Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CairnsFella

only you - sequence and problems faced

Recommended Posts

Hi all.

 

Well I have completed a new step sequence for Yazoo's Only You.

 

To be frank it didn't turn out nearly as well as I had hoped for a multitude of reasons. One reason we can probably tick off to start off with is my own ineptitude, so that element goes without saying for any of the other problems I encountered.

 

I wasn't even going to post it in the end, but as unhappy with it as I am, it will probably serve as a basis for anyone who may want to tweak it.

 

My initial problem was programming the first sound. In fact I had so much trouble with it that when I finally decided to make do with what I had done I was already fed up with it. I probably spent a week on the first sound, then was going to give up, but decided to finish it with rather less attention to detail. So I spent about a week on one sound and then just over a day on the rest of it. The biggest problem I had with that sound was the envelope attack. I found that if I set the attack too fast then the 'snap' would actually disappear. Even when I believed I got something tolerable, I would go back to it and it would sound too soft again. In one session it seemed to get worse over time even though I didn't change it. I know that sounds nuts - as does the following - but I would swear it was as if the longer I was working it felt like to board was getting less able to cope (like using an old computer when you open and close a load of programs and eventually, even though you only have one program open, the computer slows to a crawl.  Whilst I am not about to argue this as fact (as i dont really see that this is probable), but it honestly seemed to improve after a reboot.

 

(Sorry. Didn't realise the time! Am going to have to finish this later)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Back

 

(I have had to come and cover in our shop, but it's pretty quiet, so I can add some more to this post)

 

Skip to last sentence for briefest summary.

 

OK.. so yes.. that first sound (i.e. the the arpeggiatted sound at the beginning of the song). I kept thinking I had it, then I'd come back the next day and decide it was nowhere near. Ultimately I am convinced one of my earlier attempts were better, but I never kept any because despite being better in hindsight, I didn't consider them better enough to keep at the time. Anyway, I am sure something better is achievable, so I'll leave that to anyone that wants to try. The sad aspect is that I could not find anything suitable in the PCM tones, which meant despite only using 'Synth 1' in the solo synth, it obviously ties that up, and there are plenty of tones on the track that would have really benefited from using the solo synth.

 

Probably purely my lack of understanding, but I also struggled with the interaction of the Total Filter envelope with the individual filter envelopes within the solo synth. I probably just need to do more, re-reading and testing here though.

 

After this, as I say, I really just decided to knock the thing out quickly. As a result, the tones I chose become less and less similar to the original, culminating with the tones that I use for synth parts towards the end (the 'solo' and the later 'string' parts) where I was very very lazy and didn't even audition all the tones before settling. Again, I am sure anyone that wants to use this can find better. I actually started writing notes saying "revisit bass", "revisit snare" etc, but gave up on that as I was ultimately needing to revisit everything.

 

My next issue was the mixer settings (volume and tone selection).

 

Because the song uses multiple 'sets' of sequence patterns I found that I had to reselect my tones for each 'set' e.g U40 U41 etc. But what was odd here is that 'some' tone selections seemed to carry over, and others did not. Of course I am sure there is a reason for this, but as I was trying to rush through the process at this stage I did limited investigation, though I did try to see if saving the Performances, Tones, Sequences (and Chains)  in different orders helped. It did not. The volume problem was not a new thing, but it didn't stop me from cursing the links between DSP enabled tones. Equally though, the volume settings did not carry across the sequence pattern 'sets'. Interestingly, even though it 'appears' as though the mixer volume settings are related to the sequence, when making changes using the PC editor. the LCD does not display the '!" as it does for other changes, yet it definitely does take on the mixer change when I make a volume change on the mixer in sequence mode and then execute the write procedure on the XW. The result of all this is that I have not really set the volumes appropriately either, as after going through all the sequence pattern sets a few times, and still not being happy with it, I once again decided to 'make do' with where I was.

 

Another thing I 'thought' was odd was with regard to the chorus, as I did not realise this was disabled when a solo synth is active with effect bypass. I realise now this is in AllenK's excellent companion (maybe the main manual too) but at the time it wasn't one of the known limitations that I recalled reading about.

