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

Time for my first serious complaint.

There's a global parameter (under the ARP button) to determine 
whether or not arpeggiators are transmitted to external synths. The 
problem is that if it is set to "on" then arpeggiator notes are sent 
out the MIDI port *even if the track is set to internal only*, and if 
it is set to "off" then arpeggiator notes are NOT sent out the MIDI 
port, even if the track is set to external only or both.

Unless I'm missing something (I am using OS 2.0), this effectively 
makes the arpeggiators useless for controlling external synths, since 
my choices are (a) put a synth on MIDI port A but manually turn off 
any channels that might receive unwanted arp data - not practical 
live (b) do not put a synth on MIDI port A, rendering it useless, or 
(c) turn arp transmit off and do not use the arpeggiators to control 
external synths. None of these is satisfactory.

I hope that I am missing something or that there are plans to fix 
this bug in an update, because otherwise I'm having a hard time 
seeing this as anything but a very bad design decision. Tracks set 
to "INT" should not transmit MIDI data at all, tracks set to "EXT" 
should always transmit MIDI data, and there's an Arp 
on/off/Preset/Master switch on every track already, which should 
determine whether or not the arp is transmitted. The global setting 
should only override the track settings when it is set to "off", as a 
kind of master kill switch.

Has anyone else noticed this? Does it make sense at all for it to 
work this way? I don't see any provision for "printing" arp output to 
tracks either, aside from running a cable from output to input or 
using another sequencer.

(While I'm on about it the other settings for keyboard and knob 
transmission could be a little smarter as well - if the mode 
is "basic" and the currently active track is assigned to an external 
synth it would be nice if the keyboard and knobs followed suit. This 
I can deal with however.)

--- robotchas <robotchas@...> wrote:
> Time for my first serious complaint.
> 
> There's a global parameter (under the ARP button) to determine 
> whether or not arpeggiators are transmitted to external synths.

You're absolutely right.  This wasn't so much as a bad design choice,
it was sort of a lack of a choice at all.  The arpeggiators were
brought directly over from the Audity/P2K series with very few changes
made.  When the box was first being designed, it was more targeted at
the groovebox market rather than the "control everything in your
studio" use.  By the time the focus shifted, I suppose I forgot about
the arps.  The arp transmit was never really designed to control
external gear, it was designed to record *all* the arps from a P2K into
a software sequencer.

That being said, the workaround is as follows:

1 - turn arp transmit on

2 - for any tracks you want to be EXTERNALLY arp'd, set the track to be
INTERNAL (yeah, I know... just think of the arp as a synth feature)

3 - for those channels, create an "external arp" preset.  this will
have all four layers' instruments set to "NONE" (do not just turn the
AmpVol down!!! that will chew polyphony) and set up the arpeggiator the
way you like.

4 - now, the tricky part.  to keep the truly internal arps internal,
you can do one of two things:

4a - if you're only using one MIDI output, put all of your external
arps on the B channels and all of your internal arps on the A channels.

4b - if you *are* using both ports, you'll have to disable those
channels on your external gear.  for example, if you have an internal
arp on channel 3A, make sure channel 3 is disabled on any gear you
might have on MIDI Out A.

4c - if you're REALLY adventurous, you could designate an external
multi track to send volume changes to all the external channels which
should not be arp'd but that have an internal arp going.  In the above
example, you'd have perhaps track 16 be set to MultiA External and make
sure it transmitted a Volume 0 message for channel 3.  This way you
wouldn't have to do anything on your external synths live, as the box
would take care of it upon switching to the pattern.

> tracks set to "EXT" should always transmit MIDI data, and there's
> an Arp on/off/Preset/Master switch on every track already

Not quite.  There's an Arp on/off/M/P switch on each CHANNEL, not
TRACK.  Unfortunately, the arp is a synth feature, not a sequencer
feature, which is why it requires notes to be sent INT.  You're on the
right track though (no pun intended) as this is close to what the ideal
solution would be.

> (While I'm on about it the other settings for keyboard and knob 
> transmission could be a little smarter as well - if the mode 
> is "basic" and the currently active track is assigned to an external 
> synth it would be nice if the keyboard and knobs followed suit. This 
> I can deal with however.)

Since you have 2.0, you already have the fix for this problem.  Turn
"Rechannelize Input" on (3rd screen in the master menu).  Quick edit
knobs, keypads, and even incoming MIDI will be redirected to the
correct channel AND port (i.e. internal/external).

For the programmable knobs and triggers, what you are trying to do is
what the "Seq" destination (instead of "Int") does.  Internal goes
internal ALL the time, external goes external all the time, whereas
"Seq" goes where the sequencer is going.

