The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
where is the innovation
Old 1 week ago
  #271
Lives for gear
 
e6400ultra's Avatar
 

I'm satisfied with what I have, but I would love to see a Kawai K5000 MK II.
Old 1 week ago
  #272
TJT
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
In a way, it is. The main point I wanted to make is that all of that innovative and cutting edge software has been around for a long time now. Computer music is no longer new or revolutionary. It has practically become mainstream. I don’t see Max4Live as innovative, but rather symbolic of the process of academic research becoming mainstream. The primary innovation happened at IRCAM almost 30 years ago. It has been maturing ever since.

Ironically, it’s more advances in computer hardware than software that allow us to do most of what we can do today. This isn’t to say software hasn’t refined and developed. Of course it has. But as a student of music technology in the 80s, I can say from firsthand experience that a lot of this stuff simply isn’t new. In the past, complex sounds composed on the computer had to be rendered overnight because of CPU limitations. These limitations no longer exist today, but the sounds were being made then. Real-time generation of complex sounds wasn’t possible, but the theoretical know-how was already well-established.

In relation to the argument at hand, the very things that hardware is being accused of (rehash, repackaging, etc) is happening in software as well. The fact is, both are maturing technologies now, and neither is particularly innovative on its own. It is in the combination of hardware and software that I see the most potential for innovation.
I think that's a really forced and narrow minded perspective, no offense. I think it's biased based on the fact that you were a student at that time, so you feel like the innovation was occuring then. But, everything at Ircam came from somewhere else. It was all an evolution from what came before. There isn't a single innovation that you can't then point to where it evolved from. I think your central argument says that nobody has been innovating since the 80s. That they're all just copying the stuff you learned in the 80s. It's kind of dismissive of a lot of brilliant minds that have figured out new and, yes, "innovative" ways to work with and experiment with sound since then.
Old 1 week ago
  #273
Lives for gear
 
atma's Avatar
 

Honestly, most things come and go through phases. Because (for whatever reason) we're back in the middle of an 80s analog synth revolution, that is simply what people are making and buying, respectively.

Progression is inexorable, though it can occur so slowly it's hard to even detect until looking back in hindsight.

The most progress I've seen with synthesis has come out of the Eurorack format developers, and I think it will only be a matter of time before the "analog craze" begins to wear on people and companies are again forced to look toward the future rather than the past for novelty/creativity. What's probably even more likely is that all the manufacturers of new analogs today will simply build upon that knowledge and experience and begin to craft entirely novel designs as people begin to (once again) get tired of 808 kicks and square waves run through resonant lowpass filters, etc.....

Have a little faith and patience; it'll happen.
Old 1 week ago
  #274
Lives for gear
 
antto's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by shreddoggie
The design of music making things takes a turn or makes a leap. People then start trying to figure out how to use that thing and this takes several paths.
1. They try to reproduce the old ways e.g. samplers mimic traditional instruments, software mimics hardware
2. They reinvent something from the past by recasting it with the new tool e.g. cutting up the funky drummer break or looping a disco fragment in a sampler
3. They 'misuse' the new thing in an unintended way e.g. acid from a TB-303 rather than emulating an electric bass, turntable as instrument
while it certainly was supposed to be used for bass accompaniment, you have to ask yourself - why did it have a resonance control which goes almost up to self-oscillation
this is not needed for a bass guitar, and could save a knob+potentiometer

the success of the 303 is not accidental, it was designed
the initial failure was due to bad marketing (IMO)

the "inventors" of acid did not modify an instrument for their purposes
they took a funny looking toy, and played with it to see what it does, and it does just one cool sound

speaking of history.. i had no idea about any of that, since i'm relatively young and live in a country which was in a different situation around the time when acid was "invented" and developed

how do you explain that the 303 sound stuck in my head from the first moment i heard a 303 "imitation" in Synapse Orion, and then also in ReBirth?
i explain it by: it just sounds so good
how can you deny clever design
Old 1 week ago
  #275
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJT View Post
I think that's a really forced and narrow minded perspective, no offense.
None taken.

