Gearslutz.com - View Single Post

carlheinz · 28th September 2008

The LINNDRUM OR LM2 is a totally diffrent animal BTW.

Hey Isham,

That would be a great question for Bruce Forat as far as confirming sounds sharing the same chip and it not sounding as good as a later Rev.The first machines had a big play buttion that said"tango"which is pretty funny.I think Bruce told me there were actually three Rev's.He also told me Rev 2's have the best overall build quality because of the buttions being servicable if they break but did not mention anything about better sound quality.You might be splitting hair's if there is any diffrence.Iv'e tried clocking mine using a Garfield mini doc connected to a Linn9000 generating 96pulse.I can convert the pulse rate via mini doc but have not been succesfull in getting the LM-1 to follow.I think that it is because The LM-1 is so primative,it wants to see a slightly diffrent wave shape on the sync input.It has nothing to do with the PPQ(Pulses per quarter note)resolution but the actual SHAPE of the waveform coming in.I think the sync section wants to see its own sync.Its not compatible with later sync boxes as one would hope.Its sync out will drive my roland jp-6 arpegiator and an old oscar synth arpegiator but getting the LM-1 to sync to something else OTHER THAN ITSELF is a challenge to say the least.Even if you could sync it to a midi clock you would have timing and delay or lag issues unless you could record the LM-1 to a D.A.W. and slide the beat forward.Best to use the LM-1 as Master....or Match the tempo of your song by hand and drop it in on the fly and edit from there.You could sample the LM-1 playing the patterns you want at trigger those as well.Anything is better than trying to get the LM-1 to follow midi.

28th September 2008	#42
carlheinz Lives for gear Joined: Mar 2007 Location: S.California Posts: 899	The LINNDRUM OR LM2 is a totally diffrent animal BTW. Hey Isham, That would be a great question for Bruce Forat as far as confirming sounds sharing the same chip and it not sounding as good as a later Rev.The first machines had a big play buttion that said"tango"which is pretty funny.I think Bruce told me there were actually three Rev's.He also told me Rev 2's have the best overall build quality because of the buttions being servicable if they break but did not mention anything about better sound quality.You might be splitting hair's if there is any diffrence.Iv'e tried clocking mine using a Garfield mini doc connected to a Linn9000 generating 96pulse.I can convert the pulse rate via mini doc but have not been succesfull in getting the LM-1 to follow.I think that it is because The LM-1 is so primative,it wants to see a slightly diffrent wave shape on the sync input.It has nothing to do with the PPQ(Pulses per quarter note)resolution but the actual SHAPE of the waveform coming in.I think the sync section wants to see its own sync.Its not compatible with later sync boxes as one would hope.Its sync out will drive my roland jp-6 arpegiator and an old oscar synth arpegiator but getting the LM-1 to sync to something else OTHER THAN ITSELF is a challenge to say the least.Even if you could sync it to a midi clock you would have timing and delay or lag issues unless you could record the LM-1 to a D.A.W. and slide the beat forward.Best to use the LM-1 as Master....or Match the tempo of your song by hand and drop it in on the fly and edit from there.You could sample the LM-1 playing the patterns you want at trigger those as well.Anything is better than trying to get the LM-1 to follow midi.