Login / Register
 
MKS80 rev 4 and 5
New Reply
Subscribe
#91
27th September 2011
Old 27th September 2011
  #91
Gear interested
 
NGC 5139's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 29

NGC 5139 is offline
#92
10th February 2012
Old 10th February 2012
  #92
Lives for gear
 
Disease Factory's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,148
My Recordings/Credits

Disease Factory is offline
#93
10th February 2012
Old 10th February 2012
  #93
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,288

djugel is online now
I heard somewhere that the bassline to the Pet Shop Boys "Where the Streets Have No Name" is an MKS-80.

Is that true? If so what rev?
#94
6th April 2012
Old 6th April 2012
  #94
Gear addict
 
Jauqq's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 378

Jauqq is online now
A post earlier in this thread states that a Rev 5 MKS80 contains:
MKS-80 rev 5
VCO: IR3R03
VCF: IR3R05
VCA: IR3R05

However this site indicates that the VCA in a Rev 5 is actually CEM3360 + BA662 (plus MPC1252H2)

So the Rev 5 does have a CEM 3360 for it's VCA? ?
The site also indicates that a Rev 4 and Rev 5 have more or less the same VCA? (EHM-5226W83S the addition in the Rev 4 VCA)
#95
6th April 2012
Old 6th April 2012
  #95
Lives for gear
 
dougt's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 1,192

dougt is offline
Yes, Rev 5 has CEM3360 VCAs too.
#96
6th April 2012
Old 6th April 2012
  #96
Gear addict
 
Jauqq's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 378

Jauqq is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougt View Post
Yes, Rev 5 has CEM3360 VCAs too.
So the earlier post stating the Rev 5's VCA is IR3R05 is incorrect.
Many thanks.
Rev 5 should be:
VCO: IR3R03
VCF: IR3R05
VCA: CEM3360


BTW I've seen plenty of IR3R05's for sale, but the IR3R03 seems much rarer. Is this correct?
#97
6th April 2012
Old 6th April 2012
  #97
Lives for gear
 
dougt's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 1,192

dougt is offline
Yes it is although I might have a few available if people want some.
#98
7th April 2012
Old 7th April 2012
  #98
Gear addict
 
Jauqq's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 378

Jauqq is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougt View Post
Yes it is although I might have a few available if people want some.
From my understanding the reason Roland switched from Rev 4 CEM 3340 to Rev 5 IR3R03, was because they were worried about future CEM availability.
So it's rather ironic that now it's actually the IR3R03 is rarer than the CEM...
#99
7th April 2012
Old 7th April 2012
  #99
Gear maniac
 
Herp Derp's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 169

Herp Derp is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jauqq View Post
From my understanding the reason Roland switched from Rev 4 CEM 3340 to Rev 5 IR3R03, was because they were worried about future CEM availability.
So it's rather ironic that now it's actually the IR3R03 is rarer than the CEM...
True. And your preference between the two (rev4 or rev5) has everything to do with what kind of music you like making.
#100
7th April 2012
Old 7th April 2012
  #100
Gear addict
 
Jauqq's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 378

Jauqq is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herp Derp View Post
True. And your preference between the two (rev4 or rev5) has everything to do with what kind of music you like making.
I'm gassing for Rev 5 hence the questions. But also keeping in mind if an IR3R03 goes down...
#101
7th April 2012
Old 7th April 2012
  #101
Lives for gear
 
dougt's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 1,192

dougt is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jauqq View Post
From my understanding the reason Roland switched from Rev 4 CEM 3340 to Rev 5 IR3R03, was because they were worried about future CEM availability.
So it's rather ironic that now it's actually the IR3R03 is rarer than the CEM...
Actually I don't think that was the reason. I'd bet it had to do with cost. The IR3R03 eliminated the CEM3340, EHM-S226W83S waveshaper, and the half of a 3360 used in the crossmod circuit in the Rev 4...
__________________
Doug
http://www.synthparts.com
#102
15th April 2012
Old 15th April 2012
  #102
Gear addict
 
