If you're wondering why Roland TB-3 is almost double the price, it's because it has a builtin audio interface so you can record directly into your DAW. The TB-3 is so much easier to program sequences than the TD-3 or even the original. You can get some really great sounds out of the TB-3 in the B, C, D banks. I'm still thinking about getting the TD-3 since it's pretty cheap.
Thanks for the comparison. I just got done doing a bunch of sampling of these two. Strictly soundwise, they have different tones. The TD3 has a sort of more "squeeky" sharpness to the filter resonance, while the TB-3 feels like it has a little more "Beef". But In my opinion, the TB-3 is just so much better. People who just throw it under the bus because of the touchscreen are missing out man. A huge reason I like the TB-3 is for live improvisation. Both for that and sampling, it has functionality which 100% randomizes the notes and slides. Combined with stutters, key changes, randomization, and patterns length change, it makes it much easier to do cool improv solos on the TB-3 live. On the TD3, the randomization cycles through set patterns which does not sound as pleasing. With the TD3, Coming up with a pattern on the fly and manipulating it beyond just the standard filter and envelope is really not something that works well. On the TB-3, you have a whole ton of banks of sounds. On the TD-3 you do not. Don't know if the TD3 does this, but I know the TB-3 also can run off a standard usb phone battery bank. A point for the TD3 I do like that you have some input functionality. I also like that the distortion and overdrive controls are right on the front panel and have some tone options. I like that TD3 has a computer editor, but I'd rather just randomize/edit on the TB3 and make patterns that way. Also, you could get two TD3s for about the price of one TB3. They are very affordable. But unlike a lot of people who hate on Rolands changes to the 303, I really think they added a lot to the device with the updates. The TB-3 is not a classic 303 and doesn't need to be. I have other synths and honestly the one that makes it on most of my tracks is the TB-3. It's such an easy to use instrument. I will however, use my TD3 so that I can have two acid lines at the same time.
..if you externally sequenced TD-3 with a Keystep Pro or Beatstep Pro then you will have have a different opinion about the digital TB3.. 😁 ..also when you put a digital instrument threw external effects it sounds totally different.. if someone gave me a TB3 for free I would immediately sell it..
@@sentokan ..I figured out how to sequence my TD-3's from external sequencers here is how.. set midi channel function + F# ..then the number accent = outgoing midi channel slide = incoming midi channel BACK + WRITE/NEXT = SYNC + INT / MIDI / USB ..then I use either a Beatstep Pro or Keystep Pro to live sequence the TD-3's which is far superior in my opinion.. also the Audio in on the TD-3 is actually a CV in which is obviously better because it can interact with modular.. if you want to just use the TD-3 filter set the Waveform Saw/Square switch in the center.. whomever designed the TD-3 also loves modular to give us these extra options for free..
thanx.. the tb-3 sounds a bit "fuller" in this video.. and the td-3 is too bright when open the filter plus resonance. i trimmed the inner vcf pot a bit that make it not so harsh sounding for my preference. also you can mod the distortion for a bassy/overdrive one. own both of them, and each of them has its cons and pros.... a pity that they didnt include the env/decay knobs on the roland one. also there was only one update from roland which sucks regarding the options under the hood of the tb-3.
Yes, the TD-3 is sometimes too bright. I didn’t mod it yet, because it’s good to have those ultra bright sounds if needed. For darker sound, the Roland is ace. 👍🏻
You can tweak decay and env. depth (and other parameters) via midi-cc, so most midi controllers with assignable encoders can be used. I have set up my cirquit tracks to control the tb-3 and mapped decay and envelope as a 303/td-3) There is an unofficial patch editor out there on the internet. It is installed on my tb3 since previous owner. I tried it out, and it works. I quickly realized I wasn't gonna make any better patches than those already on the machine but there you go. (Wish there was some hacks for tr-8 too...)
@@JH-lo9ut thanx..good tip with the midi CC´s. the editor is a welcome addition to get accees of the soundengine , but guess you mean to install it on a pc.... (as you wrote "installed it on my tb-3"..:)
I desperately want both and can't make up my mind. TB-3 seems so practical, usable, performance oriented, pretty affordable used and I don't have to worry about it breaking on me. The Behringer is so dirt cheap, more authentic and there's just something special about it. People say the crappy sequencer is kind of what makes the patterns turn out as they do and I kinda feel like I need to experience that, but I wonder if I'll still want to use the original sequencer after a month. Maybe I should just get both :P
Hi, for authentic feel, get the TD-3. For easy of use and variety of sounds, get the TB-3. Behringer just reduced the price of the TD-3 after they introduced the new expanded versions some days go. The TD-3 is really cheap now.
I copied an old acid house classic pattern on TB-3 and it sounds far off. Especially the accent. They didn't emulate the accent vs. resonance decay at all. You don't get smooth analogue accent all the way.
@@Bonn5656 good thing is that it's not hard to use it. I also bought TD-3, because it's analog and I like analog distortion on acid. I did great distorted acid in the 90's with Juno-106. But now with TD-3 I immediately remembered why I wanted TB-3: it's made by Roland (it should sound good) and it doesn't try to copy the 303 interface! Going MIDI...
