We broke the news (okay, uh, I changed the contrast values on the video) of a new line of budget Roland synths last week. Details continue to leak out about those products, and though no one has heard anything yet, the public reaction has been really positive. Now we know more: portable with battery power, optional keyboard, and lots of built-in features.
It also seems that yet again, Roland’s massive distribution mechanism is incredibly leaky. (The issue is, Roland has distributors and sales staff around the world. It’s difficult to keep tabs on that many people.)
Since you’re likely to see this anyway: Muffwiggler have photos. And GearJunkies have specs, pasted here:
Roland Boutique leaked! – renew Jupiter 8, JX-3P and Juno 106
“Boutique” continues to be an odd name to me, as that is the opposite of what your association with these would be. They’re mass-market instruments in mass-market cases, likely powered by a digital platform underneath. (Anyone taking bets on ARM? FPGA?)
And as the teaser revealed explicitly, you get a Jupiter 8, a JX-3P, and a Juno 106. The big surprise in the pictures is that these come as synth modules, sans keyboards. To add keys, you mount them inside a hinged mini keyboard “dock” that apes classic instruments of the past. That could answer one of the big complaints we heard in comments about people who don’t like mini keys. Rumors say that keyboard add-on costs US$99.
Also, possibly giving the KORG volca series a run for its money, you get lots of hands-on control plus battery power. The four AA’s in the leaked specs are part of what tell you this isn’t an analog synth. Then again, the AIRA series sounds pretty darned good, if this uses the same modeling tech.
Also nice: if those leaked specs are right, you can power this over USB, there’s a built-in step sequencer, and you get a built-in audio interface for easy use with your DAW. Plus there’s a built-in speaker.
The JP-08 adds extra waveforms, there’s an improved LFO and filter on the Juno, and the JX-3P copies the control layout from the PG-200 (in case you hadn’t noticed that glowing in the pics I posted last week already).
Portable, cheap, with recognizable instruments, and lots of built-in features, I suspect this will be a hit. The optional keyboard I expect will annoy some, but it’s clever from a marketing standpoint. It encourages people to buy more than one, while still allowing all-in-one operation, and it lets the modules themselves hit a lower price point since they lack a keyboard.
Since that spoils most of this, let us know if you have questions for Roland, and we’ll try to find out if we can learn more about how these synths were modeled and what the influence of the originals was.
Here’s a look inside that dock thing, too. And it looks… okay, uh, not exactly boutique, let’s say.
And the back:
But why 4-note polyphony?
Why not just release Juno Plug-out for System1? System1 is 4-note polyphonic so it should be able to run these.
yes, yes, it’s about money, but still. You can expand voices, by buying two. It would be cooler if these would have oldschool way and just plug in voice cartridge.
Ask will these come with plugin versions. I would buy JP-08 just to have desktop controller for the plugin.
The answer here is sales. Not everyone likes the look of the Aira stuff. Myself included. However no doubt these new synths are the exact same technology. If I did own a system 1 I’d be very annoyed if they didn’t make this available for it as a plug out. There is no reason for the four voice polyphony in my opinion. That’s just a massive failure on Roland’s part
My guess is that the polyphony is part of marketing. There are stacks of good sounding synths (from Roland) with 64 and 128 voices, but that are more of a do-it-all workstations. Aira is more “serious”, a marketing trick which I think works for them.
These are probably based on the same electronics as the System-1 so 4-voice makes sense. Remember that ACB (component modelling) takes up a lot more CPU than traditional methods of VA. To keep the cost down they most likely had to have this limitation because adding more CPU can increase the costs past the point where it’s profitable.
For sure the ACB is resources hungry. You can clearly see how much more CPU (plugins!) is being used by pads, than by mono bass sounds.
Well, one complaint with the SYSTEM-1 is that you can keep releasing these plug-ins, but you can’t change the physical control layout.
They probably will release the pug-outs of them once they see how the sales are going. A prime example of that strategy is the time it took to release System-1 as a pulg-in/out. Once they sold a target number of hardware units, they released the software.
But why 4-note polyphony?
Why not just release Juno Plug-out for System1? System1 is 4-note polyphonic so it should be able to run these.
yes, yes, it’s about money, but still. You can expand voices, by buying two. It would be cooler if these would have oldschool way and just plug in voice cartridge.
Ask will these come with plugin versions. I would buy JP-08 just to have desktop controller for the plugin.
The answer here is sales. Not everyone likes the look of the Aira stuff. Myself included. However no doubt these new synths are the exact same technology. If I did own a system 1 I’d be very annoyed if they didn’t make this available for it as a plug out. There is no reason for the four voice polyphony in my opinion. That’s just a massive failure on Roland’s part
My guess is that the polyphony is part of marketing. There are stacks of good sounding synths (from Roland) with 64 and 128 voices, but that are more of a do-it-all workstations. Aira is more “serious”, a marketing trick which I think works for them.
These are probably based on the same electronics as the System-1 so 4-voice makes sense. Remember that ACB (component modelling) takes up a lot more CPU than traditional methods of VA. To keep the cost down they most likely had to have this limitation because adding more CPU can increase the costs past the point where it’s profitable.
For sure the ACB is resources hungry. You can clearly see how much more CPU (plugins!) is being used by pads, than by mono bass sounds.
Well, one complaint with the SYSTEM-1 is that you can keep releasing these plug-ins, but you can’t change the physical control layout.
They probably will release the pug-outs of them once they see how the sales are going. A prime example of that strategy is the time it took to release System-1 as a pulg-in/out. Once they sold a target number of hardware units, they released the software.
But why 4-note polyphony?
Why not just release Juno Plug-out for System1? System1 is 4-note polyphonic so it should be able to run these.
yes, yes, it’s about money, but still. You can expand voices, by buying two. It would be cooler if these would have oldschool way and just plug in voice cartridge.
Ask will these come with plugin versions. I would buy JP-08 just to have desktop controller for the plugin.
The answer here is sales. Not everyone likes the look of the Aira stuff. Myself included. However no doubt these new synths are the exact same technology. If I did own a system 1 I’d be very annoyed if they didn’t make this available for it as a plug out. There is no reason for the four voice polyphony in my opinion. That’s just a massive failure on Roland’s part
My guess is that the polyphony is part of marketing. There are stacks of good sounding synths (from Roland) with 64 and 128 voices, but that are more of a do-it-all workstations. Aira is more “serious”, a marketing trick which I think works for them.
These are probably based on the same electronics as the System-1 so 4-voice makes sense. Remember that ACB (component modelling) takes up a lot more CPU than traditional methods of VA. To keep the cost down they most likely had to have this limitation because adding more CPU can increase the costs past the point where it’s profitable.
For sure the ACB is resources hungry. You can clearly see how much more CPU (plugins!) is being used by pads, than by mono bass sounds.
Well, one complaint with the SYSTEM-1 is that you can keep releasing these plug-ins, but you can’t change the physical control layout.
They probably will release the pug-outs of them once they see how the sales are going. A prime example of that strategy is the time it took to release System-1 as a pulg-in/out. Once they sold a target number of hardware units, they released the software.
Peter, if you are going to talk to Roland, please can you ask them what they mean about the JU-06 being a limited issue. In the press release details that were posted on Zzounds (cached version here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.zzounds.com/item–ROLJU06) the JU-06 is described as being a limited edition. This irks me somewhat – almost as a cheap move to sell more units by making a mass-produced item “limited”.
If you want links to the original cached pages from Zzounds I can supply them.
Well, that would finally explain ’boutique’ – that they did this as a limited run. And they might do that, in turn, to avoid cannibalizing higher-end instruments that carry the Jupiter and Juno names and sounds, and run for a lot more money … and it might be about testing the waters.
Peter, if you are going to talk to Roland, please can you ask them what they mean about the JU-06 being a limited issue. In the press release details that were posted on Zzounds cached version here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.zzounds.com/item–ROLJU06 the JU-06 is described as being a limited edition. This irks me somewhat – almost as a cheap move to sell more units by making a mass-produced item “limited”.
If you want links to the original cached pages from Zzounds I can supply them.
Well, that would finally explain ’boutique’ – that they did this as a limited run. And they might do that, in turn, to avoid cannibalizing higher-end instruments that carry the Jupiter and Juno names and sounds, and run for a lot more money … and it might be about testing the waters.
Peter, if you are going to talk to Roland, please can you ask them what they mean about the JU-06 being a limited issue. In the press release details that were posted on Zzounds cached version here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.zzounds.com/item–ROLJU06 the JU-06 is described as being a limited edition. This irks me somewhat – almost as a cheap move to sell more units by making a mass-produced item “limited”.
If you want links to the original cached pages from Zzounds I can supply them.
Well, that would finally explain ’boutique’ – that they did this as a limited run. And they might do that, in turn, to avoid cannibalizing higher-end instruments that carry the Jupiter and Juno names and sounds, and run for a lot more money … and it might be about testing the waters.
How much ???
$300 for the Juno and JX, $400 for the Jupiter, $100 for the optional keyboard according to the leaked zZounds pages.
How much ???
$300 for the Juno and JX, $400 for the Jupiter, $100 for the optional keyboard according to the leaked zZounds pages.
How much ???
$300 for the Juno and JX, $400 for the Jupiter, $100 for the optional keyboard according to the leaked zZounds pages.
!!
!!
!!
Haven’t heard the Aira series in live, but today’s virtual analog sounds pretty awesome. Can’t wait to see how much they will be.
Haven’t heard the Aira series in live, but today’s virtual analog sounds pretty awesome. Can’t wait to see how much they will be.
Haven’t heard the Aira series in live, but today’s virtual analog sounds pretty awesome. Can’t wait to see how much they will be.
