This is really interesting. I was wondering how the software actually sounded in comparison to the hardware synthesizers. Thank you for making this I love your channel.
Great video. I did the same process with the Jupiter-X, and sometimes there is a difference, albeit it is not easy to put into words. There is always going to be a slight behavioral difference in the fact that the JX/Xm still has to travel an analogue path, despite being digital. You get the same “sound” but the behavior can vary based on its interaction with preamps and converters. I actually prefer the JX over Zenology, but I still design some sounds in the software and then use the JX for the recording, because the hardware, in my opinion, handles movement better (and easier). The differences are so negligible though, that beyond subjective preference, there is no “benefit” in terms of quality.
You can ONLY compare cloud v hardware using the same keybed really. AS you say - velocity curves differ. If I pull up a cloud patch, and load the same patch on my Fantom - map the same zone to the cloud (using Ext in the zone) I can toggle between hardware and VST versions with the same keybed.... identical.
My Jupiter X is now for sale, since 2 days with 2.1 version my Fantom is fully compatible with the model expansion. No use having both for me. I tested them both yesterday and compared them, also with the zenology pro.. i didn’t notice any differences. .... altough you can deffinatly hear the differences to the Juno 106 which i compared to the Jupiter X’s version some time ago
Hey mate! have you tried using the fantom with vstis? especially omnisphere with the integrated hardware synths. I cant find much information about that anywhere
@@buildusarocket3410 you can not run VST’s on fantom. However, i use the fantom to controle my Mainstage setup(on mac). In which AU’s/VST run perfectly. The fantom is the perfect controller to run mainstage. So if you own a mac (mainstage is only €30) you are set with the Fantom for perfect integration. I have no experience with windows and Ableton.. so can not tell you much about that option. I know people however that are happy with their ableton setup and the fantom as the controller
I have deep dived into finding this info, you are correct that zencore engine is more complex than what you have access to in zenology or any of the zencore hardware synths. ABM modelling is created in zencore using macros and limiters, different curves etc etc. Some people have made sysex editors before zenology pro came out and had access to a lot more features in the XM that you can access through them XM itself ( pretty normal for roland, look at the engine in the vt4 compared to what you can access with the unit ) . So they were able to look into all the parameters in the ABM models presets via sysex and see how they work. So there is no reason the mc707 or mc101 couldn't have ABM modelling. Surprised they released the ABM models onto the Fantom, I am certain this was not the original plan from the discussions and videos I have read and watched from roland reps since the release of zencore. So either they have given up on the Jupiter x/xm or want to boost sales on the Fantom. As a flagship it was silly it didn't have the ABM modelling. So it's nice that it does now, I guess now there is not many reasons to buy the jupiter x instead. It really should not be this much of a mystery as zencore marketing is just confusing, I have a FA06 so was intrigued what zencore actually was, and it definitely combines the supernatural VA engine with the classic PCMS engine. as well as many upgrades to syncable LFO's and adding oscillator sync etc. To me comparing zenology to the FA06 , zenology seemed to have way more clarity and definition than the older engine.
A couple of things about the slight differences, as I recall this discussion coming up in other Roland VST vs. the actual synth comparisons I've watched (you kind of touched on it slightly): The DAC on the Jupiter-Xm - would it be beneficial to know the sampling rate of the synthesizer to ensure that the Audio interface being used on the computer is on par with the synth's? I also suppose that if you drive both the Xm and Zenology with an external MIDI controller, it might eliminate any potential velocity/aftertouch differences being sent between keyboards. Oh, and like the MC-101 (and I suppose the 707 too), doesn't the synth have a USB storage mode to upload the patches directly like on the groove boxes? I've spent so much time playing around with the Legendary VST's - I really should spend some time playing around with Zenology Pro - and the FX module that they've since released as well. Now, I really like the Jupiter-X, but that $1,000 difference! As just a hobbyist, that's a tough pill to swallow. 😢And because I have the VST's and typically play around in DAWs, maybe an actual synth is not so practical for me, haha. I can still dream, right? 😁 Anyway, thanks for the walkthrough Nu-Trix!
