Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    My HR arrived with a cold solder joint and a dislodged piezo. I
    fixed them both myself and the unit hasn't given me any static since.
    
    The 707 is very dependable. The HR sounds better. What luck...
    
    Edd

    I have a Roland 707, 727 and 909.  They have functioned flawlessly
    for in excess of three years.  The 707 has seen some traveling,
    the 727 and 909 have been limited to studio use.
    
    I also have an HR-16.  I haven't used it much but it seems to be
    working ok (I don't use the sequencer part of it).  I've had it
    about 4 months.
    
    The HR-16 and 707/727 sound about the same.  The cymbals in the
    909 sound better than anything else available.  The rest of the
    909 varies from awful to pretty good.  The HR-16 has more flexibility
    in terms of tuning drum sounds and configuring kits.
    
    len.
    

    Roland TR-606 : Bought in 1983 - constant use for live performances.
		    Has been dropped at least twice. No Failures, other
		    than jammed keys (these were a result of a drop -
		    easily reset without taking apart - just required
		    wiggling the keys. Solidly built. Documentation: Fair

    Alesis MMT-8  : Sequencer, but the same packaging as the HR-16.
		    Nice software implementation, considering limitations
		    imposed by the type of device it is. Sequencer has
		    Key bounce problem - I would never try to play anything
		    Live that was not in a SONG format, as it's easy to
		    accidently select random areas. I've had it apart 3
		    times. 1st time was when the sequencer seemed to
		    randomly reset itself when I hit the record button -
		    it was missing about half of the screws that held the
		    keyboard in place. 2nd time was when it didn't sem to
		    work correctly when it was cold (as in take out of the
		    back of the van after driving 50 miles on a cold
		    night), but worked ok when warmed up - I resoldered
		    all connections on both the keyboard & CPU module.
		    3rd time was when it wouldn't Record anymore (all other
		    keyboard functions were working) - I took the key pads
		    off (they are conductive rubber) & cleaned the keyboard
		    with tape head cleaner. This was the second MMT-8, the
		    first one would not always play the parts that you
		    selected, even tho the leds on the front showed that it
		    was, and some of the other parts (tracks) were being
		    played correctly. Not Solidly built. Documentation:
		    Mediocre & hard to follow. (bought in Feb 1988)

    Roland TR-505 : Bought used in June 1988. Similar to TR-606 in
	            function, but has MIDI interface. No failures incurred
		    from the previous owner who used it with his 3 piece
		    for approximatly 2 years of live performance work.
		    Covered with grime when I got it. I cleaned it & have
		    had no problems with it (at least 20 live performances
		    since I've had it.  Solidly built. Documentation: Fair


	Would I buy another Roland Product: Yes, they tend to be reliable.
	Would I buy an HR-16: No, I simply don't trust my MMT-8 for real
			      time use as I use my TR-505 & TR-606 (yes,
			      I still use them both) & that is what I would
			      expect of my drum machine (I switch 1 & 2
			      measure patterns many times during a song).
	
						    Jens

    

    My HR-16 came with a bad power supply plug.  Other than that it
    has behaved flawlessly.  
    
    The "fill" capability, followed by a short time offsetting for one
    drum is particularly useful.
    
    -----
    
    Are you considering it as an SGU, as a full drum machine, or what?
    
    ...and would you be interested in buying an Octapad with it? :-)
    
    	-Bill

Chris,

I've had the following drum machines with the following results:

PAIA drum machine kit:

Came with some incorrect parts, and missing parts. The kick drum circuit
never did work correctly. This was late 70's. It was fairly reliable but
never sounded very good. Still, it was better than nothing when your live
drummer was unavailable.

EMU Drumulator:

Characteristic "tinny snare sound". Never had any trouble with it though.

Roland TR707:

Very nice user interface. Never had any maintenance problems. Sounds were
ok in context with other instruments.

Oberheim DMX:

Very overpriced, but had some great "punchy drum sounds". Never had any
maintenance problems. You can pick up a used one pretty cheap now.

Linn Drum:

Had some intermittent problems caused by wiring and chip sockets. Somewhat
noisy mixer section.