Quote:
I think it's biased based on the fact that you were a student at that time, so you feel like the innovation was occuring then.
But my education didn't end there--and my studies weren't about innovative technology. We were busy learning what teachers could teach us about things they knew--things that already existed. But what already existed was quite a lot--enough for one of my classmates to be innovative and write a sequencer program for PC called Cakewalk (which later became Sonar) while he was still a student.

Why wait around for innovation when you can innovate yourself?

Quote:
But, everything at Ircam came from somewhere else. It was all an evolution from what came before. There isn't a single innovation that you can't then point to where it evolved from.
That's right--and part of my point.

Quote:
I think your central argument says that nobody has been innovating since the 80s. That they're all just copying the stuff you learned in the 80s. It's kind of dismissive of a lot of brilliant minds that have figured out new and, yes, "innovative" ways to work with and experiment with sound since then.
No, my central argument is that software isn't as innovative as it might seem— at least, not to the point of dismissing what is happening now in euro rack as not being innovative. I wouldn’t even be pursuing this line of argument had others not been putting it down.

What’s more, my perspective is based on the years that followed my formal education. It’s not like education stops the moment one leaves school, you know. (In fact, I'd say it's almost the opposite: it's where it truly begins. But that's another topic...) Although I opted not to pursue academic electronic music professionally, I’ve kept in touch with it over the years. Also, my brother has a PhD in composition from Princeton and was a student of Perry Cook, who wrote ChucK. He’s composed music for PLOrk (Princeton Laptop Orchestra) and is well connected in the field. We talk.

I don’t dismiss software as lacking in innovation. Neither do I dismiss euro rack and other developments in hardware as lacking in innovation. Personally, I think these are GREAT times. I've never been more motivated to make electronic music than now.
Old 1 week ago
  #276
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by barryfell View Post
OK some ideas for how things like analog modelling could be done were conceived, but it's only recently as someone else has said do we have the desktop CPU power to make products that rival the analog hardware they are based on, so the realisation of the concept is innovation IMO.

Zynaptiq are being pretty innovative without having to use 20-30 year old ideas as well.
I’m with you! There's a lot of interesting and innovative software out there.

My question is simply why is Reaktor—which is basically 20 years old now—“innovative”—but the upcoming Waldorf Quantum not?
Old 1 week ago
  #277
Lives for gear
 
e6400ultra's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post

My question is simply why is Reaktor—which is basically 20 years old now—“innovative”—but the upcoming Waldorf Quantum not?
I know, right? ...Reaktor. 20 years on and still no multi-core support.
Old 1 week ago
  #278
Gear Maniac
 
Uli Behringer's Avatar
 

Allow me to chime in here as this is a topic I am quite passionate about.

Innovation is often misunderstood as technology or an R&D activity. This thinking stems from the old business model where a product manager designed a product which was subsequently pushed down the supply chain and onto the customer. These were the days when customers had no voice and no choice.
To this day you'll find companies who have technology on hand and try to find a home for it and then wonder why customers don't care.

Innovation for the sake of innovation is meaningless and as Steve Jobs always emphasized - "you first start with the Customer Experience and then work your way back to develop the required technology. Not the other way around."

Equally important is Simon Sinek's famous line: "People don't buy What you make but Why you make it".

I find it remarkable how companies still try to push products and services onto customers, which they don't want. Why building digital products when people ask for analog equipment? Why assume customers won’t figure out that "Virtual Analog" is in fact digital? How would customers feel if you tell them that you designed a CD that is a "Virtual Vinyl" record? Underestimating customers' intelligence is not a wise direction.

Why not empowering customers and build what they want? Why not making them part of the innovation process? Many of the ideas you'll find in our products come from our customers and for that we are very grateful.
Often it's not the technical solution a customer is able to articulate but listening to a customer's pain points, desires and dreams is the kind of collaboration that leads to a better customer experience and that's what is true innovation.

The antiquated business model of telling customer what to buy might have worked in the '80's where customers had no voice. If customers don't get emotionally engaged with your company and people, they simply walk away and how this ended for Nokia, Blackberry and Kodak etc. is well known.

