Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    
    
    Well, the FZ certainly gets close enough to ruffle the Emax's
    expensive feathers.
    
    	Richard.

    This issue made me feel really good about my S-10.  Although the
    S-10 only has up to about 13.5 kHz bandwidth, one output and four
    samples, it is pretty quiet and doesn't distort much.  It basically is 
    in line with the review of the S-50, but ranks among the cheapest of
    the samplers.  Did you notice how many of the cheaper samplers have
    been discontinued?  Seems like to get a quality sampler you're talking 
    bigger bucks nowadays.  That seems to be that market trend - kill the 
    low-end stuff so that folks have to buy the more expensive items.  Also,
    I found here that my S-10 *does not* support MIDI sample dump standard.
    Neither do a bunch of others.  But, this will be no big deal
    since software vendors are pushing 'universal' sample dump support.
    
    The comments about the Mirage were funny.  'Dog meat, right?  Well,
    it's hard to deny that the Mirage's results look pretty horrendous
    ... The Mirage's distortion levels surpass those of any other sampler
    by such a wide margin that it may as well be considered a synthesizer.'
    
    Gee, seems to me we should put the Mirage into a class of its own!
    ;^)  
    
    Also surprising was that on a spec basis there sure is a wide range
    of bang for the buck.  It was surprising to see that the specs on
    the high end machines were not so impressive as one might hope.
    Again, made me pretty happy to have chosen the S-10 for my setup.
    
    Steve

    Interesting stuff, but can anybody tell me why there is such a
    difference between the S-330 and the S-550? I thought a 330 was
    a 550 with less memory.
    
    Ken
    

    I'm just always glad to have something tangible to point to backup
    what I've always felt about the S-550, which is that I've always
    thought it sounded great.
    
    However, I now have plenty of things to curse it for as well.  So
    don't consider this a unabashed plug for the S-550.
    
    	db

    One of the most interesting parts of the issue was the inset about
    how easy each sampler was to use and understand.
    
    They ranted about most of them, but they did have nice things to
    say about two of them.   It was great to see that it WAS possible
    to make a sampler that's easy to use and understand.
    
    	db

< Note 1911.5 by DREGS::BLICKSTEIN "So What? BEEG Deal!" >
                   -< Ease of use and ability to understand >-

That rant section about User Interface gripes proved that they really did
not know how to take advantage of the features that each machine has, probably
due to lack of time. They didn't like either the EPS or the S550. The S550
suffers from a lousy manual, and the EPS suffers from a lack of manual
(until now). They particularly mentioned that the EPS lacked the capability to
store and recall global parameters. That was completely erroneous. There is a
SAVE GLOBAL PARAMS feature right in the SYSTEM menu. They also complained about
the number of button pushes, which shows that they had problems learning the
hierarchy of the menus and how to use the EDIT button to switch back and forth
to do global parameter edits. I find the EPS very intuitive to use. You can
take a sample, assign the root key, map it to the keyboard, tune it and envelope
it, set the LFO, in about 20 key strokes. Looping takes longer, of course.
Universal Sound Designer is a life saver for cross-fade looping.

dave

    
    O.K., so which samplers' UI did they prefer?
    
    Richard.

    The Mirage, of course!  :-)
    
    Note that their fidelity rankings corresponded highly with the number
    of bits in each machine, and to a lesser extent to the max sample
    rate of the machine.
    
    I certainly don't agree with their rankings.  
    
    And, of course, cost was not a major object.  Was it my imagination,
    or was the price ratio 5:1 across the field?
    
    	-Bill
    

>    And, of course, cost was not a major object.  Was it my imagination,
>    or was the price ratio 5:1 across the field?


