Roland JD XA

[BobTheDog]

I guess they must have given up on the good ideas as no bugger wanted them.

We hope to look at musicians as artists, but when we look at artists in general they actually want a fairly small palette of colours, laid out in an accepted pattern.

The Kronos in a way is a good example of this. The palette is huge but the majority of users will only use a small subset of the available options. This even includes Korg when they knocked up the stock combis and programs.

Maybe it is a bit like an orchestra, everything has its place and changeing that structure is not something that could happen easily.

[Kevin Nolan]

I have never understood what "Supernatural" means, I took it to be along the lines of Kontakts scripting rather than any modelling type stuff.

I have never understood why Roland stopped the Varispeed/V-Synth development, the last time they did anything really interesting lost to obscurity.

Supernatural is a family of synthesis approaches; all using computer modelling. It's not scripting.

For Supernatural Acoustic Tones, it's a combination of samples and "behaviour modelling" - models on how instruments sound when performed in given ways. It goes beyond the likes of Kontakt scripting or VSL Instruments because it does not use velocity switching of samples. Instead, the "Supernatural Acoustic Engine" responds to playing and MIDI, and interprets that as a behavioural model applied to the samples. What actually goes on within the model is not clear, but it must involve a number of techniques ranging from formant synthesis to realtime convolution of instrument behaviour to performance types."


What I can tell you is that many of the Jupiter 80 Acoustic Tones are extraordinary. For example, if you play fast arpeggios on solo Violin, it sounds incredibly like a performing violinist. In fact it feels a little like cheating! It's different to my VL1 - which produces fabulous virtual instrument but not performance models. On the JP80, the Grand Piano is also stunning. Many of the other models from acoustic double bass to wind instruments, harp and timpani are equally compelling. The JP80 is a flawed instrument in some ways (I find its operating system difficult to manage and a lot of its control surface buttons seem pointless) - but it has truly extraordinary depths (exquisite VA apart from the PWM issue at up to 256 note polyphony and layering of 27 Tones) and the 77 extraordinary Acoustic Tone


The PWM is VA by the way - not sampled - but - there has been some discussion on line that the Supersaw may be a sample of the JP8000 and not a VA oscillator!


Check out this white paper on Suprnatural Acoustic Tones:

http://cms.rolandus.com/assets/media/pd ... _brief.pdf

[Bachus]

I have never understood what "Supernatural" means, I took it to be along the lines of Kontakts scripting rather than any modelling type stuff.

I have never understood why Roland stopped the Varispeed/V-Synth development, the last time they did anything really interesting lost to obscurity.

Supernatural is a family of synthesis approaches; all using computer modelling. It's not scripting.

For Supernatural Acoustic Tones, it's a combination of samples and "behaviour modelling" - models on how instruments sound when performed in given ways. It goes beyond the likes of Kontakt scripting or VSL Instruments because it does not use velocity switching of samples. Instead, the "Supernatural Acoustic Engine" responds to playing and MIDI, and interprets that as a behavioural model applied to the samples. What actually goes on within the model is not clear, but it must involve a number of techniques ranging from formant synthesis to realtime convolution of instrument behaviour to performance types."


What I can tell you is that many of the Jupiter 80 Acoustic Tones are extraordinary. For example, if you play fast arpeggios on solo Violin, it sounds incredibly like a performing violinist. In fact it feels a little like cheating! It's different to my VL1 - which produces fabulous virtual instrument but not performance models. On the JP80, the Grand Piano is also stunning. Many of the other models from acoustic double bass to wind instruments, harp and timpani are equally compelling. The JP80 is a flawed instrument in some ways (I find its operating system difficult to manage and a lot of its control surface buttons seem pointless) - but it has truly extraordinary depths (exquisite VA apart from the PWM issue at up to 256 note polyphony and layering of 27 Tones) and the 77 extraordinary Acoustic Tone


The PWM is VA by the way - not sampled - but - there has been some discussion on line that the Supersaw may be a sample of the JP8000 and not a VA oscillator!


Check out this white paper on Suprnatural Acoustic Tones:

http://cms.rolandus.com/assets/media/pd ... _brief.pdf

The problem why many synth people dont like these super natural sounds in my idea is that they are synth people and want to play with the source of the sounds theirselves and create their own sounds...

And in that perspective the Super natural engine is one step back from the V-synth...