I do a lot of ITB mixing and composing. The best investment I made was getting a good audio interface and a headphone amp. Wow these sounds are impressive on my listening setup
Great video. One thing that I'm not clear on, can all ZenCore compatible devices playback patches made in the expansion models even if they don't have the expansion models, but only the ZenCore engine? I'm aware the models would be needed for editing, but unclear if they could even run the patches for playback only. Some mentioned recently that one difference between the software option vs the hardware option is that the software is limited to only 44.1 khz. I said ok, but what's the benefit? They said real-time adjustments like the filters would have stepping and that it wouldn't be present on the hardware. Then I looked up the specs later, and it seems they told me incorrectly as the software specs say it supports up to 192 khz just like the hardware. Can you confirm if there is any stepping or if their story has any merit? Not being a big user of arpegiators or vocoders, I think the software option has a lot of benefits beside just the cost differences. The ability for a live band to have one laptop loaded with so many instruments and not have to setup a lot of gear is a huge deal. One laptop could run lots of Roland synths, software from many other companies and mimicking many famous instruments and all new ones. Other advantages, you can use whatever kind of keyboard you want. If you wanted 88 keys, you could have that. 61 would be ideal for most people, but the range of the Xm keyboard would be too liming for many players when the original instruments modeled had 61 to begin with. If you hate mid size keys like on the Jupiter Xm, you could have full size keys. (I think it's mid size keys on the Xm ?) In addition, many more Roland models exist from Roland in the software format such as the D50, System 8, and the more faithful to the originals ACB versions of the classics that could sound even better than the ZenCore versions, assuming you don't need tons of polyphony. A laptop could be better for editing sounds too, depending on what's needed.
Zenology can run up to 192kHz. It will be limited to the DAW 's Sampling rate (if Ableton Live runs at 48kHz = Zenology will be at 48kHz ) ZenCore is different from the Model Expansions. Only devices with the Model Expansion installed will be able to play the Model Expansion sound patches. It's looking like Roland is bringing more hardware devices into the Model Expansion compatibility world. (Fantom for exemple.)
@@Nu-trix Thanks. So it seems the other person told me incorrectly about Zenology only supporting 48khz. The specs say 192khz, so you must be right. Oddly, he was telling me I didn't know what I was talking about that they basically sounded the same. He mentioned the benefit fo 192khz (which the Jupiter X hardware supports as I'm told) is it avoids issues like stepping when turning the knobs, except if the original instruments modeled had stepping. I'd like to see Roland include the SuperNatural sounds of the Fantom in Zenology.
Nice concept for Roland for forward thinking blurring the lines between hardware and software. Your audio quality will have a lot to do with the price tag and quality of your DAC, digital to analog converters, which are your outputs on your computer audio interface. Every audio interface has their own DACs. Get a high end Benchmark DAC, for example, and that will sound great, compared to say a cheap, budget DAC. Of course if you keep your audio inside of your computer and bounce tracks out you can avoid your converters and outputs.
@Жан Клон arrr.. but the background noise is part of the analogue magic lol. Totally depends what you want or need. Clean is good - but so is noisy.....
@Жан Клон this is true... depends how "true" to original analogue you want to be.. the noise you can add is never quite the same... Think Juno for instance, most of the noise is the inbuilt chorus - so its not just the kind of noise you can add - it has the chorus swirl in the noise even when its not played. Thats difficult to simulate. Either way is good - totally depends how you work and what you want to impart.
@Жан Клон I completely get everything you say there... absolutely. Personally, anything below about 55/60db noise floor is perfectly acceptable. Pat of that is being old lol. I grew up what that was the norm, in fact in some cases those levels were GOOD. heck - even If I use a noise gate I dont set it higher than 70db absolute max. Much of this is personal of course... the end listener just doesnt care in the slightest. Most of them, on the equipment they listen to music on won't hear a difference between 100 and 60... Doesnt make your mentality wrong at all - its a choice. Others have different approaches and their 60db noise floor isnt a problem for them, and thats absolutely valid as well. Just enjoy making music that others enjoy listening to - that the key. the technical stuff really is minor it the end.
I think it's only different keyboard velocity curves/sensiblily on the two. I have a couple of keyboards that act different on the same sounds. Don't think it's the converters this time around. The louder volume, more expressive keystroke can easily be mistaken for a more punchier sound.
My point of view is that there actually is a difference between the VST and the hardware. I notice this clearly when I have a zenology / model expansion composition in VST and then compare the same project rendered with my jupiter x stack. The answer is very simple why so is. The DA converters on the jupiter x hardware sounds very good and not to forget that the hardware meassures ambient temp and simulate the analogue detune behaviour after that. Also there is important to keep this in mind. When listening to one single sound between VST and Hardware there are often a very slim difference in between. But if you listen to a entire composition then each instruments slim difference becomes more noticable in a whole setup. Another pitfall to remember when doing AB comparison on the hardware is not to forget turn off, reverb, delay, chorus and drive since they are jupiter X specific for the entire scene. Just keep the MFX on since it lives both in the zenology and the jupiter x. Nice comparison btw!
If you want to hear a rather stunning difference, listen to the Jupiter 4 VST on Roland cloud compared to same plugout loaded on the System 8. Night and day.
