Roland now into VSTi development, beginning with SH-101

[D-Fusion]

Well, there you go. Any idea how much the 'individual synth modules' will be? I''m guessing $200 a pop....

Not sure what the price for each plug out synth will be.
Lets hope for ipad app prices

[D-Fusion]

damn net hangup "Double post"

[Gamma-UT]

Well, there you go. Any idea how much the 'individual synth modules' will be? I''m guessing $200 a pop....

Not sure what the price for each plug out synth will be.
Lets hope for ipad app prices

I'm going to guess that osiris is in the right ballpark if not bang on the money.

[HaganeSteel]

Not to mention, Roland released them under the Edirol name instead of Roland, which didn't help.

I own one of those Edirol controllers that got dead key problem

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=197573

No wonder Roland buried that brand name

Sorry about that. It's a shame, isn't it?

If you asked me a year ago if I thought Roland was greedy, I would've said: Absolutely.

But now I realize they're just inadequate, and you can't blame someone for being inadequate.

If Roland and Korg woke up and stopped living in the 90's, we would have software romplers that would be staples in everyone's arsenals.

Everyone owns the M1. Everyone loves the M1. But no one uses it because it's not very usable for today's musician. There are problems with its sounds that are just not acceptable these days.

Instead, we get Korg releasing the Triton Taktile, which is utter nonsense, and the Kross, which - and this is a 100% guess - based on its sounds and specs, might be a rereleased Trinity at 16-bit instead of 24-bit.

And on Roland's end, we get stuff like the SonicCell and the SD-50 - but this is at least showing that they're trying to accommodate the modern computer musician. It's just still inadequate.

It's like the Edirol Orchestral and the TTS-1. I'm almost certain these use the same synth engine as found on my XP-30. Patches made up of up to 4 waveforms, the envelopes behaving in that same flawed way with some sounds, creating a warble, etc.

But they're not relevant because they're flawed: Edirol Orchestral doesn't automatically save performances, and many of its presets try too hard to be "stereo" and become unusable - and you can't edit that out.

To compete with the likes of SampleTank and Miroslav Philharmonik, Roland has to give us the full shabang. You trade sound quality for functionality: Roland won't sound as good, but it'll be more immediately usable.

That's how I believe Roland will succeed and stay relevant.

This whole thing is another bad idea from Roland that is probably going to be a failure. They need to realize what matters and stop being afraid of this market. They seem to be trying so hard to find a way to cater to the computer musician without submitting to making VSTs, but there is no doubt in my mind: It's just a matter of time before they do.

I hate to bring this up, but there is no reason for them to fear piracy anymore - at least, not as much as they did. Right? Am I wrong? Because it seems companies like IK, et al. are thriving, and we seem to have reasonable copy protection now.

[ChiTown24]

Maybe you should make sure you fully comprehend what has already been posted, before sticking your oar in.

Last time I checked this was a forum. Sticking oars in is what happens on forums.

More comprehension failure. I didn't say you shouldn't stick your oar in. I said you should first fully comprehend what has already been posted, before you do so. Unless you're arguing that you're entitled to talk shit, because talking shit is a common occurrence on the interwebz ? That would be a compelling argument, if that's the one you're making. Nevertheless I would kindly ask you to get your facts straight before you offer me my own advice in an all too ironic attempt at being ironic. kthxbai.

I still didn't understood why ChiTown24 felt the need to create a new topic when this was being duscussed already, but anyway

they also called them VSTs for a reason, if you pay any heed to the Roland Reps in the video I linked to at least.

VST is a commn denominator. I hope you are right, but I don't take Roland Reps very seriously, since usually they know little about what they are talking about (just what their marketing department told them).

You still didn't understand ? I guess you simply mean you don't understand. It's simple, this is the instruments forum which deals with VSTs. This is a development regarding VSTs. The other thread exists in the hardware forum, and was created many months ago in anticipation of new hardware XOX boxes. Which manifested. discussion ensued. I can't believe this needs explaining ? should I draw up some venn diagrams for you ?

as far as 'VST is a common denominator'... what are you blithering on about ? 'VST' isn't as broad as you are suggesting. In fact it isn't broad at all. Maybe you use the term in a broad sense, but that doesn't make it so. "Virtual Studio Technology (VST) is a software interface that integrates software audio synthesizer and effect plugins with audio editors and hard-disk recording systems."

