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

All the info comes out Oct. 5th.  Those shots were pulled from a teaser on 
the Roland Japan site.  Looks pretty nice, integrated sampling, 16 tracks, 
mastering facilities (actually more like a 3 band master EQ I think). Huge 
display too. 

:(

rEalm






"mp3.com/koering" <A.Libi@...>
09/18/02 08:25 AM
Please respond to xl7

 
        To:     xl7@yahoogroups.com
        cc: 

        Subject:        Re: [xl7] Shots of the new Roland MC909


looks nice.. great display... and the price? *gggggg*
no technical datas...?
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: erik_magrini@... 
To: xl7@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 2:40 PM
Subject: [xl7] Shots of the new Roland MC909


http://www.the-abc.de/ 

Just in case anyone is interested, Emu better get on their game now! 

rEalm 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
xl7-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
xl7-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

YAY! another mono 8 voice synth from Roland that takes a tech writing
masters degree to decipher the manual and an engineering degree to
navigate. aside from sampling...it prolly ain't got nothin on the
E-MU. my last main synth was an XP-50 i've owned since 96. after 6
long years i was just beginning to figure out how it all worked when i
noticed last july i could get an XL-7 from mars music for $750 -$200
rebate from E-MU (yes..$550 =) . after a couple hours of using the
thing i wanted to kick myself in the ass for not buying an E-MU
sooner. writing experimental music and manipulating sounds has ceased
to become a chore. now i'm ACTUALLY having fun in my home studio. and
being 80% more productive. imagine that! a synth that's monsterously
powerful AND fun to use. thanks E-MU!

Sorry Bohemian, I have to reply again:

The MC505 is hardly mono, has 64 voices not 8 and has a lot on the 
XL7 already, read the archives here. This is not to say the XL7 is 
not great. That is why I have one! *If* the MC909 is better than the 
MC505 by a long shot: expansion ports, tons of knobs and sliders, 
sampling, and the HUGE (a la triton/fantom) display, well then it 
may certainly kick the ass of anything around right now.


--- In xl7@y..., "bohemian_grooove" <justin@i...> wrote:
> YAY! another mono 8 voice synth from Roland that takes a tech 
writing
> masters degree to decipher the manual and an engineering degree to
> navigate. aside from sampling...it prolly ain't got nothin on the
> E-MU. my last main synth was an XP-50 i've owned since 96. after 6
> long years i was just beginning to figure out how it all worked 
when i
> noticed last july i could get an XL-7 from mars music for $750 -
$200
> rebate from E-MU (yes..$550 =) . after a couple hours of using the
> thing i wanted to kick myself in the ass for not buying an E-MU
> sooner. writing experimental music and manipulating sounds has 
ceased
> to become a chore. now i'm ACTUALLY having fun in my home studio. 
and
> being 80% more productive. imagine that! a synth that's 
monsterously
> powerful AND fun to use. thanks E-MU!

yeah, i was being a little beligerent with dogging the Roland boxes.
guess i'm still kind of pissed off at them for selling me such a POS
keyboard with a manual written by NASA (forcing me to drop $30 into a
video manual that wasn't much help at all). i admit: i was only about
16/17 when i bought it and didn't know much about MIDI. but when i
realised i paid $2500+ (in 96 with 2 EXP boards) for a keyboard that
hindered my ability to make music rather than nurture it, i was a
little upset. also the line NOISE this thing made and the beyond
subpar tech support from Roland......ughh. i've fiddled around with
their newer products and they STILL seem like a pain in the ass to use
compared to some of the other stuff out there. anyways...anyone know
how many voices this thing will have? i'm willing to bet it won't be 128.

--- In xl7@y..., "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:

> Sorry Bohemian, I have to reply again:
> 
> The MC505 is hardly mono, has 64 voices not 8 and has a lot on the 
> XL7 already, read the archives here. This is not to say the XL7 is 
> not great. That is why I have one! *If* the MC909 is better than the 
> MC505 by a long shot: expansion ports, tons of knobs and sliders, 
> sampling, and the HUGE (a la triton/fantom) display, well then it 
> may certainly kick the ass of anything around right now.
> 
> 
> --- In xl7@y..., "bohemian_grooove" <justin@i...> wrote:
> > YAY! another mono 8 voice synth from Roland that takes a tech 
> writing
> > masters degree to decipher the manual and an engineering degree to
> > navigate. aside from sampling...it prolly ain't got nothin on the
> > E-MU. my last main synth was an XP-50 i've owned since 96. after 6
> > long years i was just beginning to figure out how it all worked 
> when i
> > noticed last july i could get an XL-7 from mars music for $750 -
> $200
> > rebate from E-MU (yes..$550 =) . after a couple hours of using the
> > thing i wanted to kick myself in the ass for not buying an E-MU
> > sooner. writing experimental music and manipulating sounds has 
> ceased
> > to become a chore. now i'm ACTUALLY having fun in my home studio. 
> and
> > being 80% more productive. imagine that! a synth that's 
> monsterously
> > powerful AND fun to use. thanks E-MU!

yeah, i was being a little beligerent with dogging the Roland boxes.
guess i'm still kind of pissed off at them for selling me such a POS
keyboard with a manual written by NASA (forcing me to drop $30 into a
video manual that wasn't much help at all). i admit: i was only about
16/17 when i bought it and didn't know much about MIDI. but when i
realised i paid $2500+ (in 96 with 2 EXP boards) for a keyboard that
hindered my ability to make music rather than nurture it, i was a
little upset. also the line NOISE this thing made and the beyond
subpar tech support from Roland......ughh. i've fiddled around with
their newer products and they STILL seem like a pain in the ass to use
compared to some of the other stuff out there. anyways...anyone know
how many voices this thing will have? i'm willing to bet it won't be 128.

