Roland Cloud

[beely]

Still wondering as well, if the 1080 and 5080 Really do exactly the same sound (at the same presets, respectively).

The plugin versions? Yes, they are identical. Same samples, same FX, same engine. The only difference is the faceplate graphics/layout and the extra presets in the XV-5080. That's it.

[IvyBirds]

Can someone explain please (i really did not follow topic) - does Zenology Pro already contain JV1080\XV5080 engines and fully replace this separate synths plugs ? Or not exactly.

Frankly i still not exactly get what is Zenology, but by search at official Roland site\shop of expansions, i did not found mention about fact of including the 1080\5080 "models" in Zenology Pro.
upd (nor even info about existing it as separate expansions (or models) at all)
https://www.roland.com/global/support/b ... 30f30cd8d/


Opera Snapshot_2026-02-18_013625_www.roland.com.png

Obviously i misunderstood something.

In the early 1990s Roland came out with the JV series of Synths. The synth engine in the JV line used up to four "partials". Each partial was essentially a complete sample based synth, with its own envelopes, filters, LFOs etc

That got enhanced with new samples, filters and effects in subsequent models like the XV line and the original Fantom line

This is why all of the sample content and presets from the JV1080 factory ROM is also in the XV5080 with new additions, and then the Fantom had all of the XV5080 content and then some more. It should also be noted that the sample context from the JD800 factory rom was included inside of the XV5080 factory rom so that's also in Fantom

The Roland Integra7 hardware rack unit used the Fantom synth engine and samples including the expansion ROMs in its "PCM Synth"

The XV5080 plugin is pretty much the PCM engine from Integra7 without the expansion ROMs

Roland then made each expansion ROM its own plugin which are the various SRX plugins. Because they have presets that also need the sample set from the XV line they actually have more sample content than the XV5080 plugin as they have the entire Fantom ROM and the samples for each expansion. They don't however have the presets from the Fantom or the XV5080

That brings us to the current Zenology Pro product. It is a continuation of the line that started with the JV line in the early 1990s. It has the four partial system. Each one can be a complete sample based synth, but now it can also be a VA synth, it has been enhanced filters and different effects, so instead of playing samples you can't treat each partial as an "analog" Oscillator

When it comes to the sample playback Zenology contains all of the sample content from the JV, XV, and Fantom line and a bunch more

Now comes the tricky part. The JV1080 and XV5080 plugins don't sound exactly like the hardware, for a variety of reasons and while you can recreate the JV and XV patches in Zenology the effects are different and sound even less like the hardware and don't sound like the other plugins either, and just to confuse things more the JV1080 and XV5080 plugins are exactly the same only with different skins and the 5080 has more presets

So in the end if you don't care about exactly recreating the exact sound of the XV5080 and just want to use the samples Zenology can be a great choice and give you more flexibility with sound design as you can have lots of different filters and add VA elements. Many people myself included however prefer the GUI in the XV5080

[beely]

Now comes the tricky part. The JV1080 and XV5080 plugins don't sound exactly like the hardware, for a variety of reasons

As we seem to be getting into the weeds, to be more specific on that point: the JV-1080 plugin does not sound the same as the JV-1080 hardware because it's not the same engine , it uses the higher quality engine and samples from later machines, so the plugin sounds like, well an XV-5080 (because it sort of is that). The JV-1080 uses 32KHz samples for one thing, whereas the later machines use 44.1KHz samples. The JV-1080 plugin is therefore not an accurate emulation of the JV-1080 hardware directly, although it does contain it's presets etc.

The XV-5080 plugin *does* sound exactly like the hardware, short of a few presets where the Fantom-derived FX engine slightly differs from the FX in the hardware in some small details (when I checked it affected something like 5 of the XV presets iirc), and not counting the colouration from the output stage (ie, comparing the same presets with the plugin, and the digital output from the hardware), I could not reliably tell the difference between the two in a blind test. So yes, the XV-5080 plugin *does* sound like hardware, from my testing here with my own XV-5080.

If you compare the analog outputs from the hardware to the plugin, then there are some additional things going on with the hardware signal not present in the plugin (or the hardware digital outputs) which are going to add some differences - to me the analog stage sounds a bit sweeter than the more accurate digital output and I *can* reliably tell the difference between the plugin and the analog outputs most of the time, but I'm sure those differences can be compensated for with very tiny eq/saturation adjustments, depending on how anal you want to be about it.

(I've not been able to find a way to reliably diff the two signals to try and find a digital processing chain to replicate how the analog outputs sound on top of the digital signal - if anyone has any ideas on that front, I'd be interested in suggestions.)

It doesn't bother me in the slightest though... I just wanted to add the proper context to "the 5080 plugin doesn't sound like the hardware" comment because there is nuance to that.

[c_voltage]

@IvyBirds
@beely
Thanks for the info, cool.

