5pD,

Remember that I said:

I think A and B sound the same

At around 4 seconds into the song I thought that the synth drone type sound on C and D had a little more growl/resonance (and low end) than A and B had.

That resonance was the “sizzle” I heard.

Thanks for the experiment!

Jerry

PS
I’m 60 years old.

I hope everyone will take note that I (intentionally) didn’t keep “score” of anyone’s observations. This wasn’t meant to be a contest, just a means of comparing the sound of the models to some degree.

Congratulations to those who are young enough or lucky enough to have had minimal hearing loss, and to those with “educated” ears.

cool thread :)

Sounds the same on my xs BUT the problem is you didn’t add sysex to the midi file and that could make it sound different than on your xf.

Cause I loaded it to an initialized song and the mixing is initialized too… so the volume of all parts is 100, rev send 12 and insertion switch is on for the first 8 parts.

Try this:

Mixing - Job - Bulk and dump the sysex data to the midi ... use a daw to record the data.

Then add the sysex to the beginning of the midi file and that will recreate your whole mix, including insertion switches, play fx (I think), EG, EQ, filter aso.

No idea what the sysex date would make an moxf or xs do, but I suppose almost the same thing it makes the xf do and it’s worth a try and would make the comparison more “real” :)

musicadi - 16 January 2014 02:07 PM

cool thread :)

Sounds the same on my xs BUT the problem is you didn’t add sysex to the midi file and that could make it sound different than on your xf.

Cause I loaded it to an initialized song and the mixing is initialized too… so the volume of all parts is 100, rev send 12 and insertion switch is on for the first 8 parts.

Try this:

Mixing - Job - Bulk and dump the sysex data to the midi ... use a daw to record the data.

Then add the sysex to the beginning of the midi file and that will recreate your whole mix, including insertion switches, play fx (I think), EG, EQ, filter aso.

No idea what the sysex date would make an moxf or xs do, but I suppose almost the same thing it makes the xf do and it’s worth a try and would make the comparison more “real” :)

I’m not sure what you’re suggesting. SysEx messages (other than a few so-called “Universal” ones) include Model ID, which therefore could only be received by a specific model.

I know you didn’t ask, but I tried on my MOX…

Played on MOX (not MOXF).

Insertion Switch on Channel 3, 5 and 6 (as MOX has only 3 inserts).

* what’s the difference between Xs’d Up.mid and Xs’d Up PC2.mid files? They look the same for me…

I heard the other wav file a guy posted here from MOXF, and it sounds the same for me in MOX/MOXF…

XS'd up.mp3  (File Size: 3839KB - Downloads: 934)

fnonaka - 18 January 2014 08:04 AM

I know you didn’t ask, but I tried on my MOX…

Played on MOX (not MOXF).

Insertion Switch on Channel 3, 5 and 6 (as MOX has only 3 inserts).

* what’s the difference between Xs’d Up.mid and Xs’d Up PC2.mid files? They look the same for me…

I heard the other wav file a guy posted here from MOXF, and it sounds the same for me in MOX/MOXF…

Xs’d Up.mid has a Program Change at the very beginning of each track. Xs’d Up PC2.mid has the PCs spread out - I did that because two out of three recordings that were posted until then had some incorrect Voices for the Parts.

Thanks for letting us know that you don’t hear a difference with your MOX either.

But the difference on the MOX should be apparent in the lack of the 5 dual Insertion Effects that are not there - depending on how intently you are listening. And this is why this is just an exercise in having fun with music - no harm in it at all.

But when I used to teach Audio Engineering I got a very good chance to observe how people listen and what they hear (and don’t hear). Not something I intentionally set out to do, it is just over the years and years of students filing through you start to realize that we do not hear the same, we don’t even listen to the same things.

I could pick musicians out almost immediately from a class of 16 students… here’s what I would do in one of the first classes in the actual control room: I’d play a record (yes, it was long ago), a commercially available recording - total blindfold test. Remember the class is Audio Engineering.

I would give no details about the recording, none. Just let it play through. At the end, I would hand out a piece of paper to each student and ask them to write down the instrumentation of group in the recording.

If they started to write more than two things, I’d found my musicians… the average person would insist on playing it again - they had paid no attention to the music, none. Some could actually tell me what the song was about, some had even picked up on the lyrics. Others I could hear comment about the strength of the hook or some other production comment… Yikes!

No one ever got all the instrument sounds. Not in 12 years… Why because I discovered no one sweats the details on a recording like the engineer. By the end of the course, thankfully, many had changed the way they approached listening to music. Some never got it.

I also observed that far, far more people are tone deaf than you might think. Just as there are many people who are color blind, tone deaf is fairly wide spread. You have some people (obviously not many take up musical instruments) who cannot tell a violin from a guitar, or a flute from a piano… No way! I can hear you shout. But true none the less.

Just as you cannot believe a person who can’t see the number 6 in the Green/Blue color blindness test, you have people who cannot identify one instrument tone from another. (not the person you want mixing your music).

In particular, effects… amazing but people do not hear reverb. It is such a natural thing in our everyday lives that it is the lack of reverb that is immediately identified by the listener. Most sound you hear is the result of it bouncing off of some surface prior to entering your ear. Reverberation is natural. When you “close mike” a sound source you remove a lot of the natural reverberation - this is why in a mix you restore some of it - and while most recording have reverb (it is usually not OVER DONE). The right amount is just short of being noticed.

