Purchase Astrolab

Lab AstroLab
#8

Like @matjones say, then only you can decide.

As far as i can tell, then the difference between the Astrolab models is mainly the keybeds. And then the product page say the 88 key have a improved CPU.
The 88 key is weighted piano size hammer action keybed. The 61 keys piano size semi weighted synth action. The 37 key is a slim keybed. Weighted hammer action is more expensive and a preference for piano players i believe.
Some more comparison between the models here:

You can also download the manuals.

The question is what matter to you.

Feel free to ask Arturia sale, if you need further info.

#9

There’s ONLY one way that you’re really going to be able to decide, from reading your posts, and that’s to actually try one yourself.
If you have retailers in your area that have a decent return policy, you could have one delivered and, if you don’t feel it’s suitable, you could return it; or even better, if they have a ‘bricks and mortar’ location you could go to try one out.

#10

I get that. And this is a great place to ask. But I was specifically talking about the parts of your opening post where you expressed doubts about the products’ reliability based on existing threads you have read. The 5000 users with no issues don’t join here to post “hey I’ve just bought an Astrolab and it’s wonderful”, but the 50 users who are having issues will join to post their problems because they want remedial advice. So from a statistics point of view, you aren’t seeing a fair cross-section. (Obviously I’m making up those numbers for example.)

Good luck with whatever you choose to do.

#11

Thank you for your replies and feedback.

My question mainly concerns the performance differences between the 61-note and 88-note versions, specifically the processor, clock speed for polyphony management, and preset loading.

From my recent research, there’s still a download latency issue with preset loading, even with the most powerful processor (88-note version) and the latest firmware, which apparently improved the slowness but remains insufficient.

Unfortunately, I can’t try it in a store near me; they’re out of stock (because there isn’t really any demand for this type of product).

Yes, that’s true, it’s a support forum.

But having positive feedback would be great for sharing experiences with both satisfied and dissatisfied customers.

I’ve sent a request to Arturia.

Thank you again for your feedback and opinions.

1 Like
#12

I have an AstroLab 61. I don’t find the need for the other two octaves, personally. My gigging rig is the AstroLab on top and a Korg Nautilus 73-key on the bottom of my stand, so if I need more notes I have them. As I cut my teeth on synths and Hammonds, I prefer a semi-weighted keybed to the weighted hammer action. But that’s personal preference.

An advantage of the fact that the mod and pitchbend wheels are at the top, rather than beside the keyboard, is that a 61-key will fit into a case made for a 49-key instrument. I don’t know that for a fact, but I have read that. I know that when I put it in my 61-key case, I have to use a spacer to keep it from moving sideways.

I live hundreds of miles from the nearest large music store, so I have found a very capable sales guy at Sweetwater, who was willing to answer all the questions I had before purchase. I recommend you find someone you can trust who has access to those products on site, if you can’t go there physically.

He did tell me that the 88 loaded slightly faster than the 61. My experience is that my 61 loads most patches immediately. Some patches take a second or two, mostly patches from the Augmented series, and some Pigments. The graphics to those patches don’t show up until the loading is complete, so you know right away when it’s loaded and ready.

As I play mostly geezer-rock at gigs (as though there was any choice at my age), pretty much all of the patches in my playlists are organ, EP, or acoustic-piano, and they load right away, even the user patches that I imported from Analog Lab.

I have found it to be totally reliable. It’s relatively light (I think the 88-key is about 20 pounds heavier), it comes with more presets than one might need right out of the box, and the ability to import from Analog Lab is icing on the cake.

There is one downside, which is that the tiny screen, which is truly fun, is tiny, and does not provide a good look at what choices one has. If you’re using playlists for different bands, it’s no issue; that works very well. But if you’re in a jam situation, it is limiting. Arturia does provide an app called AstroLab Connect, which is designed to allow you to beam its contents to an iPad or a phone, but it sadly does not yet work at this time on my iPad.

But, if you want 88 keys, get the 88-key one. Better to buy more than you need than to regret buying less. Pretty much every 88-key keyboard these days will come with a fully weighted keybed. I think you’ll be happy with either size.

1 Like
#13

Thank you so much for your very detailed reply.

Regarding polyphony, I mean, on a dual preset and/or a Pigment preset, if there are only 4 or 5 playable notes, isn’t that too limiting?

Polyphony is linked to the Astrolab’s processor, so if it’s too limited, it could cause a problem at some point?

Don’t you think so?

Thanks again for your reply.

#14

So, yes, the AstroLab88’s processor is a bit better and faster than the 61’s.
(8-Core @ 2.4 GHz on the 88 vs. 6-Core @ 1.8 GHz on the 61, to be precise)
Operations are snappier and polyphony is extended on instruments using dynamic polyphony limit, and on acoustic and electric pianos (physical models) from 48 to 64 voices.