@@AudioLomtik Will definently try that. Which also reminds me of when I tried System-8 plugin and transfer sounds to my physical System-8. But there, some sounds do work better in the VST and other in the real hardware :). If i'm not remembering things wrong, then there also was a huge diifference between the System-100 and sending it to the System-8.
the difference between VST & Hardware can be see ear using the cuf off & resonance and push to maximum you will definitely understand the VSTi limitation compared to the hardware, many VA VSTi like Diva sound very nice but when you play with cut off /resonance you can clearly ear that it does not sound at all....this is what electronic producer will notice but keyboard band player wont be bothered by this point
the jupiter xm would be an excellent instrument to make music and build songs on the go IF only they finally added a proper real time sequencer, which is certainly not a difficult thing to do since even the jdxi had one... I really wonder why they did not do this from the start: in combination with the i-arpeggiator it could do wonderful things. Yes, they have to sell the phantoms, we know, but in this way they are not going to sell jupiter x nor xm.
3 года назад
I totally agree with you , jupiter xm needs to have real time sequencer like a five channel mini groovebox. But 64 step is not enough. It will be good 128 steps like mc-101 etc. If they can add, We can create with 5 channel (each of them have 128 steps, 8 bar) @roland
@ You know: technically, Roland could do anything with the Jupiter XM, simply updating the firmware, , since it is essentially a computer with a keyboard, and quite a powerful one. We can hope in future improvements but I am not very optimistic about the RTS since they seem to be pointing all their efforts in developing and supporting Zenology pro...
I actually want them to come out with a new version of the jdxi have it battery powered and have speakers like the xm. Idk I want the xm but I thought it did have a sequencer or groove box since it has drums on it ? I saw a video where someone added 707 Drums. Guess I just don’t know what a groove box means.
I was not sure we would ever get these models for the Fantom, or better yet that they would be free! I like that they are in their own banks with another 1024 user tone slots added just for the models. JupiterX users still exclusively get the i-Arpeg and the thermal sensor for more analog instability realism.
Btw I'm trying to work with Roland Cloud in FL Studio 20 - Mac M1 and Automation just not works here. Is any idea why it can be? Never had such problems with another plugins. But it's work in Logic Pro but with some bugs, like it's not always Bouncing the final project with automation, sometime it's recording and sometime not. Very upset with it(
It depends : if we are measuring the audio that we ear in the room then you are right. The audio interface quality is important for that sound. But if the plugin synth is only monitored for production then directly bounced to disk for the mix. The bounced mix has never gone through the audio interface . Pure digital mix from the plugin to the disk.
@@Nu-trix Yes indeed. But when comparing to a hardware synth I think that’s a huge factor because in order to hear the hardware synth, you have to hear the converters and outputs of that synth.
Yes, but a lot of people are not listening to their synth in a critical environment. In the end the quality found in the mix is the most important when producing music.
Hi, Thanks for the video!! question for everyone: In order to play with the oscillators, etc, would you recommend the Jupiter-XM or the MC-707? I see the screen of the MC707 more clear, more organize and easier than the Jupiter-XM.
It’s a question of workflow as well. I would probably choose the MC-707, because i’m more of a composer then a keyboardist. But the both have unique advantage, mc-707 can easily import samples and stretchy them. The Jupiter-xm has a vocoder included. It’s also able to add the vocal producer on top of it.
@@Nu-trix Yes. I prefer the 707 because the UI, much more clear to program the sounds, buuuuut....the xm has the vocoder, the other models (which I don't care too much) and 4 layers at the same time. I will have to convince my wife to be able to get both :D thanks a lot!!!
I have the MC101 and if that had the vintage expansions it would be one of the best synth modules on the market. I couldn't hear any realworld differences between the XM and the Zenology and the 101 doesnt sound any different either but suspect the Xm has slightly better dac.
hi :) Excellent Video :) thx ! do u know if i can ear the same preset in Roland Cloud than in Jupiter X (01-02 scene =pad) ... where can i find , the exact sound in Roland cloud please ? Best regards :)
I dont't have the Jupiter XM anymore. But I think the Jupiter X has specific presets. Still, if a presets used only the Zencore technology (not the model expansion) they can be exchange with Zenology pro.
Jupiter has more grit and grind with drive nob temp and age setting . Phantom 8 sounds exactly the same . After touch more expressive on Jupiter. . I can’t let go of Jupiter yet and use phantom 8 sequences . It’s one drum part hurts Jupiter and of course no tr Rec . Together as one .
How does the supersaw in Zencore/zenology compare to the jp-8000 with it's magical Chorus and perfect delay in action? I'm really interested in replicating that. It's hard to find such heavenly sounding strings as the 8000/8080 in my opinion. Would you consider making a quick video comparing them or trying to get the jp's full super saw sound on zencore?
@@Nu-trix thanks :) I have a system-1 and jp-8000. I do love my system-1. I find I can get close to the jp's supersaw on it (It's certainly beautiful in it's own right though) but you might be able to get closer with the system-8's built in chorus. But I fear that it's just those old chips and processing that my ears adore that may not be replicatable.
