Roland D50 VST software versus hardware shootout | Roland Cloud Legendary Series

Roland Cloud have recently released a software emulation of their Roland D50 linear synthesizer from 1987 as part of their Legendary Series. In this video review we put the Roland D50 VST virtual instrument software plugin up against my original D50 hardware in an audio shootout. This is a proper emulation of the D50 using Roland’s DCB technology, not the Anthology Series sample library that we previously demonstrated. We'll demo and compare the classic preset sounds and patches, such as Fantasia, Future Pad, Soundtrack, Digital Native Dance and more!
More info: www.rolandclou...
Facebook: www. wood...

[@Timecop1983]

Ah this video answers what i was looking for about the vsti. It is possible to edit the sounds, that's great! I'm not a real big fan of the other vsti's, but this one is very interesting. I must say the iPG800 ipad app changed my life, it finally allowed me to finally edit the sounds, but i'm checking this out soon!

[@OrganicChamistry]

This bad boy never dies! I can see people using it in the year 2074.

[@pcuimac]

Wow. What a pristine D-50. Nice to see these machines in loving hands!

[@Appleboy78165]

Hooray for Roland FINALLY releasing a proper software recreation of the D50!

[@agerven]

Woooaaaauw. Have been was waiting for this one! First of all thanks to the piano shack man, for taking this comparison as seriously as he did! Next a great plus for Roland. They did a better job here than I dared to imagine. The D50 has been my main synth since 1990 and still is. The sounds of the VST come really, really close. On the Arco strings they even managed to get the weird overtone ring (which I always filter out as much as possible in my mod of that preset). Cool! There are, at least to me, some tiny audible differences in a few of the patches, most noticeable in Intruder FX, but in a mix they will be insignificant if audible at all. Impressive, and a big thank you to the Piano Shack. :)

[@lifescansdarkly]

Alright, after listening to this demo several times through, some notes: First, the hardware clearly has a level difference between the left and right channels (left is louder). This will contribute greatly to the "spaciousness" people keep describing in the hardware sound. It's unbalanced; of course the VST will sound more mono, it's perfectly centered! Second, there is a bit of a difference in the reverb. Hardware is a little more grainy and shimmery. Roland may have done a little smoothing on the algo, or maybe it's just the lack of DAC. I always disable the built-in effects on synths and use dedicated reverb FX so that's a non-issue for me. Third, the hardware does have a little more bite and edge. Again, likely from the DAC. That's something I would have no trouble adding in post with a combination of bit/samplerate-reduction and saturation (TAL-DAC is great for this). So the question becomes, what's your priority? Do you need 100% of the sound of the real thing? Are you creating minimalist solo synth masterpieces? Go hardware. Does working in the box sap your creative energy? Does having your hands on a piece of music history inspire you to greater heights? Go hardware! Do you want the reliability, convenience, and easier programmability of a VST? Do you want to be able to sequence and layer multiple instances of the synth in real time? Go software. Are you comfortable having 95% of the sound ITB and making up the difference in the mix? Are you going to be EQ'ing, compressing, and heavily processing your tracks anyways? Go software! No right or wrong answers here, just a matter of what's most important to you. Me, I've had a bedroom full of vintage synths for the past five years, and after spending thousands of dollars getting them repaired and serviced (and dealing with months of lost time while they're in the shop), I'm willing to trade that last 5% for something that won't break down and doesn't need a rat's nest of cables to pipe into my workflow. But that's just my answer, and thanks to Woody for making this awesome demo and letting us make our choices from there!

[@andy80sdrums]

Spot on. 100% agreed

[@Valelacerte]

Another side of legacy gear is the ongoing battle of deprecated formats, interfaces and cables. I have a box full of cassette tapes, DAT tapes, and some Iomega ZIP 100 cartridges and SCSI peripherals. I spent days trying to fake SCSI via USB and then find the versions of software before they removed the SCSI support. I also unboxed my DAT player, and ordered a proprietary SPDIF cable and the only SPDIF to USB converter I could find, only to find that my DAT player had an irreparable fault. So, now I'm debating between a cheap DAT player or a more expensive DAT to file service. I once had a Yamaha DX7 and TX802. The absolute joy of being able to load my original SYSEX dumps into a virtual FM virtual instrument and, as you wrote, if the emulation is 95%+ accurate, is it worth all the hassle of degrading hardware to recover that relatively tiny difference? I find that the only keyboard hardware that is necessary is a good weighted and/or semi-weighted controller keyboard. Two VST plug-ins I've revisited recently are the Sonic Projects OP-X PRO II (really authentic Oberheim) and the Modartt Pianoteq (incredible pianos!). No more bulky hardware with limited multisamples using filters to fake samples at different velocities. All I need is lots of RAM and a CPU with some grunt. This obsession with the technicalities is a distraction from the music; the choices are almost overwhelming. When I think of my most productive periods, they always involved simple and limited setups. I think musicians need to stop endlessly hankering after some _"essential"_ piece of equipment and concentrate on the writing and performance.

