motif_vienna - 09 April 2013 11:55 PM

@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…

I have 2 Audio interfaces:
1. TASCAM US-2000 16x4
2. MOX8 Audio Interface

Unless I am recording more than 2 Audio sources (analog domain) I use the MOX8 Audio.

MY MOX8 is hooked up to my Monitors directly, but that is just for monitoring. I record using “VST Audio” which is the Audio signal coming via USB. This is MOX8 voices + FX.

What kind of audio cables are you using? L/R output?

@Pcode: i also have the tascam us 1800 in studio…
but with the band i play on a behringer or yamaha (mg206) mixer using 2 mono cables (AdamHall) in two inputs (left/right pan)...using output (r/l)
also tried 2 xlr ...
Using a XS7 in same connection the sound is much better...the Mox sounds thin .

motif_vienna - 10 April 2013 10:13 AM

@Pcode: i also have the tascam us 1800 in studio…
but with the band i play on a behringer or yamaha (mg206) mixer using 2 mono cables (AdamHall) in two inputs (left/right pan)...using output (r/l)
also tried 2 xlr ...
Using a XS7 in same connection the sound is much better...the Mox sounds thin .

How are the FX setup on the MOX? make sure to turn on the VCM on the master and bring up the mids on EQ.

Hi. Been following this thread with much interest. I agree with Pcode. I both have the xs6 and mox6. It is true the mox sounds thinner compared to the xs using the same voices with the same insertion effects and elements. What I found that if you turn on the compressors on the master effects section on the MOX either VCM or multiband and tweak the frequencies you want to enhance it sounds a lot better unless Bad Mister has a better suggestion.

ROx

I spent a lot of my life as a full time Recording engineer, and know enough to know when talking about sound and comparing what you hear, is more a statement of what you hear in your particular sound system than it is a statement of fact. Same goes for what I think and feel about how the XS and MOX compare in sound quality.

You can be as certain as you want to be, as you go back and forth, A/B’ing the sound, that there is or maybe a difference, but in a true blindfold test you’d be very very hard pressed to tell definitively which is which, so at that point ... It’s a discussion that just goes absolutely nowhere… Bottomline is, if you have the money get the Motif-series, it’s more expensive, and quite naturally, has more features, functions, options… That’s it, really isn’t it?

If you are at MOX level money, or MX level money, you have quality products you can purchase and start to build your personal music production studio.

The routing potential is what you should be looking at and the expansion options. Obviously, the more money the product the more functions, features and options you get.

XS and XF have options to route an instrument to any of 16 audio bus outputs digitally. It’s sophisticated enough to the point where you can route a shaker (or any individual drum) from its position within a Drum Kit to its own discreet audio bus out… For isolated audio recording.

On the MOX or MX you don’t have that level of routing (instantly available). Think about it. Looking for differences and trying to do it by ‘sound quality’ where you have squint and listen really really closely to “think” you’ve found a difference… Can be seen as silly. The real differences is in the type and depth of options available to the workflow.

While digital audio interfaces are built-in the MOX and MX (optional on the XS and XF) you are dealing with dual stereo (MOX) and stereo (MX) busing, and this makes sense for the price points.

XS, XF, and MOX have a built-in sequencer which comes in handy (even those you never thought they’d use it wind up find a use for it). The MX design comes to fruition when you connect it via USB to your computer!

Given the workflow, my results working the same compositions through to final mixdown, on an XF, XS, MOX, and MX ... I found that the results are virtually impossible to know which keyboard was used. With the XS and XF I found my self transferring (rendering as audio) as many as eight tracks in a pass (Why not, 8 Parts can simultaneously access their Insert Effects) where with the MOX and MX, once I had completed the MIDI tracks, and I began the transfers to audio, Part by Part, you’re able to reallocate the Effects and get the sound you want for each Part. I use the internal sequencer when working with the units that have it, but the MX paradigm works in the hardware/software combination at all times.

It’s the workflow that adjusts and you quickly find that the tools are the same, you don’t have as many available simultaneously, so it takes a little longer but the results are absolutely stunning in quality. If I want isolate the shaker (or any drum, for the matter) I can on any of these units… HOW you do it (workflow) changes, but if I want to process the kick drum with a VCM Compressor, I can. On any of the products - how I do it in each case is slightly different, but it is doable, and that’s what you pay for!

If you have an MX or MOX and want to Multi track ... You certainly can. Having the full compliment of VCM Effects on the MX is like the coolest thing since ice… The entry level customer would have to spend a big bundle of money to get equivalent plugins… Far more than the price of the MX alone!

I guess the answer is that you can make MX, MOX and XF sound identical if you want to and if you have the right tools and knowledge to do so.

But many people just compare the default factory sounds and try to conclude “quality” from there.  Once a small detail or small difference is noticed, people tend to draw the conclusion that quality is inferior or superior.

I am not sure about MM series (because MM is based on classic), the MX, MOX and XS should have the same basic sound set.  However, as you go up price range, certain aspects or certain tweaks are added.  Some additions cause the default sound to come out a bit differently.  But like what Badmister mentioned, all the tweaks and playing with parameters can be done via the right tools and a computer, with the right knowledge, of course.  That is what synths are built for. 

The issue is that many people just compare the default factory sounds once they turn on the machine.  Needless to say, at the default setting, XF MOX MX sounds rank in that order, though personally I did not manage to hear any difference.

mm6 - 13 April 2013 06:44 AM

I guess the answer is that you can make MX, MOX and XF sound identical if you want to and if you have the right tools and knowledge to do so.
...
the MX, MOX and XS should have the same basic sound set.

The MX does not have as much ROM as the MOX and XS, so as discussed, some sounds could sound very different (or possibly be absent altogether) The XF has more again. There’s no way to get some XF sounds out of a MOX or MX. As for whether a MOX and XS sound the same (unlike the others in this list, those two have the same ROM), that’s been debatable. In my experience, the MOX and Rack XS sound identical IF driven from the same keybed. I think (but am not certain) that the XS and the Rack XS are designed to be identical sounding. So I think that the differences people may be hearing in a MOX vs XS comparison (or S90XS, or possibly XF, as long as you stay within the programs that exist in all of them) may come from the different velocity responses of the keybeds.