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

this should be an interesting forum to ask this question...

i've never had any hands on with these:
 	XL-7, RM1x, MPC-xxx, MC-303/505/etc

of the RM1x and assorted roland garbage, i don't have to hear the XL-7 to 
know that the sounds are better, and i doubt that anyone here would debate 
me on that.

but regarding a sequencer, who can tell me what makes the XL7 better than 
the rest for live performance? i'm not looking to start a flame war, and 
i'm definitely leaning towards the XL7, but if anyone has used the other 
gear, i'm interested in hearing about how they compare.

thanks...


-- 
         ...atom

  ________________________
  http://atom.smasher.org/
  762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
  -------------------------------------------------

 	"The universe is not hostile, nor yet is it friendly.
 	 It is simply indifferent."
 		-- John Hughes Holmes

For me, one thing:

I have to seldom stop the seq while I'm working.
Only required on a few tasks. Big plus, as I'm doing
music mostly live, while recording to audio, then lately
cutting and assembling the parts.

I know this was not mentioned but I'm looking forward
to the LinnDrum II from Dave Smith/Roger Linn.
Combined with my XL-7 it would be a dream setup
both for sequencing and songwriting. The LinnDrum II
would work along the same concept - you don't have to
stop the sequencer to accomplish the most editing tasks,
at least that's how it is advertised. I'm collecting money...


Regards,

    Zsolt | http://adsr.hu

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Atom Smasher 
  To: xl7@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:05 AM
  Subject: [xl7] XL7, compared to...


  this should be an interesting forum to ask this question...

  i've never had any hands on with these:
  XL-7, RM1x, MPC-xxx, MC-303/505/etc

  of the RM1x and assorted roland garbage, i don't have to hear the XL-7 to 
  know that the sounds are better, and i doubt that anyone here would debate 
  me on that.

  but regarding a sequencer, who can tell me what makes the XL7 better than 
  the rest for live performance? i'm not looking to start a flame war, and 
  i'm definitely leaning towards the XL7, but if anyone has used the other 
  gear, i'm interested in hearing about how they compare.

  thanks...

  -- 
  ...atom

  ________________________
  http://atom.smasher.org/
  762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
  -------------------------------------------------

  "The universe is not hostile, nor yet is it friendly.
  It is simply indifferent."
  -- John Hughes Holmes



   

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

I have an Rm1x, so here's a brief comparison. Overall, I think Rm1x is 
a more powerful sequencer:
- you can have patterns of different lengths playing together. E.g. a 1 
bar kick drum pattern, 4 bars bass pattern and 16 bars synth line on 
top. It is even possible to mix and match different time signatures 
(wild! :)
- up to 16 variations which can be switched in real time - you can have 
intro, chorus, verse, buildups, breaks etc and then effectively remix 
your song live (that's why it's called "sequence remixer").
- up to 5 "mute groups" for quick muting/unmuting several tracks at once
- "groove grid" function: select any beats in a bar and shift them 
forward/backward, or modify note velocity/length. This happens in 
realtime.
- nice "midi echo" effect. Would be even nicer if it worked on incoming 
MIDI notes - as it is, works on recorded notes only.

The biggest shortcoming of Rm1x sequencer is that it has to be stopped 
between playing and recording, for any editing tasks, and for switching 
metronome on/off. Also, I've read that grid recording mode is 
practically unusable, since you can't hear the other tracks (haven't 
tried it myself). Grid recording on XL7 is fun ))

just my 0.02$
have a nice day!
Boris.

Atom Smasher wrote:

> of the RM1x and assorted roland garbage, i don't have to hear the XL-7 to 
> know that the sounds are better, and i doubt that anyone here would debate 
> me on that.

I might. But it wouldn't be much of a debate if you haven't heard the 
synth in question.

-- 
Paul
---
"Effectus super absolutionem"
http://www.JointIntelligenceCommittee.com
http://www.myspace.com/jointintelligencecommittee

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Paul Nagle <paul@...> wrote:
>
> Atom Smasher wrote:
> 
> > of the RM1x and assorted roland garbage, i don't have to hear the 
XL-7 to 
> > know that the sounds are better, and i doubt that anyone here 
would debate 
> > me on that.
> 
> I might. But it wouldn't be much of a debate if you haven't heard 
the 
> synth in question.
> 
> -- 
> Paul
> ---
> "Effectus super absolutionem"
> http://www.JointIntelligenceCommittee.com
> http://www.myspace.com/jointintelligencecommittee
>
No.  I've owned the RM1X, the MC 505, MC 307, the MC 909, and just 
about every other "groovebox" ever made.  There is no debate really.  
The E-mus own them all, and that's not even factoring in the 
synthesis capabilities.

Larz Martinez wrote:

> No.  I've owned the RM1X, the MC 505, MC 307, the MC 909, and just 
> about every other "groovebox" ever made.  There is no debate really.  
> The E-mus own them all, and that's not even factoring in the 
> synthesis capabilities.

Oh well, I bow to your greater knowledge then. Me, I quite like 
envelopes that are a bit faster than those of the Proteus range, for one 
thing.

