I have fallen in love with the matrix routine and have probably learned over a dozen, it's a tad overwhelming... So what are your favorite matrix routines? I personally love Alan Rorrison's in the hand matrix

I like Al Schneider's original.

Me too.

I like Mot-suns variations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU528OVTsmU

I have A few like 80-90 Or So! Stop me When You see one You like!

Al Schneider's Classic.

Jim

Not saying one must do A's original, but before making a choice of an alternative it might be good to study the thinking behind the effect.

In his writings, Al is most generous in reviewing several alternatives.

I question whether any coins across routine should be called "Matrix" just because it uses platens of some sort to cover the coins.

Many versions, methinks, happen to fast to appeal to lay audiences. I prefer to perform other coin effects first to insure attention.

Thus, my favorite is the one appropriate to the setting and audience of the moment.

Flash Matrix has impressed me the most of all adaptations of the original Matrix. It certainly is shocking. However, here is an analysis of the routine.

Let me begin by assuming the moves in both routines are perfect. That is, each move is solid and the how is not questioned. Then, in each case, the audience has no idea how the magic was accomplished.

I believe the classic version is better for this reason. In the flash version, one thing happens. I believe the audience will be stunned but immediately wish to see it again for they will feel they missed something.

This does not arise with the classic version. These questions arise with the first move in the classic version. However, with the second move, they have a chance to review what they just saw. On the third move they will just watch knowing they can detect nothing. And, on the third move, there is nothing to detect for the magic is already done.

Moving on.

The flash version will get a very strong response. The classic version will not get as strong a response. The reason: the audience will credit the magic to the performer of flash as his hands are all over the place. In the classic version, the audience will not know who or what is responsible for the magic for the involvement of the performer is minimal.

There is more to analyze here, let me know if you want more.

To be sure, however, the flash version stunned me. Very well done.

And I do not know if I could sit through 80 - 90 versions but I appreciate the sentiment.

Knowing that the Flash version has its basis in the original, I would probably go with the amazing bit of progressive thinking that is shown here. So I agree here as to what is more "impressive" especially as it would apply to specs.

Easily, Mott Sun could do the original Matrix and follow up with this and then more completely blow people out there shoes with the much greater wonder of it all that it shows.

I think the opinions/reasons given here are a good-enough study if you want to think about how the sausage is made. But I will leave why people like a particular sausage up to them, especially as to our greater lay audiences...Their greater/"stronger" response is what is most important IMHO.

While I truly appreciate the "simpler" take of the classic version, I truly doubt if just this Flash version is the only "stronger" take out there. There have been several impressive progressions on this. This Flash one, though impressive, is one of the simpler ones I've seen. But I enjoyed seeing this more magical shift-upward from manual to automatic, as I'm pretty sure you all did.

In my humble opinion the original Matrix used very advanced technology to accomplish magic not seen until that day. So called improvements took old style technology and smershed the original Matrix concept into an old technology presentation. Consider that the original is vastly more popular than any so called improved versions. The impact of the original Matrix is so strong that individuals publishing rip-offs that are not even like a Matrix routine feel compelled to use the name just to attract attention to their rip-off. Also consider that months after Matrix was published it flashed around the magic world. Shortly after publishing Matrix in Genii, I went to a national magic convention and every close up table did Matrix. Several of the performers were from other parts of the world. It is easy to say that Matrix was just the first and all that followed are better. Please back up that statement with some facts rather than, "Now, I'm just sayin."

I like Al's original version, plus the Giant Killer Coin variation by Paul Harris. Also, if you're not afraid of gimmicks, E Pluribus Unum had some nice ideas.

Al's is definitely my favorite non gimmicked version. I like Rorrison's version just because it happens in two spectator's hands which I think adds a new twist to a classic effect.

No need, you have presented the facts, as I thought you would here when not bowed to…That's really all you wanted to do anyway here.

Your original Matrix came out like 50? years ago (being facetious) and so it has been remodeled hundreds of times, as all things have been, from dog breeds to automobiles. Perhaps if you had been given a royalty each and every time its basis is used, you would feel a lot better about the whole thing, about people copying your work, improving it, etc.??? Alas, it seems instead that you spend your time keeping it immortal by always concluding for everyone an original superiority as to it. If they cannot see it, then you will surely explain a better thinking for them. It's like explaining to someone why their wife isn't really beautiful to them, or why the original vanilla ice cream absolutely tastes better than chocolate. I'm sure you have a handy slide rule available to prove that also. And there are those out there that buy your genius-blowhard explanations just because you said it and done so much for so many in this art…And because you explained it to them the way they really ought to understand it, many times despite any silent opinions they may hold themselves of things. Lucky devils!

Like you, I stand by what I said and the proof is right out there and gotten to best when you allow others to see & feel what they feel about it, without your oft-repeated instructions on how it should be seen and or appreciated. I'm sure there are those (some already here that have weighed-in) that will see your work as the quintessential illustration of it all, as there will be those that will like something else and that should be OK too.

It really should be enough here to know that what ever the effect has become good-better-best, it all began with you and that from an untouchable place of recognition as to this. I'm just sayin'.

The Flash matrix got me by surprise, I have not seen it before and I was not expecting the 4 coins together so fast, and I have no clue how it was done, very nice.
I see Schneider's point on one by one coin vs all together, but as an spectator both matrix would entertain me.

