Roland JD XA

SanderXpander · Post by **SanderXpander** » Mon Feb 09, 2015 10:03 pm

I must've misunderstood, I thought the SN Acoustics were also on board. I guess this is less of a catch all hybrid and more of a power synth. I hope that means we get something spectacular and innovative like V-Synth was. I wouldn't mind a few OS idiosyncrasies in that case.

Devnor · Post by **Devnor** » Mon Feb 09, 2015 10:22 pm

That was called the Jupiter 80

JDXA has all the features most everyone has been asking for: knobs and analog synthesis. Its almost here but most people are still looking backwards.

jimknopf · Post by **jimknopf** » Mon Feb 09, 2015 11:39 pm

As I said above, Supernatural seems to be sample based modelling, where the modelling calculates the timbre changes (velocity changes, decay changes etc.) of sample slices taken from the original instrument to define the basic timbre.

Various companies have their own names and technologies for it, but for example essentially Korg uses the same kind of concept for the Kronos EP-engines. Predecessors for this kind of concept are stone old and run back to the likes of the M1, when they tried to combine the simple mini-samples they had to rely on at that time, and took them for the characteristic attack phases of well known sounds, while calculating other parts of the waveforms.

Roland used the advanced modern form of sample based modelling, and then added behavior modelling (which really isn't essentially different from Kontakt scripting: EvilDragon is completely right about that) for their acoustic SN stuff. There is much too much mystifying going on about all this IMHO, while I see no witchcraft involved at all, just a smart combination of well known approaches by Roland.

Concerning the new synth: I agree to let it appear first and then talk more about the overall pros and cons. Just one thing: A 4-octave keybed for such a hybrid concept, which only makes sense with splits and layers, is definitely nonsense, so much is hard to deny. But that alone should not define the overall impression. Maybe it's still a fun machine with such anti-conceptual limits: let's wait and see.

Tschury · Post by **Tschury** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 12:32 am

jimknopf wrote:As I said above, Supernatural seems to be sample based modelling, where the modelling calculates the timbre changes (velocity changes, decay changes etc.) of sample slices taken from the original instrument to define the basic timbre.

Various companies have their own names and technologies for it, but for example essentially Korg uses the same kind of concept for the Kronos EP-engines. Predecessors for this kind of concept are stone old and run back to the likes of the M1, when they tried to combine the simple mini-samples they had to rely on at that time, and took them for the characteristic attack phases of well known sounds, while calculating other parts of the waveforms.

Roland used the advanced modern form of sample based modelling, and then added behavior modelling (which really isn't essentially different from Kontakt scripting: EvilDragon is completely right about that) for their acoustic SN stuff. There is much too much mystifying going on about all this IMHO, while I see no witchcraft involved at all, just a smart combination of well known approaches by Roland.

Concerning the new synth: I agree to let it appear first and then talk more about the overall pros and cons. Just one thing: A 4-octave keybed for such a hybrid concept, which only makes sense with splits and layers, is definitely nonsense, so much is hard to deny. But that alone should not define the overall impression. Maybe it's still a fun machine with such anti-conceptual limits: let's wait and see.

I have Kontakt and the JP-80. If you play them together, you will immediately realize the huge difference between Kontakt and the several different SuperNatural Acoustic engines, which are specific to each electro-acoustic (E-Piano, Tone Wheel Organ) and traditional acoustic instrument group. It's the play feeling, the behavior and the responsiveness, which are completely different, if you compare Kontakt and SN Acoustic side by side.

For example, as I've mentioned previously, the SN Acoustic Grand Piano engine uses Physical Modeling algorithms directly derived from the V-Piano, combined with samples:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eo2nJBhxGYI" frameborder="0"></iframe>

jimknopf · Post by **jimknopf** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:05 am

You can't compare Kontakt as basic program with the JP80: you have to compare libraries making heavy use of Kontakt scripting. Which Kontakt libraries have you bought to do the comparison?

