Proteus 2 vs. Roland M-OC1
Peter A. Klein
After years of composing using a Yamaha EMT-1 FM sound box for Midi
playback, I am considering upgrading to either the E-mu Proteus 2 or the
Roland M-OC1 synthesizer module. I would be using it with a notation
program such as Music Printer Plus or Encore. I don't plan on using a
sequencer. I write for traditional Western Classical instruments played by
real live musicians.
I'm more concerned with a good aural playback and proofing tool that with
something that has to deliver a final performance. These days my primary
interest is chamber music. So I want a synth whose solo instrument voices
are "reasonable facsimiles thereof." It should be intelligent enough to
not to attack the inner notes of a phrase when notes are played legato,
and put attacks in when notes are separated, so legato/staccato bowings
and tonguings come out acceptably.
I'm a computer professional, so I'm sure I can handle a little messing
with a patch here and there. But I don't want to spend more time tweaking
waveforms than writing music.
I have a Yamaha Clavinova already, so the lack of a piano in either synth
is not a problem.
I have not heard the two side by side, so it's a little hard to compare
the sound--both impress me when I hear them, although I have a slight
preference for the Proteus 2.
Has anybody tried both and have opinions about which is superior, or
has something better they could recommend? My observations so far:
- The M-OC1 brochure seems to indicate that is limited to 8-part
multitimbrality, *including* one "rhythm" channel, and 28-voice polyphony.
The 8 part multitimbrality would seem to be a serious limitation if I ever
were to write something for full orchestra, even if I gave up separate
string sections and used a general strings patch for all the strings. The
Proteus 2 has 16 part multitimbrality, and 32-voice polyphony. That seems
more reasonable.
- The M-OC1 has more string articulations (legato, marcato, etc). The
Proteus string sounds seem to have more "guts," and include solo viola
and string harmonics.
- In the winds and brass, both have their strengths and weaknesses, and
nobody has a good bassoon patch.
- Both are remarkable when you think about all the variables they have to
deal with, but neither are going to replace a real ensemble anytime soon.
- Most music store salespeople are grossly ill-equipped to deal with
classical music needs, so here I am :-)
Thanks for any advice you can provide. If possible, please email me in
addition to posting.
--Peter
--
Peter A. Klein (pkl...@seattleu.edu) : -----==3== --- ---
Network Administrator, LAN/WAN/Novell : | | | | | | | |
Seattle University, 296-5569 : @| @| @| @| @| @| @| @|
Steven C King
On 23 Oct 1996, Peter A. Klein wrote:
> After years of composing using a Yamaha EMT-1 FM sound box for Midi
> playback, I am considering upgrading to either the E-mu Proteus 2 or the
> Roland M-OC1 synthesizer module. I would be using it with a notation
> program such as Music Printer Plus or Encore. I don't plan on using a
> sequencer. I write for traditional Western Classical instruments played by
> real live musicians.
>
> I'm more concerned with a good aural playback and proofing tool that with
> something that has to deliver a final performance. These days my primary
> interest is chamber music. So I want a synth whose solo instrument voices
> are "reasonable facsimiles thereof." It should be intelligent enough to
> not to attack the inner notes of a phrase when notes are played legato,
> and put attacks in when notes are separated, so legato/staccato bowings
> and tonguings come out acceptably.
>
> I'm a computer professional, so I'm sure I can handle a little messing
> with a patch here and there. But I don't want to spend more time tweaking
> waveforms than writing music.
>
> I have a Yamaha Clavinova already, so the lack of a piano in either synth
> is not a problem.
>
> I have not heard the two side by side, so it's a little hard to compare
> the sound--both impress me when I hear them, although I have a slight
> preference for the Proteus 2.
>
> Has anybody tried both and have opinions about which is superior, or
> has something better they could recommend? My observations so far:
I've never tried the M-OC1 sound module, but I have a friend who owns the
Proteus 2 (I forget which version), and I was quite impressed with it.
The comments I'll mention will be of this module:
> - The M-OC1 brochure seems to indicate that is limited to 8-part
> multitimbrality, *including* one "rhythm" channel, and 28-voice polyphony.
