Fair enough... But having said that, price is far from the only factor to consider though, surely?

Given the extremely similar architecture, I think it's pretty obvious that people are going to draw a comparison between the Boog and the SE-02.

Mother 32 is a single oscillator semi-modular... Comparing that to the SE-02 seems like comparing chalk and cheese, simply because Woolworths are selling the chalk and the cheese at the same price point.

interesting, i am running to a meeting now or would reply more and will later, but in my experience with the 6 of them chained, moving the filter or oscillator range or whatnot on the first unit would NOT change subsequent ones... and was only able to change presets and values like that from an external midi controller... unless I am or was misunderstanding something...

Okay, I thought that might have been what you were trying to say earlier, but I read it again and thought we were on the same page.

But we're not, you're mistaken. Two chained SE-02s function precisely as I outlined above. I don't know if you're trying to say that six of them would function differently for some reason, but you'd have to explain that.

Chain mode basically sets the master to be a MIDI controller for the slave(s). It's not more complicated than that. I'm not even sure what the point would be if it only allowed a master to share a preset with a slave. In any case, what I detailed is easy enough to prove:

1. Set SE-02s to same MIDI channel
2. Choose one (what you call the first unit) as Master, and set it in chain mode
3. Select a preset then confirm by tapping one, then two keys. Units sound identical.
4. Set cutoff high on the master; you'll hear both units adjust
5. Adjust cutoff low on the slave; only it will change
6. Turn down the volume of the master, so that the slave is the only one you'll hear
7. Sweep the cutoff on the master unit; you'll hear the cutoff on the slave respond
8. Change the OSC type on the master unit; you'll hear the OSC on the slave respond

Now it's possible that your experience has something to do with using an external MIDI controller rather than the SE-02 knobs themselves. Even then, I'm not sure why that would be since they share the same MIDI channel and CCs. You'll have to explain more clearly what kind of setup you were working with.

But my dual SE-02 is 10 feet away from me and just to be safe, I confirmed what I just typed. I'd shoot a video and show you, but that would take longer than just typing this out.

Hey my friend RSaintJohn, I am not arguing at all with you, lest you think I am... my apologies.

My experience at NAMM with 6 units put in poly chain mode and whatnot, put together by Scott (not tibbs), and having spent time with it, not much, certainly not as much as you with two of them in hand ... is that on unit 1, i would change something, say as pedestrian as the filter cutoff. unit 2 was not responding to that from the first se-02... and it could be the way they had it configured, as they had a separate midi controller with buttons assigned to change patch, and midi channel (there were many boutiques in the rack, so that is unimportant to this), and knobs assigned to various cc's they thought would probably be appropriate for demonstration.

So it could be a totally different way of doing it,... but if I changed the filter on the first one, the second,3,4,5,6th would NOT change, but if I changed the filter on the midi controller hooked up, the second would and 3,4,5,6 etc would as well.

which at first annoyed me, but then i realized actually the power in that in having the particular "voices" or units having different characteristics, like the old Kobol etc... AND i was able to have my cake and eat it too, with controlling all through the controller keyboard.

I spent some time going back and forth with this, and messed with both modes, and I had a mixing console next to me bringing up each individual voice on it's own channel, so I could ascertain what was happening.

That's the way it worked when I played 6 of them. Not sure if they had an interesting setup for that, as I haven't tried to chain them at home, as I only own one. And I also don't know if they were running a firmware or whatnot not available to you. But I clearly experienced that, and I will tip my hat big time to the fact YOU know the unit more then I, and have a few of them....so obviously not trying to stir anything up mate, that's just how it was setup when I played with it

and rereading what you said, and perhaps i missed something in my mucking around, as I didn't notice or test changing another vs the master as I was mainly adjusting the master, noticing that the others did NOT change,

but if I went to alter say a parameter on unit 4. i could change the cross mod or something and the rest wouldn't care.

if i did on unit 1, the rest didn't care either.

If i changed something on the midi controller assigned knob, ALL of them would lock in step.

Yes - I agree. But for myself, after I consider all the different aspects, I go with one that seems the best bang for the buck
within a certain price range.

Sometimes that bang for the buck is based on sound, like when I got a Minitaur,
and sometimes it's based on specific programming capabilities I'm after, like when I got a Blofeld.
I paid about the same for those, and they're very different.

I think if someone says - "I've got $500 to spend on a synth, $600 maximum'
it's not unreasonable to think they might consider both an SE-02 and a Mother 32.
Depending on what they're looking for, they might get either one.

Goodness, no, no stress at all. Just my terse writing style.

