Moog Music Forum

Mr Arkadin wrote:Here's the problem: unlike analogue, VA can always be improved - until perhaps you reach a point where they are indistinguishable. So 15-year-old VA technology is not good because many things can still be improved. Are you really telling my a JP-8000 sounds analogue? Sorry but Roland's COSM is not good. You want modelling? Then people like Sonic|Core and GForce do it better. Just hire those people will you Roland?

You read in a lot more into my post than what is actually there. I haven't said anything about VA technology at all. My post wasn't even directed at you (see the quote), I was reffering to the comment about rehasing and how I found it funny (and still do).

Please explain how one can interpret that as a debate over VA?

About the Plastic on the SH-1: I have an older SH-1. That thing is mostly plastic. So it's more true to its name than it would be to the name of the SH-9, if that one has lots of metal and wood on it.

I love my sh-1. The oscillators are more stable than a Minimoog, and the synth has great sub bass sounds as well as the cool filter envelope processor (does the new sh-1 have an external audio input for processing with the filters?).

I do agree for the most part that VA sucks. But the reason why I don't like it is because I simply don't like the sound of them. There is way too much digital chorus and delay effects on it, probably to mask how bad they sound. I'm not completely against VA in theory, though. So that gets me to my support of this product as a whole:

This is something that should do very well with the DJ and dance oriented crowd. The D-Beam may suck in Erik's mind but this is a hugely successful feature to many, many Roland users. I also like the fact that this is a multitimbral instrument, even though I'm not that high on the sound of VA's.

OK, so maybe it is an advancement over the 15 year-old JP-8000: Based on that video I'm not hearing much of an advance. But the price point is very enticing. So there you have it. Not analog, but it could be used to rock the house, probably.

eXode wrote: You read in a lot more into my post than what is actually there. I haven't said anything about VA technology at all. My post wasn't even directed at you (see the quote), I was reffering to the comment about rehasing and how I found it funny (and still do).

Please explain how one can interpret that as a debate over VA?

...er, because the 15-year-old technology we were discussing is VA perhaps? Roland haven't done anything analogue in the last 15 years that I'm aware of, therefore we are discussing rehashing VA technology.

VA is to analog what CDs are to records.

Mr Arkadin wrote:

eXode wrote: You read in a lot more into my post than what is actually there. I haven't said anything about VA technology at all. My post wasn't even directed at you (see the quote), I was reffering to the comment about rehasing and how I found it funny (and still do).

Please explain how one can interpret that as a debate over VA?

...er, because the 15-year-old technology we were discussing is VA perhaps? Roland haven't done anything analogue in the last 15 years that I'm aware of, therefore we are discussing rehashing VA technology.

Sorry but it's still YOU that read things that aren't there. Still the post wasn't even directed at you nor VA tech. Rather the comment on rehashing as such, regardless of tech. I spoke about the CONCEPT of rehashing nothing more, nothing less.

eXode wrote: Sorry but it's still YOU that read things that aren't there. Still the post wasn't even directed at you nor VA tech.

OK let's try again. The post by DontBelievetheHype mentioned rehashed Roland 15-year-old technology. Now by definition that is either VA or S&S seeing as Roland hasn't made an analogue synth in that time.

Also I wasn't aware of the internet rule that only allows me to respond to posts directed at me. Sorry for the infingement.

Wow. You guys need to kiss and make up.

I remember my first polysynth: The Korg Poly 800. All plastic casing, digital parameter access, 256 step sequencer, on board chorus, all for a list price of 799.00!

Sorry, Dan. I still think the D Beam sucks. I have used it to control pitch on the Famtom X 8 and G8 and it just sounds like awful stairstepping. Im sure you can assign it to whatever Midi CC or whatever parameter, but i just don't appreciate it like I would a more unique feature. It is as commonplace on roland products as the power switch. Maybe on a dedicated synth like a juno or something it would be different but on the fantom its just lame to me. THe way it is listed on product descriptions it is as if it is unique to that particular product, but it is stock on just about everything to make it where it shouldn't be included anymore on small bullet point product descriptions just like the fact that a unit has a chassis or keys or a power supply. FOrgive me, Im just hating on the d beam. It was a nice novelty feature that became so commonplace its annoying to me.