[@andreasilvestri1696]

Yep! Agree 100% (or better, 95%! I'll leave the remaining 5 to my romantic love for hardware 😉)

[@dutchmenneer3289]

UGH..... Cloud subscription .... Fuck that. I'd rather pay $400 per plugin than to pay for a cloud subscription ...

[@ZenithMusicNet]

I agree, it's horrible. Only viable for commercial purposes, not for the home tinkerer. And when Roland shuts down its servers someday, ... all gone.

[@jaggass]

Buying the real thing would be cheaper.

[@thomassynths]

Yeah... I recently picked up a (real) D-550 for ~$300

[@jaggass]

Ive got a D-550 and i love it.

[@KegelLicht]

totally agree, but at the state they are at the moment I wouldn't even pay 20 for one plugin

[@bushdada]

Thanks Woody for the comparison. I do not regret totally ignoring Roland's subscription model for distributing their emulations.

[@EvilCoopra]

Brilliant!! I think now it's time for a JD-800/990 plugin :D

[@jd99o61]

couldn't agree more!

[@alexk280]

And Alpha Juno / MKS 50 :)

[@KarlGeorges]

@Alex, try the Bruno VST by TubeOhm, it's a Juno on steroids

[@alexk280]

TubeOhm? Synthedit shit ???? )))

[@KarlGeorges]

@Alek, try before swear LOL I have no fucking shit clue what he used to program, just know they sound excellent

[@TryptychUK]

I would get a D50 VST just for the Staccato Heaven patch alone. The MIDI lag and problems on the D50 keyboard are well known, so if you want hardware, get the D550 as the MIDI implementation is far better. (I have owned both.)

[@robman80808]

That was really really close. Agree that sometimes the "life" ( spread , maybe? ) was not there - presumably Roland could easily tweak that in a software update. I'd probably struggle with a blind A/B in the mix. Oh, and excellent video as always. You really do have a voice for TV/radio!

[@aloharay]

thanks Woody! excellent as always. 4:50 start of actual comparison

[@co.agmusic]

Thanks for taking the time explaining this The Roland D50 incredible synthesiser And each one sounds incredible

[@payt01]

Nice vst synth, but at 8:48 the difference between the vst and the hw synth is really enormous.. I wonder if that indicates a shortcoming on the vst synth, or whether it's programming.. then again, it should be the same preset with the same parameters right?

[@aurelioramos8463]

Agreed, The difference is so big that I have to suspect the synth had the patch edited and saved by someone in the past. The only difference I can hear (unless I am imagining it) is that the filters on the VST do not sound quite the same when sweeping at high resonance.

[@KarlGeorges]

Listen to the stereo image, there's clearly some sort of auto panning going on, probably because of the interface used or some overall settings in the VST. The difference should never be that big (unless if it's another patch as some people here suggest !) . One thing also not to forget is that for recordings and certainly when you start layering sounds of the same (not multitimbral) instrument the software has a clear S/N advantage.

[@wibblewobble1934]

Naa this ones clearly different synth settings and not the same patch at all, behaviour is far too different. He screwed up on this particular example by not double checking this, kinda suprised he didn't realise tbh.

[@nintendogurkan9055]

The demo of this patch on Synth Mania is completely different and sounds much more like the VST version, so it's probably just an error in the video

[@Valelacerte]

Wow! I see what you mean. It's almost a different patch.

[@Espectro101]

Thanks for doing this. I expected them to be closer in sound, but the D50 sounded a lot better to be ears. The polysynth sound especially.

[@undertheradar001]

Pianoshack is using 16 bit wave 256spl for the demo. I have it running in 24 bit 1024spl and at 96KHZ. It sounds amazing; vst at the right hardware setting.

[@ivansoto9723]

@@undertheradar001 Can you elaborate more? I understand sample rate, but what about the 24bit rate and 1024spl. The first I'm not sure how to do that in my DAW without rendering and bouncing a file. The second I don't even know what it is. Just curious.

