why I won't replace my G1 with a G2

kmmcdonald · Joined: Oct 08, 2005 Posts: 22 Location: USA Audio files: 1

My G1 (rack) has been my main machine for at least seven years, in my home studio. While it does not sound as good as some of my other equipment, it has a sizzle that sits well in a mix. Anyhow, I occasionally toy with the idea of upgrading, but it eventually comes down to this:

1) G2 has no filter bank, which is generally the only way I've found to add fullness and smootheness to an otherwise "sharp" sound

2) From what I have read, the G2 doesn't sound any different or better than a G1. Unfortunately, I have no opportunity to listen to a G2 myself. While the G1 definitely sounds "clean," an improvement would have been attractive.

And the main reason:

3) No rack module with knobs. I don't need an additional keyboard in my setup. For me, the NM1 module is the ideal configuration

Things that could change my mind:

1) MN1 editor no longer works as PC OS's evolve

2) Audibly superior sound

3) Digital output

4) rack version with knobs (like G1 module)

Too bad for me.

Keith

P/S. The syncable LFO's of the G2 area ttraceive to me, but not enough to push me over the edge.

blue hell

mosc · Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:31 am Post subject:

You have good reasons. The G2 has a better control surface, interslot communication, better MIDI, variations, and the control sequencer. Still, if the G1 is doing it for you, why change? Is someone asking you to replace your G1 with a G2, or are you seeking reassurance?

kmmcdonald · Joined: Oct 08, 2005 Posts: 22 Location: USA Audio files: 1

I am looking for alternate points of view in case I am wrong on some points, or there is something that I have not considered.

So, you could say that I am seeking the opposite of reassurance.

Keith

elektro80 · Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject:

The G2 is a wonderful machine which absolutely is worth its price. My own opinion of it is that it is not really an an upgrade of the NM-1, but rather almost the same thing but slightly different. It has several improvements of the design, but it doesn´t make the NM-1 obsolete in any way. Some of the perceived improvements are more like different design choices rather than true improvements. Bottom line is that the G2 is a G2 and not a better NM-1. You might love to own both. Wink

Much would of course be different if Clavia had implemented patch compatibility, included the same modules as in the NM-1 and added some small extras. This does not mean that I think the G2 really lacks any major features. The basic concept of the G2 is the same as the NM-1. You get an extremely powerful modular synth and you save a lot of money because the interface to the modular synthesis is software based and not included in hardware by Clavia. The control surface is more modern than what you have on the NM-1.

elektro80 · Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:34 pm Post subject:

The title of this topic says it all.

Frankly, I don´t think the bright minds at Clavia really intended to make a replacement, but rather they felt they could implement the inital design ideas behind what became the NM-1 in a way that would result in a slightly more modern product.

varice

varice · Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:14 am Post subject:

Wout Blommers · Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:36 am Post subject:

elektro80 · Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:23 am Post subject:

davep · Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:34 pm Post subject:

I tend to agree with you. If I had sold the NM1 and replaced it with the G2 it would have been a bad move, mostly because of losing a massive amount of NM1 patches. However, I'm very glad I have a G2 in addition to the NM1. If you can justify the expense, it's a great synth for someone who already has the NM1 because you already know most of the features and UI but you get quite a few new things, as mentioned in other posts. Having both is great.

And yeah, it's too bad about the lack of rack version with knobs. I STILL don't understand that. They should have released a rack box with knobs instead of the three octave version. The five octave verson and the Engine make sense, but an incredibly complex synth with a stubby three octave keyboard? In the end, I worked it into my rig OK but it still seems like an odd choice to me.

mosc · Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:47 pm Post subject:

Well, the day my G2 arrived I sent of my NM1 to a friend so he could experience the Nord Modular world. I have zero regrets. I would like to get a NM micro though. Those are handy things to have in your kit.

elektro80 · Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:03 pm Post subject:

dasz · Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:28 pm Post subject:

I do not miss my Papa Nord (NM Classic Key) at all.

With qfinger's patch converter I brought in what I had in papa nord -- there is even less reasons to miss it.

The G2 has the features (variations, Midi Out, fx) and interface (grid x0x editing and easy/quick patch editing without a computer) that is closer to my ideal than the old modular.

The filterbank would be nice so would the spectral osc, but I hardly used them in the old modular, thus ...

However, I do regret what I bought with the money I got for it. But the problem is that the Nord (papa and g2) have spoiled me with the ease of use and intelligent design, which makes using any other devices which are not at par with the nords quite difficult and unappealing.

To each their own.
/Dasz