|
moturimi1
|
 |
« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2004, 02:47:43 PM » |
|
the SW1000XG is mainly the same as the external Yamaha MU100 module (also Rack module MU100R).
There is also the MU128.
Yes the MU10 is the external Version of the DB50XG and SW60XG.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Senior Member
 Offline
Posts: 5,618
|
|
« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2004, 03:04:28 PM » |
|
Though I have a WF192XG card, I don't believe I've used it for any conversions on this site. When I was doing XG conversions, I used the SW60XG. (But now I've run out of ISA slots for it. Bummer.) I've used the WF192XG for filler in digitally recorded soundtracks -- when I've run out of polyphony or some such thing. If you use the card as accompaniment with SC or MT-32, it usually is just fine. And some of its sounds are pretty good, too. But solo, forget it. Judging by some comparisons I've heard in the past, the SW60XG is identical to the MU10 module. Don't know about instrument choices, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
HondaSiR
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 716
|
|
« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2004, 04:31:12 PM » |
|
And some of its sounds are pretty good, too. But solo, forget it. I agree...same also with the SCB-55/SC-55...not a good idea to let it go solo. Some instruments sound too synthy due to the limitations of its circuitry (partial/voice limitations). The SW1000XG/MU128 probably has its limitations too but its still a mystery how it will stand up against Roland's finest sound modules. I really like Christoph Sachal's rendition in the specialty page. Very warm and natural sounding, makes me wonder if he used a real orchestra to make that song. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
shad0wfax
Guest
|
|
« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2004, 04:57:43 PM » |
|
As some of you have correctly pointed out, yamaha's MU series are the original XG gear, while the DB50XG/SW60XG/SW1000XG being "computer card versions" of them. The original XG setting is the MU-50, which was the first one of the series. Later, the MU-10 was released, which is an external version of the DB50/SW60 cards. There's still also another module, the MU-15, which is a MU-10/MU-50 in an external compact case (VHS tape size), with a non-retroiluminated screen and with a sort of "keyboard" made with rubber keys. The MU-80, MU-90 and MU-100R are still very good modules. The effects section (DSP's) is amazing. You've got up to 6 independent processors with excellent quality effects. I think that this is yamaha's strongest point, because the samples themselves sound a bit thin and synthy. I cannot say anything about the MU-128 because I've never seen one (only photos), but I bet it's also a very good machine. But at the end, you use what you like most, and in my case it's Roland gear  I think that Roland effects are not the best out there, but the sounds themselves (the rom samples) are. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ari
Administrator
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 2,609
|
|
« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2004, 08:46:19 PM » |
|
I agree...same also with the SCB-55/SC-55...not a good idea to let it go solo. Some instruments sound too synthy due to the limitations of its circuitry (partial/voice limitations). I had no idea there was a difference between the SCB's samples and the SC's. Are you sure about that? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I feel like I'm diagonally-parked in a parallel universe
|
|
|
|
moturimi1
|
|
« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2004, 09:55:03 PM » |
|
If you what to hear all possible Hard and Software Synths, go to the following page. (comparison between e.g. MU128, Roland SD-80, SC-8850, SC-88pro, Korg, ect.) http://www.wiztext.net/~sakura_news/4neria/up.html (Software) http://www.wiztext.net/~sakura_news/4neria/up2.html (Hardware) It's Japanese but you can download the MP3 files, so you can see how the synths perform. By the way it seems that most sites you can get sound files for comparision from are all asian web sites  You may have to translate the site with babelfish first, what I always do. Unfortuneately the original midi file you can also download from the site(test_08.mml) is in a format I can't open. I already tried to convert it without success. Maybe someone can tell me how to do that. I need a standard mid file. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Fancia
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 362
|
|
« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2004, 11:44:43 PM » |
|
MML is source code written in a macro language popular in Japan. It can be compiled into countless different formats; you'll need a compiler, although I'm afraid I wouldn't know what exactly you need.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Bít zabít, jen proto, že su liška!