[@undertheradar001]

@@ivansoto9723 24 bit is the standard production audio bit depth; it has been used since the 1980's. The 1024 spl refers to samples per second. You need an asio program like asio4all installed and it runs inside the daw to route sound. You must have asio selected in the sound settings. The higher the specification of your machine (i.e. Memory, processor, NVME SSD (have DAW installed onto the non system SSD) plus system SSD) the less bouncing you need to do. If you remove all the bottlenecks of the machine, it will be able to have 16 or more tracks open at once (no bouncing needed); and excellent for more refined mastering.

[@TVsMrHappyTalk]

Nice demo.. and for my ears there's a clear difference in power and quality - especially on the 'Soundtrack' patch where modulation is considerably weaker on the computer version. As both emanate from Roland.. with probably the same code used this difference might be in the amplification and effects sections of the hardware instrument. My own D50 died many years ago and after hearing this demo if a decent one wafts under my nose anytime soon it will certainly get snapped up sharpish!

[@MarioTorre]

3:18 I know this is a seven years old video at this point :) the D50 (and the D05) don’t react to changes in the joystick. The joystick implementation is a bit weird, it is a local control where up and down always control the same parameters regardless of the upper/lower switch selected (but you need to have the switch activated to use it), this is the relative volume of the tones. The left and right positions control the partial balance, since each tone has two partials their settings depend on the upper/lower switch. The D50/550/05 have a very complex and complete midi implementation, but don’t respond to many CC messages so it’s not intuitive how to control them but if your DAW can send sysex messages, you can control these parameters in realtime and simulate the joystick from your DAW (in fact this is what the PG1000 and all the various editors do)

[@AndrewColyerMusic]

Hey Woody thank you so much for this outstanding, time-and-labor-intensive video! Great job at doing the A/B split testing, and thank you for showing us your process. I would say they sound pretty damn close! Some patches are pretty identical, others are fairly close. But it sure will be better than trying to take my D-50 on tour! This is my first time here on your channel - you did a great job, and I'm subscribing. Keep up the good work!

[@effyiew7318]

Nice shootout. You can hear clearly how the real D-50 has a certain "openness" to it that the VST doesn't have. Also, some of the VST sounds are definitely thinner than the real D-50. The patch that exhibits this the most in this video, and IMO suffers the most is soundtrack, where you can hear how thin the VST is in comparison.

[@planetmullins]

yup, VST doesn't have the same body but it is fixable with EQ.

[@prozakmorris7287]

Obviously the real one sounds more well real I guess, but for those of us who don't have room for another keyboard this is a nice alternative. Thanks for uploading these laborious a/b vids Woody!

[@L77kim77l]

It sounds imho thinner and less detailed or in other words like a not so great MP3 vs. a master CD... You did everything right buying the real thing, Woody, thanks awesome test, very helpfu!l

[@cresshead]

it's pretty good and if it was for sale i'd have it..RENTAL though?...no way ever

[@KarlGeorges]

Sam feeling here .. for me this is the one element that stands out in Roland Cloud, so I don't want to pay every month again for all the other things in the package

[@bomberbrown]

Yeah, me too. I wouldn’t mind buying it (I already own a real D50), but not renting it.

[@striborstarcevic3915]

If you check the page it says:''Purchase a Lifetime Key and use your chosen instrument for as long as your Roland account is active-even if you’re not a paying member'' Dont know the price but sounds fair And lets be fair, if it was VST for buying it would be the most pirated plugin for sure. These sounds are pretty much iconic

[@cresshead]

@@striborstarcevic3915 roland changed their terms and conditions... was rental only when i posted 2 years ago

[@motosporttouring]

cresshead yes, you can buy now for $150. I’ve always wanted the hardware but the plug in is much more convenient for me.

[@LanciaD50]

great work, thank you. I have both, the vst sound thinner, liveless and with less stereo separation but the timbre is very near d50.

[@Pulse2AM]

You get a like for playing Bittersweet Symphony! The VST is close enough when it's in the mix of track it would be fine.

[@Resebild]

Fantastic work. I own a Roland D-50 which I absolutely love, but I have to say that most of the VST-sounds of the software sound identical to the original. An exception is the polysynth. It differs, although it doesn’t sound bad. I just wish Roland could release these emulators as purchesable software instead of subsription based. Korg offers both individual instruments and kits for purchase and they are awesome.

[@WoodyPianoShack]

you can buy the roland plugins outright these days!

[@Resebild]

Thanks, didn't know. But they are pretty expensive. Too bad Arturia doesn't have a D-50 V in its V collection.

