Xils-Lab PolyKB III -Official Thread- [v3.5]

[wagtunes]

Okay, did not need to take long on this.

Basic sound is the same as it's the same engine. But that's it.

2.5...

Not 3rd osc
No 2nd filter
No user mod matrix

The complex sounds you can make with 3.0 because of the two filters alone can't be duplicated in 2.5. Physically impossible. Not having the 3rd oscillator, again, physically impossible. The mod matrix, maybe there are workarounds but why beat your head against a stone wall? 3.0 mod routing is deeper and thus you can do more.

And that's just scratching the surface. I haven't even begun to dig deep under the hood.

In short, I have zero reason to use 2.5 now that I have 3.0. There is nothing 2.5 can do that 3.0 can't do. Conversely, there is tons 3.0 can do that 2.5 simply can't do.

It's that simple.

[robotmonkey]

That would be great. It's exactly the opposite for me as I like my synths as simple and streamlined as possible. That's why I have doubts - not sure adding another osc and filter is something I would badly want.

[wagtunes]

That would be great. It's exactly the opposite for me as I like my synths as simple and streamlined as possible. That's why I have doubts - not sure adding another osc and filter is something I would badly want.

Glad I was able to help.

[wald]

Just upgraded to PolyKB III and it sounds fantastic
This really has a flavor of it's own... Been tripping on getting synth sounds like Cliff Martinez - on the Drive soundtrack - which I've found quite hard to achieve with the same amount of authenticity on other software synths. After being quite dissapointed with Avenger - obviously no comparison, just was looking forward to that one - this is more than a pleasant surprise.
Have a great 2017 everyone

Indeed, v2 was already great sounding! Its basic tone is just thick and pleasant.

[Lotuzia]

Okay, did not need to take long on this.

Basic sound is the same as it's the same engine. But that's it.

2.5...

Not 3rd osc
No 2nd filter
No user mod matrix

The complex sounds you can make with 3.0 because of the two filters alone can't be duplicated in 2.5. Physically impossible. Not having the 3rd oscillator, again, physically impossible. The mod matrix, maybe there are workarounds but why beat your head against a stone wall? 3.0 mod routing is deeper and thus you can do more.

And that's just scratching the surface. I haven't even begun to dig deep under the hood.

In short, I have zero reason to use 2.5 now that I have 3.0. There is nothing 2.5 can do that 3.0 can't do. Conversely, there is tons 3.0 can do that 2.5 simply can't do.

It's that simple.

The PolyKB II.5 has already a User Mod Matrix. PolyKB II had one too.

But there's a second one in the PolyKB III. Allowing 4 different sources to macro modulate up to 16 destinations, with neg or pos. intensity.
Else, it's true : PolyKB III can do everything the PKB II/II.5 can do, and much more.

[Lotuzia]

That would be great. It's exactly the opposite for me as I like my synths as simple and streamlined as possible. That's why I have doubts - not sure adding another osc and filter is something I would badly want.

If only for the 3rd oscillator, it's imo fully worth it : You can now enter the very private club of vintage synthesizers who had three oscillators, like the Minimoog (Almost all were monophonic btw) . Even nowadays, even in the not so wide club of VA synthesizers with at least a certain degree of authenticity, it's not that usual to find 3 osc polyphonic synthesizers. Even more with analog oscillators morphing abilities.

No PKB III, no earth shaking basses a la Moog, nor huge fat leads. It's as simple as that. Then, if you feel you don't need these kind of sounds, PolyKB II/II.5 are already great and unique sounding synthesizers. No stress.

[wagtunes]

Okay, did not need to take long on this.

Basic sound is the same as it's the same engine. But that's it.

2.5...

Not 3rd osc
No 2nd filter
No user mod matrix

The complex sounds you can make with 3.0 because of the two filters alone can't be duplicated in 2.5. Physically impossible. Not having the 3rd oscillator, again, physically impossible. The mod matrix, maybe there are workarounds but why beat your head against a stone wall? 3.0 mod routing is deeper and thus you can do more.

And that's just scratching the surface. I haven't even begun to dig deep under the hood.

In short, I have zero reason to use 2.5 now that I have 3.0. There is nothing 2.5 can do that 3.0 can't do. Conversely, there is tons 3.0 can do that 2.5 simply can't do.

It's that simple.

The PolyKB II.5 has already a User Mod Matrix. PolyKB II had one too.

But there's a second one in the PolyKB III. Allowing 4 different sources to macro modulate up to 16 destinations, with neg or pos. intensity.
Else, it's true : PolyKB III can do everything the PKB II/II.5 can do, and much more.

That's kind of what I meant, the 2nd one. The first, for me, is the "hard wired" connect source A to destination B kind. The 2nd one appears to be more flexible even if the number of slots are limited.

[wagtunes]

What would be really cool (maybe someday) is mod wheel to FX mix so you can do stuff like start a lead off dry and then bring in the delay.

[Lotuzia]

no Steven , you refer to the Hardwired Macro Mod Matrix ( Was here since PKB v1 cos it's in the original machine too, and it was fairly brilliant and in advance for that time)

The User Macro Mod Matrix was introduced in PKB II, lot of moons ago. So it's already there in PKB II.5 as well.

In the PolyKB III, you now have the double of slots in the user matrix ( it's size is 2x, compared with v2.0) + you also have some additonal sources, and destinations ( like the two filters, and, obviously osc 3 etc)

[Lotuzia]

What would be really cool (maybe someday) is mod wheel to FX mix so you can do stuff like start a lead off dry and then bring in the delay.

Why not someday in the future.

You can already control the delay time in the user mod matrix ( with real analog behaviour like pitches chanting in every corner of the sound ), and automate the delay dry/mix via midi Cc)

[wagtunes]

What would be really cool (maybe someday) is mod wheel to FX mix so you can do stuff like start a lead off dry and then bring in the delay.

Why not someday in the future.

You can already control the delay time in the user mod matrix ( with real analog behaviour like pitches chanting in every corner of the sound ), and automate the delay dry/mix via midi Cc)

Okay, sorry for my stupidity (still learning the synth) but I don't see how to do this. I don't see delay dry/mix as a destination.

[wagtunes]

Okay, I've gone back into the mod matrix and I see delayl and delayr as destinations but no dry/mix.

What am I missing?

[Lotuzia]

it's not in the user matrix. It's only via Midi Cc automation (iirc, I'll check this)

[wagtunes]

it's not in the user matrix. It's only via Midi Cc automation (iirc, I'll check this)

Ah, okay. It helps to read the whole manual. It's one of those hidden features.

Oh my. This just opened up a whole new world of possibilities.

Okay, here is my question. If I create a patch that say has CC 71, 72, 91, and 92 as CC controls for 4 different destinations and save it, will that patch retain those settings if another person imports them into their system?

Second question. I assume these assignments don't show up anywhere and thus I would have to include patch notes in order for the patches to be used correctly. Correct?

[davidka]

I had the time to install and test the demo version (which is in fact very generous).
There were certain patches - thanks Lotuzia! - which gave me the shivers while playing. I absolutely love the sound and feel of this software synth. The developers did an awesome job, really feels like an old Jarre synth found in the attic. Thank you all! I only wish my notebook's CPU wouldn't be so sucky.
I look forward to spending more time with it, might also revisit Oxium for a bit...