Yahoo Groups archive

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

Index last updated: 2026-03-31 23:44 UTC

Thread

virus vs xl7?

virus vs xl7?

2008-07-25 by Atom Smasher

i have an empty space in my rack, and it's calling to me... one of the 
things that i though about filling it with is a virus-rack.

i haven't yet explored the synth engine of the xl7, and it'll be a few 
weeks at least before i have a chance to dig around in it, so.... is 
anyone here a current or former virus owner? how does the xl7 compare?

right off the top, the virus is ostensibly a virtual analog synth, and the 
xl7 seems more like a rompler. but i'm wondering if i could use some 
"basic" waveforms, a few layers, some virtual patch-cords, and some midi 
CC controllers and roll my own virtual analog patches...? i'm confident 
that i can get good sounds out of it, but can it compete with a virus on 
the the merits of the virus?

i only have one ROM slot in my xl7 filled, and i think it's the XL ROM.


-- 
         ...atom

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

 	"Some folks look for answers
 	 others look for fights,
 	 some folks up in treetops
 	 just looking for their kites"
 		-- Grateful Dead

Re: [xl7] virus vs xl7?

2008-07-25 by Aaron Eppolito

You can go pretty far with the XL-7 as a pseudo-analog synth.  What you'll miss: hard sync, ring mod, FM, really fast LFOs, self-resonant filters, live input.  You can get PWM in the XL-7 by messing with the SLoop parameter, sorta do hard sync (albeit at a pretty slow rate) with SRetrig, and the realtime Q you can do with enough layers as I described a long time ago (one layer with low Q, one with high, RT control is via volume on the high-Q layer).

People who dismiss the P2k engine as a "ROMpler" are missing out on some of the really cool stuff you can do in the patchcord section.  (not dissing you in any way; on the contrary, I applaud you for thinking to use it in a more synth fashion!)

The Virus is a cool synth and does have features that you simply won't get in the XL-7.  That said, you can get pretty close (not necessarily worse, mind you, just different) for a majority of sounds and will certainly be able to make a ton of sounds a VA simply can't.

It's a tough choice.  I don't think you can go wrong with a Virus, but you might want to spend some time programming a patch or two in a VA style in the XL-7 before you decide to drop coin!

-Aaron
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----
From: Atom Smasher <atom@...>
To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:54:21 AM
Subject: [xl7] virus vs xl7?

i have an empty space in my rack, and it's calling to me... one of the 
things that i though about filling it with is a virus-rack.

i haven't yet explored the synth engine of the xl7, and it'll be a few 
weeks at least before i have a chance to dig around in it, so.... is 
anyone here a current or former virus owner? how does the xl7 compare?

right off the top, the virus is ostensibly a virtual analog synth, and the 
xl7 seems more like a rompler. but i'm wondering if i could use some 
"basic" waveforms, a few layers, some virtual patch-cords, and some midi 
CC controllers and roll my own virtual analog patches...? i'm confident 
that i can get good sounds out of it, but can it compete with a virus on 
the the merits of the virus?

i only have one ROM slot in my xl7 filled, and i think it's the XL ROM.


-- 
         ...atom

Re: [xl7] virus vs xl7?

2008-07-25 by Mauricio Balma

I can perfectly give a strong opinion about that, since I had a Virus B, and almost a year got the amazing Virus TI.
 
Most of the freak hardware producers, don't have a good opinion about romplers.  Romplers are inferior when talking about sound quality, capabilities of synthesis, and morphing sounds.  They are just frozen recordings, "corpse sounds". I have owned around 10 romplers (mostly several workstations) and in this moment I have around 7 VAs, like the V synth, Virus T1,  3 Electribes and a Waldorf Q. 
 
Despite having a good arsenal of VAs,  lots of my basses, leads, short blips, arpeggios, still comming from my two command stations  engine. 
 
Combining several waves, with different settings on the Z plane filters, can result on phat, powerful sounds. 
And that's amazing, considering the huge limitations of the command station's EFFECT section. 
I have dig during years the cords section, using the quantizer parameter, pink, noise, connecting in all the possible ways these amazing pseudo modular section, and you can get incredible sounds there. 
 
Command station was made with a great concept.  After using big synths like the waldorf or the T1, I still having fun creating sounds from scratch on the XL7
 
You guys made a great work with the command station, you realize that, when a producer that has multiple options for creating music, still having fun with the command station, sitting in the middle of an arsenal of real analog and virtual analog machines. 
 
I still recommending this "rompler" to each producer I meet.
 
 


--- On Fri, 7/25/08, Aaron Eppolito <synthesis77@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: Aaron Eppolito <synthesis77@...>
Subject: Re: [xl7] virus vs xl7?
To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 2:49 PM






You can go pretty far with the XL-7 as a pseudo-analog synth. What you'll miss: hard sync, ring mod, FM, really fast LFOs, self-resonant filters, live input. You can get PWM in the XL-7 by messing with the SLoop parameter, sorta do hard sync (albeit at a pretty slow rate) with SRetrig, and the realtime Q you can do with enough layers as I described a long time ago (one layer with low Q, one with high, RT control is via volume on the high-Q layer).

People who dismiss the P2k engine as a "ROMpler" are missing out on some of the really cool stuff you can do in the patchcord section. (not dissing you in any way; on the contrary, I applaud you for thinking to use it in a more synth fashion!)

