Using "TW Organ" (SN.AC: 0028) @ SOLO or LOWER part

[snuffman1176]

Hello!

I want to use tone: "TW Organ" (SN.AC: 0028) at LOWER or SOLO part. Why it's impossible? On list there are tones from 0001-0027 and then 0029-2500.....etc.

I wanted to route signal (Organ tone) from LOWER or SOLO to sub outputs 3-4 and process it on BOSS RT-20.

Best Wishes!
Snuffman

[Macska]

Right. If I remember correctly you can only use the TW Organ on the Upper part.

[snuffman1176]

Ok, I know about it from owner's manual :-)


But why it's impossible? Are here any Roland programist??? Maybe it's possible to repair this error in newest firmware...? :-)

Please help me.

A.

[Macska]

I used to have it figured out, I mean why it wouldn't work.

I think it has something to do with how the lower and solo parts can only handle one tone, and the organ actually uses several tones.

[snuffman1176]

Thanks for reply,


Only one tone, look at this, I made a photos:



I note that that other supernatural tones are working @ LOWER. Why this one not?

[Synthtron]

Things like this sometimes make me wonder why Roland did not call the Jupiter-50 a Juno-Stage two or something. I have both the Jupiter-50 and 80. The JP-50 is really about half the machine, at least to me, by not having the lower part and less polyphony as the Jupiter-80 does. I use the JP-50 in the studio and for live use but the JP-80 stays in the studio only (I prefer lighter synths for live use).

[kimsnarf]

I think the TW Organ is locked to the UPPER part due to the organ-specific controls/parameters being hardwired to this part, instead of being dynamic/configurable. This probably made it easier to develop the interface.

[Mahobe]

Hello. Sorry for not Being able to answer your question directly, as I don't know the answer, though also wondered about it once. My answer is more directed to Synthron and his pointless response. Why didn't Roland call this Juno Stage 2? Really? What does it mean? That you downgrade the 50 because you also have th 80? That you want to tell us all how many boards you have? If you really have them and had the chance to really go deep with the 50 (which I doubt, in case you have the other), you should know the answer to your question. And the answer is basically that the 50 has absolutely nothing to do with the Stage. Besides the build quality (I will have the 50 for decades and th le Stage has had lots of problems related to its build quality), besides one is made in China and the other is Japanese, beside the absolutely different architecture, multitumbrality, and a long etcetera, the simple answer is that the 50 blows you away in terms of sound, and it does not happen with the Stage. You might miss the 16 channels if you like (like I once did), but there is a point in which you almost understand why the 50 is 3 channels multi timbral (or 4 in the case of the 80). The 50 and the 80 are simply the best sounding keyboards out there, and comparing the 50 with the Stage is simply not getting the point, or maybe having used it VERY superficially. The Jupiters (particularly the 50) had bad luck, in a moment and in a world in which real keyboardists are disappearing. People are more concerned in accumulating gear (and accumulating everything in general) than in having pleasure with what they have. Maybe I am wrong, but that is how your answer to a completely different question sounded to me. In a world where people need "knobs" and more of everything I encourage you and everyone else who have not really used and went deep with the 50, to PLAY it and EXPLORE it. I consider myself old enough to state that the Jupiter 50 is the most inspiring keyboard I have ever had (and had a few), and the joy it produces is unprecedented if you give it time. It is an eternal instrument, in terms of sound and build quality. The Stage seems like a toy beside it, in many regards. and if you really believe that those keyboards are comparable, or the 50 is a stage Ii, it is also hard to understand why you spent that much money, already having the 80, and being the stage so cheap.
Regarding polifony (128 notes!) I really would like to see how many times you used it, and for which reasons, what kind of programming you did. I could give you, if you had the intention of really discussing the 50, its lack of aftertouch (silly omission), or the lack of drum arpeggiator (also lacking in the 80) or even a simple sequencer (also lacking in the 80) or the lack of a librarian (which has its own magic at some point, and also lacking in the 80). And I would also like to add, given that at the end I finished talking about the keyboard, that the sounds of the 50 are many times not even reachable by the Integra 7. I mean: they are possible in theory (and even more theoretical possibilities with the integra), but the truth is that the ease of layering and mixing and effects and combined arpeggios generate very enormous possibilities and a joy not reachable by the Integra, considering it's completely different dynamics. Of course, add a little programming to these possibilities, and the Jupiter is amazing. Sorry if I went very long, but I was in the mood to add my two cents to an opinion that seems to me extremely superficial. Many of us have surfed the web many times, looking for those guys that have "all the gear" and we believe they can eliminate our doubts by statements such as "I have all of them, I prefer the..." (usually more expensive one). It is understandable, you spent a lot of money, but many times it is not true. The reason for which the 80 succeeded more than the 50 is probably the respect that people has to its price. Of course is double the machine the 50 is, but I really doubt that many of those who think the 80 is a good board have really gave a try to the 50. The 50 is huge. I was in a store the other day, playing a Kronos 61 with a historic if keyboardist from my country, right besides a J50. Double the price, but everyone there, real players, were unanimous on the judgement in terms of sounds and building, in favor of the 50. Lack of knobs? Yes. I defy anyone to get the amazing level of complex sounds the J50 achieves in seconds. Simply not possible with the Kronos, You will not discover the 50 in the store, you will barely discover it after one year with you. As it happens with many other thiing in life (sorry about going that philosophical, but just think about it). Just to finish: I would really like in the future to buy the 80 (I will probably do it, but I am not sure considering its weight and portability); the added possibilities might be unbelievable. But in that case, I will never compare the 50 (having it sold by then or not) with anything else, as it is simply unique. As usually written here, it is also probable that the limitations of the 50 encourage me to achi be things I would not with the 80. Again, like the rest of things in life. In sum: I don't have any idea on why it is not possible to use that sound in the lower part, but believe me it is not worth to buy the 80 only for that. Regards.

[patriot]

To answer initial question just lets read User Manual for JP-50. You cant use Live Set for Lower Part. Even that inside this Live set is maybe only one Tone. You can use only Tones for Lower Part, including Supernatural Tones.

To Mahobe:
There is huge difference between JP-50 and JP-80. JP-50 is strongly "cutted" JP-80.
Cutted to bone ....
I am amateur but I am still in touch of JP-50 limits which JP-80 doesnt have.
Lot of limits :-(.

Onlu one advantage of JP-50 exists - much better price than JP-80 price. And more compact body of JP-50 I preferre too. But that is all. JP-80 is much much much more powerfull in all aspects. LOT of aspects.

So, my thinking: If you have money, go for JP-80, without any doubts. If you havent money, go for JP-50 and enjoy less than half of fun. But this is still enough to enjoy sound ...