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

What are you comparing it to?  I've never used the Ultar4, but I was
comparing the filters to the Roland filters which imho truely suck.  There
are quite a few uses for the many filters in the xx-7's.    But not much
else in a computer chip offers the warmth that the xx-7's do.  Maybe we're
looking in different directions... But I have been very happy with them
compaired to what I have used in many other machines (korg, roland,
yamaha)...

peace

http://www.redcoat.net/pics/arguing.jpg    :-)

-d-


----- Original Message -----
From: <bruce@...>
To: <xl7@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 8:48 PM
Subject: [xl7] Re: MC-909 and the MP-7


> --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "David" <spec@s...> wrote:
>
> > better than the EMU.  EMU has the advantage of the filters.  The best
> > filters in the industry are in the xx-7's.   The 909 may look like it
>
> As an owner of an XL-7 and and Ultra 4, I can say that your opinions
> on filters are a bit strange.  The XL-7 filters are barely passable,
> and for some needs very sad.
>
> I love my XL-7 but its rather weak filters (no ability to change
> resonance after note on, questionable cutoff curves, etc) are the
> thing I would most like to see changed.  You want to talk about old
> technology?  The filters in the XL-7 are no better than the ones they
> shipped on the Ultra Protues / Morpheus in what, 92?  Not even as good
> if you take into account that there are fewer filter types.
>
> I love my XL-7 to death, but its filters are a joke.  If I need a
> sound that if filtered, I don't use the XL.
>
> The E-4 Ultra filters are much better.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> xl7-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>