What can a Roland JX-3P do without PG 200 programmer

[bluntedcircuit]

Pass it this way I miss mine

[ppg_wavecomputer]

Pass it this way I miss mine

No, this would be lame.

Pass it on to someone who might be a bit more appreciative .

lame

Stephen

[Musicwerks]

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for the pointers.

I managed to tweek the sounds today within 10mins reading your reply. I see the A and B section and running lights when changing the sounds with the slider...it seems fair okay, but I am still practising to unleash the full power of the synth.

Thank you for the pointers.

[ppg_wavecomputer]

Hi Stephen,

Thanks for the pointers.

I managed to tweek the sounds today within 10mins reading your reply. I see the A and B section and running lights when changing the sounds with the slider...it seems fair okay, but I am still practising to unleash the full power of the synth.

Thank you for the pointers.

You´re welcome .

When I got my JX, it came without the programmer and without a manual. It took me some time to figure out the logic behind the designers´ thinking. Today, I do no longer try to find a programmer for little money -- I can do very well without one.

I think the 8P and 10P respectively are a lot less fun to tweak without PG-800.

Enjoy,

Stephen.

[Zmeinogorsk]

I bought the Dtronics DT200 back in the day, before I sold my 3P. It was around $300, so it's a savings but not massive savings. It looks as though they released a new version with switches instead of little plastic buttons, so the build quality seems a bit better. Still kinda light plastic, and the knobs have a wobble, if that is a deal breaker.

Like everyone else is reiterating here though, you don't really need the editor. Of all the knob-less polys I've owned I've found the 3P the easiest and nicest to edit without the programmer. Of course it helps to have a crash course in synthesis beforehand with something basic (like a Juno). But it looks like you're on your way.

[Duart]

Bought myself a DT200V2 programmer by Dtronics instead, works like a charm, paid 200 euro's and the unit is brand new!

[mantrak]

JX3P programmer affair was actually a design flop. Separating the "programmer" from the synth and putting it in a separate box was really bad idea, a bizzare marketing ploy. Not only you had to purchase additional box and spend extra money for something that cannot be used for any other purpose, you had to put up with hassle of lugging it around, not forgetting it, assembling and disassembling, having a special cable, all that for no good reason at all. So back in the day, not many PG200's have been sold. The people who had them, didn't use them. Just look at them now, they are in much better shape than the average synth.

Anyway, JX3P is quite easy to program without the programmer and unless you need to tweak your sounds in realtime, you don't need it. If you do, go for something knobby and tweakable in one piece. My advice.

[Re-Member]

JX3P programmer affair was actually a design flop. Separating the "programmer" from the synth and putting it in a separate box was really bad idea, a bizzare marketing ploy. Not only you had to purchase additional box and spend extra money for something that cannot be used for any other purpose, you had to put up with hassle of lugging it around, not forgetting it, assembling and disassembling, having a special cable, all that for no good reason at all. So back in the day, not many PG200's have been sold. The people who had them, didn't use them. Just look at them now, they are in much better shape than the average synth.

Anyway, JX3P is quite easy to program without the programmer and unless you need to tweak your sounds in realtime, you don't need it. If you do, go for something knobby and tweakable in one piece. My advice.

I remember seeing a brochure online for the JX-3P & PG-200 and it actually mentions that the programmer was designed to be compatible with other future Roland products, but of course that never happened. On one hand though it did allow the JX-3P to be sold individually at a much cheaper cost. I think they were sort of aiming for the home market, with the emphasis on it being more of a "preset" keyboard, kind of like a direct competitor to the DX7. If you look at the surface, it even has holes in it so you can add a music stand.

[max badwan]

I remember seeing a brochure online for the JX-3P & PG-200 and it actually mentions that the programmer was designed to be compatible with other future Roland products, but of course that never happened. On one hand though it did allow the JX-3P to be sold individually at a much cheaper cost. I think they were sort of aiming for the home market, with the emphasis on it being more of a "preset" keyboard, kind of like a direct competitor to the DX7. If you look at the surface, it even has holes in it so you can add a music stand.

