In depth Jupiter-50 video review

[Leh173]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH7Nx70NQJ4

This is worth watching. Enjoy. I have to say this sound engine sounds good. When it even sounds good in youtube clips you know somethings going on!

[Vlad_77]

Note: This is not a troll response. I am a proud owner and have been a proud owner of a number of Roland workstations and synths. It is rather an honest response to the review.

To be honest, I really feel that Dan was being quite kind. Obviously comparisons to the Jupiter 80 are meaningful and as I was watching the review I was asking myself what the 80 has/50 does NOT have within the parameter of price point. Also, the 80 was touted as being a niche keyboard and now the 50 comes out and according to the review you are getting a lot of what is in the 80 for a lower price, but the omissions are a bit glaring.

1. The note stealing algorithm really is not that good. You could for instance play those juicy deep programs with FAT jazz chords on a Kurzweil PC3 and not hear any stealing. Goldman pointed out the halved polyphony as a rather significant issue.

2. No MIDI-thru? Is it really THAT expensive Roland??

3. Lack of aftertouch when cheaper keyboards have it is a really strange omission.

4. A wall wart power supply? Let's be honest folks, this is not the flagship for Roland but nonetheless the 50 IS a pro level synth, not some cheap Yamaha toy. Have real power supplies become the purview of ONLY Roland flagships? Are they THAT expensive??

5. One less registration part: I am supposing that this is related to the 128 polyphony versus the 256 on the 80. If not, then what does a registration cost?

Now, I DO understand Roland's cutting out the big color screen and many of the real time controllers to reach this price point. But the above mentioned 5 points do not make sense at all, especially the power supply, lack of aftertouch, and no MIDI-thru.

So the Jupiter 80 gives you one more registration, a real power supply, a big screen, complete MIDI, nice real time controllers, and 256 voice polyphony. For sake of discussion if we leave out the big screen of the 80, and the real time controllers, what are you paying an extra 1000+ for on a JP80 which, as posts here on the JP80 thread have argued makes it a niche keyboard? The Jupiter 80 is a hell of a keyboard and deserves the praise it is getting - and this is coming from a Kronos user so not ALL of us "hate" the JP-80. As for the 50, I think that Roland should have christened it a Juno-80.

What I am wondering is whether the for the masses Jupiter 50 will hurt sales of the 80? There really is a huge difference between the two but at least where I am local music stores - obviously they need to sell these - are touting it as essentially a Jupiter 80 with just a few things missing. Goldman mentioned in his review that the 50 is a programmer's dream. I have to disagree and here is why:

The lack of real time controls makes programming more difficult and even Goldman had some difficulties. The small screen which looks to be approximately the same size as a Kurzweil packs a lot of information but why the scrolling? Kurzweil does it with pages and it it much easier to get to what you need and quite quickly. I also do not see the same flexibility for sound creation that similarly price pointed synths offer. A 76 note PC3 sells for the same or lower price than a Jupiter 50. A PC3K falls somewhere between the price point of a Jupiter 50 and a Jupiter 80 and offers a LOT more sound design possibilities, the ability to load legacy patches, 88 keys, aftertouch, full MIDI, a real power supply, and a much more sophisticated voice stealing algorithm.

Does the Jupiter 50 sound good? Yes I agree that it does. As Leh173 noted, if it sounds good on a YouTube video it definitely will sound great in a real world environment. And, having spent considerable time with the 80 such that I want to either add it or a V-Synth XT to my rig, I know that the Jupiter has a great sound engine. But the omissions just do not add up. Okay, I do not think we NEED huge color screens. They do make things easier in editing and in live performance but before the Fantom X, we were doing fine without them. The power supply is a joke. Goldman mentioned that the 50 is longer than the 80, so again, why omit something as elementary as a real power supply?

Perhaps what I find most disturbing is the possibility of history repeating itself: when Roland released the Fantom G, ARX was its most anticipated feature. Instead of developing ARX, Roland released a slew of Junos that were budget versions of the G. The G has been I am sorry to say orphaned by Roland. I HOPE the same does not happen to the Jupiter 80.

Namaste,
Vlad

[Devnor]

Wanna play fat jazz chords? Program something yourself that doesn't have 12 layers.

In the 21st century, who really uses MIDI thru?

If Aftertouch was all that useful there would be poly AT boards by now. What we have are cheap mono channel pressure strips with a very narrow range stuck into these boards as an After-thought. Besides that it's really bad for your hands & joints.

What other current products in JP50 price range do not have an external PS? This keeps the cost down. How? Before you can sell electrical products into a particular country that product needs to have an electrical approvals. If they install the PS into the synth, then the entire synth needs to be certified for a particular country. If they keep it external, then they bundle the approved power supply with the board. No need to recertify. Reduced weight & less noise & heat.

