The Golden Era of Roland 1979 - 1984

[Teknobeam]

Originally Posted by 3phase

i hated the dx7 when it came out... but in the later 90´s i had a tx 816..and that changed my mind..

but now? in the times of 1000´s plug ins the dx7 is defently a cool toy.. .. totaly underhyped synth in comparison to the JP8.. but similar usefull in production.. i ve booth here..use the dx more often... actually they work pretty well together

I also remember not loving the DX when it came out, but I needed it for the stuff we were doing live. It didn't take long for me to start loving it. I had a DX9 layered with an EX800, and a Polaris for everything else. The DX was the Yin to the Yan, so I still have it along with a TX7 and a TX802. Those sounds you can't be without, and I haven't heard anything else produce them in quite the same way. Perhaps I'm kind of dated being out of the loop for so long. But I find it hard to relate to the DX7 as a vintage instrument. It did fall out of vogue after a very long run, but I'd be willing to bet that most people that had one recognize it's intrinsic value and probably still have one of the versions.

[Popbott]

Originally Posted by jb_studio

Okay, given the legendary status of the 808/909/303 and the Jupiter 8, it's hardly a revelation...

...It's pretty remarkable when you stop to think about it...

Whoever the team at Roland was during this period, I salute you! And I thank you profusely --JB

While I am a huge Roland Fan myself sporting a

JX-3P w/PG-200
JX-8P
Juno-1
Jino-106
JD-800

I found this interesting:

The TR-909 and 303 were supposed to emulate real instruments, the fact that they were taken to do something completely different was considered an insult to the actual inventor of these machines. According to Jim Norman, product specialist at Roland U.S., Kikumoto is fully aware of the products' cult status but prefers to focus attention on his current projects. “We don't use them how he intended them to be used. It was his work of art, and we degraded it with this new weird, high-tech-influenced music.”

As far as Roland today, I don't think I will ever get much use from a MIDI Accordian or a Digital Harpsichord. Who knows, maybe some sort of new electronic music will come from these after we find them at pawn shops!

[fooddude]

How would you guys describe a BA662 synth compared to the IR3109?

I have a Juno60, and although very bowb bassy and at times round and smooth, some still consider it rough and dirty vintage. Is the BA662 more "vintage" sounding (rougher, dirtier, gutteral), or is it more smoother and bubblier? ...I assume it's rougher and brasher than a Juno 60/6. Not really after a certain sound (rough vs liquid) ...just wondering how they compare and contrast to each other and the diffs.

I always lusted after an SH-2/09 for bass duties and occasional riffs/solos...never really loved my ex CS-10 (too weak honestly)

[CoolColJ]

Originally Posted by fooddude

How would you guys describe a BA662 synth compared to the IR3109?

I have a Juno60, and although very bowb bassy and at times round and smooth, some still consider it rough and dirty vintage. Is the BA662 more "vintage" sounding (rougher, dirtier, gutteral), or is it more smoother and bubblier? ...I assume it's rougher and brasher than a Juno 60/6. Not really after a certain sound (rough vs liquid) ...just wondering how they compare and contrast to each other and the diffs.

I always lusted after an SH-2/09 for bass duties and occasional riffs/solos...never really loved my ex CS-10 (too weak honestly)

I have an SH2, and compared to my Juno 106, it's a lot rougher, fatter, more guttereal, heavier bass, snappier and "vintage" earthy sounding. Partly due to have VCOs instead of DCO, but the filter sounds different too.

[acreil]

Originally Posted by fooddude

How would you guys describe a BA662 synth compared to the IR3109?

The thing to do here would be to compare early and late revision Jupiter 4s.

[3phase]

Originally Posted by CoolColJ

I have an SH2, and compared to my Juno 106, it's a lot rougher, fatter, more guttereal, heavier bass, snappier and "vintage" earthy sounding. Partly due to have VCOs instead of DCO, but the filter sounds different too.

again and again.. the 106 has vco´s aswell the soundifferences are because of component choices. Technicl booth are analogue synths

[fooddude]

Originally Posted by acreil

The thing to do here would be to compare early and late revision Jupiter 4s.

Why, do J4's also come in a IR3109 variety? Never knew that, as I never have done Jupiter research too much (cuz I don't plan on getting one as I am broke, ha)...but, I always thought they were just BA662? ...that would be a perfect comparison then I agree; same synth, with 2 diff filters..yummy..

[3phase]

Originally Posted by fooddude

Why, do J4's also come in a IR3109 variety? Never knew that, as I never have done Jupiter research too much (cuz I don't plan on getting one as I am broke, ha)...but, I always thought they were just BA662? ...that would be a perfect comparison then I agree; same synth, with 2 diff filters..yummy..

