Atlas 2 or XO?

[SLiC]

XO for $65 is an absolute steal.

Other than the fact that ATLAS is only $49 and is still in my opinion the better of the 2 (I have them both) ATLAS is far better supported, active DEV on KVR and often updated with interesting things...

[noexitrecords]

XO for $65 is an absolute steal.

Other than the fact that ATLAS is only $49 and is still in my opinion the better of the 2 (I have them both) ATLAS is far better supported, active DEV on KVR and often updated with interesting things...

What makes it better? Which is better simply for finding/organizing samples?

[LFO8]

XO for $65 is an absolute steal.

Other than the fact that ATLAS is only $49 and is still in my opinion the better of the 2 (I have them both) ATLAS is far better supported, active DEV on KVR and often updated with interesting things...

Which is better simply for finding/organizing samples?

Try both demos and find out. Others will have their opinions that might not apply to your personal preferences. Because what ‘better’ is, comes down to just that; a matter of personal preference.

[BazJacuzzi]

Being limited to one map in XO is a real drag. Atlas gets updated a lot, XO never.

[SLiC]

XO for $65 is an absolute steal.

Other than the fact that ATLAS is only $49 and is still in my opinion the better of the 2 (I have them both) ATLAS is far better supported, active DEV on KVR and often updated with interesting things...

What makes it better? Which is better simply for finding/organizing samples?

Lots of stuff- more than one map, different drum pad layouts up to 8x8 (64 pads ideal for PUSH etc, XO is limited to just 8 pads so can't even fill the standard 4x4!), much better sequencer IMO (with stuff like velocity mapping to filter etc) and more importantly still supported with a responsive developer...and its cheaper! You can check out what has been added since XO came out https://algonaut.audio/whats-new-in-atlas-2-0/

For finding and organising files I can only say (owning both) they both seem to be about the same for me. XO looks very cool and has some good sound packs, I wouldn't sell it (not worth it now it's so cheap) and maybe one day it will get a V2 update...

[eecrumjr77]

I own both as well, and don’t even use XO since Atlas 2 was released. I’ve generated some HUGE maps with it and it handles them with ease (I’m on a Mac, in case that matters). Excellent sequencer, more pads, far better interface and better workflow (IMO, of course). I also like the developer much more in terms of transparency and listening to user feedback. Atlas 2 has dethroned Battery and Maschine as my go-to drum instruments.

I actually tried on my mac. Never got around to trying it on PC.
Curious to know what size is your sample repository that you hooked into Atlas?
Rsp

I’d have to check when I get back to my computer for the number of samples in my largest maps. I keep my samples drive organized by developer, and I’ve made maps for all of my Wave Alchemy libraries (I have most of them) and another for Samples from Mars (I have every one of them). Both of those maps are huge. But, I should mention that I rarely use either of those maps and, instead, I found that I got better results (in terms of generating useful drum kits) by creating smaller and more focused maps by genre (e.g., downtempo, house, 80s, industrial, etc.) with my fav libraries. I’m hoping to see a way to combine maps in a future upgrade and I’ve seen a few people make that request.

I do the same regarding smaller, more focused maps in both XO and Atlas 2 - this is definitely more effective than pulling from an entire gigantic sample pool.

XO has an advantage in that you can easily select which folders will be loaded into the map, so it's extremely convenient to load a focused selection of drum samples for the style/sound you want to target.

I also agree that Atlas 2 has the better sequencer over XO, although I think the WA TRIAZ sequencer is superior to both. XO has the playground mode which is really useful for changing up beats and finding new angles.

Ultimately I find myself using both XO and Atlas 2 for generating kits and beats, with TRIAZ as the sequencing and sound design standard that I wish the other two met. I'm anticipating that when the native version of TRIAZ drops soon, user sample import, organization, and tagging will be much improved. That'll make all the additional WA, Goldbaby, and Samples From Mars samples so much easier to use within TRIAZ compared to how it currently works in the Kontakt version.

[DCrown]

Atlas2 handles my map just fine, but it’s only around 150GB. Takes for freaking ever to build it, though.

