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

[AnX]

So, the main question. Can you rip the pcm waves?

You know that the first 100 are out there on the web and if you're going to rip them then you might as well just download them.

They're useful for experimenting with D50 sounds in Reaktor, or even Absynth, because they're not multisamples.

Ive never found them. Thought they might be useful in a WT synth

[Ingonator]

Ive never found them. Thought they might be useful in a WT synth

The PCMs are samples, not single cycles and a lot of the PCMs are attack samples with no loops.
Also the looped PCMs are much too long to be used as a single cycle.
For a WT synth you need single cycles (usually a length around 30 ms) and the D-50 PCMs are not usable as that.

One of the additional PCMs from the VC-1 expansion is called "Sync" (PCM #111) and with that you could create patches that involve a typical Osc Sync sound.
PCM #101 called "Epiano" actually seems to be quite long compared to most other PCMs.

The D-50 itself also offers an option to use a Ringmodulator (within the 7 partial structures).

[Chris-S]

So, the main question. Can you rip the pcm waves?

You can sample them from the plugin.

[AnX]

Ive never found them. Thought they might be useful in a WT synth

The PCMs are samples, not single cycles and a lot of the PCMs are attack samples with no loops.
Also the looped PCMs are much too long to be used as a single cycle.
For a WT synth you need single cycles (usually a length around 30 ms) and the D-50 PCMs are not usable as that.

Yes, i know exactly what they are. The could be very useful in a WT when set to one-shot.

Dont assume you're the only person who knows what they are talking about.

[robotmonkey]

So had a chance to play with the D50 VST (never used the hardware) and must say that of all the digital rompler type synths Ensoniqs still remains the most impressive followed by Kurzweil K2500 and Korg Wavestation.

The D50 does sound great in general but no patches impressed me much. I think Korg M1 has better factory presets but not as good sound.

[AnX]

The trouble with 'classic' romplers is, the factory sounds have been rinsed to death. You could make an effort and patch your own sounds on a D50, but to be honest, you would get much better options and results with software romplers.

[Chris-S]

FWIW, the waveforms shown in the DAW are quite different, when we would expect they to be similar.

There are a lot of factors which can lead to different waveforms:

- random start phase of the oscillators
- indeterministics in the FX (chorus/reverb)
- mp3 encoding?

So what matters is the spectrum and there are some differences in the bass range.
Which are most likely coming from the AD/DA conversion in the hardware.



(AVG of 10 sec section of "Native Digital Dance", both channels)

[Ingonator]

nvm

[Ingonator]

So what matters is the spectrum and there are some differences in the bass range.
Which are most likely coming from the AD/DA conversion in the hardware.

The quality of conversion in your audio interface when recording the hardware might have an impact too especially if the conversion there is not "neutral" but adds a certain color to recorded audio.

So between the sound that is produced and the hardware synth engine (before the output) and the final recorded audio multiple conversions are involved.

My current Focrusrite Saffire Pro 24 DSP is not really a "high end" interface (compared to e.g. the RME Fireface interfaces) but the results from recording audio there was a lot better than with an old and more or less cheap M-Audio audio interface i had in the past.

There might aso be an additional difference if the hardware synth is directly connected to the audio interface or if the hardware is connected to a mixer and the output of the mixer connected to the audio interface.

[ENV1]

Those do NOT sound identical to me and I'm not even a D50 fan.

Frankly i cant imagine how this could sound identical to anyone.

After all the loss of fidelity in the software is so obvious youd have to be hearing impaired not to hear it.

(Well, either that or a pair of decent speakers is in order.)

I mean the sounds as in presets (at least the few ive heard) certainly seem well replicated, im happy to give them that. But the sound as in audio quality leaves quite a bit to be desired (literally) because where the hardware has all that vivid brightness and lively detail to the sound the plugin just sounds flat, lifeless and dull.

So my opinion is: If the audio in the video is a true representation of the facts its simply another case of 'close but not quite there'. Which means people will be using the plugin expecting to get the genuine D-50 sound out of it but ultimately be dissatisfied because there always seems to be 'something' missing no matter how hard you try to make it sound right via EQing or whatever else.

[Ingonator]

Concerning a possible lack in low end with the plugin i just created some audio demos using one instance of the D-50 plugin uzusing the "Stereo Polysynth" factory preset that was also used in the video posted above.
I then used the buit-in 2-band EQ of the plugin (availaiable in both the Upper and Lower layer) and boosted the frequencies of 105 Hz and 250 Hz with that in both layers. That factory preset uses 4 synth partials so no PCM involved. In the original preset the built-in EQ is only used at a minimum amount without really having much effect on the sound.
Then instead of the built-in EQ i also used the original preset with the Waves OneKnob Phatter bass boost plugin at two different amounts of 50% and 100%.

Here are the 5 audio demos (pure D-50 plugin at the first 3 demos):

D-50 VST - E5 Stereo Polysynth
D-50 VST - E5 Stereo Polysynth + built-in EQ added_1
same with less bass boost and or EQ gains:
D-50 VST - E5 Stereo Polysynth + built-in EQ added_2


D-50 VST - E5 Stereo Polysynth - OneKnob Phatter 50%_1
D-50 VST - E5 Stereo Polysynth - OneKnob Phatter 100%_1


Personally i like the result using the built-in EQ and have saved the edited patch to a new bank using the built-in bank/patch browser.
The amount of bass boost might be adjusted to your own taste where the first example above (that with the built-in EQ) is a more "extreme" one.