Actually it's less 2 registration parts. There is no second live set or single tone layer. Patch compatible with the Jupiter 80.

Sonically the PC3 just doesn't compare with the JP50. VAST was awesome...10-15 years ago. There is no sample memory so you are struck with triple strike pianos and rompler strings. Editing is a real pain in the ass especially when you've got a ton of layers. Talk about a product with very little support. Its taken years to produce a ROM sound bank.

The Jupiter is well supported by Roland. The JP50 has not even shipped yet someone is here already worried about Roland abandoning the product and owners. Every update includes new features. Out of the blue, we got a very useful ipad editor. There are no reports of any DOA Jupiter 80, no parts falling off and no reboots.

[anotherscott]

I was asking myself what the 80 has/50 does NOT have within the parameter of price point.

* no aftertouch
* no large color display
* 128 polyphony vs 256
* Keyboard can be split 3 ways and trigger up to 6 sounds (instead of 4 ways and 10 sounds)
* 128 custom registrations, recalled in sets of 4 (instead of 256, recalled in sets of 8)
* external power supply
* less connectivity (lacks balanced XLR outs, MIDI thru, digital audio out)

1. The note stealing algorithm really is not that good....Goldman pointed out the halved polyphony as a rather significant issue.
...
5. One less registration part: I am supposing that this is related to the 128 polyphony versus the 256 on the 80. If not, then what does a registration cost?

I think you're right that these two issues are related. The extra registration is what makes the 80 capable of layering/splitting up to 10 timbres at a time instead of 6. That could eat up polyphony a lot more quickly, you could potentially hear note stealing a lot more often if they cut the polyphony and left the rest. Apart from that, I don't know what a registration "costs" in terms of processing power or other resources, but it also means more buttons, and, without the big screen, would require coming up with a way to create a 4-part 10-tone interface that you could as easily navigate on a much smaller screen.

2. No MIDI-thru? Is it really THAT expensive Roland??

This doesn't bother me. This is, after all, their "budget" version, and for the one-in-a-thousand people who need a MIDI thru on it, you can buy a cheap MIDI thru box.

Lack of aftertouch when cheaper keyboards have it is a really strange omission.

I don't know about strange, but definitely unfortunate. I don't buy the "cheaper keyboard" perspective because, well, those cheaper keyboards are lacking a lot of things the 50 has, so it's not apples-to-apples. (In fact, I think the only 76-key board with AT that is cheaper than the Roland is the Kurz PC3LE7... which is a great board... though unfortunately almost as tough to haul around as a Jupiter 80.) With the Jupiter 50 being so much designed as a "performance" board, it really should have had AT, even if it meant making it a bit more expensive. Lack of AT is the only reason I'm undecided about buying one. And unlike a MIDI Thru, you can't just buy something to add it after the fact.

A wall wart power supply? Let's be honest folks, this is not the flagship for Roland but nonetheless the 50 IS a pro level synth, not some cheap Yamaha toy. Have real power supplies become the purview of ONLY Roland flagships? Are they THAT expensive??

The thing about external power supplies isn't just that they create a cost savings... they are part of what allows these boards to be smaller and lighter. Once you put a power supply inside the case, the entire case typically has to get bigger and heavier to accommodate it. Besides having to hold the power supply itself, there are issues of shielding and maintaining sufficient distance from other components (to prevent hums/buzzes), and heat dissipation to deal with. So it's not just cost, it's also size/bulk. Apart from that, it means they can make one version that they can ship globally, which also saves cost.

edit: Also, I believe they have made the piece lighter and cheaper by going to a plastic instead of metal case. There may be construction or interference or certification or some other issues about putting a power supply in a plastic case... I don't think I've ever seen a plastic chassis device with an internal power supply.

Goldman mentioned that the 50 is longer than the 80, so again, why omit something as elementary as a real power supply?

Longer, but smaller in the other two dimensions. I would not assume there is necessarily a lot of empty space inside.

Goldman mentioned in his review that the 50 is a programmer's dream. I have to disagree and here is why:

The lack of real time controls makes programming more difficult

I don't think you can make a judgment about how easy or hard it is until you try it yourself. Regardless, the availability of the iPad app adds another dimension here.

[anotherscott]

If Aftertouch was all that useful there would be poly AT boards by now.

Aftertouch is enormously useful for people who play keyboards with both hands at the same time.

Poly AT would be nice... unfortunately, it is apparently expensive and/or problematic to implement.

[Devnor]

Aftertouch is enormously useful for people who play keyboards with both hands at the same time.

Like I said earlier if AT was "enormously useful" the technology would have been developed. Kurzweil dropped it like a hot potato. Nobody I personally know is using it & I don't see guys like Jordan Rudess or Chick Corea pressing into their keybeds. Those guys with both hands dontcha know.