-Aaron

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

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Eppolito <synthesis77@y...> wrote:
>  create an "external arp" preset. this will have all four layers' 
>  instruments set to "NONE" (do not just turn the AmpVol down!!!
>  that will chew polyphony) and set up the arpeggiator the way you
>  like.

Thanks for the correction.  I have deleted my replies.  (Still, its 
nice to know I was on the right path with the creation of dedicated 
Xrp presets.)

As long as we're talking about polyphony, let me ask, does 128 voice 
polyphony = 32 notes x 4 layers per note?  Or do I have 128 4-layer 
voices?

Steve

On 6/17/03 9:44 PM, "steve_the_composer" <smw-mail@...> wrote:

> As long as we're talking about polyphony, let me ask, does 128 voice
> polyphony = 32 notes x 4 layers per note?  Or do I have 128 4-layer
> voices?

think of it as 128 total layers

so 32 4-layer voices...

or 16 4-layer voices with voice-chorus

or 16 4-layer dual-link voices

or 10 4-layer tri-link voices (for that killer dozen-detune-saw patch)

etc.


cheers,
aeon

--- steve_the_composer <smw-mail@...> wrote:
> Still, its nice to know I was on the right path with
> the creation of dedicated Xrp presets.

Yep.  You're right on.

> As long as we're talking about polyphony, let me ask,
> does 128 voice polyphony = 32 notes x 4 layers per note?

That's correct if all those 32 notes are playing presets with
instruments on all 4 layers.  Any layer that has an instrument assigned
will use a voice (even if you don't hear it, because you could turn the
volume up in real time).  Of course, if that layer doesn't have a
sample assigned to that key (as in the case of some drum instruments
which have "holes") or you play a note out of the Key Window, that
won't use polyphony.  Voice chorus (not the FxB chorus) uses double the
voices too, so each layer with chorus on uses two voices.  In addition
to that, some instruments have more than one voice per layer, but
that's rare (I think only the B-3 ROM has instruments like that).

-Aaron

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

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Eppolito <synthesis77@y...> wrote: 
> You're absolutely right.  This wasn't so much as a bad design 
choice,
> it was sort of a lack of a choice at all.  The arpeggiators were
> brought directly over from the Audity/P2K series with very few 
changes
> made.  When the box was first being designed, it was more targeted 
at
> the groovebox market rather than the "control everything in your
> studio" use.  By the time the focus shifted, I suppose I forgot 
about
> the arps.  The arp transmit was never really designed to control
> external gear, it was designed to record *all* the arps from a P2K 
into
> a software sequencer.

Well, that makes sense, since the sequencer was basically bolted on 
to the XL-1 (and I appreciate your candor). And I can see the need 
for a way to record arp output into another sequencer.

> That being said, the workaround is as follows:
... 
> 4a - if you're only using one MIDI output, put all of your external
> arps on the B channels and all of your internal arps on the A 
channels.

This is probably what I will end up doing. It's more limiting than 
I'd hoped but it's the most straightforward solution. I'll just have 
to use more program changes and fewer arp triggers.

> > tracks set to "EXT" should always transmit MIDI data, and there's
> > an Arp on/off/Preset/Master switch on every track already
> 
> Not quite.  There's an Arp on/off/M/P switch on each CHANNEL, not
> TRACK.  Unfortunately, the arp is a synth feature, not a sequencer
> feature, which is why it requires notes to be sent INT.  You're on 
the
> right track though (no pun intended) as this is close to what the 
ideal
> solution would be.

You're right of course, I was oversimplifying. Each track has at 
least one channel, and each channel has a preset, so each track has 
at least one arp switch associated with it.

If the PX does well enough to merit an OS 2.1 it'd be nice to see a 
fix for this (putting the INT/EXT/BOTH switch between the arp and the 
synth rather than before them), but it sounds as if the arpeggiator 
is sufficiently segregated from the sequencer to make this impossible.

> Since you have 2.0, you already have the fix for this problem.  Turn
> "Rechannelize Input" on (3rd screen in the master menu).  Quick edit
> knobs, keypads, and even incoming MIDI will be redirected to the
> correct channel AND port (i.e. internal/external).

Ah. I didn't realize "Rechannelize" affected the front panel 
controls. I'll try that, thanks. 

> For the programmable knobs and triggers, what you are trying to do 
is
> what the "Seq" destination (instead of "Int") does.  Internal goes
> internal ALL the time, external goes external all the time, whereas
> "Seq" goes where the sequencer is going.

