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

[HunterKiller]

have been playing with the demo and i gotta say its not doing anything new for me - id have to agree with the comments about it sounding similar to polykbII - i already own it and love it and i cant hear what Synthix is bringing new here really.

The unsettling same-ness between the past two Xils synths is starting to take on the Arturia curse.

And I really hate to say this, 'cause they seem like they are genuinely trying their best, but the whole Synthix thing is starting to feel like a giant cash grab.

The synth offers nothing new, that other synths don't already. Ironically Elka Synthex was criticized the same, except that here it feels even worse, since we're in overloaded software land, where there is so much more to choose from, and it's so much easier to hoard.
The synth doesn't feature the original hardware bank and exact comparisons between the software version and the hardware version.
Unless they seriously go about emulation, the Xils line is starting to feel like the mass produced and (for the most part) worthless Arturia line of synths.

A lot of people jumping on the bandwagon because for some reason they are so easily excitable, looks kinda naive.

[Ingonator]

have been playing with the demo and i gotta say its not doing anything new for me - id have to agree with the comments about it sounding similar to polykbII - i already own it and love it and i cant hear what Synthix is bringing new here really.

The unsettling same-ness between the past two Xils synths is starting to take on the Arturia curse.

And I really hate to say this, 'cause they seem like they are genuinely trying their best, but the whole Synthix thing is starting to feel like a giant cash grab.

The synth offers nothing new, that other synths don't already. Ironically Elka Synthex was criticized the same, except that here it feels even worse, since we're in overloaded software land, where there is so much more to choose from, and it's so much easier to hoard.
The synth doesn't feature the original hardware bank and exact comparisons between the software version and the hardware version.

Unless they seriously go about emulation, the Xils line is starting to feel like the mass produced and (for the most part) worthless Arturia line of synths.

A lot of people jumping on the bandwagon because for some reason they are so easily excitable, looks kinda naive.

Again, this is NOT the same as PolyKB II. Besides the obvious Multimode filter almost all other components behave fifferent (e.g. oscillators, envelopes). With additional features like more envelopes, voices, LFOs, mod ,matrix etc. it's also no 1:1 clone. BTW with the mod matrix you could even do Osc FM and in the OSc section you got a Ringmod mode. The new ChaoX LFo is also a really nice addition as the result is not totally random but also not really predictable.
In fact there seems to be only few things which are not included in this one except maybe a Notch filter and a Reverb.

Xils also said several times that this should not be a 1:1 copy but more like an advanced version which it is IMO.

Like they already said the current amount of presets in this pre-release (!) version is only a part of the final ones. AFAIK there will be 250 presets including most of the factory sounds in the final version.
As Laurent spent some days with Paul Wiffen, the sound designer of the original factory sound, i guess that those will be as close as possible.

There are some A/B comparisons with the hardware in the audio demos:
http://www.xils-lab.com/pages/Synthix_Audio-Demos.html

PS:
I also don't see how the Xils 3 could be anyway the same or identical to the other two synths.


Ingo

[omissis]

have been playing with the demo and i gotta say its not doing anything new for me - id have to agree with the comments about it sounding similar to polykbII - i already own it and love it and i cant hear what Synthix is bringing new here really.

The unsettling same-ness between the past two Xils synths is starting to take on the Arturia curse.

And I really hate to say this, 'cause they seem like they are genuinely trying their best, but the whole Synthix thing is starting to feel like a giant cash grab.

The synth offers nothing new, that other synths don't already. Ironically Elka Synthex was criticized the same, except that here it feels even worse, since we're in overloaded software land, where there is so much more to choose from, and it's so much easier to hoard.
The synth doesn't feature the original hardware bank and exact comparisons between the software version and the hardware version.
Unless they seriously go about emulation, the Xils line is starting to feel like the mass produced and (for the most part) worthless Arturia line of synths.

A lot of people jumping on the bandwagon because for some reason they are so easily excitable, looks kinda naive.

Analog: serving saws, pulses and filters since 1966...so what?
Why anybody owning a Prophet would bother himself taking a Jupiter8? In the end it was always the same circuitry, only reworked.

