The EM-101 is actually built around the same oscillator chip as the Poly-800. It sounds Juno-y because it has a single Juno 60 filter and two Juno 106 chorus BBD chips. The Poly-800 had a single SSM filter. So I guess you could argue either way that it's kinda awesome or kinda ridiculous! Like an analog FB-01 with a Juno chorus LOL.
I just bought a second one. Since it has a mix input in the rear I plan on running one into the next and then I can stack/layer both units into a single stereo pair and apply effects to taste. There's a tune knob in the back so I can detune. Which is important as these things have such a basic midi implementation they don't even recognize pitch bend.
I never heard for this module, and i agree with every of your statements. I would only add that it reminds me more of Korg Poly 800 a lot in that lo fi nature.
You can definitely hear that it is related, but it's no JU-106. However, for $100, you really couldn't go wrong. Very cool, I was not aware of this module.
It sounds fine, but for me, the sound is only a small part of the Junos-it's the workflow that has always attracted me to them. It's just so easy and intuitive to dial up sounds and change the on the fly.The would be the ideal learning synth if they weren't so #%^$%^$^%&$%$## expenive. If Behringer would only make a one osc/voice, stripped down Deep Mind...well, they'd get sued, but I figure they're used to it.
@@rachelar it was made ages ago , as a rack module there was no need for a sequencer as a four track sequencer built into it would have e added another $1000 to the price. It was a professional instrument and Roland assumed you already had a sequencer if you could afford this back then.
It sounds more paraphonic than polyphonic. I don’t know the architecture of this synth but if all oscillators are going to a single filter it’s technically paraphonic but I understand that in the 70s and early 80s manufacturers called anything that could play more than 2 notes with independent trigger polyphonic.
@@subs4794 If you look at Wikipedia article about paraphony, you will see that for electronic music this term is defined as being able to produce more than one pitch at once (so individual control of oscillators pitch) but share the rest of the signal path (VCF and VCA). So individual pitch control but common attack and filter control. As opposed to a polyphonic instrument that has independent control of all the signal path of each voice (each voice has its own oscillators, voltage controlled amplifier, voltage controlled filter and can be triggered independently)
@@subs4794 well Wikipedia definition is pretty much the same thing as what most synth companies are using since the early 80s. Pre 80s manufacturers would call anything that can play more than one note at a time polyphonic but at some point manufacturers wanted a way to communicate if their instruments had fully independent voice architecture or if their instruments had a bunch of oscillators that can play different pitches that all go through the same VCA and VCF. This difference in the architecture has a huge impact on the sound and price of the instrument.
OK, but this is one of the worst analogs ever made. Then business as usual happens, depending on whose hands this can be very functional and even incredibly versatile. It is a very rare module, normally the sound modules of any brand are digital, but this is one of the few analog ones I know of, it is really a rarity and as analog sounds they seem very good to use as a sound generator and sample to later transform . Nowadays, with a DAW we already have the possibility of processing this module even in real time, but it was also very typical to accompany this module with a depal multiFX or a mixer with multiFX. As a synthesizer, it is lousy, although the sound is also very typical of its time, it is ideal for sampling with a sampler and processing with effects.
The EM-101 is actually built around the same oscillator chip as the Poly-800. It sounds Juno-y because it has a single Juno 60 filter and two Juno 106 chorus BBD chips. The Poly-800 had a single SSM filter. So I guess you could argue either way that it's kinda awesome or kinda ridiculous! Like an analog FB-01 with a Juno chorus LOL.
The condition of that Juno 106 is mesmerizing
I know right? So clean for a 30+ year keyboard, obviously well cared for.
Where are you seeing poor condition 106s? I've rarely seen any 80s synths not looking in good condition.
@@subs4794mine, which I got from substance user and abuser second hand cheaply due to bust osc
I just bought a second one. Since it has a mix input in the rear I plan on running one into the next and then I can stack/layer both units into a single stereo pair and apply effects to taste. There's a tune knob in the back so I can detune. Which is important as these things have such a basic midi implementation they don't even recognize pitch bend.
Wow. That's a great trick. Thanks for the tip!
I like how this dude always holds back a burp in the middle of a sentence. Like he’s chugging a beer in between takes.
