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

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by zvenx:

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)

Hmmm...I'm not sure what the advantage of that would be. I mean, affordable 44.1 converters have been around since at least the mid-80s when consumer level CD players came out, right? It's been no problem for years now to buy a really cheap CD player, so I'm not convinced that there'd be any monetary advantages to using lower bandwidth converters...ithere some other reason (other than financial) to do so? I've never heard any of this before, so I'm quite curious. I always thought it was the rate at which the wave ROM was sampled that determined the playback rate of the synth.

 

BTW, I understand you're just guessing. Don't mind me - I don't know either...I'm just kind of wondering out loud...

 

dB

[RABid]

I'll throw something else into the mix. Any keyboard or module with a digital output also has to convert to that rate if it is not native to the rate of the internal sound generation. Did that make any sense? There is also the issue of multiple outputs. I think the biggest bonus for running at a lower rate is not output, but the processing power it requires to generate and process the internal sounds plus a load of MIDI data. It may be the easiest or cheapest way to improve the poly count of an underpowered machine.

 

Robert

[Zeke Smith.]

The differences between the XV5080 and 3080 are polyphony and effects engine, plus the different GUI. The ROM is the same. It would make absolutely no sense for Roland to produce two completely different sample-playback schemes using the same sounds. If anything, it would cost them more to do it that way than to scale up and scale down the same playback engine for given applications, using the same ROM.

 

Most synth manufacturers use some form of data compression. Some of them have in the past also sampled differently for different sounds (as far as rates and bit depths are concerned). I'm not sure how this works, either. I do know that the linear output sample rate and bit depth is consistent throughout the XV line.

 

The converters in the XV are improved, if only to my ears. I've had a JV1080 and XP80 in the past, and I currently have a JV1010, JV2080 and an XV88. The XV is much cleaner with better definition and a generally more natural sound.

 

Here's the Roland JV/XP/XV foodchain as I understand it. This is by no means complete or correct, so help me here.

 

JV80/JV880: the granddaddy

JV1080: enhanced JV80 with more polyphony and expansion options.

JV1010: half-rack JV1080 with no front panel, built-in SRV Session board, and one expansion slot.

JV2080: enhanced JV1080 with more SRV slots, an enhanced effects engine, and XP-similar GUI.

XP10: SoundCanvas with a keyboard

XP30: ?

XP50: basically JV1080 with a keyboard attached

XP60: JV1080 sound engine with 61-key keyboard, improved GUI, and sequencer and floppy drive.

XP80: 76-key version of the XP60

XV3080: first XV series with 128-voice polyphony, SRV and SRX espansion slots, and 24-bit effects engine. 4 SRV and 2 SRX slots. The XV counterpart to the JV1080, for all intents and purposes.

XV5080: XV3080 engine, 2 more SRX expansion slots, and improved effects and better GUI/front panel. Digital outputs. Has SCSI, and also able to accept SIMMs and play back samples. The XV counterpart to the JV2080.

XV5050: single-rack XV5080 engine and effects with 64-voice polyphony, minimal front panel and display, and additional sounds from the Fantom.

XV2020: XV3080 engine with no front panel and less expansion. XV counterpart to the JV1010.

XV88: basically, the keyboard version of the XV3080. 88 hammer-action keys. No sequencer. 2 SRV and 2 SRX slots.

Fantom: 76-key workstation with XV sound engine, improved GUI, and different program set (same ROM). 64-voice polyphony.

 

How close am I?

[RABid]

I think you are pretty close.

 

The JV80(61 key) and JV90 (76 key, the first keyboard I bought when I started rebuilding my system) had 28 voice polyphony, accepted a single JV series expansion and was the first to use the current 4 voice per patch engine. These offered a single expansion slot for the JV cards

 

The JV1080 expanded the engine to 64 voice, 8 meg base memory, and increased the expansion slots. It was followed by the other JV racks.

