Roland Boutique SE-02 ... (actual analog. roland brand, studio electronics build)

Anything about hardware musical instruments.
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

JCJR wrote:Dunno if it is merely a sales bullet point that the device is analog? Or maybe it would be impossible to sound indistinguishably similar to the SE-02 in a polyphonic DSP digital synth?
Hard to say. I'm a big fan of the Roland ACB software. Sounds great to me. How accurate are they? Oddly, no one seems to care enough to post a decent a/b between them and the original hardware. The SE-03 is a lot more complicated than the Jupiter 8, so I'm not sure how their System 8 hardware would fare under the beating of code that could deal with a third oscillator and all the other bits. I know their JP-08 falls flat on its faceplate when you try to get it to do the cross mod stuff. (there is a good a/b comparison between the JP-08 and a real Jupiter 8)

But, there's still Legend, which I think is amazing, but it's missing some things like no cross-mod, dedicated LFO, and it doesn't have a sequencer (which I don't care about either) but I think all the rest is basically there. Poly-chain a couple instance together and you've got an 8 voice poly Model D emulation.

Anyway, I'm a Studio Electronics fan. I think their stuff is well worth owning even if you have software or DSP based emulations of analog. I've not heard anything in software or hardware that sounds like it, so if you want that sound, there you go.
Zerocrossing Media

4th Law of Robotics: When turning evil, display a red indicator light. ~[ ●_● ]~

Post

Thanks zerocrossing

When wondering if it would be possible to sound the same in an at-least-8-voice polyphonic dsp synth I assumed that the trick would require heftier horsepower than that first trio of four-voice VA boutique models. Not just double the processing power to get 8 voices, but possibly lots more than double the horsepower to "sound the same" as VA-02.

Maybe it would be rather expensive even implemented in DSP? Though maybe not as expensive as building eight analog SE-02 into one poly keyboard.

Then again, maybe even today it would be unfeasible to "perfectly nail" the sound of something like SE-02 in a Poly DSP synth, even at an elevated price point? Dunno.

It was just idle conversation. If Roland were to build such a beast then I would admire the accomplishment but probably wouldn't buy one. GAS symptoms are not so severe as they once were. :)

Post

Daags wrote:So, another Roland analogue ... and yet again it's built by someone else.
Maybe, but Studio Electronics got the right pedigree, and then some!

For example, they brought back the Moog, with the MidiMoog back in '89
http://www.vintagesynth.com/misc/midimoog.php

Post

JCJR wrote:Thanks zerocrossing

When wondering if it would be possible to sound the same in an at-least-8-voice polyphonic dsp synth I assumed that the trick would require heftier horsepower than that first trio of four-voice VA boutique models. Not just double the processing power to get 8 voices, but possibly lots more than double the horsepower to "sound the same" as VA-02.

Maybe it would be rather expensive even implemented in DSP? Though maybe not as expensive as building eight analog SE-02 into one poly keyboard.

Then again, maybe even today it would be unfeasible to "perfectly nail" the sound of something like SE-02 in a Poly DSP synth, even at an elevated price point? Dunno.

It was just idle conversation. If Roland were to build such a beast then I would admire the accomplishment but probably wouldn't buy one. GAS symptoms are not so severe as they once were. :)
Of course it's possible. Aim a confetti cannon full of cash at any problem and you can usually get it to go away. :clown: Some may say your synth already exists in the John Bowen Solaris. (I'm one of them) It's not modeled on the SE-02 (of course) but it does have Moog 24 db ladder emulation. (As well as others) It does lots of audio rate modulation stuff, which is notoriously hard to get right in software unless you throw a lot of CPU at it. Not impossible though. Like I already said, you can get good results using a few instances of Legend. Two osc synths with audio rate modulation that sound great to me are already around. Check out Roland's Jupiter 8 plug out. Lot's of CPU use, but it also runs on their System 8 DSP based hardware.
Zerocrossing Media

4th Law of Robotics: When turning evil, display a red indicator light. ~[ ●_● ]~

Post

zerocrossing wrote:
JCJR wrote:Dunno if it is merely a sales bullet point that the device is analog? Or maybe it would be impossible to sound indistinguishably similar to the SE-02 in a polyphonic DSP digital synth?
Hard to say. I'm a big fan of the Roland ACB software. Sounds great to me. How accurate are they? Oddly, no one seems to care enough to post a decent a/b between them and the original hardware.
Different markets I think. It's not really had much impact on prices of used originals. The people that still want that hardware aren't all that interested in the little finger cramp boxes that Roland's putting out.