All in all i agree with you and the Integra 7 is possibly the best buy one could make if one loves these Roland sounds, however despite the advanced technollogy, it very much feels like a rompler to me, and thats the way i mostly use it..


Back on the orriginal topic

For this upcomming instrument i am just wondering how and in what ways they want to use this technollogy (i guess mostly the modelling part) to influence the analogue tones....

[EvilDragon]

Supernatural is a family of synthesis approaches; all using computer modelling. It's not scripting.

Actually, it's based on samples still. It's not pure modeling.

For Supernatural Acoustic Tones, it's a combination of samples and "behaviour modelling" - models on how instruments sound when performed in given ways. It goes beyond the likes of Kontakt scripting or VSL Instruments because it does not use velocity switching of samples. Instead, the "Supernatural Acoustic Engine" responds to playing and MIDI, and interprets that as a behavioural model applied to the samples. What actually goes on within the model is not clear, but it must involve a number of techniques ranging from formant synthesis to realtime convolution of instrument behaviour to performance types."

This is EXACTLY what Kontakt scripting can also do! So, Supernatural doesn't really go beyond the likes of Kontakt in this regard. Convolution or formant synthesis have absolutely nothing to do with it. And yes, they ARE using velocity crossfading.

And I do Kontakt scripting for living, so I know a thing or two about it


Here's a showcase that it's all possible with a single patch and some modwheel right in Kontakt:

http://spitfire-webassets.s3.amazonaws. ... emo_AB.mp3

Spitfire Artisan Cello and Violin. To me this completely kills any Roland's attempts, really. It just sounds so much better.

[Kevin Nolan]

Supernatural is a family of synthesis approaches; all using computer modelling. It's not scripting.

Actually, it's based on samples still. It's not pure modeling.

For Supernatural Acoustic Tones, it's a combination of samples and "behaviour modelling" - models on how instruments sound when performed in given ways. It goes beyond the likes of Kontakt scripting or VSL Instruments because it does not use velocity switching of samples. Instead, the "Supernatural Acoustic Engine" responds to playing and MIDI, and interprets that as a behavioural model applied to the samples. What actually goes on within the model is not clear, but it must involve a number of techniques ranging from formant synthesis to realtime convolution of instrument behaviour to performance types."

This is EXACTLY what Kontakt scripting can also do! So, Supernatural doesn't really go beyond the likes of Kontakt in this regard. Convolution or formant synthesis have absolutely nothing to do with it. And yes, they ARE using velocity crossfading.

And I do Kontakt scripting for living, so I know a thing or two about it


Here's a showcase that it's all possible with a single patch and some modwheel right in Kontakt:

http://spitfire-webassets.s3.amazonaws. ... emo_AB.mp3

Spitfire Artisan Cello and Violin. To me this completely kills any Roland's attempts, really. It just sounds so much better.

Well, the sound source is samples - but - the Behavioural model is that - a computer model. It's "Behavioural Modelling". It's a 'model' is in the computer sense - absolutely it's not scripting - rather the behavioural characteristics of performance are computer modelled in real time - and encoded in a chip. And I'm saying in this instance there is very likely both formant synthesis and convolution going on having played with it and from my experience (physics degree) - Roland are not saying that but there has to be such processes going on as part of it (including many other DSP techniques of course)). There's nothing surprising in this - I'm just saying it to highlight one or two of the differences between this and "scripting" which is a scripted and interpreted (at the OS / Application level) list of instructions for switching in and our samples.

For example, they manipulate the actual sampled sound in real time, using formants, like Variphrase on the V-Synth GT - to achieve the actual sound from the original sample as it should sound when performed a particular way. So they manipulate the samples in realtime - not switch in new ones (in some instances). You can actually hear it in some instances. There's (extremely likely) convolution going on too because for certain sounds they merge the sound with the soundboard of the instrument - requiring realtime convolution (where convolution means multiplying each sample point of one sound source with every other sample of the other sound source - in real time - at ( 44.1/ 48 ) kHz).

Scripting is a totally different phenomenon. What's going on there is that a number of commands are _interpreted_ in real time at the application/ OS level to instruct Kontakt to switch samples -very much like UNIX Shell scripting. It's literally millions of times slower. I have both the JP80 and Kontakt with scripted libraries, and I can assure you, they are utterly different. You can achieve some reasonably respectable results with Kontack - but I assure you - the JP80 is in a totally different league in this regard. At times its extraordinary.


