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

Can someone tell me what the difference between the MP-7 versus the 
MC-909 is, besides the sampling capabilities of the MC-909.  I would 
like to know which one is better, as far as groove station 
comparisons.  thanks...

I can not really tell you much about the internal sounds of the MC-
909, except that the demos on mc-909 is CRAP! I believe the internal 
sounds of the MC sounds like the average MTV song... nothing orginal.

The sounds of the MP-7 is very nice in my opinion, much better. Also, 
the Proteus Expansions (I own the ZR, World and Beat Garden 
expansions) is fantastic. At least the Beat Garden and World. ZR I 
really didn't like (the piano was amazing tho)

The MC-909 can be expanded with an SRX card which holds 64mb of 
samples.

The MP-7 has 128 note polyphony. The MC-909 has 64, but stereo 
waveforms only takes 1 poly on the MC, while it takes 2 poly on the 
MP-7. At the other hand, sampled stereo waveforms on the MC-909 takes 
2 polyphony.

The MC-909 has much more effects, and you have much better controll 
of them. The MC-909 has four effect processors (I think) and a master 
effect.

The MC-909 has an sequencer with piano roll interface, which makes it 
really flexible.

I've had my XL-7 for almost two years now, and many buttons and the 
data wheel is already responding weird. I don't know about the MC-
909, but I think it's better.

The MP-7 still has a couple of bugs in it's sequencer.

Overall, I think everything is better about the MC-909, except its 
internal sounds.

I've already ordered the MC-909 for it's sequencer and sampling, 
which I will use to controll the XL-7 as a sound module (until now 
I've used the XL-7 as sequencer) - so if you want to get a machine 
with a good internal sequencer, go for the MC-909. no doubt about 
that.

//Nifflas

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "studio_6512 <studio6512@c...>" 
<studio6512@c...> wrote:
> Can someone tell me what the difference between the MP-7 versus the 
> MC-909 is, besides the sampling capabilities of the MC-909.  I 
would 
> like to know which one is better, as far as groove station 
> comparisons.  thanks...

note that I have only experimented with the MP-7 sounds in a local 
music store, but from what I heard there, it sounds amazing.

//Nifflas

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "nifflas <nifflas@m...>" <nifflas@m...> 
wrote:
> I can not really tell you much about the internal sounds of the MC-
> 909, except that the demos on mc-909 is CRAP! I believe the 
internal 
> sounds of the MC sounds like the average MTV song... nothing 
orginal.
> 
> The sounds of the MP-7 is very nice in my opinion, much better. 
Also, 
> the Proteus Expansions (I own the ZR, World and Beat Garden 
> expansions) is fantastic. At least the Beat Garden and World. ZR I 
> really didn't like (the piano was amazing tho)
> 
> The MC-909 can be expanded with an SRX card which holds 64mb of 
> samples.
> 
> The MP-7 has 128 note polyphony. The MC-909 has 64, but stereo 
> waveforms only takes 1 poly on the MC, while it takes 2 poly on the 
> MP-7. At the other hand, sampled stereo waveforms on the MC-909 
takes 
> 2 polyphony.
> 
> The MC-909 has much more effects, and you have much better controll 
> of them. The MC-909 has four effect processors (I think) and a 
master 
> effect.
> 
> The MC-909 has an sequencer with piano roll interface, which makes 
it 
> really flexible.
> 
> I've had my XL-7 for almost two years now, and many buttons and the 
> data wheel is already responding weird. I don't know about the MC-
> 909, but I think it's better.
> 
> The MP-7 still has a couple of bugs in it's sequencer.
> 
> Overall, I think everything is better about the MC-909, except its 
> internal sounds.
> 
> I've already ordered the MC-909 for it's sequencer and sampling, 
> which I will use to controll the XL-7 as a sound module (until now 
> I've used the XL-7 as sequencer) - so if you want to get a machine 
> with a good internal sequencer, go for the MC-909. no doubt about 
> that.
> 
> //Nifflas
> 
> --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "studio_6512 <studio6512@c...>" 
> <studio6512@c...> wrote:
> > Can someone tell me what the difference between the MP-7 versus 
the 

> > MC-909 is, besides the sampling capabilities of the MC-909.  I 
> would 
> > like to know which one is better, as far as groove station 
> > comparisons.  thanks...

