MOX sounds better according to this guy, is the ROM different?

https://soundcloud.com/rorosetree/comparison-of-yamaha-mx-61-and

The ROM is definitely different… 166 mb vs. 355 in the MOX. Exactly how the ROM reduction was achieved (i.e. what has been “taken out") and exactly how that affects the variety and/or quality of the sounds available is not detailed. But certainly based on that sample, if he didn’t mess anything up in generating it, there’s an example of a sound that is much better on the MOX.

The difference I hear is this :

The MX sounds like its in Mono and has no effects.

The MOX sounds like its in Stereo with effects.

It will depend on the Voice you select whether you really hear a difference or not.

(But it should really not be surprising when a product that is $1500 and $2000 retail, out performs a product that is $800 and $1000 retail). But in this case there is more to it…

But yes many of the Voices that have both STEREO and MONO waveforms in the XS/MOX ROM Library may only have the mono versions in the MX. Certainly you do not get all of the OFFSET Waveforms and alternate Waveforms (those without the attack portions, you don’t get both stretched tuned and normal tuned, etc., etc.) - they assembled a best of to create a comparable main library.

The Classical Guitar is certainly a STEREO sampled Voice in the XS - does stereo make a difference? you betcha…

Had the same comparison been done on the Vintage’74 E.Piano, would there have been a difference?

Until you see the actual Waveform listing you can only speculate about how they got 355MB into 166MB… but for sure: the multiple velocity data that makes up the MEGA VOICES for those MEGA Guitar and Bass arps is not in the MX - as it does not have that same type of four engine arpeggiators as the XS/MOX. Also in the XS/MOX you get multiple complete pianos… I’d guess those are not included.

The comparison is a bit misleading because playing on two different keyboards the response curves are not taken into account, and who knows what is going on with the effects.

Someone else could post a comparisons where the MOX and MX are identical (like the Vintage’74). It will all depend on what Voice, and how it is setup to play.

As with most things, the price tells a lot about what the product is capable of.

Nonetheless both the MOX and MX have the XS heritage in them and they sound real good, even in mono.

I had the MOX for a couple of weeks now and the sound still amazes me.  Imagine having motif sounds for this kind of price, though it isn’t exactly cheap.  It was unheard of for the past 10 years.

to me: the MOX have the XS Sounds but don´t sound like the XS!!!
checked it out with a XS in combination with my MOX6 on the same mixer…
the Mox sounds thin…
so i only use him in the studio!

In combination with my ex5 i don´t dare to go on stage with…

That’s what I suspected also.  Although the same size of ROM was used, it doesn’t always mean that the sounds would be identical.

As others have pointed out, the generation of sounds probably depends on a few other components other than just the size of the ROM.  Quality of such components would then play a part in how the sounds come out.

Though many have said that MOX sounds inferior to XS, I haven’t been able to hear any difference yet.  To me, MOX sounded close enough to the original motif (XS or XF).

motif_vienna - 09 April 2013 03:32 AM

to me: the MOX have the XS Sounds but don´t sound like the XS!!!
checked it out with a XS in combination with my MOX6 on the same mixer…
the Mox sounds thin…
so i only use him in the studio!

In combination with my ex5 i don´t dare to go on stage with…

I wonder if this is because of the missing insert effects, 3 vs. 8 , what difference do you hear? I don’t see much difference between XS and MOX in the sound department, and I use to have motif xs rack version.

Here is something I am working on using MOX (ethnic sounding)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2XAaNL-0n8

Oh yeah Pcode - that is very, very good.

Nice clear definition of all your sounds and great blending too.

Thanks for sharing.

Bill G

Pcode - 09 April 2013 06:31 AM

I wonder if this is because of the missing insert effects, 3 vs. 8 , what difference do you hear?

There will be no difference between 3 and 8 insert effects unless you are splitting/layering/sequencing more than 3 sounds at a time. So a given voice by itself (classical guitar, elec piano, whatever) will not sound any different simply by virtue of being on a board with fewer insert fx.

Ah, Vintage 74...my go-to EP patch. That one sounds great on every Motif variation I’ve tried, even the lowly MM6.

There will be no difference between 3 and 8 insert effects unless you are splitting/layering/sequencing more than 3 sounds at a time. So a given voice by itself (classical guitar, elec piano, whatever) will not sound any different simply by virtue of being on a board with fewer insert fx.

And that is the point. It makes no difference in the number of simultaneous Insert Effects when you are not going to exceed that maximum. So when using the Motif XS or XF where you have 8 of the PARTS which can recall their two Insert Effects. If you are multi-tracking to a DAW it makes sense to setup to do your 16 PART compositions in at least two separate passes of 8 PARTS each. This way you can render the musical parts to your DAW with their full compliment of effects. This is a particular cool workflow when you are using the FW16E with its multiple stereo buses between the hardware and your DAW software.

When you are using the MX or MOX, which do not have as many simultaneous effects available and have only a single (MX) or dual (MOX) stereo output. When rendering musical parts to your DAW, it may take more passes to accomplish the goal but the results can be very much the same.

I’ve recorded the “What Is Hip?” Tower of Power audio clip using the Motif XF, the MOX and the MX. I can get each to sound exactly the same - using the method mentioned above - working with a DAW where you’re rendering synth parts to your DAW as audio as you proceed, part-by-part.

At the end of the day, it comes down to what you are going to do with a product. Clearly, the MX is designed to give an alternative to the user working with a moderate to entry level computer - enabling them run a proven “killer” soundset that would normally eat up their majority of their CPU muscle. Plus they can run whatever VST or softsynths they want in addition… Like a powerful co-processor for their computer the MX provides Sounds, Effects, EQ. And since it is its own audio interface - it can write audio data to your DAW.

You can reallocate the INSERTION EFFECT so that the part you are rendering as audio has the effects it needs to sound the way you really want it to sound!

If you are not all about MULTI-TRACKING, of course, you can simply setup your mix and record the data straight out as a stereo mix. That is an option. Not everyone wants or needs to go through the whole “individual track” scenario in building a project. Some folks simply want to mix stereo straight out of the instrument, done.

All the synths offer the user the choice of how they want to work. And that’s a good thing.

@Pcode: Do you use it with headphones or PA???

With Headphones the MOX sounds like XS/XF…
on PA for me the MOX sounds thin without pressure…

With Headphones the MOX sounds like XS/XF…
on PA for me the MOX sounds thin without pressure…

So, even when playing in stereo onstage, how do mono PA systems (most of them) bring the sound we hear to the audience?…

Answer is - they can’t.

and why sounds the XS then better as the MOX on PA?
thats my problem…
there are also Stereo-Ins on PA´s!

You can have stereo ins, but still be outputting mono.

For me, most every sound is fine in mono (showing that even losing stereo fx isn’t a deal breaker), except the pianos (yes,even the mono piano). The stereo pianos in stereo are very good, but no one providing sound reinforcement around here is running stereo. I use piano a lot. It sounds great to me, I walk out in front of the PA to listen to my other keyboardist play it, and the magic is gone.