PG8X (inspired by the JX8P): new beta version uploaded

[AdmiralQuality]

You can download Roland manuals from RolandUS.com http://www.rolandus.com/support/owners_manuals/?group=4

And yes the JP-8 had splits and layers. It certainly didn't have velocity sensitivity though.

The MKS-80 had the same voice layout as the JP-8, with the addition of rudimentary velocity controls. There is aftertouch as well. See the MPG-80 programmer on page 11 of the MKS-80 manual.

And yes, as I said I'm sure the hardware components used in the MKS-80 aren't exactly what was in the JP-8. But a MKS-80 certainly sounds like a Jupiter-8. It's still my "holy grail" of Roland true analogs (well, unless I came across a System 100. )

[PeWe]

In fact, I am thinking about that (possibly called MLs-70...) but I am not yet sure to which extent it can be done (at least using SE as framework).

I know some of the limitation in SE, but great synths like Sonic Projects OPX (Pro II) and Memorymoon, Messiah and ME80 are made w/ SE too.
There are options.

B.t.w.,- I helped w/ Memorymoon, did programming advice for Messiah and tested the synths.
I assume you're from germany, I'm too.
Fell free PM me.

The difficult bit seems to be the memory architecture, i.e. the organization of the patches into the "patches" and the "tones". I first have to read the manual of the MKS70 to understand how it works.

It's simple.
A preset for pg8x would be a "tone" already.
2 instances of pg8x would be the separate voice boards of a "MKS70" emu,- both carrying a "tone" each.
The "patch" would be somewhat like a global shell embedding both the pg8x instances,just carrying information how to play these.
GUI wise, it makes no sense to mimik the structure of the "patch" mode of a MKS70.
You could use your GUI and add 1 button, toggling between "single" (a tone) and " dual" (2 layered tones).
There must be a pot/slider for "detune" voices 1-6 against voices 7-12.

For great pads, layering the same "tone" in "dual mode" and detune these is the common purpose,- I'd start w/ that 1st.
The dual chorus engines mode is another story then.
Selecting different "tones" for "dual" mode is the most CPU intensive feature because you really need 2 pg8x engines for that.

You said in a former post, each voice of pg8x is in a separate container.
Does that mean you used "separate voice design" to create pg8x ?
If that's the case, you probably have each available parameter of pg8x existing separately for each voice,- which is CPU intensive.

For the "dual" feature, this possibbly could be simplified to save CPU because you don't want to detune each of the 12 voices against each other but only 2x 6 voices.
The question is also if you want to have separate filters, amps and envelopes for each voice in "dual mode".

Then I can think about how it could be implemented. The rest, i.e. the playing modes, including crossfade etc. should not be so hard. I think the main limitation will be whether the resulting plugin would still be playable, or whether it would use too much CPU as to be useful.

See above.
Thinking about to do a exact emulation of the MKS70 is eventually to much and too CPU intensive,- but implementing some add. features only in pg8x might be a compromize.

PeWe

[PeWe]

Because the MKS-80 has little to nothing to be compared with a Jupiter-6. It is a Jupiter-8 in a rack, with dual mode, splits and layers.

Sorry, that's totally wrong.

There are 2 MKS80 revisions,- I own the one using CEM 3340 in the osc.- section and CEM3360 in the crossmodulation section.
I think it's rev.4 and it uses the same filter chips a Jupiter 8 uses and these are chips made by Roland,- IR 309.

With MKS80 rev 5, the type of these filter chips changed but were also made by Roland,- IR3R05, which included also the VCA.
Roland also replaced all the CEM chips by their own ones.

Roland JX10 and MKS70 use the same filter/VCA combo chip, IR3R05.
Roland JX8P does too.

The sound of MKS-80 rev 4 comes close to Jupiter 8 and Jupiter 6 because of the filter chip used.
The filter chip is the most responsible one for overall sound of a synth.
But there are differences in LFO speed and envelope scaling and speed.

The oscillators of MKS80 rev. 4 & 5 have nothing to to w/ Jupiter 8,- but more w/ Jupiter 6.

So,- MKS80 is not a Jupiter 8 in a rack.
That was a marketing thing of Roland and probably their target at that time, but it's not true.

All these synths are different machines and they all sound more or less different.

PeWe

[fmr]

Because the MKS-80 has little to nothing to be compared with a Jupiter-6. It is a Jupiter-8 in a rack, with dual mode, splits and layers.

Sorry, that's totally wrong.

There are 2 MKS80 revisions,- I own the one using CEM 3340 in the osc.- section and CEM3360 in the crossmodulation section.
I think it's rev.4 and it uses the same filter chips a Jupiter 8 uses and these are chips made by Roland,- IR 309.

With MKS80 rev 5, the type of these filter chips changed but were also made by Roland,- IR3R05, which included also the VCA.
Roland also replaced all the CEM chips by their own ones.

