Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    Unless it's real important to you to be able to program the sequencer
    software yourself (to add, delete or modify functionality), there's
    not a whole lot of difference between a disk-based sequencer like
    the MC500 and a more "general purpose" computer, other than the
    portability issue, where an MC500-like approach should win hands
    down.
    
    One thing that a general purpose machine can do that an MC500-like
    machine can't is provide a comprehensive "user friendly" user
    interface.  Even this, however, is not a forgone conclusion, as
    Roland has already demonstrated with its S50 video interface.  Just
    hook up a monitor (color if you have one) and you get a full blown,
    full screen interface.  Rumor has it that mouse support is also
    in the works.  The MC500 won't accommodate such an enhancement,
    but the "hardware" can be substantially updated by just booting
    from a new disk of software (at Roland's leisure of course.)
    
    Regarding durability, a dedicated sequencer probably wins here,
    as its designers could expect it to see road use, less likely for
    a general purpose PC.  The Mac with its backpack is an obvious
    exception.  Even an MC500 should be roaded with a case, and a nice
    case is probably going to cost $150.
                                  
    Disk access times should be about the same in both cases.
    
    You're not likely to see patch librarian type stuff in a dedicated
    sequencer for some time, but there's no real reason why it couldn't
    be done.
    
    Incidentally, the MC-500 wish list was not meant to detract from
    what it already does, which is pretty amazing.
    
    len.
    

    
    As I own one of each I guess it might be worth putting in 2 pence
    here.
    
    I bought the CX5 and sequencer first and it's pretty good.
    
    I bought the Qx5 next and it's better. It's portable and I have
    been using it in playlive situations where it not having a disk
    is something of a limitiation but using the tracking and macro
    capabilities it has been very successful. The CX5 sequencer had
    limitations but for all that was a dream to use. I would estimate
    that from a basic song idea, either a patch or a bass riff, that
    you can nock up quite a lengthy piece of music in < 5 minutes. To
    be refined later on the Qx5. I can use the Cx5 almost without a
    screen these days and have done in live situations. I would have
    only hooked up a screen in the event of problems.
    
    I have never found the dedicated Qx5 quite that simple although
    the facilities are far better than that on the Cx5 and it is my
    ultimate midi storage point for all my works(sic). 
    
    When I'me just diddling about I use the CX5.
    
    I think the answer is it's horses for courses. In house the best
    thing is proabably a compter based system. Outdoors stick to the
    real dedicated thing.
    
    				Paul. 

    re> .1
    	Len, could you explain what you meant by S50 video interface
    and mouse support?  You said that the MC500 won't accomodate such
    enhancements, so what are they enhancements to?
    
    	I've been debating the computer vs sequencer issue for a couple
    of months now, as I will soon be purchasing one or the other.  inspired
    by Len's review of the MC500 (and help from him on specific questions
    via mail) it looks as though that's what I'll be going with.
    	My ultimate system would be a computer system able to run many
    kinds of software (patch librarians, voice creating software, as
    well as sequencing) that would have a full video screen and
    (typewriter) keyboard, both of which would be unattached to bring
    the unit out live (and the unit would still have a small LCD display
    to use live).  Now if the MC500 has the ability to do this (i.e.
    S50 video interface?), fantastic!
    
    	Ron

Ever since checking out Steve Klosterman's ESQ-1, I have been aware of the 
benefits of a heavy-duty sequencer.  This has helped me to better understand 
the discussions going on here, which in turn will help me to make a 
better-educated decision.

I have heard the Lechmere is having a hfl-price sale this week on returned 
Christmas goods, and I am hoping to go tonight to see if anyone returned any 
microcomputers.

Since I am a bassist, I do not intend to ever gig with any of my high-tech 
equipment or bring it with me anywhere.  Thus, dedicated equipment is less 
important to me than good clean quick human interface.  It seems to me that a 
computer is my best bet, perhaps even for sampling but at least for 
sequencing.  I still don't understand how it's done, though.  Is it through 
MIDI?  Is a MIDI interface (expensive?) for the microcomputer required, or is 
that a standard feature on micros?

