Sound on Sound review Aug 2011

[Devnor]

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see much functionality in Jupiter EP vs SRX12. A tremolo effect would need to be added as a MFX...so you'd need to choose between that or a speaker sim. Does the key noise parameter add to the vintage quality of the tone or is it just noise? I can have a phaser or wah but not both. Is this correct?

I don't see any chorus or vibrato settings in organ sounds. I know that overdriven organ tones are integral to "rock organ" tone but can overdrive be adjusted somehow? Does high gain EQ settings effect the overdrive quality?

I've probably got 2-3 more weeks until my Jupiter arrives. I'm guessing it will ship from other outlets once the Jupiter roadshow concludes.

[knolan]

What I got from the SOS Jupiter-80 review is that the reviewer knows firsthand how the original Jupiter 8 sounded, and unfortunately, the Jupiter-80 is NO Jupiter 8, not even close apparently. In fact, it is obvious the Jupiter-80 'lacks' in Jupiter 8 appeal to such a large degree that Roland should have named the Jupiter-80 something else, like the Stage-80, etc. In other words, to even associate the Jupiter-80 with the legendary Jupiter 8 is stretching the truth and evidently the boundaries of reality too it seems. And the "embarrassment" from such a bad decision could actually hurt Roland's public image because Roland is saying the Jupiter-80 is a metamorphosis of the legendary Jupiter-8 when apparently it doesn't even come close to achieving such a feat. In other words, 30 year old technology trumps new technology rolling off the conveyor belts at Roland Japan. :( At least in this case anyhow. If that's not an embarrassment for Roland I don't know what is.

Now, if Roland had named the keyboard the Stage-80 etc. then no comparison would have been made to equate a Stage-80 with the legendary Jupiter 8. The Sound on Sound reviewer (an expert in his field by the way) is saying, in a round about way, that the Jupiter-80 has failed in that regard apparently. Although he said it in such a way so as to tip-toe through the land mines of personal vindictiveness. In other words, he was trying to be nice but it is quite obvious he was also being glaringly honest at the same time. And the reader only needs to read between the lines to understand the conundrum contained in the words that he was trying to convey to his readers. Which Artemiy is incapable of deciphering by the way. :D Just kidding Art!

So what we apparently have in the Jupiter-80 is a capable "synth" (but NO Jupiter 8 by any stretch of the imagination) which has some really good acoustic sounds on it for $3,499 + tax. NO sequencer, NO sampler, NO expansion capability it should be noted also. On the other hand, it does have 256 note polyphony which is a breakthrough for Roland and company and highly commendable on their part.

I can't wait until Roland comes out with the workstation version. Although with this less than stellar review of the Jupiter-80 by Sound on Sound, Roland may decide to return to the drawing board for new ideas and new answers. Which will hopefully result in the Workstation version i.e. - an all-in-one solution that most people want anyway and which will hopefully blow the Jupiter-80, er, Stage-80, er, whatever you want to call it, out of the water. :) One thing Roland needs to be aware of is this: "If you claim an upcoming product is the "metamorphosis" of a prior legendary product... you better make darn sure the product you give such a high distinction of honor to actually meets that high standard. From what I've gathered after reading the SOS review is the Jupiter-80 doesn't meet that standard unfortunately. In other words, nice try but no cigar. Which is kind of funny because I don't even smoke. :) Who came up with that saying anyway? Okay, how about: "Nice try... maybe next time?" :D That's more like it. ;)

Keysme -

You are totally misquoting and misrepresenting the SOS review. Absolutely none of what you rant about here is representative of the article - you're expressing your own prejudiced opinion only.

The article was far more balanced than your personalised appraisal suggests. As just two examples contradicting the perspective you take (about the article and the JP80) - in the article the reviewer blind tests the JP80 with his JP8 and finds states "...I couldn't tell which synth was generating which". Later on he states "...a remarkably powerful VA synth that can imitate the best of the real thing..." Why didn't you mention any of that that? Ont he face of it, it seems the review finds the JP80 to faithfully recreate the JP8 - as he stesses - in a test where it's actually sitting beside a JP8; and over all it provides VA capabilities as good as anything else out there. That doesn't sound too bad to me.

