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

I'm liking the sequencer on the PX-7 more and more as I get to know it
better.  I'm mainly using to drive software instruments though, I
haven't been using the sounds much.  I'm thinking of adding another
hardware midi sequencer to the mix just for variety.  Ideally
something a little different that would complement the PX-7.

Any favorites?  I don't care at all about onboard sounds, just midi
sequencing.  The Yamaha rm1x/rs7000 look interesting and, from what I
can glean from the manuals, are fairly different.  I've tried the
recent MPCs and I think the PX-7 is pretty much superior in every way
as a sequencer.  I've also tried the Elektron stuff which I found
overly simplistic as a midi sequencer and the Sequentix P3 which is
very powerful but too much of a head scratcher.

I have 2 command stations and an arsenal of synths for dance music. 
   
  Anything with MIDI can be controlled by the EMUS.  But, depending of your musical taste.... is hard to recommend something.
   
  the EMU command stations are romplers, so, another desktop with a different engine could be a good idea, like a virtual analog or DSP based synth, a sampler, or a real analog. 
   
  the Rolnad JP 8080 is one of the best VA synths ever.  It has a great sound, it can process external audio throught audio inputs, it has some kind of vocoder, and it has sequencer incorporated.  The amazing JP8080 is around $600.
   
  Other options are the Nord lead desktop module, or the Waldorf Q.   The monophonic real analog Dave Smith's Evolver ($500) wich has an incredible powerful sound, or a Access VIRUS B ($600).
   
  But a Yamaha RM1X is not so great.  Is kinda of rigid when changing patterns, and its MIDI interface sucks.. and it's engine is similar to the EMU's engine.  
   
  Get something different, to complement two different sources of sound
  

milesegan <milesegan@...> wrote:
          I'm liking the sequencer on the PX-7 more and more as I get to know it
better. I'm mainly using to drive software instruments though, I
haven't been using the sounds much. I'm thinking of adding another
hardware midi sequencer to the mix just for variety. Ideally
something a little different that would complement the PX-7.

Any favorites? I don't care at all about onboard sounds, just midi
sequencing. The Yamaha rm1x/rs7000 look interesting and, from what I
can glean from the manuals, are fairly different. I've tried the
recent MPCs and I think the PX-7 is pretty much superior in every way
as a sequencer. I've also tried the Elektron stuff which I found
overly simplistic as a midi sequencer and the Sequentix P3 which is
very powerful but too much of a head scratcher.



         

 		
---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the  new Yahoo.com 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Sep 28, 2006, at 10:30 AM, Mauricio Balma wrote:

>   the Rolnad JP 8080 is one of the best VA synths ever.  It has a  
> great sound, it can process external audio throught audio inputs,  
> it has some kind of vocoder, and it has sequencer incorporated.   
> The amazing JP8080 is around $600.

I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment. The JP sounds great and  
is also rather shallow, i.e. most of the sound parameters have a  
slider or knob, so there's not too much digging around in menus a la  
the Virus (which sounds great but ick what an annoying interface). I  
had a Novation Nova for a while as well - nice sounding synth with 6  
channels and full effects on each channel, but it was menu-based and  
the filter/reso controller numbers are over 100, which my XP (tops  
out at 99) and the XL (tops out at 95) can't control. The JP  
fortunately uses 74 for cutoff (standard for Roland). Also, the  
SuperSaw and Feedback oscillators are hard to beat for great  
electronic tones.

The vocoder isn't bad either. :D

---
Mibrilane





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

if your really thrilled by this synth you can find a few on e-bay right 
now for between 310-450 i saw a few i have the roland sh-32 and this 
seems weak by comparison i mean the jp8080 seems weak i dont know 
though i havent heard it but its only 10 voice poly as the sh-32 is 32 
also no sequencer per say in the sh-32 but its arpeggiator is basically 
the same thing. the sound on the sh-32 kicks ass its fat and low when 
you want it... good moog sound, arp sound, juno sound not as good as 
emus i prefer the emu sound in alot of ways but roland does kick ass 
too but their prices suck and now emu is just doing digital software 
and pci cards.goddamnit emu do some hardware stop being pussies.i love 
computer recording,the possibilities are endless but thats part of the 
problem ...thats why hardware rules. you can move the shit, you can 
jam,you can touch stuff, and get inspired.also part of the problem with 
music today is that not enough people are taking the cool hardware and 
even the computer and fucking jamming not sitting in your room like a 
douche.you know what i mean?...im talking to myself also by the 
way.......peace

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Mauricio Balma <balmaproducer@...> wrote:  
>   the EMU command stations are romplers, so, another desktop with a
different engine could be a good idea, like a virtual analog or DSP
based synth, a sampler, or a real analog. 

I think I wasn't clear in my original message.  I'm not looking for
any more sound generators.  I'm pretty happy just using software
instruments for now.  I'm looking for other hardware midi sequencers.
 If I were to get an rm1x, for example, I'd just use it for sequencing
and ignore the crappy sounds.

So, any other favorite *sequencers*?

Well,

there are two exotic ones:
the Latronic Notron (ultra rare, but very tasty) and the Schrittmacher
from Manikin, Germany: http://www.manikin-electronic.com/en/index.html

Both are expensive ...

Oh yes, there is the Doepfer stuff if you like it, the MAQ 16/3 is still
available but the Regelwerk and Schaltwerk may be found too.....

(I WANT A SCHALTWERK !!! ... if I would have money for it :( .... )

What about an AKAI MPC 2500 ? It would complement the PX-7
well and is solid built, good pads, lots of outputs by default.

Oh yes, and I recently heard at a music expo here from local reps
that 3500 is coming, too ....... Whoa, I will wait for that .... but not 
sure
if that's true or just a hoax.
But then you would be crazy not to use it's features, just the sequencer 
....

The MPC 500 is already out, I saw pictures of it.
It's tiny, it's plastic, it is seriously stripped down from the bigger bros.
I wouldn't recommend it ...

Regards,

    Zsolt




----- Original Message ----- 

From: "milesegan" <milesegan@...>
To: <xl7@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 4:16 PM
Subject: [xl7] Re: good partners for the px-7?


