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

I don't get what CD vs vinyl has to do with Virus VS xx-7 although i 
guess i see the point you're trying to make, with the virus being 
vinyl?
either way, the virus and the xx-7s are 2 different monsters, synth 
engines included IMHO. I'm still trying to discover the synth side of 
my xx-7(posted about it a while back).

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, PLASTICEFX@... wrote:
>
> "cd vs. vinyl - you're an idiot" and you're on the cd side?
> 
> 
> 
> now you really are an idiot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> plastic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> l/n to marcel fengler vinyl 12" on ostgut ton. Â playground/early 
glow. Â no WAY it sounds as good on cd. Â end of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> p.s. Â running a technics 1200 with stanton stylii......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Solmonson <scosol@...>
> To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 6:58 pm
> Subject: Re: [xl7] virus vs xl7?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
> 
>             
> Yeah- what Aaron said- the XL7's synth engine is far beyond 
a "ROMpler"-
> 
> 
> 
> I've owned lots of synths, and not in a collector fashion- 
(including  
> 
> a VirusA and a VirusC) and I don't feel like I'm missing much by 
not  
> 
> having them anymore-
> 
> IMO they didn't do anything for me that my SQ-80 couldn't do (or  
> 
> JUNO-6/60/etc), which is 80s tech-
> 
> Sure there's the polyphony and inputs but eh...
> 
> It's a Virtual Analog, and a good one- but therein its limitations 
are  
> 
> defined- so why not just get a real one for 1/5 the price?
> 
> I've spoken many times with the guy who programmed the DSP in the  
> 
> Virus, and actually contributed some distortion algorithms to him, 
but  
> 
> I still am able to say that it just didn't do it for me.
> 
> I'm one of the most ardent "CD VS Vinyl - you're an idiot" 
proponents  
> 
> (on the CD side) but at the same time, an SQ-80, a Juno, SH101, 
TB303
> -  
> 
> these just sound different, in a way that the Virus (or Nord or  
> 
> whatever) has not yet achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't explain it- neither can you.
> 
> Different strokes for different folks-
> 
> But since you've got a spare rack space, I'll talk about synths I 
miss-
> 
> Waldorf Microwave XT - GOD in a box.
> 
> (for rack mounting, you'll just want the Microwave-II)
> 
> After hitting the "randomize" button, I've heard things come out 
of  
> 
> that that I couldn't comprehend-
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm- the Kawai K5K was a good one too- I picked one up on the GC  
> 
> blowout many years ago for those that remember-
> 
> Careful with that Reso knob-
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm what else- I think if I had to choose one synthesizer to sell  
> 
> someone on that was looking at a Virus (assuming you don't need 
all  
> 
> the gay computer integration). there is only one- and it's made by  
> 
> Dave Smith:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.davesmithinstruments.com/products/per/index.php
> 
> 
> 
> Christ- I'm talking like an old guy-
> 
> 
> 
> -SS
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 25, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Aaron Eppolito wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > You can go pretty far with the XL-7 as a pseudo-analog synth.  
What  
> 
> > you'll miss: hard sync, ring mod, FM, really fast LFOs, self- 
> 
> > resonant filters, live input.  You can get PWM in the XL-7 by  
> 
> > messing with the SLoop parameter, sorta do hard sync (albeit at 
a  
> 
> > pretty slow rate) with SRetrig, and the realtime Q you can do 
with  
> 
> > enough layers as I described a long time ago (one layer with low 
Q,  
> 
> 
> > one with high, RT control is via volume on the high-Q layer).
> 
> >
> 
> > People who dismiss the P2k engine as a "ROMpler" are missing out 
on  
> 
> > some of the really cool stuff you can do in the patchcord 
section.   
> 
> > (not dissing you in any way; on the contrary, I applaud you for  
> 
> > thinking to use it in a more synth fashion!)
> 
> >
> 
> > The Virus is a cool synth and does have features that you simply  
> 
> > won't get in the XL-7.  That said, you can get pretty close (not  
> 
> > necessarily worse, mind you, just different) for a majority of  
> 
> > sounds and will certainly be able to make a ton of sounds a VA  
> 
> > simply can't.
> 
> >
> 
> > It's a tough choice.  I don't think you can go wrong with a 
Virus,  
> 
> > but you might want to spend some time programming a patch or two 
in  
> 
> > a VA style in the XL-7 before you decide to drop coin!
> 
> >
> 
> > -Aaron
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > ----- Original Message ----
> 
> > From: Atom Smasher <atom@...>
> 
> > To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:54:21 AM
> 
> > Subject: [xl7] virus vs xl7?
> 
> >
> 
> > i have an empty space in my rack, and it's calling to me... one 
of the
> 
> > things that i though about filling it with is a virus-rack.
> 
> >
> 
> > i haven't yet explored the synth engine of the xl7, and it'll be 
a few
> 
> > weeks at least before i have a chance to dig around in it, so.... 
is
> 
> > anyone here a current or former virus owner? how does the xl7 
compare
> ?
> 
> >
> 
> > right off the top, the virus is ostensibly a virtual analog 
synth,  
> 
> > and the
> 
> > xl7 seems more like a rompler. but i'm wondering if i could use 
some
> 
> > "basic" waveforms, a few layers, some virtual patch-cords, and 
some  
> 
> > midi
> 
> > CC controllers and roll my own virtual analog patches...? i'm  
> 
> > confident
> 
> > that i can get good sounds out of it, but can it compete with a  
> 
> > virus on
> 
> > the the merits of the virus?
> 
> >
> 
> > i only have one ROM slot in my xl7 filled, and i think it's the 
XL  
> 
> > ROM.
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > -- 
> 
> >         ...atom
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > ------------------------------------
> 
> >
> 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> 
> 
>     
>   
> 
>     
>     
>     
>     
>     
>     
> 
> 
>     
> 
> 
>     
>     
>     
>     
>     
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>