Roland JX10 and MKS70 use the same filter/VCA combo chip, IR3R05.
Roland JX8P does too.

The sound of MKS-80 rev 4 comes close to Jupiter 8 and Jupiter 6 because of the filter chip used.
The filter chip is the most responsible one for overall sound of a synth.
But there are differences in LFO speed and envelope scaling and speed.

The oscillators of MKS80 rev. 4 & 5 have nothing to to w/ Jupiter 8,- but more w/ Jupiter 6.

So,- MKS80 is not a Jupiter 8 in a rack.
That was a marketing thing of Roland and probably their target at that time, but it's not true.

All these synths are different machines and they all sound more or less different.

PeWe

yes, what you say is more or less the same of what Wikipedia says, as I quoted in my last post. I acept they are all different synths, but the voice architecture of the MKS-80 is similar to that of the Jupiter-8, even if the inside componentes are not.
And, no matter what's inside, the MKS-80 is a great synth

[PeWe]

And, no matter what's inside, the MKS-80 is a great synth

I myself, I like it more than the Jupiter 8 I played in the past as well as a Jupiter 6.
The MKS80 is a very solid machine.
I'm 1st owner and buyed it in 1984 I believe.
Never had a real issue w/ it, except replacing 1 CEM 3360 in all the decades.
Low end is great w/ MKS80 and MIDI is fast.
It has it's place in my rig and between Minimoog, Oberheim synths and more.
The MKS80 replaced my Prophet 5 which I sold because of reliability issues and I never looked back.
I love my Roland combo of MKS80, MKS70 and D550 w/ Musitronics expansion and speed kit,- is classic and hard to replace.

PeWe

[wwjd]

reguardless of chips, and hardware, etc, I feel THIS plugin sounds "AS GOOD" and in ways "BETTER" than the real Jupiter 8. I have a buddy with a real JP8 and he sent me a bunch of sounds he played in a nice WAV file for me to enjoy. This plugin sounds JUST AS GOOD - albeit DIFFERENT, but JUST AS GOOD to me. In ways even better than a JP8. I know this plug IS NOT emulating a JP8, but that is not my point. I could use these sounds easily as replacements for a juppy8 without regret. I won't even send the plugins sounds back to my buddy because he paid a lot for his keyboard, and it might make him mad.

Per ideas in this thread, I loaded up two PG8X plugs on two channels and had some super phat fun!

[fmr]

And, no matter what's inside, the MKS-80 is a great synth

I myself, I like it more than the Jupiter 8 I played in the past as well as a Jupiter 6.
The MKS80 is a very solid machine.
I'm 1st owner and buyed it in 1984 I believe.
Never had a real issue w/ it, except replacing 1 CEM 3360 in all the decades.
Low end is great w/ MKS80 and MIDI is fast.
It has it's place in my rig and between Minimoog, Oberheim synths and more.
The MKS80 replaced my Prophet 5 which I sold because of reliability issues and I never looked back.
I love my Roland combo of MKS80, MKS70 and D550 w/ Musitronics expansion and speed kit,- is classic and hard to replace.

PeWe

Lovely I have the MKS-80, MKS-70 and MKS-30, as well as a Juno-60. However, the MKS-70 has a problem in the display, and the MKS-30 had a problem in a voice chip which I didn't found a replacement for, and now doesn't play all notes - it's like playing Do, Re. Mi, than misses Fa, plays Sol, La, misses Si, etc.
Unfortunately, finding someone to repair them and componentes is very hard here in Portugal. Once I was thinking also in adding the D550 with that Musitronics expansion, but then moved more towards a Kurzweil K2600R (which I still didn't find). It's a complete different machine, but in terms of synthesis is much more powerful.

[3ee]

Gave this lovely piece of software a try early on!
Don't know how this compares with the real thing but this is quality stuff for sure!
Thanks!

[fmr]

reguardless of chips, and hardware, etc, I feel THIS plugin sounds "AS GOOD" and in ways "BETTER" than the real Jupiter 8. I have a buddy with a real JP8 and he sent me a bunch of sounds he played in a nice WAV file for me to enjoy. This plugin sounds JUST AS GOOD - albeit DIFFERENT, but JUST AS GOOD to me. In ways even better than a JP8. I know this plug IS NOT emulating a JP8, but that is not my point. I could use these sounds easily as replacements for a juppy8 without regret. I won't even send the plugins sounds back to my buddy because he paid a lot for his keyboard, and it might make him mad.

Per ideas in this thread, I loaded up two PG8X plugs on two channels and had some super phat fun!

Ahemm.. Actually, it emulates the JX-8P, not the Jupiter-8. The MKS-70, which we have been mentioning, is a rack version of the JX-10, which basically is two JX-8P in the same machine.

