sh 101 over juno 60 bass would you.

[Jaytee]

I have the MS-20 mini at our studio, great fun factor, but the envelope response alone makes it not ideal for bass sounds, IMO.

Seriously? On mine, I have to move the attack knob almost up to 1 just to get an audibly non-instant attack at all.

ditto, and wtf @ ms-20 'not ideal at bass sounds'. ...bass is its bread and butter, h**l, that's its legend. as for topic nah, ms20 doesnt sound anything like a 101. a good modern 101 alternative would be the micro- or minibrute. If i had to choose between a juno 60 and a 101..as in if they were sitting in front of me and i had to pick.. i'd take the 101. but then again, the 106 and mks-30 drove me off of 80s Roland stuff and I already own a 3p...so the 101 would make sense for me.

The Brutes as SH-101 replacements? IMHO, that's even sillier than suggesting an MS-20. They sound nothing at all alike; the only similarities are the slider-based interface and the most general concepts of the architecture.

For my money, the modern SH-101 replacement is the BassStation. Between the Brutes, the MS-20 and the Bs2, the BS2 is the only one with the 24db/oct filter, which is basically a necessity for mimicking the 101. Aside from that, it generally just has that 80s Roland smoothness to the sound (no surprise, since the original BassStation was a TB-303 competitor), whereas the others are much more about wild, screaming, beautiful 12db/oct sounds.

[mute]

101 and MB can sound very similar without much work, its not a silly comparison at all.

[Solderman]

The Brutes as SH-101 replacements? IMHO, that's even sillier than suggesting an MS-20. They sound nothing at all alike; the only similarities are the slider-based interface and the most general concepts of the architecture.

Having both a Microbrute and a severely modified SH-101, I can attest to there being some overlap when it comes to basic sounds, but the brutes are capable of alot more tonal variety, and in terms of general tone, their 2 pole Sallen-Key filter is not quite as round as the 101's 4 pole Cascade Integrator filter without resonance, nor as liquidy as the 101's filter with resonance. The basic brute tone without too much brute factor always has more midrange presence. The SH-101 can't really drive its filter input very hard without modification, whereas the brutes do that easily. They all have very fast, snappy envelopes, the micro beating out the mini by a bit there.

So back to the Juno vs. 101 topic: I'd have to give it to the 101 for the linear response of its VCO and a bit more character in its filter response, but I've noticed with resonance just below self-oscillation, the Juno 60 seems to have a bit of saturation and instability going on, whereas the 101 is cleaner and thins out more. Both have fast envelopes. Both fetch stoopid prices now, so my stance is don't bother with either unless you can find a good deal on one.

[philip]

I have pretty much the same dilemma. I have the Ju60 and I love its basses to death. But I play midi live and when I use Ju60 for bases I use it for basses only, and it's like to have Ju60 only for that bass sounds and it's a shame because It can do so much more.
So I was also wondering, maybe I should get the 101 and free Ju60 for another tasks.

[Walter Ego]

I have pretty much the same dilemma. I have the Ju60 and I love its basses to death. But I play midi live and when I use Ju60 for bases I use it for basses only, and it's like to have Ju60 only for that bass sounds and it's a shame because It can do so much more.
So I was also wondering, maybe I should get the 101 and free Ju60 for another tasks.

The Juno is still very useful and flexible. Thick pads that can be dark or bright, with a lot of character. The chorus helps those pads as well.

It can also do many bread and butter things one would want a synth to do, like kicks and snares.

Also, I'm not quite sure what your point about MIDI is, because the 101 also lacks MIDI, but this can be overcome to some degree (at least timing-wise) by either using a MIDI>CV box or using something like the Volca Keys to send MIDI in and analog pulse sync out to your Arp Clock Input in the Juno, so the arpeggiator plays in time with your MIDI'd gear.

My earlier point about the MicroBrute wasn't even so much about the sound, though there seems to be some overlap, but about the function it holds, which I think is similar to the 101. Electronic artists like to use it (the 101) in some fashion in many tracks because it can sequence analog and modular gear and is so useful. The Brute can do these things also, but is more easily integrated into a modern MIDI setup as well.

