XLN Audio - XO - Improvement, Pros, Cons

[wasi]

I wish there would be a VST with Atlas' features and XO's sorting algorithm.

Genuine question: What features does Atlas have that XO doesn't? I like Atlas for it's simplicity and accessibility but I'm hard pressed to find anything there that isn't in XO. Drag-to-drum-rack? Part of the simplicity in Atlas stems from the fact that it doesn't have per-lane groove settings and such. I just looked again and I see a lot in XO that isn't in Atlas but not really vice versa.

[SLiC]

I wish there would be a VST with Atlas' features and XO's sorting algorithm.

Genuine question: What features does Atlas have that XO doesn't? I like Atlas for it's simplicity and accessibility but I'm hard pressed to find anything there that isn't in XO. Drag-to-drum-rack? Part of the simplicity in Atlas stems from the fact that it doesn't have per-lane groove settings and such. I just looked again and I see a lot in XO that isn't in Atlas but not really vice versa.

Atlas has a better sequencer and multiple slot variations to match your hardware (not just 8 slots)
Atlas is also active, gets updated quite frequently.
An entire thread on it here! viewtopic.php?t=576372

[wasi]

Thanks, but how is it better? It's a pretty basic sequencer, no? XO's strikes me as more elaborate (grooves, swing, micro-move), but I'm not a sequencer buff.

[SLiC]

Thanks, but how is it better? It's a pretty basic sequencer, no? XO's strikes me as more elaborate (grooves, swing, micro-move), but I'm not a sequencer buff.

XO only has 16 steps and a couple of pattern variations.

[wasi]

Thanks, but how is it better? It's a pretty basic sequencer, no? XO's strikes me as more elaborate (grooves, swing, micro-move), but I'm not a sequencer buff.

XO only has 16 steps and a couple of pattern variations.

FWIW, XO has 32 steps if you chain A and B and technically goes to 64 if you adhere to AAAB. But yeah, Atlas does have more individual steps. But then functionally it's just a basic piano roll. So no rolls, no grooves (just global swing) and the accentuator in XO is kind of a cool thing that goes beyond what you could just do in your DAW. Why use Atlas for sequencing?

The random variation in Atlas would be a cool idea but the results honestly are kind of trash IMO. It's like a less cluttered version of 'random chaos'. It's particularly and inexplicably bad on the kick drum pattern, which is kind of the identifying element of most beats. Atlas just scatters it all over the place, like, a basic on the floor becomes some polyrhythmic offbeat thing. I've never been able to use it.

IMO Atlas excels at quickly creating a drum rack and everything else is kind of an afterthought, and deliberately so. Atlas is more immediate, but because it's much more frugal. XO wants to be more of a sample-based groove box and as such ads many groove-box features but also some groove-box limitations.

XO wants you to stay in XO, Atlas wants to get you ready to pack up your samples and leave as quickly as possible.

[SLiC]

Thanks, but how is it better? It's a pretty basic sequencer, no? XO's strikes me as more elaborate (grooves, swing, micro-move), but I'm not a sequencer buff.

XO only has 16 steps and a couple of pattern variations.

But then functionally it's just a basic piano roll. So no rolls

It does rolls great, you just change the step size from say 16 to 32 or 32t and then you have subdivisions, put in what you want (and you can just draw in velocity so its great for rolls) and then swich back to 16 division step step...you have a lot of steps to play with (512 max is a lot more steps!) there is a nudge control same as XO but there are also polyrhythms ...so no boring repeating patterns and you can go off grid a bit with so many steps, you can have a lot of subtle variations not just AB or AAAB. The simple fact that you are sequencing 16 sounds not just 8 gives far more interesting patterns with drum variations and you can modulate filters etc using velocity. In my opinion this is much more advanced in terms of sequencing and far better in terms of making kits to export (I don't want just 8 drums)



All that said- still plenty of room for improvement and with both XO and ATLAS I tend top use a different drum sequencer (so having 16 pads not 8 is the most important feature for me)

[SLiC]

Example of using the sequencer t6o modulate filters etc. I am pretty sure anyone who watches this will agree the ATLAS sequencer is more advanced.

https://youtu.be/F8Er9V0Islo?si=VdzEK4ywtOJ1lRqq

[kraster]

Both sequencers are pretty basic since neither of them really allow for pattern chaining etc.