> The 8 part multitimbrality would seem to be a serious limitation if I ever
> were to write something for full orchestra, even if I gave up separate
> string sections and used a general strings patch for all the strings. The
> Proteus 2 has 16 part multitimbrality, and 32-voice polyphony. That seems
> more reasonable.
Definitely, though it also depends on which patches you use. Some on
the Proteus 2 combine sounds together, which can be a useful effect.
> - The M-OC1 has more string articulations (legato, marcato, etc). The
> Proteus string sounds seem to have more "guts," and include solo viola
> and string harmonics.
The strings are OK. They really didn't appeal to me, but the plucked bass
patch (I forget the name) is quite nice.
> - In the winds and brass, both have their strengths and weaknesses, and
> nobody has a good bassoon patch.
Actually, Proteus's bassoon patch is the best I've heard. By default, it
doesn't have delayed vibrato, so adding that could help. This module also
has the best oboe and english horn sounds I've heard to date. The oboe is
especially nice, and it has vibrato. However, I can't believe what they
did to the clarinet patch. It's not bad, but it could have been better.
> - Both are remarkable when you think about all the variables they have to
> deal with, but neither are going to replace a real ensemble anytime soon.
I don't think they would ever replace an ensemble. Sound modules will
probably improve on their patches, but the problem is that they are
perceived as "perfect". This is me, but I much prefer the "imperfect"
quality of sounds that humans produce. Digital is just too clean, and you
can tell (especially on commercials) if real players or sound modules are
being used to produce the music.
> - Most music store salespeople are grossly ill-equipped to deal with
> classical music needs, so here I am :-)
Yes, and sometimes you can find good deals, especially if they hold
private sales like the one back in Kentucky does periodically.
> Thanks for any advice you can provide. If possible, please email me in
> addition to posting.
>
> --Peter
> --
> Peter A. Klein (pkl...@seattleu.edu) : -----==3== --- ---
> Network Administrator, LAN/WAN/Novell : | | | | | | | |
> Seattle University, 296-5569 : @| @| @| @| @| @| @| @|
--
{--------------------------------------------------------------------------}
{ Name: Steven C. King Institution: Florida State University }
{ Addr: sck...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu Major field: MM Performance }
{ kin...@cmr.fsu.edu Instruments: Clarinet, piano (hobby) }
{ URL: http://otto.cmr.fsu.edu/~king_s/ - MIDI, Humor, KI2, Pictures, etc.}
{ "The way to do is to be." }
{--------------------------------------------------------------------------}
William C. Reed
I enjoyed your posting. It asks all the right questions.
I have both. I used the P2 for several years ( yes, for contemporary
chamber music ), and love some of the instruments, while finding others
useless. I found myself catering my compositions to the acceptable Proteus
instruments. Recently, I got the M-OC1. Same situation. Some sounds are
good and some not. Fortunately they compliment each other well.
Here are some opinions:
P2
Good flutes and double reeds. Unusable clarinet. B Clarinet is OK. Solo
violin is unstable.
Viola and Cello are ok. Most of the brass sounds are something you settle
for.
M-OC1
flutes and double reeds aren't so good ( they have an indistinct attach ).
Very good clarinets.
Very good brass. The solo strings are better.
If you have to pick, get the proteus. If you write for strings, you should
also consider Roland's M-SE1.
It's the only place you'll find a full set of solo string samples (Pizz,
con legno, etc)
I bought the OC1 from Rich Music (800-795-8493) for only $389. The SE1 is
the same price.
Let Santa know what you want!
Hope this helps. E-mail me if you have more question, etc.
Bill
Barry Bocaner
Peter A. Klein (pkl...@news.seattleu.edu) wrote:
: Has anybody tried both and have opinions about which is superior, or
I have tried them both back-to-back, and would not want to be stuck with
either of them.
The emu seems to be stuck with consistently tinny raspy and very shallow
samples. This is the type of problem that makes it virtually useless,
despite its terrific editing features.
The roland is much better in terms of sound quality (although it still
has its good and bad spots) but has almost no programability and
extremely limited polyphony and multitimbrality. You'd have to get
several of them for a full orchestra. (although the emu is a stretch for
anything bigger than a mozart-sized orchestra too...)
