On 12/18/02 3:15 PM, "duderthedude2002 <ecc@...>" <ecc@...> wrote:
> hello, i own a triton le, i am looking to purchase an external
> sequencer to control my triton.
>
> (if you dont know about ifx routing hassle on triton this is why,
> limeted by 1ifx make onboard sequenced triton sounds flat thats why
> so many people use the triton and the mpc)
BTW, this is only true with the LE. The Triton Classic, Triton Studio, and
Karma all have 5 freely assignable and two master effects. This is one way
they got the LE so cheap - its effects poor!
>
> so basicaLLY im looking to not use the onboard triton sequencer and
> use an external one, my choices where the mpc2000xl and the mp-7.
>
I am not sure how this is going to help you issue with effects in the Triton
LE. Whether you use it with the internal or an external sequencer the same
limitations exist, same number of effects units. So if this is what is
motivating your wanting to use an external sequencer it really won't
accomplish what you are after.
> so far i like the mp7 cause of the sounds and since i have a sampler
> on my triton, i really do not need mpc2000xl sampler, i can control
> samples via midi.
>
> how powerful is the mp7 sequencer? more powerful than the triton?
> equivalent to the mpc? please give me some persuading advice one
> way or the other.
I've owned and used an MPC3000 (now an MPC4K) for almost three years. I
also have had a Triton Classic (now studio) for over two years, and I am a
current XL-7 owner. So I think I can give you some appropriate perspective
on the three sequencers.
First, the Triton sequencer itself is fine for what it is, a linear 16
track sequencer capable of controlling any combination of sixteen internal
or external channels. It has a very nice pattern sequencing facility,
including the RPPN which neither the MPC or the XX-7 have the equivalent of.
It allows independent looping of each track, again features lacking in the
MPC and XX-7 sequencers.
It does not really though support true pattern-style sequencing. You can
get this by using a separate song (sequence) for each pattern and then link
them together using the cue-list which gives the same feel in use, but it is
not as well done in practice as the XX-7 does it.
The Triton sequencer, in a Triton, is adequate to good for creating with the
Triton alone, or the triton and a small set of MIDI modules. it does not
handle a larger MIDI setup as well.
Editing-wise the Triton sequencer is fair-to-good. it has some good points
and it has some omissions. I rate it equivalent to the MPC and a strongly a
head of the XX-7 (which is weak in this area).
The Triton is not a good real-time tool in that basic features like track
muting are not available via quick setting button. This is a minor issue
with the touch-screen based Tritons and a major limitation with the tritonLE
and Karma more limited UI's.
Tritons lack any type of usable TR-style grid programming. The closest you
can get to this on a Triton is to press one of the arpeggiators into doing
this. a nice work around but no where near like the real thing.
The RPPN system is slick and a useful performance or composition tool. I
wish either the MPC or XX-7 had an equivalent. Maybe Emu will add something
like this in OS 2.0 :-).
In summary the Triton sequencer is a fine tool with some limitations. it is
stronger for conventional keyboard-style sequencing than for drum or
percussive sequencing. For a small system or a self contained system it is
OK.
One important aspect though that should be said. All of this was written
from the stand point of using the Triton's touch screen UI. The LE of
course lacks this. In my experience with the Karma UI and the sequencer I
found it not very inviting to use. actually it was rather clunky. I would
not want to personally spend a lot of time creating on the LE or Karma
sequencer. YMMV.
MPC2K (I really have never used one so some of this is based on my
understanding of the differences between it and the MPC4K).
the MPC sequencer is a much more "industrial strength" sequencer which was
geared to make sequencing beats from the internal sampler easy as well as
controlling somewhat complicated MIDI setups. It has a large number of
usable tracks per sequence, each of which can either control an external
MIDI channel (or channels via multi-channel operation - at least on the 4K
it can) or an internal multitimbral sampler engine. It offers a great deal
of real-time track parameters like velocity scaling and note duration
scaling. Quantizing and swing are some of the most musical ever made (many
claim this is the heart of the MPC "feel").
