I've read on Harmony Centrals reader reviews that the JV 2080 sucks regarding MIDI timing response with more than a few channels going. Is this also true of the 1080?
-Jem

I use a JV2080 a lot, and haven't experienced any problems with MIDI timing. Used with Cakewalk it takes a bit of setting up but I think the reader reviews you were reading probably need to look at their sound card midi capabilities. I use a LAYLA (Echo) which, ok, is £900 (UK) but is well worth it. Echo also do a couple of other cheaper cards which are just as good for MIDI and audio, but with less inputs / outputs.

Hope that helps!

I have also used the 2080 extensively and unfortunatly I strongly disagree. From what I have experienced the timing is due to processor power. As more complex patches are programmed and simultaneously played the more timing suffers. It really depends what sort of music you create. As for the other reply, I have tried my 2080 on various midi setups and it still occurs.

I would also like to hear from any 1080 users to throw any light on the differences.

Thanks for your replies. Here's some more light on the subject from a synth tech at music store in Stockhom:
• Voice allocation is a spanner in the works. Set all voice limits to zero. This forces dynamic allocation which is apparently smoother.
• Copy your favourite presets into user memories and edit out unecessary long tails in individual tones due to the envelope settings (or LFO's etc. controlling them).
• As usual if a busy mix features too many 4 tone sounds something has to give.

Apparently there are no differences in the above points between the 10 aand 2080.
As an added note I took a 2080 home and recorded a few sequences. I then compared them with some recordings done with a JV 880. I liked the JV 880's sound more! It seemed clearer, punchier and cut through a mix better. So go figure..
Thanks again, Jem

I have a 2080 too like the rest of the world !!

It has some problems with timing if you use lot's of notes.
Tips:
Place the drums and other patches with hard
attack on the upperparts of your sequencer.
In cakewalk the event are played in
trackorder from 1 to .. so place the drums
on track 1. this lets jv-2080 play the
drums first.
Get a couple of more synths and only use
20 tones or less on the same time on
2080 then it works ok.

AAAH, so it's not just me! But has anyone noticed that if you use GM only mode, the timing is MUCH better?

As I have said before, it is all down to processor power. In GM mode the patches being used may be simpler, I don't know as I don't really use General Midi.

Roland have succeeded in creating the ultimate programmable module which is nothing short of amazing in sonic ability. However timing suffers badly with complex patches and lots of rhythm sounds.

If anyone out there wants another option to a JV2080 I'd recommend a JD990. Yes it is older and only has 24 voices but, since the 2080 only plays back around 20/30 complex voices on time it could be an option. Obviously it doesn't have 3 EFX but you do get 4 effects at once on the first multitimbral part and reverb/delay/chorus on the rest, and it's timing is bang on.

Once again I would be very interested to hear from any users of JV1080's, XP80/60/50/30 JV1010 to see if they suffer the same problems.

Isn't it about time Roland got there finger out and made a JV3080 with these problems fixed as it isn't fair to market a synth to play 64 voices when it cannot do this with any reasonable timing.

Cheers

Ok, then whats this then?
I've heard several demos and CDs that were composed on a xp-50/80 and 2080 that were VERY complex, and the timing was DEAD ON.

I've also downloaded complex sequences that were dead on as far as timing goes. But you put in the demo (or dance) disk and play a demo song, and the timing is shot to hell. Whats up with that?

Also, does anyone know if there's any truth to the newer versions of these synths having better timing? I'd like to compare version numbers (of ROM) on my roland instruments with others. Not sure about the 1080 but my xp-80 is 1.07.

Were not talking totally out of timing but the human ear is sensitive downto 20 miliseconds. I talk about perofessional use, for selling music on CD's. Some will never hear it, but I feel it, and I know how to come around it. it's no problem, just buy two other synth and only use 4 or 5 channels from JV-2080. Be sure you have a quality MidiSoundcard on you'r PC otherwise that could lead to bad timing too.

Yeh, sure that may be true - but unfortunately not everyone can or wants to buy 2 other synths when this one is supposed to be able to handle more. Also if my girlfrind can hear it then I'm sure anyone buying a cd would!!

