Damn, you just brought back some memories. I always tell my students that humans have more in common than they think, and that NES cartridges could have led to world wide peace, had people just realized how similar we all are. All across the world, people blew into their NES cartridges to make them work. It was instinctual. Just like using your fist to beat the CPU on Track and Field. It’s like with pyramids being built all across the world at relatively the same time.
4 Likes
Just read through the entire manual (I know…) and I learned that this thing has sequencer performance features like Last Step and playback modes (Fwd/Rev/Inv/Rnd) just like on the MC-x0x… except, unlike on those grooveboxes, on the SH-4d they’re all tucked away under menus with no direct button shortcuts. Maybe this will change in future firmware updates but for now, it seems like Roland made the decision that this is primarily a multitimbral synthesizer, not a groovebox. In other words, when it comes to performance features, the sequencer is taking the backseat while the synthesizer gets the hands-on experience.
Another thing I learned is that when you switch patterns, all tone part settings reset back to the saved state, so if you e.g. evolve a tone throughout a full song that spans across several patterns - even if it’s something as simple as opening up the filter - the tone will either reset each time you switch patterns, or you will have to pre-program separate user tones per each pattern in order to progress a song the way you intended. This means that, if a song spans across eg 4 patterns and you want to evolve the sounds over the course of the song, you may need to save up to 16 (4 parts times 4 patterns) user tones for a simple song. Since my songs often need 8 patterns, it all seems quite messy to handle.
So, this confirms to me that the sequencer/pattern features of the SH-4d should be thought of more as a song sketchpad rather than a groovebox. Which I guess is what that Roland rep was saying in the Sonic Lab demo.
These realizations made my GAS cool off considerably, and it helped to increase my appreciation for how Elektron has chosen to put the sequencer and patterns front and center. Their way of handling sounds and patterns all saved into projects makes so much more sense. Also, even on the synthesizer performance side of things, endless encoders are just vastly superior when the same knobs are shared across several parts/tracks, so in the real world, I think tweaking a Syntakt in a live performance will be so much easier and lead to less embarrassing mistakes compared to knobs jumping between extreme values (or getting lost in catch modes) on this thing. So, I guess I’m saying that this definitely isn’t a proper groovebox, at least not at firmware 1.0. It should be thought of more as a multitimbral synthesizer and companion for a more competent sequencer in a larger setup. Which makes it much less interesting to me at least… for now!
9 Likes
Very confused by the Syntakt comparisons I’ve seen in here. I feel like the Digitone is pretty clearly the obvious candidate if you want to compare the SH4d to an Elektron device, and I think this blows the Digitone out of the water.
No? The digitone is strictly 4 op-FM synth, how does this compare to this? Lmao
2 Likes
I know I’ve made this comparison in the thread before and so have others in various places, but this really has quite a few parallels with the JD-Xi and if you compare it to that instead of the MC line it’s massively more capable as a song sketch pad. I’m probably not going to primarily use it for entirely self-contained compositions in the long run, but I could certainly see myself using it tethered to a computer or on batteries as a quick idea machine and even making things with it on its own. The patches being reset to the saved state when switching would indeed complicate multi-pattern songs where you want the patches to evolve, of course, but it’s the sort of limitation that feels manageable to me personally. I rarely do filter sweeps that evolve across multiple sections, and in a sense having a way to return to ‘home base’ with sounds is actually not necessarily even bad, imo. Maybe Roland would consider adding a ‘patch persist’ mode? 
1 Like
There is a real beauty in what you expressed and I do believe that Castlevania II should of made the world not like the one we now live in…
But… looking back and I say this with the utmost sincerity, I don’t think I have ever gotten as much joy from a piece of technology than the original Nintendo even if it almost made my eyes bleed from playing Zelda for 6 hrs straight.
3 Likes
It’s actually fascinating how competent the synth engine of the MC-101 is if you can live with the menu diving. Like, separate amp and filter envelopes per 4 Partials per each tone! That’s more complex than the SH-4d, the Minifreak and the Syntakt combined! The evolving pads you can design on it would simply be impossible on the SH-4d. You’re really trading depth over immediacy here.
And the MC-101 is also much more of a proper groovebox with tones/tracks saved along with all clips/patterns per projects, rather than spread out across a set of fixed user tones and patterns like on the SH-4d, and with performance features like Scatter, Last Step, playback modes and pad mutes all at your fingertips.
Roland has something for everyone.
4 Likes
And this is exactly why it appeals to me. I don’t need another sequencer, but a compact 4-synth box seems incredible. I can see how this feels disappointing to people looking for a single performance oriented box.
5 Likes
Edit: I misread your post! We’re in agreement. 
I’m keeping the comparison here which is about the SH-4d vs the MC series as a song sketchpad:
After reading the manual, I’d lean towards saying that they’re fairly equal as sketchpads go, but with very different workflows and some crucial differences. I’d actually lean towards saying that the MC series has the edge in the song sketchpad department.