We at MUSIC Group believe that our customers own our company. We also believe that innovation starts with engaging with customers and asking them what they want.
We call it CLM or Customer Lifecycle Management which is a fundamental departure from the traditional PLM or Product Lifecycle Management, where was all about the product.
CLM is a collaboration model which is all about the customer and where we constantly engage with them around Ideation, Conceptualization, Prototyping, Pre Production, Mass Production and even Discontinuation of a product. We enjoy wonderful relationships with major artists and recording artists but also amateur singer songwriters which are equally important.

Only if we carefully listen to our customers, we will understand how they feel and how we can serve them so they will allow us to stay in business.

Thank you for listening.

Uli

Last edited by Uli Behringer; 1 week ago at 01:53 PM..
Old 1 week ago
  #279
But people don't know they want something until they see it, hear it.
So, unless you are a 'populist' you will often need to build something nobody wants - before you build it. THEN, they could very well want it.

It's the designers who are thinking ahead, not the customers.
Old 1 week ago
  #280
Lives for gear
 
e6400ultra's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uli Behringer View Post
Allow me to chime in here as this is a topic I am quite passionate about.

Innovation is often misunderstood as technology or an R&D activity. This thinking stems from the old business model where a product manager designed a product which was subsequently pushed down the supply chain and onto the customer. These were the days when customers had no voice and no choice.
To this day you'll find companies who have technology on hand and try to find a home for it and then wonder why customers don't care.

Innovation for the sake of innovation is meaningless and as Steve Jobs always emphasized - "you first start with the Customer Experience and then work your way back to develop the required technology. Not the other way around."

Equally important is Simon Sinek's famous line: "People don't buy What you make but Why you make it".

I find it remarkable how companies still try to push products and services onto customers, which they don't want. Why building digital product when people want analog equipment? Why believe that customers won’t figure out that "Virtual Analog" is in fact digital? How would customers feel if you tell them that you designed a CD that is a "Virtual Vinyl" record?

Why not empowering customers and build what they want? Why not making them part of the innovation process? Many of the ideas you find in our products come from our customers. Often it's not the solution that you're looking for but customers sharing their pain points, desires and dreams.

The antiquated business model of telling customer what to buy might have worked in the '80's where customers had no voice. If customers don't get emotionally engaged with your company and people, they simply walk away and how this ended for Nokia, Blackberry and Kodak etc. is well known.

We at MUSIC Group believe that our customers own our company. We also believe that innovation starts with engaging with customers and asking them what they want.
We call it CLM or Customer Lifecycle Management which is a fundamental departure from the traditional PLM or Product Lifecycle Management, where was all about the product.
CLM is a collaboration model which is all about the customer and where we constantly engage with them around Ideation, Conceptualization, Prototyping, Pre Production, Mass Production and even Discontinuation of a product. We enjoy wonderful relationships with major artists and recording artists but also amateur singer songwriters which are equally important.

Only if we carefully listen to our customers, we will understand how they feel and how we can serve them so they will allow us to stay in business.

Thank you for listening.

Uli
Thanks for reaching out, Uli. Monster hardware additive synth with lots of harmonics sliders, please.

Something along the lines of the Bell Labs additive, only not huge:



Roland Boutique size LED sliders would be perfect to save space on a full sized keyboard or module. Perhaps variable color LEDs for different functions or layers.

Last edited by e6400ultra; 1 week ago at 12:20 PM..
Old 1 week ago
  #281
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by antto View Post
while it certainly was supposed to be used for bass accompaniment, you have to ask yourself - why did it have a resonance control which goes almost up to self-oscillation
this is not needed for a bass guitar, and could save a knob+potentiometer

the success of the 303 is not accidental, it was designed
the initial failure was due to bad marketing (IMO)

the "inventors" of acid did not modify an instrument for their purposes
they took a funny looking toy, and played with it to see what it does, and it does just one cool sound
Dude, seriously, read up on the subject. You're making a fool of your history teacher.
Old 1 week ago
  #282
Lives for gear
 
antto's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer
Dude, seriously, read up on the subject. You're making a fool of your history teacher.
dude, seriously, is that how you respond to my post?
fine!
Old 1 week ago
  #283
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uli Behringer View Post
Only if we carefully listen to our customers, we will understand how they feel and how we can serve them so they will allow us to stay in business.

