I tested the Jupiter80 today. Very partial view

Forum for JUPITER-80
Amazing One
Posts: 98
Joined: 10:48, 10 April 2011

Re: I tested the Jupiter80 today. Very partial view

Post by Amazing One »

Thanks for the moderation V-CeeOh, as always, you do your job beautifully, I will do my best to remain civil concerning this matter.

Amazing One.
Amazing One
Posts: 98
Joined: 10:48, 10 April 2011

Re: I tested the Jupiter80 today. Very partial view

Post by Amazing One »

Hi Ozy…

I understand that your view was “very partial” and that it was based on your perspective and understanding of all factors involved. Apart from my personal opinion, I simply stated that the Jupiter-80's user guides and Roland staff members disagree with a number of your claims, those aren’t personal feelings on my part, just documented facts. Furthermore, many of us own Roland gear (like myself), and have a good understanding of Roland synthesizers and how features that are commonly standard in Roland synths have worked for years.

For example, you stated that the Jupiter-80 lacked free allocation of buttons, but the user guide states that the Jupiter-80 has the same assignable S1 and S2 buttons that are on the Fantom-S, X, G and every single current 61-88 key pro level synthesizer contained on the page in the following link…

http://www.rolandus.com/products/produc ... arentId=83

Many of us (including myself) have used the buttons I made reference to in the paragraph above, and now you want us to buy that they do not work the same on the Jupiter-80 as they do on the Roland synths we already own? The same two buttons having the same names, described as working the same way in the manual of our currently owned Roland synths?

Well, I don’t buy it at all…

Until you can prove that the two following sources are wrong: “Roland staff members and/or the Jupiter-80 owners manual”, by providing evidence against the claims made by either of the sources, such as, recording the necessary procedure to reach the “Switch assign setting screen” (SHIFT + S1 or S2 as recorded in the Jupiter-80 owners manual on page 28), and show that the parameters listed on page 10 and 11 (for example) of the parameter guide are not available for assignment regarding the S1 and S2 switch when on the proper screen (it will be commonsense), your alleged claims here regarding assaults from fanbois is nothing more than an assertion designed to cover up your mistakes and misinterpretations while using unfounded, frowned upon and derogatory statements against me in an attempt to buttress your errors with an ill-conceived notion that the “fanboy” commits a greater offense than yourself in the hope that attention will be draw away from your blunder and my claims will lose their significance…At least, that’s how I see it. :-)

I never use the word fanboy against a debater, I can defend my claims without it, it’s a desperation move from my view but I know some believe it has merit, and everyone is free to have an opinion, no matter how unfounded it may be.

In any case, as far as I am concerned, it’s the same for all the claims you made that contradict recorded owners manual documents or Roland staff members regarding the Jupiter-80. Until you provide proof against a claim, in the manner described above-based on logic and prior experience with Roland products, I have no valid reason to accept your claims over theirs. It has nothing to do with fanboism, I just know more about Roland and their products than I know about you at this time, if it is proven that Roland is wrong and you are right, then you will earn more of my trust, that’s just how things tend to work in this world.

Also ozy, please keep my words in context and when quoting me quote my complete thought..

You said..
ozy wrote:
Amazing One wrote: wonder if you truly took the time to test a Jupiter-80
And then continued on to suggest that I meant the portion you took out of context in a mean-spirited way as well as treat me as if I did commit the offense you are projecting upon me. In context, the portion quoted was just friendly advice, stated as follows…
Amazing One wrote: I do see several errors in your review and because of this you also have a number of baseless assumptions (as defined by the Jupiter-80 user guides and Roland staff members), so much so that it might cause people to wonder if you truly took the time to test a Jupiter-80. That’s not meant in any insulting way at all, but I would recommend that you, at the very least, check the facts before you post, that way people will not ignore your post believing that they are being mislead (but we all make mistakes).
My advice was sincere, I did not mean it to insult you. I will be testing the Jupiter-80 for myself soon, so well others, if it is proven that you are wrong concerning owners manual details, and refuse to acknowledge that it’s possible you made mistakes or simply was unsure of the correct procedure to perform a task, then you could lose credibility as well as leave yourself and those who trusted and agreed with you open for future suspicion regarding those who suspect foul play, and they have this thread and any others for reference, not that their claim would be factual, but others will have the information to consider, as I said, we all make mistakes, including myself, it was just good debating advice. But that is mostly something long time members take to heart (not implying anything towards long time members at all).