Wondered about that, it's a good feature. What about recording the 
arp into the sequencer? Is this not doable within the XL itself? I 
guess it's not crucial, it would just eat up extra note memory anyway.

I appreciate the thoughtful reply Aaron, I know it can be hard to 
hear criticism of something you've put a lot of work into. I have a 
very clear and specific picture of what I want from a performance 
sequencer and in spite of my critiques you guys are the only ones 
who've really delivered so far.

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "steve_the_composer" <smw-mail@p...> 
wrote:
> Thanks for the correction.  I have deleted my replies.  (Still, its 
> nice to know I was on the right path with the creation of dedicated 
> Xrp presets.)

The effort was not unappreciated.

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, aeon <aeonlux@a...> wrote:
> On 6/17/03 9:44 PM, "steve_the_composer" <smw-mail@p...> wrote:
> 
> > As long as we're talking about polyphony, let me ask, does
> > 128 voice polyphony = 32 notes x 4 layers per note?  Or do
> > I have 128 4-layer voices?
> 
> think of it as 128 total layers
> so 32 4-layer voices...
> or 16 4-layer voices with voice-chorus
> or 16 4-layer dual-link voices
> or 10 4-layer tri-link voices (for that killer dozen-detune-saw 
patch)
> 
> etc.
> 
> 
> cheers,
> aeon

If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt what you say, I feel 
deceived by the folks at E-Mu.  The XL-7 manual reads: 

> The extremely flexible yet easy to use 4-layer synthesizer voices
> make it easy to build sounds of any kind. Layers can be switched or 
> crossfaded using key position, velocity, real-time controllers or
> any modulation source. 128 voice polyphony ensures that you can
> play and sequence the most complex material. XL-7 also contains 50
> different 2nd to 12th order resonant & modeling filters which are
> used to shape and modify over 1200 waveforms contained in 32
> megabytes (MB) of ROM.

Line 1 unmistakably refers to 4-layer voices.  Without question each 
VOICE has 4 layers.  That is, 4 layers = 1 voice. Two lines later, 
the reference to 128 voice polyphony implies 128 4-layer voices.

Other manuals for E-Mu's 128-layer synth gear repeat the error 
prominently in the introduction. People who look at manuals in the 
store prior to buying are therefore deceived when they read the 
introduction.

Almost 20 years ago the folks at Casio listed their CZ-3000 and 
CZ-5000 as having 16 1-DCO voices or 8 2-DCO voices.  A few years 
later, the 8-voice VZ-8m could have as many as 8 lines (DCO/DCA) per 
voice. They didn't say it had 64 voice polyphony.

If the 128-voice E-Mu gear is really 128-layer gear, they should 
spell this out clearly for consumers.  

Thanks for setting me straight on gear that I first thought truly had 
128 voice polyphony.

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "robotchas" <robotchas@y...> wrote:
> The effort was not unappreciated.
Thanks.

A layer in a patch is a completely different thing than having more than one osc or dco in a voice. So I don't think your casio comparison is correct. The casios you mention never had more than 8 voice polyphony no matter how many dcos or "lines" per voice were available.

Perhaps E-mu could have said, "4-layer patches" rather than "voices" but there is nothing new about the fact that most modern synths allow you to layer voices, but that such layering eats up polyphony. For example the Roland JV units, etc.

Also remember that layering does not necessarily have anything to do with polyphony, but only does depending on how one uses it. One could have a 4 layer patch that assigns each layer to exclusive ranges of midi note number, or exclusive ranges of key-on velocity for example. I.e. velocity 0-40 sounds layer 1, vel 41-61 sounds layer 2, vel 62-100 sounds layer 3 and vel 101-127 sounds layer 4. In such a patch, one could still hold down 128 separate and discrete and differently tuned voices. On the other hand, if one programs a patch to layer two voices at all time, you are essentially playing two completely different sounds (each with their own adsrs, filters, amps, etc) at the same time, as if you midied two synths together, so yes a single keypress sounds 2 voices, but the fact that it does so simulataneously does not mean they are now converted to 1 voice . . .

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: steve_the_composer 
  To: xl7@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 9:06 AM
  Subject: [xl7] Re: polyphony, was "arpeggiator out useless?"