|
|
|
HondaSiR
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 716
|
|
« Reply #27 on: August 13, 2004, 01:08:26 AM » |
|
I agree...same also with the SCB-55/SC-55...not a good idea to let it go solo. Some instruments sound too synthy due to the limitations of its circuitry (partial/voice limitations). I had no idea there was a difference between the SCB's samples and the SC's. Are you sure about that? There's no difference between the two, Ari...when it comes to the samples. They are almost the same except for their physical appearances and partials (SCB-55 has 28, SC-55 has 24, IIRC). It was just my opinion that either of the two would make a good song without some help from other synthesizers (as Tom suggested earlier about the SW60XG). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ari
Administrator
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 2,609
|
|
« Reply #28 on: August 13, 2004, 06:49:41 AM » |
|
I think what Tom was talking about was the WF192XG, not the SW60XG. The WF192XG is only slightly better than the S-YXG50 softsynth, so it wouldn't make a very good solo recording, but the SW60XG/DB50XG? why not?
same goes for the SC-55/SCB-55.
That's why I got the impression you were implying there was a difference in quality between the two when you said there was a difference in the circuitry. I'm well aware of the difference in polyphony.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I feel like I'm diagonally-parked in a parallel universe
|
|
|
HondaSiR
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 716
|
|
« Reply #29 on: August 13, 2004, 08:01:10 AM » |
|
I see. I got the impression that Tom meant the WaveForce in general. It's just my opinion that to make a better soundtrack, or enhance an existing one, more than one sound source should be used. Take for example Christoph Sachal's composition. He used an SW1000XG on it but not entirely. He also added other instruments from other synthesizers (or probably a live orchestra) making the song quite simply...amazing! I'd like to see an SC-55 or an SW60XG duplicate that feat on their own. While its no crime of the composer to use just one sound source, it will positively sound better if he had an arsenal of sound sources.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
moturimi1
|
|
« Reply #30 on: August 13, 2004, 12:59:59 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Alistair
|
|
« Reply #31 on: August 13, 2004, 01:42:09 PM » |
|
Though I have a WF192XG card, I don't believe I've used it for any conversions on this site. Every QS XG text file, if I'm not mistaken, recommends a WaveForce as the 'minimum' device to play it back. Thanks once more for the info, guys.. be a long while before I can afford a MU device, however. - Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 5,618
|
|
« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2004, 04:47:49 PM » |
|
HondaSir...I'm so sorry, but I somehow deleted one of your posts when I was replying to it. Don't know what I did.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
HondaSiR
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 716
|
|
« Reply #33 on: August 14, 2004, 01:20:12 AM » |
|
Which post Tom? The one after Alistair's last post? Please don't apologize, it was I who deleted my own post after just a couple of minutes in the board. It occured to me that it didn't quite have enough merit (my reply) so I decided to just erase it. Sorry for the confusion that I caused on your part in replying to it Tom.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Alistair
|
|
« Reply #34 on: August 14, 2004, 01:34:18 AM » |
|
That's cute. How exactly can you delete someone's reply by replying to it? First I've ever heard of such a thing.  At least this forum's in capable hands. On a serious note- were you actually saying something, Tom? - Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tom
Administrator
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 5,618
|
|
« Reply #35 on: August 14, 2004, 12:40:44 PM » |
|
Oh....good. I was making a quick reply to your post, and when I posted it, your post was gone. I thought somehow I accidentily deleted it. (Administrators can delete anyone's post, in several ways.)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Maze
Associate Member
Offline
Posts: 3
|
|
« Reply #36 on: January 19, 2005, 10:11:17 PM » |
|
And some of its sounds are pretty good, too. But solo, forget it. I agree...same also with the SCB-55/SC-55...not a good idea to let it go solo. Some instruments sound too synthy due to the limitations of its circuitry (partial/voice limitations). The SW1000XG/MU128 probably has its limitations too but its still a mystery how it will stand up against Roland's finest sound modules. I really like Christoph Sachal's rendition in the specialty page. Very warm and natural sounding, makes me wonder if he used a real orchestra to make that song. he used real orchestra samples. i dont think he even got that sw1000xg anymore |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
achile464
Senior Member
Offline
Posts: 68
|
|
« Reply #37 on: January 20, 2005, 03:49:42 PM » |
|
I was thinking of buying a copy of SYXG50, but I was wondering exactly how good it is?
Depend, but it can't emulate GS sounds |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
