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

Folks
      I couldnt find a similar post and am new to this group. I was 
wondering if any of you had suggestions regarding a XL-7 vs. an MC-
505 unit from a beginners perspective? Which one is easier to pick up 
and understand? I am interested in trying some of my own mixes of 
other tracks/samples and then maybe trying something on my own.

thanks in advance for your help
vsr

Hi,

I\ufffdm an absolute beginner,too, and I think an XL-7 makes it easy to
understand modulationmatrix, Midi things and the routing things, but you always have
to fight with the manuals and the machine at the beginning, and at least it\ufffds
just music, and music can be much more complex than the technique in that
machine. The manuals are in English, but easy to understand at nearly all points
.
I don\ufffdt know about the MC-505, his timing seems to be safer,but who knows..
Cy,
Christoph from Germany

Folks
      I couldnt find a similar post and am new to this group. I was 
wondering if any of you had suggestions regarding a XL-7 vs. an MC-
505 unit from a beginners perspective? Which one is easier to pick up 
and understand? I am interested in trying some of my own mixes of 
other tracks/samples and then maybe trying something on my own.

thanks in advance for your help
vsr


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. 

-- 
Tippen, abr\ufffdumen, Million\ufffdr werden! Mit Tipp24.de macht Lotto Spa\ufffd!
http://bonus.gmx.net/?gid=41442879&prid=226

Well IMHO the XL-7 is a little easier to get into at first, but the MC505 has a
lot going for it as well.  The main reason you would want the XL-7 is for it's
sounds and that you can add different soundsets to it.  As far as synths go, the
synth engines are very similar with the exception of the modulation matrix (IE
patchcords) on the XL7, but this might be harder to follow and you may not use
it as much.  The 505 has the equivelant engine of the JV series and XV series of
Rolands, in fact the controllers on the JP8000 map directly on the 505.  The 505
is way more complex overall but has nearly the same general style synth engine
(4 sound layers x effects per layer + filter per layer + 1 of 8 LFOs per layer +
amp, pitch and filter envelope per layer + FM modulation). The 505 has a better
sequencer in that it has a really solid architecture and very well done drum
mode, allows you to mute drum portions without assigning a designated track to
them (The xl-7 requires you to assign each sound to a channel, therefore a kick,
hihat, snare, tom, cymbal, clap and ride will take up 7 channels if you plan on
muting/unmuting realtime).  If you are using these without a computer and you
don't mind the sounds the 505 wins hands down, since it is more mature and has
shortcuts to all functions. If you plan on sequencing with a computer the XL7
takes the cake, since it has a better interface for that.  They both have
quirks, though the 505 really is a comprehensive beast, but very deep and it
will take far longer to learn some aspects.  Live sequencing and recording =
505.  Soundset = XL7.  Effects = 505.  Appregiators = either (The 505 has only 8
user apregiators, however has things like chord mode where the bass notes are
apregiated but the uper notes are chords) so it's a tossup.  Controllers = 505
(Dedicated knobs and sliders for most functions) (XL7 = 18 knobs, no sliders -
505 = 26 knobs and sliders).  Keypad = XL7 with it's dynamics and aftertouch.
Extras = 505.  Pattern sequencer = 505. Track count and extra midi channels for
other gear = XL7. Crashes = both. Timing = both.  You have to play with both of
them a little to get the best timing.  Beats mode doesn't compare to RPS or
megamix, but RPS doesn't transmit midi.  The main drawbacks of a 505 are that:
1) it's complex, maybe too complex. 2) The sounds sound a little thin by default
unless you tweak them. 3) The two line display makes editing note events suck.
4) The 505 has no dedicated thru.  5) You only have 8 channels + RPS, however
this can effectively be the equivelant to 16 channels depending on how you use
them.  6) The filters can blow out your speakers and tend to overload your
inputs if overdone.  7) The filters and other knobs can sometimes have noticable
steping.  8) The sequencer can get bogged down with too much controller info and
slows down, though this is easily fixed by shifting events over a few clocks.
8) there is only 3 effects busses, 1 reverb, 1 delay and one multiblock.  If you
skim this list you will see that there are many small workflow issues and minor
bugs for the XL7, and it misses a lot of the functionality of the 505, however
it has one thing the 505 doesn't:  A team of dedicated people willing to listen
to the customers and release new features regularely.  The 505 has years of this
style of sequencing under it's belt, but it's not perfect.  the XL-7 is still
relatively new but has the ability to really grow into it.  I personally have
them both and have no interest in getting rid of either.  In fact they work well
together and accentuate each other.

Hope that wasn't too confusing ... ?
Andre

-----Original Message-----
From: vsr123 [mailto:vsr123@...]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 1:27 PM
To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [xl7] Help MC-505 vs. XL-7


Folks
      I couldnt find a similar post and am new to this group. I was
wondering if any of you had suggestions regarding a XL-7 vs. an MC-
505 unit from a beginners perspective? Which one is easier to pick up
and understand? I am interested in trying some of my own mixes of
other tracks/samples and then maybe trying something on my own.

thanks in advance for your help
vsr



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/

-----Original Message-----

> As far as synths go, the synth engines are very similar with the
> exception of the modulation matrix (IE patchcords) on the XL7, but
> this might be harder to follow and you may not use it as much.

