Scott, my 2nd comment to you. I just want to say excellent. I own a Montage 6 & a M8x but what you just showed everyone is a great lesson on how a sound is created & can be applied to some extent on other keyboards. Thank you
Wouldn't call it crap, it's just not something new. Just solid, usable stuff that remains a bit "traditional", I don't see anything wrong with that. Plenty of other companies try to innovate, get their stuff instead then.
well, it's the same shot made in every moan zone forum -- and now, from someone with a System-8 right there on the main stand. Some might say that speaks the louder truth.
The truth is, that the jupiter x and jupiter xm, the juno x, the mc 707 and mc 101, the mv-1, the jd08 and the jx-p8, the aira j6, aira t8, aira s1, the sh-4d, and even the 06/07/08 fantoms- are all the same crap: Roland zencore vst in different boxes. Most of them with 80's screens and no after touch but with high prices tags. The system 8 and the first boutiques were somewhat innovative with the acb technically. But that was 10 years ago. And yet they succeeded in crippling it with stupid decisions like the patched memory system, preventing its full potential. The only thing innovative from Roland lately was the Gaia 2 with it's wavetable engine. But it looks like korg's modewave answer, with korg minilogue design, and it sounds like sylenth1 from 2007 🤷♂️
I get that the point of this video is making D50 type sounds by layering sampled and synthesized sounds, but it seems that the FM-X engine would be a better choice for the drawbars; you could have up to 8 sine waves in one element, and it has more polyphony than the AN-1X engine.
I KNEW someone was going to make this comment! I was editing this video afterwards and thought: "you idiot, why didn't you also use the FM-X engine for this?" too late. 😊
I do find it a bit amusing to use Yamaha's flagship workstation to recreate the D-50's by-definition second-rate result ... when D-50's are both plentiful and quite affordable (and have much better keybeds than the MODX, though that wouldn't matter to a Montage user) Still: it's always interesting to know what's possible. Next up: making a $4500 Montage sound like a Casio CT-460! ;)
Hi,it's me,rmember-anyway,Great class and tutorial,how things work in systhesis,wery usefull,thx (i am experimenting lately on Kronos,with sampling,and this was helpfull(for a project that i am on to currantly) P.S. ,One question,-would you prefer Cubase or Pro Tools? I am mostly using ProTools-You? (just wondering)
When is Yamaha going to re-introduce their VA (as in Virtual Acoustic) sound engine? The VL1/VP1 instrument were out of this world. Unless of course there are some patent limiting considerations, in respect to who developed the physically modeled acoustic synthesis method with the driver/resonator paradigm.
That would be fantastic, they were spectacular machines. I suspect they would have to find a way to code it onto their existing SWP70 DSP chips that power many of their synths today - I can't see them developing a whole new chip architecture just for that synth engine.
While it was a unique form of synthesis when the D50 came out, and there were some interesting sounds made with it, the D-50 was in general, not very good at replicating real life acoustic instrument sounds such as the piano and others.This was due to extremely limited memory and the price point the D-50 & maybe small size the D-50 was at. Besides it's extremely limited memory, it was also 8 bit sampling. The Kurweil K-250 did a much better job of acoustic instruments for the time it came out a few years earlier. However, it was several times the price, and several times the weight and much bigger physically too. Plus it required the purchase of a Mac computer to really explorer it's sound libraries. The Korg M1 was by leaps and bounds, much better at acoustic instrument sounds than the D-50, and it came out a year later. The M1 was really the first instrument that could offer realistic acoustic sampled instruments, at similar price point to the D-50 and similar size & weight. And while there were many great acoustic sampled instruments on the M1 and many of them still hold up even compared to today's rompers, it lacked a good grand piano sample which for many is the very thing they really needed. It did provide a decent upright piano sound and was the best piano you could get in it's price point, weight & size, but it really lacked sustain to play certain kinds of songs like many my cover & tribute bands do that were done on grand pianos in the studio. I still have two original M1's, but Korg's software version nails it today. I have one it on my laptop & iPhone. I also have Roland's D-50 soft synth, which is also very good on my laptop. Both are compatible with the original sound patches even from 3rd party collections. I also have a Roland D-70 keyboard, which offers similar LA synthesis and some improved samples 16 bit samples to better compete with the M1, but of course it still paled next to the mighty M1 except it's grand piano sound would be considered better to some. The M1 had a whopping 4 megs of samples for 1988. Seems like nothing today, and just proves that great clever programming can be better than tons of memory and not as good of programming in many of today's synths. The M1 could also be expanded to 8 megs of ram internally either through the EX expansion or the Invision Plus 1 board (of which both of mine have), and you also get sound cards that included additional sampled instrument waveforms, in glories for the 80s 16 bit sounds (superior to 8 bit). The 8 bit Ensoniq Mirage may have offered better acoustic instruments than the D-50. Some of them. That's what I used in the mid 80s.
