Proteus 1000 or JV 1080

Discussions about anything analog, digital, MIDI, synth technology, techniques, theories and more.

Proteus 1000 or JV 1080

Postby supermel74 » Sun Aug 05, 2007 8:46 pm

Which rompler has better sound and/or is better/more versatile overall and why? I'm leaning towards the Proteus 1000 because it has real time knobs, more MBs of sound potential(64 to 42 on the JV) and it's slimmer(1 rackspace to 2 on the JV). I guess it all comes down to which one sounds better.
User avatar
supermel74
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:56 am
Location: Maine
Gear: Korg ESX, iPad

Advertisement:

Postby aeon » Mon Aug 06, 2007 12:48 am

As it concerns base sound quality, I think the JV-1080 sounds better. That said, I think post-processing is the norm with most synthetic productions, so base sound quality may not be that strong of a determinant. I find the modern Proteus-engine machines to work very well with pedals and rack processors in that they provide a sound quality that lets post-fx shine. So it depends if you want the warmer and thicker tone of the Roland or the thinner, more precise sound of the E-mu.

As it concerns MB after expansion, yes, it is true that you have more available with the E-mu. That said, I think Roland does a better job with less memory. The E-mu is more suited to synthy sounds as opposed to the Roland, which can do a better job of ROMpler tones.

As it concerns deep programming and potential in the engine, the E-mu is clearly superior given its real-time matrix modulation.

The desirable ROM expansions for the E-mu can be costly in the current market.

The Roland is a capable machine to be sure, but if not programmed well will sound like the 90s. :wink:

To be fair, to answer this question also requires some real knowledge of your working style, other gear, and other things not related to the gear at hand.

Just so you know my bias, I do not nor have I ever owned a JV-1080, but I do own and love a Roland JD-990. I have owned a handful of modern Proteus machines, and currently I own and use a XL-7 with 4 ROM expansions, as well as an older UltraProteus.


cheers,
Ian
User avatar
aeon
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 883
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 8:18 am
Location: a lily-pad in the pool of my mind.

Postby Dano » Mon Aug 06, 2007 12:57 am

In the Sound on Sound review of the Proteus 2000 I think they concluded by mentioning that the Proteus and JVs would compliment each other well if you were in a position to have both. I've done more ROMpler programming on the Proteus synths than on any other but I have Roland JVs/XPs. This is a tough call but if I could only keep one then I might lean towards the JV because of the greater range of expansion cards and better acoustic instruments on the expansion cards as well as immediate access to famous Roland presets. Again, it's a tough call and there could be compelling cases made for going with the Proteus as well.
User avatar
Dano
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 2:03 pm
Location: Springfield, IL USA

Postby aeon » Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:13 am

Dano wrote:In the Sound on Sound review of the Proteus 2000 I think they concluded by mentioning that the Proteus and JVs would compliment each other well if you were in a position to have both.


I agree with this sentiment.


cheers,
Ian
User avatar
aeon
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 883
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 8:18 am
Location: a lily-pad in the pool of my mind.

Postby KLAXON » Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:13 am

As Dano and Aeon have pointed out, this is a hard one because they are both decent machines and both have their merits. I think the quote about them complimenting each other well is right on. However, if I had to choose just one I would go with the JV because of the amount of expansion cards and the fact that the JV expansion cards seem to be a lot less expensive that e-mu ones. The JV also sounds better to my ear, YMMV.
.....i have some things that create and sculpt sound.
KLAXON
Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:54 am
Location: Right here...

Postby crystalmsc » Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:06 pm

KLAXON wrote:I think the quote about them complimenting each other well is right on. However, if I had to choose just one I would go with the JV because of the amount of expansion cards and the fact that the JV expansion cards seem to be a lot less expensive that e-mu ones. The JV also sounds better to my ear, YMMV.


agree, from my experience with the JV-1080 and E-mu Morpheus (and many Proteus based soundfonts), both are complementing each other well. I prefer the JV for most musical application, but I like some crisper/harsher e-mu's sounds as a compliment. I like JV-1080 sounds and expansion board a lot and prefer that to be a workhorse rompler, specially for acoustic and orchestral sounds.
Kaossilatron - Voicillator
http://crystaline.bandcamp.com
Station: Ableton Live 9 Suite, Push, Ultranova, MS-20m
User avatar
crystalmsc
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
 