This is all mighty interesting. Sounds to me as if they somehow had the controller keyboard itself (A-Pro something?) configured as the master unit, and all of the SE-02s were slaves. They must have created some setting on the controller that made it "Chain Mode: ON". I could see where they might be able to configure the keyboard that way using some internal knowledge about SE-02's MIDI, or perhaps SysEx (supported on the SE-02, but unpublished).

When I use my System-8 as a controller ahead of the chain (still with one SE-02 as master), it doesn't change my scenario. But then again, other than transmitting some basic functions (pitch, mod, program change, notes), the S8 doesn't really provide the same level of control you're describing, and there's no way to change the MIDI CC on the S8's knobs.

So I don't think you missed anything. Sounds like they definitely had a special case scenario there to support the demo they wanted to do. Was it Scott Berry you were talking to? If so, I might check with him and see if he could provide clarification. I've been thinking of getting the smaller A-300 Pro controllers because the K-25m, without pitch/mod, just isn't cutting it for me. If it could be configured like the one at NAMM, that would be a bonus!

Thanks for the details and for sharing your hands-on experience! Sorry for any misunderstanding we had between us, but I'm glad we have both seen these different scenarios.

Are the envelopes snappy on the SE-02? I would have loved to have heard a comparison between the two while you had the Boog.

Yeah, and the attack is nice and fast... But I wish they'd eschewed this Model D design and included proper ADSR envelopes!

Cool, absolutely all good mate, no problems between us ever , you have been nothing other then great to me and a great contributor on here a source of hard learned information on these products as I know how much time you spend with them... I'm glad you didn't misunderstand me, because believe me, you are one of the last people on here I would want to offend as you go way beyond the call of duty and are a great guy!

And yes, it was Scott Berry, and he is a friend of mine, I will call him later and ask, it was something similar to a-300 or something (didn't look too closely, but it was white and similar config)... and I know Scott worked his ass off to make those awesome stands, as he was sending me pictures of them weeks before in construction! loads of hours at home and home depot! He's a good man.

as i only own the one se-02, i don't know the specifics of the chaining etc as I have my mind full with enough other issues trying to make stuff work! ... but yeah, it could have been something set up specific for that to easily demonstrate, as he had 2 buttons setup on the controller for patch up/down, and had mapped filter cutoff/freq and a few other parameters to a few knobs... and a knob to switch between the different boutiques. He had to either do an interview or go to the bathroom or something and left me in charge of the beast for 15 minutes or so, so he gave me the 10 second rundown so I could explain it to people walking up, and that's how it worked...

but i will find out later and get back! be well mate!

Hey rsaintjohn! just got off the phone with Scott Berry, and have some confirmations/clarifications on some things or what I experienced...

first off, they were running a firmware you and I don't have yet, not sure how much that matters in the situation I was describing, but:

yup, the a500 was the controller, the 6 se-02's were all on the same midi channel... so cc's sent from that (like 8 parameters) would effect all units.

The way the chain works with multiple units the way they had it configured for display (easier explained in terms of 6 or so), is say I were to change the filter cutoff on unit 4. It would then effect and mirror said cutoff on units 5 and 6 as well, but would not on unit 1,2 & 3. Unit 1 SHOULD mirror to the rest, but perhaps the configuration as it was was testing another option they are implementing that you and I do not have access to yet. (will restate this later in post another way)

There may have been some firmware wip bugginess going on, as yes, when I moved the filter cutoff on unit 1, the subsequent modules did not react. and scott said they are working on something or are testing something that allows, if I understood correctly, different se-02's to either react or not react to certain things..which does open up a lot of interesting flexibility (again like the old Kobols or Oberheim Matrix12/Xpanders etc) and perhaps that is what I encountered as he surmised, and he was there with me when I was doing it....

... but a new firmware update is definitely forthcoming, addressing the pattern stuff being global vs per patch etc... and others mentioned...

AND scott said to say hello to you!

Those are fantastic details, and it sounds like there's so much to look forward to with this next update. I'm really glad to see the love Roland are showing for this synth. Really appreciate you and Scott putting the time into discussing this and passing it on.

No problem my friend! Scott is a great guy, and I can shoot the **** with him all day long...(or all night as we have before with a few beers and some whiskey )... (he is also a fantastic player.... like really really good... i'm a hen pecker at best or fake it, that guy can run Hanon in his sleep...)

But i'm glad they ARE taking this thing serious, and imho, doing a great job with it... and I LOVE the way it sounds.

And I love that if I have a question about it, I can hit YOU up, as you know the beast way better then I, and have probably spent more time with it then our friends at Roland!

