EDS and EDS-i

gridsleep · Post by **gridsleep** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:26 am

What, exactly, is the difference between EDS, and used in the M50, and EDS-i, as used in the PS60? Is it just a matter of which chip it is burned into? Or are there real differences in the coding that would make the two machines sound and play differently?

Also, what would be a good sampler for use with the M50? Are there any that specially compliment the M50's capabilities?

X-Trade · Post by **X-Trade** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 6:10 pm

I don't have any hands on experience with EDS-i nor have I researched it yet, however I *think* the main difference is the sample set. EDS in the M50 has a lot more samples covering a lot more instruments and sounds. EDS-i should have most or all of the same parameters and functionality, but about half or I think even less or the samples to work with.

mocando · Post by **mocando** » Sat Nov 06, 2010 10:41 pm

Specs wise, the PS60 have only 49 MB of samples in 136 multisamples.
The Microstation which shares the EDS-i engine have 49 MB of sample memory as well, but spread in 360 multisamples and 480 drum samples, so that means the samples must be reduced in size, sampling rate or korg uses some kind of compression.

The M50 have 256 MB of samples in 1077 multisamples and 1609 drum samples. Roughly 3 times the amount of multisamples available to play with.

kikedeolivos · Post by **kikedeolivos** » Sun Nov 07, 2010 1:26 am

mocando wrote:Specs wise, the PS60 have only 49 MB of samples in 136 multisamples.
The Microstation which shares the EDS-i engine have 49 MB of sample memory as well, but spread in 360 multisamples and 480 drum samples, so that means the samples must be reduced in size, sampling rate or korg uses some kind of compression.

The M50 have 256 MB of samples in 1077 multisamples and 1609 drum samples. Roughly 3 times the amount of multisamples available to play with.

MORE never equals BETTER.

CfNorENa · Post by **CfNorENa** » Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:43 am

kikedeolivos wrote:MORE never equals BETTER.

You must mean "more does not automatically equal better." Which is of course true. Otherwise your statement makes no sense at all.

But in this particular case (EDS vs. EDS-i), I'll just be dogmatic: more IS better!

kikedeolivos · Post by **kikedeolivos** » Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:16 am

CfNorENa wrote:
kikedeolivos wrote:MORE never equals BETTER.
You must mean "more does not automatically equal better." Which is of course true. Otherwise your statement makes no sense at all.

But in this particular case (EDS vs. EDS-i), I'll just be dogmatic: more IS better!

I much prefer 400 REALISTIC - by all means - multisamples than a 2000 mix of some useful and a lot of useless samples...just for the sake of making everybody happy.

CfNorENa · Post by **CfNorENa** » Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:47 am

Well yes, putting aside the particular details of this comparison, I agree that I'd like to see a workstation with fewer but better multisamples (i.e., fewer but better sounds).

mocando · Post by **mocando** » Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:34 am

We have two variables here, sample memory amount and number of samples. It can be compared to megapixel count and sensor size in digital cameras.

The particular PS60 case is that having the same amount of memory as the microstation, only has 137 samples, and that should be (technically) the case of less is better. Each sample on the PS60 must be very high quality uncompressed stereo samples.

Of course we are drifting away from the primary question of the OP, and that should be that the engines are essentially the same, only the kind, amount, size and quality of the samples to be the ultimate difference.