 

The XP-50 was the first XP. It offered an improved joystick and decent sequencer. The XP-80 followed. Not only did it expand the keyboard to 76 notes and I think expanded the sequencer. More important to me was the addition of a dedicated slider bank for controle of the filter section. It also included a floppy disk of dance patches which would load onto any XP keyboard. The XP-60 was an XP-50 with these improvements. The XP-10 is more like a JV keybaord but with some expantion ROM's included. They even went back to the older type joystick for this one.

 

Things get a bit confusing with the XV series. The 3080, 88 and 5080 are 128 polyphony. The Fantom, 5050 and 2020 are 64 note polyphony. The number of effects varies with the 5080 having the most. The 3080, 88 and 5080 have the same sound set, then Roland started adding more internal patches on later modles. The Fantom took away a few patches and added some very nice new patches. The 5050 has most all the 5080 patches, the Fantom patches, plus additional patches. For some reason the 2020 has a much lower output volume than the 5050 or any other XV series.

 

I took a lot of this from my old Roland Users Group mags, but most came from memory. One thing I could not find anywhere on the RolandUS site was information on my JV-06 Dance expansion ROM. I wonder why? (Maybe it will be a collector's item someday.)

 

Robert

[aliengroover]

Actually the JV1010 contains the soundset of the JV2080 plus the Session board and one expansion slot. And the XV2020 has two )SRX) expansion slots.

Peace

[synthetic]

The reason I heard for using a lower sampling rate is that they can use a slower processor and less SRAM (sampling ram), thus lowering the price.

 

I've always thought that the S760 sounded better than most other Rolands because of the samples, not the internal sample rate and filters. Interesting that it has the same filters as the JD990. I love the sound of mine, and I've seen them for dirt cheap on eBay. Great sample library, too.

[Zeke Smith.]

I don't think the JV1010 has the JV2080's effects, which would then make it basically a stripped 1080 with the Session sounds. I don't use mine that much, so I'll hafta check...

[aliengroover]

Sorry Catdaddy, but just because it doesn't have the effects doesn't mean it doesn't have the soundset. The stock 2080 has more sounds than the stock 1080, and so conversely the 1010 has more sounds than the 1080 AND the 2080 because the session board comes standard. The 1010 has effects, but the engine and editing (without the computer) is nothing to non-existent.

 

Just check the stats.

Peace

[zvenx]

Hi Robert, the SR-JV80-06 Dance card had to be pulled for copyright reasons.

 

re: the whole 32K vs 44.1 K debate..at the very least dont' you find it curious that roland NEVER list the Bandwidth of any of their synths since the JD series or their samplers.

I mean the triton is 48Khz and it says so BIG and bold.... I believe the other manufactuers do the same too... well emu told you straight up that the bandwidth of the protei was up to I believe 15khz.

 

hmmmm....

[aeon]

the JV-880/JV-80 has a 32KHz sampling rate...the JV-1080 and onward was 44.1KHz...

 

or so said lilchips back in the day.

 

dont forget the JV-1000!

 

as far as the compression goes, it is similar to the ~2:1 codecs found in things like Waves TrackPac-Pro and Emagic Zap.

[Zeke Smith.]

Aliengroover, you would be right about the 1010 and the 2080 as far as the sounds are concerned. Well, mostly right, as there are some 2080 sounds that don't show up in the 1010 simply because the 2080's enhanced effects engine is used to create some of the specific sounds, using things beyond reverb and chorus. The 1010 does have more than the 2080 and the 2080 has more than the 1080.

 

It shows how much I actually care about these kinds of things, because my 1010 and 2080 live next to each other in my MIDI rack, and I've never bothered comparing them exhaustively until now.

[aliengroover]

Yeah, Zeke, it's the same deal with the Triton Classic and LE versions. The Triton C sounds how it does because of it's generous use of effects. So while the LE keeps the same ROM set, it changes a few of the programs to take advantage of the fewer insert effects (it only has one). I personally like the rawer sounds in most cases, and prefer the sound of the LE over the Classic. Over effected sounds REALLY get on my nerves sometimes.