I ask because there are hundreds of Kontakt libraries out there, some with really advanced forms of sripting, and I heavily doubt that the JP80 has any more advanced scripting to offer than some of them!

It's rather the combination of scripting and sample based modelling, which leads to very useful playability results, and this is the only difference with Kontakt, which is strictly sample-based. So there is something special, well done about Roland's "supernatural" approach. But still it is by far not as enigmatic and advanced as some seem to think.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 11:55 am

Well, SampleModeling have merged some modeling concepts with phase-locked samples to provide extremely realistic wind instruments in Kontakt...

Bachus · Post by **Bachus** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 2:27 pm

EvilDragon wrote:Well, SampleModeling have merged some modeling concepts with phase-locked samples to provide extremely realistic wind instruments in Kontakt...

http://www.samplemodeling.com/en/technology.php

According to their website thats very true, they seem to use some physical moddeling outside of the kontakt engine... This sounds very much like what Yamaha is doing with their SA2 voices in the Tyros 4 and 5...

Which makes those instruments very very playable... But they add their own programs on top of the kontakt scripting, this is beyound what Kontakt scripts itself allows, and so they are using the SWAM engine and not contact for their flutes and other advanced moddeling sounds..

Only some of their older sounds use kontakt..

Jan1 · Post by **Jan1** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 4:31 pm

While we're on the subject of Roland's V-technology and potential flagships I'm sure it cannot have escaped Roland's attention how much demand there is for a proper full-blown workstation which incorporates ALL of the Integra and add the sampling/soundsculpting capabilities of the V-synth/VP-9000.
I'm still hoping...especially since there is a whole lot more (multi-core) processing power available at a much lower price than when the V-synth first was released.

ExaJeff · Post by **ExaJeff** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 6:06 pm

What I would like would be a module will ALL of Roland's Super Natural sound engines :
- Super Natural Synth
- Super Natural Accoustic
- Super Natural Organ
- Super Natural Piano
- anymore Super Natural engines ?
- already loaded with THOUSANDS of sounds
- and with THOUSANDS of more empty memory slots to load ALL of the roland Axial sound librairies, already existing and to come

I also would like a synth like the JD-XA but :
- without the Super Natural engine
- without the sequencer
- without the drums
- with lots more modulation destinations
So STRICTLY a pure 100% analog, 6 to 8 voices, with patch memories and with ou without the digital effects.

A stripped down JD-XA in this fashion would be a lot less expensive.

I would buy this JD-XA and the Super Natural module in a minute if the prices would be right !!!

Just my thought...

chilly7 · Post by **chilly7** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:07 pm

I do not understand why u so exated about another hardwear digital synth. All guys what u ask for hardwear synths are alread in software world. And even something what might look like an alien tech in digital hardwear synth some of that are already awailable in software form.

Ofcause i do understant thouse people who pay thouthends dollars on Moog Modular or Oberheim SEMs or buy vintage analog synthesizers for cazy money because modern software comes close but still not yet in the same level as high end analog synthsizers can offer even with it's own obvius limitations but for me looks totaly stupid to buy modern hadrwear digilat synthsizers because all of that with much higher quality and more are awailable already in software form.

And if sombody say it is for live usage, i still see zero problems preventing me to use desctop computer in live situation hoked to midi controler and audio interface. It is still much more portable then gutarist one 4x12 cab with amp head and one guitar.

SanderXpander · Post by **SanderXpander** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:25 pm

While many individual V-Synth functions can be done in software, there is no single package that combines all of them into a sensible GUI, let alone with a hardware controller with some great options. It's simply a very well created musical instrument. You could say software gets "very close" but that holds for Moogs and their VSTi counterparts too. Or real pianos and sample based ones. Yet I still own a MicroMoog, a Voyager, a Fender Rhodes and wish I had V-Synth.