I can tell you now that zenology supersaw sucks real bad. Nothing like my jp-8080. Cold and very digital, I was disappointed. Sounds like multi-samples with some layering/detune being applied. The parameters are not even the same as the jp.
For sure no 2 synth sounds the same, (outside of using the same engine). JP-8000 share its synthesis engine only with the JP-8080, they will sound the same. For everything else it will be different. For it to suck or not is only a personal taste in sound.
I really wonder what the added value of that J-XM maschine is if you can have the same thing in a similar priced laptop. The only thing I can think of is that arpeggiator.
3 года назад+1
For jupiter xm ; the added value is physically control, layering & performing 5 parts at the same time , i-arpeggiator, on-board effects, a sequencer (but not step sequencer , you can use step edit , you can program 64 steps of your 5 parts seperately. ) you can connect to any bigger midi keyboard using usb memory slot or classic midi cable.
@ Thank you for this list. I did not know of some of the features of the XM. Still, for me it is mainly that arpeggiator. I understand the XM has deep menu's and a small screen. I think I prefer the computer screen for programming patches.
@@FotoxBr_nl If you only produce music by clicking notes in your DAW - then yeah, there‘s no reason to use any hardware synth imho. Software will always give you more flexibility. I see hardware synths like the XM, Fantom, Montage etc as instruments with a focus on performing live. These days, however, most eletronic music is produced by clicking it together. So no instruments needed.
3 года назад+1
@@haderlumpi imagine that roland add real time sequencer to jupiter xm with 8 bar (128 steps). Imagine you have 5 seperate track. With tr-rec we can program Drum track, then other tracks with other parts using instant recording (ımagine you can use i arp with in these tracks) it would be what a dream machine on stage for performing using mic with vocoder.
@ On a decent pc you can layer and add effects all inside a DAW. I think years ago the Jupiter XM concept would have been jaw dropping but not today. I can see the appeal of the Jupiter X in a studio as its a main keyboard with hands on but the Xm is more a portable device if anything.
You might be right, but is also think that there is some optimize calculation happening when a dedicated code runs on a dedicated chipset. Anyway, I also think the code for desktop could be optimized for desktop.
@@Nu-trix Modern compilers are great at optimizing signal processing code, if properly tuned by wise developers. Besides, most core functions and transforms are available as ultra-optimized libs. I see no problem at all. DSP hw is simply more power-efficient and much cheaper to embed on a hw synth.
I have a love/hate relationship with Roland, and this is the HATE part. I have to PURCHASE a software editor for a synthesizer i spent almost 2k on? Are you funking joking Roland? WTF?!?!?
@@Nu-trix TBH i have the MC707 and was only THINKING about purchasing the Jupiter. This makes me even MORE mad that Roland hasn't come up with a similar FREE editor for the 101/707.
@Жан КлонNo doubt that the sound quality is superb, I'm left very underwhelmed with it's lackluster interface. Lastly, I think Mr( Eric Pershing's) Omisphere ( Vsti) is superb as well.
@Жан Клон Well, being a longtime vSti user, visual esthetics matters. I don't mind minimalism, however, we ( music creators) are 'inspired" by the visual experience just as much as the audio that's coming out of the vsti. Just seeing a virtual synth with a keybed is important. Look at Spectrasonics keyscape.. The sound of this lib is superb. However, seeing the instruments it's emulating really makes the virtual experience more inspiring. Almost like you're playing the real thing. I would've prefered Roland to make the Zencore VSTi into some kind of hardware keyboard or even like their SRX modules. But, this dreary looking Grey and Amber interface is very uninspiring, dull.No matter the sound coming out of the VSTi.. It's Roland has taken took the "lazy" route when it came to the visual aesthetics of the plugin. .
@Жан Клон It should've read: some kind of GUI with a keyboard.. Yes, I know that the Zencore interfaces with both the new Fantom workstation and Jupiter.
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
This is really interesting. I was wondering how the software actually sounded in comparison to the hardware synthesizers. Thank you for making this I love your channel.
Great video. I did the same process with the Jupiter-X, and sometimes there is a difference, albeit it is not easy to put into words. There is always going to be a slight behavioral difference in the fact that the JX/Xm still has to travel an analogue path, despite being digital. You get the same “sound” but the behavior can vary based on its interaction with preamps and converters. I actually prefer the JX over Zenology, but I still design some sounds in the software and then use the JX for the recording, because the hardware, in my opinion, handles movement better (and easier). The differences are so negligible though, that beyond subjective preference, there is no “benefit” in terms of quality.
You can ONLY compare cloud v hardware using the same keybed really. AS you say - velocity curves differ. If I pull up a cloud patch, and load the same patch on my Fantom - map the same zone to the cloud (using Ext in the zone) I can toggle between hardware and VST versions with the same keybed.... identical.
