the latest Behringer-gate

[Hugh Robjohns]

That's wilfully being obtuse; there's no "honestly" about it.

This seems to be becoming unnecessarily 'antsy'....

[Escapegoat]

That's wilfully being obtuse; there's no "honestly" about it.

This seems to be becoming unnecessarily 'antsy'....

Well, to me, being 'antsy' is more like threatening to sue forum members for voicing their honest opinions.

But I'll desist.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Thank you.

[DGL.]

An update on the RD-909, again from a reliable source (well he does own the company) over at 'the other world',

10 tool made samples are ready and there is a lot of extra features that they have added to the sequencer, such as the ability to use it to modulate the filter and analogue designer.

Targeting (excl. tax and import charges (pertinent to our American viewers)):

$299!

Images courtesy of Uli Behringer @ Gearslutz

[Dave B]

Yay! Just what the world needs! Another TR909 clone!

[resistorman]

Yay! Just what the world needs! Another TR909 clone!

[Eddy Deegan]

Yay! Just what the world needs! Another TR909 clone!

I know, I know but ... I'm still tempted

... as much for nostalgia as anything else. I always loved the way the 909 felt to use and I'm certainly not paying for a real one obviously, so this could be quite a fun little gizmo actually.

I'll wait and see what the general impression is when they hit the streets first though.

[DGL.]

The fact that it is bloddy cheap will be the reason most people will buy it.
I have a Model D and it's fantastic, not cheap-feeling even in the slightest and whilst I have never touched a real Moog, it most certainly has the 'Mini Moog' sound and that is all that really matters.

Plus by adding features over and above the original it gets away from people simply calling them clones.

[The Elf]

I sold my TR-909 and 808 and replaced with a TR-8... that I grew to dislike. I'd certainly consider these clones for the times I need them (and they are still requested a heck of a lot from various clients).

Pity about the external PSU, but sub 300 quid I can forgive it.

[Dave B]

In that scenario, I'd actually be looking at the Roland (shock horror!!!) TR8S. I wasn't impressed by the original TR8, but the new S version seems to be a proper product. And they've even fixed it now so it stays in time!

[The Elf]

Yes, the TR-8S is a much better machine. I took a good look at SynthFest and I was impressed that Roland had addressed many of the issues with the TR-8, especially the lack of outputs, though I feel that the 8S is still a couple of outputs short.

Roland has been asked for recreations of its analogue gear for long enough, yet they seem to choose to ignore it. They had their chance.

Behringer's clones are analogue - and they're priced to move in big numbers (and have oodles of outputs). I'd say that they're going to sell like the proverbial cakes.

[Dave B]

Roland have (apparently) just rolled off two bumper years and have sold more than they have in the last couple of decades. They credit this to the boutique range. I should really have asked if this was just units sold or actual profit... But anyway, they seem happy with what they have so good luck to 'em.

But it does raise some interesting questions about the ability to produce actual analogue hardware. Behringer seem to have invested in this - as have Korg and lots of smaller companies - and are able to do it competitively which leaves me wondering why Roland and Yamaha haven't also.

Meh ... not my problem. I have lots of lovely proper analogue kit to play with at the moment so I'm fine ...

[johnny h]

Roland have (apparently) just rolled off two bumper years and have sold more than they have in the last couple of decades. They credit this to the boutique range. I should really have asked if this was just units sold or actual profit... But anyway, they seem happy with what they have so good luck to 'em.

The boutique range is very ironically named. They use the cheapest possible materials and they are all absolutely identical inside, just with different front panels. This is why the TR09 has tiny bunched up knobs. They haven't even bothered to put a proper balanced full sized output on them, and the hum from the USB power is absolutely awful. Of course they make money from them. They must cost virtually nothing to manufacture.

But it does raise some interesting questions about the ability to produce actual analogue hardware. Behringer seem to have invested in this - as have Korg and lots of smaller companies - and are able to do it competitively which leaves me wondering why Roland and Yamaha haven't also.

Yamaha and Roland ditched their analogue teams back in the 80s. Roland get Studio Electronics to make their Minimoog clone. Roland just do the badge and marketing. Yamaha have absolutely no respect for their analogue legacy. They sent all their GX1s to the scrap yard back in the 80s.

[BillB]

Yamaha and Roland ditched their analogue teams back in the 80s.

I doubt that it is an issue of missing expertise. Most decent hobbyists could pick up a Robert Penfold electronics book and put together an analogue synth, so it is well within the scope of these mighty corporations. They will have all of the circuit diagrams etc of their analogue classics, and the wherewithal to convert them into modern, lower-cost manufacturing processes (as Behringer / Korg / Sequential / others have done). It would appear to be more down to market choices.

As Elf said

Roland has been asked for recreations of its analogue gear for long enough, yet they seem to choose to ignore it. They had their chance.

Given that many of designs are out (or will be coming out) of copyright, meaning no option to protect past works, it does seem foolish to miss the opportunity that others have so clearly seen. Even to test the water, as Korg did with the Monotron - 8 years ago!
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/korg-monotron

[BillB]

Ooh, Ooh! SOS Posts = 500! Yay!
I aim for small, achievable targets in life

[Drew Stephenson]

[The Elf]

I have lots of lovely proper analogue kit to play with at the moment some of which I will be bringing along to the next SOS meet...

FTFY

[nathanscribe]

The RD-909 looks good! I've been pondering the relative merits of the Behringer 808 thingummy versus the Roland TR-8s, given that I've already got the 909 and 606 covered. I'd always prefer analogue sounds to emulations, but the sampling side of the Roland might swing it. I've had a go with one for maybe 45 mins, and although it was fun I was not entirely convinced by the hats and cymbals to be honest.

I mean, finding actual examples of any of these machines is like *insert proverb of choice*. Just trying not to spend my money on something else in the meantime...

[johnny h]

They will have all of the circuit diagrams etc of their analogue classics, and the wherewithal to convert them into modern, lower-cost manufacturing processes (as Behringer / Korg / Sequential / others have done). It would appear to be more down to market choices.

Its not hard to make analogue synths, but they will never be cheaper to produce than a bargain basement DSP chip, mini-USB port and 3.5mm jack socket in a flimsy plastic case.

[BillB]

Agreed, Johnny, but cost, or more specifically cheapness, is only one element of a sales strategy. The Monotron only costs £30-40. Korg's recent new and old (mini-MS20) analogues are in a similar ball park to Roland's boutiques. I'm just suggesting that cost is probably not a barrier to Roland/Yamaha, nor is technical know-how. It seems to be more a case of attitude and the way that small decisions, to do / not do a market experiment, can influence their approach to the market.
All wild speculation, of course

Maybe its not a bad thing. when the likes of Gordon Reid summarises the (4-voice polyphonic) SH-01a https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/roland-sh-01a as:

The SH-01A does a remarkable job of emulating the SH-101, and then goes a lot further. The line between analogue and digital synthesis keeps getting narrower and, in the studio, I probably wouldn’t hesitate to use the SH-01A in place of the vintage synth. Whether I would take a module requiring micro-USB power and offering 3.5mm audio sockets on stage is another matter.

then actually our choices have increased, not decreased.