Yamaha EX5 vs. Kurzweil K2500
Kenneth J Flagg
Yamaha's new flagship EX5 seems like it would be a good direct
competitor with the K2500, what with its multiple synthesis techniques,
powerful sampling engine and sequencer and 128-note polyphony (I still
don't understand why there is not an 88-key fully-weighted, though) -
has anyone had a chance to really compare specs between the two? I
realize the EX5 hasn't come out yet, but I'm sure somebody's heard a
prototype model...
-K
Fenzar
In article <0p_WSSK00...@andrew.cmu.edu> Kenneth J Flagg,
I had the chance to play briefly both the EX5 and the EX7. Sounds quite
good but nothing impressive. It certainly won't be a threat to the K2500.
The Yamaha's are more like a neat and cost-effective re-packaging of
their line of synths. They don't add anything new. As for the sampling
engine, the built in editor is nowhere as elaborate as the Kurzweil's,
but is still more advanced than the Trinity. (but 128-note polyphony
certainly beats the 48-note of the K2500..)
Fenzar
to...@no_spam.com
Kenneth J Flagg <em...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> Yamaha's new flagship EX5 seems like it would be a good direct
> competitor with the K2500, what with its multiple synthesis techniques,
> powerful sampling engine and sequencer and 128-note polyphony (I still
> don't understand why there is not an 88-key fully-weighted, though) -
Which is why you could probably use a K2500X to control the EX5. :) I'm
still learning my way through my Kurz, but all those sliders, wheels and
ribbons are da bomb.
You are right about the EX5 looking very cool. It shouldn't be long before
reviews appear in magazines and on websites. Hubba hubba hubba...
> has anyone had a chance to really compare specs between the two? I
> realize the EX5 hasn't come out yet, but I'm sure somebody's heard a
> prototype model...
I dread thinking about it, but I fear that polyphony is becoming a major
issue for me and the Yamaha looks better very minute.
marti...@mailexcite.com
In article <6gfurt$os9$1...@peuplier.wanadoo.fr>,
Fenzar <fen...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> In article <0p_WSSK00...@andrew.cmu.edu> Kenneth J Flagg,
> em...@andrew.cmu.edu writes:
> >competitor with the K2500, what with its multiple synthesis techniques,
> >powerful sampling engine and sequencer and 128-note polyphony (I still
> >don't understand why there is not an 88-key fully-weighted, though) -
> >realize the EX5 hasn't come out yet, but I'm sure somebody's heard a
> >prototype model...
>
> good but nothing impressive. It certainly won't be a threat to the K2500.
> The Yamaha's are more like a neat and cost-effective re-packaging of
> their line of synths. They don't add anything new. As for the sampling
> engine, the built in editor is nowhere as elaborate as the Kurzweil's,
> but is still more advanced than the Trinity. (but 128-note polyphony
> certainly beats the 48-note of the K2500..)
>
> Fenzar
In the latest (newstand) issue of Keyboard Magazine, they review
workstations. EX7 is one that is compared. They seem to like it quite a
bit! Saying things like it has the best interface ever seen on a keyboard.
The sounds are very, very good. at the time of the article, he was testing a
prototype which was missing a bank or so of sounds. But everything he could
access, he really enjoyed. BUT... like with anything that costs 17 - 2,500+
I would suggest researching in depth.
I am in the market for a nice/powerful workstation. Anyone got any
suggestions? The price should be 1,800.00 - 2,200.00
Thanks,
Marv
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
to...@no_spam.com
marti...@mailexcite.com wrote:
> In the latest (newstand) issue of Keyboard Magazine, they review
> workstations. EX7 is one that is compared. [snip] at the time of the
> article, [the reviewer] was testing a prototype which was missing a bank
> or so of sounds.
It sounds a lot like the workstation comparison test, published in the
April issue of Electronic Musician. You sure you're not confusing the two?
:)
The way I read the article, it seemed that the Kurzweil K2000VP was
getting a little long in the tooth. Indeed, in that price range I would
tend to avoid it now as the EX-7 and XP-80 look better and better. But
it's all kind of moot, since I have to finish paying off my K2500X. :)
Kenneth J Flagg
Excerpts from netnews.rec.music.makers.synth: 12-Apr-98 Re: Yamaha EX5
vs. Kurzweil.. by toto@no_spam.com
He was mistaken - Keyboard's May issue only mentions the EX5/7
briefly in its NAMM review. It does, however, have a more detailed
advertisement where you can see that the EX5 comes standard with 4
outputs and two independent MIDI ports. Sounds like good news to me!
