Roland Cloud JV-1080 VST vs vintage hardware
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лют 2025
- Let's do a back-to-back shootout of the newly released Roland Cloud Legendary Series JV-1080 VST plugin against my Roland JV-1080 hardware synth module from 1994.
We'll play a number of the presets in a variety of categories, first on the hardware then on the software. You'll hear the pianos, pads, synth sounds and acoustic tones that made this unit so popular in recording studios.
PATCH LIST:
A001 64VOICEPIANO
A011 WESTCOAST
A009 MIDIED GRAND
A012 PIANOSTRINGS
A016 SA RHODES 1
A046 FULL STOPS
A049 AUGERMENTIVE
A062 POLY KEY
A068 POLY BRASS
A072 FANTASIA JV
A108 NYLON GTR
A112 12STR GUITAR 1
A116 JAZZ SCAT
A120 JV STRAT
A125 POWER TRIP
B009 PICK BASS
B018 SLAP BASS
B025 MONDO BASS
C036 WARM STRINGS
C051 JP-8 STR 1
C064 GREEK POWER
C100 VANISHING
C128 TERMINATE
CONTACT | BUSINESS INQUIRIES
► Gmail: woodypianoshack
STUDIO SESSIONS LIVE STREAM
► / woodypianoshack
SUPPORT | FAN FUNDING
► Become a Patron: / woodypianoshack
► Donate: www.paypal.me/...
► Tip Woody: www.streamlabs...
SOCIAL
► Facebook: www. woo...
► Twitter: / woodypianoshack
► Discord: / discord
Thanks as always for the hard work! I like your combinations of sounds and sequences, pretty original. I have a broken JV880 and I'm a member of roland cloud just for this instrument. It can replace many of JV hardware modules. And with the "yours" program, I hope it'll be mine in less than a year. I can't understand how someone can dislike this video, it is a lot of hard work and I thank you for making all these videos.
My first synth was an XP-50, and it's so great to have those sounds again without the tedious workflow! They sound exactly as I remember, and your video proves how accurate the plugin is to the original. Thanks for your hard work!
I still have mine, bought ~1996 - I recently changed the battery after it went crazy, all working as usual now... less screws in the back though! :D
Yeah buddy!!! I had the VS-1880 and the XP-60. I was new to this world and I sounded horrible but man the XP-60 sounded great... so it helped me make really great AWFUL music. LOL!
I will have to really think hard about this Roland Cloud, but sadly probably can't use it till I've upgraded my current computer system across the board. Roland makes powerful stuff and this is no exception.
This was a fantastic comparison, and clearly shows the Roland Cloud emulation is almost 100% exactly spot on in most cases (that LFO sync weirdness in a couple of patches not withstanding). I can guarantee you that *NOBODY* would be able to tell the difference in a mix, and even solo it's *EXTREMELY* difficult to tell a difference. Anyone saying otherwise is being disingenuous.
Thank you.
Please keep doing your great work! Dont stop! I can listen to it all day
Would be great if you added a third test onto each demo by phaze inverting one of the sounds so we can audibly hear how much of a difference there is. Great demo cheers 👍
You are a beautiful person. We love you
Thanks for saying this for many of us :)
Excellent! The jv1080 was so far ahead as a powerhouse of sound, and it still sounds great after all these years.
I had the JV1010 for a while and this video is making me seriously consider signing up to Roland Cloud!!!
Thank you Woody, it is always a pleasure to hear you play!
do you know if the JV1010 exists as a virtual instrument? or only the 1080? thanks
Great work! Slightly preferred the hardware but software is so close and wayyy more convenient.
This cloud thing is nonsense. Roland should just sell each synth as a simple download.
I've noticed they do under lifetime key?
@@VagrantShadow recent change. They used to only have it subscription.
Their lifetime keys are even cheaper than it used to be when Roland Cloud was new when after one year you could choose an instrument to own. It used to be 240$ per instrument and you could only get one a year.
Now that feature has been removed and they are priced well.
I agree
I have both! I use the 1080 for live settings when I want more hands on control, and the Cloud for when I’m doing studio work! The cloud is as Close to the real thing as it gets! Each patch is almost the carbon copy of its originator!
Totally agree. These people saying the hardware is "clearly superior" are smoking crack.