Jauqq's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 378

Jauqq is online now
If using two patches in layer mode on the MKS, is it possible to give each patch it's own midi channel, and have each play over the entire midi note range? ie as a two part multi-timbral synth, albeit with four voices polyphony for each part?
#103
15th April 2012
Old 15th April 2012
  #103
Lives for gear
 
AnalogGuy's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2011
Location: Finland
Posts: 659

Send a message via MSN to AnalogGuy Send a message via Skype™ to AnalogGuy
AnalogGuy is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jauqq View Post
If using two patches in layer mode on the MKS, is it possible to give each patch it's own midi channel, and have each play over the entire midi note range? ie as a two part multi-timbral synth, albeit with four voices polyphony for each part?
Yes, that's right. It's exactly same as in MKS-70, being true bi-timbral means you can have two totally independent sounds at the same time and therefore both patches can contain totally separated options configured.

But I must agree that MKS-80 really shines when you put 2 same patches layered so it creates incredibly wide stereo sound. There's even build-in Detune parameter to add detune between the 2 patches!
__________________
"I'm totally opposed to all these expensive bullshit computers (sequencers). They can do whatever you want but not in the time you want. People have lost the essence of time. One said to me: "With this new computer I can create something in one or two minutes". This is an eternity. I can do that in a split second. But the split second doesn't come into account because the previous computer could do it in 10 minutes - so for them, 10 minutes to two minutes is really great progress!" - Vangelis
#104
23rd April 2012
Old 23rd April 2012
  #104
Gear interested
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 11

68000 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Solaris View Post
Audio here.


MKS 80 rev4 followed by rev5, same notes and settings.

Hope this helps.
These two audio clips can't be used for anything. The rev 4 and 5 sound the same. HOWEVER if you port a rev 4 patch to a rev 5 MKS80 then there's a difference. But as it says in the service notes of the MKS-80: 'Patches made on rev 4 ported to rev 5 needs some parameter ajustment to sound the same'.

It all comes down to the way the ajustments are done in the synths. The ajustment values are different in the rev 5 compared to the rev 4. Never just look at the IC's used in a synth. There's so much more important things that influence on the final sound output than if a CEM or IR or SSM or whatever is used.
#105
23rd April 2012
Old 23rd April 2012
  #105
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 4,362

thermos is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by 68000 View Post
These two audio clips can't be used for anything. The rev 4 and 5 sound the same. HOWEVER if you port a rev 4 patch to a rev 5 MKS80 then there's a difference. But as it says in the service notes of the MKS-80: 'Patches made on rev 4 ported to rev 5 needs some parameter ajustment to sound the same'.

It all comes down to the way the ajustments are done in the synths. The ajustment values are different in the rev 5 compared to the rev 4. Never just look at the IC's used in a synth. There's so much more important things that influence on the final sound output than if a CEM or IR or SSM or whatever is used.
It also says in the manual that Rev 5 machines were deliberately tuned so that they couldn't over crossmodulate and that the resonance wouldn't self oscillate. I'd love to know how to tune the resonance internally on a rev 5 machine.
#106
23rd April 2012
Old 23rd April 2012
  #106
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 165

Rangoon is offline
The resonance doesn't self-oscillate on the rev 4 either....
#107
23rd April 2012
Old 23rd April 2012
  #107
Lives for gear
 
CoolColJ's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,696

CoolColJ is offline
They sound different, character wise.

CEM VCO doesn't sound like the Roland VCO. The Roland one sounds more like a Roland
Smoother and more glowy. Almost like comparing a chip version of the JP8's VCO vs the JP6's CEM VCO

The filter is different too - different chip
#108
23rd April 2012
Old 23rd April 2012
  #108
Gear addict
 
DesolationBlvd's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 360

DesolationBlvd is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by thermos View Post
It also says in the manual that Rev 5 machines were deliberately tuned so that they couldn't over crossmodulate and that the resonance wouldn't self oscillate. I'd love to know how to tune the resonance internally on a rev 5 machine.
Close, but actually, it was to prevent clipping in unison when resonance was cranked.
#109
23rd April 2012
Old 23rd April 2012
  #109
Lives for gear
 
lovekrafty's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,208

lovekrafty is offline
I just picked up one of these with programmer
Last week, got a pretty good deal on it.

