Debate - Do SRX boards improve Juno-G or Fantom-X Soundset?
10 Mar 2011, 12:33Do SRX expansion boards IMPROVE the soundset already found in the Juno-G or Fantom-X? Or do they merely extend it?
Are the built-in waveforms and patch programming on the more recent host instruments better than that on the expansion boards launched for earlier synths?
It's a question that could cause a lot of long-winded answers! Perhaps replies might be best kept short and to discrete points, even if you post many. I'm not sure if such a topic has been tackled before, or done to death, but I'll emphasise that the question is NOT 'which is your favourite card?'.
My mind has been focussed on this question following the purchase of various SRXs. Hilarious given my one slot on the Juno. I have/had the following - 98, 97 (sold), 07, 09, 03. You know which they are. In each case I have enjoyed the new sounds they have brought. But then, each time I have returned to the Juno's presets, I have been amazed at their quality. After all, doesn't it make sense that a newer synth sounds better? Otherwise what R&D would be occurring?!
I appreciate that sometimes, subtle differences in waveforms/programming/effects can make a huge difference to how well a patch sits in a certain mix or style of music.
I’ll start the debate with perhaps the most obvious thought for me… relating to the acoustic guitars found on the World board. In turn these have come from the Country and Latin JV80 boards (Roland have made a LOT of money recycling technology!!!). I personally think they are outstanding. But the specific reason, relevant to this thread, is that I think they make the Juno’s acoustic guitars seem suddenly very thick and over-processed, almost gimmicky. I suspect that if I was a guitar player this thought would be further emphasised. The electric guitars also follow in a similar vein; simpler but maybe more realistic.
I realise the Juno has, in some areas, been voiced for current (‘urban’ shall we say) music styles, where subtle, artistic, realistic sounds aren’t so vital. But I don’t expect the Juno and Fantom soundsets to be dissimilar, and the Fantom is a general workstation.
So, does anyone else have strong feelings on issues of quality of sounds between Juno/Fantom and SRXs?
At the end of the day, are we more easily persuaded that patches sound realistic the more we have of them? I’m sure we’ve all been blown away by new instruments only to become so familiar with certain presets that we struggle to take them seriously as replacements for real instruments.
Oh, and one final thought…
I personally think (having also bought a JV2080 and various JV80 expansion boards) that the JV80-07 Super Sound Set has some of the most amazing Roland sounds ever. Again, acoustic and electric guitars in particular! And incredibly, this board is a combination of waves from EVEN EARLIER PCM cards!!!
Are the built-in waveforms and patch programming on the more recent host instruments better than that on the expansion boards launched for earlier synths?
It's a question that could cause a lot of long-winded answers! Perhaps replies might be best kept short and to discrete points, even if you post many. I'm not sure if such a topic has been tackled before, or done to death, but I'll emphasise that the question is NOT 'which is your favourite card?'.
My mind has been focussed on this question following the purchase of various SRXs. Hilarious given my one slot on the Juno. I have/had the following - 98, 97 (sold), 07, 09, 03. You know which they are. In each case I have enjoyed the new sounds they have brought. But then, each time I have returned to the Juno's presets, I have been amazed at their quality. After all, doesn't it make sense that a newer synth sounds better? Otherwise what R&D would be occurring?!
I appreciate that sometimes, subtle differences in waveforms/programming/effects can make a huge difference to how well a patch sits in a certain mix or style of music.
I’ll start the debate with perhaps the most obvious thought for me… relating to the acoustic guitars found on the World board. In turn these have come from the Country and Latin JV80 boards (Roland have made a LOT of money recycling technology!!!). I personally think they are outstanding. But the specific reason, relevant to this thread, is that I think they make the Juno’s acoustic guitars seem suddenly very thick and over-processed, almost gimmicky. I suspect that if I was a guitar player this thought would be further emphasised. The electric guitars also follow in a similar vein; simpler but maybe more realistic.
I realise the Juno has, in some areas, been voiced for current (‘urban’ shall we say) music styles, where subtle, artistic, realistic sounds aren’t so vital. But I don’t expect the Juno and Fantom soundsets to be dissimilar, and the Fantom is a general workstation.
So, does anyone else have strong feelings on issues of quality of sounds between Juno/Fantom and SRXs?
At the end of the day, are we more easily persuaded that patches sound realistic the more we have of them? I’m sure we’ve all been blown away by new instruments only to become so familiar with certain presets that we struggle to take them seriously as replacements for real instruments.
Oh, and one final thought…
I personally think (having also bought a JV2080 and various JV80 expansion boards) that the JV80-07 Super Sound Set has some of the most amazing Roland sounds ever. Again, acoustic and electric guitars in particular! And incredibly, this board is a combination of waves from EVEN EARLIER PCM cards!!!