Emax

"Sounds better" is a very relative term. It has been mentioned that the filters on the Emax 
definitely are warmer being that they are true analog filters (SSM?). I had a few of the 
analog samples I originally made on my Emax SE HD not sound even remotely the same 
when I imported them into my Emax II because the filter just didn't work the same. But 
we are talking 10 samples out of hundreds. 

I think the Emax II's increased clarity is far better for realistic sound samples, and it's nice 
to be able to sample in stereo. I also like the crispness it adds to hi-hats and feel it's 
better at reproducing vocal samples as well. ln the end though it is going to depend on 
what you want to sample and need from your sampler. I personally found the loss of the 
true analog filter to be worth the increase in outputs, better SCSI, and most of all 
additional memory. That is because for me the instrument needed to be a workhorse for 
live shows. 

In the end though most people say the Prophet 2000/2002 samplers sound better than 
even the Emax did.

Technically the Emax is 12 bit companded into 8 bits of memory.

> Regarding Dan's message saying the original Emax sounds better than the Emax
> II................I've never heard that.  Is that true? At lower resolution (
> is it 12 bit ? ) it must have a much lower signal to noise
> ratio.................did it have warmer filters?  I don't get it. 

-- 
                          John Silveria II
                   AIM & Yahoo! Messenger: EmaxJS
                        MSN: emaxjs@...
     The Silveria Family Website & Emax and Emax II User's Group
                    http://www.silveriafamily.com