I can't blame you there, as I made epic flame wars at the time of the CS80V (oh,the irony of it ) but, as long as Xils has been honest telling you that it is not just a point to point emulation, you're free to keep on doing your thing with your present tools, so what?
I personally find the Synthix quite on the spot , as I'm presently doing a repair job on a 1.1 Synthex, and God knows if I'm picky about soft synths.What can it add to my music? Don't know,but the latter task is on charge to my mind , rather than my synthesizers

[Lotuzia]

have been playing with the demo and i gotta say its not doing anything new for me - id have to agree with the comments about it sounding similar to polykbII - i already own it and love it and i cant hear what Synthix is bringing new here really.

The unsettling same-ness between the past two Xils synths is starting to take on the Arturia curse.

And I really hate to say this, 'cause they seem like they are genuinely trying their best, but the whole Synthix thing is starting to feel like a giant cash grab.

The synth offers nothing new, that other synths don't already. Ironically Elka Synthex was criticized the same, except that here it feels even worse, since we're in overloaded software land, where there is so much more to choose from, and it's so much easier to hoard.
The synth doesn't feature the original hardware bank and exact comparisons between the software version and the hardware version.
Unless they seriously go about emulation, the Xils line is starting to feel like the mass produced and (for the most part) worthless Arturia line of synths.

A lot of people jumping on the bandwagon because for some reason they are so easily excitable, looks kinda naive.

Analog: serving saws, pulses and filters since 1966...so what?
Why anybody owning a Prophet would bother himself taking a Jupiter8? In the end it was always the same circuitry, only reworked.

I can't blame you there, as I made epic flame wars at the time of the CS80V (oh,the irony of it ) but, as long as Xils has been honest telling you that it is not just a point to point emulation, you're free to keep on doing your thing with your present tools, so what?
I personally find the Synthix quite on the spot , as I'm presently doing a repair job on a 1.1 Synthex, and God knows if I'm picky about soft synths.What can it add to my music? Don't know,but the latter task is on charge to my mind , rather than my synthesizers

To Hunterkiller : Wow ....


This is just ........ unfair and I'm personnaly a bit disapointed by your attitude, wich is only made of suppositions, extrapolations, and sensations listening to the Synthix, but wich is not established with any proof.

I'll answer more in detail in the next thread.

Emulation part :

First I'd like to thank Omissis for his contibution : He knows the Synthex, he has one in repair, he CAN compare the two Synthix and Synthex.

His testimony brings more support to Paul Wiffen's one, who gave me the authorisation to publish the following quote.

Let me just remind you that Paul is now a film director for many years, that he music business is not anymore in his interest, and that he made the trip from London after I sent him an audio clip of my Laser Harp preset.

Paul is just like that : He loves the Synthex, is the author of the factory presets, and just WANT a proper emulation. He obviously did not make all this for money ( We dont have any for this kind of operations ), he made the trip for THE LOVE OF SOUND AND MUSIC and totally pro bono.

This beeing established, let me remind you the conditions of the experience : A Synthex , very kindly available trhu the help of our friend Stephane Bonvallet, Spectrasonics famous programmer, A Synthix ( of course ), A laser Harp controler, Mr Paul Wiffen, all together in Chatillon ( France ) in Tzadi's ( Sound Designer for Xils-Lab ) studio. Not forgetting the humble me. And 5 days to make A/B comparisons.

Here's Paul quote, in extenso, I won't add anything, if a man is allowed to give a valid advice about Synthix in the world, I could NOT imagine anyone beeing more qualified than him :

"In my experience, there are two kinds of classic synth emulations.The first is where a huge ammount of time has been spent ensuring that the representation on screen is indistinguishable from the original hardware cosmetics. In the second the developer has concentrated far more on making the sound as close to the original as possible. I'm happy to report that the Xils-Lab SYNTHIX avoids the first pitfall and sits comfortably in the second category; Although it may take a few moments to locate the familiar parameters of the Synthex on the screen once you begin to manipulate them the sonic results are uncannily close to the original. On several occasions I found myself prefering the extra flexibility in the Synthix especially when it came to sonic control via velocity and aftertouch, control wich were never available on the original machine. the additional polyphony and multiple layering of timbres are particulary welcomed

PAUL WIFFEN, about the Synthix. 2011. Chatillon ( France )
"

Facts .........

