Synth Site: Yamaha: RM-1X: User reviews Add review
Average rating: 4.5 out of 5
page 50 of 54:   <<<  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21 
                          22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  >>>
Devin a part-timer user from Canada writes:
Hello all. I've had the RM1x since the day it came out over here in Canada and I have to say it's a nice piece of kit if you simply take it for what it is. The internal sounds aren't great, but the sequencing is quite alot more advanced (esp. song mode) than the competitors'. It's not meant to be the all in one wonderbox. Used in conjunction with say a sampler, Nord Lead, JV1080 etc....it's amazing. You can get ideas down in a second, use 1 or 2 internal sounds if you like then map the rest out to a more serious dedicated sound module(s). I don't think anyone's gonna press a record with the RM1x alone (like most gear) but it sure helps with the creative process. And if it's your first piece of gear, it's a great one to build from.

D.

Rating: 4 out of 5 posted Wednesday-Jul-07-1999 at 00:09
Bruce a professional user from USA writes:
Anyone that makes decisions about what ANY synth or sequencer can do in 30 shouldn't bother posting. It's not enough time to make a reasonable decision. Although the synth sounds are the weak point on the RM1x they are useful, you just have to put some time and work into it. Here's a good way to judge the unit. Do you like the styles? If so then you know what you're buying is capable of as a synth and a sequencer. If you don't like the styles you shouldn't dismiss the RM1x. It still takes time to learn how to use any instrument. I've worked with the RM1x. It is a good sequencer that would be perfect for live use. It has a good and logical work flow once you learn how to use it. Comparing the RM1x to the MC505 doesn't do either unit justice. The 505 has a good synth in it. The RM1x has a great sequencer. The MC505 costs $300-400 more. It better do some things better than the RM1x. I'd take a combination of the RM1x and JV1010 over a MC505 and it would cost about $150 more. Last thing, you can use all the channels with pitched instruments if you want to, drums are not manually assigned to the first eight channels. That is the default and how Yamaha programmed their styles. You don't have to work that way. Work whatever way is most comfortable for you.

Rating: 4 out of 5 posted Monday-Jun-21-1999 at 12:36
me a hobbyist user from USA writes:
I've been using the RM1X for about a month now. I got it to replace Cubase, ie for sequencing. First.. the synth engine. The internal sounds aren't too great... the drums are ok, bass synths are ok, acoustic instruments kind of nasty sounding, the pads are eh.. not too good. The FX aren't that great... reverb is pretty nasty. You can easily get some distorted grungy noises out of some of the synth patches, though they won't be very thick sounding. I do think they're good enough for somebody starting out. I sort of wish Yamaha had made the rom 8mb instead of 4. oh well, it's just as well since I bought it for sequencing. Sequencing wise it is great. I think the interface could use a little work, but it is easy to use and after a few hours with it, should be a breeze to go through. It is a 16 track sequencer, no doubt about that. What DERWO said about having to put each internal drum sound on it's own channel isn't totally true... you can put 2-3 without any problems. If you use an external synth you won't have this problem at all... The limitation is in the RM1X's synth engine. Programming drum patterns is very easy with the x0x style step recording. It's also great for doing basslines. Arppeggiator is pretty archaic... I wish they had expanded it a bit. I'm really glad there's a midi delay function. I havn't run across any bugs in it yet, though I know there are a few. There have been some rumours of an OS upgrade, which would make me very happy. I hope they add some more sequencer features. One thing that bugs the crap out of me though, is that for some stupid reason you can't directly change the length of a pattern after you record it. The only solutions I know of are splitting it, or appending it to itself or another pattern. Overall I think it's a very creative tool. I havn't touched Cubase at all since I bought the RM1X. And, believe it or not, the RM1X is actually FUN to use.

Rating: 4 out of 5 posted Monday-Jun-21-1999 at 02:44
Spice Miner a professional user from America writes:
hmmm, people are attacking without giving due credit. the mc-505 isn't a true synth engine, the same shit you can do with an mc505 you can do with the rm1x, you just have to learn the synth. This seq/synth is really something you fuck around with for a long time and then you learn about it. The sequencer's incredible, and that's what it should mainly be used for. The synth engine is sample playback, you can't create sounds from scratch with any sample playback. Sample playback's for kid's who don't like making their own sounds. Or to add to sounds you've already created:o). Realtime recording mad fun:o). In my opinion all of roland's new shit is exactly waht i just said SHIT. It's all marketed for people who r trying to make dance music. Yamaha did that too, but not as overboard. And yamaha's shit's sick :) the an1x=sick va underrated, and an excellent engine, and arpeggiator...yamaha's shit does look like toys, but that's great for me:o) means lower prices and less people owning it, people who pick on how it looks would rather pick up a jp8k without even checking out the engine just "oooh lots of knobs n sliders." :) i don't know i like the rm1x a lot as a sequencer + you can create some sick sounds, and it sends and recieves midi very very good:) i'm happy with it.

Rating: 4 out of 5 posted Monday-Jun-21-1999 at 01:37
derwo a part-timer user from USA writes:
My friend got the Rm1x, after playing with my Mc-505, so after a while, we decided to switch, just to try the other out. Let's just say that after a week with the 505, he returned the Rm1x, and bought a 505. The main limitations, at least for me, of the rm1x are:

1. The sounds. The synths and drums are Ok, but the "real" sounds are HORRIBLE, especially the organ sounds.

2. The presets. Unlike the 505, with the rm1x, you are STUCK using the presets- there is no "true" synth engine. Once you've used the sounds, that's it- you can only modify the sounds that are built in. On the 505, you can build sounds from scratch, match them with TONS of tweaks and effects, giving you limitless options.

3. The interface. I'm sorry, but i just can't stand the interface- it's SO (to borrow from the brits) "dodgy." The menus, the levels, everything, was a pain in the ass to operate and to access. It also feels VERY cheap, like a toy.

4. The effects and arpeggiators. They just SUCKED, horribly.

5. The "16" track sequencer. This is a joke. It's REALLY a normal 8 track sequencer, because you have to give each drum sound it's own track- so, 8 tracks, plus 8 more tracks- one for bass, one for snare, etc.

Stuff that i DID like:

1. The "job" menu- dedicated functions for disk maintenance, making drum rolls, etc. That was helpful.

2. Using a regular floppy for storage. Because they're plentiful, cheap, and who the hell wants a "smartmedia" card?

3. The display. It's big, it's nice, it's backlit with a GOOD color (not orange, like the 505.)

Overall, it's a great competitor for the mc-303, but nobody uses a 303 now anyways, and hte 505 blows it out of the water. If Yamaha makes a new one that rivals the 505, maybe it will prompt roland to make the "Mc-909"!

Rating: 2 out of 5 posted Sunday-Jun-20-1999 at 16:44
page 50 of 54:   <<<  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21 
                          22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  >>>