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

Forum for JUPITER-80
realtrance
Posts: 128
Joined: 16:39, 8 April 2005

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

Post by realtrance »

V-CeeOh,

Thanks, it's slowly becoming clearer (I was reading the manuals more last night). I mistakenly thought you'd be able to use Behavior Modelling like APS since a lot of the tones are listed with "APS" as part of their name.... the principles are related but as far as I can tell, the APS on JP-80 is "baked in" to the partials? With the kinds of behaviors that you can adjust hard-coded for each in the synth? I would guess this makes sense since it's primarily an instrument for applying, say, trumpet performance elements to trumpets and not, say, violins. :) I'm still a bit confused, I think time with the actual instrument will be necessary for me to understand further.
ozy
Posts: 169
Joined: 13:32, 1 December 2010

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

Post by ozy »

b3keys wrote:You could learn to play a real trumpet!
If I wanted to sound like a real trumpet, yes.

If I wanted to go on building sound which are midway between acoustic and electric instruments, no way
ozy
Posts: 169
Joined: 13:32, 1 December 2010

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

Post by ozy »

Amazing One wrote: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.
I'd like too choose HOW that happens. Choose my feelings AND the machine response to them.

If it's not too inconvenient, Sir.

This is what I am accustomed to do on a 17 years old synth like the VL-1
Amazing One wrote: 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.
hu. I see. Six parameters including pan and reverb.

Please find here enclosed the programming manual of the VL-1.

There's something like 80 or 90 parameters to be tweaked.

http://www.retrevo.com/support/Yamaha-V ... ci865/t/2/

Something is really wrong here.
Devnor
Posts: 696
Joined: 20:22, 27 September 2010

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

Post by Devnor »

ozy wrote:Something is really wrong here.
Not really. Yamaha VL series and JP80 are completely different things. Behavior modelling is how the instrument reacts in different ways to your playing. For example take the VA synth, parameter guide page 36 on how behavior modelling effects attack & release envelopes.
realtrance
Posts: 128
Joined: 16:39, 8 April 2005

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

Post by realtrance »

Right, I even contributed to that thread on p.2 and pretty much guessed right! :)

It's not a big deal, I just wanted to understand where the user-controlled aspects of synthesis are focused on this instrument. For all those existing non-electronic instruments being modeled - and there are a lot of them! - there's probably no real need to separate the modeling from the tones; it just seems more "pre-set" at that level than someone used to V-Synth would expect.

What's been achieved by Roland engineering is substantial and, unfortunately, as usual will probably be misunderstood, at least technically. I just think it'll take a bit of a paradigm-shift in thinking to recognize where the "deep-editing" possibilities are focused.

Certainly, it seems like, with so much polyphony, you can simply mix and balance SN tones with more traditional oscillators to create new sounds. And you can get a lot of instrument-appropriate variation out of the SN sounds with their built-in specific control parameters.

Perhaps some of us are reacting to the sense that -outside the obviously available integrated synth engine - your creativity as a sound designer is focused more on mixing baked SN sounds than in creating your own? Is that a mistaken perception? Then again what you're getting in exchange in terms of available expressiveness more than makes up for it. I know I don't want to spend the rest of my life editing Kontakt scripts just to end up with instruments almost as good as the included fully-scripted ones; though it's nice to know I can customize those scripts if I want.

At the very least, SN gives me a lot of pre-built capability in areas that don't just end up leaving me feeling like I'm playing "other people's music," the way Karma did/does.

Just some further ruminations....
Amazing One
Posts: 98
Joined: 10:48, 10 April 2011

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

Post by Amazing One »

Hi ozy!

The VL-1 is an innovative instrument in it’s own respect.

But as stated by others (see Devnor in the post above and Artemiy in quote below) it does not have the ease of use and advanced, intuitive artificial intelligence of the Jupiter-80.
Artemiy wrote:
kenchan wrote:so is this like the VL synthesis yamaha did like 15-20yrs ago?
VL is physical modeling. Like in Apple's Sculpture synth, or Pianoteq virtual piano.

Here we're talking about modeling of note transitions, pitch bends, various other playing nuances, i.e. not a math model of the sound source itself, but how it's played.
The Jupiter-80’s behavior modeling simulates extremely complex acoustic instrument characteristics in real time by analyzing the musicians performance and automatically producing the appropriate sonic texture and instrument specific behavior, such as, acoustic instrument nuances and character in relation to keyboard dynamics as well as instrument specific behavior in relation to play speed and note length such as legato, staccato and pitch bend character when the appropriate controller is manipulated, all in a manner that in my opinion, surpasses the methods used in the past.

