Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: The Yamaha AN1x Synthesizer mailing list

previous by date index next by date
previous in topic topic list next in topic

Subject: Re: Timbrality issue once more

From: jondl_2000@...
Date: 2001-04-11

--- In AN1x-list@y..., "Bjørn Standal" <standal2000@h...> wrote:
> Hi gang
>
> I know we've been through this topic before, but I just need
confirmation. I
> see my AN1X standing there with incredible possibillities,
beautiful sounds
> and its great keyboard, and then all I can think off is its damn
monotimbral
> (bi-timbral at most) shortcomings.
> Is there a reason for VA's to have less polyphony and timbrality
than
> sampled-based synths?

Yes, there are very significant reasons. Sample based synthesizers,
i.e., ROMplers, use ROM based storage, i.e., cheap & fast, to store
their waveform data. V/A's generate their waveforms in real time. The
CPU requirements are on a completely different level for ROMplers
than Virtual Analog synthesizers, or Physical Modeling if you will.
V/As require an exceptional amount of processor power to calculate
the resulting waveforms. As the saying goes - you're comparing apples
to oranges.

> Even the new Supernova 2 only got eight part
> multitimbrality.

Yes, and you PAY for those 8 parts too! The difference between the
MSRP of the AN1x ('97) and the SuperNova ('00) is considerable. I'd
also hazard a guess that the processor's are unsimilar - probably
custom ASICS designs - which also affect the MSRP.

> It's just enough for basic songs, but I think 16 part
> multitimbrality is a minimum. Even my trusty DJX got that.

Yes, but does anybody REALLY want to hear sixteen parts from a DJX
(just kidding ;-) More is not necessarily better. Say you have an
AN1x that's 16-part multitimbral. How much polyphony should it have?
10 voices? 16 voices? 32 voices? 128 voices? What are you willing to
PAY for those additional voices and the necessary CPU power to
generate that many simultaneous notes (with no noticeable latency)?
Oh, and what about the FX processors? Are the three enough? I imagine
you want to be able to chose from simultaneous variations effects as
opposed to having the Delay and Reverb? Well, that too takes more
CPU. What about better, smoother Reverbs? Same argument.

I'm not trying to belittle you - I'm just trying to make a point.
Forgive me if it comes across as anything other than that :-)

>
> I extensively use MIDI (without being a guru, far from it), and in
that
> sense the AN1X is near to useless in complete songmaking as I can
only use
> one sound in every song.

Another issues with the great, multitimbral behomeths - the more
sounds you generate from the one box the more alike your arrangements
will become. After a while it will all SOUND like it's coming from
the one box because it is! ∗yawn∗

Sure there must be a way to at least use different
> sounds in a track, albeit not at the same time? Is there something
like a
> patch-change command I can send to my AN1X? I use Cakewalk 8.0.


Sure that would work. But the AN1x responds relatively slowly to
program change messages. Make certain to leave a measure for the AN1x
to have adequate time to respond.

As an alternative, you could invest in which ever version of Cakewalk
provides Audio recording, in addition to MIDI, along with a decent
sound card and simply lay down multiple audio takes from your AN1x.
This would require more manual effort on your part but would
alleviate your concern over the AN1x bitimbral design (which, BTW, I
never use!)

>
> Was wondering if I should invest in a sampler so I could sample my
AN1X and
> use it as a multitimbral AN1X-emulator. Don't know which sampler's
got the
> best filters and effects, though... But that's a whole 'nother
story.

Great idea! IMO, a sampler and V/A go along way to covering your
bases. As already mentioned in this thread the Yamaha A4000 is a good
value for the money and I'm certain people are making great music
with it. Personally, I prefer my ASR-X Pro over the A4K. Primarily
due to the sound quality and the internal effects which are more
appealing to me. Also, there are some design limitations in the A4K
which I did NOT want to deal with, i.e., poor disk routines,
sloooooooooooooooooooooow SCSI, and a User Interface that felt
"unfinished". I could go on if you like but we might have to take
that conversation offline :-)


Hope this helps,

Jon