And some claims you make such as..
ozy wrote:There is NO audible articulation on 90% of "supernatural" acoustic sounds.
Are very subjective, some features do not require one to go to a store to test the gear, factors such as articulation, tone character, color etc, do not need first hand experience in order for one to draw a conclusion concerning it’s presence, the evidence can be heard in the current Jupiter-80 video offerings, one just has to know what they’re listening for, and indeed, the Jupiter-80 dominates in the category of expressive possibilities, but we all listen to see if what we need is there, so to each his (or her) own.

Also, the recent videos with Scott Tibbs (the demonstrator in the sound example videos found at Roland U.S) controlling various elements of the sound with a foot controller should be noted (and as stated in my pervious post, one can set various controllers such as knobs, D Beam, S1, S2, control pedal ports and I believe aftertouch up the way they wish).

Based on the discussion we had in another thread, I was pretty sure that your review of the Jupiter-80 would be similar to the comments you made in this thread, and that you might not find it suitable for your particular needs. It’s always wise to test a synthesizer out if you have the opportunity, that way you have greater confidence in your buying decision.

I’m almost certain that I will be purchasing a Jupiter-80, my main focus when performing on stage is playing the keys, for me, the most vital element in an instrument is it’s ability to accurately interpret my performance into sound that corresponds with the message I wish to convey to my audience. I do not believe anything out there today will have a greater range of instruments that fall under the criteria previously stated in this paragraph than the Jupiter-80.

Amazing one.
theshinenz
Posts: 139
Joined: 06:16, 12 August 2005

Re: I tested the Jupiter80 today. Very partial view

Post by theshinenz »

mojkarma wrote:
V-CeeOh wrote: I must believe that what you're saying is true. Still, not knowing how sounds have been programmed I do know that this is usually achieved with a Release Time Sens parameter on the Amp Envelope. This is common on most synth I know. There's no need for "Supersomething" technology here ;-)
Well there is a need for supersomething here. For the brass sounds you have staccato sample variations on the JP80 (look at some youtube demonstrations of the arx03 card). Those staccato samples are not triggered by playing staccato on the keyboard. Instead, you have to use a controller. So, what you consider as common on most synths doesn't exist on the JP80. Now, on the trumpet patch, the only thing which is controlled by the way how you play the keyboard is whether you play legato or not (it affects the attack portion of the trumpet sample). Everything else is triggered by controllers.
Personally, I agree that the JP80 sounds for the most part terrific (with the exception of the organs due to Rolands autism to realize that a hammond type sound also needs an overdrive, not just rotary), but I don't see a clear step forward in what already is/was on the market. Yamaha uses supernatural for a couple of years now. They call it superarticulation. I'm not saying that to diminish what Roland does, but if I have to use a lot of controllers, there is no clear step forward. The more controller I have to use, the less I can focus on playing music. Sitting in front of audience and demoing single patches (as Roland employees did) is one thing, playing live and usually using the left hand to play some pads or something else is another. You can't play pads with the left hand and heavily handle all those controllers.

On most other parts, I agree with ozy. Amazing one certainly has the right to express his opinion (however, to me it sounds more like advertising), but the fact is that one person tells us what he hears and how the sound behaves, while the other person explains us on the theoretical level what the sound is supposed to do.
i tend to agree somewhat, I thought the JP-80 was going to be MORE based around intelligent articulation as to how you play the keys. For example the anyone who's played the Kurzweil Strings on the PC3 know how expressive they can be by how hard and soft you play. This is WITHOUT the the use of controllers, theres a huge advantage to sounds where you can play with both hands and still get very expressive dynamics within the patch you are playing. Don't get me wrong I think the JP80 sounds great but id like to know how many of these sort of sounds it is capable of.
User avatar
PauloF
Posts: 4201
Joined: 02:35, 16 January 2006
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Contact:

Re: I tested the Jupiter80 today. Very partial view

Post by PauloF »

@Amazing One... Jesus, I think you're exaggerating a litte bit, don't you think ? it was you that asked us to keep "on Topic"...

Anyway, back to the TOPIC...

Unless I'm completely wrong...

Did any of you noticed that, according to the documentation, the JU-80's Output Routing is general for the whole machine and can't be saved on a Registration?

