This is more like it!!!

[Stormchild]

I want to throw in the combo breaker here and I'm ready and willing to accept all the hate I'll get for saying this but in regards to Roland and the Digital Analog argument.

Have any of you ever heard or played the GAIA? Keyboards been around for almost a decade now. People scratch their heads like why the heck does Roland still make this thing. Then you hear someone that knows how to make patches play it and then you wonder why you don't already have one. The GAIA- SH01 doesn't have any of the ACB stuff but it can genuinely make sounds that you would have a hard time distinguishing it from an analog keyboard.

I've seen and heard guys mix this thing in with real Analog keyboards and you really would not even know it's coming from a GAIA. You just look at this little pearl white keyboard scratching your head like is this really making those wonderful sounds? So right now I'm just trying to ponder what on earth is the Jupiter with this new ZEN core going to be like if it's more powerful than an ACB keyboard. With Zen-Core I'm hoping Roland is able to break us into something beyond analog and digital but give us a 4th dimension of sound.

Believe it or not I think you have the right idea here. What really matters about any synth is “does it sound good?”

The point I keep trying to make is the Jupiter-X can be (and probably is) a great synth without comparing it to ACB. Accurately emulating specific vintage synths is not the only reason to make a synthesizer (though I think Roland unfortunately invites that comparison by making the Jupiter-50/80/X look very much like the Jupiter-8 people have been begging them to reissue in its original form for decades).

Some people want a versatile synth that can not only produce analog sounds (including some that are very similar to Roland’s classic synths of the 80s), but also includes digital synthesis, drums, and sample-based instruments, and lets you use a bunch of them at the same time. The Jupiter-X or Xm looks like a great synth for that purpose.

But there are also people who have always dreamed of owning a Jupiter-8 or even a Juno-106, but either can’t afford it, can’t justify spending that kind of money, and/or don’t want to deal with the cost and hassle of maintenance. For those people, the only thing that matters is how well the original hardware is recreated.

I’m in both camps, really. If something sounds good, I’ll use it. But I’ve also always wanted a bunch of Roland’s classic synths and drum machines, and when it comes to those, I either want the real thing (too hard to find a good one, and too expensive if you do), or the closest thing I can possibly get. For now, the ACB emulations are the closest thing you can get. I’m sure it’s possible to make improved versions, but the Zen-Core / A-Core ones are clearly not designed to achieve that goal.

If your goal is to recreate a vintage synth as closely as possible to the real thing, all the available evidence suggests Zen-Core / A-Core will not compare favorably to ACB. It was not created to compete with ACB. It’s not a replacement or upgrade of ACB. It’s a different synth engine that was designed to achieve different goals. I’m not saying it’s a bad synth. It looks fantastic. But I think people who are specifically looking for accurate analog emulations above all else should look elsewhere.

[kimsnarf]

Everything you’ve said so far is nothing but meaningless, hand-waving BS. That might work on some people, but I’m the kind of guy who will ask you to show your work.

You are calling "everything I have said" meaningless, hand-waving BS? Really? Your attitude does not belong in this forum. It is OK to disagree. It is OK to not understand someone's point of view. But personally attacking me when I replied honestly to your question? Come on! If you are unable to have a normal discussion without hating I suggest you find some other forum to spit your poison.

You’re still talking about “ACB” like it’s a thing unto itself. There is no “ACB tone”. Which specific ACB synth have you compared with the original analog hardware it emulates to come to the conclusion that it sounds sterile and precise?

You do not understand what I'm saying. I know ACB is a way to model specific circuits. I know there is not "one" ACB tone. But I have tried enough ACB emulations to conclude that I much prefer the original tone to the emulation. That is MY experience. You are apparently unable to grasp or accept that. I find it pointless to list the specific comparisons I have done. I have already said that I have been able to recreate specific patches, but as soon as I have started modifying the sound from there, the original sounds much better. To ME. Why is that so hard to understand for you?

If you have nothing constructive to say I suggest you refrain from saying it.

[kimsnarf]

If your goal is to recreate a vintage synth as closely as possible to the real thing, all the available evidence suggests Zen-Core / A-Core will not compare favorably to ACB. It was not created to compete with ACB. It’s not a replacement or upgrade of ACB. It’s a different synth engine that was designed to achieve different goals. I’m not saying it’s a bad synth. It looks fantastic. But I think people who are specifically looking for accurate analog emulations above all else should look elsewhere.

