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

I have the MC-505 as well and have been using it for a while with 
the XL-1 for the nice sounds that are essentially the same as the XL-
7. I decided to purchase the XL-7 and sell my XL-1 because of the 
recent price drops and rebate, because the difference in price is 
not probably less than to upgrade to a turbo XL-1 and this way I get 
the extra knobs and a sequencer with a fancy light holder built in!

But I have to echo and respect Andre's very good and detailed 
comparison between the MC-505 and the XL-7. Soundwise, it is just a 
lot fresher. Sequencing-wise it seems to have more brute force, 
i.e., the 32 channels internal and external etc, but in terms of 
subtle, yet hightly useful and musical, features, the MC-505 is far 
more of an sequencing powerhouse. For live work, the MC-505's 
ability to allow you to effortlessly tweak tunings, levels, filters, 
etc of individual drum sounds, snare, hi hat, whatever, whether in a 
pattern, or even in an rps you are flying in, is not to be 
underestimated if you enjoy true flying by the seat of your pants 
live work. Sure, in order to have a great set, both the E-mu and the 
505 require you to prepare and set up a basic library of patterns, 
etc, but once the lights go on, with the E-mu, you are pretty much 
relegated to mutes/unmutes, etc and tweaks on tracks as a whole. 
With the 505 you can go off the deep end much more but hold it all 
together, if you feel you need to adjust the resonance on that 
cowbell clanking away or make it echo out, you need not have 
previously assigned it to its own track, you can hold down its 
keypad and tweak it, etc. Maybe it seems esoteric, but many small 
freedoms can add up to a whole lot of power.

I am glad that E-mu is on board to continue to make things better 
and implement feature request that they can. I do fear that many 
large wishes, such as things resembling rps or megamix are probably 
not going to happent because they seem to be quite off the 
conceptual horizon of these units the way they are now, and probably 
would require a gutting of the O.S. code which is likely never to 
happen.

However there are plenty of small things that have been done and 
probably can be done that is and will make things alot better than 
at day one and as long as E-mu stays with it, I am sure that the 
sequencing will progress along well.

For example, things like making the knobs in Volume/Pan Mode be able 
to address the midiB channels will be very welcome so we don't have 
to simply just look at that second row of indicators in the Mix View 
for nothing--ESPECIALLY when if you assign say a particular track in 
pattern mode to a different midi channel, i.e.,  track 15 is Channel 
2B (instead of normal 15A), then when you put the knobs in Volume 
mode and turn knob 15, it nonesensically adjusts the volume for 
channel 15a instead of 2B. This hardly is useful and basically means 
that unless you use channels 1A-16A for everything, you lose much 
realtime tweakability. Things like that need to be ironed out.

While I am leveling some minor criticisms, the harshest thing I have 
to say is, what is the furor about beats mode!? At first 
surprisingly the XX-7's didn't have the beats mode that is standard 
in the XL-1 and the rest. Now with O.S. 1.31 it looks like E-mu did 
good and spent considerable time and energy to get the whole beats 
mode in there. Bravo, well, maybe not. Is it just me or has beats 
mode, since its inception over two years ago been universally 
recieved and reviewed as pretty much a neat but basically useless 
feature, and not just because you can write your own riffs? Is 
anyone here honestly rocking and rolling with the beats feature not 
that it has arrived in O.S. 1.31. If so, speak up and let us know 
how it is more than a novelty to while away time when nothing else 
is happening.

Writable, or at least definable riffs are the key I think to a lot. 
If E-mu would implement a way to define a melodic riff as whatever 
is on a specific track of a specific sequence, then you would have a 
beats mode that you can write yourself by making patterns. The next 
logical step is to allow the trigger buttons to trigger such riffs 
and then you are in bigtime RPS territory.

Nonetheless I do not regret my XL-7 purchase at all because the 
price point has made it a no brainer fancy upgrade from my XL-1 and 
I like the extra outs and all. If I had sold my MC-505 I probably 
would be feeling somewhat distressed right now though. Good to have 
both!

Ravi

p.s. the only thing I worry about on lists like this that are 
blessed with company presence and input is that some members are 
either scared or intolerant of even slightly negative posts like 
this one and end up shouting down all dissent to show props for the 
company staff on board etc. (see unnamed german synth list starting 
with a W). Well I know Sean and others can take it and I expect they 
know that this post is meant to in all good spirits and not to 
condemn. Everything has room to improve. To contrast, on the MC-505 
list, we KNEW that Roland was permanently absent and as such we 
often had a real unadulterated good time bashing the hell out of 
every flaw we could find, no matter how much we liked the dumb box. 
Don't be afraid.

