9 thoughts on “Zoom ARQ-96 Review”

1. £158 in g4m at the moment. Probably more sensible than the original RRP.

   1. The build quality is not up to the original price. It can barely hold up to the current price.
      However, it’s a fun to use piece of gear. I only wished Zoom would have taken the time to think about what they want to do. The lack of connectivity is probably the biggest con.
      It can receive MIDI notes (even if Zoom says it doesn’t) but it doesn’t seem to react to Start/Stop messages nor does it seem to sync as a slave. Works quite well as master though and is also good to sequence other gear.
      Workflow wise, way better than an Electribe 2.

2. Why 1 minute of unboxing? I’ll have the remaining time of the video to decide whether I would be interested to buy a box containing this device at all?

3. Wow seriously? So much nonsense(videos that show FF of procedures do it for a reason, it’s called a lame interface) and all that work just to create some ultra simplistic mediocre music on a circular glow stick.
   Whatever.

4. I find it’s a good video, the guy explains very well, the video and the music are well done. This Zoom looks interesting also to do something with.
   Thanks to the producer of the video for your work.

5. I think their biggest marketing issue is differentiating between the $200 96 and the $350 48.

   The specs look nearly identical:
   https://www.sweetwater.com/store/compare.php?items=(ARQ,ARQ48)

   Hell, I’d rather have the Stereo 1/4″ ins of the $200 version.

   It sequences up to 16 other instruments and has no midi out. Super lol. But it’s cheaper than the Pyramid and even the NDLR, so it’s definitely worth looking into for sequencing.

6. Fast forwarding in workflow videos is usually cause for concern. I understand why the video maker uses them but they’re often masking the sludgy parts of the UI/overall experience. Like when Cenk names things with random letters during Elektron videos. 😉

7. And when I thought that Roli was bad enough, Zoom asked us to hold its beer. They are the ones to blame for the ARQ not becoming a successful product. Zoom gave birth to it , put a crazy price tag on it and left. They made a couple of videos and decided people would figure out how to use it. There’s a lot to be said about its synth engine, as an exemple, but Zoom was too lazy. There’s not even a product forum at Zoom’s website. The ARQ could compete with other sequencers and groove boxes and would win in many areas. The worst thing is the lack of decent MIDI support. It is unbelievable that Zoom made this decision and shows no intention to make it right.

8. I have a stack of duff Zoom gear here all beyond repair but this thing was in the bottom of the box and I wondered what it did and why it did it! So it isn’t really a musicians instrument as it is pretty useless to try and play it despite its array of voices and effects. It is just about the sort of thing those who make silly noises and think they are musicians might like but that obviously is purely personal taste. What is it actually good for? I would say a kids toy! It is a bit freaky, rather odd, but they could have made it or something similar for less than £100 and fitted a little speaker to it and it would have probably sold quite well. As it is, like many products its niche is forever changing and despite its unique interface it is probably far to odd to be something people will use. The one here in the workshop people grab play with but would never buy. Says it all really. At its original price far too expensive and less than user friendly. I have found that nothing is sensible about it. Perhaps its just too complex for its own good? If I had the time and the inclination to read the manual perhaps I might get closer to enjoying it but it is rather too close to being an expensive gimmick rather than a instrument. Sad really.