Another take on Nord Lead 4 and A1 differences

[combathook]

Hello, I'm a new user of this forum. I got a Nord Lead 4 a couple of weeks ago and like many others have been wondering if I might have made a mistake not getting the A1. As much as you read about different users' observations I think for people on the fence it's always helpful to get one more opinion, so here's mine.

I spent about 90 minutes today at a music shop with a very good listening environment. Both machines were the keyboard versions and they were placed on the same keyboard stand in front of two high-quality monitors with a good stereo field, so I was able to match parameter for parameter whenever possible.

From reading all of the NL4 vs A1 posts I think the general consensus is that the A1 has a somewhat softer, more vintage, and subjectively better sound, so when comparing the synths I would normally tweak the A1 first and then try to copy the sound on the 4, which is a biased way of comparing them because I was pretty much ignoring all of the advantages that the 4 has. Nord Lead 4 owners, don't get mad! Also, because the effects are different I had those turned off the whole time.

Let's start with the filter. I initialized both machines and made a few adjustments to get an identical patch (the NL4 defaults to a partially closed filter and maybe lower output level?). I used raw saw and pulse waves to test the LP24 filter, doing various sweeps and envelope mods. Apart from some differences in volume I can say with 99% certainty that they sound identical. I even adjusted the drive and heard no differences whatsoever. I think some experienced users have said the filter design had been modified but I didn't hear it. I probably spent about 30 minutes trying different envelope settings, resonance amounts, and filter sweeps, and while it's possible that my ears were just fatigued and there are subtle differences I wasn't hearing, well, if they're that subtle I wouldn't worry about it.

Then I checked the oscillators of both synths with the filters wide open and the envelopes on gate. Of course, looking at the panel anyone can see that the architecture is simplified and very different, but I think many people unfairly criticize the lack of flexibility on the A1; flexible detuning, pulse width modulation (including smooth control of square shape which is crippled on the NL4), and waveform combinations such as square/saw blends (with settings for different octaves per wave) are all possible. While most of the configurations in the A1 oscillator section were easy to emulate on the Nord Lead 4 using the full-fledged oscillator section along with the o/c mix and mod envelope,* there are probably a lot of configurations that couldn't be achieved on the A1 without the performance mode. But here's where I think I cracked it. Apart from the effects, why do so many people come away thinking the A1 sounds better?

The first real difference between the NL4 and A1 is in the blending of the oscillator waveforms. When you mix, for example, an OSC1 saw with an OSC2 square on the NL4 there is always an "off-phase," raspy sound as they blend together, and every time you trigger the note they hit each other in slightly different ways. On the A1 the waves sound pure, smooth, and "in phase" every time, and this is true for every combination of waveforms on the A1, and it sounds fantastic. When both synths are utilizing only a single oscillator they sound identical, but mix two oscillators together and that's when I think people notice the differences.

The second big difference is the ability to apply "PWM" to each wave. On the Nord Lead 4 only the square wave can be modulated via LFO 1, but the A1 can modulate each waveform (I can't recall if the digital waveforms could all be modulated), which I think is behind many of the silky-sounding demos on Youtube and Soundcloud.

*I also want to point out that while the A1 lacks a dedicated filter envelope, the global mod envelope gets three knobs making it more flexible and speedy for interesting oscillator modulation.

So as far as I can tell, the only sonic difference in the basic synthesis between the NL4 and A1 is in the programming behind how the oscillator waveforms blend and the added ability to modulate each waveshape.

I know a lot of people, including myself, are keeping their fingers crossed about possible updates that could bring the NL4 sonically in line with the A1. I have absolutely no programming experience and I don't have much insight into Clavia's business philosophy so this is pure speculation, but I really don't think there's anything that can be done to "update" the NL4. Even with the new effects, which would still leave the problem of mislabeling on the front panel and is therefore a little farfetched, could the oscillator code be that drastically rewritten? I feel like the oscillator section in the A1 is its biggest innovation and not something that could be ported so simply.

