Re: PS-3100

From Doug Masla
Sent Mon, Jan 5th 1998, 10:19

At 12:57 PM -0600 12/31/97, DAC Crowell wrote:
>At 11:58 -0400 12/31/97, =B4=AA" "=B4=AA" "=B4=AA" Philip "Pilgrim=B4=AA"=
 "=B4=AA" "=B4=AA wrote:
>>btw the PS-3100 has some nice vocoder-ish effects created by it's
>>resonator circuit. I have read that the MAM resonator is very similar.
>>In fact im am so impressed with the 3100's resonator that my next effect
>>will be the MAM unit. Also the high frequency range of MG1 makes for
>>some very interesting metallic xmod sounds. Initailly the synth sounded
>>pretty smooth and "tame" like a CS-80 (and limited in sound
>>range...unlike an odyssey...etc) however it can be pushed by making use
>>of the fast MG-1, short decay times...etc to make very useful sounds.
>The CS-80 can get into the same sound ranges, though...I wouldn't call it
>'tame'. On one track that I have out on my label ("Desert Signals" off of
>the "Darkness and Depth" CD; there's an .RA excerpt of it on the site) I
>use mine to create a wild variety of metallics, avant-ish squeals, etc all
>with the use of various internal ring-mod settings. The CS-80's ring-mod is
>_very_ interesting in its capability to use an envelope setting as a
>determinant for ring-mod amount and timing, making this feature act
>somewhat like a crossmod setting on other synths. Another track I have has
>a vocoded-sounding "aah...eee-ahhh...ohh-ahh" repeating loop. CS-80 again,
>close enough that it's fooled people into thinking I have a vocoder (which,
>for some weird reason, I don't). This used some competing modulation
>routines on the global VCF (the one that uses the "Brilliance" and
>"Resonance" controls next to the aftertouch fingertabs), which is a stage
>that's reminded me of the PS-series resonator from the scant contact I've
>had with the PSes.
>	It really would be interesting to compare these two units
>blow-by-blow. Remember, Yamaha and Korg had and have a lot of connections
>between them, and around the same time you had the three modular-type
>studio polysynths that Korg made, Yamaha had three performance-type
>polysynths in their initial CS line. Putting the architecture and, if
>possible, some of the circuits side-by-side could prove educational. The
>main difference, obviously, is that one is a divide-down and the other is a
>true polysynth...but beyond that, I really am starting to wonder what
>features are common to both lines.
Congats on putting out the CD....Hope things go well with it.....
Sonically the CS&PS are very different,though IMO hte PS3300 is a true poly
synth as
there are compete synth. voices (vco,vcf,vca.res./eg/ect.) for every key on
the 4 oct. kybd.
yeas it is a divide down poly sceme,but  unlike the 3100(the only other PS
line synth i have owned/used) it is a very different beast.
Personally I think the CS80 has more balls,the PS with its semo-modular
approach gives you some added flex. and the abilty for some wild FM
loops(vcso1>2>,2>3,3>1 ect)patching complete voices,
One similarity between the 80&3300 is the layerinf of 2/3 different
I vote for both they are firrernt beasts and both very powerfull(I wish the
PS have theRM of the CS)
cheers & happy new gear