In use track creation is very smooth and inspiring. Work flow can continue
fairly non-stop between recording, playback, and editing. The sequencer
itself is very button-driven with most commonly needed functions a single
button press away (the MPC3K and MPC4K are much better at this then the
MPC2K which does not have as smooth operation)). Track creation is "player
oriented" as opposed to programmer oriented. Grooves are created by looping
a sequencing between two points and layering drum hits or instrument tracks
using real-time playing techniques. The highly musical quantize and swing
on record makes track creation using this method as easy as programming with
much more feel in my experience. people with good chops should excel with
this sequencer but even rhythmically challenged can make great sounding
grooves. My personal favorite recording feature, which I wish other
manufacturers would copy (hint, hint) is the repeat note feature where you
can press a pad and enter a repeating stream of that pad sound at a rate
determined by the current record quantize settings. What makes this cool is
just not the note entry but the fact that when using this feature the
pressure applied to the pad modulates the velocity of each note repeated.
Instant, breathing snare fills and things like hihat patterns.
The MPC is not a pattern sequencer but does provide enough sequences in
memory that you can use it that way. It has a song mode which lets you
string together sequences to make complete songs, similar in flavor to how
the XX-7 does it. When your happy with the arrangement there is a
"song->seq" command that lets you create a new sequence that is the
composite from the song. This is very useful for final edits and control
moves.
the MPC does have one nice feature that is great for track creation that is
not often found and that is the ability to play any two sequences at the
same time (the 4K extended this to include any seq and song). This lets you
do thinks like improvise long linear tracks over repeating short patterns.
This one gets a lot of use in my studio.
Editing features are strong but not particularly creative. all the basics
are there, just none of the niceties like Yamaha provides. As I said before
the MPC editing is superior to the XX-7.
real-time performance features include a way of calling sequences up for
next play (sequence recall, also known as pattern-call). Sequences are
picked by playing the pads. Real-time muting of tracks is provided by using
the pads as sixteen mute buttons. The MPC4K supports all tracks by bank
switching the pads, I think the MPC2K has a limitation here.
Biggest weaknesses for some is a lack of programming features like TR-style
grid programming (the 4K has attempted to correct this with some limited
success). Compared to the XX-7 the grid programming is weak but the
step-entry are about the same and MIDI event editing is much, much better on
the MPC.
This sequencer is a workhorse and can easily serve the role of controlling
an entire studio. Whether one loves it or not depends on what type of
sequencing experience they are looking for. the MPC is a clean slate
every-time you start. aside from loading save sequences for templates or
"repurposing" there are no groove-friendly patterns, drum loops, or even
easy-to-program ways of making beats. Basically you bang them out on the
pads and build it up from there.
I've saved the XX-7 for last because it is best to contrast this to the
other two. at the outset I consider the XX-7 a sleeper in the HW sequencer
battle for supremacy. It is not yet there but Emu has already brought it a
long, long way in the products life from its humble beginnings in OS rev
1.0.
Also it really is not fair to look at the XX-7 as strictly a sequencer. It
is a synthesis of control surface, which is quite good for the most part,
and its sequencer. the sound module is a definite strength and worth of
carrying the product in its own right. But even if you never used the
internal sound engine (why?) I believe that the sequencer and control
surface alone are worth the price of admission. they work very well
together.
I think also that the XX-7 has started from a different place than the
triton or MPC sequencers. Those were from day-one intended to be
workstation caliber sequencer and creation centers of which they both
succeeded with varying degrees of success. The XX-7 though, I believe (this
is strictly my opinion - Emu may disagree) was conceived initially to be a
performance sequencer that was heavily coupled to its built-in control
surface. I like to think of it as the new millennium MMT8, a sequence that
is meant for performing sequences that were likely *not* created on it
originally. For example, on a computer sequencer.
Initially the XX-7 was weak in the editing area. This has been improved to
a degree and I believe at least got the XX-7 over the hump form being
arduous to use for track creation to acceptable. Is it as good as it should
be? No, but again Emu is committed to continually improve this product and
listen to its customers. I am not sure any other manufacturer of HW
sequencers is really do that as well today as Emu is.
