From negativesaucer Sent Thu, Jan 4th 2018, 17:40
From negativesaucer Sent Thu, Jan 4th 2018, 17:40
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 - f= rom > the point of view of the *user*. it doesn't mean that there is anything i= n > common in their implementations whatsoever. > > > > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:58 AM, David Bulog <xxxx@xxxx.xx.xx> wrote: >> >> You can=E2=80=99t possibly know that Jason =E2=80=94only Roland do =E2= =80=94Why can=E2=80=99t 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 fee= ls >> 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) ma= king >> 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 unli= kely >> they used anything related to the original CPU. >> >> all of which is pretty obvious given a little thought, but you went ahea= d >> 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 f= rom >> the original source. but since the hardware limitations of these old >> instruments are often responsible for the timing (and other) quirks we l= ike >> 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=E2=80=99re familiar with the TB-303=E2=80=99s programming method= , then you=E2=80=99ll feel >>> right at home with the TB-03. The original Pitch and Time write modes a= re >>> included >>> =E2=80=94Roland would have used the original source code for this part?= =E2=80=94is my >>> assumption =E2=80=94apology if they did not not and rewrote from the gr= ound up >> >> >