--- In xl7@y..., "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:

> Sorry Bohemian, I have to reply again:
> 
> The MC505 is hardly mono, has 64 voices not 8 and has a lot on the 
> XL7 already, read the archives here. This is not to say the XL7 is 
> not great. That is why I have one! *If* the MC909 is better than the 
> MC505 by a long shot: expansion ports, tons of knobs and sliders, 
> sampling, and the HUGE (a la triton/fantom) display, well then it 
> may certainly kick the ass of anything around right now.
> 
> 
> --- In xl7@y..., "bohemian_grooove" <justin@i...> wrote:
> > YAY! another mono 8 voice synth from Roland that takes a tech 
> writing
> > masters degree to decipher the manual and an engineering degree to
> > navigate. aside from sampling...it prolly ain't got nothin on the
> > E-MU. my last main synth was an XP-50 i've owned since 96. after 6
> > long years i was just beginning to figure out how it all worked 
> when i
> > noticed last july i could get an XL-7 from mars music for $750 -
> $200
> > rebate from E-MU (yes..$550 =) . after a couple hours of using the
> > thing i wanted to kick myself in the ass for not buying an E-MU
> > sooner. writing experimental music and manipulating sounds has 
> ceased
> > to become a chore. now i'm ACTUALLY having fun in my home studio. 
> and
> > being 80% more productive. imagine that! a synth that's 
> monsterously
> > powerful AND fun to use. thanks E-MU!

Was it uuum.... like really noisy?

Some people have a problem realizing this: What difference makes a 
little noise in the final product? Well, too much of it isn't nice of 
course but...

//Nifflas

--- In xl7@y..., "bohemian_grooove" <justin@i...> wrote:
> yeah, i was being a little beligerent with dogging the Roland boxes.
> guess i'm still kind of pissed off at them for selling me such a POS
> keyboard with a manual written by NASA (forcing me to drop $30 into 
a
> video manual that wasn't much help at all). i admit: i was only 
about
> 16/17 when i bought it and didn't know much about MIDI. but when i
> realised i paid $2500+ (in 96 with 2 EXP boards) for a keyboard that
> hindered my ability to make music rather than nurture it, i was a
> little upset. also the line NOISE this thing made and the beyond
> subpar tech support from Roland......ughh. i've fiddled around with
> their newer products and they STILL seem like a pain in the ass to 
use
> compared to some of the other stuff out there. anyways...anyone know
> how many voices this thing will have? i'm willing to bet it won't 
be 128.
> 
> --- In xl7@y..., "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:
> > Sorry Bohemian, I have to reply again:
> > 
> > The MC505 is hardly mono, has 64 voices not 8 and has a lot on 
the 
> > XL7 already, read the archives here. This is not to say the XL7 
is 
> > not great. That is why I have one! *If* the MC909 is better than 
the 
> > MC505 by a long shot: expansion ports, tons of knobs and sliders, 
> > sampling, and the HUGE (a la triton/fantom) display, well then it 
> > may certainly kick the ass of anything around right now.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In xl7@y..., "bohemian_grooove" <justin@i...> wrote:
> > > YAY! another mono 8 voice synth from Roland that takes a tech 
> > writing
> > > masters degree to decipher the manual and an engineering degree 
to
> > > navigate. aside from sampling...it prolly ain't got nothin on 
the
> > > E-MU. my last main synth was an XP-50 i've owned since 96. 
after 6
> > > long years i was just beginning to figure out how it all worked 
> > when i
> > > noticed last july i could get an XL-7 from mars music for $750 -
> > $200
> > > rebate from E-MU (yes..$550 =) . after a couple hours of using 
the
> > > thing i wanted to kick myself in the ass for not buying an E-MU
> > > sooner. writing experimental music and manipulating sounds has 
> > ceased
> > > to become a chore. now i'm ACTUALLY having fun in my home 
studio. 

> > and
> > > being 80% more productive. imagine that! a synth that's 
> > monsterously
> > > powerful AND fun to use. thanks E-MU!

Believe me. It will have 128.

Just look at the features, sampling, huge display. mastering effects. 
Don't you also thing they would put some more polyphony in a machine 
like this?

I'm quite sure you have never checked out Rolands latest products. 
Because they're good. Very good.

//Nifflas

--- In xl7@y..., "bohemian_grooove" <justin@i...> wrote:
> yeah, i was being a little beligerent with dogging the Roland boxes.
> guess i'm still kind of pissed off at them for selling me such a POS
> keyboard with a manual written by NASA (forcing me to drop $30 into 
a
> video manual that wasn't much help at all). i admit: i was only 
about
> 16/17 when i bought it and didn't know much about MIDI. but when i
> realised i paid $2500+ (in 96 with 2 EXP boards) for a keyboard that
> hindered my ability to make music rather than nurture it, i was a
> little upset. also the line NOISE this thing made and the beyond
> subpar tech support from Roland......ughh. i've fiddled around with
> their newer products and they STILL seem like a pain in the ass to 
use
> compared to some of the other stuff out there. anyways...anyone know
> how many voices this thing will have? i'm willing to bet it won't 
be 128.
> 
> --- In xl7@y..., "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:
> > Sorry Bohemian, I have to reply again:
> > 
> > The MC505 is hardly mono, has 64 voices not 8 and has a lot on 
the 
> > XL7 already, read the archives here. This is not to say the XL7 
is 
> > not great. That is why I have one! *If* the MC909 is better than 
the 
> > MC505 by a long shot: expansion ports, tons of knobs and sliders, 
> > sampling, and the HUGE (a la triton/fantom) display, well then it 
> > may certainly kick the ass of anything around right now.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In xl7@y..., "bohemian_grooove" <justin@i...> wrote:
> > > YAY! another mono 8 voice synth from Roland that takes a tech 
> > writing
> > > masters degree to decipher the manual and an engineering degree 
to
> > > navigate. aside from sampling...it prolly ain't got nothin on 
the
> > > E-MU. my last main synth was an XP-50 i've owned since 96. 
after 6
> > > long years i was just beginning to figure out how it all worked 
> > when i
> > > noticed last july i could get an XL-7 from mars music for $750 -
> > $200
> > > rebate from E-MU (yes..$550 =) . after a couple hours of using 
the
> > > thing i wanted to kick myself in the ass for not buying an E-MU
> > > sooner. writing experimental music and manipulating sounds has 
> > ceased
> > > to become a chore. now i'm ACTUALLY having fun in my home 
studio. 

