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

Greetz to all, looks like I'm the new guy around here, though I see a lot of familar names.  I won't bother with any kind of background on myself, as well....that just seems pointless. =)

In anycase, I really can't say that I have my XL-7 yet, as the piece is actually in the mail to me (still got about a week to wait I suppose), so perhaps I'm joining the group a bit pre-maturely.  Oh well, figured I'd get my feet wet with you all early =)

On to more relavent things, I was wondering if anyone had any word on a new OS for the Command Stations being issued any time soon.  I'd heard from sir Eric\Realm (greetz to ya, should have guessed you'd be on this list) that a psuedo MC-505ish "megamix" feature was in the works.  Was wondering what the status was on this; whether or not it was still being worked/planned on, and assuming it was still in the working, if it could be expected any time soon.  I was also wondering if anyone knew if Emu was considering adding on the ability to make knob programming pattern specific.  I like the fact that you can have small variety of global cc values applied to the knobs, but being able to do such in a pattern specific manner would definately (at least in my view) be of more use.

I also recently got to looking over the Proteus 2500, and can't say that I really noticed all that much of a difference between it and the 2000 (which lies at the synth beating heart of the Command Stations of course).  Aside from a quicker processor and a bunch of surface fodder, it seemed to me that at heart, the 2500 and 2000 were pretty much one in the same.  Sure, you had a greater amount of (programmable) knobs on the 2500, a sequencer, and other such surface fodder, but you still had the same synth beating underneath it all.  Furthermore, it seemed to me that if one took into consideration a Command Station, even most of the surface fodder on the 2500 disappeared; and you ended up with pretty much the same thing (granted, the Command Stations and 2500 seem to run around the same price range).  Was wondering if there was anything to the 2500 other than a faster processor that really set it apart from the 2000.

And well, looks like that's all I have to say for my first post.

Respects,

    Alien (Aaron Nesby)
www.twenty3.tk

interesting concept on the proteus.  Actually I was more thinking 
that The PROTEUS 2500 was nothing more than an xl-7 with a proteus 
rom and without the pads.  Maybe they should have called it the pl-7

hmmm....



--- In xl7@y..., "atrance23" <23@d...> wrote:
> Greetz to all, looks like I'm the new guy around here, though I see 
a lot of familar names.  I won't bother with any kind of background 
on myself, as well....that just seems pointless. =)
> 
> In anycase, I really can't say that I have my XL-7 yet, as the 
piece is actually in the mail to me (still got about a week to wait I 
suppose), so perhaps I'm joining the group a bit pre-maturely.  Oh 
well, figured I'd get my feet wet with you all early =)
> 
> On to more relavent things, I was wondering if anyone had any word 
on a new OS for the Command Stations being issued any time soon.  I'd 
heard from sir Eric\Realm (greetz to ya, should have guessed you'd be 
on this list) that a psuedo MC-505ish "megamix" feature was in the 
works.  Was wondering what the status was on this; whether or not it 
was still being worked/planned on, and assuming it was still in the 
working, if it could be expected any time soon.  I was also wondering 
if anyone knew if Emu was considering adding on the ability to make 
knob programming pattern specific.  I like the fact that you can have 
small variety of global cc values applied to the knobs, but being 
able to do such in a pattern specific manner would definately (at 
least in my view) be of more use.
> 
> I also recently got to looking over the Proteus 2500, and can't say 
that I really noticed all that much of a difference between it and 
the 2000 (which lies at the synth beating heart of the Command 
Stations of course).  Aside from a quicker processor and a bunch of 
surface fodder, it seemed to me that at heart, the 2500 and 2000 were 
pretty much one in the same.  Sure, you had a greater amount of 
(programmable) knobs on the 2500, a sequencer, and other such surface 
fodder, but you still had the same synth beating underneath it all.  
Furthermore, it seemed to me that if one took into consideration a 
Command Station, even most of the surface fodder on the 2500 
disappeared; and you ended up with pretty much the same thing 
(granted, the Command Stations and 2500 seem to run around the same 
price range).  Was wondering if there was anything to the 2500 other 
than a faster processor that really set it apart from the 2000.

> 
> And well, looks like that's all I have to say for my first post.
> 
> Respects,
> 
>     Alien (Aaron Nesby)
> www.twenty3.tk

Yeah, oddly, from what I was able to gather from the MP-7, XL-7, Proteus 2000, and Proteus 2500 was that they were all essientially the same thing.  Seems that Emu decided to do what Roland had done with the MC-505 and JX-305 (and about about a billion other keyboards based on the JV); the MC-303 and EG-101; the SP-808 and SP-808EX, what Korg had done with the Triton and Karma but simply take a step further.....about an additional 2 steps further actually.  Re-releasing the same synth in a variety of formats; each format being in a "initial" catered format for an individual; and each format holding the capability to essientially emulate (arguably) to a tee the capabilities of the other releases.  Take one product, and turn it into 4.  Capably a smart marketing move (IMO), as now you save money on actually having to develop different synth engines and such, yet still attack a broad spectrum.

