Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 11:31:06 -0400 (EDT) From: aschrock To: machines@hyperreal.org Subject: Roland 101 vs. 106 comments Here's something I wrote on rec.music.makers.synth on the differences between the roland juno-106 and sh-101 that I think is appropriate for music-machines: >From news3.eni.net!pubnix.org!aschrock Tue Jun 23 11:29:56 1998 Path: news3.eni.net!pubnix.org!aschrock From: aschrock@pubnix.org (aschrock) Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth Subject: Re: SH101 wanted badly ! Date: 23 Jun 1998 14:10:00 GMT Organization: Epoch Internet Lines: 54 Message-ID: <6mocvo$5dl$1@news3.eni.net> References: <6mmg1c$ksl$1@news.bart.net> <1998062223422500.TAA12165@ladder03.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: www.pubnix.org X-Trace: news3.eni.net 898611000 5557 155.229.39.88 (23 Jun 1998 14:10:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@eni.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Jun 1998 14:10:00 GMT X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Xref: news3.eni.net rec.music.makers.synth:108704 ClickRec (clickrec@aol.com) wrote: : No one wants to let them go lately. A Micromoog or a moog rogue will do just : about the same thing. Also a Juno 106 will probably cost less and do exactly : the same thing--and is more versatile, not to mention polyphonic. I've used a juno-106 before, and frankly it didn't excite me too much. The oscillators were very 'buzzy', and while the bass was great in stacked oscillator patches if you tried to use it monophonically it wouldn't be very wide-sounding. I use it whenever I drop by my brothers house since he owns one, but really wouldn't consider getting one for myself because to my ears it sounds a bit thin, more like my oberheim matrix-6r but with MUCH weaker modulation options. I got lucky and found an sh-101 at a flea market for $100 last weekend... gray, missing a few sliders, and I had to replace the 3340, but hey it was a good deal. The percussion you can get from it is amazing. I have a sampler so the 101s lack of midi isn't any problem for me. In spite of its popularity, the 101 is pretty capable. It gets me much more psyched to edit patches than the 106 does. Both boxes are very popular and have inflated price tags to match. Honestly I wouldn't pay more than $250-300 unless you really really want it. It seems like people are holding on to their 101's and selling their 106's, but that's probably just because the 106 has become more inflated than before. (selling used up to $450-500!) The difference between the 101 and 106 is great: (This is everything I could think of, and I think it's pretty accurate and complete, and includes some things which aren't really pros or cons, like the 101 having a CEM3340: a pro because it gives a good sound, con since it's VERY hard to find nowadays) 101 106 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- nifty LFO shapes (rand, etc) triangle only nay LFO delay noise modulation (for gritty drums) nay crappy sequencer (compared to the 202) no sequencer, but see below c/v only amazing midi implementation primitive arpeggiator/hold button nay nay somewhat noisy chorus (1+2) nay 128 patch storage nay 4-position High-pass filter monophonic, 1 osc. (but what an osc.!) 6 parts polyphonic, 12 osc. uses 1 CEM3340 chip no CEM chips voltage-controller oscillator digitally-controlled oscillators clock-sync'd LFO (interal or external) nay able to mod for VCF input you can't, really... 2 and a bit octave keyboard (portable!) 5 octave keyboard Andrew