Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Why? Roland. Why? - Rompler Effect Routing Idiocy


Recommended Posts

The classic Roland Romplers from JV/XP to Fantom allowed user to apply insertion effects (Roland calls it MFX) down to each of up to 4 tones (also called "partial", or "layer", or "element") that make up a patch. In other words, each tone in a 4-layer patch can decide individually:

1)Whether it wants to send through the MFX

 

2)How much it wants to send through the MFX

 

Starting from Integra-7, Roland moronically eliminated that flexibility and now you can only choose between applying MFX equally to all tones or have no MFX at all. In other words, now the MFX application is a "Patch" level decision and not a "Partial/Tone/Layer" level decision any more.

 

This is moronic because:

1)Those few lines of code to enable "Partial/Tone/Layer" level effects-routing was written in the early 90's and has worked well for every JV/XP/XV/Fantom synth. It doesn't make sense to strip away something that simply works.

 

2)"Partial/Tone/Layer" level effects routing is not just some incidental feature that has little practical usage. One typical case where you need that is piano sound layering. It's extremely common to layer an acoustic piano tone with an electric one. And you would usually apply effects like chorus and phaser etc only to the electric piano tone, but not the acoustic one.

 

Now with Roland's moronic decision, when you pull up a typical piano patch that involves both acoustic and electric piano tones, all the chorus/phaser/tremolo/etc effects intended for the EP are applied indiscriminately to the AP tone. As a result, the patch sounds cheap and "flangy".

 

Those of you who may have noticed how certain keyboard patches (e.g. "MIDIed Grand")from your JV/XP/XV synths sounds "off" when you played them in Integra-7 (or Zenology, and likely most recent Roland romplers for that matter). Now you know why.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Eek...really? That is really dumb.

Yamaha: Motif XF8, MODX7, YS200, CVP-305, CLP-130, YPG-235, PSR-295, PSS-470 | Roland: Fantom 7, JV-1000

Kurzweil: PC3-76, PC4 (88) | Hammond: SK Pro 73 | Korg: Triton LE 76, N1R, X5DR | Emu: Proteus/1 | Casio: CT-370 | Novation: Launchkey 37 MK3 | Technics: WSA1R

Former: Emu Proformance Plus & Mo'Phatt, Korg Krome 61, Roland Fantom XR & JV-1010, Yamaha MX61, Behringer CAT

Assorted electric & acoustic guitars and electric basses | Roland TD-17 KVX | Alesis SamplePad Pro | Assorted organs, accordions, other instruments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eek...really? That is really dumb.

 

Yes, we only need to compare a few PCM (non Super Natual) patches on the Integra-7 (or Zenology, and very likely other recent Roland romplers) with their namestake counterparts on a JV/XP/XV synth to notice the difference. And by "differences" I really mean deterioration, for the reason I mentioned above.

 

Roland romplers' synthesis structure changed little in the last 30 years. Most of the "upgrades" happened on the effects and sample sizes.

 

And they are notorious for recycling their old sounds. Having essentially the same rompler engine for 30 years makes their sound designers' job much easier, when they try to bring legacy sounds of the JV/XP onto the XV/Integra/FA/New-Juno synths.

 

I personally don't have a problem with that since it reduces the need to keep old rompler racks around. But why they took out something that worked perfectly fine with no apparent reason boggles my mind. With that said, having experienced my fair share of Bozoism in the corportate world, I wouldn't be surprised if the decision was made by someone lacking some basic experience with sound design or understanding of Eric Persing's intent on the original JV sounds.

 

On the flip side, Roland's success in recycling JV sounds for the last 20 years goes to show how powerful the JV's hardware (RISC CPUs) and software were 30 years ago and how well that architecture stood against the test of time. What dates these machines now are mostly just their tiny samples, a reflection of high memory prices at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My DS61 allows each part 1 through 16 in a patch to send its output through the MFX or directly to L or R or L&R. So maybe the integra7 is limited but the lowly DS seems to not have that problem.

What you described is the "Part" or "Patch" level EFX routing, which is standard feature for pretty much any romplers made after the early 90's.