  --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, aeon <aeonlux@a...> wrote:
  > On 6/17/03 9:44 PM, "steve_the_composer" <smw-mail@p...> wrote:
  > 
  > > As long as we're talking about polyphony, let me ask, does
  > > 128 voice polyphony = 32 notes x 4 layers per note?  Or do
  > > I have 128 4-layer voices?
  > 
  > think of it as 128 total layers
  > so 32 4-layer voices...
  > or 16 4-layer voices with voice-chorus
  > or 16 4-layer dual-link voices
  > or 10 4-layer tri-link voices (for that killer dozen-detune-saw 
  patch)
  > 
  > etc.
  > 
  > 
  > cheers,
  > aeon

  If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt what you say, I feel 
  deceived by the folks at E-Mu.  The XL-7 manual reads: 

  > The extremely flexible yet easy to use 4-layer synthesizer voices
  > make it easy to build sounds of any kind. Layers can be switched or 
  > crossfaded using key position, velocity, real-time controllers or
  > any modulation source. 128 voice polyphony ensures that you can
  > play and sequence the most complex material. XL-7 also contains 50
  > different 2nd to 12th order resonant & modeling filters which are
  > used to shape and modify over 1200 waveforms contained in 32
  > megabytes (MB) of ROM.

  Line 1 unmistakably refers to 4-layer voices.  Without question each 
  VOICE has 4 layers.  That is, 4 layers = 1 voice. Two lines later, 
  the reference to 128 voice polyphony implies 128 4-layer voices.

  Other manuals for E-Mu's 128-layer synth gear repeat the error 
  prominently in the introduction. People who look at manuals in the 
  store prior to buying are therefore deceived when they read the 
  introduction.

  Almost 20 years ago the folks at Casio listed their CZ-3000 and 
  CZ-5000 as having 16 1-DCO voices or 8 2-DCO voices.  A few years 
  later, the 8-voice VZ-8m could have as many as 8 lines (DCO/DCA) per 
  voice. They didn't say it had 64 voice polyphony.

  If the 128-voice E-Mu gear is really 128-layer gear, they should 
  spell this out clearly for consumers.  

  Thanks for setting me straight on gear that I first thought truly had 
  128 voice polyphony.


        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:
> A layer in a patch is a completely different thing than having more 
than one osc or dco in a voice. So I don't think your casio 
comparison is correct. The casios you mention never had more than 8 
voice polyphony no matter how many dcos or "lines" per voice were 
available.

Actually, on the CZ-5000 and CZ-3000 I could play 16 different notes 
<*live*> if my preset was a one-layer [aka one-line] preset. In fact, 
I created a couple of patches to take full advatage of this feature.  
Nevertheless, Casio didn't try to deceive consumers.  They were 
clear: 8 voice polyphony with a 2-layer preset; 16 voice polyphony 
with a 1-layer preset.
 
> Perhaps E-mu could have said, "4-layer patches" rather 
than "voices" but there is nothing new about the fact that most 
modern synths allow you to layer voices, but that such layering eats 
up polyphony. For example the Roland JV units, etc.

Excellent suggestion for revised manuals (calling them 4-layer 
presets). That would be better than what they did.  They could also 
call the gear 128-layer sound modules or command stations and have an 
chart and/or explanation of how flexible the layering capabilities 
are.

As for Roland, let me quote from a sub-section of "How the M-GS64 Is 
Organized."  The sub-section is entitled, "Voices and Maximum 
Polyphony."  

"The sounds of the M-GS64 are produced by units called 'Voices.' 
There is a limit to how many of these voices can sound at once, and 
in the case of the M-GS64, up to 64 simultaeous voices can be used.  
Some sounds (Patches) use one voice and others use two voices. etc.'

Although I would argue Roland's use of voices here (1) means what 
they used to call partials and (2) differs from what polyphony 
traditionally means, they went the distance to explain to the user 
that they will not always have 64 voices.

I could be wrong, but E-Mu manuals (1) don't offer such an 
explanation (except in reference to turning on chorus within a 
preset), and (2) seem to conceal the limitation with their 128-voice 
statement so prominently in the introduction to their manuals.
 
> Also remember that layering does not necessarily have anything to 
do with polyphony, but only does depending on how one uses it.

Excellent point.

> One could have a 4 layer patch that assigns each layer to exclusive 
ranges of midi note number, or exclusive ranges of key-on velocity 
for example. I.e. velocity 0-40 sounds layer 1, vel 41-61 sounds 
layer 2, vel 62-100 sounds layer 3 and vel 101-127 sounds layer 4. In 
such a patch, one could still hold down 128 separate and discrete and 
differently tuned voices.

Excellent example.  All the more reason to call the gear 128-layer 
sound modules/command stations and to include a section showing the 
flexibility of configuring the 128 layers.  (BTW, I like your use 
of "voices.")

> On the other hand, if one programs a patch to layer two voices at 
all time, you are essentially playing two completely different sounds 
(each with their own adsrs, filters, amps, etc) at the same time, as 
if you midied two synths together, so yes a single keypress sounds 2 
voices, but the fact that it does so simulataneously does not mean 
they are now converted to 1 voice . . .

