Steppingfilter 101 (what filter?)

He must referring to the Roland System 100 (model 101) which have a identical filter to the tb-303.

That bassline can't be a sh-101!

Not a fucking clue mate!

All I know is that this tune is a beast. Everytime I go to put the needle on the groove I swear I hear Zeus shouting somewhere in the heavens..

"Release the Kraken!!! !!!!"

Then the beast is let loose, and what a beast it is. Beeeeaaaaassssttttt.-aaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!

Maybe it's just a introductory class in steppingfilter. Steppingfilter 101.

everytime this one comes on with a random playlist the intro sound on stepping filter whirrrring in i always think it is bone thugs e1999 and i want for it to kick in but instead if rolls in :(

htp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nts-x67Usqc

Could be EML ElectroComp 101

yep... and probably yes.

  On 3/27/2012 at 2:22 AM, TNT said:

Could be EML ElectroComp 101

I think it sounds like the SH-101 which uses a custom chip. The SH-101 does not come with CV control of the filter but someone who was most probably Richard posted about adding filter CV to the SH-101 is one of the best mods ever on Analogue Heaven's forum a number of years ago. The TB-303 is a similar 24db filter but it has an engineering flaw in its design which makes it sound a little different and is made of discrete components also adding to its uniqueness. I'm unfamiliar with the system 100 filter and the EML multimode.

http://fa.utfs.org/diy/roland_filters/index.html

  On 3/27/2012 at 7:22 AM, bunyip said:

I think it sounds like the SH-101 which uses a custom chip.

I believe the SH-101 uses an IR3109 chip for the filter. Not that it's particularly important, as music's much more about the techniques applied than the exact equipment used. It doesn't matter which instruments the track uses, or whether the name has any relevance. It matters how the different parts are composed, and skillfully brought together into a pleasing, cohesive whole.

  On 3/27/2012 at 7:22 AM, bunyip said:

The SH-101 does not come with CV control of the filter but someone who was most probably Richard posted about adding filter CV to the SH-101 is one of the best mods ever on Analogue Heaven's forum a number of years ago.

Do you mean this?

Indeed.

Here is a quick example of an MC-202 with the same mod being sequenced via the second channel with some reverb.

I agree with ZoeB saying that It doesn't matter which instruments the track uses, or whether the name has any relevance. It matters how the different parts are composed, and skillfully brought together into a pleasing, cohesive whole. But I do find that each machine has its own headspace and somehow dictates a part of the composition.

  On 3/27/2012 at 12:55 PM, bunyip said:

I do find that each machine has its own headspace and somehow dictates a part of the composition.

Somewhat, yes. I think one of the main differences is playing live versus step sequencing. That makes a vast difference to the type of music you're making. It also matters, for instance, whether you own a sampler, giving you the ability to incorporate your own sounds into the mix. General things like that make a big difference. But a particular brand of step sequencer or sampler will make far less of a difference.

I'm not going to lose sleep wondering whether Steppingfilter 101 uses a TR-808, some Analogue Solutions modules, or even a Novation Drumstation, as they all achieve a very similar sound. But it would certainly be quite a different track if an acoustic drum kit (or samples thereof) had been used. The model of filter seems to be one of those very specific things, where it will make a slight difference, but one that the vast majority of people who listen to music won't care one iota about.

this tune sounds way better on 45

how do you think you create the stepping? run a continuous cv through a quantizer? Midi also creates stepping cause i think the protocol can't handle the amount of info a cv signal puts out so it gets stepped

  On 4/7/2012 at 1:30 AM, marf said:

how do you think you create the stepping? run a continuous cv through a quantizer? Midi also creates stepping cause i think the protocol can't handle the amount of info a cv signal puts out so it gets stepped

Those are the main two ways, yeah. A sample & hold unit would do it, as would a quantiser at a pinch. Simple digital control would also do it. (I'm not sure if this is because MIDI's serial and apparently slow at 31.25kbps (although that's always been fast enough for me), or because it "only" uses seven bits for each value, giving you only 128 knob positions.) Possibly the first physical instrument I ever had was a digital drum machine with a built-in filter, and that made a similar stepping sound as it couldn't quite keep up with the internal knob twiddling. It actually sounded quite good once I ran it through a cheap distortion pedal. So yeah, it's probably sample and hold on purpose, or a cheap MIDI to CV converter or digital filter, and rather than shying away from the unintended bug, he drew attention to it in the title as a feature. :)

Incidentally, to achieve the opposite effect and smooth out a rough signal, use a slew limiter, great for portamento / slide / glide, but I guess you already knew that...

you can do it in a million ways...

i personally think it's all ghost produced by rich cason (r.i.p.)

Definitely not any sequencer of any kind. Most likely it was a ghost or telepathic CV control.

There are many ways of doing this but some are more straightforward than others. if you listen you will notice a pattern to the stepping with some variation. If you enter a melodic sequence into the mc4 at a step resolution of 6 and have it go into the cv in of your bp filter of your main melody which you are sequencing on another track of the mc4 at a step resolution of 24. The same thing can be done with similar ease via two channels of midi to cv on most sequencers. The neat thing I like about the mc4 is how it makes you write things you normally wouldn't write on another sequencer.