What I am finding quite awkward (if rumors are true) is: Why only four voice polyphony? I understand that mobile device CPUs are limited on processing power, but I cannot imagine that this is a technical issue. One of the strengths of the Jupiter 8 would have been its eight voices, wouldn’t it?
Difficulty with form factor and price, perhaps? Either that or the cynic in me says it’s so people buy two and chain them together.
Well,I’d rather it’s a technical limitation due to lack of DSP power than a bloody marketing decision…
This is the same tech as in the Aira system 1 no doubt. That also can only manage 4 voices.
While I agree with you that this will *most likely* be based on their ACB code base, it not being scalable in voice power, e.g. with upgraded hardware, would be an epic design fail, in my opinion.
It is an epic fail. Not like modern DSP is lacking in the ability department. I see no reason for this other than sheer negligence and/or sales numbers
It’s possible this is running on an ARM platform, for example, and then – because you scale the entire architecture to the number of voices – it absolutely would be possible that it’s a technical issue.
I mean, the truth is, we don’t know. Roland is a big company, too; they were already working on separate code bases and platforms and even platform technologies for products that on the surface may seem similar.
Apples and oranges and armchair engineering, for sure, but red oranges at least: you can run 8 voices of Sunrizer on an ARM based iPhone 3Gs. Doesn’t sound as amazing but you can run more like 30-40 voices of NanoStudio’s Eden on the same device.
hmmm
What I am finding quite awkward (if rumors are true) is: Why only four voice polyphony? I understand that mobile device CPUs are limited on processing power, but I cannot imagine that this is a technical issue. One of the strengths of the Jupiter 8 would have been its eight voices, wouldn’t it?
Difficulty with form factor and price, perhaps? Either that or the cynic in me says it’s so people buy two and chain them together.
Well,I’d rather it’s a technical limitation due to lack of DSP power than a bloody marketing decision…
This is the same tech as in the Aira system 1 no doubt. That also can only manage 4 voices.
While I agree with you that this will *most likely* be based on their ACB code base, it not being scalable in voice power, e.g. with upgraded hardware, would be an epic design fail, in my opinion.
It is an epic fail. Not like modern DSP is lacking in the ability department. I see no reason for this other than sheer negligence and/or sales numbers
It’s possible this is running on an ARM platform, for example, and then – because you scale the entire architecture to the number of voices – it absolutely would be possible that it’s a technical issue.
I mean, the truth is, we don’t know. Roland is a big company, too; they were already working on separate code bases and platforms and even platform technologies for products that on the surface may seem similar.
Apples and oranges and armchair engineering, for sure, but red oranges at least: you can run 8 voices of Sunrizer on an ARM based iPhone 3Gs. Doesn’t sound as amazing but you can run more like 30-40 voices of NanoStudio’s Eden on the same device.
hmmm
What I am finding quite awkward (if rumors are true) is: Why only four voice polyphony? I understand that mobile device CPUs are limited on processing power, but I cannot imagine that this is a technical issue. One of the strengths of the Jupiter 8 would have been its eight voices, wouldn’t it?
Difficulty with form factor and price, perhaps? Either that or the cynic in me says it’s so people buy two and chain them together.
Well,I’d rather it’s a technical limitation due to lack of DSP power than a bloody marketing decision…
This is the same tech as in the Aira system 1 no doubt. That also can only manage 4 voices.
While I agree with you that this will *most likely* be based on their ACB code base, it not being scalable in voice power, e.g. with upgraded hardware, would be an epic design fail, in my opinion.
It is an epic fail. Not like modern DSP is lacking in the ability department. I see no reason for this other than sheer negligence and/or sales numbers
It’s possible this is running on an ARM platform, for example, and then – because you scale the entire architecture to the number of voices – it absolutely would be possible that it’s a technical issue.
I mean, the truth is, we don’t know. Roland is a big company, too; they were already working on separate code bases and platforms and even platform technologies for products that on the surface may seem similar.
Apples and oranges and armchair engineering, for sure, but red oranges at least: you can run 8 voices of Sunrizer on an ARM based iPhone 3Gs. Doesn’t sound as amazing but you can run more like 30-40 voices of NanoStudio’s Eden on the same device.
hmmm
I don’t see what is so “boutique” about some 4 voice DSP synths. Nice idea, nice presentation even nice pricing but yet another massive failure on Roland’s part to just recreate a classic. Despite being DSP based synths, they have LESS polyphony than the originals ???? Why?… just why?
Nothing is “boutique” about it at all. That’s what makes that label so awkward…
Yeah, I think ’boutique’ just means something different to them than us. Like… smaller, maybe? 😉
Imagine the Japanese translation of a French word that means “small shop”…
according to merriam webster a boutique can be a store that sells “highly specialized” products. in actuality it’s just a buzzword
Wonder if by “Boutique” they’re implying “hard to come by” (as in they’re not going to make very many and you should all buy them the second you have a chance to).
I don’t see what is so “boutique” about some 4 voice DSP synths. Nice idea, nice presentation even nice pricing but yet another massive failure on Roland’s part to just recreate a classic. Despite being DSP based synths, they have LESS polyphony than the originals ???? Why?… just why?
Nothing is “boutique” about it at all. That’s what makes that label so awkward…
Yeah, I think ’boutique’ just means something different to them than us. Like… smaller, maybe? 😉
Imagine the Japanese translation of a French word that means “small shop”…
according to merriam webster a boutique can be a store that sells “highly specialized” products. in actuality it’s just a buzzword
Wonder if by “Boutique” they’re implying “hard to come by” (as in they’re not going to make very many and you should all buy them the second you have a chance to).
I don’t see what is so “boutique” about some 4 voice DSP synths. Nice idea, nice presentation even nice pricing but yet another massive failure on Roland’s part to just recreate a classic. Despite being DSP based synths, they have LESS polyphony than the originals ???? Why?… just why?
Nothing is “boutique” about it at all. That’s what makes that label so awkward…
Yeah, I think ’boutique’ just means something different to them than us. Like… smaller, maybe? 😉
Imagine the Japanese translation of a French word that means “small shop”…
according to merriam webster a boutique can be a store that sells “highly specialized” products. in actuality it’s just a buzzword
Wonder if by “Boutique” they’re implying “hard to come by” (as in they’re not going to make very many and you should all buy them the second you have a chance to).
Questions: Will it have Master Tune? Is it running at 44.1 internally when used only as a synth? When 2 modules are connected for extra polyphony, will we have to use 2 sets of audio outputs or can it be configured so that 1 unit can output all 8 voices?
considering the chain is through midi, i don’t think it would come out of a single processor unless they deliberately limited polyphony to be jerks
Questions: Will it have Master Tune? Is it running at 44.1 internally when used only as a synth? When 2 modules are connected for extra polyphony, will we have to use 2 sets of audio outputs or can it be configured so that 1 unit can output all 8 voices?
considering the chain is through midi, i don’t think it would come out of a single processor unless they deliberately limited polyphony to be jerks
Questions: Will it have Master Tune? Is it running at 44.1 internally when used only as a synth? When 2 modules are connected for extra polyphony, will we have to use 2 sets of audio outputs or can it be configured so that 1 unit can output all 8 voices?
considering the chain is through midi, i don’t think it would come out of a single processor unless they deliberately limited polyphony to be jerks
I wonder if the DCOs are modeled or actually use the 8253 (or equivalent) circuits 🙂
I wonder if the DCOs are modeled or actually use the 8253 (or equivalent) circuits 🙂
I wonder if the DCOs are modeled or actually use the 8253 (or equivalent) circuits 🙂
If these sound spot on, I’m sold. I still regret selling my Juno-106 years ago and the prices have only gone up and up. Sure the build quality of these new units are probably sh*t, but at $299…shut up and just take my money.
Metal Front and Top Panels According to one of the Roland Reps.
If these sound spot on, I’m sold. I still regret selling my Juno-106 years ago and the prices have only gone up and up. Sure the build quality of these new units are probably sh*t, but at $299…shut up and just take my money.
Metal Front and Top Panels According to one of the Roland Reps.
If these sound spot on, I’m sold. I still regret selling my Juno-106 years ago and the prices have only gone up and up. Sure the build quality of these new units are probably sh*t, but at $299…shut up and just take my money.
Metal Front and Top Panels According to one of the Roland Reps.
Really looking forward to recreating those favourite JP-8 patches using sliders that have 10mm of travel.
Roland appears hellbent on re-releasing (roughly) the same thing over and over again, while visually hinting at their classic designs in one way or another. The public wants real analog – Korg and many others have proved this in recent years. The new analog modular stuff looks nice and is a step in the right direction, but it’s pricey and frankly, very late to the game given the massive amount of Euro modular available these days (not to mention that the Euro market segment can be covered by independent makers given its inherently simple form factor and monosynth orientation – we need the big boys to provide self-contained polysynths). The mini/two-octave keyboards are a joke, but I’ve ranted about this elsewhere.
I understand that making something like a real analog vintage Jupiter would be a risky and pricey affair given its size and polyphony. But I imagine if Roland made exact replica SH-101’s, 303’s, 808’s, etc., they probably couldn’t make them fast enough. I don’t get it.
I don’t think the public wants analog. People want affordable, cool machines. These things offer amazing bang for the buck and tons of hands-on control. They’ll probably sound like the originals, too.
Why bother with decades old technology that would cost thousands and do basically the same thing? (before you start chirping about the “purity” and “smoothness” of analog, recognize that these old polysynths were driven by crude low resolution digital-to-analog converters and had very slow processors.)
Totally agree. Who gives a shit if it sounds good?