-- 
Paul
---
"Effectus super absolutionem"
http://www.JointIntelligenceCommittee.com
http://www.myspace.com/jointintelligencecommittee

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Larz Martinez wrote:

> No.  I've owned the RM1X, the MC 505, MC 307, the MC 909, and just about 
> every other "groovebox" ever made.  There is no debate really. The E-mus 
> own them all, and that's not even factoring in the synthesis 
> capabilities.
===================

so, in your opinion, if i'm only *really* interested in the sequencer, 
you'd recommend the XL7, huh?

what would you say about gutman75's comments on the RM1x...

> I have an Rm1x, so here's a brief comparison. Overall, I think Rm1x is 
> a more powerful sequencer:
> - you can have patterns of different lengths playing together. E.g. a 1 
> bar kick drum pattern, 4 bars bass pattern and 16 bars synth line on 
> top. It is even possible to mix and match different time signatures 
> (wild! :)
> - up to 16 variations which can be switched in real time - you can have 
> intro, chorus, verse, buildups, breaks etc and then effectively remix 
> your song live (that's why it's called "sequence remixer").
> - up to 5 "mute groups" for quick muting/unmuting several tracks at once
> - "groove grid" function: select any beats in a bar and shift them 
> forward/backward, or modify note velocity/length. This happens in 
> realtime.
> - nice "midi echo" effect. Would be even nicer if it worked on incoming 
> MIDI notes - as it is, works on recorded notes only.
> 
> The biggest shortcoming of Rm1x sequencer is that it has to be stopped 
> between playing and recording, for any editing tasks, and for switching 
> metronome on/off. Also, I've read that grid recording mode is 
> practically unusable, since you can't hear the other tracks (haven't 
> tried it myself). Grid recording on XL7 is fun ))


-- 
         ...atom

  ________________________
  http://atom.smasher.org/
  762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
  -------------------------------------------------

 	"America may be the best country in the world, but that's
 	 kind of like being the valedictorian of summer school."
 		-- Dennis Miller

I found the sequencer in the XL-7 to be a lot more intuitive.  

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Atom Smasher<mailto:atom@...> 
  To: xl7@yahoogroups.com<mailto:xl7@yahoogroups.com> 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 4:20 PM
  Subject: Re: [xl7] Re: XL7, compared to...


  On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Larz Martinez wrote:

  > No. I've owned the RM1X, the MC 505, MC 307, the MC 909, and just about 
  > every other "groovebox" ever made. There is no debate really. The E-mus 
  > own them all, and that's not even factoring in the synthesis 
  > capabilities.
  ===================

  so, in your opinion, if i'm only *really* interested in the sequencer, 
  you'd recommend the XL7, huh?

  what would you say about gutman75's comments on the RM1x...

  > I have an Rm1x, so here's a brief comparison. Overall, I think Rm1x is 
  > a more powerful sequencer:
  > - you can have patterns of different lengths playing together. E.g. a 1 
  > bar kick drum pattern, 4 bars bass pattern and 16 bars synth line on 
  > top. It is even possible to mix and match different time signatures 
  > (wild! :)
  > - up to 16 variations which can be switched in real time - you can have 
  > intro, chorus, verse, buildups, breaks etc and then effectively remix 
  > your song live (that's why it's called "sequence remixer").
  > - up to 5 "mute groups" for quick muting/unmuting several tracks at once
  > - "groove grid" function: select any beats in a bar and shift them 
  > forward/backward, or modify note velocity/length. This happens in 
  > realtime.
  > - nice "midi echo" effect. Would be even nicer if it worked on incoming 
  > MIDI notes - as it is, works on recorded notes only.
  > 
  > The biggest shortcoming of Rm1x sequencer is that it has to be stopped 
  > between playing and recording, for any editing tasks, and for switching 
  > metronome on/off. Also, I've read that grid recording mode is 
  > practically unusable, since you can't hear the other tracks (haven't 
  > tried it myself). Grid recording on XL7 is fun ))

  -- 
  ...atom

  ________________________
  http://atom.smasher.org/<http://atom.smasher.org/>
  762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
  -------------------------------------------------

  "America may be the best country in the world, but that's
  kind of like being the valedictorian of summer school."
  -- Dennis Miller



   

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

Oh, and you can do most if not all of that on the XL-7

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Atom Smasher<mailto:atom@...> 
  To: xl7@yahoogroups.com<mailto:xl7@yahoogroups.com> 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 4:20 PM
  Subject: Re: [xl7] Re: XL7, compared to...


  On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Larz Martinez wrote:

  > No. I've owned the RM1X, the MC 505, MC 307, the MC 909, and just about 
  > every other "groovebox" ever made. There is no debate really. The E-mus 
  > own them all, and that's not even factoring in the synthesis 
  > capabilities.
  ===================

  so, in your opinion, if i'm only *really* interested in the sequencer, 
  you'd recommend the XL7, huh?

  what would you say about gutman75's comments on the RM1x...