On top of everything I mentioned so far, you also have the modeling responsible for creating the Jupiter-80’s instruments (so the behavior modeling can have something to control). This is what makes the Jupiter-80 produce the selected tone/sound (piano, flute, strings etc in a realistic, intuitive way different from older traditional methods )…See quote from Vince aka vladuca below (keyboards product manager for Roland US).
Vince wrote:There is no "wave rom" as in what is in the Fantom-G. It's using exclusively SuperNATURAL-based sound engines with multiple behavior modeling algorithms. The 350 PCM waves mentioned are additional PCM waves along with the modeled vintage waves in the analog modeling section.
Amazing One
Posts: 98
Joined: 10:48, 10 April 2011

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

Post by Amazing One »

ozy wrote:
Amazing One wrote: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.
I'd like too choose HOW that happens. Choose my feelings AND the machine response to them.

If it's not too inconvenient, Sir.

This is what I am accustomed to do on a 17 years old synth like the VL-1
In my opinion, it would be very inconvenient..

The VL-1 does not even come close to being as intuitive, intelligent or user-friendly as the Jupiter-80 in regards to the way they accomplish the task of simulating a convincing acoustic instrument performance. Concerning this, you might as well compare an old typewriter to a modern computer and printer (with the VL-1 being the old typewriter). But hey, some people might like using white out, throwing away lots of paper or manually feeding the typewriter paper.

The Jupiter-80 does exactly what you stated in your quote above, but as I said, it happens in a different way, it’s much more advanced, intuitive and intelligent. All the musician has to do is express his or her self with the keyboard and the JUPITER-80 articulates the musicians feelings accordingly.

Also, if you wish to change the natural behavior of a given instrument, you have Tone blender (with restricted Roland defined alterations occurring for a given acoustic tone), and several other options, so the ability is there, it just works different, so as far as I can tell, this matter is not an issue for concern.

But if you want the old outdated cumbersome (from my view) abilities of the VL-1, you simply use it. And most VL-1 users will tell you that programming the thing is not for anyone without a degree in extreme geekism.
ozy wrote:
Amazing One wrote: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.

hu. I see. Six parameters including pan and reverb.

Please find here enclosed the programming manual of the VL-1.

There's something like 80 or 90 parameters to be tweaked.

http://www.retrevo.com/support/Yamaha-V ... ci865/t/2/

Something is really wrong here.
No, something is very right..The Jupiter-80 has an extensive number of parameters, more than the VL-1 I would say, again, the Jupiter-80 just has a much more advanced, intuitive and intelligent way of adjusting them, allowing all musicians to get realistic results, not just those with a PhD in synth technology.

I reiterate…
Amazing One wrote: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.
Edit...
ozy
Posts: 169
Joined: 13:32, 1 December 2010

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

Post by ozy »

Amazing One wrote:The VL-1 does not even come close to being as intuitive, intelligent or user-friendly as the Jupiter-80 in regards to the way they accomplish the task of simulating a convincing acoustic instrument performance.
did you ever play or program one?

I do daily,

Just asking.
User avatar
V-CeeOh
Posts: 3956
Joined: 18:13, 28 September 2004
Location: Portugal

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

Post by V-CeeOh »

I'd like to choose HOW that happens. Choose my feelings AND the machine response to them.
ozy, you are basically asking to get your "own" technology builted-in a Roland synthesizer ;-)
Look, things are what they are. If there were ways to physically model SuperNatural sounds in the Jupiter the way you want why would Roland keep them apart? There are 2 main reasons for it: 1- It would not be possible at this state to keep it integrated with the Behaviour Modelling to point targeted by Roland, which is by own oppinion to keep it tight, clear and straighforward. 2 - It would be counter productive in view of the thousands of other options available not only on the Jupiter itself but also on other external hardware and software gear available elsewhere.

I could as well blame Roland for not getting sampling capabilities to the JP. It would seem more then natural to do it on their top of the line synth. Having our own waves on that sound engine would be awsome. But even if they did it, we then would be discussion loading times and storage ways and sizes. For some reason they just decided it would be this way.
Like I said earlier, why keeping discussion what it dosen't and forget what it does? In the end thats all that matters.
ozy
Posts: 169
Joined: 13:32, 1 December 2010

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

Post by ozy »

[mistakenly posted and deleted]
ozy
Posts: 169
Joined: 13:32, 1 December 2010

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

Post by ozy »

[mistakenly posted and deleted]
ozy
Posts: 169
Joined: 13:32, 1 December 2010

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

Post by ozy »

V-CeeOh wrote: ozy, you are basically asking to get your "own" technology builted-in a Roland synthesizer ;-)
No no no. Not MY technology. ROLAND's technology. Please separate the engine from its finished product.

