Why don't they remake cult instruments?

12ax7heaven · Post by **12ax7heaven** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:59 pm

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

Hidden Driveways · Post by **Hidden Driveways** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:12 pm

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

blakbeltjonez · Post by **blakbeltjonez** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:17 am

to tool up and find 3rd party vendors to recreate the components used to recreate a TB-303, for example, would be a monumental chore - there wouldn't be near enough profit margin, and has never been enough of a market to justify the expense.... assuming you could even get all of the components from 25 years ago retooled.

jamief · Post by **jamief** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:24 am

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.

The Jd800 which i use town was nice and easy to get into programming. I loved that machine

terragong · Post by **terragong** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:54 am

they do it...again
http://www.mfberlin.de/Produkte/Musikel ... -kult.html

Johnisfaster · Post by **Johnisfaster** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:58 am

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...

Johnisfaster · Post by **Johnisfaster** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:06 am

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.

profit margin was the wrong words, what I meant is that an analog machine is more expensive and therefor would have to sell for a heck of a lot more which would make the customer pool smaller which would make the overall profitability smaller. you make a machine everyone can afford then EVERYONE will buy one, you make a machine 1 in 10 people can afford you'll only sell to 1 in 10. if you're only selling to 1 in 10 you better hope the markup is worth it.

Johnisfaster · Post by **Johnisfaster** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:12 am

also, I'm pretty sure that they are worried that remaking an old machine would be a symbol of stagnancy.

theres also the fact that they've put great time and effort into convincing us to buy crappy gear, they wouldn't want to up the anty or anything, that would require them to work harder

rbmonosylabik · Post by **rbmonosylabik** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:13 am

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...

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

djgroovy · Post by **djgroovy** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:44 pm

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

Same here!

WaveRider · Post by **WaveRider** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:30 pm

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.

true!! and it sounded so plastic at the time, would not sound much like real bass, was made of plastic (everything has wood on it back then), and was fairly expensive. Of course it flopped. We were not ready for that futuristic sound at all. It took years (many!!) before hearing tb basslines as we know it now. I remember recording one for the first time (I was recording another band), I kept telling the guy to stop tweaking it while he recorded

...but remember at the mixdown thinking "well that cheapass box can make some real deep bass" but again it took almost 10 years after that then the tb sound became popular...

WaveRider · Post by **WaveRider** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:34 pm

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

true... incredible concept and the thing is so fun to play.... I will get one used in a couple of years... at $300 I would buy one right now...

glitchrock-buddha · Post by **glitchrock-buddha** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:47 pm

But the thing is, Roland has recreated it's machines, time and time again. The only thing is they've changed it from analog to digital because it's cheaper, allowing them to add more features, and combine different products. They see that people like TR303's and TR808's and TR909's, 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. The percentage of people who would pay good money for it to be true analog isn't that much compared to how many 505's they could have sold for the same price. So it normally just wouldn't make financial sense I would assume.

WaveRider · Post by **WaveRider** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:52 pm

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.

yeah but those never sounded at all like the classics. no comparaison at all except marketing, I mean you never used a real tr-808 did you???? nothing with samples equals the real thing, surely not those awfully cheap sounding digital boxes Roland made....

Emissary · Post by **Emissary** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:59 pm

Someone needs to do a new kind of synthesis. I dont know what it is, but it would be good. Move away from realistic results and into molecular fission buttocks territory.