This statement by Schneider puzzle me:
"The flash version will get a very strong response. The classic version will not get as strong a response. The reason: the audience will credit the magic to the performer of flash as his hands are all over the place. In the classic version, the audience will not know who or what is responsible for the magic for the involvement of the performer is minimal"
I think both produce a strong response, maybe the Flash is more of a shock, but any member of the audience, unless a small child, knows that magic does not exist and it is either something that the magician did "hands faster than the eye" or some kind of "thing" used. So not sure what you mean by "What or who" in this context. Is it really relevant? I am more a spectator than magician, so for me I see what happen and get impress or not, then the how it was done it is more of an intellectual challenge that not always I'd pursue, but I am always sure it was the magician's skill that made it happened.
Pablo

Here is another outstanding Matrix-like routine from Armando. But notice that Armando does not call it a Matrix. He shows respect. He has his own material and does not need to take from others. And the routine is very, very good.

http://vimeo.com/93008574

It, like Flash Matrix, are extremely good effects.

I am sure MB remembers this. It does not matter if his is better then mine or mine is better than his. But MB cannot simply say, "Boy that looks good." For years he has taken every chance he has to cut me down. He said in the thread that presented it (Posted: Apr 26, 2014 04:21 pm):

"So well done, it must be magic! Smile

Yet again, at the core, another wonderful/amazing progression of Matrix, only a bit cleaner and much more stealth. No popping up of the cards, etc. The coins just seem to go, even more magically IMHO.

Shhhhhhh…Don't tell Ol' Al about this. Smile"

I made my comments about Flash Matrix because I expected MB would take the opportunity to cut me down saying that an excellent routine such as that would put mine to shame. For years MB and friends have lashed into me and others that express any thought they do not agree with. And he accuses me of wanting to be bowed down to. MB, it must hurt really bad to have someone else get attention instead of you.

Even in his comment about Fast Matrix, he says there are better ones out there.

SO WHAT?

Sorry to drag you into this Armando, if you read this.

Pablo
To address your question I will tell a story.

At one time I sold books at magic conventions. I show a trick and say it is in a book. Then, hopefully, they buy the book. Often a guy brings his wife along to see it all. Then, I sell the wife then the guy can buy. On one occasion a magician noted that I was selling a book on Matrix. He said he did it and his wife said, "That is my favorite trick." I said that I did not need to show it to him. He said he would like to see it anyway. So, I did the trick. The effect on his wife was unusual. She slowly slipped an arm around him. Then she pulled him close so she could whisper in his ear and with all the caring of a lover she said, "Honey, that's not the same trick." After a pause of which he did not move, she said, "In yours, you make it happen. In his, he doesn't touch the cards and the coins go."

He probably did the bit of showing where the coins were and covered them to make them jump. I merely pick up the cards to show where the coins are. Picking up the cards is then perceived by the audience that nothing else is going on.

To be more explicit. When a magician manipulates the objects to cause the magic to happen, the audience is aware of that and applaud the skill of the performer. When a magician does not manipulate the objects and the magic happens, they tend to not applaud the magician for the audience does not know the source of the magic. It could be a cheap trick purchased from the magic shop. It could be mirrors. They know that it is a trick but they do not know the cause of it.

The vanishing bird cage is a good example of this. The performer holds a small cage in his hands with a bird in it. Suddenly it is gone. The audience does not respond. They just sit and stare at the performer.

I once opened my stand up act with it. It never got a response. Yet after the show while walking around, everyone passing me said, "Where did the bird go?"

Describing this in detail is difficult. I wrote a book in it, "The Theory and Practice of Magic Deception" and sold on amazon dot com. To answer your question completely, I would need to present half the book.

I have Always Said That Matrix And A coin assembly Are Not the same Thing!!! Now as To a Flash or Instant Assembly I would NEVER do It Alone. I would start With It And them Say " Maybe That was too Fast! I will slow it down a Little For You" Then Do a One at a time Assembly, Or Matrix! That way I get The Best of Both!

SMH

Nothing else to be said here but…"Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are."

Thank you Al, I appreciate your explanation, however we are discussing the effect from different vantage points I think. Yours is a magician with MANY audiences looking at your trick over time and assuming what they feel, mine is I am the audience, but clearly I am only one not many, so my sampling is more limited.
I as an audience do not care much is the trick is the prop, or the sleight, I will applaud either way, I still struggle with the difference that you noted, again I am not sure at the end of the day if is too relevant. From my point of view, I get entertain/fool/astonished by both ways.

For instance in your example of the Bird cage, I don't believe you did not get a reaction, I think people got shock, and that was the reaction, it is a very fast trick with an impossible finish because of the bird.I am sure that if you start your act with Flash matrix, you will have the same reaction as with the cage, silent, because it is too fast and you were just accommodating to watch a magical act, your matrix that is more paced, as an opener will get an applause because people have more time to focus on what is going on, but again, and either way the audience, me, will be astonished.

It is clear that an effect as the matrix, yours or anyone else, creates always a great reaction because the idea of coins moving from one place to another is beautiful. You deserve the credit for that and I agree that not all matrixes are the same.
For instance I like Mike Powers Boston Massacre because of the impossibility of the coins getting together in a brass box instead of under the card. He uses a mix of props and sleights but as an spectator, I don't care, it has the same effect on me that your matrix or Flash, I smile and enjoy.

I think the problem with the birdcage is discussed in the movie "The Prestige." A vanish is great, but applause doesn't come until it reappears. People need closure.

I think the silent reaction from Matrix, the original, is more the jaws dropped and speechless kind, as opposed to the "how did he do that" kind.