New Roland (desktop?) Synth

[AnotherScott]

 

Originally Posted by sani

The only benefit you get with the jp80 is 256 note polyphony and the possibility to connect insert effects in serial. The jp50 is a complete fail IMHO.

 

I think the JP50 is great. All the JP80 sounds in a much cheaper and much LIGHTER package. Yes, there are trade-offs...

* it's only 3-part (6-tone) vs. 4-part (10-tone), but 3-way splits on 76 keys is often all people need at a gig

* 128 polyphony vs 256, but for live performance (not running sequences), 128 still takes you plenty far (and you won't use it as quickly if you're limited to 6 parts vs. 10, either)

* no nice color touch screen (partially offset by the availability of the iPad app)

* no aftertouch (a real shame, but the AT implementation on the 80 is pretty lame anyway)

* 128 registration vs. 256; fewer buttons to select them

Both boards have great feeling actions, excellent connectivity (pedals, assignable outs), and an interface that is easily geared to being able to independently change sounds on different regions of the keyboard on the fly, which is a nice (and rare) feature.

The way I see it, a JP50 plus an Integra gives you most of the JP80's benefits, while also giving you a whole lot that the JP80 doesn't have (independent 16-tone addressability, each with their own fx, plus all the SRX sounds, etc.). At about the same price, I'd take a JP50+Integra over a JP80. (That would still provide what you consider to be the key benefits of the Jupiter 80 over the Integra... 256 note polyphony and the possibility to connect insert effects in serial.)

I agree with you that a Krome or a MOX could be a nice mate for an Integra as well, as would a Kurzweil PC3LE which has strong MIDI controller functionality, and also aftertouch. Each would have its advantages. The JP50 has the best unweighted action of the bunch, the Kurz has aftertouch, the Kurz and MOX have traditional pitch and mod wheels (which I prefer), the Krome has the touchscreen, the Krome/Kurz/Mox expand your sonic palette in different ways, etc.

They also have some different limitations, though. I think the MOX setups can only address 4 MIDI channels on outboard devices, unlike the 16 you can address on a JP50, Krome, or Kurz, so I'd probably eliminate that one from the running. And for use as a MIDI controller, the JP50 and MOX are still light on setups, each offering only 128 setups where you can store external MIDI Program Changes ("Registrations" on the Roland, "Masters" on the Yamaha)... better than the Integra's 64, but still not particularly generous.

 

Originally Posted by sani

I play concerts. They always last for two hours...

 

To be clear, I was not saying that the setup would work for you personally; I was just pointing out that there are certainly scenarios where the Integra's limitations in custom presets are not necessarily an insurmountable problem, with some creative thinking. But sure, 64 multi-channel setups is pretty weak, I agree.

 

Originally Posted by sani

To access a device on different MIDI channels it has to be in a multitimbral mode!!! The Integra has to be in StudioSet! Sorry, that's the only possible way.

 

All you need is ONE StudioSet, and voila, it's in multi-timbral mode. Now you can use your Krome or Kurzweil to create all the setups you want (up to 512 Krome combis or I think something like 16,000 setups on a PC3LE), assigning different patches to each of the 16 channels, no? Unless the Integra does not let you send a Program Change to an individual channel when it is in its multitimbral mode... which would almost defeat the purpose of connecting a multitimbral module to a DAW, so I can't imagine that's the case...

[Synthaholic]

 

Originally Posted by AnotherScott

I don't know how it is where you are, but where I play, it is rare to play for more than an hour without taking a break... a break that would be long enough to easily go to your rack and hit a few buttons.

Similarly, you may need more than 64 multi-voice setups in a set, but believe me, many people do not.

I am not defending Roland here, I think it should store more settings. What I'm saying is, if a performer looks at the Integra and decides it would do everything s/he wants, except is worried that it may not store enough custom presets, there is at least a workaround. It's not about letting Roland off the hook, it's about trying to offer useful workarounds for people. I'm more interested in solving problems than complaining about them.

