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

--- In xl7@y..., "Panzare" <panzare@m...> wrote:
> You might try looking at the Proteus 2500 if thats what your 
looking for. I
> had one
> and traded it in for an MP-7 (with the Synth Const Yard ROM also) 
just
> because
> I couldn't stand the layout of the 2500. But it is awesome as far 
as it's
> sound library,
> I wish a model like the MP-7 or XL-7 came with all of the 2500's 
sounds and
> patterns,
> I would have bought that one hands down.


>>>>> Emu, when is a decent bread and butter Sound- ROM to be 
released? (I bought the ZR-Card, but apart from the pano,which is no 
doubt wonderful and  some decent drums the rest is very outdated and 
cannot hold a candle to competitors with only 16 mb-sound-cards like 
yammies, even korg etc.) After we heard the XX-7 have just the same 
internal guts and output quality, where´s the problem putting the 
sound ROM of the 2500 on the market for sale? 
I do not quite understand your product policy: 3 hardware versions 
(rackmountable MP-7 / XL-7 / 2500) with basically the same features? 
The flexibility to upgrade them through 3 ROM-slots is great and was 
important for my buying decision. Now I wonder where to find good 
bread and butter sounds, that cover brass, organs, windwood, strings. 
The sounds of the ZR are not competitive in that department. Could 
the soundboard of the P2500 be a solution?
I definitely won´t buy 3 expensive and very specialised ROMs to help 
my needs. I would spend way more money than for a competitors 
workstation with nearly 90 MB SoundROM and a sampler + keyboard 
included. 

Heinrich


>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: argomax2002 [mailto:argomax@g...]
>   Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 5:14 AM
>   To: xl7@y...
>   Subject: [xl7] COMMENTS ON MP7 -PART 2
> 
> 
>   Hello again.
>   Having dug  into the machine extensively during this weekend,
>   I'm afraid I have a few more complaints to report, adding to my
>   previous post.
>   In fact, at this point I must admit I am pretty disappointed with
>   this machine and I think I will put it back on sale, and start
>   looking for something else instead.
> 
>   The patterns are good but I don't care about those, we all make
>   our own after all. So that doesn't count.
>   The sounds in the MP7 native Rom are unusable. Have I found a
>   single, usable piano, strings or organ sound that behaves
>   normally? No. Only detuned, crappy distorted presets.
>   The drumkits and basses are okay, though.
> 
>   The interface and OS are good and responsive. The buttons are
>   great.
> 
>   However, the sequencer is the worst I've ever seen in a long
>   time.
>   As I said the other day, it lacks a basic UNDO function that is 
just
>   too important to be left out.
>   It lacks a BAR COPY/PASTE function which is the basic of any
>   sequencing work. Without it, if you got a wrong bar in a series of
>   8, you have to redo all 8. The Erase switch is just too awkward to
>   be used in this context.
>   The EXTEND SEQUENCE function is not very interesting. You
>   can lose that if you implement the BAR COPY function.
> 
>   The extensive synth programming functions interest no one
>   here. We want a big sound library engine with realtime controls
>   and easy but complete sequencing. Do not assume we all use
>   software sequencers; I don't, and I'm a professional. And do not
>   assume we are interested in modulating LFO2 with Velocity and
>   Aftertouch with whatsoever else and its cousin. Most of us don't
>   even haveTHE TIME to even access those menus, much less so
>   use them. A good amount of quick edit knobs is all we want and
>   use.
> 
>   The sequencer is my biggest issue here. I mean, I've seen
>   sequencing engines since 1988, and I've seen them all, being a
>   dealer. This engine here would get serious kicks in the ass by
>   any Roland or Yamaha or Korg groovebox, even the smallest
>   ones. The mute buttons have a nice touch, but that's it.  Editing
>   the pattern is a joke; there is no serious editing function. 
Again, if
>   EMU engineers assumed we'd all use different sequencing
>   means they assumed wrongly. If I'd use an external sequencer,
>   why even implement a sequencer here? But if you do implement
>   it, then you have to FULLY implement it, or you aren't doing your
>   job properly. EXPECIALLY IN THIS PRICE RANGE.
> 
>   EMU should have looked at the sequencing structure of a
>   Roland MC-505 or a Yamaha RM1X. I  have both, and I can tell
>   you that, although the waveforms and the quality of sound in the
>   Roland do suck, the sequencer is massive compared to this one
>   here, and the synthesis functions are all there, too. And the
>   Yamaha has a seriously powerful sequencer, too.
> 
>   So my verdict is thumbs down, I'm sorry. I will get rid of this
>   machine ASAP and I don't think I'll be looking into other EMU
>   gear for a while. Not unless they go back to the drawing board
>   and re-design the OS from the bottom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>               ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   xl7-unsubscribe@y...
> 
> 
> 
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service.