The Virus is a cool synth and does have features that you simply won't get in the XL-7. That said, you can get pretty close (not necessarily worse, mind you, just different) for a majority of sounds and will certainly be able to make a ton of sounds a VA simply can't.

It's a tough choice. I don't think you can go wrong with a Virus, but you might want to spend some time programming a patch or two in a VA style in the XL-7 before you decide to drop coin!

-Aaron

----- Original Message ----
From: Atom Smasher <atom@smasher. org>
To: xl7@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:54:21 AM
Subject: [xl7] virus vs xl7?

i have an empty space in my rack, and it's calling to me... one of the 
things that i though about filling it with is a virus-rack.

i haven't yet explored the synth engine of the xl7, and it'll be a few 
weeks at least before i have a chance to dig around in it, so.... is 
anyone here a current or former virus owner? how does the xl7 compare?

right off the top, the virus is ostensibly a virtual analog synth, and the 
xl7 seems more like a rompler. but i'm wondering if i could use some 
"basic" waveforms, a few layers, some virtual patch-cords, and some midi 
CC controllers and roll my own virtual analog patches...? i'm confident 
that i can get good sounds out of it, but can it compete with a virus on 
the the merits of the virus?

i only have one ROM slot in my xl7 filled, and i think it's the XL ROM.

-- 
...atom

 














      

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

Re: [xl7] virus vs xl7?

2008-07-25 by Scott Solmonson

Yeah- what Aaron said- the XL7's synth engine is far beyond a "ROMpler"-

I've owned lots of synths, and not in a collector fashion- (including  
a VirusA and a VirusC) and I don't feel like I'm missing much by not  
having them anymore-
IMO they didn't do anything for me that my SQ-80 couldn't do (or  
JUNO-6/60/etc), which is 80s tech-
Sure there's the polyphony and inputs but eh...
It's a Virtual Analog, and a good one- but therein its limitations are  
defined- so why not just get a real one for 1/5 the price?
I've spoken many times with the guy who programmed the DSP in the  
Virus, and actually contributed some distortion algorithms to him, but  
I still am able to say that it just didn't do it for me.
I'm one of the most ardent "CD VS Vinyl - you're an idiot" proponents  
(on the CD side) but at the same time, an SQ-80, a Juno, SH101, TB303-  
these just sound different, in a way that the Virus (or Nord or  
whatever) has not yet achieved.

I can't explain it- neither can you.
Different strokes for different folks-
But since you've got a spare rack space, I'll talk about synths I miss-
Waldorf Microwave XT - GOD in a box.
(for rack mounting, you'll just want the Microwave-II)
After hitting the "randomize" button, I've heard things come out of  
that that I couldn't comprehend-

Uhm- the Kawai K5K was a good one too- I picked one up on the GC  
blowout many years ago for those that remember-
Careful with that Reso knob-

Hmm what else- I think if I had to choose one synthesizer to sell  
someone on that was looking at a Virus (assuming you don't need all  
the gay computer integration). there is only one- and it's made by  
Dave Smith:

http://www.davesmithinstruments.com/products/per/index.php

Christ- I'm talking like an old guy-

-SS
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Jul 25, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Aaron Eppolito wrote:

> You can go pretty far with the XL-7 as a pseudo-analog synth.  What  
> you'll miss: hard sync, ring mod, FM, really fast LFOs, self- 
> resonant filters, live input.  You can get PWM in the XL-7 by  
> messing with the SLoop parameter, sorta do hard sync (albeit at a  
> pretty slow rate) with SRetrig, and the realtime Q you can do with  
> enough layers as I described a long time ago (one layer with low Q,  
> one with high, RT control is via volume on the high-Q layer).
>
> People who dismiss the P2k engine as a "ROMpler" are missing out on  
> some of the really cool stuff you can do in the patchcord section.   
> (not dissing you in any way; on the contrary, I applaud you for  
> thinking to use it in a more synth fashion!)
>
> The Virus is a cool synth and does have features that you simply  
> won't get in the XL-7.  That said, you can get pretty close (not  
> necessarily worse, mind you, just different) for a majority of  
> sounds and will certainly be able to make a ton of sounds a VA  
> simply can't.
>
> It's a tough choice.  I don't think you can go wrong with a Virus,  
> but you might want to spend some time programming a patch or two in  
> a VA style in the XL-7 before you decide to drop coin!
>
> -Aaron
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Atom Smasher <atom@...>
> To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:54:21 AM
> Subject: [xl7] virus vs xl7?
>
> i have an empty space in my rack, and it's calling to me... one of the
> things that i though about filling it with is a virus-rack.
>
> i haven't yet explored the synth engine of the xl7, and it'll be a few
> weeks at least before i have a chance to dig around in it, so.... is
> anyone here a current or former virus owner? how does the xl7 compare?
>
> right off the top, the virus is ostensibly a virtual analog synth,  
> and the
> xl7 seems more like a rompler. but i'm wondering if i could use some
> "basic" waveforms, a few layers, some virtual patch-cords, and some  
> midi
> CC controllers and roll my own virtual analog patches...? i'm  
> confident
> that i can get good sounds out of it, but can it compete with a  
> virus on
> the the merits of the virus?
>
> i only have one ROM slot in my xl7 filled, and i think it's the XL  
> ROM.
>
>
> -- 
>         ...atom
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: virus vs xl7?