Also, I think it shoudl be noted that I don't look to Roland for synthesizers. I look to roland for workstations. I wouldn't mind having the V Synth though or the rackmount version of it.

That being said....Id much rather prefer a time trip pad. I thought that concept was awesome.

I love Roland gear, their V Drums, the Fantom, their discontinued V-Studios (which they need to bring back with blu ray storage) they are great. Im not trapped in a Moog box, lol.

Eric

And unlike EricK, I refuse to buy ANYTHING Roland...there's nothing they can do that Korg and Yamaha can't do better, IMHO.

Voltor07 wrote:And unlike EricK, I refuse to buy ANYTHING Roland...there's nothing they can do that Korg and Yamaha can't do better, IMHO.

I'm not a fan of Roland either, they haven't made anything useful since the mid 80s and their manuals are terrible engrish. The only asian made item I've bought since the mid 80s is the Yamaha P-90.

Voltor,
Thats a pretty blanket statement about Roland there. Though this is of topic, The Korg portable studios didn't have anything on the Rolands. I don't think that the Triton is up to par with the Fantom series workstations. The Yamaha Motif might have a superior sound engine but Id be willing to bet that the Feel of the Fantom is superior.

But still, unmatched is the TD20 drum head and THe yamaha drums wouldn't hold a candle to it. Yamaha does have Roland pretty much eating dirt in the motorcycle and atv department though, lolol.

I agree about the manuals though, and I will say that there is a lot of stuf that Roland has done that is crap, like going through the Alphabet several times reisuing the Junos.

I just hate the D-Beam is all im saying, lol

Mr Arkadin wrote:

eXode wrote: Sorry but it's still YOU that read things that aren't there. Still the post wasn't even directed at you nor VA tech.

OK let's try again. The post by DontBelievetheHype mentioned rehashed Roland 15-year-old technology. Now by definition that is either VA or S&S seeing as Roland hasn't made an analogue synth in that time.

Also I wasn't aware of the internet rule that only allows me to respond to posts directed at me. Sorry for the infingement.

Yes his post did that but my didn't. You initially wrote that I tried to tell you that a JP8000 was the same as analogue. I was annoyed because you made an assumption on my beliefs based on a comment not meant to be taken seriously in the first place. For reference I'll qoute myself again:

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!

And if you and someone else can't see that it was meant as a slightly sarcastic joke then I guess that I need to polish my communicative skills further.

_DemonDan_ wrote:I have to say that the D Beam is pretty cool on this synth. It modifies not only the common
things like Filter Cutoff and Volume, but many unexpected things like:
LFO: Rate, Fade-Time, Pitch Depth, Filter Depth, Amp-Depth
OSC: Pitch, Detune, PWM, PW, Pitch Env Atk, Pitch Env Depth
Filter: Cutoff, Resonance, Key Follow, Atk, Dec, Sus, Rel, Env-Depth
Amp: Level, Atk, Dec, Sus, Rel
Effects: Control, Level
Portamento Time
Pitch Bender
Modulation
and... You can also trigger sounds in realtime like Kick Drum or Stabs.

EricK wrote:Sorry, Dan. I still think the D Beam sucks.

Well, I guess I can't argue against solid logic like that. It was foolish of me to base my opinions
on actual, hands-on experience with the current product we're talking about. I'll bow out.

No need to get like that just because I don't favor the D Beam. Im not dissing the synth, just a feature of it and the way they market it. ALl those params can be controlled by midi so it doesn't make the D Beam awesome it makes awesome the way they implement its usage.

You didn't quote the specific reasons that I listed for my dislike of the feature, which is sound. Maybe I lost you at "Sorry, Dan"

From one theremin player to another, if they want to give us a gesturally controlled feature, at least let it extend well beyond the 6 inches or so above the unit than the D beam does.

Improve it:
Make it X and Y controllable and make it extend 3 or 4 feet above the unit for more precise theremin-like control and Ill stop hating on it.

You are actually in a position where you can change my opinion....why don't you make a video demonstrating how awesome the D Beam can be. Id like to see someone who knows what they are talking about really make it shine. You do this and Ill gladly retract my statement.

Id feel pretty lame if I was saying all of this to the guy who invented the D Beam.

Respectfully,
Eric