I think the only alternative is to get a sampler...
: - Most music store salespeople are grossly ill-equipped to deal with
: classical music needs, so here I am :-)
AMEN!
--
--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Barry J. Bocaner _________/|
<ba...@gslink.com> (___|_____\|__________
_|__________)-
"If you listen to a piece of classical music it's a piece of music, but if
you listen to a pop song from 1954 it sounds like a pop song from 1954.
How much of the music that's being written today will be worth listening
to in ten years, except for nostalgia?" -Geddy Lee
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Robin Johnson
I have listened to both modules and own a Proteus 2, and soundwise they
are quite comparable. I think the Roland edges out the Proteus for solo
string sounds. Legato lines on the solo cello patch of the Proteus make
me crazy for just the reason you mention...percussive attacks on notes
in the middle of the phrase. The 8-part multitibrality is a very serious
problem with the Roland if you plan on doing any work for orchestra. It
decided me in favor of the Proteus.
--
Robin Johnson Happiness is good health and a bad memory.
Ingrid Bergman
William C. Reed
>
> I think the only alternative is to get a sampler...
>
Do you have any experience with them? Are there good sample out there? I
would think creating your would be quite a task.
Bill
Jago
On 25 Oct 1996, William C. Reed wrote:
> I enjoyed your posting. It asks all the right questions.
>
> I have both. I used the P2 for several years ( yes, for contemporary
> chamber music ), and love some of the instruments, while finding others
> useless. I found myself catering my compositions to the acceptable Proteus
> instruments. Recently, I got the M-OC1. Same situation. Some sounds are
> good and some not. Fortunately they compliment each other well.
>
> Here are some opinions:
>
> P2
> Good flutes and double reeds. Unusable clarinet. B Clarinet is OK. Solo
> violin is unstable.
> Viola and Cello are ok. Most of the brass sounds are something you settle
> for.
Very true about the Proteus strings overall, especially the violin. That
patch is not very even from one note to the next. I never understood how
that happen. I know that it is very complex to simulate strings, let
alone other instruments, but it's very odd when the same sound differs a
little among notes.
> M-OC1
> flutes and double reeds aren't so good ( they have an indistinct attach ).
> Very good clarinets.
> Very good brass. The solo strings are better.
Isn't it funny how companies get certain sounds right, then other
companies get the other sounds right? Imagine if they actually worked
together. Of course, this is a long shot to happen.
> If you have to pick, get the proteus. If you write for strings, you should
> also consider Roland's M-SE1.
> It's the only place you'll find a full set of solo string samples (Pizz,
> con legno, etc)
Agreed. I'm not too fond of the strings by Proteus, though I really like
its picked string bass that sounds good in the middle to low range.
> I bought the OC1 from Rich Music (800-795-8493) for only $389. The SE1 is
> the same price.
> Let Santa know what you want!
One of these days, I will be able to set up a good MIDI studio since I
highly enjoy arranging and composing in MIDI format. One of these
days....
Timothy Kelly
Hi All,
Emu is still the sound king.
I'ld give Pro 2 the edge on both sounds, and a big edge on how easy
it is to edit and change the sounds of presets you dont like into
sounds you will find useful.
Proteus FX may be better, if you compose a lot of non classical
music too.
UltraProteus adds all the tone colors needed in orchestration
because of all the real time filters. Piano is one of the best midi
ones ever.
Happy Proteus Sounds
Timothy Kelly
MidiVox
--
MidiVox - Worlds 1st Real Time Voice to Midi. BioSensor Neckband
+ Rack Mount Brain.
Hum, Sing, Scat, Talk, Rap, Croon. AES Best in Show. EM's
Editors Choice. Keyboard "MidiVox Roars."
Steven Orich
I missed the beginning of this thread, but I've got both the Proteus 2
and the Roland M-OC1. Of course it's a matter of personal taste, but I
use the Proteus primarily for the oboe & bass clarinet, and the M-OC1
primarily for the Strings (Ominous is my favorite) and percussion. I
also have a K2000 and use the Orchestral ROM for almost everything else.
SteveO
Seven Torch Music
http://home.earthlink.net/~steverino/