> > and
> > > being 80% more productive. imagine that! a synth that's 
> > monsterously
> > > powerful AND fun to use. thanks E-MU!

OH! you're "quite sure" are you? well....as a matter of FACT i HAVE
checked out Rolands latest products and you're calling me a liar
because i'm not partial to them? do you work for Roland or something?
why don't go back to licking the wasabe sauce from Ikutaro Kakehashi's
ass.

--- In xl7@y..., "nifflas" <nifflas@m...> wrote:

> Believe me. It will have 128.
> 
> Just look at the features, sampling, huge display. mastering effects. 
> Don't you also thing they would put some more polyphony in a machine 
> like this?
> 
> I'm quite sure you have never checked out Rolands latest products. 
> Because they're good. Very good.
> 
> //Nifflas
> 
> --- In xl7@y..., "bohemian_grooove" <justin@i...> wrote:
> > yeah, i was being a little beligerent with dogging the Roland boxes.
> > guess i'm still kind of pissed off at them for selling me such a POS
> > keyboard with a manual written by NASA (forcing me to drop $30 into 
> a
> > video manual that wasn't much help at all). i admit: i was only 
> about
> > 16/17 when i bought it and didn't know much about MIDI. but when i
> > realised i paid $2500+ (in 96 with 2 EXP boards) for a keyboard that
> > hindered my ability to make music rather than nurture it, i was a
> > little upset. also the line NOISE this thing made and the beyond
> > subpar tech support from Roland......ughh. i've fiddled around with
> > their newer products and they STILL seem like a pain in the ass to 
> use
> > compared to some of the other stuff out there. anyways...anyone know
> > how many voices this thing will have? i'm willing to bet it won't 
> be 128.
> > 
> > --- In xl7@y..., "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:
> > > Sorry Bohemian, I have to reply again:
> > > 
> > > The MC505 is hardly mono, has 64 voices not 8 and has a lot on 
> the 
> > > XL7 already, read the archives here. This is not to say the XL7 
> is 
> > > not great. That is why I have one! *If* the MC909 is better than 
> the 
> > > MC505 by a long shot: expansion ports, tons of knobs and sliders, 
> > > sampling, and the HUGE (a la triton/fantom) display, well then it 
> > > may certainly kick the ass of anything around right now.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In xl7@y..., "bohemian_grooove" <justin@i...> wrote:
> > > > YAY! another mono 8 voice synth from Roland that takes a tech 
> > > writing
> > > > masters degree to decipher the manual and an engineering degree 
> to
> > > > navigate. aside from sampling...it prolly ain't got nothin on 
> the
> > > > E-MU. my last main synth was an XP-50 i've owned since 96. 
> after 6
> > > > long years i was just beginning to figure out how it all worked 
> > > when i
> > > > noticed last july i could get an XL-7 from mars music for $750 -
> > > $200
> > > > rebate from E-MU (yes..$550 =) . after a couple hours of using 
> the
> > > > thing i wanted to kick myself in the ass for not buying an E-MU
> > > > sooner. writing experimental music and manipulating sounds has 
> > > ceased
> > > > to become a chore. now i'm ACTUALLY having fun in my home 
> studio. 
> > > and
> > > > being 80% more productive. imagine that! a synth that's 
> > > monsterously
> > > > powerful AND fun to use. thanks E-MU!

Hi bohemian_grooove,

I can appreciate everyone's right to their own opinion, however subjective
and ignorant it may be, and perhaps your public forum manufacturer slagging
was more for entertainment's sake rather than factual content, however there
are some serious flaws in your argument.


> YAY! another mono 8 voice synth from Roland

Roland's flagship 'sequencer/sound module' box, the MC-505, was released
around 4 years ago. It's a 64 voice, 8 part (plus another 8 parts using the
'realtime phrase sequence') multitimbral synth. This matches the specs of
the 'non-turbo' E-mu modules. Why do you think the MC-909 replacement should
be any less?


> that takes a tech writing
> masters degree to decipher the manual and an engineering degree to
> navigate.

The MC-505 manual is, in fact, very thorough and well explained, and
organised into logical chapters with a full index.

I can't help suspecting many people blame their inability to grasp topics of
a difficult nature on user manuals, when it's simply through their own
inexperience. In time, things start to fall into place.


> aside from sampling...it prolly ain't got nothin on the
> E-MU.

Considering the MC-505 offers a '4 layer' sample + synthesis approach, not
unlike that used by all E-mu modules, it also adds individual part
adjustment of reverb and delay sends, plus a third 'insert' effect, as well
as offering the unique ability to mix parts from different patterns (to
allow proper mixing of several songs into a performance, for example).

I'd say the Roland already has something E-mu should take into
consideration. I fully realise E-mu's effects architecture is hardware
limited, however some sort of 'megamix' feature would be most welcome to
make it truly a live performance 'dance' tool.