@@EnochLight it's inaccurate as when i went through the data of the roms between the og jv1080 and the vst. the vst was just the xv5080 rom dumped with some of the presets removed
Great comparison Woody, I really love these videos. Keep up the good work 👍
The only difference I heard, besides that strange anomaly in one of the patches of course, is the hardware cut out a bit due to less polyphony. I also know the original hardware specs were: JV-1080 32k sample rate DAC: 18-bit ", but it seems they are emulating that in the VST, as the aliasing sounds the same, more or less. Thanks for the comparison Woody! I think Roland is doing a great job at this!
Not that I don't LOVE and APPRECIATE all the fine work you do! I crave your posts! Would love more of them, in fact. In previous, I am simply asking a question for discussion. carry on!
Glad to see this video! I ended up subbing to Roland Cloud a month or two ago because of these videos. The JV-1080 has been one of the VSTs I've used the most currently. As for the expansions, the SRX Orchestra expansion card is a VST all on it's own.
JV1010 también es otra buena opción
If Roland releases the JV-2080 with all the expansion cards I'll buy that.
About the patch Vanishing at 11:30. This patch depends heavily on Feedback Pitch Shifter which in original JV included mode setting 1-5. The higher value makes the response time little longer but the shifted sound is way less grainier. Roland used Fantom (old Fantom) effect set (78 EFX) in Cloud versions of JV/XV/SRX. That Pitch Shifter doesn't have any mode setting and that breaks almost all of Pitch Shifter dependent patches: PR-C 100 Vanishing, PR-C 105 Pure Tibet, PR-C 108 Intertia... just to name a few. As far as I can tell the same effect set is in Integra-7 or FA. So for these ambient sounds it is better to go with original hardware or imitate the Pitch Shifter by copying the tones with different Coarse tunings.
there is a big difference in that sound. The VST version sounds unusable in the lower notes actually, the lushness is nowhere to be found on the plugin version.
Great video! Thanks for taking the time to do this!
There’s practically no difference, or at least can’t notice much difference and I tried hard to find differences. The waveform display is really the only thing I can think of, there seem to be a few small differences in the volume and shape of the waveforms. I think the VST is as good as the hardware solution so pretty good job on Roland’s end.
Great video Woody, thanks for the work. I had a JV1010 but never used it, and sold it - I want it back now, I love these sounds. Keep the vids coming :)
The hardware sounds better, it sound fuller and rich, the vst is not too far behind the hardware gets a 10/10 the vst gets a 7/10
Ok, if you like synths like I do, just compare the price of paying a yearly subscription of Roland Cloud to buying the synth bundle at u-he. The u-he bundle includes 7 synths at about $800. After 4 years of Roland Cloud, you done paid about $860 and you own 4 synths of your choice. You do get to use everything they put up in the cloud, but it's hard to fancy paying that money if you only use 1 to 3 of their synths.
Very good very interesting! At the sound at 11:00 I thought that the software version is another preset because the difference is very clear to hear.
MartyK exactly I hear the same difference but it's the same sound only (I think) the lfo or something it's faster or something in cloud version
Kind of sounds like they goofed up the software version of that preset
Ugh, man that is awful. Hopefully that can be fixed. The original is a beautiful preset.
Agreed. I think it's more of an LFO on a waveform (or maybe the waveform volume) being higher than the original.
Thank you, Woody! I was considering buying vintage gear, but the VST positively surprised me and is cheaper.
Great video. The difference between the hardware and software can really be heard on the sound at 06:30. Huge difference actually! The software version has a thinner sound in general it seems
On the other hand, at 10:30, the software version has a thicker sound.
Not sure what you really hear, but the difference between them is negletible soundwise IMO. Nowhere near would I say that there is a huge difference. Small differences are probably the result of different AD between the HW and the computer soundcard but basically it is the same sound.
kids today don't care, just want the catchy hit of the month. vocals are so up front and center now, whats underneath doesn't matter much. no real differences that are going to matter on todays earbuds.
JV Fantasia is my favorite patch ever. Wish I could get it onto the montage 8 I play.
Great review, man. Thanks for spending your time, it was really useful.
Man. The drums at 12min sound great!
They sound very close and very good!
Thanks for all the hard work - really loved the comparison. As I have the hardware JV-880 and the Roland Cloud subscription for the JV-1080 I can’t compare, so it is nice to get a feel for the subtle things you note.
Great comparison between these gems. Most patches appear to sound the same. That 's a great job from the Roland developers. A pity though that the expansions are not 'converted' to the cloud, at least for now. Hopefully soon. I surely understand that these vids take a lot of time to produce. But you did a great job as always Woody. Thank so much for that. Regards here from Holland.