  > I have an Rm1x, so here's a brief comparison. Overall, I think Rm1x is 
  > a more powerful sequencer:
  > - you can have patterns of different lengths playing together. E.g. a 1 
  > bar kick drum pattern, 4 bars bass pattern and 16 bars synth line on 
  > top. It is even possible to mix and match different time signatures 
  > (wild! :)
  > - up to 16 variations which can be switched in real time - you can have 
  > intro, chorus, verse, buildups, breaks etc and then effectively remix 
  > your song live (that's why it's called "sequence remixer").
  > - up to 5 "mute groups" for quick muting/unmuting several tracks at once
  > - "groove grid" function: select any beats in a bar and shift them 
  > forward/backward, or modify note velocity/length. This happens in 
  > realtime.
  > - nice "midi echo" effect. Would be even nicer if it worked on incoming 
  > MIDI notes - as it is, works on recorded notes only.
  > 
  > The biggest shortcoming of Rm1x sequencer is that it has to be stopped 
  > between playing and recording, for any editing tasks, and for switching 
  > metronome on/off. Also, I've read that grid recording mode is 
  > practically unusable, since you can't hear the other tracks (haven't 
  > tried it myself). Grid recording on XL7 is fun ))

  -- 
  ...atom

  ________________________
  http://atom.smasher.org/<http://atom.smasher.org/>
  762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
  -------------------------------------------------

  "America may be the best country in the world, but that's
  kind of like being the valedictorian of summer school."
  -- Dennis Miller



   

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

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, gutman75 wrote:

> I have an Rm1x, so here's a brief comparison. Overall, I think Rm1x is a 
> more powerful sequencer:

> - you can have patterns of different lengths playing together. E.g. a 1 
> bar kick drum pattern, 4 bars bass pattern and 16 bars synth line on 
> top. It is even possible to mix and match different time signatures 
> (wild! :)
================

the Kawai Q80 (and all of its variations) did that, but it's not something 
i ever used. and to a certain extent this can be emulated, although 32 
bars may be somewhat limiting...

speaking of the 32 bar limit, can 2 (or more) patterns be somehow "linked" 
into a unit longer than 32 bars? can it be hacked: can i record a sysex 
message in pattern "a" that selects pattern "b", and select pattern "a" 
from pattern "b", and form a loop of 64 bars?


> - up to 16 variations which can be switched in real time - you can have 
> intro, chorus, verse, buildups, breaks etc and then effectively remix 
> your song live (that's why it's called "sequence remixer").
==================

i don't get the "16 variations" bit... if i had an XL7, couldn't i just 
use 16 patterns and consider each one a "variation"? how is that 
different/better about the RM1x?

my impression of the XL7 is that it could also be used for performance 
remixing, and in theory the sequencer largely overlaps the features of the 
RM1x. ignoring the sounds, would you say that they largely overlap for 
that purpose?

if you were also using the hardware sequencer to compose, which would you 
like better?


> - up to 5 "mute groups" for quick muting/unmuting several tracks at once
===================

that sounds neat... so i can hit one button and simultaneously un/mute two 
or more tracks? but there are other ways to do that.


> - "groove grid" function: select any beats in a bar and shift them 
> forward/backward, or modify note velocity/length. This happens in 
> realtime.
===================

the XL7 doesn't have anything similar? are there any demos of this 
feature?


> - nice "midi echo" effect. Would be even nicer if it worked on incoming 
> MIDI notes - as it is, works on recorded notes only.
==================

i wonder if that's similar to the feature on the MC50... it can emulate a 
delay? i've got plenty of effect units, so it's not something i need.


-- 
         ...atom

  ________________________
  http://atom.smasher.org/
  762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
  -------------------------------------------------

 	"Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist.
 	 You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor."
 		-- A pirate, from St. Augustine's "City of God"

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Atom Smasher <atom@...> wrote:

> i don't get the "16 variations" bit... if i had an XL7, couldn't i 
just 
> use 16 patterns and consider each one a "variation"? how is that 
> different/better about the RM1x?

It's not 16 unrelated patterns, it's just different assignment of 
MIDI phrases to the same tracks. Say you have a nice drum loop going 
on track 1, but would like to add some breaks to it once in a while. 
On XL7, you'd have to dedicate another track to the task (say track 
16), set it to the same MIDI channel, and then for a break you'd have 
to mute 1 and unmute 16 simultaneously. This is possible, but isn't 
easy, and this is just for variation on a single track.
On Rm1x, all 16 tracks can switch to playing something else in 
realtime (the switch is quantized to 1 bar or 1/16th) with a single 
button press.

> my impression of the XL7 is that it could also be used for 
performance 
> remixing, and in theory the sequencer largely overlaps the features 
of the 
> RM1x. ignoring the sounds, would you say that they largely overlap 
for 
> that purpose?
> 
> if you were also using the hardware sequencer to compose, which 
would you 
> like better?

