Emu XL-7 & MP-7 User's Group

Thanks a lot for the extended reply. Since I would use the MC909 mainly 
for studio work, the portability and live performance factors are not
a big issue for me. I really like the on board sampling and the
turntable pitch slider. I guess the main thing that's keeping me from
getting one is the polyphony issue. I wonder if 64 voices will be enough?
I emailed Roger S since he produced some patterns for the MC909 to see
how he feels about the 64 voice polyphony. Thanks again.

 
--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, erik_magrini@B... wrote:
> Yes that is a dumb question, haha.  :)  Let's put it this way.  I
used to 
> be huge fan of the mc505 (long before the XX-7's were a twinkle in
Emu's 
> eye), and I still think it's a really nice machine.  I had the
chance to 
> ditch the XL-7 and go with a Mc909 when they came out, but I didn't for 
> the following reasons:
> 
> - Limited polyphony.  Yeah, 64 voices isn't bad, but I knew I'd eat
them 
> up in a heartbeat once I started layering my presets.  Plus, the XV
ROMs 
> can use stereo waveforms, which eat up two voices each.  So a single
note 
> with 4 layers would eat up 8 voices, ouch!
> - No megamix.  This is Roland's equivelant of XMIX (to be fair, XMIX is 
> actually Emu's interpretation on Megamix) and it's a godsend as far
as I'm 
> concerned for live use.  You could play hours of songs live without
having 
> to stop the set to select a new track or Pattern.  Opens up all
kinds of 
> creative possibilities.
> - Size.  The mc909 is a real beast, very large and not as easily
portable 
> as the XX-7's.  There's nothing like heading down to the park to
make some 
> music outside to spur on some inspiration.
> 
> I had to confront this choice again very recently when I won the
PX-7.  I 
> was given the option of putting that credit towards a mc909 or 
> MPC2000/4000 if I wanted.  I'll admit, I did think about it for quite a 
> bit too.  Why?  Onboard sampling.  It's a big deal for people like
me who 
> have a lot of custom samples they want to use, or who might want to
take 
> their studio creations live.  It would save me the (ongoing) trouble of 
> trying to find a sampler to complement my XL-7.
> 
> Eventually though, I knew that if I got a mc909 and left the group,
no one 
> here would be able to pick a ROM for themselves, or know how to use
effect 
> sends, so I decided I better stay for your sake.
> 
> J/K!
> 
> Actually I've gotten to really enjoy using the XX-7, it's fast and dead 
> easy to program, sounds great, and is far better for me live.  Plus, it 
> just feels like an "instrument" when I play it.  I don't feel like I'm 
> programming a computer, or sequencing at all.  The lines between
Pattern 
> and Preset creations totally blur for me, and I'm just making cool
sounds 
> I can play back for others.  Something that not much other gear
nowadays 
> makes me feel like....
> 
> rEalm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bluetechnics <ksellers88@h...>
> 02/10/2004 01:29 PM
> Please respond to xl7
> 
>  
>         To:     xl7@yahoogroups.com
>         cc: 
>         Subject:        [xl7] Re: XL 7 vs MC 909
> 
> 
> Thanks for the input fellas. Given the pros and cons of each unit,
> which would you ultimately choose (is this a dumb question considering
> this is an  XX-7 group?) 
>  
> 
> --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, erik_magrini@B... wrote:
> > Whew, that's quite task! (Obviously we prefer the XX-7's too) 
> Here's some 
> > things in short:
> > 
> > MC909 has 64 voices of polyphony, XX-7 has 128.
> > MC909 has a master effect compressor, and IMO better effects overall.
> > XX-7 has XMIX, 909 lost the Megamix that the 505 had.
> > MC909 has only one expansion slot for additional sounds (I think
> it's 1), 
> > the XX-7 has 3.
> > 
> > If Ravi reads this, he can probably add more, as I think he still has 
> > both...
> > rEalm
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Other than the fact that the XL7 can't sample, has anyone compared the
> > pros and cons of the XL7 vs MC909? Has anyone worked with these units
> > and which do you prefer? 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s)or
entity 
> > to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or legally 
> > privileged material. Delivery of this message to any person other
than 
> > the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive
privilege 
> > or confidentiality. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or
other 
> > use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by 
> > entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you 
> > receive this in error, please contact the sender and delete the 
> > material from any computer.
> > 
> > For Translation:
> > 
> > http://www.baxter.com/email_disclaimer
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s)or entity 
> to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or legally 
> privileged material. Delivery of this message to any person other than 
> the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege 
> or confidentiality. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other 
> use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by 
> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you 
> receive this in error, please contact the sender and delete the 
> material from any computer.
> 
> For Translation:
> 
> http://www.baxter.com/email_disclaimer
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]