Peace

[zvenx]

aeon, in my first post on this subject I said, I had had an argument with someone on the roland sampler mailgroup. That person ironically was lilchips, David Green. He contacted roland canada who contacted roland japan who confirmed what I was told that the first "JV" to have the 44.1 engine was the 5080, prior to that was the JD series...

I actually emailed him last night to remember what it was precisely he had found out.

rsp

[EJolson]

Originally posted by MrDGreen:

David from LilChips here, what would you like to know on the synths/samplers? Ask away and I'll check back on the thread.

David-- thanks for an AWESOME post. Extremely informative.

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by MrDGreen:

The XV-5080 uses a 44k engine, mainly to get compatibility with the S-700 samples, but the ROM set is 32k.

The newer units using the 5080 engine (Fantom, 5050, etc.) are actually using a 44k ROM set, so their internal sounds are superior.

Hi, Dave!

 

Thanks for posting this info!

 

Question - it seems strange to me that Roland would do two different versions of the same mask ROM (at least, I'm under the impression that they're the same sample sets) at two different sample rates. Who's doing their ROMs for them? Don't they have to book a huge run of each of them just to have it make financial sense?

 

Also, regarding the playback rate of the engine - are they restricting it to 32k in order to get more ticks of DSP from the microprocessor for other tasks?

 

Thanks! I love learning new stuff...

 

dB

[Zeke Smith.]

Wow. Yeah. Stuff I never knew. Thanks, David!

 

It seems strange to me that the 3080 and 5080 would use different engines, although the part about external sample capability makes complete sense.

 

Does this mean that the XV-88 will join the XV3080 in the discontinued list soon, to be replaced by an XV5080-engined 88-key keyboard, maybe like a Super-Fantom of sorts?

 

Lastly, what is the soundset resolution of the Korg Triton series? Do they use similar forms of data compression? (This should probably be a whole other topic)

[aeon]

David:

 

Thanks so much for the clarification! I also apologize for attributing false information to you and LilChips.

 

There have been many times when a JV-owner has flamed me for saying that I thought the JD-990 sounded CD-quality, while the JV-1080 (and its ilk) did not. In fact, many of them threw out the JV-880/32KHz and JV-1080/44KHz factoid I stated above, and told me they got this info from LilChips! As LilChips was gone, I had no way to confirm, and accepted it as fact...my bad!

 

So the JV-1080 has a 32KHz engine and waveform ROM, and it uses 18-bit DACs. On the other hand, the JD-990 has a 44.1KHz engine and waveform ROM, and to my knowledge, uses 20-bit DACs.

 

The ears do not lie!

 

I do have one question: you mentioned the JV/XV-series SR-JV80 Boards are 32KHz. That being the case, how does the JD-990 handle the insertion of the SR-JV80 Vintage 8MB expansion in terms of converting that 32KHz data for 44.1KHz playback?

 

Like other SR-JV80 boards, the Vintage expansion has a bank of JV-series patches in ROM, but unlike other SR-JV80 boards, it also has a special JD-990 bank that is only accessible on a JD-990. Those JD patches sound so much better (more detailed, crisper) than their rough equivalents in the JV patch partition on the board, even when the JV patches are played back on the same JD-990. I always assumed it was because the JV patches were simpler than the JD versions, but now I am wondering if there is any sampling-rate or hardware issue behind it.

 

thanks in advance,

aeon

[RABid]

Thanks a lot for the info David. Over the past 10 years or so I evolved from a JV80 to JV90 + JV 1080 to XP50 + XP80 to XV5080 + Fantom. I always thought I heard an improvement each step of the way. Nice to have it confirmed.

 

Any information on the evolution of the various Roland electronic percussion engines? SPD-11, SPD-20, Handsonic, etc. Im very interested in the difference between the TD8 and TD10. The published specs dont seem to justify the price variance. Ive long considered adding a TD8 to my SP-11 and Handsonic so I can start using a few V-Pads.

 

Thanks,

Robert

[zvenx]

oh when I said the 5080 used a 44.1 K playback engine and the 3080 etc a 32 K one, no one believed me . But now David says it, everyone is a believer...lol....