These little things are almost certainly going to run into issues with the throw of the sliders though. The sounds on the gear these are aiming to replicate are very very sensitive to minute adjustments to the sliders and how those adjustment interplay with minute adjustments on other sliders. When things get rounded to 128 for MIDI CC conformance, or when a slider that small gets broken into (hopefully, at least) 128 steps, it’s hard to argue that there is an associated loss of sonic wiggle room/potential.
Of course, those sliders are also very very sensitive to heat and humidity and human error in front of an audience. 🙂 Win some, lose some.
I expect these will sound decent. It’s the 21st century, after all, and Roland has a bit of experience with digital sound generators.
The slider issue is certainly something to consider. It’s the only thing that makes me consider the JX — I prefer knobs to short-throw sliders. That said, at this price point I understand the control limitations and I’m willing to work with them.
Totally agree on the sound expectation (I might be slightly more optimistic), the knob preference and understanding/accepting the limitations based on the asking price.
Those issues have been solved since the eighties…
First, the sliders don’t have to communicate internally via MIDI to the synth engine — Roland can use whatever in-house protocol they like.
Second, even MIDI doesn’t have an 128 step limitation for CC. You can easily chain CC controllers together and get up to 16,000+ steps for a single controller.
Third, you really think your finders can control a few inch long slider (with rest inertia) in a more finegrained way than 1/128 of it’s length?
Fourth, even controllers set to 128 steps, use interpolation in modern synths, they don’t just jump from step to step.
Cargo cults, cargo cults everywhere… (“But I can hear the difference!”)
I’d say those issues “have had solutions available” since the eighties… The first and second are very rarely implemented. More on point, I don’t think either are implemented in the Aira line but even then, that’s not what I’m talking about. And yes, amen for interpolation but that too has little to do with what I was on about. I’m talking about slider throw. Not digital vs analog. Slider throw.
On the “third”… Yes, absolutely. Might be due to shoddy sliders/electronics sometimes, but yes. Surely you’ve wrapped two fingers tightly around a slider, just pressing it a bit in one direction, not really moving it, and suddenly the beating of the PW or the quack of a resonant filter finds its happy place. Of course you’re going to find it easier to land on more of the 1/X available positions the longer a control’s throw is. Right? Are you suggesting that most engineers want 100mm+ mixer faders because they’ve all be duped by zombie analog overlords? 🙂 Throw matters and it has nothing at all do with analog or digital.
Curiosity got the best of me: I brought the photo of the JP08 into Photoshop and did some measuring based on the dimensions posted. The JP08 sliders have a 3/8 inch throw. The Jupiter 8 sliders have, best I could measure, a 1 1/4 inch throw. The best photo I could find was a little skewed but the Juno106 and the SH-101 also have 1 1/4 throw so I reckon that’s about right.
It illustrated my point by illustrating yours: if it’s hard to find 128 discernible steps on a “few inch slider (with rest inertia)” it’s going to be considerably harder to do on a 3/8” slider. 3 times as hard.
Without a doubt, never having tried the JP08 I’m just another idiot yacking out loud on the Internet but with faders 1/3 the throw of the original, most likely quantized to 128 steps, it’d be kind of foolish to think that we’re going to get access to the entire palette of the Jupiter-8 no matter how bang on the modeling is—particularly from the front panel.
I’m not dissing the product—just thinking out loud about what I think is going to be a physical limitation (probably just setting expectations for my overly excited self). Judging by the other Aira products it will sound great. If we get the main sonic character and some of the nuance of a JP8, even 80% of the palette, for $400 bucks (<5% of the current asking price) I’d vote big win for Roland and a bigger win for us. And that’s ignoring all of the rather appealing modern flourishes like, you know, MIDI. Programming it from the front panel is likely to be incredibly useful and is almost certainly going to be a lot of fun but it aint going to be programing a JP8. And that’s ok (he reminds himself).
“””Are you suggesting that most engineers want 100mm+ mixer faders because they’ve all be duped by zombie analog overlords? 🙂 “””
No, they want them because dB (that is “volume”, which is what they use sliders most for in console, not EQ/filters/etc for which they have dials) is not a linear scale. So the longer throw can make it much more accurate there.
MIDI’s 128 steps, and the things they control 99% of the time, are, however, linear. So the longer throw, while good, is not that essential.
To put it another way, you don’t see many engineers complaining that their $50.000 console doesn’t also have sliders for EQ but instead uses normal rotaries, do you?
All my yacking and you respond to my gentle ribbing/mixer analogy? mmmmk.
This is silly. 3/8″ faders (presumably) quantized to 128 steps are really really small. No? It’s part of the deal here and the deal may provide outstanding value (we get portability and affordability in the trade) but they’re small and that’s going to count as “a thing”. Never having touched one I’m of course speculating but I’m still not complaining. You sure seem hell bent on arguing with me about it though.
for rotaries it is it’s perimeter that is an equivalent for fader throw. Put big enough knob on a rotary and it can be as precise as you wish
There’s another point with this slider throw debate that I can’t believe no one else has mentioned… a non-programmable analog monosynth indeed has (theoretically) infinitely variable knob settings, but a vintage analog poly does NOT. Every patch-storable slider or knob on a vintage analog goes through an analog-to-digital converter which quantizes the control setting to a finite number of possible steps (so that it can be multiplexed and sent to all individual voices, and so that values can be stored as a patch). I don’t know what that resolution is for a JP-8, but I know that for my JP-4, the number of resolution steps is hideously low (I can’t remember), something like 32 possible steps. I’m sure they improved it substantially by the time they did the JP-8, but I doubt it’s much better than 128 steps. Anyway, this makes the whole “MIDI sucks b/c it only has 128 steps” argument kind of moot.
Regardless, personally, I can’t stand tiny pots (or keys, or knobs). They feel like toys. This is also why I have a 5U modular with big ol’ Moog-style knobs. But obviously that’s a personal thing.
A great point. To be clear, my initial concern had everything to do with throw (“tiny pots”) and I sidetracked the whole thing with comments about MIDI.
While I agree not everyone wants analogue (though a lot do as seen by the rise of analogue)- it’s the always repeated marketing scheme of claiming it sounds like e.g. a Jupiter 8 that is so bollocks that it is annoying to whomever heard one or even an mks80 (despite more jp6 style). Also better said would be, not everyone wants analogue exclusively – me included, but there is no way i’d sell my mks80 either.
“””While I agree not everyone wants analogue (though a lot do as seen by the rise of analogue)-“””
What rise of analogue? A few boutique synths (and Dave Smith, Electron, etc, even Moog, are small boutique shops compared to giants like Roland, Yamaha and co) doesn’t prove much.
Analogue mostly moved small, cheap and cheerful units, like the Korg Volca series (and MS20 is also what? $499?), we haven’t seen those $1000+ synths do that well.
And what’s your point? They are analogue, cheap or not. Since when is Dave Smith boutique? And while Yamaha and co are giants, they are so because they are not limited to the synth market. But let’s not forget, Roland went modular, partly analogue as well. Anyhoo, my original point nonetheless was exclusively directed at this decades old sales pitch that never held what it promised and is entirely unnecessary as well. It’s not like you can’t make good digital synths after all.
keep your hair on, grandad
You don’t respond well to people presenting arguments do you, young boy?
I think Roland is in a good position to say the JP-08 sounds like a Jupiter 8 because they (a) produced the original, and (b) have been making some really good digital emulations of their classic sounds lately. We shall see; I am hopeful.
They’ve also been doing that since forever, claiming sounds like sh101, jp8 or what not. It’s an old and tiresome sales pitch. Remember sh201 and the likes?
Ah, but the difference is that their System-1 *does* actually sound like the instruments it is emulating.
Can’t talk about the System 1 because I don’t have the original. I do have an MKS-80 though. And all Jupiter 8 clones etc. I’ve laid my hands on (jupiter 80 included) do not come close to its sound unless you take preset signature sounds buried in a mix with not much modulation of fuck all. But then if you want that, that’s fine. Use one then.
Why don’t we just wait until these boxes are released before passing judgement?
How is that a judgement of the box itself? It might be great in its own right without sounding exactly like a jp8. It’s a judgement of this ridiculous marketing mantra.
Obviously you don’t know me, but I’m the guy who laughs at the fools who endlessly debate analog synth spec minutiae on VSE. First of all, it’s not impossible to make a four-voice analog synth for less than “thousands.” And you can use whatever adjectives you like, but the Prophet-5 in my studio sounds better (to my ears) than any modern software or hardware virtual analog.
I’m not trying to be rude, but clearly you’re talking out your ass… there aren’t any digital-to-analog converters in an analog polysynth, because the sound generation and audio path is 100% analog. Where you’re getting confused is that old analog synths have analog-to-digital converters for the purpose of converting knob and switch movements to digital control signals (so they could be multiplexed to the redundant parameters of however many voices of polyphony the synth had, and so the parameter values could be digitally stored. The whole mess was indeed run by underpowered, ancient CPUs which again, have nothing to do with the audio path or sound generation. The only possible audible negative of any of this is that the control resolution of the knobs is limited.
The pitch of each of the 11 oscillators (yes, 11) in a P-5 is driven by a CV signal derived from a 14-bit DAC. Most of the other CV signals used to drive the P-5 voice parameters are quantized to only 7-bits (filter cutoff is one obvious exception that springs to mind).
So, yes, your Prophet-5 has an analog signal path, but the cv control of those CEM chips is driven by a crude low resolution DAC that quantizes the cv signal in an anything but smooth and continuously variable manner. The Z80-compatible processor ran at a mere 2.5 MHz (state of the art at the time) and had to scan 24 pots and then output 38 cv signals sequentially. The end result is a very slow scanning and update rate compared to modern devices (the voice controller on the design I’m currently working on runs at 32 MHz, which is par for the course as far as off-the-shelf microcontrollers are concerned).