I just bought a TB-03 and discovered the same issue. At least it's not just mine. The problem is actually worse than you described. The pots do literally nothing below the horizon (the lines directly on the left and right of each one). 40% of the travel range is deadzone (20% at each end). I don't actually care about the precision (at least not for the TB-03). What annoys me is I can't feel when I hit the minimum or maximum value so I have to constantly look at the thing to visually confirm I'm not slowly turning a knob within its useless dead zone expecting something to happen.

I don't know how they managed to screw up something so simple on a box where they did so many other things right. Even dirt cheap low end MIDI controllers have pots that transmit 0 within 1–2mm of the point where the knob stops turning, and 127 at the other end. This isn't something that's difficult or expensive to get right.

This explanation sounds correct to me. Unfortunately several years later the problem has still not been fixed, despite plenty of firmware updates with other fixes and improvements. I don't know how anyone finds it acceptable that 40% of the movement range of every knob on the TB-03 does absolutely nothing. Within the active areas they are very precise and responsive. It should be absolutely trivial to get a detail like this right.

I do have a TB-03 and tested it in exactly the same way today. First, the TB-03 knobs are 7-bit (only 0-127) (even though the VST version of the TB-303 has 8-bit values like most of Roland's ACB and AIRA hardware and software). I can confirm that only 60% of the movement range of the pots are usable, and this is true of all 9 pots. In fact they all hit 0 and 127 at exactly the same physical positions — the third tick from the bottom or top. Maybe the problem is limited to the TB-03, but it is very real and really quite unacceptable.

I talked to Roland support about the TB-03 knob issue today. Details here (I won't clutter up this thread any further with TB-03 noise…sorry about that):
Roland TB-03

I just found this thread tonight, so I'm a bit late offering my opinion. My first synth was a Synthi-AKS in 1972. In 1973 I got an EML-101, that remained my "go-to" monosynth for about 25 years. In 1974, I got my first Minimoog. No doubt, it had that "Moog sound". Jump forward 45 years. Over that time I have had three Minimoogs that I used extensively both live and in the studio. Unlike the EML-101, the last of which I parted with in 2007, the sound of the Minimoog was somehow etched upon my brain. I don't remember when it was, exactly, but I came across Dan Fisher demoing a Behringer Model D before the production model was released. In my opinion, that was the best review of the Model D ever done. It wasn't long after the beginning of the video that Dan's demonstration of the straight oscillator sounds caused my brain to remember "Minimoog", from just the oscillators. I've always heard a difference in how the raw oscillators sound on a Mini than on any other other integrated monosynth. I didn't even need to get to the the filter (the Moog 24dB ladder filter is really a pretty simple affair that can be duplicated quite easily in both analog and digital circuitry). I knew, just from hearing the oscillators, that the Behringer was TRULY a Mini clone. I immediately pre-ordered one from Sweetwater. When it finally arrived (about three months later), when I plugged it in, it sounded just like I remember my Minis sounding. I don't have a Minimoog to A/B it with, but I have about 2hrs of tape recordings of me playing Minis. I also have about 50 patch sheets (pages that have the Mini controls depicted, on which you can mark the settings for every control on the front panel) that were from sounds on the Mini that I use in both studio and live performances. Much to my amazement, setting the Model D controls to the same positions as those on my diagrams (of course with a little tweaking, that was also necessary with a real Minimoog), the sounds produced were identical to those on the recordings. There was/is no question in my mind that the Behringer Model D is a true Mini clone, that probably would be at least as close to any clone of the Mini that Moog Music could produce (and which is within the variance of individual real classic Minimoogs, of which no two units sound exactly the same).

That brings me to why I am writing this verbose post. Recently, I became aware of the SE-02 as a Minimoog "clone" with a sequencer and the ability to save presets. I've got a number of sequencers available in my studio so, the main reason I wanted to look at the SE-02 was because of the presets. I was able to borrow one to compare to the Model D. In terms of sound, I could get some close, but on many of the the zipper noise drove me crazy. The sequencer on the SE-02 was fine, but if you have an Arturia Beatstep (or a DAW, I guess) that doesn't make any difference. Still, the ability to store patches seemed like a good reason to purchase one, even though it really didn't sound like a real Mini. Then I got to this thread and started reading it from the beginning. A couple comments caused me to reflect on just how important the ability to save patches really is. For over the 10 years I used a Minimoog on stage, I never had any problem dialing in my patch (sometimes for complicated resets, turning on the A-440 oscillator and letting the venue offer an "A-440 special" ). Another thing that I reflected upon in the early commentary here is how reliance on "presets" inhibits creativity and discovery. I seriously thought about that for a while, and ultimately decided that it was correct.

