SYN'X 2.5 Released - Xils-Lab - (Multitimbral Synthex - intro discount-)

[Whitten]

If I choose iLok authorization... does it need to be a specific type of iLok? e.g. the newer iLok?

I'm using Synthix with an iLok Mk1, bought about 3 to 4 years ago.

[Lotuzia]

I had one question regarding the iLok. I didn't see this mentioned earlier and I apologize if I missed it!

If I choose iLok authorization... does it need to be a specific type of iLok? e.g. the newer iLok? Or will the older type of iLok work? The reason I ask is because I have some older style iLoks (on which I have my other Xils-lab items!), but if it needs to be the newer iLok then I'll probably go with the eLicenser.

(In the past I chose iLok because the eLicenser is a little more fragile - in my experience.)

THANKS!

Hi Sequent,

Yes like Whitten said only Ilok 1 is required So the Synthix can join your other Xils units

Whitten you're unfortunately the last person experiencing some CPU issues. So if the last version .93 did fix it, could you please report it ( or any other improvment in that domain ).

Like Xavier said we're still looking on the issue for the precise combination of OS/DAW/Versions_etc but it seems not easy to reproduce.

Thanks in advance

LtZ

[Sequent]

Thank you to Whitten and Lotuzia for responding to my iLok question!!! I didn't know if it mattered what version of iLok but I wanted to make sure! Now back to the discussion about the synth itself!

[Whitten]

Whitten you're unfortunately the last person experiencing some CPU issues. So if the last version .93 did fix it, could you please report it ( or any other improvment in that domain ).

I'll have to get back to you.
Unfortunately I'm trying to finish a mix that doesn't employ Synthix at the moment.
I did briefly load up the latest version and noticed one instance playing a simple part had my CPU meter in Logic in the red. IT could be that the pre-set uses a lot of layers and voices.

[Kindred]

another bug linked to those lockable layers -

when you go back into a project (cubase 6) again, if you don't go and manually right click the layer again, it doesnt pick up cubase automation.

eg - in that demo track I put on souncloud before, in the main breakdown you can hear me slowing down the lfo on the pad/horn sound. when I go back into the project, unless I open up synthix and re-click on that layer, it doesnt pick up the cubase automation

[ZINO]

Version 0.9.4 was released!

This version adds :

_ Protools (8-9) mac : fixes a crash when all the notes within a midi track was moved.

_ some crashes (Logic) in very rare cases.

[aMUSEd]

Does it fix the preset info bug?

[breakmixer]

Right, just been demoing again, but...

All this layer locking?

To simplify, Synthix has 2 oscillators, with this 'layer' function, does it mean that you can have up to 8 layers of the synth, i.e. up to 16 oscillators running at the same time plus the other synth functions multiplied times 8?

I'm bewildered, It has a really good sound but this is above me, I'm finding it a bit offputting, I.e. trying to filter the sound only filters one layer and I don't know what layer is doing what...

please can you explain the concept in simpler terms?

Maybe a 'layer locking/unlocking video' please...

[Lotuzia]

Right, just been demoing again, but...

All this layer locking?

To simplify, Synthix has 2 oscillators, with this 'layer' function, does it mean that you can have up to 8 layers of the synth, i.e. up to 16 oscillators running at the same time plus the other synth functions multiplied times 8?

I'm bewildered, It has a really good sound but this is above me, I'm finding it a bit offputting, I.e. trying to filter the sound only filters one layer and I don't know what layer is doing what...

please can you explain the concept in simpler terms?

Maybe a 'layer locking/unlocking video' please...

Hi Breakmixer

I'll try to simplify at max by giving some examples :

On the Synthix you can use up to 8 layers to make a patch.

Each layer has ITS OWN INDEPENDANT SET of the following parameters, wich I'll name a panel, as it represent a possible panel on a HW synthesizer ( like Synthex ) : Oscillators ( all parameters including sync aso), Multimode Filter ( All parameters ) LFO 1-2 and the Special ChaoX and Rythm Lfos ( all parameters ) the 4 D-Sync ADSR Enveloppes ( all parameters ) Glide ( All parameters ) and in the end Matrix modulation.

So if you push this architecture to the extreme you could have an 8 layers monstruous LEAD whose different layers have 8 different filters, use 8x4 = 32 different enveloppes, 32 different LFOs, 80 oscillators ( because you can cumulate several waveforms per oscillator) 48 different Source-Targets modulation couples etc etc.

