deswind wrote:For one thing the X has aftertouch. I assume there is more control over the X by knobs and that the screen on the X is larger for editing. I do not know if the audio quality is identical.
The engine and audio quality are supposed to be identical.
Other than the keybed, the Jupiter-X control panel has the following differences. The parameters that lack physical controls on the Xm can all be accessed via the menu.
- The Jupiter-X has sliders for many functions (all controls on the XM are knobs except the two assignable sliders)
- Pitch/mod bender and two assignable wheels (Xm has pitch and mod wheels; no bender)
- I-Arpeggio — Duration and shuffle knobs
- Dedicated oscillator select buttons (Xm uses the first four part select buttons for this; I'm guessing it depends on the current mode and/or requires holding the Function button)
- Oscillator detune knob (Xm sacrifices this to provide a level control for the currently selected oscillator)
- Mixer levels for all four oscillators
- HPF cutoff
- AMP level
- Two sets of envelope controls (Xm has one)
- Knobs for reverb time and delay time
- Dedicated buttons for mono, unison, velocity off, portamento, split, dual
- Numeric display
One thing I think is better about the Xm is the primary display and related controls are centered, whereas the X has it way off to the left where it will no doubt be harder to see and less convenient to use. I think the numeric display in the center of the X was an aesthetic choice to make it look more like a Jupiter-8. It wouldn't be a simple matter of swapping the displays, as the primary display has a bunch of controls associated with it, but I still think they should have come up with a layout where the main display is front-and-center.
The Jupiter-X does look great, but there's a mismatch/disconnect between the control surface of the Jupiter-8 it's trying to look like and the massive increase in features and complexity of the actual synth engine. I think it's a good design overall (after all, it has hundreds of parameters and it would be impossible to provide dedicated controls for all of them), but I think it suffered a little bit from the two primary design constraints:
- It has to have the exact same engine and features as the Jupiter-Xm (I actually like this, because it means the Xm is a serious synth and not a baby version…but it did prevent them from using a larger display on the X, as they'd need two different interfaces)
- It has to look like a Jupiter-8 (it does look amazing, and that counts for something…but it restricted what they could do with the control layout)
If they were willing to give it a bit more depth and drop the numeric display, they could have put a larger, nicer display (like the one in the MC-707) and its related controls in the center. This should also open up enough space to provide a full set of controls for all four oscillators instead of having to switch between them and re-use the same controls.
Still, if I was going to buy either of these, it would have to be the Jupiter-X. Unless you need it to be portable or just can't afford the higher price, the Jupiter-X is going to be so much better to play and program.