So, the way that I look at it, the Behringer Model D is much, much, closer to a Minimoog than the SE-02 from a sonic perspective. However, the ability to save presets and the sequencer do add an amount of value to a synth that can come "close" to the true emulation sound. For people who haven't heard the original enough to appreciate the differences, the SE-02 is probably the better choice. However, if you have experience with a real Minimoog and learned to love the sounds that it could make, nothing currently available comes close to the Model D!

The SE-02 is not designed to be a Minimoog clone. It takes some inspiration from it but it's a different synth.

Absolutely.

I was playing about with both yesterday. Without a doubt the Model D (Behr and Moog) filter sounds fatter to me- the SE-02 sounds a little cleaner and more focussed.

But the SE-02 has more modulation available and the sequencer.

I think they complement each other (in True Gearslut style!!)

You should have included Ivanova’s solution, too... ;-)

(granted, and weirdly, no one seems to have posted that clip to YouTube)

So it’s been awhile since this thread was busy, but I’m currently torn between getting a new Behringer Model D and a used Roland SE-02. The SE-02 is $300 even and I would just have to pay the additional sales tax (7.5%) for the $300 Model D. I do like patch memory on the SE-02 but it is not a deal breaker for the Model D. I will be sequencing from my MPC Live II.

The se 02 has a distinct sound and doesn’t sound entirely minimoogish. But it does have a great analog sound. It has a lot of cool tricks. Most would vote the d but I’d vote the se-02 if you have a convenient way to control it

Definitely SE02 if you’re not after a 1:1 mini clone. It’s just a deeper synth that achieves timbres the D can’t. I owned one and returned it because it was too small, but the sound is unbelievable and I kind of want it back now. It really sounds beefy and organic in a way some much more expensive synths don’t.

It’s hard to find a 2-3 osc synth plus xmod with an integrated sequencer. Let alone one designed by masters like SE.

I am trying to decide between some of the Behringers, the Novation Bass Station 2, the Arturia and Korg mono analog offerings, and the Roland SE-02. I know they all have their pros and cons, but so far, based on YouTube videos, the SE-02 SOUNDS the best to me.

It’s subjective I know but I had both and found myself reaching for the Model D over the SE-02 almost every time for pure tone reasons. I eventually sold the SE-02.

Now that I have my Behringer Crave on the way, I’m wanting a CV synth to use with it. I’m not concerned about building a Eurorack Monster modular, but I did pick up 3 Hungry Robot Modular pedals to compliment it (Sample/hold, Slew & output). So naturally I know at some point I need more oscillators, filters, envelopes, and the like. So a Behringer Model D or Nuetron would be the contenders for expanding. I could in theory just get a Moog Werkstat, but maybe a Crave, Model D & Werkstat is somewhat overkill. Or not??

But anyhoo, would I ever want a Roland SE-02? Perhaps. It’s probably a descent VA synth in its own right, but the tiny knobs doesn’t sound like much fun. It would just depend if I could get it at a good price.

I can score a Model D used for $250, which is half the cost of the SE-02. And maybe someday I’ll rack it in a Eurorack case, but first I’ll just use my Crave/RD6/TD3 as I save up my money to get the next synth.

It’s not virtual analog. It’s a real analog synth built by Studio Electronics and Roland.

Out of curiosity, how does an SE-02 compare to the older (but also made by Studio Electronics) SE-1?
I have the latter which I'm very happy with (it replaced my Minimoog which I later sold), but the SE-02 also appears interesting and perhaps even more versatile...

Talking about the small knobs; wasn't there an optional control box of some sort available for it?

Yes. Studio Electronics makes the EXT Box for use with the SE-02 (can be paired with other synths too). It features:

• Large filter control knob for smooth or sharp, highly articulated sweeps
• Variable high-pass filter with drive control, for severe distortion and gain boost with on/off switch
• Interface to 1/4" connections: external input/audio output
• External Input 1/8" and 1/4" multed
• Audio Output 1/8" and 1/4" multed
• Secondary VCF CV input
• Filter CV source switch: knob or secondary source selection—such as your modular
• 3 Gate options: fixed gate switch, momentary gate switch (transformer), external gate input
• Back panel 1/8"-1/4" connections: 1/8” and 1/4" inputs; 1/8” and 1/4” outputs
• Din interconnect: Output, Ext Input, VCF CV, Gate (cable included)
• True bypass
• Eurorack voltage compatible
• Interfaces with other desktop and modular synths

https://www.studioelectronics.com/pr...esktop/EXTbox/