"The old sounds sound like a Mellotron whereas the newer ones don't, just because no one associates them with the instrument." That sums it up well Mike.
I think the new sounds DO have that musty / lo-fi / wobbly quality that we love. It's not a waste of time making new voices. It would be more profitable to offer the new sounds as digital samples as well.
1) Mellotron tape sets
2) Full digital sample sets (24 bit start to finish)
3) Digital samples of Mellotron output
4) iPad
The instrument sample library market is huge. If you are going to record new voices digitally, why not sell them that way?
Clay
--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@...> wrote:
>
> On 07/11/2010 05:09, Chris Dale wrote:
> > The Mellotron offers all kinds of characteristics unobtainable
> > anywhere else because the sound is coming from a tape, and the tape
> > has physical movement and each mechanism under the key responds
> > differently when playing a chord or a single note.
>
> /Kind of. /That sounds is obtainable elsewhere because it is possible to
> sample it and replay it. What you /won't /get is any variance from that
> particular event.
>
> > If you play just one single note from the Mellotron strings,
> > especially a high note, you might mistake it for real strings.
>
> I don't think I have /ever/ thought they were real strings. To me it
> sounds like a Mellotron. This sort of cuts to the heart of what I'm
> trying to say. The old sounds /sound like a Mellotron/ whereas the newer
> ones don't, just because no one associates them with the instrument.
> Hence, is it a waste of time Streetly making new sounds?
>
> > I think if all the sounds we have now were available back then, you
> > would have heard Pinder, Banks, Wakeman etc. using them.
>
> Undoubtedly. The choir was new once, and everyone seemed to leap onto
> that straight away.
>
> Mike
>