[Dan Phillips]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

Are you SERIOUSLY going to tell em that the sonics, converters and build quality is better than a Synclavier? No way!

I didn't start this comparison - in fact, I don't think it's particularly useful, since the Synclavier, while innovative in many ways in its time, is such old technology at this point. But, since you ask, I'll respond.

First - I haven't said anything about build quality. However, I think that you'll find the build quality of OASYS to be pretty high; you can check it out in a store and see for yourself.

In re sonics: as noted elsewhere, one of the things we're particularly proud of with OASYS is the bandlimited interpolation of the PCM oscillators, which results in very low aliasing. See this comment from the Sound On Sound review of the Prophet 2000, in re aliasing and the Synclavier:

From http://www.analoghell.com/studio//p2...age=sos-review
From subsequent use in studios I have found the Prophet sampler to be second to none in terms of accuracy and flexibility. It has the fidelity of an AMS with the analogue processing capability of the Emulator. It suffers less from aliasing than the Synclavier when you replay the sample lower than the original pitch and yet any aliasing that starts to creep in can be quickly and easily dealt with using keyboard-tracking filters which the Synclavier system doesn't have.

And, in re converters: converter technology has advanced significantly in the twelve years or so since NED ceased production on Synclavs. I've just checked the Synclavier reference manual, and while it's very specific on pinouts and other service-oriented information, it doesn't offer much information on audio specifications per se, especially for the outputs. All of their converters were 16-bit, although they enhanced the effective dynamic range of the outputs by using analog amp stages post-conversion.

OASYS uses OASYS uses TI PCM1793 converters for all analog outputs:
24-bit
192kHz (OASYS currently uses 48kHz)
Dynamic Range: 113 dB
THD+N: 0.001%

I can't comment on the relative sound quality in comparison to Synclav Poly voices, since I haven't listened to the two side-by-side. The Synclav will run at up to 100kHz, which would be an advantage in some cases. On the other hand, OASYS uses 32-bit floating-point processing, and 24-bit converters, both of which should reduce quantization noise.

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

And no, the Synclavier wasn't a jack of all trades box like the Oasys.

???

Synclavier: Multiple synthesis types (sampling, FM/additive synthesis), sequencing, HDR

OASYS: Multiple synthesis types (listed elsewhere), sequencing, HDR

There are many differences betwee the two, and I don't think that an x vs. y comparison between them would be particularly meaningful, but the general concepts - at least from a music production standpoint - are pretty similar.

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

It was cutting edge NEW technology and pushing the evelope in ideas and sonics...I'm saying that the Oasys isn't doing that

I believe that this has been addressed in detail in previous messages in this thread and elsewhere. Since you keep returning to this, however - in what ways do you feel that what the OASYS offers is not new technology? if you talk about details, then we can address them one by one if you like.

- Dan