According to the users manual (Page 86), the OUTPUT ASSIGN function is configured on the System Settings, completely unrelated to registrations...

This will limit dramatically the versatility when playing live!!!

@Ozy, being the only one here that actually did play the machine, what can you say about this ? can you confirm ?

"If" this is really true, this will be the first item to be corrected, as it is VERY inconvenient... at least for me.

Compared to older Roland boards, this is set back. I can set different OUTPUT Routings per PATCH/Performance on my old fantom Xa or by PATCH on my V-Synth XT !!!

Cheers,
Paulo
Amazing One
Posts: 98
Joined: 10:48, 10 April 2011

Re: I tested the Jupiter80 today. Very partial view

Post by Amazing One »

PauloF wrote:@Amazing One... Jesus, I think you're exaggerating a litte bit, don't you think ? it was you that asked us to keep "on Topic"...

Anyway, back to the TOPIC...

Unless I'm completely wrong...

Did any of you noticed that, according to the documentation, the JU-80's Output Routing is general for the whole machine and can't be saved on a Registration?

According to the users manual (Page 86), the OUTPUT ASSIGN function is configured on the System Settings, completely unrelated to registrations...
Hello PauloF, can you please point out where I was off topic in relation to Ozy’s post, I do not believe I am in error. I think I respect your intentions but I take what I say seriously.

Also, are you suggesting that I made a claim in relation to your post that is incorrect? If so, can you quote me and I will correct the misunderstanding or error if one is present.

I do not believe I exaggerated but I’ll take your comment into account..

Thanks PauloF!
Chrisk-K
Posts: 239
Joined: 15:42, 25 June 2011

Re: I tested the Jupiter80 today. Very partial view

Post by Chrisk-K »

I'll probably buy a JP-80 because it simply looks stunning. But I still don't understand behavioral modelling.
Amazing One wrote

Also, the recent videos with Scott Tibbs (the demonstrator in the sound example videos found at Roland U.S) controlling various elements of the sound with a foot controller should be noted (and as stated in my pervious post, one can set various controllers such as knobs, D Beam, S1, S2, control pedal ports and I believe aftertouch up the way they wish).
I've watched those videos. My understanding of behavioral modelling is that the JP-80 will sense the player's playing and interpret it into some predetermined musical articulation. I didn't see it in the videos. Tibbs merely used controllers. In fact, I can do what Tibbs did on my Juno Stage although the JP-80 sounds better. I've yet to see evidence that the JP-80 allows the player to be more expressive, compared to other synths augmented with controllers.
User avatar
PauloF
Posts: 4201
Joined: 02:35, 16 January 2006
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Contact:

Re: I tested the Jupiter80 today. Very partial view

Post by PauloF »

Amazing One wrote:
PauloF wrote:@Amazing One... Jesus, I think you're exaggerating a litte bit, don't you think ? it was you that asked us to keep "on Topic"...

Anyway, back to the TOPIC...

Unless I'm completely wrong...

Did any of you noticed that, according to the documentation, the JU-80's Output Routing is general for the whole machine and can't be saved on a Registration?

According to the users manual (Page 86), the OUTPUT ASSIGN function is configured on the System Settings, completely unrelated to registrations...
Hello PauloF, can you please point out where I was off topic in relation to Ozy’s post, I do not believe I am in error. I think I respect your intentions but I take what I say seriously.

Also, are you suggesting that I made a claim in relation to your post that is incorrect? If so, can you quote me and I will correct the misunderstanding or error if one is present.

I do not believe I exaggerated but I’ll take your comment into account..

Thanks PauloF!
@Amazing One,
No...I did not suggest that you made a claim about my incorrect post, simply because I don't know to what post you are referring to... ;-)

and because, actually I was referring to your answer to Ozy, that seemed (to me) a little exaggerated in tone, but that was my perception. Cool. :-)

Now... to avoid any misunderstanding, I'll rephrase my question to you all...
Unless I'm completely wrong...and missed something from the Owners manual, did any of you noticed that, according to the documentation, the JU-80's Output Routing is general for the whole machine and can't be saved on a Registration?

According to the users manual (Page 86), the OUTPUT ASSIGN function is configured on the System Settings, completely unrelated to registrations...