And you could still use a two voices unisson on it and use the spray parameters on a global basis for a huge sound.

So obviously this is not required for every patch, thats why we had planned a SIMPLE mode wich allow people to program and edit the synthix like a conventional panel analog synthisizer. In this mode you edit all layers simultaneously.

Of course if you need the help of different layers with different settings you have to select the layer(s) you wnat to edit. This is done by the RIGHT CLICK on the layers buttons. ( and you can use Ctrl or Shift combined with the RIGTH CLICK ) An editable ( or unlocked ) Layer will have a RED rectangle around its button.

The synthix can be VERY simple as it can get VERY complex to edit. I'd suggest anyone who want to go deep into the Synthix to read the downloadable manual .

Besides this I will make some video tutorials to explain all these layers selection and editing techniques. Its much easier indeed to watch a video than to explain it with words.

LtZ

[breakmixer]

The synthix can be VERY simple as it can get VERY complex to edit. I'd suggest anyone who want to go deep into the Synthix to read the downloadable manual .

Besides this I will make some video tutorials to explain all these layers selection and editing techniques. Its much easier indeed to watch a video than to explain it with words.

LtZ

That would be great, I usually start with a preset and tweak from there, I think that's the problem for me, if the penny drops properly after watching a video I'd be more inclined to buy...I'm just thinking this maybe too advanced for me and I wouldn't use it because of this...Great sounding synth none the less...

ACE and PolyKB II are too advanced for me even still at the minute, I think I need Synthix's sound in an easy version, maybe a 'Simplix'(No layer locking cut down version )...

sorry to be a pita! But It has stumped others too...

[Sweep1]

No, I absolutely do not agree! A product demo should never include external effects or other plugins (unless they come free with the product ). If I buy something based on a product demo I do want it to be able to sound the same as presented in the demo without the need to add (often costly) externals.If I don't have the talent to sound the same, fair. Arpeggio, sequencer, multiple layers used in a product demo, ok, as I can use that too in a DAW host. But external sound shaping effects, no, never.

I can see the point of this, but I don't think it's the whole story.

I think there can be two different kinds of demos, and both of them are useful.

The first kind is the sort of bare approach that you're advocating. That's good for showing what the basic sound of the synth is like, and you can work out roughly what it would sound like with your own processing. I think all of us would probably agree on how useful that is, and how essential it is that basic demos do that, and only that.

But the other kind of demo recognises that a musical instrument is more than just the sound it makes. If it's going to make music then it has to be demoed making actual pieces, with the kind of work that a serious musician would put into making a finished work. I think very few of us, if any, would ever record a synth bare, without additional processing?

I've done one or two XILS demos, and I've taken the second approach rather than the first because demos of the basic unprocessed sound already existed and I believed there was a need to show what could be done with the instruments in a more complete musical context. For that reason my XILS 3 demos used a certain amount of processing, and in some cases additional instruments. I took the approach that if the XILS 3 was heard alongside an instrument that was obviously and unquestionably not the XILS 3, then it could be heard as it would in the wider context of making music. For that
reason I did the piece Kurosawa, in which there's a koto sound and then the XILS 3 in addition. It's clear which sounds are the koto, so there's no question what the XILS 3 is doing in that piece. Similarly I did a cover of Hawkwind's 'Awakening' which used XILS 3 and my voice. It's obvious what sounds are my voice, of course, so it's clear how the XILS 3 sounds in the context of a Hawkwind cover.

I wouldn't normally use a different synth in a demo piece, but in Zylis I added a very short section of Arturia MiniMoogV simply because the XILS 3 didn't get the lead sound I wanted. That fact was noted on the XILS website - and also the fact that I'd tried several different synths for that line, including a Moog Voyager, and none of them worked. So in that piece I had to make a decision between reducing the quality of the finished music by sticking entirely to the XILS 3, or getting a better piece by making a small compromise. I decided the Arturia section was so short that it made sense to use it and allow the rest of the piece to demonstrate how the XILS 3 can sound in a finished composition. I used a Lexicon to strengthen the sound in places - exactly as any producer would when using the XILS 3 or any other synth in a finished work. And at the end of the day that's how the synth is going to be used - for making music and not just demos.

I believe there's room for both approaches - the bare demo approach and the finished piece approach. I favour the second, though I fully agree that the first approach is essential.