I'm not convinced you even read the article - you have so badly misrepresented it. If you have read it, boy do you have a skewed perspective on what others say.

Overall, as others have indicated - the review was done hastily and without proper documentation. It had its own prejudices built in for sure - but does achieve some measure of investigative insight and some level of objective appraisal.

As for my take on the article – he has issues with the name and some of the organisational aspects of the JP80, but indicates it to be sonically very powerful.

But to readers of this thread - Keysme's view on the article is utterly incorrect - he can't have read the article [properly] and I'd advice to completely ignore his prejudiced view of it, where he seems to have used the SOS article in a dubious manner to knock the JP80 and Roland.

Kevin.

[Chrisk-K]

keysme wrote:What I got from the SOS Jupiter-80 review is that the reviewer knows firsthand how the original Jupiter 8 sounded, and unfortunately, the Jupiter-80 is NO Jupiter 8

Did you actually read the review? When a professional reviewer cannot tell the difference between the JP-80 and the JP-8, who are you to argue? Do you own a Jupiter-8? The JP-80 recreates the legendary JP-8 sounds better than any other VA synths including soft synths. Period. What's more, recreating the JP-8 sounds is only a fraction of what the JP-80 is capable of.

[kimu]

keyboardmag has realized two shot videos of their first look to J80 in Roland Academy.

the second one is a Jupiter 8 / j80 short comparison side-by-side

http://www.keyboardmag.com/article/5354

[Chrisk-K]

The JP-80 sounds much better than the JP-8.

[keysme]

Keysme -You are totally misquoting and misrepresenting the SOS review. Absolutely none of what you rant about here is representative of the article - you're expressing your own prejudiced opinion only.

My apologies if I upset you. What I was going by was from what others said who actually did read the SOS review. I was interpreting their analysis which led me to the conclusion that it was no JP8. It still seems odd why the SOS reviewer suggested that Roland should have named the JP-80 the Stage-80, etc. You would think if the SOS reviewer thought the JP-80 was close in analog sound to the JP8 he would have complimented Roland on the name instead of calling it a "bad decision" on their part.

Anyway, I will have to read the review myself to get the real skinny. I tried a week or so ago at Barnes & Noble but the new edition wasn't available yet. I'll check again after the 1st since it will probably be on the shelf by then. In fact, one of the Guitar Centers near me might have the JP-80 in stock now. If they do (or when they do) I'll make it a point to demo it firsthand and will report back with my findings.

Also, I'm still not sure how the JP-80 would be an advantage over the V-Synth/GT? The JP-80 VA audio demos I've heard so far haven't really convinced me they're any better than the V-Synth. Although, once I play the JP-80 firsthand I'll be better able to compare the differences.

Peace..

[keysme]

Wonder of wonders. I was able to play the Jupiter-80 at Guitar Center since they had just gotten one in. I spent several hours playing both the Jupiter-80 and a Kronos 61.

Let me state right up front that I think the Jupiter-80 has a lot of excellent sounds on it. As far as comparing it to the Jupiter8 I feel the Jupiter8 had a more organic sound to it than the Jupiter-80. Of course the Jupiter8 had a lot more sliders too with the ability to morph sounds extensively and it was indeed a legend (along with the Jupiter6) in its time. I think the Jupiter-80 VA sounds are respectable but again no Jupiter8 in my opinion. It's a little like comparing oranges to apples if you ask me. The Jupiter-80 is more in line with the V-Synth sounds and I suspect Roland incorporated many of the V-Synth sounds into the Jupiter-80 only updated to make the Jupiter-80 have its own unique sound.

Don't get me wrong though. If you currently don't own a V-Synth or some other VA synth and you'd rather have a more flexible instrument with many great acoustic type sounds built for live performance purposes then people may indeed want to consider the Jupiter-80.

