JP80 - hugely disappointed with it.

kokocalamar wrote:

cello wrote:

Where did WeddingMusicRocks go to?

I was enjoying his insight :)

A wedding perhaps?...

Bruce Lychee wrote:

If you are covering a broad spectrum of songs and want to replicate the sounds used in those songs, you are much better off with access to samples. Workstations would make a better choice for someone who has those needs.

synthguy99 wrote:

...Unless I'm mistaken, the Jupiters and Integra are half-sample based instruments. And while the Kronos is half-sample based too, it does have actual models of vintage synths in it, including a venerable six operator FM legend which has been taken to modular synth proportions. If anything, a Kronos is an electronic music studio in a keyboard case. All things in perspective, and all that. ;-)

By the way, why are you guys all going on and on about not feeding a troll for... about a dozen posts now?? This is a strange planet I'm stranded on...

synthguy99 wrote:

...I don't know... maybe I'm a synth wizard or something - programming, certainly not playing. ;-)

I've been wracking my brain, and the only thing I can think of is some iconic sound from a Modular Moog, Fairlight II, Synclavier or Kurzweil, which for sure are all unique monsters. However, I have been at this sound sculpting thing for so long, maybe I just have the knack. I've been able to nail Mellotron violins without Mellotron samples, get pretty close to a choir without those samples, Fairlight brass, strings and other unique textures without using its samples, get unusual FM timbres like a Synclavier using a 4-op FM synth, and even VASTy sounds using non-Kurzweils. Now I have far more powerful synths and have no shortage of soundshaping tools of all flavors, and still rely on my programming chops to get me there.

I will admit that the PC3 proved to be such a headache to wrap my head around that I heard some demos of a couple of patch libraries and bought them to get schooled on how he achieved those textures using the DSP distortion blocks, and unfortunately was only moderately successful with them. But then, Kurz WRAP, SHAPER and other arcane functions perform non-linear waveform warping, and all you can do is tweak until something delightful happens. Yamaha style FM is crayon simple in comparison. ;P

And I hardly know it all. Throw a Buchla burbling synth patch at me, and I might find my way there in a completely different way, or be stumped. It depends on the patch. But the typical musical things heard on most rock or pop albums over the past 40 years, I can usually horseshoe something that will make most diehard fans happy. But hey, I'm a long time synth geek who started on a CS-50 which is as simple as it gets, and that thing needs some work to squeeze the cheeze out of the sound, so I schooled myself pretty good.

In any case, I intend to get intimately familiar with the Jupiter or Integra - or perhaps Roland's next Integra-based workstation - when I get the thing. As well as synths from a company that apparently causes upset tummies around here...

SoundworldA.D. wrote:

Nice pic from LIT. But this is the one that gets my up vote!

synthguy99 wrote:

Bruce Lychee wrote:

If you are covering a broad spectrum of songs and want to replicate the sounds used in those songs, you are much better off with access to samples. Workstations would make a better choice for someone who has those needs.

I don't know... maybe I'm a synth wizard or something - programming, certainly not playing. ;-)

I've been wracking my brain, and the only thing I can think of is some iconic sound from a Modular Moog, Fairlight II, Synclavier or Kurzweil, which for sure are all unique monsters. However, I have been at this sound sculpting thing for so long, maybe I just have the knack. I've been able to nail Mellotron violins without Mellotron samples, get pretty close to a choir without those samples, Fairlight brass, strings and other unique textures without using its samples, get unusual FM timbres like a Synclavier using a 4-op FM synth, and even VASTy sounds using non-Kurzweils. Now I have far more powerful synths and have no shortage of soundshaping tools of all flavors, and still rely on my programming chops to get me there.

I will admit that the PC3 proved to be such a headache to wrap my head around that I heard some demos of a couple of patch libraries and bought them to get schooled on how he achieved those textures using the DSP distortion blocks, and unfortunately was only moderately successful with them. But then, Kurz WRAP, SHAPER and other arcane functions perform non-linear waveform warping, and all you can do is tweak until something delightful happens. Yamaha style FM is crayon simple in comparison. ;P

And I hardly know it all. Throw a Buchla burbling synth patch at me, and I might find my way there in a completely different way, or be stumped. It depends on the patch. But the typical musical things heard on most rock or pop albums over the past 40 years, I can usually horseshoe something that will make most diehard fans happy. But hey, I'm a long time synth geek who started on a CS-50 which is as simple as it gets, and that thing needs some work to squeeze the cheeze out of the sound, so I schooled myself pretty good.

In any case, I intend to get intimately familiar with the Jupiter or Integra - or perhaps Roland's next Integra-based workstation - when I get the thing. As well as synths from a company that apparently causes upset tummies around here...