One of my friends has the Juno-60 clone, can't remember it's number, I have a Juno-60, maybe we'll compare them one day, probably not, he doesn't care, and neither do I.

Had they may it 12 voices and in a usable size then there might be more interest.

Post

Numanoid wrote:
Daags wrote:So, another Roland analogue ... and yet again it's built by someone else.
Maybe, but Studio Electronics got the right pedigree, and then some!
Sure. as do Malekko, and arguably Reon. Is there something in my post that indicates I think Studio Electronics aren't pedigree ? Is 'boutique' synonymous with 'trash' in germany or something ?

You definitely miss the point if you think I need educating on the pedigree of Studio Electronics, Malekko etc.

Post

zerocrossing wrote:
JCJR wrote:Thanks zerocrossing

When wondering if it would be possible to sound the same in an at-least-8-voice polyphonic dsp synth I assumed that the trick would require heftier horsepower than that first trio of four-voice VA boutique models. Not just double the processing power to get 8 voices, but possibly lots more than double the horsepower to "sound the same" as SA-02.

Maybe it would be rather expensive even implemented in DSP? Though maybe not as expensive as building eight analog SE-02 into one poly keyboard.
Of course it's possible. Aim a confetti cannon full of cash at any problem and you can usually get it to go away. :clown: Some may say your synth already exists in the John Bowen Solaris. (I'm one of them) It's not modeled on the SE-02 (of course) but it does have Moog 24 db ladder emulation. (As well as others) It does lots of audio rate modulation stuff, which is notoriously hard to get right in software unless you throw a lot of CPU at it.
Thanks zerocrossing.

If I was gonna spend a bunch on a poly synth, Solaris would be on the short list. Haven't seriously considered it. Many sounds in Solaris demo videos-- I think I could make similar sounds by layering various boxes already at the house. But the Solaris do look nice.

I get the impression some folk wish there would be a Memorymoog reissue. That might be most feasible as a VA (with lots of DSP chips inside) rather than anything remotely similar to the original circuitry. Spaghetti jungle!
Image
But if made as a VA, even if it nailed the Memorymoog sound and got rid of all the original bugs-- Perhaps it wouldn't sell because it wouldn't be analog.

Eight of the Behringer Minimoog clones in a 5 octave keyboard or eight of the SE-02 in a 5 octave keyboard would probably be "lots better" than a Memorymoog. Sure Memorymoog was only 6 voice, but it ought to have been at least 8 voice.

Memorymoog to my taste had more flexible envelopes than Minimoog. I didn't study the SE-02 or Behringer about the envelopes. If they closely resemble Minimoog envelopes, I didn't ever have proper appreciation of Minimoog envelopes. It was a good synth but I more-favored at least four-stage conventional adsr controls. But even without a re-design closer to a Memorymoog voice, 8 SE-02 in a keyboard would probably be a heck of an axe, either in analog or "sounds exactly the same" DSP.

But while on the topic of flying pigs, something that would even pry money out of my miserly fingers would be an accurate Chroma Polaris reissue. Analog or DSP, don't matter to me if it happened to be "near identical" except for fixing a few minor warts. And at least 8 voice. Eliminate the membrane switches. Use a modern CPU not likely to fail in mysterious ways. Remove the CA3080 from the master audio output circuitry. It had a rather ordinary signal flow architecture and used chips seen in other synths, but for whatever reason that thang seemed to have a much wider sound palette than other poly synths of the era. And such a nice velocity-sensitive fast light keyboard, and good support of velocity and sustain pedal in the synth voices.

Post

I don't have it anymore but I used to have a MemoryMoog. Interesting synth design because it is all CEM save for the ladder filter. The envelopes are CEM3330s, which are excellent, but pretty much the same as every other CEM based poly of of the era that used an all CEM based architecture.

Post

ghettosynth wrote:I don't have it anymore but I used to have a MemoryMoog. Interesting synth design because it is all CEM save for the ladder filter. The envelopes are CEM3330s, which are excellent, but pretty much the same as every other CEM based poly of of the era that used an all CEM based architecture.
Yep, it is interesting that many synths of the time had similarities in chips and signal flow, but sounded quite different from each other!

