Mini vs Micro: a tale of two brutes

Things have been relatively quiet over here in synthland recently--it's hard to find the desire to write about synths while your country crumbles around you. But let's pretend none of that is happening for just a second, mm'K?.

Throughout synth history there are related synths that, "on paper" purport to be the same thing internally, but in fact sound very different. Think the brighter oscs and more aggressive filter on the MKS-80 rev4 versus rev5, or the slower envelopes on the CS-15 (compared to the 5/10/30). Sometimes these things are just good fodder for the anoraks to one up themselves down the pub; sometimes these things actually result in real differences in sonic potential. Today's piece is about the latter.

The Microbrute (mB) is a stripped-down, diminutive version of the Minibrute (Mb; read my ode to the OG brute here) with a couple of obvious "balancing" features, i.e., the CV ins/outs, and the legit sequencer geared toward live use. It's Arturia's Gnat to the Wasp; their M500 to the 700, etc.  Nothing overtly different or interesting enough to make it appealing to this Mb owner, until...that one day when I took a closer look at the front panel and wondered, What is this "sub-fifth" parameter? 

A quick jaunt through Automatic Gainsay's mB vid revealed that this wasn't just a sub-oscillator with a sweepable pitch; rather, it's some sort of strange sync'd oscillator that is locked to the main oscillators pitch. AND you can modulate the waveform (i.e., harmonics) of this sync-sub via CV. That alone (well, actually, that, and the ultra-cheap price of used ones) convinced me that I needed to check it out IRL. 

In doing so I discovered so other notable that allow the mB of to stand tall on its rubber pads just a little bit more:

1) Gain-staging on the waveforms is much better. The 'brute filter--the Arturia version of the Synthacon filter--is a screaming demon, that's just how it is. But lowering the waveform volumes on the Minibrute to before the point where it starts to overdrive reveals that it can do a more nuanced and musical resonance thang, Unfortunately, for that to happen you have to keep the waveform volumes below 25%, which isn't really practical for everyday use. 50% volume on the Microbrute (which is also much easier to set, being a knob) is about the same level as 25% on the Mini, so you've got a lot more range to play with. This is also about where most synth osc volumes traditionally like to sit before they start saturating (e.g., the Minimoog). The takeaway here is that you can coax a much wider range of tones out of the thing simply by adjusting the oscillator volume--it doesn't always have to screech.

2.1) The envelope is faster/the range is greater. Yes, there is only one envelope and I hate having to resort to Gate for the VCA but I DO like having more resolution in the all-important "snap-zone"(TM).. Again, it's a small but important difference at the component level. Peak pluck on the Mb is in what feels like a 1 mm range, but on the Micro, which has overall faster envelopes and thus higher resolution on the slider, the sweet spot is wider. It feels a lot like a Roland envelope in that way. Plus the envelope can now be used to control pitch (join us next week for Part 2.2 of this exciting development).

2.2) The envelope can now be used to control pitch. One of my go-to sounds on the Minibrute is subby drop basses (you know, foooowww... fow foeeeew) but the only way to control the oscillator pitch with an envelope is to fake it with a synced LFO. But in doing this you are limited in speed (because making it too fast means it starts repeating again too quickly... because it's still an LFO) and shape--the LFO's saw downslope is linear and sometimes only exponential will do, especially for drums. On the Microbrute you control osc pitch with the envelope and this opens up a whole world of synth drums and super punchy kicks. Not to mention ruuuud basses. 

3) There's that weird sync-sub (or maybe it's doing something with PW?). Initially it seemed kind of novel but not really worth the price of admission, but then I discovered all the other differences documented above. Then it started to feel like a nice little bonus as opposed to the main attraction. Kind of like the wavefolder sound, you'll either love it or leave it but it certainly adds some new digital/Atari-ish waveforms into the mix that--like the wavefolder--keep it from sounding like another one of your uncle's Moogs. Plus, having that 5th harmonic certainly adds some nice depth to sounds. 

4) The wavefolder sounds better. Is it stronger on the mB, or just different? I can't quite tell. I think the LFO/Envelope output range might be slightly greater but there's also something tonally different too --the mB is more metallic (Goldie "Terminator") whereas the Mb is more "syncy" (Koto "Jabdah"). Looking at the raw triangle waves, the mB has a MUCH cleaner waveform with less high-end harmonics compared to the Mb and I suspect this leads to cleaner overtones when folded. Whatever it is, I prefer the sound of the wavefolder on the mB. 

Finally, what surprised me the most in comparing the two synths was actually the not-insignificant differences in brightness. The mB has much steeper high frequency roll-off, even with the filter wide open. The Mb wasn't super bright to begin with but this does make the mB the "warmer" of the two. 

Do all of these things somehow put the mB over the Mb? In some ways, yes! Is it worth owning both? In some ways, yes! The beautiful thing is that both are so cheap on the used market now you could easily buy both and not sweat having two very same same but different synths.