Jupiter 80 VA engine - new or same as GAIA?

Well these two very different arguments...

1. Is the technology behind a modeled oscillator the same thing as a PCM sample?

2. Is an exacting virtual modeled RE-creation of a Jupiter 8 oscillator any more of a "Virtual Analog Synthesizer" than another product which is a theoretical creation of an analog circuit which cannot exist in physical reality do to the limitations of physics?

The Fantom G is not a VA. Not even Roland marketing attempts to call it that.

The GAIA is not a VA in MY view (for whatever that may NOT be worth..lol) because its not modeling its components in software....and the technology is therefore very different.

But Roland marketing is another discussion altogether......and is mostly not based on technology at all. There is a long history of THAT.

Perhaps its Virtual Marketing?..

You know, not quite the same, different just not as good?..

.. or is it modelled.. 1/8 scale and wants to be real marketing when it grows up?..

RonF wrote:

But Roland marketing is another discussion altogether......and is mostly not based on technology at all. There is a long history of THAT.

They clearly say it has VA in addition to PCM. Is there any reason to not believe Roland in this case?

>The GAIA is not a VA in MY view (for whatever that may NOT be worth..lol) because its not modeling its components in software....and the technology is therefore very different.

What is it using if not software? Hardware?

aron wrote:

They clearly say it has VA in addition to PCM. Is there any reason to not believe Roland in this case?

>The GAIA is not a VA in MY view (for whatever that may NOT be worth..lol) because its not modeling its components in software....and the technology is therefore very different.

What is it using if not software? Hardware?

*Clearly* the key word in that sentence is "modeling"....not "software".

Any reason not to *believe* Roland marketing? Hmmmm

Well after playing one, intialising a patch and getting down to a single partial, filter combo, and programming it, I can say the JP80 is not a true VA. It has a a certain hardness to the sound that sample based "oscillators" have...

Not unlike my XV5080, but with better filters.

I didn't hear anything that reminded me of my JP8, or any Roland analog synth for that matter.

And the polphony target is a dead giveaway for sample based oscillators.

try reading the thread :)

1. you are entitled to your opinion of the JP80 sound quality.
2. you should know there is no such thing as a "true" VA .. the word "virtual" is a big clue...
3. the JP80 was not designed to sound like the JP8..it is its own synth... it was designed with the same design objectives in mind.. new, unique and performance oriented.. you ca see youtube videos of Rolands discussion on this...
4. Anyone who wants a JP8 should simply go spend the $10k to buy a "like new" model on the second hand market... other folks may find the $3500 for the JP80 to be a relative bargain :)

CoolColJ wrote:

Well after playing one, intialising a patch and getting down to a single partial, filter combo, and programming it, I can say the JP80 is not a true VA. It has a a certain hardness to the sound that sample based "oscillators" have...

Not unlike my XV5080, but with better filters.

I didn't hear anything that reminded me of my JP8, or any Roland analog synth for that matter.

And the polphony target is a dead giveaway for sample based oscillators.

With just a little skill you can make some very analog-ish sounds on the Jupiter 80. The "VA" waveforms sound nothing like the pcm stuff in my Fantom X. The filter sounds great but that's just the start of where you can really dial in your sounds. There's plenty of tools at your disposal for intricate sound creation. At this point nobody should be confused whether or not the 80 is a Jupiter 8 emulator. Does the Kronos really sound like a vintage polysix? Does the virus really sound like moog? Why expect the 80 to emulate the 8?

Only paid $2500 for my JP8, back in early 2000, so the JP80 is the expensive one ;)

If the JP80 was $1500-2000 that would be more like what I feel it's worth.
It sure needs more knobs/sliders :/

Devnor wrote:

Why expect the 80 to emulate the 8?

Guess why, huh?

In terms of marketing, fair advertising, musical good taste, and honesty,

The real question is

"why is not the jupiter-8 vs jupiter80 issue going away after MONTHS?"

Why?

Why Devnor is still there repeating the apparently obvious line that "this is a totally different machine" to people who don't seem to get the drift?

Because people are stupid? Because the users don't get the point? Because clients are not skilled at receiving corporte strategies?

What's the solution?

Hammering the corporate line on them again and again and again and again and again and again until they finally get that they MUST STOP thinking of the jupiter 8,

OR ELSE?!?

Come on, Devnor!

If people keep asking the same question, the question probably exists!

You build a machine which looks like a jupiter8, hype it as the new jupiter8, boast that you have the jupiter while others have the ms-20...

... people will tend to focus on the jupiter comparison.

If Roland didn't want the jp80 to be compare to the jupiter8,

they sure didn't choose the right name, or layout, or image, or advertising.

And you, please, stop treating the audience as if they were idiots.

I have right now in my studio a JP80, a Fantom G6, and a GAIA. There is absolutely NO comparison between the sound quality or timbre of these three keyboards. FG is clearly known to be a PCM based engine. It exhibits the traditional characteristics of PCM in every way, exactly as you would expect. Gaia does pretty much the same....but I have to say....GAIA in many ways performs and sounds "better" (subjective, I know) than FG in its raw basic synth waves (Saw, square, sine, etc). Its perhaps a matter of taste, but I would take GAIA as a "synth" over FG, based strictly on its sound quality and timbre. I would prefer FG's engine and architecture over GAIA....but....then I prefer GAIA's control surface. None the less....Neither sounds anything like the JP80. Its in another league. The differences are clear to my ears.