Sorry I don't think any of us have really had a chance to play with an MC909,
but I can tell you right off the bat the biggest difference will be the quality
of sounds on the XL7 and the price will be double the XL7 or MP7.  Also you will
get much more support for the Groovestations not to mention constant OS
upgrades... Why not get both?
Andre

-----Original Message-----
From: studio_6512 <studio6512@...>
[mailto:studio6512@...]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 11:29 AM
To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [xl7] MC-909 and the MP-7


Can someone tell me what the difference between the MP-7 versus the
MC-909 is, besides the sampling capabilities of the MC-909.  I would
like to know which one is better, as far as groove station
comparisons.  thanks...


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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I believe the internal sounds of the MC sounds like the average MTV 
song... nothing orginal.

>>>The internal PRESET SONGS might sound like crap, but the sound you can 
get out of it certainly do not IMO.  It uses Rolands top of the line sound 
engine, so let's be fair. A quick summary of the two would be that the 
Roland has a lot more samples of 'real instruments' while the XX-7 sounds 
more synthy.  This is only a quick generalization though, you can achieve 
similair results with either.  If you like to program your own sounds, I 
think the XX-7 is far more flexible with it's patch cord modulation 
matrix, though the mc909 is more than capable of creating good sounds 
too.<<<

The MP-7 has 128 note polyphony. The MC-909 has 64, but stereo waveforms 
only takes 1 poly on the MC, while it takes 2 poly on the MP-7. At the 
other hand, sampled stereo waveforms on the MC-909 takes 2 polyphony.

>>>????  You're contradicting yourself a bit there ;)  The MP-7 doesn't 
offer stereo waveforms, but each Preset can have up to 4 layers which 
equals 4 voices of poly.  The mc909 does offer stereo waveform, as well as 
4 layers, so you could theoretically use up to 8 voices of poly for a 
single note. <<<

The MC-909 has an sequencer with piano roll interface, which makes it 
really flexible.

>>>Agreed, the display on the mc909 is very nice, Roland did a good job 
there. <<<

I've had my XL-7 for almost two years now, and many buttons and the data 
wheel is already responding weird. I don't know about the MC-909, but I 
think it's better.

>>>Had my XX-7 for well over a year now, and it's fine even after lots of 
use and some live action. Your results may vary in this area, depends on 
how hard you use it I suppose. <<

The MP-7 still has a couple of bugs in it's sequencer.

>>>Keep in mind OS2.0 is due out in about a month for the Emu's, and I 
KNOW it's got some killer new features even the mc909 doesn't have. <<<

rEalm


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

Sorry I don't think any of us have really had a chance to play with an 
MC909,
but I can tell you right off the bat the biggest difference will be the 
quality
of sounds on the XL7 and the price will be double the XL7 or MP7. 

>>>I had a chance to play with an mc909 a few weeks ago for about an hour. 
 I think any comparisons of the sounds are no longer down to one sounding 
better than the other, but what type of sounds you prefer.  The SRX engine 
is beautiful sounding, as is the XX-7's.  However the 64 poly on the mc909 
is what would keep me away more than anything else (except maybe it's lack 
of megamix). ,<<

Also you will get much more support for the Groovestations not to mention 
constant OS upgrades... 

>>>If you mean Groovestations as in Roland mc909, you're smoking crack. If 
you mean Command Stations as in XX-7's, then we're on the same page :) Emu 
has the best customer support I've ever experienced. <<<

rEalm


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

I think I was smoking crack ;)  No I meant command stations..... Doh!  Although
amaingly Roland does update it's OS's, even though the customer never gets a say
a to what gets updated.

-----Original Message-----
From: erik_magrini@... [mailto:erik_magrini@...]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:37 PM
To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [xl7] MC-909 and the MP-7


Sorry I don't think any of us have really had a chance to play with an
MC909,
but I can tell you right off the bat the biggest difference will be the
quality
of sounds on the XL7 and the price will be double the XL7 or MP7.

>>>I had a chance to play with an mc909 a few weeks ago for about an hour.
 I think any comparisons of the sounds are no longer down to one sounding
better than the other, but what type of sounds you prefer.  The SRX engine
is beautiful sounding, as is the XX-7's.  However the 64 poly on the mc909
is what would keep me away more than anything else (except maybe it's lack
of megamix). ,<<

Also you will get much more support for the Groovestations not to mention
constant OS upgrades...