Also, as far as bass goes, the MicroBrute has a killer metallic PWM bass. It just oozes power. Solderman mentioned its strengths in the mid-range, but I have found a real bass sweet spot also (that's just my ears, though, not test equipment); layering in the sub-oscillator beefs it up nicely. Also as I think I mentioned before, the resonance manages to leave the bass frequencies alone for the most part, not attenuating it as on some synths.

[pflosi]

Also as I think I mentioned before, the resonance manages to leave the bass frequencies alone for the most part, not attenuating it as on some synths.

As on a 101 or Juno for example, you mean?

[Jaytee]

101 and MB can sound very similar without much work, its not a silly comparison at all.

Well, pretty much any two subtractive analog synths can get some reasonably similar tones. But IMHO, the Brutes and the SH-101 are a lot more different than they are similar within that range of analog subtractive synths. There is some overlap at the most basic level, but anyone looking for an SH-101 replacement is going to be very disappointed with a Minibrute. The character is just too different. The BassStation2 is world's closer.

[Automatic Gainsay]

MS20 as a 101 replacement? GREAT tip.

Well, I didn't mean specifically as a 101 replacement so much as just a general bass monosynth (from the OP's phrasing, it doesn't sound like he's specifically looking for the 101's "That Sound.") But h**l, I'll stick up for the MS-20 here - it can do perfectly fine single-oscillator filter basses, has much more aggressive resonance than any Roland filter I've heard (perfect for your squelchy-rez-bass sounds, if those are your thing,) and has a whole boatload of other options open thanks to its possession of A. a full-fledged second oscillator and B. a resonant highpass filter (set that sucker to just this side of self-oscillation just below your lowest note and shake the whole damn room!) About the only thing it doesn't have is a sequencer, and with the Mini you can get around that with MIDI.

Since he was asking between 101 and JU60, it certainly seemed to me that he wanted "That Sound". Which the MS20, while being a great synth, will not give him.

Even so, pflosi... I love you, man... but come on.

If a person wants a horribly limited low pass-based synth for a bass synth that ISN'T a Moog, you need to help set them straight. Irrespective of whether there is a characteristic sound associated with an SH-101 synth, it can't do bass like an MS-20 does. A synth without a resonant high pass filter cannot do bass like one with resonant high-pass. If you want a big bass sound, you'll NEVER GET IT with an SH-101. While its filter does have a characteristic sound, it just doesn't have the low end of something with resonant high-pass. I'm with commodorejohn on this one.

[monolith]

I think a 101 can do big bass easily. I just use the same principle as using the ms-20s high pass. Lots of resonance, low cutoff, keyboard tracking. Obviously I can't have a bright timbre to do this but that works for me as I like mellow dubby sine wave bass sounds. If I want bright and bassy I use the SH-2 or yes, an MS-20

A synth with just an LPF that isnt moog can do 'big bass' - SH-2? Pro-One? Marc, I believe I've even seen you speaking of the Mono/poly doing big bass! (Osc 1 triangle, louder than the other 3 )

[Automatic Gainsay]

I think a 101 can do big bass easily. I just use the same principle as using the ms-20s high pass. Lots of resonance, low cutoff, keyboard tracking. Obviously I can't have a bright timbre to do this but that works for me as I like mellow dubby sine wave bass sounds. If I want bright and bassy I use the SH-2 or yes, an MS-20

A synth with just an LPF that isnt moog can do 'big bass' - SH-2? Pro-One? Marc, I believe I've even seen you speaking of the Mono/poly doing big bass! (Osc 1 triangle, louder than the other 3 )

Hey, lots of things can do big bass. But... as everyone should know... something that can emphasize bass frequencies is going to give you more bass.
The Moog filter can give you a big low end... but low-pass only simply can't emphasize bass like a resonant high-pass.

A sine wave sounds bassy because it has no harmonics. But it doesn't generate bass. It's not actually bassy. It's just 100% of what it is without other frequencies. The same is true for triangles. But if you take a harmonic-rich waveform and use a resonant high pass, you can amplify bass frequencies present in the sound and make them bassier than they were. You simply cannot do that with a low pass and keep any sort of defining harmonic content.