LtZ

[aMUSEd]

Also I don't see how anyone can think XILS3 and PolyKB sound anything like the same??

[omissis]

Aww, tech comparisons, not, not AGAIN!

Synthex is just another analog , so it can't be extremely impossible to emulate a DCO-VCF-VCA path.
What this synthesizer stands out for is mainly:

1-precision: square waveform on the synthex was made by digitally controlling the analog waveform, so it's 50% exactly, no odd harmonics at all; pulse was a compared sawtooth; same goes for tri (not compared, rather rectified) and sawtooth waveforms: Maggi used digital clocks a big deal to avoid warps as much as possible, even for the envelopes, tuning is the word here.

2-Chorus: dual Philips BBD with all the aliasing noise glory (but not too much, tbh, it was a good BBD, not as noisy as the one equipping the CS80).

3-Poly Sequencer: not much to add here, it was one of the main reasons why the Synthex was chosen at the times (by the brave people who didn't surrender to FM though )

The Synthix does all this in a classy way.
Then you can choose to use the additional features or not (btw, Chaox is a nifty idea!) and let the Synthix be close to its hardware model or totally depart from that, but then again all this is up to your creativity .


By the way, trouble with DCO2's tuning clock here, maybe the chip kissed us goodbye

[poonna]

Tried it out again now. Still crashing Sonar X1. I've changed the installation folder, tried running Sonar as administrator, tried opening other Xils instruments before this one. PolyKB and Xils 3 open up fine here. But I haven't managed to open the Synthix GUI even once. I can play it (the first default preset, that is), as long as I don't try to open the GUI. As soon as I try, it just crashes Sonar...

[Lotuzia]

Also I don't see how anyone can think XILS3 and PolyKB sound anything like the same??

Simple +1

[Lotuzia]

Aww, tech comparisons, not, not AGAIN!

Synthex is just another analog , so it can't be extremely impossible to emulate a DCO-VCF-VCA path.
What this synthesizer stands out for is mainly:

1-precision: square waveform on the synthex was made by digitally controlling the analog waveform, so it's 50% exactly, no odd harmonics at all; pulse was a compared sawtooth; same goes for tri (not compared, rather rectified) and sawtooth waveforms: Maggi used digital clocks a big deal to avoid warps as much as possible, even for the envelopes, tuning is the word here.

2-Chorus: dual Philips BBD with all the aliasing noise glory (but not too much, tbh, it was a good BBD, not as noisy as the one equipping the CS80).

3-Poly Sequencer: not much to add here, it was one of the main reasons why the Synthex was chosen at the times (by the brave people who didn't surrender to FM though )

The Synthix does all this in a classy way.
Then you can choose to use the additional features or not (btw, Chaox is a nifty idea!) and let the Synthix be close to its hardware model or totally depart from that, but then again all this is up to your creativity .


By the way, trouble with DCO2's tuning clock here, maybe the chip kissed us goodbye

Thanks Max, I had the luck to meet Paul Wiffen, but having the luck to have you, antoher Synthex specialist ( and very well informed ) in the thread, wow its just awsome ! great ! ( And sorry for the OSC2 of the real Synthex you repair )

Then some more infos abpout the differences between Synthix, PolyKB II etc :

Filters : PolyKB has only a LP filter, while Synthix has 5 filters including 2 BP and one HP mode. All the filters types are capable of SelfOscillation ( yes even the HP one ) and this particular feature mimic the Synthex behaviour. PolyKB : Filters are modelled upon the Curtis chip while Synthix are based on the CEM 3320 Chip.