My Jupiter X is now for sale, since 2 days with 2.1 version my Fantom is fully compatible with the model expansion. No use having both for me. I tested them both yesterday and compared them, also with the zenology pro.. i didn’t notice any differences. .... altough you can deffinatly hear the differences to the Juno 106 which i compared to the Jupiter X’s version some time ago
Made an unboxing video about it and I gave it away lol. I hated it so much I just returned it
@@tuneunleashed I hated the Xm too, returned it within a week.
Hey mate! have you tried using the fantom with vstis? especially omnisphere with the integrated hardware synths. I cant find much information about that anywhere
@@buildusarocket3410 you can not run VST’s on fantom. However, i use the fantom to controle my Mainstage setup(on mac). In which AU’s/VST run perfectly.
The fantom is the perfect controller to run mainstage. So if you own a mac (mainstage is only €30) you are set with the Fantom for perfect integration.
I have no experience with windows and Ableton.. so can not tell you much about that option. I know people however that are happy with their ableton setup and the fantom as the controller
I don’t have access to a Fantom .
I have deep dived into finding this info, you are correct that zencore engine is more complex than what you have access to in zenology or any of the zencore hardware synths. ABM modelling is created in zencore using macros and limiters, different curves etc etc. Some people have made sysex editors before zenology pro came out and had access to a lot more features in the XM that you can access through them XM itself ( pretty normal for roland, look at the engine in the vt4 compared to what you can access with the unit ) .
So they were able to look into all the parameters in the ABM models presets via sysex and see how they work. So there is no reason the mc707 or mc101 couldn't have ABM modelling.
Surprised they released the ABM models onto the Fantom, I am certain this was not the original plan from the discussions and videos I have read and watched from roland reps since the release of zencore. So either they have given up on the Jupiter x/xm or want to boost sales on the Fantom.
As a flagship it was silly it didn't have the ABM modelling. So it's nice that it does now, I guess now there is not many reasons to buy the jupiter x instead.
It really should not be this much of a mystery as zencore marketing is just confusing, I have a FA06 so was intrigued what zencore actually was, and it definitely combines the supernatural VA engine with the classic PCMS engine. as well as many upgrades to syncable LFO's and adding oscillator sync etc. To me comparing zenology to the FA06 , zenology seemed to have way more clarity and definition than the older engine.
A couple of things about the slight differences, as I recall this discussion coming up in other Roland VST vs. the actual synth comparisons I've watched (you kind of touched on it slightly):
The DAC on the Jupiter-Xm - would it be beneficial to know the sampling rate of the synthesizer to ensure that the Audio interface being used on the computer is on par with the synth's?
I also suppose that if you drive both the Xm and Zenology with an external MIDI controller, it might eliminate any potential velocity/aftertouch differences being sent between keyboards.
Oh, and like the MC-101 (and I suppose the 707 too), doesn't the synth have a USB storage mode to upload the patches directly like on the groove boxes?
I've spent so much time playing around with the Legendary VST's - I really should spend some time playing around with Zenology Pro - and the FX module that they've since released as well. Now, I really like the Jupiter-X, but that $1,000 difference! As just a hobbyist, that's a tough pill to swallow. 😢And because I have the VST's and typically play around in DAWs, maybe an actual synth is not so practical for me, haha. I can still dream, right? 😁 Anyway, thanks for the walkthrough Nu-Trix!
I do a lot of ITB mixing and composing. The best investment I made was getting a good audio interface and a headphone amp. Wow these sounds are impressive on my listening setup
thnks for this. Finally a real explaining about the difference
Great video.
One thing that I'm not clear on, can all ZenCore compatible devices playback patches made in the expansion models even if they don't have the expansion models, but only the ZenCore engine? I'm aware the models would be needed for editing, but unclear if they could even run the patches for playback only.
Some mentioned recently that one difference between the software option vs the hardware option is that the software is limited to only 44.1 khz. I said ok, but what's the benefit? They said real-time adjustments like the filters would have stepping and that it wouldn't be present on the hardware. Then I looked up the specs later, and it seems they told me incorrectly as the software specs say it supports up to 192 khz just like the hardware. Can you confirm if there is any stepping or if their story has any merit?
Not being a big user of arpegiators or vocoders, I think the software option has a lot of benefits beside just the cost differences. The ability for a live band to have one laptop loaded with so many instruments and not have to setup a lot of gear is a huge deal. One laptop could run lots of Roland synths, software from many other companies and mimicking many famous instruments and all new ones. Other advantages, you can use whatever kind of keyboard you want. If you wanted 88 keys, you could have that. 61 would be ideal for most people, but the range of the Xm keyboard would be too liming for many players when the original instruments modeled had 61 to begin with. If you hate mid size keys like on the Jupiter Xm, you could have full size keys. (I think it's mid size keys on the Xm ?) In addition, many more Roland models exist from Roland in the software format such as the D50, System 8, and the more faithful to the originals ACB versions of the classics that could sound even better than the ZenCore versions, assuming you don't need tons of polyphony. A laptop could be better for editing sounds too, depending on what's needed.
