The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Synths for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Roland TR-08 Desktop Synthesizers
Old 21st December 2016
  #31
Lives for gear
 
Cornish1999's Avatar
+1 on the space echo as I've said in other threads many times given a nudge. I may as well mention a new Roland aira sampler while I'm at it

A full size 808 would be the best thing ever, why wouldn't they? Maybe because that would prevent the partial re release business model probably...

Back to dreaming of a space echo, and a space chorus to match with a boutique d beam
Old 21st December 2016
  #32
Quote:
Originally Posted by lestermagneto View Post
Having SEEN the movie myself..., at the end they actually explain in detail why that CAN'T make the TR-808 anymore
Interesting. I plan on watching the movie. Just waiting for it to become available for rent.
Old 21st December 2016
  #33
Lives for gear
 
mpresev's Avatar
but why? aren't you ladies and gents happy with the TR8?

That thing is a good machine.. 4 in 1 drum machine
Old 21st December 2016
  #34
Lives for gear
 
lestermagneto's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM0 View Post
Interesting. I plan on watching the movie. Just waiting for it to become available for rent.
Yeah, it's worth watching, (but as I said on another thread about it), perhaps a bit too niche for the significant other who doesn't share the same passion as we do! , but absolutely recommend watching.

I believe it IS available on iTunes, it was last week...
Old 21st December 2016
  #35
Lives for gear
 
lestermagneto's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpresev View Post
but why? aren't you ladies and gents happy with the TR8?

That thing is a good machine.. 4 in 1 drum machine
It IS a good drum machine mpresev, some people just like the almost 1:1 control ratio of the OG's... which I can understand... Someone like Hank Schocklee, one of the Beastie Boys, too many to mention, can just pick up the models and for the most part are good to go, rather then learning a new interface which the TR8 requires to some degree...
Old 21st December 2016
  #36
Gear Addict
 

I'm quite happy with the TR8. The size and user interface are perfect for me, the hidious green lights aside Of course they could improve the emulation a bit, especially the 808 kick with long decay. But the tr8 sounds pretty decent imo. I had the the luck to play with an original 808 and 909 in the past. Its defo not 1:1 but pretty close.
The size from boutiques is a bit too small for my big hands. For fx boxes on the other hand..less knobs= more space between them....
Also not a big fan of mini jacks.
But if they made Tr08 and I could afford it I would probably buy it.
Old 21st December 2016
  #37
Deleted User 
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by lestermagneto View Post
Having SEEN the movie myself..., at the end they actually explain in detail why that CAN'T make the TR-808 anymore. One of the chips essential to it's sound, was bought en masse by it's creator, as it was considered "flawed" product, and had a technical glitch and issue... but created a very large part of the sonic magic of the machine.

So even at the time, they couldn't continue the production of the unit. It simply is not economically feasible to do so at this time as well.
the analog part is no problem at all to recreate, all parts are available and even if they don't use 100% original NOS parts, noone would care.. the yocto sounds great, the nava sounds great, the re303 sounds great.. the only point they really don't do it is due to less profit, which is of course normal and nothing to blame.. after all it's a company and not a wellfare organization but finding excuses relating to 1 single chip??? is a little bit weak for a company of the size of Roland, imho.
Old 21st December 2016
  #38
Lives for gear
 
lestermagneto's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by decoder23 View Post
the analog part is no problem at all to recreate, all parts are available and even if they don't use 100% original NOS parts, noone would care.. the yocto sounds great, the nava sounds great, the re303 sounds great.. the only point they really don't do it is due to less profit, which is of course normal and nothing to blame.. after all it's a company and not a wellfare organization but finding excuses relating to 1 single chip??? is a little bit weak for a company of the size of Roland, imho.
I haven't tried the Yocto and the other mentioned units, but I believe you...

Roland IS involved with "real" analog obviously, but also with r&d into ACB, ... I see them producing more analog in the future, but while the company obviously has one flag firmly planted in their historic past, and one flag towards the future, I agree... It would be pretty expensive for them and confusing to the marketplace to have an analog version vs ACB at the same time etc... and since others are doing it... (and I have caught a bit of a glimpse of the arguments on threads regarding all the different remakes etc..)... doesn't seem as a large company worth their ROI....