You really do need to spend some time with the JP80 to realise the sophistication - nobody's saying its Instrument Modelling - rather - it's Behavioural Modelling - and it's extraordinary.

THE central point being however - the sound of the instrument is always dynamic and always different - depending on how you play it - because its computed in realtime. The nuances are extraordinary. For example, you can play two notes at precisely the same velocity on a solo violin, and for one, play staccato to the next note and for the other legato the the next note. The resulting over all sound is utterly different in each instance. For the staccato scenario not only do you hear both notes fully articulated from scratch while for the legato notes you don't hear the attack of the second note, but the combined character of the both sets of notes (staccato or legato) is utterly different - and sounds just right! There's a huge amount going on - because it's being computed in real time. It's a realtime model, computationally. In this regard it is not _totally_ different to the VL1 because although the VL1 does not do behavioural modelling, the instrument models are _so_ complete they do include some behavioural characteristics during performance so that if you play from note to note for solo instruments in various performance modes, the instrument model behaves accordingly - the classic example being the creation of "edge harmonic tones" between two flute notes if you don't get the timing right between lifting one key and depressing the other.


I'm afraid, as goos as scripting can be, it comes no where close. The JP80 models are, as said, totally dynamic, computed always in realtime, and the sound is different in every different playing moment - Roland have done an unbelievable job and is surely the result of years of research. Such is the backlash against the Jupiter name that this technology has been beaten out of existence - but there are those of us who are exploiting it. I see it already as " a best kept secret" - and I assure you - just like the VL1 and EX5R - I fully expect the JP80/50 and Integra to establish a delayed new level of respect in perhaps 5 - 10 years from now as people begin to realise just how capable these instruments are.

I said it feels like cheating because there are times when you're playing up the keyboard with some instruments you hear this "performance" emerge that you realise you're not totally responsible for - it's great for media work - but where your "soul" ends and the JP80 takes over is often not too clear




@Bachus - while I broadly accept what you are saying - actually - not all synthesis is as you describe. While I personally largely subscribe to your idea - many don't. The origin of the Fairlight, Emulator and M1 were largely motivated by a desire to reproduce acoustic instruments, not create new ones.

And in fairness to Roland - they have been consistent - since their origin - with an obsession to recreate real instruments synthetically. Their founder was literally obsessed with this challenge. Hence the long lineage from the VP330 to the V-Synth GT to recreate the human voice both chorally and through vocoder.

And while Roland were attacked for using the Jupiter name for the Jupiter 80 - Roland claimed that it was legitimate because the instrument's aims were the same as those of the Jupiter 8 - to recreate real instruments. People largely do not accept Roland's word on that - but I went back and checked - and sure enough - all of the blurb at the time of the Jupiter 8 emphasised it's aims to recreate realistic brass, strings and other acoustic instruments, and NOT as a deice to create new sounds.

Of course the Jupiter 8 is not known for that and has become a legendary analog polysynth - but - Roland's goal was to create instruments that emulated the real thing. You and I may not like it,but Roland HAVE been consistent in their ethos - from the 70's right up to the JP80.

I also accept your idea that in some ways the JP80 is a retrograde step from the V-Synth GT. The reason - the V-Synth GT also has a very similar model to Supernatural Acoustic Tones called Articulation Phrase Synthesis. It too is a behavioural modelling approach (and surely lead to Supernatural Acoustic Tones). And while on the GT they only provide 3-4 models (Violin, Sax, Erhu and one or two others) - you can attach those behavioural models to other wave forms - including the VA waves such as Sawtooth. So you can play a Sawtooth lead line with the expressivity of a Violin, for example ! You cannot do this on the JP80 - each behavioural model is firmly attached to it's sampled instrument and there's no way round it!

[Bachus]

Supernatural is a family of synthesis approaches; all using computer modelling. It's not scripting.

Actually, it's based on samples still. It's not pure modeling.

For Supernatural Acoustic Tones, it's a combination of samples and "behaviour modelling" - models on how instruments sound when performed in given ways. It goes beyond the likes of Kontakt scripting or VSL Instruments because it does not use velocity switching of samples. Instead, the "Supernatural Acoustic Engine" responds to playing and MIDI, and interprets that as a behavioural model applied to the samples. What actually goes on within the model is not clear, but it must involve a number of techniques ranging from formant synthesis to realtime convolution of instrument behaviour to performance types."

