If Roland made a D50 vst emulation, would you purchase it?

[fmr]

The D-50 is combining PCM waveforms/short samples with subtractive synthesis. On their own, it's nothing fancy, but the combination might not be as usual. If the TubeOhm vintage is an emulation, so is Ensoniq SQ80. Or we could call all subtractive synths emulations of the Moog?

Completely different things. The combination of subtractive synthesis with samples is what have feeding basically all the ROMplers since the D-50 appeared. Even those that are ALL ROMplers, have samples of single cycle waves to replace the oscillators. That, and the presence of filters, is "combining PCM waveforms/short samples with subtractive synthesis". That's also what basically all samplers have been doing since the Emulator II / Emax onwards (with even some addings, like additive synthesis, etc.).

But there's an whole lot of variants (and variables) beyond that, as there are a lot of variants beyond the subtractive synthesis techniques as implemented in the Moogs.

None of the Roland ROMplers that followed D-50, including also the D-70 which was a "pure" ROMpler, seemed to combine PCM samples and synthesis (especially the PWM) in a similar way the D-50 did. As mentioned yesterday also the Chorus and Reverb FXs of the D-50 made a big part of the sound.
Opposing to many other samplers and ROMplers the D-50 did also not include a filter for The PCM samples which makes a difference for the resulting sounds too.

It seems we are talking semantics here. If you read my post, you'll see that I never stated they "combine PCM samples and synthesis (especially the PWM) in a similar way the D-50 did". What I wrote was that "The combination of subtractive synthesis with samples is what have feeding basically all the ROMplers since the D-50 appeared". This is what's called sample+synthesis, or sample based synthesis, which isn't anything else than subtractive synthesis done with samples. Subtractive synthesis doesn't necessarily mean that you'll need to have an oscillator capable of generating single cycle waves, and PWM (for the record, the JX-3P and MKS-30 do not have PWM either). You may have that or not, and still have subtractive synthesis.

The way the D-50 worked was still unique and is not directly comparable to later Roland synths except maybe the V-Synth with the D-50 expansion card.

If you are talking the V-Synth "per se" it goes way beyond D-50. If you are talking about the D-50 card, it's not comparable - it's exactly the same thing. It even has an emulation of the old DACs of the D-50 for added emulation fidelity, since the DACs in the V-Synth are better. [/quote]

Also the layers/partials concept is difficult to replicate with synths that do not include a layer structure or at least a dual filter that could be used in parallel mode.

I don't know what you mean. The sound architecture of the D-50 is more or less replicated (or ecven expanded) in all the later models (read what we have been discussing about the repackaging of the same synth by Roland). Even the samplers like the S-770, had a similar architecture. You have the Patch, which is composed of Tones, which are composed of Partials. This architecture started in the Jupiter-8, which had Patch and Tones. With the D-50, Roland introduced a third layer - the Partial. From then on, we basically had always the same architecture: Patch > Tone (or Tones) > Partial (or Partials), AFAIK. Besides, the JD-990 had better filters, better FX, and a much bigger ROM, that included special waves dedicated to synthesis, like:
- basic waveforms inspired by analog synthesizers, e.g "fatsquare" "synsaw" or "fatsaw"
- mathematical transients and overtones inspired from Roland D-50 L.A. synthesis
- one shot percussion acoustic samples
- samples from acoustic instruments
- loops and noises

So, considering that using a PCM basic waveform will not differ that much, if at all, from a digital algorithmic oscillator, the only thing lacking would be PWM. Again, we are talking semantics here. I am the first to agree with you that the D-50 has its own character, and that's why it is still remembered. That doesn't change anything of what I wrote about Roland and synthesis.

FWIW besides a D-50 (back in 2004) i had also owned a JV-90 and XV-3080 and a few real analogs from Roland (Jupiter 8, MKS-80, MKS-50). Currently i do not own any hardware synth of them.

FWIW, I own a Juno-60, two MKS-30, a MKS-70 and a MKS-80. I also own a V-Synth XT (which includes the D-50 card, and the Vocal Designer card). Does that make a difference?

[Ingonator]

@fmr:

Well, we mostly agree that the D-50 had a more or less unique synth engine compared to the ROMplers that followed later which also included a VA like PWM feature. That feature was difficult to properly replace by pure samples.