They have had such attention to detail on the System500, that they have withheld production units etc until they got it right, and even with the great work of Malekko etc, that has been such a resource consumer etc... I can't see why they would want to really endeavor in it with such a mass wanted unit that is so uniquely beloved... So again, I totally get why people want it, and I get why that don't / or really can't do it...

one of those things they can't really win at I guess, but I think they have released pretty much one string of winners after the next over the last couple of years... but that's just my humble opinion.

4 years ago we weren't talking about Roland in such high regard, (even with all our requisite grumbling etc).... I don't think they are taking an easy way out... and I really really like what they are trying to do and where they are going...

but I also respect everyone's opinions on it, as is their right!
Old 21st December 2016
  #39
Deleted User 
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by lestermagneto View Post
I haven't tried the Yocto and the other mentioned units, but I believe you...

Roland IS involved with "real" analog obviously, but also with r&d into ACB, ... I see them producing more analog in the future, but while the company obviously has one flag firmly planted in their historic past, and one flag towards the future, I agree... It would be pretty expensive for them and confusing to the marketplace to have an analog version vs ACB at the same time etc... and since others are doing it... (and I have caught a bit of a glimpse of the arguments on threads regarding all the different remakes etc..)... doesn't seem as a large company worth their ROI....

They have had such attention to detail on the System500, that they have withheld production units etc until they got it right, and even with the great work of Malekko etc, that has been such a resource consumer etc... I can't see why they would want to really endeavor in it with such a mass wanted unit that is so uniquely beloved... So again, I totally get why people want it, and I get why that don't / or really can't do it...

one of those things they can't really win at I guess, but I think they have released pretty much one string of winners after the next over the last couple of years... but that's just my humble opinion.

4 years ago we weren't talking about Roland in such high regard, (even with all our requisite grumbling etc).... I don't think they are taking an easy way out... and I really really like what they are trying to do and where they are going...

but I also respect everyone's opinions on it, as is their right!
but then again, why is Korg able to release 3 different versions of their legacy MS20 plus the Odyssey and probably more will come with much less resources than a company like Roland?

I know, a lot of Roland bashing and moaning is going on, including me doing it, but I guess that's just because we know that it would have been possible to make analog reissues, full sized with individual outs with the only upgrade being better interconnectivity.. And they also could have made them to competative prizes, of course not in the 300$ range but in the 700 - 1000 $ range without doubt. And everyone who is into 909 drums and could buy a real reissue at such a price tag would do it, I'm 100% sure.
Further, talking about their modeling technology, why don't they use their techonolgy to create something new instead of just emulating their legacy? Because noone would care about ACB, it wouldn't be more interesting than Supernatural and whatever else they came up with over the last couple of years, if they wouldn't sell it coupled with their legacy products..

The boutiques have their advantage for sure too, for some people size is a concern, be it studio space or gigging, noone denies that. The sound isn't bad too, and of course good musicians will make good sounding music with them. But well, they'd probably make better sounding music with better sounding gear. That's just my opinion and I know that it might taste salty to some, but well, it's just my opinion
Old 22nd December 2016
  #40
Lives for gear
 
lestermagneto's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by decoder23 View Post
but then again, why is Korg able to release 3 different versions of their legacy MS20 plus the Odyssey and probably more will come with much less resources than a company like Roland?

I know, a lot of Roland bashing and moaning is going on, including me doing it, but I guess that's just because we know that it would have been possible to make analog reissues, full sized with individual outs with the only upgrade being better interconnectivity.. And they also could have made them to competative prizes, of course not in the 300$ range but in the 700 - 1000 $ range without doubt. And everyone who is into 909 drums and could buy a real reissue at such a price tag would do it, I'm 100% sure.
Further, talking about their modeling technology, why don't they use their techonolgy to create something new instead of just emulating their legacy? Because noone would care about ACB, it wouldn't be more interesting than Supernatural and whatever else they came up with over the last couple of years, if they wouldn't sell it coupled with their legacy products..

The boutiques have their advantage for sure too, for some people size is a concern, be it studio space or gigging, noone denies that. The sound isn't bad too, and of course good musicians will make good sounding music with them. But well, they'd probably make better sounding music with better sounding gear. That's just my opinion and I know that it might taste salty to some, but well, it's just my opinion
I agree decoder for the most part certainly.... and NOT arguing with you here, just positing some possible reasons or explanations... all good!

