It's probably as good as it gets, but then again Roland claimed a

and I dare to say that it is not perfect. One thing's for sure: It is way better than any sample lib.

 

With the right DAC (in fact you'll have to use one like ... the DAC circuitry in the D50 ;-), and a little bit of post-processing, you can definitely get close enough in terms of sound - if you want to, anyway.

 

Most people are pretty clueless about what music is and how it's produced in the first place. Nobody has a clue what a D-50 even is, or was.

It's the oldest cliché, but it truly is not what you have - it's what you do with it. Joe Zawinul used to use a Korg M1 in his arsenal until his death - which is a very dated sound, some would say...he made it his own, though.

 

Did you see the video I posted? The guy recorded two sources with the same daw and created a video from it. When you watch the video you hear two recordings through the same DAC (whatever is attached to your PC). There should be no difference. It could even be worse, because the ADC he used to record the hardware D50 might be worse than the D50 DAC, so it would lose warmth and depth. But through all the processes the hardware sounds stronger than the plugin. Nothing will get you to the same sound, unless you give the same Roland DAC to all listeners of your music.

 

lots of hit records were made with D50s i used to own a pair dumped my Dx7s to buy them ... i do hope they sound right i also used to have pair of Korg M1's now i just use the korg plug lol it even sounds better than the original whats next the "alesis" now that was a POS or even worse the mirage

 

Last edited: Jun 30, 2017

Exactly! Yes, I've seen the vid before, and the first thing I noticed is that the guy didn't comment on the ADC/DAC chain at all. Hmmm. Maybe he's even recorded the virtual D50 out directly on the same machine, without any analog conversion.
With a mono 16bit Burr Brown PCM56 "mis-used" as a multiplexed dual-channel DAC in the original hardware for cost reasons, I doubt that Roland emulated its behaviour as well, so the lower quality DAC circuitry (compared to today's USB audio interfaces) in the hardware might indeed have more "edge" subjectively.

BTW, to all "experts" here criticising that real hardware cannot be emulated in software:
Apart from the aforementioned DAC circuitry, the D-50 is completely digital. Even the filters, the "analog synth" part, the reverb and the chorus. Everything.
So indeed it *can* be emulated by a modern CPU, given that the code and custom chip design is known, and it's known to Roland for sure

 

Last edited: Jun 30, 2017

Interesting, that would be an awesome product btw, a box with multiple hardware characters

 

If you know a little bit about soldering and electronics, you can build that yourself!
What you need:
- A USB to I2S audio converter with Windows and Mac drivers (like this one)
- An I2S-compatible DAC (like the Burr Brown PCM56, but you can try many others!)
- Some analog circuitry behind it (Mainly a Low Pass filter that cuts everything above 20kHz)

 

Of course anything can be emulated and nowadays is. However, mass produced mono 16bit Burr Brown PCM56 converters are still creating sound within the physical realm. Zero and one technology can only approximate and never truly replicate. It is akin in my mind as just the shadow of the soul and without the love that can animate, motivate or reproduce that which we call an organic or pure sound, even if that is the sound of the gritty D-50. It might sound good in the context of a mix but is still just what it is, nothing more and nothing less. I like this Roland version because it sounds great and probably as good as it gets, but when I hear the original up against it I hear a world of difference.

 

Would you please record both with a high quality audio interface and let us take part of the world of difference?
Maybe you have found some presets that really sound different in both candidates?
Or maybe you've just used an audio interface for playback that makes it sound very different?
I have the impression that you're about to compare DAC 1 to DAC 2, not synth engine 1 to synth engine 2.

 

Last edited: Jun 30, 2017

I have indeed some kind of electronics background, i built a sid based synth some years ago.
Do you think the coloring is worth the work ?

Interesting read: http://www.donsolaris.com/?p=404

 

Last edited: Jun 30, 2017

Ooooh, that's a difficult question to answer. It's so much a matter of taste.
What has been a nasty artefact yesterday is suddenly considered welcome "analog bite" today.

My opinion: Use various plugins to add the desired "dirt" and use the audio interface you prefer.
There's plugins like Plogue Chipcrusher, iZotope Trash 2 or the TAL Sampler to emulate vintage DACs, which do a decent job already IMHO.
If the sound is still weak, I always have an SPL Vitalizer handy to add even more colour.

For me, that's really good enough, although I'd be tempted to build such a "Magic DAC box" just for fun

PS: The donsolaris page is indeed very interesting, and it confirms to what degree things can be a matter of taste.

 

Last edited: Jun 30, 2017

...

 

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 6, 2017

...

 

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 6, 2017

I'm going by what I heard as difference when I listened to the comparison video, and which to me was quite discernable and which translated to me in sensation as lacking impact and depth on a visceral level, the software sounding like it was missing something in comparison when it rotated in during the video. I dig both the hardware that I used to noodle with, and now that the vst is here it feels like hanging out with an old friend that I haven't seen in years and has piqued my creativity. The difference between the two for me goes something like this: One is like making love to a hot, sexy babe who you met at a bar one night, intensely erotica and an intense and wild ride, while the other is like making love to your wife while trying passionately to conceive your first child. Both are technically going in the same direction but one is much more powerful at many more significant and deeper levels. I appreciate the difference in both examples, and find that the levels of subtle difference quite possibly purely personally experiential (kind of translated into; If you can't hear the difference it's ok, the tiniest of miniscule comparisons make me crazy and I am very sensitive of energetic differences like tuned notes of a percentage of cents). The depth is of significance to me.

 

True, and if my D50 I used to have had digital outs, I would have used it anyday.
Off course you can record your vocals with a SM57 and with your window opened and think it sounds fat, but in fact it´s better to close your window and use a Neumann :P

 

You just made clear that´s simply psychologic, the difference from the hardware synth engine and the vst engine is the same like the difference between a mac and a windows vst

 

Yup

 

We need more intensely erotica keyboard riffs, now let's go for a wild ride on our master keyboards, and make our VSTis sound like the real deal

 

Which is an old 16-bit DAC IC with 96dB of dynamic range. You can get it from China for $4.75, free shipping. The only thing you gain by adding it to digital signal is crappy DA converter with more noise and 16 bits instead of 24 from your interface. Sorry, not something I'm interested in - they used what was "good enough" back in the day, nowadays you can get way better and cleaner stuff, so embrace it