The fact that the JD-990 included better or at least more versatile filter, a bigger ROM and more FXs is of course true but still the JD-990 is no proper replacement for the D-50 if you want to replicate D-50 patches in a similar way as in the real thing. What is true is that the JD-990 was a very powerful synth on it's own and for sure it was able to do a lot of stuff not posible wit hteh D-50.

Concerning the V-Synth i mentioned the D-50 card and of course that one could emulate the D-50 properly. I was not discusing teh fetures of the V-Synth synth engine itself which is another story.
On the other hand if the synth engine of the D-50 could be easily replicated with the built-in engine of V-Synth why would they have included the D-50 expansion?

FWIW besides a D-50 (back in 2004) i had also owned a JV-90 and XV-3080 and a few real analogs from Roland (Jupiter 8, MKS-80, MKS-50). Currently i do not own any hardware synth of them.

FWIW, I own a Juno-60, two MKS-30, a MKS-70 and a MKS-80. I also own a V-Synth XT (which includes the D-50 card, and the Vocal Designer card). Does that make a difference?

Well, i mentioned the synths i owned to show that i am not just talking about stuff that i did just read somewhere but taht i woned teh D-50 and some of the following ROMplers like JV-90 and XV-3080 myself.
The analog synths were just mentioned to get make the list of Roland gear i had owned complete.
I was not really posting that in purpose to also receive your own list of Roland gear to be honest...

[fmr]

@fmr:
Concerning the V-Synth i mentioned the D-50 card and of course that one could emulate the D-50 properly. I was not discussing the features of the V-Synth synth engine itself which is another story.
On the other hand if the synth engine of the D-50 could be easily replicated with the built-in engine of V-Synth why would they have included the D-50 expansion?

It doesn't, nor was it intended to. It's another machine, that followed a different path (which, unfortunately, Roland abandoned).
The D-50 card is an extra. When we load it, it's like we have another synth (we no longer have access to the V-Synth sounds and architecture - in all aspects, we remain with a D-50, exclusively).
It's like we have a triple boot computer, with three different OS'es. When we turn it on, we choose which OS to load: The V-Synth, the D-50 or the VC-2.

[ghettosynth]

[

In other words the PWM, chorus, and reverb are not that special technically and neither is the rather simple sampling engine.

As I said, a broad sampling approach is not the way to emulate the D50 if one wants to. The only thing that's held this back is the IP restrictions and Roland's aggressiveness. I'm not even judging there really, it's their shit, whatever. Let's not pretend, however, that there's much magic going on in the D50. It's a pretty simple instrument by todays DSP standards.

As i tried to point out earlier it's not about certain features like e.g. the PCM samples, PWM, Chorus, Reverb etc. but it's the sum of the part which makes a synth sound great or not.

I know what you said, I generally don't agree. IMO, it is exactly the components and architecture that define a synth. Moreover, it's certain key characteristics that really make it unique and that once we start testing properly, it's only those characteristics that allow people to really tell synths apart. Sitting there in front of the GUI you are almost certainly influenced by visual bias. We all are. Frankly, I'm amazed that people aren't more interested in this aspect of how we perceive sound because it is exceedingly powerful.

My point was that it's not surprising that nobody has done a good job cloning the D50 because there's no incentive to do so. However, it certainly can be done and if it weren't for legal limitations, it would have been done long ago by someone else. None of the components in the D50 are that special. You cannot use existing attempts like whatever that sampling library was as a baseline of what's possible. That's simply what anyone bothered to do.

More than that though, I'm saying that there's a reason that nobody has taken a D50 emulation seriously. It's because the only reason to do so is financial. It's not really an interesting synth. It's mediocre VA blended with a half ass rompler, a shitty filter and some basic 80s effects. The fact that a few people are in love with it doesn't make it interesting. The fact that you couldn't sell your creation does make it uninteresting. I think that people's vision is clouded by rose colored glasses and after the shiny wears off they're going to realize, "oh shit, we could pretty much do all of this with Omnisphere already and half of it with Absynth."

It is not some ineffable quality that's greater than the sum of the parts that makes the D50 unique, it's the fact that there is no other synth that uses really short transient samples with VA oscillators. Without that feature the D50 is, as I've said before, a rompler with shitty filters. In fact, it's not even that because you can't use the shitty filters on the samples.

[Ingonator]

Aftertouch isn't working for me, but the modwheel is working. The cloud D50 sound exactly like the real d50 to my ears... at least from what I can remember a few years ago when I owned the hardware.