--- In xl7@y..., "Andre Lewis" <andrel@s...> wrote:
> Q) I thought the sequencing capability is good on an XL-7 , if  I 
use
> a software sequencer then
> 1) How easy is it to port between the PC and how easy is it to 
input
> external samples into EMU? How easy is it to input samples into the
> 505 from the computer?
> 
> Well the simple answer is that these machines don't allow samples 
to be uploaded
> into them.  They both expect you to have a sampler to play back 
custom samples.
> They do have loads of samples on board to choose from or make your 
own sounds
> from as patches.  There are tools to manipulate these on the 
computer and save
> these patches to the units, and in the case of Emu, you could pick 
up one of the
> more expensive EMU samplers and burn your own samples to a card 
for the XL-7
> however this means buying a sampler in addition anyway, so there 
is little need
> to buy the additional card.  Luckily sampler are extremely cheap 
right now and
> many are very full featured (I suggest a Yamaha A4000 or the EMU 
ES series as
> they are currently extremely cheap).  Bear in mind that the Emu 
also has premade
> sound libraries you can add to the machine, up to four slots 
total.  Each one
> adds patches based on the stock samples of the card, and you can 
make your own
> patches by combining stock samples from multiple cards.  The 505 
allows you to
> save patches, and also has a smartmedia expansion to save 
patterns/patches but
> is limited to the sounds allready onboard.
> 
> 2) Also if I use the software sequencer than am I using the EMU to
> create only my basic drum patterns, modify the built in samples and
> export it to the PC where I do my sequencing? I am not sure what
> strengths lie in the EMU apart from this if I dont use the unit as 
a
> sequencer?
> 
> The Emu has a well made sequencer, and as people have pointed out 
the XL7 has a
> 32 track sequencer, however (I may be wrong, I haven't checked the 
newest
> features on the OS update) you currently have no way to quickly 
mute/unmute
> channels above the sixteen in group A (There are thirty two 
logical tracks in
> two groups of 16 - Group A and Group B).  The mute buttons are 
assigned only to
> group A, meaning that if you want to modify the loop structure you 
will have to
> copy everything over to the new pattern and erase the data on 
those tracks you
> want muted in group B (the extra midi out port).  In addition 
people have to
> jump through some hoops to do the mutes during a song as well, 
although all of
> this is currently being worked on.  What this all really means is 
that for basic
> recording you will be fine, but if you want to do any serious midi 
recording you
> could start on the XL7 but you would want to finish on the 
computer.  Most
> people do this anyway regardless of the hardware.  The 505 has the 
same basic
> sequencer as the MC80 hardware sequencer, except for the track 
limitation and is
> therefore mature and very intuitive once you understand it.  
Probably too much
> to understand at first but you apreciate features on it like undo.
> 
> As for the other things out there, such as the electribes, most 
are very
> simplistic and are limited in order to keep costs down.  You will 
find that the
> Electribe ES1 can do crazy stuff because you can use samples and 
it has probably
> one of the easiest and straightforward sequencers out there, but 
it won't really
> compete with an XL7 or 505 with a decent sampler.  Here is a very 
decent piece
> of advice from the Chemical Brothers:  You can make incredible 
music with
> anything if you really understand it's limitations and make it go 
beyond it's
> original use.  The Roland TB303, TR606 and TR808 were never up to 
snuff compared
> to a real bassist or drummer, but look how many dance albums star 
these
> machines!  And they don't even have midi!  I suggest playing with 
the XL7/MP7
> and the MC505 and the Yamaha RM1X and see which one inspires you 
the most, You
> will be able to grow into them and really make them shine if you 
spend the time
> on them.  On the 505 scroll to a different preset, the default 
channel for the
> pads is channel 2, the bassline, but the keys play up two octaves 
by default and
> it sounds dorky.  On the XL7 press preset under mode/view and use 
the track +/-
> next to the screen to change tracks to audition sounds.  Press 
pattern to change
> patterns.  Use the audition button to check out a demo of the 
sounds on each
> track.
> 
> I don't want people to think I'm knocking the XL-7, far from it. I 
think it's
> incredible and getting better.  I just know I won't be getting rid 
of my 505
> anytime soon (Had it for three years now) because one it is very 
flexible and
> two it keeps surprising me.  Both the XL7 and 505 are smarter 
because they
> started with a full featured synth engine and then tacked on the 
sequencers and
> performance aspects so they are much deeper than they look.
> 
> Good luck,
> Andre