 

Under the hood, each of the 16 parts (individual patches) on your DS consists of another 4 sub-parts. Different brands refer to these sub-parts by different names. Partial, tone, layer, element are the commonly used jargons. What Roland had on their older romplers but took out on the Integra-7 (and likely most of their newer romplers) is the option to route each of these sub-parts to the MFX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the flip side, Roland's success in recycling JV sounds for the last 20 years goes to show how powerful the JV's hardware (RISC CPUs) and software were 30 years ago and how well that architecture stood against the test of time.

IMO, this is exactly why Roland would have taken away the ability to use MFX at the granular level of a partial/tone. Especially so when later model products incorporate sounds as presets with "baked in" MFX. Nowadays, a phased EP and a slightly wet AP can be layered as a combination/performance. :cool:

PD

 

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn, is just to love and be loved in return."--E. Ahbez "Nature Boy"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the flip side, Roland's success in recycling JV sounds for the last 20 years goes to show how powerful the JV's hardware (RISC CPUs) and software were 30 years ago and how well that architecture stood against the test of time.

IMO, this is exactly why Roland would have taken away the ability to use MFX at the granular level of a partial/tone. Especially so when later model products incorporate sounds as presets with "baked in" MFX.

 

That doesn't make sense. MFX has been "baked in" the patches since JV-1080. And we had the option to add vanilla flavor to the cake but not the nuts. What Roland does now on the newer synth is applying the same flavor, with the same intensity, to all the ingredients in your cake.

 

Nowadays, a phased EP and a slightly wet AP can be layered as a combination/performance. :cool:

 

Again, Combi/Performance has been standard feature since JV-1080, nothing new here (except increasing MFX count from 1 in JV-1080 to 16 on the Integra-7). So the patch layering capability has always been there, except that now you're forced to resort to Combi/Perf layering if you want a chorused/phasered EP layered with a dry AP. (and who puts a chorus or phaser on AP?) It's actually way more annoying than that, coz you'll have to dial in two identical patches on two parts, disable all EP tones and MFX on one part (serving as the clean AP layer), and then disable AP tone(s) on the other part (serving as the EP layer).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since the sounds haven't changed much over 30 years, it's a good thing there's plenty Rolands (JV, XV and XR) still floating around.:cool:

PD

 

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn, is just to love and be loved in return."--E. Ahbez "Nature Boy"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe this is a general statement, but other than guitars, V-piano and EP's, Roland hasn't focused on acoustic instruments.

 

For some of us, having excellent acoustic instruments, in all categories, is a big deal.

 

Yamaha, with Montage/MODX has done a very good job IMO, on acoustic instrument quality.

Why fit in, when you were born to stand out ?

My Soundcloud with many originals:

[70's Songwriter]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they are notorious for recycling their old sounds. Having essentially the same rompler engine for 30 years makes their sound designers' job much easier, when they try to bring legacy sounds of the JV/XP onto the XV/Integra/FA/New-Juno synths.

 

I personally don't have a problem with that since it reduces the need to keep old rompler racks around. buy any new Roland

 

Fixed. ;) Got my little XV2020 box and an iPad editor. That scratches my Roland itch.

Moe

---

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe this is a general statement, but other than guitars, V-piano and EP's, Roland hasn't focused on acoustic instruments.

Moving from general to more specific, many of the Supernatural acoustic tones in the Jupiter-80 are quite nice (e.g., trumpet, violin). Some are better than others (which is usually the case in any board) but at least there is an ample selection. I realize I"m referencing a ten-year-old board... Not sure if the SN acoustic tones are available in their newer boards, like the Fantom.

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing."

- George Bernard Shaw

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe this is a general statement, but other than guitars, V-piano and EP's, Roland hasn't focused on acoustic instruments.

Moving from general to more specific, many of the Supernatural acoustic tones in the Jupiter-80 are quite nice (e.g., trumpet, violin). Some are better than others (which is usually the case in any board) but at least there is an ample selection. I realize I"m referencing a ten-year-old board... Not sure if the SN acoustic tones are available in their newer boards, like the Fantom.

 

thx for that. I tested the new Fantom for what I needed on orchestra , string sections, brass , reeds. There were some SN's but not enough to cover my bases.

Why fit in, when you were born to stand out ?

My Soundcloud with many originals:

[70's Songwriter]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about this. Looking at the Fantom 6_7_8 reference manual, it appears you can adjust IFX routing and amount for tones if you go into Tone Edit Pro mode - as well as a bunch of other stuff.

 

Have you tried this on a new Fantom, and found it not to be true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have yet to dig into the FX routing in my Roland MC-101. I might report if i find anything interesting.

 

Last time I posted anything overtly critical of Roland, I got blasted to Kingdom Come by somebody here with every invective in the book. Dude would have killed me with his bare hands if he was talking to me in person - he was that furious with me. :laugh:

 

Anyway, I'll see how it goes....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since the sounds haven't changed much over 30 years, it's a good thing there's plenty Rolands (JV, XV and XR) still floating around.:cool:

 

True that. Little nits like this makes me feel less silly about my (extremely redundant) collection of JV, XP, XV racks/boards.

 

And they are notorious for recycling their old sounds. Having essentially the same rompler engine for 30 years makes their sound designers' job much easier, when they try to bring legacy sounds of the JV/XP onto the XV/Integra/FA/New-Juno synths.

 

I personally don't have a problem with that since it reduces the need to keep old rompler racks around. buy any new Roland

 

Fixed. ;) Got my little XV2020 box and an iPad editor. That scratches my Roland itch.

 

Yup. And I'd recommend the XV-5050. It offers onboard editing (although inconvenient compared to your iPad editor), better expansion capacity, and a digital output, for just a little more than the XV2020 on the current market.

 

Oh, the 5050 also doesn't involve the wall wart and midi cable/adapter that's inherent with the half-rack-synth+iPad configuration.

 

I'm not sure about this. Looking at the Fantom 6_7_8 reference manual, it appears you can adjust IFX routing and amount for tones if you go into Tone Edit Pro mode - as well as a bunch of other stuff.

 

Have you tried this on a new Fantom, and found it not to be true?

 

A quick search in the NEW-FANTOM reference manual revealed that the same idiocy I mentioned is there. In other words, MFX is applied undiscriminately to all partials.

 

Btw, the stupid marketing "New Speak" in the New-FANTOM manual immediately caught my eye. A "Performance" is now called a "Scene", a "Part" called a "Zone", and a "Patch" called a "Tone".

 

I can live with different brands naming the same concept in their own ways. But within a brand's own product lines, you'd expect some consistency. The last example is particularly annoying and confusing because the jargon "Tone" used to refer to a "Partial" on every synth from JV/XP to Old-FANTOM. And that's likely where you got the impression that New-FANTOM offers "Tone" level FX routing.

 

Using widely accepted names to refer to new, different things is a rookie mistake in UI/UX design. Unfortunately it's also a common sin committed by marketing bozoes, and someone at Roland obviously enjoyed doing that.

 

I have yet to dig into the FX routing in my Roland MC-101. I might report if i find anything interesting.

 

Last time I posted anything overtly critical of Roland, I got blasted to Kingdom Come by somebody here with every invective in the book. Dude would have killed me with his bare hands if he was talking to me in person - he was that furious with me. :laugh:

 

Anyway, I'll see how it goes....

If someone is willing to go that kind of length to defend a brand, that brand is likely part of his/her identity. And there's no hope of rational discussion at that point. We see this all the time on topic like iPhone vs. Android, PC vs. Mac, Canon vs. Nikon, Democrat vs. GOP, Religion A vs. Religion B, Sports Team A vs. Team B...

 

And in case my post sounds like brand bashing, it's not. I'm not attached to or against particular brands, and I'm sure the majority of any major brands' employees are doing a decent job. Issues like what I mentioned can often be the result of just one or several bozoes that weren't mindful enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone has different wants & needs but I don't find this to be an issue with some of the new Roland gear. Depends on what you're using of course.

 

Considering for example an FA-6/7/8 which can stack 16 patches - each with their own individual MFX - You have way more flexibility with how you create your patches. Switching between various layers of patches within a Studio Set is seamless, instant and glitch free. You can have 16 different EP's (or whatever) in one Studio Set if you want, each tweeked slightly different, and call them up instantly with just one touch of a pad. This is way more flexible then a JV could ever be. It's a different way of constructing patches & layers compared to their older stuff, but I like it way more because of the flexibility provided working in a Studio Set. To have 16 MFX's available at once (plus the system effects and individual EQ per part) is a huge advantage compared to their older romplers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good News:

 

I just checked the New-FANTOM parameter guide (not the reference manual), and it shows that partials output can choose between DRY and MFX.

 

It's still not flexible as the JV/XP/XV/Old-FANTOM's partial FX routing options, but at least we can turn off MFX on the AP partial(s) in a layered piano patch now.

 

Since this output option is listed under the title "ZEN-Core Tone Parameters", likely other ZEN-Core instruments also benefit from this little correction of the routing idiocy on Integra-7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is moronic because:

1)Those few lines of code to enable "Partial/Tone/Layer" level effects-routing was written in the early 90's and has worked well for every JV/XP/XV/Fantom synth. It doesn't make sense to strip away something that simply works.

It's a matter of trade-offs. The problem with the old method was that, while "it simply worked" in one sense, it didn't work in another. Specifically, Roland used to give you a lot more flexibility about where you could put effects, but since there was still a limit on the total number of effects available, as soon as you split/layered multiple sounds, they would not necessarily sound like they did when played individually. If you'd used up all your effect resources on individual sounds, there would be no way to play more than one of those sounds at a time and have them sound the way you expected them to. With the Integra/FA, they introduced a new paradigm of one dedicated effect per keyboard-playable sound. This meant you couldn't get fancy with multiple effects on a single sound, but it also meant that you could split/layer 16 sounds at a time, and each sound would sound exactly the same as when you played that sound by itself. There is not a clearly better or worse approach here, neither is moronic, and the difference is not merely a few lines of code, it's all the effect resources that would be required to let you put lots of effects on individual sounds *and* have them sound the same no matter what combination you played them in. If you can't do both, you have to make a design decision as to which is the more important goal.

Maybe this is the best place for a shameless plug! Our now not-so-new new video at https://youtu.be/3ZRC3b4p4EI is a 40 minute adaptation of T. S. Eliot's "Prufrock" - check it out! And hopefully I'll have something new here this year. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, the stupid marketing "New Speak" in the New-FANTOM manual immediately caught my eye. A "Performance" is now called a "Scene", a "Part" called a "Zone", and a "Patch" called a "Tone".

 

I can live with different brands naming the same concept in their own ways. But within a brand's own product lines, you'd expect some consistency. The last example is particularly annoying and confusing because the jargon "Tone" used to refer to a "Partial" on every synth from JV/XP to Old-FANTOM. And that's likely where you got the impression that New-FANTOM offers "Tone" level FX routing.

 

Using widely accepted names to refer to new, different things is a rookie mistake in UI/UX design.

I agree with you about naming conventions. It is confusing that, for example Juno DS uses Tones that are assembled into Patches which can be combined in Performances, while the FA/Integra/AX-Edge use Partials that are assembled into Tones which are combined with effect and EQ to become Parts which in turn can be combined into Studio Sets (FA/Integra) or Programs (AX-Edge). Now add the Jupiter 50/80 architecture (Live Sets, Registrations), and the new Fantom architecture (Zones, Scenes), and it definitely makes your head hurt. Sometimes you can see why they needed some new names, but sometimes it seems like they arbitrarily use different names for the same things. In the case of "Tone" they use the same word to mean different things on different models. Ouch.

Maybe this is the best place for a shameless plug! Our now not-so-new new video at https://youtu.be/3ZRC3b4p4EI is a 40 minute adaptation of T. S. Eliot's "Prufrock" - check it out! And hopefully I'll have something new here this year. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is moronic because:

1)Those few lines of code to enable "Partial/Tone/Layer" level effects-routing was written in the early 90's and has worked well for every JV/XP/XV/Fantom synth. It doesn't make sense to strip away something that simply works.

It's a matter of trade-offs. The problem with the old method was that, while "it simply worked" in one sense, it didn't work in another. Specifically, Roland used to give you a lot more flexibility about where you could put effects, but since there was still a limit on the total number of effects available, as soon as you split/layered multiple sounds, they would not necessarily sound like they did when played individually. If you'd used up all your effect resources on individual sounds, there would be no way to play more than one of those sounds at a time and have them sound the way you expected them to. With the Integra/FA, they introduced a new paradigm of one dedicated effect per keyboard-playable sound. This meant you couldn't get fancy with multiple effects on a single sound, but it also meant that you could split/layer 16 sounds at a time, and each sound would sound exactly the same as when you played that sound by itself. There is not a clearly better or worse approach here, neither is moronic, and the difference is not merely a few lines of code, it's all the effect resources that would be required to let you put lots of effects on individual sounds *and* have them sound the same no matter what combination you played them in. If you can't do both, you have to make a design decision as to which is the more important goal.

 

I'm all for increasing the amount of insertion effects. But increasing effect module count doesn't have to come at the cost of losing partial level FX routing flexibility. In fact, one has to go out of his/her way to take that out. So it's more like a sabotage than a compromise, from a purely technical point of view.

 

Text is about the worst form of discussing about these issues, and this is a Keyboard Players' forum rather than a Synth Sound Designers' forum, so I don't expect many folks here to fully grasp or care about the nitty gritty of the issue without me visually (and aurally) demonstrating it.

 

Anyways, I appreciate your response and since I can at least turn partials to DRY on the Zen-Core instruments, a bit of my interest in the new Roland romplers is restored. Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, the stupid marketing "New Speak" in the New-FANTOM manual immediately caught my eye. A "Performance" is now called a "Scene", a "Part" called a "Zone", and a "Patch" called a "Tone".

 

I can live with different brands naming the same concept in their own ways. But within a brand's own product lines, you'd expect some consistency. The last example is particularly annoying and confusing because the jargon "Tone" used to refer to a "Partial" on every synth from JV/XP to Old-FANTOM. And that's likely where you got the impression that New-FANTOM offers "Tone" level FX routing.

 

Using widely accepted names to refer to new, different things is a rookie mistake in UI/UX design.

I agree with you about naming conventions. It is confusing that, for example Juno DS uses Tones that are assembled into Patches which can be combined in Performances, while the FA/Integra/AX-Edge use Partials that are assembled into Tones which are combined with effect and EQ to become Parts which in turn can be combined into Studio Sets (FA/Integra) or Programs (AX-Edge). Now add the Jupiter 50/80 architecture (Live Sets, Registrations), and the new Fantom architecture (Zones, Scenes), and it definitely makes your head hurt. Sometimes you can see why they needed some new names, but sometimes it seems like they arbitrarily use different names for the same things. In the case of "Tone" they use the same word to mean different things on different models. Ouch.

 

Yup, you got it Scott.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone is willing to go that kind of length to defend a brand, that brand is likely part of his/her identity. And there's no hope of rational discussion at that point. We see this all the time on topic like iPhone vs. Android, PC vs. Mac, Canon vs. Nikon, Democrat vs. GOP, Religion A vs. Religion B, Sports Team A vs. Team B...

 

And in case my post sounds like brand bashing, it's not. I'm not attached to or against particular brands, and I'm sure the majority of any major brands' employees are doing a decent job. Issues like what I mentioned can often be the result of just one or several bozoes that weren't mindful enough.

 

My virtual beating in this forum as punishment for whatever I said about Roland happened long enough ago that I can't remember what it was that I said that set off the person who attacked me. I've no doubt that whatever I said was too immature and whiny for his taste - not saying that your post had either characteristic though! It's possible to express frustration while still sounding relatively mature and I think you pulled that off.

 

Back in those days I was still unaware of the struggles that other forum members might be having in their private lives. I believe it turned out that this person was having some hard times and I just happened to catch him at a time when he was in a mood to lash out at somebody, anybody.

 

I have some frustrations of my own with my MC-101 though it's not FX related and therefore not on topic, so i won't elaborate here. I'm just saying I get that we all need to vent sometimes. Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...If you'd used up all your effect resources on individual sounds, there would be no way to play more than one of those sounds at a time and have them sound the way you expected them to.

 

With the Integra/FA, they introduced a new paradigm of one dedicated effect per keyboard-playable sound. This meant you couldn't get fancy with multiple effects on a single sound, but it also meant that you could split/layer 16 sounds at a time, and each sound would sound exactly the same as when you played that sound by itself.

 

There is not a clearly better or worse approach here, neither is moronic, and the difference is not merely a few lines of code, it's all the effect resources that would be required to let you put lots of effects on individual sounds *and* have them sound the same no matter what combination you played them in. ...

 

I think you might be missing part of the point here. I'll use my JV-1000 as an example. It is old enough that it has no MFX, just a chorus section and a reverb section that has two delays as well. But it allows a user to select the individual send level for each tone (or partial or element or whatever you will). It is *not* an issue of using too many MFX or such by having individual MFX per layer (maybe some newer Rolands let you, I don't know). Having the capability of individual sends from each tone doesn't mean you use any more effects than the current method. All it means is that you can have individual control in that patch of how much of the reverb, chorus, and MFX each tone will have. That doesn't increase or decrease FX allocation.

 

As an example, I'll use something I set up on my JV-1000 a few weeks ago. Let's say you want a piano and pad layer, but you want it in one patch. On that board, you can have a piano wave and a pad wave (with independent controllers as well which is nice for fading in elements), and have it set so that the piano has almost no reverb and zero chorus, but the pad has more reverb and a fair bit of chorus. That's one single patch, and it still only uses the single reverb and single chorus. When you drop it into a performance/multi, those send levels per tone stay the same, they just send to whatever the Performance's reverb and chorus types are. That doesn't use one iota more of FX circuitry.

 

Hope that makes sense?

Yamaha: Motif XF8, MODX7, YS200, CVP-305, CLP-130, YPG-235, PSR-295, PSS-470 | Roland: Fantom 7, JV-1000

Kurzweil: PC3-76, PC4 (88) | Hammond: SK Pro 73 | Korg: Triton LE 76, N1R, X5DR | Emu: Proteus/1 | Casio: CT-370 | Novation: Launchkey 37 MK3 | Technics: WSA1R

Former: Emu Proformance Plus & Mo'Phatt, Korg Krome 61, Roland Fantom XR & JV-1010, Yamaha MX61, Behringer CAT

Assorted electric & acoustic guitars and electric basses | Roland TD-17 KVX | Alesis SamplePad Pro | Assorted organs, accordions, other instruments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess if it bugs you enough to vent about it, it's all good. It's just not something that particularly bugs me - and I'm an old Roland hand from everything JV to X. I probably have done hundreds of custom patches over the years using the old Tone - Patch - Performance hierarchy.

 

I'm happy the old Performance mode is gone - it was pretty klutzy. If Roland wants to call it's replacement something different that's ok with me too. Out with the old as they say...

 

I'm really interested in the new Fantom. It's just tough to justify when I'm not generating any income as a keyboard player right now. But eventually...

 

Edit: Post directed towards OP not you MMM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you might be missing part of the point here.

Possibly yes. I was talking about total available effects, which is indeed different from a shared effect, and whether the amounts of that shared effect can be altered among the shared items.

Maybe this is the best place for a shameless plug! Our now not-so-new new video at https://youtu.be/3ZRC3b4p4EI is a 40 minute adaptation of T. S. Eliot's "Prufrock" - check it out! And hopefully I'll have something new here this year. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...If you'd used up all your effect resources on individual sounds, there would be no way to play more than one of those sounds at a time and have them sound the way you expected them to.

 

With the Integra/FA, they introduced a new paradigm of one dedicated effect per keyboard-playable sound. This meant you couldn't get fancy with multiple effects on a single sound, but it also meant that you could split/layer 16 sounds at a time, and each sound would sound exactly the same as when you played that sound by itself.

 

There is not a clearly better or worse approach here, neither is moronic, and the difference is not merely a few lines of code, it's all the effect resources that would be required to let you put lots of effects on individual sounds *and* have them sound the same no matter what combination you played them in. ...

 

I think you might be missing part of the point here. I'll use my JV-1000 as an example. It is old enough that it has no MFX, just a chorus section and a reverb section that has two delays as well. But it allows a user to select the individual send level for each tone (or partial or element or whatever you will). It is *not* an issue of using too many MFX or such by having individual MFX per layer (maybe some newer Rolands let you, I don't know). Having the capability of individual sends from each tone doesn't mean you use any more effects than the current method. All it means is that you can have individual control in that patch of how much of the reverb, chorus, and MFX each tone will have. That doesn't increase or decrease FX allocation.

 

As an example, I'll use something I set up on my JV-1000 a few weeks ago. Let's say you want a piano and pad layer, but you want it in one patch. On that board, you can have a piano wave and a pad wave (with independent controllers as well which is nice for fading in elements), and have it set so that the piano has almost no reverb and zero chorus, but the pad has more reverb and a fair bit of chorus. That's one single patch, and it still only uses the single reverb and single chorus. When you drop it into a performance/multi, those send levels per tone stay the same, they just send to whatever the Performance's reverb and chorus types are. That doesn't use one iota more of FX circuitry.

 

Hope that makes sense?

 

Thank you, Mighty Motif Max. You offered an excellent example of the issue I raised. It's the first response in this thread that made me feel like: "YES!, finally someone who gets it."

 

With that said, I do realize that text is a poor medium to discuss about sound design and effects routing with. So I appreciate everyone offering their perspectives and trying to help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone is willing to go that kind of length to defend a brand, that brand is likely part of his/her identity. And there's no hope of rational discussion at that point. We see this all the time on topic like iPhone vs. Android, PC vs. Mac, Canon vs. Nikon, Democrat vs. GOP, Religion A vs. Religion B, Sports Team A vs. Team B...

 

And in case my post sounds like brand bashing, it's not. I'm not attached to or against particular brands, and I'm sure the majority of any major brands' employees are doing a decent job. Issues like what I mentioned can often be the result of just one or several bozoes that weren't mindful enough.

 

My virtual beating in this forum as punishment for whatever I said about Roland happened long enough ago that I can't remember what it was that I said that set off the person who attacked me. I've no doubt that whatever I said was too immature and whiny for his taste - not saying that your post had either characteristic though! It's possible to express frustration while still sounding relatively mature and I think you pulled that off.

 

Back in those days I was still unaware of the struggles that other forum members might be having in their private lives. I believe it turned out that this person was having some hard times and I just happened to catch him at a time when he was in a mood to lash out at somebody, anybody.

 

I have some frustrations of my own with my MC-101 though it's not FX related and therefore not on topic, so i won't elaborate here. I'm just saying I get that we all need to vent sometimes. Cheers!

 

I understand how easily people (myself included) become agitated or even abusive in tough times. It's still no excuse for that kind of behavior. You're a very friendly person and don't deserve the verbal abuse, especially when the point was on an abstract concept like a brand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe my Motif XF has yet another way of routing elements - it allows each element to be selectively passed through Insert A, Insert B, both Inserts, or neither (just to the master fx). It does not have individual sends to my knowledge.

Yamaha: Motif XF8, MODX7, YS200, CVP-305, CLP-130, YPG-235, PSR-295, PSS-470 | Roland: Fantom 7, JV-1000

Kurzweil: PC3-76, PC4 (88) | Hammond: SK Pro 73 | Korg: Triton LE 76, N1R, X5DR | Emu: Proteus/1 | Casio: CT-370 | Novation: Launchkey 37 MK3 | Technics: WSA1R

Former: Emu Proformance Plus & Mo'Phatt, Korg Krome 61, Roland Fantom XR & JV-1010, Yamaha MX61, Behringer CAT

Assorted electric & acoustic guitars and electric basses | Roland TD-17 KVX | Alesis SamplePad Pro | Assorted organs, accordions, other instruments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...