yep I just got XO recently from one of the fam here, but atlas looks like a nice sale to get in on depending on how the research goes 
They are both very capable and make the otherwise tedious job of sifting through absurdly large collections of one-shot samples more enjoyable.
I think at $49 Atlas is very good value. I also think XO is great if you can grab for a good price (you’re welcome @captain8) but perhaps a bit pricey at full whack. I think XLN realised this themselves as they dropped the price and got rid of the “light” version.
Atlas is in active development too, I helped with the v2 beta and the developer is a nice guy and responsive to my input.
3 Likes
For any of Atlas, XO etc can you select multiple destinations for the VST to scan for sample locations?
1 Like
…sure…
and, err, u better all go for atlas…
since this damned xo plugin is the best software one shot sample beat beast investment i’ve ever made…
and it better stays pricy…it’s worth 10 mpc’s plus two takts for me…
3 Likes
Yes, both can scan as many destination folders as you like.
1 Like
which one has the best sequencer?
which one has better groove features?
which one has better sample editing?
which one has better sample mangling?
Definitely XO. 
Edit: As you edited the question to add more categories, I’d still say XO wins for all those areas.
The main difference is in the qty of tracks.
XO is fixed at 8. Atlas is variable.
Where Atlas wins, and smokes XO, is in its ability to kit build for multi-formats and export them fast.
Atlas is a dream for building kits for my MPC, Force or for Ableton’s Drum Rack.
1 Like
polyrhythms/ and polymeters?
1 Like
Atlas wins for this, but I imagine a simple update to XO would level it.
XO has the potential to be a virtual Digitakt, it’s not far away and all the ingredients needed are there.
1 Like
that’s quite a compliment…
If someone ever ports this concept to ios it’s game over
Neither Atlas or XO is anywhere close to being a Digitakt (nor are they designed to be) but I love the enthusiasm! No per-step parameter changes and pretty basic sample mangling outside of some basic filters and envelopes on both. That can go a long way for a drum machine though, but neither are grooveboxes in their current form.
They are both great bits of software that have odd omissions. XO has 2 patterns that you can chain in very limited ways and Atlas has a single pattern. Both would be hugely improved if they had even 8 pattern slots. Very strange.
I really like both although I have ultimately chosen to keep Atlas as I feel more confident about future development whereas XO seems to have had little development. This is not a complaint, by the way, as I think you have to buy products for what they do today, not what you hope they might do. There are few guarantees and experience teaches me that many companies release a fairly well-featured software and then more or less leave it there.
2 Likes
I got XO ‘free’ recently with my Bitwig upgrade (great deal!)
Id been looking at for a while, and it really does live up to expectations.
really, I only wanted it to help manage samples, and be able to throw together kits and perhaps loops for my Octatrack and Squarp Rample.
so far, have to say, Im really happy with it - easy to use, and quick to find things.
I guess my only ‘wish’ would be that it went beyond percussive samples…
e.g. be able to categories things like voice or synth samples.
it’s ok as is, I just chuck everything in anyway, and treat it as a lucky dip, which works quite nicely.
as for other options mentioned above…
I tried Sononym a while back, I really didn’t get on with it, required a bit too much user input 
(I wanted to just throw samples at it)
Atlas 2, I considered, but didnt look too deeply as it had the ‘same issue’ as XO (being almost entirely percussion focused), and just preferred the look of XO… that said, Im sure Atlas 2 would have done a great job (and currently its on sale at 49$, so id be tempted if I didnt have XO)
If anyone has any questions about XO functionality, here’s a recent deep dive video on its capabilities https://youtu.be/sWw6qQsW6W4
3 Likes
do any of these sample managers fudge with the dna of any of the samples when printing their meta data when using multiple apps on one library, or is that not even an issue?
How useful are these for an Octatrack?
Seems kind of equal 50 / 50 of preference between XO and Atlas
Anyone drop Atlas on C1 of an Ableton Drum Rack then set Receive to All Notes? Then, try sequencing Atlas with your Push? If not. Do it. You’re Welcome 
5 Likes
Yep, it’s how I’ve been using it! All that’s missing is the ability to read Abletons library/packs. Appreciate that’s highly unlikely to ever happen though.
2 Likes
If I was picking one to match up with the Octatrack I’d go XO.
And it’s really useful… one of the folders I have organised in XO and Atlas is the Octratrack content folder you get from Elektron with it… it’s a way better method of auditioning sounds than clicking through and auditioning on a device.
Have you spent sufficient time working with XO? I agree Atlas is nothing like the Digitakt, but XO reminds me of it in tons of ways… obvs the p-locks aren’t there, but who needs them when it’s linked with Ableton?
The main similarities I find in XO that reminds me of the DT are;
- 8 track format.
- 2 master fx accessible per track.
- Master buss fx (Drive, EQ, Clipping) (although DT doesn’t have a master EQ).
- CTRL-ALL fx (Limited to Pitch and FX on XO, Pitch being what I use a lot on the DT, but DT does give a lot more options for this)
Not forgetting that most of XO can be controlled and automated within DAW’s, it becomes a really powerful beat making tool. It’s Groove options are vastly superior to the Digitakt.
I feel like I’m sounding like an affiliate for XO in this thread now 
, but I do think it’s superb… I really dig software/apps/plugins that get better the more you use them, and XO is definitely that for me.
I also really like Atlas for different reasons… and the Digitakt, and a whole load more… what a time to be alive. 
1 Like