Don't get me wrong, I agree there are workarounds and the 2080 is still extremely useful, but don't you just feel a little bit cheesed off when you have 4-5 channels pumping out and you add some more drums only to find your lead/bass lines have lost their tight feel, especially when having spent £1000 for the priviledge.

I think that Roland should release a ROM upgrade if possible to sort the problem out, or at least admit the problem exists. The last time I called them, they were extremely unhelpful and obviously very tight lipped about the whole matter.

Roll on the 3080!!!

Sadly, almost nothing (I did say almost) sounds like a roland. Roland's sound quality is still tops with me, but I have to agree- for the money I paid, I want 16 working well timed channels, not 4 or 5 (do a heavy string backing and you're lucky to get 3 channels).
It's pretty bad when even the demos have poor timing.

I appreciate the suggestions for using other synths, but NO ONE should have to. I have 4 other synths, some costing half as much as my JV, but they have no problem with timing--- but on the flip side, none of them sound near as good as the roland.

Maybe roland was us to buy multiple jv/xp synths....*sigh*

It´s now clear that every synth/sound module of the JV-XP series (XP-50, 60, 80, 30, JV-1080 ,2080 and 1010) has the same problem with timing.
But still there´s something more on the JV-2080 in comparison to the 1080! The 2080 has to handle more information which makes it slower, though they use the same processor.
You can read a reply on this matter that I posted to DJ Wunder on synthzone on the 1st of may 1999. The fact that the same sequence works better on a JV-1080 than on a 2080 says it all.

Could a new Roland synth/module (JV-3080?) on the market solve these problems?
Well, one thing is for sure! Then I would have to choose between -keeping the old synth/module and keep on feeling cheated; or feel forced to buy a new one from the same people who´d been cheating me. And that´s no good solutions!?

So I say ROLAND- don´t put more sh** on the market before you FIX this first!!! And that NOW!

PS.on the problem- These synths can surely get completly out of timing and you don't have to be a professional to hear it. When you really get to know how to do, to make these failures show up, you probably won't believe your hears. I didn't..!
I can hear it already by using TWO voices at the same time which means that these synths can never playback a song in the right way. Even LIVE it won't respond exactly to your playing. So there are no workarounds!
Well.., Roland could have marketed these synths as Solo-synths or as 64-voice synths with a warning for playing more than one note at the same time!

On timing...

Maybe I am out of the track but...

Using A PII 350 whith an (superMPU64) usb interface.

I had similar problems with timing and, in my case, the problem seems to be the folling

I have a virus sheeld (norton) and after long and hard tests, I came to the conclusion that the antivirus slowes (ALL) operations on my computer.

I desactivate, it when I am in music session. Curiously, I did'nt have any timing problems since!!!

I have been using a D-50 and D-70 for the longest time and have always heard about timing problems with the D-70. I purchased a JV-2080 about a year ago, and have been totally amazed at the power, including the timing. I have used it with an MC-50 and have never experienced the problem as described by all the other posts. I am just now starting to integrate a computer into the setup, so I don't have any experience with timing and software sequencers, but with my MC-50, I have had fairly complex sequences and have never had a problem with timing. Perhaps I am just used to the slower responses of my older gear. But as far as I am concerned, the JV-2080 is a power house that definitely lives up to my expectations. I was involved in a CD project that used a JV-1080, JV-2080, & Akai S-2000 sampler. With this combination, all the music was composed and recorded, usually as virtual tracks exclusively. We didn't run into the timing problems as others are complaining about. I am not trying to say it doesn't exist for them, I am just saying that I have never experienced it myself. I have gotten complex sequences with the D-70 alone, so the JV-2080 was a big step up for me.

Whilst I respect you're views I would have to disagree with regard to complex sequences. I myself have a D110, JD990 as well as a JV2080. With no doubt the least responsive by a long way is the JV2080. The JD990 and D110 can handle anything within their voicing limits.

I find one that when I use fast LFO'S with portamento on four voice patches and drums that timing is extremely slack.

All I would say is that I wonder how new your 2080 is. It may be that Roland have fixed this problem since I and other owners have purchased the synth.

Despite this I have no problem admiting how utterly fantastic the module is in every other way - however since timing is such an important part of music it is extremely disconcerting.

How do I find out what version I have? I am curious to find out if possibly it is a newer version. I would have no clue about that.

