Duh! I mean: no editing of acoustic tones?!?

[ozy]

I am reading the Jupiter80 manual.

While I'll still take a shot at personally testing the jupiter80 as soon as it is available, because it sounds and looks like a very nice "live machine", and becuase its articulations bring some fresh air to the dull sample-based world of orchestral emulations,

I feel a bit disappointed in my hopes that I had finally got a valid poliphonic alternative to the yamaha VL1 and a bank of VL70m as far as winds and brasses are concerned.

To a first reading, it looks like the ACOUSTIC supernatural tones are NOT editable. Which means the palette is limited to the factory articulations.

Synth tones are editable, but saxes and brass and trumpets and ethinc winds are not...

[am I wrong? Did I miss something?]

That drastically reduces the scope of the jp80. No otherwordly or exotic quasi-acoustic leads, etc.

I was accustomed to programming odd "organic sounding" patches based on acoustic instruments (but not resembling them) on the traditional romplers (and on the VLs of course), and I expected the jp80's polyphony to add a new dimension to that.

I'ts still probably a very nice performance keyboard, worth the (not small) price but... bye bye experiments.

I'll report more after extensively reading the the manual.

Anybody who is able to explain me that I got it wrong (and HOW), is welcome.

[Devnor]

What you are trying to do? Each type of instrument has a few modifiers like growl or variation. Its not like a MOSS synth where you can adjust things like the length of the tube in a trumpet.

[Mystic38]

the synth tones originate from a VA synth.. with a reasonably standard synth engine structure..

the acoustic sounds are behaviour modelled and are not waveform-synthesis aka rompler driven..so do not expect to edit a trumpet like you can on a motif or a fantom.

supernatural instruments like in the arx modules do not allow for massive detailed editing like in a synth.. they have instrument specific adjustments (so you can't edit a trumpet to make it not a trumpet using the synth engine)...

i guess you need hands on.. a 100 page quick start manual isnt much..

[ozy]

I know this isn't a rompler...

This is why I am interested in it. I want to replace my VLs due to their poor, very poor poliphony.

But I CAN program sounds on the VL synths (the "trumpet lenght" mentioned by our friends is a good example), or on the MOSS synths.

Regulation of a preset paramenter is not the same as being able to experiment with all the "building blocks" of a sound.

So, you two are confirming that it's a closed-architecture synth.

It would be VERY nice to hear from Roland IF a software editor which allows for "supernatural" programming is in the making, or at least planned.

[Devnor]

It's sealed tight. Can't imagine Roland offering editable SN articulations. Better hang on to that VL1 because it's really unique.

[V-CeeOh]

I guess you were expecting to somehow place the SuperNatural acoustic tones in the synth chain. From the simple programing point of view that would make sense but yes, I think it's all locked out due to the "Behavior Modeling Technology". Not that it would no be possible to do. Still, I haven't seen the complete PCM wave list. Maybe there are some "acoustic" waves for you to play with...

[ozy]

uhm... let me see...

VL1 and Prophecy, 1993/1994: modeled winds, editable. Performance-ready and available for sound design.

MOSS boards and moss-based synths, mid '90s, Performance-ready and available for sound design.

So, it is a mid-90s issue.

Then a 16 years wide black hole gobbles the whole idea. Everybody is happy to run on flat samples for one decade and a half [fuggeddabbaud the motif "VL" expansion boards...]

Finally, some glimpse of hope in 2011: Prepare to be amazed:

Jp80, 2011: articulated winds, not editable. Performance-ready, no chance of sound design

Kronos, 2011: sampled static winds. No performance, no sound design

Yamaha XF, 2011: sampled static winds. No performance, no sound design.

Kurzweil pc3k, late 2010: sampled static winds. No performance, no sound design.

I have no problem with all of the above. I understand the corporate logic, the price etc etc.

I just ask: where the heck do the "wow! heck! amazing! exciting! New horizons opened to me!" cries come from?

Synthesis is about CREATING SOUNDS and PERFORMING with them, right?

The Jupiter finally delivers something new as far as acoustic sound emulation is concerned...

... and bars me from CREATING sounds?

For what: some 5 years more?

What's the F-ing meaning?

Bof, whatever.

I saved 4000 bucks on the Kronos, now 3000 on the Jupiter. I am getting rich quick.

Damn...

[realtrance]

So what I was hoping, and am unclear about, is whether as with V-Synth GT you can apply APS parameters to different underlying samples (simple example, use violin APS on V-Synth GT and apply to saw synth tone).

It looks like no?

[Devnor]

No you can't. The synthesizer portion is completely separate from the SN acoustic tones.

[Devnor]

uhm... let me see...

VL1 and Prophecy, 1993/1994: modeled winds, editable. Performance-ready and available for sound design.

MOSS boards and moss-based synths, mid '90s, Performance-ready and available for sound design.

Save your money. IMO none of those Korg physical models sounded much like a trumpet, sax or violin (I own Z1 EX). For the time they sounded pretty damn good but these days they are more dated than a Kurzweil piano sound. Really for what you are looking for no products exist.

