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

The big thing about the 2500 is:  it's BIG!  Too big to lug around to 
live performances as far as I'm concerned.  The mp/xl-7 is much more 
practical in this respect.  As for the faster processor, software 
counts more than a faster processor when it comes to performance!  
Everybody tries to "throw hardware at" under performing software.  Re-
writes are very expensive (and you know who such costs would be 
passed on to)!  Now, who knows how much advantage their software 
takes of the old and new processors?  Who knows if their software has 
been (can be) re-optimized (re-written) for the new processor?  (Who 
knows how it was optimized for the old processor?)  Without being 
able to look at and compile the source code for both processors I 
couldn't tell how much more effective the new processor is or where 
the optimization opportunities are in the code.  (Also, why couldn't 
Emu put some external storage on the 7s, e.g., smart cards????)  

zsk  
--- In xl7@y..., "atrance23" <neilaworking@h...> wrote:
> Yeah, oddly, from what I was able to gather from the MP-7, XL-7, 
Proteus 2000, and Proteus 2500 was that they were all essientially 
the same thing.  Seems that Emu decided to do what Roland had done 
with the MC-505 and JX-305 (and about about a billion other keyboards 
based on the JV); the MC-303 and EG-101; the SP-808 and SP-808EX, 
what Korg had done with the Triton and Karma but simply take a step 
further.....about an additional 2 steps further actually.  Re-
releasing the same synth in a variety of formats; each format being 
in a "initial" catered format for an individual; and each format 
holding the capability to essientially emulate (arguably) to a tee 
the capabilities of the other releases.  Take one product, and turn 
it into 4.  Capably a smart marketing move (IMO), as now you save 
money on actually having to develop different synth engines and such, 
yet still attack a broad spectrum.
> 
> The bulk of their latest keyboards, the XK-6, MK-6, and PK-6 
respectively seem to continue in this same vein for the most part; 
though they cut the polyphony in half on these for some reason.  
> 
> So the real question in regards to practically their whole entire 
line up becomes one of "How do you want your Proteus?".  As really, 
seems to be the same damn synth engine cooking underneath all of 
them.  I guess Roland arguably did this same thing with their JV 
synth engine though; as the seemed to just pack that into about a 
billion and one different things for awhile.
> 
> One has to wonder though in regard to the Proteus 2500 why Emu 
simply didn't go all out and release it under a more typical 
workstation format; as essientially, that's what it seems to be.  I 
myself am pretty disappointed with the bulk of workstations out there 
when it comes to how much synth power they pack.  Dare I say, I 
really think a Proteus can hang with, for the MOST part, with Rolands 
XV line (as I said, I haven't received my XL-7 yet, so this is 
speaking strictly from specs on paper), and though the Proteus line 
lack sampling ability, as strictly a (rompler) synth, I'd even dare 
to say that it has Korg Triton down right beat; and really, it seems 
that a decent keyboard controller addition is all that's keeping the 
2500 seperated from this line.  To this end, I will have to say that 
EMU has done a most impressive thing in how they decided to manage 
the price on what essientially is the Proteus line.  Want an XV, but 
find it just a bit to pricey?  Well, if you're willing to give up on 
a couple nifty control features (in regard to fancy aftertouch work 
and such) and a bit of effects power, and in return replace them with 
some filtering options, pick up something (anything practically) from 
the Proteus line and you'll most probably end up with the same thing 
the XV would have givin you if not more.  Want a Triton (but realize 
the darn things are overated =P  ), well, espically if you already 
have a sampler, go ahead and once again, simply pick up something 
from the Proteus line, and not only are you saving money, but your 
for the most part beating out what the Triton could have giving you.
> 
> Now again, maybe I'm wrong, and there is just more of a difference 
between the 2500 and 2000 than what I'm seeing, but there really 
doesn't seem to be.  I mean really, if one had a decent MIDI (knob) 
controller and a 16 (or more) track sequencer already handy to use, 
I'd consider them a fool to get a 2500 as they'd already have the 
capability to turn a 2000 into one.  More so, unless you just really 
want more knobs at your disposal, go ahead and just get a Command 
Station, then you got at least a one octave keyboard and what appears 
to be a more userfriendly sequencer (for live application espically) 
at your disposal.  I will note here, that though I'm not sure, I'm 
guessing that the 2500's sequencing abilities lie one overall step 
ahead of the Command Stations (falling short only in the live 
application department).
> 
> Anyhow though, I'm actually kinda hoping that there is something 
I'm missing about the 2500. As really, it just kinda disappoints me 
when companies seem to take (IMO) people for idiots and just pump out 
rerelease the same thing under a neo name and try to pass it off as 
some kind of "new and improved" kind of deal, when really, it's 
anything but.....sell it for what it is I say, don't lie and try to 
pass it off for something it's not.  Where the 2500 is concerned, I 
hardly think that the addition of simply a faster processor is enough 
to state that you've released a new synth engine.
> 
> Respects,
> 
>      Aaron Nesby
> 
> --- In xl7@y..., "drj0" <spec@s...> wrote:
> > interesting concept on the proteus.  Actually I was more thinking 
> > that The PROTEUS 2500 was nothing more than an xl-7 with a 
proteus 
> > rom and without the pads.  Maybe they should have called it the 
pl-7
> > 
> > hmmm....
> > > www.twenty3.tk