klanglicher Unterschied Micro Q im Vergleich zum Q



Wenn mann bereits einen einen MicroQ sein Eigene nennt, lohnt sich
eigentlich die Anschaffung eines normalen Q? (Nicht Q+).

Sind die klanglichen Unterschiede zwischen einem MicroQ zu einem
normalen Q deutlich hörbar?


Vor der Überlegung stand ich auch.. Hab heute endlich ein Q Rack ergattern können und diesen dem microQ somit vorgezogen, da die Unterschiede teilweise doch enorm sind.. Aber entscheide selbst:

This list is probably quite a bit longer than you expect. As a general guideline the microQ seems to have just the things that a typical sequencer->tone generator setup needs, while the Q is a performance synthesizer where many of the features won't be used or make much sense until you free it from the slavery of the sequencer and let it call the shots. The microQkb and the Qrack are mixed breeds in that respect although they stay true to their ancestry, so the microQkb is still farther from the Q than the Qrack is and the Qrack is nowhere near the microQ. Now for the (likely still incomplete) list of differences from the biggies to the weenies (my order, yours would probably look different):
The user interface. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, but that is something you'll notice right away and will in subtle ways shape your style of working with the synth.
The step sequencer (we'll come back to that later). Some folks may not need it, but even if you don't use it for playing notes it can still be used as a modulation source. [I plan to write up a Q-Tip on that as it has to be one of the most often overlooked features of the step sequencer.]
FX architecture. The Q has eight independent FX units arranged in four pairs. The microQ has four independent FX units and one global FX. Based on the questions here in this forum the architecture of the microQ is confusing to many users, as in essence the arrangement in the microQ means that a path will sound more often than not quite different in multimode than in single mode.
The Filter Routing _interpolation_. The filter routing (serial and parallel) itself is there on the microQ, it's the interpolation and associated modulation possibilities that are missing on the microQ. When it's used you won't be able to do even an imitation of the effect on the microQ.
No CV and switch inputs on the microQ (rack). The microQkb has one switch and one CV input vs two of them on the Q.
The PPG filter. There is a certain range of resonance settings where this filter sounds just so much better than the normal lowpass. But understand that the lowpass on the microQ and the Q will also sound different.
The XPhorm. Another trick the Q has up the sleeve that can yield stunning "modulations" that have no chance of being pressed into the ModMatrix.
Fixed vs. dynamic performance architecture. The Q does not care how many of it's voices are in use and how many features are used by each voice. The microQ will have a different number of voices depending on the general complexity of the patches.
Filter self oscillation. The microQ just doesn't, which is often easily worked around. Alongside with that the filter model generally is different from the Q which would be most noticeable at or around the point where self-oscillation would start on the Q.
A few differences in the actual sound dumps, some necessary due to the mentioned differences and some gratuitous, like the scaling of some parameters.
The Q's standard number of 16 firm voices can be doubled to 32, while the microQ's maximum number of dynamic voices can be tripled to 75.
Maximum delay length and reverb room size is smaller on the microQ.


Man sollte dem englischem Text hinzufügen, das die Anzahl der Stimmen beim microQ nicht statisch ist. Die Angaben 25 bzw 75 mit Erweiterung stellen die maximale mögliche Stimmenanzahl da. In der Regel benutzt man jedoch mehr als einen Oszillator und einen Filter.
Und dann werden es mit unter auch mal nur 12 Stimmen (bzw. 36).

Neueste Beiträge