And here's another possible solution: If your controller allows you to store many custom setups that can send separate Program Change commands on different MIDI channels -- like a Kurzweil PC3 series, Korg Kronos, and many others -- you can use your controller's ability to create all those setups. You can have hundreds of multi-voice Integra setups available instantly, without using a single one of the 64 setups the Integra can store internally. (In fact, if Roland were only going to offer 64, it might have been smarter of Roland to offer ZERO setups, and say that such setups should be a function of your DAW or your controller... it's probably the better place to set them up anyway.)

 

I've been playing live since 1980, and have been doing a single act since 1996. I currently have well over 300 sequenced songs in my repertoire, along with almost as many acoustic/vocal. I don't think I've ever played the same set twice, and it's never written out ahead of time. I play to the audience, and that constantly changes. So I could never be limited to 64 songs per load (and that's assuming you're only using one per song). And btw - in a typical 4 hour gig, my first set is usually 2 hours.

[AnotherScott]

 

Originally Posted by Synthaholic

I've been playing live since 1980, and have been doing a single act since 1996. I currently have well over 300 sequenced songs in my repertoire, along with almost as many acoustic/vocal. I don't think I've ever played the same set twice, and it's never written out ahead of time. I play to the audience, and that constantly changes. So I could never be limited to 64 songs per load (and that's assuming you're only using one per song). And btw - in a typical 4 hour gig, my first set is usually 2 hours.

 

If you have 300 sequenced songs that are not already tied to a specific piece of hardware, you probably would have used the GM sound layout. In that case, you could just load the high quality PCM GM bank into the Integra and be done.

That gets back to my point that there's sometimes more than one way of addressing a limitation. The Integra does not have a sequencer, so if you're running sequences, you must have some other device running the sequences. If that's the case, if you can embed Program Changes into your sequences, the number of multi-timbral setups you can access is limited by your sequencer, not by the 64 StudioSets built into the Integra. That is, essentially, you have no limit at all.

[sani]

 

Originally Posted by AnotherScott

The way I see it, a JP50 plus an Integra gives you most of the JP80's benefits, while also giving you a whole lot that the JP80 doesn't have (independent 16-tone addressability, each with their own fx, plus all the SRX sounds, etc.).

 

The problem is that both, the jp80 and the jp50 are completely unsuitable to be used as controllers for external gear because they lack one of the most basic feature: sending midi values from their circular, non-spring loaded knobs.

In other words, you can't control the volume of the Integra from one of the physical controllers on the jp80/50. You can use both only if you place the Integra right in front of you so that you can reach for the volume knob right on the Integra. I can't remember Roland ever made such a stupid omission on a keyboard in that price range and designed as a performance keyboard, but that's another story and slightly off topic. I respect your opinion. I myself would use anything else to control the Integra. The Jupiter 80/50 is absolutely the worst choice.

 

Originally Posted by AnotherScott

They also have some different limitations, though. I think the MOX setups can only address 4 MIDI channels on outboard devices, unlike the 16 you can address on a JP50, Krome, or Kurz, so I'd probably eliminate that one from the running.

 

Yeah, correct, the Mox is probably not the best choice, but I don't own one (I owned an Es in the past) so I can't speak for it. But if it has a mastermode or a song mode (And I'm almost sure that it has one), then you can access all 16 external channels.

 

Originally Posted by AnotherScott

All you need is ONE StudioSet, and voila, it's in multi-timbral mode.

 

You did not understand what I wrote in my previous post. If you use just one single studioset, it means that you will use the same chorus and the same reverb for all your sounds!!! Chorus and Reverb settings are stored as part of a studioset. If you use just one, the patches will be changed triggered by a program change command coming from your controller, but since it's the same one, single studio set, the chorus and reverb will remain the same. You can probably run the piano thru the same reverb as the strings, but it will sound quite strange if you do the same with a hammond organ. There are also a lot of other things which you loose if you stick with just one studio set.

 

Originally Posted by AnotherScott

Now you can use your Krome or Kurzweil to create all the setups you want (up to 512 Krome combis or I think something like 16,000 setups on a PC3LE), assigning different patches to each of the 16 channels, no? Unless the Integra does not let you send a Program Change to an individual channel when it is in its multitimbral mode... which would almost defeat the purpose of connecting a multitimbral module to a DAW, so I can't imagine that's the case...