 

I also couldnt find an efficient way of 'auditioning' solo synth tones as a combined sound. To explain. Most channels are just one tone, so I can scroll though the sounds on the mixer page to audition them. However, I wanted to make a sound using zones 2 and 3 and hear both tones as I auditioned. If I used the PC Editor, it is a slightly stilted process of clicking, scrolling, selecting, and saving (not saving as such, but "ok'-ing, if you like). If you use the mixer, you only hear the selected tone/zone unless you keep going into and out of the mixer; though this was still the quickest method. There may be an alternate way of doing this, but I didnt find it.

 

My final irritation - and yes, I was irritated even though it is mainly irritation with myself as I should have known better - was the fact that I ran out of steps in the chain. Whilst I have done a few sequences previously (though only one other to reasonable completion) I had not hit this problem before, but it does make me believe that as undeniably useful the sequencer and specifically the 'chain; functions are, I feel it is probable that will hit this problem again in the future. (By which I obviously mean I would plan a bit better beforehand to see if this will be an issue or not). Of course I can (and indeed did) continue onto another chain, which will play back seamlessly. I know full well though, that if I do play this at one of our jams (I selected it as one for the girls to sing along to) there is a fairly big probability I will miss my change. Anyway, I do emphasise that this feature is not really 'pushed' as a full song sequencer (which is just as well, as it obviously isn't) It's a shame in some ways that it gets 'close' to fulfilling a number of things that it just doesnt quite manage as well as I would like (not a complaint, just how I feel).

 

In fact I would expand that thought to items such as the Control Tracks. To be 100% honest, I had not used these until now, and even now I have only used one control track. But whilst having my volume issues I was thinking how great it would be to have enough control tracks to fully automate the mix. Or even to be able to address a number of channels with one control track. This again is not a complaint, just a wish.

 

I think I do have to make it clear (as I have many times in the past) that for its purchase price for a new instrument it is still an excellent step sequencer , and I really dont think there are that many dedicated 'step' sequencers that can do as much, short of full sequencers (I am only human in wanting more more more, but I genuinely like what I do have). I think more than anything, the areas that I (personally) felt were the most limiting this time through, were the lack of synthesis and editable parameters outside of the solo synth, and the weak and limited DSP / Effects capabilities and routing. At times it felt like an interesting but flawed pseudo mono-synth tied to a handicapped home keyboard....... At times.

 

I am going to have a bash at one more fully sequenced track just on the XW. Hopefully I will make a suitable track selection with the XW's pluses and negatives fresh in my mind. After which I plan to do what I purchased the instrument for in the first place, and that it to use alongside my other equipment in a compositional situation. I have plenty more to explore as I havent really touched the extensive modulation options yet, which I remain very excited by. I have played with phrases, loops and arpeggiations a little, but increasingly find these aspects as 'fun' additions rather than something I would use extensively. This view may change in time, but I think i have this opinion because I have other tools that may do these jobs better**. This is definitely true of the sampler BUT I have no intention whatsoever to cart my other gear around, so the fact that the XW 'can' do all of these things remains an asset for any tracks I want to take to a sesh. 

 

**as an aside. The more I use it, the more I feel that "the way" I use the XW makes it very similar to the old Roland MV I have. Of course the MV has no keyboard per se (though can easily be accessed with a controller keyboard). The downsides of MV in this context are - in addition to the lack of keyboard - the lack of built in sounds (samples only, aside from a two oscillator synth module that can bu used instead of an effect, it is much 'less' portable (though built like a tank), and doesnt have the immediacy of access in the way that the XW does with its various 'modules'. It's also pretty damned slow in terms of loading up projects, transferring samples etc.

 

Im not going to list the flipside here as it may not sound as intended, but suffice to say that 'depending on what exactly one wanted a G1 for, the MV should also be a serious consideration, as what it does do, it does very very well. As a second hand purchase I dont think the prices would be 'that' different.

 

OK.. Well ast I stated earlier, I am at work at the mo. I will probably just get the audio loaded up next (after I get home), as I am still a bit unsure what the best way to upload the various elements of the track is (hence why I still havent uploaded the last one). But I will get onto it.

 

Summary. 

Still hitting some hurdles, but Stlll having fun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

So here is the audio file. To add to the already listed caveats i.e. primarily

  • No exactly spot on tones
  • Levels needing adjusting

I should also add

  • There are several parts with wrong notes - it was done by ear - which are sometimes (but not always) corrected in later parts
  • The part I actually play, whilst simple, is awful. Not being a keyboard player should allow me a little leeway (though it should still be better, but if I waited until I could do it well, I may not get around to posting it at all).
  • Be careful not to play to loud as I got a 'clip' warning when uploading the file.