Only? Well, ok, no issues with Atlas, too,
generally I think both plugins are good depends on what workflow you prefer, I remember that the default drums of XO
I liked more, but decided to purchase Atlas for the samples I have.

[stash98]

I own both as well, and don’t even use XO since Atlas 2 was released. I’ve generated some HUGE maps with it and it handles them with ease (I’m on a Mac, in case that matters). Excellent sequencer, more pads, far better interface and better workflow (IMO, of course). I also like the developer much more in terms of transparency and listening to user feedback. Atlas 2 has dethroned Battery and Maschine as my go-to drum instruments.

I actually tried on my mac. Never got around to trying it on PC.
Curious to know what size is your sample repository that you hooked into Atlas?
Rsp

I’d have to check when I get back to my computer for the number of samples in my largest maps. I keep my samples drive organized by developer, and I’ve made maps for all of my Wave Alchemy libraries (I have most of them) and another for Samples from Mars (I have every one of them). Both of those maps are huge. But, I should mention that I rarely use either of those maps and, instead, I found that I got better results (in terms of generating useful drum kits) by creating smaller and more focused maps by genre (e.g., downtempo, house, 80s, industrial, etc.) with my fav libraries. I’m hoping to see a way to combine maps in a future upgrade and I’ve seen a few people make that request.

I do the same regarding smaller, more focused maps in both XO and Atlas 2 - this is definitely more effective than pulling from an entire gigantic sample pool.

XO has an advantage in that you can easily select which folders will be loaded into the map, so it's extremely convenient to load a focused selection of drum samples for the style/sound you want to target.

I also agree that Atlas 2 has the better sequencer over XO, although I think the WA TRIAZ sequencer is superior to both. XO has the playground mode which is really useful for changing up beats and finding new angles.

Ultimately I find myself using both XO and Atlas 2 for generating kits and beats, with TRIAZ as the sequencing and sound design standard that I wish the other two met. I'm anticipating that when the native version of TRIAZ drops soon, user sample import, organization, and tagging will be much improved. That'll make all the additional WA, Goldbaby, and Samples From Mars samples so much easier to use within TRIAZ compared to how it currently works in the Kontakt version.

I can't wait for native Triaz. I have high expectations for that release, especially if it is easier to manage our own samples. I will say that the sounds that Triaz comes with are dope and I love that I can layer and design the drums as well.

I have not messed with layering my samples in Triaz. Do you get any phase issues when you try this on kicks?

[DCrown]

XO is 79 at pluginboutique.
I am still going to wait and maybe grab it for way less when XLN will have joined plugin alliance.

[Hewitt Huntwork]

I can't overstate how much better it is to be able to build a smaller map, like you can in Atlas. XO does not have a feature - or group of features - that can compete with that (for me).

[noiseboyuk]

I can't overstate how much better it is to be able to build a smaller map, like you can in Atlas. XO does not have a feature - or group of features - that can compete with that (for me).

It sort of does by having checkboxes for user folders (or indeed just entering a string in the search box such as “analogue”). I do find good organisation of folders really helps make XO much more powerful.

[LFO8]

In XO you can filter down anything from here: (which makes the space that contains the sample references limited to that selection)

Screenshot 2023-02-10 at 09.25.30.png

[Hewitt Huntwork]

I appreciate the suggestions. I did say there was no feature in XO that could compete with map building but maybe I need to give XO's way a try.

[machinesworking]

I appreciate the suggestions. I did say there was no feature in XO that could compete with map building but maybe I need to give XO's way a try.

I own both and I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by Atlas being able to build smaller maps compare to XO? In XO you use symbolic links to create folders that contain whatever size maps you want, you can create as many as you want, you can add and subtract these maps in an instant. In Atlas the mapping is the same, but you can't "open" two or more maps at the same time. In this way XO is better.
I would say in general XO has a better AI mapping setup, but it's 4/4 only super simple sequencer is limiting.

[davidka]

I wonder why so many people sell XO licenses in the marketplace now. Am I missing something?