Added: 3 years ago
From: nibkey
Views: 28,915
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (63)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • should try and record this. good stuff.

  • The thing with BoC is... Trees emit their sounds. They just record them on casettes.

  • How do they make their music sound so natural? It's crazy.

  • @gali32731 No computers.

  • Thanks for your input, clearly you know more than me, despite me actually making the video, I'll not make any more videos, being "clearly mental"...

  • nice work

  • I believe that Boards of Canada's music is created naturally :L.

  • I find these things are a nightmare to program. Its difficult to suppress the urge to smash it to peices with my face.

  • add a reverb from the DP/4, you get the perfect tune from BOC.

    (Has the same result with SH101 plus DP/4)

  • i want one of these so bad

  • I think it has to do more with whatever extra components are in the circuit path (amplifier and VCA). You may not be hearing differences in the VCO really. I agree that there are differences between those two with the filters open. But I'd be willing to bet it has to do with the VCA and amp path rather than the VCO directly. A CEM3340 is a CEM3340. And from a designers point of view, they would have wanted to use the least number of components possible in order to built the VCO section.

  • I never said that all vco's are made with CEMs.

    I've built modular systems and loads of VCOs, VCAs, VCFs. I also do repairs to vintage synths. In my experience, the VCF is where it is at. Give me a DCO or a VCO. As long as there is a good VCF in the circuit path, I'm happy. Arguing that different VCOs really make a "world of difference" is a bit drastic, don't you think? I've built several VCOs, from Thomas Henry XR to SSM based to hand matched transistors designs. They are all VERY similar.

  • The only real difference in VCOs is in stability and temperature drift... Whether or not it uses a Tempco or not, whether it is a VCO on a chip (CEM) or discrete. All of these things will make a difference on the stability of the oscillation, which will make differences in the perceived sound. But take out the VCF and VCA, and as long as it was built correctly, they should all sound similar, if not, identical to each other.

  • cool. When I had mine I could get a close sound for the ROYGBIV bassline as well. Roland made great filters for their synths

  • Ver nice. The thing about Boards of Canada, it sort of sounds like ambient synth music being played in a dream. I can never quite put my finger on their sound.

  • its definitely tape related. several types of tape and I don't doubt dragging their finger on it to slow it down just a tad to give it some flutter.

  • Absolutely - I've recorded my music to tape for several years and it gives the music a...warmer? sound. It's hard to describe, like you're saying.

  • was much better when you played it.. When sequenced, it looses the BoC organic feeling..

    Really cool anyway!!

  • Ok looking at the video and from memory I see this:

    LFO is only controlling a tiny bit of VCA and later on alot is put into controlling the VCF quickly, at approx 30-60sec

    Source mixer - 50% saw, 0% sq, 100% sub osc at only 1 oct below.

    VCF, from left - 20%, 50%, 100%, 0%, 0%

    VCA - A 75%, D 100%, S 0%, R 80% with the VCA shaping the VCF too.

  • Sorry fast LFO is 50-6sec

  • Comment removed

  • i've found the nord lead also makes pretty BOC stuff too.

  • Generally speaking, yeah, Nord is the sound closest to what they end using, but all it really consists of is a synth with the attack increasing the cutoff frequency to get that "wah" sound, other than that it's really just a plain synth.

    Haha, even in spite of that, I think it's pretty much impossible to replicate their actual sound, regardless of how close you might get.

  • sounds like a square wave with some slow subtle lfo modulation then that slow attack modulating the filter.

    and i agree, the 202 is king for trippy leads like this.

  • could you please post the preset settings or a high resolution screenshot of the synth in that setting? i would like to get that exact sound on my juno106 :)

  • It seems like this little guy has a TON of customization. Would you recommend it to somebody who wants really odd/custom patches, or is there something better for roughly the same price? o_o

  • Never mind... I really want to find this gem, now. :(

  • actually the 202 is quite limited, it's just the base tones and filters are nice. not that customiseable, as much as any other analogue synth anyway.

  • D: I am quite interested in the 808 model now, though. Any insight on it?

  • 808 is a drum machine. A very cool one and very expensive one (the backbone of 1980s Electro, Hip Hop (with the MPC) and Acid House). It's not a synth though, unless you are Richie Hawtin and then you get some fucked up stuff out of it - see 'Spastik'.

  • Don't you mean the "TR-808" drum machine? I'm talking about the MC-808 Sampler Groovebox. Are you...?

  • o i c, my bad

  • Does the Mc202 use the same sound engine as the SH101?

    What's the difference between the two?

  • Yes for the most part. 101 has a noise oscillator too, 202 has variable LFO speed (+ LFO delay) too. People say 101 is slightly bassier and the 202 more mid.

  • 202 is much better than 101 cause has ACCENT AND SLIDE!!!!!!!!!!

  • True, the analog stuff is going to have minor variations under an oscilloscope, but you're talking about very minor differences that not a lot of people would notice. I still stand by my comment that the CEM based stuff all sounds extremely similar, plus or minus the various configurations of all these synths.

    BTW, if you're really into these synths, I have a small lot of CEM chips (3320,3360, 3374) if you're interested in making a modular system. I never got around to doing it.