EDIT: and by the way, if you can get excited over something like DIVA, Blue2 or Vokator... Roland has been designing synths about four or five times as long as any of them. The fact that DIVA is so popular should tell you that Roland already knew how to make good synths when the U-HE programmers were still having their diapers changed. I don't think it's strange to be interested when they launch a new synth, whether it's hardware or software really doesn't matter.

Bachus · Post by **Bachus** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 5:49 am

chilly7 wrote:I do not understand why u so exated about another hardwear digital synth. All guys what u ask for hardwear synths are alread in software world. And even something what might look like an alien tech in digital hardwear synth some of that are already awailable in software form.

Ofcause i do understant thouse people who pay thouthends dollars on Moog Modular or Oberheim SEMs or buy vintage analog synthesizers for cazy money because modern software comes close but still not yet in the same level as high end analog synthsizers can offer even with it's own obvius limitations but for me looks totaly stupid to buy modern hadrwear digilat synthsizers because all of that with much higher quality and more are awailable already in software form.

And if sombody say it is for live usage, i still see zero problems preventing me to use desctop computer in live situation hoked to midi controler and audio interface. It is still much more portable then gutarist one 4x12 cab with amp head and one guitar.

Because thats what they like.... having gear under their fingers and turning that gear intoo a marvelous instrument.. But since you obviously never tried, you can not understand the feeling.

Just get yourselves behind a real B3, a Steinway grand, a real mini moog or even a V/synth and you will feel the difference...

There is a huge difference between people producing music, and musicians that are actually playing instruments..

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:35 am

Bachus wrote:
EvilDragon wrote:Well, SampleModeling have merged some modeling concepts with phase-locked samples to provide extremely realistic wind instruments in Kontakt...
http://www.samplemodeling.com/en/technology.php

According to their website thats very true, they seem to use some physical moddeling outside of the kontakt engine... This sounds very much like what Yamaha is doing with their SA2 voices in the Tyros 4 and 5...

Which makes those instruments very very playable... But they add their own programs on top of the kontakt scripting, this is beyound what Kontakt scripts itself allows, and so they are using the SWAM engine and not contact for their flutes and other advanced moddeling sounds..

Only some of their older sounds use kontakt..

SWAM is a completely different product - their older products are indeed for Kontakt, but this doesn't make them any worse sounding really. The principle they're using is exactly the same both in Kontakt and in their own SWAM engine - phase-locked samples with some elements of physmod.

Bachus · Post by **Bachus** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:28 am

EvilDragon wrote:
Bachus wrote:
EvilDragon wrote:Well, SampleModeling have merged some modeling concepts with phase-locked samples to provide extremely realistic wind instruments in Kontakt...
http://www.samplemodeling.com/en/technology.php

According to their website thats very true, they seem to use some physical moddeling outside of the kontakt engine... This sounds very much like what Yamaha is doing with their SA2 voices in the Tyros 4 and 5...

Which makes those instruments very very playable... But they add their own programs on top of the kontakt scripting, this is beyound what Kontakt scripts itself allows, and so they are using the SWAM engine and not contact for their flutes and other advanced moddeling sounds..

Only some of their older sounds use kontakt..

SWAM is a completely different product - their older products are indeed for Kontakt, but this doesn't make them any worse sounding really. The principle they're using is exactly the same both in Kontakt and in their own SWAM engine - phase-locked samples with some elements of physmod.

The swam engine was developed, because of the shortcommings of Kontakt which didnt allow everything required to build the virtuall instruments that have all the expression of the orriginals (sure the kontakt samples are of the highest sound quallity to, but miss some in their playabillity according to sample moddings own website..

http://www.samplemodeling.com/en/swam_saxophones.php

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Wed Feb 11, 2015 12:21 pm

Bachus wrote:but miss some in their playabillity according to sample moddings own website..

I wouldn't phrase it like that. Both SWAM and SM Kontakt libraries are equally playable out of the box. In fact, SWAM needs quite a bit more user interaction to shape the articulations so they're just right, compared to Kontakt versions.