Difference in sound between LM-1 and LinnDrum?

[analogbass]

Originally Posted by dlmorley

Well, we must disagree re the 808.
It's the funkiest drum machine ever in my book. I LOVE the sound not for any retro chic but because it sounds amazing. I have used one since they were relatively new and love the groove and the sounds.
Sure if you are just taking the mono out and trying to make it sound like a drummer it's going to sound crap, but ANY drum machine that tries to sound like a drummer falls short.
Process the sounds and enjoy.
Linn Drum? TOTAL RETRO.

The 808 sounds great. Not better than the Linn though, just different. The rest is just fashion; thus the Linn is "retro" while the 808 isn't.

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by analogbass

The 808 sounds great. Not better than the Linn though, just different. The rest is just fashion; thus the Linn is "retro" while the 808 isn't.

I guess nothing sounds better than anything else really as everything has a use
Personally I love the tr606. sharp and funky little devil, but it sounds tiny compared to an 808.

I would still say that as a linn uses samples and the 808 is an analogue machine, the 808 wins hands down character wise and a Linn has many competitors which do the same thing. 808 is pretty unique in reality.
Still, Linn is a Classic.
I'm glad he made the Linndrum, just so I ended up with an MPC60

[analogbass]

Originally Posted by dlmorley

I guess nothing sounds better than anything else really as everything has a use
Personally I love the tr606. sharp and funky little devil, but it sounds tiny compared to an 808.

I would still say that as a linn uses samples and the 808 is an analogue machine, the 808 wins hands down character wise and a Linn has many competitors which do the same thing. 808 is pretty unique in reality.
Still, Linn is a Classic.
I'm glad he made the Linndrum, just so I ended up with an MPC60

Again, the "808 wins character-wise" is purely subjective. The 808 is great but so are the Linn and Oberheim machines save for changing fashions. Read an interview with a serious drummer like Stuart Copeland in the late 1980s and what you see is real respect for Linns and Oberheims, not Rolands.

Keeping in mind that when the 808 came out in 1980, it was trying to sound like real drums and failed miserably in part because of the technology it used. You probably didn't realize it was trying to sound like the real thing. The 808 does have a unique character to it though, moreso than other Rolands.

In a twist of fate much later, cheesy sounds came into vogue and brought the Rolands into prominence they never had previously. In the world of pop music in which no one's memory exceeds a month it's easy to forget that now and for the last 2 decades.

[chrisso]

I like Linn and Roland.

The group Japan did some amazing Linn programming (darn funky) as did The System.
The 808 sounds are heard more today though.
Again, for those interested, I like Linn and Roland.

analogbass, I think you have a lot of interesting things to say.
I agree with quite a lot of it.
I don't think you can accept anyone who has a different opinion.
I don't really enjoy being told I'm 'wrong' just because I have a different opinion, often a subjective opinion.
It seems a waste of time you arguing with other forum members who have large amounts of gear, know their synth history and were around in the 80's too (I'm not talking about me).
perhaps you might consider 'lightening up' and we can all enjoy the discussions and a few different opinions.
At the end of the day, it isn't a competition with a winner. This is a place some of us come to for fun and to wax on about analogue gear.
So what if you are right about everything and know more about the 70's and 80's than anyone else here?
That's not the point in a way.

[analogbass]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I like Linn and Roland.

The group Japan did some amazing Linn programming (darn funky) as did The System.
The 808 sounds are heard more today though.
Again, for those interested, I like Linn and Roland.

analogbass, I think you have a lot of interesting things to say.
I agree with quite a lot of it.
I don't think you can accept anyone who has a different opinion.
I don't really enjoy being told I'm 'wrong' just because I have a different opinion, often a subjective opinion.
It seems a waste of time you arguing with other forum members who have large amounts of gear, know their synth history and were around in the 80's too (I'm not talking about me).
perhaps you might consider 'lightening up' and we can all enjoy the discussions and a few different opinions.
At the end of the day, it isn't a competition with a winner. This is a place some of us come to for fun and to wax on about analogue gear.
So what if you are right about everything and know more about the 70's and 80's than anyone else here?
That's not the point in a way.