Maybe you should check first what these chips you are talking about do before judging synths about them.

the 662 is a vca and the 3109 a filter

[pulse_divider]

Originally Posted by 3phase

Maybe you should check first what these chips you are talking about do before judging synths about them.

the 662 is a vca and the 3109 a filter

The BA662 is used in the early JP4 filters:
roland_filter_versions

[pulse_divider]

Originally Posted by 3phase

again and again.. the 106 has vco´s aswell the soundifferences are because of component choices. Technicl booth are analogue synths

The Juno 106 is indeed analog but uses DCOs instead of VCOs. A DCO is analog, but it's not the same as a VCO... they both create the waveform via analog means but the DCO uses a digital clock and the VCO doesn't.

[fooddude]

Originally Posted by 3phase

Maybe you should check first what these chips you are talking about do before judging synths about them.

the 662 is a vca and the 3109 a filter

Im not judging.... I am asking.. as I never owned any of those BA662 synths before. That's why I asked.

I'm sure the SH2/09 and Jp4 have the BA filters, yeah?

I think that's be my new big purchase in the future...either an SH2 or an SE-1/1x. Always lusted after an SH2/09

[3phase]

Originally Posted by pulse_divider

The Juno 106 is indeed analog but uses DCOs instead of VCOs. A DCO is analog, but it's not the same as a VCO... they both create the waveform via analog means but the DCO uses a digital clock and the VCO doesn't.

thanks for the update on ba662 used as filter chips.. But DCO is only a marketing term from roland to have the word digital inside..

The roland vco dont recieve a digital clock.. they recieve a control voltage and oscilate themself.
Only keyboardscaling is transfered digitaly to the controlvoltage of the vco´s.. but that applies to allmost all analogue synths.. oberheim 4 voice.. prophet 5 or the monophon pro one to just name a few.

The source of this voltage has no fx on the soundquality, except maybe pitchbend response times..
And a roland DCO is no digital oscillator just a normal vco, in some cases even the same as in a prophet 5 or oberheim synths.. They often used Curtis chips you find in many analogue synths.

Its really just a marketing term. Digital was considered to be something very special and modern in the 80´s.. but its just a word..the 106 is definitely no digital synth.

People should stop to mix this up.

it dont matters much how an oscilator is controled.. But it matters how it produces the waveform. Thats where the analoge ones get their more alive sound from. Any good oscillator does a stable pitch..its the variations in the waveform that make the richer sound.

[seen-da-sizer]

The Roland Juno DCO chematics (click on image to read on...):

[3phase]

Originally Posted by seen-da-sizer

The Roland Juno DCO chematics (click on image to read on...):

ok i stand corrected..
Dco my ass

I think i got it mixed up ..too much roland repairs lately...

But is there an oscillator at all ? this qualifies rather as a digital oscilator with analog waveshaping.. so the waveforms vary with the key..
good trick somehow..

So the octave switching that is done with a cv is just altering the shape?
Maybe thats the point where i got it wrong.. another myth unbusted...

[Spectralwaves]

" I thought JP6 also had MIDI, an early version of MIDI at least. In fact, I thought the JX3P and the Jupiter 6 were among the first Roland synths to include MIDI. "

Prophet 600 & JX3P were the first 2 synths to have midi fitted afaik, followed closely by the J6.

Re: differences between J6 & MKS80 rev 3 & 4:



Apart from the keyboard & lack of & the aforementioned 8 voices on MKS & 6 voices on the J6, there is a Bass boost circuit built into the MKS80,
otherwise they are identical in design chips & circuits ( sound) apart from the multimode filters on the J6 & single LPF on the MKS80, which is why I would much prefer the Jupiter 6 over the MKS80 & MGP80 combo , as well as the beautifully designed keyboard & controls of the J6.
The MKS80 /MGP80 though has an excellent midi spec & all slider movements etc can be transmitted & stored as midi data on external sequencers..which is why it was called the Super Jupiter & would probably trump the J6 for many producers who work predominantly in DAWS .

The J6 , MKS80 Revs 3 & 4 all use the same Curtis Filters,
but the MKS80 rev 5 uses Roland designed Filters that were similar or maybe even the same as the JX8P & JX10 filters.

[sizzlemeister]

Originally Posted by 3phase

ok i stand corrected..
Dco my ass

I think i got it mixed up ..too much roland repairs lately...

Thank God.

[JimmiG]

Originally Posted by MJS7

Crazy thing is...everyone is still trying to emulate/copy a lot of those same instruments (or at least get those sounds) from the Roland "golden era" like 808, 909, 303, SH-101, Junos, JX, etc.

So it begs the question WHY doesn't Roland actually issue re-releases or MKII's or III's of those instruments (I'm not talking about their current digi-junk wannabe throw-all-but-the-kitchen-sink-in-and-hope-for-the-best instruments)?? They could actually be profiting from their old ideas and designs so they wouldn't need to use a lot of RandD expenses. Imagine for example an 808 MKII with MIDI, parameter locks, swing, added parameters/knobs/sliders, etc. They could make a Classic Series with retro styling, solid knobs, wood panelling, etc. and make a killing.

