From David Messenger Sent Thu, Jan 4th 2018, 20:40
From David Messenger Sent Thu, Jan 4th 2018, 20:40
Even though it is sample based the TB-3 actually works great for me. I payed $215.00 for it on auction. SO I can agree with you that the -03 prolly is a real whacker of a device. On 1/4/2018 10:41 AM, negativesaucer wrote: > I'm not going to get deep into this because one of the things I have > traditionally hated about AH are 303 related discussions, but the > tb-03 goes well through "good enough" territory for me. I own two and > generally feel that its a better device than the original. native > midi support, trigger in, cv/gate out, original sequencer, updated > sequencer, built well, sounds great, and is exceptionally low noise. > > I dont think the 303 sound is worth much more than the price of a > tb-03, so I have a hard time justifying the minimal sonic differences > between the 03 and the non-roland clones. > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 2:24 AM, Jason Proctor <xxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: >> my post doesn't claim i know anything. please read posts before replying. >> >> the statement "the original pitch and time modes are included" just means >> that both instruments implement the same pitch and time mode features - from >> the point of view of the *user*. it doesn't mean that there is anything in >> common in their implementations whatsoever. >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:58 AM, David Bulog <xxxx@xxxx.xx.xx> wrote: >>> You can’t possibly know that Jason —only Roland do —Why can’t we accept it >>> at face value if they are advertising "The original Pitch and Time write >>> modes are included" >>> >>> Has any TB-03 owners here care to comment on how close the sequencer feels >>> to the original!!! >>> >>> On 4/1/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Proctor wrote: >>> >>> given the age of the TB-303, it's likely that its source code is >>> assembler, which would be unusable as-is to anyone (including Roland) making >>> a new version unless they used a CPU with a compatible instruction set. and >>> since the TB-03 is modern and entirely digital, it's astronomically unlikely >>> they used anything related to the original CPU. >>> >>> all of which is pretty obvious given a little thought, but you went ahead >>> and made a fat assumption anyway - while stating it as fact (ie, without the >>> "i assume" part - which would have been baseless anyway). >>> >>> if you were in search of a vaguely more credible (but still baseless) >>> claim, you might have said that Roland copied the sequencer algorithms from >>> the original source. but since the hardware limitations of these old >>> instruments are often responsible for the timing (and other) quirks we like >>> so much, copying the algorithm into an entirely different hardware >>> implementation might not produce the effect intended. >>> >>> how about thinking and researching a bit more before posting? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:13 PM, David Bulog <xxxx@xxxx.xx.xx> wrote: >>>> https://www.roland.com/us/products/tb-03/ >>>> If you’re familiar with the TB-303’s programming method, then you’ll feel >>>> right at home with the TB-03. The original Pitch and Time write modes are >>>> included >>>> —Roland would have used the original source code for this part? —is my >>>> assumption —apology if they did not not and rewrote from the ground up >>> > --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com