> --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Mauricio Balma <balmaproducer@...> wrote:
>>   the EMU command stations are romplers, so, another desktop with a
> different engine could be a good idea, like a virtual analog or DSP
> based synth, a sampler, or a real analog.
>
> I think I wasn't clear in my original message.  I'm not looking for
> any more sound generators.  I'm pretty happy just using software
> instruments for now.  I'm looking for other hardware midi sequencers.
> If I were to get an rm1x, for example, I'd just use it for sequencing
> and ignore the crappy sounds.
>
> So, any other favorite *sequencers*?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well man, if what you need is another sequencer, and not another soundsource like the  JP8080,
get another EMU.  I have 2 of them, precisely because I haven't found another better hardware sequencer than the command station, and I have use desktop modules/sequencers like:
  Korg Electribes EA 1, ER 1 and ES 1
  Roland D2, MC 303, MC 307, MC 505, and MC 909
  AKAI MPC1000, yamaha RM1X, Waldorf MicroQ, etc....
  And none of them can even touch the Command station as a SEQUENCER.   EMU has one of the most intuitive sequencers ever built.  You can record, edit patches, edit patterns, save, control other synths, etc.... without stopping the sequence or abandoning menus...that's what i love of this sequencer. It can capture your ideas instantly.


milesegan <milesegan@...> wrote:
          I'm liking the sequencer on the PX-7 more and more as I get to know it
better. I'm mainly using to drive software instruments though, I
haven't been using the sounds much. I'm thinking of adding another
hardware midi sequencer to the mix just for variety. Ideally
something a little different that would complement the PX-7.

Any favorites? I don't care at all about onboard sounds, just midi
sequencing. The Yamaha rm1x/rs7000 look interesting and, from what I
can glean from the manuals, are fairly different. I've tried the
recent MPCs and I think the PX-7 is pretty much superior in every way
as a sequencer. I've also tried the Elektron stuff which I found
overly simplistic as a midi sequencer and the Sequentix P3 which is
very powerful but too much of a head scratcher.



         

 		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>>there are two exotic ones: the Latronic Notron (ultra rare, but very
tasty) and the Schrittmacher from Manikin, Germany...<<

ah. the notron. mine is in bits- I wore it out & need to repair it.
but now I have two p3's & an octopus. :-)
there's a sort of hierarchy emerging, where the octopus is more like
an instrument for spontaneous composition, the p3 is good for
arranging stuff but also for creating multiple interacting lines that
morph into each other & change randomly or from incoming note data.
the XL7 sits across all this & stores it up for later editing or for
live (stage) reproduction.
I found the XL7 frustrating because there are lots of things I want to
do to a sequence without stopping it first, & pretty much all of the
pattern-edit ops on the emu mean stopping it. I don't have to stop the
octopus or the p3 to do stuff like this, & so the XL7 finds itself
being used more like a multitrack recorder.

>>Oh yes, there is the Doepfer stuff if you like it, the MAQ 16/3 is
still available but the Regelwerk and Schaltwerk may be found too.....
(I WANT A SCHALTWERK !!! ... if I would have money for it :( .... <<

I have three of the maq- it's very basic, even with the later s/w &
some "memories", but for hands-on gratification, it takes some
beating. when you have a midi controller hooked up to it for altering
the row lengths & so forth, it really comes alive. I run them through
the p3 so that the p3's force-to-scale fixes the maq's output into the
right key.

if you really want a schaltwerk, contact me off list. I have one here-
a bit scruffy around the rear panel, but working fine & sadly unused.

duncan.

AKAI has just start shipping the MPC 500 series.
It's the newest and cheapest production of MPC-s.
(It's about 800 US dollar).
The MPCs have very good sequencers.
more info:
http://akaipro.com/prodMPC500.php


a




On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Mauricio Balma wrote:

> Well man, if what you need is another sequencer, and not another soundsource like the  JP8080,
> get another EMU.  I have 2 of them, precisely because I haven't found another better hardware sequencer than the command station, and I have use desktop modules/sequencers like:
>  Korg Electribes EA 1, ER 1 and ES 1
>  Roland D2, MC 303, MC 307, MC 505, and MC 909
>  AKAI MPC1000, yamaha RM1X, Waldorf MicroQ, etc....
>  And none of them can even touch the Command station as a SEQUENCER.   EMU has one of the most intuitive sequencers ever built.  You can record, edit patches, edit patterns, save, control other synths, etc.... without stopping the sequence or abandoning menus...that's what i love of this sequencer. It can capture your ideas instantly.
>
>
> milesegan <milesegan@gmail.com> wrote:
>          I'm liking the sequencer on the PX-7 more and more as I get to know it
> better. I'm mainly using to drive software instruments though, I
> haven't been using the sounds much. I'm thinking of adding another
> hardware midi sequencer to the mix just for variety. Ideally
> something a little different that would complement the PX-7.
>
> Any favorites? I don't care at all about onboard sounds, just midi
> sequencing. The Yamaha rm1x/rs7000 look interesting and, from what I
> can glean from the manuals, are fairly different. I've tried the
> recent MPCs and I think the PX-7 is pretty much superior in every way
> as a sequencer. I've also tried the Elektron stuff which I found
> overly simplistic as a midi sequencer and the Sequentix P3 which is
> very powerful but too much of a head scratcher.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2�/min or less.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Mauricio Balma <balmaproducer@...> wrote:
>
> Well man, if what you need is another sequencer, and not another
> soundsource like the  JP8080,
> get another EMU.

I've thought about this, particularly since the XL/MP-7 can be found
pretty cheap these days and I wouldn't need any roms.  I think I'm
going to add an MPC 1000 for now.  The sequencer on the EMU blows it
away but the integrated sampling could add a lot alongside the EMU.

Thanks.

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Zsolt Szab� <Zsolt.Szabo@...> wrote:
>
> Well,
> 
> there are two exotic ones:
> the Latronic Notron (ultra rare, but very tasty) and the Schrittmacher
> from Manikin, Germany: http://www.manikin-electronic.com/en/index.html
> 
> Both are expensive ...

Those both look pretty interesting.  I had a P3 for a while and liked
a lot of things about it but I found myself getting lost in it pretty
quickly.  Still, an analog-style pattern sequencer would be a good
complement to the PX, I think.