All I can say is I was totally blown away by the fidelity
And general overall sound quality.

These synths are big sounding with some great high end sparkle
And I,ve had an Omega 8 for some time.

The only thing that bugs me is programming patches
Being that 2 tones can make up a patch, it,s too easy to overwrite
A tone being used in another patch somewhere else.

LK
#110
24th April 2012
Old 24th April 2012
  #110
Lives for gear
 
analogbass's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 874

analogbass is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougt View Post
Yes, Rev 5 has CEM3360 VCAs too.
Psst...just like Prophet and Mini revs, there really isn't the huge sonic difference between em that some like to believe.

The biggest difference with any of these is simply how they're programmed n' used.
#111
24th April 2012
Old 24th April 2012
  #111
Lives for gear
 
The Elf's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Sheffield, UK
Posts: 644

The Elf is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogbass View Post
Psst...just like Prophet and Mini revs, there really isn't the huge sonic difference between em that some like to believe.

The biggest difference with any of these is simply how they're programmed n' used.
+1 That's the truth of it. I have 'em both sitting here in front of me and can confirm that they sound very, very close indeed. Sure, there are differences, but they are very subtle.

The idea that one Rev is better for certain styles of music is amusing!
__________________
An eagle for an emperor... A kestrel for a knave.
#112
24th April 2012
Old 24th April 2012
  #112
Lives for gear
 
CoolColJ's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,696

CoolColJ is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Elf View Post
+1 That's the truth of it. I have 'em both sitting here in front of me and can confirm that they sound very, very close indeed. Sure, there are differences, but they are very subtle.

The idea that one Rev is better for certain styles of music is amusing!
Not really that subtle IMO

The filter is so different. ie Juno filter chip vs JX8P filter chip...

The Thopbass patch below from the rev 4 is impossible to do on the rev5! A classic Roland reso bass, ala SH series. Because of the filter/envelope differences - so for dancey type sounds rev 4 is better

Again check my comparo clips I did a decade ago... rev 5 better for PWM and strings etc, much smoother and reminds of the JP8. The rev 4 has a harsher CEM VCO tone.
MKS80 rev 4 and 5
Attached Files
File Type: mp3 CCJ_MKS80_rev4_ThopBass.mp3 (560.9 KB, 102 views)
#113
25th April 2012
Old 25th April 2012
  #113
Lives for gear
 
The Elf's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Sheffield, UK
Posts: 644

The Elf is offline
I created these (rough - best guess!) versions of your Thop Bass by setting my programmer to manual on both Rev 4 and Rev 5 machines to keep the same settings on each synth, then tweaked the Rev 5's filter cut-off to match the Rev 4.

Sure, there are differences, but not so huge that I'd really worry about it. With a tweak or two more I'm sure I could get them closer.
Attached Files
File Type: mp3 Rev 4.mp3 (636.3 KB, 135 views)
File Type: mp3 Rev 5.mp3 (636.3 KB, 129 views)
#114
25th April 2012
Old 25th April 2012
  #114
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 4,362

thermos is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Elf View Post
I created these (rough - best guess!) versions of your Thop Bass by setting my programmer to manual on both Rev 4 and Rev 5 machines to keep the same settings on each synth, then tweaked the Rev 5's filter cut-off to match the Rev 4.

Sure, there are differences, but not so huge that I'd really worry about it. With a tweak or two more I'm sure I could get them closer.
Nice work. I always felt (from listening online) that they sounded most different with the filter open more, as the sound of the oscillators was made more apparent. Nevertheless, these sound pretty close.
#115
25th April 2012
Old 25th April 2012
  #115
Lives for gear
 
CoolColJ's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,696

CoolColJ is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Elf View Post
I created these (rough - best guess!) versions of your Thop Bass by setting my programmer to manual on both Rev 4 and Rev 5 machines to keep the same settings on each synth, then tweaked the Rev 5's filter cut-off to match the Rev 4.