> my last main synth was an XP-50 i've owned since 96. after 6
> long years i was just beginning to figure out how it all worked

You're right, 6 years is a considerably long time to work out how a
relatively basic synth. How would a 'better' manual have helped?


> when i
> noticed last july i could get an XL-7 from mars music for $750 -$200
> rebate from E-MU (yes..$550 =)

I bought an Amiga 500 with a 7.6MHz clock speed back in 1996 for around
AUD$750. I then added 512MB of RAM (total now 1MB) for around another
AUD$300 or so. Technology advances, prices drop, that's life.


> after a couple hours of using the
> thing i wanted to kick myself in the ass for not buying an E-MU
> sooner.

The XL-7 didn't exist in 1996. In the meantime, you've spend 6 years
learning all about music technology and have been able to receive the XL-7
with open arms. MIDI, filters, envelopes, and so on, is a tricky subject for
anyone new to synthesis, and so I can't see the XL-7 being too different.

And the successor to the XL-7 should be even more amazing. Let's just hope
the soft synth revolution doesn't prevent it from becoming a reality. The
E-mu sampling and RFX effects technology is already in existence, and they
now have the sequencer to complete the picture.

The Roland 'groove' series has paved the way for new creations, such as the
XL-7, to come into being. Even today, the MC-505 holds its own as a
sequencer, if not for a tired sound set. It's a credit to Roland also to be
releasing premium quality metal hardware in this near all-plastic age, plus
operating systems that perform near perfect first go.

In the meantime, let's see what the Roland MC-909 has to offer instead of
making obviously ignorant and speculative statements.

Phil

Hey, calm down ;) I didn't mean to insult you or something. (Sorry)

I should have written it in another way.

--- In xl7@y..., "bohemian_grooove" <justin@i...> wrote:
> OH! you're "quite sure" are you? well....as a matter of FACT i HAVE
> checked out Rolands latest products and you're calling me a liar
> because i'm not partial to them? do you work for Roland or 
something?
> why don't go back to licking the wasabe sauce from Ikutaro 
Kakehashi's
> ass.
> 
> --- In xl7@y..., "nifflas" <nifflas@m...> wrote:
> > Believe me. It will have 128.
> > 
> > Just look at the features, sampling, huge display. mastering 
effects. 
> > Don't you also thing they would put some more polyphony in a 
machine 
> > like this?
> > 
> > I'm quite sure you have never checked out Rolands latest 
products. 
> > Because they're good. Very good.
> > 
> > //Nifflas
> > 
> > --- In xl7@y..., "bohemian_grooove" <justin@i...> wrote:
> > > yeah, i was being a little beligerent with dogging the Roland 
boxes.
> > > guess i'm still kind of pissed off at them for selling me such 
a POS
> > > keyboard with a manual written by NASA (forcing me to drop $30 
into 
> > a
> > > video manual that wasn't much help at all). i admit: i was only 
> > about
> > > 16/17 when i bought it and didn't know much about MIDI. but 
when i
> > > realised i paid $2500+ (in 96 with 2 EXP boards) for a keyboard 
that
> > > hindered my ability to make music rather than nurture it, i was 
a
> > > little upset. also the line NOISE this thing made and the beyond
> > > subpar tech support from Roland......ughh. i've fiddled around 
with
> > > their newer products and they STILL seem like a pain in the ass 
to 
> > use
> > > compared to some of the other stuff out there. anyways...anyone 
know
> > > how many voices this thing will have? i'm willing to bet it 
won't 
> > be 128.
> > > 
> > > --- In xl7@y..., "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:
> > > > Sorry Bohemian, I have to reply again:
> > > > 
> > > > The MC505 is hardly mono, has 64 voices not 8 and has a lot 
on 
> > the 
> > > > XL7 already, read the archives here. This is not to say the 
XL7 
> > is 
> > > > not great. That is why I have one! *If* the MC909 is better 
than 
> > the 
> > > > MC505 by a long shot: expansion ports, tons of knobs and 
sliders, 
> > > > sampling, and the HUGE (a la triton/fantom) display, well 
then it 
> > > > may certainly kick the ass of anything around right now.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In xl7@y..., "bohemian_grooove" <justin@i...> wrote:
> > > > > YAY! another mono 8 voice synth from Roland that takes a 
tech 
> > > > writing
> > > > > masters degree to decipher the manual and an engineering 
degree 
> > to
> > > > > navigate. aside from sampling...it prolly ain't got nothin 
on 
> > the
> > > > > E-MU. my last main synth was an XP-50 i've owned since 96. 
> > after 6
> > > > > long years i was just beginning to figure out how it all 
worked 
> > > > when i
> > > > > noticed last july i could get an XL-7 from mars music for 
$750 -
> > > > $200
> > > > > rebate from E-MU (yes..$550 =) . after a couple hours of 
using 
> > the
> > > > > thing i wanted to kick myself in the ass for not buying an 
E-MU
> > > > > sooner. writing experimental music and manipulating sounds 
has 

> > > > ceased
> > > > > to become a chore. now i'm ACTUALLY having fun in my home 
> > studio. 
> > > > and
> > > > > being 80% more productive. imagine that! a synth that's 
> > > > monsterously
> > > > > powerful AND fun to use. thanks E-MU!

let me straighten out a few of the details since you are obviously
looking very hard into this. BTW thanks for not disregarding my
sarcastic and heavily biased opinion as disinformation.

