Yahoo Groups archive

Emax

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 23:23 UTC

Thread

Emax II versus Emulator III versus Emulator IIIXS

Emax II versus Emulator III versus Emulator IIIXS

2003-09-14 by tbiggz

Anyone have a favorite?

My EIII rack is an amazing sounding machine. And I just found an Emax 
II for around $200CDN.  

I'm thinking the Emax II is a basically the EIII on a chip (as the 
Emax I was to the Emulator II).  Any one have experience with both 
and thinks it's worth it to get the EmaxII? Any advantages over the 
EIII?

I don't know whether I should get the EIIIxs instead (one day) as 
I've heard it sounds good too. 

Anyone knows about these older machines and can recommend?

Thanks

RE: [emax] Emax II versus Emulator III versus Emulator IIIXS

2003-09-14 by Rob Keeble

Hi,
The Emax II sample engine (G chip) is very different to the one in the EIII
(TTL micro-controller). Dave Rossum was able to put a much better sample
transposition algorithm into the Emax II, much to the concern of EIII owners
in 1989! The over sampling systems are different, and the Emax II uses the
Proteus sample rate of 39K rather than the EII 44.1k.Both are 16-bit stereo.
The Emax II uses digital filters (F Chip) whilst the EIII uses analog
filters. Very different samplers, the Emax II is more reliable but doesn't
have such a wide sample library as the EIII. The EIII has a certain warmth
and dimension that an Emax II doesn't have.

The EIIIX is an expanded Emax II, the sample engine is practically the same,
as are the filters.

Regards - Rob




  Anyone have a favorite?

  My EIII rack is an amazing sounding machine. And I just found an Emax
  II for around $200CDN.

  I'm thinking the Emax II is a basically the EIII on a chip (as the
  Emax I was to the Emulator II).  Any one have experience with both
  and thinks it's worth it to get the EmaxII? Any advantages over the
  EIII?

  I don't know whether I should get the EIIIxs instead (one day) as
  I've heard it sounds good too.

  Anyone knows about these older machines and can recommend?

  Thanks


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT




  Emax and Emax II User's Group Website

  http://www.silveriafamily.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Emax II versus Emulator III versus Emulator IIIXS

2003-09-14 by tbiggz

>Dave Rossum was able to put a much better sample
transposition algorithm into the Emax II,...

Wow, I have never noticed transposition artifacts on the EIII.
What could I do that would make the artifacts audible?

I mean, I find the sound of transposed ASR samples much worse.

Is there more info on this around?

RE: [emax] Re: Emax II versus Emulator III versus Emulator IIIXS

2003-09-14 by Rob Keeble

Hi,
The E3 has sample transposition limits in the OS to ensure samples can not
be moved up or down too far. Its a wider range than on the E2 and E1, but
its still a limitation. For example, at 44.1k you can go down about 1.5
octaves and up just over 3 octaves. With an Emax II you don't have these
limits as the G chip can handle 10 octaves of pitch shift, which is why it
made it into the Proteus module first - which saved E-mu Systems from going
under in 1989. The Protues uses short and low sample rate samples, but the G
chip enables them to be transposed all over the place - thereby the Proteus
doesn't require multi-samples and it can pack lots of sounds into a small
RAM = cheap!

The G chip took around 2 years to design and fabricate, and Dave initially
came up with the ideas back in the early 1980's on the E1 and Drumulator
projects. However custom chip fabrication and costs had to catch up with
Dave, before he could go and build one. Creative bough E-mu Systems in 1993
to get hold of Dave Rossum and the unique G chip "wide transposition"
technology. This technology still figures in the Audigy Sound Cards - albeit
rather more sophisticated! The F chip in the E3 was a very simple chip to
provide over 2x sampling. Of course CD players of the 1980's used the same
technique and went for much higher levels of over sampling. The E chip is
not an exact copy of an EII sample engine, it merely sounds similar. It
works in a different way.

