From nobrand@teleport.comFri Jun 23 14:51:40 1995
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 02:04:37 -0700
From: Brian Coates <nobrand@teleport.com>
To: analogue@hyperreal.com
Subject: Re: 101 vs. 202

>>I don't know why I've suddenly got such a downer on my 202! Feel free to
>>put me to rights, someone, any 202 fans.
>>
>
>People'd be better off with an SH-101 IMO. Sequencer makes a little more
>sense (but has less features) and the sound's the same. The 202 isn't like
>the 303 in any way, really.
>


        First off, let me preface this with the fact that I am not flaming!
Just my two bits.  I think if posed with the dilemma of choosing between
the 101 and 202, the 202 would be the unquestionable choice.

101 Pros:
        Noise generator.
        More Env trigger options.
        Full size keys.
        Multi waveform LFO.
        Bend lever.
        Remembers sequence upon powerdown( A BIG plus.)

202 Pros:

        LFO Delay.
        Syncs to 24 PPQ.
        Tape storage of sequences.
        Per-note Portamento.
        Accent to VCA.
        Accent to VCF.
        Tempo display.
        FAR superior sequencer(2 tracks, 2600 notes, real time entry, etc.)

The step entry on the 202 is just as simple as the 101, PLUS you can enter
individual step and _gate_ times per-note.  Funny, I never thought about
this til now.  Over the years, I've considered selling the 202 a couple
times, but I should have been thinking about selling the 101!!( luckily I
always came to my senses and kept both).

        The sounds of the 101 and 202 are _ever_ so slightly different.  I
have A/B'ed them, and I can't quite pinpoint the difference.

        One other thing about the 202's voice architecture, I _think_ the
LFO is a sine wave, which I prefer to the triangle waves(like the 101).

Brian