Thank you for listening.

Uli
Well, I have to say the degree to which you are taking direct customer input is remarkable—and revolutionary—particularly for a large business such as yours. This kind of direct contact with potential customers may be common with smaller operations, but not larger ones such as Music Group.

At the risk of being labeled a “Behringer fanboi”, I have to say I’m impressed—and grateful.

Regarding innovation, in an earlier post I confessed to not being an innovator. Rather than focus on innovation, I simply use what already exists to create something new which didn’t exist before. I feel this is what you have done with the Behringer D. While perhaps not innovative in itself, it is nevertheless new in the sense that it did not exist before you made it. I’m okay with that.

Since you seem sincere, allow me to suggest this: please consider also catering to a slightly more upscale market with your instruments. While everyone appreciations low prices, of course, some of us are still willing to pay more in exchange for more. I would not like to see a race to the bottom. In the end, this would only hurt the customer.
Old 1 week ago
  #284
Gear Guru
 
fiddlestickz's Avatar
I don't care how popular or how many units Roland sell of their Aira/ACB Boutique range, people really would prefer the real thing in the correct sized format every single time..
Old 1 week ago
  #285
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uli Behringer View Post
How would customers feel if you tell them that you designed a CD that is a "Virtal Vinyl" record?
They'd say 'Great, now i can play records in my car!'
I think CD's, in their 20 years of market dominance, sold way more then vinyl ever did throughout its complete existance.

So i would say you're skewing reality here and it's blatantly obvious how this works as marketing for your recent analog synth stuff.

Thank you for listening!
Old 1 week ago
  #286
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by antto View Post
dude, seriously, is that how you respond to my post?
fine!
Ok, a little more in depth.
You're arguing from its common usage about how it is supposed to have been designed.
Meanwhile you can read stuff from the guy that actually designed it and what his goals were. None of that mentions acid or dance music or anything that the 303 became famous for.

So what you're basically doing is retroactively changing history to fit your taste. You can't do that **** man. Well you can, obviously, but it's not right.
Old 1 week ago
  #287
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddlestickz View Post
I don't care how popular or how many units Roland sell of their Aira/ACB Boutique range, people really would prefer the real thing in the correct sized format every single time..
You contradict yourself.
On the one hand you say the 'boutique' range is popular, then you say people would prefer something different.

I think price is a major driver in many people's purchasing decisions these days.
People could buy an analog SH101, or JP8, but they don't because they are many times more expensive than the 'boutique' version. The difference between them for most people is also minute, or indistinguishable.
A modern synth that is 'the real thing' and the correct size, would also be much more expensive than the small ACB products. So most of the time people vote with their wallet. As you admitted, the Roland products are 'popular'.
Old 1 week ago
  #288
Lives for gear
 
grumphh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uli Behringer View Post
Allow me to chime in here as this is a topic I am quite passionate about.

Innovation is often misunderstood as technology or an R&D activity. This thinking stems from the old business model where a product manager designed a product which was subsequently pushed down the supply chain and onto the customer. These were the days when customers had no voice and no choice.
Often companies have technology on hand and try to find a home for it and then wonder why customers don't care.

Innovation for the sake of innovation is meaningless and as Steve Jobs always emphasized - "you first start with the Customer Experience and then work your way back to develop the required technology. Not the other way around."

Equally important is Simon Sinek's famous line that "people don't buy What you make but Why you make it".

I find it remarkable how to this day companies try to push products and services onto customers, which they don't want. Why building digital product when people want analog equipment? Why believe that customers won’t figure out that "Virtual Analog" is in fact digital? How would customers feel if you tell them that you designed a CD that is a "Virtual Vinyl" record?

