Arturia Microfreak. [© CC-BY-SA 4](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MicroFreak.jpg)

Arturia Microfreak. © CC-BY-SA 4

I nearly did, but ultimately I didn't buy an Arturia Microfreak.

The Microfreak is a small form factor hybrid synth with a distinctive style. It's priced at the low end of the market and it is overflowing with features. It has a weird 2-octave keyboard which is a stylophone-style capacitive strip rather than weighted keys. It seems to have plenty of controls, but given the amount of features it has, much of that functionality is inevitably buried in menus. The important stuff is front and centre, though. The digital oscillators are routed through an analog filter. The Microfreak gained sampler functionality in a firmware update that surprised and delighted its owners.

I watched a load of videos about the Microfreak, but the above review from musician Stimming stuck in my mind because it made a comparison between the Microfreak and Teenage Engineering's OP-1.

The Teenage Engineering OP-1.

The Teenage Engineering OP-1.

I'd been lusting after the OP-1 since it appeared in 2011: a pocket-sized1 music making machine with eleven synthesis engines, a sampler, and less conventional features such as an FM radio, a large colour OLED display, and a four track recorder. That last feature in particular was really appealing to me: I loved the idea of having an all-in-one machine to try and compose music. Even then, I was not keen on involving conventional computers in music making.

Of course in many ways it is a very compromised machine. I never did buy a OP-1, and by now they've replaced it with a new model (the OP-1 field) that costs 50% more (but doesn't seem to do 50% more) I'm still not buying one.

Framing the Microfreak in terms of the OP-1 made the penny drop for me. The Microfreak doesn't have the four-track functionality, but almost no synth has: I'm going to have to look at something external to provide that. But it might capture a similar sense of fun; it's something I could use on the sofa, in the spare room, on the train, during lunchbreaks at work, etc.

On the other hand, I don't want to make the same mistake as with the Micron: too much functionality requiring some experience to understand what you want so you can go and find it in the menus. I also didn't get a chance to audition the unusual keyboard: there's only one music store carrying synths left in Newcastle and they didn't have one.

So I didn't buy the Microfreak. Maybe one day in the future once I'm further down the road. Instead, I started to concentrate my search on more fundamental, back-to-basics instruments…


  1. Big pockets, mind

Comments

comment 1
What benefits do these things offer when a general purpose computer can do so many things nowadays? Is there a USB keyboard that you can connect to a laptop or phone to do these things? I presume that all recent phones have the compute power to do all the synthesis you need if you have the right software. Is it just a lack of software and infrastructure for doing it on laptops/phones that makes synthesisers still viable?
Comment by Russell Coker,
comment 2

Thanks Russell for taking the time to respond.

The issue is definitely not compute power. You can indeed attach a USB keyboard to a computer and use a plethora of software synthesisers, including very faithful emulations of all the popular classics. The raw compute power of modern hardware synths is comparatively small: I’ve been told the modern Korg digital synths are on a par with a raspberry pi. I’ve seen some DSPs which are 32 bit ARMs, and other tools which are roughly equivalent to arduinos.

I can think of four reasons hardware synths remain popular with some despite the above:

  1. As I touched on in my last post, computing dominates my life outside of music already. I really wanted something I separate from that to keep mental distance from work.
  2. Synths have hard real-time requirements. They don’t have raw power in compute terms, but they absolutely have to do their job within microseconds of being instructed to, with no exceptions. Linux still has a long way to go for hard real-time.
  3. The Linux audio ecosystem is… complex. Dealing with pipewire, pulseaudio, jack, alsa, oss, and anything else I’ve forgotten, as well as their failure modes, is too time consuming.
  4. The last point is to do with creativity and inspiration. A good synth is more than the sum of its parts: it’s an instrument, carefully designed and its components integrated by musically-minded people who have set out to create something to inspire. There are plenty of synths which aren’t good instruments, but have loads of features; they’re boxes of “stuff”. And Good synths can’t do it all, they often have limitations which you have to respond to, work around or with, creatively. This was expressed better than I could by Trent Reznor in the video archetype of a synthesiser
Jon,