[grabme]

reguardless of chips, and hardware, etc, I feel THIS plugin sounds "AS GOOD" and in ways "BETTER" than the real Jupiter 8. I have a buddy with a real JP8 and he sent me a bunch of sounds he played in a nice WAV file for me to enjoy. This plugin sounds JUST AS GOOD - albeit DIFFERENT, but JUST AS GOOD to me. In ways even better than a JP8. I know this plug IS NOT emulating a JP8, but that is not my point. I could use these sounds easily as replacements for a juppy8 without regret. I won't even send the plugins sounds back to my buddy because he paid a lot for his keyboard, and it might make him mad.

Per ideas in this thread, I loaded up two PG8X plugs on two channels and had some super phat fun!

Regardless of whether the plugin sounds better, there is no way on this earth that a hardware synth owner will ever admit that software sounds as good. I have an Alpha Juno and the Jx8p, I have compared this plugin with the Alpha and on pads, its very similar, maybe better in some respects as it sounds a bit more clean and focused although the alpha has definitely got some warmth and punch the plugin lacks. To be honest I think I could get it closer with EQ. When I get a moment I'll compare with the real deal but I'd really like to hear a few more patches before comparing.

I think the Jupiter 8 is going to be capable of a much wider range of sounds than the Jx8p by the way. I think that is capable of some real 'tear your face off' sounds whereas the Jx is a milder mannered beast.

It would be interesting if you sent your mate some of the plugin sounds as an mp3 and say to him you just bought a Jx8p and what does he think of it?

[martin_l]

You could use your GUI and add 1 button, toggling between "single" (a tone) and " dual" (2 layered tones).

Yes, that's what I am having in mind as well. I have to play around with it a bit to see how to connect everything to achieve that.

There must be a pot/slider for "detune" voices 1-6 against voices 7-12.

xFor great pads, layering the same "tone" in "dual mode" and detune these is the common purpose,- I'd start w/ that 1st.

I think the different playing modes should not be so difficult. In fact, I already have the modes where 6 voices are spread over voice modules, and the unison modes where 3 voices are spread over 3 groups of voice modules.
I basically just have to double the number of voice modules and add modes allow a "double unison" for a set of voices, i.e. when you have a dual mode in which one layer is playing unison.

The dual chorus engines mode is another story then.

Is that more than just having one chorus for each layer?

Selecting different "tones" for "dual" mode is the most CPU intensive feature because you really need 2 pg8x engines for that.

You said in a former post, each voice of pg8x is in a separate container.
Does that mean you used "separate voice design" to create pg8x ?
If that's the case, you probably have each available parameter of pg8x existing separately for each voice,- which is CPU intensive.

Yes, each voice is a separate container, including the synth engine, and everything which needs to run separately for each voice, such as ADSR, VCA, key tracking scaling, etc..

Many other common things 'live' outside the voice modules. There is, obviously, only one GUI, only one LFO, one noise generator and one chorus.

If I had used the 'standard SE polyphony', the same modules would have been cloned by SE.

For the "dual" feature, this possibbly could be simplified to save CPU because you don't want to detune each of the 12 voices against each other but only 2x 6 voices.
The question is also if you want to have separate filters, amps and envelopes for each voice in "dual mode".

Since the filter frequency can depend on the played note and the two layers can have different tones, each voice needs its own filter anyway. The same holds for VCA, envelopes, etc. So, from that point of view there is not much you can simplify about the dual mode.


Cheers,
Martin

[wwjd]

reguardless of chips, and hardware, etc, I feel THIS plugin sounds "AS GOOD" and in ways "BETTER" than the real Jupiter 8. I have a buddy with a real JP8 and he sent me a bunch of sounds he played in a nice WAV file for me to enjoy. This plugin sounds JUST AS GOOD - albeit DIFFERENT, but JUST AS GOOD to me. In ways even better than a JP8. I know this plug IS NOT emulating a JP8, but that is not my point. I could use these sounds easily as replacements for a juppy8 without regret. I won't even send the plugins sounds back to my buddy because he paid a lot for his keyboard, and it might make him mad.

Per ideas in this thread, I loaded up two PG8X plugs on two channels and had some super phat fun!

Ahemm.. Actually, it emulates the JX-8P, not the Jupiter-8. The MKS-70, which we have been mentioning, is a rack version of the JX-10, which basically is two JX-8P in the same machine.

I know. Thus my words:
"I know this plug IS NOT emulating a JP8, but that is not my point."
when compared to my buddies REAL JP8 examples

[martin_l]

reguardless of chips, and hardware, etc, I feel THIS plugin sounds "AS GOOD" and in ways "BETTER" than the real Jupiter 8. I have a buddy with a real JP8 and he sent me a bunch of sounds he played in a nice WAV file for me to enjoy. This plugin sounds JUST AS GOOD - albeit DIFFERENT, but JUST AS GOOD to me. In ways even better than a JP8. I know this plug IS NOT emulating a JP8, but that is not my point. I could use these sounds easily as replacements for a juppy8 without regret. I won't even send the plugins sounds back to my buddy because he paid a lot for his keyboard, and it might make him mad.