Maybe if I suddenly get rich, I'll grab one of these:

http://www.genoqs.net/15010/index.html

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "milesegan" <milesegan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Mauricio Balma <balmaproducer@> 
wrote:  
> >   the EMU command stations are romplers, so, another desktop 
with a
> different engine could be a good idea, like a virtual analog or DSP
> based synth, a sampler, or a real analog. 
> 
> I think I wasn't clear in my original message.  I'm not looking for
> any more sound generators.  I'm pretty happy just using software
> instruments for now.  I'm looking for other hardware midi 
sequencers.
>  If I were to get an rm1x, for example, I'd just use it for 
sequencing
> and ignore the crappy sounds.
> 
> So, any other favorite *sequencers*?
>

I got one paired with my XL-7.
A Kurzweil K2000 with the latest OS.
Awesome, that's all I can say.
Got one off E-Bay for $400.- and spend another $150.- for upgrades.
I suppose it all depends what kind of music you are making.

Ive got an MPC2000XL here that ive not used for a while.
Thing ive always found with akai is they make fantastic hardware but 
the firmware always sucks.
The S3000XL sampler i have again is fantastic hardware, sounds great 
but lacks some refinement in the firmware again.
This all adds upto being very restricted when you want to modulate / 
control parameters like you could do on most synths so blocks 
creativity.
The MPC2000XL had a bit more power over the older MPC2000 but akai have 
basically sold the same product again. They seem to keep on doing this
The 2000XL sounds great again, timing is rock solid it pumps beats out 
like ive never heard another piece of hardware do (all older mpcs..)
but, the interface sucks only because the software is half baked.
This isin't mentioning the bugs that will never get sorted out now..
Think the same will be true of all the later hardware stuff akai 
release's, check out the yahoo mpc4000 group, most of them arn't happy..
If your doing hiphop stuff with samples then the mpc's good at that.
If you want to get in there and edit stuff then its a nightmare.
Saving, editing, changing between screens involves stopping and 
breaking your flow. I found it really hard work with the 2KXL.
EMU's a lot better interface, but i dont think the timings as good.
The emu sounds a bit loose in that department.
They are very differant beasts i know but that interaction with the seq 
is so important and the emu wins over there.
Im ranting... sorry 
gonz 







--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Szonyi Andras <andras@...> wrote:

> The MPCs have very good sequencers.
> more info:
> http://akaipro.com/prodMPC500.php
> 
> 
> a

I absolutely agree, I can just confirm gonz's opninion:

MPC-s time/rhytmic feel is much solid, and best i've
ever heard (I'm using an MPC4000 beside the XL7),

but XX-7 has the most useful seq interface.


a

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, gonzinigonz wrote:

> Ive got an MPC2000XL here that ive not used for a while.
> Thing ive always found with akai is they make fantastic hardware but
> the firmware always sucks.
> The S3000XL sampler i have again is fantastic hardware, sounds great
> but lacks some refinement in the firmware again.
> This all adds upto being very restricted when you want to modulate /
> control parameters like you could do on most synths so blocks
> creativity.
> The MPC2000XL had a bit more power over the older MPC2000 but akai have
> basically sold the same product again. They seem to keep on doing this
> The 2000XL sounds great again, timing is rock solid it pumps beats out
> like ive never heard another piece of hardware do (all older mpcs..)
> but, the interface sucks only because the software is half baked.
> This isin't mentioning the bugs that will never get sorted out now..
> Think the same will be true of all the later hardware stuff akai
> release's, check out the yahoo mpc4000 group, most of them arn't happy..
> If your doing hiphop stuff with samples then the mpc's good at that.
> If you want to get in there and edit stuff then its a nightmare.
> Saving, editing, changing between screens involves stopping and
> breaking your flow. I found it really hard work with the 2KXL.
> EMU's a lot better interface, but i dont think the timings as good.
> The emu sounds a bit loose in that department.
> They are very differant beasts i know but that interaction with the seq
> is so important and the emu wins over there.
> Im ranting... sorry
> gonz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Szonyi Andras <andras@...> wrote:
>> The MPCs have very good sequencers.
>> more info:
>> http://akaipro.com/prodMPC500.php
>>
>>
>> a
>
>
>
>
>

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Szonyi Andras <andras@...> wrote:
> I absolutely agree, I can just confirm gonz's opninion:
> 
> MPC-s time/rhytmic feel is much solid, and best i've
> ever heard (I'm using an MPC4000 beside the XL7),
> 
> but XX-7 has the most useful seq interface.

I completely agree. The MPC is superb as a beat maker but it doesn't
compare to the XX-7 as a general purpose sequencer.  The main problem
with the MPCs is that you have to stop and restart them to do so many
things.  The XX-7 can just keep running.

However, there's a new third party OS for the MPC1000 that improves on
Akai's OS in many ways:
http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/%7Empc1000/

I've been running it without problems for a while now.  Definitely
worth the $30.

I agree with everyone.. BUT if you can get your hands on a ASRX-PRO Sampler by Emu/Ensonqi then you got something, you can do so much, and since you are already familiar with the Emu's ways you will have no problem to dive into this machine and they can work side by side the ASRX-pro (the red one or the black one) is a strong sequencer, check out the review below
  http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec98/articles/ensoniqasrx.794.htm
   
  And tell me what you think, as I'm trying to get ahold of one..

milesegan <milesegan@...> wrote:
          --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Szonyi Andras <andras@...> wrote:
> I absolutely agree, I can just confirm gonz's opninion:
> 
> MPC-s time/rhytmic feel is much solid, and best i've
> ever heard (I'm using an MPC4000 beside the XL7),
> 
> but XX-7 has the most useful seq interface.

I completely agree. The MPC is superb as a beat maker but it doesn't
compare to the XX-7 as a general purpose sequencer. The main problem
with the MPCs is that you have to stop and restart them to do so many
things. The XX-7 can just keep running.

However, there's a new third party OS for the MPC1000 that improves on
Akai's OS in many ways:
http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/%7Empc1000/

I've been running it without problems for a while now. Definitely
worth the $30.