 

Besides the fact that using one single studioset brings you quite a lot of other limits, another thing is that most dedicated midicontrollers are actually far more limited than workstations. So, if you want to use for example Rolands new A-88 controller or an older one, you want get 16 parts and hundreds of combinations/setups or how they are called. That's another problem. Only the workstations (the most expensive ones) give you 16 controllable parts.

Now, we could discuss further on an academic level and ask ourselves why are there 64 studiosets if we can use just one. It appears even more redundant if you take a look at the Fantom G. There are 128 studio setups.

I'd just like to know, to see, to speak with that genius who made that decision. I'd simply like to hear what he has to say about it. Why did they choose 64. Why not 48 or 16? Who said there that 64 is enough when they made those decisions.

I mean, they know what Yamaha, Korg or Kurzweil is doing. They know about hundreds and thousands of rewritable memory slots on the competition products and yet they choose 64.

Those guys at Roland really have some big balls. Unfortunately, on the wrong place...

[AnotherScott]

 

Originally Posted by sani

The problem is that both, the jp80 and the jp50 are completely unsuitable to be used as controllers for external gear because they lack one of the most basic feature: sending midi values from their circular, non-spring loaded knobs.

In other words, you can't control the volume of the Integra from one of the physical controllers on the jp80/50. You can use both only if you place the Integra right in front of you so that you can reach for the volume knob right on the Integra.

 

How about an expression pedal? The Jupiters support two... though I haven't looked at their MIDI assignability.

 

Originally Posted by sani

Yeah, correct, the Mox is probably not the best choice, but I don't own one (I owned an Es in the past) so I can't speak for it. But if it has a mastermode or a song mode (And I'm almost sure that it has one), then you can access all 16 external channels.

 

Master mode supports 4 external channels; song mode supports 16 internal channels... Beyond that, I don't know. There may be a way to address 16 channels on an external device, I've never tried.

 

Originally Posted by sani

You did not understand what I wrote in my previous post. If you use just one single studioset, it means that you will use the same chorus and the same reverb for all your sounds!!!

 

I didn't address it, sorry, but I did understand it. Since one studioset can create as many multitimbral combinations as you want (triggered from, for example, your Krome or Kurzweil), 64 studiosets would allow you to pick from 64 stored sets of, for example, chorus and reverb.

Personally, I don't use global fx much, so I'm sure it would be more of an issue for other people. I don't think I have ever put a chorus on a split/layered combination of sounds... a chorus would be assigned to a single individual sound only. Even reverb... depending on the venue, I usually use none, or a small amount on the entire keyboard submix and leave it that way for the night. I'm just not much of a "global fx" user. I'm sure there are people who rely on them, though.

[Synthaholic]

 

Originally Posted by AnotherScott

If you have 300 sequenced songs that are not already tied to a specific piece of hardware, you probably would have used the GM sound layout. In that case, you could just load the high quality PCM GM bank into the Integra and be done.

That gets back to my point that there's sometimes more than one way of addressing a limitation. The Integra does not have a sequencer, so if you're running sequences, you must have some other device running the sequences. If that's the case, if you can embed Program Changes into your sequences, the number of multi-timbral setups you can access is limited by your sequencer, not by the 64 StudioSets built into the Integra. That is, essentially, you have no limit at all.

 

No, unfortunately, they ARE all tied to my various Alesis gear in my sigline - no GM for me....hell no! Also, unfortunately, the PC3 that I bought to replace the bulk of that just can't cut it, performance-wise, in a sequenced environment, as I have gone into detail in other threads. So it stays home in my studio for the most part. Which is why I am still desperately looking for replacement gear that WILL work. I thought the Integra would maybe fill part of that, but Roland has screwed up again. Oh, well!

[sani]

 

Originally Posted by AnotherScott

How about an expression pedal? The Jupiters support two... though I haven't looked at their MIDI assignability.

 

Expression pedal could be used. The problem is that it's really hard to control the volume slightly with a foot (pedal). I've tried that and it's almost impossible. You can play an organ and get that effect with the expression pedal, but if you want to make a device just a littlebit louder/quieter, the expression pedal doesn't work. Your foot is not the best input for that.

[1001gear]

There must be scalable response?

[AnotherScott]

 

Originally Posted by sani

Expression pedal could be used. The problem is that it's really hard to control the volume slightly with a foot (pedal). I've tried that and it's almost impossible.

