Really, Is that a fact, Can you prove it understanding?"the results are the same
Since this is true then anyone with an X can produce the same production level as the G.
As far as I know no one has given an official word on this. And your human ears probably would not be able to tell the difference with the files Quinnx gave. So unless you have the knowledge and the equipment used to make such a judgment (only Roland would) then it’s not true, it’s your opinion.
But given your statement I assume you understand Quinnx.
So what do you think about the G having 24/96 converters but only outputting waves at 16/44? And if the X and G were the same sonically don’t you think the G would still sound better in every single situation? I mean the X will only come close in a studio if you set it up right ,but it wont be able to compete right out the box. And it will only be in one situation could there be more? I understand Quinnx, and I also understand he’s on somewhat of a mission and I appreciate that. But if you're going to talk about these things then it’s good if you give a little more detail about why it’s important. That way you don’t confuse people by having them think Quinnx is talking about patch quality because he’s not. What he is saying is that both the X and G have excellent sonic quality (Bit depth/Sampling rate).
The patches, What about them?
I think they sound great and I know how to make my own so that means that's all just opinion as well.