Take care
PauloF
mojkarma
Posts: 618
Joined: 23:59, 8 August 2009
Location: Varaždin, HR

Re: I tested the Jupiter80 today. Very partial view

Post by mojkarma »

Amazing One,
when you write this:
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.
or this:
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.
and especially this:
Furthermore, one has access to an extensive list of effects and layering possibilities
you shouldn't really "correct" ozys review and write essays about that. Just correct the wrong part. Your biased views on the JP80 could really make more damage to a potential buyer than those two little mistakes made by ozy.
Amazing One
Posts: 98
Joined: 10:48, 10 April 2011

Re: I tested the Jupiter80 today. Very partial view

Post by Amazing One »

mojkarma wrote:when you write this:
mojkarma wrote:
Amazing One wrote: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.
or this:
mojkarma wrote:
Amazing One wrote: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.
and especially this:
mojkarma wrote:
Amazing One wrote:Furthermore, one has access to an extensive list of effects and layering possibilities
mojkarma wrote:you shouldn't really "correct" ozys review and write essays about that. Just correct the wrong part. Your biased views on the JP80 could really make more damage to a potential buyer than those two little mistakes made by ozy.
Your Perspective of what I said is most likely not the Perspective I have, I stand by everything I said.

And concerning the following...
mojkarma wrote:you shouldn't really "correct" ozys review and write essays about that. Just correct the wrong part.


Thanks for the advice, if I see a need to do things differently I will consider it.
mojkarma wrote:Your biased views on the JP80 could really make more damage to a potential buyer than those two little mistakes made by ozy.
I feel the same concerning many of the things you say.
Amazing One
Posts: 98
Joined: 10:48, 10 April 2011

Re: I tested the Jupiter80 today. Very partial view

Post by Amazing One »

Hi PauloF!

Thanks for clearing things up!

Cornering the Jupiter-80’s Output Routing (assuming that you are correct). I would guess Roland did it for the same reason I stated concerning the sliders and the acoustic instruments when using the tone blender.

All setup to allow maximum spontaneity, so when one needs or has an impulse to select an instrument that was not part of the routine, they will instantly have access to essential functionality, allowing one to improvise to their heart’s content without worrying if a crazy unintended effect will occur upon switching instruments and using the given controller.

Like the sliders and tone blender functionality, It’s not a bad thing, just a matter of personal preference, for live performers like myself, it is likely setup the most preferred way.
Amazing One
Posts: 98
Joined: 10:48, 10 April 2011

Re: I tested the Jupiter80 today. Very partial view

Post by Amazing One »

Hi Chrisk-K!, please follow this link. viewtopic.php?f=44&t=37989&p=233926
mojkarma
Posts: 618
Joined: 23:59, 8 August 2009
Location: Varaždin, HR

Re: I tested the Jupiter80 today. Very partial view

Post by mojkarma »

Amazing One wrote:I feel the same concerning many of the things you say.
You may feel whatever you want about what I say. Fell free to correct any statement I made about the JP80. You may start with the effects and try to explain me where I'm wrong when I say that "there is no an extensive list of effects and layering possibilities" like you said, but in contrary, the effect system is the most limited one that currently exist on the market. If it's still unclear to you, we may again analyze and question ourselves how to achieve a distorted organ on that keyboard "that other synths simply cannot match". Feel free to correct my statement when I say that the filesystem is pathetically limited where the user cannot import patches from other users and he never will be able to buy third party sounds and load them into the JP80 because this will overwrite every single work you made so far.
Let's talk about facts which everyone can read out from the manual. I consider this things as important to know, so that everyone can decide before he buys that instrument, what he gets and what he doesn't.

Amazing One wrote: Cornering the Jupiter-80’s Output Routing (assuming that you are correct). I would guess Roland did it for the same reason I stated concerning the sliders and the acoustic instruments when using the tone blender.

