered by a flare-up of last year's leg problems, thus necessitating going Cane On.

The only instruments I demoed extensively are noted below:

1. Dubreq Stylophone S2: While the original Stylophone is much-loved, especially by our cousins across the pond in the UK, it is so limited it is really only handy if you're David Bowie and it is 1969. The S2 model attempts to remedy that situation by turning the Stylophone in to a full metal synth extravaganza. I'll be honest and say that while it is quite playable (you don't even need a stylus any more) and sounds not bad at all, the control layout is kind of odd, and somewhat difficult to deal with. But there are only a dozen or so controls, so how hard can it honestly be? CV/Gate in so you can control it from a sequencer or whatever if that's your bag. Is it worth ?299? You'll have to be the judge of that. I'm personally not convinced at this moment, but my moods are changeable.

2. Studio Electronics Boomstar 5089 and 303: Studio Electronics released four different Boomstars, but only the 5089 (Moog ladder) and 303 models were working at NAMM. The other two were displayed, but neither was playable. (The SEM version didn't even have insides.) These are obviously based upon the ATC-X rackmount membrane-panelled synth, but with extra features from the SE-1x and some stuff they've come up with since. Is the 5089 a better purchase than the Phatty McPhatness from Moog? It sounds a bit better, in my opinion. Plus it has more I/O for external control, and quite a few additional routing and modulation options. It is a more sophisticated synth overall, and at $200 less, probably the better purchase.

The 303 version has identical topology, but substitutes the Roland diode ladder filter for the Moog transistor version found in the 5098. It has the same oscillator section, though. As far as I'm aware, all four Boomstars have the same oscillators; they only differ in filter topology. It doesn't sound much like a 303; it doesn't squelch like one, and the square wave sounds nothing like the square in a 303. But it does have a very nice, round low end, and is a perfectly serviceable synth with an interesting panel. I liked it better than the 5089 version. Personally, I can't say I found either terribly interesting, but if you need a single bread-and-butter analog monosynth, they're perfectly useful as such, and have enough mod routing and I/O to go to some strange places.

In other news, we're nearly done with the Bitcom re-write. We removed VST3 support, and went back to the old VST2.4 model. Hope you weren't too hung up on VST3; we've pretty much jumped ship on the whole concept at this point. The only compelling reason to build VST3 was the free-as-in-your-mom AU and 2.4 versions. And if the AU doesn't work, that really is pretty much a deal-breaker. But apparently (last I heard) things are going smoothly on the re-write and I hope to have good news shortly.