MKS-80... love hate

[8bit9bot]

ok... now that i've got your attention... i have the Roland MKS-80 rev5 - it sounds really really good... i love the stable tuned VCOs... but since it is my only analog synth at this point... it really bothers me that resonance SUCKS HORRIBLY

it doesnt sound too bad but the volume level goes WAY down... worse than any synth i've ever used before - even the alpha juno had better resonance (same filter chips as mks-80 rev5) - so what's wrong with it? why is it so weak?

would swapping for a rev4 fix my problem? from what i read... even tho people say the rev4 is better... it doesnt actually sound much different - so what gives? should i give up on roland and just get an oberheim xpander?

the best resonance i ever heard was on the sci prophet 600 (and im guessing the other prophets sound even better) - my idea of good reso is: turning it up should make the sound more rich... not suck it dry

[8bit9bot]

here's an example of what im complaining about: http://alexmauer.com/temp/stupider_reso.wav <- 0%... 60%... 100% reso - i dont mind so much that it doesnt self oscillate... it just sounds dead

[Sir Ruff]

Not sure what you're complaining about exactly--that's standard behaviour for 95% of the world's low-pass filters out there. The rev. 4 will do the same thing, but just scream more (I think it self-oscillates). There's lots of debate about "which is better", but it really seems to be personal preference rather than some black/white decision. I think the rev5's filter sounds pretty good actually. It has an amazing, almost reverb-like, tail when VCA release is long, and VCF release is short. And realistically, the mks-80s oscillators are not really that stable... that's what makes it great.

The xpander is one of the few synth that compensate for low-end loss when the rez is turned up all the day, so if that's all you care about, and you like the CEM sound, go for it. But it is a fairly different beast to the mks80... more aggressive and raw, less polished and smooth.

[V301H]

The sound of the MKS-80 is fairly unique. Nothing can really replace it. You say it sounds really, really good. If there is only one area where it's not to your liking I think it would be better to supplement it with another Synth that's stronger in the function you want.

A couple of things might help keep the sound level up. Keep the Filter Cutoff as low as possible when using Resonance. Also set the Keyboard Tracking and Filter Envelope as low as possible for the sound you are going after.

[Sir Ruff]

Also set the Keyboard Tracking and Filter Envelope as low as possible for the sound you are going after.

Ah... see, I think that's where Roland filters really shine--when they are tracking the keyboard at 100%, and you get that lovely, musical ringing going on.

[8bit9bot]

yeah... in an ideal world i could own many different synths each w/ its own forte... but in reality my studio is a small room... and my budget is weak - the mks-80 is the most expensive synth i ever bought - i'm thinking now i either want to upgrade to xpander or downgrade to matrix-1000 - i had the matrix-1000 on and off a few times and it's now seeming like the best option for the price - the xpander... if it sounds as good as the matrix-1000... would be a way to still have awesome VCO power and have the CEM filter sound that i apparently prefer - i'll have to keep thinking about it... meanwhile i'll keep mks80 revision 5 since revision 4 is not so different

[8bit9bot]

Not sure what you're complaining about exactly--that's standard behaviour for 95% of the world's low-pass filters out there.

u know what? im not saying what i truly think unless i say... i've never heard a synth get so wimped out by resonance at high cutoff... even the alpha juno doesnt - i recently read the reason roland designed it to get so quiet was so that it wouldnt distort in unison mode when cranking the reso - so... my opinion? if you want bread and butter analog sounds... dont get the mks-80 - if you want to be able to get nice reso sounds sometimes... it's not going to do it for you

http://alexmauer.com/temp/stupider_reso.wav

listen to that one more time... the last part... pay attention to what happens to the basic pwm sound... it doesnt just lose lows... it loses EVERYTHING - its energy sucking

yeah if all i wanted was strings, pads, and washes... this thing is awesome... but i wanted it to be an all-arounder and it's not working out - i feel like the oberheim matrix-1000 was a better all-arounder... altho it didnt really excel at any specific sound... i just had nothing to complain about with it... i wanted to upgrade to VCO but the mks-80 isn't the one for me

[Sir Ruff]

Horses for courses I guess.. I would kind of consider the MKS-80 the PERFECT all-rounder. It excels at all the usual analog pre-requisites of strings/brass/pads/bass, but can manage a pretty-wide variety of non-traditional sounds too.

Honestly, if you're thinking of going towards the matrix-1000 (with it's bland DCOs...shudder) I would STRONGLY suggest you check out the Alesis Ion. It pretty much blows the competition out of the water in terms of genuine "analog" sound, and will give all variety of filters and rez-types to play with. Plus it has knobs! Pretty much a win-win situation.