>>>If you mean Groovestations as in Roland mc909, you're smoking crack. If
you mean Command Stations as in XX-7's, then we're on the same page :) Emu
has the best customer support I've ever experienced. <<<

rEalm


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


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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I've used the 909 pretty extensively.  I'd have to say the screen is pretty
nice, but a lot of the features are recycled.  And so are the SRX sounds.  I
think that roland has a good soundset, but I don't personally think it's any
better than the EMU.  EMU has the advantage of the filters.  The best
filters in the industry are in the xx-7's.   The 909 may look like it has a
lot, but much of their technology is simply old.  twin DBEAMS?  Comon,
roland...  The sampler is pretty nice, however, as is the turntable
emulation.  If you're going for the sounds, I'd just recomend getting a
xv2020 sound module.  And there are quite a few better samplers out there.
Overall ,  the 909 is a cool machine, but not worth the ching.  I'm sure
they'll lower the price in a year.... i'd be willing to bet on it...


----- Original Message -----
From: "Andre Lewis" <andrel@...>
To: <xl7@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 3:31 PM
Subject: RE: [xl7] MC-909 and the MP-7


> I think I was smoking crack ;)  No I meant command stations..... Doh!
Although
> amaingly Roland does update it's OS's, even though the customer never gets
a say

> a to what gets updated.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: erik_magrini@... [mailto:erik_magrini@...]
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:37 PM
> To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [xl7] MC-909 and the MP-7
>
>
> Sorry I don't think any of us have really had a chance to play with an
> MC909,
> but I can tell you right off the bat the biggest difference will be the
> quality
> of sounds on the XL7 and the price will be double the XL7 or MP7.
>
> >>>I had a chance to play with an mc909 a few weeks ago for about an hour.
>  I think any comparisons of the sounds are no longer down to one sounding
> better than the other, but what type of sounds you prefer.  The SRX engine
> is beautiful sounding, as is the XX-7's.  However the 64 poly on the mc909
> is what would keep me away more than anything else (except maybe it's lack
> of megamix). ,<<
>
> Also you will get much more support for the Groovestations not to mention
> constant OS upgrades...
>
> >>>If you mean Groovestations as in Roland mc909, you're smoking crack. If
> you mean Command Stations as in XX-7's, then we're on the same page :) Emu
> has the best customer support I've ever experienced. <<<
>
> rEalm
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> xl7-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> xl7-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "David" <spec@s...> wrote:

> better than the EMU.  EMU has the advantage of the filters.  The best
> filters in the industry are in the xx-7's.   The 909 may look like it 

As an owner of an XL-7 and and Ultra 4, I can say that your opinions
on filters are a bit strange.  The XL-7 filters are barely passable,
and for some needs very sad.

I love my XL-7 but its rather weak filters (no ability to change
resonance after note on, questionable cutoff curves, etc) are the
thing I would most like to see changed.  You want to talk about old
technology?  The filters in the XL-7 are no better than the ones they
shipped on the Ultra Protues / Morpheus in what, 92?  Not even as good
if you take into account that there are fewer filter types.

I love my XL-7 to death, but its filters are a joke.  If I need a
sound that if filtered, I don't use the XL.

The E-4 Ultra filters are much better.

Bruce

> >>>????  You're contradicting yourself a bit there ;)  The MP-7 
doesn't 
> offer stereo waveforms, but each Preset can have up to 4 layers 
which 
> equals 4 voices of poly.  The mc909 does offer stereo waveform, as 
well as 
> 4 layers, so you could theoretically use up to 8 voices of poly for 
a 
> single note. <<<

The Beat Garden rom uses stereo waveforms, which takes 2 polyphony 
(but only 1 layer is needed to play those waveforms)

What are you comparing it to?  I've never used the Ultar4, but I was
comparing the filters to the Roland filters which imho truely suck.  There
are quite a few uses for the many filters in the xx-7's.    But not much
else in a computer chip offers the warmth that the xx-7's do.  Maybe we're
looking in different directions... But I have been very happy with them
compaired to what I have used in many other machines (korg, roland,
yamaha)...

peace

http://www.redcoat.net/pics/arguing.jpg    :-)

-d-


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

From: <bruce@...>
To: <xl7@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 8:48 PM
Subject: [xl7] Re: MC-909 and the MP-7


> --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "David" <spec@s...> wrote:
>
> > better than the EMU.  EMU has the advantage of the filters.  The best
> > filters in the industry are in the xx-7's.   The 909 may look like it
>
> As an owner of an XL-7 and and Ultra 4, I can say that your opinions
> on filters are a bit strange.  The XL-7 filters are barely passable,
> and for some needs very sad.
>
> I love my XL-7 but its rather weak filters (no ability to change
> resonance after note on, questionable cutoff curves, etc) are the
> thing I would most like to see changed.  You want to talk about old
> technology?  The filters in the XL-7 are no better than the ones they
> shipped on the Ultra Protues / Morpheus in what, 92?  Not even as good
> if you take into account that there are fewer filter types.
>
> I love my XL-7 to death, but its filters are a joke.  If I need a
> sound that if filtered, I don't use the XL.
>
> The E-4 Ultra filters are much better.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> xl7-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

> You want to talk about old
> technology?  The filters in the XL-7 are no better than the ones they
> shipped on the Ultra Protues / Morpheus in what, 92?

