The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Roland SH-101 prices insane or justified? Keyboard Synthesizers
Old 24th April 2014
  #211
Lives for gear
 
R3Member's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
There are a ton of old pieces of gear containing electronics not manufactured today - it doesn't mean there's anything "unique" about it, it just means you won't be able to get parts.
So are you essentially saying that the components have nothing to do with how it sounds? Because if they didn't, then again, we'd easily have a clone out now matching both the sound and functionality 100%, which there isn't yet.
Old 25th April 2014
  #212
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by R3Member View Post
So are you essentially saying that the components have nothing to do with how it sounds? Because if they didn't, then again, we'd easily have a clone out now matching both the sound and functionality 100%, which there isn't yet.
The components were just off-the-shelf stuff available in those days - shared by many products, if the parts don't exist anymore, you can't build a clone, that's why there isn't one.

If you built a clone without the original parts, none of you guys would want one - not because it wouldn't sound good, but just because...

If there were a business mode for a clone, there'd be one.

Sound is subjective, to me, having owned one, there was nothing special about it, the Sh 101 was a budget, single osc synth - I always thought it sounded wheezy. I replaced it with the Roland Jx3p, a dual osc synth, and it was much better sounding, but I wouldn't want that (or its sound) today either, but people do.

There are so many great sounding, higher quality synths out there today - I mentioned the Evolver, it has 4 Oscillators - two analog (with real Curtis chips for those who insist) and two digital - you can modulate everything with anything, or just easily dial in a single Osc bass patch or lead, I've made dozens - it also has a wonderful sequencer and a company that supports if anything goes wrong.

I just don't see why people go nuts over all this old stuff - I was there when it was new, so I know what it is, but if you must, enjoy.
Old 25th April 2014
  #213
Lives for gear
 
mpresev's Avatar
so does that mean all these new analog synths like the BS2/Minibrute will be a jillion bucks too 30 years from now?
Old 25th April 2014
  #214
Lives for gear
 
ranzee's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuldLangSine View Post
New in 1982, SH-101's were $595 list price.
That's about $1,200 today.
Bread is no longer ten cents a loaf.
Some of you sound like you think $500 in the 80's or 90's is remotely equivalent to $500 today.
This is assuming you can buy one new.

Remember, these items are not only used - but they are 30 year old used.

It is sensible to assume there would be some depreciation for the deterioration of the equipment.
Old 25th April 2014
  #215
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ranzee View Post
It is sensible to assume there would be some depreciation for the deterioration of the equipment.
Tell that to vintage car aficionados.
Old 25th April 2014
  #216
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ranzee View Post
Wow - this is just intriguing

Check out this guy - who started a $200 base listing:

Then he pulls the listing (probably because he worked out how insane the prices are) - and relisted it for this:
I think i remember seeing this ad. Didn't the seller originally think it's broken because it doesn't sound like piano and only makes "strange noises"?
Old 25th April 2014
  #217
Lives for gear
 
ranzee's Avatar
Yeah, I remember reading something like that.
Old 25th April 2014
  #218
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by R3Member View Post
So are you essentially saying that the components have nothing to do with how it sounds? Because if they didn't, then again, we'd easily have a clone out now matching both the sound and functionality 100%, which there isn't yet.
I did some research last night, Sh 101's used the same Curtis chips found in my DSI Prophet 8 - interesting.

I'm going to speculate the reason an exact clone hasn't been made is Roland doesn't feel there's a business case for it - why build a (recreation) single osc Curtis chip instrument when there are dual and quad Curtis chip synths already out there?
Old 25th April 2014
  #219
Lives for gear
 
Seccione's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
why build a (recreation) single osc Curtis chip instrument when there are dual and quad Curtis chip synths already out there?
It's not the numbers in spec sheet that defines the sound.
Old 25th April 2014
  #220
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seccione View Post
It's not the numbers in spec sheet that defines the sound.
No, it's the "magic" of a little 30 year old plastic box that people are willing to pay $ for - I think this is called "expectation bias" - or certainly a form of it.

I think it's silly, but if you enjoy it and think it has a "sound" that's unobtainable any other way, then go for it, life is too short.
Old 25th April 2014
  #221
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seccione View Post
It's not the numbers in spec sheet that defines the sound.
It's not often the sound that defines the eBay prices.
Old 25th April 2014
  #222
Lives for gear
 
Seccione's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
No, it's the "magic" of a little 30 year old plastic box that people are willing to pay $ for - I think this is called "expectation bias" - or certainly a form of it.

I think it's silly, but if you enjoy it and think it has a "sound" that's unobtainable any other way, then go for it, life is too short.
I didn't say it's "unobtainable any other way", maybe it is, definitely it is not "magic".

But in case you haven't noticed, not all oscillator waveforms are equal.

Listen by your self, or check with oscilloscope if your listening environment is not up to it.


Edit: Sorry I didn't mean it come out quite as harsh.