"BG: >YAY! another mono 8 voice synth from Roland"

-this was basically a knock on th MC-09 which was very hyped before 
NAMM and turned out to have the specs of something from the 80s (more
semi-sarcasm). while this is a great box for the beginner i think this
product should've had a BOSS logo on it instead of a Roland one. At
the time of all the hype I was in the market and ready for a fantastic
synth/sampler that could replace my main combo. needless to say i was
(yet again) very disappointed with Roland.

"PHIL: > I can't help suspecting many people blame their inability to
grasp topics of a difficult nature on user manuals, when it's simply
through their own inexperience. In time, things start to fall into
place. > You're right, 6 years is a considerably long time to work out
how a relatively basic synth. How would a 'better' manual have helped?"

-well i'll admit, this was partially true. and i made a big mistake by
not researching my purchase with the opinion a professional (a good
sales person should have known better, but i soon realised he sold me
on an expensive new product to $erve his own needs and not looking
after the needs of the consumer). I was new to MIDI when i bought the
XP-50. when i realised all there was to learn i seeked the help of a
local producer/electronic musician who's been recording and using
synths for over 25 years. i paid him very well on a weekly basis for
several months to teach me the ins and outs of synthesis and effects
on my new XP. he seemed to be even more baffled and frustrated behind
the logic of the interface and effects routings of the synth than i
was. he also commented on how extremely technical the manual was and
how they repeatedly failed to explain "real world" descriptions and
logic that are usually in every synth manual.

sorry if i've touched a nerve with some Roland groupies here. i've
just had a bad (and expensive) experience with them. i'm sure at some
point in your lives you've gone through a similar negative experience
and have since had negative biases towards certain products/corporations.

--- In xl7@y..., Phil <accession@o...> wrote:
> Hi bohemian_grooove,
> 
> I can appreciate everyone's right to their own opinion, however
subjective
> and ignorant it may be, and perhaps your public forum manufacturer
slagging
> was more for entertainment's sake rather than factual content,
however there
> are some serious flaws in your argument.
> 
> 

> 
> Roland's flagship 'sequencer/sound module' box, the MC-505, was released
> around 4 years ago. It's a 64 voice, 8 part (plus another 8 parts
using the
> 'realtime phrase sequence') multitimbral synth. This matches the
specs of
> the 'non-turbo' E-mu modules. Why do you think the MC-909
replacement should
> be any less?
> 
> 
> > that takes a tech writing
> > masters degree to decipher the manual and an engineering degree to
> > navigate.
> 
> The MC-505 manual is, in fact, very thorough and well explained, and
> organised into logical chapters with a full index.
> 
> I can't help suspecting many people blame their inability to grasp
topics of
> a difficult nature on user manuals, when it's simply through their own
> inexperience. In time, things start to fall into place.
> 
> 
> > aside from sampling...it prolly ain't got nothin on the
> > E-MU.
> 
> Considering the MC-505 offers a '4 layer' sample + synthesis
approach, not
> unlike that used by all E-mu modules, it also adds individual part
> adjustment of reverb and delay sends, plus a third 'insert' effect,
as well
> as offering the unique ability to mix parts from different patterns (to
> allow proper mixing of several songs into a performance, for example).
> 
> I'd say the Roland already has something E-mu should take into
> consideration. I fully realise E-mu's effects architecture is hardware
> limited, however some sort of 'megamix' feature would be most welcome to
> make it truly a live performance 'dance' tool.
> 
> 
> > my last main synth was an XP-50 i've owned since 96. after 6
> > long years i was just beginning to figure out how it all worked
> 
> You're right, 6 years is a considerably long time to work out how a
> relatively basic synth. How would a 'better' manual have helped?
> 
> 
> > when i
> > noticed last july i could get an XL-7 from mars music for $750 -$200
> > rebate from E-MU (yes..$550 =)
> 
> I bought an Amiga 500 with a 7.6MHz clock speed back in 1996 for around
> AUD$750. I then added 512MB of RAM (total now 1MB) for around another
> AUD$300 or so. Technology advances, prices drop, that's life.
> 
> 
> > after a couple hours of using the
> > thing i wanted to kick myself in the ass for not buying an E-MU
> > sooner.
> 
> The XL-7 didn't exist in 1996. In the meantime, you've spend 6 years
> learning all about music technology and have been able to receive
the XL-7
> with open arms. MIDI, filters, envelopes, and so on, is a tricky
subject for
> anyone new to synthesis, and so I can't see the XL-7 being too
different.
> 
> And the successor to the XL-7 should be even more amazing. Let's
just hope
> the soft synth revolution doesn't prevent it from becoming a
reality. The
> E-mu sampling and RFX effects technology is already in existence,
and they
> now have the sequencer to complete the picture.
> 
> The Roland 'groove' series has paved the way for new creations, such
as the
> XL-7, to come into being. Even today, the MC-505 holds its own as a
> sequencer, if not for a tired sound set. It's a credit to Roland
also to be
> releasing premium quality metal hardware in this near all-plastic
age, plus
> operating systems that perform near perfect first go.
> 
> In the meantime, let's see what the Roland MC-909 has to offer
instead of

> making obviously ignorant and speculative statements.
> 
> Phil

Wow. Bohemian.

Sorry you had such a bad experience with the XP-50. Despite the fact 
that I have a pretty healthy complement and IMO good sense about 
synths, I don't know crap about the XP-50 except that perhaps I used 
one once in a rehearsal studio in NYC. Other than that I always just 
passed it by (and all the other XP synths too)in the stores because 
absolutely nothing about them caught my eyes (or ears). Frankly I 
always wondered who was buying them while things like the Waldorfs 
were around and better korgs, etc. (those are the ones still 
demanding a half decent used price btw).

