Compact DeLuxe
ASO Keyword Dashboard
Tracking 110 keywords for Compact DeLuxe in Apple App Store
Compact DeLuxe tracks 110 keywords (3 keywords rank; 107 need traction). Key metrics: 33% top-10 coverage, opportunity 70.6, difficulty 38.9, best rank 6.
Tracked keywords
110
3 ranked • 107 not ranking yet
Top 10 coverage
33%
Best rank 6 • Latest leader —
Avg opportunity
70.6
Top keyword: external
Avg difficulty
38.9
Lower scores indicate easier wins
Opportunity leaders
- 64.5
external
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 40.5 • Rank —
Competitors: 94
- 68.2
course
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 42.1 • Rank —
Competitors: 128
- 62.6
generator
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 38.7 • Rank —
Competitors: 74
- 68.3
coming
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 42.7 • Rank —
Competitors: 222
- 65.9
generation
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 41.8 • Rank —
Competitors: 109
Unranked opportunities
external
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 40.5 • Competitors: 94
course
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 42.1 • Competitors: 128
generator
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 38.7 • Competitors: 74
coming
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 42.7 • Competitors: 222
generation
Opportunity: 73.0 • Difficulty: 41.8 • Competitors: 109
High competition keywords
like
Total apps: 153,385 • Major competitors: 3,284
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 55.4
best
Total apps: 124,586 • Major competitors: 2,642
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 53.9
using
Total apps: 114,639 • Major competitors: 1,562
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 53.1
different
Total apps: 100,117 • Major competitors: 1,707
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 52.3
see
Total apps: 92,680 • Major competitors: 1,758
Latest rank: — • Difficulty: 54.2
All tracked keywords
Includes opportunity, difficulty, rankings and competitor benchmarks
| Major Competitors | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| compact | 70 | 100 | 33 | 52 1,354 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.0 | 6 | 6 | 17 major competitor apps |
| immersive sound | 69 | 100 | 28 | 45 534 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.0 | 89 | 89 | 11 major competitor apps |
| realistic sound | 69 | 100 | 28 | 45 515 competing apps Median installs: 650 Avg rating: 3.8 | 92 | 92 | 9 major competitor apps |
| best | 66 | 100 | 54 | 85 124,586 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 2,642 major competitor apps |
| top | 69 | 100 | 50 | 78 46,690 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.2 | — | — | 1,080 major competitor apps |
| level | 68 | 100 | 50 | 79 55,867 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 1,185 major competitor apps |
| reason | 71 | 100 | 36 | 56 2,354 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 38 major competitor apps |
| external | 73 | 100 | 41 | 65 7,623 competing apps Median installs: 600 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 94 major competitor apps |
| section | 72 | 100 | 42 | 69 14,184 competing apps Median installs: 300 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 120 major competitor apps |
| used | 69 | 100 | 49 | 78 50,542 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 503 major competitor apps |
| using | 66 | 100 | 53 | 84 114,639 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 1,562 major competitor apps |
| basic | 72 | 100 | 44 | 71 18,966 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 194 major competitor apps |
| note | 72 | 100 | 45 | 70 16,115 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 262 major competitor apps |
| various | 69 | 100 | 48 | 78 48,723 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 729 major competitor apps |
| technique | 72 | 100 | 35 | 58 3,089 competing apps Median installs: 400 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 16 major competitor apps |
| run | 71 | 100 | 46 | 73 24,002 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 501 major competitor apps |
| many | 68 | 100 | 50 | 81 76,885 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 1,358 major competitor apps |
| pretty | 72 | 100 | 37 | 58 2,979 competing apps Median installs: 700 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 67 major competitor apps |
| type | 71 | 100 | 45 | 73 25,638 competing apps Median installs: 450 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 292 major competitor apps |
| scene | 72 | 100 | 38 | 61 4,742 competing apps Median installs: 550 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 60 major competitor apps |
| like | 66 | 100 | 55 | 86 153,385 competing apps Median installs: 600 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 3,284 major competitor apps |
| see | 67 | 100 | 54 | 83 92,680 competing apps Median installs: 500 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 1,758 major competitor apps |
| course | 73 | 100 | 42 | 68 12,658 competing apps Median installs: 350 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 128 major competitor apps |
| pass | 72 | 100 | 45 | 69 15,105 competing apps Median installs: 750 Avg rating: 4.1 | — | — | 344 major competitor apps |
| generator | 73 | 100 | 39 | 63 5,803 competing apps Median installs: 700 Avg rating: 4.0 | — | — | 74 major competitor apps |
App Description
GSi Compact DeLuxe is a component modeling emulation of a Farfisa Compact DeLuxe.
INSTRUMENT BACKGROUND
Among the many transistor organs of the past, also known as "Combo Organs" (mostly because some of them also had a rhythm section and built-in speakers), the Farfisa Compact DeLuxe, along with its big brother the Compact Duo, was one of the most used organs at least in the european beat scene of the early and mid seventies. The electronic circuit of this kind of organ is relatively simple, at least on paper: rather than using a mechanical tone generator like the tonewheel models (Hammond and Pari), the transistor organs used a circuit called "Top Octave Synthesizer", TOS for short, responsible of the generation of 12 waveforms, one for each note of the last octave of the organ keyboard. The basic waveform was usually something halfway between a ramp and a triangular. The lower octaves were produced by means of "divider" circuits that could halve the frequency of each waveform, going so forth for each lower octave down to the pedalboard tones. At each division, something was lost and something was gained in terms of harmonic content. The result was that the same notes of different octaves had oscillators perfectly in sync, so all C notes were in sync, all C#, all D and so on. This same technique was also used in so-called "string machines" or "stringer keyboards" that emulated orchestral sounds (violins, trumpets, etc.) - see GSi's Electrorchestra.
The various registers in combo organs were produced by passing the raw waveforms through a filter bank, so some waveforms were low-pass filtered for bass-like sounds, some were high-pass filtered for violin-like sounds, etc. and some waveforms also went through more than one filter. This also adds some level of phase shifting between waveforms coming from different registers, the reason why the sum between, e.g. a Flute 8' and a Violin 8' isn't exactly the superimposition of the two waveforms, but something slightly different. And this is one of those underrated details that made the sound of some Combo Organs pretty unique.
The sound engine of GSi Compact DeLuxe is also included in the GSi Gemini as well as in the Crumar Mojo 61.
Of course this type of instrument gives its best if run through external effects and amps. Have a look at the GSi catalo