I'm not synthesizer connoisseur. I've recently purchased my first synthesizers (Korg Kronos, Korg Wavestate, & Pioneer AS-1). Till this day, I'm still mesmerized by the Roland D-50. The track that pulled it in, for me, was Eric Clapton's intro to Bad Love.
I have all three, bought the DX-7 first, it’s an original brown one, and I probably paid too much, it was the first one I’d ever seen and got very excited. Then a few years later, I bought the D-50, came in the Roland D-50:case, and finally I bought the M1, I wasn’t really looking for one, in my humble, silly opinion, it was less desirable, but one came up for sale in my area, it was posted for a few weeks, I zoomed in on the pictures and it didn’t look beat up like a lot of M1’s you see, so I thought what the hey, as soon as I saw it, I felt some love. It actually has a more stated demeanour, looking like a serious, no frills piece of kit. I got a good price for it, and “Skinny’s” demo on TH-cam helped convince, I should have one, you never hear a M1 making those kinds of sounds and it good to know, under its hood, it’s capable of some credible dark synth tones.
@@asoundlab to be honest, I’ve only scratched the surface, I’m that guy, but I do intend to do a comparison in the future, the M1 is slightly easier to get your head around, but until I break through the steep learning curve of the D-50 and DX-7, I want to hold off on a definitive opinion. I’ve been procrastinating, holding off until I can focus fully on them, if only I’d have my shit together before the coof! But I want to go beyond the preset sounds for sure, try and push them into territories they are not known for. . We’ll see. I want to get industrial with the DX-7, and way darker with the D-50, certainly not Enyaesque. And the M1 could be the synth that binds them all together, gives it all cohesion. Like yourself, I want to create a TH-cam presence, but my jobs is all or nothing, twelve hour days and then dead in winter, so this time next year I should be rolling. Lol, bare with me.
nice one - always loved the D-50 and Eric Persing's (Spectrasonics) factory sounds put that thing on the map - the PG-1000 is a lot of fun to mangle and shape sounds on the fly - I have the keys and the rack sadly the rack unit is missing the vector joystick which is a big sound design/ performance item - but Roland did put the joystick on the current Boutique D-05 which also has a massive sound collection (onboard), arpeggiator, sequencer, FX, and portable/battery operation - the D-05 even has the a high quality mode which is switchable if you want clean vs. gritty for most people that is the easiest/cheapest way to go with D-50 stuff and it's recent with a warranty the V-Synth also has a D-50 card or the V-Synth XT has the D-50 mode built in :-) also much the D-50 mojo was moved into the JD-800 and JD-990 classic Roland successors, also very nice can you tell I like the D-50? :-P
Hello SynthAddict, I happen to use the "clean" mode a lot on my D-05. Your profile picture here on TH-cam is a photo of the V-Synth. Do you own one yourself and do you have the VC-1 Card as well? Greetings from the Netherlands
@@devingademan hey there, yeah I love the V-Synth and I have the D-50 card and the vocal processing card (very rare now) - both are built-into the XT rack version but the original V-Synth needs the PC cards - I started with the V-Synth since it's one of the best keyboards ever - time trip pad, nice later Roland PB/mod stick , 2 D-Beams, great aftertouch, and a nice control surface - built well too check out a couple of vids I posted on some that stuff the XT has a color screen, those upgrade cards built in, and it's more portable but less control - instead of the TT pad you have a screen mode to act as the pad, not as good as a real pad and it takes over the screen while you use it so less multitasking is possible - can't go wrong with either unit though - the GT is fancy as it's basically 2 V-Synths in one but it's a lot more money
@@SynthAddict Hello SynthAddict and thank you for your reply. I have subscribed to your channel. Looking forward to see your videos. Yes, the V-Synth is fantastic for all the reasons that you said. In my profile picture on TH-cam (it is very small), the V-Synth is right behind me. MidiManiac here on TH-cam did some great videos regarding the V-Synth about two months ago. I am also a D-50 fanatic and have all the three units (D(0)5(5)0) as well as the V-Synth, but without the VC1 card. About 6 months ago, I commented the following on someone's video regarding the V-Synth and the VC-1 Card: "Dear Synth, thank you for sharing both part 1 and 2. Great playing and many classic sounds! I wasn’t ever sure the VC-1 card included all original D-50 rom cards (PN-00 till PN-04). I would enjoy a video where you would go through the menus and all parameters of the VC-1 card. I have never seen such video on TH-cam and as a D-50 owner; I would enjoy to see the menu diving of the VC-1 card. Again, thank you for sharing!" He/She did a great two part series going through some of the VC-1 Card sounds on the V-Synth and responded that there will be a video like that in the future. Unfortunately, that has not happened (as of yet). Would you be interested in doing a video like that? I would be interested. -Devin
@@devingademan thanks, yeah I'm overdue for some vids like that another cool thing about D-50 card for the V-Synth is they included some extra eaves that weren't on the D-50 :-) - been a while so I forgot which ones or how many
Now I happen to have a Wavestation SR (most expanded Wavestation engine with the most limited user interface). The D-550 and the SY77 have been on my "maybe" list for quite a while. Although I'd be tempted by the FS1R, if asking prices weren't so ridiculous.
For me, the big turn off of D-50 is, unlike Korg M1, it cannot filter the PCM wave, hence it has to rely on filtered synth wave(PWM) to provide timber brightenss/darkness. Underneath almost every patch, even one that's meant to be digital or real instruments, there's that muted PWM partial, which simply 'contaminates' and defeats the purpose of PCM. Also because of that, a preset patch typically consisted of 4 partials, which means it only takes 8 keys to max out your polyphony. Duh.... Only until M1 that a PCM waveform sounds fine in its own right. And because it does not need extra PWM waveform for body, a patch can be made of just 1 or 2 partials instead of 4, which means less programming needed.
A friend had a D-50 when it came out and I was astonished at the sound of it. I finally bought one back in about 2006 and began finding patches online others have made over the years. The Cult of D50 website has the largest collection of them available. There is an old D-50 patch librarian software that must be run on a slow older computer so I have a dedicated 2005 IBM laptop running Win XP to load different custom banks..... I tend to shy away from using the presets that were typical of the machine. You know, the Enya sound and other ultra glassy almost cliche'd classics. But there are some great gems to be found that do not exhibit that characteristic sound but you have to look and perhaps audition 1000's of sounds. Valhalla made some really good ones off the top of my head. "Sultry Vox"...Wow...my favorite D-50 preset of all time.
interesting, I have a soft spot for the d50 this summer I found a D550 with a stack of memory cards for an amazingly reasonable price. I put a virtualizer 3D behind it for more effects and wow.. it sounds nice. I also, quite recently picked up an M1 as a total vanity purchase. I have very vivid memories of them being the new thing, and being wildly outside of my price range. These days ( thanks to adult strength income ) a really nice used M1 is essentially pocket change. They have been totally worth it.
The problem with the D-50 is similar to the DX7. Both are very powerful for their price point but programming is dense for those who aren't willing to do the work. With both, the presets were well exploited and were regarded as overused. Both could do great things beyond the presets if you put in work. Great synthesizers that were victims of the sucess of their presets.
Editors are now easy to find and use. As are custom presets you can download in banks. Sure, it's not as convenient as knobs, but sometimes you have to work for amazing sounds. Lust like with analogue gear.
The D50 is not at all hard to program! Ok, its not quite as easy as a knob laden synth such as a Juno 106 or JP8000. But a DX7 is on another level, I should know, I've owned one and even though I got what I wanted out of it, I never fully understood it!