I used the UltraProteus/Morpheus heavily, and have used the
Audity/XL-7 heavily, and to my ears at least the filters on the latter
sound better. (Or do you know for a fact that the implementation is
identical? Certainly, the XL/MP filters are lacking a modulation
dimension.)

-- 

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

> But not much
> else in a computer chip offers the warmth that the xx-7's do.

Oh, there's quite a lot out there which does. (My favourite is the
Korg OasysPCI, which sounds absolutely gorgeous.)

-- 

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

I have to agree with ya here I feel that the filters are stronger on 
my E5000.  I dont know what the real deal is there but they just 
seem to have more depth to them.  I am not shur if that is just me 
or what but that is the way it seems to me.

I only use maby 4 of the filters on the Xl7. 

i would like to hear from arron on this one is this the way it is or 
am i hearing things?

Peace 

Mike G.

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "sigalarm <bruce@s...>" <bruce@s...> 
wrote:
> --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "David" <spec@s...> wrote:
> 
> > better than the EMU.  EMU has the advantage of the filters.  The 
best
> > filters in the industry are in the xx-7's.   The 909 may look 
like it 
> 
> As an owner of an XL-7 and and Ultra 4, I can say that your 
opinions
> on filters are a bit strange.  The XL-7 filters are barely 
passable,
> and for some needs very sad.
> 
> I love my XL-7 but its rather weak filters (no ability to change
> resonance after note on, questionable cutoff curves, etc) are the
> thing I would most like to see changed.  You want to talk about old
> technology?  The filters in the XL-7 are no better than the ones 
they
> shipped on the Ultra Protues / Morpheus in what, 92?  Not even as 
good

> if you take into account that there are fewer filter types.
> 
> I love my XL-7 to death, but its filters are a joke.  If I need a
> sound that if filtered, I don't use the XL.
> 
> The E-4 Ultra filters are much better.
> 
> Bruce

Someone said, "no ability to change
resonance after note on, questionable cutoff curves, etc"

What do you mean by this? Do you mean, if I am sequencing a lead, 
and while it's playing/recording, I can't change alter the 
Resonance/Cutoff of a lead to get that cool trance form sound while 
it's recording, and record the changes?

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "OneSneakYmousE <onesneakymouse@o...>" 
<onesneakymouse@o...> wrote:
> Someone said, "no ability to change
> resonance after note on, questionable cutoff curves, etc"
> 
> What do you mean by this? Do you mean, if I am sequencing a lead, 
> and while it's playing/recording, I can't change alter the 
> Resonance/Cutoff of a lead to get that cool trance form sound while 
> it's recording, and record the changes?

No, the cutoff you can change after note on. He only said resonance. 
=)

So, you can't change resonance after it's the note is played? Why? 
What if I'm using an external sequencer?

This is not good because I like to mess with both while recording 
such as on all the MC-303, 505, 909 groove boxes.

Well... I don't know why, but it is like that. Doesn't really matter 
for me. The XX-7 filters has imo no analogue feeling at all. They're 
digital sounding filters with unique filter character, which I in 
fact like.

and btw, it doesn't even work with an external sequencer. And 
resonance can not be modulated with LFO's and things like that either 
(it can, but it each note will keep the value it gets at the note on)

You can fake it tho. Just use two layers instead of one. Layer 1 - 
zero resonance, Layer 2 - max resonance. Use a parameter to crossfade 
between them. This way you can controll resonance in realtime.

//Nifflas

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "OneSneakYmousE <onesneakymouse@o...>" 
<onesneakymouse@o...> wrote:

> So, you can't change resonance after it's the note is played? Why? 
> What if I'm using an external sequencer?
> 
> This is not good because I like to mess with both while recording 
> such as on all the MC-303, 505, 909 groove boxes.

That's a bummer. I really wanted to have that control like I did on 
the roland MC's.