I would subscribe to the Roland Cloud in a heartbeat if they made a spot on JD-990 vst
they made a bad jd800 if you're interested
@@snesmocha i tried it i didn't find it so bad.. what don't you like about it?
The dacs on the original JV 1080 are 32khz. May explain why the software sounds brighter
The fact they didn't emulate this aspect is fantastic. I hated how the jv1080 couldn't do high notes very well
@@hdslave can easily jus tthrow a dac emulator on it if you do want that sound.
@@hdslave no it sucks... an emulation is to get the closest as possible to the original
@@kicksNCY try working with the actual hardware in a real session or playing in a group. The high notes on the jv sound super weird like just pitched up samples and don't articulate well. That's why I see it as a improvement. This simulation could be used for more applications than the original hardware
@@hdslave then use another more modern synth, no? there are many more modern alternatives (motif, fantom, integra.. ). people still working with the JV wants that lo-fi sounds, the flaws are part of the charm
The software version sounds terrible here 11:31 is it the exact same patch? Because in the lower notes it sounds as if the samples have smaller loop points, so the sound will almost sound distorted compared to the Hardware version. I didn't notice much difference in the other examples though.
It seems that by mistake an extra LFO is ruining the sound.
richard marx will be proud. great plugin
So enjoy the work that you do!
Good of you to do this. The ones getting heated over these things could be the software warriors saying there is no difference between software and hardware. Although there is you have ears for it. Some of the patches were even set up slightly different and this affects the judgement. But in general the DAC and filters etc in the 1080 is doing something there. The software was really close on some patches also. And most people would not hear much of a difference. The end results can get dull though if produced only by todays software.
I think your speculation of the VST being synced to your DAW is spot on. The VST is an awesome recreation of the JV, it just seems to be lacking a little warmth.
ben glass Indeed, I conclude the same from what I hear in this video. But that could also come from the AD convertors that capture the sound of the hardware JV.
I thought the hardware sounded a little better at times. But that's the result of it being put through a D/A and back into the computer via a A/D. That colours the sound sometimes, in a good way on a decent audio interface.
John Doe What an infantile response.
The VST sounds brighter at the top end, they both sound goos and both needs some after care to get them sweet to the ear.
Very very close to the module, I have been thinking of getting some 19" racks synths the old ones are so affordable these days!
Wow Roland really did a great job at recreating this classic unit!
The sounds are very, very close. But if you listen with some decent studio headphones or moniters you can hear a tiny little difference in some sounds. And yes, like I've seen in many comments, there were a few obvious ones that sounded different.
But the suble ones are for instance, the sound at 6:25, if you listen closely you can hear that the Hardware version sounds a tiny little bit brighter and a little punchier than the Software version. And on some sounds it's the other way around. The plugin almost sounds a bit cleaner overal, a little less noise on some sounds.
Overall, I think Roland did an excellent job! And props to you Woody for making another perfect comparison video :).
You nailed it... I said something similar above in my comments. And I've always loved that 'Roland Sound" anyway.
Thank you for the video. The demonstration format is excellent. I have to admit that it would have been better with your final thoughts. You hear them before it gets heavily processed after all.
You're a very skilled keyboard player, IMHO! ;-)
This emphasize the old truth "if it sounds good it is good no matter what technology it is and how old it is". Both sounds perfectly useful to me, but I am oldskool and prefer gear before rentals so I would go for the hardware.
Going Home sounded amazing with the JV Strat preset. The JV 1080 is a module that even nowadays sounds amazing, I'd like to try layering some D-50 sounds with the JV-1080.
Hardware 3:51 Software 4:08 HW 4:23 SW 4:47 HW 5:11 SW 5:31 HW 5:51 SW 6:08 HW 6:24 SW 6:38 HW 6:53 SW 7:14 HW 7:34 SW 7:46
HW 7:57 SW 8:08 HW 8:21 SW 8:30 HW 8:38 SW 8:58 HW 9:18 SW 9:26 HW 9:35 SW 9:43 HW 9:53 SW 10:02 HW 10:12 SW 10:21
HW 10:30 SW 10:45 HW 11:00 SW 11:30 HW 12:00 SW 12:13 HW 12:25 SW 12:41
You know what, the software captures the sound very well. It *is* a little flat and weak on some sounds, but i think that can be brought up when run through a hardware preamp/comp/eq, or even itb processors. I am very happy about this !
11:00 PR-C Vanishing
This one has been my all time favorite since i've used it with my old Roland piano but the VST plugin sounds pretty off compared to the original. I've tried to manually tweak it to get the MFX right but no dice.
