If Roland made a D50 vst emulation, would you purchase it?

[aciddose]

It's only ever more hilarious if you know. Regardless it is pretty darn hilarious, at least until you see human beings doing it.

I'm sorry disney had to abuse a bunch of rats to illustrate my point, completely unrelated to the rats themselves. What's done is done, now there is no reason not to take advantage of this footage whenever someone mentions something along similar lines.

[Jace-BeOS]

Not really.

The idea the samples are only for attacks is totally ridiculous and makes me ask "has this person ever actually used a d-50 before?"

The d-50 contains some functionality, but you would find if you used one that there are many quirks involved. You can't use everything at once. The filter has many issues which are a little bit surprising. The waveshapes are "okay" but also have their own issues and major aliasing.

"A type of analog-style ... " (subtractive, you mean?) " ... synthesis for sustains."

This just sounds totally clueless, as if repeated over and over without knowing what it actually means.

The M1 uses the same system, as does every "ROMpler" ever. The samples have a looped part and some include a release. The samples are for the most part compressed and dynamics are applied with an amplitude envelope. Timbre is adjusted with a filter.

This is the definition of "ROMpler".

No, it's not. And yes I HAVE used a D50 before. As I said, I OWN one as part of my V-Synth XT.

I also have an MT-32. It is a lighter version of the same architecture found in the D50. Roland called it LA-Synthesis. "Linear Arithmetic" synthesis.

Samples are used for the attacks and subtractive synthesis of basic waveforms (yes, I should've said that instead of "analog") is used for the sustains. On the MT-32, you can hear this very easily. Every instrument sounds mostly the same in sustain. The samples on the D50 are longer and can be looped, but it's still not just a sample player.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_A ... _synthesis

But feel free to keep jumping down my throat and yelling about how I've never used a D50, and about how clueless I am, mindlessly repeating things I've heard.

If you want to argue that Roland's LA-synthesis is debatably an original or unique type of synthesis, fine.

[deastman]

I really don't consider the D-50 a ROMpler. The started intent of LA synthesis, as promoted by Roland at the time, was sampled attacks and basic waveforms for sustain. That is not the typical application of ROMpler waveforms. The M1, on the other hand, most definitely fit the description.

I've said it many times, but I just don't get why people don't go make their own original D-50-esque instruments. You don't even have to be a programmer! Kontakt, for example, is perfectly capable of making LA synthesis patches from your own samples.

[BBFG#]

... yes I HAVE used a D50 before. As I said, I OWN one as part of my V-Synth XT.

Not the same at all.

[C-note]

Voted NO - Didn't care for it when it came out and don't care about it now

[SODDI]

I am over 50, I owned a Roland D-series synth in the 90s and I would not consider buying any VST emulation of any D-Series synth. It is not stellar tech.

[T-CM11]

... yes I HAVE used a D50 before. As I said, I OWN one as part of my V-Synth XT.

Not the same at all.

Do you have examples where the same patch in both synths sounds not alike at all?

[Chopper]

I personally wouldn't say ''at all', but indeed, they sound different ( i had both at some point and when someone fitted the card in my V-synthXT, my D550 finished as a door stopper, literally. not because they are the same, but because i prefered the editing/sound of the card. which one sounds better is a matter of taste, but unarguably, they sound a bit different).
by the way, my D550 sounded slighly clearer than the D-50 next door from my studio. possibly the converters, i doubt it was something else. hell, i don't know what it was actually. but the noisefloor was definitely lower and the sound that 0.1% cleaner. anyone can confirm here or it's just my (and my then studio assistant) paranoia?


oh, and i forgot my D550 behind the door, on the floor, when my studio closed down. true story....

[sfd]

No, not for the sounds.

I've a D-20 and today I feel it sounds more like a toy then anything else. However there are a few extra soundbanks that sounds...ok.

And for the features - well my D-20 is a pain to program and so was the D-550 (I've never programmed a D-50 but I assume that there's no difference). So...no. Not for that either.

But maybe for some nostalgic reasons. But then I have my D-20.

[aciddose]

Samples are used for the attacks and subtractive synthesis of basic waveforms (yes, I should've said that instead of "analog") is used for the sustains. On the MT-32, you can hear this very easily. Every instrument sounds mostly the same in sustain. The samples on the D50 are longer and can be looped, but it's still not just a sample player.

That's true, but to go from that all the way to saying "the d50 is not a rompler" requires ignorance of what "rompler" actually means.

At best you could say "the d50 is a rompler plus basic subtractive synthesizer" and "some of the presets on the d50 do not use looped samples for sustains".

To say "the d50 only uses samples for attacks" is completely inaccurate and you know it.