  On 3/27/2012 at 7:22 AM, bunyip said:

I think it sounds like the SH-101 which uses a custom chip. The SH-101 does not come with CV control of the filter but someone who was most probably Richard posted about adding filter CV to the SH-101 is one of the best mods ever on Analogue Heaven's forum a number of years ago. The TB-303 is a similar 24db filter but it has an engineering flaw in its design which makes it sound a little different and is made of discrete components also adding to its uniqueness. I'm unfamiliar with the system 100 filter and the EML multimode.

 

http://fa.utfs.org/d...ters/index.html

if only rich would have read this in '95 he would" (get some cool Richard D James kind of sounds.....)"

http://machines.hyperreal.org/manufacturers/Roland/MC-202/mods/MC-202.VCF-in-mod.txt

  On 4/8/2012 at 4:43 AM, bunyip said:

There are many ways of doing this but some are more straightforward than others... If you enter a melodic sequence into the mc4...

Maybe I'm missing something here, never having used one, but why would anyone still use an MC-4 (or MC-8 for that matter)? It looks nice enough as a museum piece, if you're into industrial design, but in this day and age, it doesn't appear to be very practical. It sounds like it should only take a few months and an Arduino board to build something more user friendly. It's multichannel and has tight timing, sure, but the interface involves translating notes into numbers either in your head or on paper, and then punching those in via a handy calculator pad, from what I understand. That sounds very much like machine code programming, converting all the commands into numbers on paper before you even touch a machine. It's clearly from an era when people were designing things to be as simple to build as possible, rather than as simple to use as possible. I get that Roland made a lot of good products using step sequencers around that era, over the next few years, but from what I can tell, the MC-4 doesn't have slide/glide/portamento (so no acid possibilities without hooking it up to, say, an MC-202 or SH-101, which kind of defies the point of having a standalone sequencer), and doesn't have a keyboard-resembling interface that lets you see which notes you're entering. So what's the appeal over, say, an MC-202 or an Acidlab Autobot? Is it just the multiple channel output, or the romance of the eighties or of something that looks like it should be used to plot a lunar landing trajectory, or is there something more to it that I've overlooked? Even the variable note lengths and rests don't seem to really warrant its current general second hand prices.

you think there is a connection with the syntax of the japanese language and their design decisions for things like sequencers?

the appeal is the happy accidents and the tight clock. i bet it would be good for percussion

  On 4/8/2012 at 7:48 PM, marf said:

you think there is a connection with the syntax of the japanese language and their design decisions for things like sequencers?

Now I'm curious. This sounds like a Malcolm Gladwell style hypothesis. Could you elaborate, please?

  On 4/8/2012 at 12:52 PM, ZoeB said:

  On 4/8/2012 at 4:43 AM, bunyip said:

There are many ways of doing this but some are more straightforward than others... If you enter a melodic sequence into the mc4...

 

Maybe I'm missing something here, never having used one, but why would anyone still use an MC-4 (or MC-8 for that matter)? It looks nice enough as a museum piece, if you're into industrial design, but in this day and age, it doesn't appear to be very practical.

You know I kind of wish more people felt this way about vintage gear, then it would be more affordable...

its like why use a KORG MS-20 when you can just use a softsynth?

  On 4/9/2012 at 4:02 AM, TNT said:

You know I kind of wish more people felt this way about vintage gear, then it would be more affordable...

 

its like why use a KORG MS-20 when you can just use a softsynth?

I'm convinced that the second hand price of vintage gear is much higher than it rationally ought to be. I think that it's partly due to how many musicians there are who have actual uses of it, but it's mostly due to people romanticising the sixties-to-eighties era of instruments, either for nostalgia (if they're in their forties) or because it's what their favourite artists used to use (if they're in their thirties).

The MS-20's a nice example. I haven't used it, nor a software clone of it, so I can't imagine how good software is or isn't at reproducing its gritty sound. I have a hardware clone of just its filter, and it's great, but I can't imagine that I'm missing out on much just because it probably sounds slightly different, or because it doesn't have that pretty Korg industrial design. It's important to make a distinction between what helps you make music (such as the ability to mangle sounds with a quirky filter) and what you're romanticising (such as instruments from a bygone era).

It wouldn't surprise me if we soon start to see people using early versions of FruityLoops, Live or Reason, so that the next generation can use the same tools that their idols did way back in the early zeroes, using plug-ins that add MP3 artifacts for that nostalgic sound. :)

  On 4/9/2012 at 12:08 PM, ZoeB said:

The MS-20's a nice example. I haven't used it, nor a software clone of it, so I can't imagine how good software is or isn't at reproducing its gritty sound. I have a hardware clone of just its filter, and it's great, but I can't imagine that I'm missing out on much just because it probably sounds slightly different, or because it doesn't have that pretty Korg industrial design. It's important to make a distinction between what helps you make music (such as the ability to mangle sounds with a quirky filter) and what you're romanticising (such as instruments from a bygone era).

Ok so you're saying that anyone who gives a shit about how a Minimoog looks or sounds is most likely due to nostalgic reasons. The violinist should not give a damn how his violin looks too?