At 5:15 PM -0800 12/17/01, Thomas White wrote:
>
>>why??
>This VCF is one of the most classic smooth VCF's in town. The
>same/similar type of VCF was used in the Junos, MKS80, SH101, MC202 etc.
>>Very smooth with nice resonance response too. Great for pads and squipy
>>leads. The digigtal osc junos would never have sounded as fat without
>the >true analog power of the Roland VCF. Even thought the actual
>waveforms of >the junos show their "digital-ness" at low frequencies,
>they are quite >nicely fattened up by this filter. Ever heard the 101 or
>202 VCF self >oscillate. Its the primary reason for that little plastic
>thing making >the huge bass it is well known
> for. Just my thoughts on the issue sice I have always wanted one too.
Thank you for your comments.
I've used the MC202 "dub bass" in a number of tracks, but I can do even
more with the shape control on the 320 (so have the league fine me :) As
far as self-oscillation is concerned, the sinusoidal output of a 101 or 202
is pretty much the same as any other filter. The only exception to this of
which I'm aware, is the MS-20 filter. I have no idea what its problem is,
but if you want that sound, MOTM offers the 420 Sallen-Key distortomatic
nose filter :)
I've owned two Junos (the 106 and 60 have slightly different filters), an
MKS-80 (which used the IR3109 in it's early revisions), and an MC202. I
still have my SH-101. I agree it's a very nice filter. I do not own an
MOTM-440, but based on it's description, it is also a 4-pole OTA filter.
As far as all the MOTM filters in the works, the SEM filter, CS-80 filter,
JH's enhanced Moog, are all rather different. Rather than have Synthesis
Technology work on another 24 dB OTA filter, I'd rather see them finish
what they have already started, and then look into an all-pass filter for
phasing, an VC slope filter, asymmetrical bandpass, or something different,
before working on a Roland "clone". Of course that's just my opinion, I
could be wrong.