The Yamaha AN1x Synthesizer mailing list

I have done some research on the net, many have the same problem regarding editors.
In terms of the quality of audio output I did mean DA conversion, which I have found out is only 16bit.I would of thought those units should have been at least the same as the sw card or even 24bit.Yes they have cool presets but I woulds have expected the sound quality to be superior.Its just a techno musical box for DJS.Its a shame You cant morph of copy scenes on a plg card or any of them.
And yes im a disatisfied customer, I sent both units back and got a full refund!
.Dmanx
> --- In AN1x-list@...m, DMANX@t... wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> I bourght the AN200 and DX200 today, im sending them both 
>back, because the sound out put quality is not as good as my 
>AN150plg on my sw1000xg.
>
>I'm confused by this comment - the PLG150AN and AN200 use 
>the idencitcal sound source and no doubt the drum samples are 
>probably XG based too (like your SW100XG card.). Having 
>listened to both the AN200 & DX200 it seemed to me the sound 
>quality was comparable to other instruments in that price class. 
>Are your comments in reagrds to the AD/DA convertors? Perhaps 
>you need to review your mixer/monitor configuration.
>
>
>And I can not use the AN/DX200 editors because it will not work 
>in WinXP plus you have to use it with XGworks, and I need a 
>stand alone AN/DX200 editor to work with cubse5.1 in Win XP.
>
>
>Whoa! Slow  down...I think you need to reassess why you 
>purchased the AN200/DX200 combo to begin with - if you're 
>saying you can't use them to make music because the editor 
>won't run under XP(!) then I think you're missing the 
>point....sounds like a case of buyers remorse.
>
>Jon
>
>
>Community email addresses:
>  Post message: AN1x-list@yahoogroups.com
>  Subscribe:    AN1x-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  Unsubscribe:  AN1x-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  List owner:   AN1x-list-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
>Shortcut URL to this page:
>   <a Target='_new' Href='http://talk21.btopenworld.com/redirect.html?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AN1x-list'>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AN1x-list</a>
> 
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to <a Target='_new' Href='http://talk21.btopenworld.com/redirect.html?http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/'>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a>



--------------------
talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at http://www.talk21.com

DMANX@... heeft geschreven:
> In terms of the quality of audio output I did mean DA conversion, which I have found out is only 16bit.I would of thought those units should have been at least the same as the sw card or even 24bit.Yes they have cool presets but I woulds have expected the sound quality to be superior.Its just a techno musical box for DJS.Its a shame You cant morph of copy scenes on a plg card or any of them.

I don't think it's entirely realistic to expect a 24 bit output on a 16 
bit instrument. As for sound quality, that's probably more down to the 
quality of the analogue electronics. After all, the xx200 series are 
relatively inexpensive, and superior sound quality was probably not a 
design requirement.

Having said that, both my AN1x and EX5S sound extremely clean, whereas 
the latter should have better components. But if you want professional 
results (as in regards to sound quality), you should buy a professional 
unit with the professional price tag that goes hand in hand with it.

- Peter

I agree they aren't Professional units. probably not even semi-professional. but what they do is good, and fun for the price. I feel we need to stop comparing these little boxes to real studio synthesizers. these are groove tools, that can be used as low budget synths in the studio.  The quality is good for the price, and so are the features. untill one of mine breaks I will stand by them.. even though they cant match my Korg MS2000 sound wise any day.  They have a unique crusty character. that sets them apart, and its nice.  

later
oldbuzzer

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Peter Korsten 
  To: AN1x-list@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 1:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [AN1x] Re: AN/DX200 problem


  DMANX@... heeft geschreven:
  > In terms of the quality of audio output I did mean DA conversion, which I have found out is only 16bit.I would of thought those units should have been at least the same as the sw card or even 24bit.Yes they have cool presets but I woulds have expected the sound quality to be superior.Its just a techno musical box for DJS.Its a shame You cant morph of copy scenes on a plg card or any of them.

  I don't think it's entirely realistic to expect a 24 bit output on a 16 
  bit instrument. As for sound quality, that's probably more down to the 
  quality of the analogue electronics. After all, the xx200 series are 
  relatively inexpensive, and superior sound quality was probably not a 
  design requirement.

  Having said that, both my AN1x and EX5S sound extremely clean, whereas 
  the latter should have better components. But if you want professional 
  results (as in regards to sound quality), you should buy a professional 
  unit with the professional price tag that goes hand in hand with it.

