Just played a Roland Gaia at the store

[EricK]

THe guy who owned the local music store had a lot of crappy guitars in his shop. Samick and lots of other no name instruments in there selling for under 300 dollars. I once asked him (on the subject of salesmanship) how is a salesman supposed to knowingly sell someone a product that he think is crap and won't last long, and personally wouldn't play if it was the last instrument on earth?

Basically his answer was that you put a particular product in the hands of someone who has those particular neds in mind. A Beginner won't need a boutique guitar. A child doesn't need a guitar for adults. You give them a product that is appropriate for their needs.

The Gaia, is a very appropriate product, but a lot of people here are spoiled by those damn fine Moog filters, quality construction, knob per function interfaces, that we often forget sometimes that not everyone has such discriminating tastes, and not a lot of other products of of that particular calibre.

Im not dissing the gaia, i can't comment anything about it because I haven't seen or heard one in person.

But when I briefly owned a 1980 Honda CB-650, I came across a Harley Website that read "Don't laugh at people who drive hondas".

LOL!

[Voltor07]

The filters are so weak, it can emulate a VOX organ!

[_DemonDan_]

The filters are so weak, it can emulate a VOX organ!

Hi Voltor,

I get that you needed to come up with a clever joke
quickly and didn't have a lot of time to think of one,
but it shows a lack of understanding of how these
types of 60's combo organ sounds are created.

The least I can do is use this forum to help explain
to you the method of synthesizing that organ sound.

Contrary to your hilarious statement, filters play
little to no role in that timbre. You achieve that
sound by making a Pulse Width wave very narrow.
I then used the three oscillators available to create
the desired octaves and doubling effects.

The resulting sound is so thin and tweezy that
the only thing you *might* use filters for is to
slightly soften the top end.

But, other than that one technical detail, your
joke was very funny. Kudos Chris!

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

[Voltor07]

The filters are so weak, it can emulate a VOX organ!

But, other than that one technical detail, your
joke was very funny. Kudos Chris!

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

Thanks Dan! Glad you got a laugh out of it. The Gaia, while not my cup of tea, (Roland has yet to make something I am interested in buying) doesn't seem like a "bad" machine. The interface is straightforward, and while, yes, it is mostly digital, I can see why someone would buy this over a Moog, especially if money is tight.

[_DemonDan_]

The interface is straightforward, and while, yes, it is mostly digital, I can
see why someone would buy this over a Moog, especially if money is tight.

Hi Voltor,

As you know from our conversations I am a lifelong Moog fan (I played my
first Moog in the mid-seventies) and, like you, own thousands of dollars
worth of Moog products. I use them live for paying audiences, and they're
also an important part of my synthesizer classes at Indiana Perdue University,
The University of St. Francis, and my Sweetwater U. classes.

No one has to convince either of us of the unquestionable differences between
100% true analog instruments (both electronic and acoustic) and any other
method of simulating those instruments. But I have always tried to appreciate
and celebrate every attempt at providing musical tools for the public whether
they're top-dollar, hand-crafted flagships, $4.99 phone apps, or anything in
between. And, if there's a way to program them to make them even more
enjoyable to play, I'm going to take a shot at it.

But there's a polarizing anger that rises up when multiple brands are mentioned
in music forums that is hard to justify. (Comparisons to US politics could be
made but would only spawn another one of those non-musically useful threads.)

In my mind, I see a monophonic analog synth and a 64-voice analog modeling
synth as two related, but non-exclusive tools. And I think it's fantastic that a
Slim Phatty and something like a GAIA can be owned for a combined total of
$1,494.

Now you'd have 100% analog for the moments when nothing else will do and 64
voices at once when you need 'em. I suspect that a lot of people underestimate
how staggeringly useful it is to never worry if your sound is going to experience
voice stealing. Yes, two voices is considered "polyphony", as are four, six, and
eight voices. But if your sound has a medium or exaggerated release time,
you're going to find yourself tiptoeing through your performance to avoid the
vibe-killing artifacts of voice stealing.

Obviously, a 64-voice all-analog Moog with 3 oscillators, 3 multi-mode filters,
9 envelopes, 6 LFOs, 18 sliders, 11 knobs, 58 lit buttons, 28 panel LEDs, and 4
simultaneous effects would be a glorious thing indeed. but it wouldn't fit on your
lap or run on batteries.

This, of course, is only my way of looking at it. But it's disappointing that potentially
interesting conversations about various keyboards often seem to revolve around
words for excrement and sex acts.