Does anyone know if Yamaha has the EX5 up on their webpage yet?
-K
Russell Dawkins
> Does anyone know if Yamaha has the EX5 up on their webpage yet?
>
> -K
Have not seen it ... but check this out ...
http://www.giles.com/yamaha1/pressreleases/NAMM/NAMMWinter98/PAC/DMI/EX.html
Russell Dawkins
Ruud van de Kruisweg
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998 20:48:58 -0400, Kenneth J Flagg <em...@andrew.cmu.edu>
wrote:
>It does, however, have a more detailed
>advertisement where you can see that the EX5 comes standard with 4
>outputs and two independent MIDI ports. Sounds like good news to me!
>Does anyone know if Yamaha has the EX5 up on their webpage yet?
Check out www.yamaha.co.uk for more detailed information about the synth.
Ruud
--
The Terratec EWS64 XL Mailing List: www.flatearth.demon.nl/ews64xl.htm
Ruud van de Kruisweg - The Flat Earth Company - krui...@flatearth.demon.nl
[My email-address has been SPAM-proofed. Remove _NOSPAM_ from my address.]
Rev Spicy
> He was mistaken - Keyboard's May issue only mentions the EX5/7
>advertisement where you can see that the EX5 comes standard with 4
>outputs and two independent MIDI ports. Sounds like good news to me
Indeed. The magazine he refers to is the April issue of Electronic Musician.
Can't wait to try the EX5!
Jon
Ruud van de Kruisweg <krui...@flatearth.demon.nl> wrote:
:>Does anyone know if Yamaha has the EX5 up on their webpage yet?
: Check out www.yamaha.co.uk for more detailed information about the synth.
Or better still, get info on hard copy. Future Music magazine not only
review it but also have sounds from it on their cover CD.
Jon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
j...@durge.org
http://www.durge.org/~jon/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth J Flagg
Excerpts from netnews.rec.music.makers.synth: 14-Apr-98 Re: Yamaha EX5
vs. Kurzweil.. by J...@fof.durge.org
>
> Or better still, get info on hard copy. Future Music magazine not only
> review it but also have sounds from it on their cover CD.
>
> Jon
>
FM's website didn't have the May issue up yet... is it out?
I ran into a post on the SynthZone discussion list where somebody
said that the EX5 was limited to one timbre of VL and two of AN at a
time, and the VL was only monophonic! The writer also expressed
concerns that this would be a "jack of all trades, master of none" type
of synth - I would hope not. At the very least, it would be a good idea
for Yamaha to offer a DSP upgrade to allow for more hard-core synthesis
to occur. I wonder how good it will really be...
Has anyone used the Yamaha VL-1? Is it monophonic? I know the AN1X
can do a max of 2 timbres, so it's not surprising that the EX is the
same. I just wonder how quickly the total DSP power will be eaten up by
all the fancy features - a factor that may make it or break it as a
workstation.
Hmm.
-K
Kirk Dupont
Kenneth J Flagg wrote:
>
> I ran into a post on the SynthZone discussion list where somebody
> said that the EX5 was limited to one timbre of VL and two of AN at a
> time, and the VL was only monophonic! The writer also expressed
> concerns that this would be a "jack of all trades, master of none" type
> of synth - I would hope not. At the very least, it would be a good idea
> for Yamaha to offer a DSP upgrade to allow for more hard-core synthesis
> to occur. I wonder how good it will really be...
>
> Has anyone used the Yamaha VL-1? Is it monophonic? I know the AN1X
> can do a max of 2 timbres, so it's not surprising that the EX is the
> same. I just wonder how quickly the total DSP power will be eaten up by
> all the fancy features - a factor that may make it or break it as a
> workstation.
>
> Hmm.
>
> -K
Actually, the story I have heard is even more dismal - that the AN1X
section is limited to only 2 voices of polyphony (vs. two timbres)! If
this is true, it will render this feature useless for my purposes. Let's
just hope that I've been misinformed!!!
Take Care!