The PG 200 could also be used with the MKS-30 "Planet S" and the GR-700 guitar synth. The notion back then was using the programmer in the studio, but leaving it behind for the gig, as the programmer knobs and sliders were one of the easiest components to get damaged on a performance synth.

[synthparts]

JX3P programmer affair was actually a design flop. Separating the "programmer" from the synth and putting it in a separate box was really bad idea, a bizzare marketing ploy.

Not a "design flop" at all. Roland had much success with this concept - MKS-80 with MPG-80, JX3P,MKS-30,GR-700 with PG-200, JX8P,JX-10,MKS-70 with PG-800, Juno-1,2,MKS-50 with PG-300, and D-50,D-550 with PG-1000...

[Pro5]

JX3P programmer affair was actually a design flop. Separating the "programmer" from the synth and putting it in a separate box was really bad idea, a bizzare marketing ploy. Not only you had to purchase additional box and spend extra money for something that cannot be used for any other purpose, you had to put up with hassle of lugging it around, not forgetting it, assembling and disassembling, having a special cable, all that for no good reason at all. So back in the day, not many PG200's have been sold. The people who had them, didn't use them. Just look at them now, they are in much better shape than the average synth.

Anyway, JX3P is quite easy to program without the programmer and unless you need to tweak your sounds in realtime, you don't need it. If you do, go for something knobby and tweakable in one piece. My advice.

huh? if they had put the £250+ (roland's price sheet from 84 shows the PG cost this new in 80s money!!) device IN the synth it would have added on at least £200 to the total price, they were trying stuff out. JX-3P wasn't a flop. D-50 wasn't a flop either (Far far from it).

They were obviously trying to keep the price down for the MANY bands etc who had no need to be hardcore programmers, while those that wanted could spend the extra cash - that doesn't make it 'expensive' that makes it exactly what it would have cost had it had all the pots built in in the first place!

Instead they gave us a dual DCO mini-mega synth (for the time) for almost Juno money!

[Pro5]

I think they were sort of aiming for the home market, with the emphasis on it being more of a "preset" keyboard, kind of like a direct competitor to the DX7. If you look at the surface, it even has holes in it so you can add a music stand.

Not 'home' - touring! Probably specifically smaller bands or pub covers bands. The JUNOS were aimed at the 'home' market if anything, esp as the later 'with built in speakers' versions showed. The JX range was always considered a step up from the Juno range as far as Roland were concerned, esp when the 8P/10 came along as 'flagships'.

[mantrak]

JX3P programmer affair was actually a design flop. Separating the "programmer" from the synth and putting it in a separate box was really bad idea, a bizare marketing ploy.

Not a "design flop" at all. Roland had much success with this concept - MKS-80 with MPG-80, JX3P,MKS-30,GR-700 with PG-200, JX8P,JX-10,MKS-70 with PG-800, Juno-1,2,MKS-50 with PG-300, and D-50,D-550 with PG-1000...

Well, the concept lasted for some time but eventually disappeared. It was never copied by other manufacturers. That tells something.

[Virgule]

The JUNOS were aimed at the 'home' market if anything, esp as the later 'with built in speakers' versions showed. The JX range was always considered a step up from the Juno range as far as Roland were concerned, esp when the 8P/10 came along as 'flagships'.

They were all meant for home use as well as touring. The 106 is very performance orientated, imho. The JX8P follows closely in the same respect, features.

[mute]

JX3P programmer affair was actually a design flop. Separating the "programmer" from the synth and putting it in a separate box was really bad idea, a bizare marketing ploy.

Not a "design flop" at all. Roland had much success with this concept - MKS-80 with MPG-80, JX3P,MKS-30,GR-700 with PG-200, JX8P,JX-10,MKS-70 with PG-800, Juno-1,2,MKS-50 with PG-300, and D-50,D-550 with PG-1000...

Well, the concept lasted for some time but eventually disappeared. It was never copied by other manufacturers. That tells something.

That MIDI controllers and software replaced the need?