The bulk of their latest keyboards, the XK-6, MK-6, and PK-6 respectively seem to continue in this same vein for the most part; though they cut the polyphony in half on these for some reason.  

So the real question in regards to practically their whole entire line up becomes one of "How do you want your Proteus?".  As really, seems to be the same damn synth engine cooking underneath all of them.  I guess Roland arguably did this same thing with their JV synth engine though; as the seemed to just pack that into about a billion and one different things for awhile.

One has to wonder though in regard to the Proteus 2500 why Emu simply didn't go all out and release it under a more typical workstation format; as essientially, that's what it seems to be.  I myself am pretty disappointed with the bulk of workstations out there when it comes to how much synth power they pack.  Dare I say, I really think a Proteus can hang with, for the MOST part, with Rolands XV line (as I said, I haven't received my XL-7 yet, so this is speaking strictly from specs on paper), and though the Proteus line lack sampling ability, as strictly a (rompler) synth, I'd even dare to say that it has Korg Triton down right beat; and really, it seems that a decent keyboard controller addition is all that's keeping the 2500 seperated from this line.  To this end, I will have to say that EMU has done a most impressive thing in how they decided to manage the price on what essientially is the Proteus line.  Want an XV, but find it just a bit to pricey?  Well, if you're willing to give up on a couple nifty control features (in regard to fancy aftertouch work and such) and a bit of effects power, and in return replace them with some filtering options, pick up something (anything practically) from the Proteus line and you'll most probably end up with the same thing the XV would have givin you if not more.  Want a Triton (but realize the darn things are overated =P  ), well, espically if you already have a sampler, go ahead and once again, simply pick up something from the Proteus line, and not only are you saving money, but your for the most part beating out what the Triton could have giving you.

Now again, maybe I'm wrong, and there is just more of a difference between the 2500 and 2000 than what I'm seeing, but there really doesn't seem to be.  I mean really, if one had a decent MIDI (knob) controller and a 16 (or more) track sequencer already handy to use, I'd consider them a fool to get a 2500 as they'd already have the capability to turn a 2000 into one.  More so, unless you just really want more knobs at your disposal, go ahead and just get a Command Station, then you got at least a one octave keyboard and what appears to be a more userfriendly sequencer (for live application espically) at your disposal.  I will note here, that though I'm not sure, I'm guessing that the 2500's sequencing abilities lie one overall step ahead of the Command Stations (falling short only in the live application department).

Anyhow though, I'm actually kinda hoping that there is something I'm missing about the 2500. As really, it just kinda disappoints me when companies seem to take (IMO) people for idiots and just pump out rerelease the same thing under a neo name and try to pass it off as some kind of "new and improved" kind of deal, when really, it's anything but.....sell it for what it is I say, don't lie and try to pass it off for something it's not.  Where the 2500 is concerned, I hardly think that the addition of simply a faster processor is enough to state that you've released a new synth engine.

Respects,

     Aaron Nesby

--- In xl7@y..., "drj0" <spec@s...> wrote:

> interesting concept on the proteus.  Actually I was more thinking 
> that The PROTEUS 2500 was nothing more than an xl-7 with a proteus 
> rom and without the pads.  Maybe they should have called it the pl-7
> 
> hmmm....
> > www.twenty3.tk

> Actually I was more thinking 
> that The PROTEUS 2500 was nothing more than an xl-7 with a proteus 
> rom and without the pads.

Does the Proteus 2500 have the arpeggiation features? I just checked
one of our Proteus 2000's and that doesn't.

I've always regarded the XL-7/MP-7 as an Audity 2000 with bigger ROM
and improvements to the modulation and routing architecture...

But then, and I've always regarded the Audity 2000 as a
better-sounding Morpheus but with a dimension missing from the filters
and no sample position editing...

>  Maybe they should have called it the pl-7

<DOUGLAS-ADAMS>
Well, if *you're* so clever, why don't *you* tell us what colour it should be?
</DOUGLAS-ADAMS>

-- 

  nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- http://www.cassiel.com

> What boggles me is that they take this maybe a little far and
> actually make a different case for a module with the same os but a
> different ROM --> It's marketed compeletly differently.

This should be no surprise - E-mu have been doing it ever since the
original Proteus units came out in, what, the late 1980's? Anyone who
doesn't realise this should seek advice before buying. It's perhaps a
tiny bit sneaky, but it's not exactly a secret, and E-mu have not sued
anyone for talking about it, and they're still in business, so clearly
it's working.

