nsasales.blogg.se

Lush 101 vs tal bassline 101
Lush 101 vs tal bassline 101












There's also its ease-of-use and logical parameter selection to consider, making it an ideal and rewarding instrument on which to learn synthesis from the ground up. Thankfully, there are plenty of software options if you must have that sound - and it is very much a sound you should want, being warm, punchy and palpably 'analogue'.

lush 101 vs tal bassline 101

Though affordable in its day, secondhand prices have, of course, gone through the roof. The basses were snappy and razor-sharp, the leads squelchy and expressive - especially if you dared to use that hand-grip with its built-in modulation controls. The sound of this diminutive dynamo was pure Roland, and when the 90s analogue synth revival kicked in, it became a staple fixture in the studios of countless dance producers. It could even be clocked from external triggers. Simple step-entry programming of notes from the keyboard and the ability to transpose the sequence via the octave buttons or the keyboard itself made it a blast to play. LFO linkage aside, the sequencer was among the SH-101's best features. Annoyingly, though, the LFO's rate slider also determined the speed of the onboard arpeggiator/sequencer. A single ADSR envelope generator was shared by the filter and VCA, while the LFO offered a choice of sine, square, noise and random waveforms that could be used to modulate the VCA, filter, pitch and pulse width. Modulation was rudimentary but well-considered.

lush 101 vs tal bassline 101

Also notable, the user was not restricted to selecting a single oscillator waveform, as a mixer section enabled waveform amounts to be dialed in via sliders. Sporting only a single oscillator bolstered by a sub-oscillator, one of the highlights was Roland's piercing yet smooth low-pass filter. Fortunately, it sounded incredible, which was surprising given its meagre feature set.














Lush 101 vs tal bassline 101