In that case don't be defensive. I only provided broader context beyond today's reverence for certain pieces. Some of the opinions voiced as fact here are disappointingly short-term.

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by analogbass

Again, the "808 wins character-wise" is purely subjective. The 808 is great but so are the Linn and Oberheim machines save for changing fashions. Read an interview with a serious drummer like Stuart Copeland in the late 1980s and what you see is real respect for Linns and Oberheims, not Rolands.

Keeping in mind that when the 808 came out in 1980, it was trying to sound like real drums and failed miserably in part because of the technology it used. You probably didn't realize it was trying to sound like the real thing. The 808 does have a unique character to it though, moreso than other Rolands.

In a twist of fate much later, cheesy sounds came into vogue and brought the Rolands into prominence they never had previously. In the world of pop music in which no one's memory exceeds a month it's easy to forget that now and for the last 2 decades.

The fact that you use the word "cheesy" is annoying I have to admit.
MY 808 doesn't sound cheesy at all. Not in my music.
Maybe some people can make it sound cheesy, but as you want to describe it in a negative light, what can I argue.
Cheesy? Seriously not unless the music you have heard is the ticca ticca hip hop in the charts.

Minimoogs made some of the cheesiest stuff around in the 70's.
Try telling me it's the machine that's cheesy rather than the guy in control

[analogbass]

Originally Posted by dlmorley

The fact that you use the word "cheesy" is annoying I have to admit.
MY 808 doesn't sound cheesy at all. Not in my music.
Maybe some people can make it sound cheesy, but as you want to describe it in a negative light, what can I argue.
Cheesy? Seriously not unless the music you have heard is the ticca ticca hip hop in the charts.

Minimoogs made some of the cheesiest stuff around in the 70's.
Try telling me it's the machine that's cheesy rather than the guy in control

The 808 sounds better than the other Rolands, and is unique. There's no doubt that the old Rolands for the most part sounded cheesy; eventually enough of them were popular because of changing music tastes that it became desirable to sound cheesy. Cheesy isn't a negative at all when it's true, it's just reality. Listen to records from the 60s-80s with better sounds and you'll understand.

Another error: whether a synth made cheesy music in the 70s doesn't mean it sounds cheesy those are two different things LOL you're too much man.

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by analogbass

Cheesy isn't a negative at all when it's true, it's just reality. Listen to records from the 60s-80s with better sounds and you'll understand.

A) I know music. Please don't be so condescending.
B) You are talking bull (just like cheesy, this is "true")
c) adios

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by analogbass

Cheesy isn't a negative at all when it's true, it's just reality. Listen to records from the 60s-80s with better sounds and you'll understand.

Another error: whether a synth made cheesy music in the 70s doesn't mean it sounds cheesy those are two different things LOL you're too much man.

See man.
It's hard to engage you in a decent discussion because you think you are so right.
'Cheesy' and 'better' are so subjective, and yet you patronise people you know nothing about.
I was working at the coalface in the music industry in the late 70's and thru the 80's.
David Morley is a highly respected electronic musician who has releases to his name and owns a vast and diverse collection of equipment.
I know you're going to say "so what", but I'm just trying to say........I'm totally willing to accept you have more knowledge than me, I'm willing to accept you have more experience than me, have a different opinion to me.
When I type an entry into this forum that is based on personal experience, I don't accept being told I'm wrong, or that I've made an 'error'. It's just bad manners basically (not to mention bullying).
I'm fully able to accept a genuine disagreement however.
'Cheesy' Roland drumsounds?........
Well Kraftwerk have employed them all and to brilliant effect.
Their recordings are powerfiul, funky and they were at the vanguard of electronic-style drum tracks. So I disagree that many Roland machines sound cheesy and weak.
The whole techno, house, dance genre is based on the 909.
Those records also sound powerful to me.
I disagree that the 808 sounds better than other Rolands. what about the 909?
If you don't like the 909 sound it would be a personal opinion, not analogbass gospel that the rest of Gearslutz have to adhere to.
What 'better' sounds were available in the 60's by the way?
Accept a few different opinions and do me a favour, drop all the condescending asides about other members being 'trolls' or 'too much man'.
Friendly advice.