  - Peter


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Community email addresses:
    Post message: AN1x-list@yahoogroups.com
    Subscribe:    AN1x-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
    Unsubscribe:  AN1x-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    List owner:   AN1x-list-owner@yahoogroups.com

  Shortcut URL to this page:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AN1x-list


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



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

--- In AN1x-list@yahoogroups.com, DMANX@t... wrote:
> I have done some research on the net, many have the same 
problem regarding editors.
> In terms of the quality of audio output I did mean DA 
conversion, which I have found out is only 16bit.I would of 
thought those units should have been at least the same as the 
sw card or even 24bit.Yes they have cool presets but I woulds 
have expected the sound quality to be superior.Its just a techno 
musical box for DJS.Its a shame You cant morph of copy scenes 
on a plg card or any of them.
> And yes im a disatisfied customer, I sent both units back and 
got a full refund!
> .Dmanx

I'm glad you were able to return them for a refund but it's still my 
impression that you've come down with a case of 'featuritis', i.e, 
you're focusing on perceived limitations rather than what the 
boxes really have to offer - a real time, interactive programming 
interface.

The fact the editors don't currently run under XP is hardly 
grounds for dimissing the functionality of either box, IMO. Haven't 
you had enough problems with your SW1000XG/PLG150AN 
combo saving and storing voices, the most *basic* of 
operations, that you might consider dedicated hardware a 
worthwhile alternative? It appears you barely spent enough time 
(how many days did you you own them?) with the two boxes to 
make an informed decision. Still, you seem relieved to be done 
with it so I suppose all is well that ends well.

regards,

Jon

I use the editors in Windows XP all the time. I don't understand what you guys are talking about???  I have programed my An200, and DX200 in Windows XP Pro. for about 2 months now.  

confused.
Forrest

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jon <jondl_2000@...> 
  To: AN1x-list@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 1:43 PM
  Subject: [AN1x] Re: AN/DX200 problem


  --- In AN1x-list@yahoogroups.com, DMANX@t... wrote:
  > I have done some research on the net, many have the same 
  problem regarding editors.
  > In terms of the quality of audio output I did mean DA 
  conversion, which I have found out is only 16bit.I would of 
  thought those units should have been at least the same as the 
  sw card or even 24bit.Yes they have cool presets but I woulds 
  have expected the sound quality to be superior.Its just a techno 
  musical box for DJS.Its a shame You cant morph of copy scenes 
  on a plg card or any of them.
  > And yes im a disatisfied customer, I sent both units back and 
  got a full refund!
  > .Dmanx

  I'm glad you were able to return them for a refund but it's still my 
  impression that you've come down with a case of 'featuritis', i.e, 
  you're focusing on perceived limitations rather than what the 
  boxes really have to offer - a real time, interactive programming 
  interface.

  The fact the editors don't currently run under XP is hardly 
  grounds for dimissing the functionality of either box, IMO. Haven't 
  you had enough problems with your SW1000XG/PLG150AN 
  combo saving and storing voices, the most *basic* of 
  operations, that you might consider dedicated hardware a 
  worthwhile alternative? It appears you barely spent enough time 
  (how many days did you you own them?) with the two boxes to 
  make an informed decision. Still, you seem relieved to be done 
  with it so I suppose all is well that ends well.

  regards,

  Jon


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Community email addresses:
    Post message: AN1x-list@yahoogroups.com
    Subscribe:    AN1x-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
    Unsubscribe:  AN1x-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    List owner:   AN1x-list-owner@yahoogroups.com

  Shortcut URL to this page:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AN1x-list


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



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

There is a downloadable update.

Alan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Forrest Gore" <vaisnava@...>
To: <AN1x-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [AN1x] Re: AN/DX200 problem


> I use the editors in Windows XP all the time. I don't understand what you
guys are talking about???  I have programed my An200, and DX200 in Windows
XP Pro. for about 2 months now.

