Roland always uses that weird bender thing anyway, but this System 1 looks like it has some sort of Alpha Dial style controller instead.Darkseid wrote:No pitch or mod wheel on the keyboard??
I agree with your points and I think that if you took a total newbie who has never had first hand experience with a real 303 that person may as we'll go on to make music with without worrying.silikon wrote:Honestly, there should be little reason for concern whether it's an emulation or analogue.
When it all comes down to it, you're making music. If you're that caught up in how the music is generated, I'd say you're likely concerned with the wrong things. It's a shame that people can't get past some supposed inferiority of a digital machine; I often struggle to see how being an analogue purist would enhance ones output. That whole argument is a complete non sequitur in my opinion.
I say instead we see what fleshes out with this new offering and judge it on reasonable metrics like "does it produce interesting sounds?" and "is the interface such that it inspires?", versus "aw, it's digital, therefore it must be shite".
I'm certainly no Roland cheerleader, but I personally prefer to audition a machine first hand irregardless of underlying architecture and judge based on metrics that actually relate to producing music.
Does it matter? It's not two years ago anymore. The myth that real analog has to be expensive and unreliable is pretty well busted, there's a revival in full swing, and more and more companies are getting into it. We're simply no longer in the same context as we were back then.nathanscribe wrote:I wonder if we'd have had 20 pages of the same responses if these boxed had come out two years ago and/or had "Korg" written on them.
No of course it doesn't. I was just wondering how much of these responses are based on expectations about the kit purely for what it looks like it might be like, and how much on it being Roland, and now. Also there's a whole load of non-analogue still being made, though affordable analogue as you rightly point out has got a foothold. And it's cheaper than ever before, certainly.commodorejohn wrote:Does it matter? It's not two years ago anymore. The myth that real analog has to be expensive and unreliable is pretty well busted, there's a revival in full swing, and more and more companies are getting into it. We're simply no longer in the same context as we were back then.nathanscribe wrote:I wonder if we'd have had 20 pages of the same responses if these boxed had come out two years ago and/or had "Korg" written on them.
High. There is a lot of wishful thinking about "un-roland-like pricing" due to some media speculation/rumors but I can all but assure you that will not be the case.commodorejohn wrote:.
Anyway, I'm still wondering what the price is going to be on these things.
I tend to agree. These machines aren't Volcas.StepLogik wrote:High. There is a lot of wishful thinking about "un-roland-like pricing" due to some media speculation/rumors but I can all but assure you that will not be the case.commodorejohn wrote:.
Anyway, I'm still wondering what the price is going to be on these things.
Just look at the hardware.
Aaron2 wrote:I tend to agree. These machines aren't Volcas.StepLogik wrote:High. There is a lot of wishful thinking about "un-roland-like pricing" due to some media speculation/rumors but I can all but assure you that will not be the case.commodorejohn wrote:.
Anyway, I'm still wondering what the price is going to be on these things.
Just look at the hardware.
synthroom wrote:I'm all for Virtual Analog synths, and as time goes, there will be NO difference as they will be able to model whatever discrete circuitry they desire.
I'm kind of surprised they haven't gotten closer on the circuit modelling aspect - with the multi-CPUs and gigahertz of clock cycles available these day... Perhaps this is that point in time?
There does not exist in science a mathematical model of exactly what happens to an electric current when it enters into a ladder filter. Until someone figures that out, there's literaly no way to make an accurate digital representation of an analog synth.
What we have now is essnetially a pencil line drawing drawing of the whole analog waveform photograph. We can only compute so many overtones of the wave, so we digitally recreate the obvious ones, still not knowing what the majority of them are.
The ladder filter, as much a work of art as a feat of engineering, is still only ONE example of why digital doesn't sound like analog. Even if we had a mathematical model of it you really think our current computers are strong enough to process such a complex model, that in 2013 hasn't been cracked yet? It's likely to be a HUGELY complex algorithm, it would need a super computer to computer, and that's only the filter.
I don't think digital synths will EVER approach the warmth of analog. Probably around the time quantum computers start showing up in 30 years or so we will have analog sounding softsynths, and a quantum computer running an analog synth program would essentially BE an variable state analog synth.
volumetrik wrote:There does not exist in science a mathematical model of exactly what happens to an electric current when it enters into a ladder filter. Until someone figures that out, there's literaly no way to make an accurate digital representation of an analog synth.
