The Mellotron Group

Wasn't there a digital Mellotron long before the M4000D? And I don't mean the Memotron or M-Tron. It had the name Mellotron and was produced by Mellotronics/Streetly (I believe), but was never marketed. Personally, I think it was a Mellotron and I think the M4000D is a Mellotron.

It doesn't matter who owns the name because a Mellotron is more than just a name; it's a thing. Streetly's M4000 is as much a Mellotron as Marcus' MkVI, with or without the name.

Regarding who will sell more Mellotrons, Streetly or Marcus, remember that a good portion of Streetly's business is in the repair, maintenance and sale of tapes/frames and parts to hundreds of Mellotron owners. I prefer to deal with Streetly because they built my M400 and I feel a sense of loyalty to them. Others own Marcus' Mellotrons and feel a loyalty to him. Who cares?

Bernie

--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles" <charel196@...> wrote:
>
> not a valid comparison...a guitar relies on the wood and strings for sound. The Mellotron doesn't rely on it's cabinet. Does the plexiglass tron sound different from the wooden ones?
>  The M4000D is a DIGITAL MELLOTRON....not a tape playback Mellotron...but is entitled to the name nonetheless IMO since it is an offspring of the line of instruments. As far as tuning & denoising etc. ruining or changing the sound....aren't these the very things people have bitched about for decades. Now someone fixes them and you bitch about that! (shakes head....walking away....smiling)
>  Markus could offer non tuned/non-denoised versions of the sounds as an option.And if you can detect the missing bits of analog tape sound in the digital version you must have super hearing.
> Yeah...the Classic Keys sounds aren't good. The E4K/Pinder CD sounds as accurate as I need. I even have samples from my old 400 in it (hissy & out of tune) every note sampled full length, non looped.
> 
> --- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, lsf5275@ wrote:
> >
> > Charles,
> >  
> > Suppose you make a wooden thing with a neck and buttons on it instead of  
> > strings. All of the sounds are digitized and you press buttons to get the  
> > sounds. Is it a Guitar? It looks like a guitar, but is it a guitar? No. A  
> > Mellotron or Chamberlin were TAPE playback machines. Just because you make  
> > something that kinda looks like one and plays digital representations of the  
> > original tape samples doesn't make them one.
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > In a message dated 1/22/2011 8:48:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
> > charel196@ writes:
> > 
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > I just don't get all this "it's not a Mellotron" talk....the digital unit  
> > is a logical progression from tape replay and Ill bet Harry Chamberlin would 
> >  have moved into this area if he were alive now. The whole point was 
> > playing  instrument sounds on a keyboard, not the tape technology (which was the 
> > only  method available) 
> > If all sounds are from original tapes and only last 8  seconds and are the 
> > best digital representations that can be done, personally  to me it's a new 
> > Mellotron.It's the offspring of the tape machine. So what  that it doesn't 
> > use Chamberlin heads etc. With EQ'ing and processing I imagine  you can get 
> > near 1000% close.
> > Heck I have used samples on my albums (from  my EMU E4K, EMAX 1, and 
> > CLASSIC KEYS) sometimes on the same songs I used my  real M400 (when I had it) and 
> > I defy anyone to tell me which is which. And the  E4K was using the Pinder 
> > CD. The M4000D samples are said to be way beyond the  Pinder CD in quality. 
> > I think it's totally anal to hang on to tape playback  technology as the 
> > only thing that can be called "Mellotron" or "Chamberlin".  The 4000D is just a 
> > new and different model in the family tree....made by the  people who own 
> > the name and masters.
> >
>