Oscillators : they are different and the Special PWM mode are different. Please note that in additon to the Pulse Pwm and Special PWM synthex mode, you also get standard PWM behaviour ( a la Korg )and PWM is possible on the triangle and Sawtooth Waveforms. The waveforms of the Oscillators are also different, and then the Synthix are DCOs, so their stability scheme is very different from both Xils3 (VCS) and PolyKB

Enveloppes : Are completely different, because they are modelled on the Synthex. Of this we could judge because we had an internal routine wich allowed to switch the enveloppes in Synthix OR PolyKB mode : Results are : You could barely recognize the instruments :

Synthix also have the the Dsync-Adsr enveloppes, developed by your truly and coded by Xavier, you could not find on the PolyKB ( But the PolyKB ones had loop features ) This is a neverseen feature on any VA or HW synth, and it has MUSICAL applications ( Like midi synced -or free- auto grace notes, auto broken arpeggios, etc etc )

Special ChaoX and Rythm LFOs available : Again this are features that you wont find in any other synth and it HAS musical applications going from slight subtle detuning to crazy modulations. The PolyKB has the ¨_Myx and D-Mix modules and is capable of very complex stereo scenes.( Unique feature also )

Multilayer architecture and special play modes. (on the Synthix and PolyKB, but some are different ) Again these feature have musical applications like everchanging arpeggios ( wich can be conbined with multilayer )

etc etc.

Let me remind that the Xils 3 on its side is a FULLY MODULAR synth, so it can do things none of the semihardwired synths can do.

The two machines are really VASTLY different, as a Moog is very different from an ARP.

Analog : The Synthex had one feet in each world with its DCO. But the fact it was widely used by such musicians as Jarre, Stevie Wonder, ELP etc is really related to its special sound and character. The instruments are very precise in frequencies while preserving a nice analog character.

Someone "on the other forum" mentioned he didnt like the original, and therefore doesnt like the emulation, wich is a kind of tribute to the emulation side of the Synthix, and is prefectly understandable.

Some people will only swear by Model D, and will never use an Odyssey

So I can understand that some people like Hunterkiller spot the similarities due to the fact these are three ANALOG models, and therefore they share some common paradigms, like "standard" OScillators ( Saw, Square, Pulse etc) and share an overall feel ( ie I'll described as "analog" without entering in the details)

But it just stops there

If some peope dont see/hear the differences, its okay, and so this part of Hunterkiller's post is OK ( though of course I fully disagree, if we go beyond the similarities attached to the inherent structure of all VA synths ).

Then, If some people, like Themossinator, hear the differences BUT think they have already enough analog synths to justify getting it, its of course okay too : One's wallet is not extensible so nobody can 'have them all' ( At least I cant and afaics majority of people are in my case ).

If some people dont dig the Synthex sound and prefer a Moog,like the honorable gentleman on 'the other forum", its still okay.

But the 3 Xils-Lb synths are vastly different, and therefore the musical instruments (ie presets ) they offer are different.

Do people need these instruments well I'll let everyone decide

The dongleless demo is here for that precise purpose

And to Poona : We get a closer look at the Sonar X1 compatibility. Atm the Synthix seems to work prefectly in all other hosts. The only bug left we are aware is the Protools 9 bug when moving the seuquencer notes with the mouse.So we'll see for the X1 version. Thnaks a lot for trying again and reporting.

LtZ

[Lotuzia]

And now here come the Basses, Splits, and Sequences Separate instruments demo.

There are some very unusual instruments in this one, so I'd be glad if some people report what they think of it.

Imho some sequences and basses offer some very "far beyond VA" flavors.

Anyway this is the last Separate Instruments audio demo and everyone can now HEAR more than 40 mn of Synthix instruments in isolation.

SYNTHIX Basse Splits Seq

Note : I just had a try at my first DUBSTEP audio clips ( a couple basses ). omg : Twas real fun !

All the audio demos you can find on post 2 of this thread. Or on Xils site in the player

LtZ

[Urs]

Filters : PolyKB has only a LP filter, while Synthix has 5 filters including 2 BP and one HP mode. All the filters types are capable of SelfOscillation ( yes even the HP one ) and this particular feature mimic the Synthex behaviour. PolyKB : Filters are modelled upon the Curtis chip while Synthix are based on the CEM 3320 Chip.

Call me pedantic, but the CEM3320 *is* a Curtis chip. It does not have that pre/post drive option of PolyKB/Synthix though. The distortion happens *inside* the filter.

edit: the Polykobol seems to use an SSM 2040 for vcf, which is also used e.g. by the Polysix.