2008-07-26 by malik

wow, nice :)

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Mauricio Balma <balmaproducer@...> wrote:
>
> I can perfectly give a strong opinion about that, since I had a 
Virus B, and almost a year got the amazing Virus TI.
>  
> Most of the freak hardware producers, don't have a good opinion 
about romplers.  Romplers are inferior when talking about sound 
quality, capabilities of synthesis, and morphing sounds.  They are 
just frozen recordings, "corpse sounds". I have owned around 10 
romplers (mostly several workstations) and in this moment I have 
around 7 VAs, like the V synth, Virus T1,  3 Electribes and a Waldorf 
Q. 
>  
> Despite having a good arsenal of VAs,  lots of my basses, leads, 
short blips, arpeggios, still comming from my two command stations  
engine. 
>  
> Combining several waves, with different settings on the Z plane 
filters, can result on phat, powerful sounds. 
> And that's amazing, considering the huge limitations of the command 
station's EFFECT section. 
> I have dig during years the cords section, using the quantizer 
parameter, pink, noise, connecting in all the possible ways these 
amazing pseudo modular section, and you can get incredible sounds 
there. 
>  
> Command station was made with a great concept.  After using big 
synths like the waldorf or the T1, I still having fun creating sounds 
from scratch on the XL7
>  
> You guys made a great work with the command station, you realize 
that, when a producer that has multiple options for creating music, 
still having fun with the command station, sitting in the middle of 
an arsenal of real analog and virtual analog machines. 
>  
> I still recommending this "rompler" to each producer I meet.
>  
>  
> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 7/25/08, Aaron Eppolito <synthesis77@...> wrote:
> 
> From: Aaron Eppolito <synthesis77@...>
> Subject: Re: [xl7] virus vs xl7?
> To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 2:49 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can go pretty far with the XL-7 as a pseudo-analog synth. What 
you'll miss: hard sync, ring mod, FM, really fast LFOs, self-resonant 
filters, live input. You can get PWM in the XL-7 by messing with the 
SLoop parameter, sorta do hard sync (albeit at a pretty slow rate) 
with SRetrig, and the realtime Q you can do with enough layers as I 
described a long time ago (one layer with low Q, one with high, RT 
control is via volume on the high-Q layer).
> 
> People who dismiss the P2k engine as a "ROMpler" are missing out on 
some of the really cool stuff you can do in the patchcord section. 
(not dissing you in any way; on the contrary, I applaud you for 
thinking to use it in a more synth fashion!)
> 
> The Virus is a cool synth and does have features that you simply 
won't get in the XL-7. That said, you can get pretty close (not 
necessarily worse, mind you, just different) for a majority of sounds 
and will certainly be able to make a ton of sounds a VA simply can't.
> 
> It's a tough choice. I don't think you can go wrong with a Virus, 
but you might want to spend some time programming a patch or two in a 
VA style in the XL-7 before you decide to drop coin!
> 
> -Aaron
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Atom Smasher <atom@smasher. org>
> To: xl7@yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:54:21 AM
> Subject: [xl7] virus vs xl7?
> 
> i have an empty space in my rack, and it's calling to me... one of 
the 
> things that i though about filling it with is a virus-rack.
> 
> i haven't yet explored the synth engine of the xl7, and it'll be a 
few 
> weeks at least before i have a chance to dig around in it, so.... 
is 
> anyone here a current or former virus owner? how does the xl7 
compare?
> 
> right off the top, the virus is ostensibly a virtual analog synth, 
and the 
> xl7 seems more like a rompler. but i'm wondering if i could use 
some 
> "basic" waveforms, a few layers, some virtual patch-cords, and some 
midi 
> CC controllers and roll my own virtual analog patches...? i'm 
confident 
> that i can get good sounds out of it, but can it compete with a 
virus on 
> the the merits of the virus?
> 
> i only have one ROM slot in my xl7 filled, and i think it's the XL 
ROM.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 
> -- 
> ...atom
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: [xl7] virus vs xl7?

2008-07-27 by PLASTICEFX@aol.com

"cd vs. vinyl - you're an idiot" and you're on the cd side?



now you really are an idiot...




plastic




l/n to marcel fengler vinyl 12" on ostgut ton.  playground/early glow.  no WAY it sounds as good on cd.  end of discussion.




p.s.  running a technics 1200 with stanton stylii......
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Solmonson <scosol@...>
To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 6:58 pm
Subject: Re: [xl7] virus vs xl7?

























    

            
Yeah- what Aaron said- the XL7's synth engine is far beyond a "ROMpler"-



I've owned lots of synths, and not in a collector fashion- (including  

a VirusA and a VirusC) and I don't feel like I'm missing much by not  

having them anymore-

IMO they didn't do anything for me that my SQ-80 couldn't do (or  

JUNO-6/60/etc), which is 80s tech-

Sure there's the polyphony and inputs but eh...

It's a Virtual Analog, and a good one- but therein its limitations are  

defined- so why not just get a real one for 1/5 the price?

I've spoken many times with the guy who programmed the DSP in the  

Virus, and actually contributed some distortion algorithms to him, but  

I still am able to say that it just didn't do it for me.

I'm one of the most ardent "CD VS Vinyl - you're an idiot" proponents  

(on the CD side) but at the same time, an SQ-80, a Juno, SH101, TB303
-  

these just sound different, in a way that the Virus (or Nord or  

whatever) has not yet achieved.