Sure, there are differences, but not so huge that I'd really worry about it. With a tweak or two more I'm sure I could get them closer.
You got close on the clip, but I play them both they react and program quite differently. There is a "Yuck" zone on the Rev 5 filter with some resonance that the rev 4 does not have for these types of sounds
#116
25th April 2012
Old 25th April 2012
  #116
ear nut
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Location: London
Posts: 167

MrWiggly is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolColJ View Post
There is a "Yuck" zone on the Rev 5 filter with some resonance that the rev 4 does not have for these types of sounds
Could you please post an example of that then? The one above is definitely replicable. I like a challenge and any excuse to play with the MKS80
#117
26th April 2012
Old 26th April 2012
  #117
Lives for gear
 
CoolColJ's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,696

CoolColJ is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWiggly View Post
Could you please post an example of that then? The one above is definitely replicable. I like a challenge and any excuse to play with the MKS80
Don't have a Rev 4 anymore, just the rev 5. I prefer the smoother and sweeter Roland tone of the rev 5 which is why I sold the rev 4, but some certain parts of the filter range for bass and other sounds just sound bad to me. A kind of wooly muddy thickness in the lower mids. You don't get this with the IR309 filter chip as used on my Jp8 and Juno 106. Neither does the rev 4 exhibt this.
#118
3rd May 2012
Old 3rd May 2012
  #118
Lives for gear
 
Gringo Starr's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,021

Gringo Starr is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herp Derp View Post
True. And your preference between the two (rev4 or rev5) has everything to do with what kind of music you like making.
I'm on the verge of possibly buying a Rev 5. I'm curious about this comment. Can anyone shed some more light on this? The music I do is more along the lines of Beatles, Zero7, and Motown. But with my new synth acquisitions I plan on adding elements similar to Boards of Canada, Orbital, Ulrich Schnauss... I'm sure both rev's would inspire me but considering my musical area is one rev more appropriate than the other?

Also as far as the rev 5 goes, would it be wise if I bought one to stock up on these chips? Are these known to go bad often? And are these chips actually available if you really looked? Or would the rev 4's be an easier fix?
#119
3rd May 2012
Old 3rd May 2012
  #119
Lives for gear
 
Xero's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Boulder
Posts: 3,922

Xero is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gringo Starr View Post
I'm on the verge of possibly buying a Rev 5. I'm curious about this comment. Can anyone shed some more light on this? The music I do is more along the lines of Beatles, Zero7, and Motown. But with my new synth acquisitions I plan on adding elements similar to Boards of Canada, Orbital, Ulrich Schnauss... I'm sure both rev's would inspire me but considering my musical area is one rev more appropriate than the other?

Also as far as the rev 5 goes, would it be wise if I bought one to stock up on these chips? Are these known to go bad often? And are these chips actually available if you really looked? Or would the rev 4's be an easier fix?
i've never really heard about mks-80 breaking down that horribly and not being able to find parts. the only thing super rare in the rev5 is the roland osc chips and I've never heard of one dying. I'm sure it's possible, and if it happened it would probably be quite annoying to find another, but i've just not heard of that happening. recap the power supply every 10-20 years to prevent any major failures and you're probably fine.

as for rev4/5 for a particular STYLE of music? I dunno, you may be better with a rev5 for the more mellow ambient stuff. the rev4 is better at bass stabs and stuff like that. rev5 better for pads and such.

roland poly synths in general are probably some of the more reliable ones out there. short of the juno 106 anyway.
#120
3rd May 2012
Old 3rd May 2012
  #120
ear nut
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Location: London
Posts: 167

MrWiggly is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gringo Starr View Post
I'm on the verge of possibly buying a Rev 5. I'm curious about this comment. Can anyone shed some more light on this? The music I do is more along the lines of Beatles, Zero7, and Motown. But with my new synth acquisitions I plan on adding elements similar to Boards of Canada, Orbital, Ulrich Schnauss... I'm sure both rev's would inspire me but considering my musical area is one rev more appropriate than the other?
see post 111. Seriously, your choice will have no bearing on the type of music you wish to make with it.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
SWAN808 / Electronic Music Instruments & Electronic Music Production
15
MarcB / Electronic Music Instruments & Electronic Music Production
6
E Orjatsalo / Low End Theory
3

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.