Xpantastic!

Hi Tony !

The Matrix 1K has fewer modulation sources,- less lfo�s, less envelopes, 
less tracking generators and less ramp generators.
So this might not be a prob because the Xpander/Matrix12 has more and in 
theory, all what�s more in these machines would be unused for Matrix 1K 
patches,- but ...
I only refer to the modulators available in the modulation matriss of a 
M1K !
So, the 1st thing what�s different is the mod-matiss.

In addition, some modulators in the M1K are adressed to fixed 
destinations, some lfo p.ex.

The most important difference is, M1K deals different w/  waveforms and  
the waveshaping parameter decides which kind of waveform the oscillator 
creates in the end,- this is what a Xpander and Matrix 12 cannot do.

The single patch data format of a Matrix1000 is 10 pages of small 
printed "Byte / Parameter / # Bits / Description" and it�s impossible to 
explain it here in the group.
I have both manuals of the Xpander an M1K here in front of me,- if I 
only think about comparing all the differences of the voice 
architecture, I get dizzy.

As mentioned before in another post, - I did this programming,- 
Xpander>Matrix and vice versa manually for some patches and IMO, this 
was one of my most time consuming and boring programming experiences fo 
all the time because of all the comparison.

I doubt this can be done by a simple command line proggi, - it must be a 
more "inelligent" program which exactly knows the differences in the 
voices and so on, not forget to mention, the enduser has to "tell" the 
program what he wants then.

To 1.)
Even if parameters map directly, they don�t scale the same,- speeds of 
LFOs, envelopes, ramps are different p.ex.

All your questions are right

In the end the result is a different sounding patch you have to edit 
again anyway and by using your ears and taste.

Is it worth all the input and investment to code a more a less 
functional software just for convertig 1000 patches which are, please 
forgive me, not more than a good startpoint to create your own once ?

2.)
Most factory patches, in the Xpander and/or the M1K, don�t have the 
simplest controllers implemented which you need all day, - this is p.ex. 
sustain pedal (both) and pitchbend-ranges on your demand (Xpander),- 
you�d have to program a lot of usefull stuff anyway yourself.
Sometimes, the controller setups only demonstrate what the machine is 
able to do and sometimes it makes no musical sense in daily work.

There are rarely factory patches which are really usefull for a player.

Just my thoughts ...

PeWe


Tony Cappellini schrieb:
>
> Windows, but it would be a cmd line app that could run on Linux/Mac.
> (gui apps take too much time ) ;-)
>
> First, we all need to agree *if* it can be done- that is
>
> 1. which M1k params directly map to XP/M12 params, and which don't.
>
> For the ones that do map directly, are the values in the same range
> and the same polarity?
>
> For the ones that dont map on the xpander, what should they be set to?
>
> A lot of questions need to be answered first.
>
> If there are a lot of params that dont map directly, then the patches
> on the Xpander wont sound the same.
> Some compromises have to be made.
>
>
>
>