When I first got the Rm1x and we were jamming with friends, I would 
start banging some grooves, and the others got on and the jam starts 
rolling, and then I'd have to say: OK folks, please hold it, I gotta 
record that.  It was really frustrating :)). The XL7 sequencer is 
much more immediate and fun.
Since I got the XL7, I got a bunch of loops made in an easy, free-
flowing way - start sequencer, record something, move on to the next 
track; don't like what you did - erase and repeat. The main problem 
with stuff made this way is that it doesn't go anywhere - all 
variation is limited to muting/unmuting tracks.

Maybe the real deal would be to make loops on XL7 and then dump them 
to Rm1x - if I could just figure out a way to do it :)

> > - nice "midi echo" effect. Would be even nicer if it worked on 
incoming 
> > MIDI notes - as it is, works on recorded notes only.
> ==================
> 
> i wonder if that's similar to the feature on the MC50... it can 
emulate a 
> delay? i've got plenty of effect units, so it's not something i 
need.

Since it's MIDI delay, you can modify velocity and even note number 
of successive repeats - so, if connected to a *real* synthesizer or a 
sampler (make a patch that reacts to velocity in an interesting way) 
this opens some possibilities that an audio delay cannot provide. 
Still haven't tried it myself, though ))

have a great day!
Boris.

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, gutman75 wrote:

>> i don't get the "16 variations" bit... if i had an XL7, couldn't i just 
>> use 16 patterns and consider each one a "variation"? how is that 
>> different/better about the RM1x?
>
> It's not 16 unrelated patterns, it's just different assignment of MIDI 
> phrases to the same tracks. Say you have a nice drum loop going on track 
> 1, but would like to add some breaks to it once in a while. On XL7, 
> you'd have to dedicate another track to the task (say track 16), set it 
> to the same MIDI channel, and then for a break you'd have to mute 1 and 
> unmute 16 simultaneously. This is possible, but isn't easy, and this is 
> just for variation on a single track. On Rm1x, all 16 tracks can switch 
> to playing something else in realtime (the switch is quantized to 1 bar 
> or 1/16th) with a single button press.
====================

that sounds cool... but when you say 16 variations, is that 1 variation 
per track? or can i have 2 variations for 8 tracks? or...?


> Maybe the real deal would be to make loops on XL7 and then dump them to 
> Rm1x - if I could just figure out a way to do it :)
=====================

if all else fails you could do it the same way i'd dump sequences from an 
MC50 to an MMT8... with a MIDI cable, one track at a time. neither fun nor 
fast, but it works.


-- 
         ...atom

  ________________________
  http://atom.smasher.org/
  762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
  -------------------------------------------------

 	"Beware, a record of the books you borrow may end up
 	 in the hands of the FBI. And if the FBI requests
 	 your records, librarians are prohibited by law from
 	 telling you about it. Questions about this policy
 	 should be directed to Attorney General John Ashcroft,
 	 Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530."
 		-- Sign greeting patrons entering all 10 of
 		the county libraries in Santa Cruz, California

This is a great question, atom.  Looks like you're getting some good responses too.  I was going to try and consolidate some of the comments, but I guess I'll tackle them individually.


Zsolt, you hit the nail on the head.  "Never Stopping" was my main design goal.  I wanted it so that you could do absolutely everything, from tracking to preset editing to saving to switching modes (song/preset) to event list editing without EVER having to stop.  There are a very few exceptions (such as offline quantize) that we ended up having to stop because there were bugs otherwise.


Much like you guys, I was frustrated by the lack of live abilities and the interruption to my improvisational flow that comes from stopping anytime you wanted to do something.


-Aaron

----- Original Message ----

From: Zsolt Szabó <Zsolt.Szabo@...>

To: xl7@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 12:14:31 AM

Subject: Re: [xl7] XL7, compared to...



 For me, one thing:



I have to seldom stop the seq while I'm working.

Only required on a few tasks. Big plus, as I'm doing

music mostly live, while recording to audio, then lately

cutting and assembling the parts.



I know this was not mentioned but I'm looking forward

to the LinnDrum II from Dave Smith/Roger Linn.

Combined with my XL-7 it would be a dream setup

both for sequencing and songwriting. The LinnDrum II

would work along the same concept - you don't have to

stop the sequencer to accomplish the most editing tasks,

at least that's how it is advertised. I'm collecting money...





Regards,



    Zsolt | http://adsr.hu









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

  From: Atom Smasher 

  To: xl7@yahoogroups.com 

  Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:05 AM

  Subject: [xl7] XL7, compared to...





  this should be an interesting forum to ask this question...



  i've never had any hands on with these:

  XL-7, RM1x, MPC-xxx, MC-303/505/etc



  of the RM1x and assorted roland garbage, i don't have to hear the  XL-7 to 

  know that the sounds are better, and i doubt that anyone here would  debate 

  me on that.



  but regarding a sequencer, who can tell me what makes the XL7 better  than 

  the rest for live performance? i'm not looking to start a flame war,  and 

  i'm definitely leaning towards the XL7, but if anyone has used the  other 

  gear, i'm interested in hearing about how they compare.



  thanks...



  -- 

  ...atom







      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

Yep, the Rm1x does have some cool features, but the stopping for everything kills the deal for me.


