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

There is no fixed limit.  It'll play as many notes as you record into it.  If
you've got external gear hooked up as well, you'd have as much polyphony as
all the synths hooked up (including the 128 XL-7 voices).

-Aaron

curiousproductions@... wrote:

> what is the total note out polyphony of the sequencer?
> is it 128 voice ?
> i know the synth can generate 128 voices, but it is not listed in the
> specs what the sequencer can put out.
> Just curious

Oh brother . . .
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: steve_the_composer 
  To: xl7@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 10:49 AM
  Subject: [xl7] Re: polyphony


  --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Eppolito <synthesis77@y...> wrote:
  > *NO ONE* that I know of in the ROMpler/sampler world counts layered
  > presets as one "voice".  Stereo sounds use two voices.  
  > Layered sounds use at least one voice per layer.  This is not
  > deceiving on the part of
  > every synth manufacturer, it's just what the terminology is.
  > 
  > By the way, I forgot to mention that 12th order filters use 2 
  voices.


  When you consider how much bulk E-Mu puts into its manuals and how 
  prominently the "128-voice" capability is promoted, it is absurd that 
  E-Mu doesn't come out and say what other manufacturers have freely 
  admitted.

  Please show me in which manual or addenda there is any explanation of 
  how anything other than chorus reduces polyphony (number of playable 
  voices).  Do the manuals say that stereo samples use two audio 
  streams?  Perhaps I missed that.  Do the manuals say that 12th order 
  filters use two audio streams?  What else eats up audio streams?  And 
  where are audio streams explicitly equated with layers?

  BTW, I am comfortable saying current E-Mu gear has 128 audio streams. 

  Will we also find out that multi-samples also use multiple audio 
  streams--that (for example), an E-Mu instrument [ROM sample] that has 
  28 drum different samples (a kit) uses 28 audio streams?

  Why can't E-Mu just do what other manufacturers have done in the past 
  and be up front (as my previous posts from Casio and Roland manuals 
  show)?

  Read the E-Mu manuals, please:

  INTRODUCTION:  Ultra Powerful Synthesizer

  "The extremely flexible yet easy to use 4-layer synthesizer voices 
  make it easy . . . ."

  "128 voice polyphony ensures that you can play and sequence the most 
  complex material."

  The first sentence clearly refers to a 4-layer structure as a voice. 

  Two sentences later, the reader/user/consumer/potential buyer has no 
  reason to believe that 128 voice polyphony is not 128 4-layer 
  synthesizer voices. 

  It would be very easy to say, "The extremely flexible yet easy to use 
  4-layer synthesizer presets make it easy . . . ." and "Up to 128 
  voice polyphony ensures that you can play and sequence the most 
  complex material" or even "E-Mu's unique 128 audio stream 
  architechture ensures that you can create, play and sequence the most 
  complex material."

  In order to demonstrate that the hype in the intro is not intended to 
  be misleading, it would be nice to see in future manuals and addenda 
  a note referring to a brief section summarizing 128 audio stream 
  architecture as it rleates to layers, number of simultaneous notes 
  that can be triggered, polyphony, etc.  E.g., "(See page 12 for an 
  overview of E-Mu's unique 128 audio stream sound engine.)"

  BTW, how does an E-Mu user know which samples [aka ROM instruments] 
  are stereo and which aren't?

  Please don't misunderstand, I like the E-Mu architecture and am very 
  pleased with the flexibility it has.  In fact on this board and 
  others when users have had problems/complaints, I have been very 
  liberal with my praise of the architecture's flexibility (so much so 
  that when someone asked if the big data knob can be used to send 
  program changes to external gear and someone else said they didn't 
  think so, I wrote a utility pattern that demonstrated two ways that 
  it could be done.)

  Also, having worked with real patchcords extensively on the original 
  Moog, I appreciate E-Mu's virtual patchcord architecture, 
  terminology, and flexibility.  I have openly praised them when others 
  have questioned them, and I have created sample patchcord solutions 
  to posted problems to show how flexible they are.

  However, I did not like finding out after several months that I do 
  not have an "Ultra Powerful Synthesizer" with 128 4-layer voices and 
  I certainly did not appreciate the way in which I found this out.

  > *NO ONE* that I know of in the ROMpler/sampler world counts layered
  > presets as one "voice". 

  Huh?  "The extremely flexible yet easy to use 4-layer synthesizer 
  voices make it easy . . . ."

  E-Mu clealy refers to "4-layer synthesizer voices."  The gear has 4-
  layer presets.  [presets = voices]  Thus, in every introuduction of 
  every manual that has this line E-Mu is counting a 4-layer preset as 
  a 4-layer voice. 

