Talk:Roland Corporation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Roland Aira Serie[edit]

Just added to the list the lauch in 2014 of the Aira's TR-8, TB-3, VT-3 and System 1. But some of their page-links do already have their own page (about a non Roland-machine). I don't know what the policy is about link-names, which make that the Roland thingies get their own page-links. — Egeltjes 23:00hr, 28 june 2014 (Dutch-Time)

Roland E09 keyboard[edit]

No date information on this product. Could anybody place this product in the list of productions by date ?


--AXRL (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Roland Juno Di and GI In the list of instruments by year, 2008 lists Roland Juno Stage & Juno-Di: Entry-level workstations based on the Fantom-G and the successors of the Juno-G and 2010 lists Roland Juno-Gi : The older brother of the Juno-Di Sadly, here at work, I have no web access to external sites such as even Google to check the issue dates of these devices (which is exactly what I came here for) however there is an inconsistency with information presented. The Juno Gi cannot be the older brother of the Juno Di if the 'older' one was released in 2010 and the younger in 2008. I presently have no way to verify the accuracy of this information. Was the intention to denote that the Gi is a more powerful sibling than the Di ? Aethandor (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC) 10:02 20-Oct-2016

needs substantial work[edit]

Start with the "noteworthy products" list. I'm a Roland fan, but they are in the habit of shoving devices out that don't connect with the buying public (for various reasons). A release year is moderately helpful, but better still would be a final year as well. Would addition of MSRP (as discovered) improve this list?

(And while I'm looking at it, I really doubt that every Roland product needs to also begin with the word "Roland.")

Issues abound in this section. Is the list meant to be "noteworthy"... or comprehensive? (hint: that's two entirely different missions.) If the former, gaps are readily observable, such as the Alpha Juno family (no mention of the HS-10 or MKS-50).

Large swathes are awkwardly organized, particularly the bits for 1992 and 2004. Comments such as "new & affordable" or "popular" are blatant editorializing unless attributed properly. The 2014 chunk is ghastly. Is something a "successor" if it's an addition to a series? Is it necessary to comment on a particular device if said device has its own entire article? The unattributed adsheet quote about SR-JV80 expansion boards can be pruned, or sent off as a stub.

Though there's a 2012 tag calling to turn this list into prose, it's eye-killing enough as it is, and I cannot see where making it chirpy and chatty represents improvement.

I'd argue that since so many products in this list have their own articles, the article would be improved by removing the entire section to its own "List of" entry. Without it, the entire article about Roland Corporation is less than 1,000 words; perhaps without the daunting bulk of the "Timeline," someone might eventually be inspired to turn this into an actual article.

FFI: Sound On Sound, "The History of Roland" Part 1: 1930-1978 Part 2: 1979-1985 Part 3: 1986-1991 Part 4: 1992-1997 Part 5: 1998-2004
Weeb Dingle (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Support split of list to separate article, similar to List of Korg products. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I've taken a first pass at turning that list into something actually readable. In another phase or two, I will begin pruning entries that do not appear "noteworthy," beginning with those most clearly pointless; for instance, I find it unlikely that every model of Jazz Chorus amp is historically significant.
Except for a couple of entries on this list, no discernible effort has been made in the article to address Roland's extensive efforts in "vinyl cutters, thermal transfer printer/cutters, wide-format inkjet printers and printer/cutters, 3D scanners and milling devices, and engravers" through Roland DG.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, yeh -- should anyone step up, per my "release year is moderately helpful, but better still would be a final year as well" idea, I've located a very comprehensive listing of dates -- -- that offer potential to create a useful and thoroughgoing reference list, as opposed to the "Some Features of Possible Interest" overview implied by noteworthiness. Which of these is more appropriate to the Wikipedia mission? both, perhaps?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

this "lawsuit" stuff....[edit]

.... 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? (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."
"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."
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 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."
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)