Anyway after reading about your poor experiences (and especially the 
part where you said you paid a lot of money over months and months 
to a guy for lessons on how to use it . . . . sorry to hear that 
too . . .), I had to go check out some reviews of it online to see 
whether you were just completely off your tree or not.

Well, the reviews are quite mixed--which tells me the synth is 
likely as I suspected perhaps intuitively (or luckily): probably 
crap. The reviews sum up into two camps as far as I can see 
(discounting the completely off the wall true believers or madman 
reviews): Either the reviewer seems to love it to death and defends 
it, but usually has a textual style of writing that seems to 
indicate they are a little lower than the average intelligence of a 
monkey, OR the reviewers are pretty pissed at the instrument and 
appear more mad at themselves for being so dumb to pick it up in the 
first place, hoping to learn from their obvious mistake-meaning they 
are smarter than the first bunch.

So, you are right. You made a mistake. But don't make the mistake to 
lump everything into one pile. Every company has some clunkers. Also 
these things are complex instruments. Many companies have only just 
begun to realize that less than total gearheads want to play them 
too and can be a good source of purchasers. So things like the MC505 
and even the Emu XL7 and MP7 are abounding. They have deceptively 
easy interfaces. I say deceptively because at first, many of the 
true close-minded gearheads (nerds)(just as bad as the truly 
clueless, IMO) thought that things like the MC-303, 505, electribes, 
etc, etc, must be crap and not *real* because they were so easy, any 
idiot could pick one up and press play (infringing on their 
nerdiness). But the reality is that those tools are just easier to 
use, yet among the most powerful music machines around. Both MC-505 
and the XL7 have the most rocking, deep and highly evolved synthesis 
engines around. The Roland style of sample playback synthesis is 
VERY similar to that of E-mus except that E-mu shows more of its 
background as a modular synth company way back when with far more 
modulation sources and destination than the Rolands (although Roland 
had modulars too--but they never were their sole focus, like with E-
mu. The MP7/XL7 seem to kick the ass of the MC-505 in the sound 
department because of this and mainly because they are have room for 
expansion ROMS, so the vast majority of users -- who are non-
programmers (it ain't that easy)--won't get too bored. But as 
discussed here before, despite the fact that the XL7/MP7 has a lot 
of sequencer channels, the MC-505 has some pretty useful smooth 
moves when it comes to sequencing that the E-mus haven't even 
touched yet (maybe they will soon hopefully). For novice players or 
those who are not using either machine to its fullest, many of these 
differences are lost. No doubt, the best "turn it on, hit the 
buttons and make it go" groovebox out right now are the E-mus, but 
get deeper into real stuff, and things get to be less clear. The MC-
909, if it has expansion roms, and it doesn't trash all what was 
good about the MC-505 could reign king for a while. Just keep your 
finger's crossed, because when Yamaha announced the RS7000 there was 
a lot of hope too. But Roland's background is better (despite the XP 
boards) than Yamahas in this realm so I am more hopeful.

Get over the XP, learn from errors and move on. (and don't waste 
time flaming each other either, who's more stupid? The first flamer 
or the second?). Remember, you are only as smart as the person you 
respond to. I am not proud. :)

Ravi

Well, here is a thought, Jim Aikin from Keyboard magazine (whom I 
don't consider to have lower than average intelligence) said that if 
he had to take one synth with him on a desert island, it would be 
the XP50. Now I played the synth and hated the UI. However, knowing 
Roland, I waited 6 months for the upgrade, which was the XP80 and 
then the XP60, which had greatly improved UI. I bought one and have 
loved it from day one. I still have it in my studio. But I would 
have to agree with the XP50, that was one B***H to get around on.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Prana"In XL7 heaven"earth

--- In xl7@y..., "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:
> Wow. Bohemian.
> 
> Sorry you had such a bad experience with the XP-50. Despite the 
fact 
> that I have a pretty healthy complement and IMO good sense about 
> synths, I don't know crap about the XP-50 except that perhaps I 
used 
> one once in a rehearsal studio in NYC. Other than that I always 
just 
> passed it by (and all the other XP synths too)in the stores 
because 
> absolutely nothing about them caught my eyes (or ears). Frankly I 
> always wondered who was buying them while things like the Waldorfs 
> were around and better korgs, etc. (those are the ones still 
> demanding a half decent used price btw).
> 
> Anyway after reading about your poor experiences (and especially 
the 
> part where you said you paid a lot of money over months and months 
> to a guy for lessons on how to use it . . . . sorry to hear that 
> too . . .), I had to go check out some reviews of it online to see 
> whether you were just completely off your tree or not.
> 
> Well, the reviews are quite mixed--which tells me the synth is 
> likely as I suspected perhaps intuitively (or luckily): probably 
> crap. The reviews sum up into two camps as far as I can see 
> (discounting the completely off the wall true believers or madman 
> reviews): Either the reviewer seems to love it to death and 
defends 
> it, but usually has a textual style of writing that seems to 
> indicate they are a little lower than the average intelligence of 
a 
> monkey, OR the reviewers are pretty pissed at the instrument and 
> appear more mad at themselves for being so dumb to pick it up in 
the 
> first place, hoping to learn from their obvious mistake-meaning 
they 
> are smarter than the first bunch.
> 
> So, you are right. You made a mistake. But don't make the mistake 
to 
> lump everything into one pile. Every company has some clunkers. 
Also 
> these things are complex instruments. Many companies have only 
just 
> begun to realize that less than total gearheads want to play them 
> too and can be a good source of purchasers. So things like the 
MC505 
> and even the Emu XL7 and MP7 are abounding. They have deceptively 
> easy interfaces. I say deceptively because at first, many of the 
> true close-minded gearheads (nerds)(just as bad as the truly 
> clueless, IMO) thought that things like the MC-303, 505, 
electribes, 
> etc, etc, must be crap and not *real* because they were so easy, 
any 
> idiot could pick one up and press play (infringing on their 
> nerdiness). But the reality is that those tools are just easier to 
> use, yet among the most powerful music machines around. Both MC-
505 
> and the XL7 have the most rocking, deep and highly evolved 
synthesis 
> engines around. The Roland style of sample playback synthesis is 
> VERY similar to that of E-mus except that E-mu shows more of its 
> background as a modular synth company way back when with far more 
> modulation sources and destination than the Rolands (although 
Roland 
> had modulars too--but they never were their sole focus, like with 
E-
> mu. The MP7/XL7 seem to kick the ass of the MC-505 in the sound 
> department because of this and mainly because they are have room 
for 
> expansion ROMS, so the vast majority of users -- who are non-
> programmers (it ain't that easy)--won't get too bored. But as 
> discussed here before, despite the fact that the XL7/MP7 has a lot 
> of sequencer channels, the MC-505 has some pretty useful smooth 
> moves when it comes to sequencing that the E-mus haven't even 
> touched yet (maybe they will soon hopefully). For novice players 
or 
> those who are not using either machine to its fullest, many of 
these 
> differences are lost. No doubt, the best "turn it on, hit the 
> buttons and make it go" groovebox out right now are the E-mus, but 
> get deeper into real stuff, and things get to be less clear. The 
MC-
> 909, if it has expansion roms, and it doesn't trash all what was 
> good about the MC-505 could reign king for a while. Just keep your 
> finger's crossed, because when Yamaha announced the RS7000 there 
was 
> a lot of hope too. But Roland's background is better (despite the 
XP 
> boards) than Yamahas in this realm so I am more hopeful.
> 
> Get over the XP, learn from errors and move on. (and don't waste 
> time flaming each other either, who's more stupid? The first 
flamer 

