Gamechanger Audio MOTOR Synth The Core Of ‘The Heaviest Synth & Drums Band Around’

Gamechanger Audio has released a music video that showcases their MotorSynth MKII, which recently began shipping.

GAC “crew members” Tom and Matiss have teamed up as musical duo OIL & GAS, to compose a synth & drums performance that Gamechanger Audio says “may have created the heaviest Synth and Drums band around”:

They explain:

The song is built around the MOTOR Synth’s audio signal input – a feature that can be useful in many applications, especially live performances. Notice how the kick drum is set up to trigger one of the MOTOR Synth’s voices thus creating a tight bassline that’s perfectly in time with every beat.

Here’s how the setup works: the bass and lead parts are performed on the MOTOR Synth simultaneously. The lead line is performed on the built-in 8-button keybed and arpeggiator. The bass part sequences are programmed with the built-in sequencer that is being triggered by the kick drum mic connected to the MOTOR Synths audio input.

The MOTOR Synth is in split output mode, where each motor voice is routed through a separate output channel. Each voice is then routed through individual signal paths. The lead voice goes through the BIGSBY Pedal pitch shifter and a stereo delay. The bass voice goes through the PLASMA Coil, LIGHT Pedal, and into a bass amp. The final bass sound is a mix of a DI from the Motor Synth and a mic on the bass cabinet.

OIL&GAS is Toms Lazdovskis, Matiss Tazans of Gamechanger Audio.
Recording Engineer: Evil Joe Barresi
Assistant Recording Engineer: Jun Murakawa
Mixing: Edvards Broders
Video and Editing: Alise Golovacka
Production: Ilja Krumins, Gamechanger Audio

More information about the MOTOR Synth MKII, and a Full User’s Manual are available on the Gamechanger Audio website.

45 thoughts on “Gamechanger Audio MOTOR Synth The Core Of ‘The Heaviest Synth & Drums Band Around’

  1. For me, this remains the dumbest idea ever realized in synth technology. Why the development team wasted their time in developing this silly synth remains a mystery to me!

    1. If you find it silly to pick up moving images of waveforms with optical sensors and transform them into sound, you must have never been to the movies: The principle behind motor synth has been used for film sound for more than a century. Artists have been experimenting and working with optical sound techniques for just as long.

      1. Well, to put my comments into perspective, I didn’t think it was silly when I was working with deriving acoustic signals from optical sources (mostly rotating mirrors), however, that was in the early 1970s. Analog synths were pretty new then, and there weren’t the multitude of digital systems we take for granted today. So, I suppose it looks cool to people who don’t find it passe. Personally, I find it boring and pretty unimaginative given all of the other paths one might explore that possibly could produce something that a Hydrasynth couldn’t.

        1. so you trying to sound like you into “the exploration of sound” but without actually “exploring” it, only pointing out it is unworthy of consideration. imaginative…

        2. So predictable. Something moderately cool comes along to shake things up, and here comes Rossi to condescendingly tell us how it was all better back in the black and white days.

          Have you ever considered that maybe this isn’t the hobby for you?

          1. Of course I did. That’s why I stated my feelings about it in terms of my personal opinion of it. As I said, for those who don’t realize that, if anything, this is a 50-year step back into “new and cool”, many people would see it as being “new and cool” and react to it like it was the product of some divine intervention. Apparently, I was correct, seeing how many people are willing to defend it as that. Again, I see no advance being made in technology by this device. In reality it is a throwback to a time when many people were doing a lot of really creative things things in the production of music. Unfortunately, most of those things never really panned out. I’ll bet that if you looked hard enough, you will find attempts at introducing “the new cool thing” from the late 60s and early 70s that were nearly identical to this technology.

            1. whoever like it and looking to explore new sounds will buy it and do what is possible to do with it, use modulations to extreme to make the motors characteristics sound more pronounce, print new “rings” to make new waveforms, experiment with different lightning directed at the sensors… i dono, whatever…
              you looked it and think you know what its all about, no room to learn something new by real experience, you know everything, no need to even touch it or like you said “explore” it.
              you said you are teaching, surry i wouldn’t take that class.

              sounds like you need to generalize it’s the same like something you can’t name from the 70s to make you feel your knowledge is still relevant to anyone today. we are all getting older but le’ts try not to make it others problem?

              1. If you find this technology “new and exciting”, good for you. I’m sure that in about twenty years, somebody will develop a similar “new” technology whereby people can put their fingers in little holes on a wheel and manually turn the wheel to make phone calls. Many people, consequently, will latch on to this ancient technology similar to the way you are apparently latching on to this one. Just because you missed a given technology when it may have been appropriate, doesn’t make it “new and exciting” for everybody. That is especially true for those of us who have been there and done that over 50 years ago. Still, I have yet to hear a type of sound this thing make that I couldn’t duplicate (pretty easily, in fact) on a Hydrasynth (which was the first synth that came to mind when I first heard its sounds). When I hear something that this synth can do that actually is “new and exciting”, I may even consider purchasing one. As for your comments about my teaching, if it makes you feel any more superior than you already consider yourself to be, many of my students would agree with you 🙂

                1. This is quite possibly the dumbest argument I’ve ever seen.
                  People have been making versions of the same overdrive pedals for the last 50 years. If you have an issue with this synth, you must have an issue with literally everything on the planet. I don’t get the point you are trying to make?
                  These people had an idea, built a thing, thought others might like it, and are selling it. They aren’t saying they invented the telephone, they are just making stuff that makes sounds, just like everything else.