Per ideas in this thread, I loaded up two PG8X plugs on two channels and had some super phat fun!

Ahemm.. Actually, it emulates the JX-8P, not the Jupiter-8. The MKS-70, which we have been mentioning, is a rack version of the JX-10, which basically is two JX-8P in the same machine.

I know. Thus my words:
"I know this plug IS NOT emulating a JP8, but that is not my point."
when compared to my buddies REAL JP8 examples

What sort of sounds are you talking about? I can imagine that there are some sounds which are easy to reproduce on basically any synth with similar architecture, others which highlight the special features of a synth.


Cheers,
Martin

[goldenanalog]

Martin I wrote:

I have not quite decided what to do next. I think I will leave the current pg8x as it is (apart from some updates and fixes). This is mainly because I am afraid that every change will destroy patch-compatibility. If I manage to add something without making old patch banks obsolete, I might add some features.

Good point.


Martin I continued:

The new synth I'm having in mind is something like a "Matrix JX" will have more routing options plus PW control. Furthermore, I was planning to have slightly different ranges for the values of the sliders. Thus, this thing will be different from the pg8x and be more than just a pg8x++.

I think that you have a good idea!


Martin I finished with:

So far, I did not see the reason to build a circuit bend pg8x, since that would just be somewhere in between the two. I will see how things evolve...

But now, I will first concentrate on finishing and debugging the pg8x.

My point is that I have yet to see anyone who has:

1.) Made a near-perfect software copy of a REAL instrument like the Roland JX-8P, and then:

2.) Create a virtual 'circuit bent' version of that instrument implementing creative additions to the capabilities of the original.

As a guy who used to work on his own equipment (I can't even tell you how many times I was inside of my old ARP Axxe dealing with the sh*tty Pratt & Read keyboard), it was always fascinating to be inside of it thinking about replacing chips with other 'electrically equivalent but different' parts; at one time I really wanted to add a 2nd VCO to it, but just didn't have the resources at the time to do that, besides I played the poor beat-up beast all the time.....

I don't necessarily need a squeaky-clean version of the original; believe it or not, sometimes the more interesting equipment is the stuff that's f*cked-up and/or f*cked-with; I personally would like to see more virtual synths that have been creatively hacked, so that they can do stuff that the guys that originally built them maybe only thought about, and then decided (or it was decided for them) that to add such features would be:

1.) Not cost effective; or:

2.) screwing with production time scheduling.

Bottom line: Keyboard Instruments now exist in a virtual world; let's do the stuff that we've always wanted to do to them and with them!

Regardless of my stupid lecture: I think that you've achieved something with this EMU, Martin, and that the idea of a pseudo-Matrix 12 using Roland DCO's is a really good one! rjh

EDIT: I'm talking about fundamental additional 'signal path' choices, not just features. The Arturia line is a good example of virtual models with some really cool additional features, but what about stuff like control-able in-circuit feed-back loops? Virtual VCO/VCF/VCA chip substitutes (from a pull-down menu? Is that possible?) 'Breaking' the fundamental design. rjh

[PeWe]

Is that more than just having one chorus for each layer?

Well, it depends on the realization in a plugin to get the effect.
When they manufactured the hardware of the MKS70, it was the easiest for Roland to throw in 2 of the JX8P boards which included a chorus chip anyway.
That's why there are 2 separate chorus devices programmable in each "tone".
Roland chorus FX were somewhat special and different in each machine always, may it be synths or separate FX devices.
Some are simple, some complex, cross modulating and so on.
I'd have to look in a schematic to see how is done in a MKS70.

But maybe, that would be too picky and any solution which saves CPU and comes up w/ a fat sounding result is best for a plugin.

Many other common things 'live' outside the voice modules. There is, obviously, only one GUI, only one LFO, one noise generator and one chorus.

O.k.,- how's the chorus done ?
Did you emulate the original chorus already or is it a 3rd party module for SE ?
There are 2 modes of chorus adjustable for the user in your GUI, but there's more under the hood of the plugin as well as the hardware synth.
This has to be compared to get it right.

Since the filter frequency can depend on the played note and the two layers can have different tones, each voice needs its own filter anyway. The same holds for VCA, envelopes, etc. So, from that point of view there is not much you can simplify about the dual mode.

I think, there might be options to save CPU, eventually by using 2 different filter models in single or dual mode.
The most accurate one in single mode and a less accurate one in detuned dual mode. Layering 2x 6 voices and detune these, masks a lot.

PeWe