Oh, I never meant that I didn't like my Fairlight or that you couldn't do interesting things with it. But I routinely work in large commercial recording facilities and I've heard my CMI in such an environment. I'm still not buying the sound quality thing. My Emulator II eats it for lunch in the sampling quality department (and quite a few others). Longer sampling times with MUCH less aliasing. Can't argue with that, no matter what kind of board you run it through.

Besides, if you have to go to such lengths to hear a supposed difference in sound quality, I'm not sure it's worth that much to begin with. Certainly not what I paid for the bloody thing.

Having said that,
my loyalties lay more along a time line as to what was available at the time of its release, at that time clearly it did wipe the floor regarding sound Quality etc this i think created the MYTHICAL hype which should have died with the Dinasaur.
(mirage-emax-emulator etc) came online as series 3 16 bit was on the show floor for release.

Still apples with apples..8 bit/ stand alone sample playback workstation?? Korg M1? Aliasing ....A flaw? lost on its successors.as well as this its timing clock resoloution..+ page R..
if it were to be only a sample playback machine then its all horses for courses..but as a standalone workstation, we know its much more than that.

If i had one choice to have a musicial instrument on that desert island to tinker with and experiment for time to come it would still probably be the CMI IIX. for all the compromises its pretty unlimited.
Take care Lawrence.
Kind regards
Simon. P.S did you like my series IV design?

If the sonic signature of the IIX has been TOTALY elipsed by its successors and it is an irellevant dinasaur, then why are there so many differing Keyboard designs marketed and sold.?
based upon the premise that its all about DAC's and software..
and not about sampling and synthesis and intuitive design (workstation),
Then currently A/D 48/184..+(choice of software) is the recipie by which one can claim to be cutting edge/ahead of the Pack and the best sounding platform.
The timbral sameness/similarities between one keyboard or another (roland/korg) only differ, usually by the aproach to DSP software usage, the hardware is much the same. Hence Korg putting the likes of a tube(valve) warmer on board the Triton.. to claim a less digital/warm sound??
In music, Synthesis no longer is the sole domain of the keyboard player (pity),
with wind controlers/voice tracking/guitar midi interfaces any one can acsess the sonic playground of computer music.(non musicians included)
eg:Apples Garage Band..

In context of the Keybaord as an instrument for the composer/producer musician, the historic lineage of the CMI IIX also should be considered in this debate.

For a moment if you can accept that the Keyboardist was the origional market/targeted instrument group for the proliferation of synthesis sound management from its inception ALA (MOOG).. then the debate should have parameters and definitions.
An instrument designed specifically for the Keyboardist.

ie. STAND ALONE Keyboard-worstation-Synth-Sampling-sequencing-hardisk recording...A Keybaordists instrument for composition and production.

This narrows the field down considerably..
CJ your end of debate re Series, 3,9.34.. can be argued in a similar manner to the gibson/fender debate..Having said that interestingly it is still a fairlight you choose to trump the CMI IIX :-)
True others can and do sound different /better?..
BUT NOTHING CAN EXCLUSIVELY SOUND LIKE A CMI IIX...
So should you keep yours alive... essentially youre sitting on a Stratavarious... Like All violins are the same???...DUH..
In the opening pages of this sites reference to the CMI IIX and its uniquness.. it has been pointed out that it was a combination of software and hardware that yeilded its unique sound, never to be repeated again in future history.
Dont sell.. its value will go up (considerably 10 fold ) and its place in history will be recognised.
End of debate????

The Series III sounds wonderful, for sure, but there's no way the record buying public can tell the difference between it and any other 16-bit sampler. When people hear a song and say "Oh there's a Fairlight" they're undoubtably thinking of a I, II or IIx.

But let's face it, no one buys these machines because of their sound quality or feature set (additive engine? oh puh-leeze). They buy them because, well, they're FAIRLIGHTS, damm it! That's certainly the case with me. I wasn't looking for a synth that did something that none my other machines could do (it doesn't even come close). I was looking for the machine that I alwaya wanted growing up. The machine that Kate, Peter, and Trevor all used on my favorite music. It was gear lust in it's truest form. I'm under no illusions on that point.

So I got the IIx. And, other than the crappy storage medium (8" floppies), I'm glad I did. I've named it Klaus (Das Uber-Sampler!). I'll probably get a Series III as well someday, if I can find another one at the right price. Until then, though, I'll take a IIx over a III anytime.

All this is just my opinion, of course. :-)

Just my opinion, of course...

I must also point out that the Series III pales in comparison to modern machines as well. For example, my 8 year old Kurzweil has 4 times the sampling memory, 3 times the polyphony, and about a zillion times more flexible synth architecture. And that's a 1998 machine. Today's computers could make mincemeat of just about every aspect of a Series III, or a IIx, for that matter.

No, if the Fairlight "sound" meant anything to most people, it was in a certain character. And the machine with that character was almost always a Series I or II(x). The Series IIIs had the advantage of more memory, more polyphony, a better sequencer, etc. But the "character" got left behind, IMO. As a result, I've NEVER met anyone (who isn't a Series III owner) who could spot a Series III on a record. This was done on purpose, of course. At the time, people were sick of the limitations of 8-bit and the new samplers were a shiny transparent revelation. And rightly so. It's only through the hindsight that progressions in technology has given us, that we can see, and appreciate, the charm of that grungy, piece of crap ORCH5 hit.

Anyway, this is all academic. I think Series IIIs are awesome. I plan on having one someday. But I do realise that even that machine is limited and unavoidably antiquated compared to what we have today. I still believe that the only reason to pay such a crazy sum of money for such a limited, bulky, power-draining, nearly-impossible-to-find-parts-for machine is that it's a Fairlight. And Fairlights are cool.