Novation Bass-station Synth

[Hexodus]

Anyone use this much?

[3za]

I use the vst all the time.

Why?

[Hexodus]

Jw if it has the capability of making raunchy bass. I seen it comes with the interface I'm getting so was just curious as to what people have to say about it.

[mks]

I have the rackmount version. Awesome little machine!

[3za]

Jw if it has the capability of making raunchy bass. I seen it comes with the interface I'm getting so was just curious as to what people have to say about it.

It came with mine too

It's alright, just pretty simple in every way. I like to use it for just plain simple stuff, becasue it uses little CPU, and has a simple GUI (all the main controls can be seen at the same time). You can get some good basslines out of it, but mostly old school sounding stuff, like the old garage womp sound. Also is really good for leads, but still on the more old school tip, like nice 80's funk synths. Has some nice touch to it, like the mod/pitch wheel, and the velocity sensitive amp/filter, but most of all the great portamento. The sounds that come straight out of the synth tend to be a bit dry/dull sounding, the filters are nice, but are a tad on the boring side. So I like to spice things up with some distortion, chorus, reverb, ect, and get some good results. Over all it's a good little work horse, the power synth of today do beat it when it comes to sound/feautures, but noway when it comes down to GUI, and CPU usage. I love my Bass Station vst, and have been tempted to buy the hardware unit, because of it.

Example: Bass @ 0.29 (sort of high bass lol), and lead synth @ 2.23
Soundcloud
The Bass is pretty dry, but the lead has got quite a few efx's. (Not one of my better tracks, or uses of Bass Station, I just picked it because I used two of them in one track).

My first music product review, what you think? I should get a job @ CM mag right???

[mistayif]

yea, came with my sl49 mk2, installed it but haven't used it yet. will give it a spin when i start my next tune

[Sharmaji]

had a rackmount one for a while; sounded good, but not the most fun synth to program. definitely came to life through some guitar pedals and such.

sold it for my microkorg, which I use all the time.

wouldn't mind having it around these days, was great for leads. entertaingly enough, not a ton of bass in it, but it was made at a time where records didn't have much going on below 80hz.

[3za]

Anyone tried both the hardware, and the software version?

I know, that the hardware version have got a analogue filter, and digital oscillators, but what is the difference in sound?

[paradigm_x]

i had the rack years ago and sold it, was meant to be a 303 clone and was shit at that, not toooo bad otherwise, but hardly amazing, very plasticy, geezer who designed the wasp designed it and it has 'similar' filters. I gave the vst a quick go and it was as bad as i remembered the hardware

Ive got two copies of it if anyone wants one. Bag o shite imo tho.

[nowaysj]

Would like to try the hardware, the vst does not tickle me.

[wub]

Would like to try the hardware, the vst does not tickle me.

This.


If I see one going to less than £20 I'll probably grab it, but tbh I've never gotten a good sound out of the VST.

[mks]

One cool thing that I use the rackmount version for is a CV/Gate - MIDI converter. The BassStation rack has CV/Gate outputs in the back that I use to control a Yamaha CS-5 via midi. Useful sometimes.

[contakt321]

I bought the keyboard maybe 7 years ago and returned it. In retrospect it was fine, but not amazing.

I used the VST for the top layer of my bass lead in my remix of Mele's "Trappin" (free DL on Fact, XLR8R, etc) if anyone is curious about how it fits into a track.

The VST is cool, not remarkable, but usable.

[Mad_EP]

I like the VST - I've used it a fair amount for leads and bass alike.

Not gonna do much 'filth' for ya, but it depends what you are looking for. I have definitely used it a bunch in hiphop tracks.

[briqu]

I too picked up a Remote Le 49 [just yesterday] and stumbled across the vst. Being the owner of the Bass Station rack aswell as possessing an interest in the debate of analog vs digital; the a/b comparison became the inevitable task.

Firstly, I would like to say that people used to vsts have to remember that most analog synths have little or no fx built in. Therefore many of the "bells n whistles" people have come to enjoy with digital technology; the reverbs, delays, modulations etc. that grace near every preset in the digital environment, should be thought of as extras rather than deficiencies on the part of the emulations which dont contain them. That said, with two oscillators, two envelopes and one lfo the Bass Station was always designed with basic tone sculpting in mind, not the mesmerising cascades of your Arp Odysseys' and alike [nor should it be compared]. Also, I believe that the Bass Station's oscillators are digitally controlled oscillators rather than digital oscillators.. [as a previous comment suggested] you can google the difference. As for the suggestion that 90s music rarely ventured below 80hz.. you should try saying that to people like Apollo 440, Laurent Garnier and Fatboy Slim ..all of whom loved their Bass Stations. Yes many modern producers maximize their compression settings for airplay, which may give a more consistant low end, but do so at the expense of dynamic range, which in itself is a reason why so many producers 'sound' so the same.