[Voltor07]

The interface is straightforward, and while, yes, it is mostly digital, I can
see why someone would buy this over a Moog, especially if money is tight.

Hi Voltor,

/snip/

Obviously, a 64-voice all-analog Moog with 3 oscillators, 3 multi-mode filters,
9 envelopes, 6 LFOs, 18 sliders, 11 knobs, 58 lit buttons, 28 panel LEDs, and 4
simultaneous effects would be a glorious thing indeed. but it wouldn't fit on your
lap or run on batteries.

Nor would it be something anyone other than Bill Gates or Steve Jobs could afford. But it would be amazing!

This, of course, is only my way of looking at it. But it's disappointing that potentially
interesting conversations about various keyboards often seem to revolve around
words for excrement and sex acts.

In my case, only when it comes to Roland. I have yet to see them make something even the slightest bit interesting. Not only that, but their customer service is deplorable, they've discontinued support for most of their best products, and the only thing they seem to be good at is digital drum sets. I'm sure a lot of people here feel the same way I do about Roland. Korg has some interesting gadgets out, as does Yamaha...all Roland has is the D-Beam.

[Krinor]

In my case, only when it comes to Roland. I have yet to see them make something even the slightest bit interesting.

Oh come now... I gather you are talking about the last ten or fifteen years ? Up untill and including 1983 Roland put out some of the best synthesizers in the world. Ever. You can confirm this yourself by spending as little as $150 on an old SH1000 (or you can check it out in my video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeW05WmIQaE ).

The crap of today may be the gems of tomorrow. (TB-303 comes to mind...)

[Mr Arkadin]

In my case, only when it comes to Roland. I have yet to see them make something even the slightest bit interesting.

Oh come now... I gather you are talking about the last ten or fifteen years ?

I don't think Voltor07 would be saying that everything Roland ever produced was crap. I certainly love Roland, from my first synth SH-09 gradually I have acquired MC-202, RE-501, RE-3, DC-50, Jupiter-4, CR-78, PB-330, R-8M, CR-80, JD-800, JD-990 (possibly their last great synth). Much after the 990 wasn't very exciting, perhaps the V-Synth. But mostly repackaging and some awful branding choices (JP-8000, SH-201, Juno-G) which ape their classic names but come nowhere near the class of the originals.

Either this is a company who have lost their way and will just carry on down this road or they are about to pull an amazing cat out of the bag that will stun us all. Sadly I don't think it will be the latter.

[Voltor07]

In my case, only when it comes to Roland. I have yet to see them make something even the slightest bit interesting.

Oh come now... I gather you are talking about the last ten or fifteen years ?

I don't think Voltor07 would be saying that everything Roland ever produced was crap. I certainly love Roland, from my first synth SH-09 gradually I have acquired MC-202, RE-501, RE-3, DC-50, Jupiter-4, CR-78, PB-330, R-8M, CR-80, JD-800, JD-990 (possibly their last great synth). Much after the 990 wasn't very exciting, perhaps the V-Synth. But mostly repackaging and some awful branding choices (JP-8000, SH-201, Juno-G) which ape their classic names but come nowhere near the class of the originals.

Either this is a company who have lost their way and will just carry on down this road or they are about to pull an amazing cat out of the bag that will stun us all. Sadly I don't think it will be the latter.

Mr Arkadin, you are correct. If I was to buy anything with the Roland name it would be a Juno 60 or something. I'd never invest in a new Roland product. The Jupiter 4 was an amazing synth, but the new stuff is absolute garbage. The V-synth was possibly the best in the "new" Roland lineup, but they no longer support those. Bastards.

[_DemonDan_]

The V-synth was possibly the best in the "new" Roland
lineup, but they no longer support those. Bastards.

Do you do any research at all before you type stuff?

Or do you type only for the purpose of making yourself "laugh out loud"?

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/VSynthGT

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

[EricK]

I don't think its accurate to say that new Roland stuff is garbage. In fact that I think that is totally off base. I think its more accurate to say that ROland might not make anything that appeals to you, but too much of their stuff is great to just dismiss it.

Examples: They revolutionized electronic drums. Noone will diss on their 909. THeir amps are great (the JC, KC, their cube 30 bass amps are fantastic), their Fantom G8 is a fantastic digital workstation. You mess around with a Fantom and then go watch some commercials and you will see that your doodlings with their samples are on the same calibre as in world class studios. The Ivory Feel keys feel exactly like my pop's brand new Hamilton grand.

