Synth Site: Korg: Poly 61: User reviews Add review
Average rating: 3.6 out of 5
page 3 of 13:   <<<  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  >>>
Joe a hobbyist user from England writes:
The Korg Poly-61 is a load of old rubbish in my opinion. Yes, there is a joystick which can affect the pitch, DCO & VCF but it is very limited for sounds and parameters. The parameters are controlled by nasty clacky buttons that don't always work the first time you press them, the polyphony is dreadful, I can't play a simple arpeggio or lead part without losing notes.

The Korg Poly-61 is a relic from the 1980s, it's vitually useless apart from for creating a few wazzy effects on one note. Get a computer with some half-decent synth software and a midi keyboard instead of buying this retro-rubbish (unless you collect this kind of thing!)

Rating: 1 out of 5 posted Saturday-May-29-2004 at 06:44
solid_state_freaks a professional user from england writes:
This synth is a fantastic synthesiser let no one tell you different.It is capable of producing gut wrenching bass ie sometimes the speakers in my headphones rumble and i have to roll some bottom end off.This will make your speakers rumble no mistake.The attack is very fast and produces sharp raspy analog sounds that will cut through a mix like a knife. Programmimg them is easy but obviousley not as hands on as a synth full of dials.This Synth is Analogue make no mistake about it.I am not just saying this to justifiy having this synth I have some classics like ARP quadra,juno 106's sh101'spro 1's and this synth is a beauty.Very cheap also because the anlalog anorak brigade does not recognise them as analogue because 'they are not full of dials' they need to start appreciating a synth for the sound it makes not just for dial tweeking but then again half of these analogue anoraks do not even make music with them they...get this...collect them.weird.

defo get one of these synths if you are into dance music they are very usable.the arpegiator is fun and can be clocked to a 606/808 etc.

Rating: 5 out of 5 posted Tuesday-Mar-02-2004 at 07:52
I got my Poly 61 for £50 UK pounds, a few chips on the silver laminated edges, but in full working condition, and the guy also sold me his JX3P for another £50. Now was that a bargain or what! Two synths for a £100 quid, a steal :-))

posted Tuesday-Jan-27-2004 at 16:55
Glen Stegner a professional user from USA writes:
Wait a minute, what makes the Poly-Six "proper analog" while the Poly 61 is not? Only the control panel (knobs), that's pretty much about it. Poly 61 has the earliest implementation of DCO's, which are really "VCO's under digital microprocessor control" (for stability). They are not waveforms generated by a computer than then run through a DAC. They are real analog waveforms that are tracked by a microprocessor to keep them in tune. So why should that single difference make the Poly 61 a "hybrid" while PolySix is "proper analog?" If you are talking about quantized stepping of parameters, the PolySix has that too. The PolySix has plenty of digital control built into it, so why shouldn't that make it a "hybrid" as well? If you are going to be a purist, basically any synth in which you can store patch memories has digital control and should be considered a hybrid. This includes Prophet 5, Jupiter 8, OBXa, and any other legendary analog type you care to mention. The only true Polysynths that were fully analog were the Yamaha CS series and the Korg PS series modulars from the late 70's, because there was no digital keyboard tracking nor true patch memories. Each note of the synths had their own dedicated oscillator(s)! It is impossible to create a 100 percent analog polysynth that you can tuck under your arm, even today. That's why digital microprocessors were incorporated into polysynths from the early 80s onward, to keep the size down and add some stability, not to be digital for the sake of digital. Later on, the envelopes and LFO became digital as well on many polysynths, but to draw an exact line where "analog" ends and "hybrid" begins is completely subjective. The Poly 61 was the very next model Korg released following the PolySix, and the 61 was pretty much modelled on the Six as far as basic architecture (okay one VCO vs. 2 DCOs), the big difference being the control panel, and I think in your mind that's where you draw the line between "proper analog" and "hybrid" - it's all about the knobs. Why shouldn't the DW8000 be considered Korg's first proper "hybrid" because it contains digitally-generated single-cycle waveforms instead of standard DCOs? Where does "proper analog" stop and "hybrid" begin? It was a slowly evolving process in the 80s, there is no line in the sand. Where you draw the line is completely subjective. If you're going to be a purist about it, then the Prophet 5, Jupiter 8, OBXa, Memorymoog, etc. are not "proper analogs" either - they're hybrids because they have digital microprocessors in them. That's my subjectivity.

Rating: 3 out of 5 posted Monday-Jan-26-2004 at 08:28
Miasma music a professional user from miasma@totalise. com writes:
Some of the features, like chord tracking. Besides that it is totally different to the polysix. Dcos, 2 per voice rather than a single vco. Still not a fair trade. The polysix is a proper analogue. This is a hybrid, and not a very good one at that. Saying all that, it still aint bad as things go. Not a bass monster. A good, sometimes midied, cheap synth which you can have fun with.

Rating: 3 out of 5 posted Sunday-Jan-25-2004 at 13:43
page 3 of 13:   <<<  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  >>>