Ooops.  Not a good example in my opinion. Here, it seems you are 
using voice and layer interchangably.  I would argue that on a 128-
layer sound module a 4-layer preset spead over the full range of the 
keyboard yields 32 voice polyphony.

Consider your last example.  If an orchestra hit sample consists of 
64 different instruments played simultaneously and placed onto a ROM 
as a single instrument, and if that sample is assigned to L1 in a 
preset spread over the full range of the keyboard (and L2-L4 are set 
to none), you have 128 voice polyphony, not 8192 (128 * 64) voice 
polyphony. 

In other words, if you can press and hold only up to 32 keys at a 
time (or have a sequencer send the sound engine only up to 32 note-on 
messages at a time) without either additional note-ons not sounding 
or previously sounding note-ons cut off, you are operating with 32 
voice polyphony.  Even if the sampled ROM instrument being used on 
each of 4 layers was created with a chior of 72 human voices (18 
each - SATB).

I can hear it now: Expand your Proteus/Command Station to 9216 voice 
polyphony with the E-Mu CosmoChior ROM (MSRP $279).  [Each ROM sample 
to contain 72 voices.]  <---Tongue-in-cheek

---Steve

>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: steve_the_composer 
>   To: xl7@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 9:06 AM
>   Subject: [xl7] Re: polyphony, was "arpeggiator out useless?"
> 
> 
>   --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, aeon <aeonlux@a...> wrote:
>   > On 6/17/03 9:44 PM, "steve_the_composer" <smw-mail@p...> wrote:
>   > 
>   > > As long as we're talking about polyphony, let me ask, does
>   > > 128 voice polyphony = 32 notes x 4 layers per note?  Or do
>   > > I have 128 4-layer voices?
>   > 
>   > think of it as 128 total layers
>   > so 32 4-layer voices...
>   > or 16 4-layer voices with voice-chorus
>   > or 16 4-layer dual-link voices
>   > or 10 4-layer tri-link voices (for that killer dozen-detune-saw 
>   patch)
>   > 
>   > etc.
>   > 
>   > 
>   > cheers,
>   > aeon

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "steve_the_composer" <smw-mail@p...> 
wrote:
> Excellent suggestion for revised manuals (calling them 4-layer 
> presets). That would be better than what they did.

I agree the manual is missing an explanation of this point, but the 
one-voice-per-layer architecture is pretty standard for ROMplers, as 
is the reduction in effective polyphony caused by layering.


> Ooops.  Not a good example in my opinion. Here, it seems you are 
> using voice and layer interchangably.  I would argue that on a 128-
> layer sound module a 4-layer preset spead over the full range of 
the 
> keyboard yields 32 voice polyphony.

It does, but that's only because each note is playing four voices. 
You could tune those four voices to form a chord and get 128 separate 
notes. You could even do it in mid-note.


> Consider your last example.  If an orchestra hit sample consists of 
> 64 different instruments played simultaneously and placed onto a 
ROM 
> as a single instrument, and if that sample is assigned to L1 in a 
> preset spread over the full range of the keyboard (and L2-L4 are 
set 
> to none), you have 128 voice polyphony, not 8192 (128 * 64) voice 
> polyphony. 

Polyphony doesn't refer to how many samples are used but to how many 
complete voice channels are used. An orchestra hit doesn't count 
because you can't tune, filter or otherwise modulate any of the 
individual instrument samples (in fact, there ARE no individual 
instrument samples, because there is no way to separate out the 
instruments from the final sample). A four-layer patch uses four 
voices because each layer can be independently tuned, filtered and 
modulated.

Robotchas is right.  A voice is a layer is a sample is one standalone
instrument.  Think of a voice as a track on a hard disk recorder.  Sure
you can record your whole band to two tracks, using only two "voices",
but you no longer have individual control over each instrument.  In the
XL-7, you have 128 audio streams, each of which is a voice.  Some
things like stereo/chorus use 2 voices.  Layering two different
instruments together each uses their own voices.

*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.

-Aaron

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

--- 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

> E-Mu clealy refers to "4-layer synthesizer voices."

Sorry man, I'm not trying to pick on you here.  You're right.  That one
line in the manual is incorrect.  If you replace voices with patches or
presets, everything is alright with the world.

> Please show me in which manual or addenda there is any explanation

Page 152, Introduction to Preset Architecture: "XL-7 provides a 4 layer
instrument structure.  Each layer is a complete synthesizer voice"

Page 166, Voice Chorus: "Each layer with chorus turned on uses twice
the polyphony for that layer."