I like the Amiga the best, the Atari looks nice but how reliable?  Don't care 
for the MacIntosh, but it has the best software.  Amiga appears to be doing 
well in Europe so may not be the dead horse everyone thought.  And Mac 
software is being converted to the Amiga rather rapidly.

My drum machines (the latin perc sold today to a participant in this 
conference, in fact) were put on sale because of my realisation that the way 
in which I use drum machines is the way in which I'd RATHER use a powerful 
sequencer.  That is, I like the metronome or click track to keep things tight, 
prefer to lay down chords first, then either some percussion or lead lines, 
then finally the bass.  Obviously, this approach doesn't require a drum 
machine; just access to drum samples and access to a click track and pre-mix 
capabilities such as a good sequencer.

Fortunately, people in this conference are starting to recognise that we all 
have different needs and that the ideal solution to a given problem may be 
different for each of us.

At the same time, a limited budget is a limited budget.  One always has to 
debate whether having less than what one needs is worse than having nothing 
at all.  That is what I decided when I sold my QX7 to Brad, and is apparantly 
what he is deciding now.  It is also what I decided about keyboards.

Does anyone know the exact date of NAMM?  The stores should have info within 
two weeks of that.  I plan to go to LaSalle for their special sale tomorrow, 
but doubt I'll buy anything except POSSIBLY some signal processing equipment.  
I seriously doubt the Yamaha QX5 will retain its value as well as a 
microcomputer, or that it even has as much bang for the buck.  Buying two 
QX7's is probably a more viable solution for those on a limited budget.  Or 
QX21's, if that's what they're called now.


				Mark

    The S50 is Roland's high end sampler.  It comes with builtin support
    for an RGB or monochrome monitor.  You just plug in the monitor,
    and voila, you have a visual interface.  Full screen menus, waveform
    editing, loop point selection from a visual display of the sample,
    etc., all the stuff that you normally only get by hooking up a computer
    to the sampler, except now you don't have to move data between the
    sampler and the computer.  Roland is rumored to be adding mouse
    support to this interface, so you can select samples by using the
    mouse to move the cursor (rather than the S50's control buttons),
    point to places in the sample, etc.  I don't know where you plug
    the mouse in, as I don't think the S50 has a mouse port.  Maybe
    they will build a mouse port to MIDI system exclusive adaptor.
    
    The MC-500 does not have a monitor output, and adding one would
    probably require significant hardware modifications regardless of
    new software supplied on disk.
    
    len.
    

    I am involved in making the sequencer/pc decision myself.  
    
    I am the keyboard player in a local GB band, and our guitarist/vocalist
    (having run out of toys in his own arena to spend money on) is
    branching out in the keyboard area, for his own use in his studio and
    for my use when we play out. 
    
    So far he has purchased 3/4 of the Matrix 6R I use, a mirage, a DDS-1
    (or whatever - the korg drum machine).  For a while we had a QX21
    sequencer (ok but no disk), traded that (plus more bucks) in for the
    SQD-1 (better but still has limitations) and now the choices are: 
    
    - MC500  (about $1200)
    - QX1    ( $2600 - never heard of it before, better be awful good)
    - MacIntosh with the "total music system" (never heard of it before
      apparently includes the midi interface plus sequencer software).
      (about $2400)
    
    I believe I can educate myself about the features of the MC500 and
    MacIntosh reading this notes file and the various magazines, but
    can anyone tell me about the QX1?  (And QX5, QX7??)  Why is it so
    expensive?
    
    Also, has anyone actually taken a MacIntosh to live performance?
    We can't afford roadies, so we would be transporting it carefully
    ourselves, but I'm still afraid to take any PC on the road.
    
    Any other input?
    