I just say that for 3 grands I need access to a synth engine, not just to some presets built on it, no matter how good they are (among other reasons: in a few months everybody will be playing the same roland "jupiter trumpet". It will become a "orinoco flow" trumpet. Not only recognizable, but stereotypic. Blah...).

Listen, I have lived through the era of "analogue PRESET synths". That's exactly the same issue.

Look back some decades, and imagine when somebody bought analogues with NO control on ADSR other than "slow/fast" and with no LFO modulation other than "on/off". "Waveforms"? Fuggeddabbaudit: you could get "banjo" or "harpsichord", but coudln't even check what the synthesis elements where.

Of course those synths sounded nice. They sounded GOOD. No, wait: the poly preset "string machines" sounded HUGE.

Of course the presets were OPTIMIZED for "oboe", "flute", "lunar" and "dog" [really, that happened].

But most of the meaning of a analogue synth (i.e. exploration) went lost.

I had one preset moog, and ditched it for the minimoog as soon as I could afford it.

The Jupiter80 is [at least on paper] a Moog satellite where the VL-1 is a Minimoog, AS FAR AS ACOUSTIC SOUNDS ARE CONCERNED. Repeat for trolls, fanboys and missionaries: AS FAR AS ACOUSTIC SOUNDS ARE CONCERNED, STOP.

Mine is a very specific request.

That's where I expect some breakthrough. Emulation of analogues is everywhere, emulation of pianos and rhodes is a cent the dozen (J80, kronos, you mention it).

But modeling of orchestras is stuck in the early-mid '90s (or in computer-based software).

That's a pity, because current technology (as Roland itself showed with the JP80 presets) would allow for a "VL-1 for the 21st century".

I am sorry for beating this dead horse, but I am putting my money where my mouth is, I have a really urgency to sort this out:

I got a bid for my rack of VL70s for 3000-and-something euros (I advertised them for sale when I heard the J80 demos), and I'd have been glad to get the money and convert it into a Jupiter80.

I skipped the Kronos for its meaningless brass and winds, and now I'm afraid I'll have to skip the J80 as well.

I'll have to test it in person though, before I quit.

But if it was programmable my doubts would be far far less important.
V-CeeOh wrote:why keeping discussion what it dosen't and forget what it does? In the end thats all that matters.
see above, where I mention selling a synth for buying the j80.

If we are discussing among people for whom money matters and space matters, "what it doesn't" is important
User avatar
V-CeeOh
Posts: 3956
Joined: 18:13, 28 September 2004
Location: Portugal

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

Post by V-CeeOh »

Mine is a very specific request.
I got you from the very beggining. That's what I meant by "your own" technology ;-)
Anyway I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just trying to give my personal feeling about it as at this point I don't think the JP-80 will give you what you're looking for in what acoustic sounds manipulation is concerned :-)
User avatar
V-CeeOh
Posts: 3956
Joined: 18:13, 28 September 2004
Location: Portugal

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

Post by V-CeeOh »

Just to go a little further, look at what the V-Piano is, what you can do with it and...how much it cost ;-)
Mystic38
Posts: 1105
Joined: 14:04, 24 August 2009

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

Post by Mystic38 »

@ozy,
you appear to be assuming that the behaviour models for the acoustic tones follow a standard synth block architecture of osc>filter>amp>fx with mod routing.. or, such as in the case of VAST for example, some standard set of blocks put end to end.

I do not see the acoustic instruments as a set of standard blocks bolted together with the sound being derived from simply different input osc/waveforms and values of input to a set of standard inputs to standard blocks (as is the case with classic VA additive, subtractive and waveform synths).... I see the instruments to be just like the arx modules... as effectively its own synth engine, a complete model block, one per per instrument.. As a complete functional block each instrument so has its own sets of discrete inputs, again, unlike a standard synth.

Now, it may well be that there could have been more experimental or sound shaping capability possible by mangling those input parameter if they were able to be done so by mod sources etc.. or if other per-instrument inputs are let to be available in the future..but it is what it is..
Post Reply