<div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">I did some testing of the </span><span class="gmail-il" style="font-size:12.8px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">XVive</span><span style="font-size:12.8px"> MN3005's not long after they came out. I have a Blacet Time Machine that I like a lot, and I put in original MN3005's and some sample </span><span class="gmail-il" style="font-size:12.8px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">XVive</span><span style="font-size:12.8px"> MN3005's and did a frequency sweep at different delay settings to see what kind of response they had. I did this because my first couple of "by ear" tests seemed to indicate that they did sound different. Below is a rehash of a writeup I did at the time and shared on google plus.</span><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br>For each chip I took measurements at 6 settings. The TM was set with delay at 0 (minimum filtering of the signal) and output all the way wet. All modulations were off, and regen was set to 0. For each subsequent graph, the delay was increased by 2, so the sequence is 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10. Note that the high end cutoff is expected to drop as you go up, this is actually done by filter chips on the module to prevent overloading the BBD chip. What I found interesting was the overall "steady state" response level.<div><br></div><div>Ignore the yellow noise on the graphs, that's supposed to be phase information and I couldn't figure out a way to omit it from the graphs.<br><br>Genuine MN3005s:<div><br style="font-size:12.8px"><a href="https://plus.google.com/102657837209811792502/posts/P9LqLVizEGt" target="_blank" style="font-size:12.8px">https://plus.google.com/102657<wbr>837209811792502/posts/P9LqLViz<wbr>EGt</a><br style="font-size:12.8px"><div style="font-size:12.8px"><a href="https://plus.google.com/102657837209811792502/posts/SWY1qhit7FX" target="_blank">https://plus.google.com/102657<wbr>837209811792502/posts/SWY1qhit<wbr>7FX</a><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><span class="gmail-il">XVive</span> Clones:</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><a href="https://plus.google.com/102657837209811792502/posts/DUWs2ZsTLji" target="_blank">https://plus.google.com/102657<wbr>837209811792502/posts/DUWs2ZsT<wbr>Lji</a><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><a href="https://plus.google.com/102657837209811792502/posts/2DgGxP6aeEg" target="_blank">https://plus.google.com/102657<wbr>837209811792502/posts/2DgGxP6a<wbr>eEg</a><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><a href="https://plus.google.com/102657837209811792502/posts/BQm8eL7NbtG" target="_blank">https://plus.google.com/102657<wbr>837209811792502/posts/BQm8eL7N<wbr>btG</a><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">What I find most interesting is that MN3005 #1 and <span class="gmail-il">XVive</span> #3 are very similar in response. BUT all three <span class="gmail-il">XVive</span> clones at the longest delays have nearly 10dB less response overall than the originals. All of them are about 20dB down from the input signal at the minimum delay, but only the XVives decay further at the longer delay times.<br><br>Also interesting is that MN3005 #2 has a low end rolloff at minimum delay more similar to the other <span class="gmail-il">XVive</span> clones. So at least some of what I saw as differences is likely due to "normal" variation among chips more than original vs clone.</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">I think the biggest part of "will the clone sound like the original" is dependent on how the chip is being used. The Time Machine pushes the original outside of its official specification, so I don't think I'm terribly surprised that it sounds different at the extremes. If you're doing more typical chorus/flanging/phasing, well within the original spec, they should sound pretty similar if not identical.</div></div></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">I don't know that any of this is truly objective, but it was my attempt to give more than just an ears-only analysis.</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">Thanks</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">Pete</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div></div></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 9:59 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:info@synthcube.com" target="_blank">info@synthcube.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:10pt"><div>We offer both the original NOS as well as the Xvive version. Most of our customers report good success with the Xvive although we have not seen any objective comparison data. A few customers report that they are dissatisfied with the Xvivie vs the original, but again no objective measures against which to compare... so to our experience, its anecdotal, a majority of customers find no difference, a few do and prefer to stay with the originals even given the price difference. </div><span class="gmail-m_435280666434247348gmail-m_2003728224322795705HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>synthCube</div></font></span><div><div class="gmail-m_435280666434247348gmail-m_2003728224322795705h5">
<blockquote id="gmail-m_435280666434247348gmail-m_2003728224322795705m_8099518490285989503replyBlockquote" style="border-left:2px solid blue;margin-left:8px;padding-left:8px;font-size:10pt;color:black;font-family:verdana">
<div id="gmail-m_435280666434247348gmail-m_2003728224322795705m_8099518490285989503wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: [sdiy] xvive?<br>
From: Michael Zacherl <<a href="mailto:sdiy-mz01@blauwurf.info" target="_blank">sdiy-mz01@blauwurf.info</a>><br>
Date: Sun, July 02, 2017 8:01 am<br>
To: "<a href="mailto:synth-diy@synth-diy.org" target="_blank">synth-diy@synth-diy.org</a> List" <<a href="mailto:synth-diy@synth-diy.org" target="_blank">synth-diy@synth-diy.org</a>><br>
<br>
Hi, anyone with experience with XVIVE BBDs?<br>
thanks, Michael.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10.Nov 2016, at 4:45 , AlanP <<a href="mailto:alan.p@orcon.net.nz" target="_blank">alan.p@orcon.net.nz</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> I've used a pair of the CoolAudio v3205d chips in a Memory Man clone a couple years ago. Very noisy, compared to vintage MN3005 or modern XVIVE3005 reproductions. (This could be partly due to a 9v vs 15v difference.)<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
<a href="http://mz.klingt.org" target="_blank">http://mz.klingt.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Synth-diy mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Synth-diy@synth-diy.org" target="_blank">Synth-diy@synth-diy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy" target="_blank">http://synth-diy.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/synth-diy</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div></span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Synth-diy mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Synth-diy@synth-diy.org" target="_blank">Synth-diy@synth-diy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://synth-diy.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/synth-diy</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>