>
> confused.
> Forrest
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Jon <jondl_2000@...>
>   To: AN1x-list@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 1:43 PM
>   Subject: [AN1x] Re: AN/DX200 problem
>
>
>   --- In AN1x-list@yahoogroups.com, DMANX@t... wrote:
>   > I have done some research on the net, many have the same
>   problem regarding editors.
>   > In terms of the quality of audio output I did mean DA
>   conversion, which I have found out is only 16bit.I would of
>   thought those units should have been at least the same as the
>   sw card or even 24bit.Yes they have cool presets but I woulds
>   have expected the sound quality to be superior.Its just a techno
>   musical box for DJS.Its a shame You cant morph of copy scenes
>   on a plg card or any of them.
>   > And yes im a disatisfied customer, I sent both units back and
>   got a full refund!
>   > .Dmanx
>
>   I'm glad you were able to return them for a refund but it's still my
>   impression that you've come down with a case of 'featuritis', i.e,
>   you're focusing on perceived limitations rather than what the
>   boxes really have to offer - a real time, interactive programming
>   interface.
>
>   The fact the editors don't currently run under XP is hardly
>   grounds for dimissing the functionality of either box, IMO. Haven't
>   you had enough problems with your SW1000XG/PLG150AN
>   combo saving and storing voices, the most *basic* of
>   operations, that you might consider dedicated hardware a
>   worthwhile alternative? It appears you barely spent enough time
>   (how many days did you you own them?) with the two boxes to
>   make an informed decision. Still, you seem relieved to be done
>   with it so I suppose all is well that ends well.
>
>   regards,
>
>   Jon
>
>
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>               ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>   Community email addresses:
>     Post message: AN1x-list@yahoogroups.com
>     Subscribe:    AN1x-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>     Unsubscribe:  AN1x-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>     List owner:   AN1x-list-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
>   Shortcut URL to this page:
>      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AN1x-list
>
>
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Community email addresses:
>   Post message: AN1x-list@yahoogroups.com
>   Subscribe:    AN1x-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   Unsubscribe:  AN1x-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   List owner:   AN1x-list-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Shortcut URL to this page:
>    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AN1x-list
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

--- In AN1x-list@yahoogroups.com, "Forrest Gore" <vaisnava@h...>
wrote:
> I agree they aren't Professional units. probably not even
semi-professional. but what they do is good, and fun for the price. I
feel we need to stop comparing these little boxes to real studio
synthesizers.

I disagree. I did a lot of research into Yamaha FM synths and I got
exactly what I wanted and expected.  Which model would you consider a
professional unit? At US$200.00 new, the DX200 was better than any of
the DX7 models on EBay. More features, better sound, good editor and
brand new.  Fully pro in my book.

Since I have an AN1, I never considered the AN200. Maybe it doesn't
compare to a "real" synth.


rich

On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 02:39:26 -0000 "rich_1297 <rich_1297@...>" wrote:

> I disagree. I did a lot of research into Yamaha FM synths and I got
> exactly what I wanted and expected.  Which model would you consider a
> professional unit? At US$200.00 new, the DX200 was better than any of
> the DX7 models on EBay. More features, better sound, good editor and
> brand new.  Fully pro in my book.

Well, there is something like a 20 year gap between these, you know.

- Peter
-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------- 
 Check out www.di-ve.com for the latest breaking news in Malta and Gozo!

> As for better than 16bit output, I don't see it.  The unit sounds as
> it should and it is quite good.  Raising the resolution of the output
> would really call for raising the resolution of the engines.  That
> might be nice, but would probably raise the price.

Every CD you own is 16 bit ... 16 bit is not shabby at all. The original DX7
was 12 bit.

Alan

All,

>> As for better than 16bit output, I don't see it.  The unit sounds as
>> it should and it is quite good.  Raising the resolution of the output
>> would really call for raising the resolution of the engines.  That
>> might be nice, but would probably raise the price.
>
>Every CD you own is 16 bit ... 16 bit is not shabby at all. The original DX7
>was 12 bit.

I'd like to second the sentiments of this and a couple of other post that have voiced.  It's easy to get caught up in the Technology Game and always be searching for the new device that, to paraphrase the lead guitarist from Spinal Tap, is "one more, isn't it?"  Granted, all things being equal, a 20- or 24-bit system will sound as good or better than a 16-bit system -- but all things AREN'T equal, most of the time.  When I buy a piece of gear, I focus on three things:

- the raw sound of the instrument/effect/whatever, because you can only fix so much "in the mix";

- feel of the interface, compared to my playing (or using) style;

- the ease of accessing and programming sounds, whether it be through factory presets, programming software, or the native ability of the piece to be quickly adjusted.

Everything else is just so much icing on the cake.

As mentioned, CD audio is "only" 16-bit and "only" 44.1KHz, but I don't see angry mobs of listeners boycotting record labels until they replace the format with something better.  And the Prophet 5 was "only" five-voice -- and mono-timbral to boot -- but great music has been, and is still being, made with it.

