Emu XL-7 & MP-7 User's Group

The following was taken from my latest blog entry on the abomination called
Myspace, I thought some of you may be interested.  I'll ask that if any of
you have happened to have conducted similar testings with things side by
side and feel that you may have something to contribute, please either
comment directly on the relevant blog entry OR send me an email/message on
myspace with what you would like to add and I will add it to the blog.  The
blog entry itself can be found
HERE<http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=10837760&blogID=173583428&MyToken=7f899dba-e1ae-4d3a-af24-6a4c92879a2c>(for
comment adding).  The entry itself can be read below, I am appending a
couple notes that were/are not apart of the original blog entry (at the
end).

Regards,

         Al

The FutureRetro 777 Vs. The TB-303 (and else)

Though I had done this in the past, I put the 777 up to a 303 emulation test
again.....somewhat oddly, the results were a bit different than my first go.

First I'll note, that as I'm sure many of the 303 owners here are aware, it
has often been stated that dont' be surprised if two 303s don't sound
exactly alike (though that is pretty much the case with most analogue
guear).

Secondly, realize that the emulation test are a fuckin pain in the ass.
Tuning can be an absolute bitch to nail down perfectly and the fact that the
777s filter is so much wider can make things a bit of a bitch as well.

Anyhow, I'm not posting recordings of the results, but if someone would like
me to, I'd be more than happy to.

So, the results:
A)The first time doing this, the 303 used proved to be a noisy damn beast!
For whatever reason my 303 is a lot less noisy than the 303 I had used
previously. As far as a natural noise factor being issued out by both
machines (777 and 303), they ran about equal this time around.

B)When dealing with saw waves, the 777 nailed the 303 perfectly. I began by
having a single plain note be triggered by the sequencer with a fully open
filter (on the 303) and moved to get things to the point where I could swap
out which machine was audible. This was a bit tricky, as I'll note that
though the 303s filter was set to be fully open, this doesn't make for a
fully open 777 filter. I then tried different filter settings on the 303 and
was able to continually find corresponding settings for the 777. Next, Full
on sequences were slowly built on and tried. Where things became noticable
was when one started doing serious tweaks, but this isn't surprising
considering exactly how much wider the 777 filter is (by default).

C)After testing things with Saws, I moved to the infamous fucked up 303
square test (something I had not ventured to in previous test), and here
things got different. I really respect what Jered did with the 777 in this
area (continously variable wave shape), as it allowed for a DAMN close
emulation of that fucked up wave the 303 calls a square, but it was never
quite able to match it....it just continously ALMOST matched it.

When I can get off my lazy ass, I plan on fucking with this some more,
swapping out the 777 that I used for testing and eventually hitting up both
777s against the 303 that had first been used (which truly does seem to
sound different than my own). Anyhow, in regard to the 777 doing a 303, I
will now change what I had formerly stated to that the 777 at times won't be
as noisy as a 303, can match the 303 perfectly when a saw is in use (I've
achived this twice now against two different 303s), but doesn't seem to be
able to nail the 303 "square" quite perfectly (only closely).

I'll also note that from a natural stand point, it's actually hard to take a
unmodified 777 and have it perfectly emulate an unmodified 303. The octave
range of the 777 is greater for one, then there is the issue of how wide the
filter is (to say the 777 filter is a little wider would be an
understatement). The 777 sequencer is also capable of A LOT more, I'll say
notably in the notational area....due to this, even without getting into
doing fancy loop changes and what not, a typical 777 sequence is capable of
issuing out things (note wise) that the 303 can't hit. The 303 sequencer
gives the user essientially a 3 octave range, while the 777s gos WAY beyond
this.....this makes it really easy to end up with sequences that the 303
can't hit and calls once again on a line of limitation to be followed if one
is trying to get the 777 to emulate a 303.

Ultimately, as I've said in the past, I still can't view the 777 as a 303
emulator as there is just so much one has to neglect about the synth when
using it for such. It's a TOTALLY different (and sonically superior) synth;
just so happens that it can do one hell of a 303 emulation.