That's quite some elaboration on the early sample-playback synthesizers. Let's not forget though, that the instruments like the D-50 and M1 are also very good fully programmable synthesizers for electronic types of sounds. And so are the D-70 and Yamaha SY77, not to mention the JD-800. Among these, only the D-50 and SY77 offer forms synthesis beyond sample playback. The variable pulse square wave generator with ring mod in the case of the D-50, and full blown FM synthesis in the case of the SY77. Also, both the D-50 and SY77 sport resonant digital filters. Sure, the M1 is very good and beautifully looking instrument, and so are the T3/T2, but I think the SY77/SY99 are better.
@@dvamateur I guess my main point was.....why would you want it to sound like a D-50 for acoustic instrument sounds? The Montage is so much better for that kind of thing. The magic of the M1 was it's software library more than just the hardware alone. There were a ton of great sounds made for it both by Korg & 3rd parties. I've explored lots of D-50 sound collections, and generally have found the M1 sounds superior generally speaking, with a few exceptions like Fantasia which is a great D-50 patch. The D-50 as you say offered more than just sampled based synthesis, but I was surprised how many analog type sounds the M1 could still make with all the clever programming that had been done for it. The SY77 came out a year later, and while it did offer some abilities the M1 didn't have, again I point to the software library of the M1 being it's greatest strength. It wasn't even as good on many later model Korg's to be honest, generally speaking. Except the grand pianos. That was the big thing the SY77 did offer that the M1 & D-50 didn't. And the full DX-7 and compatibility was a great thing to also have. But I had my Yamaha FB-01 module for FM sounds, and although the selection of patches available was much more limited, it was still capable of many of the best known DX-7 sounds. I also had my Casio CZ's for analog type sounds, so my M1 was used in conjunction. I also had my Amiga's MIDI soft synths including a full Ensoniq Mirage emulator & 30 Mirage disks. So I knew all about the sonic limitations of 8 bit samples vs the M1's amazing 16 sounds for acoustic instruments. By the mid 90s, I added a Roland JV-1080 Vintage Synth module. When my FB-01 got left behind at a gig as others helped me rush off the stage, I replaced it with a TX-7 (full DX-7), but found the FB-01 actually had been a pretty good alternate in my younger years as it was much cheaper & also smaller. Today I use a MODX (Montage) which is more similar to the SY77, but way more powerful. I still have all my old synths, but no longer gig with them. I use VST's and my M1 & Rolands have been replaced with Korg & Roland's VST's. And I still to this day use tons of M1 sounds because, they were that great. I have the D-50 VST, and I barely found any of sounds useful in comparison to the M1. I use lots of classic analog synth VST's however.
@@classicarcadeamusementpark4242 I wish Yamaha had reintroduced their virtual acoustic physical modelling from the VL1/VP1, just like they reintroduced the analog modeling from the AN1x. The acoustic physical modelling of drivers and resonators was a breakthrough in terms of expressiveness if not realism. But maybe there are some patents held by some other organization which does not allow Yamaha to include the VL/VP sound generation engines in the Montage.
Almost but not exactly. Because it was still analog with 6 voices. The transition to digital allowed them to reach more diverse sounds as well as a polyphony of 16 which was equal to the Dx line.
very special, I think there have been four D50s in my studio here and each time they were let go because they did not sound progressive enough or rather sounded a bit rough, so I'm afraid it will not be possible for me to recreate those sounds.😂
Scott, my 2nd comment to you. I just want to say excellent. I own a Montage 6 & a M8x but what you just showed everyone is a great lesson on how a sound is created & can be applied to some extent on other keyboards. Thank you
Simple and effective. Like the intelligent programming behind D50
"They did something innovative, and not the same crap they are doing over and over now..." Classic! 😆👌
Yeah, I don't see a Roland sponsorship in my near future. :)
@@ScottsSynthStuff
What is more important is that you stick to your truth. You are not owned by any label 👍
Wouldn't call it crap, it's just not something new. Just solid, usable stuff that remains a bit "traditional", I don't see anything wrong with that. Plenty of other companies try to innovate, get their stuff instead then.
well, it's the same shot made in every moan zone forum -- and now, from someone with a System-8 right there on the main stand. Some might say that speaks the louder truth.
