Hooray for the Roland JV

[CallMeZoot]

I am pretty much a software-all-the-way guy at this point. I own a lot of the high end libraries discussed on this forum. I'd say 99% of my work uses purely software instruments (plus some live recording).

I had a Roland JV1080 all through college and grad school and I finally decided to sell it last year to streamline my studio to 100% software. Regretted it almost immediately and decided to pick up a JV1010 on Ebay.

And I STILL find myself going back to it, sometimes even using a Roland instrument over a "better" instrument from a high-end library.

Anyway, three cheers for Roland and the amazing things they could do with old technology and minimal memory.

Anybody else still using one of these things?

chris.

[EricWatkins]

I agree. It doesnt have to be the most pristine, 24 bit sample on every occasion. I recently did a 10 minute educational video and used my XP-30 throughout. Fit like a glove right beside some of the big boys. I'll always have a little hardware in the studio. :)

[JT3_Jon]

I have a JV-1010 w/ orchestral expansion and it too has got me through most of my college career. I've since updated to samples (VSL Opus) and unfortunately haven't used it since.

Now maybe this is a mind trick, but I remember the composition process being easier using the JV-1010 than sample libs. Perhaps it was easier to write quickly as I didnt have to use articulation switches etc to go from stac to sus, or maybe because of the fullness of the patches I didnt have to orchestrate as much :D but it just seemed easier. I remember cranking out 2-3min cues in a day, where today I'm lucky to get 1min of full music.

I want to experiment taking all the effects off the patches and run them through my DAW's effects. I find the wash of reverb to be overwhelming at times on the raw patches. Perhaps when I have more time I'll dust off the old girl and see what happens.

BTW, if anyone is interested, I have a website full of cues that were made ONLY using the JV-1010 w/ orchestral expansion. Its a little dated (havnt updated in 2 years) but its still fun to listen to. :) If you do check it out, let me know what you think! http://www.avartists.com

[kgdrum]

i always use a mix of hardware as well,my xp30 and akai Z8 give me options and flavours that compliment the software VI's and Samplers quite well :D

[Tomke]

Still have my 1080, and a few other hardware workhorses. In a way I'm afraid to get rid of them.

It really is like it was stated here: Whenever the requirements for functionality and directness raises, you go back to the Roland and it's problem solved. The hardware is still what solves that which samples can't handle. Looking back for the past few years it really is that way. You don't think about it, you just suddenly catch yourself using the Hardware instead of the samples - when you need fast response - because it's so much more direct.

I non-musician friend was over and went "ok, you spent that much money on a software orchestra (VSL), can I hear the 'strings' sound? That wasn't as easy anymore, not to say 'impossible'.

Your employer or someone might be right behind you and wants to hear an example of what you're suggesting, or he himself wants to play you an example (on the keyboard) of what he wants - using good strings sound. And he goes "quickly, quickly, before I forget it in my head". What are we going to do now? Start loading up gigastudio and then cubase, hope it doesn't crash, and then go sample safari around the harddrive and try a few patches that doesn't really work?
Two mouse clicks and go, is what the Roland needs, and it sound more than good. Listen to the SRX strings and orchestra expansions (http://www.roland.com/demos/en/SRX_IT/index.html). Best I've heard in hardware so far. I wish using samples was that easy.

But if you packed the same level of detail richness in HW synth that a sample lib offers, you would need a way to control changes between those details from the HW too, so ... it's not only HW vs Software, but rather the amount of richness in variations that makes it complicated. I own GOS - just haven't got it in the system nowadays - and GOS actually have a sample patch called "strings" for fast easy access. I loved that.

[Ashermusic]

Still have my 1080, and a few other hardware workhorses. In a way I'm afraid to get rid of them.

It really is like it was stated here: Whenever the requirements for functionality and directness raises, you go back to the Roland and it's problem solved. The hardware is still what solves that which samples can't handle. Looking back for the past few years it really is that way. You don't think about it, you just suddenly catch yourself using the Hardware instead of the samples - when you need fast response - because it's so much more direct.

I non-musician friend was over and went "ok, you spent that much money on a software orchestra (VSL), can I hear the 'strings' sound? That wasn't as easy anymore, not to say 'impossible'.

Your employer or someone might be right behind you and wants to hear an example of what you're suggesting, or he himself wants to play you an example (on the keyboard) of what he wants - using good strings sound. And he goes "quickly, quickly, before I forget it in my head". What are we going to do now? Start loading up gigastudio and then cubase, hope it doesn't crash, and then go sample safari around the harddrive and try a few patches that doesn't really work?
Two mouse clicks and go, is what the Roland needs, and it sound more than good. Listen to the SRX strings and orchestra expansions (http://www.roland.com/demos/en/SRX_IT/index.html). Best I've heard in hardware so far. I wish using samples was that easy.

But if you packed the same level of detail richness in HW synth that a sample lib offers, you would need a way to control changes between those details from the HW too, so ... it's not only HW vs Software, but rather the amount of richness in variations that makes it complicated. I own GOS - just haven't got it in the system nowadays - and GOS actually have a sample patch called "strings" for fast easy access. I loved that.

This is why God invented the concept of templates:)

Seriously i can demonstarte "Strings" in a minute in Logic as I have simply created combo patches in my Orchestra template that will do that.

Still the 1080 was a nice piece of kit, as the Brits say.

[dpasdernick]

I have an XP-80 with 4 expansion cards and love it. I've been finding myself watching Roland Hardware on Ebay lately trying to find something cheap to fit SRX expansion cards into. So many great sounding presets in those cards. As they say "Great sound never becomes obsolete"

Darren

PS I wish Roland would do legacy collections like Korg is doing...