[7161]

Originally Posted by analogbass

Unlike you, i was there, watched and heard the change. ....Nothing to do with merit, rather there was a paradigm shift that you seem to have slept thru.

thats a bit bitchy, you're not an SOS forum regular are you? you seem to make a virtue of argueing for the sake of it and running people down who you know noting about. You are giving me all this truck about not being there etc, well listen up...

You have clearly NOT read my post/s - At that time (83/84) i was on a record deal working in a large Eastlake designed million quid studio using bbc micro, linn, dmx, ppg, jupiter, simmons, ams, eventide, lexicon, bel, otari, studer, urei, soundcraft etc etc

before that i had run an otari based studio sucessfully for a few years, and was on freinds terms with the manager of Turnkey who used to let me take gear home to try from the shop (beforte soho soundhouse bought them and ruined it all)

so anyways i am quite aware of what was going on thanks all the same.

Originally Posted by analogbass

If you better understood the context of the early-mid 80s you'd already know that companies were trying to sound as realistic as possible, including the Rolands. The Rolands were trying to sound like the real thing but fell short thanks to the limitations of the technology they were using, not because of any effort to deliberately create the reverse-chic cheesy sounds that have since become ubiquitous. Most musicians weren't initially buying Japanese drum machines of any brand because they wanted to, but because the Linns and Oberheims were out of price range.

if i better understood the context? Here we go again with your put-down assumptions

i'd suggest you're wrong, because at that time (83/4) there were NO tr707's, RX's etc yet so what on earth are you talking about? those machines didnt even exist!

and regardless of that as i said before, NO MATTER WHAT THE MARKETTING WAS SAYING ABOUT REALISM when they were released, i didn't see anyone really trying to pretend those units (any of them, inc linns) sounded particularly 'realistic', although again, in the CONTEXT of what was available on the release of the TR/RX series those machines did ALL offer subjective realism which was enuff to accompany the marketting claims.

the first affordable mass consumer drumbox that did get anywhere near to sounding realistic was actualy the HR16 in 88-ish, but that was due to affordable `16 bit sampling and longer sample times than the paltry ones offered by slightly earlier linn, roland, yamaha etc which was the biggest obstacle to them actualy sounding realistic (really short decay times sound very un-natural) this was simply due to the price and availability of memory chips which as i dont have to tell you started to be used in early dig delays and drumboxes, and gradualy got cheaper and bigger in capacity


hence i maintain, at that time, BEFORE any of these machines came out, the linn was quite amazing to most people because what were the choices otherwise? there were none actualy within a home-studio budget, and actualy at that time the 'home studio' was really just getting off the ground beyond tascam 4 and 8-tracks... even a Brennel mini-8 equipt studio was still considered a proper recording studio. (if i remember rightly, eddie grant's place (coach-house) had something like a saturn with a 16 track block, and certainly i know ARIWA was using a 16 track) we used an mtr90 and those were cutting edge back then

and secondly when the TR707 came out it was actualy quite good, dont forget that, with the caveat that this was in terms of the technology available, the rx11/15 wasnt as good to most people's ears as the 707 i think but still sold tons of units, again because it gave songwriters some ability to produce passable demos.

otherwise what choices were there as the 80's pushed towards commercial sampling? sequential tom? yes, but what else? nothing much is the answer, the 606 had only been out a year in 83, i even used one of those mattel Synsonic drumboxes lol


you also have to place this in the context of the 'home-studio revolution' that was just starting to emerge, with narrow format multitracks etc which allowed users to produce decent demos certainly good enough to angle for a deal with.

also i can 101% assure you, no-one back then used a linn to try to imitate real drums if you had a proper budget, you used a real drummer and real drums, end of story.