Easy way to demonstrate is set up a patch with only a single part active. Page through the samples with sustain, just play one note unless there are some samples which are mapped to the keyboard in such a way as to inaccurately demonstrate them. (I do not remember any of them being key mapped like this, but it has been a long time since I had any desire to be near a d-50.)

If the majority of the samples are "single run" samples containing a decay (the term "attack" is used often but inaccurate) then you can make the argument "a majority of the samples don't sustain."

That isn't how I remember them at all. In fact I'd have trouble even to say I suspect there is a half-way split on them. A lot of those samples I remember having sustain loops.

[Jace-BeOS]

On the MT-32, the samples don't sustain. It's literally as I described. On the D50, I haven't played with it for a few months and I recall the sounds being more unique and therefore may use a lot more sustaining samples. You may be correct there. But there is still a considerable reliance on the basic square/sine/etc waveforms for sustains in many patches, after the attack portion. Roland was very proud of this psychoacoustic research (that we identify unique sounds via their attacks, not via their sustains) and pushed the concept hard, when there was little RAM available for big samples.

[Jace-BeOS]

... yes I HAVE used a D50 before. As I said, I OWN one as part of my V-Synth XT.

Not the same at all.

WTF? It definitely is the same. Do you own a V-Synth XT?

The reviewers have reported identical sound and performance between a real D50 and the software recreation inside a V-Synth XT or V-Synth 1's add-on card. The difference in resampling quality is even accommodated for in a setting on the V-Synth XT. It defaults to a cleaner sound but can be set to emulate the older D/A or resampling, or whatever it was that defined the crunchiness of the hardware D50.

[aciddose]

And for the features - well my D-20 is a pain to program and so was the D-550 (I've never programmed a D-50 but I assume that there's no difference). So...no. Not for that either.

D-50 is identical to a lot of hardware from that era. Cheesy effects "20-in-1" rack units, almost all the synthesizers and sound modules released around that time, notably the DX-7 which arguably first brought this type of interface into view for most people.

I wouldn't say it is difficult. It isn't in my opinion any more difficult using the menus than using the programmer, much like the junos. For instruments like the DX-7 you'd end up hopelessly lost trying to use sliders or knobs without a digital readout of the value you're entering.

That said, most people seem to loath it.

[Jace-BeOS]

Further on the D50 architecture:

"The D-50 produces a hybrid "analog/digital" sound: one can use traditional fat analog waveforms like saw and square (digitally created on the fly unlike competing synths of the time that used PCM samples of waveforms, ala Korg DW-8000) together with PCM samples of actual acoustic instrument attack transients and famous analog synths of the past, filtered through full analog-style processing (LFOs, TVFs, TVAs, ring modulator, effects, etc.). This breakthrough led to the creation of totally new sounds never done before on either pure analog synths or samplers.

Each D-50 sound ("patch") was made up of 2 "tones" (Upper and Lower) and each tone was made up of 2 "partials". Each partial could be either a "synth waveform" (pulse or sawtooth waveform) and a TVF (time variant filter, the digital equivalent of a VCF) or a digital PCM waveform (sampled attack transient or looped sustain waveform). The partials could be arranged following 1 of 7 possible "structures" (algorithms), with a combination of either a PCM waveform or synthesized waveform, with an option to ring modulate the two partials together. The synthesized waveforms could be pulse width modulated and could be passed through a digital 4-stage Low Pass filter, allowing for subtractive synthesis. The lower and upper part could be split or played in dual on the keyboard. The dual configuration allows an 8-voice polyphony bi-timbrality while only one partial plays, which allows for 32 voices.[7]"

So, in a way, I was right about analog synthesis. Just not purist about it.

Yes, anyone could replicate this kind of synthesis in Reaktor. The uniqueness of Roland's synths are in the samples used and the patch programming. The ROM is copyright protected. Yes, the sounds are "dated", if used pure, but are great starters when processed with other effects or when original patches are programmed.

Some fun programming of the MT-32 at this defunct page takes advantage of the digital-analog synth functionality: https://web.archive.org/web/20071122044 ... /mt32.html

[Jace-BeOS]

D50 and DX7 have entirely different synthesis architectures.

As for loathing the sound... "most people" is your opinion.

The DX7 and D50 were incredibly popular and not loathed. The fact of the sounds becoming identified with an era works against the D50. The poor execution of FM synthesis on sound cards and cheepo kiddie keyboards worked against FM synthesis. Both being superseded by ROMplers worked against them and made them obsolete at the ends of their eras. ROMplers themselves have been made obsolete by trends, since everyone is obsessed with analog now that it's no longer the ONLY synthesis possible and it's filled with nostalgia and was resurrected by filter twiddlers using Roland rhythm machines (which WERE loathed in their day).

Things go in and out of style. Taste is not universal.