Analog synth sounds share certain characteristics that separate them from their digital estimations. If you can stop obsessing about emulations of specific synths, it is possible to achieve a pleasant analog-ish sound without wasting the whole CPU / DSP on accurate circuit modelling. It is certainly possible that Zen-Core / A-Core may well achieve a range of "analog" sounds that is more usable and more satisfying than the available ACB emulations. Not "accurate" sounds, just nice sounds. Personally, that is all I care about (in the "analog" department, but of course there is much more to the Jupiter X). As for ACB? I prefer analog synths instead.

[kimsnarf]

Official Roland replies to comments on their promo video:

JUPITER-Xm is designed to play and layer many types of sounds, not just a JUPITER-8 model. It can do analog modeling, digital PCM and hybrid sounds. Analog-only synthesizers cannot do this. Our goal was not to make a JUPITER-8 reissue, but instead a JUPITER-class synthesizer.

The new sound engines allow for premium-quality sound detail AND multi-timbrality for the drums, bass, and melodies available in the JUPITER-X. It goes way beyond 16-note polyphony (maximum 256-note depending on settings). We hope you get a chance to try one for yourself.

ZEN-Core employs both virtual analog modeling and modern PCM techniques for a versatile engine capable of a huge range of sounds. Unlike ACB which uses down-to-the-circuit models with extreme authenticity, ZEN-Core take a more balanced approach that is perhaps less "deep" but provides a similar experience, similar sound, but substantially more polyphony so you can take advantage of the multiple layers offered on the JUPITER-X and Xm.

The SYSTEM-8 is an eight-note polyphonic synthesizer whereas the JUPITER-X takes a multi-timbral approach to muci creation with drums, bass, leads, chords able to be played simultaneously. A truly inspiring music making process that we hope you can try out soon.

Actually JUPITER-80 was meant as a high spec, digital performance synth with many different kinds of sounds. SYSTEM-8 is a circuit-modeling instrument taht only does synths. Yes it does JP-8 and JUNO-106 but it also has its own unique engine and can also do FM mixed with VA, etyc. The JUPITER-X model JUPITER-8 and JUNO-106 yes but can also do all the digital XV sounds, RD piano and much more. It also is designed to be able to layer and split those synths into complex Scenes with lots going on and utilzing the i-Arp for lots of movement.

The sound of past JUNOs and JUPITERs is part of our sound - our sonic DNA - so these sounds find their way as a staple in many of our products. But if one looks beyond that, and considers the instrument hoiitcailly, one begins to see different strategies and approaches.

Roland JUPITER-X Series Synthesizers: JUPITER-Xm and JUPITER-X (Youtube)

[sompost]

(...) Our goal was not to make a JUPITER-8 reissue, but instead a JUPITER-class synthesizer.

Aaargh... #@%&$*!!!!

[Devnor]

Jupiter X has selectors for 4 partials in the OSC section. It's clearly the Fantom synth engines...PCM, VA supersaw. This is actually a good thing. Sounds developed for J-X can be used in Fantom and vice versa.

[kimsnarf]

In Roland's own words (from the same comments) regarding what JUPITER means to them:

JUPITER means flagship performance synth from Roland. It does not mean JUPITER-8 model. Prior to JUPITER-8 there was JUPITER-4, JUPITER-6 and later JUPITER-80. All sound different. JUPITER-X is JUPITER-class synthesizer, not a clone or remake of JUPITER-8. However, it can sound like a JUPITER-8. :-)

Because JUPITER-8 looks beautiful. The JUPITER look is part of Roland's design language (as is the TR-808, 909, etc.) and we use it because it looks like Roland and it looks like JUPITER class. There are many examples of this throughout many industries where visual appearance is indicative of a brand.

Nowhere in our marketing does it say this is a JUPITER-8 reissue. And in fact, if you read about it, you will clearly see that this is positioned as a "JUPITER", not a specific model. I think if you apply this logic to other companies and industries you'll see this is quite common.

There is no question that the JUPITER design is beautiful. The Jupiter 8, the 80 and now the X. This is their most aesthetic and successful design, so of course they use it on their flagship synths. And the build quality matches the design. There are now two digital Jupiters with this design. The analog one is now the exception. It is time to admit that Jupiter does not equal Jupiter 8.

[Stormchild]

You are calling "everything I have said" meaningless, hand-waving BS? Really? Your attitude does not belong in this forum. It is OK to disagree. It is OK to not understand someone's point of view. But personally attacking me when I replied honestly to your question? Come on! If you are unable to have a normal discussion without hating I suggest you find some other forum to spit your poison.

At no point did I personally attack you. I'm not "hating". I'm disagreeing with your characterization of ACB and vague attempts to explain what's wrong with it without citing any examples. I've asked for clarification and you still haven't provided any.

You do not understand what I'm saying. I know ACB is a way to model specific circuits. I know there is not "one" ACB tone. But I have tried enough ACB emulations to conclude that I much prefer the original tone to the emulation. That is MY experience.

