Not true analog so don't worry too much.

EricK wrote:Roland needs to stop with the freakin' D Beam. Enough already. If you buy a Roland
coffee cup, there's a D Beam on it and its features section lists the D Beam like
everyone thinks it justifies the price. The D Beam sucks.
Franz Schiller wrote:The Gaia LOOKS cool, but the demos I've seen and heard indicate it SOUNDS like crap.
Hi Gang,DontBelievetheHype wrote:Nice interface I guess, at least, but sounds like crap. Its not even fully 'VA'..
I find it funny to be mentioning a rehased 15 year old synth (and making it sound negative) on a forum based partly of a rehash of a 40 year old synth. Not to be cheeky or anything, just saying.DontBelievetheHype wrote:I don't think anyone looking at Moog gear will be tempted to spring the the Gaia instead... rehashed 15 year old Roland synth. Nice interface I guess, at least, but sounds like crap. Its not even fully 'VA'..
I actually have lots more Roland than Moog, so I think I have a balanced view on this stuff. My Moog consists of: Taurus 3 and Rogue. That's it. My Roland kit consists of: Jupiter-4, JD-800, JD-990, R-8M, CR-78, CR-80, RE-501, RE-3, MC-202, SH-09, CSQ-600, DC-50, PB-300 plus many Boss pedals. I'm no Roland hater.eXode wrote: I find it funny to be mentioning a rehased 15 year old synth (and making it sound negative) on a forum based partly of a rehash of a 40 year old synth. Not to be cheeky or anything, just saying.
If Roland woud do a rehash of a 30-40 year old synth instead a lot more people would be pleased...
... or we'd all complain over how it doesn't sound the same as the original!
Just curious... How are people determining that GAIA is using "15-year old Virtual Analog Technology?"Mr Arkadin wrote:So 15-year-old VA technology is not good because many things can still be improved.