?

On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 03:01 PM, Bruce Wahler wrote:

________
For anyone who is interested, the TX802 banks loaded fine without any more fuss than mentioning "Multiple F0/F7 Found!"? I haven't extensively played around yet, but they sound pretty much the same.? I don't expect to spend too much time tweaking envelopes and levels.

With a lot of spreadsheet time, I was able to condense my 64-patch User Performance Bank into something that fits the Bank A/B architecture, and doesn't use more than two instances of OPS7.? The hardest part was moving Voices around to balance them between the banks, something that seldom comes up in the TX802:

• The TX802 is 8-part multitimbral, with one user bank, and limited polyphony
• Two OPS7s is 4-part multitimbral, with four user banks and comparatively inexhaustible polyphony

Epilogue:

I've finished my port from my TX802 to OPS7.? I did find a couple of wrinkles in the translation:

1. In one -- and only one -- patch, OPS7 selected a frequency of 8.00 for one modulator, even though the original patch used 12.00.? I have no idea why!
2. Pitch EG modulation was off in many patches.? It seems that the scaling for Pitch EG Level is off by 2x, or maybe even 4x.? I set the scaling to 0.5 and things came back 80-90%, then I tweaked a little.? Not having a DX7 for reference, I don't know why this is.
3. OPS7 doesn't seem to support real-time CC7, so volume control on stage requires some ingenuity.

The end result sounds more like a DX7 than a TX802 to my ears, even when setting up 15-bit DAC output, but as I mentioned before, I kind of like the edginess.? To be fair, the OPS7 doesn't claim to be a TX802; it's closer to a DX1/DX5 in capabilities, with the option of better DACs.

I've also used up to four instances live in Cakewalk by BandLab, with good stability.? So converting TX Performances to OPS duals was easier than I feared.? All in all, I'm happy with the VSTi.

Regards,
-BW