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

Well, here is a thought, Jim Aikin from Keyboard magazine (whom I 
don't consider to have lower than average intelligence) said that if 
he had to take one synth with him on a desert island, it would be 
the XP50. Now I played the synth and hated the UI. However, knowing 
Roland, I waited 6 months for the upgrade, which was the XP80 and 
then the XP60, which had greatly improved UI. I bought one and have 
loved it from day one. I still have it in my studio. But I would 
have to agree with the XP50, that was one B***H to get around on.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Prana"In XL7 heaven"earth

--- In xl7@y..., "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:
> Wow. Bohemian.
> 
> Sorry you had such a bad experience with the XP-50. Despite the 
fact 
> that I have a pretty healthy complement and IMO good sense about 
> synths, I don't know crap about the XP-50 except that perhaps I 
used 
> one once in a rehearsal studio in NYC. Other than that I always 
just 
> passed it by (and all the other XP synths too)in the stores 
because 
> absolutely nothing about them caught my eyes (or ears). Frankly I 
> always wondered who was buying them while things like the Waldorfs 
> were around and better korgs, etc. (those are the ones still 
> demanding a half decent used price btw).
> 
> Anyway after reading about your poor experiences (and especially 
the 
> part where you said you paid a lot of money over months and months 
> to a guy for lessons on how to use it . . . . sorry to hear that 
> too . . .), I had to go check out some reviews of it online to see 
> whether you were just completely off your tree or not.
> 
> Well, the reviews are quite mixed--which tells me the synth is 
> likely as I suspected perhaps intuitively (or luckily): probably 
> crap. The reviews sum up into two camps as far as I can see 
> (discounting the completely off the wall true believers or madman 
> reviews): Either the reviewer seems to love it to death and 
defends 
> it, but usually has a textual style of writing that seems to 
> indicate they are a little lower than the average intelligence of 
a 
> monkey, OR the reviewers are pretty pissed at the instrument and 
> appear more mad at themselves for being so dumb to pick it up in 
the 
> first place, hoping to learn from their obvious mistake-meaning 
they 
> are smarter than the first bunch.
> 
> So, you are right. You made a mistake. But don't make the mistake 
to 
> lump everything into one pile. Every company has some clunkers. 
Also 
> these things are complex instruments. Many companies have only 
just 
> begun to realize that less than total gearheads want to play them 
> too and can be a good source of purchasers. So things like the 
MC505 
> and even the Emu XL7 and MP7 are abounding. They have deceptively 
> easy interfaces. I say deceptively because at first, many of the 
> true close-minded gearheads (nerds)(just as bad as the truly 
> clueless, IMO) thought that things like the MC-303, 505, 
electribes, 
> etc, etc, must be crap and not *real* because they were so easy, 
any 
> idiot could pick one up and press play (infringing on their 
> nerdiness). But the reality is that those tools are just easier to 
> use, yet among the most powerful music machines around. Both MC-
505 
> and the XL7 have the most rocking, deep and highly evolved 
synthesis 
> engines around. The Roland style of sample playback synthesis is 
> VERY similar to that of E-mus except that E-mu shows more of its 
> background as a modular synth company way back when with far more 
> modulation sources and destination than the Rolands (although 
Roland 
> had modulars too--but they never were their sole focus, like with 
E-
> mu. The MP7/XL7 seem to kick the ass of the MC-505 in the sound 
> department because of this and mainly because they are have room 
for 
> expansion ROMS, so the vast majority of users -- who are non-
> programmers (it ain't that easy)--won't get too bored. But as 
> discussed here before, despite the fact that the XL7/MP7 has a lot 
> of sequencer channels, the MC-505 has some pretty useful smooth 
> moves when it comes to sequencing that the E-mus haven't even 
> touched yet (maybe they will soon hopefully). For novice players 
or 
> those who are not using either machine to its fullest, many of 
these 
> differences are lost. No doubt, the best "turn it on, hit the 
> buttons and make it go" groovebox out right now are the E-mus, but 
> get deeper into real stuff, and things get to be less clear. The 
MC-
> 909, if it has expansion roms, and it doesn't trash all what was 
> good about the MC-505 could reign king for a while. Just keep your 
> finger's crossed, because when Yamaha announced the RS7000 there 
was 
> a lot of hope too. But Roland's background is better (despite the 
XP 
> boards) than Yamahas in this realm so I am more hopeful.
> 
> Get over the XP, learn from errors and move on. (and don't waste 
> time flaming each other either, who's more stupid? The first 
flamer 
> or the second?). Remember, you are only as smart as the person you 
> respond to. I am not proud. :)
> 
> Ravi