@@lundsweden Yeah to that! Around 1995 I knew all the menus/screens in my sleep and could do ... A LOT with it. Still have SysEx dumps I've transferred to a little D-05 Boutique. It's not that hard, apart from having to get all that info through one display. It's basically just another synth when it comes to programming.
Not even close. In terms of programming, Roland's D-series were some of the easiest first generation digital synths to understand. If you could program an analog synthesizer, you could program a D-50. *Structures* along with the *pitch, filter,* and *amplitude envelopes* parameter diagrams were stenciled right on the upper panel of the D-50 itself. When you entered edit mode, active partials were lit on panel buttons so that you knew which and exactly how many oscillators were used for the current patch. For its _LA Synthesis_ D-series line, Roland simply called them _partials_ instead of oscillators or voices. There was even an optional programmer called the PG-1000 to make it simple for even a novice to manipulate *_all_* of the parameters. If you preferred a software patch editor and librarian, several were introduced for many of the popular home and personal computers of the time (Amiga, Atari, Macintosh, MS-DOS) by early 1989. They were relatively simple to understand. A few third parties attempted to design and market hardware programmers for Yamaha's DX line, but most of them sold poorly given that they were expensive enormous monstrosities that were physically larger than the DX7 itself. Google: "jellinghaus dx programmer." Many software editor/librarians were developed for the DX line, but most musicians never bothered to try to program the DX, given the required steep learning curve for 6 operator _FM Synthesis_ ...and that the DX was apparently designed by and for space aliens.
Agree with all your points on the sound of vintage digital and the limitations of the hardware contributing to the sonic characteristics of the synths from that era. The Kawai K4 immediately comes to mind. I jokingly refer to it as like being able to "hear geometry". However, I'll always have a soft spot for the D-50 too. Great video, keep em' coming!
The biggest issue with D50/550 is awful MIDI lag and jitter. That's why I always sampled all snappy sounds before using in tracks. Other than that it's very cool and unique digital synth. Must have. Cheers! S
Wait... ".... a couple hundred bucks...." Where are you finding prices that low? The D-50 has been in the average $600-$1000 range for years now, with the PG selling for $300-$500+ from what I've seen....
I bought a Roland Boutique D-05 just when they started to dry up in the shops. No kudos at all to Roland for only manufacturing a few and then shut the door. Why did I buy it. Because of an experience in a music shop in 1988. Compare the D50 to any other synth at that time and in headphones the others sound ... DEAD! I was hammering away on the D50 and I just knew I had to have one. I loved it to death, literally. True story! :( ... Then DAWs and VSTs happened and eventually I felt the urge to get a D50 again. Long story short to day I'm again is surprised of how meaty, rich, large and earthshaking this thing sound. And yeah, D50/D05 is the same sound unless you look at oscilloscopes or whatever. I prefer to listen and play., DX7? M1? Pffff ... not on my watch haha! I just love the D50 because it's a real instrument! New stuff dpesn't make me want to hammer the keys until the cows come home. That's the difference!
My father had one of these, so I got a lot of experience on it as a teenager. There’s a good reason that the popular D-50 / D-550 patches tended toward pads, drones, evolving textures, and new age styles: the trigger timing on the D-50 was pretty laggy! Even on this video, you can hear the slight unevenness when it’s being triggered by the Arturia’s arpeggiator. This lag can also be perceived when playing from a controller. The timing was intermittent, so people tended to shy away from hyper-accurate sequenced parts. (Now that I think about it, perhaps this was a by-product of the virtual analog approach they took? 🤔 Maybe the CPU just couldn’t keep up? 🤷♀️). Anyway, certainly don’t want to sound like a Debbie Downer, because the D-50 was also one of the most unique instruments for creating your own patches & textures. If you take the time to dig into the programming, you can be rewarded with some incredible sounds!
Great feedback! Makes sense. Going to look into it and see if I can find a reference for what causes the lag - your hypothesis sounds like a good place to start. I like the programmer better than the interface on its successor the JD800.
Have had D50 since 1990 and is mystical magical and wonderful ! I agree it’s not that good at doing electric or acoustic pianos or real brass but a synth , toy or ballad piano it can do well also analogue brass and bass it can do well but not so good with real bass . In contrast a JX08 can do piano’s , bass and brass very well - they are both gems ! 😀
I find it rather comforting that the ZEN-Core architecture is not much different from the D-50. The four partial architecture is optimal. Once can get its head around it, and all the synthesis power is there. I wonder if can do formants (multiple-peak filtering). By I digress... The 6-operator DX7II and 2-oscillator M1 don't really compare directly to the D-50. Yamaha SY77 is much closer to the D-50, and of course much more than that. The SY77 can do LA style synthesis rather well.
The D50 is a fun useful and in ways still powerful synth. Have had the D50 since late 1988 along with several ROM cards. Also programed several sounds without the programmer, a lot of menu diving yes, but workable. Also have the original DX7 since 1986, programed many sounds on it. The two work well with each other.
I would say the D50 is hands down my favourite synth - it’s honestly from another planet. I would really recommend ditching all the presets aside from 37. Soundtrack though - they are a waste of space!! Making your own sounds isn’t so bad once you get used to the extent of what you can adjust. Trust me, if you spend a little time familiarising yourself, the interstellar rewards you will reap will be plentiful!!!!!
If I recall correctly, Roland sold about 100000 D50s, Yamaha sold about 160000 DX7s and Korg sold about 250000 M1s? I also heard that Korg sold about 100000 Tritons?
I was a young musician at the rise of the digital era. I have to say that I hated de DX7, for most because you need to hook up FX to make it sound grate and I loved the D50 because of its studio quality sounds right at the moment. The Korg M1 was kind of Meh for me because I preferred samplers. Today I would love to have a Dx7 and a D50, the M1? Not so unique today in my opinion.
Not really. D-50 has 512kb ROM vs 4Mb of M1, hence it has to rely on Waveform Generator(early VA) to provide looped body, and it even has WG partials in a patch that's meant to be totally digital or acoustical instrument. Almost every patch is consisted of 4 partials, compared to usual 1 or 2 in a M1 patch, that's why it sounds fancier, but if you mute the VA partial, its PCM part sounds much thinner.
The Roland D-50 was certainly influential- even on Roland's subsequent synths such as the JD800, JD990 (both were more hifi though, 16 bit and 44.1khz) the legendary JV1080 and its many successors. I have a Kawai K5000W synth released more than a decade after the D50, and while its a bit different (Additive + PCM), the architecture is quite similar. The idea is you can use up to 4 sources to make your sound. Additive isn't very good on (often noisy) attack portions of the waveform, so you can mix the PCM attack with additive synthesized sustain. But the K5000 series is even more flexible, as you can use PCM for the sustain portion too. The K5000W has more PCM waveforms than the K5000S or K5000R, if you're considering one.
German Eurodance and 80s Synth-pop artist Fancy used the Soundtrack patch on his song 'Bride in Black' from the album 'Five' (1990). It can be heard in the intro as it merges with another famous patch from the late eighties; the Universe patch from the Korg M1. 😀
Vintage digital limitations can easily be emulated in real time by a modern computer. Old _software_ "sounding different" is not a valid argument for old digital synths IMO. The DAC argument however I can buy into.
It has some interesting patches, but when I went through all the presets, there was not much I can use. It sounds neither digital nor analog or realistic, almost like a cheap Casio keyboard. I guess it could be very exciting when people first heard it back in 80s, but now it's just a nostalgia of that transition time.
@@SPAZZOID100I know its synthesis pretty well. It's this limitation of earlier digital synthesis that falls in this gray zone between analog/digital/sampling that I am not a big fan of.
I just gotta say it. The Korg M1 is an overrated synth. No idea how it became best selling of all time. DX7s and D-50/550 are currently increasing in price. And when you play with them, you can hear their charms. But the M1? Sounds dull and it's cheap as chips.
I agree. What made the M1 successful at its time was the ability to have sampling style (not quality) sounds without loading disks and right at your hands. I was never a fan of the M1 or the DX7. In my opinion , today the D50 is the more captivating.
You are correct. I have two DX7s (gen 1 - 83 and 86) and a D550. These instruments have a certain “soul” about them. The vst emulations are decent, but in no way can behave like the original circuitries. You may get some good patch/voice imitation, but beyond that? Meh. And the M1, not a fan.
Re: the M1 sales numbers: At the time, a lot of “volume market synths” were sold to high schools, cover bands, and churches. The M1 allowed all of these types of groups to get anything from relatively realistic(for the late 80s and compared to DX7/D50) piano/bass/organ/drum sounds to covering the “bread and butter” of synth stuff. It also had had a decent sequencer for the time which D50 and DX7 did not have. Today, Nord also covers this volume market for “classic keys+ some synth sounds”. So when you think about “volume market” vs “professional synth” “collectible synth enthusiast piece” etc: The volume market stuff sells to cover bands, high schools, churches and focused historically on who could pack the most useable presets into a single board. So at the time, the M1 kicked the crap out of the D50 and DX for the VOLUME market, whereas the d50 and DX/SY series have aged better and probably are heard on way more recordings.
@@Pamberjack_ thanks. FWIW…I didn’t use an M1 then at age 14, and I still wouldn’t use one now…but that’s my taste. I do like the Nord stuff but have always held back because I own a real Rhodes…and a D550, JD990, and TX802 from that era.
I have the D50 (keyboard) and find programming not too difficult, even without the programmer. The thing that helps with the D50 over the 550 is the addition of the joystick which doubles as a rotary control when in programming mode. Once you've figured out the architecture of the synth (4 layers, upper and lower, partials and structure) the rest is quite straight forward, Oscillators, envelopes, LFO's and FX etc. Completely different to analogue synth programming of course, which is easy by comparison, but I am a digital synth guy, so am quite familiar with a bit of menu diving. The Roland JV1080 is fairly similar sound structure wise, though not as deep as the D50 and relies more on sampled sounds as sampling memory became cheaper.
Agreed. I had the D-50 back then, too, and didn‘t find it too difficult to program. Now I have the boutique D-05, but have completely forgotten the menu structure. Ouch!
One has to understand the place in time from where these machines were coming from, the era when computing memory and processing power were at a huge premium. The D50/550 punched outside their weight with their ingenious use of merging sample and synthesis to deliver astounding results, even if it could not deliver exact replicas of acoustic instruments (after all Synthesizers in the past for long have been trying to get there isnt it? Piano Strings Horns etc). In my opinion actual new ground was broken between early 80s and late 90s.. FM, LA, AFM, PCM, AI2, Virtual Modelling.. what else has happened significantly later in synthesis since then except larger sample libraries, effects algorithms, analog emulation.. nothing else?.. So if one is tempted to buy it, then keep it for what it can do on its own, get the programmer PG 1000, dive headlong and create a new sound palette and enjoy the experience.
I notice that you had a very low opinion of the JD800 and yet you never tweaked the controls when doing the demo on that synth. In comparison, you often tweaked the controls of the PG1000 when doing the demo of the D50? Why is that?
Why must people go on with the lie that the D-series synths can not be programmed without the PG-xxxx programmers? That is total bullshit. 30+ years programming LA-synths I've never used any external programmer, there is no need, and it's far easier to program patches using just the synth. The people saying this really need to just stick with their analogs, and leave the real synths to the pros...
@@christianvictor3471 Well, you cannot do real-time live adjustment of say, filter resonance and frequency without such a controller. That, what actually was demonstrated in the video above.
@@freestate6200 Yeah ok... except doing that was never what the D-50 was intended for anyway. Would be sort of like saying you can't fly to the moon in a submarine - wrong vehicle for the job. And besides, you actually could do faux-realtime adjustments anyway, just play with the tone in EDIT mode, retrigger notes as you change things and it works good enough, all things considered.
@@asoundlab It's not that the D50 is particularly difficult to programme without the PG1000 but it is a rather tedious process. However, I didn't find the PG1000 a huge improvement over programming from the front panel. You can only work on one of the 4 partials (that constitute a patch), at a time and it doesn't even sit comfortably on top of the synth.
Recently purchased myself a D-50 in great shape. It was love at first sight. The sound is quite unique compared to any other synthesizer I've heard or played. (Both vintage and new.) I find myself playing it some three times a week now. There are hundreds of patch banks (sys ex) available online to try out different sounds. And the midi dump procedure very very easy, using Sys Ex Librarian application on my Mac. So I can change patch banks at any moment, to fit the song I'm working on. But foremost I've come to know the synth now as a very inspirational musical instrument. the overall feel and sound of the machine, invite me to search for new chord progressions, new ideas. Going in to edit mode to alter or create sounds feels familiar. The lay out of screen and buttons, make navigating quite easy for a digital synth. It's excellent instrument and still relevant today, especially compared to it's main rivals back in the day. The Yamaha DX7 and the Korg M1. The Yamaha was a bit of a revolution, but the FM synthesis very hard to program. The M1 sounds beautiful, but it's more a rompler than a synthesizer. Sound tweaking is limited and no filters. So, if given the choice, I'd choose the D-50.
D-50 has some nice and interesting sound for sure, but it cannot filter the PCM waveform. On the other hand, filter on M1 can make a Brass waveform sounds from hissing bright to Sine-like mellow, and from there, with so many envelope parameters, you can make a string pad or sweeping FX out of it.
34:40 Absolutely true. The analogue circuitry helped create the sound in its attempts to work around the deficiencies - it wasn't about trying to reproduce the digital waveform with maximum fidelity.
@@looneyburgmusic that's curious - it worked when I checked it (I always check). 😀 It's a reference to his comments about the sound of the old tech being a key part of the sound.
The D-50 was pretty good, but I'm really glad I held out for the Korg M1. The M1 made much more realistic instrument sounds, and was capable of a lot more. Modern synths are still based on the M1. Many of the M1's patches still stand up to modern synths. The D-50 had some classic patches like Fantasia which I really liked, and a bit more of an analog type engine, though the M1 could also make a lot of analog type patches but probably harder to program and both were great for atmospheric sounds. Really both of these synths should be in any collectors setup, but if I could only choose one the M1 would be the clear winner. The D-50 can make some nice sounds the M1 can't, but I feel the M1 makes a lot more useful sounds for the kind of music I play, and offers larger sound libraries to tap into. I have classic synths & modern ones, and though I use some D-50 sounds (like Fantasia), I use a lot more M1 sounds in my music. Many M1 sounds I can't find anything similar in the Kronos, Montage or Fantom. Everyone should have an M1 in their setup as either hardware or soft synth which Korg offers.
Love your perspective. Its great how many different perspectives there are about vintage synths and what appeals to every person individually. Thank you for sharing your reasoning. Recently picked up an M1 And although my initial impression was conflicted, I’m still spending time with it because so many people love it And say it rewards deeper diving
Short answer d50 is still a synth meaning you can synthesize sounds , the m1 was the first digital rompler/ mixer / because it omitted basic synth functions no resonance , no ringmod , between the d50 /550 it is a longstanding aknowledgement the 550 misses a specific coloring warmth in its sound the d50 has
Do you know why that is? This is the first I’ve heard or read about this difference - very curious to hear more on the differences between the d50 and d550!