Kirk
GEOF ABRUZZI
Kenneth J Flagg (em...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
: Has anyone used the Yamaha VL-1? Is it monophonic? I know the AN1X
: can do a max of 2 timbres, so it's not surprising that the EX is the
: same. I just wonder how quickly the total DSP power will be eaten up by
: all the fancy features - a factor that may make it or break it as a
: workstation.
The VL-1 had 2 note polyphony, though many sounds will layer those two
reducing you back to one. I'll bet the VL in the EX is more like the
VL70m which is a CR version with simpler patch architechure and only one
note polyphony (although still a pretty nice little beast.)
I'm wondering how much the innards are just a couple of synth boards
shoehorned into one case, unlike the Kurzweil which is more of a
general-purpose computer, and hence easily upgradeable.
Geof
--
____________________________________________________________________________
Geof Abruzzi Language is a virus from outer space.
gxa114 @ cac.psu.edu And hearing your name is better
BeOS Developer #3089 than seeing your face.
-Laurie Anderson
...
wombstatevector
>
>Actually, the story I have heard is even more dismal - that the AN1X
>section is limited to only 2 voices of polyphony (vs. two timbres)! If
>this is true, it will render this feature useless for my purposes. Let's
> just hope that I've been misinformed!!!
>
first/ from what i've seen- the EX DOES offer polyphonic AN synthesis- the
Yamaha brochure refers to: "AN(poly)" synthesis/
second/ even if it where monophonic the unit offers direct resampling- and
since the AN voice would be processed by the same filters/ dsp/ FX as the
sample voices- it would not be simply a "static digital snapshot" of an AN
sound/ even pulse width modulation could be acheived using the PWM algorythm
in the FDSP/ so obviously you could easily have as much AN polyphony AND
multitibrality as with the sample-voices/
one thing i would like to know: each voice/channel has two "insert effects"-
i have never used a synth/sampler with inserts- does this mean that each
channel can use different FX simultaneously in a m-t set-up?
sys.disconnect/:set\AI
Theo Vosse
In article <gpAsiqi00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Kenneth J Flagg
<em...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> I ran into a post on the SynthZone discussion list where somebody
> said that the EX5 was limited to one timbre of VL and two of AN at a
> time, and the VL was only monophonic!
According to a review by a Yamaha developer in the German magazine
Keyboards, this is true. And the AN section has (only) two voices. And use
of VL voice (which is comparable to the VL70m instead of the VL1) disables
use of the AN voices and vice versa. And use of the FDSP section disables
the VL section as well. And the use of one (16-voice) FDSP algorithm
disables one AN voice, and use of two FDSPs disables both.
In short, everything is supposedly done using DSPs, and there is not much
spare room in them.
However, it still is a nice machine with a lot of possibilities, even
though you cannot use all of them at the same time...
Geof Abruzzi wrote:
> I'm wondering how much the innards are just a couple of synth boards
> shoehorned into one case, unlike the Kurzweil which is more of a
> general-purpose computer, and hence easily upgradeable.
The architecture is not a couple of synth boards, and the upgradability of
the Kurzweil should not be exagerated. It contains a lowly 68000 type
processor which has just enough power to do interface and disk stuff, so
the sound generation/filtering/etc. must come from specialized or
dedicated processors. Since these can only produce 48 sample voices (as
opposed to the EX-5's 128), don't expect a virtual anolog or physical
modelling algorithm to become available (at least not without giving up a
lot of polyphony)...
Theo
Russell Dawkins
> > Does anyone know if Yamaha has the EX5 up on their webpage yet?
These do ....
http://www.giles.com/yamaha1/pressreleases/NAMM/NAMMWinter98/PAC/DMI/EX.html
Kenneth J Flagg
Excerpts from netnews.rec.music.makers.synth: 15-Apr-98 Re: Yamaha EX5
vs. Kurzweil.. by Theo Vo...@ruls41.fsw.Le
> Keyboards, this is true. And the AN section has (only) two voices. And use
> of VL voice (which is comparable to the VL70m instead of the VL1) disables
> use of the AN voices and vice versa. And use of the FDSP section disables
> the VL section as well. And the use of one (16-voice) FDSP algorithm
> disables one AN voice, and use of two FDSPs disables both.