Korg DDD-5:

Very solid unit with extremely powerful and flexible (although complicated)
sequencer. Additional sounds available on ROM cards. Some quantization noise
in drum samples. Never any maintenance problems.

Alesis HR-16:

Great sounds, low price. Mechanical problems include "noisy" data entry slider
pot and switch bounce. It is very susceptible to static electricity problems.
The original power connector was very poor design. The connector problem was
supposedly corrected in later models. Excellent factory support.

dave

    HR-16 costs about $400.  707 goes for about $250.  Not sure what
    your trade-offs are but:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Casio RZ-1 - never had any problems
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Alesis HR-16 - never had any problems
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Roland (since someone talked about non-drum machines I can too)
    
    MT-32 - developed a nasty hum this weekend - no amount of isolation
       seems to get rid of it.  To the shop it goes
    
    SRV-2000 - developed excessive scratch noise, to the shop it goes
    
    RD-300 - has performed flawless other than a few "crashes" where you
       can't change sounds without turning it on and off.
    
    S-550 - first one failed (wouldn't boot) within a week.  My new one
    	crashes about once every two weeks but that's probably a software
    	failure, not hardware.
    
    JC-120 - no problems
    
    	db

    I've had good luck so far with no failures on anything (Roland: TR-505,
    S-10; Yamaha: TX81Z, QX5; Casio: CZ-101; Alesis: MV2).  I've had all
    of it (except the S-10) for about a year and a half.  I think it
    helps to have surge protection and filtering on the power lines.
    Also, my stuff stays put most of the time.  If anything, I expect
    the buttons on the QX5 and the disk drive on the S-10 to be the
    first things to go.  The rest of it will probably not need anything
    until a few years away when I need to replace internal batteries.
    
    Steve

    < Note 1796.5 by SUBSYS::ORIN "AMIGA te amo" >
>Oberheim DMX:
>Very overpriced, but had some great "punchy drum sounds". Never had any
>maintenance problems. You can pick up a used one pretty cheap now.

    Warning.. NO MIDI, pads not velocity-sensitive.  Fat sounds, tho

    I have had the following Roland gear:
    
    JX3-P: gripes "fully midi compatable" if you believe that I hhave
    some land in Florida....reliable but don't try to buy the midi dynamics
    upgrade (out of stock for 6 months...)
    
    TR-707: sounds were ok for it's time but today it's obsolete
            worked great very reliable    
    
    SDE-1000: lasted one gig, no service manuals avaialble for the
    forseable future....broke down and waiting for documents
    
    ALesis gear:
    
    HR-16: sounds good works great lasts (so far) a long time
    
    Midiverb ii: ditto
                      
    comparing the two I'd also say that Alesis can write manuals and
    Roland only generates written confusion
    
    
    dbii

    
    I have/have had:
    
    
    Roland:
    
    	JX-3P:	Sounds were excellent. Manual was trash. MIDI
    implementation was minimal. Reliability was reasonable. Unit has
    never required service in it's 5-year life, although it is susceptible
    to line noise (which cause crashes).
    
    	TR-707: Had it three years, it never failed and was used at
    least four days a week. Manual was pitiful. MIDI implementation
    acceptable, although cryptic. It never crashed and was the first
    machine I ever had that performed reliable tape backups and restores.
    
    	MKS-50: AGAIN, THE MANUAL SUCKS. But it sounds great and is
    relatively simple-minded anyway. It has never failed.
    
    	PAD-8 (Octapad): Manual? We don't need no stinkin manuals. It
    is very susceptible to static (makes random hits if you look at
    it wrong) but it is quite indestructable. Although abused, works
    like a champ. 
    
    	M-160:  Mixer. Lousy manual but who cares? Beautiful, high quality,
    been reviewed extensively, gets consistent high marks. Mine sits
    in a rack but has survived about 10 gigs as well, including one
    where the stage was 95 degrees...
    
    Korg:
    	Polysix: Had it six years, the battery hasn't even died yet.
        The manual, although thick with multiple languages, is at least
    readable, if somewhat humorous occasionally. Has survived such traumas
    as falling off a truck (in it's case) and having a pitcher of beer
    spilled into it (had to turn it over to pour the beer out)...
    