@@cnfuzz You would be surprised by how good many analog synthesized type sounds can be out of the M1, but like the D50, it has limitations vs say an analog synth. I have the D50 in software format, and I've played the original many times. The disadvantage of the M1 is more if your going to program it yourself (and no portamento being maybe the biggest disadvantage). The M1 does have a filter type effect (maybe works differently in some way?). I use that effect for real time filter adjustments often like I would say on a synth brass sound, just as the real-time Leslie (assign to pedal) for organs. The filter works with one of the sliders near the display, I forget if it's the left most slider or next one over. I also owned a few Casio CZ's and a Yamaha FB-01 (FM engine), so these were great additions to have with the M1. The CZ's made up for in traditional synth sounds what the M1 lacked, and I'd take the CZ's over the D50 for those kind of sounds too, but the M1 could make a ton of useful sounds the CZs or
@@asoundlab with the d550 they fixed the midi lagg but in a similar way the jx 10 lost something to a jx8 its the same with 50/550 , like you say if you try to improve signal to noise or little artifacts you can change very specific characteristics
The D50 was pretty successful, albeit for only 1-year and a bit beyond. It was a breath of fresh air, because it sounded like a bunch of synths combined together. Programming is a total waste of time and the programmer is disappointing, because it is connected via MIDI, unlike the other Roland synths who have a dedicated programmer connection. Another problem with the D50 is, that the factory presets were so good, that everything else that you programmed into it sounded subpar or too much like the presets. It's totally unique though and nothing else can come close to its character.
It was worth it when I paid $250 for one and I had Pg-1000 also but at todays prices I don’t know if its worth it. I think its great for retro style new age.
There was a show in the late eighties called 30 Something. And the theme song in the show, the woodwinds were done with the XP50. And I remember at the time it sounded good to me. I'm not so sure anymore Here is the link to the theme song th-cam.com/video/9wRqBV9VVuU/w-d-xo.html
Adjust the presets and it sounds great IMHO. I even like the alaising sound it makes but then I love everything. Roland and Boss make. Got rid of my M1, Triton and Karma by Korg they sounded great to me at first but then it wears off.
Nothing wrong with FM or digital synths , it is the person using it that is at fault , these are incredible machines that have been victimised by the analogue purists , DCO Or VCO who cares it’s a new synthesis and as a synth head I love them
May I ask how much I should pay for an original D-50 keyboard? The one I'm looking at is listed at 700 GBP, but the seller's open to offers. It has the original box, but no flight case or extras. Looks unused, but I don't want to make a rash purchase, as I'm a novice in the world of synths. Really appreciate anyone's opinion and general buying advice.
@@jennytaylor3324 £700 is probably not an outrageous asking price if the synth is truly in next to mint condition. However, it sounds like something for a collector (museum curator!) rather than for someone looking to familiarise themselves with synthesis. Have you made a synth purchase yet?
I have had my D-50 since 1989. It is like an good old friend when I take a moment to play it. It has such long envelope times that you can create patches that move in and out in a dreamy warm style.
If you want to hear D-50/D-550, try Jean-Michel Jarre's "Revolutions" album. Especially the first track, Industrial Revolutions, which consists of the Overture (absolutely amazing track with an amazing synth solo) and parts 1 to 3, is practically all D-50. In fact, there's a video out there of somebody playing practically all the parts on a D-50. The D-550 is on my "maybe" list. Yes, it was a seminal synth, but my goodness, those presets sound dated because every man and his dog used them in their songs. But with a PG-1000, that will set you back around €1000, not to mention shipping, and that's a lot of money for what's really a limited synth. Plus, you have to see it in the wider context of why I would want to have it (an interesting rack module), and what I already have. There's a Proteus 2000 (got that a few weeks ago) and an EX5 (bought it new in the late 1990s), which offers tons of polyphony, and especially the EX5 is good at pretty much everything a D-50 does, or any other synth for that matter. This video is helpful in helping me come to the conclusion that the D-550 is on my "maybe" list, but no more than that.
Yes I second that - Jarre’s “Revolutions” album is a total showcase for what the D50 can do and is the reason I purchased one. And the album doesn’t use any of the cheesy, over used presets like in most 80s tracks.
R&B, and creator of “New Jack Swing”, Teddy Riley still uses a D550. And it back in the late 80’s and 90’s almost all his hits had tones from that synth. Thanks for this demo and talk of if. I just purchased one from Reverb. Hoping for the best.
DX7 is a true synthesizer, while D50 and M1 are Romplers that can do cut-and-past synthesis. Although inspired by D50 IMO, M1 is simply more powerful in every aspect(other than sound resolution/quality), let alone being multi-timbral and having a sequencer on board. It sells well because the car finally has 4 wheels! 😂
@@nixinedoesvgm My bad... after recounting there are 14 with DWGS prefix. However they are probably sampling of tones generated, not the same waveform osc in DW8000. For example, M1 has 3 DWGS EP, while DW8000 has only 2
@@SamLee300SL also- it might be nit picky, but the D-50/550 isn't a rompler. it can act like one if you are to use the pcms all by themselves (a nice sized handful of the factory presets are like this. like pizzagogo, digital native dance etc), but the synth side of it is straight up a digitally generated saw/square subtractive affair. that would account for the sound resolution, too, being that it's not based on pcms. with all this being said i don't put either or above the other. they both have their place, i own and love both personally. they go together like peanut butter and jelly.
I'm not synthesizer connoisseur. I've recently purchased my first synthesizers (Korg Kronos, Korg Wavestate, & Pioneer AS-1). Till this day, I'm still mesmerized by the Roland D-50. The track that pulled it in, for me, was Eric Clapton's intro to Bad Love.
I have all three, bought the DX-7 first, it’s an original brown one, and I probably paid too much, it was the first one I’d ever seen and got very excited. Then a few years later, I bought the D-50, came in the Roland D-50:case, and finally I bought the M1, I wasn’t really looking for one, in my humble, silly opinion, it was less desirable, but one came up for sale in my area, it was posted for a few weeks, I zoomed in on the pictures and it didn’t look beat up like a lot of M1’s you see, so I thought what the hey, as soon as I saw it, I felt some love. It actually has a more stated demeanour, looking like a serious, no frills piece of kit. I got a good price for it, and “Skinny’s” demo on TH-cam helped convince, I should have one, you never hear a M1 making those kinds of sounds and it good to know, under its hood, it’s capable of some credible dark synth tones.
Out of curiosity which one do your like the best of the three?
@@asoundlab to be honest, I’ve only scratched the surface, I’m that guy, but I do intend to do a comparison in the future, the M1 is slightly easier to get your head around, but until I break through the steep learning curve of the D-50 and DX-7, I want to hold off on a definitive opinion. I’ve been procrastinating, holding off until I can focus fully on them, if only I’d have my shit together before the coof! But I want to go beyond the preset sounds for sure, try and push them into territories they are not known for. . We’ll see. I want to get industrial with the DX-7, and way darker with the D-50, certainly not Enyaesque. And the M1 could be the synth that binds them all together, gives it all cohesion. Like yourself, I want to create a TH-cam presence, but my jobs is all or nothing, twelve hour days and then dead in winter, so this time next year I should be rolling. Lol, bare with me.
