Roland Cloud D50 - not what I dreamed of

[groggy1]

I've been eying Roland Cloud for about 6 months now - I couldn't get past the subscription model, so I never bought it.

But this weekend, I finally convinced myself that I could try it for a few months, and see how it goes - maybe get past the subscription model thing.

For the past 6 months, I've been watching reviews, and youtube videos, and it seemed like 90% of the gripes were about subscription model. The other 10% of the gripes was about the clunky UI.


Anyway, so I downloaded the 1-month free trial today. Here's my experience:
1) The UX of the Roland Cloud manager is NOT good. E.g. every time I launch it, the icons take 5 seconds to refresh, and it flickers. That in itself is not a big problem, but as my FIRST experience of the product, I was a bit scared to see a UX with small glitches. When I clicked install for D50, it went fine. But when I tried to install the 2GB 1986 anthology, it said "Installing..." for about 40 minutes - and all during that time I couldn't tell whether it was still progressing or hung! Um, this UI is not giving me confidence.

Then, I played with the D50 (the main reason I got this whole thing). When I click the "partials" button, the bottom half (keyboard) switches to show a panel of partials. But man, did it flicker! (again, in 2018 I expert a professional UX that doesn't do this). Anyway, now onto the sound...

The D50 sounded good. Of course, I loaded up PizzaGogo and played me some Enya. And yes, it reminded me of the hardware (my friend had one in high-school I used to play all the time). But, I gotta say: There's something missing in the sound. It's not sparking in the high-end, like I remember. The low-end seems a bit dull. I raised the volume to see if it's just not loud enough (and maybe I'm blaming it for that...) But no, something's missing. It's good, but not a perfect emulation of the hardware. The best way I can put it is this: Omnisphere sounds like a growling monster in the low-ends, and like some sort of magic crystals in the high-end. But that magic is missing in the D50.

Next, I loaded Juno106: This sounded much better to my ear, very organic. BUT, even if I play just one note at a time, Reason was showing it as 3-4 bars of CPU, and glitching about every 10 seconds. I know Reason has some VST perf issues, but EVERY other synth I have can handle one-note-at-a-time! Even Diva doesn't glitch when played monophonic.


Anyway, that's just my experience today. I uninstalled it immediately, and won't consider it again. If Roland wants the subscription model, I think it better be the best damn vsts in the market - but for me, it wasn't enough.

[aeox]

Hmm. Since the original D-50 is an all digital synth, I wonder what's making it sound different? I thought it was the exact same engine used?

[tanni]

I think you can only hear the differences if you make an direct comparison between the software D50 and the hardware. The audio levels must be exactly equal in this case.

yes, the Juno 106 and the Jupiter 8 are mega cpu hogs because they are polyphon. you need a new 16 or 18 core cpu .

[drloop]

Hmm. Since the original D-50 is an all digital synth, I wonder what's making it sound different? I thought it was the exact same engine used?

The memory of its former greatness...

[jlgrimes]

Hmm. Since the original D-50 is an all digital synth, I wonder what's making it sound different? I thought it was the exact same engine used?

Probably the d/a converters.


They probably didn't model the converters.


Where modern converters are very transparent sounding, 1987 era converters most likely weren't.


They probably might have been 12 bit converters at a lower sampling rate or even if it was 16 bit 44.1khz quality, it probably wasn't oversampled like modern converters and probably relied on unique antialiasing filters.

It is kind of the thing that makes a SP 1200, sound different than a MPC 3000.


Older digital stuff was kind of known for having a unique sound as the technology back then left some artifacts. The artifiacts probably played a big deal in the sound.



Also depending on when you heard it, 30 years is a long time, plenty of things could be playing a part. (eg. Speakers, Room, Aging components, Aging ears, da converter differences, software differences).

It could also be placebo but it is likely if you put an original D50 next to the emulated one, you probably would spot some differences.

[sdst]

i don't know why this very good hardware company is doing software (and subscription sh)

there is a lot of software

They should do more affordable hardware

[groggy1]

Hmm. Since the original D-50 is an all digital synth, I wonder what's making it sound different? I thought it was the exact same engine used?

Probably the d/a converters.


They probably didn't model the converters.


Where modern converters are very transparent sounding, 1987 era converters most likely weren't.


They probably might have been 12 bit converters at a lower sampling rate or even if it was 16 bit 44.1khz quality, it probably wasn't oversampled like modern converters and probably relied on unique antialiasing filters.

It is kind of the thing that makes a SP 1200, sound different than a MPC 3000.


Older digital stuff was kind of known for having a unique sound as the technology back then left some artifacts. The artifiacts probably played a big deal in the sound.



