Electronic Music Laboratories (EML) was a company out of Connecticut in the USA that produced compact semi-modular synthesizers, primarily for the educational market. At the time (late sixties, early seventies), analog synthesizers were an electronic engineering wonder and Universities seemed just as viable a market (if not, more so) than the local corner music store. The first "ElectroComp" series instruments to come from EML included the 100, 200 and 300.

The ElectroComp 100 is a duophonic keyboard-equipped synthesizer (one of the earliest polyphonics) designed to compete with the Minimoog and ARP 2600. But unlike Moog and ARP, who used transistors that would tend to drift out of tune under various operating temperatures, EML used op amps which proved to be far more stable and reliable. The 100 features very clearly laid out controls with rotary knobs and most of its patch points located along the top of the panel. It has four oscillators—that's more than the Minimoog—and they featured continuously variable waveform selection from a variety of sine, saw, square, and pulse-width shapes. It has a multi-mode filter with low pass, band pass, band reject and high pass modes. Two Attack/Decay/Sustain Envelope Generators. White and pink noise generators. A "Sampler" section provides sample-and-hold functions. Effects like Portamento. External audio inputs to the oscillator mixer, filter and output mixer sections, and control inputs for up to two keyboards and filter control. The 100 could easily be closed, secured and carried inside its wood casing.

Being among the first synthesizers from a relatively new company meant that there were not a lot of 100 models produced, and therefor the 100 is very rare. The 100 was produced over a relatively short time period, from 1970 to 1972, when it was replaced by the better-known ElectroComp 101. The 101 was in production for a decade. Common sense would seem to dictate that the 100 was the first model EML produced, followed by the 200 which appeared to be an expander system for the 100. Perhaps this was the intention during the conception of these models, however, the 200 apparently came first in 1969, immediately followed by the 100 in 1970. EML also moved from the blue-face models (pictured) to a brushed-silver face design.

ED

November 27, 2012 @ 3:33 pm

hay mikeeys,
I JUST FOUND THE S/N 164 ON MY EML 100. {WHILE GIVING IT A THOROUGH CLEANING} THIS MUST MEAN THAT I HAVE THE THIRD ONE EVER MADE AT THEIR FIRST LOCATON. IT JUST TOOK ME ON MY FIRST SYNNTH MUSICAL EXPERIENCE . I NEVER HAD AN INSTRUMENT LITERALLY TAKE ME TO PLACES THAT ONLY FEW HAVE BEEN. I LOOK FOREWARD TO MANY MORE RIDES IN THE FUTURE

Mikekees

September 14, 2012 @ 1:19 pm

I owned what I believe was the first EML 100 that was available in Philly,bought in the spring of 1972 s/n 0162. Went to the factory twice for service and mods: had the S&H added and had them make me an extension cable for the keyboard so I could place it on top of my keyboard rig and keep the controls next to my seat. Sadly, the 100 was destroyed in a fire after moving out to LA. I did get a chance to use a 101 and agree with the above post that the 100 had a much warmer sound than the 101 which sounded harsh to me.

Steve Coffill

March 16, 2012 @ 10:48 am

I had one - sold it for $400 in the 80's. WHY??????
If I only kept all my analog stuff. Now I spend all my time trying to recreate it!
Mine definitely had the blue panel. I also had a pitch wheel added at the factory.
That was a fun visit. I also remember having a frequency meter hooked up to it, so I could tune the oscillators periodically during the night.
Those were the days for sure.

plikestechno

June 9, 2011 @ 12:01 pm

Have had a 100 for a few days. Have used about 10 hours, am really enjoying it. As a synth or processor, normalled or patched. Mine has some very important mods. Filter slope now 12db, Octave switch expanded to go -2 to +2 so -3 to +3 overall. On filter mixer, noise pot now goes from White to Osc 1 instead of White to Pink. Very handy.

Highly disagree with Mark Vail and Peter Forrest's asessments in their books about it being not very musical. I find it way less harsh sounding than the 101 with the filter wide open and very musical.

plikestechno

June 9, 2011 @ 11:48 am

Meant to say

"Osc1/Env 1 or Osc 4 Ext/Env 2 to filter control with depth" in previous post.

Also, filter input mixer on 100 has ext with osc 4 and noise sweeps whtie to pink. On 101 ext input is with noise.

And of course the 100 did not come with the sample and hold option stock nor have the modulator although the modulators effects are easily done on the 100 with some patching. However on the 100 these patch points have seperate filter outputs and env triggers.

Other than these things everything is the same.

<21>

 

Post Comment!

Your Name: (Required.)

Email Address: (Required, not published.)

Image verification: (required)

Message:

 

Posting Rules:
Please keep your comments relevant! Do not post requests for help, do not use for sales, do not post unless you have something interesting to say about this instrument, or we may delete your post.

I have read and understand the posting rules.