Analog vs Virtual, Mano A Mano – Roland Jupiter-8 vs. OP-X PRO-II

The Roland Jupiter-8 and OP-X PRO-II go mano a mano in this analog vs virtual analog comparison, via virtualoberheim.

Here’s what they have to say about the comparison:

Comparing some factory presets of the Roland Jupiter-8 to the cloned ones in the Jupiter-8 Collection bank for the SonicProjects OP-X PRO-II virtual analog VSTi synth.

The original Jupiter-8 clips were recorded by Paolo Di Nicolantonio from and were licensed for this comparison.

The cloned presets in OP-X PRO-II were modeled by ear after these clips and are available in the “Jupiter-8 Collection” bank which can be downloaded here.

The flexible engine of OP-X PRO-II allows to mimic the character and sounds of several different synths. These direct comparison examples show that it works quite well for the Jupiter-8.

Check out the comparison and let us know what you think!

27 thoughts on “Analog vs Virtual, Mano A Mano – Roland Jupiter-8 vs. OP-X PRO-II

  1. OPX is a remarkable Virtual Instrument but the lack of true DAW integration on Mac is a killer. Surely it can’t be that difficult to port across can it? When something is THIS good (which OPX is), it’s a real shame. It’s one of the few VSTs that I would actually use.

  2. I have OPX-Pro II for Mac. In order to record into a daw, you can use Soundflower to make the audio play through the computer/interface sound card. There is some adjustment you must do in the audio inputs and outputs, but all in all, it is not too complicated. Still one of the best vst investments I’ve ever made. DAW integration however would make this everyone’s go to synth.

    1. Agreed with Soundflower and virtual audio connections but what is with MIDI integration within your DAW? A good thing I have both Mac and PC. Yes, OPX is one awesome sounding VST. Excellent!

  3. A convincing model, well programmed presets!

    The endless debate: A good VA can do 95% identical emulations of analog hardware.

    Where that 5% is lost is in the extreme edges of analog behavior: complex clipping, audio-range LFOs, weird quirks in circuit designs, and cranked res. None of the Jupiter patches covered any of this ground.

    You can totally nail a “polite” (though complex and beautiful) subtractive poly analog in software. It would be much harder to perfectly model the multi-stage distortions of an Arturia MiniBrute, the razor-sharp hard sync of a Moog Prodigy, or the non-aliasing semi-ultrasonic pitches you can get from a self-oscillating filter swept up to and above above your hearing range.

    It probably takes 4x the current DSP limits to really get a softsynth that will fool someone who is familiar with the extreme edges of sound. Even if you don’t use many of those sounds, they’re fun to play with and the only place you can get them is with analog hardware.

    Still, fantastic great programming!

  4. there is a comparison floating around between the Native-Instruments Moog emulation and the original that includes high resonance filter sweeps (I think you can find it on Gearslutz). Probably the closest I have ever heard in terms of analog emulations… I literally could not even tell one from the other. The amount of ground covered since even 5 years ago still blows my mind

  5. I’m always puzzled by these sorts of things. I always thought the idea of a synthesizer was to create NEW sounds, not imitate old ones.

    I really don’t care if a soft-synth can be made to sound like a 40 year old synth, or a 30 year old synth. My view is that if a soft synth can make sounds I find interesting, inspiring, and useful, it’s a great synth.

    And, so far, I’ve found many soft synths that meet this test!

    1. The reason these comparisons are done is to show that software is capable of doing the same thing that a hardware vintage analogue can do. As an above posted mentioned, it will sound like the original piece of hardware 95% of the time. There are a great number of elitist people who dismiss software because it doesn’t sound exactly like the original hardware, therefore they will not buy or use it. Also, In doing cover work of 80’s music, people expect the sound to be like the original piece of music, therefore it is necessary for your software to sound as close to the original as possible. Also, you can still come up with your own original sounds just as well as a hardware piece.

      1. By the way, I own this software and it sounds incredible. In the past I have owned a Prophet5 Rev2 , a Obeheim Xpander, and a Memorymoog. I know what good analogue gear sounds like and am very satisfied with software. The price is a nice plus also.

    2. Most people buy synths based on how well they emulate familliar sounds, though. It’s much harder for people to judge the value of unfamiliar sounds!

      1. “It’s much harder for people to judge the value of unfamiliar sounds!”

        Back in the days before software emulation, that’s exactly what we did. The unfamiliar was what we wanted, not copies.

  6. i am of a different mind. I would love to have the sounds of all those classic analog machines, without having to pay the current prohibitive prices and upkeep. New sounds, also great. nut vlassic emulation is also a worthy frontier.

  7. Ultimately, how much does the presence or lack of that added bit of analog distortion make to your actual music? Everyone I know has a hybrid rig of hardware and software, so they have the choice. I’ve played a lot of these instruments, so I get the luv and all. It feels more real when its moving actual air and making your socks flap. 😛 I only suggest a little perspective because worrying about the side points too much can diminish the main ones. If you haven’t played a real Jupiter, trust me, the modeled ones have most of the original BWOMP! in there. You’re not losing out on some huge, magical component; you’re GETTING 95% of it where you had zip before. That’s a win. Strap something like Turnado on top and watch everyone proverbially STFU when Godzilla steps out for his guitar solo.

  8. Er, sorry, that should have read “Ultimately, how much DIFFERENCE does the presence or lack of that added bit of analog distortion make to your actual music?” Derp.

  9. In a thick mix nobody can hear your Jupi 8 cry.

    I’m leaning toward VSTs nowadays although I love real synths, the flexibility and the quality of the VSTs are just crazy, I weep that I have to abandon my hardware synths, lol.

  10. Superb OBX everything fine compare the Samsung type plan to oscillator two and sign up for the best experience why not? I tell you this is serious resonance try it

  11. I have OP-X PRO-II and sound really good, but there’s no point to compare it to a real Jupiter 8, not only the sound but the hardware experience, the knobs, the sliders, the feel of the whole machine is a totally different experience, in my opinion the Jupiter 8 and 6 are masterpieces of Japanese industrial design from the early 80s, I would compare it to owning an Acura NSX or a DeLorean.

  12. This virtual synth is brilliant with mega great patches. Unfortunately, it has a amateurish interface when it comes to it’s use with a Mac, depending on shareware software to make it work is really silly. I like it better than most of the Arturia stuff, but it really isn’t acceptable the way it currently works.

    1. Have you Pro Tools users tried running it with DDMF metaplugin? I’ve been using that with other VST plug-ins in Pro Tools….ec

  13. Well, the OPX pro I was at first an emulation of the famous OBX-a oberheim . The second version OPX pro II had more specifications, delay, reverb, and few few adds for the filter. And when you play with these adds, you can change the original filter and obtain the Roland Jupiter sound.
    The OPX is a real fantastic VST . But you will never compare a hardware and a software.
    At first i had a Jupiter 6 in my studio, i tried many softs to obtain the same sounds, but i didn’t find the soft . Maybe UHE DIVA is a great soft for Roland sounds, but it’s just a great soft. I like too the Syntix ( Xils ), good emulation of the Elka Synthex.

Leave a Reply