View Single Post
Old 13th January 2018 | Show parent
Lives for gear
Originally Posted by ziggysane ➡️
Don Solaris: I finished reading your excellent history on the JV Series. I've gleaned a couple of things that will also make it more difficult to get a 1080 "sound" out of the plugin.

For starters, I'm assuming that the plug-in no longer uses companding, and we're getting unaltered 16-bit sound rather than the artifacts from the companding process.

Second, I noticed that there were holes in the upper frequencies of a waveform comparison of the 1080 and 2080, but now I understand that's likely a result of the lossy MP3-esque compression. Again, I'm assuming that the new plug did not replicate this feature based on the extended high end response of the patches.
I’d bet bucks that the sample data for the JV-1080
plugin is all companded. Because the companding
was always done by Roland’s engineers PRIOR
to putting it into the 1080 (or any Roland
sample-based synth). The unit itself doesnt
compand sample data “on the fly”. There wasnt
enough memory in the 1080 to host the uncompressed data. Thats why the sample
developers at Roland had to compress it.

You are
hearing the samples exactly as they were on the
original, EXCEPT that your “DAC’s”
are the audio interface connected to your
computer...not the noisy outputs of the
original hardware.

For my ears, the JV 1080 plugin sounds
identical, within a very tiny margin, to the
hardware. I have a hardware JV2080..when
I call up the same patch on the 2080 and
the plugin 1080, and balance the volume
levels, and of course taking into account
the 2080’s noisy outputs, the plugin and
the hardware sound the same.