@@mastercylinder1939 keep it up brother. I'll be waiting
nice one - always loved the D-50 and Eric Persing's (Spectrasonics) factory sounds put that thing on the map - the PG-1000 is a lot of fun to mangle and shape sounds on the fly - I have the keys and the rack
sadly the rack unit is missing the vector joystick which is a big sound design/ performance item - but Roland did put the joystick on the current Boutique D-05 which also has a massive sound collection (onboard), arpeggiator, sequencer, FX, and portable/battery operation - the D-05 even has the a high quality mode which is switchable if you want clean vs. gritty
for most people that is the easiest/cheapest way to go with D-50 stuff and it's recent with a warranty
the V-Synth also has a D-50 card or the V-Synth XT has the D-50 mode built in :-)
also much the D-50 mojo was moved into the JD-800 and JD-990 classic Roland successors, also very nice
can you tell I like the D-50? :-P
Hello SynthAddict, I happen to use the "clean" mode a lot on my D-05. Your profile picture here on TH-cam is a photo of the V-Synth. Do you own one yourself and do you have the VC-1 Card as well? Greetings from the Netherlands
@@devingademan hey there, yeah I love the V-Synth and I have the D-50 card and the vocal processing card (very rare now) - both are built-into the XT rack version but the original V-Synth needs the PC cards - I started with the V-Synth since it's one of the best keyboards ever - time trip pad, nice later Roland PB/mod stick , 2 D-Beams, great aftertouch, and a nice control surface - built well too
check out a couple of vids I posted on some that stuff
the XT has a color screen, those upgrade cards built in, and it's more portable but less control - instead of the TT pad you have a screen mode to act as the pad, not as good as a real pad and it takes over the screen while you use it so less multitasking is possible - can't go wrong with either unit though - the GT is fancy as it's basically 2 V-Synths in one but it's a lot more money
@@SynthAddict Hello SynthAddict and thank you for your reply. I have subscribed to your channel. Looking forward to see your videos. Yes, the V-Synth is fantastic for all the reasons that you said. In my profile picture on TH-cam (it is very small), the V-Synth is right behind me. MidiManiac here on TH-cam did some great videos regarding the V-Synth about two months ago. I am also a D-50 fanatic and have all the three units (D(0)5(5)0) as well as the V-Synth, but without the VC1 card. About 6 months ago, I commented the following on someone's video regarding the V-Synth and the VC-1 Card:
"Dear Synth, thank you for sharing both part 1 and 2. Great playing and many classic sounds! I wasn’t ever sure the VC-1 card included all original D-50 rom cards (PN-00 till PN-04). I would enjoy a video where you would go through the menus and all parameters of the VC-1 card. I have never seen such video on TH-cam and as a D-50 owner; I would enjoy to see the menu diving of the VC-1 card. Again, thank you for sharing!"
He/She did a great two part series going through some of the VC-1 Card sounds on the V-Synth and responded that there will be a video like that in the future. Unfortunately, that has not happened (as of yet). Would you be interested in doing a video like that? I would be interested. -Devin
@@devingademan thanks, yeah I'm overdue for some vids like that
another cool thing about D-50 card for the V-Synth is they included some extra eaves that weren't on the D-50 :-) - been a while so I forgot which ones or how many
Yamaha SY77 (not DX7), Roland D-50 and Korg Wavestation (not M1) are my personal trinity for classical digital synthesis.
Now I happen to have a Wavestation SR (most expanded Wavestation engine with the most limited user interface). The D-550 and the SY77 have been on my "maybe" list for quite a while. Although I'd be tempted by the FS1R, if asking prices weren't so ridiculous.
I love your historical and technical presentations, and how you relate a vintage synth’s relevance to today’s environment.
For me, the big turn off of D-50 is, unlike Korg M1, it cannot filter the PCM wave, hence it has to rely on filtered synth wave(PWM) to provide timber brightenss/darkness. Underneath almost every patch, even one that's meant to be digital or real instruments, there's that muted PWM partial, which simply 'contaminates' and defeats the purpose of PCM. Also because of that, a preset patch typically consisted of 4 partials, which means it only takes 8 keys to max out your polyphony. Duh....
Only until M1 that a PCM waveform sounds fine in its own right. And because it does not need extra PWM waveform for body, a patch can be made of just 1 or 2 partials instead of 4, which means less programming needed.
????
@@SPAZZOID100 ?????
A friend had a D-50 when it came out and I was astonished at the sound of it. I finally bought one back in about 2006 and began finding patches online others have made over the years. The Cult of D50 website has the largest collection of them available. There is an old D-50 patch librarian software that must be run on a slow older computer so I have a dedicated 2005 IBM laptop running Win XP to load different custom banks..... I tend to shy away from using the presets that were typical of the machine. You know, the Enya sound and other ultra glassy almost cliche'd classics. But there are some great gems to be found that do not exhibit that characteristic sound but you have to look and perhaps audition 1000's of sounds. Valhalla made some really good ones off the top of my head. "Sultry Vox"...Wow...my favorite D-50 preset of all time.
interesting, I have a soft spot for the d50 this summer I found a D550 with a stack of memory cards for an amazingly reasonable price. I put a virtualizer 3D behind it for more effects and wow.. it sounds nice. I also, quite recently picked up an M1 as a total vanity purchase. I have very vivid memories of them being the new thing, and being wildly outside of my price range. These days ( thanks to adult strength income ) a really nice used M1 is essentially pocket change. They have been totally worth it.
The problem with the D-50 is similar to the DX7. Both are very powerful for their price point but programming is dense for those who aren't willing to do the work. With both, the presets were well exploited and were regarded as overused. Both could do great things beyond the presets if you put in work. Great synthesizers that were victims of the sucess of their presets.
Editors are now easy to find and use. As are custom presets you can download in banks. Sure, it's not as convenient as knobs, but sometimes you have to work for amazing sounds. Lust like with analogue gear.
The D50 is not at all hard to program! Ok, its not quite as easy as a knob laden synth such as a Juno 106 or JP8000. But a DX7 is on another level, I should know, I've owned one and even though I got what I wanted out of it, I never fully understood it!
The DX7 is a little harder to program; the DX9 even more so.
@@lundsweden Yeah to that! Around 1995 I knew all the menus/screens in my sleep and could do ... A LOT with it. Still have SysEx dumps I've transferred to a little D-05 Boutique. It's not that hard, apart from having to get all that info through one display. It's basically just another synth when it comes to programming.
Not even close. In terms of programming, Roland's D-series were some of the easiest first generation digital synths to understand. If you could program an analog synthesizer, you could program a D-50. *Structures* along with the *pitch, filter,* and *amplitude envelopes* parameter diagrams were stenciled right on the upper panel of the D-50 itself. When you entered edit mode, active partials were lit on panel buttons so that you knew which and exactly how many oscillators were used for the current patch. For its _LA Synthesis_ D-series line, Roland simply called them _partials_ instead of oscillators or voices. There was even an optional programmer called the PG-1000 to make it simple for even a novice to manipulate *_all_* of the parameters. If you preferred a software patch editor and librarian, several were introduced for many of the popular home and personal computers of the time (Amiga, Atari, Macintosh, MS-DOS) by early 1989. They were relatively simple to understand.
A few third parties attempted to design and market hardware programmers for Yamaha's DX line, but most of them sold poorly given that they were expensive enormous monstrosities that were physically larger than the DX7 itself. Google: "jellinghaus dx programmer." Many software editor/librarians were developed for the DX line, but most musicians never bothered to try to program the DX, given the required steep learning curve for 6 operator _FM Synthesis_ ...and that the DX was apparently designed by and for space aliens.
Agree with all your points on the sound of vintage digital and the limitations of the hardware contributing to the sonic characteristics of the synths from that era. The Kawai K4 immediately comes to mind. I jokingly refer to it as like being able to "hear geometry". However, I'll always have a soft spot for the D-50 too. Great video, keep em' coming!