    Thanks in advance,
    
    Guido

    
    I actually had a QX1 on loan for about 2 days with a view to purchasing
    one. You can  get them in the U.K. for a knock down proce at the
    moment. 799 pounds. I think this machine is only really usefull
    if you have a TX816 rack and a Yamaha drum machine. Whilst it's
    configuration was extrememely comprehensive it wold have been a
    real pain to use. The following are the reasons. It has 8 seperate
    midi outs. Only port 8 sends the midi clock. You can only hear the
    synth you are recording on by attaching it the midi Thru and then
    repatching it to the channel you want to use. The disk drive was
    great and would take all those spare mini-floppies we all have lying
    about. But I just couldn't get to grips with the operating system.
    I think you must have to have a very complex midi system to make
    this machine viable.
    
    As stated above somewhere I do have a computer based system but
    also purchased the Qx5 for live work. It's dead easy to use. Only
    has one midi out so I can just hang everything of it. It has just
    about enough storage for 20 mins worth of a set, if used frugally.
    There is no drive which is a bind but Yamaha are producing a midi
    dump drive within the next couple of months if this works well I
    will continue to use the Qx5. 
    
    At the moment, as I have also said somewhere else
    for out and out live work (I do it about once a blue moon) the
    MC500 has got to be the best bet, because of it's portability (they
    even produce a dedicated hard case for it) and the drive.
    
    				Paul                               
    

I have decided to purchase an Atari 1040ST.  $900, plus $200 for Dr. T 
sequencer package.  I hear Mac's go for $3500, and Amiga's for close to that 
for a complete system.  The Atari has as much memory as the Mac.  I like the 
user interface better, and it seems to have been designed with musicians in 
mind.  MIDI port is built in, etc.  I don't need the fancy graphics the Amiga 
has.  I will be using it mostly for the music.  Lots of software is being 
written for Atari, including a super sampler package I've heard will blow away 
most of the hardware samplers on the market.

I'm waiting, though.  Maybe things will change, prices come down, new 
products, etc.  I see no point in buying the computer until I have a keyboard 
controller.  Just called Wurlitzer and they won't be releasing from the 
January show to customers until next weekend.  I'll try to find the right note 
to put that part of the discussion in.  LaSalle hung up on me, but I doubt 
they have info back yet either.

It's good to have this worked into my budget, and to know essentially what I 
should do.  Helps me plan everything else much better.  Maybe I won't even 
need hardware for voices before long; just a microcomputer, software, and a 
keyboard controller plus breath controller and MIDI cables!  Although I 
imagine software-resident voices or sound algorithms would be too slow to 
access and generally problematic.  So, maybe throw in a TX7 equivalent and an 
MKS20 for acoustic keyboard sounds as well.


				Mark

    To be fair, a fully configured Amiga (512K, 2 3.5" 880K drives)
    runs more like $1500 than $3500.  You can add another 512K for
    about $400.
    
    len.
    

    
    
    I bet some of you guys could see this coming.
    
    But to be really really fair if what you require is a completely
    integrated system on once piece of hardware, perhaps you should
    have looked at a CX5. It's the only machine I've come across which
    can act as a sequencer FM synth and my supplier's say, sampler all
    at once. The real trouble is an all FM system can sound pretty
    lifeless. 
    
    						Paul.
    

The Amiga price does not include a monitor.  The Atari price does.  I will be 
waiting until after getting a keyboard controller to get a computer, since the 
Casio CZ101 does not justify the purchase of a computer (I try to minimise 
playing it as it gives me cramps).

Prices may come down by then, the industry shake-out might be over with, and 
new products might be on the way.


				Mark

    Sorry, Mark, the Amiga price *does* include a monitor.  I repeat,
    you can get an Amiga with 512K, a color RGB monitor, and an 880K
    3.5" drive for about $1500 if you shop around a bit.       
    
    len.
    

Thanks, Len, there's nothing to be sorry about, you've helped save me from 
buying the wrong computer.  Besides, I'm going to be sharing it with my lover 
who wants speech synthesis (which the Amiga is supposed to be excellent at) 
type functionality as well as good word processing.