The newer Roland machines are interesting for sure, but they look a bit ugly and uninspiring. Sure the TD-3 borrows 95% of its design to the 303's which has always been whack, but at least you feel like you're walking in the steps of giants . It's complicated, it's restrictive, and that's why it's been popular for nearly 40 years. And soundwise I do prefer the TD-3 over any other (affordable) clone.
This comparison is valid, I guess. But as two real TB303's never sound the same these dayz, who cares? My humble opinion goes to the TD-3, simply because of that touch screen nonsense of the TB-3. Thanks for the video.
I've listened acid house recordings and everything with since 1988 and 303 has always sounded 303. Could be differences in the control voltage ranges, but the tone still is something TB-3 doesn't do well.
The TD-3 is brighter and has a very liquid resonance, which I like a lot. On the other side, the TB-3 can do so much more than just 303-like sounds. I think it was poorly marketed.
@@friendlynoise yeah when you go beyond the first 2 presets it gets really interesting, especially the D bank of sounds. But for standard 303 stuff it's off. Still like it though.
TB-3 should be way easier to use. Especially the sequencer is much more usable and modern. OG 303 and the (correct) TD-3 sequencer are notoriously awkward. Some say that's a good thing though, it's such a weird sequencer that you'll often accidentally end up with typical 303 sequences. But with the TB-3 you'll actually end up with the sequence you wanted in a minute.
If you're wondering why Roland TB-3 is almost double the price, it's because it has a builtin audio interface so you can record directly into your DAW. The TB-3 is so much easier to program sequences than the TD-3 or even the original. You can get some really great sounds out of the TB-3 in the B, C, D banks. I'm still thinking about getting the TD-3 since it's pretty cheap.
Thanks for the comparison. I just got done doing a bunch of sampling of these two. Strictly soundwise, they have different tones. The TD3 has a sort of more "squeeky" sharpness to the filter resonance, while the TB-3 feels like it has a little more "Beef". But In my opinion, the TB-3 is just so much better. People who just throw it under the bus because of the touchscreen are missing out man. A huge reason I like the TB-3 is for live improvisation. Both for that and sampling, it has functionality which 100% randomizes the notes and slides. Combined with stutters, key changes, randomization, and patterns length change, it makes it much easier to do cool improv solos on the TB-3 live. On the TD3, the randomization cycles through set patterns which does not sound as pleasing. With the TD3, Coming up with a pattern on the fly and manipulating it beyond just the standard filter and envelope is really not something that works well. On the TB-3, you have a whole ton of banks of sounds. On the TD-3 you do not. Don't know if the TD3 does this, but I know the TB-3 also can run off a standard usb phone battery bank. A point for the TD3 I do like that you have some input functionality. I also like that the distortion and overdrive controls are right on the front panel and have some tone options. I like that TD3 has a computer editor, but I'd rather just randomize/edit on the TB3 and make patterns that way. Also, you could get two TD3s for about the price of one TB3. They are very affordable. But unlike a lot of people who hate on Rolands changes to the 303, I really think they added a lot to the device with the updates. The TB-3 is not a classic 303 and doesn't need to be. I have other synths and honestly the one that makes it on most of my tracks is the TB-3. It's such an easy to use instrument. I will however, use my TD3 so that I can have two acid lines at the same time.
Thanks for this info....I was looking at getting a Tb3 as it looks much more user friendly to use compaired to the orignal and repelica base synts.
..if you externally sequenced TD-3 with a Keystep Pro or Beatstep Pro then you will have have a different opinion about the digital TB3.. 😁 ..also when you put a digital instrument threw external effects it sounds totally different.. if someone gave me a TB3 for free I would immediately sell it..
@@hovermotion ..much better off with a TD-3 and external sequencer like a Keystep Pro or Beatstep Pro.. I can explain the setup process..
@@normdurkin6425 Please do
@@sentokan ..I figured out how to sequence my TD-3's from external sequencers here is how..
set midi channel
function + F# ..then the number
accent = outgoing midi channel
slide = incoming midi channel
BACK + WRITE/NEXT = SYNC + INT / MIDI / USB
..then I use either a Beatstep Pro or Keystep Pro to live sequence the TD-3's which is far superior in my opinion.. also the Audio in on the TD-3 is actually a CV in which is obviously better because it can interact with modular.. if you want to just use the TD-3 filter set the Waveform Saw/Square switch in the center.. whomever designed the TD-3 also loves modular to give us these extra options for free..
I like every Bassline Synth
Yeah, everything is different, but everything is musically useful if you know what to do.
Thanks for taking the time to make this vid...as a new user to this tech I my go for the Tb3
I have TB-3 but I must say that behringer sounds very good! Maybe I should get one...good comparison!
Would love to use the Roland but the fact that it does not have analog clock/sync and cv/gate in out makes it useless. I dont use midi.
You are so right. Even a simple sync input would have made the Roland more enjoyable.