Page 170, Introduction to Z-Plane Filters: "XL-7 can produce 128
filters of up to 6th order or 64 filters of 12th order complexity. 
Therefore, if you decided to use all 12th order filters, XL-7 would be
limited to 64 voices."

I think everyone probably glossed over the introduction because, as I
said, every rompler/sampler manufacturer measures polyphony in the same
manner.  Sorry for the confusion.  Again, I'm not picking on you,
especially since you're a helpful member of the xl7 group, but to claim
that E-mu is trying to mislead you by having that single poorly chosen
word in the manual is a tad far-fetched.

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

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  See comments and smileys 8-) below.

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Eppolito <synthesis77@y...> wrote:
> > E-Mu clealy refers to "4-layer synthesizer voices."
> 
> Sorry man, I'm not trying to pick on you here.  You're right.  That 
one
> line in the manual is incorrect.  If you replace voices with 
patches or
> presets, everything is alright with the world.

Do you have any pull with anyone who writes the manuals?
"The extremely flexible yet easy to use 4 layer instrument 
structure . . . ." would work well in the intro.

> > Please show me in which manual or addenda there is any explanation
> 
> Page 152, Introduction to Preset Architecture: "XL-7 provides a 4 
layer
> instrument structure.  Each layer is a complete synthesizer voice"

OK. layer = voice; 128 layers = 128 voices.  I missed the implication 
of this line as related to polyphonic reduction.

I like the phrase "4 layer instrument structure."  That section of 
the manual would be a great place to add a short 2-4 sentence 
paragraph to let the user know how different layering configurations 
affect polyphony--with a see page 152 reference added to the 
introduction as revised above. 
 
> Page 166, Voice Chorus: "Each layer with chorus turned on uses twice
> the polyphony for that layer."

I saw that.  Definitely a clear (explicit) explanation.  I picked 
this up when I read the entire manual.

> Page 170, Introduction to Z-Plane Filters: "XL-7 can produce 128
> filters of up to 6th order or 64 filters of 12th order complexity. 
> Therefore, if you decided to use all 12th order filters, XL-7 would 
be
> limited to 64 voices."

Cool!!  Nice to know that using 12th order filters on all 4 layers 
only halves the polyphony unlike chorus.  Ooops.  Just tested this.  
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the polyphonic reduction 
works exactly the same was as with chorus.
"Therefore, if you decided to use 12th order filters on one layer, 
polyphony would be halved. If you use them on two layers, polyphony 
would be quartered, etc."

Preset chorus on all 4 layers of 1 preset + 12th order filters on all 
4 layers of 1 preset ===> 16 voice polyphony.

I get it now! 8-)

With such a preset--through the miracle of midi--I can send different 
controller data to most if not all of the individual parameters in 
each of the layers/audio streams that make up a single note-on note 
of which I can trigger 16, I think.  8-)

> I think everyone probably glossed over the introduction because, as 
I
> said, every rompler/sampler manufacturer measures polyphony in the 
same
> manner.  Sorry for the confusion.  Again, I'm not picking on you,
> especially since you're a helpful member of the xl7 group,

Thanks.  8-)

> but to claim that E-mu is trying to mislead you by having that
> single poorly chosen word in the manual is a tad far-fetched.

OK.  I will grant you it is a <*tad*> far-fetched, but not much more 
than a tad.  ;-)

Seriously, though, I guess I'm one of the few people that read major 
sections of manuals before purchasing gear. 8-) 

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

Sounds good to me.  8-) 
  
Now that were all smiley, some serious questions remain:  (1) where 
do I find out which samples/rom instruments are stereo samples and 
therefore cut polyphony in half and (2) what if any polyphonic 
reduction occurs with the use of multi-samples such as kits?

And on a different subject:  remote control via sysex seems 
incomplete--that is, most but not all buttons seem to be 
controllable.  (1) Am I right? (2) If I am, any possibility that all 
of the buttons will be controllable in a revised OS--particularly 
those related to the sequencer, eg. trnasport, pattern selection, 
looping functions, etc. (3) If I'm wrong, where can I get the 
complete list of commands?  (The latest sysex manual I have is 2.2.)

Thanks for past and future answers.

---Steve

--- steve_the_composer <smw-mail@...> wrote:
> "The extremely flexible yet easy to use 4 layer instrument 
> structure . . . ." would work well in the intro.

Actually, an "instrument" is almost synonymous with "voice".  A
"4-layer *preset* structure" is what the line should read.  Each preset
has up to four instruments (if you don't count links).  Each instrument
takes 1 voice for mono, 2 voices for stereo/chorus, 2 voices for 12th
order, and 4 voices for 12th order stereo/chorus.