The rest of your post I'm not sure about, you might be referring to the ressurgence of the early TR midi + analog machines in house and acid?, but the old sample-based machines? the TR707 found favour with soca producers later on, the ddd1 was a great little machine much ignored, the dr rhythms just kept on getting better and were excellent as a budget drum source for writers, but as the mid 80's marched forward samplers came along starting with the early
mirages, and i have to say, well, you say you were there so you must have tried a Mirage back then yes? it was mind blowing and especialy because it made all those early hiphop sounds which drumboxes obviously could not do.

The only sampling we'd seen up to that point (cos lets face it, who had a Fairlight back then?) was the BEL sampling delay which allowed us to do stuff like fly in parts to the multitrack without resorting to using the 2 track, and at that time was the beginning of stuff like sample-hold in jap delay units once memory chips started to get cheaper.


commercial sampling came with the 8 bit Mirage (the emulator was total w*nk lets face it and again who could afford it in a commercial market which at that time had no demand for it whatsoever) The first time i played around with a Mirage was actualy 84 because 2 signed americans on a deal came to work in the studio and they had one (i assume it was some pre release unit) and it was mind blowing. Then came the S612/s700 and the EMAX1 and the s900 and FZ1 and lets not forget the Lynex system which was actualy the first consumer 16-bit sampler system actualy before the FZ1 (i still have 2 LYNEX rack systems btw and it is a great unit if you can learn to use the OS)

anyways, i do understand what was happening; I just disagree with you over one thing, your contention that people were using ANY drum machines to imitate real drums in the upper market sector

IMO the drum machines of that time in bigger budget studios and on deals were being used to get 'a sound', an imitation sound, which was in vogue for some pop music due to it's use in pop, electro and hiphop (all the early UK 80's electronic bands, grandmaster flash, Dead or Alive, Sugar Hill Gang, Afrika Bambaataa, prince, madonna etc and of course the market followed any sucessful 'pop' and they were very sucessful acts); but no-one used them to try to imitate real drums except on demo budgets cos they sounded nothing like real drums.

imo only bedroom writers later on after 85-ish used the new early affordable machines to imitate REAL drums when making demos and that was out of financial necessity and because labels and publishers would accept these obvious imitations as passable when reviewing material and at that time using fake drums and real guitars etc was part of a sound going around.

imo

[analogbass]

Originally Posted by 7161

thats a bit bitchy, you're not an SOS forum regular are you? you seem to make a virtue of argueing for the sake of it and running people down who you know noting about. You are giving me all this truck about not being there etc, well listen up...

You have clearly NOT read my post/s - At that time (83/84) i was on a record deal working in a large Eastlake designed million quid studio using bbc micro, linn, dmx, ppg, jupiter, simmons, ams, eventide, lexicon, bel, otari, studer, urei, soundcraft etc etc

before that i had run an otari based studio sucessfully for a few years, and was on freinds terms with the manager of Turnkey who used to let me take gear home to try from the shop (beforte soho soundhouse bought them and ruined it all)

so anyways i am quite aware of what was going on thanks all the same.







if i better understood the context? i'd suggest you're wrong though, because at that time (83/4) there were NO tr707's, RX's etc yet and regardless of that as i said before, NO MATTER WHAT THE MARKETTING WAS SAYING ABOUT REALISM, i dindt see anyone really trying to pretend those units (and of them, inc linns) sounded particularly 'realistic', although again, in the CONTEXT of what was available on the release of the TR/RX series those machines did offer subjective realism which was enuff to accompany the marketting claims

the first affordable mass consumer drumbox that did get anywhere near to sounding realistic was actualy the HR16 in 88-ish, but that was due to affordable `16 bit sampling and longer sample times than the paltry ones offered by linn, roland, yamaha etc which was the biggest obstacle to them actualy sounding realistic (really short decay times sound very un-natural)


hence i maintain, at that time, BEFORE any of these machines came out, the linn was quite amazing to most people because what were the choices otherwise? there were none actualy within a home-studio budget, and actualy at that time the 'home studio' was really just getting off the ground beyond tascam 4 and 8-tracks... even a Brennel mini-8 equipt studio was still considered a proper recording studio. (if i remember rightly, eddie grant's place (coach-house) had something like a saturn with a 16 track block, and certainly i know ARIWA was using a 16 track) we used an mtr90 and those were cutting edge back then

and secondly when the TR707 came out it was actualy quite good, dont forget that, with the caveat that this was in terms of the technology available, the rx11/15 wasnt as good to most people's ears as the 707 i think but still sold tons of units, again because it gave songwriters some ability to produce passable demos.