         


Music is a moral law, 
it gives wings to the mind, a soul to the universe 
flight to the imagination, a charm to sadness 
a life to everything, 
Plato, 400 B.C
 				
---------------------------------
Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The MPC will have better timing because its internal sound engine is
much simpler than the Command Station's. External sounds, of course,
are limited by MIDI.

Really wish Emu had done an SP-2500 Sampling Command Station...


--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Szonyi Andras <andras@...> wrote:
> 
> I absolutely agree, I can just confirm gonz's opninion:
> 
> MPC-s time/rhytmic feel is much solid, and best i've
> ever heard (I'm using an MPC4000 beside the XL7),
> 
> but XX-7 has the most useful seq interface.
> 
> 
> a
> 
> 
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, gonzinigonz wrote:
> 
> > Ive got an MPC2000XL here that ive not used for a while.
> > Thing ive always found with akai is they make fantastic hardware but
> > the firmware always sucks.
> > The S3000XL sampler i have again is fantastic hardware, sounds great
> > but lacks some refinement in the firmware again.
> > This all adds upto being very restricted when you want to modulate /
> > control parameters like you could do on most synths so blocks
> > creativity.
> > The MPC2000XL had a bit more power over the older MPC2000 but akai
have
> > basically sold the same product again. They seem to keep on doing this
> > The 2000XL sounds great again, timing is rock solid it pumps beats out
> > like ive never heard another piece of hardware do (all older mpcs..)
> > but, the interface sucks only because the software is half baked.
> > This isin't mentioning the bugs that will never get sorted out now..
> > Think the same will be true of all the later hardware stuff akai
> > release's, check out the yahoo mpc4000 group, most of them arn't
happy..
> > If your doing hiphop stuff with samples then the mpc's good at that.
> > If you want to get in there and edit stuff then its a nightmare.
> > Saving, editing, changing between screens involves stopping and
> > breaking your flow. I found it really hard work with the 2KXL.
> > EMU's a lot better interface, but i dont think the timings as good.
> > The emu sounds a bit loose in that department.
> > They are very differant beasts i know but that interaction with
the seq

> > is so important and the emu wins over there.
> > Im ranting... sorry
> > gonz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Szonyi Andras <andras@> wrote:
> >> The MPCs have very good sequencers.
> >> more info:
> >> http://akaipro.com/prodMPC500.php
> >>
> >>
> >> a
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Yeah, the XL-7's sequencer's timing is unfortunately limited by the
synthesiser.  External MIDI it does pretty well.  Internal sounds can
take anywhere from 2-6ms to fire and they're sequential, so 5 notes all
at the same time will spill out one by one over a 10-30ms time period. 
In practice, it's not too bad as it's very deterministic.  Lower
numbered tracks play before higher numbered tracks and they play all
the notes that they wanted to before going on to the next track.

I too wish we had done another SP series machine.  I have a few front
panel sketches that I did...

-Aaron

--- robotchas <robotchas@...> wrote:

> The MPC will have better timing because its internal sound engine is
> much simpler than the Command Station's. External sounds, of course,
> are limited by MIDI.
> 
> Really wish Emu had done an SP-2500 Sampling Command Station...
> 
> 
> --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Szonyi Andras <andras@...> wrote:
> > 
> > I absolutely agree, I can just confirm gonz's opninion:
> > 
> > MPC-s time/rhytmic feel is much solid, and best i've
> > ever heard (I'm using an MPC4000 beside the XL7),
> > 
> > but XX-7 has the most useful seq interface.
> > 
> > 
> > a
> > 
> > 
> > On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, gonzinigonz wrote:
> > 
> > > Ive got an MPC2000XL here that ive not used for a while.
> > > Thing ive always found with akai is they make fantastic hardware
> but
> > > the firmware always sucks.
> > > The S3000XL sampler i have again is fantastic hardware, sounds
> great
> > > but lacks some refinement in the firmware again.
> > > This all adds upto being very restricted when you want to
> modulate /
> > > control parameters like you could do on most synths so blocks
> > > creativity.
> > > The MPC2000XL had a bit more power over the older MPC2000 but
> akai
> have
> > > basically sold the same product again. They seem to keep on doing
> this
> > > The 2000XL sounds great again, timing is rock solid it pumps
> beats out
> > > like ive never heard another piece of hardware do (all older
> mpcs..)
> > > but, the interface sucks only because the software is half baked.
> > > This isin't mentioning the bugs that will never get sorted out
> now..
> > > Think the same will be true of all the later hardware stuff akai
> > > release's, check out the yahoo mpc4000 group, most of them arn't
> happy..
> > > If your doing hiphop stuff with samples then the mpc's good at
> that.
> > > If you want to get in there and edit stuff then its a nightmare.
> > > Saving, editing, changing between screens involves stopping and
> > > breaking your flow. I found it really hard work with the 2KXL.
> > > EMU's a lot better interface, but i dont think the timings as
> good.
> > > The emu sounds a bit loose in that department.
> > > They are very differant beasts i know but that interaction with
> the seq
> > > is so important and the emu wins over there.
> > > Im ranting... sorry
> > > gonz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Szonyi Andras <andras@> wrote:
> > >> The MPCs have very good sequencers.
> > >> more info:
> > >> http://akaipro.com/prodMPC500.php
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> a
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Thats really cool! i always wished someone would do this for the 
MPC2000XL.. Maybe it will happen some day.
Bit like the roger linn version for the MPC3000.

> However, there's a new third party OS for the MPC1000 that improves on
> Akai's OS in many ways:
> http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/%7Empc1000/
> 
> I've been running it without problems for a while now.  Definitely
> worth the $30.
>

So does the same apply for tracks routed for external midi only?

Having your own samples in the XL's does appeal to me, but it seems 
really expensive to author your own roms.
You cant have it all though!


--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Eppolito <synthesis77@...> wrote:

>
> Yeah, the XL-7's sequencer's timing is unfortunately limited by the
> synthesiser.  External MIDI it does pretty well.  Internal sounds can

I used to have a command station and am thinking about getting another one.

About the timing of the command stations and mpc's.  I felt that they both had very good 
timings, but they sequence in different resolutions.  They call it parts per quater note.  PPQN

The PPQN for the different sequencers are.....