Loving your channel !
thanx..
the tb-3 sounds a bit "fuller" in this video..
and the td-3 is too bright when open the filter plus resonance.
i trimmed the inner vcf pot a bit that make it not so harsh sounding for my preference.
also you can mod the distortion for a bassy/overdrive one.
own both of them, and each of them has its cons and pros....
a pity that they didnt include the env/decay knobs on the roland one.
also there was only one update from roland which sucks regarding the options under the hood of the tb-3.
Yes, the TD-3 is sometimes too bright. I didn’t mod it yet, because it’s good to have those ultra bright sounds if needed. For darker sound, the Roland is ace. 👍🏻
You can tweak decay and env. depth (and other parameters) via midi-cc, so most midi controllers with assignable encoders can be used. I have set up my cirquit tracks to control the tb-3 and mapped decay and envelope as a 303/td-3)
There is an unofficial patch editor out there on the internet.
It is installed on my tb3 since previous owner. I tried it out, and it works. I quickly realized I wasn't gonna make any better patches than those already on the machine but there you go. (Wish there was some hacks for tr-8 too...)
@@JH-lo9ut thanx..good tip with the midi CC´s.
the editor is a welcome
addition to get accees of the soundengine , but guess you mean to install it on a pc....
(as you wrote "installed it on my tb-3"..:)
TD-3 sounds nasally to me, it chirps rather than squelches. TB-3 looks like cr*p but sounds more acid. Possibly why DJ Pierre uses it now.
I don't have TB-3 but the TB-3 looks more cooler than the behringer. And soundwise the Roland sounds more TB-303
I desperately want both and can't make up my mind. TB-3 seems so practical, usable, performance oriented, pretty affordable used and I don't have to worry about it breaking on me. The Behringer is so dirt cheap, more authentic and there's just something special about it. People say the crappy sequencer is kind of what makes the patterns turn out as they do and I kinda feel like I need to experience that, but I wonder if I'll still want to use the original sequencer after a month. Maybe I should just get both :P
Hi, for authentic feel, get the TD-3. For easy of use and variety of sounds, get the TB-3. Behringer just reduced the price of the TD-3 after they introduced the new expanded versions some days go. The TD-3 is really cheap now.
@@friendlynoise yeah I just bought the Td-3 last night, at that crazy price I couldn't pass it up!
@@OttosTheName Hard to resist, :-) Have fun with it!
sound:
tb-3 > td-3
I like both
So do I. 😀
Roland TB-3 sounds more TB-303. Td-3 lacks the typical squelghy 303 sound. Behringer sounds very thin.
Roland did a good job with the TB-3, but the strange interface and the inaccurate accent behaviour make people look away. Still, a great little synth.
I copied an old acid house classic pattern on TB-3 and it sounds far off. Especially the accent. They didn't emulate the accent vs. resonance decay at all. You don't get smooth analogue accent all the way.
@@Bonn5656 good thing is that it's not hard to use it. I also bought TD-3, because it's analog and I like analog distortion on acid. I did great distorted acid in the 90's with Juno-106. But now with TD-3 I immediately remembered why I wanted TB-3: it's made by Roland (it should sound good) and it doesn't try to copy the 303 interface! Going MIDI...
Better sound the tb3 and with a touch pad wow Roland👌
The newer Roland machines are interesting for sure, but they look a bit ugly and uninspiring. Sure the TD-3 borrows 95% of its design to the 303's which has always been whack, but at least you feel like you're walking in the steps of giants . It's complicated, it's restrictive, and that's why it's been popular for nearly 40 years. And soundwise I do prefer the TD-3 over any other (affordable) clone.
I agree with you. For a classic look and sound, the TD-3 is hard to beat. This design is timeless.
This comparison is valid, I guess. But as two real TB303's never sound the same these dayz, who cares? My humble opinion goes to the TD-3, simply because of that touch screen nonsense of the TB-3. Thanks for the video.
Thanks for your comment. I guess it’s the TD-3 for the 303 experience and TB-3 for the additional sounds and effects.
I've listened acid house recordings and everything with since 1988 and 303 has always sounded 303. Could be differences in the control voltage ranges, but the tone still is something TB-3 doesn't do well.
The Roland is more expensive, but sounds way better.
It’s more flexible. Here is no doubt. 👍🏻
The TD-3 just kills the TB-3... the TD-3 nails the bubbly resonance of the 303 that the TB-3 can't even get close. I also own both.
The TD-3 is brighter and has a very liquid resonance, which I like a lot. On the other side, the TB-3 can do so much more than just 303-like sounds. I think it was poorly marketed.
@@friendlynoise yeah when you go beyond the first 2 presets it gets really interesting, especially the D bank of sounds. But for standard 303 stuff it's off. Still like it though.
Are they similar to use / ease of use? I'm looking at the roland Dj808 and am considering these as an add-on
TB-3 should be way easier to use. Especially the sequencer is much more usable and modern. OG 303 and the (correct) TD-3 sequencer are notoriously awkward. Some say that's a good thing though, it's such a weird sequencer that you'll often accidentally end up with typical 303 sequences. But with the TB-3 you'll actually end up with the sequence you wanted in a minute.