[Ingonator]

After getting PolyKB II at the end of last year and Synthix a few days ago i finally decided to get Xils 3 too after testing the demo again. This makes my Xils synth collection complete now...

My first thought when i tried this, especially the more limited dongle-free demo, that i don't really need this as i already got TimewARP 2600 which is a great semi-modular synth. Then i found several routings which are not so easy done with the ARP like e.g. using the sequencer for modulation (the ARP has no sequencer at all). Then i checked the additional features like additional envelopes, dedicated LFO and colored matrix pins and this finally made me decide to get it. especially the different matrix pins are important for me (also the inverted ones) as with a fixed amount many of the possible modulations were not really usable for my taste. For the future it would be nice to get more colours or to have one colour where you can define the value yourself. In the ARP 2600 you got a slider for each of the inputs which is the best solution of course but you don't have as many routing options like with the matrix modulation.

As a conclusion i could say that in the near future with the complete collection of Xils and Waldorf synths plus Synthmaster 2.5 and a few others i'll have enough work doing presets/banks for those.

PS:
As i got both PolyKB II and Synthix for a special price now with Xils 3 i paid below 300 Euros for all 3 which is still a bargain for having 3 really great and *different* (!!!!) synths.

Call me pedantic, but the CEM3320 *is* a Curtis chip. It does not have that pre/post drive option of PolyKB/Synthix though. The distortion happens *inside* the filter.

Hi Urs,

the knob itself is for the Drive amount. The post/pre value is switched by clicking on the text. Practically i don't really see another option to either have this before or after the filter. Of course i could be wrong.



Ingo

[hakey]

It does not have that pre/post drive option of PolyKB/Synthix though. The distortion happens *inside* the filter.

The post/pre value is switched by clicking on the text. Practically i don't really see another option to either have this before or after the filter.

At the risk of just repeating what Urs said, wouldn't the other option would be to correctly model the filter such that 'distortion happens *inside* the filter' not before or after it?

[omissis]

Tech discussion...

Stop please while you're in time, get more playin music!

PS: digging in the demo...I'm thinking about raising a bit of money to get it, it's more fun every day!

[xavier]

Filters : PolyKB has only a LP filter, while Synthix has 5 filters including 2 BP and one HP mode. All the filters types are capable of SelfOscillation ( yes even the HP one ) and this particular feature mimic the Synthex behaviour. PolyKB : Filters are modelled upon the Curtis chip while Synthix are based on the CEM 3320 Chip.

Call me pedantic, but the CEM3320 *is* a Curtis chip. It does not have that pre/post drive option of PolyKB/Synthix though. The distortion happens *inside* the filter.

edit: the Polykobol seems to use an SSM 2040 for vcf, which is also used e.g. by the Polysix.

Hi Urs,

Thank you for your interest into all Xils-Lab products, that you seem to know well.

You're right, the Polykobol uses the SSM 2044 (not the 2040).
So it is 4 poles Low-pass build-in filter with internal current limiter.

The Synthix uses the CEM 3320, which is a 4 blocks build-in filter which can be use to build 4 poles LP, 2 poles HP, 4 poles BP (and even a 2 poles LP).
It has also an internal current limiter.

So both the PolyKB and the Synthix are emulating this internal current limiter. this is why they can self-oscillate without burning your HPs.

But as you may know as a developer, sound designers always want more and more.
During the first steps of the polykobol development they (Boele was one of them) said "your filter is very good, but with a more driving action, it would be better". So I did. But others (Drew was one of them) said, "Hey, why can't we have also something before the filter, this would be very nice when the two oscillators are detuned". So I did, but due to CPU consumption, I let the user to choose where this effect must be applied.
So the driving feature is an effect placed before or after the filter, running indepedently of the inside current limiter emulation.

Is this effect there in the polykobol ? in the synthex ? I think it is, at each mixing stage. Maybe not so distinguishable than I did, but that's one of the advantage of the computer world. If you don't want this effect, just reduce it.

best regards
Xavier