Redundant and unnecessary? Perhaps. Profitable? Definitely! Their new stuff and the Groove series junk just pale in comparison to the golden era stuff.

The thing is, to create a digital synth, you need a DSP chip (perhaps $20), a simple CPU/microcontroller, maybe some flash memory. All off-the-shelf, mass-produced stuff (the DSP chips are the same ones that go into surround receivers and stereo systems with "Super Bass Boost" and similar). To re-create an analog synth you need many, custom designed chips. Take a look at this, for example:
http://midibox.org/forums/topic/1079...ch-comparison/
How many chips would it take to create a 25-voice, dual filter, 3-oscillator analog synth by comparison?

Considering the price of some of the new high-end Roland synths, it's not going to get much more profitable I think.

[Kling Klang]

Originally Posted by 3phase

thanks for the update on ba662 used as filter chips.. But DCO is only a marketing term from roland to have the word digital inside..

The roland vco dont recieve a digital clock.. they recieve a control voltage and oscilate themself.
Only keyboardscaling is transfered digitaly to the controlvoltage of the vco´s.. but that applies to allmost all analogue synths.. oberheim 4 voice.. prophet 5 or the monophon pro one to just name a few.

The source of this voltage has no fx on the soundquality, except maybe pitchbend response times..
And a roland DCO is no digital oscillator just a normal vco, in some cases even the same as in a prophet 5 or oberheim synths.. They often used Curtis chips you find in many analogue synths.

Its really just a marketing term. Digital was considered to be something very special and modern in the 80´s.. but its just a word..the 106 is definitely no digital synth.

People should stop to mix this up.

it dont matters much how an oscilator is controled.. But it matters how it produces the waveform. Thats where the analoge ones get their more alive sound from. Any good oscillator does a stable pitch..its the variations in the waveform that make the richer sound.

Horse.

[Popbott]

Originally Posted by Spectralwaves

Prophet 600 & JX3P were the first 2 synths to have midi fitted afaik, followed closely by the J6.

Damn, last time I said something like that I got serverly burned on this forum!

[acreil]

Originally Posted by 3phase

But is there an oscillator at all ? this qualifies rather as a digital oscilator with analog waveshaping.. so the waveforms vary with the key..

No, the DCO CV signal changes with pitch to keep the sawtooth shape consistent. The advantage is that the CV (and DAC, exponential converter, etc.) don't have to be as accurate, stable or high resolution. CV drift will only result in a minor change in amplitude (and maybe pulse width) rather than audible detuning.

And anyway, yes, the early Jupiter 4s (serial numbers up to 790799) used BA662 VCFs and the later ones were IR3109. Resident "golden ears" need to start making a big fuss over it if they expect anyone to take them seriously .

[3phase]

Originally Posted by acreil

No, the DCO CV signal changes with pitch to keep the sawtooth shape consistent. The advantage is that the CV (and DAC, exponential converter, etc.) don't have to be as accurate, stable or high resolution. CV drift will only result in a minor change in amplitude (and maybe pulse width) rather than audible detuning.

And anyway, yes, the early Jupiter 4s (serial numbers up to 790799) used BA662 VCFs and the later ones were IR3109. Resident "golden ears" need to start making a big fuss over it if they expect anyone to take them seriously .

So its a VCO that gets retriggered at any cycle?

[acreil]

Originally Posted by 3phase

So its a VCO that gets retriggered at any cycle?

It's a voltage controlled ramp generator synchronized to a digital clock. It won't reset by itself, so I don't think you can reasonably call it a VCO.

[James Meeker]

As Colbeck pointed out in "The A to Z of Analog Synthesizers" you can build an entire rig from just Roland products of their early era. This differs from his list, but imagine:

SH-2
Pro-Mars
Jupiter 8
RS-202
Juno 60
JX-8P
System 100
808
909
Space Echo RE-201

Just add a D50, S50 and a JV series ROMPLER and you've got a ton of power.

[mikael488]

Originally Posted by Spectralwaves

Prophet 600 & JX3P were the first 2 synths to have midi fitted afaik, followed closely by the J6.

FWIW, the synth that was MIDI'd to the P600 during the jan 1983 NAMM show was a Jupiter-6. Whether this means the Jup-6 beat the JX-3P to the market by a month or two I really don't know.

more data:

Ist ed. of the JP-6 service manual is dated June '83
1st ed. of the JX--3P " " " " is dated July '83.

I just checked the Jup-6 service manual and the lowest s/n mentioned in there is 250100 which would indicate the first units were built in late 1982.