I don't particularly like the infinite juno series synths, and the D Beam just does not respond to your hand and affect pitches like it's inventor wants us to believe that it does. Im dissapointed that they discontinued their VS studio line.

But to say they make garbage is not necessarily called for.


Getting back to the topic, I think that some people here have a problem when products are represented to be something they arent:


Now I want to be clear that I think that the demos that Dan provided us with were great. He covered about every classic synth sound from every classic rock song and then some. TO a producer, the GAIA may just be the answer that he is looking for for great synth sounds and more. I haen't seen a GAIA in person so I can't attest to the build quality and I haven't heard one in person, but I can easily say that when we compare it to out $3k Moogs then yeah it may seem increadibly lacking. I just don't think that total dismissal of any type of tool is appropriate.

My philosophy is "If it works, it works".

Dan,
Im not trying to disrespect you by posting that pic either, this is just for the sake of legit discussion.

Eric

[_DemonDan_]

I think that some people here have a problem when products
are represented to be something they aren't:

"The Phrase Recorder enables you to create complex movement
allowing you to make GAIA sound like a modular synthesizer.
- Daniel Fisher"

Hi Eric,

One of the problems with "sound bites" is that they're trimmed
and isolated by multiple people to fit a specific word count or
picture size.

Although I no longer have the original text that this was gleaned
from, the point I was making is that the Phrase Recorder lets you
record pass-after-pass of realtime knob turns. (There may be an
ultimate limit of how many knob and slider motions you can
overdub, but I have yet to overload it; and I've pushed it hard!)

The resulting sonic complexity of many, many parameters all moving
in different amounts, at different rates, and in different directions,
is something you typically can only do if you can manually connect
any desired number of modulation sources to any arbitrary parameters.
This is my understanding of the word "modular".

I suspect that you may be interpreting "modular" to necessarily imply
that something is "analog", but there are plenty of digital synthesis
tools that are also "modular". (The Nord Modular series was exquisite
in its modularity.)

Does that clear it up at all?

[LivePsy]

OK I've done a little Roland hating myself, but perhaps the thing I hate is that the new Roland products could be so much better with just a bit more attention to detail. The Virus filter is fantastic, come on Roland make yours more musical. It could be done but they never care. As long as the keyboard does the sounds which are commercially successful, Roland call it a marketing success. Its the limited vision of the new plastic synths which annoy me. There's no room for experimentation and freedom of sound like an analog (especially modular) can do. Would it kill sales if they also did a wide range of great filters, fast envelopes and designed them to do quality audio range FM, RM and AM? The CPU power is there, the vision is not.

[_DemonDan_]

The Virus filter is fantastic, come on Roland make yours
more musical... The CPU power is there, the vision is not.

The CPU power is there in the 50-note, 3-octave Virus
because it's $2,995.00. That's exactly 500% of the price
of a 64-note, 3-octave GAIA.

You HAVE to figure that in when making comparisons.
I get that you're not someone who would ever be satisfied
with a $599 polyphonic synth.

But all these negative comments are poison to people
who want to get into polyphonic synthesis with lots of
knobs and sliders. They trust your opinions.

If you need to make helpful comments, how about
something like:

"If I needed to buy a polyphonic synth with controls
for every parameter and it had to be in the price range
of $500 - $700, I'd go with the XXXXXX instead because..."

And then they can weigh the importance of your needs
against theirs to make a decision.

But, in a sense, all these comments tell newcomers:

"Don't even bother trying to enjoy polyphonic synthesis
unless you can pony up three grand or more. If you want
to play synth chords live on stage you should just buy a
mono synth and arpeggiate quickly into reverb to get
your polyphony."

It also tells companies, "Don't even try to make affordable
versions. If you do, we'll make sure that the world knows
how much better the expensive equipment is. Only the well
off should have access.

When the owners of more affordable equipment start
learning what's important to them, they'll move upwards
into the gear that you love when it's feasible for them.

[LivePsy]

That is a really good point Dan. In the context of a moog forum for people who spend thousands to play a single note, perhaps advice on here isn't appropriate for most people Pricepoint is one issue but then where is the Roland high end synth which does offer Virus like sound quality? Hint: no the Vsynth family is not near to that quality.

I can't help but think that the extra quality is in the code. I'm not sure that 1/5 of the price of a Virus means you can only have 1/5 of the quality. It's code not chips which makes the difference.

Thanks for your beautifully worded post.