I love the sounds on the XL's.

Someone said you can't get the XL-1 Turbos anymore in the US, is 
this true?

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "nifflas <nifflas@m...>" <nifflas@m...> 
wrote:
> Well... I don't know why, but it is like that. Doesn't really 
matter 
> for me. The XX-7 filters has imo no analogue feeling at all. 
They're 
> digital sounding filters with unique filter character, which I in 
> fact like.
> 
> and btw, it doesn't even work with an external sequencer. And 
> resonance can not be modulated with LFO's and things like that 
either 
> (it can, but it each note will keep the value it gets at the note 
on)
> 
> You can fake it tho. Just use two layers instead of one. Layer 1 - 
> zero resonance, Layer 2 - max resonance. Use a parameter to 
crossfade 
> between them. This way you can controll resonance in realtime.
> 
> //Nifflas
> 
> --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "OneSneakYmousE <onesneakymouse@o...>" 
> <onesneakymouse@o...> wrote:
> > So, you can't change resonance after it's the note is played? 
Why? 
> > What if I'm using an external sequencer?
> > 
> > This is not good because I like to mess with both while 
recording 
> > such as on all the MC-303, 505, 909 groove boxes.

Nevermind, I actually found the XL-1 Turbo on www.musiciansfriend.com

Wow, it's like $599

And the XL-7 is like $699

Can't go wrong I guess for $100 more eh?

Nope can't go wrong.  If you don't need the sequencer you could get the keyboard
version, also very cool but with keys and banked knobs instead of dedicated but
hey.

-----Original Message-----
From: OneSneakYmousE <onesneakymouse@...>
[mailto:onesneakymouse@...]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 2:05 AM
To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [xl7] Re: MC-909 and the MP-7


Nevermind, I actually found the XL-1 Turbo on www.musiciansfriend.com

Wow, it's like $599

And the XL-7 is like $699

Can't go wrong I guess for $100 more eh?




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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

What's wrong with the old XL-1 for $399? 

I only like one Expansion Rom Techno Card. Haven't heard anything 
about a new Dance, Trance, card in the works--Any ideas on this one?

The only difference I see is:

128 voice polyphony (Do I really need this much Poly?--I have 64 on 
my Roland and never had a missed note.)

2 Additional Internal ROM Expansion Slots (I only like the Techno 
card since I only do Melodic Trance music, all the other cards seem 
more acustic)


4 Additional Outputs (6 total) (I only need 2 outputs to have that 
stereo sound)

16 Additional MIDI channels (32 total) (What do I need this for? Is 
there some use for more MIDI channels?)

Digital S/PDIF Output (No, I use the stereo outputs)



--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "Andre Lewis" <andrel@s...> wrote:
> Nope can't go wrong.  If you don't need the sequencer you could 
get the keyboard
> version, also very cool but with keys and banked knobs instead of 
dedicated but
> hey.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OneSneakYmousE <onesneakymouse@o...>
> [mailto:onesneakymouse@o...]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 2:05 AM
> To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [xl7] Re: MC-909 and the MP-7
> 
> 
> Nevermind, I actually found the XL-1 Turbo on 
www.musiciansfriend.com
> 
> Wow, it's like $599
> 
> And the XL-7 is like $699
> 
> Can't go wrong I guess for $100 more eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> xl7-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Well the keyboard versions are a steal and if you need a keyboard they are
great.  The command stations all have sequencers, which makes them super delux,
not to mention they have dedicated knobs.  If all you want is some sounds played
from an MC505 or some other piece of gear, the XL1 is fine.  The TSCY is eh, so
so.  I've heard nothing but good from the Beat garden crew though.

-----Original Message-----
From: OneSneakYmousE <onesneakymouse@...>
[mailto:onesneakymouse@...]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 2:44 AM
To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [xl7] Re: MC-909 and the MP-7


What's wrong with the old XL-1 for $399?

I only like one Expansion Rom Techno Card. Haven't heard anything
about a new Dance, Trance, card in the works--Any ideas on this one?

The only difference I see is:

128 voice polyphony (Do I really need this much Poly?--I have 64 on
my Roland and never had a missed note.)