[monolith]

I think a 101 can do big bass easily. I just use the same principle as using the ms-20s high pass. Lots of resonance, low cutoff, keyboard tracking. Obviously I can't have a bright timbre to do this but that works for me as I like mellow dubby sine wave bass sounds. If I want bright and bassy I use the SH-2 or yes, an MS-20

A synth with just an LPF that isnt moog can do 'big bass' - SH-2? Pro-One? Marc, I believe I've even seen you speaking of the Mono/poly doing big bass! (Osc 1 triangle, louder than the other 3 )

Hey, lots of things can do big bass. But... as everyone should know... something that can emphasize bass frequencies is going to give you more bass.
The Moog filter can give you a big low end... but low-pass only simply can't emphasize bass like a resonant high-pass.

Obviously and i agree. I was more just clarifying a good LPF only synth might not give *as much* bass, but will certainly deliver enough.

I mean, how much bass does one really need? Some people on a certain forum seem on an endless quest for the bassiest synth, but in terms of sheer bottom end, just about any analog synth will deliver enough to work with.

I think the Ms-20 mini is also a solid recommendation however it doesn't have envelopes as fast as those on a Juno-6/60 or SH-101 - if that is one of the main things the OP likes most about their sound it might not be right for the job.

I'm not h**l bent on requiring fast envelopes but have observed my Rolands have faster attack than my Ms20, mono/poly and P6.

[pflosi]

Even so, pflosi... I love you, man... but come on.

If a person wants a horribly limited low pass-based synth for a bass synth that ISN'T a Moog, you need to help set them straight. Irrespective of whether there is a characteristic sound associated with an SH-101 synth, it can't do bass like an MS-20 does. A synth without a resonant high pass filter cannot do bass like one with resonant high-pass. If you want a big bass sound, you'll NEVER GET IT with an SH-101. While its filter does have a characteristic sound, it just doesn't have the low end of something with resonant high-pass. I'm with commodorejohn on this one.

Yeah of course, but then again the MS20 cannot do bass like the 101 does. And both are different than a Moog. Also, that stupid MS20 HPF will not track the (Hz/V) keyboard properly...

And also, might as well just recommend a DX7. Those sine waves can do some massive bass

[pflosi]

Nothing that holds its value is ever a waste of money! The sequencer opens up great possibilities with the 707s trigger out, especially since you don't have to use up notes on rests. It's a great way to jam around phrases and come up with new interesting stuff. I usually use the 101 for bass and the juno for arps and trigger them both with either the 808 or 606. Haven't been able to sample the trigger out that successfully yet, but I know some people have good luck with that & rimshots.

Just read through the whole thread again and wanted to mention: try this sample:

http://www.makenoisemusic.com/manuals/modular-pulse.WAV

Thanks Make Noise.

[HideawayStudio]

Even so, pflosi... I love you, man... but come on.

If a person wants a horribly limited low pass-based synth for a bass synth that ISN'T a Moog, you need to help set them straight. Irrespective of whether there is a characteristic sound associated with an SH-101 synth, it can't do bass like an MS-20 does. A synth without a resonant high pass filter cannot do bass like one with resonant high-pass. If you want a big bass sound, you'll NEVER GET IT with an SH-101. While its filter does have a characteristic sound, it just doesn't have the low end of something with resonant high-pass. I'm with commodorejohn on this one.

Yeah of course, but then again the MS20 cannot do bass like the 101 does. And both are different than a Moog. Also, that stupid MS20 HPF will not track the (Hz/V) keyboard properly...

And also, might as well just recommend a DX7. Those sine waves can do some massive bass

Actually can I throw my tuppence in here and say with first hand experience that the often overlooked SH-09 is a considerably warmer, gutsier and fatter sounding monosynth side by side the somewhat over-hyped SH-101 which, in my opinion is a joy to program but is sadly a little wanting on the sound front. So typical of the later Rolands it feels almost too well honed to the point the character and life has been washed out of it.

The SH-09 is built like a tank and often goes for less than the 101.

Having returned three of these beasts to life this year definitely +1 for MS-20 (although these originals are definitely more flighty and alive than the new re-release) - the combination of LPF and HPF under separate envelope control is an awesome combination and completely bonkers in self oscillation!

[pflosi]

+1 for the older SHs. They are great! Love my SH2.