Thanks for your hard work Woody!
Excellent comparison video again Woody, Thanks!
By the time these sounds are layered, compressed, EQ and mixed into a finished song, I think unless you are going for a professionally released track the software equivalent MORE than suffices!
I think as far a professional music is concerned you would be very successful... I've tried other emulations of the 808's and they just don't cut it... Roland has always hands down nailed it in the world of drums (and other sounds too but...)
@@MartinWeeksmw I just randomly watched this video comparison again and I think the biggest difference between the two is when you push them hard. The hardware doesn't lose anything, but the vst does.
Not sure whether it’s the sound card being used. To my ears, the hardware sounds more full towards the bottom end, whereas the software sounds thinner. Other than that, pretty spot on.
Another beaut review from Woody.
Hi Woody - another nice test thanks...They were closer than I expected. I often find the hardware to have a little more low end thickness and perhaps this does but it is very close. I think the Roland Cloud stuff is quite impressive sonically...
The drums have different reverb on them
Some of the songs played:
3:52: Bruce Hornsby - The Way It Is
4:23: Richard Marx - Right Here Waiting
5:51: The Monkees - Believer
7:56: The Eagles - Hotel California
8:21: Harold Faltermeyer Axel F
9:18: Deep Purple - Smoke On The Water
9:34: Chic - Good Times (sampled in Rapper's Delight)
I could be wrong, but I believe 5:51 actually is Joe Zawinul's Mercy, Merci, Merci
And you could actually be right, I didn't know that song but it certainly sounds like it.
Love your videos WoodyPianoShack! I realize this is a late comment but thank your for your comparison!
Both sound very close , however HW feels like being richer & fatter.
Great performance - u must have being played alot...
Nice comparison. On some patches I heard some slight differences. Nothing major, but the hardware still had the slight edge for me.
Superb upload the plugin sounds very close (the hardware sounds warmer and deeper)
BS it's the same digital software, only in a different box. A cheap 90's digital synth never sounded "warmer and deeper" in the first place.
@@asor8037 if you say so, thank you for your opinion
VST is pretty spot on in this case. Great showcase! Thanks.
Thank you for the video! Great help!
I can def hear a difference in the warmth and body.
Very nice but the D2A converters in the original may be the difference and swing the vote
Multitimbral support, Sysex, Patch change, GM mode? Nope. I think it's success.
I suppose my ear is more accustomed to the sounds from the JV hardware. The vst is brilliant but there is something about the DAC's in the machine that create the last piece of the magic. There is a sheen missing in the vst (to me). Very subtle and might be missed by some. There is a reason it is still used in studio's across the globe.
Brilliant. Wish you had offered your comments.
Appreciate the time you spent making this. I didn't even know about this cloud VST. It would sure make creating songs easier if everything is in-the-box, especially programming/tweaking the sound patches!
The VST at 11:37 sounds absolutely terrible compared to the hardware.
Agreed. There's something going badly wrong, there.
Sounded bad throughout. The vst sounded out of soul.
@@ZiadSidawi hilarious
is it possible that the limiter is causing it by too short release?
Sadly the same thing is present in the Integra7 , seems like the Pitch Shift effect and mainly the feedback parameter implementation is different, thought it sounded too “wobbly “ compared to the XP-50 which I had earlier.
first great job hands down for putting this together Woddy! the JV 1080 sounds better, I own a JV 2080, but I really want the JV 5080 flagship
Excellent test, as usual, Gareth! :) My bet is still on the hard thing, hehe...I've been playing my XP-80 every week since the 90s, and I can notice a bit of a less definition on the soft version...but honestly, the future are plugins, hard will practically disappear in the future when most won't be able to be fixed!
Cheerio.
I don't think so Sir because it comes down the musician himself or herself that is playing. Other factors about the hardware also matter, like how the keys pressure feels when playing. Often a player can get the "Feel or Groove" better from playing the instrument then they can get using fader ports and writing automation on everything.
Some things I always play the instrument while others I will use samples or loops... just depends on what the Creator is striving to attain.
ROLAND : CLOUD : SOFTWARE ;
PROGRAMMING ; P.C. : COMPUTER ;
Controller ; imput ; Midi ; Hardware ;
Wireless ; Conect ; Cloud ; ROLAND .
The difference is unnoticeable!
Hello. What do You want to compare this way exactly? From VST ver; sound is recorded internally and from HW ver; sound is recorded via HW ver DAC (1st point making difference) + your sound interface ADC (2nd point making difference)...