>
> In short, everything is supposedly done using DSPs, and there is not much
> spare room in them.
>
> However, it still is a nice machine with a lot of possibilities, even
> though you cannot use all of them at the same time...
>
That's really disappointing. If the EX5 were just a tone module
with different generative capablities, that would be one thing. But
they tout it as a full-fledged workstation, a place to produce stuff
from start to finish. And they really push the FDSP, VL and AN stuff.
I guess it's a good replacement for a rompler/sampler combo, but is it
really as revolutionary as they say? I'm not so sure anymore... and
what's up with only 30,000 notes of sequencer memory, and one song?
There must be a Yamaha rep reading this... speak up!
-K
Ruud van de Kruisweg
>one thing i would like to know: each voice/channel has two "insert effects"-
>i have never used a synth/sampler with inserts- does this mean that each
>channel can use different FX simultaneously in a m-t set-up?
According to the EX5 review in Future Music a max of four voices retain
their insertion effects in multi-timbral performance. I know this is
better than for instance a Roland JV-2080 where only one voice keeps the
effects belonging to that voice, but I wonder if other workstation in
that price range fare any better.
Ruud van de Kruisweg
>According to a review by a Yamaha developer in the German magazine
>Keyboards, this is true. And the AN section has (only) two voices. And use
>of VL voice (which is comparable to the VL70m instead of the VL1) disables
>use of the AN voices and vice versa. And use of the FDSP section disables
>the VL section as well. And the use of one (16-voice) FDSP algorithm
>disables one AN voice, and use of two FDSPs disables both.
>
>In short, everything is supposedly done using DSPs, and there is not much
>spare room in them.
It would be very nice if there was a possibility of upgrading the synth
by putting a more powerful DSP in it so you could get more AN/VL-voices
and insertion effects....
Fenzar
In article <QpBCK4S00...@andrew.cmu.edu> Kenneth J Flagg,
em...@andrew.cmu.edu writes:
>I guess it's a good replacement for a rompler/sampler combo, but is it
>really as revolutionary as they say? I'm not so sure anymore.
There is really nothing revolutionnary about the Yamha Ex-5. It's just a
nice repackaging of their other synths. I'm more impressed with the
longevity of the Kurzweil and the constant commitment of the company
(altough it is really time that they should bring a really new machine...)
fenzar
Jouni Alkio
Theo Vosse wrote in message ...
>In article <gpAsiqi00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Kenneth J Flagg
><em...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>> I ran into a post on the SynthZone discussion list where somebody
>> said that the EX5 was limited to one timbre of VL and two of AN at a
>> time, and the VL was only monophonic!
>
>According to a review by a Yamaha developer in the German magazine
>Keyboards, this is true. And the AN section has (only) two voices. And use
>of VL voice (which is comparable to the VL70m instead of the VL1) disables
>use of the AN voices and vice versa. And use of the FDSP section disables
>the VL section as well. And the use of one (16-voice) FDSP algorithm
>disables one AN voice, and use of two FDSPs disables both.
>
>In short, everything is supposedly done using DSPs, and there is not much
>spare room in them.
Heh, I got my Korg Z1 (to keep company to my K2000) last christmas and was
getting worried that Yamaha has somehow managed to make a giant leap in DSP
price/performance but it seems that they haven't...
It is probably basically so that in two instruments of the same price and
age (whatever the manufacturer) there is roughly equal amount of DSP power.
Sure, the new EX synths seem to have a lot of polyphony, but the more
powerful synthesis that they hype about starts to seem like a crippled
add-on in a typical sample-playing "synth".
>
>Geof Abruzzi wrote:
>
>> I'm wondering how much the innards are just a couple of synth boards
>> shoehorned into one case, unlike the Kurzweil which is more of a
>> general-purpose computer, and hence easily upgradeable.
>
>The architecture is not a couple of synth boards, and the upgradability of
>the Kurzweil should not be exagerated. It contains a lowly 68000 type
>processor which has just enough power to do interface and disk stuff, so
>the sound generation/filtering/etc. must come from specialized or
>dedicated processors.
Yep, and unfortunately one can't upgrade the synthesis engine. I would
really like to see a K3000 with a more powerful and software upgradeable
engine.