Note that with version 2.0, you gain XmiX which allows you to selectively switch in tracks from other sequences.  You could easily use this to achieve the variations that the Rm1x does, and more.  The groove grid is very cool and something we always wanted to do (more generally, any sort of non-destructive realtime quantize).  The MC-505 has this too, routed to a knob which is pretty cool.


MIDI echo is okay, but you can do the same thing in the preset pretty easily (and in realtime too).


Uneven loop lengths is probably the most useful difference.  With the XL-7, you'd have to extend the shorter tracks out to the sequence length, which then makes so you'd have to edit all the repeats to change stuff.


Good points!


-Aaron

----- Original Message ----
From: gutman75 <bgutman@...>
To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 1:11:13 AM
Subject: [xl7] Re: XL7, compared to...


I have an Rm1x, so here's a brief comparison. Overall, I think Rm1x is 
a more powerful sequencer:
- you can have patterns of different lengths playing together. E.g. a 1
 
bar kick drum pattern, 4 bars bass pattern and 16 bars synth line on 
top. It is even possible to mix and match different time signatures 
(wild! :)
- up to 16 variations which can be switched in real time - you can have
 
intro, chorus, verse, buildups, breaks etc and then effectively remix 
your song live (that's why it's called "sequence remixer").
- up to 5 "mute groups" for quick muting/unmuting several tracks at
 once
- "groove grid" function: select any beats in a bar and shift them 
forward/backward, or modify note velocity/length. This happens in 
realtime.
- nice "midi echo" effect. Would be even nicer if it worked on incoming
 
MIDI notes - as it is, works on recorded notes only.

The biggest shortcoming of Rm1x sequencer is that it has to be stopped 
between playing and recording, for any editing tasks, and for switching
 
metronome on/off. Also, I've read that grid recording mode is 
practically unusable, since you can't hear the other tracks (haven't 
tried it myself). Grid recording on XL7 is fun ))

just my 0.02$
have a nice day!
Boris.






      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

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

Yeah, as I mentioned in my other post, this sort of stopping drives me nuts.


Also, as I've said, try Xmix.  Since you can save and switch patterns while playing (make sure you save your edits before editing the next!), you can easily set up a duplicate sequence then use Xmix to pull in interesting tracks in realtime.  Give it a shot, you might like the flexibility!


Also, another interesting thing is to save your sequence to a new location while playing.  This automatically puts you in the new sequence without stopping or resyncing to the beginning or anything.  You can make a variation then switch between in realtime.  Also, you could then record those changes in song mode too...


-Aaron

----- Original Message ----

From: gutman75 <bgutman@...>

To: xl7@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:22:03 AM

Subject: RM1x - Re: [xl7] Re: XL7, compared to...



When I first got the Rm1x and we were jamming with friends, I would 

start banging some grooves, and the others got on and the jam starts 

rolling, and then I'd have to say: OK folks, please hold it, I gotta 

record that.  It was really frustrating :)). The XL7 sequencer is 

much more immediate and fun.

Since I got the XL7, I got a bunch of loops made in an easy, free-

flowing way - start sequencer, record something, move on to the next 

track; don't like what you did - erase and repeat. The main problem 

with stuff made this way is that it doesn't go anywhere - all 

variation is limited to muting/unmuting tracks.















      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

Aaron, that's exactly what I like from the command station, and I thing, the non-stopping concept is the most distiguable issue of the command station. 
   
  I only play with hardware, hate computers for music performance, cause I mostly play on stage on realtime.  
   
  So my process of composition requires from a dynamic concept of entering/inputing information and its manipulation and modification processes during the process of editing-recording.
   
  The act of stoping the sequencer, entering an edit menu,  the tedious messages of –please watting- saving-loading data- etc, make composers lose a lot of time and inspiration. 
   
  I love the style  of the command station.  You always have to find the g-spot of your synth, that point where it exploits and give its best in a hardware synth environment.  When you work with several different devices interacting together, you have to find the place where each synth fits the best.   Command station is GREAT for inputing information, inputing notes, and, at the same time, going to the patch edition and make modifications to the patch in order to fit into the song.   Nobody thinks about issues like these ones, but they are so helpful when working with several synths. 
   
  I have two command stations, they work on my setup like the two sides off the brain.  One of them controls objective, tangible ,very logic and reasonable sound concepts, and the other one, works more with the abstract and subjective concepts of the music, the combination of both results on a balance between order and chaotic music.  
   
  I control a Roland SP 808 sampler and a VIRUS T1 with a XL7, and a Roland V Synth and a Kurzweil K2500 with a EMU MP 7.   And I also have found the command stations sounds very useful with the percussion side of my music.  
   
  I just complaint about issues like: 
   
  Moving the curson on the edition mode, in order to advance from note to note.  Editing a big group of notes one by one is horrible tedious, since you have only the cursor buttons to navigate throught them.  
   
  I like to add randomized values to my notes to give a human touch to the track.  I don’t like too accurate start times, so, if recorded quantized, I go note by note to modify the start time of each one.  That’s very hard on the command station.   There are so much features that could be improved on the command station without having to change the hardware, that I can’t mention all off them, and they could be added witth just a few additions on the software.  For example, you aren’t able to hear a patch before overwriting it, you are not able to browse by category when you are gonna save a patch (so, you could find faster empty slots for saving patches) and other small details, that all together could improve the command station. 
   
