The Mellotron Group

Mute point?
 
 
 
In a message dated 7/14/2011 11:51:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com writes:

 
 
 

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.  


Bernie

--- In _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com) , "Charles"  <charel196@...> wrote:
>
> 

> 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.
>