As far as my previous post, what I was trying to say was that the D-70 was notorious as well for timing problems, and I worked around it. Maybe my mixes weren't as complex as what everyone else is creating, I am not quite sure. I have been told that I get alot of sound out of the few modules I do have.

As I stated before, perhaps I am just accustomed to the timing of the older gear and therefore never noticed the problem. I am not trying to say anyone doesn't have a valid point to complain about the timing of their JV-2080s, I am just saying that I never noticed it. Also, perhaps the music I am personally creating isn't as reliant on exact timing as others. I really don't know. I like to think I am a very critical person with respect to timing and music.

Maybe there is a timing difference with software sequencers and hardware sequencers, because you have to factor in the extra connection to the computer. I have always used a hardware sequencer, the MC-50. That unit is dead on, as far as I know.

If you have any idea about how to find out what version I have, please let me know. Also, I am always interested to hear what music everyone is creating. I am curious how complex people are getting with their gear. Please let me know. Thanks and have a great day!

To find out your ROM version on the 2080 keep holding INC, DEC and VALUE and power up, it will then say "wait a while...." Then you are in to the setup utility.

My unit has CPU.ver 1.00, PUB.ver 1.02, and ROM.ver 0053.

I would be intrigued to see what yours is.

PLEASE NOTE: BACK UP ALL YOUR USER PRESETS BEFORE DOING THIS OPERATION.

Well I checked and apparently have the same unit as you. Maybe I am using my other units more and have not noticed a timing problem because I don't use the JV-2080 as extensively as you do. I still think that I am used to the timing of my older gear, so I didn't notice anything different with the JV-2080.

The CD project I was involved with, though, included a JV-1080 and a JV-2080 (neither of them mine) and we didn't come across any timing issues.

This is disappointing to know that I can look forward to midi slop if I try to use the module for very note intensive music. Do you think the difference could be the computer connection?

I would be interested to know what computer and midi device you are using, because I am trying to integrate my setup with a computer and don't understand all the connections needed. I have put that aside to play on the internet anyway, but I am looking to get serious with my setup once again. I have a Pentium III 600Mhz computer and a MOTU MTP-AV midi merger. The sequencer program I am attempting to learn (though this is very difficult) is Cubase VST/24.

I notice that the response of the sequencer itself is not the greatest--the metronome and sequences don't start and stop exactly when I press start/stop. I have never had this problem with my MC-50. I am thinking that perhaps this is common with software sequencers and is causing the midi timing problems with the JV-2080. Just a thought. Aside from the start and stop of the sequence, I haven't noticed any timing anomalies.

I am using a Pentium 200mmx with a Midiman 2in/4out interface. I have, in my opinion extensively tested the 2080 in every conceiveable scenario available to me. By that I mean my soundcard midi interface, a mate's mac, my mac and also directly from a controller keyboard. I believe that although software sequencers aren't the tightest they could be (I use cubase VST 3.7 on the PC), that it has nothing to do with this.

An interesting point mentioned by another person here was that the JV1080 is not as bad. I haven't had the opportunity to try this but I have thought of reasons for this in relation to the differences.

1) Having 8 Expansion slots rather than four (I can't see this having an effect-especially as I have one expansion board).

2) Effects: 3 EFX may have some bearing in Performance mode (where timing is worse). This may be because the effects routing is more complex.

3) Effects ii : When I did speak to one half decent guy at Roland- (I did say half!) he was saying that the 32bit Risc cpu handles EVERYTHING. Now if "everything" involves the effects then that is two more chunks of effects processing to handle. I personally can't see one processor doing that amount more without completely screwing the whole machine up - but it is still a possibility.

4) The screen: This may seem trivial but surely the 2080 has more screen processing to do (Full graphical display, lots of info at once etc. This could have an impact on available audio processing power.

Whilst I appreciate that no one really cares what the technical breakdown of why this problem occurs (after all isn't this supposed to be about music!!!!) However I for one would like to see Roland admit to their mistakes and explain to it's customers why they screwed up. Treating people like me with contempt when I phone up just makes the situation worse.

I just want as many owners as possible to read this and take it for what it is. That is the only way anything will happen.....