- I am not electrical engineer, so I am not sure how much simpler in design the MS20 etc is then say the Jupiter8 or 808. I know the Jupiter8 is more complex obviously, and what I do know about the 808 was that there were certain faulty chips purchased in quantity by Roland at the time that contributed to their sound.. they couldn't make more at the time, and can't order the same faulty chips now... I'm sure there is some way to get close, but I think their approach ACB, and everyone else already offering options of remakes etc.. But if they couldn't get it 1:1 with a replaced chip etc, they would be hearing the exact same criticism as they are now... and I seem to hear people talking about the same with the KArps and the other Korg products as well... Can't please everyone... and I'm sure they weighed that etc.. Again, it may just be my opinion, but I don't think that CAN make the same machine again with existing chips and whatnot without some compromise which would result in the same blowback.

-as far as new tech, I think Roland is absolutely approaching that, and have... and I think that their approach to analog right now is with a definite eye to the future, not the past, as with the JDXA etc... And I think we will absolutely see more soon. I don't think they want to try and recreate the perceived halcyon days of the Jupiter4 etc when they want to make newer products for a newer time.. and I know they are probably working away hard on that...

-ACB is a new tech for them, and is growing. It is different then most topological approaches.. I'm not claiming they are the first by any means to do this, but it's obvious that the first application of a gestalt type system WOULD be reissues that people are pining away for. They are not imitating the characteristics top down of how, say a Juno filter works, they are doing the mathematical computations of what the different capacitors, resistors, circuit board material etc... of how they would behave... Again, not the first to do this, but are approaching it pretty hard core... (enough that bugs that existed in the 808 on a circuit level exhibited themselves in the TR8... and they couldn't figure out where it came from, it was just something that occurred as a result of putting together the aggregate of the models of all the parts on the board...)...

- I can see ACB being applied to many things, and towards future leaning products that expand sonically on the past and whatnot.. (certain BBD chips not in manufacture, again, "gestalt" behavior, and whatnot)... but it's obvious FIRST application is what they have done with it. Who knows what they have planned? But they are obviously interested in "real" analog, and have some extremely interesting r&d tech going on right now with ACB etc, so I can only imagine good things...

-boutiques, sure, they are small. they also sound good imho. I get some people are put off by size... (and I too have big hands, and the only one that was somewhat, somewhat problematic was the jupiter... Problem solved: The brought us the System 8.. All good. More voices, bigger workspace etc... Sure, there are things I would have done a little different, but I am not them, and I'm sure they weigh ALL these things.... I want a module version of that. It sounds great, and I love it. My lonely real analogs are sitting on the other side of the room right now... (except my moogs.. different thing.. but I need them!).......

-but I think they are listening. ACB is "analog circuit behavior" modeling obviously. So the first obvious application is to do THAT. Model analog circuit behavior on their OWN legacy historically important and coveted products. Be interesting to see if they do something like Arturia did with the Origin in allowing one to make a frankenstein of say SH101 oscillators meet System100 filters, meets Juno106 Chorus etc...

-and there is some (from what I understand) serious math and processing going on underneath the hood, hence the 8 voice limitation right now... it's not that they are hobbling it, but this isn't our 2006 Arturia Jupiter8V. It's a LOT LOT closer. And the general consensus agrees with that. Probably not all there, but enough for most discerning critics, and certainly enough for a bloke like me who is using it in my music and productions. Control surface is great. and I really haven't heard really anyone buy it and complain about it that much. I'm sure there are a few, but haven't seen them around that much... kinda like when the System1 came out, I was one of the peeps on the side of "why not real analog" and pitchforks and whatnot. Until I used it. I shut up pretty quick and apologized. I use it ALL the time now. And has brought me completely back into the Roland fold of things for the first time in a long time...

I think they are pretty brave, knowing they are going to get this kinda blowback, and pursuing many different fronts to solutions to ideas musicians and producers want. I too want more outputs. I too sometimes want a different color scheme, I too want another octave, I too want some larger surfaces sometimes... all good.... and/but I can't argue with the simple fact that Roland for the 99.99999% of the part has hit the sweetspot in terms of affordability for most, sonic quality for even us snobs , and a vision to the future which embraces the past.