Dany wrote:

synthguy99 wrote:

...blah blah blah, I said blah...

synthguy99 wrote:

This is why I urge you guys to open up patches in your synths and tweak and fiddle and experiment and when you feel up to it, program the SNOT out of them, or whatever.

synthguy99 wrote:

And I'm also a big proponent of making your own sounds...

synthguy99 wrote:

...Open up your minds, and let your fingers explore those parameters, get to know them, and fondle them endlessly. And you will not be hugely disappointed, but greatly impressed. And so will your friends. ;D

It's really not hard to learn. The JP-80 has ONLY TWO layered levels: Registration level and Liveset level. So it is a very simple Russian Doll, even too simple for a child...The only thing you have to grasp is the fact that a single Tone is either available on the Liveset level with the dedicated effects of the Liveset level, or available on the Registration level as a single Tone of the Perc or Solo Part with the dedicated effects of the Registration level.

Now, if you are in SN synth edit mode you are entering a kind of third level and as a single SN synth Tone has up to three Partials, the faders and buttons will again change their functions correspondingly (shift + buttons = Partial edit select).

What you are calling ridicoulus duplications of functionalities on multiple levels, due to your lack of understanding, has in fact many useful and practical reasons and make absolute sense.

Registration edit level: Offers quick access to Level, Pan and Octave for perc Part, lower Liveset, upper Liveset and Solo Part, WITHOUT affecting the orignal Liveset or Tone parameters.

In the Registration edit Common tab, you can define (among others) the function of the four controller knobs and the switch assign 1/2 for the two switch buttons. You can choose to assignments among many cc number and offset parameters or the Tone Blender.

You also adjust the single Tones of the Perc and Solo parts and their effects on the Registration level. You have many offset parameters available to adjust the Perc and Solo Part, which is important, because you cannot fully edit them, as it's possible on the Liveset level. But this has also the advantage that you don't change the original parameters of your SN synth or acoustic single Tones used in the Perc and Solo part, if you mangle them.

Liveset edit level: Here you edit of course also the dedicated effects for up to four single Tones of a Liveset.

What's confusing to you is the seemingly duplication of some parameters in the Liveset Layer and Modify tabs.
For SN acoustic Tones: The Modify tab offers some modifications and variations of the SN acoustic Tones, depending on the corresponding acoustic instrument models. Those modifications and variations are assignable to the four mod knobs, the two switches 1/2 and the D-Beam. But of course, you cannot edit the SN acoustic Tones. To mangle them, you have to change to the Layer tab. Here you can finally edit the Freq, Res, Attck, Decay, Release, Vibrato, Key range, Velocity range, Pitch, etc...of the up to four SN acoustic Tones of the Liveset.

For SN synth Tones: In contrast to the SN acoustic Tones, you finally don't really need the Layer tab for adjustments, apart from Velocity and Key range, etc. The Modify tab for SN synth Tones already offers access to edit many important synth parameters on the Liveset level, WITHOUT affecting the original parameters of the SN synth Tone. Here you will also find the unique Time Intervall Env Sensitivity parameter and the important Env Loop function.

Does it hurt, that some of the SN synth Tone parameters in the Modify tab are also available in the Layer Tab (like e.g. Filter Cutoff)? No, because you can make some quick adjustments in the Layer tab, with the overview of all parameters for all four Liveset layers (acoustic or synth tones) at a time.

So in order to mangle SN acoustic Tones you will use the Layer tab and in order to mangle SN Synth Tones (without affecting the original synth Tone parameters) you will use the Modify tab instead.

The SN synth Tone edit level, gives full edit access to all three SN synth Tone partials, which is accessible from the Liveset Modify tab or directly by pressing Shift + the colored buttons.

knolan wrote:
I find not one of the factory Registraitons or Live sets useful. Honestly - not one. They are all overbearingly cliched and just not useful in original compositions. I'd have to revoice this thing from scratch to make it useful to my purposes., and that's not going to happen as I don't have the time or inclination.
The number of free registration, liveset and tone slots is ridiculously low.

Now, then just delete those factory Tones, Livesets and Registrations, (as I constantly do) as you don't like them anyway! It's so easy and fast (and extremely rewarding) to program your own sounds on the JP-80!

It is in fact THE ONLY way to really discover the true sound character and the real possibilities and power of this unique and outstanding synthesizer. And as it is called a synthesizer and not a workstation, it is really meant to be programmed by the musician, like in the old analog days!

SoundworldA.D. wrote:

My dear fellow...whatever on earth possessed you of the notion that there are not editors aplenty on this very forum? Why, our very own misunderstood Dany has provided us with a whole new term that we will henceforth aply with aplomb when we edit...consider the earlier post in this very thread where we were schooled in the art of "mangling tones."

I say, "let the mangling begin!" ;-)

Dany wrote:

The content of my above pictograms wasn't meant to be ironic...

Bruce Lychee wrote:

I'd really doubt you can recreate the spectrum of sounds used in the last 50 years of music using just a Jupiter.

synthguy99 wrote:

after fighting to make that CS-50 sound good.

drpopper wrote:

Bruce Lychee wrote:

I'd really doubt you can recreate the spectrum of sounds used in the last 50 years of music using just a Jupiter.

I dunno Bruce let me tell ya you can get pretty close .... Closer then on any other shipping board IMHO. Remember you have in effect 30 oscillators to play with plus over 200 basic waveform variations to start with.