Bad sound quality with Roland XP-60?
Mike Heidenreich
looking at this as my first synth and I don't quite know the terminology
that well.
This summer, I was finally going to splurge and buy a Roland XP-60.
However, after looking at a review posted at the Synth Database at Harmony
Central, I'm having mixed thoughts. According to the reviewer, the
presets are good, but they sound kinda crappy if there is a lot of
sustain. Look at the review at http://www.harmony-central.com/Synth for
the details.
Anyway, I just wanted to know if anybody else thought the sound quality
was not as good as the XP-50 or XP-80. If it's true, then I'll just spend
the extra $400 on an XP-80. I guess just give me your thoughts on the
sound quality if you've tinkered with the XP-60. Thanks.
Mike
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mike Heidenreich * Geological Engineering major
mjhe...@mtu.edu * http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~mjheiden
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Phil Chew
not be any difference.
On 13 May 1999 04:32:05 GMT, Mike Heidenreich <mjhe...@mtu.edu>
wrote:
GraceNoteX
if there is a lot of sustain. <<
Actually, this can be a fairly common compliant about most rompler based
synths. When they are imitating analogue instruments (like acoustic pianos),
they have the ability to sustain an unnatuarely long time.
They do that by looping a section of the sampled wave form. When you allow
that loop to continue for a long sustain, it becomes obvious after awhile that
the note's decay isn't progessing and just doesn't sound right.
Some of the better programmed synth patches handle this by having a series of
loop points that it progresses through as the sustain continues (so that the
decay DOES progress, but at a slower than natural rate for extended sustain) or
by applying envelopes that approximate some decay characteristics. And Synths
with more RAM can hold longer samples with more of the instruments natural
sustain character.
Finally, this is much more noticeable when auditioning the bare patch. In
context of an arrangement, it is much less noticeable, and can even be used to
good effect in some circumstances.
As far as the XP synths, they're pretty good actually (better than most).
There really shouldn't be any difference in sound between an XP60 and an XP80.
Peace,
Dan
Hyeong Min Kim
JV-2080. So, I think I'm qualified to comment on this issue. The
XP-80/60 & the JV-1080/2080 share the same synthesis engine. Do they
sound the same? The answer is **NO**. I find the XP-80/JV-1080 sound
fatter & punchier than the XP-60/2080. What's more, the XP-80/JV-1080
don't have the annoying decay noise that the XP-60/2080 have. My guess
is that the XP-80/JV-1080 have a better D/A converter, which results in
better sounds. Another case in point is the Kurzweil K2000 and K2500.
Both synths use the same VAST synth engine, but the K2500 sounds
noticeably better than the K2000 because the former uses a 20 bit D/A
converter whereas the latter uses an 18 bit D/A converter. If you're
serious about the sound quality, then buy an XP-80. Hope this helps.
Serge Stodolnik
why only 32 user performances? (Internal)
Performance data doesn't take much memory,
memory is very cheap nowadays.
So, why not 128. That's plain dumb............
--
Please check out Production Music In MIDI Domain at:
http://www.miditrax.com/sergesmusic.htm
Film/commercials/production libraries/multimedia/web sites.........
Serge Stodolnik. Tel: 214-324-9942. voice/fax.
http://www.miditrax.com/sergesmusic.htm
E-MAIL: ssm...@wtd.net