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

I agree that the major manufacturer's are definately over-flooding the 
market with 'new' gear that generally includes misc. and minor 'upgrades' 
to the previous "new gear", alot of which never seems to be FULLY finished 
in
terms of the programming aspect of it (yamaha particularily comes to 
mind), before it's dropped all together and they're once again onto the 
"next" new thing. 

>>>I think Roland and Yamaha both are also guilty of making gear that is 
too dumbed down to be of much use beyond the initial learning stages. I'll 
use Roland as an example here, in that they first came out with the mc303. 
 To their suprise (everyone's really), they sold boatloads more than they 
planned, an in response to lots of user requests, came out with a more 
proper version, the mc505 a couple years later.  After this though, they 
stopped IMPROVING on that base, and instead began releasing cutdown 
versions based on the same technology.  So you got the mc307, the dr202, 
SH32 etc.  Same with the sp808 range, it got better one version after the 
initial release, then they scale back and focus on releasing products 
based on the same technology, but with LESS features (CDX, sp505, etc)! 
It's frustrating to me, in that the larger companies seem to think that 
just because you are into ELECTRONIC music, you can't figure out a piece 
of gear, or will never use it in a pro-oriented situation.  Suddenly if 
you're a DJ and you write music, you have to use gear that looks like 
Sesame Street exploded (sorry Emu guys!), and has a cut down feature set, 
because you're not smart enough to use a 'real' sampler, sequencer, or 
synth.  Bummer! <<<

Not that any of this bothers me, I'm a firm believer in the diversified 
effects of variety in musical applications, and I would prefer that some 
of the major manufactures take there time for once to design some more 
advanced and completely different forms of musical ingenuity...not more 
'groove box this, analog modeling that'.

>>>Exactly my point my man!  Just because we make our music differently, 
doesn't mean we're any less skilled or versed in music technology and the 
skills involved with that.  The funny thing is, it's probably the opposite 
as I wager electronic musicians releasing their own tunes are responsible 
not only for writing and creating, but producing, recording, even 
mastering it all themselves!<<<

Word...

>>>Word squared. <<<

rEalm

> After this though, they 
> stopped IMPROVING on that base, and instead began releasing cutdown 
> versions based on the same technology.

This is not a new phenomenon. They did it with the D-50 back in 1987 -
it was the flagship, but was followed by the MT-32, D-10, D-20, D-110,
and so on. (The D-70 was a different technology - based on the
U-series - rebranded a D-series by marketing.) Similarly with Yamaha:
first the groundbreaking DX7, then the DX9, DX21, DX27, DX100 and so
on. (OK, so there's the DX1 and DX5 in there as well, but those were
early models.)

I suspect that this is the way the market works: get the flagship out
first, get the reviewers and the early adopters onboard, and then see
what features actually work as opposed to those which turn out not to
be important; slim down, get the manufacturing costs as low as
possible, and push for volume.

> It's frustrating to me, in that the larger companies seem to think that 
> just because you are into ELECTRONIC music, you can't figure out a piece 
> of gear, or will never use it in a pro-oriented situation.

Of course, they might just be right, at least in terms of market
segment. It's a small proportion of users who really delve into gear,
and it's also a small (and possibly increasing) proportion of *buyers*
who work professionally.

I wonder how many people on this list actually (i) create and program
their own sounds from scratch, and (ii) actually work professionally
with this gear. I suspect it's a minority; and this mailing list
probably represents the tech-savvy end of the market, since mailing
lists tend to be self-selecting. No judgement intended, it's just the
way the market breaks down these days.

Then again, the equipment manufacturers catering for the electronic
music market in particular (and the softsynth vendors, for that
matter) don't seem particularly prone to patronising their customers;
are you thinking of anyone in particular?

> Suddenly if 
> you're a DJ and you write music, you have to use gear that looks like 
> Sesame Street exploded (sorry Emu guys!), and has a cut down feature set, 
> because you're not smart enough to use a 'real' sampler, sequencer, or 
> synth.  Bummer!

I don't understand this comment. DJ's are free to use whatever they
wish, and there is enough interesting stuff on the market for them to
do so (moreso than a decade ago, for instance). Anyone who finds the
XL-7 too simple (or too complicated) is free to buy something else
instead. And it's possible to be creative with the simplest of tools
as well as the most sophisticated: I'm using everything from a Kaoss
pad (a real no-brainer) to an OasysPCI DSP farm driven via ASIO from
the Max/MSP toolkit, and I've also used kick-ass ProTools rigs (under
protest, I have to say). Get the creative process right, and all else
will follow.