Now, is that a good enough reason to get the 88 instead of the 61?
Personally, I think that you should get the 88 if pianos are your main instruments, both for the keybed (Fatar TP40L, weighted hammer-action with escapement) and the extended polyphony on pianos.
If synths and organs are your main instruments, I would stay with the 61.
Most poly synths have between 8 and 16 voices, per part, which in some case is more than the original hardware (like the Prophets, 5 and VS, that were originally 8-voice synths, but have up to 16 voices in AstroLab).

It is true that some dynamic polyphony instruments (like Augmented series or Pigments) can get less polyphony on busy presets, so it’s a matter of choosing the right presets and potentially optimizing them in the computer before loading them in AstroLab. I have plenty of Pigments presets that can get their full 8 voices.
You are mentioning Pigments 7, which is not yet compatible with AstroLab. At this time, AstroLab can load presets up to Pigments 6. Pigments 7 compatibility should be available soon.

Regarding 2-Part Multi presets (split or layer), it doesn’t divide polyphony by 2 like “old school” synths. AstroLab manages the polyphony per part, so that even with 8-voice instruments, you can get 8 voices on each part, rather than 8 voices total.

As for the loading time and speed of operation, as noted above, most presets load quasi-instantaneously (all the modeled instruments, which are the most common), and only the heavily sampled instruments (Augmented series, in particular) have a noticeable load time (and you can see on the display when the preset is fully loaded).
Keep in mind that AstroLab is able to hold the last notes from the previous preset (by holding down keys or the sustain pedal) while loading the next preset, until new notes are played after switching presets.

In your OP, you referred to “a few stability issues, power supplies”.
Out of 1000s of AstroLabs on the market, I’ve only heard of a handful of power supply issues that were actually due to the power supply itself and not to external conditions like mains power cuts or spikes. There might have been a few defective power supplies, but again, very few cases compared to the actual number of units.
And about stability, in my experience, AstroLab has been very reliable.
Again, there might have been a few occasional glitches, but those are the exception, not the norm.

Now, is the AstroLab firmware perfect? Of course no, some operations could be easier, but it’s getting better with each update with new features and improvements being added regularly. There have been 6 updates already, since the first release less than 2 years ago.

If you’d like more user feedback, you can also join the Facebook “Arturia AstroLab” group.
Like this forum, you will find people are more often posting questions about their potential issues, rather than the vast majority of happy owners, but there are plenty of real-world users who share their positive experience too.

1 Like
#15

Thank you for this excellent report and your honesty.

Truly commendable, thank you again.

Your explanation is very clear, and your attention to detail answers my questions perfectly.

I had a question, I assume the Astrolab 37 has the same processor and RAM as the 61-note version?

So, the same loading time and the same polyphony handling?

If I understand correctly, I have a Novation Launchkey 61 mk4, I can connect it to the Astrolab 37 using its USB-A port?

Thank you again so much for your reply.

#16

Yes, exactly the same engine in the 37 and 61.
Other than the size, the differences on the 37 are

  • mono audio input instead of stereo
  • sustain pedal input only (no expression and aux pedals)
  • no LEDs around encoders and above the keys
  • no Looper
  • no dedicated Part1/Part2/Split buttons
  • display + data encoder instead of display-encoder combo

Yes, you can use any USB/MIDI controller on the USB-A port, that also provides power to the controller (5VDC, up to 1.5A).
I use a KeyLab mk3 controller keyboard, as the 8 encoders and 9 faders are by default mapped to the AstroLab (and Analog Lab) encoders and “virtual faders”, but you should be able to edit a custom mapping in any controller that has user assignable faders/encoders.

#17

Hello,

Thank you so much for your reply and explanations.

I own the V Collection 10, 11, and Analog Lab Pro.

It’s possible to access over 10,000 sounds through the Analog Lab Pro software.

The Astrolab itself comes with approximately 2,000 sounds.

If I create a playlist, is it possible to include all 10,000 sounds in the Astrolab?

Or is there a limitation?

If there is a limitation, how many sounds can I include in the Astrolab?

I’m enjoying this machine more and more, in any case.

Thank you again for your reply and your kindness.

#18

Just be wary that there is sometmes a delay (of maybe weeks, sometimes months) between updates to Analog Lab (e.g.: when new versions of V Collection are launched, with new instruments) and when those updates become compatible with Astrolab. Basically the Astrolab firmware isn’t patched at the same time as new Analog Lab updates. That can be a bit frustrating for some V Collection or Analog Lab users who are eager to use any new virtual toys in Astrolab.

Not a showstopper for most, but just something to be wary of that they don’t tell you on the box.

#19

Thank you for your comment.

That’s normal, synchronizing everything can’t be easy.

Here, the latest supported instruments are already a real plus for my needs.

Thanks again for the information.

#20

So, the current version of AstroLab (1.6) comes with approximately 1,800 presets across 40+ instruments.

The limitation is not in terms of number of presets but rather storage size.