Of course, they haven't specified if the VST/plugin versions will operate independently of the System-1 controller. But even in the likely scenario that the System-1 serves as a dongle/DSP ... a VST version is still a plugin, and will still benefit from all the VST/ITB luxuries that are associated with plugins. instant recall per project, preset management etc etc etc. People still call dongle protected VSTs 'plugins'... for a reason.

What the VST benefits is depending on the specific VST - and for what I already read, these will be limited VSTs, at most.

Please elaborate.

I don't understand this confusion. They said they are making VSTs. VST is a specific file format and plug-in standard which by definition loads into VST compatible DAWs. Whether or not the System-1 will act as a dongle when the roland VSTs are loaded into a DAW is a fair question, though not something I would assume. But I'm not sure how there is confusion about whether these will be VSTs when they said they are making VSTs. And why would the description say that the System-1 could control or even load the soft synths if all it could do is load them and not control them while they are loaded somewhere else?

I know, right ?

First let me state I have nothing but respect and love for Roland.
But, leave it to them to build a $3000(you know that's what it will cost) synth that you can twiddle the knobs around in a VST.

all journalistic sources I've encountered indicate $599. Funny, when I saw your nickname I thought it said orifice... which would be ironic, since you seemed to pull $3,000 out of one. thanks for playing.

I don't know how ChiTown24 is going to feel about that...

If that was posted in reply to Ingonator, the answer is: perfectly fine. Nothing he's said in that post contradicts anything I said in my original, unedited post. in Ingonator's post, the one which you seem to be replying to, he has drawn his information from official Roland sources, as I did in my original post - sources provided and linked to . He's gone further than I did with what he thinks the caveats might be re:having the keyboard connected, but I stated the caveats quite clearly none-the-less ableit without speculating exactly how those caveats might play out. People with a middle-school level of english, and even the most novice understanding of electronic music production should be able to understand my original post {particularly the keyboard caveat} without blankly stating "not actual VSTs!!!!!"

First let me state I have nothing but respect and love for Roland. But, leave it to them to build a $3000(you know that's what it will cost) synth that you can twiddle the knobs around in a VST. The System 1 keyboard looks, in concept to be like the Arturia Analog Lab, except the different synths will be 'VST" (all sold seperately )on your computer running out through this controller keyboard.

The price will be around $800 for the system 1 synth.

Source ? Sweating orifices don't count, not as a credible source at least. $800 is contrary to every other journalistic prediction I have encountered - which all indicate $599. $800 would still be pretty reasonable, assuming it sounds great and works well.


speaking of orifices...

Well, there you go. Any idea how much the 'individual synth modules' will be? I''m guessing $200 a pop....

'Well, there you go.' ? ... My, but aren't you very ready to believe any high guesses without a shred of curiosity about the source. And I'm sure you'd be happy to propagate this unsubstantiated figure elsewhere on the interwebz given half the chance. As far as your '$200 a pop' guess for each incoming Roland VST {quite likely subsidised by system-1 sales}... you'll have to pardon me if I'm not instilled with faith in your predictions, considering you 'just knew' the keyboard itself was going to cost, and I quote, $3,000. Three thousand god damn dollars. the term LOL comes to mind.

Well, there you go. Any idea how much the 'individual synth modules' will be? I''m guessing $200 a pop....

Not sure what the price for each plug out synth will be.
Lets hope for ipad app prices

I'm going to guess that osiris is in the right ballpark if not bang on the money.

of course you are

[ChiTown24]

Naturally, the keyboard caveat {regardless of technical implementation} will preclude some VST/ITB users from purchase - even interest. In much the same way dongles preclude some VST/ITB users, as well as dedicated dsp. Will it make a VST any less of a VST, if a dongle/dsp must be connected ? Unequivocally: no. These will still be 'actual' VSTs. The benefits of VST ITB production will still apply for those willing to live with the caveat. As far as my personal usage goes, I have more hardware synths than I have toes & fingers, I have made more sysex patch dumps than I have had bowel movements. I have created more patches with numerical pads and 80's calculator-style screens than I care to think about. Likewise I probably have more VSTs than I have hair follicles. So I know only too well where the advantages of software instruments lay, as well as hardware, and how to marry the two. I'll be one of those users who won't give a shit about the probable scenario that a system-1 keyboard will be needed to run these Roland VSTs in my ITB setup. Disclaimer: I am the happy owner of three dongles, ilok & ilicenser, and DSP. And I prefer dongle protection to challenge-response. That's rhetorical btw, not an invitation to debate the merits of copy protection methods or dedicated DSP hardware.