Of course you could use an external EQ to get a similar result without having to edit the presets. For example i had also used the 2-band version of Waves Renaissance EQ plugin with comparable settings as used in the built-in EQ of the D-50.

While doing sound design yourself you could already add the built-in EQ while creating a patch.

As an external EQ is located at the end of the audio path (after the built-in FXs and the Amp of the D-50) using that might give different results compared to the built-in one even if using similar settings.

[beely]

If the guy's D50 was in such a poor shape that the right output was significantly lower in volume than the left, I'm not sure how confident you can make audio quality judgements from this one YouTube video compared with a D50 that isn't working right... especially as there is some other stuff going on in that video - he's running through a limiter and the plugin's output waveform is significantly larger, so he might have just been hitting the limiter harder with the plugin audio, giving it a more compressed sound in some cases.

Anyway, Woody is nice enough, but I'm not convinced of his technical ability to run good tests to make objective judgements on. They *might* be fine, but I'm a little suspicious and nothing he outlines gives me confidence it is a decent test. I'd rather see some other comparisons and average them out, hopefully from people with a bit more technical savvy to do it well.

As a "non-scientific" test, for my purposes the plugin is plenty fine.

As with the Wavestation and M1, the convertors from this era synths weren't great and tend to give it a less hifi, chunkier and defocused quality, which helps thicken the sounds up, and the plugins don't model this, and consequently sound cleaner and probably more "digital" in a way. From what I hear in Woody's video at least, it seems the D50 plugin is probably closer to the real thing that the Korg legacy plugins are to their hardware equivalent (which I am *very* familiar with), as has been already discussed to death - the Korg's convertors do give a significantly more lo-fi and chunky output from the hardware than the clean output from the plugins - the output from the plugins is technically *better*, but the output from the hardware is to me *preferable* (as it's a sound I'm very familiar with and like), but not so much as it's a deal breaker or that it stops me using the plugins - it's nice to have a cleaner option as well...

[fmr]

... especially as there is some other stuff going on in that video - he's running through a limiter and the plugin's output waveform is significantly larger, so he might have just been hitting the limiter harder with the plugin audio, giving it a more compressed sound in some cases.

I had already pointed that.

Anyway, I find all these discussions and nitpicks regarding how faithful plug-in A is to hardware A or plug-in B to hardware B somehow pointless. There is a minimum that has to be achieved in an emulation, and that is, IMO, that the emulation is as faithful to the original as that the same programmed settings will produce a similar sound result. Minimum differences in sound are negligible, to me, as any sound is probably going to be processed and produced anyway.

I many times use the acoustic instruments analogy. Any acoustic piano (even being the same model from the same company (sound slightly different from another one). The acoustics in the room, the ageing, the strings state (how they are in terms of oxidation, etc.), the type of tuning, the state of the hammers felt, you name it, all have an influence in the final sound.

A good piano technician is even able to shape the sound closer to the player preferences.

Does this mean that piano A is better than piano B? I don't think so. In their deep, they are all the same, and a good piano will always sound good, when it is played by a good pianist.

The same can be said of a good synth emulation. So, the question here should how faithful is this emulation, when programmed with similar settings compared with the hardware counterpart. If the differences are just those related with the state of the converters, and the DAC technology involved, then I'm fine with it.

Being able to read SysEx is much more important, IMO, than these details (at least for those that have access to old banks for the D-50 - and there are quite a few out there).

[Ingonator]

Here are the 5 audio demos (pure D-50 plugin at the first 3 demos):

D-50 VST - E5 Stereo Polysynth
D-50 VST - E5 Stereo Polysynth + built-in EQ added_1
same with less bass boost and or EQ gains:
D-50 VST - E5 Stereo Polysynth + built-in EQ added_2


D-50 VST - E5 Stereo Polysynth - OneKnob Phatter 50%_1
D-50 VST - E5 Stereo Polysynth - OneKnob Phatter 100%_1

An additional demo using the 2-band version of the Waves Renaissance EQ instead of the built-in EQ of the D-50 plugin (like with the built-in EQ at frequencies 105 Hz and 250 Hz):
D-50 VST - E5 Stereo Polysynth - Renaissance EQ 2-band_1

Of course you could use any external EQ you like for that purpose but the one used for that demo mostly is my "go to" EQ (there are also 4-band and 6-band versions of the plugin).

Overall there are lots of options to adjust the presets or your own patches to your own taste and/or needs where first i would check if i could get that done using only the built-in features of the synth.

[Ingonator]

While finally starting to do my own patches from scratch with the D-50 VST after reading the manual again i found another helpful tip there (previosuly i posted here about keyboard shortcuts in the bank/patch browser).

You could edit both "Tones" (Upper and Lower) by clicking on the first one like e.g. "Upper" to open the edit page and then while holding the SHIFT key at your computer keyboard clicking on the "Lower" Tone.
THe Upper Tone should now be marked with red color and the Lower with green color. All changes in teh Upper Tone edit page are now also used for the Lower one.

The same also works with the 4 Pertials. Click the first one that should be edited (the edit page is opened for that) and that keeps marked with red color, hold SHIFT and click on the other partials that should be selected/edited too which are then marked with green color. Again changes done to the first partial that was opened are also done with the others you have marked/selected.