ninja6485 wrote:but you can't overlook what's going to happen to the value of the synth after you buy it.

Yes you can.

Yup.

madtheory wrote:

DesolationBlvd wrote:Disclaimer: My avatar is merely poking fun at the mismatch between the name and the voice count of the JX-8P.

to be fair, you should poke equally at the JX3P for having a mismatch in the other direction

Au contraire, that's what you call a "value-add!"

The Roland JX analogs can be quite nice, and they haven't climbed as ridiculously high as the Junos. I've never used the -3P, but the -8P/-10 provide a lot of options for a reasonable price. The only thing is that you really want the programmer attachment, as voice editing with the alpha dial is an ...

Part of that is because even simple dedicated hardware can outperform a general-purpose CPU running the equivalent algorithm in software. When your hardware is designed to do exactly one thing and do it as fast as possible, it's hard for software to compete, even with a lot of horsepower behind it. ...

Yeah, most of the PSR series that I'm aware of were 2-op (OPL or OPL2, though I've got one that's OPLL) up until they started moving towards AWM or combo models (the PSR-48, for example, is a mix of FM and low-fi sampled sounds - rather like an SY-22 without vector capability or an effects section.)...

Yeah, if you can line me up a $100-200 RS-09 I'll take that sucker...

So, do hardware (digital) synths have something "under the hood" that a modern computer does not? Apart from maybe a special soundcard or similar? On a pure hardware level, not really, not usually. What they do have is a specific set of function blocks/algorithms that produce a specific, characteri...

Actually, now that you mention it, you could probably get just as good results with digital oscillators/envelopes and the output routed through a nice analog chorus, especially since (as I understand it) most stringer "sawtooth" waveforms are stepped digital-style anyway (since they're generally cre...

Ashe37 wrote:I just don't know enough electronics to be able to reverse engineer a stringer circuit, sorry. been trying, seriously.

The basic concept is really simple, it's just a series of divide-down stages generating a pile of sawtooth waveforms, run through a nice chorus/ensemble effect.

Yep. Plus, from what I've read, it doesn't substitute for the lush Roland/Solina type stringers so much as for the JMJ Eminent 310 style. But I've never used one myself, so who knows.

It's actually kind of surprising that (as far as I know) nobody's done a modern analog stringer yet.

Good question. I don't know that there are too many modern stringers out there, but there's the Waldorf Streichfett at least.

I'd be more cheesed off about this if I weren't already MIDI-ing mine to my Prophet-600 to get an extra two octaves in addition to the full-sized keys.

The only digital synthesizer I'm aware of from that early (not counting software synthesis on a variety of mainframes and minicomputers from the mid-'50s through the early '80s) was the RMI Harmonic Synthesizer , which was actually a hybrid (digital additive oscillators plus analog filters.) No idea...

The DSS-1 keyboard is fairly light and plastic-ey. It's not terrible, but it's nothing special. Also, the disk access is agonizingly slow, unless you have one of the rare-ish upgrades for SCSI capability. That said, it sounds pretty terrific (SSM filters plus the Korg digital delay/chorus = glorious...