Someone else here at work informed me that Consumer Reports, in their attempt 
to make computers understandable to the lay person, screwed up again and made 
things sound even more confusing.  It seemed to me that any program should 
work on both b&w and colour, as long as the b&w has grey scale.  CR says 
something about text being hard to read on ALL RGB monitors EXCEPT for 
Atari's.  I have been informed that you can select resolution modes such that 
you have higher resolution (like b&w) but fewer colours, when you want text 
instead of graphics.  Makes sense to me as an engineer, and shouldn't have 
been too tough for CR to get across.  I thought, the way they described it, 
that maybe all micro systems have status flags that you set up through some 
"understandable" interface to indicate whether you are in b&w mode or colour 
mode, and that some programs barf on this status bit if it's off.

Well, I don't care about computer games, but I care about resolution and I 
care about coming software for music.  There isn't much for the Atari, I took 
a look.  Not much more for the Amiga, and lots for the Mac.  However, the 
Amiga has caught on like wildfire in Europe, so I don't think they're going 
belly-up and I think the software will be forthcoming.  Anyway, colour is 
worth $200 extra IF there is a way to get good resolution with it, which 
apparantly there is just by selecting the extra memory planes for that purpose 
vs. for the purpose of more colours (that is, eight planes would move to 
doubled-up four planes, fewer colour choices but double resolution, for 
example, depending on what type of technology is being used in micros).

I've heard the Amiga holds up well on stage, too, which one would not expect 
of either the Atari or the Mac based on previous reports.


				Mark

    I read a lot of text on my Amiga, and while it's certainly not the
    best I can imagine, it's more than just usable.  Also, since the
    Amiga provides a garden variety NTSC video output, you can hook
    up a monochrome TV and it will work fine; the software doesn't care.
    
    The Amiga does trade colors for resolution, but not in the way you
    suggest.  You can get 320 by 200 resolution with 32 colors (quite
    dramatic colors, I'll add, selected from a palette of 4096 possible
    colors), or 640 by 400 resolution with 16 colors.  Black and white
    are special cases, and there are tools available that allow you
    to map the colors onto whatever gray scale you want.  There are
    also 320 by 400 and 640 by 200 modes if you want.
    
    There is so far more music software for the Atari than for the Amiga,
    but the Amiga will catch up.  The two most promising are Electronic
    Arts' Deluxe Music Construction Set and Roger Powell's Texture.
    I have Mimetics' Soundscape, and it is useless to me functionally
    and seriously bugridden as well. I hear rumors that the next release
    will be much better.  But right now, it's really a graphics machine,
    and in that regard nothing else comes close.
    
    For music, though, nothing can touch my MC500.  I use my Amiga almost
    entirely for recreation (if I can't play my drums there's nothing
    like blowing up a few tanks in Skyfox to work off the day's
    frustrations, or going bonkers with Marble Madness or Mindwalker,
    both truly dazzling animations), or tie it up for days at a time
    computing the finer points of the Mandelbrot set (I now have over
    a 100 stunning color slides of the set) or generating fractal images
    using the diffusion limited aggregation algorithm.
             
    len.
    

    Rereading my reply, it occurs to me that my remark about black
    and white being "special cases" might be misinterpreted.  What I
    meant was that black and white are colors, and you can set up the
    color map to produce nominally monochrome output, include 16 or
    32 level gray scales, depending on the chose resolution.
    
    Warning though, the current Amiga monitor (model 1080) has a low
    persistence phosphor, and high contrast screens flicker noticeably
    at 400 line resolution due to the lower effective framing rate (The
    additional lines are achieved by offsetting the vertical scan half
    a line width during alternate frames, a technique called interlace.)
    If you are mainly interested in photographic output ultimately,
    this is not an issue.  I have made 16" x 24" prints from slides
    of 640 * 400 Amiga screens and the pixels are not resolvable by
    eye from more than a few feet back.     
    
    len.
    

    
    (Flame on)
    
        I hate to tell you this, but I _had_ to say it: the 1040ST is a
    _much_ better machine than the Amiga (the Amiga has _severe_ system
    software braindamage).
    
    
    I've had an ST for a year now, and it's held up (no problems
    whatsoever) under a LOT of abuse. The ST was designed with
    music-master-node in mind -- its MIDI ports are very robust.
    