But as for me I'm waiting for the "workstation" version i.e. a 256 note polyphony workstation with behavior modeling technology and hopefully excellent VA capability but which will also have a Sequencer, Sampler and Expansion capability which of course the Jupiter-80 lacks all three.

I also didn't care much for the key action on the Jupiter-80 and thought they seemed too light and even a little mushy in my opinion. On the other hand, I thought the Organs were pretty good on the JP-80 but after playing the Kronos Organs I have to give the nod to the Kronos in that department. I preferred the AC pianos and EP's on the Kronos as well. But what was obviously a huge blunder on Korg's part are the itsy-bitsy fonts that really are dinky and when I changed sounds to a different instrument or category I ended up hitting the one above or below the one I wanted and it happened on 'several' occasions. Unless Korg can rectify the situation with an OS update to make the fonts bigger somehow I suspect many people might end up passing on the Kronos just because of that one major oversight.

I thought the Jupiter-80 had a nice solid quality feel to it (other than the key action), whereas the Kronos didn't have near the build quality in my estimation. Quite frankly the Kronos looked kind of "cheap" to me, at least when comparing it to the Jupiter-80 anyway. Kudos to Roland.

I went through practically every sound on the Jupiter-80 and I would have to conclude that many of the acoustic sounds are a notch above the Fantom G, in my opinion, as are many of the synth sounds. But there are some weak areas also. As I said, the B3 Organs weren't as good as those on the Kronos and some of the woodwinds didn't wow me either. But there are some good woodwind instruments on it though. I really thought many of the Strings were outstanding, plus a lot of the Brass were excellent also in my opinion.

It is quite apparent to me that Roland has produced a niche product with the JP-80. It will appeal to some but probably not most people quite frankly. Although if your church needs a great live performance keyboard with many fabulous sounds and you don't require the professional features you would find in a workstation it would be a great choice in my opinion. Many of the synth sounds really are very good to excellent. The Reverb button really adds a great spacious feel to many of the sounds. But as we know, the JP-80 lacks three very important professional features i.e. a Sequencer, Sampler and Expansion capability that really hinders its overall potential in my humble opinion.

Before I go, I wanted to also quickly mention that I thought the "keys" on the Kronos were not as good as the JP-80's. The JP-80 keys were so so but the Kronos 61 keys felt almost toyish. In other words, really cheap action for a $3,000 keyboard. Oh well..

[Chrisk-K]

JP-80 lacks three very important professional features i.e. a Sequencer, Sampler and Expansion capability that really hinders its overall potential in my humble opinion.

None of them are professional features of a *synthersizer.* They make a rompler or a workstation look more professional. The JP-80 is strictly a synthesizer.

[keysme]

None of them are professional features of a *synthersizer.* They make a rompler or a workstation look more professional. The JP-80 is strictly a synthesizer.

The JP-80 is categorically a Synth by Roland's own choosing in my opinion. In fact, the JP-80 is much more than a typical "synthesizer" because it has a 'full' range of acoustic instrument sounds included in it also. I would actually call it a "hybrid" synthesizer because it balances both VA and Acoustic type sounds. I think Roland categorized it as merely a "synthesizer" because they wanted to give it more of an attachment (in theory) to the legendary Jupiter 8 which Roland is trying to equate it with but, in my opinion, fell somewhat short of. That is my own personal opinion of course but after researching info on the internet about the JP-80 it seems others have come to a similar conclusion.

As I've said repeatedly, I'm hoping that Roland will come through with a "true" workstation version of the JP-80 that will include a Sampler, Sequencer and Expansion capability. Roland should be lauded though for doubling the 'polyphony' standard to 256 note. 128 polyphony is a bottleneck obviously but I recognize the Big Three (and others) were, and still are, milking 128 note polyphony for all it's worth. So kudos to Roland for being the new standard bearer with now 256 note polyphony across the entire range of the keyboard. No other keyboard company has that option available as far as I know. If Roland chooses to produce another workstation it will likely also include 256 note polyphony as well.