[@andy80sdrums]

As a formner owner of 3 D50's all of which developed some issues at some point, I can honestly say that this plugin is all you need to get that sound.

[@marimbadaddy]

Excellent Demo. It sounds like the software is extremely accurate to the actual hardware. There is of course a difference in sound, but I would think it is due to the digital to analog to digital conversion of the hardware synth, and the straight signal path of the software from digital to analog.

[@mrburns366]

This!

[@lorenmorgan1931]

Hi Woody, 1st thanks for the awesome demo. 2nd not sure if you are aware but when you do these demos, if you Right Click on the wave form there is a normalize audio feature that will make both waves the same volume. This would also be helpful in physically seeing the differences in the two audios.

[@davidjazay9248]

Listening on Genelecs. The hardware D-50 has way more warmth. Not going to ditch it anytime soon.

[@bigdrums9905]

Great comparison. The VST comes pretty close to my ears, but the D50 has something - I am biased as a have a D50 and the PG1000 and the combination is a joy - I've created some amazing patches using them over the years, and I have to say both have been rock solid reliable - no issues with either unit!

[@jackspencer907]

Very close, but not identical. The most significant discrepency I noticed in these examples was the difference in sound on the Stereo Polysynth sound between the hardware and VST. These almost sounded like different patches. On the rest of these examples the emulation is very good. I recently purchased an original D-50 but unfortunately, due to damage which seemingly occurred in transit, it sadly arrived broken and unusable. I had no option but to return it, but the good news is I have since reinvested in a Juno-X which I find to be absolutely fantastic. Great comparison video in any case.

[@garywright3628]

Thanks, and well done for being the first to do a proper comparison here on You tube Woody. Roland have done a decent job with this vst, though it still lacks something compared to the original hardware. But it does make the classic synth available to everyone. One thing it does prove is the fact that people are still craving the sound of the D50 even after all these years. Which makes an owner of the original synth like me smile :) One thing I am curious about is how the creation of new patches compares to the original synth. Does it still use the old architecture of 2 parts per tone and 2 tones per patch and does it come with those original sample partials ?

[@XavierRadix]

You can hear a tiny bit of difference in some sounds, but overall, Roland did a splendid job! I just hear the Hardware D50 has a tiny bit more spread and depth, but you can only hear that with a good set of headphones or studio monitors :). Although they kinda didn't get the "Stereo Polysynth" patch right.. The hardware D50 seems to have a slower attack on the envelope on that patch. But I think by having that VST system where you can edit the sounds really easily, helps and can easily fix that. Great video as always, Woody! Keep it up!

[@samjones714]

The sound "Stereo Polysynth" is definately an edited version in the hardware. You can search for the right sound of the hardware on KZbin.

[@johnhodgetts6617]

You're right. That Stereo Polysynth patch comparison was like chalk and cheese. Could it have been a joystick position difference perhaps?

[@XavierRadix]

Probably yeah. But like I said, I think you can easily edit that sound in the VST to make it sound like the original, I'm sure.

[@samjones714]

Xavier Radix lol the original sound is actually the one the vst, the hardware version of the sound is an exited version! You can off course edit the vst to the one in the hardware, too :)

[@pedro.sh101]

A 4:50 5:13 B 5:35 5:51 C 6:07 6:22 D 6:37 7:09 E 7:42 7:52 F 8:03 8:25 G 8:47 8:59 H 9:10 9:33 I 9:55 10:28

[@Borisnazarov]

The sound design is almost there. The software version sounds less focused and punchy and more hollow. D50 is the winner!

[@simonpickering3646]

If anyone has a D-50 in which you need to just about stand on the keys to get the After-touch to work, it's an easy fix if you, or someone you know, are comfortable taking the keyboard apart. The After-touch is a strip that runs the length of the keyboard comprising of a few layers, one being a copper strip and a conductive rubber strip. The oxidises over time and looses conductivity, clean it up with Brasso and clean the rubber with Acetone, your After-touch will work better than new. I have needed to do this two times to mine since 1984.copper

[@johnhodgetts6617]

Does this fix work for intermittent keys? The touch sensitivity has gone on a few of my D-50 keys (will suddenly play full velocity on a gently pressed note). I remember back in the 80s I had to have the contacts cleaned at the repair shop to fix this same problem. I heard that the replacement rubber contacts can't be purchased from Roland any more. I think the D-50 was a fantastic instrument, but had a really dodgy keybed. My XP-80, on the other hand, has never had a single fault in the 20 years I've owned it, and it's been gigged even harder than the D-50.