otherwise what choices were there as the 80's pushed towards commercial sampling? sequential tom? yes, but what else? nothing much is the answer, the 606 had only been out a year in 83, i even used one of those mattel Synsonic drumboxes lol


you also have to place this in the context of the 'home-studio revolution' that was just starting to emerge, with narrow format multitracks etc which allowed users to produce decent demos certainly good enough to angle for a deal with.

also i can 101% assure you, no-one back then used a linn to try to imitate real drums if you had a proper budget, you used a real drummer and real drums, end of story.


The rest of your post I'm not sure about, you might be referring to the ressurgence of the early TR midi + analog machines in house and acid?, but the old sample-based machines? the TR707 found favour with soca producers later on, the ddd1 was a great little machine much ignored, the dr rhythms just kept on getting better and were excellent as a budget drum source for writers, but as the mid 80's marched forward samplers came along starting with the early
mirages, and i have to say, well, you say you were there so you must have tried a Mirage back then yes? it was mind blowing and especialy because it made all those early hiphop sounds which drumboxes obviously could not do.

The only sampling we'd seen up to that point (cos lets face it, who had a Fairlight back then?) was the BEL sampling delay which allowed us to do stuff like fly in parts to the multitrack without resorting to using the 2 track, and at that time was the beginning of stuff like sample-hold in jap delay units once memory chips started to get cheaper.


commercial sampling came with the 8 bit Mirage (the emulator was total w*nk lets face it and again who could afford it in a commercial market which at that time had no demand for it whatsoever) The first time i played around with a Mirage was actualy 84 because 2 signed americans on a deal came to work in the studio and they had one (i assume it was some pre release unit) and it was mind blowing. Then came the S612/s700 and the EMAX1 and the s900 and FZ1 and lets not forget the Lynex system which was actualy the first consumer 16-bit sampler system actualy before the FZ1 (i still have 2 LYNEX rack systems btw and it is a great unit if you can learn to use the OS)

anyways, i do understand what was happening; I just disagree with you over one thing, your contention that people were using ANY drum machines to imitate real drums in the upper market sector

IMO the drum machines of that time in bigger budget studios and on deals were being used to get 'a sound', an imitation sound, which was in vogue for some pop music due to it's use in pop, electro and hiphop (all the early UK 80's electronic bands, grandmaster flash, Dead or Alive, Sugar Hill Gang, Afrika Bambaataa, prince, madonna etc and of course the market followed any sucessful 'pop' and they were very sucessful acts); but no-one used them to try to imitate real drums except on demo budgets cos they sounded nothing like real drums.

imo only bedroom writers later on after 85-ish used the new early affordable machines to imitate REAL drums when making demos and that was out of financial necessity and because labels and publishers would accept these obvious imitations as passable when reviewing material and at that time using fake drums and real guitars etc was part of a sound going around.

imo

Trust me if it takes you THIS LONG to make points it's a pretty good hint that you're on the wrong track LOL

Unlike you i was here in NYC during this whole 80s era. Reread what i've said and you'll have learnt something.

[analogbass]