Yes, the winner was Akai S1000 which retail lists for $5995. I was quoted
a price of $4300 by Caruso's, but that is negotiable. This is a 16 bit
stereo sampler. Not much of a library available, and it is not compatible
with the S900 or S950 12 bit machines or libraries. The price I got for an
S950 was $1795 from Caruso's, plus they will send you the library to copy.
I think the Emulator III costs about twice as much as the S1000? It looks
like a Roland S50, S550 or Akai S950 are choice picks. I still think the
EPS will perform much better when treated properly, and from the list of
credits, I'm surprised the Ensoniq reps didn't do better with assistance.
The new O/S should make quite a difference in sampling quality.

dave

re: .9

>
>Yes, the winner was Akai S1000 which retail lists for $5995. I was quoted
>a price of $4300 by Caruso's, but that is negotiable. This is a 16 bit
>stereo sampler. Not much of a library available, and it is not compatible
>with the S900 or S950 12 bit machines or libraries. The price I got for an

If I remember the 'keyboard' review correctly, the S1000 can use S900
disks, albeit in 12 bit mode.  And it had a lot of REAL nice features.

>S950 was $1795 from Caruso's, plus they will send you the library to copy.
>I think the Emulator III costs about twice as much as the S1000? It looks
>like a Roland S50, S550 or Akai S950 are choice picks. I still think the
>EPS will perform much better when treated properly, and from the list of


CHad

    I just bought the issue with the sampler 'reviews' in it.
    
    Very surprised to see the Emax' poor showing.  It did get points
    for a good user interface, and should have gotten lotsa points for
    its huge sample library.  There's a musician here in town with a
    studio.. I've worked with him and his AKAI S900.. to me it sounds
    thin and brittle.. kind of harsh.  The Emax sounds rich in
    comparison.. plus it     has an internal sequencer and real software 
    panning, not just left and right like the S900/950..
    
    Ah well, just goes to show ya how numbers can lie
    
    karl

    re: .11
    
    Not to mention the Emax is multi-timbral and has one of the best
    arppegiators Ive ever used.
    
    dito
    
    

    More thoughts on the EMAX and Keyboard's testing methodology..
    The Emax showed poor on overall digital noise level.. which runs
    completely counter to my experience with it.
    
    The Keyboard tests used the Emax' own sample input, and then measured
    its output on a scope... for THD, noise, freq. response, and square
    wave reproduction. (did great on the square wave)..
    
    My thought is this.  I've done very little sampling with the Emax,
    preferring instead to use my large (100+diskettes) sample library.
    Many of the samples in my library were not created using the A-D 
    converter of the Emax.. or even the Emulator II.. most of these 
    samples come from the E-II library, ported with Digidesign software.. 
    and many of the original samples come from specialized sampling
    computers, with virtually no digital noise from the sampling process.  

    And THAT must be why I consider the Emax to be a superb SGU.
    
    So what, you say.. the tests were testing SAMPLING, not 'sample
    players'.. if true, why'd they include the Oberheim DPX sample 
    player ?
    
    somewhat incoherently yours,
    
    karl
    

    
    Tell you what -- bet you haven't listened to an FZn. 
    
    Richard.

    I recently got an S1000 and thought I would pass on my observations.
    The UI is fine and even the more difficult operations can be picked
    very quickly. It comes with four factory disks (HD) with Piano,
    Strings, Brass and Drums. The sounds are excellent and there will
    shortly be a fairly extensive library available which has been recorded
    at AIR studios in London. The S1000 will read S900 disks, but the
    sampling algorithms are very different and some sounds convert 
    a lot better than others. Also, what used to fit on one (DD) disk
    on an S900 will NOT fit on one disk when its been converted by the
    S1000. This means using HD disks - expensive. The S1000 comes with
    2Mb of memory which, if you are using the true 16bit samples is
    not enough. You can expand to 8mb but this is expensive in the UK
    - about $1400 for each 2mb increase. If you have one sample using
    the full 2mb, you can't write it to floppy - you have to have a
    hard disk. Both the Atari/Supra and SCSI interfaces are supported,
    but you have to buy the relevant card - about $175 here.
    
    One last point - last night mine went gaga and has had to go back
    for repair. Beware new products!