The real selling point of each is the sample categorisation.

Atlas is a good better at generating random kits from nothing and XO is a good deal better at sample organisation.

[SLiC]

I still have XO but don't use it much since getting ATLAS 2, I just need the 16 slots, 8 is such a weird limitation as so many of us work with 4x4 set ups. The 512 steps in ATLAS make up for the lack of pattern chaining a bit as does being able to modulate the sample from the sequencer, but you, there are better dedicated drum sequencers, but most benefit from more than 8 drum sounds in the drum kit!

[machinesworking]

Thanks, but how is it better? It's a pretty basic sequencer, no? XO's strikes me as more elaborate (grooves, swing, micro-move), but I'm not a sequencer buff.

XO can only do 4/4, there are no deviations possible. Atlas allows for all kinds of deviations on time signature as each individual drum slot can be it's own length. If all you ever do is dance music, then you would never notice this, but it still shocks me that you don't.

I have both, XO has a better AI search, but it's still annoying that neither actually are interested in developing their sequencers beyond sketch devices.

[Fannon]

I have both, XO has a better AI search, but it's still annoying that neither actually are interested in developing their sequencers beyond sketch devices.

I've been in contact with the Atlas 2 developer, and he is working on improving the sequencer. Should come with the next update if I got him right.

With regards to XO 2, they also state that they have updates (very vague) in the pipeline, but so far I've only seen updates to the updater

[WatchTheGuitar]

XO development is glacial, I’ll believe it when I see it.

[SLiC]

ATLAS updates have been frequent (https://algonaut.audio/atlas-2-changelist/) and its an utter bargain for the current price of $59! A developer I like to support, may even buy one of his new pre-set packs, this one looks good. https://algonaut.audio/product/expansio ... c-ambient/

[machinesworking]

I've been in contact with the Atlas 2 developer, and he is working on improving the sequencer. Should come with the next update if I got him right.

With regards to XO 2, they also state that they have updates (very vague) in the pipeline, but so far I've only seen updates to the updater

I contacted him a couple years ago about the sequence lengths, currently you can choose 16, 32 etc. steps, but you have to manually adjust each drum slot to say 30 steps. Probably should do so again before he cements his sequencer changes.

[wasi]

Thanks, but how is it better? It's a pretty basic sequencer, no? XO's strikes me as more elaborate (grooves, swing, micro-move), but I'm not a sequencer buff.

XO can only do 4/4, there are no deviations possible. Atlas allows for all kinds of deviations on time signature as each individual drum slot can be it's own length. If all you ever do is dance music, then you would never notice this, but it still shocks me that you don't.

That's a cool little feature (like beat mirror) but doesn't change that it's 4/4 by design (as further indicated by the 4/8/16 beats selector). It's just that by shortening the actual sequence length after selecting it you can 'fake' other time signatures. As long as those are 4ths and you stay below 16/4 total length that's pretty easy, but anything else and you're at least doing a lot of unnecessary mental math. You can do three bars of 5/4 but not of 6/4.

Here too, you're better off in the piano roll where you can change the actual time signature.

Also, it seems the longest running sequence retriggers the shorter ones. That can be interesting but it means you can't do actual free-running polyrhythms. It's kind of a quirky feature as such.

I have both, XO has a better AI search, but it's still annoying that neither actually are interested in developing their sequencers beyond sketch devices.

I kind of go the other way. Seeing as they both fall short of offering a competitive current-day sequencer I'd prefer they both just focus on making a good drum rack generator and sampler. Imagine if XO added DS-10 and RC-20 to each sample chain or something like that. Atlas kind of started like that but now it's all about the sequencer and it even has sample packs. I got it because I have too many sample already. I wish he'd focus on improving sample sorting and kit building.