[@chris.bradshaw]

I’d love to see a blind shootout with this sort of thing. Knowing what version is playing affects things so much.

[@Mr.Goldbar]

The one that stood out to me was the Polysynth sound, sounded much more dynamic on the real deal

[@ErnestoAvilez92]

The Real D-50 still sounded a bit hot on the Left channel, but other the stereo polysynth patch which sounded completely different on the vst than on the real D-50, the vst was very close to the real hardware and is very usable.

[@WoodyPianoShack]

yeah, real d50 was a bit unbalanced in the stereo, Only on the line outs, headphone was ok, however still sounded amazing with a bit of pan. the plugin doesn't respond to program change so I had to call up the sounds manually. I think I screwed up on the polysynth, you probably heard velobrass.

[@MarcusL1995]

Ernesto Avilez I used this plugin along with Arturia DX7 , Juno 106, and Jupiter 8 for my music

[@marcnelson8986]

Sounds very good. I'd sell my d50 if they did a d50 boutique based on this. Nice video

[@StefUllrichMusic]

Don't sell it, because.... don't sell it.

[@agerven]

I'll never sell my D50, although I'm impressed with the result of this VST.

[@DavidBoura]

Or just to me btw.

[@MauricioMaisterrena]

5 months later and there is in fact a boutique based on the d50

[@davidosolo]

@Marc Nelson, just curious: what is for you the advantage of the D-05 over the D-50 VST?

[@sauce_aux]

There is is something to be said about electrons hitting a DAC and then being recorded, opposed to sound generated in the box - But. They sound pretty close. I’d say the plugin is 80-90% there, in terms of depth. For space and cost, I think it’s a decent trade off.. I would still love an original physical unit tho!! Great vid, thanks for the comparison!

[@theblowupdollsmusic]

I agree, the air in the sound is a big part of it.

[@MrLawrence0071]

Great work man. Thanks for taking this effort! Really appreciated!!

[@scottyelstromm881]

The Hardware is far superior. The patches around 8:40 are most pronounced. I have them up on JBL 7 series monitors in a good room. The VST is doing what it is told to do. However, the hardware always had an amazing wideness and sounded so good it was a secret weapon. On the demo, it seems what the hardware had panned right appears out of the left channel for the plugin. It makes a little difference in the comparisons. However, there is a reason producers with the budget and space use the vintage units for recording. have had several Roland and Yamaha synths. Some of the DX VST emulations are really close. This unit had amazing sound possibly the converters set up. The VST is very 2D sounding next to the width and conversion on the real thing. Maybe for a background part, it would do the job. But if this is supposed to be up front in your recording there is some post processing still needed to rich this plugin up IMO. Thank you for that demo.

[@midinzidaido]

Great work! Sounds a lot closer than I thought it would!

[@tappy72]

A month or so ago i picked up an orig D50 and i'm getting to know it pretty well, been playing it and recording it a lot. The software sounds close, but to my ears it's only 90% there.. the 10% it's missing is the depth and magic the orig has. Im not a snob, ive relied on software for many years and will continue to do so but recently it became very obvious that whilst software technology has many many benefits ie reliability / convenience etc, most of the stuff that tries to recreate the older classic gear simply isnt quite there. For the price of hiring this plugin, you'd be mad to not buy an orig D50 and come to the same conclusion.

[@stalepalemale]

Great song choices and some great playing Woody! To my (amateurish) ears the VST sounded a little muted and thinner than the real thing, it might just be my old school/keep it real bias though! :)

[@Ottom8]

Realistically, the VST will suffice for most of us at a fraction of the cost.

[@Jiilaker]

Except for roland. They charge you an eternally fees

[@scottmacgregor4622]

In this video, the D-50 software sounds ever so slightly duller than the original in direct comparison. To be fair, however; the youtube shootout of BOTH versions sound slightly duller than the D-50 software. My personal opinion -- both sound pretty damn good!

[@GrijzePilion]

Now finally I know what was behind all of the beautiful background music from Star Trek: The Next Generation...the early seasons, that is.

[@MatthewChristianMurray]

I don’t have the room or money for the OG hardware, plus I have a lot of compression, EQ, reverb, delay, etc. options in the box. The Cloud version is perfect for me; I’ve owned it nearly five years and absolutely love to play it.

[@Philigrane5993]

Hello Woody. The sound of the VST seems more stifled, less ample than the real D50. That is what my ears tell me. Thank you so much for your very good work. A blue thumb for you. Phil from France.