As for now, with two 777s, an MC-09, and a TB-303 I'll confess that I still
view all of them as acid devices of a sort. The 777 is the most
powerfull/flexible of them all when it comes to sheer sonic capability, has
a superior sequencer, and will lend itself to the creation of synth leads,
basses, drums, bells, weird clangs, and effects just as easily as it will to
the area acid. The MC-09 has the second most usefull sequencer of the bunch
and though a considerable step down from the 777 in power, is definately the
second most capable synth in regard to sonic capability. HOWEVER, it is a
totally different beast than the 777 and TB-303. It can throw out TBish acid
lines, but it's specialty (IMO) really comes in simply anger.....I don't
know how else to describe the sound of an 09 other than that on the one end,
it can end up sounding like a rather interesting 303 emulation, but an
emulation that is obviously an emulation and not the real thing. While on
the other end it can end up sounding like somebody took a 303 and really
really pissed it off or gave it some sort of hallucinogenic drug (acid on
acid?). I prefer the 09 for acid simply due to how damn aggressive the thing
can sound.....the 777 and 303 really can't touch it in this regard (without
some serious help behind them). The TB...well, it's the TB. It's annoying to
program, has a mind of it's own at times in regard to how sequences will be
constructed (double button clicks), and has a damn limiting paramater set.
The TB will provide you with decent synth basses, but more so, it excells at
acid.....in fact one might say that it could be argued that it's limited
paramater set helps make it more ideal for the real acid sound.

The Juggernaut (777)
The James Bond/Cool Cat (303)
and The Berzerker (09)

I guess if I had to attribute likenesses to the 3 devices, those would be
them. And maybe just because I'm a bit disgruntled, I'll confess that I
prefer The Berzerker for my acid.

*The following is an appending to the original entry*

In regard to the 09, I'll elaborate a bit on what I mean exactly by it
sounding "angry".  The 09 comes with 3 filter types, that being a 12db,
24db, and a third which I believe is an 18db but I'm not certain (nor does
the manual say).  When in 12db or 24db mode, the filter is capable of self
oscillation.  There are two keys to the 09's angry sound, and these keys
are:
1. The type of waveforms/tones available (there's a nice varitey, and some
of these just naturally sound harsh)

2. The snappiness of the filter envelope (on the 12db and 24db modes most
notable)

3. The 24db filter (with a roll off so sharp, and punchy envelopes, the
thing can slap the hell out of things).

Utlizing some of the harsher waveforms/tones, abusing the quick action of
the envelopes, and occassionaly utilizing the small amount of effects
available, one can just come with some extremely viscious bases.  Further,
as 2 of the filter modes are capable of self oscillation, the thing can
really just start screaming.  All of this makes for something that just
truly excells at sounding aggressive.
I'll further note that the "vintage mode" of the 09 (what seems to be an
attempt at 303 emulation) falls way short of sounding like an actual 303.
When in this mode, a good number of features available in the other modes
are stripped.  ADSR for both the filter and AMP section are availabe in the
other modes, an LFO which can be applied to the filter, and any effects
usage all disappear when the 09 is in "vintage mode".


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello,

if we are at this topic - anybody has info on the Roland MC-202 ?
Some say it's "poor man's TB 303" others it's a souped up SH-101.

I'm really interested in it.
Opinions are welcome.


Regards,

        Zsolt

>>if we are at this topic - anybody has info on the Roland MC-202 ?
Some say it's "poor man's TB 303" others it's a souped up SH-101.<<

well, it's about as far from a command station as you can get & still
be a hardware sequencer. the mc-202 (not to be confused with any of
roland's 90s MC-boxes) is a very basic synth & a very basic sequencer
in the same box, a little bigger than the tb303/606 & quite obviously
styled by a different designer (blue & matt grey, nothing shiny). they
started selling all of these around 1981 I think.

there's nothing "poor man's" about it. it's different, is all, & for a
random cultural/historical reason, not as desirable for certain
purposes. in fact, I paid slightly more for my mc202 than I did for my
tb303, & they were both under $100. it was 1985, though.... :-)
 
the synth section is a lot like the sh101, but without white noise.
this is a pity, because the way the sequencer works would lend itself
very well to percussive parts aswell as tunes. single oscillator, saw
& square with pwm, one- & two-octave sub oscillators. nice delay
feature on the LFO-mod. one 4-stage envelope, but with the option of
switching the vca to "gated".
no arpeg, obviously... funny little rubber keys, a bit like a qy70
walkstation... I used to play with mine on the train sometimes. back
in the 80s, mind. I developed a shorthand notation for writing tunes
down, because I don't read/write music properly.
 
the control surface is minimised for space reasons. the sliders are
themselves prone to failure, as they are on a lot of roland stuff from
this era. make sure they all do something if you're trying one to buy.

it has cv/gate inputs but since these are designed to write to the
sequencer from an external keyboard, they go via a quantising circuit
which is a nuisance if you just want to use the synth engine as an
expander. there is a mod (published elsewhere on the net) to get
around this, & to allow external control of some other cv-type stuff.

