Finally, JD-800 in Software

[AROIOS]

[video:youtube]

[dalpozlead]

long awaited!

I wonder what is in Roland's future after all heritage gear available in one single board with all those models!

[AROIOS]

long awaited!

I wonder what is in Roland's future after all heritage gear available in one single board with all those models!

 

Haha, the Roland executives are most likely scratching their heads over the same question. Other than SuperNatual and V-Piano, it seems they've been largely just banking on the JV architecture or virtualizing vintage gear in the last 20 years.

[Dr Mike Metlay]

I'm still scratching my head over turning the most beautifully control-heavy hardware synth Roland ever made into a plug-in that requires a mouse.

[ProfD]

I'm still scratching my head over turning the most beautifully control-heavy hardware synth Roland ever made into a plug-in that requires a mouse.

I'm slightly curious to know what kind of sounds a software JD-800 will deliver that Roland hasn't already ported over to their other synths, ROMplers and Zenology.

[AROIOS]

I'm still scratching my head over turning the most beautifully control-heavy hardware synth Roland ever made into a plug-in that requires a mouse.

 

True that.

 

Although to Roland's credit, they've done a generally good job on implementing mouse wheel support on their virtual instruments. We just need to hover the cursor over any lever/knob and turn the mouse wheel to change them. We can even hold down Shift for increment in 10s. It's nowhere near JD-800's convenience, but on other Roland Cloud version romplers (JV-1080, SRX, etc), using the mouse is a much more pleasant experience compared to scrolling through pages and moving between parameters on a tiny 2-row/4-row interface.

[AROIOS]

I'm still scratching my head over turning the most beautifully control-heavy hardware synth Roland ever made into a plug-in that requires a mouse.

I'm slightly curious to know what kind of sounds a software JD-800 will deliver that Roland hasn't already ported over to their other synths, ROMplers and Zenology.

 

There's actually quite a few interesting ones.

 

For example, the one EP patch constantly stirring up interest is "Crystal Rhodes". It's so universally recognizable thanks to Walter Afanasieff's commercial success in the 90's. Even Eric Persin, the creator of this patch, sampled it in Keyscape.

 

Since we are on this topic, some of Roland's decisions never made sense to me, even from a business perspective:

 

1) The new JVs (1080/2080/1010, XP30/50/60/80) had all the waveforms from the old JVs (80/880/90/1000) and is capable of reproducing the old JV patches faithfully. Yet, Roland ditched a bunch of excellent old-JV patches when they came out with JV-1080. I understand that this might have been their attempt to protect the sales of JV-1000, which wasn't discontinued til 1996. But why not include the old JV patches in the JV2080 that came out in 1997, when all old JV sales have already stopped?

 

2) similarly, the XVs had all the waveforms and even the effect blocks of the JDs, but Roland a) didn't bother porting over any JD patches. b) didn't use the JD waveforms or effects on the XV patches. It's almost like they just wanted to lure the buyers in by mentioning JD waveforms/effects in marketing, but then leave them to figure out how to recreate JD patches from a scratch. What a cruel joke.

 

Luckily enough for those resourceful/determined enough, it's relatively easy to recreate old JV patches on new JVs/XVs. And it's tedious but still possible to recreate JD patches on the XV too.

 

But heck, I would have happily paid Roland an extra $100 in either case just for not having to keep an old-JV/JD around.

[David Emm]

I'm still scratching my head over turning the most beautifully control-heavy hardware synth Roland ever made into a plug-in that requires a mouse.

 

I'm with Mike. The JD-800 is almost a fantasy Minimoog, where its very much about the grab-ability. I'm quite happy to mouse most things, but the JD is a player's synth. Half the value is lost if you don't dig into the sliders. Only a median number of synthesizers are inviting in a tactile sense. I'm amused to see how approachable the new GForce OB-E monster feels to me and its bristling with knobs. By contrast, this JD feels like a swing-&-a-miss, especially since its audio DNA is omnipresent. One shining aspect I loved was the random patch generator. That was a rare feature and it set the thing 2 steps above the pack. In Cloud terms, if you have Roland's D-50 and any two or three others, you basically have a JD-800.

[vonnor]

No touch-screen support?

[Dave Bryce]

I'm still scratching my head over turning the most beautifully control-heavy hardware synth Roland ever made into a plug-in that requires a mouse.

 

I'm with Mike. The JD-800 is almost a fantasy Minimoog, where its very much about the grab-ability. I'm quite happy to mouse most things, but the JD is a player's synth.

So, how do you fine gentlenen explain the success of the JD-990? Is it just about the extra features/analog expansion?

 

I think the 800/990 have a unique sound. I dropped it into my JP-X yesterday, and was quite pleased to have those sounds back (I sold my 990 a while back). Fun to stack them with the other synths, too - the aforementioned Crystal EP is reeeeeal nice with JP-8/JX pads.

 

dB

[ProfD]

1) The new JVs (1080/2080/1010, XP30/50/60/80) had all the waveforms from the old JVs (80/880/90/1000) and is capable of reproducing the old JV patches faithfully.

 

2) similarly, the XVs had all the waveforms and even the effect blocks of the JDs, but Roland a) didn't bother porting over any JD patches. b) didn't use the JD waveforms or effects on the XV patches.

 

Luckily enough for those resourceful/determined enough, it's relatively easy to recreate old JV patches on new JVs/XVs. And it's tedious but still possible to recreate JD patches on the XV too.

IMO, the essence of sound design (creativity) lies in having access to the waveforms and synthesis. Patches just provide an example of the possbilities.

[Mike Martin]

1) The new JVs (1080/2080/1010, XP30/50/60/80) had all the waveforms from the old JVs (80/880/90/1000) and is capable of reproducing the old JV patches faithfully. Yet, Roland ditched a bunch of excellent old-JV patches when they came out with JV-1080. I understand that this might have been their attempt to protect the sales of JV-1000, which wasn't discontinued til 1996. But why not include the old JV patches in the JV2080 that came out in 1997, when all old JV sales have already stopped?

 

2) similarly, the XVs had all the waveforms and even the effect blocks of the JDs, but Roland a) didn't bother porting over any JD patches. b) didn't use the JD waveforms or effects on the XV patches. It's almost like they just wanted to lure the buyers in by mentioning JD waveforms/effects in marketing, but then leave them to figure out how to recreate JD patches from a scratch. What a cruel joke.

 

Luckily enough for those resourceful/determined enough, it's relatively easy to recreate old JV patches on new JVs/XVs. And it's tedious but still possible to recreate JD patches on the XV too.

 

But heck, I would have happily paid Roland an extra $100 in either case just for not having to keep an old-JV/JD around.

 

The JV lineup never sounded near as good as the JD series. Could have been the DACs, sample rate or some other secret sauce but there was no comparison. Same reason the Trinity sounded better than the Triton...but that is getting side tracked.

 

I only recently sold my JD-990 so this plug-in has me intrigued. I know very specifically what my favorite patches sounded like - even sampled them like crazy before selling so I have some reference.

[AROIOS]

1) The new JVs (1080/2080/1010, XP30/50/60/80) had all the waveforms from the old JVs (80/880/90/1000) and is capable of reproducing the old JV patches faithfully.

 

2) similarly, the XVs had all the waveforms and even the effect blocks of the JDs, but Roland a) didn't bother porting over any JD patches. b) didn't use the JD waveforms or effects on the XV patches.

 

Luckily enough for those resourceful/determined enough, it's relatively easy to recreate old JV patches on new JVs/XVs. And it's tedious but still possible to recreate JD patches on the XV too.

IMO, the essence of sound design (creativity) lies in having access to the waveforms and synthesis. Patches just provide an example of the possbilities.

 

I'm with you on that.

 

But I'm also well aware of the fact that for the majority of buyers:

 

1) Presets are largely what sells a rompler (and although to a lesser degree, analog synths too)

 

2) Most of them will never bother digging deep to master and utilize the power of a rompler. And that created an industry of patch bank sellers.

 

3) Even if they tried, some of the classic patches are a result of both sound programmers' ingenuity and pure luck. E.g. I'm familiar with the JD/JV architecture and feel comfortable programming my own sounds. But not in a million years would I have thought of layering an Indonesian gamelan with an FM EP to create the classic "Crystal Rhodes" patch.

 

So to a lot of users, what they are buying is not really the rompler per se, but the programmers' time, ingenuity, and luck.

[Dave Bryce]

But not in a million years would I have thought of layering an Indonesian gamelan with an FM EP to create the classic "Crystal Rhodes" patch.

That sort of thing is the best fun. One of my favorite tricks is to use something like a ride cymbal sound as the attack of a synth lead.

 

dB

[AROIOS]

1) The new JVs (1080/2080/1010, XP30/50/60/80) had all the waveforms from the old JVs (80/880/90/1000) and is capable of reproducing the old JV patches faithfully. Yet, Roland ditched a bunch of excellent old-JV patches when they came out with JV-1080. I understand that this might have been their attempt to protect the sales of JV-1000, which wasn't discontinued til 1996. But why not include the old JV patches in the JV2080 that came out in 1997, when all old JV sales have already stopped?

 

2) similarly, the XVs had all the waveforms and even the effect blocks of the JDs, but Roland a) didn't bother porting over any JD patches. b) didn't use the JD waveforms or effects on the XV patches. It's almost like they just wanted to lure the buyers in by mentioning JD waveforms/effects in marketing, but then leave them to figure out how to recreate JD patches from a scratch. What a cruel joke.

 

Luckily enough for those resourceful/determined enough, it's relatively easy to recreate old JV patches on new JVs/XVs. And it's tedious but still possible to recreate JD patches on the XV too.

 

But heck, I would have happily paid Roland an extra $100 in either case just for not having to keep an old-JV/JD around.

 

The JV lineup never sounded near as good as the JD series. Could have been the DACs, sample rate or some other secret sauce but there was no comparison. Same reason the Trinity sounded better than the Triton...

 

Part of their difference is indeed sample rate, JVs used 32Khz samples and JDs 44.1Khz. Although whether and how much the extra frequencies above 16KHz on the JDs contributed to its perceived sonic superiority is up for debate.

 

JD also had different effect modules from the JVs, I still struggle to fully replicate the mojo of some of the JD combination effects on JVs, e.g. the "Rhodes Multi", which is an Enhancer/Chorus/Phase/Tremolo/Panner all in one preset.

 

There are also differences in sonic "hyping/excitement" techniques at the summing stage among Roland synths. JDs, JVs, XVs and S-series samplers all had their own "secret sauce" in hyping up their sounds.

 

And finally there are the usual suspects of filter design and DAC chips when it comes to sonic differences among synths.

[AROIOS]

But not in a million years would I have thought of layering an Indonesian gamelan with an FM EP to create the classic "Crystal Rhodes" patch.

That sort of thing is the best fun. One of my favorite tricks is to use something like a ride cymbal sound as the attack of a synth lead.

 

dB

 

Thanks for sharing that trick Dave, I'm gonna experiment with it later.

[Dave Bryce]

Sizzle cymbal can be even more fun.

 

dB

[Mark Schmieder]

Totally in agreement with Mike Martin about Trinity vs. Triton and JD vs. JV. I have deep experience with all of them, and my opinions haven't budged an inch over the years as time adds more context.

[AROIOS]

Sizzle cymbal can be even more fun.

 

dB

 

Thanks Dave, the ride cymbal sample does add a nice "click" to synth leads.

 

I'm struggling to find a sizzle cymbal sample in my synths, but following your idea, I just found out that clavinet samples layer well with saws. The clav layer adds a "hard-synced" vibe to the otherwise bland saw wave. Put a phaser on top, and we have a pretty cool lead patch.

[BRW]

Interesting. The Jupiter X really is a nice 'best of Roland' synth, that I don"t own yet but probably will some day.

[Dave Bryce]

I just found out that clavinet samples layer well with saws. The clav layer adds a "hard-synced" vibe to the otherwise bland saw wave. Put a phaser on top, and we have a pretty cool lead patch.

Welcome to one of my favorite Rabbit Holes.

 

This is why the Poly Evolver was one of my favorite synths. Layering a single cycle bell wave on top of a nice soft synthy voice sound...or an organ wave on top of a brass patch...etc, etc etc...

 

I wrote a ton of D50 programs using this kind of thinking. Loved it with the Korg DSS-1 back in the day as well.

 

dB

[ABECK]

I like to approach sound design in my JP80 in the same way. There are so many PCM waveforms in the synth engine, but you have to dig into the editing for each tone to find them. I'm a big fan of finding an interesting transient waveform then adding to something with sustain. That's a good time right there!

 

I don't remember editing my DSS-1 to that degree, but man, that thing could get some beefy synth brass tones. Digression over.

[ProfD]

But I'm also well aware of the fact that for the majority of buyers:

 

1) Presets are largely what sells a rompler (and although to a lesser degree, analog synths too)

 

2) Most of them will never bother digging deep to master and utilize the power of a rompler. And that created an industry of patch bank sellers.

 

So to a lot of users, what they are buying is not really the rompler per se, but the programmers' time, ingenuity, and luck.

The blessing and curse of technology is that it facilitates a certain amount of indolence and by extension, a lack of creativity within that majority of buyers.

[Dave Bryce]

I don't remember editing my DSS-1 to that degree, but man, that thing could get some beefy synth brass tones.

T'was the DW8000 side of the DSS1 that did that.

 

I loved the DW8000 - I had one of those and one of the EX8000 modules.

 

dB

[ProfD]

I don't remember editing my DSS-1 to that degree, but man, that thing could get some beefy synth brass tones.

T'was the DW8000 side of the DSS1 that did that.

 

I loved the DW8000 - I had one of those and one of the EX8000 modules.

 

dB

In my search for a sampling KB, I've been tempted to buy a DSS-1 until I look at it.

[Dave Bryce]

In my search for a sampling KB, I've been tempted to buy a DSS-1 until I look at it.

Don't do it. The sample blocks it can load are very small....and, as you observed, the thing is huge.

 

...plus, floppy discs...

 

If you like the idea of synth meets sampler, get an old Kurzweil K series.

 

dB

[ABECK]

Agree with Dave. The best parts were the synth engine and that can be found in the DW series. My drive was notoriously prone to failure and it was slow (my band had to sequence setlists based on my sample loading.)

I liked the looks and there was great real estate for a module to sit on top! But yeah, the K2000 series would be a MUCH better option.

 

But, more closely related to the OP, the JD-800 is a hot-shit board. Would love to acquire one some day.

 

A custom paint job would be nice as long as I'm fantasizing.

 

[ProfD]

In my search for a sampling KB, I've been tempted to buy a DSS-1 until I look at it.

Don't do it. The sample blocks it can load are very small....and, as you observed, the thing is huge.

 

...plus, floppy discs...

 

If you like the idea of synth meets sampler, get an old Kurzweil K series.

 

dB

Yeah. My brain knows better.

 

This KB playing dinosaur from a tech perspective really wants a modern ASR-10 minus the overheating and crashing issues. Also, replacing the floppy drive/SCSI port with SD card or USB flash drive capability.

 

I've resigned myself to the fact that a modern ASR-10 isn't going to happen. So, I'll end up with a MODX7 or a Kronos-lite i.e. Nautilus.

 

However, considering there is an SP-2400 in the works, there is a glimmer of hope. Maybe Preservation will send me a pic from Mars.

 

Getting back on top, I would sample the waveforms from the JD-800 and turn them into sonic gold.

[Al Coda]

However, considering there is an SP-2400 in the works, there is a glimmer of hope.

 

It´s available and virtually in mass production now even one has to wait 2 -3 month for delivery.

 

A.C.