none of you could tell the difference in a double blind test. and, let's be honest - it's not hard to figure out that what roland did was more or less repackage the juno several times. it wasn't going to remodel everything, that costs money. it just made a few minor tweaks and sold 4x as many by changing the label four times. there's all kinds of psychological reasons people pick one brand name over the other, but it's not going to hold up to rigorous testing.
they all sound the same.
i've had a jx-8p for around 15 years, without the pg, which i'm never going to use. don't do the knob twiddling thing....think it sounds cheesy in the style i write in....just program a patch and let it sit for the track. but it's central to the synth work i've done (i'm more of a guitarist).
scroll the screen down so you can't see his fingers and tell me you can hear a difference.
you can't.
there isn't one.
thomashenrydavies
You could say the same thing about most analog synths playing similar basic patches on a Youtube demo.
deathtokoalas
to an extent, i think that's true, but it doesn't really negate the observation that junos, 3ps and 8ps are really the same synth.
if the "string patch" on two different synths follows precisely the same logic, they're going to sound almost identical, regardless of what the brand name is. and, for all we know, they may have been made with exactly the same parts - kind of like how dells and macs nowadays are actually made in the same factory, and only really differ by the cosmetic difference on the outside of the box.
but that's a big if. i mean, it's one thing to say two patches on two different synths sound almost identical, it's another to say that two synths are identical.
thomashenrydavies
I don't think it's true at all to say that the Junos/JX3P/JX8P are the same synths.
Firstly, the Junos only have one OSC per voice (plus a sub). The JX synths have 2, with cross modulation capability (hard sync, soft sync, FM). This gives them a much broader sonic palette.
The JX3P and JX8P are similar, but the 3P only has one envelope, and is not velocity sensitive. Plus, the filter is different.
deathtokoalas
relative to the complexity of the device, those are remarkably minor differences, none of which justify rebranding in and of itself. basically, it means the jxs are going to be a little thicker sounding for pads, but who hasn't pointed out that the juno sounds thin? that's just fixing a minor design flaw.
it's almost like roland sat down and tried to figure out what the bare minimum mod they could make to justify a different brand name was, then did nothing else besides change the design on the front. nowadays, that's really something like a minor firmware update to fix a product that was rushed to market before final testing.
in that sense? sure, the 8p is the final product. you can expect it'll sound best. but it's virtually imperceptible.
judging from how similar they sound, i'd guess the presets on the final models are really legitimately identical to the presets on the original models...
thomashenrydavies
I really have to disagree with you on that. In the realm of analog synthesizers, a 2 OSC synth with sync and cross mod is a big, big difference from a 1 OSC synth. Opens up whole new avenues of sound design.
deathtokoalas
it could, if you use it in a specific way, but this is an obscure issue that's really only meaningful in ambient music. anything else is just going to cut your carefully synthesized patch out of the mix. i'm not being cold, but it's the truth.
if you want to make the argument that the 8p can do everything the juno can plus a bit of extra sound synthesis? sure.
but on an a/b test of the patch across the two different synths, you won't hear a difference, because they're otherwise the same synth.
thomashenrydavies
As I said, if you set any two analog synths up with identical settings, they are going to sounds pretty much the same, especially on a youtube video. I've done it with a Moog Prodigy and a JX10 - are you telling me they are the same synth? If you want to make synths sound the same, you generally can.
A 2 OSC architecture with FM and cross mod allows you to create all sorts of metallic, bell and atonal sounds tthat are simply not possible with a 1 OSC synth.
deathtokoalas
no, i'm not disagreeing with you, so much as i'm pointing out that you're suggesting a comparison the video isn't making. technically, my statement is an oversimplification - what i should have said is there's no difference between the presets because they're identical across the different synths. and, to be complete what that means is that you can create any sound on a jx that you could create on a juno, but there are sounds you can create on a jx that you can't create on a juno.
that's outside of the realm of what's being compared, though. the video is comparing identical patches and then trying to determine if they sound differently, and you've got all kinds of people saying they can hear the difference. "the juno sounds better", etc. but, there isn't a difference because the presets are using identical logic. that would never pass a double blind, because there isn't actually a difference in sound because there isn't actually a difference in logic.
and, sure you could do that with other synths, too, but it's not what the video is attempting to determine. the video is attempting to determine if identical patches sound differently across the different synths. of course they don't...
but i wouldn't dispute that you can do more with a jx than a juno. whether you can really hear the extra oscillation or cross modulation in a mix that's saturated with guitars or horns in the same range is a more subtle question, but the different sounds are no doubt available, should they be utilized purposefully.
and of course you could always multitrack the juno, right...
but, sure: the jx-8p is the superior synth. that's why i bought one instead of a juno :).
you're just not going to hear the difference across identically programmed presets that don't utilize the extra functionality and claims that you can are purely psychological.
it's pretty common for people to claim the "pure analog" synth sounds better, due to various conditioning about the superior quality of analog synths. and there's certainly some truth to it. but comparing presets on a juno to presets on a jx isn't going to demonstrate that difference, no matter how much some people want to claim the pure analog technology is superior.