I remember reading somewhere that 90% (or more) of the synths returned for repair still have the factory patches in them.  That means that most players have barely scratched the surface on what their instruments can do.  Kind of a shame, isn't it?

Regards,

-BW

--
Bruce Wahler
Design Consultant
Ashby Solutions\ufffd   http://consult.ashbysolutions.com
978.386.7389  voice/fax
bruce@...

--- In AN1x-list@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Wahler <bruce@a...> 
wrote:
> I remember reading somewhere that 90% (or more) of the 
synths returned for repair still have the factory patches in them.  
That means that most players have barely scratched the surface 
on what their instruments can do.  Kind of a shame, isn't it?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -BW
> 

Ha ha ha! :-) I remember that same quote - wasn't it printed in a 
late-80's issue of Keybaord mag? 

Jon

Thanks, Bruce - that articulates what I was thinking but didn't have the
time to write.
Alan


All,

>> As for better than 16bit output, I don't see it.  The unit sounds as
>> it should and it is quite good.  Raising the resolution of the output
>> would really call for raising the resolution of the engines.  That
>> might be nice, but would probably raise the price.
>
>Every CD you own is 16 bit ... 16 bit is not shabby at all. The original
DX7
>was 12 bit.

I'd like to second the sentiments of this and a couple of other post that
have voiced.  It's easy to get caught up in the Technology Game and always
be searching for the new device that, to paraphrase the lead guitarist from
Spinal Tap, is "one more, isn't it?"  Granted, all things being equal, a 20-
or 24-bit system will sound as good or better than a 16-bit system -- but
all things AREN'T equal, most of the time.  When I buy a piece of gear, I
focus on three things:

- the raw sound of the instrument/effect/whatever, because you can only fix
so much "in the mix";

- feel of the interface, compared to my playing (or using) style;

- the ease of accessing and programming sounds, whether it be through
factory presets, programming software, or the native ability of the piece to
be quickly adjusted.

Everything else is just so much icing on the cake.

As mentioned, CD audio is "only" 16-bit and "only" 44.1KHz, but I don't see
angry mobs of listeners boycotting record labels until they replace the
format with something better.  And the Prophet 5 was "only" five-voice --
and mono-timbral to boot -- but great music has been, and is still being,
made with it.

I remember reading somewhere that 90% (or more) of the synths returned for
repair still have the factory patches in them.  That means that most players
have barely scratched the surface on what their instruments can do.  Kind of
a shame, isn't it?

Regards,

-BW

--
Bruce Wahler
Design Consultant
Ashby SolutionsT   http://consult.ashbysolutions.com
978.386.7389  voice/fax
bruce@...



Community email addresses:
  Post message: AN1x-list@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:    AN1x-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
  Unsubscribe:  AN1x-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  List owner:   AN1x-list-owner@yahoogroups.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AN1x-list


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> As mentioned, CD audio is "only" 16-bit and "only" 44.1KHz, but I don't
see
> angry mobs of listeners boycotting record labels until they replace the
> format with something better.  And the Prophet 5 was "only" five-voice --
> and mono-timbral to boot -- but great music has been, and is still being,
> made with it.

Yes, but there is a biiiig difference between a production format and a
release format. When mixing, you will need more bits than the release format
to be able to maintain full quality of all the signals when mixing. If you
want to mix say 8 16-bit signals without quality loss due to truncation of
the signals, you'll need a total resolution of 2^16 * 2^3 = 2^19, that is 19
bits. (since 2^3 = 8 = the number of signals to mix). Then in the end you'll
have to dither down to 16 bit, but then you'll loose quality only once, not
for each channel being mixed. Also, when usig good dither+noiseshaping,
you'll retain more than 16 bits worth of information. This information will
be below the (dither) noise floor, but still audible. I'm not convinced that
you'll gain a lot by using a higher samplerate, but higher bitdepth while
mixing, definitley. Note however that the original files can be 16-bit. It's
just during mixing you need higher "internal" resolution.

About the Prophet 5. It's an analogue synth. The main reason for building
mostly VA today (or for using digital equipment at all) is because it's a
lot cheeper than really good analogue exuipment...