The truth is, that the jupiter x and jupiter xm, the juno x, the mc 707 and mc 101, the mv-1, the jd08 and the jx-p8, the aira j6, aira t8, aira s1, the sh-4d, and even the 06/07/08 fantoms- are all the same crap: Roland zencore vst in different boxes. Most of them with 80's screens and no after touch but with high prices tags.
The system 8 and the first boutiques were somewhat innovative with the acb technically. But that was 10 years ago. And yet they succeeded in crippling it with stupid decisions like the patched memory system, preventing its full potential.
The only thing innovative from Roland lately was the Gaia 2 with it's wavetable engine. But it looks like korg's modewave answer, with korg minilogue design, and it sounds like sylenth1 from 2007 🤷♂️
I get that the point of this video is making D50 type sounds by layering sampled and synthesized sounds, but it seems that the FM-X engine would be a better choice for the drawbars; you could have up to 8 sine waves in one element, and it has more polyphony than the AN-1X engine.
I KNEW someone was going to make this comment! I was editing this video afterwards and thought: "you idiot, why didn't you also use the FM-X engine for this?" too late. 😊
interesting, thanks
11:22 they not like us, they not like us, they not like us! 🎵
I do find it a bit amusing to use Yamaha's flagship workstation to recreate the D-50's by-definition second-rate result ... when D-50's are both plentiful and quite affordable (and have much better keybeds than the MODX, though that wouldn't matter to a Montage user)
Still: it's always interesting to know what's possible. Next up: making a $4500 Montage sound like a Casio CT-460! ;)
This was more an exercise in showing sound design on the Montage, which I've had many requests to do more of. :)
@@ScottsSynthStuff - definitely
Hi,it's me,rmember-anyway,Great class and tutorial,how things work in systhesis,wery usefull,thx (i am experimenting lately on Kronos,with sampling,and this was helpfull(for a project that i am on to currantly) P.S. ,One question,-would you prefer Cubase or Pro Tools? I am mostly using ProTools-You? (just wondering)
I have been using Cubase for decades!
When is Yamaha going to re-introduce their VA (as in Virtual Acoustic) sound engine? The VL1/VP1 instrument were out of this world. Unless of course there are some patent limiting considerations, in respect to who developed the physically modeled acoustic synthesis method with the driver/resonator paradigm.
That would be fantastic, they were spectacular machines. I suspect they would have to find a way to code it onto their existing SWP70 DSP chips that power many of their synths today - I can't see them developing a whole new chip architecture just for that synth engine.
While it was a unique form of synthesis when the D50 came out, and there were some interesting sounds made with it, the D-50 was in general, not very good at replicating real life acoustic instrument sounds such as the piano and others.This was due to extremely limited memory and the price point the D-50 & maybe small size the D-50 was at. Besides it's extremely limited memory, it was also 8 bit sampling.
The Kurweil K-250 did a much better job of acoustic instruments for the time it came out a few years earlier. However, it was several times the price, and several times the weight and much bigger physically too. Plus it required the purchase of a Mac computer to really explorer it's sound libraries.
The Korg M1 was by leaps and bounds, much better at acoustic instrument sounds than the D-50, and it came out a year later. The M1 was really the first instrument that could offer realistic acoustic sampled instruments, at similar price point to the D-50 and similar size & weight. And while there were many great acoustic sampled instruments on the M1 and many of them still hold up even compared to today's rompers, it lacked a good grand piano sample which for many is the very thing they really needed. It did provide a decent upright piano sound and was the best piano you could get in it's price point, weight & size, but it really lacked sustain to play certain kinds of songs like many my cover & tribute bands do that were done on grand pianos in the studio.
I still have two original M1's, but Korg's software version nails it today. I have one it on my laptop & iPhone. I also have Roland's D-50 soft synth, which is also very good on my laptop. Both are compatible with the original sound patches even from 3rd party collections. I also have a Roland D-70 keyboard, which offers similar LA synthesis and some improved samples 16 bit samples to better compete with the M1, but of course it still paled next to the mighty M1 except it's grand piano sound would be considered better to some.