                  1. My “issue” is that I don’t see what this synth can do that other, much less costly, synths can’t do (except exploit antiquated technology as a cosmetic mask that some people apparently find impressive). Except for the fact that it “seems cool” or maybe even “looks cool”, it provides nothing that couldn’t be obtained elsewhere for much less of a cost. This isn’t at all like making a new version of an overdrive pedal than may have either performance or cost benefits over an older model. This is solely the exploitation of antique technology to provide a cosmetic basis for the cost of a synth that doesn’t do anything (in terms of audio output) that others can’t. If I had to characterize it, I’d call it the Rube Goldberg synth!

                    1. give it a rest, you are so transparent, trying to get a sense of authority by saying it has been done before, generalising with no real experience, “exploring” feature lists, and all this coming from someone who write long paragraphs about the sound of moog osc’s and how close clones sound to the original ppg

            2. I’m old enough to understand where you are coming from, John. When I look at most of the new gear that’s getting released, many of the ‘innovations’ look a lot like things from 40-50 years ago.

              And there are some areas that seem like they’re played out. Gestural control, for example, seems to have peaked with the theremin 100 years ago. There are new and better gestural control technologies, obviously, but they haven’t translated into better musical instruments/controllers, just things like the much-mocked D-Beam.

              But it’s a mistake to think that, just because an idea has been around for 50 years, that it’s played out.

              When I see what’s going on in the Eurorack world,you could argue that Morton Subotnick and Don Buchla did it all 60 years ago. But, back then, these tools were only available to a very small group of people and they were hugely expensive. That limited both the evolution of the instruments, and the types of music that were possible.

              With the recent renaissance of modular synths, there’s a huge explosion of innovation and music. You might say that 90% of it’s crap – but that was the case in the ’60s, too. And that still leaves a lot of interesting new instruments and music being created.

              In the case of the Motor Synth, nobody has ever previously created a synth that democratized electro-mechanical synthesis like this. So I’m not going to dismiss it, just because it stands on the shoulders of giants – I’m interested in see what people do with it and what music they create.

              1. I don’t see where our points of view disagree, All I said was that this has all been done before in many ways and that the current incarnation of this technology hasn’t been demonstrated to do anything that can’t be done currently without using it. What I see here is a lot of speculation of the great things that this will allow synthesists to do, with no real demonstration of any of it. Speaking from experience, having gone down this rabbit hole before, I stand by my challenge for somebody to produce something that is different, in a musically useful context, that this device can do. If it can, then I will change my opinion of it. Right now I see it as an “Emperor’s New Clothes” sort of scam!

                1. you want them to manufacture it and demo it doing new thing to your liking? so what are you going to do? paying?
                  musician that expect the hardware to do the work for them will be the first to replace by ai. maybe it will be better for you to become a dj waving your hands and let someone else do the work.

    2. Maybe it was created for fun?

      The vast majority of synths are used for hobby purposes and having fun. Almost none of them are ever used for any sort of “professional” work. Same as guitars.

      1. Have you ever sampled “Rockum Sockum Robots” with a Casio SK-1? Don’t discount the multitude of ways you can have fun with musical toys. Occasionally you may even stumble on to something musically useful. Devices that are “created for fun” are generally referred to as “toys” (being that is the underlying purpose of a toy). I can accept this thing as a toy, much more so than I can as some kind of innovative use of technology.

  2. Super cool. I, personally, have a hard time justifying the price, but really appreciate companies are out there getting weird. Hope they are able to continue doing what they do.

    1. “personally, have a hard time justifying the price,

      Personally, I have a hard time justifying buying cheap copies of old synths, which is the direction most people seem to be taking. There capabilities are limited to what was possible 50 years ago. And using cheap, mainstream gear will only make it harder for musicians to have their own unique sound.

        1. there is no logic to generalise something doesn’t bring anything new just because its based on the same technology. but lets play that game, can you name one electro-mechanical synthesiser that was commercial available? one? i can name one subtractive and one wavetables…

          1. “can you name one electro-mechanical synthesizer that was commercial available? one?” I hope you understand how ridiculous that question is. For one thing, did it ever occur to you that in the past when people were more discriminating consumers, mostly only things for which enough people showed an interest in ever made it to market. Things have changed a bit now. Since many people are no longer able to differentiate shit from Shineola, it makes it much more easy to sell Shineola to an uninformed public. Maybe I’m wrong, and when Gamechanger Audio makes it to its 1000th sale (that would be about $1,000,000 in total sales), I’ll be the first to congratulate them. However, I doubt that will ever happen, and that’s why their synth must be marked with such a high price to value ratio. You couldn’t mass market a device like MOTOR Synth, that fills no unimagined void in its intended market. Yes, it looks different than other synths, and that is really its only real draw.