Despite all the reservations, and as stated before, it should still provide a basis for someone to improve upon.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Cairns....considering the sheer complexity of the XWs once you try to get past simple sound programming or creating a basic sequence program-it is an accomplishment that you could get some type of "linear" continuity in an arrangement at all. I can only guess that some of the difficulties we encounter when trying to combine sequences or performances into a chain has to do with 1) limitations of the CPU built into the XW and also its hard-wired memory chip or chips-which when asked to store too much at once, runs out of memory addresses. This may be why the chain function runs out of capability and why you get the impression that like an old computer, the XW bogs down if asked to do too much at once. I have only used 5-6 chain steps in pasting together separate sequences and it worked reasonably well, but I would imagine if I started programming arpeggios in combination with chaining sequences, I might experience the limitations of the CPU and memory. and i agree, even with its relative complexities and shortcomings, it is still a very challenging music making machine and I've kept mine for 3 years now, still can't seem to part with it. And with Casiopters like yourself, AlenK and others, we have a very formidable support team for whatever we do (I made up Casiopters-short for Casio operators, programmers and music makers!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally with Jokeyman123 on this one, The XW is a single performance keyboard if you ask to much 

its simply won't. I've made performances using everything on the keyboard and it couldn't take it. 

That when I realize any performance or component part should be considered at how to partake it in musical

performance, either solosynth with ... or performance with ... and how much of altered tones to use which effects and how. 

Its part of the learning process the reason I limit extensive performances and record them in the sample looper.

Somewhat of a musical challenger keyboard but capable getting down to a good sound. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your comments guys.

 

Cant really say that I am disagreeing with either of you here. I guess I am just re-stating what you guys already know and have stated before, but from the standpoint of returning to more serious use of the board after a period of more superficial use.

 

It remains a shame though, that the cpu power (I avoid stating DSP as I do not mean just effects) just doesn't quite allow the XW to shine quite as brightly as it could - though I am NOT suggesting that it doesn't shine pretty brightly already. I know some of my other 'wants' are rather more fanciful. Well, I guess they all are given that it is what it is. Anyway, from this point on I will focus more upon exploiting what the XW does well and try to avoid the limitations that I am now increasingly aware of (whilst at the same time, of course, pushing the limits here and there). Of course, as I noted, there are some elements I have not yet utilised so there 'could' be some comments - good or bad - to come from trying these out. Having said that, I have no explicit 'expectations' from the modulation side for example, so I doubt there can be much I would be disappointed with in that regard.

 

I am also looking forward to integrating my BCR2000 more with the XW (maybe in connection with those modulations (no... wait.... that could be setting myself up for some expectations there :lol: )).

 

With regard to some of the more specific comments.

 

Jokeyman,

 

Thanks for using the term "bogs down". I had a real brain fade in trying to find the words to describe what I meant, but this is exactly it. However, I should emphasise that I experienced this at an early stage, so I had not begun any chains at this point, nor does this track contain any other elements such as looper, arpeggiator, or sampler. It was experienced merely after a long session of tweaking solo synth parameters, which is why it seemed odd. I havent noticed it in the same way since though. To me - and this could just be phsycosematic - I do notice an everso slight pause when switching chains, which I guess is another horsepower manifestation.

 

I can say with some confidence that I will also be keeping my G1 for many years to come. I do get quite attached to my gear (even the items I dont use often) and havent ever really sold anything beyond a couple of guitar stomp boxes. And I also love to have 'different' things (I have owned my Technics WSA1 from new, so I must have had that 20 odd years). And whilst I make comparisons with what other gear can / cant do, it would be a little pointless if the XW were the 'same' as another peice of gear that I already owned. so I do celebrate the differences.

 

Lets face it. If I were a professional music scorer, I would buy a Roland Integra 7. Or if I were a screaming synth soloist in a performing band, something like a Nord Lead/Stage. But I am not. And despite my gripes, the XW fits my home studio just fine.

 

XW-Addict

 

You are entirely correct in mentioning the sampler (sample looper). In many ways I do know that I go about things the hard way. By this I mean, for example, I could easily resample some tones created in the solo synth to get around the limitations of available parameter tweaks on the PCM side. However, for my 'experiments' I have been stubborn, and really wanted to drive my compositions (well not my compositions, but my recreations) through the XW's tone generation alone.

