Emulations of Roland gear (synths, drum machines and FXs)

[fluffy_little_something]

UVI has a JX-3P emulation, but it seems to be sample-based...
http://www.uvi.net/en/vintage-corner/uvx-3p.html
(I searched page one using Ctrl-F "UVI", no result.)

There is also a rather "freestyle" emulation of Juno synths, the Poly 2106 by Synth Science:
http://www.synthescience.com/Products_S ... _2106.html
Unfortunately the user interface is not easy to read because of colors and size...

[Ingonator]

UVI has a JX-3P emulation, but it seems to be sample-based...
http://www.uvi.net/en/vintage-corner/uvx-3p.html
(I searched page one using Ctrl-F "UVI", no result.)

There is also a rather "freestyle" emulation of Juno synths, the Poly 2106 by Synth Science:
http://www.synthescience.com/Products_S ... _2106.html
Unfortunately the user interface is not easy to read because of colors and size...

All UVI synth are sample based with some scripting for the controls, same way as Kontakt synths with scripting.
The UVI engine does not offer e.g. filters based on the original synth. The engien is more or less based on that from Mach Five 3.

Personally i prefer "real" emulations of the Juno synths like e.g. TAL U-NO-LX, Diva or Phutura. Not to forget PG-8X from Martin Lüders.


Ingo

[Skorpius]

UVI has a JX-3P emulation, but it seems to be sample-based...
http://www.uvi.net/en/vintage-corner/uvx-3p.html

OF all JX-3P emulations I've heard or tested so far, the UVX-3P comes closest to the sound of a real JX-3P. I can definitely recommend it.

[fluffy_little_something]

UVI has a JX-3P emulation, but it seems to be sample-based...
http://www.uvi.net/en/vintage-corner/uvx-3p.html

OF all JX-3P emulations I've heard or tested so far, the UVX-3P comes closest to the sound of a real JX-3P. I can definitely recommend it.

Yes. Although I have never demoed it, it would not surprise me as they seem to sample huge quantities of the original hardware sounds with all kinds of setting configurations From what I heard on the audio examples it sounds very authentic.

[fluffy_little_something]

UVI has a JX-3P emulation, but it seems to be sample-based...
http://www.uvi.net/en/vintage-corner/uvx-3p.html
(I searched page one using Ctrl-F "UVI", no result.)

There is also a rather "freestyle" emulation of Juno synths, the Poly 2106 by Synth Science:
http://www.synthescience.com/Products_S ... _2106.html
Unfortunately the user interface is not easy to read because of colors and size...

All UVI synth are sample based with some scripting for the controls, same way as Kontakt synths with scripting.
The UVI engine does not offer e.g. filters based on the original synth. The engien is more or less based on that from Mach Five 3.

Personally i prefer "real" emulations of the Juno synths like e.g. TAL U-NO-LX, Diva or Phutura. Not to forget PG-8X from Martin Lüders.


Ingo

If I were into emulations to begin with, I suppose I would prefer whatever emulation sounds the closest to the original, regardless of how it achieves that.
When UVI for instance samples one and the same sound with 100 different cutoff frequency settings, and then attributes those 100 samples to the filter cutoff knob, it is like having the real filter. Maybe even more realistic than with a modeled filter...

[EvilDragon]

But that's not what UVI's JX3P emulation is doing, really. It's using MF3's stock Xpander filter, which is far from what's in JX3P. So, no, it's not nearly close to JX3P.

[fluffy_little_something]

But that's not what UVI's JX3P emulation is doing, really. It's using MF3's stock Xpander filter, which is far from what's in JX3P. So, no, it's not nearly close to JX3P.

Who says they are not doing that? A 6GB sample library with 6723 samples covering 168 presets indicates there are about 40 variations of each preset. They probably use interpolation to calculate values between two samples values.

Be that as it may, I suppose it sounds more authentic than many cheaper emulations using supposedly modeled filters. I mean, how do you model a filter in SE? You also use the generic SE filters and maybe set a few parameters and that's it.

Nor does emulation only apply to filters. A filter is just one aspect of many...

[EvilDragon]

I say so, because it's easily seen in the demo patches, they are not doing that. No interpolation, and nothing special there. See the proof:

http://i.imgur.com/tadnbKK.png

Only three groups with samples (this patch having 128 samples total), and Xpander 4-pole LP filter used. There you go.

Far from an actual JX3P.

I mean, how do you model a filter in SE? You also use the generic SE filters and maybe set a few parameters and that's it.

How? Well, for one, you can write your own SE module that uses C++, so in essence you can do whatever you want in SE, however you want, if you know how.

[audiojunkie]

Thanks for the updates and bumping this great thread (I don't care if it's old...it deserves to be bumped!).

--Sean

[fluffy_little_something]

Oberheim Xpander filter? That is cool Again, just because it does not use a filter modeled after the JX-3P does not mean it doesn't sound like a JX-3P. I guess it would be interesting to know people's verdict if they did not know about which filter was used.

They sampled the patch for every key? With a synth I think that is unnecessary. With a Bösendorfer it's a different story

Well, most SE developers have no clue of C++ programming, still they offer all kinds of emulations done in SE. There are a couple of standard parameters one can set in the SE development environment, but certainly not enough to speak of modeling.

[EvilDragon]

Not for each key, samples are stretched from C1 below, and above C6.


The only reason it "sounds like a JX3P" is because they actually recorded one, going through its filters and VCAs. But you lose the flexibility of actually influencing on main synthesis parameters that made that patch, this is why samples aren't the correct way of doing analog synth emulations, IMHO.

[fluffy_little_something]

I understand what you mean. So one might get perfect authenticity when using the patch the way it was recorded, but the more one manipulates it, the more it strays from the original, right?

Then again, who knows how different the Xpander and the JX-3P filters as such really are. If filters alone were responsible for a synth's sound, the differences between all those synths out there would be much less.
There are some key filter characteristics and types, but it is not impossible to make an Oberheim synth almost sound like a Prophet or the other way round, for instance.

[EvilDragon]

Roland and Oberheim filters are very different in design and sound, in general...

[Skorpius]

But that's not what UVI's JX3P emulation is doing, really. It's using MF3's stock Xpander filter, which is far from what's in JX3P. So, no, it's not nearly close to JX3P.

Have you ever heard or played a real JX-3P? I have. Over years. And what comes out of this emulation does sound like a real JX-3P. Period.

Maybe you're deep into filter types and the technique behind it. I'm into the actual sound. And that's what's crucial to me.

[Ingonator]

Just for the records:
I never meant you could not come close to the real synth with samples (i got many of the Synth Magic Kontakt synths for example) but the UVI synths do NOT use modeled synths which some people maybe do think. As alraedy mentioned they use the Mach Five engine that includes models of the Xpander filter.

In that respet there is no huge difference of the UVI engine compare to Kontakt except that UVI contains different filters.
Kontakt libraries need no iLkok and are usually cheaper or even free. Besides that there are a ton more of them. If you want to fully edit the UVI libraries you'll also need the full Mach Five 3 which is is not very cheap too.


Ingo