 

Again, not defending Roland's design, just providing a possible solution for someone who may run into that particular problem...

You could velcro a small mixer (Mackie 402-VLZ3, etc.) to the top of the Jupiter, and that would give you handy hand-volume control for whatever other device you're triggering.

[Bernard]

 

 

 

 

 

[NuSkoolTone]

 

Originally Posted by zoink

For years I've wished that Roland would release a workstation with the Fantom G's sequencer and large display (preferrably a touch display), but with a full featured VA section, and the entire SRX sound collection built in.

It's well within reach for them to do, since they've essentially already released these products in the past.

But that's just the problem. Roland has never been willing to take the leap and go 'all in' on their workstations. Their philosophy in designing workstations is quite different from, say, Korg. Roland likes to separate out key design features into various products, whereas Korg tends to implement a certain feature in their entire line of products but to varying degrees -- for example, MMT. Korg assumes -- correctly, in my view -- that putting MMT in one product won't keep people from buying other Korg products with that same technology implemented differently.

Taking this further, if Roland released a workstation with a decent sequencer and display, the entire SRX collection, and a multi-model VA -- maybe a virtual Jupiter 8 (as Arturia has already done quite well), Juno 106, and maybe even a virtual D50 and JD990 with vintage synth expansion -- EVERYBODY would want one. They could practically name their price. Give it a dedicated right-side panel of 4 X 8 knobs (or an optional, USB powered, PG style programming interface) and it would be a programmer's dream. They could even design the PG panel to sit in its own built-in cradle at a steep slant at the back of the workstation surface. Or it could fold out on a hinge.

Just imagine having the entire SRX collection, a sequencer with 16 or 24 audio tracks (essentially recycling their MV and VS products), and 4 built-in classic synth models with dedicated knobs to program it.

I'd pay 4 grand for something like that.

 

Hey don't forget V-Synth technologies either! Though I gotta say you're RIGHT on the money here. It's why I've never bought a Roland workstation (I have a JD-990 and that's it). They always seemed to say "Good enough" and stop short of something great. IMO Roland has sucked ever since the original Fantom.

I own a Kronos. It's got basically all their rompler stuff back to the M1, The large gigasampler like sample streaming which is sort of their supernatural with Piano and EP modeling built in, CX3 organ, DX7 compatible FM engine and more, AL-1 modeling synth, PolySix, MS-20, Wavestation, Sequencer, step pattern sequencer, Drum machine, karma and pretty excellent integration.

This is not to say it's perfect, there are things to gripe about (Korg's latest OS release is making that harder though). Though if Korg can do it, so can Roland. If they did, and actually DELIVERED I'd retire my Motif and take that out with my Kronos.

I'm hoping the Integra is a teaser to something big this Winter Namm.

 

Originally Posted by evildragon

Really, having such a small amount of memory for user patches is stupidly ridiculous. Korg is starting to have thousands of memory locations (AND PRESET PATCHES ARE REWRITEABLE, ROLAND AND YAMAHA! ). Kurzweils can also have thousands of user objects. No problem for live gigging at all.

 

I agree 100% Korg users are starting to itch for more program space because there are so many possibilities even nearly USER WRITABLE 1800 programs available runs out. That's before even considering Combis! The amount of patches Roland is offering on a 2012 high end rack/workstation is a JOKE, and a bad one at that.

[AnotherScott]

 

Originally Posted by zzzxtreme

available at thomann in 2 to 5 days, USD 1642. great price

 

I wonder if anyone got that price. It's now listed there at 1490 Euros (it was 12 something when first zzzxtreme first posted this).

[cresshead]

some patch demos out now

reed

 

 

ethnic

 

 

brass

 

 

drums

 

 

chior

 

 

[cresshead]

srx 05 card - hits

 

 

poly synth

 

 

classical guitar

 

 

[OPEN OCEAN]

if it makes noise then someone will use it..

[cresshead]

So...anyone here pulled the trigger on a Roland Integra 7 yet?

would love to hear how anyone who's bought one has been getting on with it?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmyzbujqu_k

 

[cresshead]

sound cloud demo

http://soundcloud.com/himaizumi/umv9jjmwi1l5