You can’t do that with only a Roland cloud pro membership, hence the workaround using Zenology Pro.
1 Like
I just did what Roland let me do back in 2020 to mid 2021.
I got those sounds without using Zenology Pro. Really, not lying here. When I tried to fire up Zenology Pro, Roland Cloud Manager said I had to update or something. It wouldn’t let me open Zenology Pro. So i had to give up on the fucking thing.
Sorry bibenu, didn’t mention that Roland Cloud Manager is a shitty app, actually.
2 Likes
Going to be buying an SH-01A again tomorrow but I’m contemplating the MC-101. I love the SH-01A but I’m wondering how good the MC-101 can, if at all, approximate it. I do love the 101 style sequencer a lot as well. So that’s a big selling feature for me.
Thoughts on one or the other?
The MC-101/707 can easily aproximate an SH-101. The SH-101 is a square, saw, sub, and noise plus a single VCF, VCA, and a handful of modulations. The ZEN-Core engine is more than capable of generating these. For examples of how close ZEN-Core can get, look up “sh-101 model expansion”:
The thing is, the model expansion gives you a really nice interface for adjusting SH-101 parameters. But the MC-101/707 don’t support model expansions. To be clear: they are capable of creating all the same sounds, but don’t have a nice interface for adjusting them. You have to either use presets or dial in all the parameters manually. This is a pain in the ass on the MC-707 (see: https://youtu.be/XAwMcZ-toOQ). It’s way worse on the MC-101.
Part of the joy of using an SH-101/01A is freedom from presets. There are only, like, 15 faders so you just dial them in by ear in an intuitive and immersive way. That experience is not replicated in any way on the MC-101/707. But the sound is.
(Also, it’s worth noting that the SH-01A models the interaction of circuits of the original 101 (aka: “ACB”) so, glitchy or extreme settings are more “authentic”. The MCs are basically just VA synths that will sound very close in character, but are still approximations)
10 Likes
3 Likes
Acid Alex (“Xox” on Electronauts) made some great presets
4 Likes
Man ! I just wish the MC101 supported the models. I like using them in Zenology Pro since the interfaces are a bit better than the standard one. Frustrating !
1 Like
Agreed. Or make a desktop FANTOM. I’d be okay with that, too 
The fact there’s no flagship ZEN-Core desktop is just a huge whole in the lineup at the moment. And I think this has driven a lot of people to try to use the 101/707 in that space (look at the hoops people were jumping through to mod sounds on the 101 even before the update). But they’re just not a good fit. They’re (really excellent!) groove boxes, not synths or workstations.
Fingers crossed for 2023…
1 Like
Dream MC-909:
- Jupiter Xm sound engine
- MC-101/707 sequencer
- MC-707 screen, buttons and knobs
- CPU capable of 16 part multitimbrality and lots of FX
- Tasteful kintsugi finish
- no keys
3 Likes
the MCs have a sequencer mode that is 101 style, which is pretty much the same thing as far as I know. But you have the bonus of using adding the advanced sequencer capabilities of the MCs on top
1 Like
Good to know
What I liked on the Boutique was advancing the sequencer with a trigger. You could do some fun things with euro rack or TR8S.
I ended up grabbing the MC-101 this morning. I can get a similar enough sound for the 101 out of my rack. The MC-101 covers far more ground than I can with my current hardware setup. It’s also small and will pair well with any of my Elektron boxes. I most excited about having something for pads. 
4 Likes
There was already a MC-909 (as well as 303, 307, 505, 808 too)
Maybe a MC-727/606 next?
3 Likes
Love the kintsugi finish!
Would love the screen to display notes/events a timeline, so we can more easily see which are off-grid and by how much.
Roland naming scheme can be unpredictable. No idea why they released MC-505, MC-909 (Mk I, lol), then MC-707.
There is nothing here Roland couldn’t add on both the MC707 or the MC101 directly. If Roland wanted the formers could support Zenology model expansions and be that flagship Zencore desktop device.
It is unlikely the 101/707 have spare CPU/DSP cycles to support Zenology models. There are discussions elsewhere that suggest that CPU power is the major differentiating factor between the System 1/8, Jupiter X[m], Fantom 0x and big Fantom series. It seems likely that Roland designed the 101 and 707 to handle sample based tracks, and added more power to the others so they could support Zenology models.