[@tyranic1]

the plugin version appears to have a layer of ambiance /reverb over it. and the seems to be a slight lift in the upper mids which I'm sure could be eqed out for a flawless copy.

[@ABEHR]

Thanks Woody! I really enjoy your comparison videos.

[@spazkong]

As nice as original hardware is, it becomes a liability from a maintenance perspective. A VSTi this good is surely the way to go provided it is supported properly. No wires, no added noise, full integration and saved space. On saying that, I cannot get the Korg Polysix plugin to sound like my actual Polysix although it's good. The D50 plugin sounds damn close though. Hard pressed to distinguish between the two really.

[@srprice2383]

AMAZING. I watch your videos on the main tv instead of watching tv

[@rdoetjes]

Hi Woody! I love your channel! I am curious about the test, the D50 I played in our school musical in 1988, it was so complicated to edit it but the patches were soooo spacey and luscious.

[@Zoolookuk]

Oh so close, but not quite. I have a D550 myself and it's a pain to program even after all these years (and I have the PG-1000). What would be awesome is if you could program on the VST and then import the patch parameters into the D50/550.

[@teddym2808]

this might sound weird but i'd like to hear a comparison also between the boutique mini hardware reissue and the plugin :)

[@AreTysland]

Not at all bad software and pretty close-matching sounds (to my untrained ears), except for “Spacious Sweep” which to me sounded blown out in comparison. I’ll keep my hardware D-50. :-) A good video demonstration!

[@vbarr67]

Great job ! A bit fatter and brighter than the otherwise excellent emulation, the real D-50's legend lives on!

[@vbarr67]

I'm a fan of Mike Oldfield too by the way :-)

[@wmcmick]

I think the real one sounds much better to be honest, much warmer. There is something magic about the sound of the original D50. Great work on the comparison!

[@dussie920]

Same for me. D50 is MUCH warmer to my ears. More pleasant to listen to.

[@k2a2l2]

either hardware or software, it sounds incredible

[@zerorossing207]

It does seem like in almost all the cases the D-50 is a bit louder...or if not, the hardware does sound significantly better. No matter. I'm already subscribing and it's not like I have the room or desire for the real deal.

[@dtscape]

Thank you for demonstrating this. Most presets match very well in your comparison. I used to own a D50. Really regret selling it. I purchased the software version recently. Love it. But that "Stereo Polysynth" is a real shame. Really shocked by that.... Might contact Roland regarding that one. Is it worth comparing settings?!! Just hope there's a good reason for the difference...

[@rwbrookhouse]

Thanks for this demo, imho the software is lacking that special magic that made the real D50 so classic & so beautiful.

[@nilrantmadcap]

Thanks for this,Woody. i picked up the m1 for 25 €.Love it!

[@WoodyPianoShack]

glad to have helped you out, and cool to hear that you're enjoying it

[@fUjiMaNia]

kept waiting and waiting for "Staccato Heaven" ..... how dare you not to demo it ;-)

[@jaggass]

I quite like the fact the Roland and Korg are emulating their own products and putting them out there but subscription prices would put people off.

[@MrByllo]

I agree, paying "rent" monthly is not an option!

[@BUPETA3351]

Great. Only flaw is that it seems that L/R chanels are swapped on hardware, so it sounds slightly different in stereo field.

[@07Meverasvolver]

8:47 the first is a VELO BRASS no STEREO POLYSYNTH

[@anzatzi]

wow wow wow. great job and lovely playing

[@musikstudiowendland]

That is a nice comparison dear Woody! Nostalgia comes back again ^_^! Too bad, I’m not a fan of the cloud thing…

[@tolfred]

Thank's for doing this video! I have a question, will the vsti work as a editor and librarian for the keyboard? I have it in hw and would like to edit my own sounds, but programming the d50 is hopeless

[@joesalyers]

Nice Video Woody! I love my D50

[@MSongNorth1964]

Great work! Based on this video I'd pick the real D-50 every time. The VST sounded close but the real D-50 just had more pop and life to it.

[@Screaming-Trees]

And a bit more clarity at times. That said I think I would point the finger at the DA rendering the soft synth. That's usually the weakest part of the signal chain for most people. Lack of clarity and separation in the low end is the giveaway typically. Get a DA with proper OP Amps though and you might be surprised. Maybe Burl Bomber DA or something along those lines. Some presets were bang on though (Future pad comes to mind). Some however were completely off. The stereo polysynth for example. Not only did they sound different different but the soft synth version was panned to the right as well. Not sure why that would be? Lastly I would have liked to have had just a little more space between the hardware and software taking turns. Few times in the demo it's happened that the hardware didn't even wind down all the way and the software was already triggered. Let the release envelope do it's thing then have a second or two pause and then have the other one take their turn. Easier on the brain to process as well.