>Since these can only produce 48 sample voices (as
>opposed to the EX-5's 128), don't expect a virtual anolog or physical
>modelling algorithm to become available (at least not without giving up a
>lot of polyphony)...
There won't be modelling or new algorithms in the current Kurzweils, but I
am pretty sure that the 48 voices in the K2500 (and 24 in K2000) are totally
in the different class than the "standard" voices in the EXs. The Kurzweil
engine allows different algorithms for each of the multiparts and the
algorithms itself are very flexible (as is the controller system). No
physical modelling, though.
I would really like to see the through spex of the EXs but I suspect that
the 128 voices don't have much else than a sample, minimal amount of
envelopes and LFOs (fixed destinations?) and possibly simple (not very
convincing) filtering.
For example, it seems that one has to use the FDSP to get PWM (you have to
use some algorithm blocks in the K2000, but this doesn't tie up any
"general" resources). I understood (from above) that using 2 FDSPs disables
the AN synthesis and VL synthesis totally. If there are total 2 FDSPs for
the whole instrument does it mean that only 2 different timbres can utilize
the FDSP simultaneously? This would also be a _major_ drawback for people
who expect to use the EX as a synthesizer.
I just hope that people don't get mislead by the specs. There are bound to
be people who think that the EX is like a physical modelling synth with a
128 voices.
What I would llove would be the Korg Z1 and Kurzweil engines seamlessly
combined :-) Everything a single voice can be on both of these machines
simultaneously and independently for all voices... And a possibility to do
your own algorithms with an Iris Mars -like system (check out
http://aimi.dist.unige.it/IRIS/index.htm and be very frightened.
Greetings, Jouni
Theo Vosse
In article <6h57l6$46v$1...@learnet.freenet.hut.fi>, "Jouni Alkio"
<al...@hkkk.fi> wrote:
> It is probably basically so that in two instruments of the same price and
> age (whatever the manufacturer) there is roughly equal amount of DSP power.
Seems acceptable...
> Sure, the new EX synths seem to have a lot of polyphony, but the more
> powerful synthesis that they hype about starts to seem like a crippled
> add-on in a typical sample-playing "synth".
I think you should see the VL and AN voices as extras. The FDSP really is
an integrated part of the sound. The demo disk that accompanied Keyboards
(the German magazine, not the US one), had convincing demonstrations of
how use of different parameters and algorithms can change a simple
sounding ROM sound.
And of course, it has up to 4 effects, 2 of which are per voice...
> Yep, and unfortunately one can't upgrade the synthesis engine. I would
> really like to see a K3000 with a more powerful and software upgradeable
> engine.
I think it will take some time before anyone comes with such a thing (in a
more or less affordable price range). Look at the Nord Modular: from the
specs it seems it has everything a lot of people would ever need, but it
is not cheap. Certainly not if you want 48 voices or more.
Anyway, you can compute what it would cost (in hardware alone): think one
fast Pentium or PowerPC (or ARM or whatever) processors, plus the bus
architecture and the memory etc per voice. That would set you back at
least $200 per voice (and that would be really cheap, and you still
wouldn't be able to do everything you could dream up)...
> I would really like to see the through spex of the EXs but I suspect that
> the 128 voices don't have much else than a sample, minimal amount of
> envelopes and LFOs (fixed destinations?) and possibly simple (not very
> convincing) filtering.
There is more than a minimal amount of filtering, LFO and envelope in one
voice. I will look up the details in the magazine...
> If there are total 2 FDSPs for
> the whole instrument does it mean that only 2 different timbres can utilize
> the FDSP simultaneously?
No, as far as I remember, one FDSP block can process 8 or 16 voices.
Theo
Richard Rogers
> Theo Vosse wrote in message ...
> >In article <gpAsiqi00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Kenneth J Flagg
> ><em...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> I ran into a post on the SynthZone discussion list where somebody
> >> said that the EX5 was limited to one timbre of VL and two of AN at a
> >> time, and the VL was only monophonic!
> >
> >According to a review by a Yamaha developer in the German magazine
> >Keyboards, this is true. And the AN section has (only) two voices. And use
> >of VL voice (which is comparable to the VL70m instead of the VL1) disables
> >use of the AN voices and vice versa. And use of the FDSP section disables
> >the VL section as well. And the use of one (16-voice) FDSP algorithm
> >disables one AN voice, and use of two FDSPs disables both.
