Roland D50 VST

[Numanoid]

Info at UVI:
http://www.uvi.net/en/vintage-corner/di ... tions.html

It's on half price special right now too, from UVI themselves

Still can't match Deepflight by Pink Noise Studio, which costs 2/3 less: http://www.kontaktbanks.com/kb_deepflight.html

Another option for an "extended" D50 is the new JD-850 Kontakt lib from Samplism/CL-Projects, costs half of what Digital Synsations does even at half price: http://www.sampleism.com/cl-projects/jd-850?sk=av

[PatchAdamz]

I am looking for a Roland D50 VSTplugin. Does anything comparable exist?

Thanks

The Korg M1 has been compared to the D-50 due to its technology.
I would love to see the D-50 re-released, I miss mine.

[fmr]

I am looking for a Roland D50 VSTplugin. Does anything comparable exist?

Thanks

The Korg M1 has been compared to the D-50 due to its technology.
I would love to see the D-50 re-released, I miss mine.

I used both back in the time, and there's no way they could be compared. The M1 is a pure ROMpler, which synth engine is very basic (the filter is very weak, just cutoff and no resonance, for example). The programs only use one element - to have more you had to use Combis, which use several programs combined, but cutting polyphony.
The D-50 filters are much better, with resonance, and it's synth engine is as real as a digital synth could be. Although it had samples, it's sample memory is much smaller than the M1, as it's used mainly for attack transients, while the sound body was meant to be synthesized using traditional subtractive techniques (thats what Roland called Linear Arithmetic, or LA Synthesis)

[Numanoid]

D50 = Synthesizer
M1 = Workstation

[fmr]

D50 = Synthesizer
M1 = Workstation

The "workstation" comes from the fact it has a built-in sequencer. Apart of that it's a ROMpler, the first in a "loooong" dinasty that came down over the years up to the Triton (I leave the Oasys and Kronos out of that because these have really powerful synthesis capabilities, so, in spite of the workstation inheritance, they are really poweful synth horses).

[beely]

The programs only use one element -

No, two. A program can have one or two elements. The cheaper M3R was a cut-down M1 and this could only have programs with 1 element. And was less rich sounding as a result.

to have more you had to use Combis, which use several programs combined, but cutting polyphony.

A combi can layer up to 8 programs, for massive layers.

But yes, the M1 is a classic definitive rompler workstation (keyboard sounds + drums + FX + sequencer), the D50 was more a digital synthesiser with a limited sample engine and FX.

[Numanoid]

D50 = Synthesizer
M1 = Workstation

The "workstation" comes from the fact it has a built-in sequencer. Apart of that it's a ROMpler

Well, I don't believe 200,000+ units was shifted if ROMpler is a bad thing.

In my post, I tried to hightlight what makes D50 and M1 special in their own way. D50 may be a superior synth, but it aint got no sequencer, so you can forget about putting together a track on that, unlike the M1.

[fmr]

D50 = Synthesizer
M1 = Workstation

The "workstation" comes from the fact it has a built-in sequencer. Apart of that it's a ROMpler

Well, I don't believe 200,000+ units was shifted if ROMpler is a bad thing.

At the time, considering the price of a sampler, the libraries and the (very limited) RAM, this was GREAT. It was the cheapest and more practical way to get realistic instrument sounds like we never had before. So, IMO what sold the M1 by the thousands was the ROMpler, yes. The sequencer helped, of course.

People now, getting libraries with GBs for free, cannot understand what 4 MB filled with realistic sampled sounds represented back then

[fmr]

The programs only use one element -

No, two. A program can have one or two elements. The cheaper M3R was a cut-down M1 and this could only have programs with 1 element. And was less rich sounding as a result.

I stand corrected
Anyway, when using double oscillators, the polyphony was reduced by half, making it only eight voice, while the D-50 preserve the sixteeen voice with two partials per voice.

[electro]

Why was Roland's Edirol VST discontinued?

[PatchAdamz]

I am looking for a Roland D50 VSTplugin. Does anything comparable exist?

Thanks

The Korg M1 has been compared to the D-50 due to its technology.
I would love to see the D-50 re-released, I miss mine.