Which ones? What about them sounded "sterile" and "digital", as you described it before? I've asked you several times and so far you've avoided answering these questions.

I find it pointless to list the specific comparisons I have done. I have already said that I have been able to recreate specific patches, but as soon as I have started modifying the sound from there, the original sounds much better. To ME. Why is that so hard to understand for you?

I find it convenient that you feel it's pointless to provide any evidence to support your claims. Either show your work or admit your claims are not based on empirical evidence. Or do whatever you want, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

If you have nothing constructive to say I suggest you refrain from saying it.

Likewise.

[Stormchild]

Analog synth sounds share certain characteristics that separate them from their digital estimations. If you can stop obsessing about emulations of specific synths, it is possible to achieve a pleasant analog-ish sound without wasting the whole CPU / DSP on accurate circuit modelling. It is certainly possible that Zen-Core / A-Core may well achieve a range of "analog" sounds that is more usable and more satisfying than the available ACB emulations. Not "accurate" sounds, just nice sounds. Personally, that is all I care about (in the "analog" department, but of course there is much more to the Jupiter X). As for ACB? I prefer analog synths instead.

I don't disagree with any of that.

What I'm interested in is either owning the real, original synths, or the closest possible recreation of them (with all their limitations and flaws intact), hence accuracy is what matters to me. I'm not saying it's what anyone else should care about. Evidently Roland agrees, hence why they make other synthesizers that aren't based on ACB. Nothing wrong with that.

[sompost]

with all their limitations and flaws intact

I'm just about prepared to ditch the limitations/flaws if it buys me a Jupiter that I'd otherwise have to pay anything between CHF 6800 to 20000 (1CHF approx 1USD). I don't need an emulator to "fake" the warm-up time, for example, or do an exact emulation of the 100th polyphonic note that you won't be able to hear with any precision anyway among the 99 other notes playing (some sort of adaptive precision).

But while I wanted to give the Roland engineers the benefit of the doubt as to the quality of their new Zen-Core based emulator, from above comments/replies on their YouTube channel (that I checked, incidentally), it appears that they haven't even tried. They're just milking the Jupiter-brand for another line of synths. I might still get one, but the new boutique JU-06A suddenly looks very desirable now.

Still, perhaps somebody with a golden ear can do a blind test between a real JP-8 (or better two), a boutique JP-08 and the new JP-X, and if the verdict is "close enough" I can't tell you how fast I'm going to get one.

I've never played a real Jupiter-8. They were usually turned off in keyboard stores, and I didn't dare asking the clerk to turn it on for me. So close enough is close enough for me.

[kimsnarf]

At no point did I personally attack you. I'm not "hating". I'm disagreeing with your characterization of ACB and vague attempts to explain what's wrong with it without citing any examples. I've asked for clarification and you still haven't provided any.

You started your reply by saying my opinions are «meaningless, handwaving BS». On what planet is that not rude, offensive, insulting and hating? If you had simply disagreed I would have been fine with that.

I find it convenient that you feel it's pointless to provide any evidence to support your claims. Either show your work or admit your claims are not based on empirical evidence. Or do whatever you want, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

This is music, not science. I am not writing a Master’s Thesis. I have nothing to prove to you. I have never said my opinions are based on empirical evidence. What on earth does evidence have to do with musical taste? I am not into music to sit and compare waveforms on a computer screen and fill in a spreadsheet. I want to spend my time actually playing music. Apparently you have different preferences.

[kimsnarf]

I've never played a real Jupiter-8. They were usually turned off in keyboard stores, and I didn't dare asking the clerk to turn it on for me. So close enough is close enough for me.

I have been fortunate enough to get quality time with the Jupiter 8, the Juno 6 and 60, the Prophet 5 and the Oberheim OB-8. Enough that I have been able to make meaningful comparisons to their modern counterparts.

In many cases, especially for sounds where most of the action is in the higher frequencies or with lots of modulation, the modern counterparts held their own. But the originals are in a completely different league when it comes to the mid to low frequencies and on less busy sounds. Not to mention filter sweeps and similar filter action. Enough so that I acquired some real analog gear to be able to reproduce that kind of thick, warm, pleasing sound.

I highly recommend the MKS-50 and the MKS-70, which are still possible to buy second-hand for sane prices. Yes they are DCO, but they still sound better (to me at least) than modern VCO-based synths. I use them to warm up the sound from the modern synths (by layering).

[cello]

I am noting a certain tone of exchange that's neither welcome or conducive to meaningful debate - by all means disagree, but do it with respect please.

I only like using the banning button for spammers...

