6 ms·
I've owned a TR-606/TB-303, 2 TR-808s and currently own a TR-8. I bought my first 808 in college in 1998 for 750 bucks. Being a broke college student I sold it
by S_A_P 11y ago
I've owned a TR-606/TB-303, 2 TR-808s and currently own a TR-8. I bought my first 808 in college in 1998 for 750 bucks. Being a broke college student I sold it to pay for school. After college I bought another TR-808 for 700 in 2003 and kept it for 2 years. I grew bored of the sound, and had taken a decent enough sample set of it to replace it for most uses. The second 808 I had I modded to extend the decay of the kick drum to the point of self oscillation. I also bought a new row of buttons for it. Lastly I added a midi-DIN sync box. I had considered adding a pitch pot on the kick drum but prices were rising to the point that I thought was an 808 bubble(a princely sum of 1600 dollars). Now I see tr-808s on ebay for 3000+ and kick myself.
For anyone interested, the TR-8 does a good job emulating the TR-808/909 for the most part. I find the 808 cymbal(and to a lesser degree the hi-hat) sound nowhere near as good as the original and far less adjustable. The snares don't quite have the snap I hear in my 808 samples. It should be noted though that there was quite a bit of variation from unit to unit in the TR-808. My first 808 had a nice long 2-3 second kick decay, while the second one I owned was about .5 seconds(which is why I did the mod) the hi hat and cymbals are a slightly different pitch as well.
I bought the 7x7-TR8 expansion and while somewhat useful(I like the 707 snare) the 707/727 sounds rarely get any use. The expansion did include some new takes on the 909 kick, snare and non specific clap and snap sounds. I really like to play with the new snap sounds, as it is a cool noise generator effect. I haven't seen any news around this, but it seems silly for them not to do a TR-606/DR-55 expansion pack for the TR-8. I would have bought that over the 7X7 expansion.
There is a TR-808 documentary coming out soon 808themovie.com that will have tons of artist interviews who made their name with the 808. This article did a decent job of naming music that really used an 808, as there was one a few months ago that suggested mostly 909 tracks or tracks that may have used 808 samples sporadically in them. I get a bit pedantic about that because to me, you aren't using an 808 if you loaded a drum sampler with 808 sounds. Beastie Boys licensed to ill is a great example of an album made mostly with an 808(but synced up with a sequential circuits drumtraks and possibly a linndrum on one or 2 tracks) By the late 80s, most rap was made on sp-12/1200s and akai MPCs.
- swombat 11y agoWhat I don't understand is why bother owning the hardware these days, other than personal taste? Surely the reproduction of an ancient hardware drum sequencer in today's software should be perfect. I'm not criticising your preference for using hardware, that's your call. Some people still like to use vinyl, and I guess that's pretty cool. And some people still like to use hardware synths. And so on... but at the end of the day, unless you're doing something on the hardware that is impossible to do with software (e.g. some kinds of scratching could be argued to be impossible to reproduce exactly without vinyls and turntables), it seems to me the only reason to use a hardware 808 is basically personal preference. Happy to be explained why I'm wrong though. Are there any quantifiable differences between a physical 808 and a software one?
- mtinkerhess 11y ago1) Sounds produced by analog equipment cannot be reproduced exactly in software. You can get very close but so far nobody has gotten it 100% right. 2) The physical controls on hardware make the process of creating music more tactile / intuitive / emotional. It's faster to reach and turn a knob than to click on the knob and drag it -- maybe only by a little but when you do that thousands of times it adds up. 3) The constraints of using hardware can be a useful artistic limitation, that actually increases creative output.
- golergka 11y agoI completely agree with (2) and (3), but have you really tested (1), with a blind testing technique and a considerably large sample size? I find when people are talking about how they can tell apart analog from (good) emulation, or 320kbps mp3 (compressed with a proper encoder from a high-quality source) from flac or wav they didn't actually try to do that in a statistically meaningful way.
- lttlrck 11y agoIsn't it more than that though? It isn't just about sample rate and resolution which for a single sound should be extremely accurate, it's about replicating the effect on the sound as the knobs are twisted and sliders moved around. That's a whole different set of problems and I imagine very very difficult to accurately replicate/synthesize.
- coldtea 11y agoLet's put it this way: modern plugins that try to replicate this as close as possible (zero-latency filters etc) have a huge CPU hit.
- golergka 11y agoCan you point me in the direction of the plugins you mean? Because I haven't had problems with CPU levels for a long time now. Just curious.