I can't explain it- neither can you.

Different strokes for different folks-

But since you've got a spare rack space, I'll talk about synths I miss-

Waldorf Microwave XT - GOD in a box.

(for rack mounting, you'll just want the Microwave-II)

After hitting the "randomize" button, I've heard things come out of  

that that I couldn't comprehend-



Uhm- the Kawai K5K was a good one too- I picked one up on the GC  

blowout many years ago for those that remember-

Careful with that Reso knob-



Hmm what else- I think if I had to choose one synthesizer to sell  

someone on that was looking at a Virus (assuming you don't need all  

the gay computer integration). there is only one- and it's made by  

Dave Smith:



http://www.davesmithinstruments.com/products/per/index.php



Christ- I'm talking like an old guy-



-SS



On Jul 25, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Aaron Eppolito wrote:



> You can go pretty far with the XL-7 as a pseudo-analog synth.  What  

> you'll miss: hard sync, ring mod, FM, really fast LFOs, self- 

> resonant filters, live input.  You can get PWM in the XL-7 by  

> messing with the SLoop parameter, sorta do hard sync (albeit at a  

> pretty slow rate) with SRetrig, and the realtime Q you can do with  

> enough layers as I described a long time ago (one layer with low Q,  


> one with high, RT control is via volume on the high-Q layer).

>

> People who dismiss the P2k engine as a "ROMpler" are missing out on  

> some of the really cool stuff you can do in the patchcord section.   

> (not dissing you in any way; on the contrary, I applaud you for  

> thinking to use it in a more synth fashion!)

>

> The Virus is a cool synth and does have features that you simply  

> won't get in the XL-7.  That said, you can get pretty close (not  

> necessarily worse, mind you, just different) for a majority of  

> sounds and will certainly be able to make a ton of sounds a VA  

> simply can't.

>

> It's a tough choice.  I don't think you can go wrong with a Virus,  

> but you might want to spend some time programming a patch or two in  

> a VA style in the XL-7 before you decide to drop coin!

>

> -Aaron

>

>

> ----- Original Message ----

> From: Atom Smasher <atom@...>

> To: xl7@yahoogroups.com

> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:54:21 AM

> Subject: [xl7] virus vs xl7?

>

> i have an empty space in my rack, and it's calling to me... one of the

> things that i though about filling it with is a virus-rack.

>

> i haven't yet explored the synth engine of the xl7, and it'll be a few

> weeks at least before i have a chance to dig around in it, so.... is

> anyone here a current or former virus owner? how does the xl7 compare
?

>

> right off the top, the virus is ostensibly a virtual analog synth,  

> and the

> xl7 seems more like a rompler. but i'm wondering if i could use some

> "basic" waveforms, a few layers, some virtual patch-cords, and some  

> midi

> CC controllers and roll my own virtual analog patches...? i'm  

> confident

> that i can get good sounds out of it, but can it compete with a  

> virus on

> the the merits of the virus?

>

> i only have one ROM slot in my xl7 filled, and i think it's the XL  

> ROM.

>

>

> -- 

>         ...atom

>

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>



    
  

    
    
    
    
    
    


    


    
    
    
    
    



 






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

Re: virus vs xl7?

2008-07-28 by malik

I don't get what CD vs vinyl has to do with Virus VS xx-7 although i 
guess i see the point you're trying to make, with the virus being 
vinyl?
either way, the virus and the xx-7s are 2 different monsters, synth 
engines included IMHO. I'm still trying to discover the synth side of 
my xx-7(posted about it a while back).