  If other manufacturers also equate the number of layers with 
  polyphony (number of triggerable voices) without describing how the 
  architecture uses, reduces, chews ups, eats, robs, etc. 
  voices/polyphony, I would also claim they should improve their 
  manuals.

  8-)
  Steve



        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]

Funny, I never thought it meant anything other than what it really is.  I 
mean, isn't that the same way all Romplers are (layers use up voices)? 
Semantics aside, it's pretty cut and dried to me.

rEalm




When you consider how much bulk E-Mu puts into its manuals and how 
prominently the "128-voice" capability is promoted, it is absurd that 
E-Mu doesn't come out and say what other manufacturers have freely 
admitted.








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

I have read the manuals for proteus 2000, XL-1 and XL-7 many times over 
the years, and I have never been confused about what a voice is.
The fact that they can be layered adds programming flexibility and 
power, it doesn't reduce polyphony. Even when you play four instruments 
with one key press, that is not a 4-layer "voice", it is 4 voices 
layered. Each of those voices has it's own sound, completely 
programmable independently of the others.

Perhaps the manual could have been written more clearly. I've never seen 
a manual that couldn't.
Consider that Emu participates actively in this forum and others. And 
not just to promote their stuff - they answer questions and provide 
information we wouldn't otherwise get (Thanks Aaron!).
You don't see that from Roland, Yamaha or Korg.

BTW, at current prices, you can get two XL-7s for less than what you 
would pay for equivalent functionality from other manufacturers. Try 
that if you're seriously worried about running out of voices.

steve_the_composer wrote:

>When you consider how much bulk E-Mu puts into its manuals and how 
>prominently the "128-voice" capability is promoted, it is absurd that 
>E-Mu doesn't come out and say what other manufacturers have freely 
>admitted.
>
>Please show me in which manual or addenda there is any explanation of 
>how anything other than chorus reduces polyphony (number of playable 
>voices).  Do the manuals say that stereo samples use two audio 
>streams?  Perhaps I missed that.  Do the manuals say that 12th order 
>filters use two audio streams?  What else eats up audio streams?  And 
>where are audio streams explicitly equated with layers?
>
>BTW, I am comfortable saying current E-Mu gear has 128 audio streams. 
>
>Will we also find out that multi-samples also use multiple audio 
>streams--that (for example), an E-Mu instrument [ROM sample] that has 
>28 drum different samples (a kit) uses 28 audio streams?
>
>Why can't E-Mu just do what other manufacturers have done in the past 
>and be up front (as my previous posts from Casio and Roland manuals 
>show)?
>
>Read the E-Mu manuals, please:
>
>INTRODUCTION:  Ultra Powerful Synthesizer
>
>"The extremely flexible yet easy to use 4-layer synthesizer voices 
>make it easy . . . ."
>
>"128 voice polyphony ensures that you can play and sequence the most 
>complex material."
>
>The first sentence clearly refers to a 4-layer structure as a voice. 
>
>Two sentences later, the reader/user/consumer/potential buyer has no 
>reason to believe that 128 voice polyphony is not 128 4-layer 
>synthesizer voices. 
>
>It would be very easy to say, "The extremely flexible yet easy to use 
>4-layer synthesizer presets make it easy . . . ." and "Up to 128 
>voice polyphony ensures that you can play and sequence the most 
>complex material" or even "E-Mu's unique 128 audio stream 
>architechture ensures that you can create, play and sequence the most 
>complex material."
>
>In order to demonstrate that the hype in the intro is not intended to 
>be misleading, it would be nice to see in future manuals and addenda 
>a note referring to a brief section summarizing 128 audio stream 
>architecture as it rleates to layers, number of simultaneous notes 
>that can be triggered, polyphony, etc.  E.g., "(See page 12 for an 
>overview of E-Mu's unique 128 audio stream sound engine.)"
>
>BTW, how does an E-Mu user know which samples [aka ROM instruments] 
>are stereo and which aren't?
>
>Please don't misunderstand, I like the E-Mu architecture and am very 
>pleased with the flexibility it has.  In fact on this board and 
>others when users have had problems/complaints, I have been very 
>liberal with my praise of the architecture's flexibility (so much so 
>that when someone asked if the big data knob can be used to send 
>program changes to external gear and someone else said they didn't 
>think so, I wrote a utility pattern that demonstrated two ways that 
>it could be done.)
>
>Also, having worked with real patchcords extensively on the original 
>Moog, I appreciate E-Mu's virtual patchcord architecture, 
>terminology, and flexibility.  I have openly praised them when others 
>have questioned them, and I have created sample patchcord solutions 
>to posted problems to show how flexible they are.
>
>However, I did not like finding out after several months that I do 
>not have an "Ultra Powerful Synthesizer" with 128 4-layer voices and 
>I certainly did not appreciate the way in which I found this out.
>
>  
>
>>*NO ONE* that I know of in the ROMpler/sampler world counts layered
>>presets as one "voice". 
>>    
>>
>
>Huh?  "The extremely flexible yet easy to use 4-layer synthesizer 
>voices make it easy . . . ."
>
>E-Mu clealy refers to "4-layer synthesizer voices."  The gear has 4-
>layer presets.  [presets = voices]  Thus, in every introuduction of 
>every manual that has this line E-Mu is counting a 4-layer preset as 
>a 4-layer voice. 
>
>If other manufacturers also equate the number of layers with 
>polyphony (number of triggerable voices) without describing how the 
>architecture uses, reduces, chews ups, eats, robs, etc. 
>voices/polyphony, I would also claim they should improve their 
>manuals.
>
>8-)
>Steve
>  
>



