Peter wrote:
>>
There's no way you can compare the DB50XG, or any of the MU series, to the
EX5 (or S80 and CS6x, as far as I'm aware).
<<
Actually they are all based around the same chipsets and all use AWM2. The
major differences are the numbers of chips provided, the samples and the
level/modes of access to the parameters.
>>
The thing with these XG tone generators is that they aren't programmable.
You have voices, and you can play a bit with filter cut-off and resonance,
plus the amplitude EG, but that's it. Voice #1 will always be a piano.
<<
You can do considerably more than that with an XG device. (what about
tuning, LFO settings, EQ, voice layering and of course the effects!) However
in the end they conform to a standard....hence the voice map is fixed.
Its an essential trade off between compatibility and flexibility! In other
words the lower level AWM2 editing parameters are masked from the user and
the sample set is fixed.
>>The AN1x is far superior to XG tone generators
Chalk and cheese....the devices are designed for different jobs. They also
use fundamentally different methods of synthesis. AN1x isn't much use for
playing back multipart MIDI files with high poly. XG isn't much use for
expressive analogue synthesis or bottom up sound design!
>>
I'm not sure if this is the case. The Rolands compress their samples for
sure - something I'm not in favour of. I'm positive that the samples in the
EX5 are uncompressed.
<<
Almost all synths manufacturers compress the samples! Otherwise you would
end up requiring huge ROMs for the voice sets. The EX5 is no exception.
Regards
Gary
Email:
gary@... http://www.yme.co.uk/yme