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, PLASTICEFX@... wrote:
>
> "cd vs. vinyl - you're an idiot" and you're on the cd side?
> 
> 
> 
> now you really are an idiot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> plastic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> l/n to marcel fengler vinyl 12" on ostgut ton. Â playground/early 
glow. Â no WAY it sounds as good on cd. Â end of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> p.s. Â running a technics 1200 with stanton stylii......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Solmonson <scosol@...>
> To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 6:58 pm
> Subject: Re: [xl7] virus vs xl7?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
> 
>             
> Yeah- what Aaron said- the XL7's synth engine is far beyond 
a "ROMpler"-
> 
> 
> 
> I've owned lots of synths, and not in a collector fashion- 
(including  
> 
> a VirusA and a VirusC) and I don't feel like I'm missing much by 
not  
> 
> having them anymore-
> 
> IMO they didn't do anything for me that my SQ-80 couldn't do (or  
> 
> JUNO-6/60/etc), which is 80s tech-
> 
> Sure there's the polyphony and inputs but eh...
> 
> It's a Virtual Analog, and a good one- but therein its limitations 
are  
> 
> defined- so why not just get a real one for 1/5 the price?
> 
> I've spoken many times with the guy who programmed the DSP in the  
> 
> Virus, and actually contributed some distortion algorithms to him, 
but  
> 
> I still am able to say that it just didn't do it for me.
> 
> I'm one of the most ardent "CD VS Vinyl - you're an idiot" 
proponents  
> 
> (on the CD side) but at the same time, an SQ-80, a Juno, SH101, 
TB303
> -  
> 
> these just sound different, in a way that the Virus (or Nord or  
> 
> whatever) has not yet achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't explain it- neither can you.
> 
> Different strokes for different folks-
> 
> But since you've got a spare rack space, I'll talk about synths I 
miss-
> 
> Waldorf Microwave XT - GOD in a box.
> 
> (for rack mounting, you'll just want the Microwave-II)
> 
> After hitting the "randomize" button, I've heard things come out 
of  
> 
> that that I couldn't comprehend-
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm- the Kawai K5K was a good one too- I picked one up on the GC  
> 
> blowout many years ago for those that remember-
> 
> Careful with that Reso knob-
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm what else- I think if I had to choose one synthesizer to sell  
> 
> someone on that was looking at a Virus (assuming you don't need 
all  
> 
> the gay computer integration). there is only one- and it's made by  
> 
> Dave Smith:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.davesmithinstruments.com/products/per/index.php
> 
> 
> 
> Christ- I'm talking like an old guy-
> 
> 
> 
> -SS
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 25, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Aaron Eppolito wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > You can go pretty far with the XL-7 as a pseudo-analog synth.  
What  
> 
> > you'll miss: hard sync, ring mod, FM, really fast LFOs, self- 
> 
> > resonant filters, live input.  You can get PWM in the XL-7 by  
> 
> > messing with the SLoop parameter, sorta do hard sync (albeit at 
a  
> 
> > pretty slow rate) with SRetrig, and the realtime Q you can do 
with  
> 
> > enough layers as I described a long time ago (one layer with low 
Q,  
> 
> 
> > one with high, RT control is via volume on the high-Q layer).
> 
> >
> 
> > People who dismiss the P2k engine as a "ROMpler" are missing out 
on  
> 
> > some of the really cool stuff you can do in the patchcord 
section.   
> 
> > (not dissing you in any way; on the contrary, I applaud you for  
> 
> > thinking to use it in a more synth fashion!)
> 
> >
> 
> > The Virus is a cool synth and does have features that you simply  
> 
> > won't get in the XL-7.  That said, you can get pretty close (not  
> 
> > necessarily worse, mind you, just different) for a majority of  
> 
> > sounds and will certainly be able to make a ton of sounds a VA  
> 
> > simply can't.
> 
> >
> 
> > It's a tough choice.  I don't think you can go wrong with a 
Virus,  
> 
> > but you might want to spend some time programming a patch or two 
in  
> 
> > a VA style in the XL-7 before you decide to drop coin!
> 
> >
> 
> > -Aaron
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > ----- Original Message ----
> 
> > From: Atom Smasher <atom@...>
> 
> > To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
> 
> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:54:21 AM
> 
> > Subject: [xl7] virus vs xl7?
> 
> >
> 
> > i have an empty space in my rack, and it's calling to me... one 
of the
> 
> > things that i though about filling it with is a virus-rack.
> 
> >
> 
> > i haven't yet explored the synth engine of the xl7, and it'll be 
a few
> 
> > weeks at least before i have a chance to dig around in it, so.... 
is
> 
> > anyone here a current or former virus owner? how does the xl7 
compare
> ?
> 
> >
> 
> > right off the top, the virus is ostensibly a virtual analog 
synth,  
> 
> > and the
> 
> > xl7 seems more like a rompler. but i'm wondering if i could use 
some
> 
> > "basic" waveforms, a few layers, some virtual patch-cords, and 
some  
> 
> > midi
> 
> > CC controllers and roll my own virtual analog patches...? i'm  
> 
> > confident
> 
> > that i can get good sounds out of it, but can it compete with a  
> 
> > virus on
> 
> > the the merits of the virus?
> 
> >
> 
> > i only have one ROM slot in my xl7 filled, and i think it's the 
XL  
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 
> > ROM.
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > -- 
> 
> >         ...atom
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > ------------------------------------
> 
> >
> 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> 
> 
>     
>   
> 
>     
>     
>     
>     
>     
>     
> 
> 
>     
> 
> 
>     
>     
>     
>     
>     
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: [xl7] Re: virus vs xl7?

2008-07-28 by Mauricio Balma

Yeap, honestly I didn't get that analogy.
 
 
What I like from the command station's engine, is that is interesting. It has it's own identity. 
 
There's a standarized concept for most of the romplers:
An amp curve that can be modelated
A filter curve that can be modelated
A pitch curve that can be modelated.
A screen for selecting waves (generally four) 
A screen to select the effect. 
A screen for controllers assigning, keyshift, transponse. etc
Only  a few can stablish links between these ones.  generally, you can assgin to the LFO, amp, pan, pitch or filter. 
 
Mostly, on the multitimbre screen, you can specify some of these parameters for the patch inserted on the 16 slots for the multimode, and you can change decays, filters, etc, without affecting the patch itself on its location. 
 
I'fve seen that in all the romplers I've owned (fantom, triton, karma, motif, w7, etc)
 
But the command station engine is so fun to program, is different, you can stablish connections between these parameters, has diode, Clockquarter, clockwhole, pink, noise, and a lot of oddities to experiment with.  I LOVE the quantized delay start, so cool to use with several waves. 
It has chorus included as a parameter, not effect, some filters act like phaser or flangers, 
 
I still working on my head what to do with some features, after almost four years using it!!!
 
I miss so much a bigger LCD to work with these parameters...
 


--- On Mon, 7/28/08, malik <malik_martin@hotmail.com> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: malik <malik_martin@...>
Subject: [xl7] Re: virus vs xl7?
To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, July 28, 2008, 5:29 PM






I don't get what CD vs vinyl has to do with Virus VS xx-7 although i 
guess i see the point you're trying to make, with the virus being 
vinyl?
either way, the virus and the xx-7s are 2 different monsters, synth 
engines included IMHO. I'm still trying to discover the synth side of 
my xx-7(posted about it a while back).

