Jdxa supernatural ..meh .
Even the so called V.A. noise oscilator is sample based , 2 noise osc's cancel each other out when phase inverted .

Quantum has much sample memory and can be a step into that direction

Mainly due to its (non-existing) popularity at the time. I've got mine at a blow out price for 30% less, after it hadnt moved for over a year in the shop.

Waveform selection is the only menu based parameter in the core of the sound engine and the menu entry can be directly assessed from a front panle knob (Variation).
Some bells and whistles, like (wavefolder, booster, PCM gain, etc.) need diving tho.

You can skip in increments of 10.

Well we are actually talking romplers here, so sampled waveforms is what we like (well i do).

And in regards to noise. Who cares wether Noise is sampled or not? Sampled noise is better than digital noise. XA has several noise samples (Noise A, B, C or so) to avoid cancelations.

Exactly what I was thinking. A knobby synth with vast synth and sampling abilities. The Quantum may not be a rompler in the truest sense (especially polyphony and multi parts), but it can cover a lot of that ground. The interface is pretty much what this thread is asking for.

Hmmm. Waldorf Quantum. Anybody in the market for a used left kidney?

The Korg RADIAS has a few PCM wav rom samples (E Pianos, etc...) and drumkits in it, selectable from oscillator one.

Another VA-style synth with PCM waves I should mention is the Yamaha CS6x. It doesn't have quite as many knobs as the RADIAS but it does have lots of realtime control and way more knobs than what you would find on your average keyboard rompler or workstation. The CS6x interface also consists of the two line dot-matrix display with 4 knobs underneath for editing in addition to the bank of knobs to the left for panning, envelope, filter, etc.

I was intrigued by the CS6X, but always heard people thought it was weak sounding. Though from demos I kind of enjoyed some of the stuff it could do. Seemed like a pretty decent interface. I see it has buttons for appropriate synth sections. Does it have many pages for each section?

The yamaha cs6x is just their awm2 engine with knobs .and only 4 partials per layer , if I am not mistaken ...
Same as their a series sampler /motifs/rs 7000 /montage etc ...
I can't really understand why it should sound so different from a motif or rs 7000 , dacs , sample rom maybe ?

The motif xs expanded to use 8 partials per layer
Still have an old a4000 , nice filters and great effects

Yes. There are several pages for each sections where you can edit various parameters in depth. As far as it being weak sounding, I'd say it's strengths (to me) are pads and leads. It can do some pretty decent basses too. I think it's all about how you use it. One thing I do like about it is you can stack up to 4 layers (oscillators) per patch with several different waveforms to choose from for each. I can't say there's a huge amount of modulation options. However, all of the basics are there. I really like what you can do with the LFO and panning for each layer. It also has a nice arpeggiator and effects. The effect engine is limited but the few effects that are available sound great. The ribbon controller underneath the pitch and mod wheels is a very nice feature also which I think SHOULD be standard on all synths.

Oh yeah, despite this being primary a synth, the Rhodes patches on this board are AWESOME!!! They sound just as good if not better than the ones in my Motif Rack. I don't know if the wave samples for the Rhodes sounds (or electric pianos in general) in the CS6x are exactly the same as the ones in the Motif but if they are, maybe the differences in the sound of the patches have something to do with the effects setup. I'll have to sit oneday and compare the two side by side.

No, I don't believe it sold well at all.

But we don't know if that was due to the interface.

The JD-800:
1) was very expensive,
2) had only 24 note poly (and was just 8 part multitimbral)
3) didn't really try to emulate very many acoustic sounds

3+ independent variables, 1 dependent variable (sales), etc. . . so it seems unlikely that the interface was the reason--or at least the sole reason--that it didn't sell well.

A better point of reference is probably the JD-XA, which has a pretty comprehensive hardware interface, pretty nice spec, and isn't especially expensive.

The Jd800's knobby interface did not spit midi, so it was useless as a central controller. Thought it was a brilliant design at release, til the usual Roland conceptual screw up rendered it a singleton beast.

Not necessarily a romper, but how about the Nord Wave?

You can put PLG boards in the CS6x.
Not in production for quite a while now and they're kind of a hassle to use,
but they sound pretty good.

Emu Proteus 2500, the various Command Station units are knobby ROMplers when you assign the knobs to internal parameters.

The original motif was basically the next generation of the cs6x. They doubled the wave rom but I read that all the samples from the cs6x were carried over. I wish they had carried over the knobbiness as well.

Really? I didn't realize that. No wonder I recognized several other patches on the Motif Rack that I also have on the CS6x. I guess this makes my CS6X redundant in my case huh (with the exception of the interface of course).

I knew there had to be some similarities somewhere along the line. They both sound somewhat similar too.

Thanks for mentioning that.

Guess I can scratch off the CS6R off my GAS list...

Your post makes clear you didnt use synths in 1993. May be you should hold back on extreme judgements then.

One could argue if or how deep it is - but a knobby rompler and synth? Easy: Nord Stage.

