Worst Roland Synth EVER!

Analogue Crazy · Post by **Analogue Crazy** » Wed May 14, 2008 8:11 pm

Im a big fan of Roland gear and the synth i most dislike is the SH-201. The JP-8000 just seems like a better buy to me.

BritSynths · Post by **BritSynths** » Wed May 14, 2008 8:49 pm

For me it would be the following

TB-303 (Over hyped, over priced and pretty awful when it was made and even more so now)

D-110 (Far too complicated and not worth the effort)

Post by **Stalfosia** » Wed May 14, 2008 9:43 pm

BritSynths wrote:
TB-303 (Over hyped, over priced and pretty awful when it was made and even more so now)

ha ha... how can someone say this is the worst Roland ever?? LOL

I agree, for what you get .. the current value is laughable - but, man... it's a fun synth FULL of character. I've owned many synths and a tb303 is still the most fun to just sit down and waste an hour on. My lady friend calls it "the fart machine" HAHAHHAHA... I love it's squelchy goodness.

for me, the worst...
hmmm.
I was gonna say the MC-303, but how could I?? I wrote an entire album on that little box in 1999. So, it can't possibly be the worst.
man, this is a tough question.

Juno 106 get's a big F U for the dying chips tho... what h**l?
and
R-8 gets a fat F U for it's difficult operating system.

Re-Member · Post by **Re-Member** » Wed May 14, 2008 10:09 pm

Roland RS-5

It's so bad, I can't even get rid of it on eBay. I got it cheap on a whim not knowing anything about synthesizers, but once it came time to learn how to make my own sounds, it simply couldn't be done.

I think the MC-303 is only retrospectively bad since it's a formula that has been so greatly approved upon today. I actually met a lot of people who have owned them and for starters, it's a pretty nice little box to figure out basic sequencing. I moved simply because I couldn't create my own sounds and wanted more parts to work with.

As for the SH-201, it is what it is, a budget performance friendly VA. Although I was saving up for a JP-8000 myself, the SH-201 appealed to me more due to how lightweight it is and I didn't want to risk buying another synth used and having it c**p out on me. As for the style, that's a matter of preference. To me, it looks like a cold hearted Nazi weapon compared to the JP-8080 which reminds me of Barney the dinosaur.

ramos · Post by **ramos** » Thu May 15, 2008 1:27 am

BritSynths wrote:For me it would be the following

TB-303 (Over hyped, over priced and pretty awful when it was made and even more so now)

over-priced? yes

over-hyped? no

I just picked one up for $1000 australian in great condition. I can tell you this, it's really fun to play with, you can take it to bed and run it off the batteries and use headphones, it sounds AWESOME, and is pretty easy to program if you do your research.

Unless you have sat down with one for a few hours, you will never appreciate it.

Post by **Stab Frenzy** » Thu May 15, 2008 2:54 am

ramos wrote:...and is pretty easy to program if you do your research.

Brain surgery is pretty easy if you do your research.

ramos · Post by **ramos** » Thu May 15, 2008 2:57 am

with all the tutorials, tips and videos on the web these days, it's not hard to program at all.

I can imagine having one in the 80s/90s though, the manual wouldn't have helped much.

clusterchord · Post by **clusterchord** » Thu May 15, 2008 4:02 am

recent small roland ROMplers are c**p, however, they never aspired to be somthing esle, so id also have to vote the biggest let down: SH-201.

its sounds completely unusable to me. yes, that bad. sorry.

Post by **cornutt** » Thu May 15, 2008 4:43 am

The only thing that comes to mind is the MT-32, back when people in the industry were going gaga over General MIDI and everyone else was saying "WTF?" The MT-32 wasn't just a lame GM box, it was a lame GM box with crappy samples!

nvbrkr · Post by **nvbrkr** » Thu May 15, 2008 8:09 am

crystalmsc wrote:to me it's the CM-32L:

But that's a top-end module that was intended mostly for computer game music playback during the days in the early 90s when owning Adlib for most already meant luxury? I remember I thought it sounded so incredibly good back then, but wouldn't know what I would think of it today would I hear the sounds now.

gfriden · Post by **gfriden** » Thu May 15, 2008 10:01 am

Aaaah, the beauty of not being fully up to date. I know absolutely nothing about synths post-1987, so many of the alledgedly 'crappy' Rolands mentioned in this thread I've never even heard of. (Of course, I've never heard of the good ones post-1987 either...) Anyway, in fairness to the other two members of the bigh three, shouldn't there be similar threads for Korg and Yamaha?

Syn303 · Post by **Syn303** » Thu May 15, 2008 10:19 am

gfriden wrote:Anyway, in fairness to the other two members of the big three, shouldn't there be similar threads for Korg and Yamaha?

Yeah true, both Yamaha and Korg produced some garbage over the years

iProg · Post by **iProg** » Thu May 15, 2008 10:27 am

Roland SH-201, easily.

Ugly plastic budget interface, cheap and weak construction and a lousy modern wannabe-80's sound. Awful! What a shame to put it in the SH series.

radam · Post by **radam** » Thu May 15, 2008 10:51 am

The mc-505 was the first device I came into ownership of to create electronic music with. I got it when it was released. I still have no idea how to use the thing.

what is it that's stopping roland, or korg for that matter, from putting out some new analog gear? Something decent...

gfriden · Post by **gfriden** » Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am

Roland SH-201, easily.

You would all love the SH-201 if Roland paid you as much as they pay JMJ:

what is it that's stopping roland, or korg for that matter, from putting out some new analog gear? Something decent...

What'$ $topping them? Nothing... What'$ to be gained by putting out $ome real analog gear? (I'm thinking like Roland here) Nothing... There you have it...