AstroLab (any model) includes a 32GB storage drive, with ~10GB already used by the system & factory presets, therefore that leaves slightly more than 20GB for User storage.

Modeled presets (physical modeled, analog circuit modeled or digital modeled) barely take up any storage space, so you could store thousands of them.

But sample-based presets are using more space depending on the size of the samples. Augmented series (and Pure LoFi) in particular use a lot of multi-samples and there’s no way to fit the entire Augmented collection in AstroLab. If you need a specific Augmented preset that is not already in AstroLab, transfer only that one, not the whole bank.
Other sampled instruments (Emulator IIV, CMI V, some Synclavier V, some Vocoder V and some Pigments presets) use fairly small samples in their library, but long user samples can take more space (audio loops, backing tracks, …).

As for the delay between software releases and AstroLab updates, indeed, it can take a few weeks, up to a few months.
For instance, as mentioned earlier, AstroLab is not yet compatible with Pigments 7 (only up to Pigments 6 at the moment), but the next update should add that compatibility. Same with MiniFreak V4 (only up to V3 at the moment).
Regarding V-Collection, AstroLab is already compatible with all instruments in VC9, VCX and VC11 Pro, except CP70V and Mellotron V. Those might be added at a later date (however, the most famous Mello “tapes” such as strings, flutes, choirs, … are already included in the new “Sampler/SFZ Engine” instrument).

#21

By the way, the usual method for adding user presets to AstroLab is not typically through Playlists, but through user soundbanks in the Library.
Playlists are usually made for creating setlists for live performance, with only the presets needed for that performance.

#22

Thank you for your very detailed reply.

I’m reassured to read your comments and I really intend to get the Astrolab 61.

Thanks again for your valuable information; it really answers my questions.

My apologies regarding the playlist.

In any case, it’s a really great idea to be able to use Analog Lab Pro integrated into a keyboard.

What would be really cool is a more powerful rack version.

Even better, a completely standalone new synth to use the entire V Collection, as well as being able to configure it directly on the machine, with faders, pads, and rotary controls.

Perhaps the Astrolab is a prelude to a new era of instruments?

Thank you again so much for your reply.

1 Like
#23

I tried the 88-note version.

Truly wonderful.

I suspect the secret is well kept regarding a possible rack/desktop version.

I would really like to buy the Astrolab 61 or 88.

What worries me a bit is if Arturia releases a rack/desktop version of the Astrolab very soon.

Because a desktop version would be much more interesting for me, and buying the Arturia keyboard version would then be pointless.

Furthermore, I suppose that if it’s a rack version, it will be enhanced to ensure the instrument’s future compatibility with new VSTs, making it even more appealing.

In any case, the Astrolab is a truly beautiful instrument.

#24

As far as I know, there’s no rack/desktop version coming any time soon.
AstroLab37 was only released less than 3 months ago.
Maybe if there’s enough demand, Arturia might consider it in the future; I don’t know.

AstroLab is already designed to accommodate new instruments as they are added to the V-Collection (after a few weeks/months, as discussed above).
Since its introduction less than 2 years ago, the following instruments have been added to AstroLab: Acid V, MiniFreak V, MiniBrute V, Synthex V, Jup-8000 V, Pure LoFi, Augmented series (Grand Piano, Brass, Woodwinds, Yangtze, Mallets), as well as new improved versions of existing instruments (Mini V4, SEM V3 and Wurli V3, in addition to Mini V3, SEM 2 and Wuli V2).

#25

Hello,

Thank you again for your reply.

I really hope so for the desktop version.

Yes, I understood about the integration of VSTs from version 11.

I was thinking more about version 12 and higher for compatibility with Astrolab.

Since there are already polyphony reductions depending on the VST used.

Thank you again for your reply.

#26

I guess no-one but Arturia know what they plan to release next, but I can’t see them releasing a rack / desktop version. AstroLab substitutes the flexibility of a separate laptop / interface / midi controller for the convenience of being an all-in-one solution. That’s the USP. If you take away the keyboard and put what remains in a box, you’re left with a low-spec Linux computer with a built-in audio interface running a custom version of Analog Lab, that has a screen the size of a watch-face, and which still needs a MIDI controller to play it. No one’s buying that in preference to just downloading Analog Lab to the better-spec’d computer they probably already own.

1 Like
#27

Thank you for your message.

The request for a rack/desktop version is simply due to the fact that generally speaking, we all already own a keyboard.

Therefore, a rack/desktop version wouldn’t be a bad idea at all, quite the contrary.

It could have a boosted configuration, which would be a significant advantage.

For example, if someone doesn’t want a computer on stage,

they can prepare their set beforehand on their computer and then go on stage with their rack/desktop, completely self-sufficient.

Since you have keyboards on stage, they simply connect it to one of them, eliminating the need for a computer on stage, as everything would be created, refined, and uploaded to the Astrolab Desktop/Rack.