  But I want to let you know that I’m a big fan of your design.   Have more than 20 synths, some of them wonderful machines like the Vsynth, the Virus or the roland Jupiter, and command station are between my favorintes, and one of the synths I’ll never sell.
   
  I use them so much, that I have destroyed around 10 of the edition buttons, like the stop, rec, play and cursor buttons. I had to replace them my sefl, due to over use.  Around 3 
   
   
   
  

Aaron Eppolito <synthesis77@...> wrote:
          
This is a great question, atom. Looks like you're getting some good responses too. I was going to try and consolidate some of the comments, but I guess I'll tackle them individually.

Zsolt, you hit the nail on the head. "Never Stopping" was my main design goal. I wanted it so that you could do absolutely everything, from tracking to preset editing to saving to switching modes (song/preset) to event list editing without EVER having to stop. There are a very few exceptions (such as offline quantize) that we ended up having to stop because there were bugs otherwise.

Much like you guys, I was frustrated by the lack of live abilities and the interruption to my improvisational flow that comes from stopping anytime you wanted to do something.

-Aaron

----- Original Message ----

From: Zsolt Szabó <Zsolt.Szabo@...>

To: xl7@...m

Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 12:14:31 AM

Subject: Re: [xl7] XL7, compared to...

For me, one thing:

I have to seldom stop the seq while I'm working.

Only required on a few tasks. Big plus, as I'm doing

music mostly live, while recording to audio, then lately

cutting and assembling the parts.

I know this was not mentioned but I'm looking forward

to the LinnDrum II from Dave Smith/Roger Linn.

Combined with my XL-7 it would be a dream setup

both for sequencing and songwriting. The LinnDrum II

would work along the same concept - you don't have to

stop the sequencer to accomplish the most editing tasks,

at least that's how it is advertised. I'm collecting money...

Regards,

Zsolt | http://adsr.hu

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

From: Atom Smasher 

To: xl7@yahoogroups.com 

Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:05 AM

Subject: [xl7] XL7, compared to...

this should be an interesting forum to ask this question...

i've never had any hands on with these:

XL-7, RM1x, MPC-xxx, MC-303/505/etc

of the RM1x and assorted roland garbage, i don't have to hear the XL-7 to 

know that the sounds are better, and i doubt that anyone here would debate 

me on that.

but regarding a sequencer, who can tell me what makes the XL7 better than 

the rest for live performance? i'm not looking to start a flame war, and 

i'm definitely leaning towards the XL7, but if anyone has used the other 

gear, i'm interested in hearing about how they compare.

thanks...

-- 

...atom

__________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 



                         

       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

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

on the rm1x, is there anything special about 60 "styles" * 16 
"variations", or is that really just a fancy way of saying "960 patterns"? 
is there any special relation between the styles and variations?

can the rm1x have multiple midi channels per track? looking at the manual, 
it doesn't seem possible.

on the xl7, with xmix, is it feasible to go back and forth between a 
source pattern and the original? or are there too many button presses 
required to go back and forth quickly?


-- 
         ...atom

  ________________________
  http://atom.smasher.org/
  762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
  -------------------------------------------------

 	"The basic idea behind open source is very simple. When
 	 programmers on the Internet can read, redistribute,
 	 and modify the source for a piece of software, it
 	 evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people
 	 fix bugs. And this can happen at a speed that, if one
 	 is used to the slow pace of conventional software
 	 development, seems astonishing."
 		-- Introduction to Open Source - www.opensource.org

Thanks for all replies! It's an interesting and useful discussion.
(for convenience, I'm responding to several posts at once)

Atom Smasher <atom@...> wrote:
> on the rm1x, is there anything special about 60 "styles" * 16 
> "variations", or is that really just a fancy way of saying "960
> patterns"? is there any special relation between the styles and
> variations?

"Variations" are just assignments of MIDI "phrases" to the 16 tracks.
The instruments, effects and track->channel routings do not change.
If you know Ableton Live, think of a "style" as a Live project, 
and "variations"
as scenes.

What's interesting is that phrases can be named, and phrase memory is 
global (shared among all styles). This means that you can change a 
phrase that a track plays, to any other phrase from Rm1x memory, in 
realtime - somewhat like Xmix, except that the change happens when 
phrase loops over, rather than instantly.

> can the rm1x have multiple midi channels per track? looking at the
> manual, it doesn't seem possible.
No, it's not possible.

Aaron Eppolito <synthesis77@...> wrote:
> Also, as I've said, try Xmix.  Since you can save and switch
> patterns while playing (make sure you save your edits before
> editing the next!), you can easily set up a duplicate sequence
> then use Xmix to pull in interesting tracks in realtime.
> Give it a shot, you might like the flexibility!
> 
> Also, another interesting thing is to save your sequence to a new
> location while playing.  This automatically puts you in the new
> sequence without stopping or resyncing to the beginning or anything.
> You can make a variation then switch between in realtime.
> Also, you could then record those changes in song mode too...