> Preset chorus on all 4 layers of 1 preset + 12th order filters
> on all 4 layers of 1 preset ===> 16 voice polyphony.

16 *NOTE* polyphony.  Voice = one of 128 audio channels.  Note = a key
hit on the keyboard.  But while we're at it, why stop there?

All four layers chorus and 12th order, with two linked presets or
4-layer chorused and 12th order filters...  5 note polyphony!


> Now that were all smiley, some serious questions remain:  (1) where 
> do I find out which samples/rom instruments are stereo samples and 
> therefore cut polyphony in half and (2) what if any polyphonic 
> reduction occurs with the use of multi-samples such as kits?

Nowhere, and none.  =)  VERY few, if any of the samples in the XL-7 are
stereo, and I believe that goes for most of the other ROMs as well.  I
think the 16 Vln string sections in the Virtuoso might be stereo...

And, since polyphony is only used by voices actually sounding, having
lots of samples spread out in a drum keymap does not use extra
polyphony.

> And on a different subject:  remote control via sysex seems 
> incomplete--that is, most but not all buttons seem to be 
> controllable.  (1) Am I right? (2) If I am, any possibility that all 
> of the buttons will be controllable in a revised OS--particularly 
> those related to the sequencer, eg. trnasport, pattern selection, 
> looping functions, etc. (3) If I'm wrong, where can I get the 
> complete list of commands?  (The latest sysex manual I have is 2.2.)

(1) I can't remember  (2) if they're not already, doubtful  (3) try
turning on transmit front panel commands, hooking the XL-7 up to an
external sequencer or MIDI analyzer (like MIDI-Ox or SendSX), and
pressing each button in turn.  You should be able to see if it
transmits any sysex and if so, what it is.

-Aaron

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

--- Aaron Eppolito <synthesis77@...> wrote:
> All four layers chorus and 12th order, with two linked presets or
> 4-layer chorused and 12th order filters...  5 note polyphony!

Actually, that'd be TWO note polyphony!  4 voices per layer times 4
layers times 3 presets equals 48 voices per note!  You'd actually get a
bit more though, because it seems to kill links first...

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

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Eppolito <synthesis77@y...> wrote:
> --- Aaron Eppolito <synthesis77@y...> wrote:
> > All four layers chorus and 12th order, with two linked presets or
> > 4-layer chorused and 12th order filters...  5 note polyphony!
> 
> Actually, that'd be TWO note polyphony!  4 voices per layer times 4
> layers times 3 presets equals 48 voices per note!  You'd actually 
get a
> bit more though, because it seems to kill links first...
> 

With my test preset ((L1-L4 * 12th Order Filter) + (L1-L4 * preset 
chorus)) doubled it via Link 1, I got 4 note polyphony. That is, when 
note 5 was depressed, note 1 totally cut out.  With Link 2 added, it 
sounded like I stll had 4 note polyphony.

Your explanation about notes being stolen from links first may indeed 
be what's at work.

Thanks for the clarification.

Steve

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Eppolito <synthesis77@y...> wrote:
> A "4-layer *preset* structure" is what the line should read.
This makes sense.

> Each preset has up to four instruments (if you don't count links).
> Each instrument takes 1 voice for mono, 2 voices for
> stereo/chorus, 2 voices for 12th order, and 4 voices for
> 12th order stereo/chorus.
This makes sense, too.

> > Preset chorus on all 4 layers of 1 preset + 12th order filters
> > on all 4 layers of 1 preset ===> 16 voice polyphony.
> 
> 16 *NOTE* polyphony.  Voice = one of 128 audio channels.
> Note = a key hit on the keyboard.
Note polyphony (note-ons) as distinguished from voice polyphony 
(audio streams/channels) seems like a good distinction.  
 
> > Now that were all smiley, some serious questions remain:
> > (1) where do I find out which samples/rom instruments are
> > stereo samples and therefore cut polyphony in half and
> > (2) what if any polyphonic reduction occurs with the use
> > of multi-samples such as kits?
> 
> Nowhere, and none.  =)  VERY few, if any of the samples in the
> XL-7 are stereo, and I believe that goes for most of the other
> ROMs as well.  I think the 16 Vln string sections in the Virtuoso
> might be stereo...
> 
> And, since polyphony is only used by voices actually sounding,
> having lots of samples spread out in a drum keymap does not use
> extra polyphony.
This makes sense.
 
