I've had both SH-101 and SH-2 and stuck with the latter. To me the 101 is too harsh and really better suited to acid / drum 'n' bass whereas the SH-2 is more like a poor man's Model D. It's kinda like the same difference between the JU-106 and JU-60... (I prefer the 6/60).
i also tend to prefer the sh-101 over the sh-2. However, it depends, when you add a bit of LFO wobble and do leads with it, the sh-2 sounds pretty awesome, very 70s. for bass, it's fat, but, it's not acidy if that's what you like. I will likely sell the sh-2 for a minimoog model D some day. I was expecting it to be a 2-osc SH-101, but that it's not
i too got rid of my sh2 and kept my 101. but im getting the sh2 back cause the buyer doesnt know what to do with it. i think he was expecting something like a microkorg
The SH-101 has the lightning quick envelopes very few synths can deliver, and yes, the filter is one big sweetspot. It also sounds more finished and is much easier to integrate into a mix.
The SH-2 is no Minimoog. The bass is kind of muddy, the envelopes lack the snap, the overall tone is kind of dirty in a not-so-cool way IMO. It's still a very nice synth, and especially great for 70s PWM synth leads, but I didn't find it very usefull for more modern music. Took a lot of time to convince myself, since I had it shipped in from Japan, but ultimately it just wasn't what I needed.
I prefer the Bass Station Rack to the Super Bass Station. Less features but it works better. The extra envelope knobs they put on the the Super make it more fiddly to use, and the extra features in the software must be overtaxing the processor as the MIDI response gets very laggy when you twiddle the knobs.
i think it's interesting to see how many people agree/disagree with the sh-101 vs sh-2 thing. I always thought I was alone on that one, especially because a lot of people talked up the sh-2, now mind you the sh-2 is hardly a bad synth, it's just a matter of right tool for the right job. TBQH, I've been in a very anti-CEM mood lately, so even the sh-101 isn't getting as much use, (and you'd think the sh-2 would be getting more love...) but the 101 ain't going no where, if not for it's sequencer and immediacy of use alone.
You bastard! Now THAT'S just crossing the line!! (kidding)
Yeah, it's about whatever you like and not what you're "supposed" to like... and I think we can all agree, there's plenty of "supposed to's" around this joint.
Yeah, it's about whatever you like and not what you're "supposed" to like... and I think we can all agree, there's plenty of "supposed to's" around this joint.
-andrews
Yep, I have seriously been wanting a DSI PolyEvolver or Prophet 8. I've been thinking of unloading my Andromeda A6, but my inner voice says "nooooooooooo ".
ALL software synths > ALL hardware synths? Seriously?
maybe not so extreme, but in many ways, yes. i'd rather have my PC than a studio full of hardware, for the most part. to give a more specific example...
Xils Synthix, PolyKB II, or Oxium (doesn't really matter which) > any Juno (or even Jupiter for that matter)
i could go on, i can think of several examples.
__________________ your gear list does not impress me.
I consider myself a little bit of a "scrounger." Bottom feeder. Last in the food chain! Of course that's less true now than in most times of my life, but I still find I can get a kick out of my "cheap" gear. Do I like it better than more expensive equivalents? I don't know but no matter how many times people tell me my MoPho sucks, I find I still love it.
I consider myself a little bit of a "scrounger." Bottom feeder. Last in the food chain! Of course that's less true now than in most times of my life, but I still find I can get a kick out of my "cheap" gear. Do I like it better than more expensive equivalents? I don't know but no matter how many times people tell me my MoPho sucks, I find I still love it.
99% of my gear is ultra low end craps. One piece of gear, the esi-32, catches a lot of hate and I am not sure why. I love it to bits even though it's not my ideal machine. I would like it MORE if it had the S/PDIF and effects card, but those are minor quirks and probably not worth hunting down both in price and time.
And sometimes, i like a lot of even the presets on the tx81z more than the ESQ1 or Juno 60 :X
I'm not too much into the M1000. Though it has much more complex and unique patches than my other synths, it sometimes is too dark/moody/creepy for me.