> The funny thing is, it's probably the opposite 
> as I wager electronic musicians releasing their own tunes are responsible 
> not only for writing and creating, but producing, recording, even 
> mastering it all themselves!

Actually, I've resolved never to do my own mastering - I always want a
second pair of ears on the job at that stage, and mastering is a
discipline unto itself.

-- 

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

I agree with lots of what has been said in this thread, with some not:

- a deep machine might be complex but must not necessarily be 
complicated to use (it gets complicated when you go for "deepness" 
and try to solve it with a user interface with a two line digit 
display + lots of knobs + long menus. You need a large graphic 
display to improve overview and a clear structure)This is very 
important to people with less time - something more and more 
customers are facing.

When I buy I take into account the sound, the features ("deepness"), 
user friendlyness, customer service (like attending this forum, EMU, 
great!) and the chance to update/customize/extend/upgrade the 
features of my gear.

I am truly surprised how many companies offer products that are not 
finsihed in terms of User interface etc. I thhought Yamaha knows what 
they´re doing but them again have a look at the motif!!! Great sound, 
terribly complicated. Roland manuals? Ri-dicu-lous /then again they 
learnt a lesson with BR-8 8-track) Technicians are ruling this world: 
They are celebrating an orgy (?) of features, often enough not at all 
well structured, Users seem to be out of sight. Sometimes I think 
products are leaving factories and no song has ever been written or 
produced with them while they were develloping those little wonders. 
The more companies are talking with musicians the more they get their 
act together: smaller music companies have learnt that, somebody 
mentioned them before in this thread. Then again those companies are 
lacking the distribution abnd marketing power of the big players. 

Enough of that.

My MP-7 is worth to get into for sure. But it still needs new OS-
features. I would be willing to pay for it.

My 2 cents.

HEinrich

> - a deep machine might be complex but must not necessarily be 
> complicated to use (it gets complicated when you go for "deepness" 
> and try to solve it with a user interface with a two line digit 
> display + lots of knobs + long menus. You need a large graphic 
> display to improve overview and a clear structure)

Actually, it's quite valid to build an instrument with hardly any
display, so long as it has plenty of physical controls. (I think
something called the Minimoog worked this way.) However, a
display-based solution is cheaper, easier to prototype and more
flexible.

> This is very 
> important to people with less time - something more and more 
> customers are facing.

Yes and no; after all, Eric was saying he wanted more professional
features and less patronising from the manufacturers. Surely a
professional will put aside time to learn how to use his tools
properly? (Of course, the issue is not this simple - it's about
wasting time, rather than investing time - I'm just playing devil's
advocate.)

> Technicians are ruling this world: 
> They are celebrating an orgy (?) of features, often enough not at all 
> well structured, Users seem to be out of sight.

> [...]

> My MP-7 is worth to get into for sure. But it still needs new OS-
> features. I would be willing to pay for it.

Let me get this straight: you want less features, except for the ones
you specifically want.

-- 

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

Ditto!  Money talks, I'm willing to pay for new features I like my XL-7 so 
much.

rEalm



My MP-7 is worth to get into for sure. But it still needs new OS-features. 
I would be willing to pay for it.

Agreed, the xx7's have a large rating on the potentiameter imo. This is
seriously the only piece of gear I've found that rivaled the MPC's in terms
of pattern based sequenceing. I know many of you out there are all for the
505's as well, I try hard to stay out of the way of the whole groove box
thing, it took me a long time to convince myself to buy and xl7, since it
"looked" so much like a groove box!

In any case, my point is that I to, would be willing to pay for some much
needed features in the xl7's...it's too good to be left in the anals of the
'almost' great gear archives. (and I'm a cheap ass broke mofo!)

Byron

--
Chaos exists as raw material from which to create order.

-Reverend Mother Superior Darwi Odrade

  -----Original Message-----
  From: erik_magrini@... [mailto:erik_magrini@...]
  Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 7:37 AM
  To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [xl7] Re: Emu (e-music) situation



  Ditto!  Money talks, I'm willing to pay for new features I like my XL-7 so
much.

  rEalm



  My MP-7 is worth to get into for sure. But it still needs new OS-features.
I would be willing to pay for it.

I thnk you hit the nail on the head with that one Byron!  It wouldn't be 
so bad if the XX-7's weren't SOOOO close to being perfect, just a few more 
features.....

rEalm



 
In any case, my point is that I to, would be willing to pay for some much 
needed features in the xl7's...it's too good to be left in the anals of 
the 'almost' great gear archives. (and I'm a cheap ass broke mofo!)

ya, me too