/mu/ - Music (Temp full images)

>>54088876
That's a pretty decent deal. I think a xox or a tt 303 is the better functional option though.

>>54088982
Maybe, but I'm looking to experiment with it outside of acid house stuff. Set it on a low BPM, really drone it, manipulate it. And I know I could've used a substitute or online program, but fuck, it's an actual 303 and I know who previously owned it. He said he was only the third owner of it, and that he and the guy he bought it from didn't really use it much.

It's also an investment kinda. I'm sure it'll be worth double in price over the next 15 years.

>>54088876
Why doesn't Roland just release more of these? There's such a huge demand for them.

>>54089439
Parts would have to be different, and consumers would argue it wouldn't be the same. Technology has changed since 1982.

>2.5k on a memesynth that doesn't even sound that good
Well, your money

>>54088876
well you could just pirate a daw for free but okay

>>54088876
>How did I do?
you spent $2,000 more than you should have, thats how you did

>>54088876
Your friend sounds smart

>using analog instruments
kek

>>54088876
>I just bought a Roland TB 303 from my friend for $2,500


some friend

>>54088876
>>54089689
>>54089038
Did you post this before OP? I really don't know if it would be an investment because the acid sound is so niche. Who's so say that in 15 to 25 years people won't want to replicate super compressed contemporary EDM sounds rather than acid ones.

>>54089718
>using digital instruments
I bet this is you cakeboi, analog as more sound.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvgO5dC2efU

>>54089818
you can get NI reaktor and it's the same exact thing

>>54089718
>>54089818
>fuccbois implying that either of you could even tell the difference between a well programmed analog or virtual synth
Don't you have a poster linking soundcloud in /prod/ to release your autism on?

>>54089038
It's the most useless thing in the world for drones. It has a single oscillator with practically no modulation.

What the fuck are you thinking?

>>54089718
Analog is far superior in terms of raw sound then digital.
See Selected Ambient Works 88-92

>>54089843
>reaktor
The exact same thing as what? If you want to emulate a 303, reaktor is terribad.

>>54089883
b-b-b-but muh analog
it's like, uh, warmer or something, right guize?
it's like, real music bro, not computer, i make fucking real music bro, that's why i spent $2500

>>54089855
>revealing your powerlevel outside of /prod/
Don't you have soundclouds to defend?

>>54089911
>strawman arguments
Literally what

>>54089843
>>54089855
For real though, the difference is pretty clear between analog and digital if your not caking on effects. The minute you put fuzz on a 303 it's pretty indistinguishable from analog clones or really accurate software.

this is the smuggest thread i've seen in a long time, and that's saying something
not that i'm above it

>>54089909
A TON of SAW was digital tho. In fact nearly everything on it was sent through digital reverb.

>>54089952
>the minute you put a fuzz on a 303
You're not going to find a passable digital fuzz, digital still sucks donkey schlong at distortion effects

>>54089961
Yeah from both sides as well.

Most decent producers love both analog and digital anyway. Why do losers need to take sides?

>>54089965
Couldn't he keep the signal path analog if he was using sends for the reverb?

>>54090068
It doesn't really matter. It's not like it loses credibility because digital reverb was used on analog sounds, they're still generated discretely, and still sound analog.

>>54090068
You'd have a dry pure analog path sure, you'd still have digital shit layered over it though. I dare say he was using digital stuff at the time like the casio FZ1 sampler, his MPC60, a tons of effects and other shit.

It's just stupid to obsess over. Most 'analog' synths have shitty digital modulation or encoders that step when you sweep the cutoff or pitch anyway.

Great, now buy 3 more and you can do this shit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE5kOjMEQqc&list=PL9cUNGaQmnKeMjUQJkGmOfdQaGG8y3l5w

>>54090162
>most analog synths
I would argue that far more monosynths without encoders exist than digitally controlled polysynths. Even then, envelopes don't step.

>>54090086
So all that matters is if it came from a digital oscillator or VCO? A saw still looks like a saw under an oscilloscope. If it's being saturated by analog circuitry? Who gives a shit? It's pretty hard to tell the difference unless it's shockingly bad digital or you're personally playing the instrument in isolation with your hands on the dials.

>>54090214
Any synth that saves patches has digital encoders which is nearly everything after 1982.
Digital LFOs suck dick unless you want them to be clocked. You can never get those inbetween rates.

Digital envelopes don't step but they do return to zero on a retrigger instead of having a residual charge like an analog envelope.

>>54090229
If you don't like that analog synths exist, fine cool. But don't act all authoritative about subjective qualities of sound from analog synths when there's clearly a great demand for them despite the prevalence of digital emulators. This is a dumb argument to have if you've ever discussed production online longer than a year.

>>54090317
Not many analog synths were made after 82. At that point you have unobtanium synths and knobless polys. There was a vast amount of monosynths made in the preceding decade.

Not all digital envelopes retrigger, it depends on the programming. Usually a legato parameter.

>>54090323
I like analog. I own analog synths. I just don't think they're more valid than digital or that the sound can't be emulated successfully.

>>54090394
I never said analog is more valid than digital. I said something pretty opposite of that.

>>54090200
are you even swedish

>>54089909
>Analog is far superior in terms of raw sound then digital.
as a blanket statement, that's completely retarded

>See Selected Ambient Works 88-92
...but that's mostly digital gear

>>54091923
>SAW 85-92
>mostly digital
The fuck are you saying.

>>54090317
>Any synth that saves patches has digital encoders which is nearly everything after 1982.
You're confusing digitally scanned potentiometers with rotary encoders; they're not the same thing.

>Digital LFOs suck dick unless you want them to be clocked. You can never get those inbetween rates.
>Digital envelopes don't step but they do return to zero on a retrigger instead of having a residual charge like an analog envelope.
It really depends on the design. Plenty of digital envelopes step horribly.

>>54091964
No, it really is. The drums are a Roland R8 on probably every track. Pads are generally Yamaha DX100. Effects are shitty low end digital. Only the monosynth parts and the cassette tapes it's recorded on are analog.

>>54092007
This

>>54090376
>Not many analog synths were made after 82.
Only most of the polysynths, especially if you count the hybrid ones with digital oscillators.

Sounds like everyone in this thread is mad.