Forty of the presets of the vst are also in the rack so that became the obvious way to compare the two. My understanding is that these presets may be sent from one to the other via midi which should mean that the values within the presets are identical. My initial impression was that the vsts presets are fairly close but it has a little more sparkle at the top end, harsher midtones and thinner almost anaemic bass end. However, like any analog synth my Bass Station will sound slightly different to others due to things like factory pot tuning and components that change value over time. So as I listened more I figured that the envelope/filter settings were a little different [more so on certain presets] causing some of the variation in sound. Sometimes a little tweak of the filter made the sounds match better, but the hardware usually seemed to have the edge. One area where the vst wins is that its cutoff knob is actually smoother than the hardware when turned at high speeds. This was a recognised flaw in the original but it dnever affected the smoothness of the lfo or envelopes.

Upon further examination, I concluded that the oscillators are fairly well emulated but that the character of the portamento and envelopes a little less so [at fast settings]. There's just that extra bit of voweliness and quackiness from the hardware that make it that bit more lifelike. The filter [while I thought decent for a vst] doesnt quite match up to its hardware sibling. At moderate settings it does a good job but at low cutoff settings lack the same sort of smoothness and depth. High res settings is where the hardware really wins. The self oscillation of the circuitry [in 24db mode] is more pronounced and distorts quite interestingly on the ear.. quite agressive but in a natural way. I found that while the vst produces a cleaner self oscillation it not only lacks the same level of character but its effect on the overall tone was ugly and sickly by comparison. Both filter modes have more scope in my hardware, sounding more squelchy.. just more like walking in a wet field in wellies. Also, I noticed that the vst distorts quite harshly when the lfo speed is maxed.. this is nonexistant in the hardware. Finally, the hardware seems to have a slight distortion always present which the vst lacks.. which sounds cleaner yet has that hint of plastic manufactured vst sound.

While I've focussed on the differences, someone who isnt use to hearing either might be tempted to call me a crackpot because in many respects the two are quite similar. Its just that the accents, nuances and filter of the hardware sound more complex and musical. The basses boom and the leads sing in an emotional way which in my opinion emulation cant quite achieve. I will create some a/b comparisons over the coming week and can post the results if anyone is interested to hear them?

[nowaysj]

I'm interested to hear them. Having had a tweak with the vst, but not the hardware, I agree with everything you say about the vst ( ), except the wellies, I've got no clue what they are.

[briqu]

Hey cool nowaysj, it'll be interesting to see what you guys think. Oh ya the wellies thing is just a silly analogy.. the squelch sound you get walking [in Wellington boots] through mud: the hardware just sounds that bit more organic.. as you would expect from an analog filter.

[Depone]

entertaingly enough, not a ton of bass in it, but it was made at a time where records didn't have much going on below 80hz.

This is what sprung to mind when i saw the title of the thread.
I had the rack, and then sold it for some other studio gear!

Errrrrbody needs a 303 (clone) haha

[Sharmaji]

I too picked up a Remote Le 49 [just yesterday] As for the suggestion that 90s music rarely ventured below 80hz.. you should try saying that to people like Apollo 440, Laurent Garnier and Fatboy Slim ..all of whom loved their Bass Stations. Yes many modern producers maximize their compression settings for airplay, which may give a more consistant low end, but do so at the expense of dynamic range, which in itself is a reason why so many producers 'sound' so the same.

wow. I can't think of a piece of gear that warrants less of a 5 paragraph opus than the good 'ol bass station.

it came out in 93, which was just as records were beginning to have consistently gigantic lowend. I've got no doubt that X, Y, and Z producer loved and continue to love this bit of kit, but the truth is-- with the oscialltors down super-low and the resonance up super-high, the sine tone in my akaiS2000, along w/ whoevers emu's, s5k's, etc, all beat the bass station. and that was nearly 20 years ago.

Depone, yep-- a nice little 303 emulator w/o the step sequencing features. I just released a tune i used it on as a lead, which i did back in 2005-- fun to remember where the sounds came from. I think i ran it thru a digitech r70 pedal or something

[briqu]

I guess Sharmaji, if your theory on music from 1993 not having much going on in the bass region is correct, then presumably applying a low cut 80hz filter to your average hip hop, house, techno or jungle track of that era wont significantly affect its sound? Hmm, you should try that one day and you will notice it will suck the entire arse out of any club track. As Im sure you know the 808/909 kick drums were very much present then and were famous precisely because of their low end frequencies below 80hz. Ok, the compression/mastering techniques of today might squeeze a bit more out of a track, but its worth noting: that boosts the average level of most of the audible frequencies, not just bass. Also, practically all music played at club level volumes is compressed by the PA anyway.

If youre dissappointed that I wrote 5 paragraphs on such a useless piece of kit I really dont mind [incidentally it also doubles as a two way midi/cv converter and standalone analog filter]. Id rather critisize someone on the words they write rather than critisize them for merely writing words. That goes for any subject from the valuations of Victorian toilet accessories to speculation on seismic activity on the darkside of the moon. If I dont like the subject just I stop listening rather than critisizing those with enthusiasm.. but thats just me I guess. In case you missed my central point, I didnt write 5 paragraphs just to say how wonderful the machine was, it was to create a practical comparison between digital and analog. If thats not a subject worthy of investigation in the realm of music technology then I pose you the question: what is?