--- In xl7@yahoogroups. com, PLASTICEFX@. .. wrote:
>
> "cd vs. vinyl - you're an idiot" and you're on the cd side?
> 
> 
> 
> now you really are an idiot...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> plastic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> l/n to marcel fengler vinyl 12" on ostgut ton. Â playground/early 
glow. Â no WAY it sounds as good on cd. Â end of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> p.s. Â running a technics 1200 with stanton stylii......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Solmonson <scosol@...>
> To: xl7@yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 6:58 pm
> Subject: Re: [xl7] virus vs xl7?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- what Aaron said- the XL7's synth engine is far beyond 
a "ROMpler"-
> 
> 
> 
> I've owned lots of synths, and not in a collector fashion- 
(including 
> 
> a VirusA and a VirusC) and I don't feel like I'm missing much by 
not 
> 
> having them anymore-
> 
> IMO they didn't do anything for me that my SQ-80 couldn't do (or 
> 
> JUNO-6/60/etc) , which is 80s tech-
> 
> Sure there's the polyphony and inputs but eh...
> 
> It's a Virtual Analog, and a good one- but therein its limitations 
are 
> 
> defined- so why not just get a real one for 1/5 the price?
> 
> I've spoken many times with the guy who programmed the DSP in the 
> 
> Virus, and actually contributed some distortion algorithms to him, 
but 
> 
> I still am able to say that it just didn't do it for me.
> 
> I'm one of the most ardent "CD VS Vinyl - you're an idiot" 
proponents 
> 
> (on the CD side) but at the same time, an SQ-80, a Juno, SH101, 
TB303
> - 
> 
> these just sound different, in a way that the Virus (or Nord or 
> 
> whatever) has not yet achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't explain it- neither can you.
> 
> Different strokes for different folks-
> 
> But since you've got a spare rack space, I'll talk about synths I 
miss-
> 
> Waldorf Microwave XT - GOD in a box.
> 
> (for rack mounting, you'll just want the Microwave-II)
> 
> After hitting the "randomize" button, I've heard things come out 
of 
> 
> that that I couldn't comprehend-
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm- the Kawai K5K was a good one too- I picked one up on the GC 
> 
> blowout many years ago for those that remember-
> 
> Careful with that Reso knob-
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm what else- I think if I had to choose one synthesizer to sell 
> 
> someone on that was looking at a Virus (assuming you don't need 
all 
> 
> the gay computer integration) . there is only one- and it's made by 
> 
> Dave Smith:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.davesmit hinstruments. com/products/ per/index. php
> 
> 
> 
> Christ- I'm talking like an old guy-
> 
> 
> 
> -SS
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 25, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Aaron Eppolito wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > You can go pretty far with the XL-7 as a pseudo-analog synth. 
What 
> 
> > you'll miss: hard sync, ring mod, FM, really fast LFOs, self- 
> 
> > resonant filters, live input. You can get PWM in the XL-7 by 
> 
> > messing with the SLoop parameter, sorta do hard sync (albeit at 
a 
> 
> > pretty slow rate) with SRetrig, and the realtime Q you can do 
with 
> 
> > enough layers as I described a long time ago (one layer with low 
Q, 
> 
> 
> > one with high, RT control is via volume on the high-Q layer).
> 
> >
> 
> > People who dismiss the P2k engine as a "ROMpler" are missing out 
on 
> 
> > some of the really cool stuff you can do in the patchcord 
section. 
> 
> > (not dissing you in any way; on the contrary, I applaud you for 
> 
> > thinking to use it in a more synth fashion!)
> 
> >
> 
> > The Virus is a cool synth and does have features that you simply 
> 
> > won't get in the XL-7. That said, you can get pretty close (not 
> 
> > necessarily worse, mind you, just different) for a majority of 
> 
> > sounds and will certainly be able to make a ton of sounds a VA 
> 
> > simply can't.
> 
> >
> 
> > It's a tough choice. I don't think you can go wrong with a 
Virus, 
> 
> > but you might want to spend some time programming a patch or two 
in 
> 
> > a VA style in the XL-7 before you decide to drop coin!
> 
> >
> 
> > -Aaron
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > ----- Original Message ----
> 
> > From: Atom Smasher <atom@...>
> 
> > To: xl7@yahoogroups. com
> 
> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:54:21 AM
> 
> > Subject: [xl7] virus vs xl7?
> 
> >
> 
> > i have an empty space in my rack, and it's calling to me... one 
of the
> 
> > things that i though about filling it with is a virus-rack.
> 
> >
> 
> > i haven't yet explored the synth engine of the xl7, and it'll be 
a few
> 
> > weeks at least before i have a chance to dig around in it, so.... 
is
> 
> > anyone here a current or former virus owner? how does the xl7 
compare
> ?
> 
> >
> 
> > right off the top, the virus is ostensibly a virtual analog 
synth, 
> 
> > and the
> 
> > xl7 seems more like a rompler. but i'm wondering if i could use 
some
> 
> > "basic" waveforms, a few layers, some virtual patch-cords, and 
some 
> 
> > midi
> 
> > CC controllers and roll my own virtual analog patches...? i'm 
> 
> > confident
> 
> > that i can get good sounds out of it, but can it compete with a 
> 
> > virus on
> 
> > the the merits of the virus?
> 
> >
> 
> > i only have one ROM slot in my xl7 filled, and i think it's the 
XL 
> 
> > ROM.
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > -- 
> 
> > ...atom
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > ------------ --------- --------- ------
> 
> >
> 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

 














      

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

Re: virus vs xl7?