Overhyped. Korg M1 owns it in all instruments and pads; Ensoniq VFX owns it in exotic sounds. That said, D-50 does own DX7.
The biggest issue with D50/550 is awful MIDI lag and jitter. That's why I always sampled all snappy sounds before using in tracks. Other than that it's very cool and unique digital synth. Must have. Cheers! S
Yes. I have one. Linear arithmetic is a perfectly valid form of synthesis.
Wait...
".... a couple hundred bucks...."
Where are you finding prices that low? The D-50 has been in the average $600-$1000 range for years now, with the PG selling for $300-$500+ from what I've seen....
Ah, I've bought mine for 300€ 10 days ago
@@il_danza Wow! That is a steal from prices I've been seeing lately...
I bought a Roland Boutique D-05 just when they started to dry up in the shops. No kudos at all to Roland for only manufacturing a few and then shut the door. Why did I buy it. Because of an experience in a music shop in 1988. Compare the D50 to any other synth at that time and in headphones the others sound ... DEAD! I was hammering away on the D50 and I just knew I had to have one. I loved it to death, literally. True story! :( ... Then DAWs and VSTs happened and eventually I felt the urge to get a D50 again. Long story short to day I'm again is surprised of how meaty, rich, large and earthshaking this thing sound. And yeah, D50/D05 is the same sound unless you look at oscilloscopes or whatever. I prefer to listen and play., DX7? M1? Pffff ... not on my watch haha! I just love the D50 because it's a real instrument! New stuff dpesn't make me want to hammer the keys until the cows come home. That's the difference!
My father had one of these, so I got a lot of experience on it as a teenager. There’s a good reason that the popular D-50 / D-550 patches tended toward pads, drones, evolving textures, and new age styles: the trigger timing on the D-50 was pretty laggy! Even on this video, you can hear the slight unevenness when it’s being triggered by the Arturia’s arpeggiator. This lag can also be perceived when playing from a controller. The timing was intermittent, so people tended to shy away from hyper-accurate sequenced parts. (Now that I think about it, perhaps this was a by-product of the virtual analog approach they took? 🤔 Maybe the CPU just couldn’t keep up? 🤷♀️). Anyway, certainly don’t want to sound like a Debbie Downer, because the D-50 was also one of the most unique instruments for creating your own patches & textures. If you take the time to dig into the programming, you can be rewarded with some incredible sounds!
Great feedback! Makes sense. Going to look into it and see if I can find a reference for what causes the lag - your hypothesis sounds like a good place to start. I like the programmer better than the interface on its successor the JD800.
Mine is bang on. Maybe yr Dad's got an old firmware version?
@@Pamberjack_ I agree.
@@Pamberjack_ is yours a d50 or d550? Both D50s I have owned had an intermittent slight lag when sequencing….
@@PeachBeach D550
Have had D50 since 1990 and is mystical magical and wonderful ! I agree it’s not that good at doing electric or acoustic pianos or real brass but a synth , toy or ballad piano it can do well also analogue brass and bass it can do well but not so good with real bass . In contrast a JX08 can do piano’s , bass and brass very well - they are both gems ! 😀
I find it rather comforting that the ZEN-Core architecture is not much different from the D-50. The four partial architecture is optimal. Once can get its head around it, and all the synthesis power is there. I wonder if can do formants (multiple-peak filtering). By I digress... The 6-operator DX7II and 2-oscillator M1 don't really compare directly to the D-50. Yamaha SY77 is much closer to the D-50, and of course much more than that. The SY77 can do LA style synthesis rather well.
The D50 is a fun useful and in ways still powerful synth.
Have had the D50 since late 1988 along with several ROM cards. Also programed several sounds without the programmer, a lot of menu diving yes, but workable. Also have the original DX7 since 1986, programed many sounds on it. The two work well with each other.
I would say the D50 is hands down my favourite synth - it’s honestly from another planet. I would really recommend ditching all the presets aside from 37. Soundtrack though - they are a waste of space!! Making your own sounds isn’t so bad once you get used to the extent of what you can adjust. Trust me, if you spend a little time familiarising yourself, the interstellar rewards you will reap will be plentiful!!!!!
"pushing the envelope" 😂 pun. ADSR?
😂😂😂 I’m going to use this one in the future....so good
@@asoundlabI m an English Preacher
If I recall correctly, Roland sold about 100000 D50s, Yamaha sold about 160000 DX7s and Korg sold about 250000 M1s? I also heard that Korg sold about 100000 Tritons?
Yes and I accidentally brought a triton work mistake I ever made the sounds were so bright and thin I nearly went mad 😂
@@Todd63790 Lower the cutoff and add a Square or Sine osc easily solve your 'issue'. Or, get a real analog synth if that's what you really want.
I was a young musician at the rise of the digital era. I have to say that I hated de DX7, for most because you need to hook up FX to make it sound grate and I loved the D50 because of its studio quality sounds right at the moment. The Korg M1 was kind of Meh for me because I preferred samplers. Today I would love to have a Dx7 and a D50, the M1? Not so unique today in my opinion.
D 50 sounds way fuller than the M1 😊
Not really. D-50 has 512kb ROM vs 4Mb of M1, hence it has to rely on Waveform Generator(early VA) to provide looped body, and it even has WG partials in a patch that's meant to be totally digital or acoustical instrument. Almost every patch is consisted of 4 partials, compared to usual 1 or 2 in a M1 patch, that's why it sounds fancier, but if you mute the VA partial, its PCM part sounds much thinner.
The Roland D-50 was certainly influential- even on Roland's subsequent synths such as the JD800, JD990 (both were more hifi though, 16 bit and 44.1khz) the legendary JV1080 and its many successors.
I have a Kawai K5000W synth released more than a decade after the D50, and while its a bit different (Additive + PCM), the architecture is quite similar. The idea is you can use up to 4 sources to make your sound. Additive isn't very good on (often noisy) attack portions of the waveform, so you can mix the PCM attack with additive synthesized sustain. But the K5000 series is even more flexible, as you can use PCM for the sustain portion too. The K5000W has more PCM waveforms than the K5000S or K5000R, if you're considering one.
I had one when they first came out. Best keyboard of its time.
7:08 The D-50 had been used massively in lots of Eurodance (1990's) songs as well.
German Eurodance and 80s Synth-pop artist Fancy used the Soundtrack patch on his song 'Bride in Black' from the album 'Five' (1990). It can be heard in the intro as it merges with another famous patch from the late eighties; the Universe patch from the Korg M1. 😀
Vintage digital limitations can easily be emulated in real time by a modern computer. Old _software_ "sounding different" is not a valid argument for old digital synths IMO. The DAC argument however I can buy into.
It has some interesting patches, but when I went through all the presets, there was not much I can use. It sounds neither digital nor analog or realistic, almost like a cheap Casio keyboard. I guess it could be very exciting when people first heard it back in 80s, but now it's just a nostalgia of that transition time.
Program it.
@@SPAZZOID100I know its synthesis pretty well. It's this limitation of earlier digital synthesis that falls in this gray zone between analog/digital/sampling that I am not a big fan of.
I just gotta say it. The Korg M1 is an overrated synth. No idea how it became best selling of all time. DX7s and D-50/550 are currently increasing in price. And when you play with them, you can hear their charms. But the M1? Sounds dull and it's cheap as chips.
I agree. What made the M1 successful at its time was the ability to have sampling style (not quality) sounds without loading disks and right at your hands. I was never a fan of the M1 or the DX7. In my opinion , today the D50 is the more captivating.