[anotherscott]

Aftertouch is enormously useful for people who play keyboards with both hands at the same time.

Like I said earlier if AT was "enormously useful" the technology would have been developed.

That is a weird argument. Does the fact that we're not seeing 100 mpg cars mean they would not be useful?

If you're talking about standard AT, it is fully developed... it's just not dirt cheap to make, so manufacturers have taken it out of their lower priced boards. Unfortunately for those of us who value portability, the more full featured boards that have it are mostly a lot heavier to carry around, leaving us with few lightweight options with AT, even if we're willing to spend the money. Nord is about the only game in town. I'd rather spend $2200 for a Jupiter 50 with AT than $2000 for one without, but I don't have that choice. The Jupiter 80 is just too big and heavy for me to gig with.

If you're talking about polyphonic AT, very few people have experience with it, as it has rarely been available, and has generally been available only in expensive (and heavy, and sometimes problematic) boards, but many people who have used it swear by it (as a google search will tell you).

As for whether Rudess or Corea use it, I couldn't tell you, but the fact that you don't *see* them pressing into their keybeds doesn't tell you much, it can be done pretty subtly. But if you're ever hearing modulation from their lead hand while their other hand is playing something else, they're probably using AT.

BTW, Kurzweil has not dropped AT. In fact, they have AT in ALL their boards except for the ones sold as pianos.

[Devnor]

Kurz dropped poly AT. Besides that, nothing has changed since the DX7. Basically 30 years since the inception of the commercially available digital synthesizer, aftertouch has remained exactly the same - without any enhancements. Zip, nada, nothing.

Nobody was talking about AT except when it didn't appear in a mid priced board. Suddenly, its a huge deal. Performances are potentially hindered. How will I possibly add vibrato to my leads while I'm chording in the left?! Back to Chick & Jordan...for the most part when they solo, they are bending pitches and adding modulation with the left hand.

Roland had to cut corners somewhere to deliver on the price point. Instead of nerfing the Jupiter engine, you get a lump in the middle power supply and no aftertouch. I've already got plenty of boards with mono channel pressure. Sounds like the right decision to me.

[anotherscott]

Kurz dropped poly AT.

Yes. As I said, poly AT has generally been heavy and expensive, and the MIDIboard was an example of that.
Also, Kurzweil is a relatively small keyboard, and for cost reasons, got out of the keybed manufacturing business altogether. So they are stuck choosing from whatever Fatar has to offer. But check around, you'll see plenty of people lust after the old poly-AT great action MIDIboards.

Besides that, nothing has changed since the DX7. Basically 30 years since the inception of the commercially available digital synthesizer, aftertouch has remained exactly the same - without any enhancements. Zip, nada, nothing.

Another strange argument. Why assume that nothing is ever simply "right" and works perfectly well without having to be improved? Aspirin is still aspirin, that doesn't make it bad or useless. Heck, some of the things from 30 years ago are *better* than today's "improvements." (Some would argue that the Jupiter 8 is an example of that! Among other analog synths.) AT as it was done then did what it was supposed to do perfectly well. Lack of change is not a case for something's ineffectiveness, it's a case for its effectiveness! And actually AT goes back even further than 30 years. At least to the ARP Pro Soloist, circa 1972. (Aftertouch originated on monophonic synths. The adaptation to polyphonic use was complicated.)

BTW, as it happens, Arturia does offer a nice enhancement to aftertouch on the Origin... it can be set to only apply to the uppermost, bottommost, or last played note, giving you a lot of the benefit of polyphonic aftertouch without the expense, complexity, and potential MIDI bottlenecking. So the answer isn't really zip, nada. But again, if the original implementation has worked well for tons of folks for 30 years, I don't see minimal change as a negative. And I'm not sure what enhancement you feel it is missing. Though I do wish that someone would come up with a low cost poly implementation. Right now, you have to spend $3k on a VAX77 controller.

Nobody was talking about AT except when it didn't appear in a mid priced board. Suddenly, its a huge deal.

Nobody was talking about it when every decent board had it, because everyone who wanted it had it. It became a deal when new boards didn't have it anymore. Nobody talks about cars having air conditioning. But if suddenly no car under $30k had AC, everyone would be talking about it. Well, at least people it mattered too. Maybe not the Canadians.

I'm not trying to convince you you need AT, any more than I"d try to convince a Canadian that they needed AC. But it's awfully presumptuous for you to say that no one needs it, or really misses its absence.

Back to Chick & Jordan...for the most part when they solo, they are bending pitches and adding modulation with the left hand.