I used both back in the time, and there's no way they could be compared. The M1 is a pure ROMpler, which synth engine is very basic (the filter is very weak, just cutoff and no resonance, for example). The programs only use one element - to have more you had to use Combis, which use several programs combined, but cutting polyphony.
The D-50 filters are much better, with resonance, and it's synth engine is as real as a digital synth could be. Although it had samples, it's sample memory is much smaller than the M1, as it's used mainly for attack transients, while the sound body was meant to be synthesized using traditional subtractive techniques (thats what Roland called Linear Arithmetic, or LA Synthesis)

There are some similarities and differences.
Check out the first paragraph here:
http://www.vintagesynth.com/korg/m1.php

Which ends with "......The M1 is sort of like a workstation-version of the Roland D-50."

I owned them both and can see how the writer came to that deduction.
Are they very similar, probably not but they did have some important similarities.

[fmr]

There are some similarities and differences.
Check out the first paragraph here:
http://www.vintagesynth.com/korg/m1.php

Which ends with "......The M1 is sort of like a workstation-version of the Roland D-50."

I owned them both and can see how the writer came to that deduction.
Are they very similar, probably not but they did have some important similarities.

Roland D-50
Oscillators - Digital LAS (Linear Arithmetic Synthesis) & PCM, 32 osc.
LFO - 3 x 2tones = 6 LFOs
Filter - low-pass-resonant

Korg M1
Oscillators - 4MB PCM waveforms (144 multisampled sounds)
Effects - Digital multi-effects: reverb, delay, overdrive, EQ, chorus, rotary speaker, and more.
Filter - VDF: Variable Digital Lowpass Filter, velocity sensitive (non-resonant)

As you can see, the only thing similar in both is the presence of PCM sounds, which, even so, are secondary in the D-50, but the only source in M1. Add to this that the M1 can be eight part multitimbral, while the D-50 is monotimbral (although you can modify it with third party boards to make it multitimbral).

I can't see how anyone can see these as "similar". All eight voice analogue synthesizers share more similarities than these, and we see endless discussions about the differences between them.

[PatchAdamz]

There are some similarities and differences.
Check out the first paragraph here:
http://www.vintagesynth.com/korg/m1.php

Which ends with "......The M1 is sort of like a workstation-version of the Roland D-50."

the only thing similar in both is the presence of PCM sounds....

Correct, there are similarities to the core sound-source of both synths (PCM).
In terms of vintage synths, this was seen as a progression of similar technologies.

Thats all that I am saying.

[Numanoid]

Check out the first paragraph here:
http://www.vintagesynth.com/korg/m1.php

Which ends with "......The M1 is sort of like a workstation-version of the Roland D-50."

I wouldn't put too much trust in presentations at VSE.

If you read the comments below the presentations of many synths at VSE, you will see that many users critize them for being incorrect.

Better to use more sources, here is a statement in a review of the D50 in Sound on Sound:
"Korg's M1 was arguably the synth most responsible for deposing the D50. Capable of a similar style of sounds, aided and abetted by a considerably more powerful effects processor, and -- most importantly -- multitimbral, the M1 stole the D50's glory and went on to become a milestone itself"

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1997_ar ... ndd50.html

Even thought that doesn't say much about the synth capabilites of either D50 or M1, at least it goes to acknowledge that M1 got better FX and multitimbrality.

[beely]

As you can see, the only thing similar in both is the presence of PCM sounds, which, even so, are secondary in the D-50, but the only source in M1.

And the presence of FX, particularly reverb.

If you were around when the D50 was released, and a year or so later the M1, you'd know that the real wow-factor of these instruments at that time were that they were the first instruments that really sounded "production-ready", rather than just dry, raw material that would be made to sound good in the mix. COmpare the D50 to the DX7II, and the DX7 was dry, bland and unexciting - the D50 was glorious in it's chiffy, chorus, EQ'd and reverbed soundscape and could do sounds that other instruments of the time couldn't do (short of getting a sampler and some rack FX for quite a lot more money).

In this regard they are similar, but the reason that the M1 basically killed the D50 was that it could do quite a lot more than the D50 for similar money - make songs, sequence, do drum parts, and still have a decent sounding engine and with more and better FX. It basically became a killer instrument for the songwriter, soundtrack composer and bedroom producer, albeit with limitations of the time, and it could do reasonably realistic simulations of a variety of sounds, from typically Korg-ish synth sounds, through atmospherics, acoustic, folk and ethnic and much more. This is why it ended up being the best selling synth of all time...