Does aftertouch not work for all patches? With patches where this is activated it seems to work here. With the first patch called "Fantasia" the aftertouch has a quite big effect when i use it. Pitchbend is working here too.

I am using NI Komplete Kontrol S61 as a main controller here and with my Novation Ultranova the aftertouch works too in the D-50 plugin.

There was a comment at Facebook that with the D-50 plugin both channel aftertouch and pitchbend does work with the VST2 plugin but not with the VST3.

Previously i was using the VST2 in Live 9 and it was working there. I just checked with the VST3 in Cubase Pro 9 and both aftertouch and pitchbend currently are indeed not working with that plugin format.
Current solution is to swith to VST2 instead...

[Caine123]

is there a a/b comparison available?

[quantum7]

I amazes me why some people seem to be so annoyed that there is so much love and interest in the D50. It is one of the best selling synths in history with only the Korg M1 beating it out, if I remember correctly. I still remember in 1987 playing it in person at my local Los Angeles music store when it was first released. It sounded like nothing else that I had ever heard before. To this very day it still has patches on it that bring a smile to my face every time I play with them. Yeah, some of the patches in 2017 now sound somewhat boring and dated, but there are still patches that are unique IMO and only can be done on the D50. Very few synths have enjoyed such long-standing popularity and interest like the D50 has enjoyed...and with good reason.

[ghettosynth]

I amazes me why some people seem to be so annoyed that there is so much love and interest in the D50.

Who's annoyed?

It is one of the best selling synths in history with only the Korg M1 beating it out, if I remember correctly.

So? That's simply a function of where it was in history and what else was available at the time. It was, literally, the FIRST rompler. Of course it sold well. After the M1 everyone got in the game because, for whatever, reason, you couldn't patent the idea of playing back a rom. So, with more competition, OF COURSE, no one manufacturer was able to repeat the sales dominance of the M1.

I still remember in 1987 playing it in person at my local Los Angeles music store when it was first released. It sounded like nothing else that I had ever heard before.

Well, nothing that you played because, arguably, there were already samplers and synths that could create similar sounds in the right studio context.

To this very day it still has patches on it that bring a smile to my face every time I play with them.

Those are the rose colored glasses that I'm talking about. That's your personal nostalgia, it has nothing to do with the quality of the synth, which, by today's standards is mediocre at best.

Yeah, some of the patches in 2017 now sound somewhat boring and dated, but there are still patches that are unique IMO and only can be done on the D50.

Given that you can't license the samples, I'm sure that's true. That doesn't mean that it matters. Moreover, it certainly doesn't make it a technological limitation, which is the essence of my point.

Very few synths have enjoyed such long-standing popularity and interest like the D50 has enjoyed...and with good reason.

Absolute horseshit. Virtually every single significant poly analogue and even many digital ones from the early 80s has enjoyed greater longstanding popularity than the D50. In fact, in terms of using the synth on recordings I'd say that the D50 had one of the shortest periods of interest. Once those presets were worn out, nobody wanted to use it. Analog synths started to come back strong as early as the 90s and much more competent samplers and romplers relegated the D-50 to the junk closet.

I get it, some people like it. Try looking at it without the rose colored glasses and you will see something that was significant in its day, but is a farily mediocre synth by today's standards. In fact, it became mediocre very quickly. I wouldn't say that the M1 completely trounced it, but by the time the next generation of romplers came around people definitely started to lose interest in the D50.

Prices from the used gear price list, these are actual selling prices, from 1994.

Roland D-50 kbd $550 (5/25/95) $699,$699,$650,$700,$450,$750,$675,$650,$650,$650,$750,$600,$525,!$600,$600,$600,$650,$650,$600,$300,$500,$750,$500,$650,$650,$650,$650(6/6/94)

It eventually bottomed out at around $300, just like the DX7, and stayed there for a number of years.

Korg M1 from the same posting:

Korg M1 kbd $600 (5/31/95) $750,$800,$800,$875,$550,$850,$850,$800,$750,$700,$800,$700,$1200,$850,$900,$575,$900,$575,$950,$980,!$650,$675,$700r,$800,$750,$700,$725,$900,$900,$800,$900,$850,$795,$900,$900,$900,$950,$900,$850,$875,$875,$1000,$800,$975,$875,$1100,$950,$1100,$975,$850,$900,$850,$850,$900,$900,$750(3/24/94)

On average, people rated the M1 higher than the D50 a few years after they were out.