By the way, that is what I feel most Roland customers (and non-customers) are waiting for in my opinion i.e. a workstation version of the JP-80. With a dedicated VA sound section and with better B3 organs and a better keybed action hopefully too. And of course a solid Sequencer, Sampler and with the inclusion of Expansion opportunities. The only thing the JP-80 allows is basic OS upgrades.

Even if the new Workstation sold for $4,500 (street price - 88 keys) or somewhat higher they would probably still sell a boat load of them in my opinion. Albeit, whether or not Roland will buckle down and produce a workstation version is anyone's guess because Roland willingly chooses to be ultra "secretive" about possible upcoming product releases. Oh well. Time will tell I guess. But I really think it's in Roland's best interest to continue building workstations, at least for the forseaable future anyway. Workstations are still a viable and profitable segment within the market even as the new Korg Kronos and Yammie Motif XF are demonstrating. But Roland may disagree with that assessment. To their own detriment if you ask me. ;)

[Amazing One]

It’s most likely that Gordon Reid’s (for sound on sound magazine) comments and opinions on Roland’s name choice (Jupiter-80) is related to observations he made regarding the difference in opinion concerning preferred hardware for the associated occupation or hobby.

It’s important for readers to understand that the “use of name“ argument is not exclusive to the Jupiter-80 (by any means), it has been the focus of fiery debates for decades (in regards to countless objects or interest) and it has much more to do with one’s perception of an instruments aesthetic and kinetic (internal and external) properties and how those elements influence or cause nostalgia and emotional reaction than it has to do with the instruments ability to be an invaluable and amazing tool for musical applications suited for the instruments capabilities and purpose.

For example, many hardcore pianist frown upon the hardware (form all manufactures) used in electronic musical instruments, designed with the purpose of simulating a piano’s sound. To them, if it’s not an acoustic piano, it should not be associated with things that pertain to pianos or the piano experience.

I assure you, no matter how close musical instrument manufactures come to recreating the piano sound with an electronic musical instrument (even if it reproduces the sound of every piano ever made to absolute perfection and has no difference in key feel and piano like functionality), a number of musicians will passionately proclaim that it’s not a PIANO!

And it’s not…. Regarding electronic musical keyboard instruments (form all manufactures) there was never an intent (obviously) to make the aforementioned electronic instrument an acoustic piano.

Likewise, concerning the Jupiter-80, it was never Roland’s intent to build a synthesizer containing primitive non-digital synthesizer sound generator hardware or the equivalent currently sold hardware from yesteryear (also known as analog).

And really, to be fair to all parties involved (given how broad the definitions are for many of the words and terms used in this argument), what people should say is that the Jupiter-80 is not a primitive non-digital synthesizer, because once you take all the nostalgia and emotions involved with this matter out of the picture, that is the only premise one has left.

In any case, there are very few words one can use to isolate the factors involved in this “use of names argument (and it can get quite complex). And amid the enthusiastic cries some will shout: it’s not a Jupiter/Jupiter-8 etc or express other exclamations implying that a synthesizer was desecrated because they believe there can be no substitute for primitive non-digital synthesizer hardware technology from yesteryear and that is the easiest way to sum up their nostalgia and view of the aesthetic and kinetic properties missing from all modern-day digital synthesizers that lack the aforementioned hardware components.

But it is also reasonable to conclude that Roland’s rivals, enemies and others (whether well meaning or otherwise) well seek to take advantage of peoples sincere expressions, because they know that many will misunderstand what is being said (and assume others suggest that the Jupiter-80 is not what it‘s suppose to be, not right or good etc), and project the views of the minority (those who believe there is no substitute for primitive non-digital synthesizer sound generator hardware technology from yesteryear) onto the majority who in my opinion, primarily believes that there is no substitute for musicianship (but have appreciation and respect for the craftsmanship of various musical instrument designers and their instruments) and prefer a digital synthesizer that has the ability to interpret their musical thoughts into meaningful sound (through use of the synth’s keys and controller aid).