Very close. In the case of the polyphonic brass patch I felt that this sounded a bit fatter on the original hardware, and I also thought the JV fantasia pad also sounded a bit smoother and slightly nicer on the original unit. In contrast, I thought a couple of the bass sounds including the slap bass and the synth bass sound which immediately followed it had a touch more life and boisterousness on the software version. The most glaring discrepancies I observed were on the 2nd to last patch (which I think was listed as “vanishing “) where the tempo of the pulse effect was, interestingly, somewhat faster than on the original patch, and I further felt that the drum kit came across nicer on the software, although I suspect that the only difference between the two in case of the drum patch is that there is a slightly different and more pronounced reverb on the software preset. I did not identify any substantial differences between the other patches in this comparison. And both products sound substantially similar as one would hope. Thank you for another great video in which many of the sounds involved definitely took me back some years to my days of working with the XP30. Excellent job!
I am curious as perhaps I missed soething... but I did not see "XP" listed in any of the Cloud. Is it listed with a different name or just no longer being made? I loved My XP-60. It was hard to work with but what a great sound pallet it had.
To me it sounded like the VST was responding differently to the keyboard velocity curve. The VST constantly sounded like the keys were being hit pretty hard. Wonder if they would have sounded more similar if one had lowered the velocity on the captured MIDI just a tad.
Those older spec hardware synths often deal a bit differently with velocity curves. One of the main reasons some of the older synths with early midi implementation often don’t make great master keyboards is that many of them have a hard time outputting fortissimo velocities via midi. For example, try using a D-50 to play a modern DSI synth... you could probably jackhammer the D-50 keybed and wouldn’t be able to trigger a DSI Pro 2 at full volume.
I had the sense that something along those lines was happening here.
The difference is greater on some sounds than others. Some aren't that close, others I can barely hear a difference. The hardware synth seems to have a lot more beef, and clarity in the lower midrange.
Great comparission, keep it up !
Lol when I saw the thumbnail at first I thought the little red piano was another Roland Boutique synth! Relieved to see it's not. They sound very close but the hardware is a fraction more richer. Like all these emulations they only seem to be able to get 90% there.
Hi, I checking with Senheiser HD6-MIX and VST sound good but not a perfect emulation, the hardware sound more crisp, fat, clean and wide. Thank you!
Its great if you want to load it up on your laptop and do a gig without having to carry a extra 1080 module. I also like the D-50
sound good and you dont loose details good window for edit in the vst version good work has been done there for shure.
Been looking forward to this one :) will watch when I can, in the middle of a family movie :)
Thanks for the Versus. The VST sound great at 80%.
Great demo, I wish I would have come across your video first. Before I paid for this software. I have the Roland JV 1080 and the JV2080. Along with other Roland hardware. I thought this would be a nice add-on to my setup, but I was so wrong.
Some of the sounds do match up but it feels like you're playing it on an old 2000 sampler. So the feel on the keyboard is not good at all. There are a lot of thin-sounding samples in this software and overall I would not endorse this product.
Get the hardware or do without it. And save you 129.00 dollars.
I hope this helps someone and keeps your money safe.
🤔🤑
Wow! The absolute worst thing about the JV-1080 hardware was the interface...that VST interface is gorgeous
Thanks for the comparison Woody, I'm not sure which VST to take for keeps when my first year of Roland cloud is reached. Right now it's a toss-up between the JV-1080 and the D-50. I'm leaning more toward the JV-1080 as I think the clarity of the sounds are better to me on that.
Woody, your video reviews are always informative, well conceived and, last but not least, fun and pleasant. Although I did my best to thoroughly listen to the sound examples, I did not notice any differences. The main issue, IMHO, is not your reviews but the fact Roland keeps proposing and selling old technology instruments with new dresses. What's the real investment in R&D to develop a virtual version of JV-1080? Almost nothing, but Roland would make us believe that double polyphony and a bunch of new effects make an old piece of gear interesting again. This mighth be, but I think it's just the same reheated soup. When in the eighties I had S-50 sampler I remember its floppies and its samples. When later I had M-GS64 found the same sounds, the same said for JV-2080, several SR-JV80 boards, RD-300sx and later again on Fantom XR and SRX boards. How many times Roland recycled those samples? Inexcusable both Roland and people who keep buying from her (or it)
dp7, you'll find my comparison of the 1080 and the Integra interesting then... :) thx for the kind words.
