| previous by date | index | next by date |
| previous in topic | topic list | next in topic |
That's why I prefer the real thing to samples - because someone else has decided what it's supposed to sound like, and it never quite sounds or feels right to me, not enough anyway.No two people can hear things identically (if you believe in the laws of physics) so perhaps it's all a mute point.Samples are great for convenience and for getting the basic sound, but I'll always choose the real thing over the digitized versions.But that's because not only do I love the sound, I love the feel of the keyboard, the motor, the smell of the mechanics working, and the idea that we're bringing the past with us into the present and future, and not swallowing the idea of manufactured obsolescence.I love the smell of old record players and electricity. I wish I had a cologne like that! :)Of course, the market for the samples and digital stuff might not relate to those sentiments at all. In the end, it's the sound approximation that maybe matters to them the most.The Chamberlin is a bit more touch sensitive than the Mellotron because the keys go a bit deeper than the Mellotron (which makes pad arms / rollers a lot tougher to adjust by the way - not to mention the allan screw on the return roller), but you get a very muffled uneven sound when you play like that and it doesn't work well on sustained sounds - especially saxes. It only works well with plucked sounds like harp or spanish guitar where you can soften the attack of the sound. You can do that on the Mellotron too but the gap is much narrower.I wasn't aware Markus was trying to appeal to that fussy market. Without any actual experience with it though - I really doubt any of those people will be aware how to 'voice' a Chamberlin in the first place. They'd need to do a side by side comparison with a Chamberlin and test what to set the digital parameters at to be accurate. It's probably the same with a Mellotron too but not as elusive because of it's narrower keyboard gap. It's interesting to think that setting parameter numbers for an accurate attack on the digital version might be equal to the time spent lacing tapes hahaha - the irony!!It's one thing to alter the sound of your Mellotron or samples, but it's another thing to have someone else decide for you how it should fundamentally sound.
> do you think Mike Pinder never did any "tampering" to make his units sound "better"? Geeezus....to me the M4000D is the outgrowth of all the years of addressing the complaints about exactly what was wrong with the tape system by all the major artists (tuning, noise, etc.)
> Do you think if Harry Chamberlin had this technology at his disposal he would have used tapes?
> It may not be a "real Mellotron/Chamberlin" in the eyes of the hardcore obsessives but for me it's a completely normal development in the lineage and deserves the name.
>