The one thing that I think would be possible to port and that I haven't mentioned yet is the excellent "multi-edit" function. The NL4 allows simultaneous editing of multiple patches in performance mode by holding the shift button, but only the continuous parameters can be changed. This means that changing waveforms, LFO routings, and anything that requires a button press must be done per patch and is very time-consuming. On the A1 all you have to do is hit the multi-edit button and any parameter changes will be made globally.

After trying to compare both synths here's how I felt leaving the shop: I wish I had bought the A1... and if I had, I would have wished I had bought the NL4. The A1 sounds and plays like a Juno 106. It's simple, smooth, and the limited configuration makes the synth one big sweet-spot. There are several times when I started at init, twisted a few knobs, and got a great sound I could have started recording in my DAW for a song. Then, when I moved over to the NL4 to emulate the patch, I twisted twice as many knobs and 90% of the time I got an identical sound. Still, if I hadn't discovered that sound on the A1 I don't think I would have made it on the NL4. This isn't to say that the additional parameters on the NL4 are confusing by any means, just that you tend to make what you know, and everyone knows subtractive synths, and when you have an extra LFO you use an extra LFO. When FM goes to 10, you set it to 10. That being said, the sonic differences are practically zero in most cases, so it's most certainly not worth owning both synths unless you have a lot of money to burn or you're an intense Nord enthusiast.

Here's my advice to Nord Lead 4 owners who wish they had an A1.
Keep your patches simple.
Try using just one oscillator for "vintage" patches for more robust sounds.
Use an external FX unit, it's better when mixing your tracks in the DAW anyway.
Try not to use FM, it gets ugly and cold very fast.
Be subtle when using both oscillators. Setting OSC 2 to a simple sine wave at +24 pitch and only blending it in 20% sounds great, and it something I wouldn't have thought of if I hadn't heard it on the A1.
Instead of blending OSC 1 and OSC 2 in a single program use two programs in performance mode and use OSC 2 and OSC 2. To my ears it sounds more pleasant (Here’s where the multi-edit mode of the A1 would really come in handy).
Be aware of psychosomatics. They really don't sound as different as you think. If you don't like how the Nord Lead 4 sounds, you probably won't like how the A1 sounds either.

That's my take. I'm sure I've overlooked a few things, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Muziksculp]

Hi combathook,

Thanks for the feedback, and Welcome to the Forum

I would like to add that the effects engine of the NL-A1 does make an impact on its overall sonic quality when compared with the NL4. Since they use two different effects architectures. Personally, I wish they had put the A1's effects in the NL4.

So.. Are you planning on adding the NL-A1 to your NL4 in the future ?

Have fun with your new NL4, it is a very versatile synth. I love my NL4-Rack.

Cheers,
Muziksculp

[ricard]

I think for people on the fence it's always helpful to get one more opinion, so here's mine.

This must be the best comparison of the two machines I've ever seen. Thanks for posting!

Let's start with the filter. I initialized both machines and made a few adjustments to get an identical patch (the NL4 defaults to a partially closed filter and maybe lower output level?). I used raw saw and pulse waves to test the LP24 filter, doing various sweeps and envelope mods. Apart from some differences in volume I can say with 99% certainty that they sound identical. I even adjusted the drive and heard no differences whatsoever. I think some experienced users have said the filter design had been modified but I didn't hear it. I probably spent about 30 minutes trying different envelope settings, resonance amounts, and filter sweeps, and while it's possible that my ears were just fatigued and there are subtle differences I wasn't hearing, well, if they're that subtle I wouldn't worry about it.

From what I've been able to glean from Clavia, the filters in the two machines are identical.

The first real difference between the NL4 and A1 is in the blending of the oscillator waveforms. When you mix, for example, an OSC1 saw with an OSC2 square on the NL4 there is always an "off-phase," raspy sound as they blend together, and every time you trigger the note they hit each other in slightly different ways. On the A1 the waves sound pure, smooth, and "in phase" every time, and this is true for every combination of waveforms on the A1, and it sounds fantastic. When both synths are utilizing only a single oscillator they sound identical, but mix two oscillators together and that's when I think people notice the differences.

Again, from what I've been able to understand from Clavia, the oscillator section was completely redone from the ground up for the A1, which correlates with your findings.