 

Why?? honestly I dont know really. And so I feel perhaps I am being a little harsh given that there are potential solutions to my problems already provided. I do not feel it has been in vain though, as it is interesting to find out how far I can push various elements of the board. Perhaps I will endeavour to integrate these other elements into my next 'cover'. This can only be beneficial research given my intent to try some more self composed material after that.

 

And back to the track provided.

 

Listening again this morning, I really do have to apologise again for the levels, and the parts that I "played". Not that my previous Depeche track was particularly polished, by it was still a magnitude less rough than this one. That said, I make no pretence to be a skilled keyboard player.

 

I am now going to attempt to get both of those tracks loaded up here in something that can be used. I intend to have this done today. If anyone does try either track, please let me know if I have not provided anything correctly. Obviously the audio files provided will give an indication of what things should sound like (Should = the way I have programmed it, not the way it should "really" sound like).

 

I will leave this post with one question that I sort of raised (as more of a comment) earlier in this thread. This is re: the envelopes. Have others also found that very short amplitude attack envelopes ultimately soften the attack (e.g. values of 1 or 2) rather than making them even snappier, or is this just an aberration that I alone have encountered?

 

Thanks for your time guys.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CairnsFella said:

XW-Addict

 

You are entirely correct in mentioning the sampler (sample looper). In many ways I do know that I go about things the hard way. By this I mean, for example, I could easily resample some tones created in the solo synth to get around the limitations of available parameter tweaks on the PCM side. However, for my 'experiments' I have been stubborn, and really wanted to drive my compositions (well not my compositions, but my recreations) through the XW's tone generation alone.

 

Why?? honestly I dont know really. And so I feel perhaps I am being a little harsh given that there are potential solutions to my problems already provided. I do not feel it has been in vain though, as it is interesting to find out how far I can push various elements of the board. Perhaps I will endeavour to integrate these other elements into my next 'cover'. This can only be beneficial research given my intent to try some more self composed material after that.

 

And back to the track provided.

 

Listening again this morning, I really do have to apologise again for the levels, and the parts that I "played". Not that my previous Depeche track was particularly polished, by it was still a magnitude less rough than this one. That said, I make no pretence to be a skilled keyboard player.

 

I am now going to attempt to get both of those tracks loaded up here in something that can be used. I intend to have this done today. If anyone does try either track, please let me know if I have not provided anything correctly. Obviously the audio files provided will give an indication of what things should sound like (Should = the way I have programmed it, not the way it should "really" sound like).

 

I will leave this post with one question that I sort of raised (as more of a comment) earlier in this thread. This is re: the envelopes. Have others also found that very short amplitude attack envelopes ultimately soften the attack (e.g. values of 1 or 2) rather than making them even snappier, or is this just an aberration that I alone have encountered?

 

Thanks for your time guys.

 

 

 

I like how you go at it its clearly you have more experience working ethos going about it and are more on the right track then I where,

Please don't get me wrong I use the sampler in a lazy way to avoid the in depth programming of the keyboard knowing it would make

it sound so much nicer as you've have done and Mike and Bradmz.

 

Truly as you also said as a performer keyboard it shines also at best when combined with other gear so the point of also clearly there.

 

I've gotten very interested now and yes the attack soften the sound mostly I've noticed , the snappy part only appeared with combination

of certain tones or layering the same tones sometimes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CairnsFella, you have a WSA1! I have never heard one (other than, IIRC, some online demos) but it always seemed like an intriguing synthesizer. Too bad Technics got cold feet after that.

 

Re music scorer (as in movies and games) they all use virtual instruments and orchestral libraries now. But personally I would be apt to try that with an Integra 7 if I had one just because I like using hardware more than I do software. I WILL eventually get one of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AlenK said:

CairnsFella, you have a WSA1!

 

Indeed I do AlenK. I really love it. Sadly, the LCD display is starting to show signs of age. It's still perfectly visable, but it does make me worry about the day I turn it on, and the display is gone. At that point it will sadly be 'fairly' useless. I should probably get my finger out and set up my BCR2000 with it, though given the nature of the machine I doubt this will really resolve the problem of a failed screen.