Zenology can run up to 192kHz. It will be limited to the DAW 's Sampling rate (if Ableton Live runs at 48kHz = Zenology will be at 48kHz ) ZenCore is different from the Model Expansions. Only devices with the Model Expansion installed will be able to play the Model Expansion sound patches. It's looking like Roland is bringing more hardware devices into the Model Expansion compatibility world. (Fantom for exemple.)
@@Nu-trix Thanks.
So it seems the other person told me incorrectly about Zenology only supporting 48khz. The specs say 192khz, so you must be right. Oddly, he was telling me I didn't know what I was talking about that they basically sounded the same. He mentioned the benefit fo 192khz (which the Jupiter X hardware supports as I'm told) is it avoids issues like stepping when turning the knobs, except if the original instruments modeled had stepping.
I'd like to see Roland include the SuperNatural sounds of the Fantom in Zenology.
Nice concept for Roland for forward thinking blurring the lines between hardware and software. Your audio quality will have a lot to do with the price tag and quality of your DAC, digital to analog converters, which are your outputs on your computer audio interface. Every audio interface has their own DACs. Get a high end Benchmark DAC, for example, and that will sound great, compared to say a cheap, budget DAC. Of course if you keep your audio inside of your computer and bounce tracks out you can avoid your converters and outputs.
@Жан Клон arrr.. but the background noise is part of the analogue magic lol. Totally depends what you want or need. Clean is good - but so is noisy.....
@Жан Клон this is true... depends how "true" to original analogue you want to be.. the noise you can add is never quite the same... Think Juno for instance, most of the noise is the inbuilt chorus - so its not just the kind of noise you can add - it has the chorus swirl in the noise even when its not played. Thats difficult to simulate. Either way is good - totally depends how you work and what you want to impart.
@Жан Клон I completely get everything you say there... absolutely. Personally, anything below about 55/60db noise floor is perfectly acceptable. Pat of that is being old lol. I grew up what that was the norm, in fact in some cases those levels were GOOD. heck - even If I use a noise gate I dont set it higher than 70db absolute max. Much of this is personal of course... the end listener just doesnt care in the slightest. Most of them, on the equipment they listen to music on won't hear a difference between 100 and 60... Doesnt make your mentality wrong at all - its a choice. Others have different approaches and their 60db noise floor isnt a problem for them, and thats absolutely valid as well. Just enjoy making music that others enjoy listening to - that the key. the technical stuff really is minor it the end.
what i hear is, jupiter is more punchier, tighter and buzzier, it may cause about converters?
Could be
I think it's only different keyboard velocity curves/sensiblily on the two. I have a couple of keyboards that act different on the same sounds. Don't think it's the converters this time around. The louder volume, more expressive keystroke can easily be mistaken for a more punchier sound.
My point of view is that there actually is a difference between the VST and the hardware. I notice this clearly when I have a zenology / model expansion composition in VST and then compare the same project rendered with my jupiter x stack. The answer is very simple why so is. The DA converters on the jupiter x hardware sounds very good and not to forget that the hardware meassures ambient temp and simulate the analogue detune behaviour after that. Also there is important to keep this in mind. When listening to one single sound between VST and Hardware there are often a very slim difference in between. But if you listen to a entire composition then each instruments slim difference becomes more noticable in a whole setup. Another pitfall to remember when doing AB comparison on the hardware is not to forget turn off, reverb, delay, chorus and drive since they are jupiter X specific for the entire scene. Just keep the MFX on since it lives both in the zenology and the jupiter x. Nice comparison btw!
If you want to hear a rather stunning difference, listen to the Jupiter 4 VST on Roland cloud compared to same plugout loaded on the System 8. Night and day.
@@AudioLomtik Will definently try that. Which also reminds me of when I tried System-8 plugin and transfer sounds to my physical System-8. But there, some sounds do work better in the VST and other in the real hardware :). If i'm not remembering things wrong, then there also was a huge diifference between the System-100 and sending it to the System-8.
@@AudioLomtikdo you mean that s8 is better in that comparison? thx
@@chrislisten87 Yes, some plugins such as the JP-4 sound better on the System8.. not sure why.