The tone of your post implied (at least to me) that the sound quality of old synths was poor because of poor conversion to analog, i.e. it implied that the sound generation was digital and needed to be converted to analog; obviously not the case, and my mistake if I misinterpreted that.
I didn’t state anything incorrect about how the Prophet works, I just didn’t go into as much detail as you have, and what I said is still true… there’s nothing digital in the signal path, and real analog audio sounds different (and better) to many of us. (if you want to get super pedantic, I would guess that the “11th” pitch reference oscillator is some kind of primitive 4000-series logic dealie, but obviously you don’t play that and it doesn’t need DAC conversion)
I don’t claim to be an electronics expert, but as for any ill effects of “quantizing the CV signal in anything but a smooth and continuously variable manner,” I can’t see this as an issue for the basic pitch CV control of the oscillators, since you want the basic oscillator pitch response to be quantized (at least I do). And if this wasn’t done right, it would play out of tune.
I can’t imagine the osc, filter and amp inputs would be quantized (i.e. when modulated by envelope generators or LFO) – surely you’d hear the stepping. The knobs are definitely crudely quantized as I already stated, but other than limiting fine tuning range of parameters (as I also already stated), this wouldn’t affect the integrity of the sound. The only parameter on a Prophet I can see playing in real-time is the cutoff, and yes, you can hear it stepping slightly. This isn’t all that detrimental to me.
As for “extremely slow scanning and update rate,” totally true, but are you rendering 4K video, or playing a musical instrument? The only real world ill-effect I’ve noted is that the LEDs flash slower when all five-voices are firing away. As for MIDI response, it probably doesn’t respond super quick, I’ll give you that, but in my experience, the biggest reason for sluggish MIDI response is the MIDI spec itself, which will never be super quick (if I want super tight, super fast chords, I presume a plugin synth in the computer would be a better choose, but then your song would sound like Dead Or Alive or Banarama’s Venus, and that’s a much bigger problem).
Finally, I’m well aware of the unavailability of vintage voice chips (see “implied vintage Prophet ownership” section above), but Roland is a manufacturing giant and could easily make new IC analog voice chips. And I presume they could do something far more powerful and efficient (i.e. many voice on a single chip, etc.).
The 11th oscillator was used as an LFO. The Prophet-5 is actually a brilliant instrument to discuss, simply because Dave’s work set the tone for the instruments that followed in the early 1980s. But we shouldn’t forget that manufacturers were eager to step beyond the expense and complexity of digitally-controlled analog chips as quickly as they could.
Roland could fab a modern analog voice chip, but analog is a pain in the ass to work with – you find yourself running the voice chips at +9/-9 or up to +15/-15 and multiplexing analog switches and the various control lines becomes painful quickly.
From a manufacturing perspective, it makes much more sense to leverage DSP and do all the heavy lifting in low voltage digital silicon. You can power the device from batteries or USB and eliminate the expense and bulk of precision multi-output power supplies. While *we* get hung up on the beauty of things like the P-5’s CEM3310 envelope generators and their smooth analog outputs, it doesn’t matter to the broader market.
I sincerely hope Roland’s new instruments sound really good, because buying and maintaining the classic analog instruments that many slightly older CDM readers grew up with is out of reach for nearly everyone.
Agree you. Many old polysynth modulation’s and parameters are CPU driven, with just one multiplexed DAC. Those analog “purists” that just know what they read at magazines!
The sound quality is out of question, you want genuine analog sound, go for a real analogue, otherwise, if you want a sonic aproximation and don’t wanna get your old Jupiter-8 or new Prophet-12 (more than $1000 in any case) out of your studio, then you will be happy that VA exists (for least than $300). Take on account that this synths, while are modeleded after the originals, I hear them also optimized with modern dynamics and eq (I hear that on my own TR8)
I bet for an ARM for user interface and DSP for synthesis. No FPGA and not ARM synthesys (even if an ARM32 @ 96kHz can do comman VA as the Teensy 3.1)
btw, I love analogue synthesis, so I stay with Mopho, Rocket (ohh love to play just it’s filter), MicroBrute and custom euroracks, I must accept that I like TR8 and MX1, digital is kick-ass for processng and tracking and Wavetables.
Anyway, to me, everything is about THE FUN and next is the final MUSICAL WORK. Everything else, are just details (E. said)
Good Jam!
As soon as you add high cpu, non aliasing filters, and imperfections modelling to the digital domain, it sounds absolutely like analog, to the point those swearing for their old synths can’t tell them apart in a blind A/B test.
The rest is cargo culting.
That depends on how you use your synth. If you do a pop song and have some butter and bread synth in the mix, of course you won’t do the difference. Show me a plugin that sounds like a sherman filterbank used not burried in a mix of pop but highly modulated as the main actor of a let’s say slightly more avantgarde thing.
“””That depends on how you use your synth. If you do a pop song and have some butter and bread synth in the mix, of course you won’t do the difference. “””
If you do anything else with high end analog gear, and THEN sell it as a mp3, for people who normally hear through stuff like “Beats” or even worse, do you hear the difference?
If it takes an audiophile with FLAC and $300+ cans to hear your work properly, then you’re probably optimizing the wrong thing.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. What has mp3 and flac to do with this? You didn’t read what I wrote apparently.
Aside from myself not giving a damn if people listening through beats headphones can hear a difference or not – I make sounds and music predominantly for my own liking, so this kind of economic argument of “people won’t notice with their shitty head phone practices” doesn’t really appear particularly valid.
you are talking to yourself about making sounds for yourself. so why are you getting angry with other people?
I’m not angry at anyone dude, I was responding to an economical “sell it as mp3, for people who”bla argument that did not make sense in the original context, but I guess you’d know if you had read the whole thing.
totally agree, sherman filterbank (and xoxbox for that matter) are the only two analogues that I left in my studio after going digital with the rest. niuances in filter sounds get buried in the mix, but I never found a VST that had the unpredictability and the raw, unique voice of sherman filterbank
What seems oddest about these — I mean, based on limited, prematurely leaked, and possibly scurrilous information — is that they pass audio over USB, but there’s no indication that they will work with Roland’s Aira MX-1 mixer. They’re listed as 44.1khz and I believe the Aira stuff runs at 96k going in the MX-1.
Roland appears hellbent on re-releasing (roughly) the same thing over and over again, while visually hinting at their classic designs in one way or another. The public wants real analog – Korg and many others have proved this in recent years. The new analog modular stuff looks nice and is a step in the right direction, but it’s pricey and frankly, very late to the game given the massive amount of Euro modular available these days (not to mention that the Euro market segment can be covered by independent makers given its inherently simple form factor and monosynth orientation – we need the big boys to provide self-contained polysynths). The mini/two-octave keyboards are a joke, but I’ve ranted about this elsewhere.
I understand that making something like a real analog vintage Jupiter would be a risky and pricey affair given its size and polyphony. But I imagine if Roland made exact replica SH-101’s, 303’s, 808’s, etc., they probably couldn’t make them fast enough. I don’t get it.
I don’t think the public wants analog. People want affordable, cool machines. These things offer amazing bang for the buck and tons of hands-on control. They’ll probably sound like the originals, too.
Why bother with decades old technology that would cost thousands and do basically the same thing? (before you start chirping about the “purity” and “smoothness” of analog, recognize that these old polysynths were driven by crude low resolution digital-to-analog converters and had very slow processors.)
Totally agree. Who gives a shit if it sounds good?
These little things are almost certainly going to run into issues with the throw of the sliders though. The sounds on the gear these are aiming to replicate are very very sensitive to minute adjustments to the sliders and how those adjustment interplay with minute adjustments on other sliders. When things get rounded to 128 for MIDI CC conformance, or when a slider that small gets broken into (hopefully, at least) 128 steps, it’s hard to argue that there is an associated loss of sonic wiggle room/potential.
Of course, those sliders are also very very sensitive to heat and humidity and human error in front of an audience. 🙂 Win some, lose some.
I expect these will sound decent. It’s the 21st century, after all, and Roland has a bit of experience with digital sound generators.
The slider issue is certainly something to consider. It’s the only thing that makes me consider the JX — I prefer knobs to short-throw sliders. That said, at this price point I understand the control limitations and I’m willing to work with them.
Totally agree on the sound expectation (I might be slightly more optimistic), the knob preference and understanding/accepting the limitations based on the asking price.
Those issues have been solved since the eighties…
First, the sliders don’t have to communicate internally via MIDI to the synth engine — Roland can use whatever in-house protocol they like.
Second, even MIDI doesn’t have an 128 step limitation for CC. You can easily chain CC controllers together and get up to 16,000+ steps for a single controller.
Third, you really think your finders can control a few inch long slider (with rest inertia) in a more finegrained way than 1/128 of it’s length?
Fourth, even controllers set to 128 steps, use interpolation in modern synths, they don’t just jump from step to step.
Cargo cults, cargo cults everywhere… (“But I can hear the difference!”)
I’d say those issues “have had solutions available” since the eighties… The first and second are very rarely implemented. More on point, I don’t think either are implemented in the Aira line but even then, that’s not what I’m talking about. And yes, amen for interpolation but that too has little to do with what I was on about. I’m talking about slider throw. Not digital vs analog. Slider throw.
