Vintage Synth Re-Issues, what do you think? Would you buy?
Eirikur Hallgrimsson
their vintage guitar re-issue concept to synth marketing.....
I get the feeling that Roland could make some money with a TR-808 reissue. Put
MIDI on it, just to differentiate it from the original (which would still be in
demand).
Ok. TR-808, what else?
Roland D-50 (mucho temptation to ask for cleaner PCM and a few other things)
Moog MiniMoog
Moog Taurus pedals (original, not II)
Moog PolyMoog
add MIDI to all of the above
Elka Synthex HAD MIDI, even then.
Rhodes Chroma, but not the Polaris (has parallel port, MIDI could be external)
Gleeman Pentaphonic? (Now I'm getting silly)
What would your list of re-issues look like? Would you buy them?
Of the above, I'd probably buy the Synthex, and the Taurus. I have a Chroma,
and I don't do House :-)
Just to play devil's advocate against my original TR-808 example, the markup,
which is to say profit, on selling ROM cards of TR-808 sounds, is probably
higher than selling a re-issue of the hardware (software is more profitable),
and this way they can still demand top dollar for this year's features in the
drum machine, and stay competitive.
Eirikur
Eirikur Hallgrimsson | "Rhodes? Where we're going, we don't need Rhodes!"
e...@ranger.enet.dec.com |
PATHWORKS for Macintosh|
AT...@estec.bitnet
I would certainly re-issue the old super Krog series :
PS3100/Ps3200/Ps3300 !!!
Put some more stable VCO's or some extra control over the synch logic
a la Mono-POLy
The Roland 700 modular
The EMS series put some more standard CV control and MIDI of course
The great Yamaha CS80 maybe with some Kg less !!
The Prophets .. pity Sequencial does'n exist any more !!
The ARP Quadra with some real switches instead of the soft-touche ones
and with knobs instead of slider !
The Jupiter 8 .......Absolutely !!!
But having a look at the market today it is not difficult to understand why
all this great synth/companies has dissapear .. I'm sorry guys we are probably
a small group of *synthesist* .. People today didn't even appreciate the
Roland JD800 attempt !!! ..
Sighh .. I can't write anymore ..I'm going to cry !!!!
Where are we going ???
Ciao
Andrea TONI AT...@ESTEC.BITNET ENV ENV ENV
-------------------------------------------I-----I-----I----------------
.. Bellezza e' semplicita' e modestia .. VCO-->VCF-->VCA-->DUCATI 900SS
-------------------------------------------I-----I-----I----------------
LFO LFO LFO
metlay
>You know, playing around with a Fender synth. has made me think about applying
>their vintage guitar re-issue concept to synth marketing.....
Don't go away folx, tomorrow he invents the glass jackhammer. (Actually, that's
a good name for a band....Glass Jackhammer....hmmmm.....)
>Ok. TR-808, what else?
I disagree about the TR. It'd be too expensive to rebuild, and inevitably
people would claim that it didn't sound "right."
>Roland D-50 (mucho temptation to ask for cleaner PCM and a few other things)
Harg! Glub blug dip woot-boof wammie! (Translated: Phoo! I'm sorry they built
these the FIRST time!)
>Moog MiniMoog
No one would trust the circuit board layout unless Moog did it himself....
>Moog Taurus pedals (original, not II)
Not enough demand, I don't think. But I wouldn't mind owning one. The II and
III really sucked bad canal water by comparison.
>Moog PolyMoog
No way never. UNLESS you figured out a way to go from one board per voice
(72 of them!) to one CHIP per voice, and preserved the unique architecture
of the machine. But I would expect it not to be a big seller, alas. (Time
for me to see if I can get Kurt's Polymoog to listen to my CV sequencer....)
>Elka Synthex HAD MIDI, even then.
I'd want to try out one of these, you betcha. They were nice machines.
>Rhodes Chroma, but not the Polaris
Bosh, my good man! Bring them BOTH back, for two different audiences.
I'd never own a Chroma-- too heavy and clunky. But a Polaris with a
lighter case and a keyboard that sensed aftertouch (and maybe eight
voices rather than six) I'd snap up in a jiffy.
>Gleeman Pentaphonic? (Now I'm getting silly)
No, you're not. We need more clear plastic see through synths!
>What would your list of re-issues look like? Would you buy them?
Hmmm. I'd bring back the ARP Quadra and the Roland GR-500, and I'd
own one of each. The Yamaha CS-80 MUST be buildable in a more efficient
hardware design nowadays....