the sequencer section has two channels which share something in the
region of 1800 notes-worth of memory. there are a number of ways to
enter & edit sequencer data: 
realtime, steptime, tap-rhythm-&-edit-pitch.
the metronome is really annoying but can be defeated. 

the important thing to remember, when comparing this with the tb303,
is that you have two parallel giant patterns here, & no further
(song-type) arranging. another major factor is that the memory is
volatile. doesn't matter whether you fit batteries or not, the mc202
will forget everything when you switch it off. so you have to back it
up to cassette. you can give the dumps a three-digit "name", which is
really pants but better than nothing.
the cassette it came with (& I gave mine away, dammit, to someone who
collected fancy-looking cassettes) had some debussy pieces on it,
arranged for two monosynths. the mc202 itself plays one synth part, &
you can select which of the two sequencer lines it plays. the other
goes out one of the cv/gate pairs on the back (in fact, you can ignore
the built-in synth & use two external synths instead). ah- the two
lines don't have to be the same length- the shorter one repeats until
the long one has finished, but only if "cycle" is on. otherwise, they
both only play through once.

cut to the chase. it was marketed to complement the 303/606 (but
designed separately? looks like it...), providing, one might say, the
melody & harmony to their rhythm section. 
I saw bands using the whole set, along with an sh101, back in the
early 80s. 

it WILL NOT sound like a 303. the oscillator is fundamentally
different, as is the filter. the sequencer doesn't do slides & accents
in the same way as the 303. (there's something pre-emptive about the
timing of slides in the 303- someone else has described this better
than I can, but in short, it's difficult to emulate, & the 202 doesn't
do it well.)
without doing the tb303 a massive disservice, or in anyway judging it
(I actually like the noise it makes), there's no way the mc202 can be
made to sound as "crap" as the tb303. the tb303 has this cheap, funky
sound that roland arrived at while trying to mimic the sound of an
electric bass guitar, in much the same way as they arrived at the
classic sounds in the tr808 while trying to create analogue-synth
replicas of drum sounds. the 202 is pure-synth, & while it can't do
the fattest bass sounds on earth, has a rather pleasant lead sound
with that classic japanese single-oscillator timbre (even though it's
actually a curtis chip, probably!)

here's what I used them for:

tb303, I would write lots of short patterns & arrange them into a
song. you can do this on-the-fly or by programming, if you need to be
able to repeat a series of patterns in the right order. 
this (song arrangement) is easier if you turn the volume down while
you do it, otherwise it keeps playing you the pattern that you're
trying to replace at each step. you'll know what I mean if you've
tried it.
generally, I would use the 303 as a sequencer & run it's cv/gate into
a moog. I liked it's own synth engine but it didn't always suit what I
was doing. a favourite trick is to take the batteries out for a minute
or so, then put them back in. this scrambles it's memory & you get
loads of random patterns which you can then edit into useability. I'm
sure that's some sort of big techno industry-secret right there. :-)

mc202, I would EITHER spend ages writing two elaborate long sequence
lines into it, with all counterpoint, harmony, polyrhythm & so forth
OR write a very slow long lead line into it & run it unsynced against
other (midi) sequencer lines so that it sounds like someone noodling
randomly over more formally arranged parts. generally, I would use
it's own synth for one part & a moog for the other.

I did once try hooking the 303 up to the 202, so as to transfer a
carefully-arranged "song" from the 303 into the 202. it didn't work-
there's some offset on the 303's cv output that upsets the quantiser
in the 202. this, & the styling, makes me suspect that the two units
came from opposite ends of roland's factory, & that they ended up
being marketed together despite this incompatibility. they work fine
synced, side-by-side, just don't hook their cv/gates together.

as always, hth & ymmv.

duncan/r.m.i.

(PS fwiw, I let the 303 go but still have the 202 right here. I also
have jered's "mobius", which is as accurate a copy of the 303's
sequencer as I have come across, & I have quite a few h/w sequencers.
I am holding out for one of the new tb303 clones that someone is making.)

it's kinda like both.

The synth in it is essentially a sh-101,
however, it does have a sequencer in it, similar to the 303. (im not
sure how close the sequencer is to the 303 though)

On 29/09/06, Zsolt Szabó <Zsolt.Szabo@...> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> if we are at this topic - anybody has info on the Roland MC-202 ?
> Some say it's "poor man's TB 303" others it's a souped up SH-101.
>
> I'm really interested in it.
> Opinions are welcome.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>         Zsolt
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

mc202 has no noise gen. which u can find on sh101.
and the tb303 has its unique 18db oct filter!


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

mc202 has no noise gen. which u can find on sh101.
and the tb303 has its unique 18db oct filter!


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com