This is EXACTLY what Kontakt scripting can also do! So, Supernatural doesn't really go beyond the likes of Kontakt in this regard. Convolution or formant synthesis have absolutely nothing to do with it. And yes, they ARE using velocity crossfading.

And I do Kontakt scripting for living, so I know a thing or two about it


Here's a showcase that it's all possible with a single patch and some modwheel right in Kontakt:

http://spitfire-webassets.s3.amazonaws. ... emo_AB.mp3

Spitfire Artisan Cello and Violin. To me this completely kills any Roland's attempts, really. It just sounds so much better.

Well, the sound source is samples - but - the Behavioural model is that - a computer model. It's "Behavioural Modelling". It's a 'model' is in the computer sense - absolutely it's not scripting - rather the behavioural characteristics of performance are computer modelled in real time - and encoded in a chip. And I'm saying in this instance there is very likely both formant synthesis and convolution going on having played with it and from my experience (physics degree) - Roland are not saying that but there has to be such processes going on as part of it (including many other DSP techniques of course)). There's nothing surprising in this - I'm just saying it to highlight one or two of the differences between this and "scripting" which is a scripted and interpreted (at the OS / Application level) list of instructions for switching in and our samples.

For example, they manipulate the actual sampled sound in real time, using formants, like Variphrase on the V-Synth GT - to achieve the actual sound from the original sample as it should sound when performed a particular way. So they manipulate the samples in realtime - not switch in new ones (in some instances). You can actually hear it in some instances. There's (extremely likely) convolution going on too because for certain sounds they merge the sound with the soundboard of the instrument - requiring realtime convolution (where convolution means multiplying each sample point of one sound source with every other sample of the other sound source - in real time - at ( 44.1/ 48 ) kHz).

Scripting is a totally different phenomenon. What's going on there is that a number of commands are _interpreted_ in real time at the application/ OS level to instruct Kontakt to switch samples -very much like UNIX Shell scripting. It's literally millions of times slower. I have both the JP80 and Kontakt with scripted libraries, and I can assure you, they are utterly different. You can achieve some reasonably respectable results with Kontack - but I assure you - the JP80 is in a totally different league in this regard. At times its extraordinary.


You really do need to spend some time with the JP80 to realise the sophistication - nobody's saying its Instrument Modelling - rather - it's Behavioural Modelling - and it's extraordinary.

THE central point being however - the sound of the instrument is always dynamic and always different - depending on how you play it - because its computed in realtime. The nuances are extraordinary. For example, you can play two notes at precisely the same velocity on a solo violin, and for one, play staccato to the next note and for the other legato the the next note. The resulting over all sound is utterly different in each instance. For the staccato scenario not only do you hear both notes fully articulated from scratch while for the legato notes you don't hear the attack of the second note, but the combined character of the both sets of notes (staccato or legato) is utterly different - and sounds just right! There's a huge amount going on - because it's being computed in real time. It's a realtime model, computationally. In this regard it is not _totally_ different to the VL1 because although the VL1 does not do behavioural modelling, the instrument models are _so_ complete they do include some behavioural characteristics during performance so that if you play from note to note for solo instruments in various performance modes, the instrument model behaves accordingly - the classic example being the creation of "edge harmonic tones" between two flute notes if you don't get the timing right between lifting one key and depressing the other.


I'm afraid, as goos as scripting can be, it comes no where close. The JP80 models are, as said, totally dynamic, computed always in realtime, and the sound is different in every different playing moment - Roland have done an unbelievable job and is surely the result of years of research. Such is the backlash against the Jupiter name that this technology has been beaten out of existence - but there are those of us who are exploiting it. I see it already as " a best kept secret" - and I assure you - just like the VL1 and EX5R - I fully expect the JP80/50 and Integra to establish a delayed new level of respect in perhaps 5 - 10 years from now as people begin to realise just how capable these instruments are.

I said it feels like cheating because there are times when you're playing up the keyboard with some instruments you hear this "performance" emerge that you realise you're not totally responsible for - it's great for media work - but where your "soul" ends and the JP80 takes over is often not too clear




@Bachus - while I broadly accept what you are saying - actually - not all synthesis is as you describe. While I personally largely subscribe to your idea - many don't. The origin of the Fairlight, Emulator and M1 were largely motivated by a desire to reproduce acoustic instruments, not create new ones.