    	Mono-Poly: Haven't had it as long, but ditto. Neither has ever
    been hurt.
    
    	DDD-1:  Manual is bizarre. Sounds are neat. Indestructable by
    my standards, although I'm sure some gorilla could punch holes in
    it.
    
    Alesis:
    
    	MIDIVERB II: Received with a soft key ripped out. Was replaced
    at the dealer with Alesis parts. Had a cold solder joint in power
    inlet. Repaired by me (replaced solid wire with stranded...duhhhh!).
    Hasn't failed since (approx 10 months). Gets pretty constant use.
    
    	HR-16. Never had a problem, surprisingly. I don't think the
    manual is all that great. I don't use the sequencer. Has many
    documented quirks. I like it anyway.
    
    Ensoniq:
    
    	ESQ-1: Have had two years. Best manual of them all. Battery
    died this week (although it warned me to make a backup before it
    died...thanks Ensoniq). Lost a key recently, but self-repaired and
    it's holding up.
    
    	EPS:  Have had since March. Built like bricks. Has survived
    much shipping and handling. Disk still holding up, although I have
    lost a couple of floppies recently ("disk data corrupted"...some
    error message). Verdict is still out on the manual because we don't
    have all of it yet, although previews indicate usual Ensoniq quality.
    
    This is hardly all of the stuff, but that's what I consider the
    high-use items that traveled and are pertinent to this discussion.
    
    /pjh
    
    

    
    Roland:
    
    	Jupiter-6:  Bought new, I've had it 4-years, never a break down.
    		    Manual is awful.
    
    	MC-500:	    Bought new 1 1/2 years ago, never a break down.
    		    Manual is better then Rolands usual (fair).
    
    	SDE-3000:   Bought new 3 years ago, no problems.  Manual fair. 
                                                                 
        MKS-30:	    Bought used 1 year ago, no problems, manual poor.
    
    	S-50:	    Bought used 1 year ago w/V2.0 software, no problems.
    		    Manual is fair.
    
    	MKB-200:    Bought new 1 1/2 years ago, no problems, manual
    		    fair.
    
    	Some of this stuff has been moved around from time to time.
        I've found Roland gear to be very dependable and but manuals
    	are lacking.  After several years, I'm actially proficient in
    	Roland English.
    
    	Never owned any Alesis gear.
    
    	

    WHAT IS THIS? The poor guy just wants to know which drum box to
    buy. Get the HR-16. It sounds great without having to be overly
    processed. I have both the HR-16 and a Roland 626 and I like the
    Alesis better. Never had a problem with either.
    

    
    
    
                           Thanks a lot!!  Everyone...8^)
    
                           From what I've read, it seems Alesis had
                   some QC problems but have since ironed most of them
                   out.  I'm going to pick one up this week!!
    
    
                                         Thanks again
    
                                                  Chris

    I'm really surprised by the assertions that the HR-16 sounds "better"
    than the TR-707, or that the -707's sounds are "obsolete".
    
    I guess I just don't know what drums and cymbals are supposed to sound
    like.
    
    len (owner of a 7-piece Ludwig acoustic kit, a "spare" snare drum,
    and at least a dozen A. Zildjian, K. Ziljian and Sabian cymbals).
    

    Git 'im, len!  Git 'im ...
    
    Steve (a happy 505 owner who would LIKE a 16, but is still happy)

    I feel that the 707 cymbol sounds were obsolete when it came out.
    
    Compared to the HR-16 the sounds are not as clear, not as useful
    to me...I sold my 707 but then I don't need more than one drum machine.
    
    not to sell the 707 short, it did a good job for me, but it's an
    obsolete machine, I think Roland acknoleges that since they no longer
    manufacture the product.
    
    dbii

    Sigh.  More ballyhoo about personal preference. 

    I don't have your hardware, Len, and I'm certainly not as accomplished
    as you as a drummer, but I can play a real kit fairly well, and have
    used many different (and nice) kits on various occasions.  And I have
    been told by most people I've played with for very long that my ear is
    as good as they come.