2 Additional Internal ROM Expansion Slots (I only like the Techno
card since I only do Melodic Trance music, all the other cards seem
more acustic)


4 Additional Outputs (6 total) (I only need 2 outputs to have that
stereo sound)

16 Additional MIDI channels (32 total) (What do I need this for? Is
there some use for more MIDI channels?)

Digital S/PDIF Output (No, I use the stereo outputs)



--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "Andre Lewis" <andrel@s...> wrote:
> Nope can't go wrong.  If you don't need the sequencer you could
get the keyboard
> version, also very cool but with keys and banked knobs instead of
dedicated but
> hey.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OneSneakYmousE <onesneakymouse@o...>
> [mailto:onesneakymouse@o...]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 2:05 AM
> To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [xl7] Re: MC-909 and the MP-7
>
>
> Nevermind, I actually found the XL-1 Turbo on
www.musiciansfriend.com
>
> Wow, it's like $599
>
> And the XL-7 is like $699
>
> Can't go wrong I guess for $100 more eh?
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> xl7-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Don't forget that I mentioned how to use "crossfade" to let you 
controll resonance in realtime. It works well, but needs an 
additional layer. When you've set two layers, each with no resonance, 
the other with max, you just route the resonance knob to controll 
crossfade instead. Now you can controll resonance, in realtime.

but it only works with the analogue style filters.

//Nifflas

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "OneSneakYmousE <onesneakymouse@o...>" 
<onesneakymouse@o...> wrote:
> That's a bummer. I really wanted to have that control like I did on 
> the roland MC's.
> 
> I love the sounds on the XL's.
> 
> Someone said you can't get the XL-1 Turbos anymore in the US, is 
> this true?
> 
> --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "nifflas <nifflas@m...>" <nifflas@m...> 
> wrote:
> > Well... I don't know why, but it is like that. Doesn't really 
> matter 
> > for me. The XX-7 filters has imo no analogue feeling at all. 
> They're 
> > digital sounding filters with unique filter character, which I in 
> > fact like.
> > 
> > and btw, it doesn't even work with an external sequencer. And 
> > resonance can not be modulated with LFO's and things like that 
> either 
> > (it can, but it each note will keep the value it gets at the note 
> on)
> > 
> > You can fake it tho. Just use two layers instead of one. Layer 1 -
 
> > zero resonance, Layer 2 - max resonance. Use a parameter to 
> crossfade 
> > between them. This way you can controll resonance in realtime.
> > 
> > //Nifflas
> > 
> > --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "OneSneakYmousE 
<onesneakymouse@o...>" 

> > <onesneakymouse@o...> wrote:
> > > So, you can't change resonance after it's the note is played? 
> Why? 
> > > What if I'm using an external sequencer?
> > > 
> > > This is not good because I like to mess with both while 
> recording 
> > > such as on all the MC-303, 505, 909 groove boxes.

You can control this in realtime, but does it record it in real time 
also? So that in sequence playback, it plays back the changes in the 
fade?

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "nifflas <nifflas@m...>" <nifflas@m...> 
wrote:
> Don't forget that I mentioned how to use "crossfade" to let you 
> controll resonance in realtime. It works well, but needs an 
> additional layer. When you've set two layers, each with no 
resonance, 
> the other with max, you just route the resonance knob to controll 
> crossfade instead. Now you can controll resonance, in realtime.
> 
> but it only works with the analogue style filters.
> 
> //Nifflas
> 
> --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "OneSneakYmousE <onesneakymouse@o...>" 
> <onesneakymouse@o...> wrote:
> > That's a bummer. I really wanted to have that control like I did 
on 
> > the roland MC's.
> > 
> > I love the sounds on the XL's.
> > 
> > Someone said you can't get the XL-1 Turbos anymore in the US, is 
> > this true?
> > 
> > --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "nifflas <nifflas@m...>" 
<nifflas@m...> 
> > wrote:
> > > Well... I don't know why, but it is like that. Doesn't really 
> > matter 
> > > for me. The XX-7 filters has imo no analogue feeling at all. 
> > They're 
> > > digital sounding filters with unique filter character, which I 
in 
> > > fact like.
> > > 
> > > and btw, it doesn't even work with an external sequencer. And 
> > > resonance can not be modulated with LFO's and things like that 
> > either 
> > > (it can, but it each note will keep the value it gets at the 
note 
> > on)
> > > 
> > > You can fake it tho. Just use two layers instead of one. Layer 
1 -
>  
> > > zero resonance, Layer 2 - max resonance. Use a parameter to 
> > crossfade 
> > > between them. This way you can controll resonance in realtime.
> > > 
> > > //Nifflas
> > > 
> > > --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "OneSneakYmousE 
> <onesneakymouse@o...>" 
> > > <onesneakymouse@o...> wrote:
> > > > So, you can't change resonance after it's the note is 
played? 