-- 

  nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- http://www.cassiel.com

The big thing about the 2500 is:  it's BIG!  Too big to lug around to 
live performances as far as I'm concerned.  The mp/xl-7 is much more 
practical in this respect.  As for the faster processor, software 
counts more than a faster processor when it comes to performance!  
Everybody tries to "throw hardware at" under performing software.  Re-
writes are very expensive (and you know who such costs would be 
passed on to)!  Now, who knows how much advantage their software 
takes of the old and new processors?  Who knows if their software has 
been (can be) re-optimized (re-written) for the new processor?  (Who 
knows how it was optimized for the old processor?)  Without being 
able to look at and compile the source code for both processors I 
couldn't tell how much more effective the new processor is or where 
the optimization opportunities are in the code.  (Also, why couldn't 
Emu put some external storage on the 7s, e.g., smart cards????)  

zsk  
--- In xl7@y..., "atrance23" <neilaworking@h...> wrote:
> Yeah, oddly, from what I was able to gather from the MP-7, XL-7, 
Proteus 2000, and Proteus 2500 was that they were all essientially 
the same thing.  Seems that Emu decided to do what Roland had done 
with the MC-505 and JX-305 (and about about a billion other keyboards 
based on the JV); the MC-303 and EG-101; the SP-808 and SP-808EX, 
what Korg had done with the Triton and Karma but simply take a step 
further.....about an additional 2 steps further actually.  Re-
releasing the same synth in a variety of formats; each format being 
in a "initial" catered format for an individual; and each format 
holding the capability to essientially emulate (arguably) to a tee 
the capabilities of the other releases.  Take one product, and turn 
it into 4.  Capably a smart marketing move (IMO), as now you save 
money on actually having to develop different synth engines and such, 
yet still attack a broad spectrum.
> 
> The bulk of their latest keyboards, the XK-6, MK-6, and PK-6 
respectively seem to continue in this same vein for the most part; 
though they cut the polyphony in half on these for some reason.  
> 
> So the real question in regards to practically their whole entire 
line up becomes one of "How do you want your Proteus?".  As really, 
seems to be the same damn synth engine cooking underneath all of 
them.  I guess Roland arguably did this same thing with their JV 
synth engine though; as the seemed to just pack that into about a 
billion and one different things for awhile.
> 
> One has to wonder though in regard to the Proteus 2500 why Emu 
simply didn't go all out and release it under a more typical 
workstation format; as essientially, that's what it seems to be.  I 
myself am pretty disappointed with the bulk of workstations out there 
when it comes to how much synth power they pack.  Dare I say, I 
really think a Proteus can hang with, for the MOST part, with Rolands 
XV line (as I said, I haven't received my XL-7 yet, so this is 
speaking strictly from specs on paper), and though the Proteus line 
lack sampling ability, as strictly a (rompler) synth, I'd even dare 
to say that it has Korg Triton down right beat; and really, it seems 
that a decent keyboard controller addition is all that's keeping the 
2500 seperated from this line.  To this end, I will have to say that 
EMU has done a most impressive thing in how they decided to manage 
the price on what essientially is the Proteus line.  Want an XV, but 
find it just a bit to pricey?  Well, if you're willing to give up on 
a couple nifty control features (in regard to fancy aftertouch work 
and such) and a bit of effects power, and in return replace them with 
some filtering options, pick up something (anything practically) from 
the Proteus line and you'll most probably end up with the same thing 
the XV would have givin you if not more.  Want a Triton (but realize 
the darn things are overated =P  ), well, espically if you already 
have a sampler, go ahead and once again, simply pick up something 
from the Proteus line, and not only are you saving money, but your 
for the most part beating out what the Triton could have giving you.
> 
> Now again, maybe I'm wrong, and there is just more of a difference 
between the 2500 and 2000 than what I'm seeing, but there really 
doesn't seem to be.  I mean really, if one had a decent MIDI (knob) 
controller and a 16 (or more) track sequencer already handy to use, 
I'd consider them a fool to get a 2500 as they'd already have the 
capability to turn a 2000 into one.  More so, unless you just really 
want more knobs at your disposal, go ahead and just get a Command 
Station, then you got at least a one octave keyboard and what appears 
to be a more userfriendly sequencer (for live application espically) 
at your disposal.  I will note here, that though I'm not sure, I'm 
guessing that the 2500's sequencing abilities lie one overall step 
ahead of the Command Stations (falling short only in the live 
application department).
> 
> Anyhow though, I'm actually kinda hoping that there is something 
I'm missing about the 2500. As really, it just kinda disappoints me 
when companies seem to take (IMO) people for idiots and just pump out 
rerelease the same thing under a neo name and try to pass it off as 
some kind of "new and improved" kind of deal, when really, it's 
anything but.....sell it for what it is I say, don't lie and try to 
pass it off for something it's not.  Where the 2500 is concerned, I 
hardly think that the addition of simply a faster processor is enough 
to state that you've released a new synth engine.
> 
> Respects,
> 
>      Aaron Nesby
> 
> --- In xl7@y..., "drj0" <spec@s...> wrote:
> > interesting concept on the proteus.  Actually I was more thinking 
> > that The PROTEUS 2500 was nothing more than an xl-7 with a 
proteus 
> > rom and without the pads.  Maybe they should have called it the 
pl-7

> > 
> > hmmm....
> > > www.twenty3.tk