As the E3 has transposition limits, you'll need to push the sample up or
down to these limits and listen for pitch shift distortion. Obviously the
limits stop you hearing anything substantial.....Within these limits the E3
works very well, and certainly Dav'es designs are much better than Ensoniq.

Hope this helps...
Regards
Rob

  >Dave Rossum was able to put a much better sample
  transposition algorithm into the Emax II,...

  Wow, I have never noticed transposition artifacts on the EIII.
  What could I do that would make the artifacts audible?

  I mean, I find the sound of transposed ASR samples much worse.

  Is there more info on this around?


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Emax II versus Emulator III versus Emulator IIIXS

2003-09-14 by rascalrevenge

Hello y´all,

it´s a different task what to recommend. The Emax II´s MIDI timing
is depending on the voices played, the more the better it gets, no 
joke. Fatally these instability is not constant, it varies from note 
to note (was later even proved in German Keyboards when they compared 
all samplers on market). Even if Rob has more knowlegde, I hardly 
disagree that the filter section of an Emax II and E III XP is the 
same. The E III XP is the only device I sold immedietly, mainly
because of the filter section. You can´t get that smacking sounds
that are possible with an Emax II. The latter has a lot more power,
you can - like on old Oberheim Analog Synths - set Q to 99 and the
sound is full there, as compared to E III XP the sound will be almost
gone and superthin (E-mu agreed with me on that). Maybe XP acts more
here like an analog, but it was that Emax "error" that made it for me.
Also the great real-time filter/Q games with Emax II sounded like a
joke to my ears when made with a XP (running them both side by side).
Emax II is a little peaky @1kHz and 10kHz, but can be great during 
real time filtering. Otherwise you have to EQ a bit. I would only buy
a Emax II Turbo with 8 MEG these days, expanding a standard model is 
difficult I think. E III XP has some advantages, loads both AKAI S 
1000 and Emax II, expandable to 32 MB, has digital IN/OUT. Remember 
XP has only Digital In/Out, Analog was an option, the XS has them. 

As Rob wrote, E III transposition is dependend on the sample rate.
At 44 khz you can play back a sample (C4) down to C1, at 7000 kHz 
(using Resampling function) only down to G#3. And vice versa, the 
higher the rate the more you can play down > C1, the lower the rate 
the more you can play up > C6. The reason why you can´t hear 
transposition noise is maybe that E III defaults to 1.00 filter
tracking to mask that artifacts. Set to 0.00 and play back a sample 
down to C1 and you hear it (of course only on samples that were 
spread across the whole keyboard, you will not on presets with a lot 
of multisamples). That aliasing can be great on some sounds, has a 
lot of character compared to just noisy digital bit crusher plug-ins
nowadays. Aah, what do I tell you, I still have my E III K, nothing 
comes close to it,it´s just awesome. Period.
 
Regs RR




--- In emax@yahoogroups.com, "tbiggz" <infarmah@h...> wrote:
> Anyone have a favorite?
> 
> My EIII rack is an amazing sounding machine. And I just found an 
Emax 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> II for around $200CDN.  
> 
> I'm thinking the Emax II is a basically the EIII on a chip (as the 
> Emax I was to the Emulator II).  Any one have experience with both 
> and thinks it's worth it to get the EmaxII? Any advantages over the 
> EIII?
> 
> I don't know whether I should get the EIIIxs instead (one day) as 
> I've heard it sounds good too. 
> 
> Anyone knows about these older machines and can recommend?
> 
> Thanks

Re: [emax] Emax II versus Emulator III versus Emulator IIIXS

2003-09-15 by capricorn

stay with the E3xs since you already havean E3 ...
an E3 is an emulator 3 an emax II is a slightyly improved emax 
but but not as great or as versatile as an E3
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
From: tbiggz 
To: emax@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 9:59 AM
Subject: [emax] Emax II versus Emulator III versus Emulator IIIXS


Anyone have a favorite?

My EIII rack is an amazing sounding machine. And I just found an Emax 
II for around $200CDN.  