...in other words, the XL-7 is far superior as a synthesiser, what
with the Z-plane filters, clock-based modulation matrix, arpeggiator
integration, etc. etc. I bought my XL-7 based on my experience with
the Morpheus and Audity, so the MC-505 wouldn't have impressed me much
at all.

In general, Roland stuff sounds lovely (and they have good preset
designers), but they've always been a little quirky and arbitrary when
it comes to control structures and modulation architectures. Their
user interfaces are varied, ranging from useable to execrable.

-- 

  nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- http://www.cassiel.com

I just bought my XL7 (like last week), so maybe I can give you a fresh
user's viewpoint of it comparitively...I have only used a 505 a few times,
but have used the mc-303 a bit more in depthly, and must say right off of
the bat, the only thing I really found appealing about the 505 was the light
sensor modulator...if Roland were a bit wiser, they would release a
standalone ligth sensor that could be programmed to modulate any form of
midi cc#, THAT I would buy! The only 3 things roland has released in the
last 6 years or so that have even slighty kept my interest were the 8080,
the dj2000, and the almighty mc-80 (which, I might add, I would have bought
instead of an XL7 if it had much larger ram capacity for midi notes).
In any case, enough babble, the XL7 IS great at what it does, but is fairly
bizarre to understand at first, mostly because the interface is very
lacking, imho, in intuitive natural controllability. Yes, it's internal
sounds are great, fairly flexible programibility for them as well (much more
than I had expected)...the resonance of the filters blows total chunks
though....a tad bit glitchy here and there still as well (digital hiccups
and what not). The sequencer is great and easy to use, the arpeggios are
extremely flexible in terms of programming, more so than any I've seen, and
you (seemingly) have alot of control over, well, alot of stuff. My biggest
complaint about it, is that everything is primarily orientated towards
useing the internal rom sound...I'm talking like a 80 to 20% lean
here....this box just dosnt like to play all that well with others. At first
I thought the thing was buggy, but am slowly learning thats it's more that
it's just wierd and unnatural in it's ways. Alot of things you may want to
do (like control your external synth with an arpeggio, setup a blank pattern
to be used for external gear, or even just changing some of the preset roms
in a pattern without changing them all) are all possible, but require a
large amount of sweet talking and finagleing work arounds in time consuming
and just down right odd ways...imHo, many of these things should be second
nature to it, but it seems more like it was designed with these things on
the back burner so to speak, almost like they were last minute additions to
it that were not integrated very thouroughly into the flux of things.
Oh, yea, the key pads blow as well.
All that aside, if what you are looking for is a 'groove' box on steroids,
then the XL7 is definately it...it blows the competition out of the water in
those regards. If all I wanted to do was make partially pre-programmed music
using only one synth engine, so that all of my music would have an uncanny
similarity to it, then this would by far be the box to do it with.
ByronE

--
Chaos exists as raw material from which to create order.

-Reverend Mother Superior Darwi Odrade

-----Original Message-----
From: vsr123 [mailto:vsr123@...]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 3:27 PM
To: xl7@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [xl7] Help MC-505 vs. XL-7


Folks
      I couldnt find a similar post and am new to this group. I was
wondering if any of you had suggestions regarding a XL-7 vs. an MC-
505 unit from a beginners perspective? Which one is easier to pick up
and understand? I am interested in trying some of my own mixes of
other tracks/samples and then maybe trying something on my own.

thanks in advance for your help
vsr



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/

Hi Folks
         First of all thanks to everyone who responded so promptly on 
this topic, that certainly gave me a lot of information especially 
the posts from Andre. I had one question on what was said in that 
port - which is copied and pasted below----

----------------------------------
If you are using these without a computer and you
> don't mind the sounds the 505 wins hands down, since it is more 
mature and has
> shortcuts to all functions. If you plan on sequencing with a 
computer the XL7
> takes the cake, since it has a better interface for that
------------------------------------

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?

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?

