V synth GT - new possibilities?

[stevie]

Hey all, just been reading through V synth GT manual and I feel a little disappointed - is there something I'm missing?

It seems that even though you've got two Vs in the box, you can't actually have four oscs interacting/modulating each other. You've literally got two separate Vs with the same osc. structure as the original V/XT with exception of Vocal Designer and AP synthesis being there to take the place of one of the Vs.

Therefore, apart from AP synthesis wave/phrase models being on a V patch, there is actually no new way to produce sounds. Am I missing something? The original V/XT could produce more or less the same sound, but only one at a time. With these structures, the GT would lend itself better to live performance since you can have twice as much going on at once, but no real new ways to produce sounds i.e layer four oscs at once, morph between them etc. This is a real disappointment and surely a candidate for an OS upgrade - or is this impossible due to the way the hardware has been implemented. What do you think?

Cheers, Steve

[Igglethorpe]

I'm seeing the same thing you are in the manual. This is what I had expected to see and have long since given up any thought in picking this keyboard up. Since I already have a V-Synth XT, I've decided to go with a Virus Polar for alternate sounds.

----------------------------------
Fantom X8 (2.10) 512MB
Fantom XR (2.02) 512MB
V-Synth XT (2.02)
SH-201

[Krisser]

Unfortunately, I think the GT is even worse than having two seperate V-Synths. After all, you only get 28 notes max on a GT, instead of the 48 you'd get with two V-Synths/XTs.

Of course, there is AP synthesis, but having tested this feature out, I have to say IMHO it ain't all that, and is far more limited than I had hoped.

And if you bought a V-Synth/XT combo, you would of course also get a D50 card to make up for the loss of AP...

[seamonkey]

I was seriously thinking of getting the Gt but the more I researched info about it(it's strangely quiet out there, very little info) the more I realized it's just a souped up Vsynth with the exception of AP.
What raised my eyebrows is Roland introduced this at the Naam show, it is now July and they STILL do not have any audio demos up on their site..what up with that?
I love the potential the Vsynth has to offer so I bought one on ebay, bought a used Access Virus Indigo in mint and still saved myself nearly a $1000.00 by not getting the GT.
I don't like the way Roland has treated the Vsynth users by not offering any new upgrades, discontinuing the VC2 and making VC1 cards hard to get. Where are all the other new VC cards which could keep the Vsynth expanding for years to come?
It's like Roland picked up their ball, left and said ..I don't wanna play anymore.
Hey Roland don't forget about us Vsynth owners, ok?

[stevie]

Well said seamonkey. AP synthesis on the GT could quite easily be an OS upgrade or a V card release on the original V/XT which may only impact a little polyphony. Instead, Roland decide to realease an entirely new product based on a very small amount of development. This is no way merits a new product. This is allienating their current user base - wasn't the whole point of having V cards and an open OS architecture to release new V cards?

No wonder people end up so sceptical of this approach - read korg Oasys (can't see any new development there now the initial development is done) - I could think of loads of V cards that could be released, how about 'true' VA aka JP8000/8080 or physical modelling or what about an FX card for mega effects that the V is 'only' processing external signals - so many uses but yet so little utilisation. Roland have successfully managed to undermine their own product. Surely they've got enough Vs out there (Varios, original V, XT, plus GT), so producing V cards which are in demand will still earn them loads of dosh - afterall, they'll just be selling software which can't be copied.......

Steve

EDIT: V cards would seem to be dead though since the GT doesn't even have a CF reader, which means you need to find a way of realeasing new V cards (and installing via USB) wihtout them being copied. Can't see it happening.

[orangefunk]

regarding the 48 v 28, it could very well be that the GT gives 28 consistently rather than the fairly random approach of the original VSynth where you could end up with 5 voices of polyphony depending on the Variphrase algorithm.

If the GT really is two VSynth cores then I can't see it being any other way.

Lets see how it pans out...I'm looking at September I guess to buy one.

[Krisser]

Orangefunk, sorry to dash your hopes. The GT manual clearly states that it is 28 notes max, not consistently, and that the polyphony varies depending on processor demands, just as with the original V-Synth and the XT.

This is one of the reasons that selling the GT as two V-Synths is one box is misleading. Another is the fact that there is only one reverb and one chorus to share between upper and lower tones.