2008-07-29 by malik

aren't there 1 or 2 editors with support for the xx-7s? 
over the years, i've at least seen one in the MP-7 yahoo group.

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Mauricio Balma <balmaproducer@...> wrote:
>
> Yeap, honestly I didn't get that analogy.
>  
>  
> What I like from the command station's engine, is that is 
interesting. It has it's own identity. 
>  
> There's a standarized concept for most of the romplers:
> An amp curve that can be modelated
> A filter curve that can be modelated
> A pitch curve that can be modelated.
> A screen for selecting waves (generally four) 
> A screen to select the effect. 
> A screen for controllers assigning, keyshift, transponse. etc
> Only  a few can stablish links between these ones.  generally, you 
can assgin to the LFO, amp, pan, pitch or filter. 
>  
> Mostly, on the multitimbre screen, you can specify some of these 
parameters for the patch inserted on the 16 slots for the multimode, 
and you can change decays, filters, etc, without affecting the patch 
itself on its location. 
>  
> I'fve seen that in all the romplers I've owned (fantom, triton, 
karma, motif, w7, etc)
>  
> But the command station engine is so fun to program, is different, 
you can stablish connections between these parameters, has diode, 
Clockquarter, clockwhole, pink, noise, and a lot of oddities to 
experiment with.  I LOVE the quantized delay start, so cool to use 
with several waves. 
> It has chorus included as a parameter, not effect, some filters act 
like phaser or flangers, 
>  
> I still working on my head what to do with some features, after 
almost four years using it!!!
>  
> I miss so much a bigger LCD to work with these parameters...
>  
> 
> 
> --- On Mon, 7/28/08, malik <malik_martin@...> wrote:
> 
> From: malik <malik_martin@...>
> Subject: [xl7] Re: virus vs xl7?
> To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, July 28, 2008, 5:29 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get what CD vs vinyl has to do with Virus VS xx-7 although 
i 
> guess i see the point you're trying to make, with the virus being 
> vinyl?
> either way, the virus and the xx-7s are 2 different monsters, synth 
> engines included IMHO. I'm still trying to discover the synth side 
of 
> my xx-7(posted about it a while back).
> 
> --- In xl7@yahoogroups. com, PLASTICEFX@ .. wrote:
> >
> > "cd vs. vinyl - you're an idiot" and you're on the cd side?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > now you really are an idiot...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > plastic
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > l/n to marcel fengler vinyl 12" on ostgut ton. Â playground/early 
> glow. Â no WAY it sounds as good on cd. Â end of discussion.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > p.s. Â running a technics 1200 with stanton stylii......
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Solmonson <scosol@>
> > To: xl7@yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 6:58 pm
> > Subject: Re: [xl7] virus vs xl7?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Yeah- what Aaron said- the XL7's synth engine is far beyond 
> a "ROMpler"-
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I've owned lots of synths, and not in a collector fashion- 
> (including 
> > 
> > a VirusA and a VirusC) and I don't feel like I'm missing much by 
> not 
> > 
> > having them anymore-
> > 
> > IMO they didn't do anything for me that my SQ-80 couldn't do (or 
> > 
> > JUNO-6/60/etc) , which is 80s tech-
> > 
> > Sure there's the polyphony and inputs but eh...
> > 
> > It's a Virtual Analog, and a good one- but therein its 
limitations 
> are 
> > 
> > defined- so why not just get a real one for 1/5 the price?
> > 
> > I've spoken many times with the guy who programmed the DSP in the 
> > 
> > Virus, and actually contributed some distortion algorithms to 
him, 
> but 
> > 
> > I still am able to say that it just didn't do it for me.
> > 
> > I'm one of the most ardent "CD VS Vinyl - you're an idiot" 
> proponents 
> > 
> > (on the CD side) but at the same time, an SQ-80, a Juno, SH101, 
> TB303
> > - 
> > 
> > these just sound different, in a way that the Virus (or Nord or 
> > 
> > whatever) has not yet achieved.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I can't explain it- neither can you.
> > 
> > Different strokes for different folks-
> > 
> > But since you've got a spare rack space, I'll talk about synths I 
> miss-
> > 
> > Waldorf Microwave XT - GOD in a box.
> > 
> > (for rack mounting, you'll just want the Microwave-II)
> > 
> > After hitting the "randomize" button, I've heard things come out 
> of 
> > 
> > that that I couldn't comprehend-
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Uhm- the Kawai K5K was a good one too- I picked one up on the GC 
> > 
> > blowout many years ago for those that remember-
> > 
> > Careful with that Reso knob-
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hmm what else- I think if I had to choose one synthesizer to sell 
> > 
> > someone on that was looking at a Virus (assuming you don't need 
> all 
> > 
> > the gay computer integration) . there is only one- and it's made 
by 
> > 
> > Dave Smith:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > http://www.davesmit hinstruments. com/products/ per/index. php
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Christ- I'm talking like an old guy-
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -SS
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Jul 25, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Aaron Eppolito wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > You can go pretty far with the XL-7 as a pseudo-analog synth. 
> What 
> > 
> > > you'll miss: hard sync, ring mod, FM, really fast LFOs, self- 
> > 
> > > resonant filters, live input. You can get PWM in the XL-7 by 
> > 
> > > messing with the SLoop parameter, sorta do hard sync (albeit at 
> a 
> > 
> > > pretty slow rate) with SRetrig, and the realtime Q you can do 
> with 
> > 
> > > enough layers as I described a long time ago (one layer with 
low 
> Q, 
> > 
> > 
> > > one with high, RT control is via volume on the high-Q layer).
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > People who dismiss the P2k engine as a "ROMpler" are missing 
out 
> on 
> > 
> > > some of the really cool stuff you can do in the patchcord 
> section. 
> > 
> > > (not dissing you in any way; on the contrary, I applaud you for 
> > 
> > > thinking to use it in a more synth fashion!)
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > The Virus is a cool synth and does have features that you 
simply 
> > 
> > > won't get in the XL-7. That said, you can get pretty close (not 
> > 
> > > necessarily worse, mind you, just different) for a majority of 
> > 
> > > sounds and will certainly be able to make a ton of sounds a VA 
> > 
> > > simply can't.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > It's a tough choice. I don't think you can go wrong with a 
> Virus, 
> > 
> > > but you might want to spend some time programming a patch or 
two 
> in 
> > 
> > > a VA style in the XL-7 before you decide to drop coin!
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > -Aaron
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > 
> > > From: Atom Smasher <atom@>
> > 
> > > To: xl7@yahoogroups. com
> > 
> > > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:54:21 AM
> > 
> > > Subject: [xl7] virus vs xl7?
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > i have an empty space in my rack, and it's calling to me... one 
> of the
> > 
> > > things that i though about filling it with is a virus-rack.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > i haven't yet explored the synth engine of the xl7, and it'll 
be 
> a few
> > 
> > > weeks at least before i have a chance to dig around in it, 
so.... 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> is
> > 
> > > anyone here a current or former virus owner? how does the xl7 
> compare
> > ?
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > right off the top, the virus is ostensibly a virtual analog 
> synth, 
> > 
> > > and the
> > 
> > > xl7 seems more like a rompler. but i'm wondering if i could use 
> some
> > 
> > > "basic" waveforms, a few layers, some virtual patch-cords, and 
> some 
> > 
> > > midi
> > 
> > > CC controllers and roll my own virtual analog patches...? i'm 
> > 
> > > confident
> > 
> > > that i can get good sounds out of it, but can it compete with a 
> > 
> > > virus on
> > 
> > > the the merits of the virus?
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > i only have one ROM slot in my xl7 filled, and i think it's the 
> XL 
> > 
> > > ROM.
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > -- 
> > 
> > > ...atom
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > ------------ --------- --------- ------
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: [xl7] Re: virus vs xl7?