    The Amiga, on the other hand, was designed to be a video game (this
    really is true; I'm not exaggerating). Commodore decided to
    reengineer it into a general-purpose computer... What can you say
    about a machine that has a hardware BLT'er, but turns the CPU off
    when it's in use?!??!
    
    (Flame off)
    
    The "resolution problem" on the ST is trivial -- don't buy the RGB
    monitor! The Monochrome monitor runs all the serious applications--
    the color-only software is generally games, and I don't think you're
    interested in that...
    				- HBM

    More amiga bullshit from an Atari ST owner.
    
    You don't know what you're talking about.
    
    Tell people what you like about your ST, but you've got no basis
    for pissing on the Amiga.  There are an awful lot of *very* satisfied
    Amiga owners out there.
    
    You'll never hear an Amiga owner run down the ST, although none
    of us would ever buy one.   Why are ST owners so overtly hostile?
    
    The Amiga *does not* "turn the CPU off" when the blitter runs.
    "Flame on" indeed.  When's the Atari blitter going to appear...
    And who needs color anyway?  Color's only useful in "games", right?
    Who cares about serious graphics?
    
    len.
    

    Re: .17
    
    You tell'em Len!  I am also an Atari ST owner who might have bought
    an Amiga if I had more bucks.  As it turns out, I am glad I bought
    the Atari for the monochrome quality, but I could have also enjoyed
    the Amiga's color, and I might have made use of the multitasking.
    
    						-Dave

	This seemed like the most appropriate place to post this...

	Does anyone have a track record of toting a computer to and from gigs?
It would seem that for ease of use, a computer with sequencing software is the
best bet, but for road-worthiness, a dedicated box is the ticket.  Theoretically
at least.

	If there are any of you out there that have gigged with a CPU and 
monitor (,...), what's it been like?

	By the same token, how many of you out there have travelled about with
a dedicated sequencer, but have had to load via tape?  What's that like in the 
real world?

	Dan

    I haven't toted a computer to a gig, but I've done the next worst
    thing: toted a computer to a computer music demonstration.
    
    A couple of years ago I demonstrated my Apple+MIDI "home music studio"
    to a local middle school (6th, 7th and 8th-graders).  I disassembled
    everything the night before and loaded it into the car.  The school
    building opened only about half an hour before the first class,
    so I spent a frantic half hour carrying equipment up to the second
    floor and stringing cables.  By the time the class started all the
    boxes were in place but only the DX7, mixer and amplifier were working,
    so the "demo" consisted mostly of holding up boxes and explaining
    what they were for.
    
    One of the instructors played the DX7 at the end of the lecture:
    he really seemed to enjoy the variety of percussion sounds, and
    I think the kids liked what he did more than what I did.
    
    Between classes I continued to work on the cabling.  By the fifth
    class it was all working and I could demonstrate the sequencer.
    
    Three days later I repeated the exercise for the other five classes.
    The practice didn't help,  I still couldn't set it all up in 30
    minutes.  At the end of one of the lectures the instructor was nowhere
    to be found, so I asked Simon Szeto's son, Greg, to play the DX7. 
    He did very well.  They video taped the lecture, even though I told them
    it would be obsolete in three years.  I talked to the head of the music
    department a couple of months ago--he admitted that they hadn't used
    the video tape yet. 
    
    If I ever do this again I will demand more setup time.  That's the
    only lesson I can pass on to a gigger from this experience: it takes
    a long time to set up a computer-based sequencer--unless you have
    a very simple setup give yourself at least an hour from arrival
    on-site to producing your first note.
        John Sauter

    I've used a C-64 based setup with my 3 piece group for a couple of
    years now. No problems. We don't play out very much, but we've probably
    done 10-15 shows in that time. The Commodore sets up pretty easily,
    basic keyboard/cpu, disk, monitor configuration with a MIDI adapter
    hanging out of the cartridge port. I've put together a stand using a
    sawhorse and a table top w/ brackets that holds everything and is
    portable. (I think most keyboard stands would work OK, but I didn't
    have the money). The whole setup (as well as my guitar effects) fits
    into a trunk that I've customized with dividers and foam. 
    
