Roland Connect - Countdown!

[Automatic Gainsay]

Has anyone stopped for a moment to think that from the perspective of someone who knows nothing at all about Roland's previous synths, Jupiter 80 is a much better name than U-80 or any of the other names that people have suggested in this thread?

FFS, it's just a name.

It's a way better name that U-80, but also a way less-accurate name.
I understand when people have the attitude "they're just words," or "it's just a name," but come on... it'd be one thing if the name merely included the name "Jupiter." By simply adding a 0 to "Jupiter 8," they are clearly, absolutely, and without question using a specific marketing perspective to sell their new synth. Roland clearly didn't think it was "just a name."

DISCLAIMER: My argument has nothing to do with a love of vintage Jupiters, a strict adherence to analog sound, or even a desire for the Jupiter-80 to be anything it isn't. I'm merely addressing the intent of Roland in naming it thusly, and the subsequent confusion (or disappointment) by synth enthusiasts.

[StepLogik]

personally i would have called it the Roland QKJ-9958.7 GALAXIAN UBER-ORBIT (Computer Controlled), but that is just my suggestion.

bottom line: for about 2% of the synth-buying population, using the name "Jupiter" is a d**k move that makes the Roland marketing team look like either A) clueless buffoons or B) cynical assholes for trying to capitalize on the reverence of the early jupiter line held by said 2% of the market

for the remaining 98% of the market, its just a name for another average synth.

[Automatic Gainsay]

personally i would have called it the Roland QKJ-9958.7 GALAXIAN UBER-ORBIT (Computer Controlled), but that is just my suggestion.

That is perfect on so many levels.

bottom line: for about 2% of the synth-buying population, using the name "Jupiter" is a d**k move that makes the Roland marketing team look like either A) clueless buffoons or B) cynical assholes for trying to capitalize on the reverence of the early jupiter line held by said 2% of the market

for the remaining 98% of the market, its just a name for another average synth.

I think this sums it up perfectly.

[balma]

I think that the Voyager spacecraft took the first pictures of Jupiter during the year 1979 ... At the beginning of 80ies, Carla Sagan released his TV series Cosmos.

"Jupiter" was a good name for any technological invention at early 80ies.

Roland have followed nomenclature patterns on their synth names along their history. They also try to get advantage of names with good reputation for their new products.

Do you buy snacks for the color of the package? I check expiration date and grams of product inside instead that.


I know people who bought the MC 303 when it was released, thinking they were purchasing an uptade of the TB 303.

They felt cheated by Roland, a "label that lives today from their glories from the past" they said...
Same for the Juno-D. Also Yamaha did something similar with the DX7, releasing the EX-7. Well, there´s no intention to cheat buyers using these names. Is normal practice on marketing....

This a simple, flat, marketing strategy. The name is not cynical, unless you feel some weird reverence for the Roland Jupiter....

Now, I suppose, people on planet Jupiter, must be really pissed off and offended

[StepLogik]

I know people who bought the MC 303 when it was released, thinking they were purchasing an uptade of the TB 303.

They felt cheated by Roland, a "label that lives today from their glories from the past" they said...

unless they didn't read the specifications, how could they have felt cheated? no one could possibly mistake the MC-303 for a revision of the TB unless they just bought it without hearing it or bothering to look at the architecture - its a ROMpler.

[Phollop Willing PA]

I like the Roland MC-303. It allowed me to some live shows that I couldn't have done otherwise. I have subsequently graduated to a Roland MC-505.

[StepLogik]

I like the Roland MC-303. It allowed me to some live shows that I couldn't have done otherwise. I have subsequently graduated to a Roland MC-505.

just FYI, i wasn't disrespecting the MC-303. its a usable tool just like any other synth. i'm just saying i don't see how someone could possibly feel like they were duped by Roland. the MC and TB sound absolutely nothing alike and function/operate in a completely different manner.

[Phollop Willing PA]

I like the Roland MC-303. It allowed me to some live shows that I couldn't have done otherwise. I have subsequently graduated to a Roland MC-505.

just FYI, i wasn't disrespecting the MC-303. its a usable tool just like any other synth. i'm just saying i don't see how someone could possibly feel like they were duped by Roland. the MC and TB sound absolutely nothing alike and function/operate in a completely different manner.

I kind of got that. I was sort of saying the same thing - that the MC 303 is a useful instrument to the right person.

[realtrance]

Me, I still like the MicroComposer-909. It allows for great MicroCompositions.