All setup to allow maximum spontaneity, so when one needs or has an impulse to select an instrument that was not part of the routine, they will instantly have access to essential functionality, allowing one to improvise to their heart’s content without worrying if a crazy unintended effect will occur upon switching instruments and using the given controller.
What has the output routing to do with maximum spontaneity? Have you ever owned a keyboard with multiple outputs? How did the routing possibilities prevent you to be spontaneous? What crazy unintended effect can occur if there are separate outputs? All sounds on any keyboard are out from the factory programmed to go to the main output. Separate outputs are there for the user, if and when he needs them. To route particular sounds to an external effect for example. Not a whole part like it's on the JP80.
Imagine you have 100 registrations for a show you play live. Why on earth would you want to send for example the Upper LiveSet to a separate output????? In one registration, the upper liveset contains a piano, in another registration you have a synth lead? What is common to those two sounds that you need them to be routed to a separate output globally?
For the advanced user, the point would be to route some parts to a separate output, for example to use a dedicated effect processor. But certainly not a single part on every registration. That doesn't make sense at all. It's ridiculous and there is a good reason why you'll never find this implementation of routing possibilities on any other keyboard.
Amazing One wrote:Like the sliders and tone blender functionality, It’s not a bad thing, just a matter of personal preference, for live performers like myself, it is likely setup the most preferred way.
Yes, it is a bad thing and has nothing to do with personal preference. If you as a live performer think that a global routing of a single part makes sense and that it's setup in the most preferred way, please enlighten us. Give me an example what do you gain by routing one single part globally to a separate output.
ozy
Posts: 169
Joined: 13:32, 1 December 2010

Re: I tested the Jupiter80 today. Very partial view

Post by ozy »

PauloF wrote:according to the documentation, the JU-80's Output Routing is general for the whole machine and can't be saved on a Registration? @Ozy, being the only one here that actually did play the machine, what can you say about this ? can you confirm ?
I am sorry, I didn’t check this.

I agree that it’s important (I often use separate outs, e.g. for different processing of Eps and brass with external pedals and the like, or for vocoding),

but I really went single-mindedly into the “articulation” issue,

which is what the Jupiter80 is about, or was supposed to be about.
Amazing One wrote: you stated that the Jupiter-80 lacked free allocation of buttons, but the user guide states that the Jupiter-80 has the same assignable S1 and S2 buttons that are on the Fantom-S, X, G and every single current 61-88 key pro level synthesizer
I will just answer to this point, because I can’t spend my days (and waste pages and everybody's time) retorting to what patently is a fanboy rant (defining "fanboy" as "I'd like to be a salesman but they won't pay me for being enthusiatic").

You are on the mission of selling the jupiter80 to the world, I am in the line of work of playing keys and not wasting my money. There is a basic divergence of roles here.

OF COURSE the JP80 has TWO assignable buttons.

Its panel, though, is peppered by more or less 60 (SIXTY) non-assignable, rigid buttons. Not to mention the sliders.

This is a ridiculous waste of resources for a “performance” keyboard.

If the multicoloured buttons above the keys were assignable (by registration), you could set the JP80 as a BOTTOM keyboard and still have access to, say, distortion or wha on-off (per zone), or keyclick on-off, or mono-poly on-off, without using the LCD (which is mostly unaccesible live on bottom keyboards).

When I first saw thw jp80, I cheered the rainbow buttons, because they are positioned in the best way for realtime live quick change of settings. Bitter disappointment followed.

Compare that with the Kurzweil PC3, admittedly a OLDER and less ambitious “live rompler” (so, whose features should be now taken for granted in newer keyboards)

whose buttons and sliders are assignable in the freakiest ways.

Me, e.g., I use the PC3 “program” buttons as extra sound controllers. But I could use most of what moves on the panel surface as a controller or toggle.

As in: "if I hit button 4, resonance on the filter on layer 3 jumps from the basic setting up to 50%. From there on, it is managed by slider 2".

THAT’s “live control”!

As opposed to just choosing: "reverb? hit 1 for yes, 2 for not. Press 5 to go to following menu. Sorry, voicemail is full".

I mean

2 buttons and four knobs on a 2011 “fresh new world” keyboard [ok, ok: AND the d-beam...]

versus

nine sliders and 20 buttons assignable to 178 variables, on a keyboard whose concept is 5/7 years old ?!? At half the price? (I got my pc3-76 a 1400 euros)?

Come on: a DEDICATED “reverb on/off” button, and it can’t morph into a “distortion on/off” button?

That’s “CASIO-portable arranger” level, not “Roland pro” level...

I just wanted to show that if I spent a page commenting each paragraph of you say – like you do – I could go on for weeks and shame you,

but I’ll stop here, for the sake of everybody's peace of mind
User avatar
PauloF
Posts: 4201
Joined: 02:35, 16 January 2006
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Contact:

Re: I tested the Jupiter80 today. Very partial view

Post by PauloF »

ozy wrote:
PauloF wrote:according to the documentation, the JU-80's Output Routing is general for the whole machine and can't be saved on a Registration? @Ozy, being the only one here that actually did play the machine, what can you say about this ? can you confirm ?
I am sorry, I didn’t check this.