[@lorenmorgan1931]

All of the Roland plugs I toss a Sonic Maximizer vst in the sidechain and this gives it the heft that its missing. All the BBE plugs can do wonders with softsynths especially the dead and lifeless Arturia plugs.

[@lorenmorgan1931]

Also I think this is using that same horrible reverb algorithm that they used in all the System 8 plugs. Its terrible sounding and really kills the dimensionality of all the patches.

[@DavidBoura]

The D50 is more opened, and has less digital lows, imho. Great comparison btw!

[@DavidBoura]

"a blond test" ;D (don't modify your comment or i'll be the fool)

[@GXDWAY]

is there any way to adjust the attack or release on this vst?

[@jackspencer907]

I’ve watched these experiments previously but they make for excellent Lockdown TV 😀... Ah good old Fantasia!! 😂😂🎶👍

[@boptillyouflop]

No idea if it's the recording, D-50 settings or the emulation but the panning width is not the same!

[@killerdalek]

Love the D-50 - would buy one today!

[@omnipop4936]

That bass sound at 11:05 - what synth is that from?

[@farquoi]

There is a significant difference between the hardware synth and the soft one. Something in the attack of the soft synth is less sharp and the hardware sounds a little hasher generally, but also there are a couple of presets in there that seems that they are not the same. I wonder if it might be something about the response curve used for velocity? For example. maybe the vst is responding linearly to the midi event, while the hardware synth was responding non lineary to the playing

[@stefpir]

Very very close but not at 9:00! Do you have an idea of why is there such a difference?

[@crimsun7186]

If you have a MS20, Polysix, Mono/Poly, Wavestation or M1, Korg has plugin versions of those as well.

[@lozD83]

Thanks so much for this video. Very useful. I've never played a D-50 or the VST. But I'd love to have either. The emulation is very, very faithful, it seems. Think I will take a look at the Cloud trial. The top tier offers many synthesizers. Would be god to try them all out. Wouldn't subscribe though. Would buy VSTs outright if I like them enough

[@WoodyPianoShack]

you can buy the roland vsts these days, but why spend $150 per vst, when you cah have them all for a few dollars, when you need them?

[@lozD83]

@@WoodyPianoShack My understanding is that you can only have access to two of these VSTs on the monthly $10 plan. It's $20 of you want access to all of them. I likely would only use 2 or 3 of them, but I'd sooner own things outright than have another monthly subscription to forget about ;-) I could own 3 VSTs for the price of the lowest cost of one physical synth. With the accuracy of the emulation, I reckon that's a bargain

[@EspenKraft]

Nice comparison Woody! Like any other good emulation these days, this too comes close and in a track with the occasional D-50 sound you'd never hear the difference. Alone is another story and the real thing simply has THE sound, but the VST lack sparkle and depth. For me personally I prefer my real as VSTs just don't inspire me to make music. Then there's the tragic subscription model that totally ruins everything, but hey, that's politics... ;-)

[@trollingisasport]

Some of the recent midi controllers solve that issue by letting you control knobs and everything right from the controller.

[@dankro279]

Hey Woody, great shootout and excellent playing instead of just pressing some keys, but no conclusion/final thoughts on the comparison? I was missing that!!

[@WoodyPianoShack]

thanks, i think i did a talking video about pros and cons of hardware vs software d50, including d05...

[@GabrielAndroczky]

What's wrong with your screen capture card??? What's the jittering on the UI when you were talking and showing controls? This looks baaaad.

[@silicongraphics]

Gabriel Androczky At first I thought that he was just moving the mouse really fast lol

[@thomaskolb8785]

You do know that it is the SAME code as the original hardware, just running in a different shell? The only difference you hear is caused by the D/A conversion and the cables. And also the placebo effect.

[@aureliendehon1256]

and preamps (we can see level gain recording very different)

[@sunsoldier6370]

That difference though is huge in my book. Truthfully the VST sounds like what the physical unit would sound like at the end stage of a standard pop mix down. Scooped low mids, increased highs and compressed. Missing is the heft of frequencies below 80hz that the original has combined with the aliasing and saturation from the DAC limitations that just happen to add (probably unintentionally) a PERFECT amount of audio distortion that really thickens the D50 and gives it that warm low end contrasted with the low-bit digital sheen of the highs, which equals perfection. In practical use would anyone notice the difference in a multitrack mix? Nah. Would you notice in individual gigantic pads? Totally. Some of my designed patches sounded clearer and cleaner in the VST, and for the better on many. But others felt flat and lacking foundation, so its a give/take for me.