Thanks for posting on our 28th anniversary! The wife keeps reminding me of how I broke us over and over buying each of the keyboards you feature with each episode, heh.
she can be grateful that we only feature the budget end of the synth spectrum.
FYI - I met the Roland team at CES show this year - complained about Roland cloud payment system (not that I am using it - but told them I wouldn't as I just want to own my plugins) and they did mention that if you continue to pay for a Roland Cloud VST over 12 months (or perhaps it was 18 - I don't remember) you end up owning it on permanent basis. (Actually I prefer to have hardware - even if it's a 'hardware plugin' such as the JU-06 - nothing beats a physical interface for live modulation.)
The plugin has considerably more detail, probably because it goes directly to monitors and there is one less AD-DA conversion step made compared to hardware. If anyone feels the plugin sounds thinner and lacks "warmth" just slap some saturation plugin like Waves NLS, or some Nebula console and voila, you've got a warm sounding plugin.
hardware 11.15 vs soft 11.40 ;) hardware WIN
It's amazingly close. I think Roland has the best soft synths by a mile. It's missing a bit of low mid "warmth" like you said.
The expansions are separate plugins, currently the only one they've done is the SRX Orchestra. Fingers crossed they make more!
Moanin' by Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers. Love it :)
good catch jacob!
Largest difference will be in "synth" emulation type of sounds, while plain PCM playback sounds (piano, bells, guitar) should sound the same. Pity the plugin doesn't support SYX import. We should bang on Roland's doors and demand a SYX import! Come on Roland!!!
I agreed, that the other flaw that the VST version lack not just the GM bank not being included in it. I hope a support for SYX import can happened like they did with the D50 VST.
11:00 my god this is bad! Up to this point I thought the sounds were pretty well recreated, but what I always liked about roland's pitch sift/delay vfx is that it sounded so clean. The one in the plugin sounds absolutely terrible. Maybe this is a feature you can configure in the plugin itself to make it high quality ? Because this fails across the board. It sounds as bad as the discord plugin from audio damage.
Since this video,Roland has Released some JV expansion boards.Including the Orchestral board as separate plugins
yep, keeping an eye on those, the software plugins are actually the SRX boards.
I wonder how the Cloud 's JV-1080 compares to the JV-2080, XV-5050 and other devices that have the JV-1080 sounds in it. Great video Woody, I think I see a Roland Cloud subscription becoming inevitable... ;)
Some of the other presets lacked a little warm low end, listening on decent ‘phones. Oddly, a couple sounded warmer than the hardware, I thought (the basses and string pad, I think). The first piano was spot on. Thanks so much for taking the time, do like the way you do your hw/sw comparisons. Cheers!
Excuse me, but if you made and played the sound and melody line that comes out until 12:01-12:12, can I use it when I compose? I really like your performance and melody. I look forward to your positive reply.
Woddy you are the best performing guy so beautifull sounds i love pads and ambiente sounds
Good demo and as expected, they sound so similar that it is a wash. I wonder if the Cloud editor works with the hardware JV1080? That would be cool.
They sound extremely similar, but the hardware does seem to have slightly more mid range and low end presence. It's almost as if the hardware has some sort of mastering effect on the output, and that the software is completely missing it. A little eq and slight saturated compression would make them completely identical.
I think the cloud version has higher quality samples than the originals, which would give it some more high-end at the cost of losing low and mid in the mix. Could also just be a bugged VST, some presets are still broken.
@@Catonator I think the samples are the same, it's just the output is too clean. On Korg Triton vst, for example, I just add a 112db lowpass filter at 15k with a bit of resonance, and it sounds noticeably fatter and "hardware-ish" that way. Just an ordinary filter (from Melda Production), no saturation at all. Also on the brassy saws at 6:25 you can hear that the hardware, on the contrary, has a lot more high-end bite. I guess the vst does not open filter fully on that patch, something might be wrong with the modulating envelope.
Found most of them to be the same except for one vox and one analog pad patch. The two hardware patches seemed brighter although there seemed to be more 'depth of field' in the vst version... possibly due to greater polyphony.
Merci pour cette belle comparaison; Certe le son dans l'expander est plus ou moins différent par apport au vst, mais je trouve que avoir un outil de la taille du JV1080 en vst avec une similitude presque parfaite , ( certaines sonorités sonnent plus puissantes et plus grosse que sur l'expander). En general, je trouve le vst tres pratique et repond a pas mal de demande musicale. Encore une fois mes remerciements pour la comparaison et démonstration colossale . Thank's a lot