I think one complaint with having samples instead is that Roland has Analog Circuit Behavior that is already used in some other products, like the boutiques, TR-8, & TR-8S. The ACB does sound good, lively, and does have an analog vibe to them. And some would say because of that, the ACB engines are better than static samples. So if the tech was already there, and already available in the lower tiered priced products, then why not include it here? For me personally, I think they should have put the ACB drums in the 707, and then still have their synth engine from the Keytar in as well. It would have seemed to me to be the next logical step up from the TR-8S.
1 Like
Has anyone ever unswirled the image the center of that pad to find out if there is a hidden message?
1 Like
Haha, that would be great.
looking at this video confirms what I suspected. That UI looks to dam fiddly to use live fluently, menu diving which is based on overly sensitive encoders… huh, no thx. I seriously hope the 707 has better handling.
I bet there’s a D-beam under there.
4 Likes
Yeah I think the disappointment comes from what COULD have been. Imagine a groove box designed for people who have proven their love for synths by dumping tens of thousands of dollars into modular and vintage gear or whatever. I am thinking of a groovebox that was an actual repository for all of Roland’s best products best bits. A groovebox that had ACB with 32 voices. A groovebox that samples without arbitrary size limits (we all know about sd cards) and implemented in such a way that you can make one-shots, live loop, or just bounce down your live set for your audio diary. A groovebox with enough ins, outs and midi to sequence your other gear and be used like a mixer.
Why is this an impossible dream?
Who knows.
2 Likes
See, you just described a great product, one which I, and many would probably buy. I’ve gotten the vibe that some companies listen to their customers, and monitor online forums for feedback and whatnot, but I have never gotten that vibe from Roland.
1 Like
If the MC101 causes elektron to squeeze out a few new nice upleap features to the Digitakt - like second filter line, filter types, timestretch, EQ-bands/DJ-EQ per track, comb/ring, alternate distortion models, LFO2, more precise sample edit, stereo AUX in mix - then the MC101 is a success in my book, simply as a catalyst …
It is certainly going to challenge buyers from this day forth to choose between the two. Digitakt is superior on many fronts and ModelSamples is the better comparator, but this little MC101 box is like scappy doo, and it wants to take on scoobytakt
2 Likes
I understand the frustration. I think the main reason roland ditched ACB is that it is way more CPU intensive than sample-based synthesis, so they probably privileged having per-track FXs and 128 voices polyphony. I don’t know how much more “expensive” ACB but the quality-to-cost ratio probably wasn’t worth it.
It’s just speculation but if we assume that the MC-707 has the same chip than the TR8S, one ACB voice is something like 10 ZEN-core voice, then one drumkit would eat almost if not all the polyphony.
And also the TR8S as only been out one year, they probably didn’t want too much overlap since it must be selling well still and production continue.
As there’s no perfect machine, for my need I feel this one is finally “close enough”. It doesn’t beat other machines in terms of features, but the ratio simplicity to feature to price is great.
You just described the perfect machine, I think it would be an instabuy but probably too expensive for most.
2 Likes
I’ve seen some talk about adding other filter types on the digitakt, but adding new stuff seems like a far away dream it’s been said that the dsp chip is used almost fully. If only the Digitakt had live sampling I probably wouldn’t even be considering the 707 honestly.
The model:samples is the closest elektron to the mc-101, but it’s closer to a pure drum machine. A closer machine feature-wise would be the op-z. The 101 is more limited but what comes out from the demo sounds better than what i’ve heard on the op-z.
1 Like
I see those Roland boxes being more as Electribe catalysts than anything to do with Elektron. I hope you are right though
The MPC X seems close… but is massive.
1 Like
waiting for that MC-101 reference manual… to see if i get excited
From the video it says project files are interchangeable between the 101 & 707.
1 Like
I wonder how since it has 4 tracks.
I need to say:
As compagnion for the digitone… 4 drum tracks (where you can sequence multiple drums into each of them…), stutter fx, 4 faders, 4 control knobs. hmmm…
Looks not so bad (I’m not a fan of digitakt, but I’m a fan of digitone!) to me at all. I recently got a tr-8s, but this for smol trips with one bag only…
Question… Should I get the MC101 or M:S? I have previous experience from both platforms but still need to boil down the arguments. I feel the 101 is more performance oriented and the M:S more for production? Is that the case? I would have to get really fast on the pots for the M:S to be effective live.
Thoughts?
2 Likes
it will for sure take the 1st 4 tracks of the 707
at least the model samples has almost 1 knob per function, unlike the 101… Why would you think that endless menudiving on the 101 would be more “performance-friendly” than using the M:S?
2 Likes