I’m considering to upgrade from MOXF to XF in middle term, possibly next year, retaining the 2G flash module already installed in my MOXF.
An XS would fit for me as well except I would miss exactly this flash expansion possibility.

I would like to read about your opinion, experiences, stories in this regard, possibly around in respects below:
- sound quality: even if sound engine is the same (same?) I tend to accept opinions that XF produces a better sound due to better DAC or other reasons or quality of circuitry components. I have had no occasion any direct comparison and yet not tested/tried XF in practice.
- a bit I worry about loosing internal audio interface in a MOXF>XF migration; in any studio/monitoring arrangement, also for MOX and MOXF, I felt quality degradation if audio output of MOX/MOXF fed into an audio interface such as Focusrite Scarlett 18i6.
Direct output from MOX was always better quality than the output of Focusrite.

OK, it can be done via digital with XF or XS but when using an ES Rack formerly I have not sense to much differences between using analog or digital (SPDIF) output from the ES Rack. So I’m worrying about a bit about sound quality.
Thanks for any comment.
Jozsihome

jozsihome - 08 December 2016 06:47 PM

I’m considering to upgrade from MOXF to XF in middle term, possibly next year, retaining the 2G flash module already installed in my MOXF.
An XS would fit for me as well except I would miss exactly this flash expansion possibility.

You’d certainly be able to use the flash module in an XF. However, since the flash formatting is different on the MOXF vs XF, you’d have to reformat the module on the XF and reload everything.

 

jozsihome -

I would like to read about your opinion, experiences, stories in this regard, possibly around in respects below:
- sound quality: even if sound engine is the same (same?) I tend to accept opinions that XF produces a better sound due to better DAC or other reasons or quality of circuitry components. I have had no occasion any direct comparison and yet not tested/tried XF in practice.

If you haven’t already seen this, it might be enlightening:
http://www.motifator.com/index.php/forum/viewthread/470507/

 

jozsihome -

- a bit I worry about loosing internal audio interface in a MOXF>XF migration; in any studio/monitoring arrangement, also for MOX and MOXF, I felt quality degradation if audio output of MOX/MOXF fed into an audio interface such as Focusrite Scarlett 18i6.
Direct output from MOX was always better quality than the output of Focusrite.

OK, it can be done via digital with XF or XS but when using an ES Rack formerly I have not sense to much differences between using analog or digital (SPDIF) output from the ES Rack. So I’m worrying about a bit about sound quality.

Yes, the XS and XF have built-in coaxial digital (S/PDIF) output. In addition, an mLAN16E2 or FW16E FireWire interface can be added (mLAN16E2 is standard in the XS8), and both have decent performance.

As usual, you’ve provided/referred very useful information for me/us. To tell the truth I never thought that the arcitectures are so different between MOTIF and MOX/MOXF line of products even if there are so many common components. Thanks a lot :-)

jozsihome - 09 December 2016 12:34 PM

As usual, you’ve provided/referred very useful information for me/us. To tell the truth I never thought that the arcitectures are so different between MOTIF and MOX/MOXF line of products even if there are so many common components. Thanks a lot :-)

You’re welcome - I’m glad that you found the information useful.

although i like to consider details, like sound quality - i think the most appreciable differences for basing a decision are the obvious ones:

XF
- easier on-board editing
-- including control sliders
- 2x flash size possibility

MOXF
- less weight & cost

--
action differences. i believe there are values to the 4 different actions used amongst the options

____
I see the value in going from whichever to whichever depending on changing cravings & scenarios.

note: my understanding of MOXF is almost entirely based on what I’ve read, as I’ve only played on each kind of MOXF for a brief moment in a store.

When I purchased a second XF a while back, one “obvious” reason for me was the large operational screen.  When I toyed with an MOXF, the abbreviated, multi-layered pill box was a setback (for me fellows). 

I struggled years ago with the ES, especially when wanting to get into the advanced functions (they were buried...)
There is so much data available at a glance from mixing screens, to effects, sequencing, and even utility and file mode.  Not that speed is a factor in my studio, but the larger screen affords quicker decision-making. 

Good thread and thanx 5pinDIN