[vic_france]

Another round of applause for the JV-1080 here too! Even though I still have a fair amount of hardware synths/samplers, it is the JV that still gets used the most here.

[Worra]

Just picked up a Eps 16 Plus for around $60!
In those days a HUGE piano library was one that totally fiilled a floppy disk!

[Ashermusic]

I have an XP-80 with 4 expansion cards and love it. I've been finding myself watching Roland Hardware on Ebay lately trying to find something cheap to fit SRX expansion cards into. So many great sounding presets in those cards. As they say "Great sound never becomes obsolete"

Darren

PS I wish Roland would do legacy collections like Korg is doing...


Indeed. I would welcome a virtual D550 although Atmpsophere covers a lot of those sounds. Still I miss "OK Chorale".

[Von Richter]

A good chunk of those classic Roland expansion sounds are present in fuller form on the Roland sample CD's... The LCDX CD's are really cheap at this point, if you can find them. I believe the Edirol HQ Orchestral VST instrument also contains many of those same sounds.

Also several of the boards were derived from Sprectrasonic products... for example the "bass & drums" card, which I believe was taken entirely from the "bass legend" and "burning grooves" sample CD's. Correct me if I am wrong.

So, with a bit of hunting, you might be able to assemble a "virtual JV" that is actually better than the real thing.

P.S.
We are lucky to have the mastermind behind those classic sounds, Eric Persing, on this very board.

[kgdrum]

I think it not just about the sounds ....it's also the immediacy,not wondering about computer freezes,compatibility issues etc...the newer way of making music w/VI's while they potentially have better specs/ and more sounds ,there is a loss of actually being able to play a thought right NOW, instead of all of the steps we must take w/ a DAW to make things work right......."OK it's setup!" and now the inspiration is gone.......... I miss the simplicity of being a player, it takes alot more time to do things now that we used to do faster and easier w/ alot less technology .there is also something about hardware vs software that given the choice, with all things being equal ...i usually prefer HARDWARE. we all seem to be getting more geek like and forget about playing MUSIC . I don't even want to get into software updates,upgrades changes in OS etc.......:wow:

[TC5]

Surely it would be dead easy for Roland to release a virtual JV in VST / AU form that would be just as easy to use as the original, like Korg did with the M1 etc. I guess they just don't want to give up the hardware market just yet. Shame.

[Tomke]

There is also quite a difference between JV and XV/SRX. The latter is quite an improvement over JV, but on the same principal idea.

[Mr. Fels]

Oh, I love the JV1010. Many of those sounds still surpass that of my other software synths, such as Spectronics Atmosphere. Some of the fifth's pathes on that little unit still give me chills.

[A. Capps]

If I'm not mistaken, Eric Persing was THE person responsible for most of the Roland Library CDs and sounds that were used for the Roland hardware synths. Won't it be nice if Spectrasonics could make a virtual instrument (similar to Colossus or Muse) using all those great sounds.

I still use my Roland XV-5080 with 4 expansion cards, and my Kurzweil K2500R with the "Piano Board" (which still has the best sounding pianos even compared to the new virtual piano libraries).

[Von Richter]

There have been threads about this before... Roland owns the rights to the samples, so it isn't going to happen.

[Andrew Aversa]

The LCDX collection is indeed fantastic. Immediacy? No problem. I converted my Strings/Orchestra LCDX CD to soundfont. Using FLStudio, which has a docked sound browser on the left, I just drag and drop the soundfont I want into my workspace and it's instantly loaded. No hassle, as instantaneous as it gets. More developers should follow Image-Line's lead when it comes to ease of use. :)

[js33]

My first synth was a Juno 106 and that was 20 years ago and I still miss it. :(

I agree that for real players the computer is kind of a sad substitue. I like thinking of my keyboard as a real instrument. You turn it on and play. No fumbling around loading 10 patches to play a song. But then again if you aren't in a hurry the computer is very versatile in what it can do.

All this Roland nostalgia made me think of this link.

http://www.arturia.com/evolution/en/products/jupiter-8v/intro.html

I've been considering getting a Roland Juno G for the immediacy and I need a new controller. Does anyone have anything good or bad to say about those?

[macmuse]

I have an XP-30 which still gets use as a controller and for its sounds. Sometimes I will mock up a song with it first, thinking I will later reassign a VI or similar sample to the MIDI track, but I often end up leaving the original Roland patch on certain tracks because they just work. Either I get used to the sound of the Roland there or I just can't find anything that sounds as right as the Roland does. And the immediacy is great. I've often thought to instantiate all the VIs in my template to be ready to go, (instead of just the empty labeled track) but would take way too long to load!

[jsp2]

I think it not just about the sounds ....it's also the immediacy,not wondering about computer freezes,compatibility issues etc...the newer way of making music w/VI's while they potentially have better specs/ and more sounds ,there is a loss of actually being able to play a thought right NOW, instead of all of the steps we must take w/ a DAW to make things work right......."OK it's setup!" and now the inspiration is gone.......... I miss the simplicity of being a player, it takes alot more time to do things now that we used to do faster and easier w/ alot less technology .there is also something about hardware vs software that given the choice, with all things being equal ...i usually prefer HARDWARE. we all seem to be getting more geek like and forget about playing MUSIC . I don't even want to get into software updates,upgrades changes in OS etc.......:wow:

I agree 100%...

This is always one of my biggest rants, of how samples take so long to work with...plus the endless CPU drains. Unlike an external synth, where one can effortlessly toggle through endless voices instantly to find the right one ... Scrolling through voices from a samples library, by means of loading each one could take an hour!

Love my JV 1080,... my best investment.

Jeff