MPC 500   =   96

Command Stations   =  384   i think.. ;)

MPC 4000   =  960

Alesis Fusion  =  480

just something to think about.....

yer the mpc2KXL is 96ppqn as well, it does keep things really tight.
32nd note resolution is good enough for me :0)
I will normally correct everything anyway after busking stuff in.
Not come accross the alesis yet? has that got some kind of sequencer 
then?



--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "djnorythm" <djnorythm@...> wrote:
>
> I used to have a command station and am thinking about getting 
another one.
> 
> About the timing of the command stations and mpc's.  I felt that 
they both had very good 
> timings, but they sequence in different resolutions.  They call it 
parts per quater note.  PPQN

> 
> The PPQN for the different sequencers are.....
> 
> MPC 500   =   96
> 
> Command Stations   =  384   i think.. ;)
> 
> MPC 4000   =  960
> 
> Alesis Fusion  =  480
> 
> just something to think about.....
>

Sorry for my ignorance but how can a lower PPQN sequencer be more
tight than a higher PPQN one ?

It would mean that in cases where many tracks are used it would
slip more. IMHO this is a myth.
Simply create 16 tracks on the MPC and put the same sound on them
at the exact same position. Do it the same on the Emu.
I'm curious at the result. I worked with all kind of MPC's before, even the
3000 and I must say personally I don't feel it more tight than any other
high quality stuff, be it a software sequencer or hardware.

Just speculation: on the MPC I believe I always heard the same beats at
the same timeline positions through the loops. However, I'm not sure
about my XL7. I remember Aaron's mail where he said the lower tracks
are higher priority but still ... sometimes it seems to me this is not the 
case,
or my mind is playing tricks on me.

Regards,

    Zsolt


----- Original Message ----- 

From: "gonzinigonz" <gonzini@...>
To: <xl7@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:41 AM
Subject: [xl7] Re: good partners for the px-7?


> yer the mpc2KXL is 96ppqn as well, it does keep things really tight.
> 32nd note resolution is good enough for me :0)
> I will normally correct everything anyway after busking stuff in.
> Not come accross the alesis yet? has that got some kind of sequencer
> then?
>
>
>
> --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "djnorythm" <djnorythm@...> wrote:
>>
>> I used to have a command station and am thinking about getting
> another one.
>>
>> About the timing of the command stations and mpc's.  I felt that
> they both had very good
>> timings, but they sequence in different resolutions.  They call it
> parts per quater note.  PPQN
>>
>> The PPQN for the different sequencers are.....
>>
>> MPC 500   =   96
>>
>> Command Stations   =  384   i think.. ;)
>>
>> MPC 4000   =  960
>>
>> Alesis Fusion  =  480
>>
>> just something to think about.....
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

less overhead for the software i guess... im not a programmer.
Dont think it would mean other seq data would suffer more as a result 
of the lower ppqn, again lower overhead all round.
The earlier mpc's used a 286 proccessor (remember those?!), not sure 
what speed it would be running at.
Think the command stations cpu would be running a lot faster though.
I felt with the stuff i was doing at the time using the MPC, timing 
from PC seq and the command station that things didnt feel as tight.
As far as im aware lower track No.s take priority so any complex drum 
programming should be on the lowest tracks.
Its got to start somewhere.
You sound as if you've heard the timing go off?
Ive had the release time / sample cut off on some drum sounds with 
the XL, never really got to the bottom of it. 
I wasnt pushing things either, very low on the voice count.



--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Zsolt Szabó <Zsolt.Szabo@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry for my ignorance but how can a lower PPQN sequencer be more
> tight than a higher PPQN one ?
> 
> It would mean that in cases where many tracks are used it would
> slip more. IMHO this is a myth.
> Simply create 16 tracks on the MPC and put the same sound on them
> at the exact same position. Do it the same on the Emu.
> I'm curious at the result. I worked with all kind of MPC's before, 
even the
> 3000 and I must say personally I don't feel it more tight than any 
other
> high quality stuff, be it a software sequencer or hardware.
> 
> Just speculation: on the MPC I believe I always heard the same 
beats at
> the same timeline positions through the loops. However, I'm not sure
> about my XL7. I remember Aaron's mail where he said the lower tracks
> are higher priority but still ... sometimes it seems to me this is 
not the 
> case,
> or my mind is playing tricks on me.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>     Zsolt
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "gonzinigonz" <gonzini@...>
> To: <xl7@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:41 AM
> Subject: [xl7] Re: good partners for the px-7?
> 
> 
> > yer the mpc2KXL is 96ppqn as well, it does keep things really 
tight.
> > 32nd note resolution is good enough for me :0)
> > I will normally correct everything anyway after busking stuff in.
> > Not come accross the alesis yet? has that got some kind of 
sequencer
> > then?
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "djnorythm" <djnorythm@> wrote:
> >>
> >> I used to have a command station and am thinking about getting
> > another one.
> >>
> >> About the timing of the command stations and mpc's.  I felt that
> > they both had very good
> >> timings, but they sequence in different resolutions.  They call 
it

> > parts per quater note.  PPQN
> >>
> >> The PPQN for the different sequencers are.....
> >>
> >> MPC 500   =   96
> >>
> >> Command Stations   =  384   i think.. ;)
> >>
> >> MPC 4000   =  960
> >>
> >> Alesis Fusion  =  480
> >>
> >> just something to think about.....
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Lower PPQ sequencers can sound tighter than higher PPQ sequencers
because the lower PPQ is, in effect, quantization.  It's the same
reason that quantized stuff sounds more accurate than unquantized
stuff.  Higher PPQs are simply more accurate and capable of capturing
more musicality.