DX7s were still selling quite well as well, not quite as much as a D50 on average. Trent Reznor was smashing these on stage about then, probably D50s too!

Yamaha DX7 kbd $425 (5/22/95) $475,$525,$350r,$425,$375,$500,$475,$549,$300,$500,$500,$465,$675,$475,$325,!$550,$495,$550,$400,$400,$350,$425,$350,$475,$640,$500,$490,$490,$490,$600,$500(3/7/94)

What were people really fond of though? Analogs, that's what, and it didn't take as long as some people seem to think that it did.

Roland MKS 70 mod $475 (5/12/95) $500,$600,$699,$625,!$500,$600,$500,$500,$750,$500,$625,$500,$525,$550,$700,$650(3/1/94)

Roland MKS 80 Super Jupiter $1400 (5/24/95) $1000,$1075,$1095,$1000,!$1350,$1500,$975,$1450,$900,$1600,$2000,$1500(3/2/94)

So, comparatively, the D50 had a very short period of appreciation. People sold them off in droves in the 90s because they were replaced with newer romplers and an appreciation for the much deeper and more interesting synths of the past.

Granted, prices are not so trivially related to popularity, supply has a huge impact, but D50s, and other early romplers, were pretty much viewed as old kak for the better part of two decades. Now people are looking back with a hostalgic eye through really thick rose colored glasses. I think that the fact that they have been unobtainium in software has a lot to do with it. In a couple years time this will be on the same order of appreciation as the Korg M1 plugin. Appreciated by some for nostalgia, but largely viewed as inferior to contemporary offerings.

[quantum7]

Wow, I'm too busy composing music to reply to all that. I wasn't actually targeting anyone in particular about exactly who was annoyed anyway. I guess you must be one of the annoyed obviously. I stand corrected, the D50 bites and it must only be nostalgia that gives old farts like me fond memories of it. I doff my cap to thee, sir!

Mr. Ghettosynth- I'm just having fun, I hope you realize. Life is waaay too short to argue about topics (such a synths) that bring me a whole lot of joy to my life.

[Kumi_27]

some of the patches in 2017 now sound somewhat boring and dated, but there are still patches that are unique IMO and only can be done on the D50.

Because they're copyrighted.
Friend of mine still keeps his D550 "because Pizzagogo" but the truth is, that most of these patches could be replicated today by Zebralette...

[ghettosynth]

Wow, I'm too busy composing music to reply to all that. I wasn't actually targeting anyone in particular about exactly who was annoyed anyway. I guess you must be one of the annoyed obviously.

Again, nobody is annoyed, we're having a conversation and you're introducing some absurd idea that because not everyone appreciates the D50, that they must be annoyed, that's nonsense.

I stand corrected, the D50 bites and it must only be nostalgia that gives old farts like me fond memories of it. I doff my cap to thee, sir!

The D50 is a very limited instrument by today's standards, I think that you know that. It's a weak rompler, it doesn't even multisample. It has a limited VA engine with a very outdated filter. It has a funky chorus and reverb that wasn't even convincing when it was new. So, yes, it most likely is nostalgia that gives old farts like you fond memories of it. You remember it when it was something special by comparison to what else was on the market. So of course you have great memories of it and of course listening to it brings back those memories. What exactly do you think that bias is?

I'm amazed at how much KVR struggles to have an objective outlook on music instruments. Nobody's perception is the harbinger of truth, however, there are always key aspects of an instrument that you can identify as being relatively better or worse than the competition. When there's not much there, like with the D50, it always seems to become this ineffable quality that must be all the weak bits put together.

Most likely, it's just that your perception is biased.

I mean, ask yourself, if you had one in the 90s, and you sold it, why did you replace it? I think most people thought, at the time, that the new stuff was so much better. But now, because it's old and the stuff fond memories are made of, it's awesome again?

It's not hard to find people who bought vintage gear that isn't all that, the D50 in particular, and then realize that the roses were glass colored. There are some right in this thread.

Ingonater says that without the chorus and reverb that it's not that special, really? That's so surprising. Does anyone REALLY think that three decades later we haven't improved upon digital chorus and reverb algorithms, really? Granted, even old algorithms there can have value, but until this week, I've not heard anyone gushing over the D50 reverb since the late 80s.