 

To be fair, you have to work reasonably hard to get sounds that are not too 'cold''. It is possible, and there are a good number of parameters, but a lot of owners ended up using it for very 'digital pads' - which it does well - but it can do much more.

 

In some ways, there are a few 'tenuous' parallels with the XW. Of course any direct comparisons are meaningless. If you use a quick, dirty, and convenient calculation of the original retail price, in today's money it would be over $5000 USD. Of course that is mitigated to some extent by the reduction of cost of materials and development, and increases in processing power and memory over that time, but it is still an apples to aardvarks comparison in most respects.

 

However, it was still a primarily home keyboard manufacturer trying to push a pro synth. It was also a very deep, and rather misunderstood synth. A lot of the criticism centered upon the way it  performed it's analogue modelling. These criticisms were quite apt, in that it did not use the apparently gargantuan calculations of the  Yamaha VL1, for example, and as such had no-where near the equivalent realism. BUT this meant that a very important point was missed, which was that regardless of how it performed as an analogue modeller, it still presented a reasonably individual, and very interesting, approach to synthesis (and of course had a significant polyphony and multitimbrality advantage over the other more authentic - and primarily monophonic - modelling offerings of the time.)

 

To continue the rather oblique parallels, the WSA1 was closer to the P1, than the G1. This is because it had no sampling, but does have drawbar organ modes. And it could also perform hex layers. To be fair to the Technics, it's combi's are made up of eight sounds, which themselves are made up of four tones (I actually believe you can layer as many sounds as the mixer has channels outside of combi mode - 16 - but I wouldn't swear to this as it is not something I have tried).

 

No step sequencer either, though it does have a 16 track linear sequencer (and no, this isnt why I was highlighting my issues with the XW step sequencer :P)

 

Less control on the WSA1 as well. Not that it is limited as it has an extra mod wheel, and two multi assignable track ball controllers, plus drawbar controls.

 

I must confess my memory is a little fuzzy on the effects side, however there is certainly a lot more flexibility re: effects, filters and envelopes on the WSA1 (I think perhaps in 'combi' mode, the effects are per combi rather than per sound though) And without wishing to sound like I am dissing the XW (though I reiterate the theoretical price differential) as much as I dont think the technics effects are great, they are much better than the XW.  I do not recall the  modulation routing to be as comprehensive on the technics , though this could just be my poor memory (or, as I am starting to recall, it may be that the routing is distributed across various subsections rather than in an explicit matrix), although this almost misses the point that I suggested was missed in general above. Specifically that the 'modelling' aspect of the WSA1 allows for additional sculpting via it's resonator, tone interaction and positioning elements. Anyway, I am not going to go over every potentially similar or differential feature, but as I stated earlier, there are tenuous similarities (one of which is NOT the weight. Im not sure of the specs, but the technics feels about four times as heavy as the XW, so it is only the XW that ever leaves home).

 

I am actually now curious myself to see what two similarly programmed patches might sound like across the two boards. A fairly meaningless exercise I suppose, and difficult to achieve a completely realistic comparison - though using fundamental waveforms and only comparable synthesis parameters, I should be able to get in the ballpark -  but I confess that this type of thing does pique my interest.

 

Re: the Integra 7. I only mentioned that unit as I happened to be reading an article about one the other day, and it mentioned music scorers as a user type. Whilst I dont doubt your assertion that they are more likely soft synth based, I also prefer hardware. So using yourself and me as a statistically poor sample set, we have a 100% preference for hardware!! It does look like a great machine though I really couldn't justify one even if could afford one. I probably already have more than I can master now. However I was rather daydreaming with a practical approach, given that I cannot fit more than two keyboards in my little room, but do have space in my rack.

 

AND.

 

Back to the sequences.

 

Yes, I know I didnt post up the patches yesterday.... I had limited music room time, and once I got in there I was distracted with choosing my next target track. So no more miss-able promises other than to say 'soon'.

 

Edit:- I keep referring to Analogue Modelling, but just in case I am picked up I should say that Technics term is Accoustic Modelling, as of course it is about recreation of Accoustic instruments.

 

Additional Edit.

Just some tedious clarifications re: my comments about the WSA1's effects (I was annoyed I couldnt remember so as I have rechecked for my own benefit, I thought I may as well be clearer here (but I know its not interesting to many (any?) so I added to this post rather than have another on the subject.