-Aaron

--- gonzinigonz <gonzini@...> wrote:

> less overhead for the software i guess... im not a programmer.
> Dont think it would mean other seq data would suffer more as a result
> 
> of the lower ppqn, again lower overhead all round.
> The earlier mpc's used a 286 proccessor (remember those?!), not sure 
> what speed it would be running at.
> Think the command stations cpu would be running a lot faster though.
> I felt with the stuff i was doing at the time using the MPC, timing 
> from PC seq and the command station that things didnt feel as tight.
> As far as im aware lower track No.s take priority so any complex drum
> 
> programming should be on the lowest tracks.
> Its got to start somewhere.
> You sound as if you've heard the timing go off?
> Ive had the release time / sample cut off on some drum sounds with 
> the XL, never really got to the bottom of it. 
> I wasnt pushing things either, very low on the voice count.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Zsolt Szab\ufffd <Zsolt.Szabo@...> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for my ignorance but how can a lower PPQN sequencer be more
> > tight than a higher PPQN one ?
> > 
> > It would mean that in cases where many tracks are used it would
> > slip more. IMHO this is a myth.
> > Simply create 16 tracks on the MPC and put the same sound on them
> > at the exact same position. Do it the same on the Emu.
> > I'm curious at the result. I worked with all kind of MPC's before, 
> even the
> > 3000 and I must say personally I don't feel it more tight than any 
> other
> > high quality stuff, be it a software sequencer or hardware.
> > 
> > Just speculation: on the MPC I believe I always heard the same 
> beats at
> > the same timeline positions through the loops. However, I'm not
> sure
> > about my XL7. I remember Aaron's mail where he said the lower
> tracks
> > are higher priority but still ... sometimes it seems to me this is 
> not the 
> > case,
> > or my mind is playing tricks on me.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> >     Zsolt
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "gonzinigonz" <gonzini@...>
> > To: <xl7@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:41 AM
> > Subject: [xl7] Re: good partners for the px-7?
> > 
> > 
> > > yer the mpc2KXL is 96ppqn as well, it does keep things really 
> tight.
> > > 32nd note resolution is good enough for me :0)
> > > I will normally correct everything anyway after busking stuff in.
> > > Not come accross the alesis yet? has that got some kind of 
> sequencer
> > > then?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "djnorythm" <djnorythm@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I used to have a command station and am thinking about getting
> > > another one.
> > >>
> > >> About the timing of the command stations and mpc's.  I felt that
> > > they both had very good
> > >> timings, but they sequence in different resolutions.  They call 
> it
> > > parts per quater note.  PPQN
> > >>
> > >> The PPQN for the different sequencers are.....
> > >>
> > >> MPC 500   =   96
> > >>
> > >> Command Stations   =  384   i think.. ;)
> > >>
> > >> MPC 4000   =  960
> > >>
> > >> Alesis Fusion  =  480
> > >>
> > >> just something to think about.....
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Do you know how the XL-7's synth compares to other synths,
timing-wise? Seems to me an external synth would have roughly the same
latency to calculate its sounds, but the XL-7 has the benefit of not
having to fire its notes through MIDI, which would add at least a
millisecond per note. Two milliseconds of jitter on the
highest-priority tracks sounds pretty good to me - at 120 BPM and 384
PPQN, one tick is about 1.3 ms. If that's the tradeoff for being able
to access a fairly powerful synth engine internally, it seems a fair
trade, especially since, as you say, it's deterministic and thus easy
to compensate for.

Years ago Keyboard magazine did some timing tests comparing the MIDI
response of various synths under varying polyphony loads. I don't
remember the exact results (I think they were on the order of 4-40 ms
of slop), but I do remember that the Wavestation did very well and
some of the Roland boxes did rather poorly. I don't recall hearing of
anything similar since. Processors have obviously gotten a lot faster,
but the demands have risen as well.

And part of me wants you to show me those SP front panel sketches,
part of me doesn't want to be tortured...



--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Eppolito <synthesis77@...> wrote:

>
> Yeah, the XL-7's sequencer's timing is unfortunately limited by the
> synthesiser.  External MIDI it does pretty well.  Internal sounds can
> take anywhere from 2-6ms to fire and they're sequential, so 5 notes all
> at the same time will spill out one by one over a 10-30ms time period. 
> In practice, it's not too bad as it's very deterministic.  Lower
> numbered tracks play before higher numbered tracks and they play all
> the notes that they wanted to before going on to the next track.
> 
> I too wish we had done another SP series machine.  I have a few front
> panel sketches that I did...
> 
> -Aaron
> 
> --- robotchas <robotchas@...> wrote:
> 
> > The MPC will have better timing because its internal sound engine is
> > much simpler than the Command Station's. External sounds, of course,
> > are limited by MIDI.
> > 
> > Really wish Emu had done an SP-2500 Sampling Command Station...
> > 
> > 
> > --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Szonyi Andras <andras@> wrote:
> > > 
> > > I absolutely agree, I can just confirm gonz's opninion:
> > > 
> > > MPC-s time/rhytmic feel is much solid, and best i've
> > > ever heard (I'm using an MPC4000 beside the XL7),
> > > 
> > > but XX-7 has the most useful seq interface.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > a
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, gonzinigonz wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Ive got an MPC2000XL here that ive not used for a while.
> > > > Thing ive always found with akai is they make fantastic hardware
> > but
> > > > the firmware always sucks.
> > > > The S3000XL sampler i have again is fantastic hardware, sounds
> > great
> > > > but lacks some refinement in the firmware again.
> > > > This all adds upto being very restricted when you want to
> > modulate /
> > > > control parameters like you could do on most synths so blocks
> > > > creativity.
> > > > The MPC2000XL had a bit more power over the older MPC2000 but
> > akai
> > have
> > > > basically sold the same product again. They seem to keep on doing
> > this
> > > > The 2000XL sounds great again, timing is rock solid it pumps
> > beats out
> > > > like ive never heard another piece of hardware do (all older
> > mpcs..)
> > > > but, the interface sucks only because the software is half baked.
> > > > This isin't mentioning the bugs that will never get sorted out
> > now..
> > > > Think the same will be true of all the later hardware stuff akai
> > > > release's, check out the yahoo mpc4000 group, most of them arn't
> > happy..
> > > > If your doing hiphop stuff with samples then the mpc's good at
> > that.
> > > > If you want to get in there and edit stuff then its a nightmare.
> > > > Saving, editing, changing between screens involves stopping and
> > > > breaking your flow. I found it really hard work with the 2KXL.
> > > > EMU's a lot better interface, but i dont think the timings as
> > good.
> > > > The emu sounds a bit loose in that department.
> > > > They are very differant beasts i know but that interaction with
> > the seq
> > > > is so important and the emu wins over there.
> > > > Im ranting... sorry
> > > > gonz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Szonyi Andras <andras@> wrote:
> > > >> The MPCs have very good sequencers.
> > > >> more info:
> > > >> http://akaipro.com/prodMPC500.php
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> a
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

Hello Aaron and gonzinigonz,

yes, I understand that lower PPQN is similar to quantize.
However, this would mean also that busy loops with many
tracks would exhibit larger quantize resolution as the PPQN decreases.
Following this, if I would create 16 track with the same bass drum sound
on the exact same timeline positions and trying to play it, the MPC would
have a more "rattle" sound here while on the Emu the rattle effect would be 
less.