Why not empowering customers and build what they want?

The antiquated business model of telling customer what to buy might have worked in the '80's where customers had no voice. If customers don't get emotionally engaged with your company and people, they simply walk away and how this ended for companies such as Nokia, Blackberrry, Kodak etc. is well known.

We at MUSIC Group believe that our customers own our company. We also believe that innovation starts with engaging with customers and asking them what they want.
We call the concept CLM or Customer Lifecycle Management which is a fundamental departure from the traditional PLM or Product Lifecycle Management, where it is all about the product.
CLM is a collaboration model where we constantly engage with our customers around Ideation, Conceptualization, Prototyping, Pre Production, Mass Production and even Discontinuation of a product.

We want to know how our customers feel and hear from them why they allow us to stay in business.

Thank you for listening.

Uli
Isn't this just a trendy sounding defense for being in a business sector where no innovation* is ongoing?


Where is that innovation in the world of synths?

In the world of guitars there is actually innovation going on, such as the trend towards (headless) extended range guitars with fanned frets and often new materials for neck and body - i.e. innovation where the basic construction of an established instrument is challenged and improved upon and may lead to something new.
(To me an 8 string multiscale guitar certainly is something new...)
Probably other traditional instruments are redefined in the same way by innovative individuals.

- and what have the synth players been given?
USB integration and more storage space for patches that could have been created 20-40 years ago... *sigh* Come on...


* Pretty much any business sector that relies on computer tech only utilizes advances in said technology to add "more of the same" just in a better looking and more accessible package.
Old 1 week ago
  #289
Lives for gear
 
antto's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer
Ok, a little more in depth.
You're arguing from its common usage about how it is supposed to have been designed.
Meanwhile you can read stuff from the guy that actually designed it and what his goals were. None of that mentions acid or dance music or anything that the 303 became famous for.

So what you're basically doing is retroactively changing history to fit your taste. You can't do that **** man. Well you can, obviously, but it's not right.
i never said the designer had "acid" in mind, or anything
all i was saying that the character was intentionally put with the design, and given that it is also not very sonically flexible, it's inevitable that it will be used in a bunch of certain ways by the folks who did not approach it with the guitar mindset

i simply do not agree that those people were solely responsible for the acid genre innovation, it happened thanks to the combination of circumstances, including the weirdly designed bass synth
why didn't they invent acid house using a distorted flute?

i mean.. they did not invent the sound, they just found it sitting there in dust, and they merely used it
i'm sure you'll recognize a cool new sound when you hear it

that's what i think, right now
it's my own personal view, you are free to dissagree
Old 1 week ago
  #290
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by antto View Post
i never said the designer had "acid" in mind, or anything
all i was saying that the character was intentionally put with the design, and given that it is also not very sonically flexible, it's inevitable that it will be used in a bunch of certain ways by the folks who did not approach it with the guitar mindset

i simply do not agree that those people were solely responsible for the acid genre innovation, it happened thanks to the combination of circumstances, including the weirdly designed bass synth
Yeah, ok, i see your point that it already had that sound in there. The quesion is if it was intentional.
You said:
Quote:
it is also not meant to give you all kinds of sonic possibilities, it is targeted at making just a specific sound
and boy is it recognizable
So here you say that this box was specifically designed to make acid sounds with.
And i don't think this is true. Tho it is true for all the clones that came out over the years.
Old 1 week ago
  #291
I'm not sure if I fully understand the argument, although I was a musician at the time.
Apart from the TR808, which was immediately adopted by the Soul and RnB community (Marvin Gaye, Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis), the TR909 and TB303 were somewhat poorly received. TB303 was very much pitched as a bass sequencer. But it was fiddly to program and didn't sound much like a bass (guitar) or a Mini-Moog, popular synth bass at the time. The TR909 was affordable, but didn't sound much like a drum kit. People really wanted a Linn Drum or DMX, although they were much more expensive to buy.