2008-07-29 by Mibrilane

On Jul 28, 2008, at 7:14 PM, malik wrote:

>> I miss so much a bigger LCD to work with these parameters...
>
> aren't there 1 or 2 editors with support for the xx-7s?
> over the years, i've at least seen one in the MP-7 yahoo group.

I use MOTU's Unisyn, which hasn't been updated since 2004-ish (and  
runs under emulation in Rosetta on my Intel-based iMac) but has a full  
editor and librarian for the XL-7 and MP-7 (they never added the PX-7  
though).


Mibrilane
mibrilane@...



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

Re: virus vs xl7?

2008-07-29 by malik

too bad you have to go through all of that to get one running :/

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Mibrilane <mibrilane@...> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jul 28, 2008, at 7:14 PM, malik wrote:
> 
> >> I miss so much a bigger LCD to work with these parameters...
> >
> > aren't there 1 or 2 editors with support for the xx-7s?
> > over the years, i've at least seen one in the MP-7 yahoo group.
> 
> I use MOTU's Unisyn, which hasn't been updated since 2004-ish (and  
> runs under emulation in Rosetta on my Intel-based iMac) but has a 
full  
> editor and librarian for the XL-7 and MP-7 (they never added the PX-
7  
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> though).
> 
> 
> Mibrilane
> mibrilane@...
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: [xl7] Re: virus vs xl7?

2008-07-29 by Mibrilane

On Jul 28, 2008, at 8:20 PM, malik wrote:

> too bad you have to go through all of that to get one running :/

Unisyn may run under emulation, but to get it running all I did was:

1.  Run software installer.
2.  Double click on program.

Rosetta is the architecture built into Mac OS X that runs the older  
PowerPC software on Intel machines. It's generally quite seamless.


Mibrilane
mibrilane@...



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

Re: virus vs xl7?

2008-07-29 by malik

oh i see. cool cool. Didn't think apple made it that easy with all 
the complaining i hear about.

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Mibrilane <mibrilane@...> wrote:
>
> 
> On Jul 28, 2008, at 8:20 PM, malik wrote:
> 
> > too bad you have to go through all of that to get one running :/
> 
> Unisyn may run under emulation, but to get it running all I did was:
> 
> 1.  Run software installer.
> 2.  Double click on program.
> 
> Rosetta is the architecture built into Mac OS X that runs the 
older  
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> PowerPC software on Intel machines. It's generally quite seamless.
> 
> 
> Mibrilane
> mibrilane@...
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>