My advice is buy a second hand V-Synth and XT instead, and you will get double effects and max 48 note polyphony. I wouldn't fret about losing AP, having tried it myself. Of course, you may feel differently.
K

[mch]

i bought the virus Ti instead after seeing and realising the gt wasnt worth the loss (by selling xt etc and what i would get extra for me isnt worth it ) The Virus ti is stunning , really stunning.The Vsynth xt is still my fav synth but what a shame about the gt .I am a serial synth buyer and i upgrade most synths if the new model is a step forward or enough of one , for me the gt isnt , roland guys REALLY need to read the users feedback and start to work with their ideas like Ableton live , Genoqs and most of the new companies ( who read and listen to forums and then implement what the Buyers want ) ( it doesn actually help to sell new products roland ! ) . . . . roland stepping into the 21st century , they have the money , machinery but lack the ideas people like native instruments and others have.

did anyone at roland realise their being left behind , this style gear and ' emulation , emulation emulation - is dieing , seriously . . . . clavia , access and a host of otehrs are now shifting into sample based resynthesis . . .roland were ahead of the game . . . were.............

[stevie]

yeah, personally, I'd love to see 'pure' additive resynthesis, this is what the GT should have been and Roland world have been a world leader - in hardware as far as I know. As such though, the GT seems to represent the mature pinnacle of variphrase technology (granular synthesis) in its 'best of' form, in an immature and ill-conceived product. Look like we'll be waiting another five years for something new.

Steve

[ottovr]

I hope this suggestions qualifies as 'new possibilities', as what is 'old' can be made new again with some innovation(no ovation, please). Seriously, check out my previous posting of a 'backward' technique to revitalize and create previously 'unheard of' sounds...

http://forums.rolandclan.info/?action=s ... ast#115956

[Artemiy]

ottovr:

Please do not post the same message in several threads, it is better to just post a link like I did for you. Then the discussion of your words will be held in just one thread.

[Jim Stout]

I can understand where you guys are comming from. There is a lot confusion about what the V-Synth GT really is.

I remember the first time I got to play with a V-Synth in late 2002 and I heard the "Mad Orchestra" patch. I wans't sure what I was listening to. Then found I out that the sound was a slowed down piano arpeggio, I lost my mind!

My head went into overdrive about the possibilities of this synth!

The orginal V-Synth is still very misunderstood. Many of the sound designers and sound track guys snapped them up fast and created some really cool new sound scapes for movies and SFX.

The V-synth GT goes a step beyond. With the addtion of Vocal Designer and AP Synthesis the GT takes on more of an "organic" type of synth.

Think about this. The more you put yourself into the V-Synth Gt, the more unique it becomes. Plug in a mic, just start making noise into it, layer that with a step modded bassline and see where that leads you.

I know the Virus ti is an awesome VA synth and the guys at Native make some killer softsynths. Yes, I have Komplete 4.

But you have to admit the there is nothing like the V-Synth GT.

Roland does have a history of making synths that are misunderstood.
Remember the TB-303?

That little bass synth was orginally designed to be an accompaniment bass for guitar players but insteed it started a musical movement.

Just think about all of the sonic firepower the GT is capable of and what you persnally would do with it.

just a thought.

Jim Stout
Roland US

[s.asad]

Good post Jim.

I think your enthusiasm is genuine. That raises my hope greatly for the future of the V line.
The nature of the V line is still misunderstood.
The V-Synth GT, in particular AP-Synthesis, may well serve to change that. The sonic possibilities are vast, UI enhancements plentiful and logical (directional data wheel, e1-e8, color touchscreen), and the new casing/styling is as beautiful as the Oasys.

However, with all the great attention to detail in the superficial aspects of the board, I am left wishing that the same attention to beauty and detail was present in the advancements in synthesis, and the resulting sound quality of the synthesis.

I'm not sure if EMU still owns the Ensoniq patents for transwaves (most requested overdue synthesis request afaik), and I'm not sure what formant control over wildly polyphonic PCM or big transient PCM would require... ...but there are some other glaringly simple sound design elements missing AFAIK, like panning per oscillator. Hopefully, I just missed that while RTFM.

As far as the major new development of the GT so far:
I believe releasing AP-Synthesis in, AFAWK, it's limited and infantile form, may substantially stifle the feature's initial reputation, and subsequently sales generated by it.

I'm sure many Roland product design specialists who take great pride and enthusiasm to the V-line, and it's flagship features (both old & new), will admit that these features are potentially too valuable to modern music synthesis to delay releasing them in a limited, or partially developed form, in order to save already developed technologies and upgrades until sales become poor.

In a sense, reserving ground-breaking upgrades and developments for the future line, may provide some security in prospective sales for the successor to the GT, especially if the idea well runs dry later on. But it also may work in a counter-productive manner, not only with prospective buyers, and current users eager to upgrade, but also with executives. (although I am clueless to the interest, devotion, and involvement of Roland executives in the V-Line, I am just speaking to the nature of executives generally)

For instance, if sales become too stagnant, the line may not recieve the full alottment of time or funds from product design and development specialists it warrants (especially specialists with genuine passion and enthusiasm for the V line).

Bottom line is it's clear the V-Synth GT needs a little more to win big.

I think the major selling points for existing V-users (which consequently are also the most serious and willing prospective buyers for specialized products like the V-Synth), are as follows:
...well, at least the ones which would require no major overhauls (which we all know will not happen for the GT, it's hardware and structure are set), here they go:

#1. The limited applicability of AP-Synthesis

-One single OS update including some form, limited or not, of applying AP-Syn modeling types to user-PCM oscillators would produce more sales and more enthusiasm and buzz in general for AP-Syn itself, as a valuable flagship feature, and assuming AP-Syn is structured in a way dependent on layer-switching between modeled waveforms (maybe not?), then a simple edit: AP Layer Encoding, possibly per modeling type, would also be a major, revolutionary upgrade. However AP-Syn layer encoding will likely wait for the next V (as well as many more modeling types). Just give us some applicability of AP-Syn to @ least one encoding type for user-PCM to keep the awesome prospect of AP-Syn healthy.

#2. The sampling rate

-A major factor in being able to tag the V-Synth line "organic" is transposition quality. The momentary intrigue of an encoded user-PCM sound transposed until it sounds "crazy", is a short-lived intrigue. True, smooth, organic-sounding transposition would be helped greatly by an increased sample rate. Allowing the option for an incoming encodable sample rate of 88.2k or 96k, even while cutting polyphony to single digits @96k, would be welcomed very warmly. Serious users want sonic beauty at the cost of nearly everything else. and if digital graininess/28 voices is still desired, the user would still always have the option to toggle back to 44.1k/28 voices, or come prior with a suitably nasty PCM source from the jump.

I agree with you that there is alot of confusion regarding the nature of the V-Line, always has been. It seems to already be well respected as a viable VA, but the other side of the synth is wildly overlooked. To really allow the GT to both change and solidify the often misunderstood V-Line, those 2 upgrades would really cement the ability to label the GT "Organic". Sometimes, changing the reputation of an entire line, and broadening the appeal and sales, is as simple as living up to a few catch words.

Make it happen Jim. Change the face. Peace.

[stevie]

We had a program called 'Jim'll fix it!' - and he usually did very well, but I doubt he can fix it this time ;¬)

I disagree that the V line is misunderstood now - I agree that it was when it was first launched, but not now. There are plenty of people who have picked up a second hand V or a new XT and 'got into it'. There is of course a finite market for different synthesis techniques.

I agree with some of what you said s.asad, but yeah the bottom line to me is that the GT simply doesn't offer enough for the asking price, and really the GT's software development should have been a purchaseable upgrade for current Vs. i.e AP synthesis. Which doesn't sound that fantastic, if it's trying to mimic real instruments better, then that's the V trying to be what it isn't i.e a rompler or software sampler - these do very well on acoustic emulations with sample switching etc. Sounds like AP synth was a way of creating better acoustic emulations without the need for more sample RAM or the V becoming a rompler - I think Roland has lost it's way on this one.

Steve

BTW, I'm not sure if sample rate is the only connection with the sound quality output of the granuar synth - yes in theory it should get better, but the math algorythmn used and how it actually works on 'splitting' up a sample would have a massive impact on the sound quality - refine the algorythmn = better sound quality.

[Jim Stout]

I have been all over the US with the V-synth for the last 4 years and every time I show a variphrase demo or the side band drum loop trick people are blown away. So I would have to say that the V Synth is still very misunderstood. The big poblem it that compared to ROMplers few people have actually played a V-Synth or if they did they didn't know what was going on!
You guys on this forum don't count


I do agree that the V-Synth Gt is over priced. Everybody at Roland thinks so too. I wish is was 2 grand! It's hard to sell an hardware synth that's over $2000.00 these days. It is a sexy lookin synth! I would like to know how many Oasys's Korg sold.

Upgrading current V-Synths:
The problem with upgrading a V-Synth to include AP is the chip set.
The orginal V-Synth is maxxed out CPU wise. The V-Synth Gt is a totally new chip that has the USB built-in so it can host USB devices now. YEA!!!

As far as AP is concerned, it's a whole new take on how instruments behave musically. I thought it was a strange move on Roland Japans part because to me the typical V-Synth user is not interested in acoustic instruments, I guess I was wrong. This is a new technology that roland has come up with and who knows where that will lead future products.
I do know that it is very complicated so a simple AP LAYER ENCODE is not feasible as of now. I am still learning the in's and out's of AP myself.

I know on a personal level I wanted to see more COSM filters and some new cool oscillators, more RAM, but Japan has decided take a different path.

The reason I used the term "organic" is because to me that's where the GT has moved to. With all of the real-time contol the V GT has to offer I can understand the reason to make it more interactive (another buzz word).

Jim Stout
Roland US