Jump to content

randy909

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by randy909

  1. MB909 beta version PCB bulkorder

    in Bulk Orders

    Posted

    I completely disagree. First, regarding size, the 909 is as big as it is because of the component count, and the thru-hole style of circuit board. Have a look at the pics at http://hackaday.com/2008/06/18/tr-909-teardown/ which pretty clearly show why the machine is so big.

    As for the grouping of the controls: I have used the 909 extensively, on stage (live programming on-the-fly) and in the studio. I find the spacing of the controls to be very comfortable (most mixing boards are more cramped than the 909), while the extra "white space" at the top of the machine is a great place to rest another small device, or my headphones, or my glasses. And it looks so BITCHIN!

    IMHO The TR-909 has a tasteful, minimalist look that doesn't detract from its usability.

    My point was, either use that space or get rid of it. Putting a big blank space up top just to make it look like a real 909 makes no sense if the pcb's don't require the extra space. Just make the box smaller if you don't want to space out the interface. That'll be cool in its own way.

    I think the knobs are cramped, see Jomox for proper knob spacing. Agree that it looks cool. I think a properly-spaced design could also look cool, depends on the artwork.

  3. MB909 beta version PCB bulkorder

    in Bulk Orders

    Posted

    The original 909 had a vast area of wasted space at the top. I would support limiting that space or using it to spread out the pots so you can get your fingers all the way in between the knobs. You could also use bigger knobs. I don't think you'll find many "pro" devices that would make that design mistake these days so why repeat it? Otherwise the large size doesn't bother me.

  5. MB909 beta version PCB bulkorder

    in Bulk Orders

    Posted

    Randy,

    The differences between the MB909 sequencer and the MB808:

    1. Until now and if I am correct the MB808 is a clone of the TR808 and not the sequencer.

    2. The MB909 is based on the Midibox SeqV4 with all of its advantages (SD card, up to 4 MIDI in and 4 MIDI OUT, MIDI to CV possibilities,...), more up to date updates by Tk and the Midibox crew. The sequencer of the MB808 is based on version 3 of the Midibox Seq.

    3. I'm not sure if the MB808 project is still alive when I read the info on different forum sites.

    4. The interface PCB for the Midibox SeqV4 that I designed and currently updating is a 909 clone in looks and software (accent on individual instruments and notes,...)

    I wanted a 909 looking sequencer with a nice graphical display and that is why I designed the interface. And I used the version 4 because everything is already on the LPC mainboard (USB, MIDI,...) which makes it easier to make and install. I did not make a price comparison between the V3 and V4 but I think the price will be almost the same taking into account that all the IN and OUTPUTS are already on the V4 board.

    The disadvantage of choosing the V4 is that I need to program a lot of code and that already took a lot of time and will probably take more time to get it more TR909 like.

    This is just my opinion, don't want to upset anybody. Once the MB808 standalone sequencer will be available people will have the option between the two and choose the one that fits their needs the best.

    cheers,

    Jef

    This sounds awesome Jef! Personally, I am certainly not upset that you are building this on a newer version of MBSeq with more features and better support :)

    My only concern is mainly a selfish one. I'm on the list to get a MB808 kit if/when it finally appears and it would be less brain work for me to have to learn 2 different interfaces for my 808/909 babies. I also thought it might be less work for you to work from the MB808 sequencer codebase since a lot of what you're doing to the MBSeqV4 code is probably similar to what has been done to the MBSeqV3 code for the MB808 project. Or that you could take design decisions from the other project where you see fit. It sounds like you're already past that point though...

    One thing the MB808 sequencer does that I'm quite fond of is being able to choose arbitrary loop start/stop points for each individual part. For example, the kick might be a loop of 4 16ths (I make techno, that's all it does most of the time ;) ) while the hihat might be looping from note 5 to 12, creating some weird polyrhythm thing. Will this be possible on your sequencer? Clearly the MBSeqV4 is capable of this but will your interface make this accessible, even easy?

    Thank you for all the time and work you're putting into this. I know it is a labor of love. I hope none of my comments sound demanding or too critical. And I also hope I'm not derailing the intended topic of this thread.

    Cheers,

    Randy

×
×
  • Create New...