Emax

Agreed.  I've read quite a bit on all bits of gear DM have used over the years, as well as the help from people like Dan Miller and Flood, etc.  I got a modest studio so far, but don't have any stuff from Emu yet.

I particularly like the vintage sound on early DM recordings and thought either the Emax or a real Emulator II would be a nice addition.  I've always heard good things about the Emu filters (at least on early kit), so the Emax is what I was leaning towards.  I think it would be great to have a true Emulator II, but they are hard to come by nowadays.

I do have an Akai S600 which I love, but it still sounds too "clean" for some things I'm doing lately in the studio.

I wish I had a good construction yard around me somewhere.  I love the clanks and klunks off DM's Some Great Reward era pieces.  Reminds me of Kraftwerk.

Thank,
Dan

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Silveria 
  To: emax@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:46 PM
  Subject: Re: [emax] Version 1 vs Version 2 sound differences


  I can say that in a recording studio enviroment the real difference in units is the filter. It 
  really is noticeable. The filter on the Emax is a true analog filter, it has a definite warmth 
  and punch that the Emax II does not have. The Emax II sounds a cleaner which means it 
  sounds a little thinner.

  the Emax was designed to primarily be an affordable solution to the Emulator II. I've 
  never personally been able to play an Emulator II, but I think it's safe to assume that with 
  the Emulator being made from primarily "off the shelf" parts as compared to the Emax 
  using specific E-mu designed hardware the Emax would have some distinct sound and 
  reliability advantages. 

  Certainly most people say and Emulator II or Emax will give you that "Depeche Mode 
  type sound" But the reality is there isn't a sampler that has the DM sound, they used just 
  about every sampler out there while recording. From the big boys of the era the 
  Synclavier and Fairlight to every E-mu and most Akai's as well, even rare samplers like 
  the Prophet 2000. It's not really the sampler that makes the difference for DM, but rather 
  what and how they sampled. Unlike a lot of artists at the time who thought samplers were 
  great for recreating "real instruments" DM always saw a sampler as being a great way of 
  incorporating "found sound" samples into their music. A technique that comes from 
  "musique concrete" (been a long time hope I spelled that hope it's right). A song like 
  "Master and Servant" has (if memory serves me) has over 100 different samples on it 
  from water drops to jack hammers and cement mixers (and of course the notorious 
  "martin getting spanked). DM would take recorders out into construction sites record 
  interesting sounds, then run them through outboard processing like compression, delay, 
  reverb... blah blah blah, record them to tape then sample the end result. It's fairly easy to 
  get DM-type sounds out of any sampler, just focus on sampling metallic objects and 
  percussive sounds. Of course, using those sounds in the same types of way DM did is a 
  big part of it as well.


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