The thing is, in order to be able to discuss about this (subjective) matter, I guess we need some context.
You said earlier:
Quote:
It was a flimsy piece of crap with a wheezy sound when I bought mine back in the early 80's - I used it for bass with my Rhodes and replaced it with the then new Jx3p. I couldn't wait to get rid of it.
...but still the 101 is pretty much the common factor in thousands and thousands of house (and techno) standards, old and new.
(Amongst with other X0X devices, of course)

What kind stuff were you playing with it?
Old 25th April 2014
  #223
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seccione View Post
It's not the numbers in spec sheet that defines the sound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seccione View Post
Listen by your self, or check with oscilloscope if your listening environment is not up to it.
These are contradictory statements - if you need a piece of scientific measuring equipment to make your point, that is

It doesn't matter anyway, how something sounds to you is not measurable - it doesn't matter what the waveform looks like - if you "like it", or expect to like it because you paid a lot of money for it, then you'll like it.

This happens all the time, it's what expectation bias is all about.

My ears are pretty good (as is my room environment) and they tell a different story.
Old 25th April 2014
  #224
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seccione View Post

...but still the 101 is pretty much the common factor in thousands and thousands of house (and techno) standards, old and new.
(Amongst with other X0X devices, of course)

What kind stuff were you playing with it?
I don't dispute the "common factor" issue, but it's irrelevant, musicians are famous for wanting that "vibe", whatever it is, all it takes to create a movement is one record with a "sound", then everybody's doing it - if you lived through the Beatles' when they were new (and I did), then you had to have a 12 string Ric, Ludwig drums, and Vox amps - but you weren't going to sound like the fab four.

I played my SH 101 in the early 80's as a bass synth, almost exclusively in live venues - it was ok, but it never sounded anything like the best synths that were available then - and it was flimsy.

Today, I write professionally for television/film, so I'm required to do all kinds of stuff, I've done many SH 101-type tracks on many of my synths (I've become a pretty good programmer and sound designer out of necessity, but also because it's fun) - it isn't hard to get any of those sounds you'll see i the video demos.

I will give one plug to the SH 101 (and other similar synths beginning to appear) as a performance tool, it's nice to be able to speed up and slow down arpeggiators, sequencers etc, free form by just turning knobs - this is something that's nearly impossible to do with many of today's lock-to-tempo, menu-driven synths, including the Evolver.
Old 25th April 2014
  #225
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
I played my SH 101 in the early 80's as a bass synth, almost exclusively in live venues - it was ok, but it never sounded anything like the best synths that were available then - and it was flimsy
I'm totally with you regarding the Evolver. It is such a badass synth but requires a bit of patience and skill. However, imho, that is the line between being a preset guy and and true artistry.

But as I see you have seen it all and even knowing this is a bit off-topic I would like to know how you feel about TB-303? Do you or did you ever appreciate its sound? I must say that I enjoy many of the classic acid tunes but could never justify buying one because of that ONE sound.
Old 25th April 2014
  #226
Lives for gear
 
Seccione's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
if you lived through the Beatles' when they were new (and I did), then you had to have a 12 string Ric, Ludwig drums, and Vox amps - but you weren't going to sound like the fab four.
But you shouldn't blame the gear for that, right?
Old 25th April 2014
  #227
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by coffee View Post
I'm totally with you regarding the Evolver. It is such a badass synth but requires a bit of patience and skill. However, imho, that is the line between being a preset guy and and true artistry.

But as I see you have seen it all and even knowing this is a bit off-topic I would like to know how you feel about TB-303? Do you or did you ever appreciate its sound? I must say that I enjoy many of the classic acid tunes but could never justify buying one because of that ONE sound.
Thanks Coffee,

I've gotten the most amazing bass sounds out of the Evolver, I use the Soundtower editor though - I'm not too fond of the menu approach. It's all about understanding signal flow and what you're after - people who deride this synth simply can't be serious, what's not to like? Two analog oscillators, two digital oscillators, ring mod, FM - the ability to route modulation everywhere and to anything ???

As for the TB 303:

Too funny, I had the pair in the early 80's - the "bass line" and the "drumatix". I gave the drumatix to one of my students in 1989, the bass line was owned by my then writing partner (I don't know what he did with it).

We did some cool corporate tracks, I still have some of the cassettes, but we were recording to tascam 8 track machines back then - so my memory of the "sound" is noise and not a whole lot of dynamic range, but the bass line was cool.

They were a pain to program (no computer sequencing or even midi sequencers back then) so I'm not sure how you'd use one today and I'm not sure how it'd sound going straight to digital.

I wouldn't pay any serious amount of money for either - however, I've often thought that if a drumatix came up for sale at a tag sale for 25 or 50 bucks, I'd snatch it - if for no other reason, the nostalgia.
Old 25th April 2014
  #228
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seccione View Post
But you shouldn't blame the gear for that, right?
No, and that's my point
Old 25th April 2014
  #229
Lives for gear
 
Seccione's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
No, and that's my point
So, why do you blame the 101 even though other people has made classic tracks with it - without sounding "wheezy" at all?