Thanks for the suggestions Aaron! I really should try this, and look 
deeper into Xmix.

Mauricio Balma <balmaproducer@...> wrote:
> I have two command stations, they work on my setup like the two
> sides off the brain.  One of them controls objective, tangible,
> very logic and reasonable sound concepts, and the other one, works
> more with the abstract and subjective concepts of the music, the
> combination of both results on a balance between order and chaotic 
music. 

Now that is really intriguing! So, you run both sequencers in 
parallel? I actually have XL7 and MP7, and thought of selling one of 
them. But now I'm having second thoughts.. :))

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, gutman75 wrote:

> Thanks for all replies! It's an interesting and useful discussion. (for 
> convenience, I'm responding to several posts at once)
=================

thank ~you~ (and everyone else) for the answers ;)


> "Variations" are just assignments of MIDI "phrases" to the 16 tracks. 
> The instruments, effects and track->channel routings do not change. If 
> you know Ableton Live, think of a "style" as a Live project, and 
> "variations" as scenes.
>
> What's interesting is that phrases can be named, and phrase memory is 
> global (shared among all styles). This means that you can change a 
> phrase that a track plays, to any other phrase from Rm1x memory, in 
> realtime - somewhat like Xmix, except that the change happens when 
> phrase loops over, rather than instantly.
==================

i'm not familiar with ableton, so that doesn't help.

i've got an rm1x on the way, and should have an xl7 deal wrapped up soon, 
then i should be able to figure them out. from what i've been able to find 
out, one or both of them should be what i've been looking for.


-- 
         ...atom

  ________________________
  http://atom.smasher.org/
  762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
  -------------------------------------------------

 	"We are in an era of unprecedented threats to
 	 biodiversity. The loss of species is estimated
 	 to be running 50 to 500 times higher than background
 	 rates found in the fossil record... Indeed, the
 	 livestock sector may well be the leading player in the
 	 reduction of biodiversity, since it is the major driver
 	 of deforestation, as well as one of the leading drivers
 	 of land degradation, pollution, climate change,
 	 overfishing, sedimentation of coastal areas and
 	 facilitation of invasions by alien species."
 		-- Livestock's long shadow, 2006
 		UN report sponsored by WTO, EU, AS-AID, FAO, et al

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, gutman75 wrote:

>> i don't get the "16 variations" bit... if i had an XL7, couldn't i just 
>> use 16 patterns and consider each one a "variation"? how is that 
>> different/better about the RM1x?
>
> It's not 16 unrelated patterns, it's just different assignment of MIDI 
> phrases to the same tracks. Say you have a nice drum loop going on track 
> 1, but would like to add some breaks to it once in a while. On XL7, 
> you'd have to dedicate another track to the task (say track 16), set it 
> to the same MIDI channel, and then for a break you'd have to mute 1 and 
> unmute 16 simultaneously. This is possible, but isn't easy, and this is 
> just for variation on a single track. On Rm1x, all 16 tracks can switch 
> to playing something else in realtime (the switch is quantized to 1 bar 
> or 1/16th) with a single button press.
====================

what are the codes to un/mute tracks?


> Since I got the XL7, I got a bunch of loops made in an easy, free- 
> flowing way - start sequencer, record something, move on to the next 
> track; don't like what you did - erase and repeat. The main problem with 
> stuff made this way is that it doesn't go anywhere - all variation is 
> limited to muting/unmuting tracks.
=================

now that i've played with it... you could save a pattern to a new 
(preferably adjacent) location and edit them separately. rinse, repeat, 
mute, change patterns...


-- 
         ...atom

  ________________________
  http://atom.smasher.org/
  762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
  -------------------------------------------------

 	"I don't know anything about music.
 	 In my line you don't have to."
 		-- Elvis Presley

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Atom Smasher wrote:

> speaking of the 32 bar limit, can 2 (or more) patterns be somehow 
> "linked" into a unit longer than 32 bars? can it be hacked: can i record 
> a sysex message in pattern "a" that selects pattern "b", and select 
> pattern "a" from pattern "b", and form a loop of 64 bars?
===============

i haven't tried this, and i might not need to... but i'm curious if it 
will work... if anyone tries it please report back here...

using the sysex messages i posted to change patterns, can you record those 
messages into a pattern and have two (or more) patterns loop themselves?


-- 
         ...atom

  ________________________
  http://atom.smasher.org/
  762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
  -------------------------------------------------

 	"Until they become conscious they will never rebel,
 	 and until after they have rebelled they cannot
 	 become conscious."
 		-- George Orwell

i'm going over the Sysex Button IDs - 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xl7/message/16527 and i have *no* idea how 
to put that information into any usable form. i don't see how those 
numbers translate into either the hidden parameters (like the 0x79 ox20 
you gave me for the tap button) or the numbers on page 37 of the sysex 
book. i suppose i could use page 37 and trail-n-error to figure out how to 
activate the buttons via midi... but it'd be great if you can give me a 
clue ;)

thanks...