If you are listening to the MOX play the same file, it can be documented and shown what is missing - the lack of the additional hardware means that some of the PARTS are lacking something. But again who listens that close.

The club of recording engineers (to be sure) and the biggest of music fans - but the average listener kind of hears the overall vibe rather than the particulars. The fact is the MOX should not be able to sound as good as the MOXF or the Motif XF on that same file. Whether you hear it or not is a test of your youth, and ability to concentrate and identify.

Play the file again - and see if you can hear each instrument that has data recorded for it.

Back in the class - I’d eventually play things I know the class had heard… like Motown or something from off the current charts - the results were the same. (no one, and I mean no one, heard the tambourine in a Motown record - are you kidding me… this is how the MORE COWBELL thing got started!!!) Back in the 60’s, 70’s and well in the 80’s every hit had a tambourine in it!!! (Or so it seemed)

:-)

5pinDIN - 16 January 2014 08:55 PM

musicadi - 16 January 2014 02:07 PM

cool thread :)

Sounds the same on my xs BUT the problem is you didn’t add sysex to the midi file and that could make it sound different than on your xf.

Cause I loaded it to an initialized song and the mixing is initialized too… so the volume of all parts is 100, rev send 12 and insertion switch is on for the first 8 parts.

Try this:

Mixing - Job - Bulk and dump the sysex data to the midi ... use a daw to record the data.

Then add the sysex to the beginning of the midi file and that will recreate your whole mix, including insertion switches, play fx (I think), EG, EQ, filter aso.

No idea what the sysex date would make an moxf or xs do, but I suppose almost the same thing it makes the xf do and it’s worth a try and would make the comparison more “real” :)

I’m not sure what you’re suggesting. SysEx messages (other than a few so-called “Universal” ones) include Model ID, which therefore could only be received by a specific model.

Oh ok, but I guess you can change the model ID in the data.... but that’s too much fuss then :)

Thanks for this very instructive thread. Trying to make my mind if I SHOULD spend the additional 2000 that the XF calls for, it helped a lot. I’ll continue my research, but in terms of features, what do you really get more with the XF?

Syl@Laval - 11 April 2014 08:55 AM

Thanks for this very instructive thread. Trying to make my mind if I SHOULD spend the additional 2000 that the XF calls for, it helped a lot. I’ll continue my research, but in terms of features, what do you really get more with the XF?

Welcome to the forum. These two threads might help:
http://www.motifator.com/index.php/forum/viewthread/469959/
http://www.motifator.com/index.php/forum/viewthread/471264/

Thanks that was quick!

Syl@Laval - 11 April 2014 08:55 AM

Thanks for this very instructive thread. Trying to make my mind if I SHOULD spend the additional 2000 that the XF calls for, it helped a lot. I’ll continue my research, but in terms of features, what do you really get more with the XF?

Syl@Laval (and everyone else),

The OP question was “Do the MOXF and XF sound alike?”.

Hasn’t that question been answered/decided?

Jerry

The MOXF and the XF sound exactly the same. I have them both, thanks to Yamaha (for use in developing the KARMA Motif Software.) Side-by-side, A/B comparisons of the same material have revealed no differences.

The XF has aftertouch, the MOXF does not. I myself absolutely prefer aftertouch, and use it extensively to bring in vibrato while my left hand is busy and can’t use the wheels, but your mileage may vary, as to whether you will miss it with the MOXF.

Also, the much larger and detailed display of the XF is not to be discounted. Nor is the more high-quality feel of the keybed in the XF.

On the plus-side for the MOXF, you can practically lift it with one hand. Much easier portability. The XF is much denser construction. Hope that helps.

Stephen Kay - 13 April 2014 02:57 AM

The MOXF and the XF sound exactly the same. I have them both, thanks to Yamaha (for use in developing the KARMA Motif Software.) Side-by-side, A/B comparisons of the same material have revealed no differences.

...the much larger and detailed display of the XF is not to be discounted

Hello Stephen, it’s always GREAT to hear from you :)

I am/was friends with Bobby (does he remind you of Rick Moranis?), Dan, Jerry (I think he’s secretly working with Hawaii Five-0 now) and Mike (RIP).

Regardless, don’t you think that since you can connect an iPad to the MOXF, the larger/more detailed screen size advantage of the XF is negated somewhat?

Thanks!

Jerry

jerrydpi - 13 April 2014 12:41 PM

Regardless, don’t you think that since you can connect an iPad to the MOXF, the larger/more detailed screen size advantage of the XF is negated somewhat?

Are you referring to the “Multi Editor Essential” and “Voice Editor Essential” apps, or is there some other iPad app for the MOXF? (or some other way of using it that I don’t know about?)

I haven’t used those, but in perusing the features list, they seem somewhat limited. You cannot get at all of the parameters for all of the parts in a multi, as far as I can tell.

Really, if you’re going to use an external device, using the Yamaha MOXF or XF Editor on a mac/pc is the best choice. You have access to every parameter. In that case, it does somewhat negate the larger display of the XF - as long as you want to use a computer.