[@theoryofmind_music]

And volume difference.

[@NatLifeSounds]

for all - dont listen to this commenter, he dont know what he talking. The difference is pretty hearful! I using a monitor truth headphones - Bayerdynamics 1350DT - Real Roland D-50 sounds pretty much richer, more stereophonic, panoramic, VST sounds pretty monofonic! And it's a important i think.

[@anthonybrett]

@@NatLifeSounds If I blindfolded you and asked you which was which...you'd be guessing. Sorry. The original op is basically correct. Aside from D->A, (in other words, additional distortion once in the analog domain) as long as I present the exact same binary words streamed to the input of the D->A stage, the same as the original unit, then it can ONLY sound the same. Sorry, thats digital electronics 101, with the weight of empirical science thrown in. Now the real question is, if you played one preset from the Vst, captured a few seconds of binary word stream going into the D->A, then compared it to an original unit, and identical patch, then you have your answer through science. Copying the processes inside a chip like the MB87136 LA chip aren't "simple" because its not technically software, its a very dedicated unit and copying its function isn't simply "copying" code. You need to translate it "into" code. But, Roland do have the original docs/schematics...they after all built the chip. Believe me, it would have been easier to translate to code rather than put those chips back into production.

[@dickvandrie9214]

I hear a different sound when you play the stereo polysynth preset. The original d50 sounds a lot better than the vst version.

[@richardsherwood9530]

I purchased a D-50 in 1987, programmed it to it's limits and knew it inside and out sound-wise. The cloud version sounds exactly as I remember it to be. If you can hear some slight differences, whatever. No one's gonna care in a mix.

[@johnhodgetts6617]

I think they have the samples correct in the VST, but there's something about the FX that isn't quite right. The original reverb tail seems to have more "sparkle" in the high frequencies somehow. The VST is quite close, but sounds a little duller by comparison.

[@TryptychUK]

I agree, it also seems to lack bottom end "balls" too. Either way, in both cases, not a difficult thing to fix with a bit of fairy dust.

[@wibblewobble1934]

@@TryptychUK Indeed, just using a simple eq would get closer to the sound of the D50's D/A converter

[@TryptychUK]

@@wibblewobble1934 Which is what I generally do. Kill the D50 effects, add an EQ and a better effects chain, and it improves the sound considerably.

[@mrkorgy]

Very informative ! You are really good explorer of classic synths. I hope IOS version of the same software modulation would be soon available.

[@jeff40177]

I think it sounds great (except for the poly synth patch - wtf?). I would buy this but the cloud subscription is a deal breaker. Maybe I'll pickup a D05 instead. The future pad patch in the other D50 demo video made me close my eyes and smile. Thanks Woody!

[@WoodyPianoShack]

anytime jeff, i suspect i screwed up wih the poly synth, it might have been velo-brass on the d50, we'll never know for sure.

[@higltypig]

heya - just a suggestion,- maybe try these plugs at 88khz or above. Softsynths sounds alot better at higher samplerates in general.

[@KUPHSER]

D50 wins, only just. Another great video woody!

[@hermandavid1757]

The original will always be better than an emulation but it is very close and most ppl won't hear the difference I hope they do the xv 5080 with all the waveforms one day I would love for that to be a vst

[@PeacelandMusic]

It's been quite a few moons here, but just had an idea... with the whole issue of "stereo balance"... how about putting the original on one side, and the VST on the other, and allow us to use the balance as it is playing back to fade between the subtleties? I'll definitely be experimenting with this when I get back in the studio... Peace

[@WoodyPianoShack]

you mean in order to compare them? interesting idea, but not ideal for a stereo instrument perhaps, as you would only hear half of the output signal at any time.

[@leobnbruce2746]

hello thanks for your video . I have a problem with my garageband with my D50 vst : I cAn play only 4 notes at the same time . DO you know this problem? I can't more than 4 ..

[@seanneenan138]

Don't know if the question has already been asked, but..... CAN YOU TRANSFER PATCHES FROM THE VST-D50 TO THE REAL D50?? Since I have a D50 and no PG1000, programming sounds on the software emulation and then transferring them to the real thing would be the perfect solution.