Ok, you can store up to 128 sequence patterns and this is amazing. But, my question is can you chain the patterns only in real time by pressing some buttons? Or you can store the chain pattern as it is in the internal memory in order to restore it later as already assembled?

Where I can find the manual? Sorry guys but there is no way to figure out how this sequencer works, this is a crucial part for my decision in order to get this beauty, because I think that not only the SE – 02 sounds great, I think that it is a great tool for inspiration.

Yet another question, this is 64 steps or a 16 steps sequencer?

Can the sequencer be used to control external gear such as the System-1m?

Google will take you to the manual, alternatively look for the product's page on Roland's website under the support tab. You can also search in the support section of Roland's website.

16 steps sequencer.

There's a song mode:

A song consists of 1–16 (maximum) parts.
For each part, you can specify a pattern, the number of
times that the pattern is repeated, and the sound (patch)
used during playback.
Up to 16 songs can be stored.

Check the SE-02 manual for full details on how it works.

Thank you very much.

This sequencer can help me a lot to organize my bass lines (for each song separately) for my performances or recordings.

Yes

Nothing wrong with being older, and being right.
I had predicted the law of diminishing intelligence would go in lockstep
with technology 30 years ago, so what you are saying does not shock me.

Look how much "smart technolgy" make some compliant and reliant!
part of the big picture, i suppose!

Outstanding performance and video - great work.

I saw that my local dealer has it listed as "in stock" so I went there to give it a try. My synth guy there was like "you haven't been here for like three months! What's up with you?" LOL. As I'm off GAS right now.

The SE-2 indeed is capable of synth strings, even though from memory the AS-1 (=P6) was a bit more "lush".

The knobs seemed quite usable for such a tiny device. But I don't like those micro switches, especially as they need to be switched all the time when toggling between modes.

The (optional) keyboard was dead below the lower a#. Is this possibly due to a "false" setting?

How do you switch sequences? Can it do pattern chaining?

That was so beautiful. Thanks.

Cool, dude! What ride is it in the video? Sabian big and ugly?

Thanks! No I'm an Istanbul Agop user, its a 24" 30th anniversary. Its sick.

Don't know what the issue would be there, I'm using the SE-02 with the K-25M keyboard every day without any issues.

Turn the value knob while the SE-02 is in Sequencer Mode to advance it from one pattern to another. You can do this while it's playing, so you could advance (for instance) from pattern #90 to #91 . But you're better off to use Song Mode, which lets you chain patterns (which answers your second question there).

In case you want to see what's inside the SE-02, here's my teardown:



https://www.flickr.com/photos/psychl...57685399706662

I didn't remove the panel board. There likely isn't much of interest there anyway.

Pete

Thanks - awesome detail as usual!

Interesting to see that they use an ESC2 in there, considering that this is not a DSP based synth. I suppose it's used as a housekeeping SOC, running the MIDI, keyboard, USB (audio!), UI, voice control, sequencer etc.. I notice a PIC24F32 on the voice board, possibly running the modulators and maybe something else. Since Roland has used ARMs in other Boutiques, and there's a 16 bit PIC on the analog board, I speculate that the analogue board is Studio Electronics domain, and the digital board is Roland's - as in a pretty sharp division of duties.

Don't forget the delay, that's one more digital thing to run.

There are details on what the PIC does in here.

They're an ASIC, described by Roland as a "DSP" but neither strictly FPGA nor a general-purpose DSP core.

Demora application here:

My thoughts exactly. It has been claimed that they're FPGAs. I don't think so and have put forth an argument for that, which I can't find, but luckily I often write postings offline so I have a copy which I'll just paste here:

I can think of several reasons why Roland's ACB chips aren't FPGAs:

- Large FPGAs are something you buy from Xilinx, Altera etc., developing one yourself for low volume production together with the tools needed is normally not practical or economical. Part of of the point of FPGAs is that you don't have to make a chip yourself.
- The ACB code runs on serial CPUs (x86) and maintaining a HDL and and serial language version of the same emulation would be vey resource consuming.
- The ESC/BMC chips are in so many products that ease of development has to be one of their key points, i.e. not using HDL.
- The Aira modules are patchable modular processors using a tiny app to configure a patch, and a tiny tool for dynamic/free-form FPGA reconfiguration like that is not plausible.

So what are the ESC chips then? I don't know, because I can't find a single relevant reference, but at a guess it's a serial CPU/SoC, possibly multi core, with a particularly useful architecture and instruction set for circuit emulation. It could have efficient maths instructions (trig, log, exp, roots and such), good vectorization capabilities, system interface suitable for easy integration in audio devices. Those kinds of things. Of course Roland aren't in the habit of divulging technical details like that, so we may never know.