I find your impressions of the oscillator blending very insightful. Having owned a Nord Lead 2 for many years, one of the things that now annoys me about VA synths is the way there's some sort of artefact when mixing oscillators, my impression is some sort of high-frequency 'swishing' that you don't get on a real analog. I think what I'm hearing is the same as what you describe as the "off-phase, raspy sound". It's especially noticable when you have two detuned oscillators, no resonance on the filter, and a fast and deep filter sweep. To my ears, the A1 doesn't have this artefact at all, or at least not to the same degree as other VA's (Nords included). (I'm not sure how well it illustrates my point, but listen to where the riff comes in around 1:10 and I start playing with the filter frequency and resonance; it just sounds 'right' and 'analog' http://butoba.net/downloads/140609-nla1.mp3).

My guess is that there is some difference between how two waveforms rich in harmonics mix in the analog and digital domains that has until now not been modeled in VA synths. With the A1 oscillator section creating the waveforms for both oscillators at the same time in the same algorithm, there's more of an opportunity to model this.

I'd still love to know what the actual technical difference is though. I guess we'll have to wait until someone reverse-engineers the code.

[jblive]

Try in mono mode , the osc phaze is ok but if you play in poly , the phase is random lol

[jblive]

try one things make a patch with saw in osc 1 and 2 mix osc at 50% turn down the cut off , add env amt and env filter , to make a snappy bass sound , put it in mono duplicate it in slot 2,3,4 then save , save it again in the next patch , go to the next patch make the slot become poly , save , play one note in booth patch and listen , in the mono patch the phase is strong the sound is beautiful , in poly mode the sound is horrible

[Mr_-G-]

I guess that the difference might be that the NL4 has free-running oscillators and the A1 does not? Perhaps most analog synths have/had free running VCOs, so that would be a good choice for emulation, however synched oscillators might be preferable for percussion sounds (so they always sound the same).
A way to test this is just record some samples and see whether by re-triggering you get exactly the same wave shape. If you do, then they are synchronised, otherwise they are free-running.
If I had to choose between the two synths, I would go for the NL4.

[jblive]

in mono its sync , in poly it free

[jblive]

we should have the choice

[ricard]

I guess that the difference might be that the NL4 has free-running oscillators and the A1 does not? Perhaps most analog synths have/had free running VCOs, so that would be a good choice for emulation, however synched oscillators might be preferable for percussion sounds (so they always sound the same).
A way to test this is just record some samples and see whether by re-triggering you get exactly the same wave shape. If you do, then they are synchronised, otherwise they are free-running.

While conceptually there is a difference between the A1 seemingly having one oscillator module, which can generate a waveform emulating two detuned oscillators, while the NL4 has two individual oscillators, that really has no bearing as to whether the waveforms are synchronized or not. The A1 oscillator algorithm could (and I think does) generate a waveform emulating two free running oscillators; it's a digital algorithm running on a DSP, it can emulate whatever its designers want it to. Besides, every time you press a key, even if it's the same key, the A1 voice algorithm allocates a new voice, and it doesn't sound to me like the voices when triggered start at the same relative phase angle (which usually sounds rather boring and definitely "un-analog", but as you say can be useful when it comes to for instance percussion sounds if you want them to sound the same each time).

The point is that I don't think free-running vs. not is the issue here; when the oscillators are synchronized so as to start at the same relative phase angle each time a voice is triggered, it sounds very static, and neither the NL4 nor the A1 sound like that. I believe there's something else going on that accounts for the difference.

[combathook]

Nice to read all of these replies.

Ricard, did you make that demo of the A1? It sounds fantastic. The tightness of the bass on the A1 sounds great. I think the NL4 is capable of the same sounds if you're a careful programmer.

I couldn't say if the robust sound of the A1 oscillators is due to free-running oscillators or not, but everyone seems to agree that there is something in the programming that makes it sound smoother and stronger than the NL4.

Has anyone tried programming single-oscilator patches and combining them in performance mode as opposed to mixing OSC1 and OSC 2 in the same patch? I've been getting good results that way. Here are two nearly identical patches with Unison 1 on both and some slow LFO to filter modulation, no FX or reverb.

https://soundcloud.com/account/nord-lead-4