Why the hate?
Old 25th April 2014
  #230
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seccione View Post
So, why do you blame the 101 even though other people has made classic tracks with it - without sounding "flimsy" at all?

Why the hate?
I'm not "blaming" the Sh 101 for anything, and if I still had one, I'd be making great sounding tracks with it too - however, the point is this:

I rate value as the money being asked for something - I'm always pro-consumer, and when i see people being ripped off, I speak up.

The elephant in the room is simply this, and I'll spell it out as clearly as I can - for the inflated prices being asked, and received, for a 30 year old, flimsily built plastic synth there are better, much better choices out there, that will do everything the SH 101 did, and more, MUCH more.

If Sh 101's were going for 50 to say, 125 bucks, I might have one, but 500 and up? it's ridiculous.
Old 25th April 2014
  #231
Lives for gear
 
Seccione's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
for the inflated prices being asked, and received, for a 30 year old, flimsily built plastic synth there are better, much better choices out there, that will do everything the SH 101 did, and more, MUCH more.
Like there is better choices for 303 out there?

You have absolutely no appreciation for the unique sound character of the 101?

Apparently not, if it sounded just "wheezy" to your ears.



But there are quite many of us that actually want that definitive sound!
Old 25th April 2014
  #232
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seccione View Post
Like there is better choices for 303 out there?

You have absolutely no appreciation for the unique sound character of the 101?

Apparently not, if it sounded just "wheezy" to your ears.



But there are quite many of us that actually want that definitive sound!
Generally, when having a discussion, it's appropriate to listen to, and consider what the other person is saying to you. If you had been paying attention, you'd have seen I've addressed everything you said here, including my opinions on the 303. At this point, were just going to go around in circles, which was great for Billy Preston, but not so cool here.

Good luck.
Old 25th April 2014
  #233
Lives for gear
As ever, taste and musical style are probably big factors. I can understand for some and SH-101 might seem thin compared to a Moog or something. But for people into techno, house, electro, etc. the 101 has a very specific appeal.

Sure the Evolver can run circles around a 101 features to price-wise. But I wouldn't pick an Evolver for the kinds of sounds I like from the 101, it's a very different sound even when just comparing basic analog sounds.
Old 25th April 2014
  #234
Gear Guru
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
Good luck.
Seems like others have had better luck than you.

What's your damage?
Old 25th April 2014
  #235
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by booksy View Post
As ever, taste and musical style are probably big factors. I can understand for some and SH-101 might seem thin compared to a Moog or something. But for people into techno, house, electro, etc. the 101 has a very specific appeal.

Sure the Evolver can run circles around a 101 features to price-wise. But I wouldn't pick an Evolver for the kinds of sounds I like from the 101, it's a very different sound even when just comparing basic analog sounds.
A simple turn of an eq knob on a mixer or in software is all it takes to take a basic single-osc evolver patch, thin it out and turn it into a perfect-for-techno anything. I do it all the time ....
Old 25th April 2014
  #236
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by djugel View Post
Seems like others have had better luck than you.

What's your damage?
English please?
Old 25th April 2014
  #237
Gear Guru
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
English please?
You're out of touch
Old 25th April 2014
  #238
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
We did some cool corporate tracks, I still have some of the cassettes, but we were recording to tascam 8 track machines back then - so my memory of the "sound" is noise and not a whole lot of dynamic range, but the bass line was cool.

They were a pain to program (no computer sequencing or even midi sequencers back then) so I'm not sure how you'd use one today and I'm not sure how it'd sound going straight to digital.
I totally understand your situation at that time. Computer sequencing was on it's way, world was still accustomed to hearing gorgeous bass playing from Jaco, Bootsy, Louis Johnson etc. Then this Japanese company claims to replace bassists with the 303. I would have laughed out loud.

But as it seems musicians are replaced by computers and machines. As we have found out there is some room for artistry but the economical forces have turned musicianship into something you should exercise for your leisure time. If someone wants to pay $1000 for SH-101 because of their quite expensive hobby I don't judge them but the sound of SH-101 was already exploited two decades ago. BTW. I had an SH-101 in 1996 but got bored of it pretty fast. It got replaced by Nord Lead 2 eventually which has the sound I was looking for and which I still own. It's not for everyone of course.
Old 25th April 2014
  #239
Lives for gear
 
Seccione's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by coffee View Post
... but the sound of SH-101 was already exploited two decades ago.
The same goes for all X0X's. Yet they still keep giving!

But yeah, consensus.
Old 25th April 2014
  #240
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
I did some research last night, Sh 101's used the same Curtis chips found in my DSI Prophet 8 - interesting.
This is incorrect. The SH101 uses a CEM3340 for the oscillator and an IR3109 for the filter. The CEM3340 is a VCO.

The DSI Prophet 8 uses DCOs (still analogue oscillators but digitally controlled ones), and a PA397 for the filter which is a stereo version of the CEM3396.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump