Fantom, XV-88, XP-80, XV-5080: Same sound engine ?

[Infusion]

Are all of these keys using the same sound engine? If not which is better and which have the most voices ?

I had a chat with a GC salesman yesterday and he says that the 5080 and XV-88 share the same engine. What about the other units mentioned?

[Harm_keyboards]

Hi there, not all true!

 

The XP-80 is an older one (i got it). It is the key-version of the JV2080.

The XV88 has the same soundegine as the XV-3080 and the Fantom has the same as the XV-5080.

 

The JV2080 are a bit older, but share the some sounds with the XV-88. When i heard the XV-88, many sounds were familiar, and not that much better that i wanted to trade for!

 

Good luck with the search!

 

Harm

[RABid]

To expand a bit, the XV-5080 and I think the XV-88 have 128 oscillators (max polyphony). The Fantom, XV-5050 and XV-2020 have 64. The RD-700 has the same engine but not the same sample set so not all expansion cards work correctly when installed. The new Roland beat box which the name escapes me, has the same 64 note engine but yet another sample set designed for dance music.

The XP-80 has less polyphony, and also uses mono samples instead of stereo. When using stereo patches this cuts polyphony in half for the XP-80. As said above the XP-80 uses the older engine. The XV-5050 and XV-2020 also have a USB connection and comes with a software editor for easily editing patches, something I wish my Fantom and XV-5080 had. The 5080 will hold 128 meg of memory for reading samples and will store those samples on a memory card if you want. It is not a true sampler, but only reads sample CD's. The 5080 also has the most expandability, holding 4 older type JV cards and 4 new SRV cards. Hope this helps a bit.

 

Robert

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by Rabid:

The XP-80 has less polyphony, and also uses mono samples instead of stereo. When using stereo patches this cuts polyphony in half for the XP-80.

It cuts the polyphony for the XV series as well - the difference is that you can use the stereo samples in a single layer in the XV synths, where you need two mono layers to do stereo on an XP. If you use more than one or two stereo samples on a Fantom or one of the other 64 voice XV synths, those suckers can steal voices on you pretty fast.

 

Roland has basically been using the same ROMpler engine (with varying degreees of polyphony and different bells and whistles) for a way long time. AFAIK, the JV/XP/XV synths are all basically the same engine with the exception of the XP10 (which is basically a 28-voice Sound Canvas - their other big engine). It can (and has) been argued that their basic engine hasn't changed much since the D50; however, since they've sold a whole mess of synthesizers, it's obviously working for them pretty well.

 

Hey, Korg, Kurweil and others haven't really changed their basic ROMpler engines in years, either...okay, Korg added resonant filters in the Trinity, and Kurzweil now has Triple Modular Processing - they're still basically modernized M1s and K2000s respectively.

 

Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with that...think about it - the basic operating systems of most ROMplers (standard subtractive pitch/filter/amp signal flow) are relatively common to each other as well as being familiar to the average synth programmer, and the tools provided in each of these brands of synth seem to be more than adequate to do the job at hand, so why change? Sure, there have been/will be technological innovations that may or may not catch on, but I believe that there will still be a decent market for basic ROMplers with subtractive engines for a little while more.

 

Don't mind me - just goin' off...

 

dB

[Infusion]

Oh you guys are GOOOOOD!!!!!!

Thanks loads.

-Ross

[RABid]

Thanks for the clarification Dave. I succumbed to the marketing hype of the Roland site a while back. We all know how those marketing weasels can put an overly positive spin on things. One thing I notice over the years is that the sound has improved with each update to the Roland series. It may just be better D/A converters but that was the primary reason I updated each time. Moving from JV to XP improved bass, and moving from XP to XV seemed to grant smoother analog type leads.

 

On a side note, it looks like Ronald finally released an editor for all XV series. I look forward to trying it tonight.

 

Robert

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by Harm_keyboards:

The XV88 has the same soundegine as the XV-3080 and the Fantom has the same as the XV-5080.

I missed this one earlier...

 

As I understand it, they all have the same sound engine. The term "sound engine" usually refers to the architecture of the instrument, and usually does not include the polyphony.

 

Maybe you are referring to the polyphony, in which case you have them backwards - I believe that the Fantom and the XV3080 are 64 voice instruments, and the XV88 and XV5080 are 128 voice instruments.

 

Originally posted by Rabid:

One thing I notice over the years is that the sound has improved with each update to the Roland series. It may just be better D/A converters but that was the primary reason I updated each time. Moving from JV to XP improved bass, and moving from XP to XV seemed to grant smoother analog type leads.

Not sure about JV to XP, but I'm almost positive that XP to XV had an improvement in the converters - I think they're 24-bit now.

 

dB

[RABid]

Originally posted by Harm_keyboards:

...The XV88 has the same soundegine as the XV-3080 and the Fantom has the same as the XV-5080.

 

The JV2080 are a bit older, but share the some sounds with the XV-88. When i heard the XV-88, many sounds were familiar, and not that much better that i wanted to trade for!

 

Good luck with the search!

 

Harm

I missed this also. The 3080 actually does have 128 polyphony. That is why some people were grabbing them during sell off when it was being replaced by the 5050. The XV-5050 had some better features including the USB connection and was a bit cheaper, but the XV-3080 was the cheapest 128 polyphony XV series. At the end it was only $200 more than the 5050. Not that much to double your polyphony. Now only the XV5080 and XV88 have 128.

 

The JV and XP's share sounds will all the XV series, not just the XV88. One thing the 88 does not have is a sequencer.

 

Robert

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by Rabid:

The 3080 actually does have 128 polyphony.

Really? I did not know that...so the only difference with the 5080 was the sample-playback thing?

 

dB

[zvenx]

actually dave no.

the 5080 uses a 44.1K play back engine and the 3080 uses a 32K one.

Not sure where the Fantom etc's fit in this 44.1 vs. 32 K play back engine debate.

rsp

[Tusker]

In addition to the improvement in convertors and stereo (polyphony) the XV engine has a slightly expanded mod matrix. More "system controllers" and more destinations.

 

It's been awhile since I looked into it. I think it's up to five system controllers now from three (modulation +2), and there were some destinations associated with envelope segments that looked interesting.

 

Cheers,

 

Jerry

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by zvenx:

the 5080 uses a 44.1K play back engine and the 3080 uses a 32K one.

Huh?

 

I've never heard this before, and I don't understand...are you saying that the 3080 had a different sample ROM set than the 5080 does, or that the two engines are capable of reading the same sets of samples at different rates? I'm confused...

 

Is there any documentation on this that I can read more about? Where did this info come from?

 

Please fill me in!

 

Thanks,

 

dB

[Mark Zeger]

Originally posted by Rabid:

[QBThat is why some people were grabbing them during sell off when it was being replaced by the 5050.

[/QB]

This week, I bought a mint condition XV3080 for $650 and it's great. Maybe I didn't need another ROMpler, but couldn't pass up a good deal.

 

It definitely has 128 voice polyphony, and I, too, thought the only difference between the 5080 & 3080 was the sample import/playback on the 5080.

[RABid]

Originally posted by mzeger:

This week, I bought a mint condition XV3080 for $650 and it's great. Maybe I didn't need another ROMpler, but couldn't pass up a good deal.

Be sure to check the Roland US site for OS updates and the editor. There is no posted link to information on the XV-3080 but a search of the site will send you here. The editor is not specifically designed for but does support the XV-3080. (See my other post.)

 

Robert

[Infusion]

In regard to 64 voice vs.128 voice. Can you hear a significant difference?

Are the patches "stronger", "warmer", "fatter" in 128 voices?

I'm not talking differences heard only by a genuine certified Roland technician. I'm talking about the casual observer.

[aliengroover]

That bit about the different playback engines is news to me. The difference between the 3080 and 5080 is akin to the difference between the 1080 and 2080, with the sample playback function added in the mix.

 

I couldn't agree with Mr. Bryce any more. These companies (Roland in particular) have simply been repackaging the same sounds over and over...but that's a good thing. As technology improves, the performance capabilities improve. What I really like about Roland's method is that I can ditch my older gear and replace it with a newer model. And I'll still retain the vast majority of the older model's soundset WITH added (and better) waveforms and flexibility.

Peace

[Infusion]

I don't agree. I've been purchasing and trading up keyboards for 20+ years.

Keyboard manufacturers like Roland will introduce a "new" keyboard. We'll upgrade and spend top dollar for that keyboard and the following year(or soon after), they'll introduce a "newer" version which will include features that by all accounts should have been introduced on the first model.

 

Look, it's a business. I know that and you know that. But don't charge me $1500 for the new Roland "wiz bang" and then turn around next year and add on some shit that I really should have had on the 1st model(like more slots for expansion cards). I think that's marketing bull shit and I see it all the time.

[RABid]

Originally posted by Infusion:

In regard to 64 voice vs.128 voice. Can you hear a significant difference?

Are the patches "stronger", "warmer", "fatter" in 128 voices?

I'm not talking differences heard only by a genuine certified Roland technician. I'm talking about the casual observer.

Ok. If you use a patch that has 4 stereo voices in the structure, that is 8 voices per note. That knocks your 64 voice polyphony Roland down to 8. Put together a song using drums, bass, and a few other tracks and you quickly find the need for extra polyphony. You don't have to be an engineer to hear the notes drop. If instead you use the unit in single patch mode instead of multi-timbril then you are ok unless you are playing extensive piano parts. I can very easily run the voices used counter in GigaStudio past 90 when playing sustained piano runs.

 

As for sound quality, with the XV that I thought Roland finally caught up to Korg on the quality of the synth lead sounds.

 

Robert

[zvenx]

hi dave, re: 32K vs. 44.1K

 

I initially heard of this from a private email from someone let us just say is WELL versed with roland samplers/sound modules BEFORE they become available :-).

when I said this on a Roland sampler group, I almost got my head bit off till some people who had connections at roland verified this.

all the SRV boards are 32K, that's why roland NEVER ever publishes this..

for the 5080 for it to read S-760 samples etc. they had to introduce the 44.1K engine.

I guess it somehow has to upsample the SRV boards that you place in it..

if you CAREFULLY read the 5080 brochure you will see that roland makes hints at this upgrade.

 

rsp

[aeon]

Dont forget about the now older JD-series engine. This was a true 44.1KHz engine that IMHO had sweeter filters and better overall sound than its successor, the JV line.

 

Variations of that engine are found in the S-770, S-750, S-760, SP-700, DJ-70, DJ-70mkII, JD-800, JD-990 and probably 23 other models I have either forgotten or never knew about.

 

For those people who own or owned a JD-990 (as I do now) and bought a XV-5080, and are familiar with the JV filters as well, my question is this: are the XV filters up to the standard of the JD filters, surpassing the (IMHO) inferior sound of the JV line?

[zvenx]

Originally posted by aeon:

Dont forget about the now older JD-series engine. This was a true 44.1KHz engine that IMHO had sweeter filters and better overall sound than its successor, the JV line.

 

Variations of that engine are found in the S-770, S-750, S-760, SP-700, DJ-70, DJ-70mkII, JD-800, JD-990 and probably 23 other models

yes my information is the same.

the JD was 44.1K, they went to 32K in the JV series probably to make it more economical I guess... and the 5080 is back at 44.1K, not sure where the fantom lies in all of this.

rsp

[RABid]

Along with all this other good information can someone explain the Roland speak when they say a JV card has 8 meg uncompressed or an SRV card has the equivalent of 64 meg uncompressed?

 

Robert

[zvenx]

well robert it is obvious :-).

you take the number, multiply it by pi.

Divide it by a prime number between 1 and a 1000 that is closest to roland's address, then you divide it by the roland secret number which I obviously can't say in such a public forum :-)

 

I think they are basically saying that before they compress the data and burn it on the SR-JV80 and the SRX cards, the data was orginially 8MB and 64MB, at least that would be my guess.

rsp

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by Rabid:

Along with all this other good information can someone explain the Roland speak when they say a JV card has 8 meg uncompressed or an SRV card has the equivalent of 64 meg uncompressed?

I'll take a crack at it. This can be confusing because digital compression is not the same thing as what we're used to with a traditional analog compressor limiter. It has the same name, but it has an entirely different function. Analog compression is dynamic range limiting, where digital compression is used to save space.

 

As many of you know, If an instrument is sampled at 44.1 k, that means that a "sonic photo" was taken of the analog waveform 44,100 times per second so that the waveform can be recreated through a sort of "connect the dots" process. It can be argued that one does not necessarily need 44,100 samples per second to get a pretty decent sounding waveform...suppose you just used every other sample - that'd still be a whole bunch of samples per second and would still sound pretty good. How about every fourth sample? That'd still give you a pretty decent picture of the original waveform as well.

 

This technique is called sample-skipping, and I believe that it is the technique that Roland uses to reduce the amount of ROM that their samples occupy. So, when the say that their ROM is the equivalent of 64MB of memory but it only occupies 16, that'd be why. I'm pretty sure they apply a 4:1 ratio of compression (using every fourth sample), but I don't know for certain.

