VA Vs A

[foosnark]

The Mellotron is an analogue synth... no ones and zeros inside!

Analogue it is ... but "synth"? I think not.

Analog rompler.

[fluffy_little_something]

Sylentheim
https://app.box.com/s/s46lw39iu720q5u2lzd8349hbxbc7one

[david.beholder]

Though I did see something new from Roland that looks like a hybrid of both analogue and digital...I think.
Price tag wasn't too high either.
What was that called again?
Found it.
http://www.roland.com/products/jd-xi/

Too Fat trolling.

[mcnoone]

Too Fat trolling.

What do you mean?

[pdxindy]

The Mellotron is an analogue synth... no ones and zeros inside!

Analogue it is ... but "synth"? I think not.

Analog rompler.

[david.beholder]

Too Fat trolling.

What do you mean?

We all saw videos from NAMM: jdxi is horrible analog and mediocre digital.
But I see a lot of people are trying to invoke attention to this synth.

Not trying to offend/blame/anything. But it looks like Roland SMM compain across the boards.

[mcnoone]

Too Fat trolling.

What do you mean?

We all saw videos from NAMM: jdxi is horrible analog and mediocre digital.
But I see a lot of people are trying to invoke attention to this synth.

Not trying to offend/blame/anything. But it looks like Roland SMM compain across the boards.

Nope, I just noticed it while synth shopping, and listened to some demo, but thought the concept wasn't bad. I ended up buying a microkorg xl+ though.

[david.beholder]

Nope, I just noticed it while synth shopping, and listened to some demo, but thought the concept wasn't bad. I ended up buying a microkorg xl+ though.

Concept was good actually, but it has "implemented by roland" stigma.
Microkorg series is the best choice in terms of effeciency, especially if purchased used.

[ghettosynth]

Nope, I just noticed it while synth shopping, and listened to some demo, but thought the concept wasn't bad. I ended up buying a microkorg xl+ though.

Concept was good actually, but it has "implemented by roland" stigma.
Microkorg series is the best choice in terms of effeciency, especially if purchased used.

What I find really funny is that has somewhat ALWAYS been there. In general, musicians weren't that impressed with products like the 909 or 303 in their day. The 303, in fact, was really a product failure. The 909 was not all over pop records while it was a current product. The LinnDrum kicked its ass. I think that the x0x boxes (not the product, the generic term) were successful in early electronica because they had knobs. If you wanted to do a live act back then, you didn't have plugins to give you a lot of variation. If you had computers at all they were just about midi manipulation.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Roland has had some very successful products, but, they pretty much cater to the mainstream. The Jupiter 4 and 8 were fantastic, but, New Wave was pop in the early eighties. The 808 catered to rappers, yes, but that was serendipity, not planned. Really, it's somewhat bad product design, at the very least sloppy product design, because nobody else really wanted a kick drum that decayed for so long. You certainly didn't get that kind of sloppiness in digital drum machines of the era. The D50 was also fantastic and, really, the basic idea has been the mainstay of Roland's presence ever since. Every one of their "techno" products has had its fair share of chuckle factor. In general, when they have been used in a somewhat progressive music setting, it's usually been to exploit features that weren't intended, e.g. the 303.

[mcnoone]

Don't get me wrong, I think that Roland has had some very successful products, but, they pretty much cater to the mainstream.

Yep. There are some good ones here. My first synth was a d20.
I never liked that kind of single mod/pitch wheel that they use a lot though.
They are doing some plugins now as well.
http://www.rolandus.com/blog/2013/01/17 ... nd-synths/

[david.beholder]

Don't get me wrong, I think that Roland has had some very successful products, but, they pretty much cater to the mainstream. The Jupiter 4 and 8 were fantastic, but, New Wave was pop in the early eighties. The 808 catered to rappers, yes, but that was serendipity, not planned. Really, it's somewhat bad product design, at the very least sloppy product design, because nobody else really wanted a kick drum that decayed for so long. You certainly didn't get that kind of sloppiness in digital drum machines of the era. The D50 was also fantastic and, really, the basic idea has been the mainstay of Roland's presence ever since. Every one of their "techno" products has had its fair share of chuckle factor. In general, when they have been used in a somewhat progressive music setting, it's usually been to exploit features that weren't intended, e.g. the 303.

Yes, I mostly agree on your opinion and find it really wize. I even think Juno/JX lines are boring so people paying 1.5k for Juno 60 are insane.

But I partially disagree on 303. Roland believed in primitive seq market by that time. Look at chain of cheap drum machines prior to 808 or 101-202 at the same time with 303. They have vision of the future and that seqs are speeding up development/simplifying recording. But yes, most of the things was done with roland stigma once again Except sh 101 which is intuitive and quite bugless.

[ghettosynth]

Don't get me wrong, I think that Roland has had some very successful products, but, they pretty much cater to the mainstream. The Jupiter 4 and 8 were fantastic, but, New Wave was pop in the early eighties. The 808 catered to rappers, yes, but that was serendipity, not planned. Really, it's somewhat bad product design, at the very least sloppy product design, because nobody else really wanted a kick drum that decayed for so long. You certainly didn't get that kind of sloppiness in digital drum machines of the era. The D50 was also fantastic and, really, the basic idea has been the mainstay of Roland's presence ever since. Every one of their "techno" products has had its fair share of chuckle factor. In general, when they have been used in a somewhat progressive music setting, it's usually been to exploit features that weren't intended, e.g. the 303.

Yes, I mostly agree on your opinion and find it really wize. I even think Juno/JX lines are boring so people paying 1.5k for Juno 60 are insane.

But I partially disagree on 303. Roland believed in primitive seq market by that time. Look at chain of cheap drum machines prior to 808 or 101-202 at the same time with 303. They have vision of the future and that seqs are speeding up development/simplifying recording. But yes, most of the things was done with roland stigma once again Except sh 101 which is intuitive and quite bugless.

Yes, but, it was a product failure. At the end you could get two for the price of one. It was targeted at guitar players and they just didn't buy it, in part, because it was such a pain to program.

[tapper mike]

Yes, but, it was a product failure. At the end you could get two for the price of one. It was targeted at guitar players and they just didn't buy it, in part, because it was such a pain to program.

Story of my life. Being a guitarist with some '70's background in programming (cobol, fortran, basic) I stumbled upon my first drum machine in the 80's with no manual and no presets. Bought a book on basic drum patterns and slowly figured out. Most guitarists would have thrown out the damn thing inside of a month.