While others flex, he reflux
Stomach problems?
I never heard for this module, and i agree with every of your statements. I would only add that it reminds me more of Korg Poly 800 a lot in that lo fi nature.
You can definitely hear that it is related, but it's no JU-106. However, for $100, you really couldn't go wrong. Very cool, I was not aware of this module.
4:10 Edible mods...the future is here.
Doesn't really give me Juno vibes but I do like the sound of it.
It sounds fine, but for me, the sound is only a small part of the Junos-it's the workflow that has always attracted me to them. It's just so easy and intuitive to dial up sounds and change the on the fly.The would be the ideal learning synth if they weren't so #%^$%^$^%&$%$## expenive. If Behringer would only make a one osc/voice, stripped down Deep Mind...well, they'd get sued, but I figure they're used to it.
There are hundreds of midi controllers with just as many or more functions than those junos and they're less than 1/3 the price
The filter sweeps!!!
Is the sound at 15:33 coming from the Juno 106, or are you using the Juno to control the EM-101?
Yes, from the 106
I had an EM-101 in the 90’s, I thought it was lousy lol. Got rid of it and never want to see it again. I have an MKS-7 and it blows it away.
The MKS-7 was overpriced tho, I was expecting a built in drum machine ie programmable patterns but no, just kit sounds...
@@rachelar it was made ages ago , as a rack module there was no need for a sequencer as a four track sequencer built into it would have e added another $1000 to the price. It was a professional instrument and Roland assumed you already had a sequencer if you could afford this back then.
It sounds more paraphonic than polyphonic. I don’t know the architecture of this synth but if all oscillators are going to a single filter it’s technically paraphonic but I understand that in the 70s and early 80s manufacturers called anything that could play more than 2 notes with independent trigger polyphonic.
Yes, it’s paraphonic - single filter. Good earZ
Where is your definition of paraphonic from?
@@subs4794 If you look at Wikipedia article about paraphony, you will see that for electronic music this term is defined as being able to produce more than one pitch at once (so individual control of oscillators pitch) but share the rest of the signal path (VCF and VCA). So individual pitch control but common attack and filter control. As opposed to a polyphonic instrument that has independent control of all the signal path of each voice (each voice has its own oscillators, voltage controlled amplifier, voltage controlled filter and can be triggered independently)
@@Pintosonic I'd have to see where Wikipedia got their information because they are a joke of mal and misinformation.
@@subs4794 well Wikipedia definition is pretty much the same thing as what most synth companies are using since the early 80s. Pre 80s manufacturers would call anything that can play more than one note at a time polyphonic but at some point manufacturers wanted a way to communicate if their instruments had fully independent voice architecture or if their instruments had a bunch of oscillators that can play different pitches that all go through the same VCA and VCF. This difference in the architecture has a huge impact on the sound and price of the instrument.
I found one 9n marketplace it's in Montreal I'm in Toronto.
😮😮😮
Is it multitimbral?
Doubt it, don't recall it as so
Thanks for the tip! But I haven't seen any at $100-$200...😩😬 And I don't see many available
Check out eBay - Japan sellers
@@asoundlab thanks man!
There are two affordable units on Reverb as of July 7 2021. All The Best.
Just bought one for £112 (UK/ebay) and there was also one for £50 (UK/reverb) but someone beat me to that one. Keep looking, they do come up.
Found in a thrift store. Was frustrating, had a Juno 106 anyway. Definitely mediocre so sold it
200$?!?! You were robbed!
OK, but this is one of the worst analogs ever made.
Then business as usual happens, depending on whose hands this can be very functional and even incredibly versatile.
It is a very rare module, normally the sound modules of any brand are digital, but this is one of the few analog ones I know of, it is really a rarity and as analog sounds they seem very good to use as a sound generator and sample to later transform .
Nowadays, with a DAW we already have the possibility of processing this module even in real time, but it was also very typical to accompany this module with a depal multiFX or a mixer with multiFX.
As a synthesizer, it is lousy, although the sound is also very typical of its time, it is ideal for sampling with a sampler and processing with effects.
Blegh. As good as the sounds may be, a rompler is still just a rompler.
Arpeggios should be forbidden.