On the “third”… Yes, absolutely. Might be due to shoddy sliders/electronics sometimes, but yes. Surely you’ve wrapped two fingers tightly around a slider, just pressing it a bit in one direction, not really moving it, and suddenly the beating of the PW or the quack of a resonant filter finds its happy place. Of course you’re going to find it easier to land on more of the 1/X available positions the longer a control’s throw is. Right? Are you suggesting that most engineers want 100mm+ mixer faders because they’ve all be duped by zombie analog overlords? 🙂 Throw matters and it has nothing at all do with analog or digital.
Curiosity got the best of me: I brought the photo of the JP08 into Photoshop and did some measuring based on the dimensions posted. The JP08 sliders have a 3/8 inch throw. The Jupiter 8 sliders have, best I could measure, a 1 1/4 inch throw. The best photo I could find was a little skewed but the Juno106 and the SH-101 also have 1 1/4 throw so I reckon that’s about right.
It illustrated my point by illustrating yours: if it’s hard to find 128 discernible steps on a “few inch slider (with rest inertia)” it’s going to be considerably harder to do on a 3/8” slider. 3 times as hard.
Without a doubt, never having tried the JP08 I’m just another idiot yacking out loud on the Internet but with faders 1/3 the throw of the original, most likely quantized to 128 steps, it’d be kind of foolish to think that we’re going to get access to the entire palette of the Jupiter-8 no matter how bang on the modeling is—particularly from the front panel.
I’m not dissing the product—just thinking out loud about what I think is going to be a physical limitation (probably just setting expectations for my overly excited self). Judging by the other Aira products it will sound great. If we get the main sonic character and some of the nuance of a JP8, even 80% of the palette, for $400 bucks (<5% of the current asking price) I’d vote big win for Roland and a bigger win for us. And that’s ignoring all of the rather appealing modern flourishes like, you know, MIDI. Programming it from the front panel is likely to be incredibly useful and is almost certainly going to be a lot of fun but it aint going to be programing a JP8. And that’s ok (he reminds himself).
“””Are you suggesting that most engineers want 100mm+ mixer faders because they’ve all be duped by zombie analog overlords? 🙂 “””
No, they want them because dB (that is “volume”, which is what they use sliders most for in console, not EQ/filters/etc for which they have dials) is not a linear scale. So the longer throw can make it much more accurate towards the “compressed” end.
MIDI’s 128 steps, and the things they control 99% of the time, are, however, linear. So the longer throw, while good, is not that essential.
To put it another way, you don’t see many engineers complaining that their $50.000 console doesn’t also have sliders for EQ but instead uses normal rotaries, do you?
All my yacking and you respond to my gentle ribbing/mixer analogy? mmmmk.
This is silly. 3/8″ faders (presumably) quantized to 128 steps are really really small. No? It’s part of the deal here and the deal may provide outstanding value (we get portability and affordability in the trade) but they’re small and that’s going to count as “a thing”. Never having touched one I’m of course speculating but I’m still not complaining. You sure seem hell bent on arguing with me about it though.
for rotaries it is it’s perimeter that is an equivalent for fader throw. Put big enough knob on a rotary and it can be as precise as you wish
There’s another point with this slider throw debate that I can’t believe no one else has mentioned… a non-programmable analog monosynth indeed has (theoretically) infinitely variable knob settings, but a vintage analog poly does NOT. Every patch-storable slider or knob on a vintage analog goes through an analog-to-digital converter which quantizes the control setting to a finite number of possible steps (so that it can be multiplexed and sent to all individual voices, and so that values can be stored as a patch). I don’t know what that resolution is for a JP-8, but I know that for my JP-4, the number of resolution steps is hideously low (I can’t remember), something like 32 possible steps. I’m sure they improved it substantially by the time they did the JP-8, but I doubt it’s much better than 128 steps. Anyway, this makes the whole “MIDI sucks b/c it only has 128 steps” argument kind of moot.
Regardless, personally, I can’t stand tiny pots (or keys, or knobs). They feel like toys. This is also why I have a 5U modular with big ol’ Moog-style knobs. But obviously that’s a personal thing.
A great point. To be clear, my initial concern had everything to do with throw (“tiny pots”) and I sidetracked the whole thing with comments about MIDI.
While I agree not everyone wants analogue (though a lot do as seen by the rise of analogue)- it’s the always repeated marketing scheme of claiming it sounds like e.g. a Jupiter 8 that is so bollocks that it is annoying to whomever heard one or even an mks80 (despite more jp6 style). Also better said would be, not everyone wants analogue exclusively – me included, but there is no way i’d sell my mks80 either.
“””While I agree not everyone wants analogue (though a lot do as seen by the rise of analogue)-“””
What rise of analogue? A few boutique synths (and Dave Smith, Electron, etc, even Moog, are small boutique shops compared to giants like Roland, Yamaha and co) doesn’t prove much.
Analogue mostly moved small, cheap and cheerful units, like the Korg Volca series (and MS20 is also what? $499?), we haven’t seen those $1000+ synths do that well.
And what’s your point? They are analogue, cheap or not. Since when is Dave Smith boutique? And while Yamaha and co are giants, they are so because they are not limited to the synth market. But let’s not forget, Roland went modular, partly analogue as well. Anyhoo, my original point nonetheless was exclusively directed at this decades old sales pitch that never held what it promised and is entirely unnecessary as well. It’s not like you can’t make good digital synths after all.
keep your hair on, grandad
You don’t respond well to people presenting arguments do you, young boy?
I think Roland is in a good position to say the JP-08 sounds like a Jupiter 8 because they (a) produced the original, and (b) have been making some really good digital emulations of their classic sounds lately. We shall see; I am hopeful.
They’ve also been doing that since forever, claiming sounds like sh101, jp8 or what not. It’s an old and tiresome sales pitch. Remember sh201 and the likes?
Ah, but the difference is that their System-1 *does* actually sound like the instruments it is emulating.
Can’t talk about the System 1 because I don’t have the original. I do have an MKS-80 though. And all Jupiter 8 clones etc. I’ve laid my hands on (jupiter 80 included) do not come close to its sound unless you take preset signature sounds buried in a mix with not much modulation of fuck all. But then if you want that, that’s fine. Use one then.
Why don’t we just wait until these boxes are released before passing judgement?
How is that a judgement of the box itself? It might be great in its own right without sounding exactly like a jp8. It’s a judgement of this ridiculous marketing mantra. As an example: Quasimidi Polymorph – Says analogue emulation on it – doesn’t sound the slightest bit analogue – I would never sell it, it sounds great.
Obviously you don’t know me, but I’m the guy who laughs at the fools who endlessly debate analog synth spec minutiae on VSE. First of all, it’s not impossible to make a four-voice analog synth for less than “thousands.” And you can use whatever adjectives you like, but the Prophet-5 in my studio sounds better (to my ears) than any modern software or hardware virtual analog.
I’m not trying to be rude, but clearly you’re talking out your ass… there aren’t any digital-to-analog converters in an analog polysynth, because the sound generation and audio path is 100% analog. Where you’re getting confused is that old analog synths have analog-to-digital converters for the purpose of converting knob and switch movements to digital control signals (so they could be multiplexed to the redundant parameters of however many voices of polyphony the synth had, and so the parameter values could be digitally stored. The whole mess was indeed run by underpowered, ancient CPUs which again, have nothing to do with the audio path or sound generation. The only possible audible negative of any of this is that the control resolution of the knobs is limited.
If you’re going to accuse random strangers on the internet of talking out of their ass, it would help to have a really good understanding of how your synth actually works so you don’t make painfully incorrect assertions such as “there aren’t any digital-to-analog converters in an analog polysynth.”
The pitch of each of the 11 oscillators (yes, 11) in a Prophet-5 is generated by a DAC running at 14-bit resolution. Most of the other digitally generated CV signals used to drive the P-5 voice parameters are truncated to only the 7 most significant bits of the DAC output.
So, yes, your Prophet-5 has an analog signal path, but the CV inputs of those CEM chips are driven by a DAC that quantizes the CV signals in anything but a smooth and continuously variable manner.
The P-5’s Z80-compatible processor ran at only 2.5 MHz (state of the art at the time) and had to scan 24 analog inputs and output 38 CV lines sequentially (while handling a MIDI stream and other real-time voice control duties). The end result is an extremely slow scanning and update rate compared to modern devices.
As for the price of building an analog instrument, to recreate a Jupiter 8 would very definitely cost thousands of dollars, in part because the voice ICs incorporated into the design are now unavailable.
The tone of your post implied (at least to me) that the sound quality of old synths was poor because of poor conversion to analog, i.e. it implied that the sound generation was digital and needed to be converted to analog; obviously not the case, and my mistake if I misinterpreted that.
I didn’t state anything incorrect about how the Prophet works, I just didn’t go into as much detail as you have, and what I said is still true… there’s nothing digital in the signal path, and real analog audio sounds different (and better) to many of us. (if you want to get super pedantic, I would guess that the “11th” pitch reference oscillator is some kind of primitive 4000-series logic dealie, but obviously you don’t play that and it doesn’t need DAC conversion)
I don’t claim to be an electronics expert, but as for any ill effects of “quantizing the CV signal in anything but a smooth and continuously variable manner,” I can’t see this as an issue for the basic pitch CV control of the oscillators, since you want the basic oscillator pitch response to be quantized (at least I do). And if this wasn’t done right, it would play out of tune.
I can’t imagine the osc, filter and amp inputs would be quantized (i.e. when modulated by envelope generators or LFO) – surely you’d hear the stepping. The knobs are definitely crudely quantized as I already stated, but other than limiting fine tuning range of parameters (as I also already stated), this wouldn’t affect the integrity of the sound. The only parameter on a Prophet I can see playing in real-time is the cutoff, and yes, you can hear it stepping slightly. This isn’t all that detrimental to me.