I might add that my XILS 3 demos have sold the synth to people who've emailed me and asked me how I made some of the pieces I recorded with it. None of them have felt cheated when I've given further details of how I used additional processing. For example The Red Book used the XILS 3 sequencer in conjunction with a couple of VST delays, and I've provided further details of how I set that up.

[pdxindy]

No, I absolutely do not agree! A product demo should never include external effects or other plugins (unless they come free with the product ). If I buy something based on a product demo I do want it to be able to sound the same as presented in the demo without the need to add (often costly) externals.If I don't have the talent to sound the same, fair. Arpeggio, sequencer, multiple layers used in a product demo, ok, as I can use that too in a DAW host. But external sound shaping effects, no, never.

I can see the point of this, but I don't think it's the whole story.

I think there can be two different kinds of demos, and both of them are useful.

The first kind is the sort of bare approach that you're advocating. That's good for showing what the basic sound of the synth is like, and you can work out roughly what it would sound like with your own processing. I think all of us would probably agree on how useful that is, and how essential it is that basic demos do that, and only that.

But the other kind of demo recognises that a musical instrument is more than just the sound it makes. If it's going to make music then it has to be demoed making actual pieces, with the kind of work that a serious musician would put into making a finished work. I think very few of us, if any, would ever record a synth bare, without additional processing?

I've done one or two XILS demos, and I've taken the second approach rather than the first because demos of the basic unprocessed sound already existed and I believed there was a need to show what could be done with the instruments in a more complete musical context. For that reason my XILS 3 demos used a certain amount of processing, and in some cases additional instruments. I took the approach that if the XILS 3 was heard alongside an instrument that was obviously and unquestionably not the XILS 3, then it could be heard as it would in the wider context of making music. For that
reason I did the piece Kurosawa, in which there's a koto sound and then the XILS 3 in addition. It's clear which sounds are the koto, so there's no question what the XILS 3 is doing in that piece. Similarly I did a cover of Hawkwind's 'Awakening' which used XILS 3 and my voice. It's obvious what sounds are my voice, of course, so it's clear how the XILS 3 sounds in the context of a Hawkwind cover.

I wouldn't normally use a different synth in a demo piece, but in Zylis I added a very short section of Arturia MiniMoogV simply because the XILS 3 didn't get the lead sound I wanted. That fact was noted on the XILS website - and also the fact that I'd tried several different synths for that line, including a Moog Voyager, and none of them worked. So in that piece I had to make a decision between reducing the quality of the finished music by sticking entirely to the XILS 3, or getting a better piece by making a small compromise. I decided the Arturia section was so short that it made sense to use it and allow the rest of the piece to demonstrate how the XILS 3 can sound in a finished composition. I used a Lexicon to strengthen the sound in places - exactly as any producer would when using the XILS 3 or any other synth in a finished work. And at the end of the day that's how the synth is going to be used - for making music and not just demos.

I believe there's room for both approaches - the bare demo approach and the finished piece approach. I favour the second, though I fully agree that the first approach is essential.

I might add that my XILS 3 demos have sold the synth to people who've emailed me and asked me how I made some of the pieces I recorded with it. None of them have felt cheated when I've given further details of how I used additional processing. For example The Red Book used the XILS 3 sequencer in conjunction with a couple of VST delays, and I've provided further details of how I set that up.

+1

As long as it is not hidden I would like to hear the synth in various lights

[pdxindy]

Its ok some people expressed here, and in GS, that these were the best audio demos for a VSTI they have heard sofar, wich really made my day as you can imagine, but ..... of course I'm aware that evenmore people will have a different feel.

I personaly dislike when I hear an audio demo and the only thing I'm interested in is "what compressor did he used" But its only a choice and a matter of philosophy.

But like I said you cant please everybody with a GUI, a synth, or ... audio demos aso.

There are some more multi track/minisong audio demos on Xils-Site wich are more produced ( not mine though wich are more in the draft department atm ). We'll add some more in the future ( Ive heard some new ones that I really like )

Then the best way to judge the synth is very probably to launch the donglelessdemo, add the reverb of your choice, compress what you think need to be compressed et voilà. Like I said if you play the same than our talented Austrian friend, use similar quality FX and tweak the right parameter at the right time you should be very close soundwise of its sounds.