Also depending on when you heard it, 30 years is a long time, plenty of things could be playing a part. (eg. Speakers, Room, Aging components, Aging ears, da converter differences, software differences).

It could also be placebo but it is likely if you put an original D50 next to the emulated one, you probably would spot some differences.

DA converters is a good guess. My aging ears is another good guess (along with possible placebo effect).
Anyway, I guess my rant was mostly that I expected a lot more from Roland Cloud, and was just disappointed. Roland makes great hardware, and I thought that the matching software would be first-class

[mreese80]

The Roland D-50 rocks

[QVprod]

i don't know why this very good hardware company is doing software (and subscription sh)

there is a lot of software

They should do more affordable hardware

They do. There's even a D50 https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail ... ynthesizer.

Nothing wrong with doing both. A lot of people are happy to have plugin versions of these synths/modules as they considered legendary. Hardware for many people can be pretty inconvenient.

[fieldframe]

i don't know why this very good hardware company is doing software (and subscription sh)

there is a lot of software

They should do more affordable hardware

It's too bad because some of the leading hardware companies have actually gotten quite good at software. Look at Korg or Moog, who have excellent iOS offerings. Roland is really behind on that front.

[avasopht]

i don't know why this very good hardware company is doing software (and subscription sh)

there is a lot of software

They should do more affordable hardware

It's too bad because some of the leading hardware companies have actually gotten quite good at software. Look at Korg or Moog, who have excellent iOS offerings. Roland is really behind on that front.

The DS10 was pretty decent at the time as well.

[groggy1]

i don't know why this very good hardware company is doing software (and subscription sh)

there is a lot of software

They should do more affordable hardware

It's too bad because some of the leading hardware companies have actually gotten quite good at software. Look at Korg or Moog, who have excellent iOS offerings. Roland is really behind on that front.

I was thinking the same. Korg's VSTs are *very good*. The UX is a bit clunky on patch-browsing, and some of the text is small and hard to read, but other than that they're WONDERFUL. I reach for my Korg M1 VST on a daily bases.

[jlgrimes]

i don't know why this very good hardware company is doing software (and subscription sh)

there is a lot of software

They should do more affordable hardware

I think software is stealing a lot of hardware’s shine these days.


In the 90s, you pretty much had to use hardware production as soft synths just started hitting the market and computers were still underpowered.

In the 00s, softsynth companies started popping up like crazy but many folks claimed the sound wasn’t there. It was still normal for folks to have like some hardware synths with their soft synths.


Now softsynths has matured and programs like Reason does more than what a $2000 hardware synth could do in the 90s. I know very few producers using hardware now. Hardware still has uses for live performers but even this is starting to change with powerful laptops, smart controllers and more portable and affordable audio interfaces. Roland used to have a huge chunk of the pre production market. You have guys like Eric Pershing making very successful software, buying hardware isn’t as justifiable. Roland wants some of this market back. They clearly know synthesis and sampling so it is a good idea to release some of their classics. I just hate the subscription model.

[hurricane]

Being really close re-creations of their legendary hardware synths isn't enough to make me bite on the subscription thing only because there are PLENTY of high quality "close enough" options available. The Juno and Jupiter are covered by Diva, OPX-PRO II, UNO-LX, Polysix, and Arturia's Jupiter. The JV stuff can be substituted by sounds from Halion Sonic, Kontakt, Air XPAND2, and Sampletank 3 - unless you REALLY want those specific JV sounds. My D-50 needs are met by the Korg M1 and Wavestation, the Prophet-VS, Reason's DyingStar RE, and the countless copycat patches that currently exist on practically every rompler, and if you look really hard you can find D50 Kontakt instruments on the web.

And anyway, even Roland hardware nerds wouldn't be able to tell the difference between emulations and Roland hardware sounds in a mix, so SUCK IT Roland Cloud and your stupid subscription crap. The END.

[groggy1]

Being really close re-creations of their legendary hardware synths isn't enough to make me bite on the subscription thing only because there are PLENTY of high quality "close enough" options available. The Juno and Jupiter are covered by Diva, OPX-PRO II, UNO-LX, Polysix, and Arturia's Jupiter. The JV stuff can be substituted by sounds from Halion Sonic, Kontakt, Air XPAND2, and Sampletank 3 - unless you REALLY want those specific JV sounds. My D-50 needs are met by the Korg M1 and Wavestation, the Prophet-VS, Reason's DyingStar RE, and the countless copycat patches that currently exist on practically every rompler, and if you look really hard you can find D50 Kontakt instruments on the web.

And anyway, even Roland hardware nerds wouldn't be able to tell the difference between emulations and Roland hardware sounds in a mix, so SUCK IT Roland Cloud and your stupid subscription crap. The END.

