Members ChristianRock Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 I'll get over it bro, don't worry. But I still think I made some good obervations despite whether or not he or you thought it was nonsense. Reading what I said in hindsight, I certainly wouldn't classify it ALL that way. I don't think anyone has said everything you said is nonsense... and it's something that we, the few, the proud, can all relate with - the desire to have more analog options... But the business case for it being done in a large scale just doesn't cut it, I'm sorry but it's just the way it is... let's be grateful for the small guys that do it out of a passion, I am pretty sure they're not doing it for the money... Edit: Well, then be the change you'd like to see And don't knock on my drummer homeboys... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ElectricPuppy Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 It's as though, the stuff is just churned out, out of boredom or complacency-the exact opposite of introducing something that is more iconoclastic and dare I say, less bottom line? Aha! And so now we've reached your Real Beef. I agree with you. But, I think you're ignoring all the other companies that AREN'T just grinding out yet more software or a minor variation on their cash-cow romplers. Yeah there's a lot of sameness, but look around; There's quite a boon of small synth companies now catering to botique users like us right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CfNorENa Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 What's funny is half or more of the people that want analog don't even know how it's different from a digital synth. All they know is that so-and-so said analog is better or cool.This is a big and unwieldy thread that is probably ready to be retired, but I want to respond to this point. I think it's a bit unfair to a lot of us unambitious owners of analog synths. My understanding of the underlying technology of synthesizers is very limited (I'm a humanist ) and I would be hard pressed to explain--to really explain--how analog differs from digital. But I can hear the difference, and it's real, and I like how analog sounds, without anyone telling me that I should like it. That's enough for me (and, I'm guessing, for many others here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Peekaboo Fuzzy Posted October 8, 2009 Author Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 "All is well that ends well." Christian and Electric, you guys are pals. It's cool to be able to disagree or agree while still keeping the spirit of comraderie alive here. These threads are great. Oh oh....until Yoozer comes back to finish me off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metrosonus Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 synthesis has hit a evolutionary dead end. i do think it's cool the amount and rage of gear that is coming out in eurorack format though. quite cool actually. the circle needs to be closed and come back to creativity/musicianship. of course it wont because software and mass media keep getting in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members uvacom-rotatt Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 Hey Electric. Nah, I am not thinking about starting my own synth company, although I have had some really cool ideas as far as what I would add featurewise. I started this thread, because I like change. I got so sick of seeing how a majority of press releases for new product on H.C is software and stupid stuff, like new drum sneakers with patented sole for better grip-some crap like that. And so much of it becomes redundant; one slight variation of a formula that keeps working. It's as though, the stuff is just churned out, out of boredom or complacency, or lack of imagination-the exact opposite of introducing something that is more iconoclastic and dare I say, less bottom line? I think the problem is that there are very few real holes in the market. There isn't much that musicians want that they can't already get. As others have mentioned, there are plenty of new analog synths available (if you think there's going to be a new analog that says "Roland" on the back any time soon, somebody just has to burst that bubble, even if you deem that arrogant). The boutique companies producing them can handle stagnant sales, because they don't need to appease shareholders. But corporations need growth to survive (nobody wants to buy a stock that won't increase in value), so they constantly need to introduce new products. So, what we get is constant rehashes with incremental upgrades, produced with the cheapest components the market will tolerate for the segment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AnCap Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 not this again It is obviously true. If you don't understand why, you don't understand business. The numbers are horribly skewed if you visit synth forums.I am basing on what Musicians Friend claims are "Best Selling". They might not be telling the truth, but I don't see their incentive to lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members greggybud Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 It is great to dream and wish about analog, but you also have to face reality and look at the synth market from the perspective of the big players. Analog never went away, we were just distracted by FM, samplers, and then sample-playbacks disguised to be a lot more. I would guess the analog market to be just as large or larger today as in the late 70's or early 80s. But with software emulation, what share of market will pay 6k (look what the P-5 sold for in 1979) for a new hardware analog when it will be immediately emulated? Personally I wish another Dave Smith type of person would release new Jupiter 8 for around 2k. Yoozer can be a kill-joy......but he is realistic....and very knowledgeable. And yes...this topic has been brought up many times before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members myfriendfive Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 I was hoping this thread would bring out the designers instead it headed towards what others companies should do. Check this out. Simple desktop analog synth. Chassis - $75-$100 PCB - $20-$25 Parts - $100 For about $250-$300 after shipping you could build a desktop synth which could be sold for $700 to $800. Spend some time and design the PCB and buy enough parts to build 10 to 20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ElectricPuppy Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 I have some familiarity with Eagle LE ('cause it's free. Have you priced EDA tools? yeesh!) I've also made boards, and I have a half-baked project in my garage right now. Which reminds me, I still need to figure out my panel controls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChristianRock Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 Well, how about if this desktop synth has about 60 knobs and a few push-buttons, how much will it cost then?Are the LFOs and envelopes going to be hardware or software? How are chips to be obtained? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metrosonus Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 Well, how about if this desktop synth has about 60 knobs and a few push-buttons, how much will it cost then? 1 million dollars!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ElectricPuppy Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 Yeah, LE has a very limited size restriction, but then I just use it for personal stuff. If I really wanted to be serious about it, I'd buy an unrestricted copy. As far as parts goes, if Mouser or DigiKey doesn't have it, I don't bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SoundwaveLove Posted October 8, 2009 Members Share Posted October 8, 2009 I win /thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metrosonus Posted October 9, 2009 Members Share Posted October 9, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soundwave106 Posted October 9, 2009 Members Share Posted October 9, 2009 Simple desktop analog synth. Chassis - $75-$100 PCB - $20-$25 Parts - $100 For about $250-$300 after shipping you could build a desktop synth which could be sold for $700 to $800. Spend some time and design the PCB and buy enough parts to build 10 to 20. A fair number of companies already do this... For a simple mono, I'm trying to think of a *personal* need that isn't already satisfied, and really can't... Not at the moment at least. More polys would be neat. But the only thing that immediately comes to mind would be to build a synth around the Juno 106 chip replacement. Given that BBD chips are back, too, it's probably possible to make a small, desktop Juno 106 plus type synth. That would be kind of neat to have. But not if it's $3000. As a FYI, Future Retro (on its history page) indicates that it does runs of 100. So larger runs of a product are possible even for "boutique" companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members uvacom-rotatt Posted October 9, 2009 Members Share Posted October 9, 2009 It is obviously true. If you don't understand why, you don't understand business.I am basing on what Musicians Friend claims are "Best Selling". They might not be telling the truth, but I don't see their incentive to lie. Roland could manufacture a voyager for less money than Moog could, if they made many more units than Moog does. But Roland needs much higher profit margins because they're a much bigger company (with a lot of mouths to feed, so to speak), and they need profits to drive growth. It's not feasible for them, or they would be doing it, 100% guaranteed. I'm sure they analyzed the situation in 1994 with the advent of the VA, and again in 2000 when their competitor released a 16-voice analog polysynth in the Andromeda. Maybe if the analog craze reaches a fever pitch in Japan they'll consider it. Musician's Friend could have many reasons for promoting a product. They could have excessive inventory, or an item could have a high markup, or there could be a manufacturers incentive, or they may just want you to think they are hip by association to a hip item. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ClavAnother Posted October 9, 2009 Members Share Posted October 9, 2009 Which reminds me, I still need to figure out my panel controls. lol, you didn't write them down someplace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ElectricPuppy Posted October 9, 2009 Members Share Posted October 9, 2009 lol, you didn't write them down someplace?lol, no I mean I haven't yet settled on what features this thing will have and what kind of controls it should have to support 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AnCap Posted October 9, 2009 Members Share Posted October 9, 2009 Roland could manufacture a voyager for less money than Moog could, if they made many more units than Moog does. I think they could do something similar for cheaper. Common parts, better deals with keybed, knob, midi part suppliers. But Roland needs much higher profit margins because they're a much bigger company (with a lot of mouths to feed, so to speak), and they need profits to drive growth. No, they don't need higher margins. Bigger companies can survive very easily on lower margins as they can spread fixed costs. It's not feasible for them, or they would be doing it, 100% guaranteed. I'm sure they analyzed the situation in 1994 with the advent of the VA, and again in 2000 when their competitor released a 16-voice analog polysynth in the Andromeda. Maybe if the analog craze reaches a fever pitch in Japan they'll consider it. Analog is bigger per capita in Japan than here. Musician's Friend could have many reasons for promoting a product. They could have excessive inventory, or an item could have a high markup, or there could be a manufacturers incentive, or they may just want you to think they are hip by association to a hip item. They could, but I don't think that is what is happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members suitandtieguy Posted October 9, 2009 Members Share Posted October 9, 2009 i do think it's cool the amount and rage of gear that is coming out in eurorack format though.yeah but the most advanced analogue sequencing network is in Moog format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Yoozer Posted October 9, 2009 Members Share Posted October 9, 2009 It is obviously true. If you don't understand