Electribe Questions

A forum for discussing the pros & cons of buying a particular synth and for advice on buying synthesizers.
User avatar
supermel74
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:56 am
Location: Maine
Contact:

Re: Electribe Questions

Post by supermel74 » Tue Oct 07, 2008 3:23 am

tallowwaters wrote:Are those mammyrammers soldered in or snap in?
they snap right in

ipassenger
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:25 pm

Re: Electribe Questions

Post by ipassenger » Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:35 am

Cheers mel. Think that might be my next studio purchase then. :)

Jiggz
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2004 5:13 pm

Re: Electribe Questions

Post by Jiggz » Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:07 am

I know this is old but I have to comment on the ESX. This will be hard for me not to come across negative about the ESX but I would be interested to hear if any others have experienced the same...

I bought an ES-1 when they first came out and loved it, but there were always some things I wished it had. So when I heard about the ESX coming out I snapped one up instantly, as it was everything I wanted in the ES-1 plus some more. However, after buying and selling 3 of the red beasts (ESX) I have come to the conclusion that despite it's limitations i prefer the ES-1. Why? The Sound. I just do not like the sound of the ESX. It makes my samples of analogue synths (and all samples for that matter) sound lifeless. I want to love it but I can't , hence getting through 2 more and selling them. To be honest, I think it sounds like S%&. The sound of the eS-1 blows it out of the water, and it is only 32.1khz. What did Korg do? Even the nice sounding fx on the ES-1 seem to have been replaced with drab on the ESX. Basically, i think it makes everything sound like a muddy quagmire. It is possible to bring out the sounds a little more by bit reducing all the samples, but still its not quite there.

It has everything I want on the ES-1 but it does not have the sound. That is the deal breaker.

User avatar
killedaway
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:22 am
Gear: Electribes x 6
Revolution
Monomachine MKII
microKORG
CS01
& more!
Band: killedaway/allyourblood
Location: California, US

Re: Electribe Questions

Post by killedaway » Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:08 pm

Jiggz wrote:I know this is old but I have to comment on the ESX. This will be hard for me not to come across negative about the ESX but I would be interested to hear if any others have experienced the same...
...It has everything I want on the ES-1 but it does not have the sound. That is the deal breaker.
this has long been my observation as well, though i wouldn't go so far as to say i categorically dislike the ESX. i like both machines, but the sound of the ES-1 wins out between the two, in my opinion. dirtier, "browner", and easier to fit into a song, that's how i'd describe the ES-1's output compared to that of the ESX.
1.5.9.13
1.5.9.13

ipassenger
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:25 pm

Re: Electribe Questions

Post by ipassenger » Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:53 pm

I think it has a sound.. a pretty mellow one, it could do with being a bit sharper.. i dont think it sounds s**t tho but each to their own. Wish someone would make a hybrid, spec and sound of MPCs coupled with useability and tactile-ness of the tribe.

User avatar
tallowwaters
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 4:11 am
Gear: LC-MS/MS
Location: snake's belly in a wagon rut

Re: Electribe Questions

Post by tallowwaters » Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:33 pm

Samplers only ever sound as good as you let them. Maybe try tweaking your samples before you put them into the machine.

Big difference between carfting a good sample and downloading some c**p off the wb and dumping it in a sampler.
Brains can be used like a "stress ball," but only once.

User avatar
OriginalJambo
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 2560
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:04 am
Gear: Check my sig
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom

Re: Electribe Questions

Post by OriginalJambo » Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:38 pm

Don't know about the ESX-1 but I think I can see what killedaway is saying about the ES-1. I had some drum samples laid out in Pro Tools that I later fired on to a SmartMedia card to transfer to the ES-1 (didn't sample it through the analogue inputs at all).

For some reason I liked the sound of the samples better on the ES-1 over Pro Tools, despite hardly editing them at all once on the ES-1. Maybe it's the lower sample rate? Who knows.

Sounds good enough to me anyway, although it's clear that the ESX-1 is much, much more versatile.

User avatar
tallowwaters
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4998
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 4:11 am
Gear: LC-MS/MS
Location: snake's belly in a wagon rut

Re: Electribe Questions

Post by tallowwaters » Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:30 am

The ES-1 Format
As mentioned above the format of a ES-1 file is not public, and playing the sampled data in various raw audio formats hasn't helped either. There's one seeming contradiction regarding the ES-1 format. Even if you have a fully loaded bank file it's size is about four megabytes that is 4 * 1024 * 1024 = 4194304 bytes. Yet 98.3 seconds of 16 bit mono samples at 32000 samples / seconds should yeald: 2 * 32000 * 98.3 = 6291200 bytes. The ES_1 file clearly has a compression ratio of about 40 percents. Intuitively, the first conclusion is that the sample data is storred in a lossy compressed format which throws away parts of the actual audio data and deteriorates the sound somewhat. This is in deed correct.

Here's the hard proof. A programmer named Ricard Wanderlöf has painstakingly disassembled the es21program and rewritten the decompression and compression algorithm in C. Because of some mysterious header fields and such, the conversion is still not perfect but it is very close, however. The compression algorithm that Korg uses is called delta PCM in which the basic idea is to store changes between samples using lookup tables in stead of storing the actual samples.

here's some in-depth commentry from Ricard:




I've done some more research. The algorithm Korg uses belongs to a general family of compression algorithms called ADPCM - Adaptive Differential PCM. Most ADPCM algorithms I've seen are used for voice compression (ITU G.721 etc for telephony), and also for multimedia applications - Windows and Apple have their implementations of an ADPCM algorithm designed by the International Multimedia Association. However, none of the algorithms I've seen are identical to Korg's, although it's clear from looking at various source code on the net that the Korg algorithm is some sort of ADPCM.

Most ADPCM algorithms compress the input data to 3,4 or 5 bits width; none I've seen compresses from 16 to 7 bits like Korg's does, and Korg also seem to have added some quirks, probably to increase the quality of the decoded sound at low amplitudes. Also, Korg uses a frame-based format with 32-byte frames; although ADPCM algorithms when sent over an error-prone channel benifit from resynchronization now and then, doing it every 32 samples is not common. Probably Korg have done it that way to allow for easy editing of the compressed data; otherwise, truncating a sample at the start of a waveform would require re-coding of the whole wave. With 32 sample frames, they can have a resolution of 1ms (32/32000), and if they want to go finer than that, they just have to decode and re-code a single frame.

It was quite interesting to read some example code for an ADPCM compressor/decompressor. Some of the variable names turned out to be rather similar for the names I've started using in my decompiled code...

Yes they use compression, and it must be lossy, as they achieve a compression rate of 1:2
Brains can be used like a "stress ball," but only once.

Post Reply