For external MIDI stuff I'm sure this is the case.
However, for internal sounds this is true only if the internal sound engine 
is
operating on the MIDI basis which I'm not absolutely sure it is the case
in both of the MPC and Emu . But I think it must be, if proper MIDI sync
is to be done ...

Regards,

    Zsolt



----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Aaron Eppolito" <synthesis77@...>
To: <xl7@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: [xl7] Re: good partners for the px-7?


> Lower PPQ sequencers can sound tighter than higher PPQ sequencers
> because the lower PPQ is, in effect, quantization.  It's the same
> reason that quantized stuff sounds more accurate than unquantized
> stuff.  Higher PPQs are simply more accurate and capable of capturing
> more musicality.
>
> -Aaron
>
> --- gonzinigonz <gonzini@...> wrote:
>
>> less overhead for the software i guess... im not a programmer.
>> Dont think it would mean other seq data would suffer more as a result
>>
>> of the lower ppqn, again lower overhead all round.
>> The earlier mpc's used a 286 proccessor (remember those?!), not sure
>> what speed it would be running at.
>> Think the command stations cpu would be running a lot faster though.
>> I felt with the stuff i was doing at the time using the MPC, timing
>> from PC seq and the command station that things didnt feel as tight.
>> As far as im aware lower track No.s take priority so any complex drum
>>
>> programming should be on the lowest tracks.
>> Its got to start somewhere.
>> You sound as if you've heard the timing go off?
>> Ive had the release time / sample cut off on some drum sounds with
>> the XL, never really got to the bottom of it.
>> I wasnt pushing things either, very low on the voice count.
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Zsolt Szab\ufffd <Zsolt.Szabo@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Sorry for my ignorance but how can a lower PPQN sequencer be more
>> > tight than a higher PPQN one ?
>> >
>> > It would mean that in cases where many tracks are used it would
>> > slip more. IMHO this is a myth.
>> > Simply create 16 tracks on the MPC and put the same sound on them
>> > at the exact same position. Do it the same on the Emu.
>> > I'm curious at the result. I worked with all kind of MPC's before,
>> even the
>> > 3000 and I must say personally I don't feel it more tight than any
>> other
>> > high quality stuff, be it a software sequencer or hardware.
>> >
>> > Just speculation: on the MPC I believe I always heard the same
>> beats at
>> > the same timeline positions through the loops. However, I'm not
>> sure
>> > about my XL7. I remember Aaron's mail where he said the lower
>> tracks
>> > are higher priority but still ... sometimes it seems to me this is
>> not the
>> > case,
>> > or my mind is playing tricks on me.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> >     Zsolt
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message ----- 
>> > From: "gonzinigonz" <gonzini@...>
>> > To: <xl7@yahoogroups.com>
>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:41 AM
>> > Subject: [xl7] Re: good partners for the px-7?
>> >
>> >
>> > > yer the mpc2KXL is 96ppqn as well, it does keep things really
>> tight.
>> > > 32nd note resolution is good enough for me :0)
>> > > I will normally correct everything anyway after busking stuff in.
>> > > Not come accross the alesis yet? has that got some kind of
>> sequencer
>> > > then?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "djnorythm" <djnorythm@> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> I used to have a command station and am thinking about getting
>> > > another one.
>> > >>
>> > >> About the timing of the command stations and mpc's.  I felt that
>> > > they both had very good
>> > >> timings, but they sequence in different resolutions.  They call
>> it
>> > > parts per quater note.  PPQN
>> > >>
>> > >> The PPQN for the different sequencers are.....
>> > >>
>> > >> MPC 500   =   96
>> > >>
>> > >> Command Stations   =  384   i think.. ;)
>> > >>
>> > >> MPC 4000   =  960
>> > >>
>> > >> Alesis Fusion  =  480
>> > >>
>> > >> just something to think about.....
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Zsolt Szab� <Zsolt.Szabo@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Aaron and gonzinigonz,
> 
> yes, I understand that lower PPQN is similar to quantize.
> However, this would mean also that busy loops with many
> tracks would exhibit larger quantize resolution as the PPQN decreases.

Why would the PPQN automatically decrease?  On the MPC it's a constant
96.  I think the reason people think the MPC sounds so tight is that
the output is run through an onboard compressor by default which makes
everything sound punchy.

Higher resolution (384ppqn vs. 96ppqn) means it will more accurately
capture the timing nuances of a performance. Recording at a lower PPQN
or coarser quantization will shift the timing of notes to snap to the
quantization grid (what I think you mean by "rattle") and will be less
accurate in terms of reproducing the original performance but more
accurate - "tighter" - in terms of notes lining up with the beat. Both
the Command Station and MPC use a higher internal clock resolution
than the MIDI standard (24ppqn) by just subdividing further down - the
MPC is four times more precise than the MIDI standard, and the Command
Station is four times more precise than the MPC. So theoretically you
could make the CS sound as "tight" (or "rigid") as the MPC by
quantizing, but there's no "384th note" (96th of a quarter note)
quantization option on the CS.

Even if there was it might not sound the same. Tightness also comes
from how steady the timing is - a sequence with a lot of jitter will
sound sloppy no matter what the PPQN. Even if you don't use external
MIDI, the sound engine can only calculate one note at a time, so some
lag is inevitably going to be introduced there. I wonder when we'll
start seeing multi-threaded digital synths...

It'd be interesting to see if anyone's ever done timing tests on the
MPC like Nick Rothwell did for the Command Stations. Wouldn't be
difficult at all, but I can't find mention of it online anywhere.


Charles.