Originally Posted by chrisso

See man.
It's hard to engage you in a decent discussion because you think you are so right.
'Cheesy' and 'better' are so subjective, and yet you patronise people you know nothing about.
I was working at the coalface in the music industry in the late 70's and thru the 80's.
David Morley is a highly respected electronic musician who has releases to his name and owns a vast and diverse collection of equipment.
I know you're going to say "so what", but I'm just trying to say........I'm totally willing to accept you have more knowledge than me, I'm willing to accept you have more experience than me, have a different opinion to me.
When I type an entry into this forum that is based on personal experience, I don't accept being told I'm wrong, or that I've made an 'error'. It's just bad manners basically (not to mention bullying).
I'm fully able to accept a genuine disagreement however.
'Cheesy' Roland drumsounds?........
Well Kraftwerk have employed them all and to brilliant effect.
Their recordings are powerfiul, funky and they were at the vanguard of electronic-style drum tracks. So I disagree that many Roland machines sound cheesy and weak.
The whole techno, house, dance genre is based on the 909.
Those records also sound powerful to me.
I disagree that the 808 sounds better than other Rolands. what about the 909?
If you don't like the 909 sound it would be a personal opinion, not analogbass gospel that the rest of Gearslutz have to adhere to.
What 'better' sounds were available in the 60's by the way?
Accept a few different opinions and do me a favour, drop all the condescending asides about other members being 'trolls' or 'too much man'.
Friendly advice.

If i know more than you as you say, it's because i lived thru it and also paid attention. Pay attention instead of only trying to give lectures about what you know. The 909, 808 and a ton of other Japanese drum machines came about as the result of the underground club, hip-hop and rap scenes here in NY in the early 80s that you're not even aware of apparently. Those musics primarily/initially transitioned from live drumming in the early 80s to Linns and Oberheims along with a smattering of Rolands and other companies, for the reasons i've already mentioned. Those other brands weren't as desirable. Just go back and listen to records from the early-mid 80s. The main Roland was the 808, which got huge promo from seminal hip-hop records like Planet Rock. That type of early NYC hip-hop was also the foundation of techno BTW.

Only later in the mid-80s when the music spread to Chicago, Detroit and then overseas under new names like house and techno did the musical aesthetic change, with cheesy equipment coming into vogue. It happened because the amateurs making much of the music couldn't afford better & weren't particularly good programmers, not because they liked the sound of the equipment better.

Now you have context you didn't have before, when you thought "it all started with the 909" when it didn't at all. Now you get it LOL

[7161]

um... whatever


i've never been to a club in the early 80's, before then or since, & i never heard of dance music


you are right ok

lol (please god let this die)

[waveterm]

Originally Posted by analogbass

If i know more than you as you say, it's because i lived thru it and also paid attention. Pay attention instead of only trying to give lectures about what you know. The 909, 808 and a ton of other Japanese drum machines came about as the result of the underground club, hip-hop and rap scenes here in NY in the early 80s that you're not even aware of apparently.

Huh !?

Are you drunk ?

Lets get one thing straight here......you really don´t have a clue. I´ll give you a hint :

Keio

It started with the Doncamatic and if you don´t know what that is let me tell you about something called Google.

To say that the 909, 808 and all the other Jap boxes was made out of request from the NYC scene early to mid 80´s is plain wrong.

Example :

Roland CR-78. Releasedate sometime 1978. This box ( which incidently was the follow up to the CR-68 ) made the 808 possible.

The 808´s birth had nothing to do with the NYC scene. It was just the logical thing to do since the CR-78 offered limited memory and even cheasier sounds than the 808.

The 909 was more of the same but now with a few samples, namely the cymbals which is hard to produce convincingly with analog circuits. Still, I have to admit it is strange that not all sounds where sampled, but I guess it had to do with not exceeding the target pricepoint.

Originally Posted by analogbass

Those musics primarily/initially transitioned from live drumming in the early 80s to Linns and Oberheims along with a smattering of Rolands and other companies, for the reasons i've already mentioned. Those other brands weren't as desirable. Just go back and listen to records from the early-mid 80s. The main Roland was the 808, which got huge promo from seminal hip-hop records like Planet Rock. That type of early NYC hip-hop was also the foundation of techno BTW.

Only later in the mid-80s when the music spread to Chicago, Detroit and then overseas under new names like house and techno did the musical aesthetic change, with cheesy equipment coming into vogue. It happened because the amateurs making much of the music couldn't afford better & weren't particularly good programmers, not because they liked the sound of the equipment better.

Now you have context you didn't have before, when you thought "it all started with the 909" when it didn't at all. Now you get it LOL

Thanks for the historylesson......

