Escapegoat wrote: That's wilfully being obtuse; there's no "honestly" about it.
This seems to be becoming unnecessarily 'antsy'....
Escapegoat wrote: That's wilfully being obtuse; there's no "honestly" about it.
Hugh Robjohns wrote:Escapegoat wrote: That's wilfully being obtuse; there's no "honestly" about it.
This seems to be becoming unnecessarily 'antsy'....
Dave B wrote:Yay! Just what the world needs! Another TR909 clone!![]()
I know, I know but ... I'm still temptedDave B wrote:Yay! Just what the world needs! Another TR909 clone!![]()
The boutique range is very ironically named. They use the cheapest possible materials and they are all absolutely identical inside, just with different front panels. This is why the TR09 has tiny bunched up knobs. They haven't even bothered to put a proper balanced full sized output on them, and the hum from the USB power is absolutely awful. Of course they make money from them. They must cost virtually nothing to manufacture.Dave B wrote:Roland have (apparently) just rolled off two bumper years and have sold more than they have in the last couple of decades. They credit this to the boutique range. I should really have asked if this was just units sold or actual profit... But anyway, they seem happy with what they have so good luck to 'em.
Yamaha and Roland ditched their analogue teams back in the 80s. Roland get Studio Electronics to make their Minimoog clone. Roland just do the badge and marketing. Yamaha have absolutely no respect for their analogue legacy. They sent all their GX1s to the scrap yard back in the 80s.But it does raise some interesting questions about the ability to produce actual analogue hardware. Behringer seem to have invested in this - as have Korg and lots of smaller companies - and are able to do it competitively which leaves me wondering why Roland and Yamaha haven't also.
I doubt that it is an issue of missing expertise. Most decent hobbyists could pick up a Robert Penfold electronics book and put together an analogue synth, so it is well within the scope of these mighty corporations. They will have all of the circuit diagrams etc of their analogue classics, and the wherewithal to convert them into modern, lower-cost manufacturing processes (as Behringer / Korg / Sequential / others have done). It would appear to be more down to market choices.johnny h wrote:Yamaha and Roland ditched their analogue teams back in the 80s.
Given that many of designs are out (or will be coming out) of copyright, meaning no option to protect past works, it does seem foolish to miss the opportunity that others have so clearly seen. Even to test the water, as Korg did with the Monotron - 8 years ago!Roland has been asked for recreations of its analogue gear for long enough, yet they seem to choose to ignore it. They had their chance.
FTFYDave B wrote:I have lots of lovely proper analogue kit to play with at the moment some of which I will be bringing along to the next SOS meet...
Its not hard to make analogue synths, but they will never be cheaper to produce than a bargain basement DSP chip, mini-USB port and 3.5mm jack socket in a flimsy plastic case.BillB wrote:They will have all of the circuit diagrams etc of their analogue classics, and the wherewithal to convert them into modern, lower-cost manufacturing processes (as Behringer / Korg / Sequential / others have done). It would appear to be more down to market choices.
The SH-01A does a remarkable job of emulating the SH-101, and then goes a lot further. The line between analogue and digital synthesis keeps getting narrower and, in the studio, I probably wouldn’t hesitate to use the SH-01A in place of the vintage synth. Whether I would take a module requiring micro-USB power and offering 3.5mm audio sockets on stage is another matter.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users