if you see what i was originally getting at....
i mean, head out to the idm mailing list or something and have this discussion. you'll get an overwhelming response that the less digital a synth is, the better it sounds, without much logic put into analyzing what the synth actually does. and you'll see that kind of mindset in the comments. it's undoubtedly the actual (psychological) reason people are pulling out the juno as sounding better.
thomashenrydavies
Even with identical settings, the sound is not going to be exactly the same: the filter in a JX8P is different to that in the Juno series. Ok, it's not going to be sufficiently different as to be discernible in a youtube video, but it won't be identical. I think the Juno series, the JX3P and JX8P are different enough to warrant existence :)
deathtokoalas
i think it's a semantic question as to whether the filter is a part of the synthesizer. i'd consider it more of an effect. i mean, most people are going to equalize the synth at some point between the time the notes get pressed and the time the song gets mastered, so it's going to come out in the wash. regardless, iirc, the filters are programmable. so, if there's a difference it'd have to be on the envelope or something. and, youtube compression or not, you'd really have to have remarkable ears to the tell the difference between a 30% fade and a 35% fade, or whatever it actually is, on what is otherwise exactly the same synth patch.
thomashenrydavies
To me, the filter in a subtractive synth is possibly THE most integral and important thing. It's the primary way you shape the timbre.
deathtokoalas
just to clarify: yes, subtractive synthesis is technically synthesis. but the filters in these devices are not those kinds of filters. they're high pass and low pass filters, and are essentially eqs.
Eman Mann
You can use filters in a fixed (EQ) sense or dynamic (sweeping) synthesizer way - but there's no rule that says the static 'eq' filter is not 'synthesizer'. The old Korg synths had a filter cutoff slider, where it was up to you to manually sweep, so even a 'fixed' filter can be manipulated to act in a more 'synth-like' fashion.
deathtokoalas
synthesis is about adding and subtracting waveforms, not about running sweep filters as oscillators.
Eman Mann
Additive/Subtractive...No point in arguing semantics - don't recall mentioning self oscillation. Synth's use both types of filters, fixed (formant type) and dynamic cutoff, is all I wanted to say and of course you don't need a filter to make a synthesizer, of course the JX's use both...
deathtokoalas
but, what i'm pointing out is that this is not actually synthesis and so it's a semantic point as to whether it's a part of the synthesizer or a part of a built-in effects unit.
synthesis happens when you do one of two things, perhaps repeatedly in a complex sequence:
1) you add two waveforms together.
2) you subtract one waveform from another.
this filtering is often called "subtractive synthesis" because you're "subtracting" through the hpf or lpf, but it's really a pretty egregious use of language.
sure: it can have a dramatic effect on the sound. but, it's an eq effect; sweeping or not, it's not synthesis.
i've never played with one, but it is possible to find synths on the market that will actually subtract out a generated waveform - a sine wave, or a sawtooth wave, for example.
sorry, just to be clear on how actual subtractive synthesis would work: what you would do is invert the additional waveform and then add it to the base waveform. this would have the effect of "subtracting" the forward phase of the additional waveform from the base waveform.
an example: suppose that i have a tone that i built on a sample of a church bell and then added an inverse sine wave to it. that would remove a sine wave from the sample and would be subtractive synthesis.
running the tone through an equalizer - whether it's an hpf or an lpf or connected to an oscillator or attached to an envelope - is important when it comes to shaping sounds, and does in some way remove information, and has even been referred to as "subtractive synthesis" by most synthesizer manufacturers for a very long time, but isn't technically synthesis. and, so it's a semantic point as to whether it's a part of the synthesizer or a part of the effects unit.
Eman Mann
Though I do appreciate what you are saying, I'm stuck in the more mundane conventions that 90% of us follow. Until something comes along to make the more technically 'correct' model/approach convenient and practical to the masses, we're going to continue to be talking about VCO/VCF/VCA as being the standard building blocks of synthesis, for sometime to come. Kawai gave it a big effort with their Additive synthesis, but even after many hardware releases, it never caught enough of attention as it was too complex - FM (& Casio Phase Distortion) didn't do much to crack the related barrier of VCO/VCF/VCA, though it did convince a fair number of people to cast away their Analog machines at the time. Now we all want them back, which brings us back to the related topic - which is better, the JX3P or 8P and why? ; )
deathtokoalas
well, i'm telling you that you can't hear the difference on a double blind :)
this comment was quite a while ago, but i can tell by what i wrote that i wasn't trying to make a big deal out of this point; i said it was semantic because i didn't want to get into the debate - it was a way to brush the question aside. i then didn't respond to the last point, and i only came back to it months later when i got a notification on it, and decided it was worth clarifying for people stumbling on the discussion. i suppose, at the time, i assumed what i meant would be quickly understood and it would just be glossed over.
Eman Mann
Couldn't agree more about the 'double blind' comment, they are so much alike that people are trying to leverage their opinion based on loudness etc. Tausend Augen certainly knows how to instigate a debate. ; ) (P.S. read my Venn Diagram comment above)
