Patrick's new baby... TAL- J-8X

[audiojunkie]

I wouldn’t mind a truly accurate JX-8P

Agreed

[zvenx]

And I am very happy with what he did.
I didn't much like the hardware version back in the day.

And this 'inaccurate' version, has more than 6 note polyphony, an excellent eq, delay and reverb, an arp, access to a different filter, panning per voice, etc etc.. none of this the original had.
#DifferentStrokesForDifferentFolks.

rsp

[jamcat]

All of those additions can be bypassed. It can be limited to 6 notes of polyphony. It’s great when users are given the option of accuracy. Why didn’t Patrick do that for the chorus and UNISON mode?

[hurricaneaudiolab]

I wouldn’t mind a truly accurate JX-8P

Agreed

Same.

[wagtunes]

It was only a matter of time before the complaining started.

Poor Patrick. I don't envy him one bit.

[IvyBirds]

It was only a matter of time before the complaining started.

Poor Patrick. I don't envy him one bit.

Rather rich coming from you the way you have treated developers on this forum like Sheaf

[wagtunes]

It was only a matter of time before the complaining started.

Poor Patrick. I don't envy him one bit.

Rather rich coming from you the way you have treated developers on this forum like Sheaf

I never complained about his product. My concern was that if it wasn't released soon people would forget about it. I am 100% satisfied with Swayed. I was probably the first person to buy it.

So you can go stuff it.

I love JX, whatever Patrick does with it,

[hurricaneaudiolab]

There's no complaining - we want accuracy, not just "good enough". Seems like a lot of you who are satisfied with just "good enough" don't own a hardware 8P to compare against. Those of us who do own a real JX-8P are hearing small differences. We're pointing it out because we want the emulation to be as close as possible, not just "good enough".

[wagtunes]

There's no complaining - we want accuracy, not just "good enough". Seems like a lot of you who are satisfied with just "good enough" don't own a hardware 8P to compare against. Those of us who do own a real JX-8P are hearing small differences. We're pointing it out because we want the emulation to be as close as possible, not just "good enough".

You do realize you're talking about an analog synth where every one sounds different. So close as possible to what exactly?

Good luck with that.

[jamcat]

These differences are due to architecture, not calibration.

[EvilDragon]

I very much agree about unison modes. A button that shows when you engage one of unison modes that allows you to switch to Original (vs TAL implementation) doesn't sound like a far-fetched idea IMO.

[EvilDragon]

that Roland went with subpar budget chorus instead of rich, lush and expensive of JX-8P's.

Maybe before you start talking out of your ass check the schematics, there's absolutely nothing "budget" about the chorus in either unit. They have the exact same BBD chips (MN-3009 and MN-3101), the only difference is there's a limiter in chorus path of JX-8P and not in JX-10.

[Vortifex]

I downloaded the first 32 factory presets exported from a JX-8P (get them here) and imported them into PG-8X and J-8X to compare. The most notable differences to me:

LO STRINGS and POLY BRASS sound much more lush and detuned in J-8X, partly due to the chorus, partly because of the unison detuning.
MUSIC BOX is tuned higher on J-8X, and stops playing notes higher than C9, whereas PG-8X keeps going until G10.
WINDCHIMES is tuned lower on J-8X, has a very different attack sound, and stops playing notes higher than G8, whereas again PG-8X keeps going until G10.
RES BELL. Disable chorus and hold down a sustained chord in the upper registers. There is pronounced beating of the oscillators on J-8X, but it's extremely subtle on PG-8X.

Don't know which is more accurate but overall the chorus is more wide and lush on J-8X, and cross mod patches behave differently to PG-8X in the higher registers. Also some differences in envelope behaviour.

[zvenx]

I very much agree about unison modes. A button that shows when you engage one of unison modes that allows you to switch to Original (vs TAL implementation) doesn't sound like a far-fetched idea IMO.

I have no idea why he choose this way about unison. I actually only realised it when i was reading an earlier draft of the manual.
But I wouldnt be surprised if it may be cpu related. That is so this synth behaves cpu reasonable at all settings.

Since this synth allows up to 12 voices ans each voice can have two dco's, wouldnt it be twice as many resources used to do it the hardware way? Or am I missing something?
rsp

[Chris-S]

Maybe it just sounded better for him?

Also, I'm seeing no technical reason ...