The Review Is In

I've found a review of the SS-30. It has long bothered me that I've never seen a contemporary review of the SS-30 so when I espied just such a thing on eBay I snapped it up.
This article is from the November 1978 issue of, umm, not sure. It took a bit of digging, but the 'Keyboardcheck' column was active in International Musician and Recording World back in 1975. So, I guess that is the one. I found that the author Robin Lumley was also writing for Sound On Sound in their early days and they were using the same photo.

Here's the review and further below my comments...

Lumley

Robin Lumley lucked into being, as you may have read above, briefly keyboardist in Ziggy Stardust's Spiders band. That was his calling card and got him session work and eventually producer credits. He formed Brand X, a jazz-fusion band, with, amongst others, Phil Colins. So he's a first rank keyboard player at the heart of the British music scene, recording and touring. I think he's worth listening to. And he's Joanna Lumley's cousin, too!

Well, the first joke didn't age well, so let's move swiftly on to surveying the market.

Competitive Edge

Roland RS-202

This is the first string synth since the Arp Solina (1974) and Roland RS 202 (1976) worth bothering with. That's the competition. Forget the rest, this is a three horse race.
Which is best though? Lumley wisely notes that this is matter of taste and that some will never be parted from their Solina. This debate still trundles through the ages and whilst you might prefer one over another there has never been an objectively best sounding string synth when you narrow the field down to these top three. Other synths should not even be on the market, in the view of our reviewer! So, the SS-30 Cellos are "warmer" than the Solina "at the lower end" but "edgier" than the Roland". In summary he says the SS-30 sound is "rich and warm". You decide!

ARP Solina

Swimming in sound

Moving on to the chorus effect, and, after underlining the importance of that "swimming sound", Lumley wryly observes that enobling what he refers to as "modulation" to Orchestra is probably "somewhat optimistic" for some. Throughout this review he is careful to dampen down any scoffing about how realistic string synths can be. Nevertheless, he says that set up with "detuning the instrument slightly on the tuning pot, and then setting the slow orchestra tab with about half depth gives you, finally, one of the best pre-set synthesizer string section sounds available". With reverb "the illusion is almost perfect".
That mention of 'pre-set' sounds, is something else that's stressed in this review and later on he compares the sounds available from string machines to what can be achived with a serious synth such as the Yamaha CS-80. His view is that with time and careful adjustment you can expect "super realism quality" from a really programmable synth. This is 1978, remember, he's only referring to analogue polysynths. I am going to take issue with "super realism" there and I sense a slight wink to those scoffers again, but he has a point. The CS-80 strings are sweet. And yet, isnt the string synth pre-set to sound as good as a well programmed synth? If it could be better, why not make the preset be just the same? The main reason I can think of is the way the tones are generated in the first place. The oscillators. Stringers all use a divide down architecture which means there's perfect agreement between each note's tuning. The advantage is you can play as many notes as you wish and with overlapping sustains - no note stealing. The disadvanage of that approach is that this agreement in tuning is not natural. A polysynth like the CS-80 has 8 voices each tuned on a well maintained machine to be as close as possible but all naturally just ever-so slightly off from each other. Just like the instruments in an orchestra. If you want a realistic string section you need as many independently tuned oscillators as instruments in the section. Stringers get around this with chorus, but the underlying oscillators tend to give the game away.
None of that is really news and is covered elsewhere or is well known to synthesists. What he then says is that string synths arent there to be all that realistic anyway. Their job is to "provide orchestral sounding thickening and sustained notes". Ah. So, it's about articulation and the way you play it too. He ends by stating that the string synth's real raison d'etre is to supplant the huge and weighty Mellotron - a practical issue for professional live musicians in the seventies when facing the task of replicating studio recordings on stage.

"Sounding right"

What is a bit more interesting and less commented on when talking about string synthesizers is the actual notes you play and how that affects the realism. Here Lumley gives some real insight and takes a shot at those who sniffily dimiss them as "not sounding right". His advice is to look at actual string section scores, forget triads and other common keyboard chords and add 7th or 9th notes to much simpler harmonies. This is good advice, which I admit I was sort of aware of, but have never really followed. One day I plan to get some MIDI files and try this out. Perhaps even multitrack each tone from Cello 1 & 2, Viola and Violins 1 & 2, or, as I now have the feature, a different mix of the two.

"That little bit more"

In conclusion Lumley is enthusiastic about the SS-30. He likes the keyboard split option and notes how useful this is for "live and recording". He's generous in his praise for the overall sound, albeit whilst hedging against those who might look down on a mere preset machine. He admits it will cost more than it's only real competition from the RS-202 and Solina but balances that against the additional features and faultless Yamaha execution of the design.


I enjoyed this review. Lumley know's his stuff and this authoratitive view is useful in getting a better picture of how the SS-30 fitted in to the market place. When the Solina came out there was no polysynth market. The Polymoog arrived a year after but was another divide down solution to the polyphony problem. The RS-202 was still needed, but by 1978 there was choice and the CS-80 in particular was equal to the task of making string sounds. Nonetheless these synths were pricey. Yamaha evidently saw a continuing demand for string machines but made their move relatively late, but with a bit extra to set it apart.
There was still something to be said for mere preset machines, but the tenor of this review makes it clear that by late 1978 you had to make that case or be seen as blind to the future.
The advice on what notes to play and mimicing string sections is sesnsible, but also shows that Lumley knows his readership and their misconceptions as well respecting their views.
There was never any doubt in my mind that the Solina and RS-202 were well thought of. That it was a simple choice of these three was less obvious. I suppose cost is always a good measure of quality and the SS-30 was a bit pricier. It's a Yamaha though, and that is mark of quality, but the extra keyboard split feature is what makes it worth it though.