Like I said at the start... it matters when you're playing with TWO HANDS. If you can drop a hand, that's different. If you're in a band where it doesn't matter if the foundation gets weak when you solo, or it's a big band with lots of other players to keep things full, or if you're using sequences and backing tracks, fine, but that doesn't apply to everyone. Personally, I often play in small ensembles, even to the point where I have to play LH bass.

Roland had to cut corners somewhere to deliver on the price point.

I understand that, and have not said they should have included it at no extra cost. I'd pay more for it, and it would still be over a grand less than the 80.

I've already got plenty of boards with mono channel pressure.

That's fine for you then.

But even then, how many boards do you want to gig with? I usually want to gig with two... a weighted 88, and a 7x synth action. My 88 doesn't have AT, and the 88 is not where I personally want AT anyway. So your solution is to add a third board? Ugh.

[Devnor]

You should expect more than a simple high or low note priority. How about evolution such as poly pressure, a variable response curve and more useful assignments & routing?

[anotherscott]

more useful assignments & routing?

Roland did a pretty poor job of that on the Jupiter 80, unfortunately. However, many boards are VERY flexible in how you can assign/route aftertouch. So yeah, that's actually another way it has advanced since 30-40 years ago!

BTW, I actually don't even use AT all that often... or pitch bend, or mod wheel for that matter (can rarely spare a hand for those anyway). BUT... when I need them, I'm frustrated if they're not there! ;-)

[ozy]

Like I said earlier if AT was "enormously useful" the technology would have been developed.

That makes a lot of sense indeed.

If cheaper cars who consume less were in anybody's interest, they would be on sale, right?

If producers don't offer them, it's because nobody wants them, right?

And scam-free mortgages, and fine-print-free insurance, and long-life batteries for phones, and efficient internet lines.

"Nobody wants them", this is why they are not on the market.

Oh, boy.

Nobody I personally know is using afterouch & I don't see guys like Jordan Rudess or Chick Corea pressing into their keybeds.

Nice case of shooting before aiming.

Both musicians you quote currently use keyboards which support AT (or, of course, vintage keyboards).

Rudess uses a Continuum, for Gossake!!! He not only uses aftertouch, it uses finger sliding on keys, etc...

You picked the wrong guy as a testimonial AGAINST alternate controllers.

As for Corea, he is one of the two synthesists who INVENTED a new and specific way of using AT, MOD wheel, pitch bend wheel, etc

You don't SEE them using AT because they don't use ELBOWS and FOREARMS strenght in order to press on keys (as any bad player would): they have enough strenght in their fingers for aftertouch not to SHOW while they use it.

Otherwise, AT would HURT your elbows. I use it a lot on weighted keys, and had to learn how to just use my flexors and immediately release them, instead on relying on "heavy hands" to engage AT.

In any case, call me when a jupiter 50 appears on stage in Rudess' or Corea's rig.

A jupiter80 maybe, a 50 never in this Eon.

The debate here is about the 50's shortcomings by reference to the 80,

but you immediately, as usual, foam at the mouth - totally missing the point.

Left alone, you will probably end up proclaming that the jupiter50 is better than the jupiter80

check around, you'll see plenty of people lust after the old poly-AT great action MIDIboards.

Amen.

I recently owned for some months an old GEM S3 synth, using it as a masterkeyboard [sounds are just ugly]: well, its poly AT wass definitely nice. Think of a split: you solo with aftertouch and comp without it. Sweeeeet! Or a analogue pad "moving" while you arpegiate on held chords... Nice...

Unfortunately the rest of the keyboard was not so nice (bad buttons, clumsy software), but the Poly AT was very nice.

[Mystic38]

I stopped reading right here..

If Aftertouch was all that useful..................

[Devnor]

Oh please Ozy, there is a huge difference between the specialized Continuum play surface and your synth action keyboard. Lets try to keep the comparisons apples to apples. Fact is most pro players haven't used AT for many years, that was my point and I'm still waiting for someone to prove it otherwise. Has Rudess ever discussed about how he's using keyboard AT to get thru his gig? Nope. There's a guy that's truely playing with "both hands".

Pro players not using it and manufacturers aren't developing the tech.

Roland was smart to eliminate that from their lower cost Jupiter. They could have made it 61 keys or nerfed the Jupiter sound engine. They could have used cardboard spacers to reduce cost & weight. JP50 delivers a ton of sonic potential for $2000. At least until Summer NAMM rolls around, nothing else delivers for that kind of money.

[anotherscott]

Fact is most pro players haven't used AT for many years

Your source for this fact?

Roland was smart to eliminate that from their lower cost Jupiter. They could have made it 61 keys or nerfed the Jupiter sound engine.

You're assuming the only alternative to removing AT would have been to remove something else. That's simply not the case. They could have raised the price and kept it all. It sells for $1999. Perhaps it could have been $2199 with AT, for example.