    I don't think setting this up takes much longer than putting together
    a keyboard setup. I'm usually finished (including my guitar and
    CZ setup) before either of the keyboard players gets their rack
    and synths together. The C-64 (w/ Dr. T's) handles all the patch
    changes and sequencing for 4 synths and a drum machine.
    
    It seems to me that the ideal computer for gigging out would be
    the MAC, with everything built into one package. I've seen some
    nice, very compact, travel bags for them.
    
    Rob
    

    Dan,
    
      I don't understand the problem.  When you have a dozen roadies
    and several Greyhounds for your equipment, you can even afford to
    use modular synths, not to mention computers. ;-).
    
    
    Seriously, I know several people who use computer based sequencing
    for gigs with little problem.  You are correct that most PC's aren't
    built as durably as most dedicated sequencer boxes (the IBM PC is
    an exception).  Still, I think they are durable enough.  You can't
    stand on them, but they won't feel the pea through dozens of matresses,
    either.
    
    Some nice features that the ST (1040 or new 520s) has (from personal
    experience, I'm not saying that other machines don't have these
    features, too) are:
    
         -  Its two piece construction--monitor + system/keyboard.
         -  Its lack of transformer boxes.
         -  Minimal cabling--2 power, one monitor.
         -  Its operability without a mouse. (you can use key
               sequences for mouse movement.  Quick, where's the nearest
               flat surface at your favorite venue?)
    
    
    Steph
    

    I've used a Roland MSQ-100 and MSQ-700 in gig situations.  We'd
    load one from tape while the other was playing.  We had no problems,
    other than the usual ones that aren't sequencer specific - like
    people stepping on cable connectors (DIN connectors, even metal ones,
    aren't "road ready").  Keep lots of spare data tapes around just
    in case.  Tape isn't exactly the modt reliable form of data storage
    on the road.
    
    len.
    

RE < Note 659.23 by DRUMS::FEHSKENS >

	Some questions...

>    I've used a Roland MSQ-100 and MSQ-700 in gig situations.  We'd
>    load one from tape while the other was playing.  

	How did you do this?  Weren't you ll occupied with playing music while
any one unit was playing?

>    in case.  Tape isn't exactly the modt reliable form of data storage
>    on the road.

	What kind of tape recorder did you carry anyway?  Was it a 'data 
recorder' (one that is manufactured for the purpose of data transmission), or
was it a normal deck?  Did you have some kind of wiring set up to make for
quick setup and use?
    
	Dan (who's decided to stick with older models without disk drives for
the time being)    

    re .24
    
    Well, we'd try to load'em both during the breaks.  We'd do 12 or
    so songs per set, about 8 of them with sequenced parts, the other
    4 or so in unadorned three piece arrangements (we were your basic
    rock'n'roll band - guitar, bass and drums - not three piece suits).
    That was, as it turned out, as much stuff as we could get into the
    two MSQs at the same time (about 12000 notes (real notes, not
    "events") all together).
    
    Since we sometimes programmed the bass part, one of the players was
    occasionally available for chores.  Sometimes the sequencer played
    keyboards and bass (I was always playing drums), so 4 hands were
    available, however briefly.  Mostly, though, we tried to have
    everything loaded and ready to go *before* the set started.  Trying
    to do anything in the middle of a set was usually as much trouble
    as you'd expect.
    
    We used a plain old cheapo cassette deck, not a data deck.  We had
    a spare deck just in case.  We had all the right cables, in triplicate,
    just in case.  I highly recommend labeling both ends of all cables,
    and bringing a "wirelist" that tells you what to plug in where.
    Make lots of copies so you can check things off as you do them.
    Once you have a hookup that works, change it only with the most
    compelling of reasons.
    
    len.
     

    I have a 520ST+ running SMPTEtrack with a 512K ram disk installed
    and I am able to get a whole nights worth of music loaded resident
    in the machine. Load times from a ram disk are a matter of fractions
    of seconds, so loading between songs is ok.
    
    						Andre
    

    
    
    Well I had both the Atari/Steinberg system and the Qx3 out on loan
    over christmas and they are both firmly back in the shop. 
    