It's an old digital synth, if you like it awesome, get the Roland cloud, you'll be in heaven. I'm just not convinced that it's as unique as nostalgia seems to want it to be.

[quantum7]

Wow, I'm too busy composing music to reply to all that. I wasn't actually targeting anyone in particular about exactly who was annoyed anyway. I guess you must be one of the annoyed obviously.

Again, nobody is annoyed, we're having a conversation and you're introducing some absurd idea that because not everyone appreciates the D50, that they must be annoyed, that's nonsense.

I stand corrected, the D50 bites and it must only be nostalgia that gives old farts like me fond memories of it. I doff my cap to thee, sir!

The D50 is a very limited instrument by today's standards, I think that you know that. It's a weak rompler, it doesn't even multisample. It has a limited VA engine with a very outdated filter. It has a funky chorus and reverb that wasn't even convincing when it was new. So, yes, it most likely is nostalgia that gives old farts like you fond memories of it. You remember it when it was something special by comparison to what else was on the market. So of course you have great memories of it and of course listening to it brings back those memories. What exactly do you think that bias is?

I'm amazed at how much KVR struggles to have an objective outlook on music instruments. Nobody's perception is the harbinger of truth, however, there are always key aspects of an instrument that you can identify as being relatively better or worse than the competition. When there's not much there, like with the D50, it always seems to become this ineffable quality that must be all the weak bits put together.

Most likely, it's just that your perception is biased.

I mean, ask yourself, if you had one in the 90s, and you sold it, why did you replace it? I think most people thought, at the time, that the new stuff was so much better. But now, because it's old and the stuff fond memories are made of, it's awesome again?

It's not hard to find people who bought vintage gear that isn't all that, the D50 in particular, and then realize that the roses were glass colored. There are some right in this thread.

Ingonater says that without the chorus and reverb that it's not that special, really? That's so surprising. Does anyone REALLY think that three decades later we haven't improved upon digital chorus and reverb algorithms, really? Granted, even old algorithms there can have value, but until this week, I've not heard anyone gushing over the D50 reverb since the late 80s.

It's an old digital synth, if you like it awesome, get the Roland cloud, you'll be in heaven. I'm just not convinced that it's as unique as nostalgia seems to want it to be.

Good points and well articulated! Yeah, perhaps I and others are indeed biased, but a love for a particular musical instrument doesn't always wither on a vine.

[Ingonator]

To this very day it still has patches on it that bring a smile to my face every time I play with them.

I could play the "Staccato Heaven" for ages without being bored which i already loved when owning a real D-50 back in 2004. There are sounds that just could hardly be be done better with modern synths. Actually i more or less got "stuck" with that patch for a long time until i continued playing with other presets too (and there are several other great ones too).

As mentioned earlier I have the same preset in the discontinued LA-50 Kontakt library but that in the new D-50 plugin sounds much better for me which is also realated to teh sound of the FXs where in the Kontakt library the FXs of Kontakt were used.

Technically the the basics of this preset seem to be more or less simple. 3 PCM partials with no filter, 1 synth partial with filter and the Chorus + Reverb FXs. Still the result sounds great.

[Ingonator]

FWIW i you asked about Sysex import for the D-50 plugin at official support besides asking about it at Facebook today (where i did not receive a reply yet...).

I had alraedy contacted support two times concerning the subscription process and the Cloud Manager and got a reply quite fast (and it was helpful too...).

I got a reply from official Roland Cloud support concerning my feature request for Sysex import:

We can't comment on future products, but I'll add it to the feature enhancement list and forward it to the product group.

Does not really answer the question but if they really forward the request it is better than nothing...

There were multiple requests for this at Facebook but no direct reply yet (FWIW there also were multiple requests for offering single purchases...). Seems to be a topic where they currently are very careful giving answers. Still this does not mean that it would be impossible to add this feature.

Concerning a request for Sysex import at Facebook there was this official reply now:

I've passed on your sysex import request to the product team.

This is more or less the same reply i got from official support.
At least this kind reply seems to mean that it might not be impossible to add this.

I still do not know on what some of the disciussions here were based that this would not be technically possible with the plugin.

As discussed earlier here a bunch of other emulations do contain an option for Sysex import too.

[beely]

No reason it's technically impossible, just a bit of code to parse the syx file, and set all the parameters to the correct values, patch by patch, into a new bank file.