You can be "salty" , and I completely respect that... and you raise valid points... but I think things for the most part are working out pretty good for us end users.... especially considering the fact that outside of a few, honestly, commercial failures (criminally the VSynth) etc.... Roland is NOT the same company that was catering to the average "gigging" bloke, or wedding band type stuff.

they are making really really interesting stuff we all can't wait to try, use, and get our hands on, and talk about here. That can ONLY be good... and they are reading these threads, and responding in kind.... so it is great we are talking about it.... because this is a company that has changed a LOT and sincerely WANTS to make gear we want....
-
Old 22nd December 2016
  #41
Deleted User 
Guest
I've never heard of this before regarding a faulty chip in TR-808 which contributed to itssound by being faulty. Did they also mention which chip specifically they were talking about, just out of curiosity. but honestly this doesn't make any sense at all. Specially since the yocto is more or less a 1:1 clone in terms of the audio circuits and sounds pretty much as close as you can get.
You can't compare an MS20 with a Jupiter 8 of course, but MS20 with SH-101, sure.. Analog 303 clones are also possible without any problem. And drum machines too, the 808 is more or less an extended 606 and with the tt606 we have something like a crossover between 808 and 606.. and hell yeah, it is possible today to make 1:1 reissues which just are sounding like the ones from the 80's, the only question is, if it is feasible in regards of profit and that probably it isn't. But it is true, even if they'd make analog reissues, there would be some moaning, but I bet a lot less than it's happening now. Korg got some critique for the mini, but mainly for it's cheap built quality. Owning the full sized new Version I just can say that it is an awsome product with good build quality and great sound and I don't really care if it doesn't sound 100% like a vintage one.

with the rest of your post I totally agree, there is a lot going on since some years and a lot of choices, where everyone can find gear at his preference be it analog or digital, software or hardware, new or vintage. And of course, the approach of Roland might open nice possibilities for future products, I just don't see real advantages of their product line at this point for myself, price excluded.
And of course we live in golden synth times at the moment, I remember when I started to get interested in hardware synths, there were only 2 synths available new and in my affordable price range.. the mfb synth 2 and the desktop evolver. I would have killed for the Aira or boutique line back then
Old 22nd December 2016
  #42
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobio View Post
Just give me a boutique Space Echo.
They should make one that uses standard cassette tapes.
Old 22nd December 2016
  #43
Lives for gear
 
lestermagneto's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by decoder23 View Post
I've never heard of this before regarding a faulty chip in TR-808 which contributed to itssound by being faulty. Did they also mention which chip specifically they were talking about, just out of curiosity. but honestly this doesn't make any sense at all. Specially since the yocto is more or less a 1:1 clone in terms of the audio circuits and sounds pretty much as close as you can get.
You can't compare an MS20 with a Jupiter 8 of course, but MS20 with SH-101, sure.. Analog 303 clones are also possible without any problem. And drum machines too, the 808 is more or less an extended 606 and with the tt606 we have something like a crossover between 808 and 606.. and hell yeah, it is possible today to make 1:1 reissues which just are sounding like the ones from the 80's, the only question is, if it is feasible in regards of profit and that probably it isn't. But it is true, even if they'd make analog reissues, there would be some moaning, but I bet a lot less than it's happening now. Korg got some critique for the mini, but mainly for it's cheap built quality. Owning the full sized new Version I just can say that it is an awsome product with good build quality and great sound and I don't really care if it doesn't sound 100% like a vintage one.

with the rest of your post I totally agree, there is a lot going on since some years and a lot of choices, where everyone can find gear at his preference be it analog or digital, software or hardware, new or vintage. And of course, the approach of Roland might open nice possibilities for future products, I just don't see real advantages of their product line at this point for myself, price excluded.
And of course we live in golden synth times at the moment, I remember when I started to get interested in hardware synths, there were only 2 synths available new and in my affordable price range.. the mfb synth 2 and the desktop evolver. I would have killed for the Aira or boutique line back then
Sorry decoder, running around right now for the holiday bs, and my memory is scattershot right now, i will try and find/remember the specific parts and some of the posts here at GS that demonstrated the phenomena…

I think that Roland has more analog coming soon, gut feeling… but probably more with an eye towards the future then the purist past…. it's just too hard to please everyone say, who wants a Jupiter 4, and too many things that can go askance, rather then making a new product for better or worse… and they have many different developmental teams over there…. but it seems they are all finally starting to communicate better!

I would love to see something along the lines of the SH101 architecture from roland in a true analog sense, but without them having to worry about having it sound 1:1, or constraining their decisions etc… I mean, we pretty much have that, or can get it… I would prefer more forward thinking rather then just reissuing what they have dope in the past as much as people at least think they want it! But you are absolutely right, something like the SH101 is a lot easier, like the MS20 etc, then a Jupiter8 obviously….