why, you don't understand business. If you don't understand why they don't do it, you don't understand business. Analog synths are a peculiar subset of synthesizers. Which are subset of keyboard instruments. Which are a subset of musical instruments in general. Which are only played by a subset of the total population that has the disposable income and the free time that allows them to do that. You're not a dirt farmer in Southern Bum Phuc, and you're not assembling Nike shoes 12 hours a day with no weekends off. You're a part of a very privileged group just by the virtue of being able to read and post on the internets. Right now the economy is in the {censored}ter, so even if "Roland could...", Roland won't, because it's a risky investment. Roland could, because they've got an R&D dept. They could, because they've got a budget for R&D. They could, because they've got a bunch of factories. All of which cost good, sweet money to be retooled completely for analog synthesizers. Which is - let's be honest - a technology that's been pretty well explored, but hasn't gotten the benefits of scale, and retooling and rehiring and integrating a team in the dev process is going to be slow and costly, too. Can you agree with the above points? Ask DSI how much it cost him to design a new circuit board. Heck, just ask any circuit board designer how much it costs to spot and fix errors on a design when you've just done a run of 500. You have to get it right the first time. Even if the tools are automated and you don't need 2 people whose sole day is routing everything every day with a set of templates on a drawing board, it's still the runs that are going to cost you; because those parts have to be soldered. Setting up an SMD machine is, again, expensive. The Japanese designs are little miracles of cost-cutting where it's possible. The 303 filter is an example of that, and the JV that advertises with "16 mb (in linear format)." It's why the JP8000 isn't filled with more modulation routings; of course they could, but that'd mean a more bad-ass DSP, which'd mean more expense. You've got four lines - cost, sales, demand and engineering, and you've got to make them intersect somewhere so you end up with a profit. Profit means continuity so that line is going to get the priority, except for spectacular pet projects like OASYSes and V-Pianos where you just know that spinning off technology means you can resell the same design with only minimal R&D. So you've got a ridiculously small group of musicians whose dubious merit is that they can shout all day long on messageboards how Roland sucks because they no longer innovate, and who have no actual clue about economics 101. Do you even want to sell to these ungrateful bastards? I am basing on what Musicians Friend claims are "Best Selling". They might not be telling the truth, but I don't see their incentive to lie. Commission. Kickbacks. Promotions. If you think marketing doesn't lie or creatively bend the truth, you don't understand business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SoundwaveLove Posted October 9, 2009 Members Share Posted October 9, 2009 Commission. Kickbacks. Promotions.If you think marketing doesn't lie or creatively bend the truth, you don't understand business. Or politics, or social networking, or life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Yoozer Posted October 9, 2009 Members Share Posted October 9, 2009 Hey there. Yoozer, do you always quote parcels of a what people say and then try to diffuse the mainstay of each point? I quote parcels because I react against specific points I agree with or disagree with. I either agree or don't care about the rest if I don't quote it. If I didn't include the above parcel, would you know it was directed towards you, or specifically to that post? Hoarding knowledge? Ask anyone else here in the thread about my post history, and you'll see that this is just silly talk. You say I'm a cynic, yet you say: So what's left, computers, euroracks and software up the wazoo. What a bleak and pessimistic outlook! The analog ecosystem has never before been more diverse and exciting. Software's doing incredible and awesome things that you simply won't see in any VA yet; they've ventured into other domains and suffer from lower release frequencies. Best of all, instead of being locked in an ivory tower of price, people can actually afford it, and not by downloading them illegally.Those euroracks you dismiss so carelessly enable far more people to make music and make it in more exciting ways than a run of vanilla or flagship polysynths would. If I dream about a chocolate rainbow bridge to a golden castle in the sky, and someone else remarks that neither the tensile strength of chocolate or the specific mass of gold vs. that of air do a lot to advance my dream to reality, calling them pedantic haters is the easy way out. You want to see your fragile, ethereal dreams turned into solid reality; in that case, make sure they can stand a few punches. It'll improve their quality - and the chance for them to come to fruition. If you want me to go into detail on the rest of your points, I'll have to quote them as parcels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metrosonus Posted October 9, 2009 Members Share Posted October 9, 2009 nope. the conceptual idea of how sound is made is probably very completely explored, but the interfaces we use to control it have a long way to go. and no, i'm not talking about "alternative controllers." i'm talking about user interfaces which are as good as vintage synths like the Moog and ARP systems. i think a lot of them are deficient. yeah but the most advanced analogue sequencing network is in Moog format. I agree with that, somebody somewhere made the point (with regards to the same topic) rather than focus and refine the technique (a japanese perspective in their argument) we'd get to a decent point of useability, then jump off go in the other direction just for the novelty of it. but really i dont know if that's an american attitude or what. but it's definitely a change in cultural thinking in the last 20 years or so.i haven't tried analog sequencing, but i do like the sound of it from your stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.