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

[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.

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

It's called additive synthesis.

1+1 = 2. It's called mathematics. Try it.

[Lbdunequest]

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?

It's called additive synthesis.

1+1 = 2. It's called mathematics. Try it.

Then do that Egbert, route 2 instances of Talpha in to 1 talpha filter

[egbert101]

Then do that Egbert, route 2 instances of Talpha in to 1 talpha filter

Route dez through talpha filter.

[himalaya]

What do you think makes the JX8P so enticing warranting an emulation, when the Jupiter-8 is already recreated by Tal?

JX has more options for X-Mod (J8’s one is hard to use in harmonic context). and its sound is more « digital » in a way. Filter is not the same. You can env-control the volume of osc2.
You can access some L.A. sounds when combining 2 sounds (hence the jx10 idea more than jx8p)
I wouldn’t say J8 is a « hybrid » synth where that can be said for the Jx

Out of that list only the X-Mod is the interesting bit (filter on Jupiter-8 is better specified with 2 and 4 pole slopes, envelopes more snappy, and you can do the same layering here as you can in JX10). But the X-mod....It really does sound different. In fact, it can do some super cool sounds. I just tried it on my MKS-70 (Super JX-10 module, which is double of the JX8P) and it sounds very good. Hmm, I will have to eat my words and say that this does make the JX8P/JX10 an interesting proposition (in context of already having Jupiter-8 recreated).

So with the two-layer design of the JX10/MKS-70 and the X-Mod modes, it's possible to make sounds that the Jupiter-8 can not, in fact.

Playing some more....That X-mod does sound so different...it's almost not X-Mod. Something hybrid. It reminds me of sounds Tangerine Dream used in the late 80s, sounds that have an obvious digital sheen, and yet sound every pleasant, dare I say 'warm'. Although, these would've been made on the PPG, I guess.

I feel like I'm going to spend an evening making X-Mod sounds
on my MKS-70.

[Lbdunequest]

Then do that Egbert, route 2 instances of Talpha in to 1 talpha filter

Route dez through talpha filter.

What, nothing to back your words now? Dont you look like a fool now

[MTorn]

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.

By that logic, Korg Polysix has 2 oscillators per voice, Juno 60 and 106 have 3 oscillators per voice, the Sequential Pro-1 has 4 oscillators (simultaneous saw and pulse), and the Minimoog has 5 oscillators (oscillators 1 and 2 can play saw and triangle at the same time, mixed).

In the hardware world, I think just about all analog synths will produce all the waveforms at all times (under the hood), it's just somewhat rare that you get to mix them, rather than just select a single one that you'll hear.
Most modular oscillators will have an output jack for each waveform, but that doesn't mean that they are multiple oscillators.

The phase locked multiple waveforms from a single oscillator (especially the sub) is what gives us that hard, solid punch that some of us like so much about the Junos and the SH-101.
In the case of TAL-Pha things get a bit less clear, since he has chosen to let us unlock the phase of the two main waveforms. In that specific case I'd call it a 2 oscillator synth, with the option to phase lock.

[Scrubbing Monkeys]

Well Patrick.....thanks and no thanks.....I was DONE buying vst synths but you hit a soft spot. My first synth was an AJ2. I wore it out.
I really like your other Roland synths as they have that same kinda character. TAL does a great job overall with their products.
After a few hrs of demo here are some thoughts.

The GUI is great for me. Easy to read. Almost fits on my laptop screen. Well layed out.
The sound brings back some great memories. Songs I recorded years ago with presets feel and sound as I remember. ( I will compare later). But no need really. The vibe is there.
The extras are a nice touch without ruining the experience.
I for one am glad there is no sign of a data wheel. Did anyone EVER really like that thing?

I can imagine it will fall in line with the other products that have kept up with OS change BS and maybe some treats down the road making this a solid buy for me and anyone else. Thanks.......i guess.

[perpetual3]

Sounds real good to me. The Unfinished presets are veery good too.

[ReiKru]

Again i say: i love it, i love it, i love it. Thanks to Patrick

[gentleclockdivider]

This synth can generate four different waveforms at once, which makes it a 4 osc synth in my book.

So if you vertically slice each finger on your hand , you then have 20 fingers ?
Perhaps it's time for you to pick up a book and read about the basic principles of synthesis , what an oscillator actually is , read up about counters , comparators , how you can derive different waveforms from one phasor etc...
Do it , talk less read more

[Gam456]

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.

Wathever an OSC combine, it's still a single OSC, a sub is not an OSC.
On a Juno it's 1 DCO per voice, the SUB divide the frequency of the main OSC

[kritikon]

I'll have to at least demo this. I have some nice nostalgia about AJ1 but in reality it's not something I salivate about nowadays. I couldn't be arsed fixing the hw one I have lying about, so not that excited to spend money on a plugin for it. Though the added extras undoubtedly must make it a better synth than the original, I can't think of any sound I'd immediately pick Talpha for as first option other than the hoover. And I don't make hoover music any more. I did quite like the distorted kick preset too, but I also don't make mad Dutch triple speed aggrotechno anymore either. I liked the interesting saw waves back in the day, but it's pretty much what most wavetable synths can do nowadays. TBH I can't think of much that the AJ does that can't be done equally or better on a plethora of modern plugins. I don't remember the filter on it being anything special, certainly not as nice as other older Rolands...

