Emax 1 rack vs. EII

[PX-7]

Does anyone know which sampler used what analog chips?  Are they the same chip model?
Which unit is warmer?

What about a EII vs. Prophet 2000 comparison? 

[PX-7]

yes, PX-7, here is the following:

# SSM2044 (LPF VCF) -Emulator, Drumulator, SP-12, SP1200
# SSM2045 (VCF/VCA) - Emulator II
# SSM2047 (VCF/VCA) - Emax


(not much action around here, so i'm being sarcastic) but hopefully this helpful to someone out there

[Escobar]

# CEM3379 (VCF/VCA) - Prophet 2000/2

I have both E II, Emax I x3, and Prophet 2000 + Prophet 2002 x2

For me it's hard to tell which is warmer. Though they don't sound the same 
Maybe the lower bit resolution of EII makes the machine sound warmer (I know bit res has nothing to do with warmth in general but it might contribute to the sound and fool the ear).

EII is a 8/14-bit sampler, Prophet is like Emax I a 12-bit sampler.

You can extend the P2000/2 memory up to 1mb RAM and use all of it for one sample.

[dvdborn]

Hi Escobar,

I was always under the impression that the Emax I used the same 12-bits companded into 8-bits system just like the EII.

Did you perhaps meant that the Prophet with its 12 bit system sounds more like the Emax I? And the Emax doesn't sound like the EII?

PS: How reliable is the Emax I compared to eg. the EIII?

[HideawayStudio]

# CEM3379 (VCF/VCA) - Prophet 2000/2

I have both E II, Emax I x3, and Prophet 2000 + Prophet 2002 x2

For me it's hard to tell which is warmer. Though they don't sound the same 
Maybe the lower bit resolution of EII makes the machine sound warmer (I know bit res has nothing to do with warmth in general but it might contribute to the sound and fool the ear).

EII is a 8/14-bit sampler, Prophet is like Emax I a 12-bit sampler.

You can extend the P2000/2 memory up to 1mb RAM and use all of it for one sample.

Hello fellow P2002 owner - I restored mine recently - it's working and looking great now albeit with slight sample memory errors (it clicks randomly)!   I've just bought a working EII+ but it's not arrived yet.  I too was wondering how similar these beasts will sound.  Having looked at the schematics and read the circuit description my guess is that the EII will sound really quite different as they work in very different ways.

I've never owned an EMAX I  (I have two EMAX IIs and an EIIIXP) - I suspect this could sound more similar to the P2002.  It would be interesting to know what the general feelings are about the difference in character generally between the SSM and CEM integrated filters.  I have CEMs in my Waldorf uWave too.

[Escobar]

Hello Dvdborn,

I've always thought that Emax I were a 12-bit sampler but in the tech manual it says that the S/H-IC has a 8-bit absolute stage signal output, but it's been treated like 12-bit linear internally. So I guess you're right that Emax should sound more like EII and not like P2000 (Emax and EII are after all from the same company   Duh: to me). But both Emax I and Prophet 2000/2 can sample at different sample rates.

I was purely comparing bit resolutions between them and the fact that EII has one fixed sampling rate and Emax I and Prophet 2000/2 have several different sampling rates to chose from.
So if I'm correct one could - technical speaking - say that Emax I is something between EII and P2000/2.

PS: How reliable is the Emax I compared to eg. the EIII?

My EIII doesn't make a sound for the moment, having problems with the outputs I guess.
One of my Emax racks have a broken Scanner CPU/MPU (a Rocwell 6500/11 IC) so I can't use the front panel controls. It's a real 'pain in the butt'-slow to load sounds from floppy disks with Emax compared to EII.
When it comes to reliability I guess they're equal actually, it's hard to say since both are so old. 
If you have bad floppy disks Emax will protest so the operating system makes its job.
Emax has a 'power on self test' of the system where it checks all functions to see if there are any faults.

I hope this answered your question! 

[dvdborn]

It sure did.
Thanks.

[Elmbeatz]

The EII sounds much warmer to me than the Emax I.

[Escobar]

I've never owned an EMAX I  (I have two EMAX IIs and an EIIIXP) - I suspect this could sound more similar to the P2002.  It would be interesting to know what the general feelings are about the difference in character generally between the SSM and CEM integrated filters.  I have CEMs in my Waldorf uWave too.

If I made a list of what 'I think' influence the sound of a sampler most (descending order) it would be something like this:

• What kind of filter - analog or digital, curtis filter etc.
• Sampling rate 27.777khz, 32khz, 42khz etc.
• sampling resolution - 8-bit, or 12-bit, or 16-bit etc.

I think that sampling rate influence the sound more than the bit resolution. You can get pretty good result from a combination of low bit resolution AND high sampling rate. In the 80's I played around with my Amiga (Ok, I still use it) and a 8-bit sampler, and I used to change the sampling rate to hear what happend and I got really surprised by the result!

I wonder how many of you use the sampling function of your instruments? Or do you only use it as a rompler and sample the sounds with aid of a PC or something else and import it to the sampler with EMXP or Mac?
I belive that the sampling part together with replay affects the sound more than just the replay part alone! Do you guys agree? Or not? Do you have any sound examples?
I would like to know!


//Escobar

[Elmbeatz]

I think that actually using the analog input to sample something really has impact on how it sounds being played back. I think the sample input of the EII is in fact its individual output strip #1 in 'reverse' (correct me if I'm wrong...) - so it really should affect the sound...

I'm using my samplers more as romplers (except the SP-12), as I hardly sample anymore (except for drums). The Libraries are just soo good and you get every sound you want to achieve.

I used EMXP to convert a certain WAV to the EII. Thing I remember is that I had to turn down the wav's volume (it wasn't even 0), otherwise it would be distorted by the EII. - So that's a clear sign that sampling with the machine itself results in a different sound. And of course, the A/D converters of the EII are different from those of a modern computer audio interface...

[HideawayStudio]

I think that actually using the analog input to sample something really has impact on how it sounds being played back. I think the sample input of the EII is in fact its individual output strip #1 in 'reverse' (correct me if I'm wrong...) - so it really should affect the sound...

I believe the EII uses a rather clever "successive appromixation ADC convertor" inplemented in discrete components.  This was partly due to the excessive cost of a good quality integrated ADC in those days.  The circuit is clever in that it uses one of the output channel strips to produce a DC voltage which is then compared with a snapshot of the sample input voltage using a sample hold circuit and an analog comparator.  The DAC value is then incremented up or down to determine whether it is closer or further away from the source.  When the values match the resultant DAC value is the sampled value.

This along with 8 to 12/14 bit companding and analog resonant filters much surely mean that EII's character is never likely to be faithfully emulated in software - or in hardware for that matter!   

[Elmbeatz]

..... or in hardware for that matter!   

I was at my buddy's homestudio yesterday - we played around with the DPX-1. This is a piece of hardware that in fact CAN emulate the EII    thick!

[Escobar]

I was at my buddy's homestudio yesterday - we played around with the DPX-1. This is a piece of hardware that in fact CAN emulate the EII    thick!

Emulator II-thick or just 'thick' ?   

[Elmbeatz]

T H I C K   

[HideawayStudio]

..... or in hardware for that matter!   

I was at my buddy's homestudio yesterday - we played around with the DPX-1. This is a piece of hardware that in fact CAN emulate the EII    thick!

I've often wondered just how close the DPX is to the EIIs H/W - was this produced under license or just close enough??