Ableton Forum

12ax7heaven wrote:Actually the truth isn't all that interesting. Roland/Boss have a policy where by they will continue to make something as long as it sells (hence the DS-1 is still in production). Once they discontinue something they will not as corporate policy reissue it no matter how many requests they get. Sad really. Instead they make new products attempting to cash in on the caché of the originals while often missing the mark. I have actually tried to convince any number of Roland employees that they are missing a huge market by not cashing in on their former glories while other companies do what they can't seem to bring themselves to do.
sigh

Robert Henke wrote:Why does no hardware manufacturer build a new interesting synthesizer anymore?

It seems the days of hardware are counted, but hey, there are reasons why an affordable hardware synthesizer that is really inspiring could still sell. And who had more resources than Roland,...

Probably in terms of synthesis all you could want is there, implemented in the V-Synth. But it could not be less appealing to me. If they would release a synthesizer that is not a collection of 100+ concepts but offers one cool newer synthesis technique with great haptic control - i might be tempted to buy it, because sometimes I do not want to stare in a computer screen.

I imagine for example something like a granular synthesizer, where every parameter has its own knob, where the sample import come from a usb stick, or via usb to a host, and only a little display to show preset name and the most basic info.

Turn it on, find an interesting point in a sample, turn up density and spray, add some reverb and a filter plus a simple ADSR envelope and spend endless nights creating great morphing atmospheres. I think the key to the success of such an instrument would be that it shall not have more controls than say a Jupiter 8.
Enough to achieve complexity, and not too much to make it too expensive and incomprehensible. But i assume this will never happen anymore, because not enough people would buy it to pay off for the development and manufacturing cost.

Hm...

R.

Hidden Driveways wrote:

12ax7heaven wrote:Actually the truth isn't all that interesting. Roland/Boss have a policy where by they will continue to make something as long as it sells (hence the DS-1 is still in production). Once they discontinue something they will not as corporate policy reissue it no matter how many requests they get. Sad really. Instead they make new products attempting to cash in on the caché of the originals while often missing the mark. I have actually tried to convince any number of Roland employees that they are missing a huge market by not cashing in on their former glories while other companies do what they can't seem to bring themselves to do.
sigh

http://rolandus.com/products/productdet ... arentId=83

Tone Deft wrote:

Johnisfaster wrote:1) analog machines have a terrible profit margin compared to digital

not true. profit margins are generally set as part of a corporate philosophy. upper management says "we want a profit margin of 40% on ALL our products and a rate of return less than 1%." (cost vs. quality.)

it's a matter of parts. look at the guys building kitted synths, there are classic synth chips that are no longer available. in the industry it's difficult to keep making the same thing for more than 7 years. on top of that there was the RoHS/lead free initiative where leaded parts had to go bye bye, a lot of IS manufacturers took that opportunity to slim down their product line.

I also agree with the comments regarding old synths as a *yawn* from the manufacturer's viewpoint.

Johnisfaster wrote:

Hidden Driveways wrote:

12ax7heaven wrote:Actually the truth isn't all that interesting. Roland/Boss have a policy where by they will continue to make something as long as it sells (hence the DS-1 is still in production). Once they discontinue something they will not as corporate policy reissue it no matter how many requests they get. Sad really. Instead they make new products attempting to cash in on the caché of the originals while often missing the mark. I have actually tried to convince any number of Roland employees that they are missing a huge market by not cashing in on their former glories while other companies do what they can't seem to bring themselves to do.
sigh

http://rolandus.com/products/productdet ... arentId=83

"Look familiar? True to its heritage, the new JUNO-G is affordable and user-friendly. But that’s where the comparisons to yesteryear end"

thats f*ing funny. lets not compare the sound shall we? nah...

rbmonosylabik wrote: I quit that as soon as the Lil' Jon like demo track started blaring out my speakers.

thelike5 wrote: When the TB-303 came out it was intended to basically be a substitute for a real bass player, in a rock band. The only reason we are even writing about it is because hundreds of the units ended up in pawn shops throughout the country or other second hand shops because, well, the product failed.

thelike5 wrote:I will also give kudos to Yamaha for getting behind a crazy little idea like the Tenori-on. Very impressive

glitchrock-buddha wrote:so they make an MC-303 to combine them. That turns into the MC-505, the MC-307 and on and on, different versions adding features.