Well, anyway Zenology Pro sale at PB is ended already lol
So have no choice (and frankly i really prefer UI in JV(XV) than UI in Zenology).
Ie historical side of these devices is also not last factor for me.
Moreover, since as @tripleflows said, control in Zenology the same has some issues with automation.
viewtopic.php?p=9202721#p9202721

[IvyBirds]

Now comes the tricky part. The JV1080 and XV5080 plugins don't sound exactly like the hardware, for a variety of reasons

As we seem to be getting into the weeds, to be more specific on that point: the JV-1080 plugin does not sound the same as the JV-1080 hardware because it's not the same engine , it uses the higher quality engine and samples from later machines, so the plugin sounds like, well an XV-5080 (because it sort of is that). The JV-1080 uses 32KHz samples for one thing, whereas the later machines use 44.1KHz samples. The JV-1080 plugin is therefore not an accurate emulation of the JV-1080 hardware directly, although it does contain it's presets etc.

The XV-5080 plugin *does* sound exactly like the hardware, short of a few presets where the Fantom-derived FX engine slightly differs from the FX in the hardware in some small details (when I checked it affected something like 5 of the XV presets iirc), and not counting the colouration from the output stage (ie, comparing the same presets with the plugin, and the digital output from the hardware), I could not reliably tell the difference between the two in a blind test. So yes, the XV-5080 plugin *does* sound like hardware, from my testing here with my own XV-5080.

If you compare the analog outputs from the hardware to the plugin, then there are some additional things going on with the hardware signal not present in the plugin (or the hardware digital outputs) which are going to add some differences - to me the analog stage sounds a bit sweeter than the more accurate digital output and I *can* reliably tell the difference between the plugin and the analog outputs most of the time, but I'm sure those differences can be compensated for with very tiny eq/saturation adjustments, depending on how anal you want to be about it.

(I've not been able to find a way to reliably diff the two signals to try and find a digital processing chain to replicate how the analog outputs sound on top of the digital signal - if anyone has any ideas on that front, I'd be interested in suggestions.)

It doesn't bother me in the slightest though... I just wanted to add the proper context to "the 5080 plugin doesn't sound like the hardware" comment because there is nuance to that.

Either it sounds the same or it doesn't, there really is no nuance

The XV-5080 has mixed content 32kHz and 44.1 kHz samples this has been confirmed by Roland themselves

In addition the sample content in the XV line used Roland's propriety data compression which was destructive, you can plainly see that if you compare the samples in the JD990 sample set that doesn't use it beside the same sample in the XV5080.

There is also a high cut filter to reduce aliasing on the XV5080 even with the digital outputs that is not in the plugin, and the analog outs on the hardware also utilize a compressor ahead of the DAC.

So there is most definitely a difference between the XV5080 and the plugin even if you use the digital outputs

Now maybe your monitors don't reflect that and maybe the cutoff frequency on the filter is to high for your ears to hear but it's there

[Dartelec]

I bought CR-78 few weeks ago. Unfortunately I've been not able to use it because it or Roland cloud made my MacBook Air M4 unresponsive (the right side of the screen stopped to respond to mouse clicks). I had to uninstall Roland Cloud and CR-78.

[Jon at Roland]

I bought CR-78 few weeks ago. Unfortunately I've been not able to use it because it or Roland cloud made my MacBook Air M4 unresponsive (the right side of the screen stopped to respond to mouse clicks). I had to uninstall Roland Cloud and CR-78.

Sorry to hear this, did that end up resolving the issue? We'd gladly help you over in support if you still need it.

[Teksonik]

I bought CR-78 few weeks ago. Unfortunately I've been not able to use it because it or Roland cloud made my MacBook Air M4 unresponsive (the right side of the screen stopped to respond to mouse clicks). I had to uninstall Roland Cloud and CR-78.

Sorry to hear this, did that end up resolving the issue?

I would imagine uninstalling your software resolved the issue caused by your software.

[Examigan]

Sometimes with RCM, uninstalling and reinstalling it fixes whatever weird issues that occur.

[Dartelec]

OK, I may try to reinstall it. It runs correctly on MacBook Pro.

[N 4 LIFE]

Can someone explain please (i really did not follow topic) - does Zenology Pro already contain JV1080\XV5080 engines and fully replace this separate synths plugs ? Or not exactly.

The correct answer is "Not exactly."

Some people may not care, but some people do - I think the XV-5080 plugin sounds better/more authentic to the hardware than the same patches used in Zenology (and the XV-5080 plugin is about 99% authentic to the hardware presets, again for FX reasons, but the differences only manifest on a handful of presets, so it doesn't really matter).

In Logic Pro, the XV 5080 plug in sounds better than the same patches in Zenology's version of the 5080. The 5080 is a bit softer in volume that the Zen version but to my ears the tone is rounder and more accurate to the hardware.

[J Veronica]

Not sure which one to buy from PluginBoutique.

Can patch banks be shared between the JV-1080 and XV-5080?

[beely]

Yes, but you have to edit the header in the bin files.

[c_voltage]

Frankly, if just visually, i liked more 1080 versia, more "engineering" look lol. (Not grabbed yet, but will).
Just little nuance remains - does 5080 has the same restrictions with automation parameters as 1080 ? Can someone confirm please (as i already said my sub is ended).

[Muziksculp]

Hi,

Since Roland (sadly) decided to discontinue the Sound Canvas from their Roland Cloud collection, I think due to old coding that they felt is not compatible with their current coding used in their more current Cloud Plugins, how likely is it that they would re-code the Sound Canvas, and re-launch it on their Cloud Collection ?

If this is not going to happen, is there a good VST alternative emulation of the Sound Canvas i.e. the SC88 Pro by another developer ?

Thanks.