I could see Aiken saying that at the time. He is so
smart that he can use most synths regardless of their UI with his eyes closed.
His perspective definately was from a seasoned synthesis pro's perspective,
not a beginners. I based my hopefully obviously wide and sarcastic comments
on a brief and unscientific runby of the comments at sonic state. Also I
was exaggerating a bit obviously for effect, just in case someone out their
might laugh. Sorry to all the serious people. :()
As I said, I don't know much about the XPs
including the later ones, which I don't doubt got better as you say. I think
Roland is a great company.
Ravi
----- Original Message -----From: pranaearthSent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 3:21 AMSubject: [xl7] Re: Shots of the new Roland MC909Well, here is a thought, Jim Aikin from Keyboard magazine (whom I
don't consider to have lower than average intelligence) said that if
he had to take one synth with him on a desert island, it would be
the XP50. Now I played the synth and hated the UI. However, knowing
Roland, I waited 6 months for the upgrade, which was the XP80 and
then the XP60, which had greatly improved UI. I bought one and have
loved it from day one. I still have it in my studio. But I would
have to agree with the XP50, that was one B***H to get around on.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Prana"In XL7 heaven"earth
--- In xl7@y..., "Ravi Ivan Sharma" wrote:
> Wow. Bohemian.
>
> Sorry you had such a bad experience with the XP-50. Despite the
fact
> that I have a pretty healthy complement and IMO good sense about
> synths, I don't know crap about the XP-50 except that perhaps I
used
> one once in a rehearsal studio in NYC. Other than that I always
just
> passed it by (and all the other XP synths too)in the stores
because
> absolutely nothing about them caught my eyes (or ears). Frankly I
> always wondered who was buying them while things like the Waldorfs
> were around and better korgs, etc. (those are the ones still
> demanding a half decent used price btw).
>
> Anyway after reading about your poor experiences (and especially
the
> part where you said you paid a lot of money over months and months
> to a guy for lessons on how to use it . . . . sorry to hear that
> too . . .), I had to go check out some reviews of it online to see
> whether you were just completely off your tree or not.
>
> Well, the reviews are quite mixed--which tells me the synth is
> likely as I suspected perhaps intuitively (or luckily): probably
> crap. The reviews sum up into two camps as far as I can see
> (discounting the completely off the wall true believers or madman
> reviews): Either the reviewer seems to love it to death and
defends
> it, but usually has a textual style of writing that seems to
> indicate they are a little lower than the average intelligence of
a
> monkey, OR the reviewers are pretty pissed at the instrument and
> appear more mad at themselves for being so dumb to pick it up in
the
> first place, hoping to learn from their obvious mistake-meaning
they
> are smarter than the first bunch.
>
> So, you are right. You made a mistake. But don't make the mistake
to
> lump everything into one pile. Every company has some clunkers.
Also
> these things are complex instruments. Many companies have only
just
> begun to realize that less than total gearheads want to play them
> too and can be a good source of purchasers. So things like the
MC505
> and even the Emu XL7 and MP7 are abounding. They have deceptively
> easy interfaces. I say deceptively because at first, many of the
> true close-minded gearheads (nerds)(just as bad as the truly
> clueless, IMO) thought that things like the MC-303, 505,
electribes,
> etc, etc, must be crap and not *real* because they were so easy,
any
> idiot could pick one up and press play (infringing on their
> nerdiness). But the reality is that those tools are just easier to
> use, yet among the most powerful music machines around. Both MC-
505
> and the XL7 have the most rocking, deep and highly evolved
synthesis
> engines around. The Roland style of sample playback synthesis is
> VERY similar to that of E-mus except that E-mu shows more of its
> background as a modular synth company way back when with far more
> modulation sources and destination than the Rolands (although
Roland
> had modulars too--but they never were their sole focus, like with
E-
> mu. The MP7/XL7 seem to kick the ass of the MC-505 in the sound
> department because of this and mainly because they are have room
for
> expansion ROMS, so the vast majority of users -- who are non-
> programmers (it ain't that easy)--won't get too bored. But as
> discussed here before, despite the fact that the XL7/MP7 has a lot
> of sequencer channels, the MC-505 has some pretty useful smooth
> moves when it comes to sequencing that the E-mus haven't even
> touched yet (maybe they will soon hopefully). For novice players
or
> those who are not using either machine to its fullest, many of
these
> differences are lost. No doubt, the best "turn it on, hit the
> buttons and make it go" groovebox out right now are the E-mus, but
> get deeper into real stuff, and things get to be less clear. The
MC-
> 909, if it has expansion roms, and it doesn't trash all what was
> good about the MC-505 could reign king for a while. Just keep your
> finger's crossed, because when Yamaha announced the RS7000 there
was
> a lot of hope too. But Roland's background is better (despite the
XP
> boards) than Yamahas in this realm so I am more hopeful.
>
> Get over the XP, learn from errors and move on. (and don't waste
> time flaming each other either, who's more stupid? The first
flamer
> or the second?). Remember, you are only as smart as the person you
> respond to. I am not proud. :)
>
> Ravi
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
xl7-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.