Talk:Roland Corporation/Archives/2017

This is an archive of past discussions about Roland Corporation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

this "lawsuit" stuff....

.... MUST go unless there's a citation.
take a look at the schematics. the sh1000 & the original sh3 use diode ladder filters. the sh2000 & the sh3a use transistor ladder filters.
either one of the two designs could be said to overlap with moog's filter design. but was there a lawsuit?

31.50.2.199 (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I take it you're referring to Infringed upon Bob Moog's filter patent. referring to the SH-3 (1973). Having watched the rise of both Roland and Moog in my lifetime, this is the first mention I have seen of any such lawsuit. After a few minutes' research, I've removed it.

"Contrary to common belief, the initial version "SH-3" did not infringe on the transistor ladder-filter patent of Robert Moog. It used a diode filter like the EMS VCS3. That diode filter gives it a different, perhaps more interesting, sound than the later ladder filter in the SH-3a." http://www.switchedonaustin.com/products/roland-sh-3

"The AJH Synth Sonic XV filter core is based on the diode ladder filter from the original Musonics Sonic V synthesiser dating back to the early 1970's. This particular diode ladder filter was originally developed by Eugene Zumchak (a former Moog employee) as a "work around" of the original patent (held by Dr Bob Moog) for the transistor ladder filter - the diode ladder was considered sufficiently different that it did not infringe the patent at the time." http://www.ajhsynth.com/Sonic_XV.html

This "infringement" immediately struck me as repurposing the widespread "lawsuit guitar" myth. The truth: Norlin Corporation (owner of Gibson Guitars among other brands) filed suit June 28, 1977, against Elger (owner of Ibanez) over the shape of some guitar headstocks, claiming trademark infringement. Really, it was little more than a puffed-up cease-and-desist threat, rendered pointless as Ibanez had changed the shape more than a year previous. It is apparently the ONLY lawsuit ever thus filed.

Yet to this day the myth persists that Gibson and Fender and that lot sued the bejeezus out of dozens (if not hundreds) of "clone" makers, usually Japanese. A quick browse of Wikipedia finds this mentioned in Takamine guitars, Tōkai Gakki, Lyle guitars, Gibson Guitar Corporation, Gibson Les Paul, and Ventura (Japanese guitars); certainly there are others as well. (Yeah, another cleanup project waiting to happen.)

Check eBay or Reverb.com and you'll find "lawsuit" mentioned as a selling point, at least implying that the quality of these instruments was so incredibly high that the big companies felt threatened. More than a few sellers try to weasel into this by claiming to have a "lawsuit era" guitar, which era apparently ran approximately from 1964 to 1988.

"The SH-3 has a filter that was found to infringe on a Moog filter patent. Roland was forced to change the design and released the SH-3A. Because of this, the original SH-3 had a limited production run and is quite rare." http://soundprogramming.net/synthesizers/roland/roland-sh-3/

There ya go -- claim "rarity," imply super-high "lawsuit" quality, jack up the asking price.

So, unless there's a citation substantiating the "Moog lawsuit" claim, I suspect it's nothing more than airheaded Romanticizing intended to paint poor brave little Roland as stepping on the toes of Moog Music, which was owned by big bad Norlin.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Roland Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Is the subject a reliable source?

Roland has a blog-like page, "Roland Synth Chronicle: 1973-2014," that appears to be a list of the synthesizers that THEY find noteworthy. It bogs down ~2000, but up to that point really does point up highlights. While I'm certainly going to refer to it, is it credible enough to perhaps replace the present gargantuan "notable" list?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Ooops; pardon: http://www.rolandus.com/blog/2014/02/19/roland-synth-chronicle-1973-through-2013/
Weeb Dingle (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)