[Phollop Willing PA]

I just spent an hour demoing the new Roland Jupiter 80 and my impression in the limited time I spent is that it sounded thin in a digital way and was uninspiring. The menus are somewhat clunky too. The Roland 'digital' sound and textures are here, and seems to share sonic similarities with other less expensive Roland synths including ones as far back as the JP 8000 and Grooveboxes.

All in all, very disappointing - felt no 'connection' to it at all. I have a feeling this keyboard will not sell well and those with money and desire would probably lean towards the Korg Kronos (that I haven't demoed yet). If the sounds and features of the Kronos are on the same path as an M3 or Oasys, then people will probably favour the Korg.

Please note, I only spent less than an hour with it and if it had inspired me on first impression, I would've probably dug deeper.

Disclaimer: I am not a professional critic or reviewer.

[Ned Bouhalassa]

I just tried one too, and... I'm blown away! Most of you may not know this, but deep in the Performance Menu, there's a a 'Vintage' option which affects the filters, amp EG, distortion. Once I had selected this, the whole synth just blew up in the best way possible! I swear it sounds like a cross between an SH-7 and a Jupiter 4! Seriously!

Not.

Sorry gang, I just felt a little mischievous.

[knolan]

I just spent an hour demoing the new Roland Jupiter 80 and my impression in the limited time I spent is that it sounded thin in a digital way and was uninspiring.

Thin? What do you mean by that? None of the demos or reviews indicate th JP80 to be thin. They tend to lean in the opposite way even with the VA side of it. To my ears none of the demos I've hears sound 'thin'.

Could you expand on this. It sounds more like you didn't like it; rather than it being actually 'thin' which suggests it's sonically weak. But if you've picked up on something it'd be worth hearing about.

[griffin avid]

"thin in a digital way and was uninspiring....and seems to share sonic similarities with other less expensive Roland synths including ones as far back as the JP 8000 ....."

Only those two parts bothered me. I just don't see the connection.
The JP8000 thin...uninspiring?
That's actually a credit and it makes me want to check it out to be honest.

I guess that's really down to the old 'compared to what' listing.
Or maybe it's safe to say any Older synth is better than any newer synth--
combine that with the named lineage of Jupiter....

I'm too tired to get wired over this...
But I do have a reaction


I'm going to have to demo it myself.

[Phollop Willing PA]

I just spent an hour demoing the new Roland Jupiter 80 and my impression in the limited time I spent is that it sounded thin in a digital way and was uninspiring.

Thin? What do you mean by that? None of the demos or reviews indicate th JP80 to be thin. They tend to lean in the opposite way even with the VA side of it. To my ears none of the demos I've hears sound 'thin'.

Could you expand on this. It sounds more like you didn't like it; rather than it being actually 'thin' which suggests it's sonically weak. But if you've picked up on something it'd be worth hearing about.

Sure - I was expecting a warmer closer to analogue sound when I first turned it on, but it immediately reminded me of what my JP 8000 sounded like (without all the layering arps, 'bell & whistles' etc.). Hence the comparison. I was using headphones to demo, supplied by the music store.

I also felt some sonic similarities with the MC 505 that I also own. By comparison, my Korg M3 sounds organic, to my ears.

I thought, I would get lost in sonic pleasure when I demoed it, being such a high end piece of kit, but in all honesty, after about 1/2 hour, I couldn't wait to get away from it, yet I persevered for another bit of time, trying to locate interesting hits and percussion sounds as well as textural fx patches.

I only demoed the knob functions whilst in a patch. I always liked the d-beam anyway. I tried to layer different patches, and experiment with them also, to some success. Most of the sounds (if not all) I played seem to be sample based.

For the record, I like the JP 8000 and would not sell it.

Please, for gosh sakes, take this review with a bit of salt as I am not a professional reviewer or critic and try one yourself, but those are my cursory impressions and please consider that I only played it for less than a hour if that.

I'd be interested in what others think once people get their hands on it.

My honest to gut feeling is that it's not going to be a winner especially when the Kronos seems to do more for less, which I hope to demo soon...

[griffin avid]

The KORG Kronos is $3,000 USD for the 61 key
The Roland Jupiter 80 is $3,499.99 USD for the 76

I guess that's similar pricing is you consider the disparity between the keybed size.
trying to locate interesting hits and percussion sounds as well as textural fx patches.
Oh no, this is bad....

My honest to gut feeling is that it's not going to be a winner especially when the Kronos seems to do more for less, which I hope to demo soon...

This may turn out to be accurate.
The Alesis Fusion is/was a great board, but was slaughtered out the gate from the stumbling start and never recovered. The Alesis ION is much more than the Micron, but the Micron caught on and the IONs were blown out at a steal.