Synths are low volume products, and developing them requires fairly quick and easy methods. R&D programmes into proprietary FPGAs and related tools, as well as manufacturing them and then implementing designs on them, is anything but quick and easy.

Anyone know if the existing boutique cases from UDG/Magma etc fit the SE-02? As small as this thing is, I don't want to risk damaging it in transit..

Sounds hella good btw! With the recent rumours of the behri D getting a price hike in the EU, I am feeling rather smug about getting a SE-02 right now

Lastly, what is the volt range for the CV filter input? -5V/+5V? Having a hard time finding this info..

regarding the sequencer and the 'only a single cv' limitation: is it capable of controlling one different parameter per each step ?
What happens to filter cutoff recorded at step 5, if i later record resonance at step 15 ?

Yes, it's capable of controlling one different parameter per step.

Filter cutoff recorded at step 5 won't be affected even if you automate other things like resonance at other steps. Filter cutoff will just stay at where you left it at step 5.

I think Nick's explanations are clear (~21:00):

Thanks Toybox. Sounds good.

My local Guitar Center is finally stocking stuff like this now. I first response to seeing was, wow it's really that small? Then I played it and immediately wished there was a version just a tad bigger. I'm sure I'm not the only person to complain about the size in this thread.

There have been a lot of talk about the size

I had to laugh. BUT, I've been thinking this very thing for a few years now. The Prophet tone isn't all that dissimilar to a Moog texture. One of us here did a video where they copied a Sub 37 and P~6 patch for patch very closely. So give the P~6 some thought when you hanker for an analog poly. It has a good, solid, rich tone. Or OB-6 if you think you want something lighter and more Oberheimy. Dave and Tom really are hard to beat. Plus, there's that Novation Peak thingy...

I'm seriously thinking of panelizing it and making a minimoog-scale synth out of it.

What I'd do:

Either recreate the front panel completely (I'm trying to identify the exact mezzanine connector they're using) in full size, or flying-wire full-size panel-mounted pots/switches to the existing board. Former requires adding in the latches and everything else on that board. Latter is a crapload of wiring.

Once I had that, I'd stick it in a box with the guts of a basic 4 octave keyboard controller (with aftertouch and pitch/mod) and then a midi merge/arpeggiator for integration.


I have a full notebook of projects to do, but I'd really like to do this given the simplicity. It would double the cost of the synth, but, IMO, it would be fun.

The little 25 key keyboard is helpful, but in addition to size and pitch/mod, you miss out on all the dynamics the presets have wired to aftertouch.

Pete

I was thinking something else.

My argument is that if they have their own branded ic's they also are deeply involved in the toolchain.
They could have created middleware that compiles to multiple hardware platforms, hdl included.
They could also run a cpu core on the (assumed) fpga.
But one fact gives a lot of thought. The plugouts on pc run like crap. So a heavy abstraction layer on pc seems quite possible.

Developing an in house development environment would also be a good reason to use the crap out of these current ic's. Standardized tools, portable hardware.
Also this would allow them to upgrade hardware without developing a new software platform.
What i'm trying to say is it would make sense to invest a lot in development tools and abstract the hardware away.

They also may want to run very different kinds of algorithms and general purpose cpu's may not be sufficiently flexible given the range of roland products.

So fpga makes a lot of sense to me.

EDIT:
I forgot to mention the biggest advantage of abstracting away the hardware
Your core software development environment will stay the same for years, even decades. It provides a realistic way to port their algorithms to future hardware platforms. Which means roland can then translate all their in-house tech, their IP, to that software platform and be done with it for a looong time. It would be their custom roland virtual parts library or something to that effect. They wouldn't need to rewrite it for the hardware platform du jour.

Also, you mention that maintaining a HDL would be time consuming. I don't think so. There is a pretty developed market for things like C to HDL compilers. I don't think it would be that hard for a big company to make some bridging layer to allow them to develop independant of actual hardware.

Indeed what you end up running on an FPGA is some kind of custom CPU.

Also a DSP is rather a "specialized CPU" than "not a CPU". And those chips they sell as "CPU" these days rather "contain" what originally was called a CPU in the early days when a lot of external components were needed that all are on chip these days.

Um, wow, Nate. What you are doing is inspiring on so many levels. Thanks!

And this is a great example of some of the advantages of a huge sound in a small form-factor...

Thanks!

I want to make some videos demonstrating the pwm of the se-02, which I find to be one of its most appealing features over a typical mini layout. To keep it ot I’ll post those when I do.