The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Roland Introduces ZENOLOGY Expandable Plug-In
Old 1 week ago
  #61
Lives for gear
 
Tubthumper's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Skeens View Post
Not bad, but does it show Zenology as purchasable too? That's really the only one I want.
I don't think so, I believe it's subscription only for Zenology.

Just click "Lifetime Key" about halfway down the page:
https://www.rolandcloud.com/roland-account/memberships/

For me here in Australia, $2.99 US per month for Zenology Core subscription = $5.00 AU, bugger all really.
Old 1 week ago
  #62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubthumper View Post
I don't think so, I believe it's subscription only for Zenology.

Just click "Lifetime Key" about halfway down the page:
https://www.rolandcloud.com/roland-account/memberships/

For me here in Australia, $2.99 US per month for Zenology Core subscription = $5.00 AU, bugger all really.
True, at $3 that's actually one sub you could let run for 10 years and still not amount to much. Just noticed the Pro editor is on the $10 one though. For 5 years of sub you could get the MC101 and have some hardware (assuming this is going to get the Pro editor).

Just wonder if the MC101 will get the new model packs that the Pro membership has coming.
Old 1 week ago
  #63
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubthumper View Post
I had a look last weekend, $150 USD per softsynth.

Seems reasonable to me.
It depends on the synth. Many are $150, but I saw that some are $99.
Old 1 week ago
  #64
Lives for gear
 
Tubthumper's Avatar
 

Sorry, I missed that. I checked the purchase prices on the Jupiter 8 and Juno 106 and stopped there - they're the models I'm keen on.

But yeah, some for $99, some for $129 (USD).

BUT, there are upcoming modules for Zenology, Model Expansions, these are different versions of the classic hardware synths, designed to run within Zenology. These are only available in the Pro and Ultimate subscriptions by the looks.

I'm unsure if/how they differ to the standalone softsynths themselves.
Old 1 week ago
  #65
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tubthumper View Post
BUT, there are upcoming modules for Zenology, Model Expansions, these are different versions of the classic hardware synths, designed to run within Zenology. These are only available in the Pro and Ultimate subscriptions by the looks.

I'm unsure if/how they differ to the standalone softsynths themselves.
Yes, I am curious about those too.

Currently, I am just on the lowest paid subscription, which gives me access to all of the presets in the Zenology plugin, but if those upcoming modules are really good and useful, then I'll probably upgrade to one of the higher subscriptions.

I also wonder if they will be as CPU heavy as the current legendary synths, because they are definitely very heavy on the CPU. They do sound good though.
Old 1 week ago
  #66
Lives for gear
 
Tubthumper's Avatar
 

Yeah, if the new "model expansions" cut the mustard, I'll probably upgrade my subscription too.
Old 1 week ago
  #67
Gear Maniac
 

I believe that the original soft synths are ACB models, while the new modules coming from the Jupiter-X are based on Zen Core parameter manipulation (the Zen Core has some VA going on as well, but it is not ACB). Basically more behavior modeling than component modeling. Thus they will be lower CPU.

Spoff
Old 1 week ago
  #68
The ACB ones I think do full circuity where as the Zen ones are simplified but still modelled (they mention the filters are modelled). So you probably get the major bits modelled but not everything like with ACB.
Old 6 days ago
  #69
Quote:
Originally Posted by camus2 View Post
Nobody knows what ACB does exactly since nobody outside Roland has read the source code of ACB devices and plug-outs. I'd be very careful with all that Roland marketing. There is absolutely no proof that ACB is more accurately emulating vintage Roland synths. From a developer stand point, I doubt that ACB does model electrical circuits and their behavior 1:1.
Guess we can A/B them to see if it makes a difference.
Old 6 days ago
  #70
Lives for gear
 
Musician's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Skeens View Post
Guess we can A/B them to see if it makes a difference.
That is exactly what I wonna know.
Old 5 days ago
  #71
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by camus2 View Post
Nobody knows what ACB does exactly since nobody outside Roland has read the source code of ACB devices and plug-outs. I'd be very careful with all that Roland marketing. There is absolutely no proof that ACB is more accurately emulating vintage Roland synths. From a developer stand point, I doubt that ACB does model electrical circuits and their behavior 1:1.
You shouldn't say things like that without any substantiation. Why do you believe they aren't being honest? You could say the same about U-he, Synapse, Cytomic or any other developer that does modelling, since you haven't seen the source code.

There are videos on Youtube with Roland's engineers talking about ACB. I'm inclined to take their word for it.
Old 5 days ago
  #72
Quote:
Originally Posted by miscend View Post
You shouldn't say things like that without any substantiation. Why do you believe they aren't being honest? You could say the same about U-he, Synapse, Cytomic or any other developer that does modelling, since you haven't seen the source code.

There are videos on Youtube with Roland's engineers talking about ACB. I'm inclined to take their word for it.
I think they must be doing more than basic models as at least with the SH-2 it was uncanny in how close it would be at every setting I tried.

I'd make a patch on the Sh-2 and then copy over to the plugin and it was bang on each time, even on more extreme settings.

Only difference was the hardware had a beefier low midrange and smoother detuning.

But I doubt just basic models would get that close.

I don't think there is an equivalent Zen model of the Sh-2 to compare to though.
Old 5 days ago
  #73
Lives for gear
 
Tubthumper's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Skeens View Post
Only difference was the hardware had a beefier low midrange and smoother detuning.
This.

It's something I hear consistently when I shootout a hardware Vs softsynth, or watch a YouTube comparison clip.

The hardware typically sounds beefier, more solid, focussed.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump