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

i have to get a hardware sequencer this computer is going to stop me 
making music.  Is there anyone out there who has a hands on feel 
about the two ...thanks

On 2/18/03 2:08 AM, "honkeyhindu <honkeyhindu@...>"
<honkeyhindu@...> wrote:

> i have to get a hardware sequencer this computer is going to stop me
> making music.  Is there anyone out there who has a hands on feel
> about the two ...thanks
> 
> 

I've owned the QY700 since 1997 and the XL-7 off and on for 18 months.  How
can I help?


drk

www.delora.com/music
www.mp3.com/zdrk
drk.iuma.com

>> I've owned the QY700 since 1997 and the XL-7 off and on for 18
> months.  How
>> can I help?
>> 
>> 
>> drk
>> 
>> www.delora.com/music
>> www.mp3.com/zdrk
>> drk.iuma.com
> 
> 
> 
> well as far a use  which did you prefer  ??
> 
> as far as on stage which would you use and why ?
> 
> which would you say is more buggy ??
> 
> if you were given a choice which would you buy ?
> 
> i would be using it to run a  nova laptop ,electribe es, alesis qs7
> do you see any benefit in using one over the other in this
> situation ??
> 
> i love jamming on the paino..i suck at playing.. for this method of
> recording which of these units would be better ??
> 
> i do have other question ...but i have to go home first

They are very different beasts so a lot of the choice will depend on the
use.  I have kept the QY700 because it does things that no other hardware
sequencer does (though Motif and the RM1x/RS7000 come close, as does the
mini-version QY100).  For example the editing features are really top-notch
if you want to do creative things to the recorded MIDI.  Things like doing
control value change curves, velocity crescendos.  It is very nice in this
way.

It also has a somewhat unique real-time groove-quantizing feature.  With it
you can not only control the quantize grid and the "pull strength" but also
how much the velocity is pulled to the quantize pattern, the gate-time.
There are also other real-time sequence effects like changing the time-base.

The QY's phrase/track/pattern/song structure is very flexible and easy to
use for either linear, pattern, or combinations of the two.  The phrase
feature lets you build up patterns from reusable short single part sequencer
of any length.  You can mix different length phrases within a pattern to
create odd time-signature and polyrhythm effects.

All in all a very capable studio sequencer.

But the QY is not at all a performance sequencer, and it lacks many of the
amenities that modern music production expects, like a proper grid recording
facility (TRX0X-style) or seamless movement between record and playback of
different tracks without interrupting the flow.

The XX-7, on the other hand is very much a performance sequencer.  Its edit
features are weak in comparison (though each E-mu OS release has improved
this) and it's pattern and song features are crude in comparison to the
QY700.  But the XX-7 has better tools for spontaneity, like non-stop
editing, grid record, and easy ways to mute tracks while playing.

Each contains a sound engine but this contest is over faster than a phony
prize fight.  The QY700 is a plain 1997-generation XG module with 32 voices
of polyphony, the XX-7 is a fully programmable synth with 128 voices.  Tyhe
QY probably has 4MB or 8MB of sample memory, the XX-7 can be expanded up to
128MB.  Its really no contest.  You can do meaningful work with only the
XX-7.  The QY's sound is good only for sketching out ideas (if that).

Both are reasonably stable in use.  the QY has a few funnies in how it
handles MIDI stop.  it sends some control reset commands to kill playing
notes, including sustain and soft (64 and 66 if I recall).  Unfortunately
one of these was used by Novation for controlling an OSC freq so stopping
playback with mess with a Nova patch (at least it did on my Supernova).

As far as recording improvised play at a keyboard for later rework I am
afraid that the XX-7 is very poor for that because it's pattern length is
currently restricted to 32 measures and the song mode only lets you record a
single (though multi-channel) track.  This would work except there is no way
to go from song to pattern mode without a great deal of pain.  The QY
handles this type of recording quite well.  in fact it is trivial to whip up
a basic backing pattern and record while that is playing for the length of a
song (or more), and while that is all happening you can be also improvising
a chord progression which the pattern will follow.

In my estimation neither replaces the other.  I believe that they would
complement each other well too, though I have yet to try this myself.  I
have seen QY's selling for very low prices used so it is not inconceivable
to own both.

if you have any questions holler at me.


drk

www.delora.com/music
www.mp3.com/zdrk
drk.iuma.com

I saw a very good show in NYC with a dude using a QY700 controlling a Roland 2080. He not only played patterns but used the QY700 pads to play basslines and solos live. The kicker to the setup was that he had a midicontroller that essentially gave him 16 sliders to control the volume of each channel sequenced on the qy700. At the time I realized he had in such combination a 16 track MC505.