I do like the new ms20, with your caveats aside (build, the first having mini keys etc)… I would just want a module unit,… and have.. so good enough….

I remember talking to some of the engineers at Roland, and one of the big issues they had, and had with ACB, was which models to "model" I guess (is that recursive sentence?)…. They had a pristine 808 or whatnot stuck in luctite, never out of the box etc… versus other ones, say the one Mike D and the boys used on Licenced to Ill by the Beastie Boys…. which had seen it's fair share of cigarette(and other)smoke, spilled on, road weary etc…. and likewise, no two Jupiter 8's "sound alike 30+ years later…. depending on what they have been exposed to etc… so that was a serious question for them….. which is why we see the "condition" parameter on the new System 8…. taking different models into accommodation… fair enough… So I bet if you and I got a new MS20 or SH101 from 197/8x and compared the same thing built today with the exact same components (IF they are/were available) they sound different. Hell, I have 2 modern Moog Minitaurs that sound different, and for some reason, 2 Kurzweil K2000's that do as well!?!?! (shouldn't at all, but perhaps Janus vs other chips or one on the road, or fried or something…. they are digital synths…but still "real life" conditions make one different then the other, even if it's just a short perhaps on one of their outputs or something).. so that's all to the wind...

This is obviously pretty well known….(barring the K2 example) because they pick up character like Fender Strats and whatnot… So our views of what an MS20 sound like might be completely different! All good… And I think for the time being now, ACB is doing pretty good… Of course I love analog, and use it… and want and desire for Roland to do more with it…. and again, they are I believe…

But I think the serious heady designers over there like Ace Suzuki etc would rather construct a future then recreate a past…. (and this is a genius man who humbly worked himself up from the factory assembly putting chips on D-50's to being one of their lead visionaries…)

but I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive…. but sourcing chips from all over the world etc to recreate a Jupiter8 is not I think the best use of their resources. .. I love the synths of the past, but back then, we were looking for the synths of the future…

seems like they are trying to give us both… so I cannot throw aspersion their way at all… For all these populated threads, I've heard more people complaining about the MS20mini not sounding like a vintage ms20 then I have heard about the ACB line in all honesty… (again could be wrong)… so I don't think that's a battle worth fighting for them on either a public relation or cost investment standpoint… (and again, I could be wrong!)…

All "I" know, is that I have spent most of my professional career trying to mess things up sonically…. So why I find these threads of ultimate geek interest for me because, well, I dunno(?)… just a niche I find more interesting then Facebook…

at the end of the day (hating that expression), I'm the guy who was wave shaping it with Turbosynth back in the day and warping it and reamping it all through a bass cabinet or something else etc… so I'm NO purist. Just the kind of music I make or have made and the bands I have been in or had the pleasure to work with etc…. I also have great custom Fender Stratocasters that I personally picked out the wood for their construction..… but I am NOT trying to make myself sound like Eric Clapton…(all respect)…

And I totally agree that we are living in a somewhat golden age with so so much at our disposal, whether it be ITB, plugins, better outboard, companies CARING about what we want, the great efforts made by Korg and Roland to honor their past… Dave Smith making great products.. etc etc…

And then we can record it all to fairly inexpensive computers and the playing field is pretty much leveled….

the only problem I see is the fact that ultimately for most end listeners its just heard as a 128kbs mp3 or streaming...and what is desired to be heard by millenials who are completely confused by a key change! (but that's just me being an old silly man)...

Last edited by lestermagneto; 22nd December 2016 at 02:52 AM..
Old 22nd December 2016
  #44
Lives for gear
 
choond's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpresev View Post
but why? aren't you ladies and gents happy with the TR8?