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

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:
> Oh brother . . .

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:
> The casios you mention never had more than 8 voice polyphony no
> matter how many dcos or "lines" per voice were available.

My CZ-5000 still has 16 note polyphony when a one-line preset is 
played live.  By that I mean that I can have 16 note-ons triggered at 
a time before any previously played notes will be cut off.  To me 
that's polyphony.

I'm sorry if I offended you with my desire for accuracy.

Brother Steve
8-)

PS: BTW, on each of the CZ-5000's 8 sequencer tracks, I can have as 
much external polyphony as the Command Station (or other module) can 
handle--even though internally the CZ sequencer is limited to 8 
voices.  (Yes, I am acknowledging that in sequencer mode, the CZ has 
8 note local polyphony.  8-)

:( 

Gotta be different, it's the artist in me you see!

rEalm







How's about everybody smiles now?  (hoping to extinguish this minor
flame war...)

-Aaron

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


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/ 







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

I AM REALLY OFFENDED! Oh brother again.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: steve_the_composer 
  To: xl7@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 12:34 PM
  Subject: [xl7] Re: polyphony


  --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:
  > Oh brother . . .

  --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:
  > The casios you mention never had more than 8 voice polyphony no
  > matter how many dcos or "lines" per voice were available.

  My CZ-5000 still has 16 note polyphony when a one-line preset is 
  played live.  By that I mean that I can have 16 note-ons triggered at 
  a time before any previously played notes will be cut off.  To me 
  that's polyphony.

  I'm sorry if I offended you with my desire for accuracy.

  Brother Steve
  8-)

  PS: BTW, on each of the CZ-5000's 8 sequencer tracks, I can have as 
  much external polyphony as the Command Station (or other module) can 
  handle--even though internally the CZ sequencer is limited to 8 
  voices.  (Yes, I am acknowledging that in sequencer mode, the CZ has 
  8 note local polyphony.  8-)






        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
       
       

  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]

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:
> I AM REALLY OFFENDED! Oh brother again.


Sorry I offened you again. 

Please lighten up; don't be offended.  Forgive this old-timer for 
trying to get caught up with new uses for old terminology.

I can remember when the first polyphonic Moog came out (early '70s). 
A music store salesman tried to tell me monophonic meant you can play 
more than one note at a time and polyphonic meant you can play only 
one note at a time.

I still think he had it backwards.

Of course, the 1969-1970 generation Moog could have multiple notes 
sounded simultaneously but only one key at a time on the keyboard 
could trigger the complex sound.  Back then it was called monophonic.

Yet, when I sent the output of 2 different envelope generator 
controlled VCAs through two trunk lines into a two track tape 
recorder, I had stereo. I suppose it could be called 2 voice non-
polyphonic stereo.  ;-)

And to think, 33 years later each E-Mu layer (that is, each 
monophonic voice of which my Command Station has 128) has at least a 
billion times the functionality and complexity of the Moog.  Phew!

  
--Steve 8-)

Don't take Ravi too seriously, he's a lawyer (AND a New Yorker!), they 
make a living (AND a past-time) by being offended :)


rEalm






steve_the_composer <smw-mail@...>
06/19/2003 02:44 PM
Please respond to xl7

 
        To:     xl7@yahoogroups.com
        cc: 
        Subject:        [xl7] Re: polyphony


--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:
> I AM REALLY OFFENDED! Oh brother again.


Sorry I offened you again. 

Please lighten up; don't be offended.  Forgive this old-timer for 
trying to get caught up with new uses for old terminology.

I can remember when the first polyphonic Moog came out (early '70s). 
A music store salesman tried to tell me monophonic meant you can play 
more than one note at a time and polyphonic meant you can play only 
one note at a time.

I still think he had it backwards.

Of course, the 1969-1970 generation Moog could have multiple notes 
sounded simultaneously but only one key at a time on the keyboard 
could trigger the complex sound.  Back then it was called monophonic.