After all the mails and lots of opinions on this matter, I think it's important not to lose the thread and remember that The timing problems we've been talking about, resides in the sound module of the JV/XP itself and are due to bad processor power.
It has nothing to do with: Midi slowdowns or hardware/software sequencer problems. (which are more specific to the XP-50,60 and 80,-but that's another sad story...!!)

So there's nothing we can do about it!
Only the constructers -the japanese Roland- can fix this...but I don't think they will, as long as there is people buying these modules; and as long as there is people saying they are OK, too.

There might be some people who's satisfied and accept these synths for being 10- or maybe 20-voice modules and not 64.That's up to them and it's OK with me, but I can't accept it myself.
I bought mine as a unit with 64 simultaneous polyphonic notes and nothing else. Besides- 64 "healthy" voices!!Not sick ones!!

Calling up Roland and complaining about it, it's no use. They'll always turn you down and tell some kind of a story-bla, bla...
So I did following instead: I put some examples of the timing errors on a disk and sent it to Roland.
These examples were so perfect and clear that Roland could do nothing but recognize that the "blistering speed processor" (as they call it) was really bad.

But recognizing the problem didn't help me att all!!
What I mean is that they should fix it so I can use the 64-voices I've payed for.

I recommend anyone who is discontent with these products to claim that too.
Only by warning people for these defects, and by massive complaints can we make Roland do something about it.

Finally- it's hard to believe that these fantastic modules have such a miserable defect.

PS. 1- I was about to write that the ROM version won't help the problem, but I can read it already on the last mails!
2- I find Tottys reflections, about the 2080 being slower than the 1080, very wise.
I might as well say that Roland itself recognized (besides admiting the defects on the JV/XP series) that the 2080 was slower than the 1080.

I've held off on buying a XP-80 for about 6 months now while reading and posting messages addressing the timing problems that I have heard about. I am very eager (almost desperate) at this point to buy a new synth, but I need TRUE 64 polyphony with no malfunctions in other features. I also don't think I should have to buy multiple synths to get REAL 64 polyphony when one instrument claims to be able to.

For months now I've heard many Roland users describe the timing problems they have. At the same time, just as many users say they have absolutely no timing problems, even users that say they use very large complex arrangements with no timing problems. Why is that? Of course the words large and complex are relative, but there may be more to it.

I have noticed that many of the users who don't have the timing problems say that they only use software sequencers and almost never use the onboard sequencers on the XP series. After listening to the comments of many Roland users over time, I'm wondering if the timing problem actually originates around the Roland sequencer.

Roland XP specs state that the sequencer records at a resolution of 96 ticks per quarter note and will play back at 480 ticks per quarter note, a very large difference. That's 80% fewer ticks then the average sequencer which means more notes crammed onto fewer ticks around the beat that need to be processed simultaniously if recorded on a Roland sequencer. I can't find where the playback tick specs were shown, but I remember thinking when I saw it that 96 wasn't really that much and wondering why so great a difference between the number of record and playback ticks.

All experienced midi musicians know how over quantizing, in addition to making music sound too rigid, will cause many note events to be performed at once, placing great stress on the processor. I'm wondering if the fewer ticks of Roland sequencers causes this to happen also. The 500% more note events that happen simultaniously on Rolands, bogging down the processor, could be the cause of the timing problems. Those using Roland products to sequence and those using other products to sequence might be the difference in the timing problems.

As I said I am not a Roland user yet and I am very unfamiliar with operating a Roland JV/XP, so this brings up many other questions. Is there a way to select what tick resolution a user wants to use on a Roland? Can any Roland users tell of their experience regarding the points I have mentioned and their method and equipment for sequencing, and whether they have timing problems or not.

I have also heard users in the past talk about conflicts between the software sequencer clock and the onboard clock which caused timing problems. When both clocks were being used, timing problems occured. It sounded like both clocks were fighting each other. Once the Roland was adjusted to use the software sequencer clock (computer clock), the timing problem was alleviated. Can any Roland user who has timing problems try this and see if it corrects your problem?

Hopefully, if we all put our heads together, we can fix these problems with Roland products, bill Roland for our efforts (yeah right), and get back to making music.


PS: I'll repost this, starting a new thread on the subject also.