TAL-Pha Released! Alpha Juno II Emulation from TAL-Software

[himalaya]

It would be a little weird to model the JX-8P immediately after the Jupiter-8 emulation, since the JX-8P is really an inferior synth compared to the Jupiter-8.

"Inferior" is pretty subjective. I always thought the Jupiter-8 is a pretty cold sounding analog synth.

The Jupiter-8 cold sounding? I've never heard that opinion before. Have you ever played a real Jupiter-8?

Yes. Actually the only analog synth I ever played myself.

Did you play it through some laptop speakers?
Or did you have flu at the time and your ears were clogged up?
Or maybe you had the HPF set to the max and didn't realise it?

Kidding aside....I'm genuinely surprised to hear that the Jupiter-8 sounds 'cold' to you. But in this context, and following your tonal preferences, do you think the JX8P will sound 'warmer'?

[noiseboyuk]

My take is waveshaping circuits are used with a single oscillator. This could be DCO or VCO (e.g. SH-101 with single VCO mixes different waves). Maybe some relevant info in here...

https://blog.thea.codes/the-design-of-the-juno-dco/

Thanks! You could very well be right, but as with the other articles I've seen it stops short of telling us what's happening with an Alpha. It does sort of hint that the DCO can simultaneously generate a saw, square and sub waveform, and at the end of the article it looks at a pulse width sawtooth by combining two waveforms. But with the Alpha you can have a pulse widtih saw AND a pulse width square AND a sub - that's FIVE waveforms in different combinations.

So I still don't think we have a chapter and verse on this, but I agree it's looking more likely than not to me that this is all clever trickery with a single oscillator and a waveshaper.

[Lbdunequest]

JX-8P has the best string pads of any Roland synth. It is known for being the King of Strings.

Not the Jupiter. Not the Juno. The JX-8P.

Says who?

Oberheim has the best strings. It is known for being the Ruler of Strings.

Says everyone that knows, that’s who!

Who?

[Lbdunequest]

Besides, Oberheim is the Boss of Brass, not the King of Strings.

Nope, its a Ruler of Strings. Roland is a king of whateva sound you make with it. Kings queens and all those namings are so stupid and pointless.

Serum is a ruler of sound. Everyone say that.

[seafire]

My take is waveshaping circuits are used with a single oscillator. This could be DCO or VCO (e.g. SH-101 with single VCO mixes different waves). Maybe some relevant info in here...

https://blog.thea.codes/the-design-of-the-juno-dco/

Thanks! You could very well be right, but as with the other articles I've seen it stops short of telling us what's happening with an Alpha. It does sort of hint that the DCO can simultaneously generate a saw, square and sub waveform, and at the end of the article it looks at a pulse width sawtooth by combining two waveforms. But with the Alpha you can have a pulse widtih saw AND a pulse width square AND a sub - that's FIVE waveforms in different combinations.

So I still don't think we have a chapter and verse on this, but I agree it's looking more likely than not to me that this is all clever trickery with a single oscillator and a waveshaper.

If all the waveforms are phase locked, that should give you the answer

[seafire]

1080 has better strings

That’s just dumb. 1080 is sample-based.

Still a Roland synth

Maybe you should lay out all the rules next time...

[noiseboyuk]

If all the waveforms are phase locked, that should give you the answer

I think the TAL is different from the hardware here, isn't it? They've added a detune control.

I don't really know what I'm talking about here, but I'd have thought that it were technically possible to do this in the original hardware with the same architecture.

Regardless, there are other bigger more obvious reasons why it's likely only one oscillator. First, AFAIK Roland only ever claimed it was one - so that's a fairly big clue. And second, were it more than one you really would have thought they'd make a thing about it - how is it a selling point to say it's only one oscillator when it it's really three? Inverse marketing.

Interesting though, I've never really met this scenario before. I guess it was cheaper to do it this way.

[seafire]

Would be interesting to hear what TAL has to say...

[legendCNCD]

I am really taken back by the fact the GUI does not have just big Alpha Wheel and 2 line LCD display with couple of buttons!

Not realistic to have the programmer with Ajuno2 ;D ;D ;D need virtual alpha wheel to jog through the parameters! Hahah.

[BONES]

I've yet to see or hear any official explanation for what's going on under the hood, despite a few good links in this thread about how DCOs work, and the history of the Juno series. There's two possibilties - either it's all maths and trickery of a single oscillator, or there are 2 (3 including the sub) bone fide oscillators that get combined under a single set of master controls. Would be curious to know - if anyone can post a link to anything definitive it would be interesting.

It's ones and zeroes - code. There aren't really any oscillators, it's all "maths and trickery". It is completely and utterly irrelevant how, specifically, it was done. All that matters is how the GUI presents it to you and, in this case, the GUI presents us with three oscillators (four when you count Noise).

That said, to me an oscillator makes a single waveform. This synth can generate four different waveforms at once, which makes it a 4 osc synth in my book.

I think the TAL is different from the hardware here, isn't it? They've added a detune control.

And a sync control, plus the ability to modulate one waveform independently of the other. It's a completely different thing, really. In the original synth, it always played the same pitch for all waveforms (pitched down in the case of the sub-osc).

[noiseboyuk]

It's ones and zeroes - code. There aren't really any oscillators, it's all "maths and trickery". It is completely and utterly irrelevant how, specifically, it was done. All that matters is how the GUI presents it to you and, in this case, the GUI presents us with three oscillators (four when you count Noise).

Yeah, some truth in that. But calling the Alpha a 4 oscillator synth would feel wildly hyperbolic. There's obviously huge limitations on those virtual oscillators.

I mean, even the famous single-oscillator SH-101 has separate faders for saw, square, sub and noise. No-one claims it's a 4 oscillator synth. When we talk about oscillators - real or virtual - there's individual control over waveform, range, tuning, pulse width, modulation options etc. Perhaps the hardware Alpha is very much along those lines, but TAL have blurred the lines a little with the Alpha with the introduction of a few more features that allows some more individual control over those waveforms and their interaction with one another.

Not going on a crusade or anything, it's just kinda interesting to me.

EDIT - such concerns aren't entirely academic with virtual btw, for the above reasons. If TAL had designed this as a 4 oscillator synth, everyone would think they are mad for putting in all these limitations. As it is, everyone is pleased that they've added a little more flexibility to the existing architecture. I suspect also (could be wrong) there's a sonic difference to, say, sync between two separate oscillators and one oscilator producting two different waveforms.

[egbert101]

If you want two fully independent oscillators, then use two instances! Something you couldn't do with the original hardware you can easily do in software. Of course, you can argue it's not the same, yeah but it's better.

[Lbdunequest]

King of strings approves

[chk071]

If you want two fully independent oscillators, then use two instances! Something you couldn't do with the original hardware you can easily do in software.

How can you route the oscillators from both instances into one TAL-Pha's filter?

[Echoes in the Attic]

I've always wished tal added a second optional envelope to the their 1 envelope synths. I suggested itnfor the 101 and uno years back. Just a toggle on the env to flip over to another one. Wouldn't have to change the ui at all, could be in the same place.

Even Roland added second envelopes to these, as well as arturia.

I mean with all the other extras added I don't see why not. It wouldn't change the authenticity if you chose not to use it.

Something that would be even cooler though would be if the CLAP versions actually made use of the daw polyohonic modulation feature.