Your post makes it clear you jump to conclusions. Perhaps you should have phrased that as a question? Or did you have a rare midi capable JD800? All those wonderful knobs and sliders spit sysex on the ones I am familiar with.

Nope, it stands as a statement. Have a good day, sir.

I look at it kind of like the Triton vs trinity or Roland xv vs jv series. I think the older unit still has its place. I’m not too familiar with the cs6x (used an s30 (which is the same engine in a different box) for a couple of gigs when my motif was in the shop years ago) but I think having them side by side and making your own judgement is worth it.

Funny you should mention the Triton -- I'm about to start a thread about finishing mine...

Bought my first synthesizer in 1989. Drum machines earlier. Just to be accurate there. But hey, I bought my first new piece of Roland gear last year....

Practically, you'd probably get better mileage out of a dedicated controller set up feeding into a collection of Kontakt samples. Sigh.....

The JD-800 was not a success at the time. It was too expensive ($2900 vs $1900 for D-50 etc) and none of us could afford it, so we were all relegated to spending hours in the music store playing it - but never owning one at the time.
The JD-800 is still relevant. The presets are not all great but make your own sounds and get the ROM cards for it and it's still awesome.

Judging by a lot of what I see here and on KVR, we are a small but vocal minority. Most people want simple, good sounding instruments, or instruments with a ton of presets, factory and third party. My guess is that 80% of synth users stick to presets and at best, tweak around with them if there are knobs. I’m still really surprised at all the pushback we got from merely suggesting that another LFO or EG would have made the Prologue a much better instrument. That seemed to translate into people’s heads as, “add a eurorack style bank of modulation sources.” It’s funny, I listened (and loved) all the Prologue demos and it seemed to me like there was more modulation than the synth itself seemed to have. I was listening to the videos while making dinner. When I went back and watched them, it was clear that they were just presets where the presenter was just manually tweaking while a note or chord was being held. A totally valid technique, but not my deal.

It’s even worse in the software world. It seems like the flow of constant preset banks is constant. It makes me wonder how many people have actually programmed their own sounds ever. Some developers even make free preset player versions of their software and make money by selling patches.

But even for myself, I’m not going to spend the kind of money they’d have to charge to make a knobby ROMpler, because... Omnisphere... Falcon... etc. I don’t feel that issue a lot of people talk about when they complain about using a mouse to make patches. I use a trackball! (Kensington Expert Mouse) I use an iPad Pro (running Lemur) and even the knobs of my trusty Novation Remote 61. I feel my results are as good as any hardware ROMpler (maybe better) and I can make space for the knobby instruments that people are making. I just think the marketing departments at Korg, Roland, Kurzweil, etc, are not going to let the design department design the instrument you crave just because a few hundred people might buy it at the price they’d have to charge to make a profit.

That's funny, I think there are ton of people that only use presets. However, I have seen some pretty nice tutorials of people showing how they like to synthesis on soft synths. And some of them have more commitment/patience than me on the computer using a mouse no less.


Well, I think the results of those rompler soft synths are pretty fun off the bat, but the problem I have with those is that a lot of soft synth rompler patches are so unique sounding that if you like the presets (not to say you couldn't edit them) and then use them, you'll find other people using those same ones and well it's not flattering. Yeah, people do it all the time without shame, but to me it sounds different when you use a really intersesting patch. This is just me harping about cheesy overuse of unique presets.

You're probably right about no one wanting to make a knobby rompler. It's too bad because there's a lot of potential. But now I'm not really caring about it anyways because the Waldorf Quantum is here to save the day.

I used them all first! I did!

I don't mind hearing the same patch, in software or hardware, but you better use it to great effect and not sound like the herd.

What's really embarrassing is using the same (Siouxsie and Chapterhouse) loop.

Nice reference. That's exactly what I'm talking about because then it's obvious your basically taking a piece of music someone else made and putting it into your song. Everyone does that these days without consequence though. And it doesn't give the artist any bonus points either because anyone can use a loop or preset.

It was funny though, because I was messing around several years ago with Omnisphere and used a preset that had sequence automation going on and later heard the same exact preset in a trailer for a TV show and immediately thought it sounded so sterile. It's good to hear music in a different setting to give yourself perspective.

I will agree with your idea 'using a preset is ok' if the preset is basically a basic rompler waveform or something of that nature. But if the preset has modulation, it's more unique, and it then becomes the same deal as Siouxsie and Chapterhouse.

I think that can teach us a lot. The fact that a synth/vst instrument such as Omnisphere 2 has thousands and thousands of presets made for it by different people.
The consensus around here seems to be that creating and designing sounds for a vst instrument, using a screen and a mouse - is un-inspiring.
What can i tell you... So un inspiring that thousands of wonderful presets were created using exactly that.
And the same goes for all the other "un inspired" users and sound designers who were un inspired to make thousands of presets for Falcon, Reaktor (not to mention the amount of new instruments created by users, and not just presets), Diva, Massive etc etc.