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

Yeah, I absolutly didn't mean to come across as so serious :) And 
after you said that about Mr. Aikin, I did realize that he's been 
doing this so long that he probably taught God about 
synthesis...lol. I mean I'm still learning my XL7 (not even had it a 
month) and there are some things that I really picked up on quickly, 
and I can't help think back to when I used to own a MC303 and how 
some things were easier on the 303. Different, not better, I guess 
I'm trying to say.
And really, isn't it about the music anyway?
I'm gonna get back to trying to make some.... :)
prana


--- In xl7@y..., "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:
> 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: pranaearth 
>   To: xl7@y... 
>   Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 3:21 AM
>   Subject: [xl7] Re: Shots of the new Roland MC909
> 
> 
>   Well, 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" <noision1@h...> 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
> 
> 
>         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.