Wich was the part of your question I really wanted to try to answer in a proper way (ie the emulation side) : Yes the Synthix is very very close of the Synthex. A lot of real Synthex owners, or people knowing it very well, have already talked about this. So if its a major concern for you, or other potential users, I felt that these informations could be usefull.

LtZ

Pardon me. not to be rude, but each time a new synth comes out some few people say the demos are the best they heard. I really don't pay attention to such quick comments anymore.

Anyway, I wish you well with this synth. It certainly sounds good, but I do not hear enough in the audio demos that I cannot already do with the synths I have to make me try the synth demo...

[Whitten]

Fine.
The actual synth is free as a demo.
I'd rather hear a synth as it sounds on it's own.
In the context of a backing track is OK, but there's potential for deception if you process the synth you're trying to sell with eq's, compressors and fx.

[Lotuzia]

No, I absolutely do not agree! A product demo should never include external effects or other plugins (unless they come free with the product ). If I buy something based on a product demo I do want it to be able to sound the same as presented in the demo without the need to add (often costly) externals.If I don't have the talent to sound the same, fair. Arpeggio, sequencer, multiple layers used in a product demo, ok, as I can use that too in a DAW host. But external sound shaping effects, no, never.

I can see the point of this, but I don't think it's the whole story.

I think there can be two different kinds of demos, and both of them are useful.

The first kind is the sort of bare approach that you're advocating. That's good for showing what the basic sound of the synth is like, and you can work out roughly what it would sound like with your own processing. I think all of us would probably agree on how useful that is, and how essential it is that basic demos do that, and only that.

But the other kind of demo recognises that a musical instrument is more than just the sound it makes. If it's going to make music then it has to be demoed making actual pieces, with the kind of work that a serious musician would put into making a finished work. I think very few of us, if any, would ever record a synth bare, without additional processing?

I've done one or two XILS demos, and I've taken the second approach rather than the first because demos of the basic unprocessed sound already existed and I believed there was a need to show what could be done with the instruments in a more complete musical context. For that reason my XILS 3 demos used a certain amount of processing, and in some cases additional instruments. I took the approach that if the XILS 3 was heard alongside an instrument that was obviously and unquestionably not the XILS 3, then it could be heard as it would in the wider context of making music. For that
reason I did the piece Kurosawa, in which there's a koto sound and then the XILS 3 in addition. It's clear which sounds are the koto, so there's no question what the XILS 3 is doing in that piece. Similarly I did a cover of Hawkwind's 'Awakening' which used XILS 3 and my voice. It's obvious what sounds are my voice, of course, so it's clear how the XILS 3 sounds in the context of a Hawkwind cover.

I wouldn't normally use a different synth in a demo piece, but in Zylis I added a very short section of Arturia MiniMoogV simply because the XILS 3 didn't get the lead sound I wanted. That fact was noted on the XILS website - and also the fact that I'd tried several different synths for that line, including a Moog Voyager, and none of them worked. So in that piece I had to make a decision between reducing the quality of the finished music by sticking entirely to the XILS 3, or getting a better piece by making a small compromise. I decided the Arturia section was so short that it made sense to use it and allow the rest of the piece to demonstrate how the XILS 3 can sound in a finished composition. I used a Lexicon to strengthen the sound in places - exactly as any producer would when using the XILS 3 or any other synth in a finished work. And at the end of the day that's how the synth is going to be used - for making music and not just demos.

I believe there's room for both approaches - the bare demo approach and the finished piece approach. I favour the second, though I fully agree that the first approach is essential.

I might add that my XILS 3 demos have sold the synth to people who've emailed me and asked me how I made some of the pieces I recorded with it. None of them have felt cheated when I've given further details of how I used additional processing. For example The Red Book used the XILS 3 sequencer in conjunction with a couple of VST delays, and I've provided further details of how I set that up.

+1

As long as it is not hidden I would like to hear the synth in various lights

Thats exactly what I said in a very previous post : You have both types of demos on Xils site.

So either you've been on Xils site and have listened to the other audio demos, wich you might have not liked, included Sweeps one, either you did not.

As for audio demos, I've been doing a fair number of audio demos for external companies, won my share of demos contests, my own company etc. Its not that often that I read " best audio demos I've heard sofar", be it for my own works, or other people work

The "best audio demo" part I'm happy with for another GOOD reason : Should the Synthix have a crappy sound, nobody would care for the demos anyways

LtZ