Thanks nu-trix! Does Zenology Pro include the ABM engine as the Xm does? With love, Ken
Yes, same synthesis, you can even export presets between them.
the difference between VST & Hardware can be see ear using the cuf off & resonance and push to maximum you will definitely understand the VSTi limitation compared to the hardware, many VA VSTi like Diva sound very nice but when you play with cut off /resonance you can clearly ear that it does not sound at all....this is what electronic producer will notice but keyboard band player wont be bothered by this point
the jupiter xm would be an excellent instrument to make music and build songs on the go IF only they finally added a proper real time sequencer, which is certainly not a difficult thing to do since even the jdxi had one...
I really wonder why they did not do this from the start: in combination with the i-arpeggiator it could do wonderful things.
Yes, they have to sell the phantoms, we know, but in this way they are not going to sell jupiter x nor xm.
I totally agree with you , jupiter xm needs to have real time sequencer like a five channel mini groovebox. But 64 step is not enough. It will be good 128 steps like mc-101 etc. If they can add, We can create with 5 channel (each of them have 128 steps, 8 bar) @roland
@ You know: technically, Roland could do anything with the Jupiter XM, simply updating the firmware, , since it is essentially a computer with a keyboard, and quite a powerful one. We can hope in future improvements but I am not very optimistic about the RTS since they seem to be pointing all their efforts in developing and supporting Zenology pro...
I actually want them to come out with a new version of the jdxi have it battery powered and have speakers like the xm. Idk I want the xm but I thought it did have a sequencer or groove box since it has drums on it ? I saw a video where someone added 707 Drums. Guess I just don’t know what a groove box means.
Now,they did with the update
@@NO-TALK-GuitarPlugin yes, I know... With firmware 1.50 they did an excellent job based on customers feedback
I was not sure we would ever get these models for the Fantom, or better yet that they would be free! I like that they are in their own banks with another 1024 user tone slots added just for the models. JupiterX users still exclusively get the i-Arpeg and the thermal sensor for more analog instability realism.
Btw I'm trying to work with Roland Cloud in FL Studio 20 - Mac M1 and Automation just not works here. Is any idea why it can be? Never had such problems with another plugins. But it's work in Logic Pro but with some bugs, like it's not always Bouncing the final project with automation, sometime it's recording and sometime not. Very upset with it(
I would think that the sound would heavily depend on the quality of your audio interface/sound card
It depends : if we are measuring the audio that we ear in the room then you are right. The audio interface quality is important for that sound. But if the plugin synth is only monitored for production then directly bounced to disk for the mix. The bounced mix has never gone through the audio interface . Pure digital mix from the plugin to the disk.
@@Nu-trix
Yes indeed. But when comparing to a hardware synth I think that’s a huge factor because in order to hear the hardware synth, you have to hear the converters and outputs of that synth.
Yes, but a lot of people are not listening to their synth in a critical environment. In the end the quality found in the mix is the most important when producing music.
Does the Fantom or Zenology have the iArpeggiator that the X/Xm have?
No
Hi, Thanks for the video!! question for everyone: In order to play with the oscillators, etc, would you recommend the Jupiter-XM or the MC-707? I see the screen of the MC707 more clear, more organize and easier than the Jupiter-XM.
It’s a question of workflow as well. I would probably choose the MC-707, because i’m more of a composer then a keyboardist. But the both have unique advantage, mc-707 can easily import samples and stretchy them. The Jupiter-xm has a vocoder included. It’s also able to add the vocal producer on top of it.
@@Nu-trix Yes. I prefer the 707 because the UI, much more clear to program the sounds, buuuuut....the xm has the vocoder, the other models (which I don't care too much) and 4 layers at the same time. I will have to convince my wife to be able to get both :D thanks a lot!!!
I have the MC101 and if that had the vintage expansions it would be one of the best synth modules on the market. I couldn't hear any realworld differences between the XM and the Zenology and the 101 doesnt sound any different either but suspect the Xm has slightly better dac.
hi :) Excellent Video :) thx !
do u know if i can ear the same preset in Roland Cloud than in Jupiter X (01-02 scene =pad) ... where can i find , the exact sound in Roland cloud please ?
Best regards :)
I dont't have the Jupiter XM anymore. But I think the Jupiter X has specific presets. Still, if a presets used only the Zencore technology (not the model expansion) they can be exchange with Zenology pro.
Jupiter has more grit and grind with drive nob temp and age setting . Phantom 8 sounds exactly the same . After touch more expressive on Jupiter. . I can’t let go of Jupiter yet and use phantom 8 sequences . It’s one drum part hurts Jupiter and of course no tr Rec . Together as one .
How does the supersaw in Zencore/zenology compare to the jp-8000 with it's magical Chorus and perfect delay in action? I'm really interested in replicating that. It's hard to find such heavenly sounding strings as the 8000/8080 in my opinion. Would you consider making a quick video comparing them or trying to get the jp's full super saw sound on zencore?
I will not be able to do a side by side comparison of the 2 because I sold the JO-8000 this week . I bought a System-8
I’ll do a tutorial for supersaw sound using Zencore.