    I sold my TR707 in favor of an HR16.  The 707 has per voice individual
    outputs, is very rugged and (depending on your taste) a bit easier to
    program.  But for sound quality and bang for the buck, I'll take my HR
    any day of the week.  This is my opinion, of course, but I think the
    base samples (tuneablility notwithstanding) on the HR blow the 707 out
    of the water.  And they should, as the technology differential between
    the machines is quite high. 

    To be fair, the technology delta is greater than the sonic delta - but
    I'm not the least bit disappointed with my HR16.  I'm glad I switched
    when I did. 

-b

    I've got to upgrade from my old dynosaur (a Roland Drumatrix). 
    I usually use step-programming, and understand this relic well,
    and am leaning towards the TR626 in hopes of not having to re-learn
    programming a drum machine all over again.  I also feel more confident
    with Roland reliability.
    
    Can anyone out there relate to this upgrade?... or is there no basis
    for my desire to convert my current programming knowledge to a TR626?
    I've been pleased with the Drumatrix, but want the midi feature
    to used with my Mac and Performer software.
    
    dc

    If you're going to learn a new sequenccer anyway (with your PC) then
    your programming knowlege of Roalnd isn't likely to do much good.
    I found very little difficulty in learning the HR-16 sequencer,
    not that I've mastered it, but it's easy to begin using within I'd
    say an hour.              
    
    The TR-626 is rumored to have very good sounds (I haven't heard one),
    much better than the TR-707 or TR-505 but the HR-16 is still probably
    the best sounding machine on the market except for perhaps Roland's new
    machine the R-8. The R-8 sells for over twice the cost of an HR-16, or
    rather will sell for, when it becomes available, (if history repeats
    itself) in 3-6 months. 
    
    dbii

    
    re: .17
    
    I concur completely.  I dumped my 626 in favor of the HR16 because
    of the sounds, and the fact that you can tune over such a wider
    range.  Yeah the 626 runs on batteries, has a headphone jack, you
    can play it on planes, is easier to program.
    
    The HR16 is difficult to program (comparatively speaking), but is
    much more flexible.  And it has velo-sensitive keys.  And it will
    record velo information via MIDI.  And it simply sounds better.
    
    Ashley

    
    HR-16:   Worked for almost a year. Broke. Sent it in.
    	     6 days later: fixed. No charge. 
    
    		Given all the schtuff inside that little box,
    		Im reasonably impressed.
    
    ron
    

    I know this is a Roland/Alesis topic, but as youre thinking of
    upgrading dont forget the Y word, check out the RX7. I did and never
    looked at an Alesis again!!
    
    Ken
    

    On the subject up upgrading from a Drumatrix (thats a TR-606), to a
    TR-626. This is an easy progression since they are very similar in
    archetecture. One thing that is different is that you can't have both
    hi-hat closed & open at the same time on the TR-626 (or 505/707).

    For patterns that are different than the standard quantized versions
    on the TR series, since you are planning on using a sequencer, you can
    play anything that you want. My TR-606 & TR-505 are doing just fine &
    sound good thru my P.A. & home studio. You have to decide what you
    are going to use it for & then what you want it sound like before
    going any buying either. The way I use my TR-505 is pretty difficult
    on the HR-16 (the sequencers are very different) & I simply don't
    have faith in the Alesis drum machine's construction reliability.

						    Jens

    Don't know about Roland, but I bought a used MMT8 privately, and
    when the memory backup broke 6 months later Alesis fixed it free,
    upgraded the o/s and paid the postage within a week.
    
    Richard.