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Zsolt Szab� <Zsolt.Szabo@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Aaron and gonzinigonz,
> 
> yes, I understand that lower PPQN is similar to quantize.
> However, this would mean also that busy loops with many
> tracks would exhibit larger quantize resolution as the PPQN decreases.
> Following this, if I would create 16 track with the same bass drum sound
> on the exact same timeline positions and trying to play it, the MPC
would
> have a more "rattle" sound here while on the Emu the rattle effect
would be 
> less.
> 
> For external MIDI stuff I'm sure this is the case.
> However, for internal sounds this is true only if the internal sound
engine 

> is
> operating on the MIDI basis which I'm not absolutely sure it is the case
> in both of the MPC and Emu . But I think it must be, if proper MIDI sync
> is to be done ...
> 
> Regards,
> 
>     Zsolt
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Aaron Eppolito" <synthesis77@...>
> To: <xl7@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 5:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [xl7] Re: good partners for the px-7?
> 
> 
> > Lower PPQ sequencers can sound tighter than higher PPQ sequencers
> > because the lower PPQ is, in effect, quantization.  It's the same
> > reason that quantized stuff sounds more accurate than unquantized
> > stuff.  Higher PPQs are simply more accurate and capable of capturing
> > more musicality.
> >
> > -Aaron
> >
> > --- gonzinigonz <gonzini@...> wrote:
> >
> >> less overhead for the software i guess... im not a programmer.
> >> Dont think it would mean other seq data would suffer more as a result
> >>
> >> of the lower ppqn, again lower overhead all round.
> >> The earlier mpc's used a 286 proccessor (remember those?!), not sure
> >> what speed it would be running at.
> >> Think the command stations cpu would be running a lot faster though.
> >> I felt with the stuff i was doing at the time using the MPC, timing
> >> from PC seq and the command station that things didnt feel as tight.
> >> As far as im aware lower track No.s take priority so any complex drum
> >>
> >> programming should be on the lowest tracks.
> >> Its got to start somewhere.
> >> You sound as if you've heard the timing go off?
> >> Ive had the release time / sample cut off on some drum sounds with
> >> the XL, never really got to the bottom of it.
> >> I wasnt pushing things either, very low on the voice count.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Zsolt Szab� <Zsolt.Szabo@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Sorry for my ignorance but how can a lower PPQN sequencer be more
> >> > tight than a higher PPQN one ?
> >> >
> >> > It would mean that in cases where many tracks are used it would
> >> > slip more. IMHO this is a myth.
> >> > Simply create 16 tracks on the MPC and put the same sound on them
> >> > at the exact same position. Do it the same on the Emu.
> >> > I'm curious at the result. I worked with all kind of MPC's before,
> >> even the
> >> > 3000 and I must say personally I don't feel it more tight than any
> >> other
> >> > high quality stuff, be it a software sequencer or hardware.
> >> >
> >> > Just speculation: on the MPC I believe I always heard the same
> >> beats at
> >> > the same timeline positions through the loops. However, I'm not
> >> sure
> >> > about my XL7. I remember Aaron's mail where he said the lower
> >> tracks
> >> > are higher priority but still ... sometimes it seems to me this is
> >> not the
> >> > case,
> >> > or my mind is playing tricks on me.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> >     Zsolt
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> >> > From: "gonzinigonz" <gonzini@>
> >> > To: <xl7@yahoogroups.com>
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:41 AM
> >> > Subject: [xl7] Re: good partners for the px-7?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > yer the mpc2KXL is 96ppqn as well, it does keep things really
> >> tight.
> >> > > 32nd note resolution is good enough for me :0)
> >> > > I will normally correct everything anyway after busking stuff in.
> >> > > Not come accross the alesis yet? has that got some kind of
> >> sequencer
> >> > > then?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "djnorythm" <djnorythm@> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I used to have a command station and am thinking about getting
> >> > > another one.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> About the timing of the command stations and mpc's.  I felt that
> >> > > they both had very good
> >> > >> timings, but they sequence in different resolutions.  They call
> >> it
> >> > > parts per quater note.  PPQN
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The PPQN for the different sequencers are.....
> >> > >>
> >> > >> MPC 500   =   96
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Command Stations   =  384   i think.. ;)
> >> > >>
> >> > >> MPC 4000   =  960
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Alesis Fusion  =  480
> >> > >>
> >> > >> just something to think about.....
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I didn't talk here about automatical PPQN decrease.
I was talking about lower PPQN value on the MPC compared to the
CS. Sorry if I was misunderstood, english is not my native language.

Regards,

    Zsolt

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "milesegan" <milesegan@...>
To: <xl7@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 4:28 PM
Subject: [xl7] Re: good partners for the px-7?


--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Zsolt Szab\ufffd <Zsolt.Szabo@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Aaron and gonzinigonz,
>
> yes, I understand that lower PPQN is similar to quantize.
> However, this would mean also that busy loops with many
> tracks would exhibit larger quantize resolution as the PPQN decreases.

Why would the PPQN automatically decrease?  On the MPC it's a constant
96.  I think the reason people think the MPC sounds so tight is that
the output is run through an onboard compressor by default which makes
everything sound punchy.







Yahoo! Groups Links

All good there.
So quantise an XL seq to 32nd's or 16ths.
Will it still sound as tight all things being equal?


--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Eppolito <synthesis77@...> wrote:

>
> Lower PPQ sequencers can sound tighter than higher PPQ sequencers
> because the lower PPQ is, in effect, quantization.  It's the same
> reason that quantized stuff sounds more accurate than unquantized
> stuff.  Higher PPQs are simply more accurate and capable of capturing
> more musicality.
> 
> -Aaron

No compressor on the output of an MPC2KXL. Guess thats on the newer 
units..
I spent a small amount of time when i first got(the mpc)it listening to 
it when you pressed stop! With the right samples in there it kicks arse!
Its just a solid pumping groove machine!
We where doing psychedelic trance at the time...
Of course you also get to choose your drum samples or what ever your 
going to use.
I just never got used to crap interface, thats why the XL appealed.
Quite like the quasaimidi 309 interface, thats great fun to busk about 
on. Have to spend time programming your own sounds though with it, it 
very capable of cheesey pap...

> Why would the PPQN automatically decrease?  On the MPC it's a constant
> 96.  I think the reason people think the MPC sounds so tight is that
> the output is run through an onboard compressor by default which makes
> everything sound punchy.
>