It definitely sounds different from a GAIA to me. Take a listen here :

http://youtu.be/b56qHS0GqhY

So here we are a few years later.

The JP-80 is, obviously, a stunning synthesizer, regardless of the tech debates. :)

Now my only fear is I'd reach a point where I finally said, heck, I'm not going to live forever, I'm going to get this thing!

Only to find Roland releasing the next generation of it a few months later....

What do you think? Is the JP-80 long in the tooth? Has Roland ended the cycle of releasing the smaller and cheaper subsets of their current technology, and are they on the cusp of a new V-Synth/JP-80 generation?

Or has everything been done at this point, including Eurorack competition, and nothing more is possible?

Speaking as someone who's owned the Jupiter 50 and Integra 7, in addition to many other synthesizers, I say if you like what you see get it. The JP 80 most likely isn't going to hold value very well, so if selling it later is a big concern you may hold off. I can imagine them selling for $1500 on ebay in a few years.

The sound WILL hold value though. It's not like an old pcm workstation where it sounds dated. I can't imagine the SuperNatural Synth ever sounding dated, I mean you can make so many amazing sounds with this thing that compete with the best.

As for Roland releasing something better any time soon, I really wouldn't count on it. This was released in 2011? And then the next flagship synth is the JD XA which was released this year and is similar to the JP sound in a lot of ways (with the addition of the analog stuff). They'll push that for a few years until the next big thing and unless the market changes dramatically, we're probably not going to see anything too innovative.

Like the Jupiter 8, the Jupiter 80/50's sounds are timeless. You will be able to use them for the rest of your life. If you aren't one to be concerned with your synth being the latest fashion, you will be endlessly happy with it as well. You won't run out of ideas with this thing either.

I'm still seeing Korg Tritons EVERYWHERE today. That was my first workstation when I was a teenager, and I would definitely say those things sound super dated. If the Triton and M50 can be so popular for so long, I don't think you'll have trouble competing with the monster that is the Jupiter 80 for the foreseeable future.

Difficult question to answer when all you hold is a hand of hunches!

My thoughts -

1) JP-80 sonic creative usefulness will last for many years to come

2) It is logical to assume that whilst Roland have been working on AIRA, JDs and now Boutiques, I am convinced that they will be working on their next big flagship. If they're quick this could be ready for NAMM 2016. Can't even begin to guess what Roland might consider for the next big flagship

3) Advice? I'd get the JP-80. Yes it's past the 4 year old mark now, but is still supported. If anything big is coming to replace it I think it will be a while coming - you can then take the decision whether to sell the JP-80 to partially fund the next big thing, or indeed decide to keep the JP-80 instead. I've owned a JP-80 since it was first released and have not once regretted it.

I do agree the JP-80 looks like a pretty timeless synth. I'm very familiar with Roland's architecture and history, so I "get" what has gone into it and how it all works.

I think it'll be a while until I decide whether I get one; I'm pretty well set as things are!

I just know I'd have my usual experience of being the last one into the pool right before closing time, story of my life, if I did. :)

It's also mainly fun to speculate where Roland could go next, they really do seem to have all bases covered at this point.

I agree that JD-XA is probably to JP-80 what, almost 20 years ago, JP-8000 was to XP-80. Whatever the arguments....substantially more is possible with the newer instruments (I know, some will argue FA06/08 instead of JP-80, this is one way Roland seems to have branched -- stage performance synth, a la Clavia, on one side, and more typical workstation, on the other). I've played around with a JD-XA and it is just incredible, nothing touches it in its category; well worth the money.

Only thing I could think of would be if, say, Roland were to allow more of a V-Synth approach to the JP-50/80 architecture, i.e., include all the Supernatural stuff (I see that as AP Synthesis evolved but then frozen in stone, basically), but afford maybe far deeper editing and sample manipulation, a la V-Synth...???

OTOH that would probably be so complicated it would sell maybe 500 units. Once you get in that deep, you're also competing with software on a computer, and the interface there is far better for dealing with complexity.

Which points to.... aha: what Native Instruments is doing with Komplete and their, basically, MIDI controller keyboards. And what Aira is a miniature version of. Provide the "disconnect from the computer and take it on the road" capability of a hardware synth, but also the "connect it to a computer and edit sequencer/VST complexity in a DAW (they own Cakewalk now)" capability of a hardware-connected-to-PC synth.

The trick there is always -- as I fret over with each PC update now, and my beleaguered Nord Modular -- maintaining compatibility.

If Roland is to keep with the kind of timelessness that makes their instruments eminently functional and playable 20-30 years later, becoming dependent on a PC is a bad idea. Good to experiment with, like Aira, but to make integral to a flagship system? Probably not. Clavia's clearly retreated from that, after discontinuation of the NM G2 years ago. Totally cool, modular concept, but utterly dependent on the availability of a PC that will still run the software. Ack.

Just my thoughts.