> > Why? 
> > > > What if I'm using an external sequencer?
> > > > 
> > > > This is not good because I like to mess with both while 
> > recording 
> > > > such as on all the MC-303, 505, 909 groove boxes.

The keyboard version of the XL I think is called, XK-6. It says it 
has a 32 MB Electronica/Techno soundset (Is this the techno card, or 
the same sounds the XL-1 and XL-7 have?)

You dont like the Techno card that much Andre?

The beat garden sounds more acustic, or real world sounding timbers.

I am do Dance and Trance music, wouldn't the techno card be good for 
this?

Are there any other good cards that have that Electronic synth feel 
other than Techno card and what the XL comes with?

I seen the Keyboard XL, but that's like $599, and still has the same 
power as the original XL. Not sure if it's worth the $200 bills for 
it.

Is EMU comming out with a Keyboard synth much like the XL-7?

I like the card but I'm not overly impressed with it, and it turns out to mainly
be drumkits.  I think that's what annoyed me the most since I wanted more
instruments but instead got lots of duplicated drumkit sounds. In other words I
believe over half of them turned out to be kits and each of the kits duplicated
a lot of the sounds on the other kits.  The synths on there were good but
nothing groundbreaking.  The beat garden on the other hand apparently has tons
of good dance synths on it.  Most of the people on the list have that one.

Andre

That's good information for me Andre, thanks.

It appears that the Orbit 3 has both the Techno Card, and Beat 
Garden already installed.

This sounds good for $649.

Is the XL expansion card the same sound set that is in the XL-1 and 
XL-7?

If yes, then it would probably be cheaper to go with the Orbit 3, 
and the XL card. 

Orbit 3= $649
XL sound card= $279

Total: $928 for all 3 sounds (XL, Techno, Beat Garden) if I get the 
Orbit 3.

Or, I can go the XL-7 route

XL-7=$699
Beat Garden=$279
Techno=$279

Total: $1257 for all 3 sounds

Or, I can go the XL-1 Turbo:

XL-1 Turbo=$599
Beat Garden=$279
Techno=$279

Total: $1157 for all 3 sounds.

Result, seems like it's best to get the Orbit 3 in this case, that 
is if the XL expansion card has the same patches as the XL-1 and XL-
7.

Does it?
--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "Andre Lewis" <andrel@s...> wrote:
> I like the card but I'm not overly impressed with it, and it turns 
out to mainly
> be drumkits.  I think that's what annoyed me the most since I 
wanted more
> instruments but instead got lots of duplicated drumkit sounds. In 
other words I
> believe over half of them turned out to be kits and each of the 
kits duplicated
> a lot of the sounds on the other kits.  The synths on there were 
good but
> nothing groundbreaking.  The beat garden on the other hand 
apparently has tons
> of good dance synths on it.  Most of the people on the list have 
that one.
> 
> Andre

That's basically it, if you don't need the sequencer or the aftertouch/velocity
sensitive pads or a keyboard, then the XL expansion in the Orbit 3 will pretty
much cover it.  I don't know if you use ebay though, I picked up my XL7 with the
MPhat and TSCY cards for 1100 when they were still full price- I would imagine
they are extremely cheap right now on ebay...

-----Original Message-----
From: OneSneakYmousE <onesneakymouse@...>
[mailto:onesneakymouse@...]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 4:13 AM
To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [xl7] Re: MC-909 and the MP-7


That's good information for me Andre, thanks.

It appears that the Orbit 3 has both the Techno Card, and Beat
Garden already installed.

This sounds good for $649.

Is the XL expansion card the same sound set that is in the XL-1 and
XL-7?

If yes, then it would probably be cheaper to go with the Orbit 3,
and the XL card.

Orbit 3= $649
XL sound card= $279

Total: $928 for all 3 sounds (XL, Techno, Beat Garden) if I get the
Orbit 3.

Or, I can go the XL-7 route

XL-7=$699
Beat Garden=$279
Techno=$279

Total: $1257 for all 3 sounds

Or, I can go the XL-1 Turbo:

XL-1 Turbo=$599
Beat Garden=$279
Techno=$279

Total: $1157 for all 3 sounds.

Result, seems like it's best to get the Orbit 3 in this case, that
is if the XL expansion card has the same patches as the XL-1 and XL-
7.