[Stormchild]

I'm just about prepared to ditch the limitations/flaws if it buys me a Jupiter that I'd otherwise have to pay anything between CHF 6800 to 20000 (1CHF approx 1USD). I don't need an emulator to "fake" the warm-up time, for example, or do an exact emulation of the 100th polyphonic note that you won't be able to hear with any precision anyway among the 99 other notes playing (some sort of adaptive precision).

Yeah, I agree. I'm not looking for them to simulate the oscillators going out of tune or broken voice chips or anything like that. By "limitations" I mean things like the sequencers being clunky to use (in a sort of charming way), only having one LFO, no fancy modulation matrix…that sort of stuff. Basically I wanted something as close as possible to a pristine Jupiter-8, Juno-106, TB-303 etc. I'm sure there's still a gap between the ACB emulations and the real ones (and maybe there always will be), but they're close enough that I feel inspired to make my own patches and actually use them. I've had a System-8 and four of the boutiques (SH-01A, TB-03, TR-08, TR-09) for about five months and I use all of them every single time I'm in the studio.

But while I wanted to give the Roland engineers the benefit of the doubt as to the quality of their new Zen-Core based emulator, from above comments/replies on their YouTube channel (that I checked, incidentally), it appears that they haven't even tried. They're just milking the Jupiter-brand for another line of synths. I might still get one, but the new boutique JU-06A suddenly looks very desirable now.

I don't think that's the case at all. The new synth engine just has different design goals. The ACB emulations use an enormous amount of DSP to get the benefits of physically modeling every individual component — at the expense of serious limitations like only managing four voices in the boutique versions. As a huge fan of the Juno-106/60, I'm really tempted by the JU-06A, but I just don't think I can get past the four voice limit. They could have supported 8 voices by adding a second DSP chip, but then it would require AC power (not to mention cost more), which means it's no longer portable…in which case it's pretty silly to have a bunch of tiny controls jammed into a small space.

The Zen-Core engine was designed to achieve "good enough" emulations as part of its overall goal of supporting multiple parts, massively higher polyphony, and many other types of synthesis besides analog modeling. For a lot of people that's the right tradeoff…as long as the emulations are good enough to at least capture the spirit of the original synths, if not every subtle nuance in how all the features interact with each other.

If you look at the Jupiter-X as the evolution of the Jupiter product line (which has always been about versatility — a box that can make every kind of sound), I think it makes sense, and seems like a very worthy upgrade over the Jupiter-80. What's it's clearly not meant to be is Roland's best effort to recreate the Jupiter-8 (that product already exists — it's called the System-8).

That said, I do think they've brought this kind of criticism on themselves by making it look so much like the Jupiter-8, given how famous it is and how many people are begging for them to just re-issue that exact instrument again. But if they made it look totally different, they'd get complaints that they're just exploiting the name to sell a totally different product. Either way, they can't win.

[Happy]

The specs for Jupiter X are not on yet published on the Roland website. Publishing this would have saved lot of time of speculation. Roland states that the JP-x uses Zen-Core. Zen-core is defined in the Fantom parameters guide which is basically a PCM/VA engine and the parameters very much alike the Integra 7, JP50/80 which root from the JV and LA (D series) technology. New to Zen-core are XMF and IFX but loading I7 SRX and I7's motional sounds seem to be gone. With the Fantom and Jupiter X Roland seems to have ditched supernatural tones, but adding V-Piano in the Fantom. SN (Synth part only) was used in Jupiter 50/80 together with PCM/VA. That is surprising because Roland started to position SN (An expressiveness enhancement of V-Piano to make it even more natural) as superior to PCM only just a few years ago. If the JP-X supports V-Piano (Modeling) then that would position it a bit weird along with the RD and Fantom series. Quite confused where SN has gone. Still consider the Fantom and JP-X a variant of the PCM engine in the I7 but nothing revolutionary synth engine wise. The major change in the PCM engine seems to be a the IFX and XFM and perhaps that is because it uses the processing power earlier used by SN. Would not be surprised to see the same core chip in the Fantom and JP-X as used in the I7. So in short the Fantom/JP-X has an enhanced PCM/VA engine compared to the I7/50/80 with V-Piano instead of SN (if it the JPX supports true VP at all). But both these products are not really revolutionary and do not add much compared to an I7 and in several aspects (8 analog out and 16 parts on the I7) even much less. To give up an XA/50/80 for an JP-X would be a question as well (unless you have too much money to spend or the old device is worn out). As an happy I7 owner (might be a bit biased) don't see spending money would have lots of value add other than happy knobbing. YMMV.

References:
https://www.rolandus.com/blog/2013/06/0 ... ernatural/
https://www.pianobuyer.com/article/the- ... nd-engine/