[MTorn]

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.

Wathever an OSC combine, it's still a single OSC, a sub is not an OSC.
On a Juno it's 1 DCO per voice, the SUB divide the frequency of the main OSC

You're quoting the wrong person here - I didn't say that, Bones did.

[MTorn]

I've encountered what in my opinion is a fairly big problem with the oscillator:

I believe that a big part of the "magic" of the Roland Juno series (Alpha included, as well as the SH-101) is that you can combine phase-locked waveforms from that single oscillator.

However, the TAL-Pha expands on the single cylinder concept by allowing the pulse waveform to break off into it's own pitch, separate from the main (saw and sub) oscillator, as well as allowing oscillator sync. Alright, fine, it allows for a wider range of sounds, and it does sound pretty nice. BUT - when returning the pitch of the pulse wave back to 0.00 it does NOT bring the waveforms back into a solid phase-locked relationship. Each time you wiggle the fine pitch and bring it back to 0.00 it settles into a different phase against the saw waveform.
It's very audible, as well as visible on an oscilloscope.

I'm fine with new features, as long as it allows you to snap back to the original behavior. Who knows, maybe I'm the only that cares about this kind of thing.

[BONES]

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.

Not really. You can do cross-modulation, you can set different waveforms and pitches for each, sync one to the other and modulate those parameters. That's pretty much everything you'd want from a two osc synth, isn't it? With a separate sub-osc, with it's own distinct waveforms, and a noise osc, that makes four in total.

OTOH, if you look at a Juno 6/60/106, you have two waveforms but you can only set the mix of saw and pulse waves and add in the sub and noise. In all the ways that matter, it behaves like a single oscillator, just one with a more complex waveform. The only modulation you could apply was PWM, like any other single osc 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.

Yep, that's exactly what they've done. I imagine if you leave those extra parameters alone, you get the sound of the hardware but those extra features make it a whole different instrument for those not necessarily after a straight emulation.

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.

What limitations? I'm not seeing any, I can doo all the cross-mod I want.

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.

You're thinking about it too much like a hardware synth. Who knows , maybe what Roland called a "DCO" was really three separate waveform generators being combined into a single output? Or maybe it was four separate controllers all contributing to the final waveform of a single oscillator? Who knows? As I said, all that matters is how it is exposed to us via the user interface.

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

You wouldn't need to, you just save the patch in one and apply it to the other.

By that logic, Korg Polysix has 2 oscillators per voice, Juno 60 and 106 have 3 oscillators per voice, the Sequential Pro-1 has 4 oscillators (simultaneous saw and pulse), and the Minimoog has 5 oscillators (oscillators 1 and 2 can play saw and triangle at the same time, mixed).

No, you aren't looking at it correctly. (My fault for not explaining it in sufficient detail.) What you get in all those synths is a single waveform output, a mix of a number of simple waveforms that combine to make a single, more complex output waveform. You can't detune one part of it with respect to the rest - even the sub-osc in a synth like the PolySix is likely just the original waveshape pitch-shifted down. You can't even modulate one with respect to the others. e.g. Varying the level of the saw so that it changes the output waveform over time.

In the hardware world, I think just about all analog synths will produce all the waveforms at all times (under the hood), it's just somewhat rare that you get to mix them, rather than just select a single one that you'll hear.

Yes, but in either case it is still outputting a single waveform, be it simple or more complex.

In the case of TAL-Pha things get a bit less clear, since he has chosen to let us unlock the phase of the two main waveforms. In that specific case I'd call it a 2 oscillator synth, with the option to phase lock.

Add in the sub-osc and the noise osc and we have four oscillators.

So if you vertically slice each finger on your hand , you then have 20 fingers ?

No, because each will continue to act as a single finger, your nervous system isn't equipped to control them separately. It's a useful analogy, really, because you can think of the extras in TAL_Pha as providing the extra nerve pathways that will turn those slices into 20 separate fingers.

Perhaps it's time for you to pick up a book and read about the basic principles of synthesis , what an oscillator actually is , read up about counters , comparators , how you can derive different waveforms from one phasor etc...

Why? A softsynth has none of those things, it's all just ones and zeroes. It's all meaningless to anybody creating music ITB. Even with hardware, it's useless information for someone making music. As I said, all that matters is what the GUI lets you do, how it's achieved is of no consequence.

Wathever an OSC combine, it's still a single OSC, a sub is not an OSC.

On a Juno it's 1 DCO per voice, the SUB divide the frequency of the main OSC

Except it doesn't here, it has it's own waveform selector. It's doable but it's not necessarily that simple. You can also detune the Square/Pulse wave with respect to the Saw wave, which would not be possible in a single hardware DCO. In any event, the Alpha-Junos were slightly different - you got more waveform choices but you couldn't control the mix between Saw and Square/Pulse, which suggests to me they were using the ICs differently or maybe using different ICs altogether. But again, who f**king cares? It makes no difference to how we use them. It's of academic interest only and it's stupid to get hung up on irrelevant shit like that.