thanks again for all your help
vsr






--- In xl7@y..., "Andre Lewis" <andrel@s...> wrote:
> Well IMHO the XL-7 is a little easier to get into at first, but the 
MC505 has a
> lot going for it as well.  The main reason you would want the XL-7 
is for it's
> sounds and that you can add different soundsets to it.  As far as 
synths go, the
> synth engines are very similar with the exception of the modulation 
matrix (IE
> patchcords) on the XL7, but this might be harder to follow and you 
may not use
> it as much.  The 505 has the equivelant engine of the JV series and 
XV series of
> Rolands, in fact the controllers on the JP8000 map directly on the 
505.  The 505
> is way more complex overall but has nearly the same general style 
synth engine
> (4 sound layers x effects per layer + filter per layer + 1 of 8 
LFOs per layer +
> amp, pitch and filter envelope per layer + FM modulation). The 505 
has a better
> sequencer in that it has a really solid architecture and very well 
done drum
> mode, allows you to mute drum portions without assigning a 
designated track to
> them (The xl-7 requires you to assign each sound to a channel, 
therefore a kick,
> hihat, snare, tom, cymbal, clap and ride will take up 7 channels if 
you plan on
> muting/unmuting realtime).  If you are using these without a 
computer and you
> don't mind the sounds the 505 wins hands down, since it is more 
mature and has
> shortcuts to all functions. If you plan on sequencing with a 
computer the XL7
> takes the cake, since it has a better interface for that.  They 
both have
> quirks, though the 505 really is a comprehensive beast, but very 
deep and it
> will take far longer to learn some aspects.  Live sequencing and 
recording =
> 505.  Soundset = XL7.  Effects = 505.  Appregiators = either (The 
505 has only 8
> user apregiators, however has things like chord mode where the bass 
notes are
> apregiated but the uper notes are chords) so it's a tossup.  
Controllers = 505
> (Dedicated knobs and sliders for most functions) (XL7 = 18 knobs, 
no sliders -
> 505 = 26 knobs and sliders).  Keypad = XL7 with it's dynamics and 
aftertouch.
> Extras = 505.  Pattern sequencer = 505. Track count and extra midi 
channels for
> other gear = XL7. Crashes = both. Timing = both.  You have to play 
with both of
> them a little to get the best timing.  Beats mode doesn't compare 
to RPS or
> megamix, but RPS doesn't transmit midi.  The main drawbacks of a 
505 are that:
> 1) it's complex, maybe too complex. 2) The sounds sound a little 
thin by default
> unless you tweak them. 3) The two line display makes editing note 
events suck.
> 4) The 505 has no dedicated thru.  5) You only have 8 channels + 
RPS, however
> this can effectively be the equivelant to 16 channels depending on 
how you use
> them.  6) The filters can blow out your speakers and tend to 
overload your
> inputs if overdone.  7) The filters and other knobs can sometimes 
have noticable
> steping.  8) The sequencer can get bogged down with too much 
controller info and
> slows down, though this is easily fixed by shifting events over a 
few clocks.
> 8) there is only 3 effects busses, 1 reverb, 1 delay and one 
multiblock.  If you
> skim this list you will see that there are many small workflow 
issues and minor
> bugs for the XL7, and it misses a lot of the functionality of the 
505, however
> it has one thing the 505 doesn't:  A team of dedicated people 
willing to listen
> to the customers and release new features regularely.  The 505 has 
years of this
> style of sequencing under it's belt, but it's not perfect.  the XL-
7 is still
> relatively new but has the ability to really grow into it.  I 
personally have
> them both and have no interest in getting rid of either.  In fact 
they work well
> together and accentuate each other.
> 
> Hope that wasn't too confusing ... ?
> Andre
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vsr123 [mailto:vsr123@y...]
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 1:27 PM
> To: xl7@y...
> Subject: [xl7] Help MC-505 vs. XL-7
> 
> 
> Folks
>       I couldnt find a similar post and am new to this group. I was
> wondering if any of you had suggestions regarding a XL-7 vs. an MC-
> 505 unit from a beginners perspective? Which one is easier to pick 
up
> and understand? I am interested in trying some of my own mixes of
> other tracks/samples and then maybe trying something on my own.
> 
> thanks in advance for your help
> vsr
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> xl7-unsubscribe@y...
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

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

I have both...if you are composing original material then go with the 
xl-7, if you want prepackaged backgrounds with a good bit of extras 
grab the 505.

--- In xl7@y..., "David Jones" <spec@s...> wrote:
> to me it's easy.
> 
> 505 = fisher price
> xx7 = Porche
> 
> I have owned the 505 in the past, and it was a decent unit.  But 
the xx7 architecture is so advanced in comparison.
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Nick Rothwell 
>   To: xl7@y... 
>   Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 4:13 AM
>   Subject: Re: [xl7] Help MC-505 vs. XL-7
> 
> 
>   > As far as synths go, the synth engines are very similar with the
>   > exception of the modulation matrix (IE patchcords) on the XL7, 
but
>   > this might be harder to follow and you may not use it as much.
> 
>   ...in other words, the XL-7 is far superior as a synthesiser, what
>   with the Z-plane filters, clock-based modulation matrix, 
arpeggiator
>   integration, etc. etc. I bought my XL-7 based on my experience 
with
>   the Morpheus and Audity, so the MC-505 wouldn't have impressed me 
much
>   at all.
> 
>   In general, Roland stuff sounds lovely (and they have good preset
>   designers), but they've always been a little quirky and arbitrary 
when
>   it comes to control structures and modulation architectures. Their
>   user interfaces are varied, ranging from useable to execrable.
> 
>   -- 
> 
>     nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- 
http://www.cassiel.com
> 
>   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   xl7-unsubscribe@y...
> 
> 
> 
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service.

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

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. 

>>>Agreed Ravi, the mc505 is much better at letting you control your set 
flow and experiment live, while keeping everything under wraps.  The 
XX-7's pretty much require you to have your entire set preplanned, in 
order to do it smoothly.  However, let's not forget summer NAMM starts 
next week, may EMU have some surprises? <<<

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 the archives, there was plenty of this going on before the OS 1.31 
upgrade :) <<<

rEalm