Members midi Posted July 12, 2005 Members Share Posted July 12, 2005 I cant tell a difference between my XV-3080 and my Fantom XR, and im using good monitors..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members esiclene Posted July 12, 2005 Members Share Posted July 12, 2005 Originally posted by midi I cant tell a difference between my XV-3080 and my Fantom XR, and im using good monitors..... In fact there is no so much difference.Numbers doesn't mean quality .The XV-2020 is 44.1khz too but it doesn't sound so good .Anyway (and only for SQ) are still 'boring' sounding compared to JD (and old S-7xx samplers). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Analog Kid Posted July 12, 2005 Members Share Posted July 12, 2005 Originally posted by Artur Meinild You're right... But I'm still quite sure that the waveforms of the Roland modules are 44.1 KHz ... LOL, why the denial? and let's not forget the 2/1 compression ratio also! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Artur Meinild Posted July 12, 2005 Members Share Posted July 12, 2005 LOL, why the denial? Erm, because nowhere, even on the old Lil'Chips site, is there any indication that the waveforms are 32 KHz. And since the expansion SR-JV80 expansion boards was made compatible with the JD series and the SRX expansion boards was made compatible with the Fantom series, both series running a true 44 KHz engine. And all Roland modules have a data size of 16-bit 44 KHz - now why the {censored} would those waves be 32 KHz??? I say it's very possible that SOME waves are sampled at 32 KHz, but nowhere is there ANY indication that ALL expansion boards and ALL rom samples are 32 KHz, as you say they are... and let's not forget the 2/1 compression ratio also! All sounds modules have compressed data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Analog Kid Posted July 12, 2005 Members Share Posted July 12, 2005 Originally posted by Artur Meinild Erm, because nowhere, even on the old Lil'Chips site, is there any indication that the waveforms are 32 KHz. And since the expansion SR-JV80 expansion boards was made compatible with the JD series and the SRX expansion boards was made compatible with the Fantom series, both series running a true 44 KHz engine. And all Roland modules have a data size of 16-bit 44 KHz - now why the {censored} would those waves be 32 KHz??? I say it's very possible that SOME waves are sampled at 32 KHz, but nowhere is there ANY indication that ALL expansion boards and ALL rom samples are 32 KHz, as you say they are...All sounds modules have compressed data. - the JD-990 and JD-800 were 44k (engine and waveform).- the JV-1080 and 2080 engines were 32k (including waveform). This includes the XPs. Excluded is the XP-10 (GM).- the JV/XV-series SR-JV80 Boards are also 32k.- The XV-3080/88 are 32k.- The XV-5080 is 44k with 32k ROM waveforms.- The newer models using the 5080 engine are 44k with 44k ROM waveforms (so the internal sounds are a bit better). ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Analog Kid Posted July 12, 2005 Members Share Posted July 12, 2005 Originally posted by Analog Kid As far as SRX- it does look like they've now gone to 44.1. I am guessing that anything that was collected from the old format, or anything that was pre Fantom, is probably 32k... also, dont be surprised if Roland merely changed sample rates to get to 44.1... which, as we all know is a bit of Tom Foolery, you cant increase resolution once something has been sampled.Finding the truth out about Roland's stuff is like pulling teeth... Their LDX series of CD's are definately "full" resolution though. They sound nice, allthough time has already marched on and 44.1/16/32mb max isnt state of the art anymore, they sound more than nice coming from a S-7xx sampler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Analog Kid Posted July 12, 2005 Members Share Posted July 12, 2005 Hey... I'm a huge Roland head, but i have no doubts. nothing is certain though.. One thing that's certain though, my DJ-70mkII doesnt compress wavforms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Artur Meinild Posted July 12, 2005 Members Share Posted July 12, 2005 I'm a huge Roland head, but i have no doubts. Me too, but I have serious doubts. And I haven't seen anything that convinced me otherwise. That's why I would love to see some WAV/AIFF samples posted with a frequency analysis on the side, just to be sure HOW {censored}ed up Roland actually are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members esiclene Posted July 12, 2005 Members Share Posted July 12, 2005 Originally posted by Analog Kid Hey... I'm a huge Roland head, but i have no doubts.One thing that's certain though, my DJ-70mkII doesnt compress wavforms No, but it encodes them.. format is NOT raw alike.