As for “extremely slow scanning and update rate,” totally true, but are you rendering 4K video, or playing a musical instrument? The only real world ill-effect I’ve noted is that the LEDs flash slower when all five-voices are firing away. As for MIDI response, it probably doesn’t respond super quick, I’ll give you that, but in my experience, the biggest reason for sluggish MIDI response is the MIDI spec itself, which will never be super quick (if I want super tight, super fast chords, I presume a plugin synth in the computer would be a better choose, but then your song would sound like Dead Or Alive or Banarama’s Venus, and that’s a much bigger problem).
Finally, I’m well aware of the unavailability of vintage voice chips (see “implied vintage Prophet ownership” section above), but Roland is a manufacturing giant and could easily make new IC analog voice chips. And I presume they could do something far more powerful and efficient (i.e. many voice on a single chip, etc.).
The 11th oscillator was used as an LFO. The Prophet-5 is actually a brilliant instrument to discuss, simply because Dave’s work set the tone for the instruments that followed in the early 1980s. But we shouldn’t forget that manufacturers were eager to step beyond the expense and complexity of digitally-controlled analog chips as quickly as they could.
Roland could fab a modern analog voice chip, but analog is a pain in the ass to work with – you find yourself running the voice chips at +9/-9 or up to +15/-15 and multiplexing analog switches and the various control lines becomes painful quickly.
From a manufacturing perspective, it makes much more sense to leverage DSP and do all the heavy lifting in low voltage digital silicon. You can power the device from batteries or USB and eliminate the expense and bulk of precision multi-output power supplies. While *we* get hung up on the beauty of things like the P-5’s CEM3310 envelope generators and their smooth analog outputs, it doesn’t matter to the broader market.
I sincerely hope Roland’s new instruments sound really good, because buying and maintaining the classic analog instruments that many slightly older CDM readers grew up with is out of reach for nearly everyone.
Agree you. Many old polysynth modulation’s and parameters are CPU driven, with just one multiplexed DAC. Those analog “purists” that just know what they read at magazines!
The sound quality is out of question, you want genuine analog sound, go for a real analogue, otherwise, if you want a sonic aproximation and don’t wanna get your old Jupiter-8 or new Prophet-12 (more than $1000 in any case) out of your studio, then you will be happy that VA exists (for least than $300). Take on account that this synths, while are modeleded after the originals, I hear them also optimized with modern dynamics and eq (I hear that on my own TR8)
I bet for an ARM for user interface and DSP for synthesis. No FPGA and not ARM synthesys (even if an ARM32 @ 96kHz can do comman VA as the Teensy 3.1)
btw, I love analogue synthesis, so I stay with Mopho, Rocket (ohh love to play just it’s filter), MicroBrute and custom euroracks, I must accept that I like TR8 and MX1, digital is kick-ass for processng and tracking and Wavetables.
Anyway, to me, everything is about THE FUN and next is the final MUSICAL WORK. Everything else, are just details (E. said)
Good Jam!
As soon as you add high cpu, non aliasing filters, and imperfections modelling to the digital domain, it sounds absolutely like analog, to the point those swearing for their old synths can’t tell them apart in a blind A/B test.
The rest is cargo culting.
That depends on how you use your synth. If you do a pop song and have some butter and bread synth in the mix, of course you won’t do the difference. Show me a plugin that sounds like a sherman filterbank used not burried in a mix of pop but highly modulated as the main actor of a let’s say slightly more avantgarde thing.
“””That depends on how you use your synth. If you do a pop song and have some butter and bread synth in the mix, of course you won’t do the difference. “””
If you do anything else with high end analog gear, and THEN sell it as a mp3, for people who normally hear through stuff like “Beats” or even worse, do you hear the difference?
If it takes an audiophile with FLAC and $300+ cans to hear your work properly, then you’re probably optimizing the wrong thing.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. What has mp3 and flac to do with this? You didn’t read what I wrote apparently.
Aside from myself not giving a damn if people listening through beats headphones can hear a difference or not – I make sounds and music predominantly for my own liking, so this kind of economic argument of “people won’t notice with their shitty head phone practices” doesn’t really appear particularly valid.
you are talking to yourself about making sounds for yourself. so why are you getting angry with other people?
I’m not angry at anyone dude, I was responding to an economical “sell it as mp3, for people who”bla argument that did not make sense in the original context, but I guess you’d know if you had read the whole thing.
totally agree, sherman filterbank (and xoxbox for that matter) are the only two analogues that I left in my studio after going digital with the rest. niuances in filter sounds get buried in the mix, but I never found a VST that had the unpredictability and the raw, unique voice of sherman filterbank
What seems oddest about these — I mean, based on limited, prematurely leaked, and possibly scurrilous information — is that they pass audio over USB, but there’s no indication that they will work with Roland’s Aira MX-1 mixer. They’re listed as 44.1khz and I believe the Aira stuff runs at 96k going in the MX-1.
Roland appears hellbent on re-releasing (roughly) the same thing over and over again, while visually hinting at their classic designs in one way or another. The public wants real analog – Korg and many others have proved this in recent years. The new analog modular stuff looks nice and is a step in the right direction, but it’s pricey and frankly, very late to the game given the massive amount of Euro modular available these days (not to mention that the Euro market segment can be covered by independent makers given its inherently simple form factor and monosynth orientation – we need the big boys to provide self-contained polysynths). The mini/two-octave keyboards are a joke, but I’ve ranted about this elsewhere.
I understand that making something like a real analog vintage Jupiter would be a risky and pricey affair given its size and polyphony. But I imagine if Roland made exact replica SH-101’s, 303’s, 808’s, etc., they probably couldn’t make them fast enough. I don’t get it.
I don’t think the public wants analog. People want affordable, cool machines. These things offer amazing bang for the buck and tons of hands-on control. They’ll probably sound like the originals, too.
Why bother with decades old technology that would cost thousands and do basically the same thing? (before you start chirping about the “purity” and “smoothness” of analog, recognize that these old polysynths were driven by crude low resolution digital-to-analog converters and had very slow processors.)
Totally agree. Who gives a shit if it sounds good?
These little things are almost certainly going to run into issues with the throw of the sliders though. The sounds on the gear these are aiming to replicate are very very sensitive to minute adjustments to the sliders and how those adjustment interplay with minute adjustments on other sliders. When things get rounded to 128 for MIDI CC conformance, or when a slider that small gets broken into (hopefully, at least) 128 steps, it’s hard to argue that there is an associated loss of sonic wiggle room/potential.
Of course, those sliders are also very very sensitive to heat and humidity and human error in front of an audience. 🙂 Win some, lose some.
I expect these will sound decent. It’s the 21st century, after all, and Roland has a bit of experience with digital sound generators.
The slider issue is certainly something to consider. It’s the only thing that makes me consider the JX — I prefer knobs to short-throw sliders. That said, at this price point I understand the control limitations and I’m willing to work with them.
Totally agree on the sound expectation (I might be slightly more optimistic), the knob preference and understanding/accepting the limitations based on the asking price.
Those issues have been solved since the eighties…
First, the sliders don’t have to communicate internally via MIDI to the synth engine — Roland can use whatever in-house protocol they like.
Second, even MIDI doesn’t have an 128 step limitation for CC. You can easily chain CC controllers together and get up to 16,000+ steps for a single controller.
Third, you really think your finders can control a few inch long slider (with rest inertia) in a more finegrained way than 1/128 of it’s length?
Fourth, even controllers set to 128 steps, use interpolation in modern synths, they don’t just jump from step to step.
Cargo cults, cargo cults everywhere… (“But I can hear the difference!”)
I’d say those issues “have had solutions available” since the eighties… The first and second are very rarely implemented. More on point, I don’t think either are implemented in the Aira line but even then, that’s not what I’m talking about. And yes, amen for interpolation but that too has little to do with what I was on about. I’m talking about slider throw. Not digital vs analog. Slider throw.
On the “third”… Yes, absolutely. Might be due to shoddy sliders/electronics sometimes, but yes. Surely you’ve wrapped two fingers tightly around a slider, just pressing it a bit in one direction, not really moving it, and suddenly the beating of the PW or the quack of a resonant filter finds its happy place. Of course you’re going to find it easier to land on more of the 1/X available positions the longer a control’s throw is. Right? Are you suggesting that most engineers want 100mm+ mixer faders because they’ve all be duped by zombie analog overlords? 🙂 Throw matters and it has nothing at all do with analog or digital.
Curiosity got the best of me: I brought the photo of the JP08 into Photoshop and did some measuring based on the dimensions posted. The JP08 sliders have a 3/8 inch throw. The Jupiter 8 sliders have, best I could measure, a 1 1/4 inch throw. The best photo I could find was a little skewed but the Juno106 and the SH-101 also have 1 1/4 throw so I reckon that’s about right.
It illustrated my point by illustrating yours: if it’s hard to find 128 discernible steps on a “few inch slider (with rest inertia)” it’s going to be considerably harder to do on a 3/8” slider. 3 times as hard.
Without a doubt, never having tried the JP08 I’m just another idiot yacking out loud on the Internet but with faders 1/3 the throw of the original, most likely quantized to 128 steps, it’d be kind of foolish to think that we’re going to get access to the entire palette of the Jupiter-8 no matter how bang on the modeling is—particularly from the front panel.
I’m not dissing the product—just thinking out loud about what I think is going to be a physical limitation (probably just setting expectations for my overly excited self). Judging by the other Aira products it will sound great. If we get the main sonic character and some of the nuance of a JP8, even 80% of the palette, for $400 bucks (<5% of the current asking price) I’d vote big win for Roland and a bigger win for us. And that’s ignoring all of the rather appealing modern flourishes like, you know, MIDI. Programming it from the front panel is likely to be incredibly useful and is almost certainly going to be a lot of fun but it aint going to be programing a JP8. And that’s ok (he reminds himself).
