Roland SH 101 repair question??

[steevio]

There is so much new analog stuff on the market I don't see why people would pay "vintage" prices for old synths. They might have mojo, but they cost too much now. I would have to sell a lot of records in order to buy a 101.

What I would like to see is a module based off of the 101 sequencer. You really can't beat that sequencer for building simple riffs. You could have a lot of fun if you combined something like that with the Europa sequencer sending trig out .

there are plenty of ways to sequence in modular in a similar way to the SH101, but way more versatile and expandable.
if you added that to the mix and did away with the computer sequencing you'd be looking at maybe £1200 for a small modular that can do what the 101 does but way more flexible, future proof, expandable and fun.

with LADSPA and jack in linux, or puredata/maxmsp you can do anything with sequencing that modular can do. and if you already own a computer you don't have to spend that much on a sequencer.

i have to disagree, you couldnt possibly do what i'm doing with my modular sequencer as an integrale part of my system.
i'm not saying that the functions are not possible, but it isnt possible to integrate them in the same way.

oblioblioblio is the man to explain that, he's used maxmsp with his modular

[oblioblioblio]

modular is way more fun.

maxmsp is not for everyone. I loved the potential, and actually did some patches that some full time max users thought were interesting... but using analogue systems for control, something instantly clicked.

Its hard to be passionate about technology and not end up offending some people, but for the sake of honesty i'll say my 2 cents... i think analogue offers so so much more for a musician.

The tools I have at the moment are infinitely superior to digital. Computers just process 1 peice of information at a time (albeit extremely quickly). But analogue parts are constantly calculating, and if you exploit this properly some fascinating stuff happens.

Knowing how I am personally, I think it's impossible to convince someone of your viewpoint... it shows strength in your belief to be an arrogant fucker and follow your own path. So I'm not going to go out of my way to try and put my own beliefs into something logical.. cos frankly they're not.

A couple of points, though: Hardwired functionality decided by someone who has spent years developing the machine, is not to be discounted. My most recent module is a 'sequencer' of sorts, and it actually defies all the rules of modular logic ... it has no options for control inputs... but that is the character and point of the module. Those limiations are a breeding ground for creative methods.

Modular has upsides and downsides, but for me, modular offers much much more than MaxMSP.

(PS I had almost this exact same argument with a bigtime modular guy last year... i was saying that 'yeah modular has all the great sound machines... but why not use digital for control'.... i am not on that side of the fence anymore)

[steevio]

this is the sequencing part of my modular about 6 months ago, its about twice as complex now, i'd need an interface with about 200 jack sockets on it to do something similar and integrate it with my modular,

impossible

[JayRP]

thats the point, im not trying to pay 800 for one. the most i would pay is *MAYBE* 600, after shipping, lol

i dunno. i feel i make pretty good basses with my prophet 08. so maybe i dont even really need this 101?..

the SH101 eats the Prophet 08 for breakfast in the bass zone.e
could never get particularly nice basses out of my P 08.

nor me. its the only thing i cant get out of the prophet.

weird. i mean, sometimes its a pain for me to get (at least what i consider) good basses out of it, but i dunno, maybe i just dont know. only been writing/producing and messing with the prophet for a little over a year now. maybe i really should get another synth, one thats considered good for bass so i can see what it is im missing exactly. the prophet is my first and only synth right now so maybe i just dont know enough.

[pafufta816]

i have little experience in puredata or max, but within linux i use Patchage, Ingen and LADSPA with my jack sound daemon, which are designed to give the user modular control of digital setups. they require some mathematical, programming and sound-synthesis knowledge to use. it is basically a workspace, where you can place effects, generators, as well as mathematical functions. from these you can route all inputs and outputs however you can conceive. granted it's not the same as analogue modular setups, you can still approximate or create within the same realm of possibility with digital modular programming. to integrate with analogue modular setups you need only midi in/out and you will have extremely versatile digital control that would rival modular sequencers. it can be used for linear or expiramental purposes, and can model quite closely analogue modular functionality.

check it out you modular-nerdo's

this image is of a simple MIDI controller.

[Phase Ghost]

Isn't it funny how every thread ends up about modular's somehow?

I think it is.

The bottom line is.... if it works, it works. Modular, crazy linux programs (I run Linux for web development and Android development), whatever.

Virtual analog doesn't compare to actual analog. Period. I used only computers for the majority of my music making life. There's just something about electrons pulsing through a circuit that software can't replicate. Can't explain it, but there's a difference. Just like a triple carb Jag E-Type motor is different from a 2011 Toyota Corolla fuel injected setup. They both get you from point A to point B, but the Jag has something you can't emulate.

[steevio]

@ phase ghost LOL, and it wasnt me or oblio who brought the subject up this time.

@ pafufta816

theres no doubting the power of digital sequencing, i'm just saying that to integrate it into a modular with the same amount of control, flexibilty, and connectivity as an in situ analogue sequencing set-up is impossible without an interface with the same number of inputs and outputs as the modular sequencer itself. its just basic common sense.
i can patch into or out of any part of my sequencing set-up, (and do so with an alarming number of patch cords).

its not just about the feel of analogue like phase ghost says, which is also a factor, it would be actually physically impossible to replicate.
you could easily replicate every function in the digital domain, but you couldnt connect it with your modules in anything like the same complexity.

why exactly did you post the picture of the simple midi-controller ? just curious ?

what were we talking about ? SH101s

i'll start a discussion about modular sequencing in the modular synthesis thread, because its impossible to explain the depth of complexity that can be achieved, its an interesting topic, i'm not sure many people really get it.

[AK]

How does that Spectral Audio 2 fair up as an alternative to the 101? I haven't really hear much of it but I have heard people say it's a decent synth, esp for the money. ( analog of course )