 

So basically the WSA1 has what it calls a Digital Effect, plus two general effects blocks, and a reverb block (which actually does reverb OR all other DSP effects). All sounds (made up of four parts) can have specific effect settings applied for all of these effects, however, with the exception of the Digital Effect only one of each of these effect types can be used when more than one sound is used, such as in multichannel midi, sequencer, or combi modes. So, whilst the settings for each effect is retained on a per sound basis, it is overridden by Combi, or System effect settings when multiple sounds are used.

 

The digital Effect remains on a per sound (four part) basis, but this is only effects such as chorus, celeste and a few similar, which are basically made up by modulating parts one and two of the sound.

 

Within the effects routing, which has serial and parallel modes, it is possible to vary the amount of signal sent through certain preset (but varied) paths, which incorporates two separate equalisers, and options to send differently effected signals via the main and sub stereo outputs.

 

There are further EQ's available at a sound level and at global level. Also it is at 'sound' level that the filter and amp envelope and lfo's reside; so an eight 'sound' combi can use eight filters, for example. (The manual suggests this is at part level, but I think that is just poorly presented) 

 

I know I know, not all that relevant, but I just wanted to be clearer re: what I had already stated. Also, as far as the original comparison went, it is interesting to recall limitations that I had forgotten in the WSA. Despite some good effects flexibility, if one was using heavily effected sounds in combi's. those effects become inactive, so like the XW, some potentially unexpected results would be achieved without being aware of such limitations.

 

Right, I will shut up about it now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okey Dokey then.

 

The files.

 

Seems to be a bit convoluted to me, but here goes.

 

So there are Performance, Solo Synth, 1 user drum, 8 Step Sequence Sets, and 2 Chains (I had to laugh at just how tiny these files are :lol:. Not that I 'want' them to be bigger.. it's just a while since I have dealt with files so small. less than 4 hundredths of a meg in total. How cute.)

 

I guess it doesn't matter where you put the performance file. In fact you can put any of the files anywhere, but of course you would need to manually ensure you point to the other files. This isn't 'much' of a problem for most items (It's is obvious where the Solo Synth goes, the user drum goes on part 8 (but is currently set to U305), and the chains should be adjacent in order. However, if the step sequences are not put in slots U40 to U47, you would have to re-select every sequence within both chains.

 

Finally, if that were not enough, as there are two chains, it is necessary to increment the chains during the song. The second chain begins in the middle of the chorus after the synth solo such that the vocals of the second chain are "and all I ever knew.... only you". Obviously the chain should be incremented just before this. (I know it seems a bit random, but this is around the point I noticed that I ran out of steps)

 

Let me know if anyone uses these and has problems as I will try and assist.

 

Also, If anyone does have a dabble with this, I would love to hear about any tone "upgrades" you make. Maybe I will come back to it again in the future myself and improve it. 

 

Maybe.

 

I'll start having a look at the files for the Depeche track "soon" and post on the relevant thread. It is a much simpler set-up (well, there is only one chain anyway).

 

Good luck.

 

PS. Maybe this should have been in the downloads section, but if it's ok with all, once I have the Depeche track up, I will perhaps make a post in that section with a link to each thread.

 

OU2.ZSC

OnlyU.ZSC

OU8.ZSS

OU7.ZSS

OU6.ZSS

OU5.ZSS

OU4.ZSS

OU3.ZSS

OU2.ZSS

Only You.ZSS

Only U.ZDR

Only You.ZSY

Only You.ZPF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing. (Usually that's meant as a somewhat sarcastic put-down but not this time!)

 

Before I can audtion these on an XW-P1 I may have to map or convert some of the tones (since some PCM tones and waves in the G1 are not available in the P1).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can wait a day or two I am happy to have a cross check of P1 and G1 tones. Given the less than perfect nature of this sequence, I am confident I could make some changes to ensure I use common tones.

 

The Depeche sequence, however, does use a sample which can't really be substituted. Hmmm. That's a shame. I might have to leave you to work on that one. If I recall correctly, its like a concrete being dragged over concrete sound.

 

Ok. So stop reading here if the WSA1 XW comparison was of no interest (which is probably everyone).

 

So I couldn't really achieve a straightforward comparison in the intended manner as the basic waveforms in both machines are quite different when looked at in a wave editor (aside from the sine waves, which are not my favourite basis for synthesis.) So instead I decided to try and see how close I could get to the Only You arpeggiated riff that I have done on the XW. 