Remember that the “Zen” architecture is essentially an evolution of the JV/XV series which started in the early '90s, so it should be extremely efficient on modern CPUs.
1 Like
There are discussions elsewhere that suggest that CPU power is the major differentiating factor between the System 1/8, Jupiter X[m], Fantom 0x and big Fantom series.
“Models” don’t come with “new engines” that would consume more CPU, that’s the exact same engine for all ZEN-Core devices so no, CPU power wouldn’t make any different. What Roland calls “models” are just the exact same parameters from the base engine but with different value ranges, nothing more, they consume the exact same amount of CPU given the same parameter whether it is on a Jupiter X or a MC707. Now maybe a Jupiter X has more “cores”, but it would only translate in more polyphony on a Jupiter X compared to a MC707.
The System 1/8 are not Zen-Core synthesizers, like (most) of the boutiques aside from the JD08 and the JX08, and D05, they use ACB not ZEN-Core/ABM, which are a completely different technologies.
There is zero technical reasons as to why the MC707/101 can’t support models if the Jupiter X/XM can, the reason is purely marketing.
On the other hand, what I obviously want is a Fantom-0 desktop. The Fantom-0 is basically a MC707 with more RAM for samples AND dedicated RAM (1GB) for loops, so basically both a MC707 with more RAM and a SP404 in one device. In fact it what the MC707 should have been at first place, at the very least.
2 Likes
That’s a great summary of the key difference. I feel the MC-101 is a great preset machine and you can use the new sound designer (Partial Editor) to create great-sounding Roland presets, but you won’t be using the MC-101 as a proper synthesizer in the performance sense of the instrument. While the four knobs on the MC-101 can be set to certain parameters, you unfortunately can’t assign them to any of the Zencore partials parameters, they’re still limited to the more familiar ones like (global, not per-oscillator) filter cutoff, resonance, ADSR etc. To some, this could be a deal breaker and a reason for going with boutique Rolands instead, and to others, it will probably not matter much. Although it’s a very different instrument, I’m touching on this in the MC-101 vs Syntakt review I made yesterday, that difference from being a live performance instrument vs more of a preset box/sound module camp.
2 Likes
Reading the recent comments here is making me think I should sell my MC707 and get an SH01a.
Every time I go back to my MC707 it’s the same pattern:
a- wow, I forgot how great this is and how good the sounds are.
b- ok, I can edit the sounds if I get into the sound edit menus.
c- why am I spending all this time in these menus.
d- this is really annoying me now and I’m wasting time. Back on the shelf with you… back to my trusty Rev2, Sub37, A4 and Digitone set up for synth duties. (Also my JDXA that I have a similar love/hate experience with).
So, yes, maybe the SH-01a is more for me.
4 Likes
True. And just to double down on what you said earlier, models are not more taxing on CPU. ABM is nothing more than mapping existing ZEN-Core parameters to macros that allow you to adjust many existing ZEN-Core settings with custom curves. Model expansions package that with a graphical front-end that makes it look and feel like the model in question (at least in Zenology, FANTOM, and whatever else supports that).
And they could totally expose those ABM mappings on the 101/707. A menu item for each on the 101 and maybe 4-6 per page of the 707.
What I feel like they’re missing compared to FANTOM’s model implementation, though, is the automatic assignment (and highlighting) of appropriate physical controls to the macro. That’s what makes playing the Sh-101 model on the FANTOM feel good.
Don’t get me wrong. Half a loaf is better than none. I’d prefer they expose the ABM macros than not. But that experience is only a small improvement over manually editing partials, IMHO. What I really want is a desktop box with a Fantom/Juno-x/Jupiter-X number of controls so that I can play whatever model I want intuitively — just with no keyboard
It’s been a while for me and the 101, but can’t you set the knobs to adjust sys-ctrl1 through sys-ctrl4? These are macros saved with the patch that can be assigned to up to 4 ZEN-Core parameters each. So you can assign a sys-ctrl to a ZEN param, and the assign a knob to the sys-ctrl, and then you can control ZEN-Core innards from the knobs.
Definitely a work-around (and this is exactly the sort of thing a proper Models implementation would do for us automatically) but might be helpful?
1 Like