    Well, a lot of people sure do believe that the HR-16 sounds "better"
    than the TR-707, but to my ears they sound more like one another
    than either of them sounds like real drums.  I had a TR-606 (Drumatix)
    and it was clearly inferior in sound to the 707 et seq.  I really
    don't hear that much of a difference in sound "quality" between
    the HR-16 and the TR-707.  Yes, the TR-707 ride sucks out loud,
    but the HR-16's isn't a whole lot better.  The rest of the sounds
    on the -707 (except snare2, which is one of the worst sounding snares
    I've ever heard, but seems to be the preference of many people)
    are pretty good.  The HR-16's main virtue is not so much the quality
    of its sounds as it is the ability to tune them and the very large
    selection (i.e., it offers most of the sounds that you have to have
    both a -707 and -727 to get), and of course, its very attractive
    low price.  Its crash cymbal sounds trashy to me, even tuned low,
    and requires more outboard assistance than the -707's.  Only one
    of the snares seems worthwhile to me.  De gustibus non disputandam
    est.
    
    Again, maybe I'm just too used to the sound of real drums and cymbals,
    as opposed to what a lot of people think they're supposed to sound
    like.
    
    My -707 and -727 are no more "obsolete" than my Super Jupiter and
    JX-10.  Just because Roland doesn't make them anymore doesn't mean
    they no longer sound good.  In many respects they sound *better*
    than a lot of equipment available nowadays.  I wish I could buy
    another Super Jupiter.
    
    len.
    

    Perhaps the difference in Roland's and Alesis's service departments
    is related to how heavily they're used?
    
    len.
    

    
    Re: .26
    
    Also consider what would happen to Alesis if they *didn't* provide
    super-quick turnarounds on these repairs....
    
    

Though my ears aren't trained to anything and aren't that sensitive, I think
the "realness" of a sound is dependent on its context.

I don't have a drum machine but I do load up drum samples in my TX16W.  When
I audition them by themselves, they all sound very fake, but when played as
part of a real tune, they sound like real drums to me.  I don't notice any
of the "inconsistencies" when played in ensemble as opposed to single
audition.  The same goes for other non-drum sounds.

Chad

    re: .-1
    
    I agree. I've had more experience pre-midi, trying to get a real
    kit to sound decent on tape, than I have with drum machines. And
    NOTHING used to sound less like a real drum kit than a real drum
    kit prior to chorus/delay/gate/compression and younameit boxes.
    
    If this is what Len means when he says no drumbox sounds like real
    drums, then I agree -- but Len's experience in getting real drums
    to sound right on tape (which, doubtless, also has a lot to do with
    studio technique in playing them) is not part of my musical c.v.!
    
    Richard.

    Hmm perhaps my 707 had begun to go south by the time I sold it. I can
    remember thinking it sounded pretty good at first but as time went by
    it didn't sound like either real drums or like what I hear recorded by
    pro's either. A/B-ing it with the HR-16 I bought really showed the
    difference several years of technology makes. The HR sparkled next to
    the 707. Specifically there was no snap to the snares, the cymbols we
    agreee on so there's no point in mentioning them...the bass drum seemed
    muddy with no punch, actually nothing seemed to have much punch,
    perhaps the lack of individually assignable dynamics was a part of the
    problem...if I remember correctly the 707 is a 12 bit machine, the HR
    uses 16...seems like every 12 bit machine or effect I've dealt with has
    had a muddy or muddier sound than the 16 bit'rs I've had/played
    with....I would say that the 707 seemed to be slightly more ruggedly
    packaged, but only slightly (I have had both open), slightly in
    that Roland used a harder plastic. If I was gonna gig with either
    one I'd buy or make a decently padded road case for it and expect
    it to die inconviently regardless of make (the cynical road-weary
    guitarist comes out....) 
    
    Going back and listening to recordings made with the 707 shows me that
    either the sound wasn't that great or I had lousy recording technique
    or both....I suspect both played a part in the whole thing. 
    
    My drummer hated the sound of the 707, "mechanical and unrealistic" he
    rates the HR-16 as "I can't believe this is a machine, it sounds like
    real drums", nuff said. 
    
    I have found Alesis to be more realiable and responsive, FOR ME, that
    Roland ever dreamed about being. But, keep in mind that I've got an
    open gripe with Roland right now and a broken digital delay that I
    can't diagnose for 1 1/2 to 2 months, if the replacement parts take as
    long it'd be more effective to scrap it and buy a new one...or pay
    their techs to do what I know I can do cheaper. 
    
    dbii                                           

    
    
    3 things
    
    1 I have a DDD-1 It's never broke yet. I understood the manual.
    
    2 I think the Hr16 sounds better than the TR707. But I can't remember
      the last time I heard real drums in a recording context. But they
    both do the Job.
    
