MICRO INTRO

I had never seriously thought about buying the Microfreak because I’m a vehement opponent of the miniaturization trend, but you voted for it (in the “next jexus demo” poll) in such vast numbers that I thought I needed to check it out and see if I can make some sounds for ya;)

There was also one more reason that kept me disinclined to dive into the Microfreak. There were so many people all over the Internet who were so excited about the synth’s numerous oscillator types and the supposed potential for sound creation that it brought… but all the patches I heard in these demos did not live up to the hype. It does seem interesting and intriguing to have 13 oscillator types when $3000 synths have just one, and maybe it’s cool if your $400 synth can sound like a robot spelling out some nerdy word, but for me the end question has always been this: what real value does it bring after the initial excitement has worn off and the “powerfulness” of the synth has been explicitly demonstrated with flamboyant examples? So when I received my unit, I quickly learned that in order to avoid ending up with these curious-yet-crappy sounds, we have to either give the instrument some time and effort (lesson 1: shortcuts in life are rare), or run it through some outboard FX (lesson 2: that’s not the end of expenses).

MICRO LIFE

Just by looking at the above “sum-up” grade table (which has the largest number of additional / explanatory notes of all my synths) we can tell the Microfreak is something out-of-the-ordinary. And since this thing comes from France, let me call it the Citroen of synths. In case you’re too young to know what early Citroens were like, I’ll say this: controversial design, crazy physics (pneumatic suspension – was it actually the first lowrider?;) Some people love Citroens, others start behaving like Hitler when they see one.

I’d say this for a start: the MF is the smallest synths I have ever held in my hands, and I really don’t want to go any smaller than that. It is obviously a design choice, but I think a certain threshold is being tested here. Korg broke that barrier with the Volcas while Behringer did the same with the Spirits / Souls. I have a headache simply looking at these “nano” synths and trying to imagine putting my fingers on those miniscule knobs & buttons. Microfreak does not give me a headache nor a fingerache – the threshold has not been crossed / overstretched. But the synth does have its quirks and it does compromise the comfort in a noticeable degree.

The “micro” synths obviously win in portability, but the micro size comes at a price. I can only wonder if Arturia did not install a second oscillator because they wanted to keep the synth simple, or they didn’t have the physical space to do so (or they reserved it for the bigger Freaks like the incoming Minifreak?)

There are many things that seem to be missing from this synth’s engine or its front panel if you compare it to “normal” synths. Yet this does not have to be a deal-breaking downside. I don’t think the Microfreak was ever planned to have anything in common with “normal” synths. The very word “Microfreak” is the best and the most fair name that could ever be invented for this kind of instrument. And if you browse the user manual, you’ll see passages like “a tip – here’s a freaky idea”. So I guess it has all been about freakiness from the very beginning. Looks like a new generation of people has taken over the helm and they’re now steering the ship off the boring route – or routine;)

USER INTERFACE

Working with the MF brings to my mind an imaginary situation: a meeting between an elephant and a venomous ant. I’m the big & strong elephant, but it is me who has to adjust and watch my steps. There’s no point getting angry with the ant, you just have to find your way around it and accept the uniqueness of the situation. And like with every unique situation, there are upsides that would not have been possible in a “standard” situation.

Firstly let me say that MF is a “shortcut synth”. By using just the orange-colored knobs of the oscillator section you can achieve things that would require a considerable mod-matrix diving on other synths. Here the structures / textures are semi-ready from the get-go, and you can quickly adjust them to reach a goal.

On the other hand, there’s no “fine-tune” level beneath this “shortcut surface”; there’s no “Osc Tune” knob, no independent “Decay” and “Release” stages in the envelopes, or other traditional solutions that you find in your more down-to-earth synths.

Next: the keyboard. Installing touch capacitor plates was a great idea as it makes the synth more expressive and fun to play. It’s a big part of the instrument’s personality and its playability. It can also be used to control anything else that supports poly aftertouch but does not phisically have it.

On the downside, this type of keyboard can be sensitive, finicky, and cause undersirable triggers. I do not understand why the white keys are coated all the way up. If you let your finger sway one milimeter to the side off your black key, it will trigger both the black key and the white key.

Oh, and I have to tell ya about one more thing: my skin got too dry after 1 hour of playing and the keyboard stopped working. I guess I was not the only one experiencing this, because there’s a section in the manual that says this: “If the skin on your fingers is very dry the keyboard may not respond as expected. A simple test is to lick your fingers! If the response improves you could research more permanent solutions such as staying hydrated, buying a skin moisturizer, etc.”

Now this is really freaky. I’m not like Eddie Murphy; I don’t have germophobia and I don’t wash my hands 100 times per day, but I’d rather not lick my fingers;) I’d rather go to the bathroom and fix my finger there. Anyways, both scenarios are something I have never thought of (or done) during my sound design sessions. The MF got me wondering about the hydration level of my body and the dryness of my skin. Again, the venomous ant makes you change your ways and think outside the box.