> >
> >In short, everything is supposedly done using DSPs, and there is not much
> >spare room in them.
From the FAQ that Yamaha has put up on its UK web site:
Q. What is the maximum polyphony of the EX instruments?
A. The EX5 and EX5R AWM tone generator sections have a maximum polyphony
of 126 notes, plus the output from the VL, AN, and FDSP tone generator
sections. The maximum polyphony of the EX7 is 64 notes from the AWM tone
generator stage plus the output from the AN and FDSP tone generator
stages. The actual polyphony, however, will depend on the tone generator
stages used simultaneously, the number of elements used in voices, and
effect settings. The number of notes available decreases in proportion
to the number and type of elements used. For example, if an EX5 or EX5R
voice uses two AWM elements, the maximum polyphony is 64 (in the same
situation on the EX7, maximum polyphony would be 32).
Voice type EX5/5R Polyphony EX7 Polyphony
AWM/Drum* 126 64
VL+AWM 1+AWM -
FDSP 16 8
AN(Poly)+AWM 2+AWM 1+AWM
AN(Layer)+AWM 1+AWM -
AN+FDSP AN:1; FDSP:8 -
* Please note that the actual polyphony may be reduced under certain
conditions
(end of quote - with apologies to Yamaha for any transcription errors)
So it does appear that we should not exepect any miracles here. I've yet
to hear what FDSP can do, but as I already own a VL-1m and an S+S synth
(O1W/R), I am starting to think I may be better off investing in (say)
an AN1x plus an A3000 to cover analogue-emulation and sampling (one day,
that is ;-), at roughly equivalent cost.
Richard
--
Richard Rogers
IT Services
Staffordshire University
For my e-mail address, please refer to
http://bs33w.staffs.ac.uk:8888/CN%3dR%20M%20Rogers%2c%20OU%3dInformation%20Technology%20Services%2c%20O%3dStaffordshire%20University%2c%20C%3dGB
(sorry, it's the only way to keep the spammers at bay)
Matt G
The entire EX5 manual in PDF format is available at:
http://www.yamaha.co.uk/synth/html/current/keyboard/ex57r/f_info.htm
Two files are compressed (in Stuffit Format) A FAQ and the Manual.
If you need a de-compression utility for the SIT file go to:
http://www.aladdinsys.com/
Matt
Tony Estrada
I personally was very excited about the EX5. The key word : WAS! After
viewing the manual from Yamaha's site, I was brought to reality. It
apparently uses all it's brainpower to emulate analog synthesis,
yielding 1 or 2 voices of polyphony!!
Not only that, I was hoping that the EX5 included an A3000 under the
hood. Wrong Again!! The online FAQ clearly states that files between the
A3000 & EX5 are not compatable! Yamaha states that they're basically two
different animals. The EX5 being a Very basic sampler.
Oh Well.....
Tony
Satoru Fukushima
Don't you just hate that!!! After all these hype about this EX-5 by
Yamaha and Future Music (with 95% rating), we all thought EX-5
to be all that! Wrong again..:( Most of us thought at first that
with 128 Poly, we can have VL, AN, A3000 compatible recording/playback,
and AWM going at the same time! Since that was not going to be,
Yamaha has not really "revolutionized" it, just made it look
"revolutionized"
it for market-appeal! I say Yamaha should release the polyphonic version
of VL synth (okay VP-1 was 16 bit poly but it cost $35 grand) for less than
$2,000!! Now that is a real deal!
Tony Estrada wrote in message <353863...@bellsouth.net>...
wombstatevector
jeez!/ you people are impossible!/
i just can't figure out your attitude towards this machine- especially the
sampling part/ have you read the on-line manual?