    3 I was a Roland R8 this week. It was the one of the first 2 delivered
    to my local shop this week it was just going out again. Both had
    been sold within 1 hour of delivery. Never even got a chance to
    see the insides of the Box.
    
    
    				Paul.
    	
    		P.S. If you wan to make a drum machine sound human why
    don't you program it from a keyboard.
    
    Has nyone heard the new Akai 16 bit drum expander. Sounded brilliant
    to me !
                                                          

    
    Re: .31
    
    So, Paul, how did you like being an R8 for a week?
    
    8^)  8^)  8^)  8^)

    OK, I give up, the HR-16 sounds "better" than the TR-707.
    
    And the way to make drums sound more realistic is to play them from
    a keyboard.  Regardless of what the drum machine's sounds sound
    like.
    
    So, I guess the way to make synthesized violins sound more realistic
    is, uhm, oh yes, I've got it now, *play them from the keyboard*!
    
    And saxes too!  And guitars!
    
    len (whose MIDIcortex just fused into slag)
    

    
    re .32
    
    Hey this could be fun....
    
    sorry I lied I never was a drum machine. I wanted to be one but
    am so dyslexic when typing over a slow line that I can't get my
    point across.
          
    
    re. 33
    
    Len you do me a diservice.. I didn't actually say real I said "more
    human" the point being that the R8 has "humanising" techniques built
    into it which are really just quantising rules with built in timing
    errors. My point being that if you program a drum pattern with a
    keyboard and sequencer these so called "humanising techniques" get
    built in. As to realism. What's real? And who mentioned viledins?
    
    
    				Paul. >-) (smiling with my eyes closed)
    

    No, the R-8 does more than make "timing errors".  And as we have
    already noted before, it isn't "timing errors" that make things
    sound right, but consistent timing subtleties not often captured
    by coarse resolution step time programming.  Using a keyboard (or
    any other form of real time controller) doesn't guarantee that the
    player has the requisite timing skills to produce the desired effect.
    My step-timed (robotic) drum parts sound a lot more "realistic"
    than some rhythmically inept live performances.  The main thing
    that distinguishes the R-8 is its ability to provide subtle timbral
    variations.
    
    This weekend I went back and listened to the HR-16 vs. the TR-707.
    For the life of me, I simply cannot comprehend how anyone can assert
    that the -707's sounds are "obsolete" or that the HR-16 sounds
    "better".  Not one of the HR-16's snares is usable to my ears; the
    acoustic ones sound like the snares need to be tightened and the
    head properly tuned, and the electronic ones sound, well, electronic.
    The crash sounds like a cheap crash.  I have 8 crashes in my inventory,
    and they sound a lot more like the -707's crash than the HR-16's.
    With the exception of the ride cymbal, where the HR-16 is clearly
    superior, the rest of the sounds are comparable.
                  
    Well, what the f**k do I know about how drums are supposed to sound.
    
    len.
    

    re .35
    
    	...a collective "Gasp!, Shriek! and Groannnn!"
    
    			^  ^
    			*  *
    			  >
    			____
    			\__/
                           
    	(Sorry...)
    
    	Santa Clusters,
    	Bill Allen

    I usually have only a little trouble telling a '707 recording from a
    recording of real acoustic drums. 
    
    I usually have great trouble telling an HR-16 recording from a
    recording of real acoustic drums. 
    
    Therefore, I claim that the HR-16 is a better approximation of real
    acoustic drums.
    
    (note- the first time I heard a '16 I was in a somewhat loud music
    store and thought some overloud brain-dead ******* was screwing around
    with a drum kit...then I saw the lead keyboardist in EH grinning at
    me... and saw the little grey wedge in his hands.  I didn't recognize
    it then; I continued looking for the jerk with the sticks beating on
    the drums. 
                                                      
    It took several minutes to convince me it was coming out of the
    box.)