And in fairness to Roland - they have been consistent - since their origin - with an obsession to recreate real instruments synthetically. Their founder was literally obsessed with this challenge. Hence the long lineage from the VP330 to the V-Synth GT to recreate the human voice both chorally and through vocoder.

And while Roland were attacked for using the Jupiter name for the Jupiter 80 - Roland claimed that it was legitimate because the instrument's aims were the same as those of the Jupiter 8 - to recreate real instruments. People largely do not accept Roland's word on that - but I went back and checked - and sure enough - all of the blurb at the time of the Jupiter 8 emphasised it's aims to recreate realistic brass, strings and other acoustic instruments, and NOT as a deice to create new sounds.

Of course the Jupiter 8 is not known for that and has become a legendary analog polysynth - but - Roland's goal was to create instruments that emulated the real thing. You and I may not like it,but Roland HAVE been consistent in their ethos - from the 70's right up to the JP80.

I also accept your idea that in some ways the JP80 is a retrograde step from the V-Synth GT. The reason - the V-Synth GT also has a very similar model to Supernatural Acoustic Tones called Articulation Phrase Synthesis. It too is a behavioural modelling approach (and surely lead to Supernatural Acoustic Tones). And while on the GT they only provide 3-4 models (Violin, Sax, Erhu and one or two others) - you can attach those behavioural models to other wave forms - including the VA waves such as Sawtooth. So you can play a Sawtooth lead line with the expressivity of a Violin, for example ! You cannot do this on the JP80 - each behavioural model is firmly attached to it's sampled instrument and there's no way round it!

And exactly that last step, is what i hope they are trying to archieve on this new instrument, combining the analogue waveforms with the expressiveness of the super naturall engine...

We can not know yet, as there is a lot of information lacking?

I agree with you that most of the suprnaturall sounds are top knotch in expresiveness, taking things one step further then Kontakt, kontakt is what Yamaha does in its Sa1 voices, and Korg with its DNC sounds...sample switching.. However keep in mind that the Yamaha SA2 sounds on the T4 and T5 are somwhere between Supernaturall and Kontakt scripting..

Roland seems the most advanced, and i think an Integra7 or JP80 is the best hardware thing one can add to Kronos, as it adds exactly the stuff thats weak on the Kronos, expressive emulations of real instruments..

[EvilDragon]

Scripting is a totally different phenomenon. What's going on there is that a number of commands are _interpreted_ in real time at the application/ OS level to instruct Kontakt to switch samples -very much like UNIX Shell scripting. It's literally millions of times slower. I have both the JP80 and Kontakt with scripted libraries, and I can assure you, they are utterly different. You can achieve some reasonably respectable results with Kontack - but I assure you - the JP80 is in a totally different league in this regard. At times its extraordinary.

Nope. This shows how little you know about Kontakt scripting. It's not interpreted in realtime - it's bytecode compiled. And it is not "a million times slower", not at all. It is extremely optimized and performs very much in realtime.

requiring realtime convolution (where convolution means multiplying each sample point of one sound source with every other sample of the other sound source - in real time - at ( 44.1/ 48 ) kHz).

Convolution does not really work like that, it's a bit different - it's not multiplication of samples at all. (And BTW Kontakt also offers realtime convolution with zero latency.)


But anyways. Roland didn't manage to amaze me with their violin examples like Spitfire did in the above example. It still sounds synthetic to an extent. So whatever they're doing, it's not enough!

[Kevin Nolan]

Lets not get into a "I'm better than you at understanding these things" debate - OK?


The JP80 uses a behavioural computer model!

[EvilDragon]

The JP80 uses a behavioural computer model!

Whatever. As I said, it's obviously not enough. Show me an example of JP80 which trumps that Spitfire Audio example I posted, then we'll talk.

[nitecrawler]

Well I wish Roland the best with their new synth, the JDXA. For me, unfortunately, a non starter. Four octaves is a couple too few.

[Bachus]

The JP80 uses a behavioural computer model!

Whatever. As I said, it's obviously not enough. Show me an example of JP80 which trumps that Spitfire Audio example I posted, then we'll talk.

There is a huge difference between expressiveness and the absolute best audio quallity.....

We dont know much about the JD XA jet, so why can anyone have an ouspoken opinion about it?

And i dont think wel will hear much about or espescially from it till musicmesse... Maybe we should halt this topic till then?