The SH-4d will be much faster (note: not deeper) if you are more interested in the sound design aspects of sketching out ideas. This is where it truly shines it seems. And then putting down notes will be quick, comparable to the MC-707 and much quicker than the MC-101 due to not having to switch between two views for steps and notes. Another advantage the SH-4d has is of course the fifth track/part with the drums, which means you can sketch out a song with eg drums, bass, a pad, an arp and a lead - whereas the MC-101 only has 4 tracks (and the MC-707 has 8). And finally, the SH-4d will of course invite you to explore the synthesis of the sketch more with its hands-on control of many parameters.
But the again, the MC-101 has sample playback, which can be huge for some song sketching (the MC-707 even samples), it can use samples as tone tracks (even as one partial of a more complex custom Zencore tone), it has a much deeper synth engine, a more competent sequencer (128 steps instead of 64 and more hands-on performance), multiple clips per track (meaning you can sketch out b sections, bridges, and other parts of a song all contained within a single project) and much more hands-on performance features for the sequencer. It’s also half the size, can run on 4 AA batteries just like the SH-4d, and can be found used for about half the price of the SH-4d.
3 Likes
Yeah this is just about perfect for that!
2 Likes
I’m very much looking at this as a multi-timbral synth which is the lens Roland want you to view it through and not a groovebox, why do people want a song mode on everything?
Also when was the last flexible multi-timbral digital desktop synth released? Blofeld? That was 16 years ago! I don’t count the Digitone, sorry but 4-op FM is yuk.
This market got chewed up and heavily diluted by grooveboxes, I’m glad Roland drew a line and focused on making this mostly synth
Not to make bangers on, that’s for sure. I’m still tapping my feet sore waiting for the predicted deluge of Digi song mode bangers I was promised.
12 Likes
I can’t speak for everyone, but in the case of the SH-4d, Roland got so darn close to making their best groovebox yet, so it only makes sense to view it from that perspective, whether they want that or not.
That said, this may be the most competent multitimbral synth in a long while and when viewed as that and not a groovebox, it’s a very compelling proposition.
1 Like
Really not bad knobby box, but sigh Roland is soo keen on rehashing the same set of ideas.
Good news: no need to chase SH-32 on secondary market (if any are left anywhere) and engines are nice, modern and finally not limited to “virtual analog SH models + some dusty PCM”.
Not so good: probably the same approach with sequencer and menu diving. I can totally relate to concerns of users who wrote about this. Surprised to see in the thread praises to MC-101, it’s for sure a deep engine inside, but the editing and sequencing is very tedious. Like what’s the benefit of hardware if this is not fun to edit and play.
6 Likes
I’m not really praising the MC-101 here, was just commenting on the fact that its synth engine is very deep and powerful if you can stand the menu diving. I agree with you, sequencing on it is very tedious and I personally use it more as a sound module for the Syntakt than a standalone groovebox.
But that’s also why the SH-4d intrigued me quite a bit because…
Exactly right. The SH-4d looks really fun to edit and play! So could it be the better MC-101 that I always wanted? Something that made writing songs on it truly enjoyable? And after reading the manual and watching tutorials on it, I think the answer is probably not, at least not as a tool to write full songs on in standalone because it really wasn’t made for that in mind, despite throwing in one of the most competent sequencers ever in a “pure synth”.
As a song sketch pad and/or multitimbral synth companion in a larger setup though, the SH-4d definitely looks like a winner!
4 Likes
Yeah, that line of JV-engines is what I was always envious of. Always wanted JV-1080/2080 and the big problem were not even the prices (which eventually grew a bit too high), but mostly the size and all that old tech quirks and lack of knobs or sliders.
The idea that someone would try to create or even edit a patch on the MC-101 is pretty incredible to me
But then again people do shit like compete Dark Souls with a banana instead of a controller, or carve sculptures out of the graphite in a pencil tip. People are weird
7 Likes
Have you tried the partial editor? It’s not exactly fun, but it’s really not that bad. Was able to dial in a faithful horn-like sound from an init patch in a couple of minutes that was used as the “lead” in this Syntakt + MC-101 jam. Don’t think that makes me weird, but I can live with that label.
1 Like
Because it’s the only other polysynth currently in the lineup lol
I’d say it’s kinda similar to Syntakt in concept, but in most respects more simple (no patch swap per trig, no sound pool, no project management, patches not saved in patterns, more basic parameter locking, kinda low patch memory, no micro timing…), but in some respects more beefy (good hardware controls of the filter per instrument, tone EQ on every track, tone effect per track, some great master effects, tone EQ on every drum in the kit, sample library (although for the PCM engine a bit lacklustre sample library), generous polyphony (60), polyphonic sequencer input with individual lengths, pretty nice modulation matrix with interesting MIDI routing with cc to parameter mapping if I understand correctly.)
I’d say you could definitely perform stand-alone with this as a kinda simple setup. Also with the generous polyphony and Roland synth engines it can make for a pretty useful additional chord and melody synth.
25 Likes