I agree that it’s important (I often use separate outs, e.g. for different processing of Eps and brass with external pedals and the like, or for vocoding),

but I really went single-mindedly into the “articulation” issue,

which is what the Jupiter80 is about, or was supposed to be about.
@Ozy, ok, but for me, like Mojkarma also said, having a fixed OUTPUT routing, the JU-80 seems to me very limited. I'm comparing that with the versatility of my Fantom and V-Synth where I can set Different OUTPUT Routing Schemes per Performance / Patch.
ozy wrote:
Amazing One wrote: you stated that the Jupiter-80 lacked free allocation of buttons, but the user guide states that the Jupiter-80 has the same assignable S1 and S2 buttons that are on the Fantom-S, X, G and every single current 61-88 key pro level synthesizer
I will just answer to this point, because I can’t spend my days (and waste pages and everybody's time) retorting to what patently is a fanboy rant (defining "fanboy" as "I'd like to be a salesman but they won't pay me for being enthusiatic").

You are on the mission of selling the jupiter80 to the world, I am in the line of work of playing keys and not wasting my money. There is a basic divergence of roles here.

OF COURSE the JP80 has TWO assignable buttons.

Its panel, though, is peppered by more or less 60 (SIXTY) non-assignable, rigid buttons. Not to mention the sliders.

This is a ridiculous waste of resources for a “performance” keyboard.

If the multicoloured buttons above the keys were assignable (by registration), you could set the JP80 as a BOTTOM keyboard and still have access to, say, distortion or wha on-off (per zone), or keyclick on-off, or mono-poly on-off, without using the LCD (which is mostly unaccesible live on bottom keyboards).

When I first saw thw jp80, I cheered the rainbow buttons, because they are positioned in the best way for realtime live quick change of settings. Bitter disappointment followed.

Compare that with the Kurzweil PC3, admittedly a OLDER and less ambitious “live rompler” (so, whose features should be now taken for granted in newer keyboards)

whose buttons and sliders are assignable in the freakiest ways.

Me, e.g., I use the PC3 “program” buttons as extra sound controllers. But I could use most of what moves on the panel surface as a controller or toggle.

As in: "if I hit button 4, resonance on the filter on layer 3 jumps from the basic setting up to 50%. From there on, it is managed by slider 2".

THAT’s “live control”!

As opposed to just choosing: "reverb? hit 1 for yes, 2 for not. Press 5 to go to following menu. Sorry, voicemail is full".

I mean

2 buttons and four knobs on a 2011 “fresh new world” keyboard [ok, ok: AND the d-beam...]

versus

nine sliders and 20 buttons assignable to 178 variables, on a keyboard whose concept is 5/7 years old ?!? At half the price? (I got my pc3-76 a 1400 euros)?

Come on: a DEDICATED “reverb on/off” button, and it can’t morph into a “distortion on/off” button?

That’s “CASIO-portable arranger” level, not “Roland pro” level...

I just wanted to show that if I spent a page commenting each paragraph of you say – like you do – I could go on for weeks and shame you,

but I’ll stop here, for the sake of everybody's peace of mind

@Ozy,
Just for the record, and according to the manual, the JUP-80 has 9 physical Assignable Controllers:
- Control Pedal 1: 101 different Parameters (System or Registration sensitive)
- Control Pedal 2: 101 Different Parameters (System or Registration sensitive)
- D-Beam: 96 different Parameters (available when Assignable is lit)
- Knob 1: 30 different Parameters (Registration sensitive) - Upper ou Lower
- Knob 2: 30 different Parameters (Registration sensitive) - Upper ou Lower
- Knob 3: 30 different Parameters (Registration sensitive) - Upper ou Lower
- Knob 4: 30 different Parameters (Registration sensitive) - Upper ou Lower
- S1: 39 different Parameters (Registration sensitive)
- S2: 39 different Parameters (Registration sensitive)

So, per Registration you can control up to 9 Different parameters from a Total of 110 Different parameters (a lot of them are overlapping)

And I'm not talking about the Menu Context sensitive TABs, that control lot's of parameters, just about the Physical Assignable controllers...

Regarding the 4x Sliders, for the sake of usability when playing live, I think it is good to have them dedicated to Part/layer Level...IMHO.