    I'm also aghast!
    
    I mean, it used to be that a couple of us could get in a room,
    put on a Commusic selection, nod collectively and let out a 
    simultaneous "707" when we heard one.  It's a very identifiable
    sound.
    
    The HR-16 is the first unit I've heard that sounded like well-recorded
    kit drums.  I plucked down my money immediately upon hearing it
    even though I knew I couldn't afford it.
    
    I find the comments about the crash to be particularly confusing.
    I think it's a terrific crash.
    
    The only sounds I prefer on the 707 are some of the latin sounds.
    They are really terrific.
    
    Anyway, I'm sorta astonished mainly because I think the HR really
    overwhelms everything else I've heard, and I have heard a LOT
    of TR-707's!
    
    	db

    
     >  	I mean, it used to be that a couple of us could get in a room,
     >   put on a Commusic selection, nod collectively and let out a
     >   simultaneous "707" when we heard one.  It's a very identifiable
     >   sound.
      
        I mean, it used to be that a couple of us could get in a room,
        put on a Commusic selection, nod collectively and let out a
        simultaneous "Fehskens" when we heard one.  It's a very identifiable
        sound.
                            
    		:-)           
    
    But seriously Len, are you sure that you heard a correctly functioning
    HR-16?  Not that they're THAT undependable...
    
    	-Bill
    
    

    
    
    Re ---5 
    
    "Timing errors",  "Subtleties", what ever you want to call them. I still
    reckon that a snare part entered in real time for the length of
    a song has more potential for the feel of the song and therefore
    potentially a real drummer than a drum pattern repeated 24 times
    with a couple of fill patterns in the middle. I therefore question
    the worth of some of the newer sequencer's and their "humanising"
    techniques. Why not  just get a human to play it in the first place.
    With all those inherent "subtleties".
           
    					Paul.

    re: obsolete
    
    Perhaps a bad word, or at least poor choice. Given that technology
    moves on and given that the 707 is old technology it's "obsolete".
    Roland must think so they no longer manufacture the beast. It was
    good in it's day, good but not great (for great we had only the
    Linndrum and it still doesn't come close to a Linn, but many of
    the newer machines don't either). Obsolete doesn't equal useless.
    
    The HR-16 is the most realistic sounding machine for it's
    features/price on the market today. Obviously it's pretty good or
    they wouldn't sell like they do. The 707 is history, useful still
    but history. The R8 sounds to be closer to a real drum than anything
    else on the market but still falls short of reality in my book, the
    few advanced features it has over the HR aren't worth and extra
    $500 TO ME.
    
    Sequencer wise the HR's sequencer has one defect and it's a doozey
    (no back step) however, compared to the sequencer in the 707 it's
    a great advance with that one exception. Add in the extra patch/song
    memory etc and again the 707 comes off as yesterday's news.
    
    Reliability is apparantly the luck of the draw, but after looking
    inside both machines I find that my lasting impression was that
    roland used harder plastic on their box and that's about it for
    major construction differences (other than design specifics). the
    circuit boards were attached in much the same fashion, the wiring
    was un-secured in much the same fashion etc. The alesis did show
    an advance in LSI technology that the roland didn't but given the
    number of years in between this is to be expected.
    
    Christ I started this didn't I? Let's let it go ok? Len I grovel
    and ask that we agree to disagree in friendship.
    
    Merry Christmas to all!
                                                    
    dbii

    There are two things that give a -707 away immediately - SNARE2,
    which I never use, and the ride cymbal, which I never use.  The
    ride cymbal in the -707, as I have admitted many times, is totally
    outclassed by the HR-16's ride.  If you stay away from those two
    sounds, you'd be hard pressed to distinguish a -707 in the mix
    from any other drum machine.
    
    Nobody has ever heard any "Fehskens -707" on any COMMUSIC tapes;
    my only COMMUSIC submission was "GetSeriousNoah", which did not
    use any drums.
    