> or the second?). Remember, you are only as smart as the person you 
> respond to. I am not proud. :)
> 
> Ravi

> Both MC-505 
> and the XL7 have the most rocking, deep and highly evolved synthesis 
> engines around.

I can't speak for the 505, but the XL-7 is, at heart, just a sample
playback synthesiser with nice filters and a rather cool modulation
matrix, coupled with a simple but usable arpeggiator and
sequencer. Oh, and it's nice having tons of voices, although the
aggressive voice stealing on envelope release is a bit of a pain. I
love mine to pieces (bugs aside) but wouldn't rate its core synthesis
engine against, oh, a Nord Modular, an OasysPCI, or Max/MSP (units
which, coincidentally, form the rest of my rig).

-- 

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

Is it possible to pose a better example of apples and oranges than say "apples and oranges?"

The Nord Modular (unlike other Nords) and Oasys and Max/MSP (might as well throw in Kyma) are in a different building in the imaginary museum of sound tools than 100 percent of the other synths in the world. Those are more like computer environment for the creation of software synths than anything else. Things like the Nord Lead, JP8080, and Roland you can think of, most Korgs, K5000, etc are not such things (but may be conjured up in such things) and it is hardly fair or meaninful to compare them, except by perhaps the quality of what sounds come out (which should be all that matter, right?).

I am trying to come up with comparison of why juxtaposing most hardware synths with these musical tools in regard to operation or power meaningless. How about:

Like comparing an excellent book to a computer word processor. The book already is great and pre-written, but the computer, although almost infinitely more powerful to create more than just the book, is totally dependent on its user input and could produce utter crap if misused. One could type the written book into the computer and it would be a nice facsimile, but without more, the computer is no better than the book-perhaps less. But then, how to compare their strengths and weaknesses in any meaningful way where they are so different from each other?

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

From: Nick Rothwell

To: xl7@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 4:08 AM

Subject: Re: [xl7] Re: Shots of the new Roland MC909

> Both MC-505
> and the XL7 have the most rocking, deep and highly evolved synthesis
> engines around.

I can't speak for the 505, but the XL-7 is, at heart, just a sample
playback synthesiser with nice filters and a rather cool modulation
matrix, coupled with a simple but usable arpeggiator and
sequencer. Oh, and it's nice having tons of voices, although the
aggressive voice stealing on envelope release is a bit of a pain. I
love mine to pieces (bugs aside) but wouldn't rate its core synthesis
engine against, oh, a Nord Modular, an OasysPCI, or Max/MSP (units
which, coincidentally, form the rest of my rig).

--

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


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
xl7-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Yeah, I absolutly didn't mean to come across as so serious :) And 
after you said that about Mr. Aikin, I did realize that he's been 
doing this so long that he probably taught God about 
synthesis...lol. I mean I'm still learning my XL7 (not even had it a 
month) and there are some things that I really picked up on quickly, 
and I can't help think back to when I used to own a MC303 and how 
some things were easier on the 303. Different, not better, I guess 
I'm trying to say.
And really, isn't it about the music anyway?
I'm gonna get back to trying to make some.... :)
prana


