The Mellotron Group

I record my Mellotron digitally and it sounds pretty accurate.

// Mattias


Den 2011-01-22 19.45, skrev "Hessel Herder" <hessel@soundscape.nl>:

>  
>  
>  
>    
> 
> It seems to me that, for any device claiming to have authentic MELLOTRON
> sounds onboard, capturing the MELLOTRON medium (tape! ) and capturing the
> characteristic replay mechanism is very important and indeed  what many buyers
> would expect to hear from this device
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Op 22 jan. 2011 om 18:18 heeft "Charles" <charel196@yahoo.com> het volgende
> geschreven:
> 
>>   
>>    
>> 
>> 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
>> <mailto: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.
>>> >
>> 
>>  
>>   
>>  
>>    
>> 
>>