WT

[chrisso]

Thank You waveterm, I actually thought analogbass had some kind of a clue until his abortive history lesson which you wisely corrected.

Analogbass, 'Planet Rock' (1982) was a straight rip of a much earlier Kraftwerk track.
One of the most famous 808 songs is 'Sexual Healing' (1982) by Marvin Gaye.
Presumably he could have used a real drummer if he'd wanted to, but obviously liked the sound of the Roland machine on the track.

I think the real architects of the Roland sound were bands like Yellow Magic Orchestra, Yello, Suicide and Kraftwerk, who were all operating well before 'the mid-80's'.
By the way, you think I have no history, context, or wasn't paying attention in the 80's.........
I was gigging in New York in 1979.
I played Max's, CBGB and a few others.
I was playing acoustic drums in the recording studio alongside Roland drum machines, Linn drums, in the early 80's, Fairlights and Synclaviers a little later on.
I know a bit about the subject. More than you as it turns out.

[7161]

damn he's a good troll tho; totaly suckered me in yesterday when i'd had a few whiskeys, lol


seems like analog bass is confused between two things and this discussion has veered off by his sidetracking to encompass a whole other variation

1. (original topic) was him saying how real the linn drum sounds were and that people were using them to replace real drums in '83, cos they were so superior to roland machines etc (despite the fact these roland pcm's didn't even exist then) - thats a crock of crap anyways

2. he then changes tack to try and pretend he meant these early machines were actualy used for NON realistic drumsounds by dragging early house into it, and therefore they are superior by that route. It seems like he's trying to add in to the conversation the 808 and 909 neither of which used samples for the drums, so thats also a crock


2 different discussions going on here but only one analogbass, lol albeit a damned good troll

anyway analog bass you are welcome to go and buy a linn and make 'house' with it if you like, go for it, it's your money, but i'd save it for more med's if i were you you rabscallion you


i'm personaly quite interested in old tracks like peter brown's "do you wanna get funky with me" which appears to have a sequenced synth line in it at least, quite a weird track at the time, it sounded very different to what was out there when deejays used to spin it

btw, does anyone know what was used for 'Get on the funk train'?

[7161]

damn he's a good troll tho; totaly suckered me in yesterday when i'd had a few whiskeys, lol


seems like analog bass is confused between two things and this discussion has veered off by his sidetracking to encompass a whole other variation

1. (original topic) was him saying how real the linn drum sounds were and that people were using them to replace real drums in '83, cos they were so superior to roland machines etc (despite the fact these roland pcm's didn't even exist then) - thats a crock of crap anyways

2. he then changes tack to try and pretend he meant these early machines were actualy used for NON realistic drumsounds by dragging early house into it, and therefore they are superior by that route. It seems like he's trying to add in to the conversation the 808 and 909 neither of which used samples for the drums, so thats also a crock


2 different discussions going on here but only one analogbass, lol albeit a damned good troll

anyway analog bass you are welcome to go and buy a linn and make 'house' with it if you like, go for it, it's your money, but i'd save it for more med's if i were you you rabscallion you


i'm personaly quite interested in old tracks like peter brown's "do you wanna get funky with me" which appears to have a sequenced synth line in it at least, quite a weird track at the time, it sounded very different to what was out there when deejays used to spin it

btw, does anyone know what was used for 'Get on the funk train'?

[orpheus_]

This is a really old thread, but I was actually interested to know the answer to this question, what does the Linn LM-1 sound like compared to the LinnDrum - are they mostly the same, as analogbass represents, or are they indeed quite different.

Well, it turns out, there are plenty of free and paid sources for samples on the INTERNETS so I just bloody well bought them. GoldBaby is a reputable source for vintage drum samples.

The answer is, the samples for the 2 units are *similar* but *none* of the ones I heard are the same.

So turns out empirical data FTW and 20 year old memories are FAIL.

[Retrofreak]

I'd say sampling drum machines became more important to me than the Linn tbh.

[Yoozer]

Originally Posted by Samuel Gilbert

The answer is, the samples for the 2 units are *similar* but *none* of the ones I heard are the same.

