Roland JV-1080 finally, as virtual instrument!

[Ingonator]

Currently i am trying to create more complex sounds in JV-1080 plugin using multiple advanced features. THis includes using the PKF filter mode (= Peaking filter), serial dual filters, ring modulation, FXM (= frequency cross modulation) and also the additional filters available in the FX section like e.g. the "Spectrum" one which is like a 8 band filter bank (or like an 8 band EQ with fixed frequencies).

With those features you could go beyond what is possible with many other plugins and even if those other synths would have comparable features the result might sound quite different.
The JV-1080 plugin is also one where the built-in effcts could sound quite good including the Reverb. Usually in many synths i prefer using an external Reverb.

[tristan-]

Very nice.

so I understand RC named the plugin JV1080 just because this is the name of the most popular unit, but the waveforms were taken from the XV5080/Integra 7 PCM and effects from the Fantom.
Nontheless we still only have the 4 JV1080 banks. Hopefully we'll also be able to load in the rest of the XV5080 banks?
Basically I see that we miss banks E, F & G from the XV. which are 384 presets. that's pretty big, almost half the PCM playable data.

but really, with the power of computers nowadays I can't figure out why not making this plugin multi timbral.
I'd love to layer keys with pads, etc, etc.
Future update maybe? meanwhile I snagged it and it sounds good.

How do the end users make RC aware of feature requests?

Lastly, I just wanted to mention that I seriously don't believe Roland will have an RC plugin version so anything with the SuperNatural engine. afterall, its current tech and its their bread 'n butter with HW. regardless of how "old" it already is.

[Ingonator]

Very nice.

so I understand RC named the plugin JV1080 just because this is the name of the most popular unit, but the waveforms were taken from the XV5080/Integra 7 PCM and effects from the Fantom.
Nontheless we still only have the 4 JV1080 banks. Hopefully we'll also be able to load in the rest of the XV5080 banks?
Basically I see that we miss banks E, F & G from the XV. which are 384 presets. that's pretty big, almost half the PCM playable data.

but really, with the power of computers nowadays I can't figure out why not making this plugin multi timbral.
I'd love to layer keys with pads, etc, etc.
Future update maybe? meanwhile I snagged it and it sounds good.

Yes the JV-1080 plugin is like having the PCM samples and similiar PCM synth engine as the XV-5080 (and mostly also later ROMplers up to the Integra-7) but the with the FX set of the Fantom X and G. Sound wise it seems to be much close to the XV-5080 and Integra-7 PCM engine than to the older JV-1080/2080 and also the samples have a higher quality as in the more modern ones.

The presets in the plugin are from JV-1080 (banks A to C) and 2080 (bank D) and Rhythm sets in Bank E.
You can use those Rhytm set patches to create your own ones. The parameters available there are different to the default synth engine in other patches.
So far there are no presets that use the advanced features and waveforms included from the XV-5080.
KVR member beely as mentioned here (and as alraedy done with the D-50) is curently working on a Sysex conversion tool to convert patches of his XV-5080 and if possible also from other Roland ROMplers. Like with the D-50 plugin he might also post already converted banks that could be directly used in the plugin.

A multitimbral synth does not really seem to be needed if you could have multiple instances and CPU use is quite low with this JV-1080 plugin. Besides the AFAIK in Performance or Multi modes with most of those ROMplers you do not get each patch with it's own FX but you more or less get a global effect for all multi parts. This is a big issue especially if a patch uses one of the filter FXs that are part of the sound design.
With multiple instances in your DAW each patch will keep it's FXs that it was saved with.

If you want a split sound without using two MIDI channels you coudl set different key zones in the instances that you want to use for the split. In each patch for each of the 4 Tones you could edit the key zones so even with a single patch you could get both splits and layers.
An advanced feature i have not explored yet (also not when i owned a hardware XV-3080 more than 10 years ago) is fading between Tones within a patch. The VELOCITY & KEY RANGE edit page has additional fading parameters.

[tristan-]

I agree with what you said above.

however, I do think there's a point in multitimbrality. Its very easy so switch patches. its one of the reasons I enjoy workstations of yesteryear. Korgs Combi mode, or Yamaha's Performance mode, etc.

If I layer via multiple instances, I have to load a project to load a Multi? I can't audition, etc etc.

Even a simple JV1080 "rack board" is welcome (4 or 8 JVs in the same window with the addition of global outside global FX and preset management) or whatever. There could be a nice way to handle this. It's always a nice aspect of "do-it-all" romplers, IMHO.

[Ingonator]

Those that search for a multimbtral plugin with GM, GM2 and GS support might have a look at the Sound Canvas plugin included with Roland Cloud (around 1600 patches included):
https://www.rolandcloud.com/catalog/leg ... -canvas-va

[beely]

If I layer via multiple instances, I have to load a project to load a Multi? I can't audition, etc etc.

I don’t know what DAW you use, but you might want to move to a better one.