From what I have observed, the Jupiter-80 is an amazing accomplishment and many see it as a highly desirable synthesizer. It’s not for anyone who wants primitive non-digital synthesizer hardware technology from yesteryear but if you want a digital high-tech modern Roland synth, the Jupiter-80 is definitely one to consider!

[Bruce Lychee]

Keysme,

If you are a pure create-by-editing guy you might not appreciate the Jupiter. With the V-synth you can create beautiful layers until you get what you want, especially if you don't need acoustic sounds.

If you are a keyboard player and like to have the ability to build and test ideas quickly, you will appreciate how different the Jupiter is. Personally, I like doing things in real time and the Jupiter is a uniquely expressive instrument with great polyphony that allows me to be creative in a way that other boards don't. I own the V-synth GT and Kronos 88 as well.

I understand your desire for a workstation, but I think less and less people need workstations these days. I enjoy the Jupiter so much, I'm waiting for a case so I can take it with me everywhere along with my Ipad and iOdock.

I assume you are waiting for a weighted action because as far as semi-weighted goes, I'm not sure you will find one better than the Roland action.

It seems to me that you are faulting the Jupiter for being more than a synthesizer and less than a workstation. IMO the new Jupiter is entirely consistent with the goals of the original Jupiter. Nevertheless it isn't looking to recreate the original Jupiter. You can find yourself an original Jupiter if that's what you really want. Personally, I think the Jupiter 80 is a far superior instrument and appreciate that Roland has given me a unique creative tool to take my ideas forward.

[piaknowguy]

It seems to me that you are faulting the Jupiter for being more than a synthesizer and less than a workstation. IMO the new Jupiter is entirely consistent with the goals of the original Jupiter. Nevertheless it isn't looking to recreate the original Jupiter. You can find yourself an original Jupiter if that's what you really want. Personally, I think the Jupiter 80 is a far superior instrument and appreciate that Roland has given me a unique creative tool to take my ideas forward.

Just wanted to say 'Congratulations' Bruce! I look forward to spending some time on the JP80! I could see myself using this type of keyboard in the (hopefully) not-too-distant future. Have you spent much time experimenting with the solo violin/strings patch(s)? What are your thoughts?

[Amazing One]

Here’s is a thought…

I think many keyboardist today are often bewitched by the surplus features in an electronic musical instrument. Perhaps, this is due to the keyboardist instinct to become the ideal (as defined by personal beliefs) musician being misdirected at their instruments ability to fulfill their needs upon reaching their perfected state. But any accomplished musician knows that perfected musicianship is not at the end of their journey, it’s how he or she takes the journey.

The better an instrument is at interpreting the musicians musical thoughts, the better it will be at relaying his or her message to the listeners, giving them a better understanding of how far the musicians journey has taken them, from my view, the Jupiter-80 excels at helping the musician achieve the primary objective (well, it’s primary for many).

Many will not use the majority of the features found in workstations nor do they care to pay for those surplus features (no matter how much money they have).

But there is plenty of gear to suit everyone’s needs.

[Devnor]

IIRC certain modes of the Kronos are capable of poly in the 200s. Its nice but along these lines its just part of the internet dick measuring contest that seems to dominate these discussions. Marketing is freely taken in & out of context to just make a point albiet usually a meaningless one such as the endless issue of the name. No sequencer I just have to ask...do you own any other keyboards or a computer? You can plug the Jupiter right into a laptop & start sequencing. Why is this a big deal killer now? Same with sampling your laptop is a much powerful sampler than any workstation can provide you. I appreciate Roland not burning up valuable resources trying to build in second-rate versions of these functions.

[Bruce Lychee]

Although polyphony can be misleading at times, the polyphony of the Jupiter allows you to do things in real time you would not be able to do on the Kronos. I check the performance meters on the Kronos for every combi I use or create and very often I see the note stealing an resources meters getting taxed. I can't imagine that it could handle some of the Jupiter registration items.