    Being used to the Qx5 and it's operating system has and dedicated
    facilites has spoilt me in terms of being able to use a PC based
    system I guess. Although I realise I am going to miss out on some
    of the more esoteric aspects of the systems. Why ?
    
    Well with the Qx5 when I turn it on it is always in exactly the
    same state as the when I turned it of the night before. No loading
    of software no loading of songs etc. The QX5 will sit on my KX keyboard
    , Where do I put the atari screen etc and what do I set the mouse
    on. The QX5 just works when I turn it on and records what I put
    into it. Whith the Steinberg I have to set up tracks and sequences
    and give them names and move them around etc. Basically I would
    have been paying out 600 pounds to get a disc drive but lose my
    way of working. Oh I forgot. Where do you put the start/stop foot
    pedal on an atari. If my recording gear one side of the room and
    the PC is another who needs to shuttle between the 2 for each
    operation. So the Atari or any P.C. based system doesn't hit it
    for me especially when I sussed out I would require another 200
    poubds for a tape sync device.                                            
                                                       
    The QX3 was a different matter all the above things were O.K. the
    main Drawback was that the QX3 is a 16 track sequencer but it will
    only record and playback one Midi channel per track. So you don't
    end up, as I do at the moment with one sequencer with the whole
    of the Chorus or intro loaded into it to be copied a number of times
    or called as a macro. This seesm to me like a major step backwards
    over the infintely flexible but only 8 tracked QX5.
    
    So I have retained the QX5 and just improved my tape backup process
    which for each song takes about 2 minutes. But then I don't haave
    to wait for 2 minutes at the beginning of each session for the
    sequencer software to load. To sum the these ramblings up I am going
    to stick with the QX5. In my humble opinion the QX5 is probably
    the most flexible H'ware based sequencer about at the moment. But
    I would probably buy an MC500 given the opportunity and a reasonable
    price.
    
    					Paul.
    
    				(Now what do I do with my Christmas
    budget). 
                                  
    

    re:-.1
    
    Yeah!  Ditto!  The QX5 is why I dumped my C64 instead of buying
    a MIDI interface and software.  Because I have the QX5 I can sit
    down for 5 minutes and actually make progress on whatever piece
    I'm working on.  Gee, I didn't know the QX3 couldn't handle more
    than one MIDI channel on a track!  BIG screwup in my book.  I use
    multiple MIDI channeling a lot.
    
    Steve_a_happy_QX5_owner

    A lot of Paul's problems with computers as sequencers would be solved
    if someone would come out with a rack mount PC and monitor.  The
    Amiga was initially promised in a rack mount version but it never
    materialized.  I have seen one IBM PC clone in a rack mount version.
    
    len.
    

RE: .27, .28

    Not to pick nits, but you always (read: ALWAYS) have to re-do your
    working habits to adjust to a new tool.  I also work in a loft (ceiling
    height = 6' at roof peak), and had initial trouble finding a habitat
    for the rodent - but you learn to make do. Seems to me that the problem
    is not so much with the method (ST) as with the tool itself
    (Steinberg). 

    I've used QX7 and ESQ-1 sequencers - and for quick and dirties (and
    even for more advanced stuff), they work quite well.  What they don't
    work well for is visual editing, nit picking (aka trashing a bogus
    note) and the like.  They also don't work real well in live situations,
    since tape load is a hassle (especially if you're a one man band). It
    comes down to being an issue of what *you* need for *your* application. 

    Now, although I haven't seen much of Steinberg's stuff, general
    impressions left me feeling a bit uneasy about plinking down that kind
    of $$$ for the features (or lack thereof).  But, just because PRO-24
    isn't too hot doesn't mean that the ST is also a stinker.  I intend to
    look real carefully at MasterTracks Pro for the ST (which allows the
    functional equivalent of QX macros, I believe), and unless there is
    something really amiss, I'll buy it.  Now that I've learned how to use
    software based librarians and sequencers (and, of course, RAMdisks),
    I'll NEVER go back to hardware based stuff. 


8^) who_still_likes_his_ST