“””Are you suggesting that most engineers want 100mm+ mixer faders because they’ve all be duped by zombie analog overlords? 🙂 “””
No, they want them because dB (that is “volume”, which is what they use sliders most for in console, not EQ/filters/etc for which they have dials) is not a linear scale. So the longer throw can make it much more accurate towards the “compressed” end.
MIDI’s 128 steps, and the things they control 99% of the time, are, however, linear. So the longer throw, while good, is not that essential.
To put it another way, you don’t see many engineers complaining that their $50.000 console doesn’t also have sliders for EQ but instead uses normal rotaries, do you?
All my yacking and you respond to my gentle ribbing/mixer analogy? mmmmk.
This is silly. 3/8″ faders (presumably) quantized to 128 steps are really really small. No? It’s part of the deal here and the deal may provide outstanding value (we get portability and affordability in the trade) but they’re small and that’s going to count as “a thing”. Never having touched one I’m of course speculating but I’m still not complaining. You sure seem hell bent on arguing with me about it though.
for rotaries it is it’s perimeter that is an equivalent for fader throw. Put big enough knob on a rotary and it can be as precise as you wish
There’s another point with this slider throw debate that I can’t believe no one else has mentioned… a non-programmable analog monosynth indeed has (theoretically) infinitely variable knob settings, but a vintage analog poly does NOT. Every patch-storable slider or knob on a vintage analog goes through an analog-to-digital converter which quantizes the control setting to a finite number of possible steps (so that it can be multiplexed and sent to all individual voices, and so that values can be stored as a patch). I don’t know what that resolution is for a JP-8, but I know that for my JP-4, the number of resolution steps is hideously low (I can’t remember), something like 32 possible steps. I’m sure they improved it substantially by the time they did the JP-8, but I doubt it’s much better than 128 steps. Anyway, this makes the whole “MIDI sucks b/c it only has 128 steps” argument kind of moot.
Regardless, personally, I can’t stand tiny pots (or keys, or knobs). They feel like toys. This is also why I have a 5U modular with big ol’ Moog-style knobs. But obviously that’s a personal thing.
A great point. To be clear, my initial concern had everything to do with throw (“tiny pots”) and I sidetracked the whole thing with comments about MIDI.
While I agree not everyone wants analogue (though a lot do as seen by the rise of analogue)- it’s the always repeated marketing scheme of claiming it sounds like e.g. a Jupiter 8 that is so bollocks that it is annoying to whomever heard one or even an mks80 (despite more jp6 style). Also better said would be, not everyone wants analogue exclusively – me included, but there is no way i’d sell my mks80 either.
“””While I agree not everyone wants analogue (though a lot do as seen by the rise of analogue)-“””
What rise of analogue? A few boutique synths (and Dave Smith, Electron, etc, even Moog, are small boutique shops compared to giants like Roland, Yamaha and co) doesn’t prove much.
Analogue mostly moved small, cheap and cheerful units, like the Korg Volca series (and MS20 is also what? $499?), we haven’t seen those $1000+ synths do that well.
And what’s your point? They are analogue, cheap or not. Since when is Dave Smith boutique? And while Yamaha and co are giants, they are so because they are not limited to the synth market. But let’s not forget, Roland went modular, partly analogue as well. Anyhoo, my original point nonetheless was exclusively directed at this decades old sales pitch that never held what it promised and is entirely unnecessary as well. It’s not like you can’t make good digital synths after all.
keep your hair on, grandad
You don’t respond well to people presenting arguments do you, young boy?
I think Roland is in a good position to say the JP-08 sounds like a Jupiter 8 because they (a) produced the original, and (b) have been making some really good digital emulations of their classic sounds lately. We shall see; I am hopeful.
They’ve also been doing that since forever, claiming sounds like sh101, jp8 or what not. It’s an old and tiresome sales pitch. Remember sh201 and the likes?
Ah, but the difference is that their System-1 *does* actually sound like the instruments it is emulating.
Can’t talk about the System 1 because I don’t have the original. I do have an MKS-80 though. And all Jupiter 8 clones etc. I’ve laid my hands on (jupiter 80 included) do not come close to its sound unless you take preset signature sounds buried in a mix with not much modulation of fuck all. But then if you want that, that’s fine. Use one then.
Why don’t we just wait until these boxes are released before passing judgement?
How is that a judgement of the box itself? It might be great in its own right without sounding exactly like a jp8. It’s a judgement of this ridiculous marketing mantra. As an example: Quasimidi Polymorph – Says analogue emulation on it – doesn’t sound the slightest bit analogue – I would never sell it, it sounds great.
Obviously you don’t know me, but I’m the guy who laughs at the fools who endlessly debate analog synth spec minutiae on VSE. First of all, it’s not impossible to make a four-voice analog synth for less than “thousands.” And you can use whatever adjectives you like, but the Prophet-5 in my studio sounds better (to my ears) than any modern software or hardware virtual analog.
I’m not trying to be rude, but clearly you’re talking out your ass… there aren’t any digital-to-analog converters in an analog polysynth, because the sound generation and audio path is 100% analog. Where you’re getting confused is that old analog synths have analog-to-digital converters for the purpose of converting knob and switch movements to digital control signals (so they could be multiplexed to the redundant parameters of however many voices of polyphony the synth had, and so the parameter values could be digitally stored. The whole mess was indeed run by underpowered, ancient CPUs which again, have nothing to do with the audio path or sound generation. The only possible audible negative of any of this is that the control resolution of the knobs is limited.
If you’re going to accuse random strangers on the internet of talking out of their ass, it would help to have a really good understanding of how your synth actually works so you don’t make painfully incorrect assertions such as “there aren’t any digital-to-analog converters in an analog polysynth.”
The pitch of each of the 11 oscillators (yes, 11) in a Prophet-5 is generated by a DAC running at 14-bit resolution. Most of the other digitally generated CV signals used to drive the P-5 voice parameters are truncated to only the 7 most significant bits of the DAC output.
So, yes, your Prophet-5 has an analog signal path, but the CV inputs of those CEM chips are driven by a DAC that quantizes the CV signals in anything but a smooth and continuously variable manner.
The P-5’s Z80-compatible processor ran at only 2.5 MHz (state of the art at the time) and had to scan 24 analog inputs and output 38 CV lines sequentially (while handling a MIDI stream and other real-time voice control duties). The end result is an extremely slow scanning and update rate compared to modern devices.
As for the price of building an analog instrument, to recreate a Jupiter 8 would very definitely cost thousands of dollars, in part because the voice ICs incorporated into the design are now unavailable.
The tone of your post implied (at least to me) that the sound quality of old synths was poor because of poor conversion to analog, i.e. it implied that the sound generation was digital and needed to be converted to analog; obviously not the case, and my mistake if I misinterpreted that.
I didn’t state anything incorrect about how the Prophet works, I just didn’t go into as much detail as you have, and what I said is still true… there’s nothing digital in the signal path, and real analog audio sounds different (and better) to many of us. (if you want to get super pedantic, I would guess that the “11th” pitch reference oscillator is some kind of primitive 4000-series logic dealie, but obviously you don’t play that and it doesn’t need DAC conversion)
I don’t claim to be an electronics expert, but as for any ill effects of “quantizing the CV signal in anything but a smooth and continuously variable manner,” I can’t see this as an issue for the basic pitch CV control of the oscillators, since you want the basic oscillator pitch response to be quantized (at least I do). And if this wasn’t done right, it would play out of tune.
I can’t imagine the osc, filter and amp inputs would be quantized (i.e. when modulated by envelope generators or LFO) – surely you’d hear the stepping. The knobs are definitely crudely quantized as I already stated, but other than limiting fine tuning range of parameters (as I also already stated), this wouldn’t affect the integrity of the sound. The only parameter on a Prophet I can see playing in real-time is the cutoff, and yes, you can hear it stepping slightly. This isn’t all that detrimental to me.
As for “extremely slow scanning and update rate,” totally true, but are you rendering 4K video, or playing a musical instrument? The only real world ill-effect I’ve noted is that the LEDs flash slower when all five-voices are firing away. As for MIDI response, it probably doesn’t respond super quick, I’ll give you that, but in my experience, the biggest reason for sluggish MIDI response is the MIDI spec itself, which will never be super quick (if I want super tight, super fast chords, I presume a plugin synth in the computer would be a better choose, but then your song would sound like Dead Or Alive or Banarama’s Venus, and that’s a much bigger problem).
Finally, I’m well aware of the unavailability of vintage voice chips (see “implied vintage Prophet ownership” section above), but Roland is a manufacturing giant and could easily make new IC analog voice chips. And I presume they could do something far more powerful and efficient (i.e. many voice on a single chip, etc.).
The 11th oscillator was used as an LFO. The Prophet-5 is actually a brilliant instrument to discuss, simply because Dave’s work set the tone for the instruments that followed in the early 1980s. But we shouldn’t forget that manufacturers were eager to step beyond the expense and complexity of digitally-controlled analog chips as quickly as they could.
Roland could fab a modern analog voice chip, but analog is a pain in the ass to work with – you find yourself running the voice chips at +9/-9 or up to +15/-15 and multiplexing analog switches and the various control lines becomes painful quickly.