--- In xl7@y..., "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:
> I could see Aiken saying that at the time. He is so smart that he 
can use most synths regardless of their UI with his eyes closed. His 
perspective definately was from a seasoned synthesis pro's 
perspective, not a beginners. I based my hopefully obviously wide 
and sarcastic comments on a brief and unscientific runby of the 
comments at sonic state. Also I was exaggerating a bit obviously for 
effect, just in case someone out their might laugh. Sorry to all the 
serious people. :()
> 
> As I said, I don't know much about the XPs including the later 
ones, which I don't doubt got better as you say. I think Roland is a 
great company.
> 
> Ravi
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: pranaearth 
>   To: xl7@y... 
>   Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 3:21 AM
>   Subject: [xl7] Re: Shots of the new Roland MC909
> 
> 
>   Well, here is a thought, Jim Aikin from Keyboard magazine (whom 
I 
>   don't consider to have lower than average intelligence) said 
that if 
>   he had to take one synth with him on a desert island, it would 
be 
>   the XP50. Now I played the synth and hated the UI. However, 
knowing 
>   Roland, I waited 6 months for the upgrade, which was the XP80 
and 
>   then the XP60, which had greatly improved UI. I bought one and 
have 
>   loved it from day one. I still have it in my studio. But I would 
>   have to agree with the XP50, that was one B***H to get around on.
>   Just my 2 cents worth.
>   Prana"In XL7 heaven"earth
> 
>   --- In xl7@y..., "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:
>   > Wow. Bohemian.
>   > 
>   > Sorry you had such a bad experience with the XP-50. Despite 
the 
>   fact 
>   > that I have a pretty healthy complement and IMO good sense 
about 
>   > synths, I don't know crap about the XP-50 except that perhaps 
I 
>   used 
>   > one once in a rehearsal studio in NYC. Other than that I 
always 
>   just 
>   > passed it by (and all the other XP synths too)in the stores 
>   because 
>   > absolutely nothing about them caught my eyes (or ears). 
Frankly I 
>   > always wondered who was buying them while things like the 
Waldorfs 
>   > were around and better korgs, etc. (those are the ones still 
>   > demanding a half decent used price btw).
>   > 
>   > Anyway after reading about your poor experiences (and 
especially 
>   the 
>   > part where you said you paid a lot of money over months and 
months 
>   > to a guy for lessons on how to use it . . . . sorry to hear 
that 
>   > too . . .), I had to go check out some reviews of it online to 
see 
>   > whether you were just completely off your tree or not.
>   > 
>   > Well, the reviews are quite mixed--which tells me the synth is 
>   > likely as I suspected perhaps intuitively (or luckily): 
probably 
>   > crap. The reviews sum up into two camps as far as I can see 
>   > (discounting the completely off the wall true believers or 
madman 
>   > reviews): Either the reviewer seems to love it to death and 
>   defends 
>   > it, but usually has a textual style of writing that seems to 
>   > indicate they are a little lower than the average intelligence 
of 
>   a 
>   > monkey, OR the reviewers are pretty pissed at the instrument 
and 
>   > appear more mad at themselves for being so dumb to pick it up 
in 
>   the 
>   > first place, hoping to learn from their obvious mistake-
meaning 
>   they 
>   > are smarter than the first bunch.
>   > 
>   > So, you are right. You made a mistake. But don't make the 
mistake 
>   to 
>   > lump everything into one pile. Every company has some 
clunkers. 
>   Also 
>   > these things are complex instruments. Many companies have only 
>   just 
>   > begun to realize that less than total gearheads want to play 
them 
>   > too and can be a good source of purchasers. So things like the 
>   MC505 
>   > and even the Emu XL7 and MP7 are abounding. They have 
deceptively 
>   > easy interfaces. I say deceptively because at first, many of 
the 
>   > true close-minded gearheads (nerds)(just as bad as the truly 
>   > clueless, IMO) thought that things like the MC-303, 505, 
>   electribes, 
>   > etc, etc, must be crap and not *real* because they were so 
easy, 
>   any 
>   > idiot could pick one up and press play (infringing on their 
>   > nerdiness). But the reality is that those tools are just 
easier to 
>   > use, yet among the most powerful music machines around. Both 
MC-
>   505 
>   > and the XL7 have the most rocking, deep and highly evolved 
>   synthesis 
>   > engines around. The Roland style of sample playback synthesis 
is 
>   > VERY similar to that of E-mus except that E-mu shows more of 
its 
>   > background as a modular synth company way back when with far 
more 
>   > modulation sources and destination than the Rolands (although 
>   Roland 
>   > had modulars too--but they never were their sole focus, like 
with 
>   E-
>   > mu. The MP7/XL7 seem to kick the ass of the MC-505 in the 
sound 
>   > department because of this and mainly because they are have 
room 
>   for 
>   > expansion ROMS, so the vast majority of users -- who are non-
>   > programmers (it ain't that easy)--won't get too bored. But as 
>   > discussed here before, despite the fact that the XL7/MP7 has a 
lot 
>   > of sequencer channels, the MC-505 has some pretty useful 
smooth 
>   > moves when it comes to sequencing that the E-mus haven't even 
>   > touched yet (maybe they will soon hopefully). For novice 
players 
>   or 
>   > those who are not using either machine to its fullest, many of 
>   these 
>   > differences are lost. No doubt, the best "turn it on, hit the 
>   > buttons and make it go" groovebox out right now are the E-mus, 
but 
>   > get deeper into real stuff, and things get to be less clear. 
The 
>   MC-
>   > 909, if it has expansion roms, and it doesn't trash all what 
was 
>   > good about the MC-505 could reign king for a while. Just keep 
your 
>   > finger's crossed, because when Yamaha announced the RS7000 
there 
>   was 
>   > a lot of hope too. But Roland's background is better (despite 
the 
>   XP 
>   > boards) than Yamahas in this realm so I am more hopeful.
>   > 
>   > Get over the XP, learn from errors and move on. (and don't 
waste 
>   > time flaming each other either, who's more stupid? The first 
>   flamer 
>   > or the second?). Remember, you are only as smart as the person 
you 
>   > respond to. I am not proud. :)
>   > 
>   > Ravi
> 
> 
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>               ADVERTISEMENT
>              
>        
>        
> 
>   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   xl7-unsubscribe@y...
> 
> 
> 
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service.