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

let me straighten out a few of the details since you are obviously
looking very hard into this. BTW thanks for not disregarding my
sarcastic and heavily biased opinion as disinformation.

"BG: >YAY! another mono 8 voice synth from Roland"

-this was basically a knock on th MC-09 which was very hyped before 
NAMM and turned out to have the specs of something from the 80s (more
semi-sarcasm). while this is a great box for the beginner i think this
product should've had a BOSS logo on it instead of a Roland one. At
the time of all the hype I was in the market and ready for a fantastic
synth/sampler that could replace my main combo. needless to say i was
(yet again) very disappointed with Roland.

"PHIL: > I can't help suspecting many people blame their inability to
grasp topics of a difficult nature on user manuals, when it's simply
through their own inexperience. In time, things start to fall into
place. > You're right, 6 years is a considerably long time to work out
how a relatively basic synth. How would a 'better' manual have helped?"

-well i'll admit, this was partially true. and i made a big mistake by
not researching my purchase with the opinion a professional (a good
sales person should have known better, but i soon realised he sold me
on an expensive new product to $erve his own needs and not looking
after the needs of the consumer). I was new to MIDI when i bought the
XP-50. when i realised all there was to learn i seeked the help of a
local producer/electronic musician who's been recording and using
synths for over 25 years. i paid him very well on a weekly basis for
several months to teach me the ins and outs of synthesis and effects
on my new XP. he seemed to be even more baffled and frustrated behind
the logic of the interface and effects routings of the synth than i
was. he also commented on how extremely technical the manual was and
how they repeatedly failed to explain "real world" descriptions and
logic that are usually in every synth manual.

sorry if i've touched a nerve with some Roland groupies here. i've
just had a bad (and expensive) experience with them. i'm sure at some
point in your lives you've gone through a similar negative experience
and have since had negative biases towards certain products/corporations.

--- In xl7@y..., Phil <accession@o...> wrote:
> Hi bohemian_grooove,
> 
> I can appreciate everyone's right to their own opinion, however
subjective
> and ignorant it may be, and perhaps your public forum manufacturer
slagging
> was more for entertainment's sake rather than factual content,
however there
> are some serious flaws in your argument.
> 
> 

> 
> Roland's flagship 'sequencer/sound module' box, the MC-505, was released
> around 4 years ago. It's a 64 voice, 8 part (plus another 8 parts
using the
> 'realtime phrase sequence') multitimbral synth. This matches the
specs of
> the 'non-turbo' E-mu modules. Why do you think the MC-909
replacement should
> be any less?
> 
> 
> > that takes a tech writing
> > masters degree to decipher the manual and an engineering degree to
> > navigate.
> 
> The MC-505 manual is, in fact, very thorough and well explained, and
> organised into logical chapters with a full index.
> 
> I can't help suspecting many people blame their inability to grasp
topics of
> a difficult nature on user manuals, when it's simply through their own
> inexperience. In time, things start to fall into place.
> 
> 
> > aside from sampling...it prolly ain't got nothin on the
> > E-MU.
> 
> Considering the MC-505 offers a '4 layer' sample + synthesis
approach, not
> unlike that used by all E-mu modules, it also adds individual part
> adjustment of reverb and delay sends, plus a third 'insert' effect,
as well
> as offering the unique ability to mix parts from different patterns (to
> allow proper mixing of several songs into a performance, for example).
> 
> I'd say the Roland already has something E-mu should take into
> consideration. I fully realise E-mu's effects architecture is hardware
> limited, however some sort of 'megamix' feature would be most welcome to
> make it truly a live performance 'dance' tool.
> 
> 
> > my last main synth was an XP-50 i've owned since 96. after 6
> > long years i was just beginning to figure out how it all worked
> 
> You're right, 6 years is a considerably long time to work out how a
> relatively basic synth. How would a 'better' manual have helped?
> 
> 
> > when i
> > noticed last july i could get an XL-7 from mars music for $750 -$200
> > rebate from E-MU (yes..$550 =)
> 
> I bought an Amiga 500 with a 7.6MHz clock speed back in 1996 for around
> AUD$750. I then added 512MB of RAM (total now 1MB) for around another
> AUD$300 or so. Technology advances, prices drop, that's life.
> 
> 
> > after a couple hours of using the
> > thing i wanted to kick myself in the ass for not buying an E-MU
> > sooner.
> 
> The XL-7 didn't exist in 1996. In the meantime, you've spend 6 years
> learning all about music technology and have been able to receive
the XL-7
> with open arms. MIDI, filters, envelopes, and so on, is a tricky
subject for
> anyone new to synthesis, and so I can't see the XL-7 being too
different.
> 
> And the successor to the XL-7 should be even more amazing. Let's
just hope
> the soft synth revolution doesn't prevent it from becoming a
reality. The
> E-mu sampling and RFX effects technology is already in existence,
and they
> now have the sequencer to complete the picture.
> 
> The Roland 'groove' series has paved the way for new creations, such
as the
> XL-7, to come into being. Even today, the MC-505 holds its own as a
> sequencer, if not for a tired sound set. It's a credit to Roland
also to be
> releasing premium quality metal hardware in this near all-plastic
age, plus
> operating systems that perform near perfect first go.
> 
> In the meantime, let's see what the Roland MC-909 has to offer
instead of
> making obviously ignorant and speculative statements.
> 
> Phil