I'm thinking the Emax II is a basically the EIII on a chip (as the 
Emax I was to the Emulator II).  Any one have experience with both 
and thinks it's worth it to get the EmaxII? Any advantages over the 
EIII?

I don't know whether I should get the EIIIxs instead (one day) as 
I've heard it sounds good too. 

Anyone knows about these older machines and can recommend?

Thanks


      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
            ADVERTISEMENT
           
     
     

Emax and Emax II User's Group Website

http://www.silveriafamily.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Emax II versus Emulator III versus Emulator IIIXS

2003-09-20 by tbiggz

Cool,

I searched the US patent database for Rossum. Funny he has only one 
patent that I could find easily called:

"Digital sampling instrument employing cache memory  <A digital 
sampling instrument for multi-channel interpolatative playback of 
digital audio data stored in a waveform memory provides improved 
interpolation of musical sounds by use of a cache memory.>"

This is filed under Creative in 2002. I wonder if this is the 
famed "wide transposition" algo. Cool either way.

Thanks for the info.

RE: [emax] Re: Emax II versus Emulator III versus Emulator IIIXS

2003-09-21 by Rob Keeble

Hi
!!!!  David Rossum has many US patents, as an individual and as a member of
a team. He has patented many of his ideas, especially after Dave Smith
borrowed his polyphonic synthesizer ideas in 1978 for the Prophet 5.

Here is just one example - this is the basis of the microcontroller in the
Drumulator which enables samples to be read from ROM.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=2&u=/net
ahtml/search-bool.html&r=74&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=rossum&s2=david&OS=ro
ssum+AND+david&RS=rossum+AND+david

Or this one from the G Chip in the Proteus and Emax II.This new
interpolation alogirthm for sample replay uses 7 or 8 surrounding points,
this is how Dave got to 10 octave tranpsoition AND lots of voices..

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=2&u=/net
ahtml/search-bool.html&r=64&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=rossum&s2=david&OS=ro
ssum+AND+david&RS=rossum+AND+david

Dave is a very clever guy, and he is still creating new sampling ideas for
Creative. If you want a list of patents in an E-mu sampler check out the
user manual which lists them. Its a list of all E-mu Systems patents,
including Scott Wedges touch sensistive pads on the SP-12/SP1200 (even on an
ESI-32....) Scott is also still creating ideas and has recently talked about
a new US Patent.

Regards
Rob



  Cool,

  I searched the US patent database for Rossum. Funny he has only one
  patent that I could find easily called:

  "Digital sampling instrument employing cache memory  <A digital
  sampling instrument for multi-channel interpolatative playback of
  digital audio data stored in a waveform memory provides improved
  interpolation of musical sounds by use of a cache memory.>"

  This is filed under Creative in 2002. I wonder if this is the
  famed "wide transposition" algo. Cool either way.

  Thanks for the info.




        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT




  Emax and Emax II User's Group Website

  http://www.silveriafamily.com

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Emax II versus Emulator III versus Emulator IIIXS

2003-09-22 by tbiggz

Now that I think of it, I remember reading a paper of his on 
"armadillo" filter coefficients for digital filters.  It would seem 
strange for him to have only one patent.  

I'm actually quite interested in the decimation/interpolation systems 
as I have helped design them from time to time also.  Should be some 
interesting reading.

Thanks rob!

Re: [emax] Re: Emax II versus Emulator III versus Emulator IIIXS

2003-09-22 by Collin Venuto

in my opinion the EMAX I wins hands down because it's 12-bit and sounds like no other machine (other than the SP-12) due to it's 27,500 sample rate.

tbiggz <infarmah@...> wrote:Now that I think of it, I remember reading a paper of his on 
"armadillo" filter coefficients for digital filters.  It would seem 
strange for him to have only one patent.  

I'm actually quite interested in the decimation/interpolation systems 
as I have helped design them from time to time also.  Should be some 
interesting reading.

Thanks rob!




Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Emax and Emax II User's Group Website

http://www.silveriafamily.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.