That thing is a good machine.. 4 in 1 drum machine
Good question! I find it hard to pull the trigger on it for some reason, and I don't mind the looks at all. Perhaps because its a bit swiss army knife-ish, and I have that covered by NI Maschine's 2.0

The TR-09 (and hopefully TR-08) are dedicated to what they do. They're trying to give not just the sound, but the appearance and user experience of the originals.
(except that apparently users are now 3 feet tall with mini fingers compared to users in the 80's)
Old 22nd December 2016
  #45
Deleted User 
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by lestermagneto View Post
what I do know about the 808 was that there were certain faulty chips purchased in quantity by Roland at the time that contributed to their sound..
[citation needed]
Old 22nd December 2016
  #46
Deleted User 
Guest
did I understand something wrong here? Late at night I understood it this way, that they used faulty chips in their 808s back then which led to some special sound. Now reading it again, I understand it this way, that they baught a big patch of faulty chips and therefor couldn't produce the tr808 any longer, since this chip is totally required to get the 808 to sound like an 808?

nevertheless, both versions don't make any sense, since the 808 doesn't contain any "special chips", just some transistors, OPAs, logic ICs and passive components which were common back in the 80ies and used in A LOT of different synths at that time, including nearly every analog synth from Roland and can also be found in synths which were produced after the 808..
Old 22nd December 2016
  #47
Deleted User 
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by decoder23 View Post
the 808 doesn't contain any "special chips", just some transistors, OPAs, logic ICs and passive components which were common back in the 80ies and used in A LOT of different synths at that time, including nearly every analog synth from Roland and can also be found in synths which were produced after the 808..
this is very true, there are no special chips inside the 808, except for main CPU, but that has no effect on sound. Roland used different sources of components inside their gear like transistors etc (ie the TB-303 had different NPN's like 536's, 945's, 1815's and 1685's used throughout it's production). I very much doubt all 808's sounded the same when the left the production line.

Having worked on a few 808's, there's nothing special in them, except for what decoder23 has mentioned above.

Last edited by Syn303; 22nd December 2016 at 03:05 PM..
Old 22nd December 2016
  #48
Gear Maniac
 

Near the bottom of this article is an explanation of the last part of the 808 movie where the Roland founder explains the faulty transistor thing.

The 808 Heard Round the World - The New Yorker
Old 22nd December 2016
  #49
Deleted User 
Guest
Faulty transistors would make more sense in that case, but can Kakehashi really remember that far back. Of course using sub standard components would give a bit of gear a distinctive sound. The whole thing is subjective though.

Of course on GS we all like to know what makes things tick.
Old 22nd December 2016
  #50
Deleted User 
Guest
this sounds more like a funny anectode to me, mocking up all the "tales" which happen around these classic machines since decades..
Old 22nd December 2016
  #51
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lestermagneto View Post
[...]
I would love to see something along the lines of the SH101 architecture from roland in a true analog sense, but without them having to worry about having it sound 1:1, or constraining their decisions etc… I mean, we pretty much have that, or can get it… I would prefer more forward thinking rather then just reissuing what they have dope in the past as much as people at least think they want it! But you are absolutely right, something like the SH101 is a lot easier, like the MS20 etc, then a Jupiter8 obviously….
[...]
JD-Xi's analog part (which I tend to forget about for some reasons) isn't too far from a SH-101, architecturally speaking.

It's a very basic and bland architecture. Without the 101 fame it would have to be cheaper than the microbrute or monologue to be able to stand on its own...even then the Volcas would be more interesting.
Old 22nd December 2016
  #52
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lestermagneto View Post
[...]

I remember talking to some of the engineers at Roland, and one of the big issues they had, and had with ACB, was which models to "model" I guess (is that recursive sentence?)…. They had a pristine 808 or whatnot stuck in luctite, never out of the box etc… versus other ones, say the one Mike D and the boys used on Licenced to Ill by the Beastie Boys…. which had seen it's fair share of cigarette(and other)smoke, spilled on, road weary etc…. and likewise, no two Jupiter 8's "sound alike 30+ years later…. depending on what they have been exposed to etc… so that was a serious question for them….. which is why we see the "condition" parameter on the new System 8…. [...]
To kind of illustrate that, there's more than one version of the 909:



(GS thread for more info)

Not very subtle. Revisions, differences you can hear between units of the same models, aging of components, how you can tune/calibrate to your liking some instruments, or even just the effect of heat... those weren't things I was aware of until I joined GS, and they do make the question of "what does X sound like?" trickier.