Post

ghettosynth wrote:
zerocrossing wrote:
JCJR wrote:Dunno if it is merely a sales bullet point that the device is analog? Or maybe it would be impossible to sound indistinguishably similar to the SE-02 in a polyphonic DSP digital synth?
Hard to say. I'm a big fan of the Roland ACB software. Sounds great to me. How accurate are they? Oddly, no one seems to care enough to post a decent a/b between them and the original hardware.
Hmm.. I've seen tons of ACB comparisons for the both cloud and botiques.
Just two example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWSsh0DmELo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYGdVjSr4rI
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer

Post

For the most part ACB gets high marks. There are some areas that it doesn't get exactly right. But, the real shame of the boutiques and cloud seem to be about feature reduction/limitations or crappy software implementation, not the actual sound.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer

Post

JCJR wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:I don't have it anymore but I used to have a MemoryMoog. Interesting synth design because it is all CEM save for the ladder filter. The envelopes are CEM3330s, which are excellent, but pretty much the same as every other CEM based poly of of the era that used an all CEM based architecture.
Yep, it is interesting that many synths of the time had similarities in chips and signal flow, but sounded quite different from each other!
The memorymoog is a pretty complex synth, so there's that. However, if you set it up for a simple sound, it's really the filter that sets it apart from pretty much every other CEM based synth of the time.

At one time I owned a P5 and an OBXA at the same time. In 24dB mode they didn't sound that different if you set them up in similar ways and didn't use features that were unique to either.

I think that these synths are far more similar than they are different and it's the unique qualities, like the ladder filter in the Memorymoog or the 12 dB filter in the OBXa that make them stand out from each other.

Post

ghettosynth wrote: The memorymoog is a pretty complex synth, so there's that. However, if you set it up for a simple sound, it's really the filter that sets it apart from pretty much every other CEM based synth of the time.

At one time I owned a P5 and an OBXA at the same time. In 24dB mode they didn't sound that different if you set them up in similar ways and didn't use features that were unique to either.

I think that these synths are far more similar than they are different and it's the unique qualities, like the ladder filter in the Memorymoog or the 12 dB filter in the OBXa that make them stand out from each other.
Thanks ghettosynth. All good points.

Many liked minimoog and memorymoog because you could crank the oscillator mixer levels loud enough to severely distort the ladder filter. Those audio demos of SE-02 seem real clean. Maybe they are better ladders than old Moog ladders. Maybe modern Moog-manufactured ladders are better than the old ones? Have not played recent Moog instruments.

I did not appreciate ladder filter distortion in old Moogs. Sounded un-musically "rough" to me. Most folks seemed to like it. To me the filter distortion sounded more similar to overdriven transistor Pignose amp and less similar to overdriven Marshal Plexi.

So far as I recall of CEM spec sheets, at least some of the filter chips could be wired for many different behaviors. The same chip might sound radically different depending on the way it is wired up.

Perhaps "significant sound differences" could arise merely from operating levels chosen by the designer, and the way the filter chip is wired up, even among synths sharing similar chipsets? Dunno. Just guessing. And of course the unique features in each instrument as you mentioned.

Rather than reminiscing past capabilities, maybe zerocrossing's idea of something like Solaris would be more productive. Solaris kinda looks like Matrix 12 on steroids. Might get "in the ballpark" of about any of the old instruments with new sounds as well. Doubtful I'd program/play a Solaris often enough to amortize the cost.

Post

JCJR wrote:[
So far as I recall of CEM spec sheets, at least some of the filter chips could be wired for many different behaviors. The same chip might sound radically different depending on the way it is wired up.
That's right, notably, the CEM3320 was very flexible so you can't assume that because that chip is being used that it will sound the same as another synth using it. However, many manufacturers of the time, notably Dave Smith, pretty much used the reference design or something similar so there isn't as much variation as you might think.

The later model CEM filters were much more similar to each other and much more restrictive in how they could be used for different designs. Oberheim really did something significant with the Xpander/M12, but that's rare.

The CEM3330 Envelopes were not really in the same class as the filters so people used them the same way for the most part.
Rather than reminiscing past capabilities, maybe zerocrossing's idea of something like Solaris would be more productive. Solaris kinda looks like Matrix 12 on steroids. Might get "in the ballpark" of about any of the old instruments with new sounds as well. Doubtful I'd program/play a Solaris often enough to amortize the cost.
I know that I wouldn't. I'm probably going to buy a Deepmind 12 this year. but other than that, I'm more interested in selling vintage hardware than buying new hardware, vintage or otherwise.

Post

Image

So... I like the idea of this synth quite a bit, and a Moog-ish synth is a gap I'm looking to fill. I'm not that bothered by presets, but the ability to use Numerology and midi CCs for additional modulation and automation is really mouthwatering.

Also, while one should avoid jumping to conclusions from sound demos, I think it sounds very good from what I've heard so far.

My main concern at the moment is how tightly packed the knobs are. While I'm fine with miniaturisation generally, at some point small becomes too unwieldy.

Post Reply

Return to “Hardware (Instruments and Effects)”