You are correct. I have two DX7s (gen 1 - 83 and 86) and a D550. These instruments have a certain “soul” about them. The vst emulations are decent, but in no way can behave like the original circuitries. You may get some good patch/voice imitation, but beyond that? Meh. And the M1, not a fan.
Re: the M1 sales numbers:
At the time, a lot of “volume market synths” were sold to high schools, cover bands, and churches.
The M1 allowed all of these types of groups to get anything from relatively realistic(for the late 80s and compared to DX7/D50) piano/bass/organ/drum sounds to covering the “bread and butter” of synth stuff. It also had had a decent sequencer for the time which D50 and DX7 did not have.
Today, Nord also covers this volume market for “classic keys+ some synth sounds”. So when you think about “volume market” vs “professional synth” “collectible synth enthusiast piece” etc:
The volume market stuff sells to cover bands, high schools, churches and focused historically on who could pack the most useable presets into a single board.
So at the time, the M1 kicked the crap out of the D50 and DX for the VOLUME market, whereas the d50 and DX/SY series have aged better and probably are heard on way more recordings.
@@JeffreyGermscheid-gd5mb Great insight, Jeff.
@@Pamberjack_ thanks. FWIW…I didn’t use an M1 then at age 14, and I still wouldn’t use one now…but that’s my taste. I do like the Nord stuff but have always held back because I own a real Rhodes…and a D550, JD990, and TX802 from that era.
I have the D50 (keyboard) and find programming not too difficult, even without the programmer. The thing that helps with the D50 over the 550 is the addition of the joystick which doubles as a rotary control when in programming mode. Once you've figured out the architecture of the synth (4 layers, upper and lower, partials and structure) the rest is quite straight forward, Oscillators, envelopes, LFO's and FX etc. Completely different to analogue synth programming of course, which is easy by comparison, but I am a digital synth guy, so am quite familiar with a bit of menu diving. The Roland JV1080 is fairly similar sound structure wise, though not as deep as the D50 and relies more on sampled sounds as sampling memory became cheaper.
Agreed. I had the D-50 back then, too, and didn‘t find it too difficult to program. Now I have the boutique D-05, but have completely forgotten the menu structure. Ouch!
The Spectrum PCMs are one of the many super weapons inside the sound engine of the D50.
One has to understand the place in time from where these machines were coming from, the era when computing memory and processing power were at a huge premium. The D50/550 punched outside their weight with their ingenious use of merging sample and synthesis to deliver astounding results, even if it could not deliver exact replicas of acoustic instruments (after all Synthesizers in the past for long have been trying to get there isnt it? Piano Strings Horns etc). In my opinion actual new ground was broken between early 80s and late 90s.. FM, LA, AFM, PCM, AI2, Virtual Modelling.. what else has happened significantly later in synthesis since then except larger sample libraries, effects algorithms, analog emulation.. nothing else?.. So if one is tempted to buy it, then keep it for what it can do on its own, get the programmer PG 1000, dive headlong and create a new sound palette and enjoy the experience.
Granular
I notice that you had a very low opinion of the JD800 and yet you never tweaked the controls when doing the demo on that synth. In comparison, you often tweaked the controls of the PG1000 when doing the demo of the D50? Why is that?
Hey kids, wanna end up like this guy? Try programming a D-50 patch ONE TIME.
lool
Why must people go on with the lie that the D-series synths can not be programmed without the PG-xxxx programmers? That is total bullshit. 30+ years programming LA-synths I've never used any external programmer, there is no need, and it's far easier to program patches using just the synth.
The people saying this really need to just stick with their analogs, and leave the real synths to the pros...
Fully agree. Grew up with a D-10 and for me it's actually easier without the PG-10 that I own too.
@@christianvictor3471 Well, you cannot do real-time live adjustment of say, filter resonance and frequency without such a controller.
That, what actually was demonstrated in the video above.
@@freestate6200 Yeah but I was referring to programming.
@@freestate6200 Yeah ok... except doing that was never what the D-50 was intended for anyway. Would be sort of like saying you can't fly to the moon in a submarine - wrong vehicle for the job.
And besides, you actually could do faux-realtime adjustments anyway, just play with the tone in EDIT mode, retrigger notes as you change things and it works good enough, all things considered.
@@looneyburgmusic Exactly what I did back in the day when I tried to recreate 303 sounds on the D-10. Wasn't THAT bad.
It’s a $600 synth. Why as “is it worth it”?
Nice sounds. 👍 I would definitely want the controller though. I grew to hate my inscrutable 19” modules by the end of the 90s! 😀
Thanks! Yes, I can’t imagine programming this without the controller. Literally that would be a nightmare.
Yes! the Programmer was a must-have. I had both the D550 and the MKS80 and I purchased both programmers for each of them. Life saver!
enter: patch base
@@asoundlab It's not that the D50 is particularly difficult to programme without the PG1000 but it is a rather tedious process. However, I didn't find the PG1000 a huge improvement over programming from the front panel. You can only work on one of the 4 partials (that constitute a patch), at a time and it doesn't even sit comfortably on top of the synth.
@@MisAnnThorpeIt makes it MUCH easier. And it works even better with the D-05.
does the pg100 work with it ?
You darn Skippy it is
Recently purchased myself a D-50 in great shape. It was love at first sight. The sound is quite unique compared to any other synthesizer I've heard or played. (Both vintage and new.) I find myself playing it some three times a week now. There are hundreds of patch banks (sys ex) available online to try out different sounds. And the midi dump procedure very very easy, using Sys Ex Librarian application on my Mac. So I can change patch banks at any moment, to fit the song I'm working on. But foremost I've come to know the synth now as a very inspirational musical instrument. the overall feel and sound of the machine, invite me to search for new chord progressions, new ideas. Going in to edit mode to alter or create sounds feels familiar. The lay out of screen and buttons, make navigating quite easy for a digital synth. It's excellent instrument and still relevant today, especially compared to it's main rivals back in the day. The Yamaha DX7 and the Korg M1. The Yamaha was a bit of a revolution, but the FM synthesis very hard to program. The M1 sounds beautiful, but it's more a rompler than a synthesizer. Sound tweaking is limited and no filters. So, if given the choice, I'd choose the D-50.
D-50 has some nice and interesting sound for sure, but it cannot filter the PCM waveform. On the other hand, filter on M1 can make a Brass waveform sounds from hissing bright to Sine-like mellow, and from there, with so many envelope parameters, you can make a string pad or sweeping FX out of it.
34:40 Absolutely true. The analogue circuitry helped create the sound in its attempts to work around the deficiencies - it wasn't about trying to reproduce the digital waveform with maximum fidelity.
That time is about a minute after the end of the video....
@@looneyburgmusic that's curious - it worked when I checked it (I always check). 😀 It's a reference to his comments about the sound of the old tech being a key part of the sound.
@@unclemick-synths I'm seeing 33:29 as the end of the video...
@@looneyburgmusic I'm thinking he edited it and re-uploaded after I commented.
@@unclemick-synths Possible... I was also wondering if you had just mis-timed the part you were referring to...
The D-50 was pretty good, but I'm really glad I held out for the Korg M1. The M1 made much more realistic instrument sounds, and was capable of a lot more. Modern synths are still based on the M1. Many of the M1's patches still stand up to modern synths.
The D-50 had some classic patches like Fantasia which I really liked, and a bit more of an analog type engine, though the M1 could also make a lot of analog type patches but probably harder to program and both were great for atmospheric sounds. Really both of these synths should be in any collectors setup, but if I could only choose one the M1 would be the clear winner. The D-50 can make some nice sounds the M1 can't, but I feel the M1 makes a lot more useful sounds for the kind of music I play, and offers larger sound libraries to tap into.