[ozy]

I guess you were expecting to somehow place the SuperNatural acoustic tones in the synth chain.

exactamundo.

Crazy idea, huh?

Really for what you are looking for no products exist.

that was exactly my point: the conditions for it to exist are there since 1993.

Rhodes have improved 1500%, saxes still sound basically like a M1 as far as expression is concerned (sample definition is of course better)

Save your money

You can bet!

I spent 3000 bucks on a battery of VLs in order to get 5-notes of well articulated winds.

Huge sound, but meager poliphony by today's standards

I had planned selling them (they still fetch a nice 600 bucks each after Patchman pimping) and buying the JP80, but I got really disappointed by reading the manual.

I don't mean playing the party pooper, but what the H... every jp80 demo included that trumpet...

Sniff...

[b3keys]

You could learn to play a real trumpet!

[Amazing One]

Hi Guys, hope those in the U.S. had a nice 4th of July!

I read through a portion of the manual and from what I can tell, Roland’s JUPITER-80 seems to have a strong focus on combining ease of use with advanced, intuitive artificial intelligence.

So task such as assigning parameters to a controller (such as the knobs) are fast and straightforward. And the extremely complex, humanly impossible task of accurately simulating convincing acoustic instrument character and behavior in real time is handled by the JUPITER-80’s computer. So all the musician has to do is express his or her self with the keyboard and the JUPITER-80 articulates the musicians feelings accordingly.

My advice for those contemplating the purchase of a JUPITER-80 is to look closely at it’s capabilities. Ease of use can be misinterpreted as basic or unsophisticated when advanced, intuitive, and user-friendly features are successfully integrated into a piece of equipment. From seeing the JUPITER-80 in action, reading the manual and having owned and performed on many pieces of gear, I believe Roland has achieved a new level of functionality that can not be accomplished on other hardware synths at this time. As a standalone hardware synth, the JUPITER-80 is in a class all it’s own, having technology that I feel brings this synthesizer to a level of expressiveness, complexity and ease of use that other synths simply can not match.

As Mystic38 mentioned, the acoustic supernatural instruments can be edited, just not in the traditional way. You will have instrument specific options such as the ones shown in the picture below.



So you can in fact edit the acoustic supernatural instrument sounds, but the method used is different from the way you would edit acoustic instruments sounds on older traditional synthesizes or newer synths that still use the traditional methods and lack the JUPITER-80’s capabilities. From my view the JUPITER-80 features a much more intuitive and advanced way to modify sound.

Also, you have various parameters you can assign to a controller (as well as preassigned ones) such as Cutoff, Resonance, Attack Time, Decay Time, Offset Release Time etc (and many many more). So these traditional parameters are there to use for any sound and modifications made can be saved (at least when using the tone bender editing parameters, maybe in other modes as well but I am not finished reading yet)...See quote from Vince aka vladuca below (keyboards product manager for Roland US).

Tone blender allows one controller (knob, D Beam, etc.) to be mapped to all those parameters of 4 tones inside of each Live Set. Shuffle is like randomize of the destination values. You can get some wild ass stuff happening, then save the result as a new Live Set.

So again, we have a different way of doing things.

Furthermore, one has access to an extensive list of effects and layering possibilities which they can use to manipulate any sound. And as mentioned by V-CeeOh, you also have the PCM tones which can be manipulated in the JUPITER-80’s Pro synth editing mode using traditional methods. And lets not forget it’s Virtual Analog capabilities.

The JUPITER-80 has extremely impressive sound manipulation capabilities worthy of attention from professional musicians (even the most demanding ones) or anyone who knows synth history, loves synths and can understand and appreciate what Roland has accomplished here.

Even if one does not want a JUPITER-80, this thing (should it perform as it does in videos) deserves respect.

I for one can not wait to try one out!

[V-CeeOh]

Crazy idea, huh?

The Jupiter finally delivers something new as far as acoustic sound emulation is concerned...
... and bars me from CREATING sounds?

erh..., no. It's just a different approach. You still can edit the acoustic sounds. The thing is that the parameters available are different from the usual synth parameters. Why would you want to "create" an "acoustic trumpet" if it's already there? If you wanted to use your own trumpet waves to create a sound you would need sampling capabilities (which the JP has not) but you still would lose the Behaviour Modelling since this is inherent to the sound engine and it's internal processing of waves. If you want to create a "synth" trumpet sound you have plenty of ways to do it. Not to mention that we can mix Supernatural tones with Synth tones. I really don't see any barrier there.

As in all things we sometimes forget what is there just because you don't see what you want. The JP has huge synth possibilities. It wont fit everybodys needs but which one does?

[V-CeeOh]

as with V-Synth GT you can apply APS parameters to different underlying samples

I understand the relation but Articulative Phrase Synthesis is not exactly the same as Behaviour Modelling although it might look otherwise. Still, there are some limitations on the waveforms you can use with each model on the V-Synth GT. Take a look a this thread to get a better idea on the Behaviour Modelling: viewtopic.php?f=44&t=37058