Could it be that some of that difference is caused by different VCAs?

(a few months ago I had the privilege of hearing a Linndrum through one of those giant milspec limiters from the 1950s. Good grief. Slammed like a ram-raid.)

[HazeBros]

to me they sounded pretty similar. VCAs make sense to me. I still use the lm2 quite a bit since mine has midi and i can burn eproms.

[isham]

Well I have all linn machines so my opinion maybe has some weight. Lm-2 and lm-1 sound in the same family but they are quite different, lm-1 is more raw and heavy, lm-2 is more polished, more disco maybe if you see what I mean.

I love them both ! My favorite sounds on the lm-1 are the clap/ bass/snare and the famous "kuh" made by prince when tuning down the side stick ... Hit hat is funky and groovy as shown in a YouTube vid.

Hope it helps

[Akh]

Originally Posted by Meriphew

I love what Prince did with his Linn.

Me too. I've heard through the grapevine his Linn LM-1 was heavily modified, even back in the 80's. I don't know if this is true however.

[The Hamburglar]

Man, 'analogbass' might be the most condescending, delusional poster I've ever seen on the internet. I wonder what it's like to not be self-aware at all.

[Midi_Thru_Kid]

What a funky thread. I love Prince's sound. And I find myself sayin, "Yeah, HELL yeah, I could go for one of those!" But then.... Could I keep it fresh in my music? (it being an LM-1), and I think the answer is sure if I worked at it. Put the thing through a sidechain and you have house, industrial, maybe? Gotta pick one up soon.....

That's what mutal funds/savings accounts are for. Expensive studio upgrades by buying a lot of really old equipment that could break any second.

[crufty]

how does the adrenalinn fit in w/all this

same sampes?

[alexp]

Originally Posted by The Hamburglar

Man, 'analogbass' might be the most condescending, delusional poster I've ever seen on the internet. I wonder what it's like to not be self-aware at all.

Yeah that kids hilarious.


TR505 is the new Linndrum!



alexP

[g22]

I found this interesting test video comparing a Linn LM-1's output signal to that of a DMX, and strangely, the same sample, output at the same constant velocity as the DX, produced a varying velocity output from the LM-1, even though it was just one note playing over and over.

I was wondering if all Linn drum machine did this, or just the LM-1? I've never heard of any other drum machine doing this, and imo, is probably what creates the so-called "magic" or human feel of the Linn machines, and possibly the early MPC's, 60 and 3000, also may have had this going on as well.

Anybody familiar with this and/or can explain in a little more detail about how this works, electronically? How does it know what volume to output the sample at? If it just randomly output various volumes, it seems it would make a song into a random mess with no feel, not give it more feel. Is there some kind of algorithm maybe?

btw, I'm not looking to try to recreate the Linn sound or feel, just interested in electronics and the technical side of the equipment. Any input apppreciated, thanks.

[waveterm]

The answer is in the video.

There´s no magic randomisation or algorithm.

The way it works is that the LM1 Hihatsample is a looped sample stored on an eprom.

Everytime the LM1 triggers the hihatsound it is just opening the VCA with an envelope that has a fast attack and a decay ( set with the decayknob on the back ).

This means that every individual hihat will have a slightly different sound ( and hence Volume ) depending on where in the loop the sound is.

The other machines, DMX, DX Linndrum etc... will alwyas trigger the sample from start and play out to the end. There are no loops on those.

WT

[GoldMember]

Originally Posted by waveterm

the LM1 Hihatsample is a looped sample stored on an eprom.

Everytime the LM1 triggers the hihatsound it is just opening the VCA with an envelope that has a fast attack and a decay ( set with the decayknob on the back ).

This means that every individual hihat will have a slightly different sound ( and hence Volume ) depending on where in the loop the sound is.

The other machines, DMX, DX Linndrum etc... will alwyas trigger the sample from start and play out to the end. There are no loops on those.

WT

i dont think its a looped sample becouse sequencer would be limited to the sample loop lenght...

different LM-2 also sound different.
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/4051840-post13.html
vs.
linn drum LM2 - Windows Live