 

I've never understood exactly why this would be different from just reducing the sampling rate, but I'm told that it is...I've been told that the difference is that you're capturing more of the waveform during the actual sampling process,so it's more accurate. I guess this is similar to the nice folks recording at 24 bits even though their work will be dithered down to 16 bits for the CD on which it's going to appear.

 

If my understanding is inaccurate, or my explanation incomplete and someone here has mo' better info, please share it with us.

 

dB

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by zvenx:

hi dave, re: 32K vs. 44.1K

 

I initially heard of this from a private email from someone let us just say is WELL versed with roland samplers/sound modules BEFORE they become available :-).

when I said this on a Roland sampler group, I almost got my head bit off till some people who had connections at roland verified this.

all the SRV boards are 32K, that's why roland NEVER ever publishes this..

for the 5080 for it to read S-760 samples etc. they had to introduce the 44.1K engine.

I guess it somehow has to upsample the SRV boards that you place in it..

if you CAREFULLY read the 5080 brochure you will see that roland makes hints at this upgrade.

Okay, I undertand that some of the wave ROMS may have been sampled at 32k - that's pretty common - but I'm not sure what that has to do with the playback engine?

 

dB

[RABid]

Hmmm. Almost sounds like a granular sampling. I wondered if they were trying to use either zip type compression which is not very useful on sound files, or MP3 type compression which effects sound quality. I would also think that with current prices of memory, even non-volital blown chips it would be better to save uncompressed sound data as notes are played rather than use processing power to uncompress samples as they are played. I don't see them having memory for holding uncompressed samples. for patches in use. Not with the XV-5080 capable of using 32 patches at one time, each with a possible 4 different sample sets.

 

Robert

[synthetic]

Originally posted by Dave Bryce:

I've never understood exactly why this would be different from just reducing the sampling rate, but I'm told that it is...I've been told that the difference is that you're capturing more of the waveform during the actual sampling process,so it's more accurate.

That makes it sound like they're sampling at 44.1k and playing back at 11.025k. That can't be right, there would be no information above 6kHz and I think people would notice. The way that I understand data compression works is that you find a simpler way to write the data. So instead of writing 00000012, you say six 0s and a 12. Or as the drum sample trails down in volume, you don't need to call it a 16-bit sample anymore because it's only taking up the bottom 8 bits. I think they claim that it's a lossless compression, so all of this happens behind the scenes. Unlike MP3 compression which throws away data.

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by synthetic:

The way that I understand data compression works is that you find a simpler way to write the data. So instead of writing 00000012, you say six 0s and a 12. Or as the drum sample trails down in volume, you don't need to call it a 16-bit sample anymore because it's only taking up the bottom 8 bits. I think they claim that it's a lossless compression, so all of this happens behind the scenes. Unlike MP3 compression which throws away data.

As I understand it, there's actually (at least) three different kinds of digital compression used by synth manufacturers: sample-skipping, delta-sigma modulation, and amplitude scaling. I've never been entirely clear on all of the specifics/differences between these, certainly nowhere near enough to try and explain them.

 

I'll bet that there's at least one forum memeber who knows enough to shed some light for all of us...

 

dB

[aliengroover]

I don't know the exact kind of compression they use, but, to my knowledge, most keyboards employ it. It's only "smart" in terms of bang for buck. Korg claims their compression is 2:1, BTW.

 

Oh, and Infusion...the jig is nobody's making anybody buy the "new fangled" version. My point is that Roland's method generally allows you to not miss a beat...if you wanted to upgrade. I don't believe in upgrading, generally, when it comes to recent keys, just "adding on". Everything I have, I could see using for the forseeable future. I don't believe that the lastest greatest is necessarily better. The JV1080 is STILL a widely used product after 8 years (?) of existence, so at least Roland's sounds have staying power.

 

What stinks (not to change the manufacturer) is when Emu makes a sampler ONE YEAR after it's predecessor, and sells it at a third of the former's cost. People were pissed!

 

BTW, I want an XV-5050.

Peace

[zvenx]

Originally posted by Dave Bryce:

 

[/qb]

Okay, I undertand that some of the wave ROMS may have been sampled at 32k - that's pretty common - but I'm not sure what that has to do with the playback engine?

 

dB[/QB]

 

My guess and it is just a guess, is that since all the ROMS that the JV need to read are at maximum 32K that the DA's only need to have a 15Khz (32K)bandwidth whereas for the 5080 the DA's needed to accomodate a larger bandwidth to 20 Khz (44.1)

 

rsp