The Xx-7 is between the triton and MPC is raw sequencer power. It offers
only 16 tracks, yet each track can be a multi-channel track. You can, with
some sweat, make the XX-7 behave like a much bigger track sequencer. In
this way it is not unlike using a multitrack recorder where you bounce
tracks down. You can use the XX-7 in a similar manner to gain more
effective tracks.
it is pattern oriented to a fault, the 32 measure limit being the biggest
encumbrance. For pattern music that is long enough, for more linear style
sequencing it is too short. however, if you don't mind throwing out the
convenience of 4/4 measure notation you can use a super-size time signature
and have some very long patterns in terms of effective 4/4 measures. So
there is a work around.
It has a song mode that is really a simple single linear track which can
hold pattern call information as well as 16 MIDI channels of notes,
controllers, etc. Its not pretty but it does the intended job.
So as a pure sequencer the XX-7 is now a mixed bag. In some ways it is
below the Triton, in others better. It has a ways to go to equal the MPC.
But that is hardly the whole story. the XX-7 has a work flow that is
comparable to the MPC, and in some ways better, in terms of 'non-stop
action'. You can pretty much leave the Xx-7 in play mode and do your edits,
drop into recording, tweak sounds. Pretty smooth. The TR-style grid
programming works well, though it has some ease-of-use flaws that are being
corrected I believe in OS 2.0. Step entry works well. Event editing is not
the best but getting better.
As a performance sequencer this is the XX-7 is great. Separate dedicated
track mute buttons. Easy recall of next pattern. It has some nice creative
performance tools like the up-to 32 arpeggiators, which in many ways are 32
little independent step sequencers. Lots of fun.
Emu is getting this one right. Its already a very nice environment for
track create, except the minimalist editing features. The new OS when it
arrives should only make this better.
All of that said, here's my thoughts on your situation. The TritonLE
sequencer would not do it for me because of the user interface issue so I
would recommend moving beyond that. But hey of you already like it then you
should leave well enough alone. like I said in the beginning it will not
fix the LE's effects limitations.
MPC or MP-7? That is almost a life-style decision. With only the TritonLE
as the other piece of gear you really don't need the heavy-hitter sequencer
the MPC has. the sampling is somewhat redundant to the LE's, though I
personally would rather do percussive and loop sampling work with the MPC.
at least it can resample itself (at least I think it can). The MPC sampler
is a luxury you probably don't need if the Triton's is/can do the job.
The MPC is substantially more than the XX-7. In fact you could almost get a
full-bore Emu ultra series sampler for the difference. I know which sampler
I'd rather have!
The MP-7 today is a bit of a leap of faith unless it is adequate for you
today. I think the consensus here is that you can make some fine music
using just the XX-7's sequencer. Sure everyone wants it better but it does
work today.
The MP-7 is a fairly low risk investment. If you get it, use it beyond your
"take-it back" time limit and end up not liking the sequencer, or find it
under-powered, or OS 2.0 is not what everyone hoped you not stuck. the
control surface would be a fine addition to the Triton LE's arsenal or the
MPC for that matter (which lacks tweakable controls). The synthesizer
inside the MP-7 is very good with lots of ROM sound options (or your own
with a flash card from Emu and access to an Ultra-series sampler). It too
would complement the Le. Remember, the LE has only 62 voices of polyphony
and many Triton sounds use two layers so effective polyphony is 31. This
was a limitation for me on the Classic. the MP-7 gives you 128 additional
voices of polyphony. the MPC... 32 (and they are really only good for
simple sounds, loops, and drum hits).
My point is this. the best way to really decide this is to use the MP-7 for
a while. Live with it rather than read about it or demo'ing it in a store.
Your learning curve will be helped by this fine forums good number of
helpful, and knowledgeable people. if you end up not liking the sequencer
its still a great control surface and synthesizer. and it was cheap to
begin with, so what's the downside? Used XX-7s are in demand and fetch a
decent price.
(All this assumes finances can allow such flippancy about gear. I know that
is not always true.)
There is no best answer BTW. It all depends on your needs and approach to
making music, what you enjoy and what you hate. That is why in the end you
just are gonna have to try it for yourself.
Hit back with any additional questions.
drk
www.delora.com/music
www.mp3.com/zdrk
drk.iuma.com