/Patrik (using analogue, VA, and digital synths and Cubase SX)

----
The primary purpose of wings is to prevent fligh


/Patrik

----
The primary purpose of wings is to prevent flight

Hi Patrik,

>> As mentioned, CD audio is "only" 16-bit and "only" 44.1KHz, but I don't
>see
>> angry mobs of listeners boycotting record labels until they replace the
>> format with something better.  And the Prophet 5 was "only" five-voice --
>> and mono-timbral to boot -- but great music has been, and is still being,
>> made with it.
>
>Yes, but there is a biiiig difference between a production format and a
>release format. When mixing, you will need more bits than the release format
>to be able to maintain full quality of all the signals when mixing. If you
>want to mix say 8 16-bit signals without quality loss due to truncation of
>the signals, you'll need a total resolution of 2^16 * 2^3 = 2^19, that is 19
>bits. (since 2^3 = 8 = the number of signals to mix). Then in the end you'll
>have to dither down to 16 bit, but then you'll loose quality only once, not
>for each channel being mixed. Also, when usig good dither+noiseshaping,
>you'll retain more than 16 bits worth of information. This information will
>be below the (dither) noise floor, but still audible. I'm not convinced that
>you'll gain a lot by using a higher samplerate, but higher bitdepth while
>mixing, definitley. Note however that the original files can be 16-bit. It's
>just during mixing you need higher "internal" resolution.
>
>About the Prophet 5. It's an analogue synth. The main reason for building
>mostly VA today (or for using digital equipment at all) is because it's a
>lot cheeper than really good analogue exuipment...

All valid points, but perhaps my original position wasn't clear:  I wasn't claiming that 16-bits is all anyone ever needs, anywhere; I was  bemoaning the fact that so many musicians get on the flavor-of-the-month carousel, and never really learn their instruments, because they are always selling them and moving to something with more bits, voices, effects, etc.  In a producing environment, high bit resolutions and additional channels are often necessary, but that doesn't mean the instruments themselves must follow suit.  Great music was made with the Ensoniq Mirage (10-bit?), the DX7 (originally 12-bit), and the Poly-800 (not sure of the VCA/VCF bit depth, but it was very grainy -- maybe, 6-bit?).  Also, the same could be said for even lowly Mini-Korg -- a monophonic instrument with almost no programming capabilities, and even those were unusual.

My musical situation is probably somewhat unusual on this list:  I use the AN1x mostly for live performance in rock and funk bands.  I record very little -- at least, for public consumption -- and despite being a working musician for almost 40 years, I don't own a collection of synths.  I just own the AN1x, plus an organ and a ROMpler for the sounds that the VA synth doesn't do well.  I do, however, get compliments on the sound of my synth leads and pads.  Maybe it's because of the number of years that I've been programming -- or having just the one synth forces me to really dig into its capabilities more than the average owner.

My main instrument is really Hammond-style organ.  It's a great instrument, but it's only two-part multitimbral, just like the AN1x.  It also makes a mediocre bass, a lousy piano, a very poor horn section, and a terrible drum machine.  Organists, OTOH, don't seem to care about these limitations; they work around them, or switch to another instrument when the need arises.  Only synth players seem to get caught up in the need to have a one-size-fits-all solution.

Regards,

-BW

--
Bruce Wahler
Design Consultant
Ashby Solutions\ufffd   http://consult.ashbysolutions.com
978.386.7389  voice/fax
bruce@...

> All valid points, but perhaps my original position wasn't clear:  I wasn't
claiming that 16-bits is all anyone ever needs, anywhere; I was  bemoaning
the fact that so many musicians get on the flavor-of-the-month carousel, and
never really learn their instruments, because they are always selling them
and moving to something with more bits, voices, effects, etc.  In a
producing environment, high bit resolutions and additional channels are
often necessary, but that doesn't mean the instruments themselves must
follow suit.  Great music was made with the Ensoniq Mirage (10-bit?), the
DX7 (originally 12-bit), and the Poly-800 (not sure of the VCA/VCF bit
depth, but it was very grainy -- maybe, 6-bit?).  Also, the same could be
said for even lowly Mini-Korg -- a monophonic instrument with almost no
programming capabilities, and even those were unusual.

Ah, yes, I must have read the beginning of this thread rather sloppily (is
there such a word?). Here I definitley agree (which I also wrote in my User
Equipment Mail list). The quality from a instrument, or any pice of gear, is
relying on it's sonic capabilities and the skill of the person using it, and
not just on tech-specs. A lot of rather low-fi equipment have a unique sonic
character, so cleaner and newer isn't necessarily better. An example of this
from my own rig is the waldorf pulse. Judged only by it's signal/noise
ratio, it's horrible, but judged by its sonic capabilities it's a great
synth (if "programmed" well).

Regards

/Patrik

----
The primary purpose of wings is to prevent flight