Hell, a PolySix with the Korg MIDI retro would make a good MIDI analog
synth for people who were starting out. Alternatives for people with
little to spend would be the Sequential SixTrak (a great machine for
the price even today) and the Korg MonoPoly (MIDI it and get outa the way!).
I'd LIKE to say the Mellotron, but hell, I did the math-- it'd be easier to
put enough memory in a K2000 for 35 eight-second samples in mono, and just
play one THAT way. Actually, you could even duplicate the rotary voice-blend
controls on the Mello with a K2000, too....
--
metlay |
| "God damn you, Metlay. God damn you to hell."
|
met...@netcom.com | (d. harkless)
metlay
>But having a look at the market today it is not difficult to understand why
>all this great synth/companies has dissapear .. I'm sorry guys we are probably
>a small group of *synthesist* .. People today didn't even appreciate the
>Roland JD800 attempt !!! ..
>Sighh .. I can't write anymore ..I'm going to cry !!!!
>Where are we going ???
This will probably sound kind of strange coming from someone who recently
paraded the anti-General-MIDI banner around r.m.s for several weeks, Andrea,
but I don't think we have anything to fear. The old machines will be out
there for those who MUST have them, and enough of the new machines make an
effort toward originality that they will survive until they're no longer
"cool" and hence available used for reasonable prices to those with patience.
There will always be room enough in the human race for people who prefer to
play the piano and arrange for traditional acoustic instruments side by side
with those who love to explore noise for its own sake. One thing I've had
hammered into me as a nuclear physicist is that you can't ever get everything
back into Pandora's box. These sounds once existed, and they exist today--
no one will ever be able to take them away from us forever. It may not be as
easy to get the odder boxes once General MIDI dissolves the market into a
gutless slagheap of conformity (TM), but it'll never become impossible.
Randy Jones
>their vintage guitar re-issue concept to synth marketing.....
>
Well, we're pretty firmly entrenched in Fantasyland, here, since recreating
old synths and bringing them to market would cost far more than what the
few potential lunatic fringe buyers could absorb.
That said, (tee hee) I'd personally like to see some of the more exotic
beasts I've never had the opportunity to play, let alone own. Let's
see: OSCar, Kawai SX240, Putney, Synthi AKS. And yes, the Synthex. 'Cause
I've never even *heard* of it.
>Of the above, I'd probably buy the Synthex, and the Taurus. I have a Chroma,
>and I don't do House :-)
Neither does my MiniMoog.
--
| Randy Jones | "Dos, cuatro, seis, seis. Cinco, cinco, quatro, seis.
| r...@bob.sal.wisc.edu | tres, dos, cuatro, dos. Cuatro, cuatro, seis, seis."
| 608 259 9674 | -9.95 MHz, 3:20 GMT
Ricard Wolf
>In article <1992Oct2.0...@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> eir...@ranger.enet.dec.com (Eirikur Hallgrimsson) writes:
>>You know, playing around with a Fender synth. has made me think about applying
>>their vintage guitar re-issue concept to synth marketing.....
>
>Don't go away folx, tomorrow he invents the glass jackhammer. (Actually, that's
>a good name for a band....Glass Jackhammer....hmmmm.....)
>
>>Ok. TR-808, what else?
>
>I disagree about the TR. It'd be too expensive to rebuild, and inevitably
>people would claim that it didn't sound "right."
Exactly. Isn't the bottom line that these machines are vintage machines and
we like them because they _are_ vintage machines. Moog tried to replace
the Mini with the Source - didn't succeed. A TR808 is a TR808; a CS80
is a CS80 (pitch (un)stability included). Trying to build a small,
better CS80 will result in something which is not a CS80, but probably
a cross between a D50 and a K3 (or something).
Fact is, modern technology has made analog technology obsolete; not the
sound, but the actual cost of building the stuff. I'm no digi-fan; I
wouldn't get a D50 if I got paid for it (hm, well, then I could sell it
I guess and buy a Mini...), but most people are happy with their M1's and
that's who Roland, Korg and the other guys build their stuff for.
(Ok, I know the Matrix-6 / 1000 and a few others still have the sense to
use analog filters and vca's, however, the oscillators are part digital.)
>
>>Roland D-50 (mucho temptation to ask for cleaner PCM and a few other things)
>
>Harg! Glub blug dip woot-boof wammie! (Translated: Phoo! I'm sorry they built
>these the FIRST time!)
My thoughts exactly...
>
>>Moog MiniMoog
>
>No one would trust the circuit board layout unless Moog did it himself....