Multimbrality was a hacky way of maximising the limited resources of hardware - it makes almost no sense in a modern plugin/DAW world when you have unlimited instances and polyphony, and unlimited mixer channels and fx...

[tristan-]

If I layer via multiple instances, I have to load a project to load a Multi? I can't audition, etc etc.

I don’t know what DAW you use, but you might want to move to a better one.

Multimbrality was a hacky way of maximising the limited resources of hardware - it makes almost no sense in a modern plugin/DAW world when you have unlimited instances and polyphony, and unlimited mixer channels and fx...

I hear you. but how do you store the so called "multi timbral" patches? How do you audition them?

btw, the Kronos still has an excellent multi timbral mode (Combi). the Yamaha Montage (which I currently have) is always at performance (multi timbral) mode. the instant layering abilities are great, and auditioning from various patches is a must.

[beely]

but how do you store the so called "multi timbral" patches? How do you audition them?

I use Logic, and its trivially easy to do this...

(You can save any combination of multiple channel strips, with instruments, settings, FX plugins etc as a Patch, which comes up in the patch browser like any other setting, so you can create layer, splits, multitimbral performances or whatever, with or without plugins as one simple Patch, then change/pick different sounds for each intrument part as required.)

[tristan-]

but how do you store the so called "multi timbral" patches? How do you audition them?

I use Logic, and its trivially easy to do this...

Auditioning?

I've been using Logic for many years. nowadays I'm on Live 9 or Studio One, but it practically doesn't matter which DAW.

btw, it almost sounds as if you're "against it". you can just choose not to use it, if its there. to me, its a necessity. for example, I use Multi very often with Omnisphere and with Falcon. would you rather this option was removed from those synths?

[beely]

Auditioning?

Same as any other plugin setting or preset, just click/select the patch name in the browser, or use key commands etc.

btw, it almost sounds as if you're "against it". you can just choose not to use it, if its there. to me, its a necessity. for example, I use Multi very often with Omnisphere and with Falcon. would you rather this option was removed from those synths?

No, I'm not against it (at least, where it doesn't add too much additional complexity to the instrument or interface). However, I very rarely use multitimbral software instruments because it's nearly always quicker, simpler, and more flexible to use the host for this. To me, it's mostly about workflow efficiency.

There are some cases where I will choose to use the instrument's multitimbral facilities - in the case of the Spectrasonic's stuff, for example, the plugins are quite heavy so I'll often just add another part in the instrument rather than load a second instance, but in the main, for me it's vastly quicker and more flexible to load new instances on their own channels, than faff around with multitimbral single instances, output routing, FX juggling and so on.

I used to have to use hardware synth's multitimbral features to the max in the old days, and it was alway a pain juggling FX allocations, having to sacrifice how individual patches sound, voice and output allocation issues - but we had to do get everything running a once. I'm just glad we don't have to deal with this stuff these days!

Anyway, I don't want to hijack the thread too much. Adding all the performance stuff to the JV plugins would add a lot of extra development overhead for not much return - it already has a lot of screens/parameters for the single patch stuff as it is, and you can still do all the multitimbral stuff, in a more convenient way, using your host's facilities, so I'm personally happy with those design decisions and they make sense to me.

[EvilDragon]

I agree that they shouldn't add back the performance mode.

But they should add all the missing FX from 5080, so that all 5080 patches could be properly supported.

[spinettim]

You’re not thinking to people like me who have tons of old midi projects which included performance sysex at the beginning to recall the proper sounds. I wouldn’t mind get compatibily back and load them in a breeze

[beely]

You’re not thinking to people like me who have tons of old midi projects which included performance sysex at the beginning to recall the proper sounds. I wouldn’t mind get compatibily back and load them in a breeze

Load up your old projects, stick the plugin on each track, choose the sounds you want for each part, I'm sure it wouldn't take long to get them going (and probably sounding even better than before). And I think it's pretty cool that you could get them going at all without having the hardware.

If you've got custom sounds saved as sysex, then currently the plugin can't load them at all because it doesn't support sysex at all - but perhaps, because of people like me who *are* thinking of people like you, adding sysex support will be of great help to get your old projects working. Performance sysex can probably be transformed into whatever CC'd you need as well, using your DAW facilities.

Yes, it's not as ideal as having one plugin that is identical in every way to every bit of hardware Roland ever made in case somebody used those synths to make music and want a complete no-hassle way of getting them running *identically( again and all you have is the project files, but if those things are *that* important to you, it's probably easier just to re-buy the hardware temporarily, it's quite inexpensive these days.

[beely]

But they should add all the missing FX from 5080, so that all 5080 patches could be properly supported.

I do plan to survey this, see what's missing, why and what effect it will have on the 5080 presets (eg, all the missing FX might not even be used in the 5080's presets already, or there may be alternative FX that fulfil the same role...)

[murnau]

I do plan to survey this, see what's missing, why and what effect it will have on the 5080 presets (eg, all the missing FXmight not even be used in the 5080's presets already...)

Wow! That is really nice from you! Hell of a job for sure!