Emax

anyone know the differences (mainly sonic) between the Emulator IIIx and the
Emax II?

as far as i know they have the same digital filter, they're both 16 bit,
etc....


thanks,

Brooks


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

Hi
Nothing....same sample engine...just the sample libraries are different. Or
and AES and other studio friendly features.
The EIIIX was delayed by 3 years....E-mu Systems were going to build on the
E3 platform with new cards and features, including record to disk.
But all these good ideas were killed off, as E-mu Systems went down market
to get volume and revenue with the Protues.
The E3 nearly killed E-mu...and the Direct to Disk option never worked.
Digidesign solved the porblem in software (interlaced writing as the disk
speed was too slow).
The EIIIX project (2nd or even 3rd attempt) eventually got the go ahead, but
only as a stop gap until the E4 arrived with new DSP chips and new OS.
EIIIX was a double Emax II with different memory chips and the E3 OS, hacked
up as a low cost development.
 
regards
rob
www.emulatorarchive.com
 



 
.
 
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=233380/grpspId=1705032144/msgId=
4749/stime=1226614996/nc1=3848607/nc2=3848641/nc3=5522133> 
 



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

The Emax II and Emulator IIIX use similar hardware but there are significant differences between 
the two machines. 

The Emax II operating system and features are largely inherited from the Emax I, which in turn 
inherits its design from the Emulator II.

The EIIIX inherits its operating system and features from the Emulator III and is much more 
sophisticated than the Emax II. The later ESI series follows on from the EIIIX and includes even 
more new features, such as extra filter modes.

The sonic differences between the Emax II and EIIIX are mainly due to two things, the sampling 
rates used internally and the lowpass filter order. 

The Emax II uses an internal sampling rate of 39kHz for the transposition chip, the digital filters 
and DACs. This limits the maximum playback frequency response to around 19kHz. 

The EIIIX uses an internal sampling rate of 44.1kHz for the transposition chip, the digital filters, 
DACs and AES/EBU digital output. This means the EIIIX playback frequency response goes up to 
21kHz. So the sound of the EIIIX will tend to have a bit more sparkle and air in the top end 
compared to the Emax II.

The Emax II uses 2 pole lowpass filters in the dynamic processing whereas the EIIIX uses 4 pole 
lowpass filters. When the filters are swept down the 2 pole filters give a brighter sound than 4 pole 
filters. I also feel 2 pole filters are more "electronic/synthetic" sounding, so I often prefer them to 4 
pole filters. I find 4 pole filters tend to be a bit more mellow, but it does depend on the sounds 
being filtered. 

If you are trying to decide between getting one or the other then I suggest downloading the 
manuals from the Emulator Archive and having a read. Both machines are good but I think you 
will  find the Emulator IIIX is easier to use. But if you are looking at the Emulator IIIX then also 
check out the ESI series as they continue on from where the EIIIX leaves off. 

/Tristan 

>anyone know the differences (mainly sonic) between the Emulator IIIx and the
>Emax II?
>
>as far as i know they have the same digital filter, they're both 16 bit,
>etc....
>
>thanks,
>
>Brooks

Emax II keyboard version any day
The Emax II for all its imperfections sounds more analog than the EIIIX
I prefer the Emax II to both the EIIIX and EIV

Dave


On 14/11/2008, at 8:51 PM, tu@... wrote:

> The Emax II and Emulator IIIX use similar hardware but there are  
> significant differences between
> the two machines.
>
> The Emax II operating system and features are largely inherited from  
> the Emax I, which in turn
> inherits its design from the Emulator II.
>
> The EIIIX inherits its operating system and features from the  
> Emulator III and is much more
> sophisticated than the Emax II. The later ESI series follows on from  
> the EIIIX and includes even
> more new features, such as extra filter modes.
>
> The sonic differences between the Emax II and EIIIX are mainly due  
> to two things, the sampling
> rates used internally and the lowpass filter order.
>
> The Emax II uses an internal sampling rate of 39kHz for the  
> transposition chip, the digital filters
> and DACs. This limits the maximum playback frequency response to  
> around 19kHz.
>
> The EIIIX uses an internal sampling rate of 44.1kHz for the  
> transposition chip, the digital filters,
> DACs and AES/EBU digital output. This means the EIIIX playback  
> frequency response goes up to
> 21kHz. So the sound of the EIIIX will tend to have a bit more  
> sparkle and air in the top end
> compared to the Emax II.
>
> The Emax II uses 2 pole lowpass filters in the dynamic processing  
> whereas the EIIIX uses 4 pole
> lowpass filters. When the filters are swept down the 2 pole filters  
> give a brighter sound than 4 pole
> filters. I also feel 2 pole filters are more "electronic/synthetic"  
> sounding, so I often prefer them to 4
> pole filters. I find 4 pole filters tend to be a bit more mellow,  
> but it does depend on the sounds
> being filtered.
>
> If you are trying to decide between getting one or the other then I  
> suggest downloading the
> manuals from the Emulator Archive and having a read. Both machines  
> are good but I think you
> will find the Emulator IIIX is easier to use. But if you are looking  
> at the Emulator IIIX then also
> check out the ESI series as they continue on from where the EIIIX  
> leaves off.
>
> /Tristan
>
> >anyone know the differences (mainly sonic) between the Emulator  
> IIIx and the
> >Emax II?
> >
> >as far as i know they have the same digital filter, they're both 16  
> bit,
> >etc....
> >
> >thanks,
> >
> >Brooks
>
> 



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

The main different is that EIII has got analogue filters, Emax-2 
don't.
EIII is a different machine than the EII and Emax-2 is a upgraded
version of Emax.

ESi-32 is an cheaper version of EIII, like Emax was from EII.

cheers/
niklas


--- In emax@yahoogroups.com, "rob" <rob@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
> Nothing....same sample engine...just the sample libraries are 
different. Or
> and AES and other studio friendly features.
> The EIIIX was delayed by 3 years....E-mu Systems were going to 
build on the
> E3 platform with new cards and features, including record to disk.
> But all these good ideas were killed off, as E-mu Systems went down 
market
> to get volume and revenue with the Protues.
> The E3 nearly killed E-mu...and the Direct to Disk option never 
worked.
> Digidesign solved the porblem in software (interlaced writing as 
the disk
> speed was too slow).
> The EIIIX project (2nd or even 3rd attempt) eventually got the go 
ahead, but
> only as a stop gap until the E4 arrived with new DSP chips and new 
OS.
> EIIIX was a double Emax II with different memory chips and the E3 
OS, hacked
> up as a low cost development.
>  
> regards
> rob
> www.emulatorarchive.com
>  
> 
> 
> 
>  
> .
>  
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?
s=97359714/grpId=233380/grpspId=1705032144/msgId=

> 4749/stime=1226614996/nc1=3848607/nc2=3848641/nc3=5522133> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>