Indeed such is pretty much built in to the Command Stations. . . . 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: drK 
  To: xl7@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 1:48 PM
  Subject: Re: [xl7] Re: comparison QY700 VS EMU XL



  >> I've owned the QY700 since 1997 and the XL-7 off and on for 18
  > months.  How
  >> can I help?
  >> 
  >> 
  >> drk
  >> 
  >> www.delora.com/music
  >> www.mp3.com/zdrk
  >> drk.iuma.com
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > well as far a use  which did you prefer  ??
  > 
  > as far as on stage which would you use and why ?
  > 
  > which would you say is more buggy ??
  > 
  > if you were given a choice which would you buy ?
  > 
  > i would be using it to run a  nova laptop ,electribe es, alesis qs7
  > do you see any benefit in using one over the other in this
  > situation ??
  > 
  > i love jamming on the paino..i suck at playing.. for this method of
  > recording which of these units would be better ??
  > 
  > i do have other question ...but i have to go home first

  They are very different beasts so a lot of the choice will depend on the
  use.  I have kept the QY700 because it does things that no other hardware
  sequencer does (though Motif and the RM1x/RS7000 come close, as does the
  mini-version QY100).  For example the editing features are really top-notch
  if you want to do creative things to the recorded MIDI.  Things like doing
  control value change curves, velocity crescendos.  It is very nice in this
  way.

  It also has a somewhat unique real-time groove-quantizing feature.  With it
  you can not only control the quantize grid and the "pull strength" but also
  how much the velocity is pulled to the quantize pattern, the gate-time.
  There are also other real-time sequence effects like changing the time-base.

  The QY's phrase/track/pattern/song structure is very flexible and easy to
  use for either linear, pattern, or combinations of the two.  The phrase
  feature lets you build up patterns from reusable short single part sequencer
  of any length.  You can mix different length phrases within a pattern to
  create odd time-signature and polyrhythm effects.

  All in all a very capable studio sequencer.

  But the QY is not at all a performance sequencer, and it lacks many of the
  amenities that modern music production expects, like a proper grid recording
  facility (TRX0X-style) or seamless movement between record and playback of
  different tracks without interrupting the flow.

  The XX-7, on the other hand is very much a performance sequencer.  Its edit
  features are weak in comparison (though each E-mu OS release has improved
  this) and it's pattern and song features are crude in comparison to the
  QY700.  But the XX-7 has better tools for spontaneity, like non-stop
  editing, grid record, and easy ways to mute tracks while playing.

  Each contains a sound engine but this contest is over faster than a phony
  prize fight.  The QY700 is a plain 1997-generation XG module with 32 voices
  of polyphony, the XX-7 is a fully programmable synth with 128 voices.  Tyhe
  QY probably has 4MB or 8MB of sample memory, the XX-7 can be expanded up to
  128MB.  Its really no contest.  You can do meaningful work with only the
  XX-7.  The QY's sound is good only for sketching out ideas (if that).

  Both are reasonably stable in use.  the QY has a few funnies in how it
  handles MIDI stop.  it sends some control reset commands to kill playing
  notes, including sustain and soft (64 and 66 if I recall).  Unfortunately
  one of these was used by Novation for controlling an OSC freq so stopping
  playback with mess with a Nova patch (at least it did on my Supernova).

  As far as recording improvised play at a keyboard for later rework I am
  afraid that the XX-7 is very poor for that because it's pattern length is
  currently restricted to 32 measures and the song mode only lets you record a
  single (though multi-channel) track.  This would work except there is no way
  to go from song to pattern mode without a great deal of pain.  The QY
  handles this type of recording quite well.  in fact it is trivial to whip up
  a basic backing pattern and record while that is playing for the length of a
  song (or more), and while that is all happening you can be also improvising
  a chord progression which the pattern will follow.

  In my estimation neither replaces the other.  I believe that they would
  complement each other well too, though I have yet to try this myself.  I
  have seen QY's selling for very low prices used so it is not inconceivable
  to own both.

  if you have any questions holler at me.


  drk

  www.delora.com/music
  www.mp3.com/zdrk
  drk.iuma.com



        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. 


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