I agree with the frustrating mini jacks out, if your using it in a studio, i find using the usb audio out with an aggregate driver is the way forward, gets that audio into the DAW perfectly. Obviously as a live tool, not so useful.
Hi @electrocolourfield2200 Thanks for you views on the Roland JX-03. And I agree trying to make this unit work in a live situation would be challenging. The way I have done it is to have a shelf in a 19” rack with a foam insert to hold the unit steady and allow all the connections to remain in place during transit. The issue I have found with the USB connections on many of the Roland instruments is that the gain has to be really boosted to get something that is half decent. And if you over boost it then it just sounds rubbish. Jon
Yes , one of the first big problems i had with the usb on the boutiques was the amount of noise and interference coming through it, but i bought usb isolators and it removed all that, not such a problem when normalizing the waveform then. Having said that i have the ACB version on roland cloud so i suppose i can avoid it completely, worst case. Its shame they didnt do a grown up version of the boutiques, typical Roland@@TheMusicTechGuyUK
Hi @electrocolourfield2200 Roland only saw the boutiques as a gimmick at launch, and then they took off. And rather then re-engineer them they carried on with the same pattern. By the way which USB isolators did you by out of curiosity? Jon
The biggest differences between the two are that the JX-03 is only 4-voice, while the JX-3P is 6-voice. Also, the JX-03's sequencer is only 16 steps (but has up to 16 patterns) to the JX-3P's 128 steps (only one pattern). I'm not sure about the JX-03's sequencer, but the JX-3P's is polyphonic, though it's a right pain to program the sequencer polyphonically. It's worth noting that the JX-3P's sequencer did not respond to MIDI. You'd have to trigger the sequencer from an external device to sync it to other gear. Roland drum machines like the TR-707 could be MIDI controlled, and send out triggers to run the sequencer. Sadly, they limited the JX-03's user memory slots to 16 whereas the JX-3P had 32. Both have 32 factory presets ... almost all of which really suck. That decision to limit user presets is baffling considering that memory in 1983 was WAY expensive, and it's freaking cheap today. So why limit it in the new version? Now, the JX-03 did add a delay, some extra DCO waveforms, and a delay on the LFO, but with limited polyphony, a less powerful sequencer, and fewer user presets, plus the horrible boutique form factor ... It's not for me. That said, I've owned a JX-3P since they first came out and without the PG-200 programmer (mine got stolen), it's a nightmare to program. PG-200s go for as much as the synth does. There's a modern 3rd party programmer for it that would really up the JX-3P's usefulness (the PG-2K from Retroaktiv), but again, it goes for $675.
Hi @emdotambient Thanks for your comments. In the video I was really just trying to compare that tones produced by the Roland JX-03 and those produced by the Roland JX-3P. While as you mention there are a lot of other pro’s and con’s to the original over the re-imagined version, or maybe that should be the other way around, most musicians will buy the boutique for sound replacement, I.e. they want the sound of the Roland JX-3P but can’t find a good version or don’t have the space to host a keyboard. Jon
@@TheMusicTechGuyUK 👍 I did understand that. I just wanted to make the other differences clear. There's a lot more that goes into making the complete character of a synth than the sound engine. The 4-voice limitation on the JX-03 would be the biggest and most noticeable difference. Note stealing will become an issue much quicker. Thanks for the video!
For less than the price of a cup of coffee, support the channel, join the TMTG community: themusictechguyuk.me/Community
I agree with the frustrating mini jacks out, if your using it in a studio, i find using the usb audio out with an aggregate driver is the way forward, gets that audio into the DAW perfectly. Obviously as a live tool, not so useful.
Hi @electrocolourfield2200
Thanks for you views on the Roland JX-03. And I agree trying to make this unit work in a live situation would be challenging. The way I have done it is to have a shelf in a 19” rack with a foam insert to hold the unit steady and allow all the connections to remain in place during transit. The issue I have found with the USB connections on many of the Roland instruments is that the gain has to be really boosted to get something that is half decent. And if you over boost it then it just sounds rubbish. Jon
Yes , one of the first big problems i had with the usb on the boutiques was the amount of noise and interference coming through it, but i bought usb isolators and it removed all that, not such a problem when normalizing the waveform then.
Having said that i have the ACB version on roland cloud so i suppose i can avoid it completely, worst case. Its shame they didnt do a grown up version of the boutiques, typical Roland@@TheMusicTechGuyUK
Hi @electrocolourfield2200
Roland only saw the boutiques as a gimmick at launch, and then they took off. And rather then re-engineer them they carried on with the same pattern.
By the way which USB isolators did you by out of curiosity? Jon
The biggest differences between the two are that the JX-03 is only 4-voice, while the JX-3P is 6-voice. Also, the JX-03's sequencer is only 16 steps (but has up to 16 patterns) to the JX-3P's 128 steps (only one pattern). I'm not sure about the JX-03's sequencer, but the JX-3P's is polyphonic, though it's a right pain to program the sequencer polyphonically. It's worth noting that the JX-3P's sequencer did not respond to MIDI. You'd have to trigger the sequencer from an external device to sync it to other gear. Roland drum machines like the TR-707 could be MIDI controlled, and send out triggers to run the sequencer.
Sadly, they limited the JX-03's user memory slots to 16 whereas the JX-3P had 32. Both have 32 factory presets ... almost all of which really suck. That decision to limit user presets is baffling considering that memory in 1983 was WAY expensive, and it's freaking cheap today. So why limit it in the new version?
Now, the JX-03 did add a delay, some extra DCO waveforms, and a delay on the LFO, but with limited polyphony, a less powerful sequencer, and fewer user presets, plus the horrible boutique form factor ... It's not for me.
That said, I've owned a JX-3P since they first came out and without the PG-200 programmer (mine got stolen), it's a nightmare to program. PG-200s go for as much as the synth does. There's a modern 3rd party programmer for it that would really up the JX-3P's usefulness (the PG-2K from Retroaktiv), but again, it goes for $675.
Hi @emdotambient
Thanks for your comments. In the video I was really just trying to compare that tones produced by the Roland JX-03 and those produced by the Roland JX-3P. While as you mention there are a lot of other pro’s and con’s to the original over the re-imagined version, or maybe that should be the other way around, most musicians will buy the boutique for sound replacement, I.e. they want the sound of the Roland JX-3P but can’t find a good version or don’t have the space to host a keyboard. Jon
@@TheMusicTechGuyUK 👍 I did understand that. I just wanted to make the other differences clear. There's a lot more that goes into making the complete character of a synth than the sound engine. The 4-voice limitation on the JX-03 would be the biggest and most noticeable difference. Note stealing will become an issue much quicker.
Thanks for the video!
Hi @emdotambient 👍 Jon