These instruments became the sound of 90's dance music because they were kicking around and cheap. It was a happy accident.
Old 1 week ago
  #292
Lives for gear
 
Muser's Avatar
if you push the social media paradigm to the max, in the future, people will have to want custom built synthesisers they can talk to and they will listen. it would have to be something based on a vocoder!!!
Old 1 week ago
  #293
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I'm not sure if I fully understand the argument, although I was a musician at the time.
Apart from the TR808, which was immediately adopted by the Soul and RnB community (Marvin Gaye, Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis), the TR909 and TB303 were somewhat poorly received. TB303 was very much pitched as a bass sequencer. But it was fiddly to program and didn't sound much like a bass (guitar) or a Mini-Moog, popular synth bass at the time. The TR909 was affordable, but didn't sound much like a drum kit. People really wanted a Linn Drum or DMX, although they were much more expensive to buy.

These instruments became the sound of 90's dance music because they were kicking around and cheap. It was a happy accident.
Yes. This mirrors my memory/experience of the 303 and 909 as well. I can still remember seeing new 303s in music stores at reduced prices because they weren’t selling well. I even remember once laughing with a musician friend at how ridiculous they sounded as a substitute for a bass player while we were in the store buying other gear. Of course, we’re not laughing now. But no one at the time had any clue the 303 would eventually make history.
Old 1 week ago
  #294
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uli Behringer View Post
Innovation for the sake of innovation is meaningless and as Steve Jobs always emphasized - "you first start with the Customer Experience and then work your way back to develop the required technology. Not the other way around."

Equally important is Simon Sinek's famous line: "People don't buy What you make but Why you make it".
Those two statements aught to be tattooed on the inner eyelids of business people everywhere!

Unfortunately, most new businesses fail, because the wanna-be business person starts with the inevitable statement "I've just had a brilliant idea!"

And as we all know in business, ideas, all on their own, are worthless. Or in the words of the song 'Ain't what you do, but the way that you do it!'

The components to great innovation are all there, but the innovations themselves are conspicuous by their absence! For example, nobody has been able to make a decent wind controller yet. But then, all the flute and sax players are not clamouring for wind controllers that actually work. The same applies to guitar-to-MIDI.
Old 1 week ago
  #295
Lives for gear
 
antto's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer
Yeah, ok, i see your point that it already had that sound in there. The quesion is if it was intentional.
its design certainly did not follow the easy paths to create an analog "1 osc, VCF VCA" synth, i've spent a long time trying to understand this synth from the inside, and it definately doesn't look like something that was put together quickly
so i'll leave the answer to the reader

Quote:
So here you say that this box was specifically designed to make acid sounds with.
And i don't think this is true. Tho it is true for all the clones that came out over the years.
i didn't say "acid" .. i said a "specific sound"

i still did not see what's your explanation about the Resonance
this one parameter changes it from (supposedly) sounding like a bass guitar to the actually recognizable cool sound i was talking about
there are things there which are wired to the resonance knob to morph the sound when it's at high resonance.. if that's not "intentional" then i don't know what is

they could've spared that parameter to reduce costs.. but you might say that they didn't because the 606 needed 6 small knobs and had to use the same plastic case - fine
then why did they do *extra* stuff with the resonance parameter which requires a dual pot (more expensive) ?
Old 1 week ago
  #296
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Byre View Post
Those two statements aught to be tattooed on the inner eyelids of business people everywhere!
If we followed the Behringer philosophy we wouldn't have synths, and we wouldn't have some of the most revered and valuable vintage synths.
All the synth pioneers went broke, had to sell their businesses - Arp, Moog, Buchla.
In the end, they weren't successful.
Of course, now Buchla 100 and 200 systems, Moog Modulars and Arp 2500s are some of the most prized and valuable synths around.
They started the journey to the small, affordable synths we have today, but weren't accessible to most or popular in the community at the time.