  • So you're saying two identical sine waves under an oscilloscope will sound entirely different? BTW, I'm not arguing that different VCO's sound different. That's sort of obvious, as different component values will shape the sound.

    I own an OBXa, Prophet 600, Memory Moog, Fender Chroma Polaris, and an Arp Axxe. I previously owned a Multimoog, MG-1, Juno-106, Polysix, and a PAiA Fatman.

    I'll probably sell the rest of these too soon, as they're just too much of a pain to maintain for what they are.

  • I think you're missing the point of what I was saying. Under an oscilloscope, a waveform is a waveform. So remove any filtering and whatnot, and it is all the same. The differences you're hearing between the obx-a and akai vx with everything open is just different signal processing that is occurring before and after the vco stage, and differences in the vca circuit.

  • far better in the 15 first seconds, when U play...

  • I was about to say "what signature tune, I don't recognize it.." but you said tone. well done, sounds great! I might get an sh-101, I hope it can do the same, I'll be even happier!

  • anything that uses CEM chips can do that sound.. That means Prophet, Memory Moog, and the like as well as the roland stuff (sh)

  • That is kinda bullshit.

  • How so? They all use Curtis Chips for Their VCO, VCA, and VCF stages. The basic building blocks of these are all the same. Granted, some are much more sophisticated than others, as is the case in the Rhodes Chroma Polaris which uses a 68000 CPU, but they can all achieve nearly identical sounds. I bet I could even make a patch on each one of those keyboards and you'd never be able to tell the difference between them. I own a few of them and have played them all.

  • BTW, I really think a lot of these machines are over hyped and that people seek them out for the wrong reasons. Yeah I know each one has it's own cool vibe, and that there are subtle differences between them, but for the most part, it's really just the filter stages that matter. A waveform is a waveform no matter where you go. I've achieved stuff on my computer and on modeling synths that sounds equally as good as the analog gear I own, which is why I've been selling a lot of it as of late.

  • big difference comparing old analog keyboards and a computer program that doesnt have one real oscillator in it.....just 1's and 0's

  • I really dislike soft synths, even if you do gear them up to a decent control surface. you can't beat having a dedicated synth with everything on display to tweak. though I do agree, the whole idea of "true analog" over modeling and software reeeally isn't as huge as people seem to like to imagine. as if there's some whole BoC world which is unreachable by normal means. it's true to an extent but really, not *that* important. though in terms of presets I really hate most modeling synths, eugh!!

  • I agree ofdarknessandlight, nothing beats having all the knobs in front of you, and I really hate having to go through sub menus and whatnot to edit parameters. However, if anyone here bashing digital modeling synths has ever played and A/B'ed a virus or similar higher end analog modeling synth to real analog like a moog, they'd probably agree that they are equally great in their own way.

  • Nice, but I thought normally they just reversed the recording to get that sound... Weird.

  • Awesome job!!!

    Really gets the BoC vibe.

    Check out my BoC covers. :)

  • i would say.. nicely done!

    (i want one!)

  • Souns a little like tubular bells.

  • anyone know how to do this on a SH-101?

  • anyone know how to make a similer sound on the SH-101? i tried the 202 instructions on the 101, but it didnt work :(

  • Sorry to all but youtube's system won't let me post the link to the 202 pic with the settings.

    Try Pulse wave at half, saw at zero, sub (1 oct below) at full.

    VCO at 2'

    VCF Freq at 0, Rez at half, Env at 4/5ths, others at 0

    VCA set to env with attack at 4/5ths, decay at full, sus at zero and release at full too.

    Route the lfo to pulse width if you want but it's not in the original sound, just the later bit.

  • Cool, thanks. I'm going to try this on my Alpha Juno 1...probs going to sound pants as the Juno 1 is a whole different beast to the SH/MC/106, love that sound though.

  • I have an AJ1 and they are great, nice bass and good resonant filter. Not tried this on it, not too sure if it'll work as the SH and MC are built with curtis oscillators. I program mine with a Novation Remote SL Zero, so much easier and really brings out the power of the synth. AJs and JX3Ps are Roland's secret bargains.

  • Cool, I use a PG-300 Emulator on the PC to make patches. I got sort of close to your sound but lacks that boc feel imo. In the list of secret roland bargins also add the mks-7 and sh-32 as they are total beasts of synths for the price

  • The 7 is a JX3P in a box isn't it? And the SH32 I have, like (not love) but it will be the first to go when I need rent money sadly. Another (non Roland) STEAL is the TX81Z and not just for lately bass - I'll put up the TX playing the Aphex pad sound from Selected Ambient Works when I get a chance..

  • My bad - MKS 30 is the 3P in a box. 7 is the 106 a-like. Chose the JX10 over a 106 though, Roland's misunderstood flagship but looks awesome.

  • that's just about spot on!

  • Brilliant! Thanks....never thought of using my 202 without the sequencer this way. Nice. Very nice...:) Such a rich tone...

  • hey can you PM me the statistics you used to make this song?

    thanks!

  • I'll post a link to a pic I took later. It's pretty simple tho, the key was in the long attack and the env to filter set at mac. I'll post it tho, keep an eye out!

  • perfect :P

  • awesome!

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more