    The fact that Roland no longer makes the -707 has nothing to do
    with anything.  Just because they've gone to a different package,
    or added new features to the R-8, doesn't change in any way the
    quality of the samples in the -707.  I admit that some of the samples
    are junk, but some of them are quite good.  I'm not arguing that
    the -707 was the best drum machine ever made, nor that the HR-16
    is a piece of junk, only that there seems to be a lot of loose talk
    about their relative quality that to me is totally off the wall.
    I'd certainly not recommend that anyone go buy a -707 today, you
    can do as well for less money, or get a lot more flexibility and
    capability for the same or more.  But writing off the -707's sounds
    strikes me as about as sensible as writing off the sound of the
    Stratocaster because the technology is "old".
    
    I have a LinnDrum, and its sounds are inferior to the -707.
    It is truly obsolete technology.  I intend to get new chips for
    it as soon as I can find some.  There *are* good chipsets for the
    Linn, but the Linn is not the "reference standard" many people assume
    it to be.
    
    It is still the case that the HR-16's crash sounds like a junk crash
    cymbal.  If you like the sound of that crash, fine, I don't.  I
    compare the sound to the sound of my A and K Zildjians, and my Sabians,
    and it loses.  The -707's crash, with the exception of its "boxy"
    attack transient, sounds much more like my real cymbals.  And the
    crash in my old *analog* -909 sounds even better!  And I'm
    not talking about how long it sustains, I'm talking about the timbral
    quality of the sound.  The HR-16 crash sounds like a cheap stamped
    brass cymbal.
    
    Similarly, if either of my Ludwig acoustic snares (the 5x14 chrome
    one or the 6.5x14 wooden one) sounded like the HR-16's "deep wood
    snare" or "ambient snare", I would get to work on them immediately,
    tightening the snare strainer and properly tuning the batter head.
    I can make my snares sound like the HR-16's snares, just like I
    can make them sound like the -707's SNARE2, I just refuse to, because
    they sound terrible.
    
    The HR-16 is unquestionably an achievement.  Its capabilities, breadth
    of sounds, MIDI implementation, etc., for that price, all set a
    new standard of performance for drum machines.  But I am just not
    that impressed with how it sounds.  There's nothing wrong with my
    HR-16; many of the sounds are excellent.  As are many of the sounds
    in the TR-707.  (Incidentally, I find the TR-707 far easier to program
    than the HR-16, but that may just be my familiarity; the inability
    to define 12/8 "swing feel" bars on the HR-16 is an annoyance. 
    A moot point anyway, as I program all my drum machines from my MC-500.)
    
    So, yes, the TR-707's "obsolete".  Yes, Roland doesn't make it
    any more.  Yes, the HR-16 is quite an impressive piece of equipment,
    if you were lucky enough to get one that works and stays working.
    Yes, the HR-16 provides more "bang for the buck" than the -707 did.
    But the -707 still sounds quite good, and the HR-16 is not the ultimate
    in drum samples.  But the R-8 looks to be a lot more like what I
    really want from a drum machine, and the additional money is well
    worth tripling the number of sounds, having the ability to add
    new sounds, and the ability to provide subtle timbral variations.
    
    So, you may all think the HR-16 sounds "better" than the -707, but
    I disagree.  I think they sound about the same overall, some individual
    sounds are better on one machine, some better on the other, 
    many are comparable.  The HR-16 certainly has more functional
    capability than the -707, but that doesn't affect how it sounds.
    
    len.
    

    Just in case some of you aren't aware, I actually own an HR-16.
    
    len.
    

    As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy I got the -505 and figure that
    the R8 is the next beast to watch.  Soon as the price comes down
    a bit the HR16 will start feeling the squeeze.  In the end, I think
    it goes back to the old rule of buying on the basis that you'll
    be happy with it for a long time.  Since I have a sampler, I can
    supplement drum sounds with stuff from a sample tape.  And, if
    I want a different kind of snare or whatever, I can run the -505
    through my MV2 into the sampler.  The -505 has good, basic sounds
    that I find useable.  I'd like an HR16, but if I wait long enough
    (like until the time when I can actually pay cash) I can probably
    get an R8.  With my current setup, I can wait for a long time.
    
    Steve