Regarding the REVERB On/Off, I can't figure what was Roland's idea here... it is perfectly redundant, as we can set Reverb On/Off per layer, which is much more obvious and flexible. Why cutting all reverb in all layers, beats me...

Regarding 1 MFX per TONE, well, I didn't see any comment about this yet, but not having the ability to cascade MFXs (like in the Fantom X), and having only one dedicated MFX per TONE, although powerful, it is not very flexible...
I'll give one simple example: An Organ TONE. In order to have a Rock Organ with Rotary and Distortion, you will have to use TW Organ (28) on both TONE 1 Upper and TONE 1 Lower and assign Rotary to the MFX1 Upper and Distortion on the MFX1 Lower so you can simulate a Rock Organ...

cheers,
Paulo
mojkarma
Posts: 618
Joined: 23:59, 8 August 2009
Location: Varaždin, HR

Re: I tested the Jupiter80 today. Very partial view

Post by mojkarma »

PauloF wrote: And I'm not talking about the Menu Context sensitive TABs, that control lot's of parameters, just about the Physical Assignable controllers...
My opinion here: a touch display is not a suitable device when performing live. You make mistakes, you don't hit it properly or at all. It's just not a good controller. There is a reason why other manufacturers still give you plenty of buttons, sliders and knobs.
PauloF wrote:Regarding the 4x Sliders, for the sake of usability when playing live, I think it is good to have them dedicated to Part/layer Level...IMHO.
I agree here. That's what I most often use them for live on stage. However, the JP80 doesn't really have a slider per part. You have just sliders for the part of registrations. If you use the livesets to make splits, you are out of luck or again have to reach for the touchdisplay and go to a deeper level.
PauloF wrote:Regarding the REVERB On/Off, I can't figure what was Roland's idea here... it is perfectly redundant, as we can set Reverb On/Off per layer, which is much more obvious and flexible. Why cutting all reverb in all layers, beats me...
Honestly, the idea to turn the Reverb globally of is not even so bad. It happens to me more than once where I was asked by the mixing guys to turn the reverb off because the (large) concert hall already had a lot of reverb and my sounds sounded a little muddy (you know, you program your setups at home in a sonically pretty dry room and it's hard to put the right amount of reverb that will later correctly "wet" the sound in sonically completely different environments, from open air stages, small clubs up to big sports/concert halls).
But as a complete waste I see the dedicated rotary buttons. The joystick could have been used for that as it already is on the RD series.
There are no dedicated drawbars, there is even no drawbar mode, the organ can't be used for a lot of styles, it is due to limitations on the effect side pretty much limited, so, there is no need for dedicated rotary effect buttons. Also, all those colored buttons are a complete waste when you play live where you'll probably be in the registration mode. It's pathetical that you have to repeatedly press previous/next buttons to jump from one bank to another, while there are 20 sound select buttons on the surface doing absolutely nothing, besides glowing in the dark.
PauloF wrote:Regarding 1 MFX per TONE, well, I didn't see any comment about this yet, but not having the ability to cascade MFXs (like in the Fantom X), and having only one dedicated MFX per TONE, although powerful, it is not very flexible...
Let's put the right words here: there is no flexibility at all. One effect per tone and just a parallel connection of effects inside a live set has nothing to do with flexibility. They even removed the second Aux Effect (chorus/delay) that even GM home keyboards have.

PauloF wrote:I'll give one simple example: An Organ TONE. In order to have a Rock Organ with Rotary and Distortion, you will have to use TW Organ (28) on both TONE 1 Upper and TONE 1 Lower and assign Rotary to the MFX1 Upper and Distortion on the MFX1 Lower so you can simulate a Rock Organ...
That will not work at all! All you'll get is a complete mess of a sound that has nothing to do with the classical rock organ. Don't forget, your Lower Organ will sound like a church organ that is put thru distortion! You'll have a mix of a rotary organ with a distorted church organ. Then when you switch to fast rotary, the upper organ will have fast rotary while the lower organ will still sound clean and distorted.
There is no solution. You have a convincing Erhu sound on that machine, but not one of the most typical and famous key instrument. You can't connect two effects to have rotary and overdrive, and you can't send the organ part to the separate outputs to a dedicated effect (for example the Neo Ventilator) without sending the same part of every other registration into that effect.
Post Reply