Only thing I like of the Juno60 is bass and occasionally organ stabs or pads... but I like the ESQ1 the most and second the tx81z, and they're my cheapest synths and not even analog, ha.
the esi-32, catches a lot of hate and I am not sure why.
It's not so much due to it's own merits, but rather that it was the budget Emu model, and with hardware sampler prices so absurdly, it's hard to recommend an esi-32 for $10 over a E64 for $50, as the esi range is a good deal less flexible, more difficult to use, and doesn't really offer any special sound. The ESI is pretty much a cost reduced eIIIxp.
It's not so much due to it's own merits, but rather that it was the budget Emu model, and with hardware sampler prices so absurdly, it's hard to recommend an esi-32 for $10 over a E64 for $50, as the esi range is a good deal less flexible, more difficult to use, and doesn't really offer any special sound. The ESI is pretty much a cost reduced eIIIxp.
For that, I can see what you mean. I thought it was supposed to be a step-up to the eIII? Though I also do not agree with that. But you are right.. nothing fancy or especially alluring. It has got the z-plane filters (and some other things that are reminescent of the eIII), but that's it. Just a sampler doing what a sampler does and rather well IMO.
- I'll take a DX100 over a DX7 anydays.
- I do prefer the SH-101 over the SH-1 and Model 101.
- I had way more fun with my JP-8000 than my Virus C.
- I think that the tone of the Yamaha CS-1 is much better that the one of the CS-10 even though it has 2 osc.
- I use my TR-606 much more than my 808 but that's because I'm cheap.
- I feel that I have more punch coming out of Maschine that from my 909.
- I think that the JX-3pwPG-200 is a better synth than the Juno 60.
- I have bad taste.
- I'll take a DX100 over a DX7 anydays.
- I do prefer the SH-101 over the SH-1 and Model 101.
- I had way more fun with my JP-8000 than my Virus C.
- I think that the tone of the Yamaha CS-1 is much better that the one of the CS-10 even though it has 2 osc.
- I use my TR-606 much more than my 808 but that's because I'm cheap.
- I feel that I have more punch coming out of Maschine that from my 909.
- I think that the JX-3pwPG-200 is a better synth than the Juno 60.
- I have bad taste.
Haha.
I'm not sure that I fully agree with myself either.
Still, my drum machines are now collecting dust.
The 909 needs a lot of outboard processing to sound the way I like.
Stuff like DrivenMachineDrums samples packs are just so right.
To each his own.
That been said, the funkyness of the 909 sequencer can't be bet. Instant Techno power...
Okay, there is a pretty clear difference in "greatness" between an Eight Voice and a Matrix-1000. But, what about among the top-notch instruments, where it's a trade-off between sound quality and convenience/features?
Think OB-X/Xa/8/M-12 or JP-4/8/MKS-80/70 - with each step forward in time, you gain features (routings, MIDI) and lose sound quality (discreteness, filter power, envelope speed).
I chose Oberheim and Roland because those are going to be the two instruments in my final setup (OB-Xa/JP-8 or OB-8/MKS-80).
It seems that right now, sound quality is prized over features, at least judging by prices of these top-notch instruments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Varaldo
I don't know, Halo.... I have the OB-Xa, I lust for an OB-X... and think the OB-X sounds indeed better
However, I might actually revert to the OB-8, because my OB-Xa requires too much regular maintenance (as they all do - I can only imagine what nightmare an OB-X would be )
Wait, wouldn't OB-X be easier to maintain? No Curtis chips to hunt for (except for the envelope generator).
Personally, OB-X and OB-Xa sound very close to me. Maybe the Oberheim SEM discrete oscillator was already close to the CEM3340 (as opposed to, say, Roland JP-8 discrete oscillator vs. JP-6 CEM3340). They did as well as they could in recreating the OB-X sound with Curtis chips.
The OB-8 seems superior from an engineering standpoint (fewer parts! fewer calibrations!), but they lost some of the sound in the process.
__________________
I'm the vaccine for the Access Virus.
New Reply 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
)
".