            Independently from any of this, what I find really amusing is that the majority of the people here who believe that this is a miracle synth, are also people that are least likely to purchase one (mostly because of the ridiculous cost). It’s kind of like the 14 year old boy who gawks at the Playboy centerfold, wishing he could have the silicone altered woman spanning the two pages. He knows he never can, even if she was a whore, because he could never afford her. He doesn’t care that that woman is mostly a silicone puppet because he is incapable of using whatever intelligence he has to see through the silicone alterations. So, in the end, he succumbs to his libido and just takes the magazine into the nearest bathroom.

            1. nobody here think it’s a miracle, it’s only you that is so challenged by this instrument, you used words like innovation and exploration in an unsympathetic way, nobody else suggested it. actually nobody seem to care about it like you, so its you that need to question yourself why you unrespectable to the creators and so dismissive about something you have no interest in it.

              if you can’t name one other instrument that use the “same technology” it’s not 50 years old technology, it’s not even technology, you maybe just seen something that resemble this 50 years ago, but still you can’t even name it.
              than again your “old technology so it’s not interesting” is just an excuse for your first dismissive comment, it’s simply hard for you to see people liking something (and consider it new) that resembles something else from your past because you don’t want to feel left out.

            2. “Independently from any of this, what I find really amusing is that the majority of the people here who believe that this is a miracle synth, are also people that are least likely to purchase one (mostly because of the ridiculous cost). It’s kind of like the 14 year old boy who gawks at the Playboy centerfold, wishing he could have the silicone altered woman spanning the two pages. He knows he never can, even if she was a whore, because he could never afford her. He doesn’t care that that woman is mostly a silicone puppet because he is incapable of using whatever intelligence he has to see through the silicone alterations. So, in the end, he succumbs to his libido and just takes the magazine into the nearest bathroom.”

              lol! WTF
              When someone can’t stop doubling down…you end up with this lol.

              1. On the other hand, sometimes it takes a provocative descriptive analogy to make one’s point 🙂 In other words, …. if the shoe fits!

      1. Hey, I’m a fan TJW – I just don’t feel like I’m in a position to drop a 3300 synthy dollars on what would ultimately be a toy to me.

  3. I’m waiting for the mercury delay line chorus box, a rotating drum reverb, and a chain printer drum machine. then I want a vacuum column trombone, and a 50hz, 480-volt, 3 phase resonant transformer seat warmer for my mom.

      1. the transformer blows up during the encore. you’ll love it. we did some weird stuff in minicomputer manufacturing during the 70’s; we made a VAX11/780 play music in the middle of the final assembly and test area.

        1. No shit? DEC partially funded one of my first neuroscience engineering efforts in the late 70s (a bionic ear with a direct brain cortical interface), and gave us a PDP 11/45 with which to implement it. Even more interesting was that the main contributor to that effort was the Doobie Brothers 🙂

          1. sweet! yeah, DEC was pretty kickass in those days. great engineering. working there was like candy land for big computer geeks. consumer stuff a huge let down now.

            a DEC manufacturing tech fact: an anagram of DIGITAL is GITLAID. found someone rearranged the logo on once on an old LA36 in FA&T. i laughed for a week.

  4. I see some merit here, but that realm of sound can be had in so many ways, it feels like a lot of engineering just to haul coal to Newcastle. You can create all sorts of colorful distortion now, especially if you match up a few select plug-ins. For $3299, this would have to massage my schwanz under the table at dinner. Er… can you pop off the lid over the discs…?

      1. “If the shoe fits…”
        Only you know why you posted that goofiness lol. But somehow blaming others for what you “spawned” is even more goofy. Maybe take a break, hang out with your wife, play some of that gear you babble on and on about. Stop embarrassing yourself for a few days?

        1. I wish I could understand your comments. Of course you know why I posted my “goofy” analogy. If not, et me explain it to you. I posted several comments explaining that I believe that the MOTOR synth is a synth that does nothing (sound wise) that couldn’t be done with synths costing as little as 1/10th its purchase price. Then, there are several people here who keep insisting that it is something that it really isn’t, and that is is somehow a new creation that will be loved by some unknown number of musicians who will love it as long as they try it (or that I may change my opinion of it if I tried it). None of these people have ever played with one, and as far as I know, nobody has heard anything except what is featured in their ads or videos here. On top of that, few, if any, of these people could probably afford to purchase one if they wanted to. Also, given their comments, these people are quite young and very impressed with things that look superficially “cool”. So, if you look at my analogy I think you will find it very clever in typifying these adolescent (or maybe even per-pubescent) males. Now, what they do in bathrooms looking at pictures of the MOTORsynth is up to them. If you really are admitting to not understanding my analogy, maybe you should reconsider who is embarrassing themselves.

  5. Flashy synth for a handful of vapid Instagram / TikTok “musicians” that are more about visuals for content then sound. Reminds me of the Teenage Engineering social media stuff, but worse, because I find it jarring to see it try to capture the DIY / punk industrial sound of a few decades ago in such an expensive toy. Also, the only thing that makes this sound good in the demo is live drums triggering it. It sounds lively. But you don’t need this synth for this.

Leave a Reply