XILS Lab CS-80!!!!!!

[Echoes in the Attic]

From the video:
"The power of the originals lies in their self-sufficiency - their ability to captivate with just a single instance. They didn't need layers upon layers to impress..."

Hmm... the original was exactly a two layer instrument, so already the ability to layer was core to it's original concept.

Not only that, but it seems XILS thought it needed even more layers, because it looks like from the GUI that it has *three* layers, instead of two on the original (it has three rows of identical voice controls)...

I had exactly the same thought when I watched it! "The original was great because it didn't need many layers, even though it had two layers, so we added a third layer!"

Huh?

[miloszz]

Keen to try this out. The only XILS product I have is the 505 emulation but I've enjoyed their generous demo policy with other emulations - they sound good but the GUIs were frustrating to use.

[plexuss]

From the video:
"The power of the originals lies in their self-sufficiency - their ability to captivate with just a single instance. They didn't need layers upon layers to impress..."

Hmm... the original was exactly a two layer instrument, so already the ability to layer was core to it's original concept.

"layers upon layers" is typically not the same as "2 layers" or even "3 layers". I think they were referring to synths that use "many" layers. things like this require both the copywriter and the reader to be on the same page about nuances. That's a risk and even more so in this day and age. So it wasnt a the best or clearest way to put it. I dont think important to nit pick it. YMWV

[Frantz]

Why would "no oversampling" be considered a good thing?

[martiu]

Why would "no oversampling" be considered a good thing?

to save cpu probably

[beely]

"layers upon layers" is typically not the same as "2 layers" or even "3 layers". I think they were referring to synths that use "many" layers.

Which synths of the time contemporary to the CS80 used "many" layers, though? The CS80 was actually kind of unique in that instead of the more typically 1-3 oscillators going into 1 filter and EGs etc, it was actually a layer of two complete independent synth voices. Yes, a few years later the JP8 came along which could layer two different sounds, but even that was not common. The JX10 in the mid 80s was two JX8Ps so that could do it, and of course the digital stuff starting with the upper tier DXs until more voices and multi-timbrality became common place.

Unless they are comparing to modern synths or complex softsynths, which seems a weird comparison too - those are somewhat different.

I dont think important to nit pick it. YMWV

Yeah, I wasn't really intending on nitpicking, I just thought it was particularly clumsy in this case, as this was more of less the only synth of it's time to be able to layer in the first place, and part of the reason it sounded big in mixes is precisely *because* it could run two completely different sounds as a layer.

I find most of the Yamaha analogs of this period fairly thin and relatively uninspiring sounding, personally, and for me I've never been a CS80 fan - even less so as it seems the only thing everyone wants to do is ape Vangelis tracks - so I'm not particularly interested in this one, other than the feedback of how good it sounds and how accurate it is, especially as their marketing angle is "Everyone else that's done the CS80 previously did it badly, but we've done it right"...

Still, doing one of these from scratch must be a pretty significant undertaking, for sure, so props to Xils on taking that on.

[AdvancedFollower]

Why would "no oversampling" be considered a good thing?

Oversampling the entire signal path is a brute force, lazy and inefficient way to improve sound quality. You would expect certain parts of the signal chain to be oversampled internally where it makes sense however.

[hey212]

With the layers vs layers thing, I think what they were trying to say was, bc the CS80 had two internal layers, it could make huge sounds on its own that didn’t need any external layers, like other instruments on other tracks playing the same part. That would also explain why an additional internal layer is a good thing, and doesn’t contradict the original statement.

[gentleclockdivider]

Today I learned "Xils-lab" is pronounced Kzils and not Eksils
Anyone else

[Examigan]

Today I learned "Xils-lab" is pronounced Kzils and not Eksils
Anyone else

Yeah I didn't have any idea how it was pronounced until today.

[machinesworking]

Yeah I always figured it was "ex I el es" Lab. should have known since they don't capitalize all the letters all the time like NI, MOTU etc.

[Gam456]

Today I learned "Xils-lab" is pronounced Kzils and not Eksils
Anyone else

They are french

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Zills Labs.

[Mr Arkadin]

Don't know about other languages, but it's fairly standard to pronounce any word beginning with an 'x' as a 'z', so Xerox is 'zerox', xenomorph is 'zenomorph' etc.

[DocAtlas]

Don't know about other languages, but it's fairly standard to pronounce any word beginning with an 'x' as a 'z', so Xerox is 'zerox', xenomorph is 'zenomorph' etc.

That is the standard. It has really annoyed me the last few years when I hear comic fans constantly messing up the pronunciation of Professor X's name.