Roland Cloud vs Vintage Hardware

A comparison of four of the instruments in the Roland Cloud "Legendary Series" with the original hardware units they're based upon.

SH-2 (1979)
TB-303 (1981)
SH-101 (1982)
JX-3P (1983)

I'll put my opinions in the comments below for discussion (as mentioned in the video).

Thanks to Ian Livingstone for the loan of the SH-2 and thank you for watching.

Social:

[AlexBallMusic]

*My opinions
*

Remember any two of the same hardware synths will sound a little different to each other, such is the nature of analogue. Also, the originals are between 36 – 40 years old and would have sounded different when they were new and at different points in their life dependent upon their service history and whether any components were replaced.

In terms of raw sound, it’s remarkably close. Not always identical (depending upon what you’re doing and which instrument in question), but impressive nonetheless.
In terms of behaviour and changing parameters in real time, I couldn’t hear any digital stepping and they were all responsive.

The architecture of the Cloud versions has been upgraded as they’re not restricted by the limitations of the original hardware units. There’s loads of additional features like fully clockable modulation sources, additional envelopes and routing, additional keyboard modes, more complex arpeggiators, FX, scatter etc etc. The modulation sources also run positive or negative on the sliders.

SH-2: I deliberately only used parameters available on the hardware to try to make it comparable. There’s some differences, particularly when setting up bass sounds, but there are times in the demo where it’s very difficult to hear the switches from the virtual and the real.

TB-303: Pretty stunning. In a blind test I would struggle to tell you which was which. It responded exactly as you’d expect to parameter changes.

Update: Having done some more comparisons I've found the hardware behaves differently if you tie multiple slides together (I was trying five). On the hardware the behaviour is quite distinct when you do that and I found the software didn't do the same things in that kind of phrasing.

SH-101: The one I found a little different. There’s two envelopes and (unlike the other Cloud instruments) you can’t switch the second off and used a shared one. Combined with the positive/negative modulation setup, it was a little harder to get it to match my hardware 101.

Also, you can send triggers (and therefore a rhythm) to the sample and hold on the hardware whilst simultaneously using a free-running LFO for PWM. Whilst the sample and hold was clockable with note values (crotchets, quavers, dotted quavers etc) there wasn’t a way I could find to send it triggers or a rhythm (apologies if there is!) There was no free-running LFO whilst you’re using sample and hold either.

But in a straight out of the box test, the raw sound is pretty spot-on. It’s merely about how it behaved and how that had a knock-on effect when I was trying to match sounds.

JX-3P: It’s actually better than the hardware because they overcome everything that’s weak about the original whilst getting the sound pretty much bang on. Two envelopes, proper control of all of the parameters over midi, a bunch of additional modes/functions and the hardware looks a bit tired by comparison. But I still love the hardware, of course!

Overall:
Given that the “Legendary Series” also contains Jupiter-8, System 100, Juno-106, Promars, JV-1080, TR-808, TR-909, D-50 and Sound Canvas, you’re look at tens of thousands of pounds worth of instruments that would need storage, insurance, cabling/mixers and a tech to maintain them. You’d also be reluctant to take any of them out to a gig!

The Cloud gets you the sounds (and manipulation thereof) and overcomes those issues by being accessible and convenient. As you can load the instruments onto hardware synths like the System-8, System-1 and System-1m, you can have a hands-on hardware experience with them too if you wish. You can also use any midi controller of your choosing too.

The experience of playing the originals is always going to be a very special thing, but the Cloud at least gets you the sound.

[eferg]

Man, that JX-3P performance was a super jam.

[pyromaniacbridge]

Did anyone else get some serious Erasure "Weight of the World" vibes off that jx3p track? Awesome stuff. I feel like this style of demonstration just further proves the point that emulation or hardware doesn't matter nearly as much as writing a good song. Which these were.

[Bananskuden]

So it's settled. Software emulation can and does sound just as good and raw and analog as the original gear. That's fantastic! Why do I still prefer my old Rolands? I like the immediacy and hands-on experience. No computer to boot up, no midi-controller settings to go wrong. And I love to not have any doubts in my mind that I'm playing the real thing and no something that wants to be the real thing.

[theblowupdollsmusic]

This was an exceptional video showcasing the plugins vs hardware. Thank you so much for taking the time to do this!

[keykiyox]

I was most impressed with your ability to create nice demo tracks. It is far better than the originals and plugins combined.

[MangoldProject]

Thanks for taking the time and effort to do this, Alex.


I personally will never, ever subscribe to software. I dropped Adobe when they moved to the cloud, and I've said goodbye to Roland as well. There are so many new, innovative VSTs out there that I can allow myself to refuse to encourage companies that adopt the subscription model. I hope they will change their ways, but until they do, I've got U-he, spectrasonics and NI to cover all of the synth capabilities I'll ever need.

[Noone-of-your-Business]

Whenever emulation is _this_ good and there *is* an audible difference in _one_ of the instruments, I don't attribute that to the emulation, but rather to the details of the sound patch, which should be quite tricky to get _exactly_ right on both ends of the comparison.