Does it?
--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "Andre Lewis" <andrel@s...> wrote:
> I like the card but I'm not overly impressed with it, and it turns
out to mainly
> be drumkits.  I think that's what annoyed me the most since I
wanted more
> instruments but instead got lots of duplicated drumkit sounds. In
other words I
> believe over half of them turned out to be kits and each of the
kits duplicated
> a lot of the sounds on the other kits.  The synths on there were
good but
> nothing groundbreaking.  The beat garden on the other hand
apparently has tons
> of good dance synths on it.  Most of the people on the list have
that one.
>
> Andre


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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Another point to note is that Emu recently added realtime resonance
to their sampler range in operating system 4.7.Who knows this 
may be possible for xl7etc.\o/

On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:13:21 -0000, you wrote:


>Don't forget that I mentioned how to use "crossfade" to let you 
>controll resonance in realtime. It works well, but needs an 
>additional layer. When you've set two layers, each with no resonance, 
>the other with max, you just route the resonance knob to controll 
>crossfade instead. Now you can controll resonance, in realtime.
>

I think the Beat Garden rom is amazing thanks to it's percusion and 
sweet drums. Most demos I've heard from the TSCY rom sounds just like 
analogue synthesizers. By this reason I would instead get an analogue 
or virtual analogue synth instead of the TSCY rom.

the VA is a bit more expencive tho...

//Nifflas

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "Andre Lewis" <andrel@s...> wrote:
> That's basically it, if you don't need the sequencer or the 
aftertouch/velocity
> sensitive pads or a keyboard, then the XL expansion in the Orbit 3 
will pretty
> much cover it.  I don't know if you use ebay though, I picked up my 
XL7 with the
> MPhat and TSCY cards for 1100 when they were still full price- I 
would imagine
> they are extremely cheap right now on ebay...
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OneSneakYmousE <onesneakymouse@o...>
> [mailto:onesneakymouse@o...]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 4:13 AM
> To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [xl7] Re: MC-909 and the MP-7
> 
> 
> That's good information for me Andre, thanks.
> 
> It appears that the Orbit 3 has both the Techno Card, and Beat
> Garden already installed.
> 
> This sounds good for $649.
> 
> Is the XL expansion card the same sound set that is in the XL-1 and
> XL-7?
> 
> If yes, then it would probably be cheaper to go with the Orbit 3,
> and the XL card.
> 
> Orbit 3= $649
> XL sound card= $279
> 
> Total: $928 for all 3 sounds (XL, Techno, Beat Garden) if I get the
> Orbit 3.
> 
> Or, I can go the XL-7 route
> 
> XL-7=$699
> Beat Garden=$279
> Techno=$279
> 
> Total: $1257 for all 3 sounds
> 
> Or, I can go the XL-1 Turbo:
> 
> XL-1 Turbo=$599
> Beat Garden=$279
> Techno=$279
> 
> Total: $1157 for all 3 sounds.
> 
> Result, seems like it's best to get the Orbit 3 in this case, that
> is if the XL expansion card has the same patches as the XL-1 and XL-
> 7.
> 
> Does it?
> --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "Andre Lewis" <andrel@s...> wrote:
> > I like the card but I'm not overly impressed with it, and it turns
> out to mainly
> > be drumkits.  I think that's what annoyed me the most since I
> wanted more
> > instruments but instead got lots of duplicated drumkit sounds. In
> other words I
> > believe over half of them turned out to be kits and each of the
> kits duplicated
> > a lot of the sounds on the other kits.  The synths on there were
> good but
> > nothing groundbreaking.  The beat garden on the other hand
> apparently has tons
> > of good dance synths on it.  Most of the people on the list have
> that one.
> >
> > Andre
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> xl7-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

"Someone said" "operating system 4.7.Who knows this 
may be possible for xl7etc.\o/"

What operating system is this for? The XL7



--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Silverman <oort@b...> wrote:
> Another point to note is that Emu recently added realtime resonance
> to their sampler range in operating system 4.7.Who knows this 
> may be possible for xl7etc.\o/
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:13:21 -0000, you wrote:
> 
> 
> >Don't forget that I mentioned how to use "crossfade" to let you 
> >controll resonance in realtime. It works well, but needs an 
> >additional layer. When you've set two layers, each with no 
resonance, 

> >the other with max, you just route the resonance knob to controll 
> >crossfade instead. Now you can controll resonance, in realtime.
> >

--- "OneSneakYmousE" <onesneakymouse@...> wrote:
> "Someone said" "operating system 4.7.

That's EOS 4.7, for the E4 Ultra samplers.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com