 

I tried both to replicate what I had on the XW and then how much closer - if at all - I could get to the original.

 

Interestingly, to me, I did not feel I could replicate the XW sound very easily. Equally, whilst the sound I ultimately achieved arguably sounded more authentic when played alongside the original than the XW (backed up by comparing the waveforms) when played in isolation, the XW tone sounded nicer and richer. Given the limited time spent, and my rustiness editing on the WSA I believe it would be possible to get passably close with both machines to be honest. 

 

So a bit of a futile exercise, though the process did highlight both the versatility of both machines, and the fundamentally different characters. Still you'll be pleased to know that I'll be leaving that there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CairnsFella said:

If you can wait a day or two I am happy to have a cross check of P1 and G1 tones. Given the less than perfect nature of this sequence, I am confident I could make some changes to ensure I use common tones.[/quote]

Wow, I appreciate the extra effort!

 

Quote

The Depeche sequence, however, does use a sample which can't really be substituted. Hmmm. That's a shame. I might have to leave you to work on that one. If I recall correctly, its like a concrete being dragged over concrete sound.

Indeed, Depeche Mode used sampling heavily. It was, after all, the "new thing" back then. 

 

Quote

Ok. So stop reading here if the WSA1 XW comparison was of no interest (which is probably everyone).

No, that was interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry. As seems to be becoming a pattern, my plans have slipped a little, so it may be anther few days. Sorry.

 

On 6/6/2017 at 11:39 PM, AlenK said:

No, that was interesting.

 

Whilst I am grateful that this makes me feel a little better about my ramblings, I nonetheless felt that the end result in this case was a bit of an anticlimax. I should have bit the bullet and done the test with the sine wave, as I could have posted some clips of each stage as I tweaked comparable 'effectors' for each machine. 

 

I do like the technicalities of the whole synthesis concept, but then again it does rather distract my from actual music making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CairnsFella said:
Quote

Sorry. As seems to be becoming a pattern, my plans have slipped a little, so it may be anther few days. Sorry.

No apology necessary! 

 

(PS. As you can see below it's easy to make a quote but apparently impossible to undo one!)

Quote
Quote

 

Quote
Quote
Quote

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really sorry for the delay.

 

As it turns out - assuming that the sounds with the same "names" across the G1 and P1 are in fact the same tones, I appear to have used tones common to both, including the wave used in the solo synth tone.

 

Given the structural differences, I cant - to my knowledge - do anything directly to allow the whole set up to work the same on each device, so I can merely provide some more information.

 

I actually did not realise that the numbering of the tones differed from one to the other. To be clear, I do not mean that they just may appear in a different sequence etc, but I mean a significantly different reference system. I am not even sure that I understand the P1's system (I mean I assume I do, but not having the synth, I could be making an incorrect assumption). For example, on the G1 I can refer to the Rock Piano as P102. On the P1 I believe I have to specify the group - i.e. pcm piano - an then the bank number - P0-3. Interestingly, both are Program Change / Bank Select 1/3 in this case (perhaps, this is a tone within midi convention, I just guessed not as it did not have the GM prefix.. anyway, no matter, as that was an aside and I am not using these numbers in general use and - I assume again - neither are you).

 

I'm honestly very surprised how differently things have been implemented, as I cant see that using an equivalent system on each would have interfered with the known unique features of each board. But then again I am not probably giving it adequate thought to notice.

 

So, if I am correct, then 

 

The solo synth should be ok as the AP1 saw is 54 on both instruments.

 

The tones for the P1 for the other parts are:

 

Part 9      PCM Strings/Brass        P6-3    GM Synbrass2

Part 10    PCM Various                  P1-0    Synth Set 2

Part 11     PCM Various                  P0-0    StandardSet1

Part 12    PCM Synth                     P9-3    BrightBellPd
Part 13    PCM Guitar/Bass           P5-8    GM Syn-Bass1
Part 14    PCM Various                  P2-0    GM Sqr Lead
Part 15    PCM Various                  P2-1    GM Saw Lead
Part 16    PCM Strings/Brass        P6-2     GM Synbrass1

(Part 8 is reassigned to the solo synth)

 

Hope this is of use. Please let me know if you need any other information. I cant promise to be very prompt, but I can promise I will address things eventually.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×