> > And on a different subject:  remote control via sysex seems 
> > incomplete--that is, most but not all buttons seem to be 
> > controllable.  (1) Am I right? (2) If I am, any possibility
> > that all of the buttons will be controllable in a revised OS--
> > particularly those related to the sequencer, eg. trnasport,
> > pattern selection, looping functions, etc. (3) If I'm wrong,
> > where can I get the complete list of commands?
> > (The latest sysex manual I have is 2.2.)
> 
> (1) I can't remember  (2) if they're not already, doubtful  (3) try
> turning on transmit front panel commands, hooking the XL-7 up to an
> external sequencer or MIDI analyzer (like MIDI-Ox or SendSX), and
> pressing each button in turn.  You should be able to see if it
> transmits any sysex and if so, what it is.

I did this as a double check.  As well, I made a preliminary chart of 
what happened from 00h to 7Fh with the remote button command. An 
older version of Cakewalk Professional did the trick.

Thanks for the suggestions.

---Steve

Hey Steve !
Now you're okay with polyphony, why don't you use your tremendous 
energy and come with me in lobbying for a new OS ?
Everybody can join us in asking for :
A-NEW-OS A-NEW-OS OS-2.5 REAL-TIME-TRANSPOSE NO-MORE-SUDDEN-JUMPS-IN-
PA-RA-ME-TERS NO-MORE-STUCK-NOTES-IN-PATTERNS-TRAN-SI-TIONS
Hey you all rendez-vous in front of AARON's appartements !!




--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "steve_the_composer" <smw-mail@p...> 
wrote:
> Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  See comments and smileys 8-) 
below.
>

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "xromxx7" <bonneau-c@w...> wrote:
> Hey Steve !
> Now you're okay with polyphony, why don't you use your tremendous 
> energy and come with me in lobbying for a new OS ?
> Everybody can join us in asking for :
> A-NEW-OS A-NEW-OS OS-2.5 REAL-TIME-TRANSPOSE NO-MORE-SUDDEN-JUMPS-
IN-
> PA-RA-ME-TERS NO-MORE-STUCK-NOTES-IN-PATTERNS-TRAN-SI-TIONS
> Hey you all rendez-vous in front of AARON's appartements !!

(1) Much more is needed to justify a new OS.
(2) Other than that, its a great idea; only I've aleady used up 99 
44/100% of my polyphonic voicing privileges on this board.  (So, that 
means I only have 3/4 of a monophonic voice to stream down this 
channel!)  8-)>

   Dr. Steve   

PS:  Anyone who wants to be offended, there's a half price special on 
this week.  8-)>

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "sincultura13" <sincultura13@y...> wrote:
> "Anyone who wants to be offended, there's a half price special on 
> this week. 8-)>"  <Where?

At the Monthy Python Convention Center.  Just make sure you find the 
right booth.  8-)>

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "steve_the_composer" <smw-mail@p...> 
wrote:
 
> > (1) Much more is needed to justify a new OS.

 If you start by saying this ..Well ..er ....I will never be able to 
convince Aaron alone ! though I'm sure that a few added 
functionalities would turn this beast into a standard.........

I want to be offended and that sounds like a good deal, but how does 
your service compare to getting in an argument with a New York lawyer?


--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "steve_the_composer" <smw-mail@p...> 
wrote:
 > PS:  Anyone who wants to be offended, there's a half price special 
on 
> this week.  8-)>

I can think of a couple things I'd like to see in a new OS too, but I 
get the feeling we were lucky Aaron and the gang managed to convince 
Creative Labs to let them do OS 2.0.

(Well, that's a two-way street, of course, 2.0 is what got me to buy 
one).

Hopefully their sales will do really well...


--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "xromxx7" <bonneau-c@w...> wrote:
>  --- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "steve_the_composer" <smw-mail@p...> 
> wrote:
>  
> > > (1) Much more is needed to justify a new OS.
> 
>  If you start by saying this ..Well ..er ....I will never be able 
to 
> convince Aaron alone ! though I'm sure that a few added 
> functionalities would turn this beast into a standard.........

--- In xl7@yahoogroups.com, "robotchas" <robotchas@y...> wrote:

> Hopefully their sales will do really well...

I think you noticed like me all the new XX7 users that came recently 
to this place ! With prices as low as they are now , I'm wondering 
why every people willing to do E-Music with hardware synth wouldn't 
get his own command station .....Chances are that this machine is 
entering some second life cycle now !!! With dying hardware samplers 
market and E-MU not releasing (and not planning to release) any new 
gear but just relying on command station sales....Why couldn't we ask 
for a new O.S ? What do we have to loose after all ? (Aaron is a 
system engineer chief not a cheap PC card assembler !!)