From a manufacturing perspective, it makes much more sense to leverage DSP and do all the heavy lifting in low voltage digital silicon. You can power the device from batteries or USB and eliminate the expense and bulk of precision multi-output power supplies. While *we* get hung up on the beauty of things like the P-5’s CEM3310 envelope generators and their smooth analog outputs, it doesn’t matter to the broader market.
I sincerely hope Roland’s new instruments sound really good, because buying and maintaining the classic analog instruments that many slightly older CDM readers grew up with is out of reach for nearly everyone.
Agree you. Many old polysynth modulation’s and parameters are CPU driven, with just one multiplexed DAC. Those analog “purists” that just know what they read at magazines!
The sound quality is out of question, you want genuine analog sound, go for a real analogue, otherwise, if you want a sonic aproximation and don’t wanna get your old Jupiter-8 or new Prophet-12 (more than $1000 in any case) out of your studio, then you will be happy that VA exists (for least than $300). Take on account that this synths, while are modeleded after the originals, I hear them also optimized with modern dynamics and eq (I hear that on my own TR8)
I bet for an ARM for user interface and DSP for synthesis. No FPGA and not ARM synthesys (even if an ARM32 @ 96kHz can do comman VA as the Teensy 3.1)
btw, I love analogue synthesis, so I stay with Mopho, Rocket (ohh love to play just it’s filter), MicroBrute and custom euroracks, I must accept that I like TR8 and MX1, digital is kick-ass for processng and tracking and Wavetables.
Anyway, to me, everything is about THE FUN and next is the final MUSICAL WORK. Everything else, are just details (E. said)
Good Jam!
As soon as you add high cpu, non aliasing filters, and imperfections modelling to the digital domain, it sounds absolutely like analog, to the point those swearing for their old synths can’t tell them apart in a blind A/B test.
The rest is cargo culting.
That depends on how you use your synth. If you do a pop song and have some butter and bread synth in the mix, of course you won’t do the difference. Show me a plugin that sounds like a sherman filterbank used not burried in a mix of pop but highly modulated as the main actor of a let’s say slightly more avantgarde thing.
“””That depends on how you use your synth. If you do a pop song and have some butter and bread synth in the mix, of course you won’t do the difference. “””
If you do anything else with high end analog gear, and THEN sell it as a mp3, for people who normally hear through stuff like “Beats” or even worse, do you hear the difference?
If it takes an audiophile with FLAC and $300+ cans to hear your work properly, then you’re probably optimizing the wrong thing.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. What has mp3 and flac to do with this? You didn’t read what I wrote apparently.
Aside from myself not giving a damn if people listening through beats headphones can hear a difference or not – I make sounds and music predominantly for my own liking, so this kind of economic argument of “people won’t notice with their shitty head phone practices” doesn’t really appear particularly valid.
you are talking to yourself about making sounds for yourself. so why are you getting angry with other people?
I’m not angry at anyone dude, I was responding to an economical “sell it as mp3, for people who”bla argument that did not make sense in the original context, but I guess you’d know if you had read the whole thing.
totally agree, sherman filterbank (and xoxbox for that matter) are the only two analogues that I left in my studio after going digital with the rest. niuances in filter sounds get buried in the mix, but I never found a VST that had the unpredictability and the raw, unique voice of sherman filterbank
What seems oddest about these — I mean, based on limited, prematurely leaked, and possibly scurrilous information — is that they pass audio over USB, but there’s no indication that they will work with Roland’s Aira MX-1 mixer. They’re listed as 44.1khz and I believe the Aira stuff runs at 96k going in the MX-1.
When I saw first pics of those new synths, I immediately had to think of the so-called “Chibi” style in Manga and Anime: cute miniaturization images of serious characters.
Anyway: when these synths sound as good as the System-100 and Promars plugins and the workflow convenience equals the AIRA line, these 3 babies will be winners.
I do hope that I can connect and power them via USB on the MX-1.
When I saw first pics of those new synths, I immediately had to think of the so-called “Chibi” style in Manga and Anime: cute miniaturization images of serious characters.
Anyway: when these synths sound as good as the System-100 and Promars plugins and the workflow convenience equals the AIRA line, these 3 babies will be winners.
I do hope that I can connect and power them via USB on the MX-1.
When I saw first pics of those new synths, I immediately had to think of the so-called “Chibi” style in Manga and Anime: cute miniaturization images of serious characters.
Anyway: when these synths sound as good as the System-100 and Promars plugins and the workflow convenience equals the AIRA line, these 3 babies will be winners.
I do hope that I can connect and power them via USB on the MX-1.
These are looking rather tasty—lots to like.
From gearjunkies on the JP8: “With 36 of the original parameters accessible from the front panel…”
Makes me wonder: 1) what’s missing exactly? and 2) if the rest is available via MIDI CCs.
Is the Audio Input available at the analog output? For quick mobile set ups, would be nice to be able to use it as a summing device. I see no volume for it though.
Since it has MIDI Out, would be cool if the JX-03 could also work as a PG-200 for the actual synth. I really hope the MIDI Outs will also work as MIDI THRU. I miss you, ubiquitous THRU jacks!
Presuming they all have the same DSP internals… would also be incredibly cool if you could turn one into a zombie version (=no panel control) of another so that you could buy, say the Juno and the JP8 but turn the Juno into a JP-chain-mode-slave as needed for 8-voice polyphony.
These are looking rather tasty—lots to like.
From gearjunkies on the JP8: “With 36 of the original parameters accessible from the front panel…”
Makes me wonder: 1) what’s missing exactly? and 2) if the rest is available via MIDI CCs.
Is the Audio Input available at the analog output? For quick mobile set ups, would be nice to be able to use it as a summing device. I see no volume for it though.
Since it has MIDI Out, would be cool if the JX-03 could also work as a PG-200 for the actual synth. I really hope the MIDI Outs will also work as MIDI THRU. I miss you, ubiquitous THRU jacks!
Presuming they all have the same DSP internals… would also be incredibly cool if you could turn one into a zombie version (=no panel control) of another so that you could buy, say the Juno and the JP8 but turn the Juno into a JP-chain-mode-slave as needed for 8-voice polyphony.
These are looking rather tasty—lots to like.
From gearjunkies on the JP8: “With 36 of the original parameters accessible from the front panel…”
Makes me wonder: 1) what’s missing exactly? and 2) if the rest is available via MIDI CCs.
Is the Audio Input available at the analog output? For quick mobile set ups, would be nice to be able to use it as a summing device. I see no volume for it though.
Since it has MIDI Out, would be cool if the JX-03 could also work as a PG-200 for the actual synth. I really hope the MIDI Outs will also work as MIDI THRU. I miss you, ubiquitous THRU jacks!
Presuming they all have the same DSP internals… would also be incredibly cool if you could turn one into a zombie version (=no panel control) of another so that you could buy, say the Juno and the JP8 but turn the Juno into a JP-chain-mode-slave as needed for 8-voice polyphony.
I know, having lusted after a Jupiter-8 since Duran Duran’s first record, that the JP-08, presuming it sounds good, may be hard to resist at $399. That said/note to future self: in the world of VA polysynths, I’ll need to lie to myself a bit to buy this instead dropping extra $100 on Waldorf Blofeld with it’s rather smashing sound and synthesis options. Not to mention an actual order of magnitude more voices (40) spread across 16 part multitimbrality.
I know, having lusted after a Jupiter-8 since Duran Duran’s first record, that the JP-08, presuming it sounds good, may be hard to resist at $399. That said/note to future self: in the world of VA polysynths, I’ll need to lie to myself a bit to buy this instead dropping extra $100 on Waldorf Blofeld with it’s rather smashing sound and synthesis options. Not to mention an actual order of magnitude more voices (40) spread across 16 part multitimbrality.
I know, having lusted after a Jupiter-8 since Duran Duran’s first record, that the JP-08, presuming it sounds good, may be hard to resist at $399. That said/note to future self: in the world of VA polysynths, I’ll need to lie to myself a bit to buy this instead dropping extra $100 on Waldorf Blofeld with it’s rather smashing sound and synthesis options. Not to mention an actual order of magnitude more voices (40) spread across 16 part multitimbrality.
Big thumbs up about the built in arp. I can imagine using one as a nice little contained groovebox with lots of hands on control. Also good to see more battery powered units like this. I’ve held off for a while, but I’m wanting to make a live setup using entirely ‘toy’ units like these, and volcas, etc and play impromptu sets in parks and street corners.
Big thumbs up about the built in arp. I can imagine using one as a nice little contained groovebox with lots of hands on control. Also good to see more battery powered units like this. I’ve held off for a while, but I’m wanting to make a live setup using entirely ‘toy’ units like these, and volcas, etc and play impromptu sets in parks and street corners.
edit: does anyone know what the ribbons are yet? just mod and pitch bend? it sounded from the description like the pitch bend sent a note trigger as well.
Big thumbs up about the built in arp. I can imagine using one as a nice little contained groovebox with lots of hands on control. Also good to see more battery powered units like this. I’ve held off for a while, but I’m wanting to make a live setup using entirely ‘toy’ units like these, and volcas, etc and play impromptu sets in parks and street corners.
edit: does anyone know what the ribbons are yet? just mod and pitch bend? it sounded from the description like the pitch bend sent a note trigger as well.
Will the sequencer be able to double as an arpeggiator?
Will the sequencer be able to double as an arpeggiator?
Will the sequencer be able to double as an arpeggiator?
So, with the additions to the JX-3P architecture re-creation, namely cross-mod, is it now basically a JX-8P in 3P livery?
So, with the additions to the JX-3P architecture re-creation, namely cross-mod, is it now basically a JX-8P in 3P livery?
So, with the additions to the JX-3P architecture re-creation, namely cross-mod, is it now basically a JX-8P in 3P livery?