Funny part is that this kind of extends to Roland's ACB stuff because there are differences between how the first AIRA wave and Plug-Out and Boutique approach the question, and offer different levels of quality, but you're not going to be aware of that unless you're following the products closely.
Old 22nd December 2016
  #53
Lives for gear
 
lestermagneto's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn303 View Post
[citation needed]
Sorry, I just saw the film, and can't remember the specific transistor etc...

but as was kindly cited above by Pete1024: (from the NYTimes)

"The film “808” closes by giving viewers an audience with the Creator. Roland’s wan founder, Ikutaro Kakehashi, sits at a desk in a navy suit wearing nasal oxygen tubes and, in labored, heavily accented and subtitled English, spins a familiar yarn. He claims that the 808’s distinctive sizzle was produced by the faulty transistors that he chose for the sound generator. As semiconductor improvements made them impossible to restock, “we could no longer buy the defective transistor,” he says. “So, no way to come back!” The film’s closing titles reveal that, in its three years of production, Roland made only twelve thousand TR-808s, a fact of little practical significance but tremendous resonance as a cultural myth. Some of those twelve thousand boxes created the most dynamic sounds of the past century. Countless musicians still hope to conjure the ghost in the analog machine."

Perhaps Mr Kakehashi remembers it wrong, but he made a fairly compelling anecdotal story of it which concludes the film in an interesting way. As I have stated many times in the past, I am NO electrical engineer, so the statements I am making are sourced from what I consider fairly respectable and trustworthy....

And the article above kind of misstates what Mr. Kakehashi was saying... if my memory serves (? ),

he said in the film that it was not the fact that that particular transistor was unavailable, it was that there was a faulty BATCH of that particular transistor that was made, and was going to be tossed by the manufacturer...., so he bought them at a considerable bargain... So the numbers on it, or the particular resistor MAY be available etc, but the manufacturing defect in THAT particular run had an issue which contributed to what he considered a constituent element of the sound.....a manufacturing defect "ghost in the machine" that he felt he no longer had access to or knowledge to recreate.


So, I am not trying to cause a kerfuffle here at all, I am just relating anecdotally what I saw in the movie which I found interesting. And as I said, I'm no purist myself... but this did seem like an interesting point by it's creator.
Old 22nd December 2016
  #54
Deleted User 
Guest
well, I don't believe it..This seems more like pushing some myths around a machine to elevate it's hype even more. The TR-808 uses 2sa733ap and 2sc945p transistors, which were all over the place in the 80's. They certainly didn't use a wrong patch in all TR-808s they have ever built and have been surprised how good they sound with these faulty transistors and quit after these faulty transistors were all gone in their stock..
Further, no company would every risk to use faulty components in an electrical design where noone can predict it's result. Imho that's a fairy tale, and certainly sounds interesting and thrilling in that movie, but that's it.
Old 22nd December 2016
  #55
Lives for gear
 
lestermagneto's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by decoder23 View Post
well, I don't believe it..This seems more like pushing some myths around a machine to elevate it's hype even more. The TR-808 uses 2sa733ap and 2sc945p transistors, which were all over the place in the 80's. They certainly didn't use a wrong patch in all TR-808s they have ever built and have been surprised how good they sound with these faulty transistors and quit after these faulty transistors were all gone in their stock..
Further, no company would every risk to use faulty components in an electrical design where noone can predict it's result. Imho that's a fairy tale, and certainly sounds interesting and thrilling in that movie, but that's it.
fair enough, i certainly wasn't there, and transistor knowledge is certainly not my forte!
Old 23rd December 2016
  #56
Old 23rd December 2016
  #57
Gear Nut
 
kuroichi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToyBox View Post
To kind of illustrate that, there's more than one version of the 909:
I wondered why they didn't allow you to emulate these changes with the TR-09, with a mode selection or something. It seemed odd to me that they didn't choose to make it more comprehensive.

As for the magic chips, I'd be willing to bet that's just Roland talking out their ass. Roland have been producing derivatives of the 808/909/303 etc for years now. They've always been about emulation, first of real instruments, and now they're even emulating the original emulations. I doubt they'll go the whole hog with a remake. Unless they end up pulling a moog and attaching an impractical price alongside them.
Old 23rd December 2016
  #58
Quote:
Originally Posted by decoder23 View Post
discuss.
Nice Photoshop, dude.
Old 23rd December 2016
  #59
Deleted User 
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elsongs View Post
Nice Photoshop, dude.
not my work, bro, but thanks anyway :P
Old 23rd December 2016
  #60
Lives for gear
A (very) rough mockup of what the TR-08 SHOULD look like (add in a few switches, simple display etc)

Followed by what it unfortunately WILL look like...
Attached Thumbnails
Roland TR-08-tr-08-should.jpg   Roland TR-08-tr-08-will.jpg  
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump