|
|
|
|
|
|
#207121 - 12/26/02 05:50 AM
Re: Any Info On XG Works here?
|
Senior Member
Registered: 11/10/00
Posts: 2195
Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY
|
First off, Happy Holidays wishes to all. Been hectic here so I haven't had the time I normally have had in the past to post here but I still read the forum when I can.
Bebop,
I would try the demo to see if you like it. One drawback might be that it is a large download so if you are using dial up it may take quite a while.
I still use XG works even though I currently do not have a Yamaha arranger at this time. I also don't have the XG board for my Motif. Pilot is right about it being a better tool for XG boards, but I still utilize it with both my Motif and PA80 because it can, as Roy-Andre says, play any yamaha style from within.
I have likes and dislikes. I also utilize Cakewalk Sonar ( thanks to Terry one more time for that one ), and N Track studio for audio. XG works has 480 ppq sequencer resolution - not bad, but I prefer the 960 of Sonar at times. Although XG works does support audio in some ways, I never use it for that, preferring N Track ( even over Sonar ) for Audio work .
What I like about XG works is the ease of editing and arranging sequences ( even without having an XG board ). The sequencer is laid out so that editing is easy to understand and utilize. The importer function works very well and was very useful when I was importing data to combine or modify styles. I even converted some PA80 styles to Yamaha format using XG works along with Michael P Bedesem's style converter. They played well on XG works. I did not change the voices however, and the styles are still setup with the proper PA80 voice / midi data. They play exactly as they do on the board itself. I have the Tyros styles too. I simply changed the file extension to .sty, and they play well on XG works as well.
When I had my PSR 740, the voice editing capabilities in it were about nil. The XG edit function allowed me access to edit many parameters, similar to the editing capabiltiies of the 9000 and 2000, but with greater detail.
Compared to Cakewalk, XG works is simpler. You cannot make custom patch lists for it, so you'd have to edit the voices later manually for a non XG synth. It doesn;t support cal scripts or third party effects or software ( like "Rythym and Chords" for example ), so it is limited in that respect. Still, I think for the price it's a pretty good piece of software, and for those users who may have a 740 or other PSR that does not allow for voice editing within the board, I think the XG edit function is an excellent tool.
Happy Holidays,
AJ
_________________________
AJ
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#207125 - 12/27/02 07:10 AM
Re: Any Info On XG Works here?
|
Senior Member
Registered: 11/10/00
Posts: 2195
Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY
|
Originally posted by The Pro: Also, Yamaha will not provide further instrument definition lists for the XGWorks program so keyboards like the 9000 Pro are not supported in XGWorks. Pro:, I haven't been following it that much as of late but if this is true I would also caution potential users to consider staying away from XG works unless you are willing to do some patch editing afterwards. Judging by the problems users with Windows XP had with driver issues and the very slow response by Yamaha to correct it, I wouldn't doubt for a minute that Yamaha isn't particularly interested in addressing the issue of new instrument lists. Like Shiral, I still prefer XG works for some things, including some of it's editing features versus Cakewalk, so I use each for different things too. Ideally, a sequence I do will start out in XG works and will be finished in it too, with a trip somewhere in the middle to Sonar to straighten out patch voices, apply cal scripts, use 3rd party software etc. I have had absolutely no synch problems with mine though. Before I got Sonar, I often worked exclusively with XG works and N Track studio all the time, with perfect synch (at least to the ears ) using a modest Pentium 3 800 mhz comp and 192 mb ram. My only complaint with N track ( if there is one at all ) is that the sequencer in it leaves a lot to be desired, or else I would never want to use XG works at all. It's been a great program for me for audio work though. Good enough that I haven't used Cool Edit in ages even. AJ [This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 12-27-2002).]
_________________________
AJ
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|