I have classic synths & modern ones, and though I use some D-50 sounds (like Fantasia), I use a lot more M1 sounds in my music. Many M1 sounds I can't find anything similar in the Kronos, Montage or Fantom. Everyone should have an M1 in their setup as either hardware or soft synth which Korg offers.
Love your perspective. Its great how many different perspectives there are about vintage synths and what appeals to every person individually. Thank you for sharing your reasoning. Recently picked up an M1 And although my initial impression was conflicted, I’m still spending time with it because so many people love it And say it rewards deeper diving
Short answer d50 is still a synth meaning you can synthesize sounds , the m1 was the first digital rompler/ mixer / because it omitted basic synth functions no resonance , no ringmod , between the d50 /550 it is a longstanding aknowledgement the 550 misses a specific coloring warmth in its sound the d50 has
Do you know why that is? This is the first I’ve heard or read about this difference - very curious to hear more on the differences between the d50 and d550!
@@cnfuzz You would be surprised by how good many analog synthesized type sounds can be out of the M1, but like the D50, it has limitations vs say an analog synth. I have the D50 in software format, and I've played the original many times.
The disadvantage of the M1 is more if your going to program it yourself (and no portamento being maybe the biggest disadvantage). The M1 does have a filter type effect (maybe works differently in some way?). I use that effect for real time filter adjustments often like I would say on a synth brass sound, just as the real-time Leslie (assign to pedal) for organs. The filter works with one of the sliders near the display, I forget if it's the left most slider or next one over.
I also owned a few Casio CZ's and a Yamaha FB-01 (FM engine), so these were great additions to have with the M1. The CZ's made up for in traditional synth sounds what the M1 lacked, and I'd take the CZ's over the D50 for those kind of sounds too, but the M1 could make a ton of useful sounds the CZs or
@@asoundlab with the d550 they fixed the midi lagg but in a similar way the jx 10 lost something to a jx8 its the same with 50/550 , like you say if you try to improve signal to noise or little artifacts you can change very specific characteristics
Great channel. Binge watching lol
I have one D550 more Dtronics DT01 control... But this very complex... D550 lose control everytime...
Nowadays the Prophet X is pretty good for making D50-style patches, because it also has 2 sample and 2 synth ‘partials‘. No joystick though.
The D50 was pretty successful, albeit for only 1-year and a bit beyond.
It was a breath of fresh air, because it sounded like a bunch of synths combined together.
Programming is a total waste of time and the programmer is disappointing, because it is connected via MIDI, unlike the other Roland synths who have a dedicated programmer connection. Another problem with the D50 is, that the factory presets were so good, that everything else that you programmed into it sounded subpar or too much like the presets. It's totally unique though and nothing else can come close to its character.
It was worth it when I paid $250 for one and I had Pg-1000 also but at todays prices I don’t know if its worth it. I think its great for retro style new age.
There was a show in the late eighties called 30 Something. And the theme song in the show, the woodwinds were done with the XP50. And I remember at the time it sounded good to me. I'm not so sure anymore Here is the link to the theme song
th-cam.com/video/9wRqBV9VVuU/w-d-xo.html
Somebody asks around 670 $ for D 50 . What you Boys thinks , real price , or ?
Adjust the presets and it sounds great IMHO.
I even like the alaising sound it makes but then I love everything. Roland and Boss make.
Got rid of my M1, Triton and Karma by Korg they sounded great to me at first but then it wears off.
Nothing wrong with FM or digital synths , it is the person using it that is at fault , these are incredible machines that have been victimised by the analogue purists , DCO Or VCO who cares it’s a new synthesis and as a synth head I love them
May I ask how much I should pay for an original D-50 keyboard? The one I'm looking at is listed at 700 GBP, but the seller's open to offers. It has the original box, but no flight case or extras. Looks unused, but I don't want to make a rash purchase, as I'm a novice in the world of synths. Really appreciate anyone's opinion and general buying advice.
I think you can find one for closer to $600 USD if you look international
@@asoundlab Thanx!
@@jennytaylor3324 £700 is probably not an outrageous asking price if the synth is truly in next to mint condition. However, it sounds like something for a collector (museum curator!) rather than for someone looking to familiarise themselves with synthesis. Have you made a synth purchase yet?
I have had my D-50 since 1989. It is like an good old friend when I take a moment to play it. It has such long envelope times that you can create patches that move in and out in a dreamy warm style.
It was very popular in the UK at the time of release
If you want to hear D-50/D-550, try Jean-Michel Jarre's "Revolutions" album. Especially the first track, Industrial Revolutions, which consists of the Overture (absolutely amazing track with an amazing synth solo) and parts 1 to 3, is practically all D-50. In fact, there's a video out there of somebody playing practically all the parts on a D-50.
The D-550 is on my "maybe" list. Yes, it was a seminal synth, but my goodness, those presets sound dated because every man and his dog used them in their songs. But with a PG-1000, that will set you back around €1000, not to mention shipping, and that's a lot of money for what's really a limited synth.
Plus, you have to see it in the wider context of why I would want to have it (an interesting rack module), and what I already have. There's a Proteus 2000 (got that a few weeks ago) and an EX5 (bought it new in the late 1990s), which offers tons of polyphony, and especially the EX5 is good at pretty much everything a D-50 does, or any other synth for that matter.
This video is helpful in helping me come to the conclusion that the D-550 is on my "maybe" list, but no more than that.
Yes I second that - Jarre’s “Revolutions” album is a total showcase for what the D50 can do and is the reason I purchased one. And the album doesn’t use any of the cheesy, over used presets like in most 80s tracks.
It's no longer on my 'maybe' list: it's on my 'got one' list now. 🙂
When you do this kind of synths then do some famous riffs from the era.
R&B, and creator of “New Jack Swing”, Teddy Riley still uses a D550. And it back in the late 80’s and 90’s almost all his hits had tones from that synth.
Thanks for this demo and talk of if. I just purchased one from Reverb. Hoping for the best.
I do own 550 rack mount.
Great video 👍
Nice job Zack
4:45 sliders!
Wow
Is the D50 arguably Roland's worst synth?
????
DX7 is a true synthesizer, while D50 and M1 are Romplers that can do cut-and-past synthesis. Although inspired by D50 IMO, M1 is simply more powerful in every aspect(other than sound resolution/quality), let alone being multi-timbral and having a sequencer on board. It sells well because the car finally has 4 wheels! 😂
D50/550 can be programmed 100% without using any sampler, i would not name it a rompler.
@@trejogregorio Same for M1(if we don't get too techy), which has about 20 waveforms from DW8000 that can sound very analog
@@SamLee300SL how can it have 20 waveforms from a synth that only has 16
@@nixinedoesvgm My bad... after recounting there are 14 with DWGS prefix. However they are probably sampling of tones generated, not the same waveform osc in DW8000. For example, M1 has 3 DWGS EP, while DW8000 has only 2
@@SamLee300SL also- it might be nit picky, but the D-50/550 isn't a rompler. it can act like one if you are to use the pcms all by themselves (a nice sized handful of the factory presets are like this. like pizzagogo, digital native dance etc), but the synth side of it is straight up a digitally generated saw/square subtractive affair. that would account for the sound resolution, too, being that it's not based on pcms. with all this being said i don't put either or above the other. they both have their place, i own and love both personally. they go together like peanut butter and jelly.
I honestly think the d-50 and DX7s didn’t age that well