And why would he do it. He's done it once (or one of his staff). People
seem to be saying give me a Mini at $5 and the size of a match box. Well
folks it can't be done. You want a Mini, get a Mini. (A local keyboard
shop has four of them...)
>>Gleeman Pentaphonic? (Now I'm getting silly)
>
>No, you're not. We need more clear plastic see through synths!
...With lamps that light up when the various voices are played.
The only one these days who seems to have these forsights is Mr Jarre...
>
>>What would your list of re-issues look like? Would you buy them?
>
>Hmmm. I'd bring back the ARP Quadra and the Roland GR-500, and I'd
>own one of each. The Yamaha CS-80 MUST be buildable in a more efficient
>hardware design nowadays....
Yeah, but with what charm...?
>
>Hell, a PolySix with the Korg MIDI retro would make a good MIDI analog
>synth for people who were starting out.
Very true. However, probably the majority of people would start checking
their wallets and buying some digital thingy instead...
... just my 2 cents worth. ....
/Ricard
--
Ricard Wolf / | \ / | /- email: ric...@axis.se
Axis Communications AB /__| \/ | \__ uucp: axisab.se!ricard
S - 223 70 LUND / | /\ | \ Tel: +46 46 19 18 63
SWEDEN / | / \ | \__/ Fax: +46 46 13 61 30
AT...@estec.bitnet
Of course , Mike,the old machines will be always around us .. but what
worries me is the company market trend .. I would like to see companies
taking real care of new product .. That means :
1 - I do not need a new machine every 6 months !!
2 - I would like that once a machine is out , the companie takes good
care of it (Hw/sw updates etc .. )
3 - How can you make something new, exciting, bug-free in such a short
time
4 - I do hate the japanese philosophy .. ( and that counts for car bike hifi
etc !!).
Instead of wasting time and efforts in new extra-useless complicated (RCM)
techniques , sometime the companies colud just try to make more perfect old
beatuies.
That doesn't means that I'm against new technologies .. but I'm against
the "it-has-to-be-new-to-be-good".
After all as you said I'm very happy that I can still get lots
of old superb stuff for 1/10 (or 1/100) of the original price and really enjoy
them !!
Looking around I can see very few new nice machines :
1 - The uWave
2 - The JD800
3 - The WStation .. ( but would have been too much asking for a decent VCF )
4 - The SY99
5 - The K2000
But they all are (except the K2000) few years old and already the JD800 and
the WS are going out of the catalog !!
I bought new items few times and always regret it !! Second-hand is the
keyword for the future.
Ok i'm not a pro but I can handle 2/3 years of retro-garde !!
Ciao
Andrea TONI AT...@ESTEC.ESA.NL ENV ENV ENV
WSC...@acs.wooster.edu
techniques " and then lists the SY99 as a one of the good new synths.
Isn't it the RCM that makes the sy/tg/99/77 a standout? I think so.
When something is really different, it runs the risk of being dubbed
new, extra-useless, and complicated.
Bill Scott
Scott Amspoker
>Andrea TONI says:" new extra-useless complicated (RCM)
>techniques " and then lists the SY99 as a one of the good new synths.
>Isn't it the RCM that makes the sy/tg/99/77 a standout?
Not really. I have an SY99 and the RCM feature has a rather limited
use. The vastly improved FM capabilities and resonant filters are
the main draw of the SY77/99 IMHO.
--
Scott Amspoker |
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM | Too bad ignorance isn't really
| bliss. Then it could be outlawed.
sc...@bbx.basis.com |
Andrea TONI
> techniques " and then lists the SY99 as a one of the good new synths.
Well the SY99 is a nice synth because of the good samples (not in the 77) the
possibilities of receive external one , the superb filters and post-processing
section (2 LFO), the superb fx's section (not in the 77), and even if I'm not
fan FM fan , the enanched FM facilities.
But certainly not because of the RCM ! If I remember properly not even in
the preset there are RCM sounds (maybe just one).
If it was so useful I'm sure Yamaha would have spend more time to create
wonderful patches to prove it !!
A sample that modulates a sample with feedback that modulate a .. what the hell
..... come on !!
> When something is really different, it runs the risk of being dubbed
> new, extra-useless, and complicated.
That is exactly what RCM is all about it !!
But you are welcome to prove the opposite !!
It will probably take a couple of years (like the first FM) before
somebody can come up with some humanly-usable decent effort, if any !
.. Just a guess ...
> Bill Scott
>
Ciao
Andrea
WSC...@acs.wooster.edu
> new, extra-useless, and complicated.
That is exactly what RCM is all about it !!
But you are welcome to prove the opposite !!
It will probably take a couple of years (like the first FM) before
somebody can come up with some humanly-usable decent effort, if any !
.. Just a guess ...
""""""""""""""""""""""""""
endquote
Well, I guess it is a matter of opinion (with at least 2 people here thinking
it's a useless feature). Here's mine: it's a "distancing tool" quite different
from any other out there. It allows controllability and that special
personality that comes from *uncontrollability*. The sound is not the same
with each equivalent press of a key (even with the same MIDI event from
a sequencer). Makes those patches more like the kind that you can listen
to for hours and hours without a program change. There are a few patches
floating around the BBSs that are truly remarkable. Try RCM Horn. Beautiful.
Bill Scott
Andrea TONI
> personality that comes from *uncontrollability*. The sound is not the same
> with each equivalent press of a key (even with the same MIDI event from
> a sequencer). Makes those patches more like the kind that you can listen
> to for hours and hours without a program change. There are a few patches
> floating around the BBSs that are truly remarkable. Try RCM Horn. Beautiful.
>
I will when the SY99 will come out in RACK version without sequencer and
at a resonable price ! ( ... Yes when ???????)
> Bill Scott
Andrea TONI
metlay
>> In article <1992Oct2.1...@netcom.com> met...@netcom.com (metlay)
>writes:
Curses, foiled again.
>No, no, no... those are MY thoughts. Exactly!
Well, they're your WORDS exactly. i wouldn't presume to guess at what you
were thinking when you originally wrote them.
>BTW, Metlay... do I get any sort of royalties for sales of "Saturnalia"?
>:-) :-)
No. Horf horf horf.
|-P |->
--
metlay | No Panning
atomic city | No Phasing
| No
met...@netcom.com |
Neal Howard
Prophet 5 rev 3.2 (with the cheesy cat meow, dog bark, and bird chirp
included in the factory patch data). I was a synth tech back in the early
1980's and got to work on almost every brand and model available then. It
seemed that every other music store electronics repair department in northern
Texas was afraid to open these units up. Anyone out there remember the
dreaded Oberheim Four Voice (I think that's what it was called). I think it
was the very first production line synth with patch memory (no cpu, only
hardwired TTL logic !!!). How about the Roland Jupiter 4 with 8 (count 'em,
wow!) user patch memory locations and the random arpreggiator (Duran,Duran's
Hungry Like the Wolf background noise)? I modified one of the very first JP-4's
to have 8 banks of 8 memories for 64 total user patches for a guy in Wichita
Falls, TX who still uses the thing to this very day. Anyway, as a previous
post said it would be prohibitively uneconomical to re-create these wonderful
old machines today, I have to agree. Just finding the analog voice IC's is
tough enough for restoring broken units. (Note: I read a post in
sci.electronics where Curtis CEMxxxx chips can still be found at
Doug Curtis
On-Chip Systems
1190 Coleman Ave.
San Jose, CA 95110
(408)988-5400
)
As to getting that fat, robust analog sound, I kinda like my Ensoniq VFX-SD.
It has a couple of sounds in the factory patches that really bring back
memories of the good old days. (It also has it's fair share of behavioral
quirks and bugs^H^H^H^Hfeatures just like the good old days 8-} ).
My $0.02 worth,
Neal
--
=============================================================================
Neal Howard (ne...@cmptrc.lonestar.org) CompuTrac, Inc. (Richardson,TX)
DoD #686 '91 XLH-1200 '70 Kawasaki G4-100cc '69 Cougar XR7-GT390
Ensoniq VFX-SD Kramer Pacer guitar '70 429CJ(needs a home)
"how often you get much more drunk than you ought to on a Friday night...
...about once a week" - Tom Yates
=============================================================================
Jim Smith
And why would he do it. He's done it once (or one of his staff). People
seem to be saying give me a Mini at $5 and the size of a match box. Well
folks it can't be done.
You know, before they founded Ensoniq, the same folks attempted that very
thing at another company, and their product can still be bought. It's a
Rockwell chip, I forget the number, designed as the sound chip for the
Commodore 64 computer. I talked to the designer, and he told me that he
was trying to get the functionality of the Minimoog on a chip. He got pretty
close, with 3 oscillators, two envelope generators, a filter, noise gen, and
DCAs. Too bad it's so noisy and crummy sounding. Ah, well.
- Jim