The M1 had a whopping 4 megs of samples for 1988. Seems like nothing today, and just proves that great clever programming can be better than tons of memory and not as good of programming in many of today's synths. The M1 could also be expanded to 8 megs of ram internally either through the EX expansion or the Invision Plus 1 board (of which both of mine have), and you also get sound cards that included additional sampled instrument waveforms, in glories for the 80s 16 bit sounds (superior to 8 bit). The 8 bit Ensoniq Mirage may have offered better acoustic instruments than the D-50. Some of them. That's what I used in the mid 80s.
That's quite some elaboration on the early sample-playback synthesizers. Let's not forget though, that the instruments like the D-50 and M1 are also very good fully programmable synthesizers for electronic types of sounds. And so are the D-70 and Yamaha SY77, not to mention the JD-800. Among these, only the D-50 and SY77 offer forms synthesis beyond sample playback. The variable pulse square wave generator with ring mod in the case of the D-50, and full blown FM synthesis in the case of the SY77. Also, both the D-50 and SY77 sport resonant digital filters. Sure, the M1 is very good and beautifully looking instrument, and so are the T3/T2, but I think the SY77/SY99 are better.
@@dvamateur I guess my main point was.....why would you want it to sound like a D-50 for acoustic instrument sounds? The Montage is so much better for that kind of thing.
The magic of the M1 was it's software library more than just the hardware alone. There were a ton of great sounds made for it both by Korg & 3rd parties. I've explored lots of D-50 sound collections, and generally have found the M1 sounds superior generally speaking, with a few exceptions like Fantasia which is a great D-50 patch.
The D-50 as you say offered more than just sampled based synthesis, but I was surprised how many analog type sounds the M1 could still make with all the clever programming that had been done for it.
The SY77 came out a year later, and while it did offer some abilities the M1 didn't have, again I point to the software library of the M1 being it's greatest strength. It wasn't even as good on many later model Korg's to be honest, generally speaking. Except the grand pianos. That was the big thing the SY77 did offer that the M1 & D-50 didn't. And the full DX-7 and compatibility was a great thing to also have. But I had my Yamaha FB-01 module for FM sounds, and although the selection of patches available was much more limited, it was still capable of many of the best known DX-7 sounds. I also had my Casio CZ's for analog type sounds, so my M1 was used in conjunction. I also had my Amiga's MIDI soft synths including a full Ensoniq Mirage emulator & 30 Mirage disks. So I knew all about the sonic limitations of 8 bit samples vs the M1's amazing 16 sounds for acoustic instruments. By the mid 90s, I added a Roland JV-1080 Vintage Synth module. When my FB-01 got left behind at a gig as others helped me rush off the stage, I replaced it with a TX-7 (full DX-7), but found the FB-01 actually had been a pretty good alternate in my younger years as it was much cheaper & also smaller.
Today I use a MODX (Montage) which is more similar to the SY77, but way more powerful. I still have all my old synths, but no longer gig with them. I use VST's and my M1 & Rolands have been replaced with Korg & Roland's VST's. And I still to this day use tons of M1 sounds because, they were that great. I have the D-50 VST, and I barely found any of sounds useful in comparison to the M1. I use lots of classic analog synth VST's however.
@@classicarcadeamusementpark4242 I wish Yamaha had reintroduced their virtual acoustic physical modelling from the VL1/VP1, just like they reintroduced the analog modeling from the AN1x. The acoustic physical modelling of drivers and resonators was a breakthrough in terms of expressiveness if not realism. But maybe there are some patents held by some other organization which does not allow Yamaha to include the VL/VP sound generation engines in the Montage.
I thought the jx8p was Roland’s answer to the dx7…
Almost but not exactly. Because it was still analog with 6 voices. The transition to digital allowed them to reach more diverse sounds as well as a polyphony of 16 which was equal to the Dx line.
@@YanivhmTube thank you for enlightening me.
very special, I think there have been four D50s in my studio here and each time they were let go because they did not sound progressive enough or rather sounded a bit rough, so I'm afraid it will not be possible for me to recreate those sounds.😂
Yamaha is not Roland.
It may sound close but never identical.