Keys, Synths & Samplers

[mildbill]

---

keybdwizrd wrote:
I have no practical reason whatsoever to own an MX49, given that I have a MOX6. I don't have the room for it, either. And I'd rather put the money toward something fun and different, like a Krome.

But I am afraid I will get an MX when I stumble across one at GC or Sam Ash, because it just seems like such a cool little board.

---

I was thinking something similar.  Definitely don't need one, but I might end up with one when they get cheap enough on the used market.

[Meatball Fulton]

The sounds are the same as the Motif XS and XF...same engine. They are NOT editable, you can make small tweaks but no full editing. It's basically a box full of nice sounding presets that's cheaper and lighter than a MOX.

[AnotherScott]

---

Meatball Fulton wrote:

The sounds are the same as the Motif XS and XF...same engine. 

---

Much smaller ROM, though. 

[yzf125]

The MX may be the same sounds but..... It isnt going to have the same sound " Quality " . You lose a lot going down the chain... 

[AnotherScott]

---

yzf125 wrote:

The MX may be the same sounds but..... It isnt going to have the same sound " Quality " . You lose a lot going down the chain... 

---

Has anyone actually heard the MX next to any of the others (XS, XF, MOX) to confirm this? (And those can be different from each other as well.)  There are a couple of issues... one is about the electronics (i.e. DACs,) whether there is an inherenet sound difference there. The other is that It has a smaller ROM so something is compromised, but what? For example, if what is missing are some sounds in their entirety, alternate articulations, and the like, then there may be "missing" sounds or attributes, but what is there may sound indistinguishable form its big brothers. But if samples are truncated or velocity layers are missing, for example, that could be more audible. Another variable is what the use of the board will be. Sonic differences which might be apparent in studio recording, for example, may be impossible to discern through a PA/amp in live performance.

[yzf125]

I played the XF, MX and MOX side by side...... Yes there is a Quality difference in sound with them all.

I own the MOX and have owned the XF.

[ElectricPuppy]

I don't know why, when presented with a low-priced rompler, that everyone just assumes that less-than-stellar sound is due to cheapers DACs.  In this day in age, DACs are not where the money savings is, and even inexpensive DACs sound good.

[piano39]

I agree.  Several years ago, I read about a blind listening test at an audiophile convention.   They played identical WAV files on iPods vs "boutique" CD players (Apogee and the like). I seem to recall about half of the listerners selected the iPod as the better processor.

It was even more telling when the iPod played the compressed files (AAC) instead of the WAVs.  I believe that a significant minority (30% or so) still chose the iPod. 

I wish I could find the article.

Two points-  1) Cheap DACs are pretty good, nowadays, and 2) Audiophiles ears are not as discerning as they think.

[mildbill]

Well, if it's not the DAC's that produce a change in sound quality, what would you all say is doing it?

[piano39]

I don't know.  I would like to try one out.  I have a Motif XF and am a huge fan.

It's possible that Yamaha compressed the XF waveforms to fit them on a cheaper board (less memory).  Or they could have mucked with lower freq sample playback so that the processor doesn't have to work so hard. Also possible that the cheaper keyboard action on the MF tricks you into feeling that the keyboard is less expressive. 

Maybe somebody could A/B them on a high end oscilloscope to see if the waveforms differ.

[ElectricPuppy]

Compression.

Smaller ROMs means they gotta crush the life out of the waveforms, and the best compression ratios are only had with lossy compression.  Plus, if they can shave off having to process the highest-frequency stuff, they can use slower (read: cheaper) components.

[Meatball Fulton]

Things to consider about ROM size:

It is possible that some loops have been shortened, mono instead of stereo samples, etc. but keep in mind that the MX is a preset machine. So it only needs the waves used in the presets. After owning both the Motif ES and XF I can't imagine that the factory presets in those instrument use every single waveform in the ROM.

MX has 1106 presets (weird number! 1024 + 82???) based on 166MB of samples (number of waveforms in not specified).

XS and MOX have 1024 presets based on 355MB of samples so there's obviously something tweaked in the MX! The XS/MOX ROM contains 2670 waveforms...lots of these are drums but I doubt every single waveform in the machine got used in a preset. That's one drawback of a ROMpler, trying to decide what waveform to use for a patch when you have over 2000 choices is an interesting problem

I've played the MX49 and tried my favorite from the XS (some of which were also in the ES) and it sounded "right" to me but it was in no way a controlled experiment. I'm sure at that price point the sound is compromised but whether it's acceptable is totally subjective.

[AnotherScott]

RIght... we know that the ROM is smaller, but we don't know what compromises they made to get it there. Lossy compression? Some XS waveforms omitted? Shortened attack portions before loops? Shortened loops? Mono vs. stereo? More sample stretching (same sample covering more keys)? Fewer velocity layers in some sounds? Elimination of the alternate articulations some instruments have? Who knows what else... Some of these things could make it sound inferior to an XS, though not necessarily on all patches. Many sounds could sound as good, while certain sounds or variations may not sound as good, or may not even be there at all.

[Bernard]

Soon my companding noise spectrum analysis will be complete and I will have a definitive answer....

[RetroVintageOld]

Played the smaller one at GC yesterday.   Sounds are nice but the action is indeed hinged plastic.

[mildbill]

166MB  - why compress?  8GB of flash ram is now $5.99 for the consumer here (probably about a buck apiece in the bulk quantities manufacturers use), and AFAIK flash ram used to be more expensive, .

It doesn't make any sense unless they just want to intentionally compromise sound quality to protect their higher priced products.

[AnotherScott]

They don't use flash, they use ROM. Typically, sounds cannot be executed directly from flash. (Or at least, not the cheap NAND flash you're talking about.)