Posts: 2918
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:15 am
Location: Synth Garden
Gear: uWaveXT,uQ,Pulse+;Ion;MiniBrt
Kronos,mntrb,Volcas,WD1.WDm
NordModular,L2X;Evolver;JP8080
MKS70,JD990,D50,MC909,MC80ex
Microcon2;TG77,RS7k,AN200,AN1x
Band: Crystaline

Postby Dano » Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:25 pm

aeon wrote:As it concerns base sound quality, I think the JV-1080 sounds better. That said, I think post-processing is the norm with most synthetic productions, so base sound quality may not be that strong of a determinant. I find the modern Proteus-engine machines to work very well with pedals and rack processors in that they provide a sound quality that lets post-fx shine. So it depends if you want the warmer and thicker tone of the Roland or the thinner, more precise sound of the E-mu.


That's definitely a night and day difference between the Proteus 1000/2000 synths and the JVs: It's not unusual for a Proteus preset to be completely dry effect-wise whereas most of the Roland presets have effects slathered on.
User avatar
Dano
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 2:03 pm
Location: Springfield, IL USA

Postby JUGEL » Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:38 pm

I was thinking about this the other day.. Now that my D-50 is gone .. I still want something for digital ensembles.. strings, simple pads, ooooo's and ahhhhh's. Maybe a piano or two.

was looking at the E-MU and JV's.. but I'm thinking maybe Kurzweil K2000RS.

just thought I'd share. Might wanna take a look at those.
JUGEL
No Longer Registered
 

Postby braincandy » Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:04 pm

JUGEL wrote:I was thinking about this the other day.. Now that my D-50 is gone .. I still want something for digital ensembles.. strings, simple pads, ooooo's and ahhhhh's. Maybe a piano or two.

was looking at the E-MU and JV's.. but I'm thinking maybe Kurzweil K2000RS.

just thought I'd share. Might wanna take a look at those.


I had a K2VXs (a keyboard version w/ the bells & whistles) and it's great for stuff like that. It sounded "less compressed" compared with the XP-series per a bandmate (he had an XP-80). It did sound bigger and lusher than my XP's 30 & 50.

I just noticed the original poster wants a "slimmer" rack and the K2000r is certainly not that.
Fender Blacktop Jazzmaster | Squier CV Duo-Sonic | e6400 Ultra | Blofeld | a bunch of effects
User avatar
braincandy
Retired Moderator
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 7:35 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

Postby 23 » Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:23 pm

If you just want them as a simple tone module, either can top out depending on the specific circumstance.
I'd take the EMU Vintage Strings over what Roland had to offer similarly for the JV.
But I'd take a strong JV piano set over EMU's perfect piano.

Now, that aside, from a sheer sound sculpting point of view, both are pretty in depth, capable, and powerful beasts.

The Proteus 1000 doesn't match up to the 2000/2500 in regard to the depth of it's modular capabilities, but it's still fairly in depth in this area.
The cool thing here is well......as modulars go, the Proteus is sort of more than meats the eye, as you can sort configure things any number of ways, and there's a lot to be said for that.

The JV is pretty straight set. Everything is "hard wired/configured" for the most part, though your modulation options are still fairly extensive. The FXM feature is really a fairly (though not totally) unique sort of concept in regard to ROMplers, and the ability to do things like dual filterings and such is also quite nice. There really is a lot of flexibility there.

I really wouldn't say one is better than the other. I mean you can turn a 1000 into a (Waldorf) Wavetable synth of sorts or even pull things off that are very akin to Wave Sequencing in result......you're not going to get that capability with the JV.
But then again, with the JV you can do things like FXM, and then there's alll the crazy struct configurations that really allow things you can't hope to achieve with the 1000.

I'd probably gravitate towards the 1000 myself, but that's just because I really fancy being able to sort of build a synth from the ground up. Granted you have your limits with the 1000 of course, but it gets you a lot closer to being able to work withing that sort of mindset than the JV. Again though, that's just a personal preference.....I really wouldn't say one is better than the other.
User avatar
23
Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 593
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:19 am
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Gear: TB-303, MC-505, MC-09, V-Synth GT, FR-777, FR-XS, MFB: Synth II, EMU Proteus 2500/CS, FS1R, Supernova II, Fusion 6HD, ER-1 MKII
Band: 23, A23P, Piss Ant


Return to General Synthesizers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: monolith, Sir Ruff and 10 guests