[Kevin Nolan]

But its great fun arguing

Anecdote: While doing my M.Sc (years ago) I got a reputation for arguing at the Post-Grad lunch table (no smart comments please !!).

So when I left my college and started in my first job, I decided to turn over a new leaf, and never argue again. On the first day of lunch in my company ( a chip design company - I was taken on asa UNIX Sys Admin as there were no physics jobs in recession-struck Ireland at the time) - a chip designer by the name of Conor Byrne came over to my table where my boss introduced me. My boss said:

"Hi Conor, this is Kevin Nolan - a new systems administrator"

where by Conor immediately replied:

"Oh - are you the Kevin Nolan from UCD who always argues with everyone?"

Begrudgingly I replied: "Yep, that's me".


So ever since then I've decided - whet the heck - it's good to argue, debate and engage.


So Bachus - be careful what you wish for - as soon as the JD XA comes out - I'll hold you to a debate on it

[Tschury]

Supernatural is a family of synthesis approaches; all using computer modelling. It's not scripting.

Actually, it's based on samples still. It's not pure modeling.

For Supernatural Acoustic Tones, it's a combination of samples and "behaviour modelling" - models on how instruments sound when performed in given ways. It goes beyond the likes of Kontakt scripting or VSL Instruments because it does not use velocity switching of samples. Instead, the "Supernatural Acoustic Engine" responds to playing and MIDI, and interprets that as a behavioural model applied to the samples. What actually goes on within the model is not clear, but it must involve a number of techniques ranging from formant synthesis to realtime convolution of instrument behaviour to performance types."

This is EXACTLY what Kontakt scripting can also do! So, Supernatural doesn't really go beyond the likes of Kontakt in this regard. Convolution or formant synthesis have absolutely nothing to do with it. And yes, they ARE using velocity crossfading.

And I do Kontakt scripting for living, so I know a thing or two about it

[...]

All your speculations are without any substance and obviously completely wrong!

For example concerning Roland's SuperNatural Acoustic Piano engine, they emphasize the involved V-Piano technology (which consists of pure Physical Modeling Synthesis) in the new SN sound chip, which is also included in the Integra-7 and Jupiter-50/80:

SuperNATURAL Piano :: Roland Piano Digital :: Products :: Roland

Quote from their above website:

"...Conventional piano sound engines incorporate several different tones per key for different velocities and switch between different tones [samples] depending on touch. Acoustic pianos, however, respond to the player in a completely smooth and natural way, with no "steps." This natural expressivity was our goal in the development of the SuperNATURAL Piano sound engine. Through Roland's unique V-Piano technology, we have been able to achieve natural and seamless variations in tone like that of acoustic pianos..."

"...A characteristic of acoustic pianos is that, after you strike a key, not only its volume but its tone changes as it decays. However, conventional piano sound engines would let sounds at certain volumes decay with no change in the tone, leading to an unnatural response. The SuperNATURAL Piano sound engine changes all this. With its use of V-Piano technology, it produces a natural decay in which its tone gradually changes as it decays, as it would on an acoustic piano..."

A video about the involved V-Piano algorithms in the new SN sound chip:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eo2nJBhxGYI" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Quote from the above video:

"...the SuperNatural sound chip: SuperNatural is a combination of 88 keys multi sampling -the mid 80's process that most other manufacturers still use to project their piano sound- and Roland's patented V-Piano sound technology. Roland spent 8 years and 10 million Dollars developing the V-Piano, which uses mathematic algorithms to recreate the physics of piano sound... Then SuperNatural incorporates the V-Piano algorithm to provide a smooth and organic dynamic curve / and decay..."

So Roland tells us, how they use V-Piano algorithms for certain aspects of the sample based SN ac. piano, like the seamless sound variation for different velocity levels without any sample switching, or the natural decay (without any loops) or the natural string resonance and hammer noise, etc.


PS: This discussion is finally off topic, as the JD-Xi and JD-XA do not incorporate the SN Acoustic sound chip. There is "only" the SN Synth VA engine on board plus a genuine analog engine...

[Kevin Nolan]

Thanks for the informative post Tschury. Agreed we're off topic by quite a bit!.

[Tschury]

Thanks for the informative post Tschury. Agreed we're off topic by quite a bit!.

You're always welcome Kevin!


So let's repost something more "on topic"...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/r4KeiyYPsQ4" frameborder="0"></iframe>