For now, like the rest of you, I'm sitting tight to wait for more official info from ROland on how the VSTs will be implemented in ITB setups. I'm already A-OK with what some of you probably won't be, that the keyboard will be a glorified dongle/dsp. So long as the shit runs as a VST, like the official Roland Rep says and the official blurbs on the website don't contradict - I'll be quite happy. The system-1 is definitely the most interesting of all the AIRA boxes to me.

Cheers.

[Kriminal]

http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2014/ ... aira-line/

the prices are here, dont know how reliable the source is

[D-Fusion]

@chitown24 This is no speculation regarding the price for the System 1 synth
If i want to i can preorder it here for 5190 Norwegian kroner which is $850.95 Us Dollar.
http://www.4sound.no/itempg.aspx?id=3232&artno=343724

Or here in Britisth pounds £569:
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/roland-s ... ynthesizer.

Seems like it is cheaper directly in us $649.00 but my estimation was for the country i live in which is the first example.
http://www.stevesmusic.com/keyboards-co ... ynthesizer

[vurt]

Likewise I probably have more VSTs than I have hair follicles.

Cheers.

i very much doubt that.

[aMUSEd]

Wish they did a module version of the System 1 though - don't need more keys and 25 is useless to me anyway

[damoog]

It doesn't take much working out how roland will play this one

SH101,JUNO,JUPITER,JP8000,D50,JD800

It's all good with me though,nice one roland

[UltraJv]

[quote="HaganeSteel] If Roland and Korg woke up and stopped living in the 90's, we would have software romplers that would be staples in everyone's arsenals.. [/quote]


They make hardware, they don't want to sell purely software. Theres more money to be made in the hardware. They don't have to wake up. Korg made the legacy collection plugs and didn't make enough money to carry it on. Roland did the Sound Canvas software thing decade a go, same thing.

[ChiTown24]

@chitown24 This is no speculation regarding the price for the System 1 synth
If i want to i can preorder it here for 5190 Norwegian kroner which is $850.95 Us Dollar.
http://www.4sound.no/itempg.aspx?id=3232&artno=343724

Or here in Britisth pounds £569:
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/roland-s ... ynthesizer

Seems like it is cheaper directly in us $649.00 but my estimation was for the country i live in which is the first example.
http://www.stevesmusic.com/keyboards-co ... ynthesizer

First of all, aren't they placeholder prices ? the system-1 will not be available until the end of summer. Online retailers often 'predict' prices of hardware many months in advance of the hardware actually being available, and usually over-estimate to be on the safe side {for them, and to avoid disappointment for the customers}.

Second of all, even if the price is correct it's totally irresponsible of you to post the price in dollars without indicating the source, when you are simply converting from a european price from a european store in a european currency - european retailers as you should well know have import duties and taxes that add to the price, something the american retailers, with their dollar prices, don't. In future, post using original currencies and definitely show sources if you're just relying on place-holder prices from retailers.

you know, for the sake of not spreading misinformation.

[ChiTown24]

I know a couple of people have already wondered or complained about the choice of SH-101 being their first VST, due to there already being SH-101 emulations on the market. I don't see the big deal - maybe the team of Roland engineers who designed the original hardware with a string of patents under their belts can do it 'better' ? No ? Any takers ? but I think it's a fine idea primarily because the sh-101 is the simpler of all the classic synths they could go on to emulate {303 notwithstanding}. Better they cut their teeth on their new Circuit Modelling techniques with the SH-101 and nail the process before they go on to trickier emulations. imo.

Wish they did a module version of the System 1 though - don't need more keys and 25 is useless to me anyway

take a look at the pics again. assuming they put out a module with the same amount of knobs/faders, how much space are they going to save by omitting the 25 keys ? I'd argue not enough to warrant doing without - they come in handy for using arps.

if they were to do away with the keys, they might as well do away with at the very least half the knobs/faders too. who knows, maybe such a module will come down the road, depending on demand.

[damoog]

I like both digital and analog really but One thing that endlessly annoys me is how company's use 'the latest analog circuit behaviour technology' every time they chose to avoid making actual analog synths(the same goes for amp modelling on digital guitar amps)...there is always new unrivaled 'modelling technology' when basically it is a computer mimicking analog as best as it can currently do-it goes all the way back to the late 90's and honestly the only 100% convincing company to nail it so far is U-HE in my humble opinion

I'm totally getting that new 808 though