One more thing that turned me away from signing-up: When I saw that the software was unpolished, I thought "this service won't exist in 5 years, and I bet Roland *won't* just switch to a non-subscription-model. Instead, I bet they'll just give-up on VST all-together. So if that's even a slight possibility, i don't want it. Why? Because after I earn the "D50" to keep after 1 year of subscription, I'd be afraid that they would stop development on it and it would stop working after a few years of not keeping-up with OS/DAWs.

Anyway, to each their own... I'm sure someone loves these Roland VSTs.

[JKMotionGrfx]

i don't know why this very good hardware company is doing software (and subscription sh)

there is a lot of software

They should do more affordable hardware

They do. There's even a D50 https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail ... ynthesizer.

Nothing wrong with doing both. A lot of people are happy to have plugin versions of these synths/modules as they considered legendary. Hardware for many people can be pretty inconvenient.

I'm very much one of those guys. I really do prefer the convenience (and frankly the much lower prices) of plugins. I have a good MIDI keyboard controller with knobs and sliders that I can map to the controls that I want to access the most on any given plugin.

As for the D50 plugin, the GUI is a true GUI and gives you MUCH better access to the synth engine. I really like it.

[TheDragonborg]

Hmm. Since the original D-50 is an all digital synth, I wonder what's making it sound different? I thought it was the exact same engine used?

Probably the d/a converters.


They probably didn't model the converters.


Where modern converters are very transparent sounding, 1987 era converters most likely weren't.


They probably might have been 12 bit converters at a lower sampling rate or even if it was 16 bit 44.1khz quality, it probably wasn't oversampled like modern converters and probably relied on unique antialiasing filters.

It is kind of the thing that makes a SP 1200, sound different than a MPC 3000.


Older digital stuff was kind of known for having a unique sound as the technology back then left some artifacts. The artifiacts probably played a big deal in the sound.



Also depending on when you heard it, 30 years is a long time, plenty of things could be playing a part. (eg. Speakers, Room, Aging components, Aging ears, da converter differences, software differences).

It could also be placebo but it is likely if you put an original D50 next to the emulated one, you probably would spot some differences.

A lot of the late 80's - late 90s Roland digital synths used companded PCM... my JV-2080 uses 16 bit 32Khz companded PCM... perhaps they only used the raw waveforms and not the companded versions which could be a reason why the D-50 plugin sounds different.

[raymondh]

I have not tried Roland Cloud - and won't because of the subscription model but I really like Roland's digital hardware recreations.

I really like the Boutique D-05. I'd like it more if I had a PG-1000, and I could have multiple simultaneous instances but in terms of sound quality it is great. I never had a real D-50 so I can't A-B. I did have an MT-32 but that doesn't count

The System-8 is a programmer's dream, with a great native engine and superb emulations of JP-8 and Juno 106. And a pretty good JX3P.
The JP-08 is excellent, let down only by being ridiculously 4 voice polyphonic.
The JP-08 sounds different to the System 8's Jupiter emulation and it's even better to program, because even the System 8 has a little bit of menu-diving.

Back to software, +1 on the TAL UNO LX and Diva for the Roland sound. But not Arturia Jupiter - I don't personally rate that.

[TheDragonborg]

I have not tried Roland Cloud - and won't because of the subscription model but I really like Roland's digital hardware recreations.

I really like the Boutique D-05. I'd like it more if I had a PG-1000, and I could have multiple simultaneous instances but in terms of sound quality it is great. I never had a real D-50 so I can't A-B. I did have an MT-32 but that doesn't count

The System-8 is a programmer's dream, with a great native engine and superb emulations of JP-8 and Juno 106. And a pretty good JX3P.
The JP-08 is excellent, let down only by being ridiculously 4 voice polyphonic.
The JP-08 sounds different to the System 8's Jupiter emulation and it's even better to program, because even the System 8 has a little bit of menu-diving.

Back to software, +1 on the TAL UNO LX and Diva for the Roland sound. But not Arturia Jupiter - I don't personally rate that.

I have both a real JX-3P and an Alpha Juno-1... I'd never use digital emulations of them... menu diving yes... but I got used to it.

[Creativemind]

i don't know why this very good hardware company is doing software (and subscription sh)

there is a lot of software

They should do more affordable hardware

True but doubt they couldn't do it as cheaply as software (to buy) and who has the space (unless they have their own studio of course) for a Juno-106, Jupiter 8, SH-101, D-50, 303, 808, 909 and the rest etc

[Creativemind]

I've been playing about with Roland Cloud today.

It doesn't half glitch and crackle and just bought a new comp (See spec on pic) and yes, some presets playing just 1 note. Yikes!

The SH-101 doesn't sound great, sounded good on a video I watched of it.

I'm beginning to think software emulations don't stand up to the real life actual synths.