Same goes for music.
If you want to be a simple pop start, figure out what people want, then create it.
If you want to be a musician with a longterm career, and perhaps have your music remembered long after you are gone, make music for yourself, make music you would like to hear, make music you respect as a piece of art, not just as a pop commodity.
Music that was niche, unpopular in it's day is now widely regarded as works of art and valuable to society.
Old 1 week ago
  #297
Quote:
Originally Posted by antto View Post

i still did not see what's your explanation about the Resonance
this one parameter changes it from (supposedly) sounding like a bass guitar to the actually recognizable cool sound i was talking about
there are things there which are wired to the resonance knob to morph the sound when it's at high resonance.. if that's not "intentional" then i don't know what is
No idea, but no one was using the 303 in that highly resonant and melodic way until ten years after it was released.
The MC202 is from the same family, doesn't have that exciting a sound and isn't as widely revered as the 303. So is that a mistake by the designers.... or is it that it didn't have the features that were found so useful, almost by mistake, by the rave and house pioneers?
Old 1 week ago
  #298
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by antto View Post
i didn't say "acid" .. i said a "specific sound"
Oh come on. The 303 is famous for one sound and that is the acid sound.
So when you say 'specific sound' then you can only mean the acid sound.
The 303 is not famous because of its fabulous imitation of an electrical bass guitar.

Quote:
i still did not see what's your explanation about the Resonance
this one parameter changes it from (supposedly) sounding like a bass guitar to the actually recognizable cool sound i was talking about.
Resonance was a fad in disco in those days. I guess they wanted to imitate other synths doing resonance. At least they didn't want to limit it.
What i think did not happen is they designed it meticulously to sound exactly that way with high resonance. It looks more like a happy accident of that particular design.
As you noted it is a limited device. The internals were also limited and the designer tried to solve some technical problems in novel ways. I don't think he designed it with screaming acid lines in mind.

Quote:
there are things there which are wired to the resonance knob to morph the sound when it's at high resonance.. if that's not "intentional" then i don't know what is
Have you considered technical reasons for why it has been done that way?
Maybe it was to prevent high currents in certain parts or whatnot.
With such a compact design things will interact as things veer off from the ideal design.

Quote:
they could've spared that parameter to reduce costs.. but you might say that they didn't because the 606 needed 6 small knobs and had to use the same plastic case - fine
Yeah, that sounds like a plausable reason to fill the gaps.
But resonance was also a common function on just about any filter since moog so my first guess would be that a) they thought a little resonance would help their intended sound and b) people would not understand why other synths let you crank it up whilt this one wouldn't. So they gave it a 'normal' range.

When it comes to their intended sound, i think it's a not a strange thought to have accent change cutoff when resonance is engaged. This is a consequence of physical design constraints.

Quote:
then why did they do *extra* stuff with the resonance parameter which requires a dual pot (more expensive) ?
It's simply a way to give the sound more 'twang' when you apply resonance.
It was an idea to imitate a real bass which didn't work out exactly as they intended.
The result is the happy accident we call the tb-303.

But anyway, we can discuss this all we want but the guy who actually designed it said that he did not design it with that sound in mind.
So there is nothing to talk about, really.
Old 1 week ago
  #299
Lives for gear
 
antto's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso
No idea, but no one was using the 303 in that highly resonant and melodic way until ten years after it was released.
The MC202 is from the same family, doesn't have that exciting a sound and isn't as widely revered as the 303. So is that a mistake by the designers.... or is it that it didn't have the features that were found so useful, almost by mistake, by the rave and house pioneers?
i'm not familiar with the mc202, i can't answer
but there is probably a logical explanation
Old 1 week ago
  #300
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
If we followed the Behringer philosophy we wouldn't have synths, and we wouldn't have some of the most revered and valuable vintage synths.
All the synth pioneers went broke, had to sell their businesses - Arp, Moog, Buchla.
In the end, they weren't successful.
I run a business. If I wanted to be an artist, I'd do that - but I run a business. My No.1 task as a business person is to make a profit - that way, I get to stay in business.

It's a bit like being a soldier. A good soldier is a soldier who comes back alive. A dead soldier is of no use to anybody. A failed business is also of no use to anybody - just as a failed artist is of no use to anybody.

The trick is to do both, succeed artistically and still stay profitable.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
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