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sealed Posted July 12, 2005 Members Share Posted July 12, 2005 It seems that Roland began using data compression since JD-990 and JV-80, as they are the first to accept the same expansion boards which uses 2:1 compression. So I suspect JD-800 is Roland's last high-end synth that uses no compression.... It may be that XV-5080 can use both kind of samples, compressed and non-compressed. How do you think about the differences between JD-800's sound quality and JD-990's, leaving aside 990's structure features? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members esiclene Posted July 13, 2005 Members Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by Sealed It seems that Roland began using data compression since JD-990 and JV-80, as they are the first to accept the same expansion boards which uses 2:1 compression. the 2:1 Compression is a NON Destructive compression (like Ape, flac etc). So compressed or not compressed is the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members urbanscallywag Posted July 13, 2005 Members Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by esiclene the 2:1 Compression is a NON Destructive compression (like Ape, flac etc). So compressed or not compressed is the same. Interesting that Roland was doing lossless storage 10 years ago with 50% compression when FLAC today only does 30-50% compression. Creative marketing or cutting edge techonology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Analog Kid Posted July 13, 2005 Members Share Posted July 13, 2005 heh, there seems to be the idea that if it sounds good, it must be "this" truth is, I dont have a big problem with RDAC, but i doubt it's truely loseless. I dont have a problem with the 3080. I dont have a problem believing the JD-990 is a special kinda rompler. or the S-760 sounds wicked anyways, for "real" sounds Im spoiled by sampling- doubt I'd really want piano or solo strings or brass to be a rompler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KarnEvil19 Posted July 13, 2005 Members Share Posted July 13, 2005 Getting back to the original point, the Roland synth engine sounds very good, no matter what the internal sample rate. And what I particularly like is the configurable synth engine, like a junior VAST, with distortion and ring modulation routing through several variations of signal path into great sounding multimode filters. A JD-990 would add a fantastic color to a Yama synth like an EX-5 or Motif. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DrJustice Posted July 14, 2005 Members Share Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by esiclene Uhm, but you can still sample and watch if it is decent bandwidth above 16Khz.. And so I just did. Or to be exact I hooked up a spectrum analyzer.The JD-990 is loud & clear all the way to 20kHz.It has a S/N of close to 100dB.The oscillators do alias, and this becomes noticeable with a fundamental from ca. 4kHz and up. Not worse than some of the generally highly acclaimed and much newer VAs.Whatever the numbers - I took time to listen to a few patches (it's been a while) and I'm still amazed by its sound DJ-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Artur Meinild Posted July 14, 2005 Members Share Posted July 14, 2005 And so I just did. Or to be exact I hooked up a spectrum analyzer. Anyone with an XV-3080 or 5080 care to do the same thing? Or just make a sample and send me the WAV file or something? I'm really curious about this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chrispoacher Posted September 3, 2010 Members Share Posted September 3, 2010 Hi everyone, this is my first post so be nice.I'm getting myself an XV-3080 to upgrade my JV-1080 at last, mainly because I can make use of my 4 SRJV cards I have, then sell the load of M-512e RAM's I have which are now worth enough to actually buy my new VX outright; then dump all those onto a single smartmedia card, costing only a few quid. I know I can convert my 1080 sounds into the XV but just wondering about the smartmedia card slot. It can store 8 banks looking at the manual and I'm guessing any memory card will store all this data but the manual says 1-128MB and others say 8MB minimum. Just wondering if anyone knows for definite what's the smallest size card I need to store all 8 banks and performances/rythums etc. I know 128MB will work obviously but it seems a bit daft having one if a 1MB or 8MB card will do exactly the same for less money. I only ask because I have an SRV-3030 reverb in my possession too and that works fine for storing over 1,000 patches with a 2MB card easily, albeit a 5V one rather than the much cheaper 3.3v's.Many Thanks. )Chris Poacher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chrispoacher Posted September 3, 2010 Members Share Posted September 3, 2010 also, I noticed in the manual the XV has a JD soundset, does this mean that JD-800/990 sounds are also compatible?? just a random thought. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Don Solaris Posted September 3, 2010 Members Share Posted September 3, 2010 also, I noticed in the manual the XV has a JD soundset, does this mean that JD-800/990 sounds are also compatible?? No much use. JD-990 has totally different engine (sound), different effects processor, different FXM modes and additional osc sync that XV doesn't even have - so loading a JD-990 SYX wouldn't give you much useful data left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AnalogGuy Posted September 3, 2010 Members Share Posted September 3, 2010 Let's say you have to choose between a JD990 and an EX7... which do you go with and why? Which of the two is more powerful and what are the advantages of each? Does the JD have a thicker more expressive sound? Seems hard to believe that the JD could top the EX in either of those because of the FDSP for expression and the addition of the AN engine for warmth/fattness. The JDs are soo cheap that I seriously may get one along with my EX. The demos I've heard are very impressive. I wouldn't choose but take both if ever possible! Roland JD-990 and Yamaha EX-5/5r/7 are IMHO the best digital synthesizers. Both machines offers stunning presets which are truely rare for any synthesizer... but besides the presets, both are truely flexible and versatile if not approached as typical "workstation/Do-it-all" machines. Both machines offer very wide palette of very expressive sounds, from wide stereo pads into sync leads.Biggest difference is EX-5/5r/7's unique 4-track arpeggiator which is in fact 4-track live step sequencer where you can program almost anything you want. That feature, along with lovely VL synthesis, was my priority reason to buy EX, but then I was so surprised that EX's sounds would actually compete against JD-990 Luckily I own both, and I would rather starve to death than would sell them away. By the way, mint JD-990 costs 450 euros in here... I paid 350 euros for mine. EX-5r cost 400 euros and keyboard version as high as 600 euros. There's even one stubborn seller in here Finland, wanting 800 euros for EX-5r with scsi board.. and I do not wonder why he haven't managed to sold it yet... my regards to him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AnalogGuy Posted September 3, 2010 Members Share Posted September 3, 2010 I think it's suffice to say that an JD series and an EX series synth in your arsenal you have one incredible pad making solution. :love::love::love::love:Can't argue about that fact!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chrispoacher Posted September 3, 2010 Members Share Posted September 3, 2010 8MB No much use. JD-990 has totally different engine (sound), different effects processor, different FXM modes and additional osc sync that XV doesn't even have - so loading a JD-990 SYX wouldn't give you much useful data left. Many thanks for helping ) I bought my new XV-3080 today so should get it in the post in a few days, just wanted some memory cards ready to use. ebay here I come. Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MuzikB Posted September 3, 2010 Members Share Posted September 3, 2010 I've owned just about every Roland rompler and the JD-990/800 and the JV-1080 are the best of the bunch IMO. The JD-990 was my "VA" for years. Excellent warm and lively sound. The JV-1080 with the Session and Special FX card was my production and programming workhorse. The JV also has a nice clear but full sound to it. I made the mistake of replacing it with a 3080. The 3080 sound was too clean IMHO and not as full. The same with the 5080, 5050, and the Fantom rack. I kept the JD-990 and had a JD-800 as well for a time until Kontakt 2 came along with the script "Analog Oscillators." So yes, the JD-990 is "all that" if you want a great, easy to edit rompler that acts like a VA. The Vintage Synth card installed is a MUST HAVE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Chando Posted September 4, 2010 Members Share Posted September 4, 2010 maybe I'm just crazy but ,.. I find the JV1080 easier to program than the 5080. I think it's because the 1080 reminds me of the JD800 interface so much. Yeah the screen is small.. but the button is right there... hit it. Me and my JD800 had some good times together.. but I really like the JV1080's sound more. Maybe my ears just like 32 KHz more?? I even like the low end more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Megakazbek Posted September 4, 2010 Members Share Posted September 4, 2010 the 2:1 Compression is a NON Destructive compression (like Ape, flac etc). So compressed or not compressed is the same. Any compression that has a constant 2:1 ratio cannot be non-destructive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.