@@Nu-trix thanks :) I have a system-1 and jp-8000. I do love my system-1. I find I can get close to the jp's supersaw on it (It's certainly beautiful in it's own right though) but you might be able to get closer with the system-8's built in chorus. But I fear that it's just those old chips and processing that my ears adore that may not be replicatable.
I can tell you now that zenology supersaw sucks real bad. Nothing like my jp-8080. Cold and very digital, I was disappointed. Sounds like multi-samples with some layering/detune being applied. The parameters are not even the same as the jp.
For sure no 2 synth sounds the same, (outside of using the same engine). JP-8000 share its synthesis engine only with the JP-8080, they will sound the same. For everything else it will be different. For it to suck or not is only a personal taste in sound.
It could be that the USB controller has a different velocity curve than the XM. They sure sound close.
I really wonder what the added value of that J-XM maschine is if you can have the same thing in a similar priced laptop. The only thing I can think of is that arpeggiator.
For jupiter xm ; the added value is physically control, layering & performing 5 parts at the same time , i-arpeggiator, on-board effects, a sequencer (but not step sequencer , you can use step edit , you can program 64 steps of your 5 parts seperately. ) you can connect to any bigger midi keyboard using usb memory slot or classic midi cable.
@ Thank you for this list. I did not know of some of the features of the XM. Still, for me it is mainly that arpeggiator. I understand the XM has deep menu's and a small screen. I think I prefer the computer screen for programming patches.
@@FotoxBr_nl If you only produce music by clicking notes in your DAW - then yeah, there‘s no reason to use any hardware synth imho. Software will always give you more flexibility. I see hardware synths like the XM, Fantom, Montage etc as instruments with a focus on performing live. These days, however, most eletronic music is produced by clicking it together. So no instruments needed.
@@haderlumpi imagine that roland add real time sequencer to jupiter xm with 8 bar (128 steps). Imagine you have 5 seperate track. With tr-rec we can program Drum track, then other tracks with other parts using instant recording (ımagine you can use i arp with in these tracks) it would be what a dream machine on stage for performing using mic with vocoder.
@ On a decent pc you can layer and add effects all inside a DAW. I think years ago the Jupiter XM concept would have been jaw dropping but not today. I can see the appeal of the Jupiter X in a studio as its a main keyboard with hands on but the Xm is more a portable device if anything.
nice jp-8000 in the background
Same :)
A modern x86 CPU is most probably much faster than the DSP’s in the Xm. Compatibility is only a matter of sales and marketing.
You might be right, but is also think that there is some optimize calculation happening when a dedicated code runs on a dedicated chipset. Anyway, I also think the code for desktop could be optimized for desktop.
@@Nu-trix Modern compilers are great at optimizing signal processing code, if properly tuned by wise developers. Besides, most core functions and transforms are available as ultra-optimized libs. I see no problem at all. DSP hw is simply more power-efficient and much cheaper to embed on a hw synth.
I have a love/hate relationship with Roland, and this is the HATE part. I have to PURCHASE a software editor for a synthesizer i spent almost 2k on? Are you funking joking Roland? WTF?!?!?
You can now download the free Jupiter editor. (It wasn’t available at the time of the video)
@@Nu-trix TBH i have the MC707 and was only THINKING about purchasing the Jupiter. This makes me even MORE mad that Roland hasn't come up with a similar FREE editor for the 101/707.
I like Roland Cloud Zenology, but the Interface is butt azz ugly.. Come on Roland..
@Жан Клон Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the interface is bland and uninspiring.
@Жан КлонNo doubt that the sound quality is superb, I'm left very underwhelmed with it's lackluster interface.
Lastly, I think Mr( Eric Pershing's) Omisphere ( Vsti) is superb as well.
@Жан Клон Well, being a longtime vSti user, visual esthetics matters. I don't mind minimalism, however, we ( music creators) are 'inspired" by the visual experience just as much as the audio that's coming out of the vsti.
Just seeing a virtual synth with a keybed is important.
Look at Spectrasonics keyscape.. The sound of this lib is superb. However, seeing the instruments it's emulating really makes the virtual experience more inspiring. Almost like you're playing the real thing.
I would've prefered Roland to make the Zencore VSTi into some kind of hardware keyboard or even like their SRX modules.
But, this dreary looking Grey and Amber interface is very uninspiring, dull.No matter the sound coming out of the VSTi.. It's Roland has taken took the "lazy" route when it came to the visual aesthetics of the plugin. .
@Жан Клон It should've read: some kind of GUI with a keyboard.. Yes, I know that the Zencore interfaces with both the new Fantom workstation and Jupiter.
An interface shouldn't be "pretty", and being "ugly" isnt a problem - it should be clear and functional above all else. Its definitely that.