[EspenKraft]

Great comparison Alex, exactly how it should be done imo. I'm no purist (shocking?) and I'd use a plugin anytime for a client. I'd even use it on my own tracks if it was the best solution at any given time. HOWEVER, the subscription model has ascended from Hell as far as I'm concerned and I absolutely loathe the concept and I''ll never subscribe to any kind of software. I think it's an important issue to address since all these plugins are part of such a concept. They do sound good though, no doubt about it, but for me the hardware is always more inspiring and hardware drives the creativity more than software, as software itself is more of a tool than a conduit for making art. ;-)

[simonhall]

Another great demo Alex! I was not surprised to read the varied comments and opinions that followed, and it struck a chord with me for so many reasons - analogue vs digital, subscription based model vs owning something, tweaking vs not tweaking knobs, software flexibility vs in the box restrictions its all covered in the comments and those that have commented in my opinion have all had something to offer to the debate in a sensible and open way. Excepting there will always be extremes of opinion, it seems there is a general acceptance that Roland Cloud instruments are up to the job and especially in the mix. After consideration of the sonic ability there are the secondary issues such as usability, convenience, costs that creep into the conversation. It's only natural that this happens, but interesting how much of an issue these things become. Personally I like virtual instruments - ALL THAT POWER in one small box - when I switch between an Arturia Fairlight and a Roland TB303 I think how lucky I am to have access to such an accurate reproduction of the sounds I used to listen to may many moons ago. However I don't like changing the parameters on screen much and there doesn't seem to be a 'one size' fits all programmer / encoder which allows me to do this, which perhaps is why the boutique range has proved so popular. Small form factor, great sounds accurately reproduced and a bit of on the fly tweakability. Point 1 - whatever happened to rack gear? Roland D550 with a programmer - imagine a 19 inch rack with all your roland faves stacked up with a programmer pad / screen. Sonic accuracy and dedicated processing with instant tweakability. This brings me onto my second point. The computer. I run arturia instruments with native instruments Komplete and Maschine, mostly running through Logic X. In theory I should have a sonic palette and recording capability to reduce most producers of yesteryear to tears, but the bottom line is my aging Mac is struggling and I can barely hear myself think over the noise the fan makes trying to cool itself with what I'm asking it to process. The sound libraries are mind blowingly fantastic but wow - how much storage they take up!! all in all I need a pretty expensive and high spec computer to get the most out of the things I've invested in. And I was not aware this would be the case when I invested in all the Arturia and NI families. I don't like subscription models personally and have tried the Roland Cloud, other have commented and I'm the same, I just don't use it enough to justify the ongoing cost. The result of all my experience and inane ramblings?? I bought a Moog Grandmother, hooked it up to a minilogue and drumbrute and I'm having a great time. Having to be creative to get something sonically interesting, limited parameters to force me to experiment, peeling back the layers to get some simple tunes together and I'm enjoying my music once more. I guess that's the main thing !! Thanks to Mr Robot Lover, Alex Ball for provoking such emotion in us muso's.

[adiero]

Shown in bg - the sh1000. I lost mine in a fire. Omg the memories I have of this. Tears. All it needed was a bit of reverb and space echo (also lost). The screen grab of you sitting in front of one is my new pin-up. This is a true jewel.

[seanchristophersynthesizer]

For the money, there is NOTHING bad about the Roland Cloud IMO. Roland did a fantastic job actually on most of the software clones. I'll always prefer using hardware personally, but if you are on a budget one absolutely cannot go wrong in the Cloud.

[rich_in_paradise]

Awesome tunes! FWIW, I would happily buy these VSTs, like I have all of the Arturia V collection. But I won't rent a VST, so Roland Cloud is a no deal for me.

[digitalhillbilly]

Close enough for me and my budget. I would like to see a comparison between the cloud and the boutique series. I know the programming "should" be the same, but you have to consider the cheap I/O structure of the Boutique line and what affect it may have.

[bushdada]

They all sound great, especially in the context which you so artfully provided. The Roland SH-101, for being such a simple synth, still sounds so amazing in all of it’s incarnations.

[thegood]

Thanks for this! I've been quite impressed with the Cloud. As a former owner off ALL of the modeled hardware, I'm thankful to be able to pay $20/month for a near spot on replica of those instruments, and I can take them on the road with me without fear of having my 10000USD (plus) jup 8 snatched or damaged...

[spacewalden]

In the hand of a master they both sound good, cheers !

[glenesis]

The changeovers were not noticeable to my ears. I love the Cloud! What a treat it is. Dancing around my apartment to your demo track :) Thanks always Alex!

[FairchlldMusic]

Imo the sounds of the digital versions just aren’t there yet. I closed my eyes and immediately gravitated to the analogs. I refuse to rent these recreations. Set a reasonable price for one off purchase, I might reconsider.

[AdamRobertshaw]

The cloud synths all sounded a lot brighter, and when combined in the mix it sounds a bit more sterile somehow. It's subtle, but enough to make the difference between an awesome sound and a good sound.