the EX's sampling engine lacks only two primary features that the A3K
posesses/:
-time stretch/ crossfade/ pitch shift non real-time DSPs (i think- it may
have them and i did't see it)/ but... the insert processors offer these
processes (minus crossfade i guess) in REAL-TIME and the resampling is very
quick and easy- so you could time-stretch faster- and with more control
anyway
-the EX only samples at 44.1 kHZ- a drag- but again there's real time lo-fi
algorythms (such as LOW-RESOLUTION) in the insert FX and you could simply
resample- and even alter the res while doing it!/ you would still use more
memory though/
i don't consider the A3K file incompatibility as an issue- come on!/ boy
there are sooo many sample libraries out there that are A3K format only/
give me a break!/
now for the sampling ADVANTAGES that the EX has over the A3K/:
-resampling WITH full seq/arpeggiator operation- a MAJOR sound-design
advantage
-FULL graphic sample editing
-cut/copy/paste of samples- with user-selectable portions of samples edited-
this is by far the biggest limitation of the A3K
-and yes/ PROCESSING- everyone rants-and-raves about the A3K's three
kick-ass FX processors/ but with the EX- you have access to 5 or even more
simultaneously- no- you can't use multiple channels of FDSP/ inserts/ and
AN/VL simultaneously- but you can use quite a bit of DSP horsepower at once-
FAR more than anything else out there- except for the K2K- but i think that
the sheer selection and sound-sculpting power of of the EX's inserts +FDSP
(like a turbo Lexicon Vortex!) outways the VAST engine's multi-timbrality-
(and thats saying a lot from a die-hard VAST-head like moi)
it is a perspective problem: the EX's AN/ VL/ FDSP/ and insert DSP should be
viewed as fukkingincredible sound-design resouces for resampling/ where a
great deal of FDSP and insert DSP can be used for real-time performance/
sure it would be nice to have a machine that could perform AN/VL/ FDSP/ etc
all simultaneously across many independant channels- but if you know
anything about DSP tek- then you realize that such a machine would cost
several thousand $s (right now anyway)/ Yamaha has done an incredible job
with the EX
your criticizms are NOT informed ones- they expose a very limited vision/
understanding of this machine's potential/
sys.disconnect/:set\AI
Satoru Fukushima wrote in message <6hhfcl$gjq$6...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
Theo Vosse
In article <6hmcdu$j...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, "wombstatevector"
<se...@geocities.com> wrote:
>i just can't figure out your attitude towards this machine- especially the
>sampling part/ have you read the on-line manual?
I haven't, but I cannot understand this criticism either. I have not seen
a sample-based synth with so many options for so little money. And then
they throw in a bag of mouth-watering goodies as well!
The most rational explanation is that Yamaha made a mistake in their PR.
When you suggest that this machine will do all, a fraction of the people
will be disappointed. And you have been hearing them, I think. Well, I am
going to give this machine a very, very serious consideration.
>-time stretch/ crossfade/ pitch shift non real-time DSPs (i think- it may
>have them and i did't see it)/ but... the insert processors offer these
>processes (minus crossfade i guess) in REAL-TIME and the resampling is very
>quick and easy- so you could time-stretch faster- and with more control
>anyway
And you can do them on your computer anyway.
>sys.disconnect/:set\AI
:q
^X^C
^G
^Z
kill -9 %1
Theo
Hyeong-Min Kim
Theo Vosse wrote:
> In article <6hmcdu$j...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, "wombstatevector"
> <se...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> >i just can't figure out your attitude towards this machine-
> especially the
> >sampling part/ have you read the on-line manual?
>
> I haven't, but I cannot understand this criticism either. I have not
> seen
> a sample-based synth with so many options for so little money. And
> then
> they throw in a bag of mouth-watering goodies as well!
>
I cannot understand some people's criticism, either. True, the EX5 is
not perfect (what is perfect, anyway?), but it is way above its
competition. Even if the EX5 were a straight sample playback synth w/
128 voice polyphony, I would still be impressed. Btw, the EX5 looks real
cool.
Jon
Theo Vosse <vo...@ruls41.fsw.LeidenUniv.nl> wrote:
: And you can do them on your computer anyway.
With 128-note polyphony? Umm..what sort of sound card do you have?
e...@andrew.cmu.edu
--On Sat, Apr 25, 1998 3:03 PM +0000 Jon <j...@fof.durge.org> wrote:
> Theo Vosse <vo...@ruls41.fsw.LeidenUniv.nl> wrote:
>
> : And you can do them on your computer anyway.
>
> With 128-note polyphony? Umm..what sort of sound card do you have?
>
> Jon
He meant you can do non-real-time DSP on the samples on the computer,
and then transfer them back. It has nothing to do with polyphony, only DSP
features like time-stretching, EQing, etc. The EX5 appears to lack some of
those features.
-Ken