One more word, this time from my friend: “I’m not sure how well it can stand up to the road. Ours broke a week before we had a show. My bandmate had to go out and buy another one. We’re just gonna keep two Microfreaks from now on, one as a backup. I came to realize the price of the Microfreak is actually two Microfreaks – if you really want to have a reliable machine for the road you gotta have two of them. That’s the major downside.”

THE SOUND

Trying to describe the nature of the MF sound is either a challenge or a fool’s game. The basic, unprocessed tone brings to mind the mid-rangey “Arturia sound” catchphrase (for the lack of a better word), but here this sound is noticeably different than the sound of the Matrixbrute / Polybrute. The big sisters are equipped with FX and two serial / parallel filters and sound more organic, while the little brother sounds pretty tight & abrasive in comparison. Some people will even call it “flat” and simply “bad”. But the good news is that it can shape-shift like a chameleon, Jeff Bezos or other reptilians.

At the beginning it’s easy to dial in and jump back & forth between a “cheesy toy organ” type of sound and a “pro” wavetable-synth type of sound. Then, with some work you can make the MF catch a vibe of the DSI Evolver, the Oberheim Matrix-6, the Ensoniq ESQ-1 or any old 12-bit sampler. Getting Prophet-6 or Moogy or other juicy / traditionally analogue sounds is much harder, if not impossible. Still, the timbre plasticity department is the strongest asset of this machine, and if there is a synth that could be described as “having a sound of its own yet sounding like something else each time you change the patch” – that’s the Microfreak.

There’s quite a lot of stuff inside that lets us tweak the texture and the dynamics of a sound: adjustable unison, mod matrix with assignable slots, syncable LFO, and animation lanes to name a few. The possibility of importing custom wavetables opens a new world – it almost turns the Microfreak into a new synth. It won’t beat the Hydrasynth or the Opsix in their breadth or expressiveness, but if we take the dimensions as a factor, the sound design potential is several times the physical size. It boosts the synth’s price-to-features ratio into the stratosphere.

On the downside, all the little quirks and limitations rear their head quite often. Mono (monoaural) output, four voices of paraphony, glitchy envelopes, one filter and no effects keeps all those versatile patches in one camp, so to speak. I do realize all the things I’ve said so far may sound contradictory, but it’s the best description I can come up with. I don’t know what to call the MF sound, but I do know what I would never call it – I would never call it “soft” (as in Prophet-6 or the UDO Super-6) or “hi-fi” (as in Novation Peak / Summit or other FPGA synths).

I’m going to give you one more analogy: the MF is like an SUV that is equipped with all the vacation gear you can possibly load into it, but the headlights are broken so half of the world’s police won’t let you in to their country. If you want to pass the checkpoint, an external FX unit will serve as bribe…

OUTRO

So let me collect all the freaky thoughts that have germinated in my head since my purchase of the Microfreak. It seems like this is the kind of synth that is best understood and used most successfuly while in the hands of the experiment-oriented people who don’t like to stay in one place for too long. This point becomes even more valid if you add to it the aforementioned idea (or the necessity) of processing your Microfreak’s output with an external pedal or FX unit. This synth pushes you out of your comfort zone – you must experiment or otherwise perish. Without any more or less clever mod matrix tricks and without any chorus / delay / reverb the synth sounds kind of obtuse. With the cheapest TC / Lexicon out there it sounds practically indistinguishable from any “pro” synth (in a mix), and this is where the “MF has no effects” argument may actually turn into a benefit, an upside. Arturia gives you the freedom of choice as to what kind of effect you want to pair the MF with. The Sequential TAKE-5 proudly comes with internal FX, but it got me thinking: what sounds better and / or more interesting? The $400 Microfreak plus a $300 processor, or the $1500 Take-5 with built-in effects? I dare say it’s the first option. If you counter me by saying the TAKE-5 is a “completely different synth”, we can exchange it for the Modal Cobalt-8 (v1) – but my thoughts will remain the same: Cobalt can sound super smooth & lush or raw & brutal, but at the end of the day the MF + FX combo is a more powerful chameleon and more fun. Just don’t let the initial “infantile” aura of this 1-oscillator sound turn you against the MF. Oftentimes it does sound like a toy, but it’s only the question of your will to take it out of the kindergarten and into the world of grown-ups. Everybody should hear it in a mix (or context), not by itself. It has a very special & interesting “tonal charisma”, and it sounds great & exciting as often as it sounds bad & obnoxious.

The other half (or part) of your success lies within the synth’s interface and its freaky features – you have to take advantage of them to make it shine. Sitting in front of it and tweaking it like you tweak your Peak, your Prophet or your Deepmind just doesn’t make any sense. It’s not your traditional “sound design synth”. The touch capacitor keyboard with poly aftertouch plus the spice & dice randomization of sequences turn this micro box into a performance-oriented tool where a large portion of the job is done by the more or less conscious movements of your hands, as opposed to the standardized thought-processes of your head. It’s a synth that has brought creative randomization as close to your fingertips as possible, literally and figuratively. So don’t stand there like a lazy elephant, move it! And if you’re too big, get yourself the MINI-Freak!

Support this page when you buy gear:
[full story]