-- 
         ...atom

  ________________________
  http://atom.smasher.org/
  762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
  -------------------------------------------------

 	"As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will
 	 always have its fascination. When it is looked
 	 upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular."
 		-- Oscar Wilde

Easier would be to just set your time signature to 8/4 (or 16/4 or 32/4 or 64/4 or 96/4!)


-Aaron

PS. you can load patterns longer than 32 measures, but you might not be able to get to them (other than playing them)
PPS. you also can't *record* sysex, though you can embed it with an external sequencer

----- Original Message ----
From: Atom Smasher <atom@...>
To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:51:09 AM
Subject: [xl7] more than 32 bars?

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Atom Smasher wrote:

> speaking of the 32 bar limit, can 2 (or more) patterns be somehow 
> "linked" into a unit longer than 32 bars? can it be hacked: can i record 
> a sysex message in pattern "a" that selects pattern "b", and select 
> pattern "a" from pattern "b", and form a loop of 64 bars?
===============

i haven't tried this, and i might not need to... but i'm curious if it 
will work... if anyone tries it please report back here...

using the sysex messages i posted to change patterns, can you record those 
messages into a pattern and have two (or more) patterns loop themselves?


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

A few months ago I took down many of my posts and all of my files (I 
think) on embedded sysex, remote control, and related concepts. In part 
I wanted to reorganize the material, but never got around to it. 
Unfortunately, I have no idea where I saved the docs. I will look and 
se if I can develop some tutorials that take into account the current 
discussion. The content may be contained in discussions still posted. I 
will look and post links if I find any relevant discussions. --Steve

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Atom Smasher <atom@...> wrote:

>
> i'm going over the Sysex Button IDs - 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xl7/message/16527 and i have *no* idea
> how to put that information into any usable form.

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Atom Smasher <atom@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, gutman75 wrote:
> 
> >> i don't get the "16 variations" bit... if i had an XL7, couldn't 
i just 
> >> use 16 patterns and consider each one a "variation"? how is that 
> >> different/better about the RM1x?
> >
> > It's not 16 unrelated patterns, it's just different assignment of 
MIDI 
> > phrases to the same tracks. Say you have a nice drum loop going 
on track 
> > 1, but would like to add some breaks to it once in a while. On 
XL7, 
> > you'd have to dedicate another track to the task (say track 16), 
set it 
> > to the same MIDI channel, and then for a break you'd have to mute 
1 and 
> > unmute 16 simultaneously. This is possible, but isn't easy, and 
this is 
> > just for variation on a single track. On Rm1x, all 16 tracks can 
switch 
> > to playing something else in realtime (the switch is quantized to 
1 bar 
> > or 1/16th) with a single button press.
> ====================
> 
> what are the codes to un/mute tracks?

There are 16 buttons for muting/unmuting tracks or selecting one of 
the 16 variations. I'm not sure there are codes for that (you mean 
SysEx, I suppose?), never checked it.

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008, gutman75 wrote:

>> what are the codes to un/mute tracks?
>
> There are 16 buttons for muting/unmuting tracks or selecting one of the 
> 16 variations. I'm not sure there are codes for that (you mean SysEx, I 
> suppose?), never checked it.
==============

i mean, on the xx7, what are the sysex codes to either a) un/mute tracks 
or b) emulate button presses.

based on my new and limited understanding of xx7 sysex, i'm guessing that 
the first form would be hidden sysex and the second form would be an 
emulation of front-panel button presses.


-- 
         ...atom

  ________________________
  http://atom.smasher.org/
  762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
  -------------------------------------------------

 	"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities
 	 has the power to make you commit injustices."
 		-- Voltaire

You can jump to different tracks recording without skipping a beat.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: gutman75 
  To: xl7@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 11:31 AM
  Subject: [xl7] Re: more hidden sysex, please...


  --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Atom Smasher <atom@...> wrote:
  >
  > On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, gutman75 wrote:
  > 
  > >> i don't get the "16 variations" bit... if i had an XL7, couldn't 
  i just 
  > >> use 16 patterns and consider each one a "variation"? how is that 
  > >> different/better about the RM1x?
  > >
  > > It's not 16 unrelated patterns, it's just different assignment of 
  MIDI 
  > > phrases to the same tracks. Say you have a nice drum loop going 
  on track 
  > > 1, but would like to add some breaks to it once in a while. On 
  XL7, 
  > > you'd have to dedicate another track to the task (say track 16), 
  set it 
  > > to the same MIDI channel, and then for a break you'd have to mute 
  1 and 
  > > unmute 16 simultaneously. This is possible, but isn't easy, and 
  this is 
  > > just for variation on a single track. On Rm1x, all 16 tracks can 
  switch 
  > > to playing something else in realtime (the switch is quantized to 
  1 bar 
  > > or 1/16th) with a single button press.
  > ====================
  > 
  > what are the codes to un/mute tracks?

  There are 16 buttons for muting/unmuting tracks or selecting one of 
  the 16 variations. I'm not sure there are codes for that (you mean 
  SysEx, I suppose?), never checked it.



   

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