[8bit9bot]

DCOs dont have to be considered bland - i think the matrix sounded pretty alive... maybe not in a VCO drifty way - if there was such a thing as a VCO version of the matrix i think that's up my alley... if the xpander really does sound like the matrix 1000 then i think i have to give that one a shot

i dont want to bad mouth the mks-80 too much... but i couldnt even recreate some of the most basic alpha juno sounds... like the preset "noise shots" - the mks-80 cant do it... because of this reso flaw i keep pointing out - also the preset "velo-reso"... it sounds too quiet to pull it off like the alpha juno - that makes me upset because the mks-80 cost me 2200... and the matrix cost me 400... the alpha juno cost me 300 - you catch my drift?

[Sir Ruff]

Are you sure you're not forgetting to consider how the chorus effects the juno? That has a huge effect on the sound and definitely makes the resonance shine more. The alpha without the chorus doesn't really have a leg to stand on compared to the mks80.

The xpander will do what the matrix does, and then some. And it's not so much the xpander sounding like the matrix, as the matrix wishing it sounded like the matrix.

[DesolationBlvd]

Someone else had the same problem you do - resonance sucking too much of the body out of the sound, on the JP-6 (similar to MKS-80 rev. 4). He tried re-calibrating the resonance amount and then modding the board to route the resonance CV to the VCA or something to make it louder to compensate for volume loss: http://roland-jupiter.org/viewtopic.php?t=683

But listening to the example provided, I think it's bad programming at fault. What is going on here is that the resonant peak is too high to hear when the cutoff is as high as you set it.

i dont want to bad mouth the mks-80 too much... but i couldnt even recreate some of the most basic alpha juno sounds... like the preset "noise shots" - the mks-80 cant do it... because of this reso flaw i keep pointing out - also the preset "velo-reso"... it sounds too quiet to pull it off like the alpha juno - that makes me upset because the mks-80 cost me 2200... and the matrix cost me 400... the alpha juno cost me 300 - you catch my drift?

The cutoffs on the NoiseShots and Velo-Reso presets are lower than you think. Somewhere below halfway up.

Velo-Reso will be harder to do on the MKS-80 because it doesn't have a way for you to control cutoff solely by velocity, but there is a work-around. Set Envelope 1 to zero attack and decay and full sustain and release and turn on the dynamics.

MKS-80 has slightly lower maximum resonance than Alpha Juno. In fact, the Jupiter series have always had lower resonance than their corresponding Juno models.


Xpander seems to be a side-grade from MKS-80, not an upgrade. It doesn't fit in the rack, and the minimum attack time is poor.

The xpander is one of the few synth that compensate for low-end loss when the rez is turned up all the day

That actually seems to be the typical behavior of a 12db/oct filter. Think OB-X and "Tom Sawyer".

[8bit9bot]

all good points guys - i see what you mean by a "side grade" rather than upgrade - the main reason i'd say upgrade is the xpander price is certainly higher... and by that fact i can assume its more desirable - plus i do know all of the features it has and it's way more flexible than the mks-80

anyhow... i was mainly trying to determine if the rev 4 would fix my issue... and it seems like it wont

[Sir Ruff]

The xpander is one of the few synth that compensate for low-end loss when the rez is turned up all the day

That actually seems to be the typical behavior of a 12db/oct filter. Think OB-X and "Tom Sawyer".

More specifically, Oberheim 12db filters But it's the same for the 24db mode on the OB-Xa/Xpander too. It's definitely an Oberheim trademark (though there must be some other filters out there with similar behavior).

[8bit9bot]

More specifically, Oberheim 12db filters But it's the same for the 24db mode on the OB-Xa/Xpander too. It's definitely an Oberheim trademark (though there must be some other filters out there with similar behavior).

right... the sci prophet 600 gets louder as you crank the reso up... and i guess this is one of the reasons i have expectations that reso should make the sound louder... or atleast not this quiet - ironically i sold my prophet 600 to fund buying the mks-80

[Sir Ruff]

More specifically, Oberheim 12db filters But it's the same for the 24db mode on the OB-Xa/Xpander too. It's definitely an Oberheim trademark (though there must be some other filters out there with similar behavior).

right... the sci prophet 600 gets louder as you crank the reso up... and i guess this is one of the reasons i have expectations that reso should make the sound louder...

But the bass still drops in basically the same was as the mks-80. They all behave the same.