Yet, when I sent the output of 2 different envelope generator 
controlled VCAs through two trunk lines into a two track tape 
recorder, I had stereo. I suppose it could be called 2 voice non-
polyphonic stereo.  ;-)

And to think, 33 years later each E-Mu layer (that is, each 
monophonic voice of which my Command Station has 128) has at least a 
billion times the functionality and complexity of the Moog.  Phew!

 
--Steve 8-)



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/ 







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

Now I am REALLY offended! (and offened also!) :)
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: erik_magrini@... 
  To: xl7@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:47 PM
  Subject: Re: [xl7] Re: polyphony


  Don't take Ravi too seriously, he's a lawyer (AND a New Yorker!), they 
  make a living (AND a past-time) by being offended :)


  rEalm






  steve_the_composer <smw-mail@...>
  06/19/2003 02:44 PM
  Please respond to xl7


          To:     xl7@yahoogroups.com
          cc: 
          Subject:        [xl7] Re: polyphony


  --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:
  > I AM REALLY OFFENDED! Oh brother again.


  Sorry I offened you again. 

  Please lighten up; don't be offended.  Forgive this old-timer for 
  trying to get caught up with new uses for old terminology.

  I can remember when the first polyphonic Moog came out (early '70s). 
  A music store salesman tried to tell me monophonic meant you can play 
  more than one note at a time and polyphonic meant you can play only 
  one note at a time.

  I still think he had it backwards.

  Of course, the 1969-1970 generation Moog could have multiple notes 
  sounded simultaneously but only one key at a time on the keyboard 
  could trigger the complex sound.  Back then it was called monophonic.

  Yet, when I sent the output of 2 different envelope generator 
  controlled VCAs through two trunk lines into a two track tape 
  recorder, I had stereo. I suppose it could be called 2 voice non-
  polyphonic stereo.  ;-)

  And to think, 33 years later each E-Mu layer (that is, each 
  monophonic voice of which my Command Station has 128) has at least a 
  billion times the functionality and complexity of the Moog.  Phew!


  --Steve 8-)



  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/ 







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


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
       
       

  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]

On 6/19/03 10:15 AM, "erik_magrini@..." <erik_magrini@...>
wrote:

> Funny, I never thought it meant anything other than what it really is.  I
> mean, isn't that the same way all Romplers are (layers use up voices)?

No...Kurzweils can add layers to a single voice, and it does not take away
from polyphony...you get 24/48 (depending on the model) voices, each with
1-3 sample-based layers.


cheers,
aeon

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, aeon <aeonlux@a...> wrote:
> On 6/19/03 10:15 AM, "erik_magrini@B..." <erik_magrini@B...>
> wrote:
> 
> > Funny, I never thought it meant anything other than what it
> > really is.  I mean, isn't that the same way all Romplers are
> > (layers use up voices)?
> 
> No...Kurzweils can add layers to a single voice, and it does not
> take away from polyphony...you get 24/48 (depending on the model)
> voices, each with 1-3 sample-based layers.
> 
> cheers,
> aeon

Thanks for the comparative info. 
--Steve

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, aeon <aeonlux@a...> wrote:
> No...Kurzweils can add layers to a single voice, and it does not 
take away
> from polyphony...you get 24/48 (depending on the model) voices, 
each with
> 1-3 sample-based layers.

I don't believe this is correct. If my memory serves me, the K2000 
series has 24 voice polyphony (like you said) and up to 96 
oscillators - up to 4 oscillators per voice. However, only one of 
those oscillators can contain a sample, the other three can only be 
simple waveforms (i.e., sawtooth).

If you have a program with more than one layer (each layer capable of 
playing a different sample), that will reduce polyphony. On the 
K2000, a 3 layer voice will reduce your polyphony from 24 to 8.

The K2500 has double the polyphony and oscillators of the K2000.

-Brian

On 6/19/03 7:53 PM, "Brian" <synthmusic@...> wrote:

>> No...Kurzweils can add layers to a single voice, and it does not take away
>> from polyphony...you get 24/48 (depending on the model) voices, each with 1-3
>> sample-based layers.
> 
> I don't believe this is correct. If my memory serves me, the K2000 series has
> 24 voice polyphony (like you said) and up to 96 oscillators - up to 4
> oscillators per voice. However, only one of those oscillators can contain a
> sample, the other three can only be simple waveforms (i.e., sawtooth).
> 
> If you have a program with more than one layer (each layer capable of playing
> a different sample), that will reduce polyphony. On the K2000, a 3 layer voice
> will reduce your polyphony from 24 to 8.
> 
> The K2500 has double the polyphony and oscillators of the K2000.

my bad!

correct, 1 "layer" can be a sample, but the other (up to 3) are all
analog-style waves.

that'll teach me to comment on gear I do not own without checking my sh*t
first!  =)


mea culpa,
aeon