I knew David would have the specs to back up my claim....

by the way, David considers his posts as short replies :-), you dont' want to get him started on specs...lol

rsp

[RABid]

Another great difference between the XV-5080 and XV-3080 is they memory card. With it you can assign and access 8 banks of user presets instead of 1. This will be very handy with those new ROM cards coming out that are compilations of 3 or 4 JV cards each. You get about 300 patches designed for the xv engine with the original programs for those cards available on CD.

 

Robert

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by zvenx:

oh when I said the 5080 used a 44.1 K playback engine and the 3080 etc a 32 K one, no one believed me . But now David says it, everyone is a believer...lol....

I knew David would have the specs to back up my claim....

I think that there's a difference between having people not believe you, and having something you say make folks ask questions because what you're saying is not familiar to them. Didn't you say in an earlier post that you (and others) questioned this info yourself when you heard it?

 

Besides, given your past experience with this topic on the other newsgroup, you probably had more than an inclination that folks were going to question you...

 

I, for one, appreciate the info.

 

Thanks, zvenx!

 

dB

[zvenx]

at least the moderator appreciates me...lol....

 

rsp

[Ultra left right]

Hello anyone, this is really interesting.

 

What about the RD-700, is it 44.1? And what about the Fantom?

 

/Ultra

[tdm71]

So with all these technical specs flying around, how about what really matters: the sound!!

 

Side by side with effects off, blind folded, playing the same presets, how many can say they can HEAR the difference between the XP's and the XV's????? And if so, is it substanial enough to warrant the financial upgrade???

 

THANKS in advanced!!!

[realtrance]

I think the whole "XV flavor of the week" thing must've been (at least it looks that way to me) the result of a lot of marketing backpeddling. Roland released their XV-5080, and it was at a pretty high price-point in the market, and they realized they had to quickly find some way to get to a combination of features and price-point that would expand the market for their XV engine. So we get the multiple releases of XV-x0x0 plus Fantom and XV-88, to try to cover the waterfront. Confused and frustrated a lot of people along the way -- they should've just kept to a straight lineage thing, a la JV-1080/JV-2080 etc.

 

Re: 32kHz vs. 44.1kHz, I think this is mainly people getting confused between the compression (RDAC, I believe, Roland's proprietary compression scheme -- Roland Digital Audio Compression? my guess?) and the DAC. As Dave Bryce says, it would be idiocy incarnate to introduce any synth in the 90s with 32kHz playback when any Radio Shack portable CD player would have 44.1kHz DACs.

 

The XV engine IS cleaner, faster, etc. than JV -- a lot of the difference is not immediately apparent. Plus, for the six out there who make use of it, the R-Bus connector is incredible if you have anything else to hook it up to (VM-7200, VM-3100 are the only two things I know of). I got a listen on such a setup, and the mixing and control and clarity working purely digitally that way across multiple channels is just amazing.

 

rt

[realtrance]

David,

 

Good to see you here -- I consider your info definitive (as much as possible given what Roland is willing to make public) on the JV/XV technology. Correct at will any of the errors I may have made while I was writing my post above.

 

As I have done for most of my synths (that offer them), I have the service manual for my XP-80 (purchased from Roland) and the DACs are 18-bit on that.

 

One of the amusing things from that period is that the XP-80 appears to share its CPU "brain" with the Sega Saturn, if I'm interpreting the schematics correctly. No criticism of the XP-80 at all, the Hitachi CPU is mainly used for control purposes and for its time, it was pretty hot technology, and it does everything it needs to do. Still... I think it's funny. "You paid how much for that thing, and it won't even run Virtua Fighter?! Sheesh!!"

 

rt

[petros]

Actually, the "sound engine" on my XP-30 and the JV-1010 are a very noticeable step down in their audio. They do NOT produce the "clarity" of the other JV, XP and XV series. My old JV-80 sounds much clearer and warmer than the XP-30. They must have used cheaper chips or something to cut costs on the XP-30 and JV-1010.