Machine development and building is still going on. No they are not
$120. Mtrons and the like are to a Mellotron as a Teisco is to a Les
Paul. Jeff knows well what I mean. Go to work with this stuff and you
find out soon enough. If the physics doesn't match up, it's a
different thing, all judgement aside, they are not similar enough to
really compare
On 3/30/07, john barrick <astroboy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No Mark, you're not. I have M-tron, but am working on the real thing.
> If we set aside the purist argument for a moment, I'd say that M-tron's
> biggest weakness is the quality of its samples. Some are fairly decent,
> but many are wretched - so noisy or so poorly sampled as to be
> unusable. However, at $120, if it puts a smile on your face for even a
> few months - and you're not planning on getting the real thing anyway -
> I'd say you spent your money well. You might seriously look at
> investing in the Pinder CD Rom and an old hardware sampler off of ebay
> for maybe three to four times the cost (>$500?), for a much higher
> quality playback experience. Least that's what I've heard.
> best,
> john barrick
>
> Mark wrote:
> > For $120 the sounds are ok, there are lots of them, unfortunately you
> > can't mix them ( or at least I can't). For some of us they are all we
> > are ever likely to have. Add some reverb to the strings and they sound
> > pretty good. I am the only person on the list that doesn't own a real
> > tron?
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > #MTR001085
> >
> > Ps I will be pleased if this appears even once
> >
>
>