21 thoughts on “Roland JD-Xi Synthesizer Review”

1. I’ve had mine for a couple of months now. While it may not be quite as versatile as the Korg Electribe, the JD-Xi is much more intuitive. It’s also very nice to have keys, rather than just pads. The sound quality is also considerably better than the Electribe, and you can achieve some interesting audio anomalies not possible on the Electribe. The amount of menu diving to achieve something usable is minimal. And the presets are a decent foundation to build your own tracks from. Totally worth the money and quite usable right out of the box.

   1. the Microstation and Microkorgs are a better comparison i think. Really this is just one of those with a really weird thin filter and a single DCO which I honestly can barely hear. The Xi has the nice effects knobs though, definitely convenient and intuitive in that regard.

      1. I considered the JD-Xi when it came out and had quite a lot of play time and manual diving. It’s definitely a Roland take on a modern MicroKorg with EMX-like DNA added. I understand why the control interface is designed for groove box type of creation but it’s also a shame because if you dive into the menus there’s nice synth engine control in there. I know you can build one with an iPad but they really need to follow this up with an auxiliary JD-Xi synth engine control interface because the thing sounds really good.

         This is the Age of the Second Coming of the Knobs for Pete’s sake! Why not do the opposite of Korg this time around and ADD control over time instead of removing it (See MS2000 and MicroKorg history for more info)?

2. A link to the video would be nice.

3. Clicked all links before found actual review. Little bit confusing.

4. Ha. I have the exact same dining room table :p

5. Nice overview, but I could only watch a few minutes before getting a bit seasick

6. Waste of time .
   Sorry Mark , but having said you made this demo because you were disappointed with existing youtube demo/reviews , your own attempt is one of the worst . The most cursory overview that informs less than the product brochure , never mind shopbrand video demonstrators, this is hardly the depth or analysis expected from synthesiser book authors . How many oscillators per voice , what choice of filters , what modulation options …..zero info on the synth engine other than the one knob envelope .
   You’ve wasted your time , and mine , don’t anybody else lose theirs .

   1. We’re just spoiled by SonicState man.. 90% of the demos / reviews out there are crap!
      Especially these ones that basically cycle through presets saying ‘it can do this sound and this sound’..

      Having said that, it would more than an informative video to sell this poopy synth to me 🙂

   2. I really hate to agree with such a negative comment, but I do. The video was ultimately pointless – blandly listing what is already known behind a shaking POV camera, without much of an opinion rendered. (aside from poly pads being too simple). He just poked at a few presets and said what they were. “Brass,” he said, as he played a brass patch.

      Maybe JD-Xi reviews tend to be boring because it’s a boring synth. None of it’s elements are impressive on their own. I think Roland was counting on it seeming awesome due to 4 sections under sequencer control, with Analog for kids who have heard that term said with reverence on forums.

      But every element is just barely acceptable. The minimal key size in the fewest octaves you can get away with. Only the most essential knobs. A few effects. 2 poly engines (nonstackable) with last-gen technology. A simple plain 1-oscillator analog voice (almost digital sounding) with very few parameters, just so they can technically jump on the bandwagon.

      Is there a way to dig into this thing in an interesting and enthusiastic way?

      1. Hmmmm…”a boring synth”? Perhaps that assessment needs to be tempered with perspective.

         The Roland JD-Xi seems to have packed in considerable capabilties for a synth that costs just $499 and fits within the cramped confines of the usual 10′ x 10′ home studio. Now it might be fair to criticize its derivative design, given that Roland obviously used Korg’s microKorg as inspiration. Of course the microKorg is a modern classic and worthy of copying, especially given that synth debuted way back in the dark days of the last decade and still sells new today. As it is said, “When something works, why re-invent the wheel…”

         I usually try to be positive when commenting on this site. Still, it gets a bit annoying hearing the constant whining about mini keys; the knee-jerk dislike for ROMplers and VA synths; and the group-think dissappointment that a sub-$500 synth cannot not do what a $3,000+ synth does (even though they do get pretty darned close).

         Do I own a JD-Xi? No. Will I buy one? Maybe, maybe not. But do I think it offers a good bang-for-the-buck? Yes.

         1. I don’t totally disagree with you about the minikey/MicroKorg format – it is popular, it works, and I really liked my MiniNova for the year I owned it. It just wasn’t great for polysynth playing action.

            I’d rather have a synth that focuses on one thing – with one deep engine or extensive control – than a grab bag of gimmicks – none of which are that good alone. The interface isn’t good for programming, the keys are not good for playing. Those are the 2 main things that make or break a synth.

            Roland seems to be saying the food is not very good, but the portions are great! I’d pay $149 for this if it came with a free Roland t-shirt.

         2. Whining about mini-keys? There is a reason they are hated–talented keyboardists have trouble with them. You can’t just put an alto sax in Sonny Rollins hands and expect him to sound great on it. You also can’t ask talented keyboardists to adjust to tiny keys.

            Now if you just want to use your forefingers, or set up a sequence and twiddle, that is fine. You don’t need a normal size keyboard. Maybe even good music will be made. But don’t complain about people not buying mini-keys boards, or begging for a full-sized keyboard on an Odyssey.

7. tried one of these in the store. pretty bad. only the most basic of synthesis, both the digital and analog sections were very bland. the bass station ii next to it smoked it, to say nothing of the arp odyssey next to that…

   analog isn’t good because it’s analog. analog is good when proper circuit design open a world of complex sounds not easily modeled with dsp.

8. Astro Spy, now this comment, “The interface isn’t good for programming, the keys are not good for playing”, provide the basis of a better critque of the JD-Xi. Watching the demo, I noted that the user had to perform a good bit of “menu diving” with a vaguely-marked button to change patches, which is not indicative of a good user interface. I have also tried the keys on the JD-Xi and found them to have a vague feel. The guy in the demo seemed to be a competent player, but his playing seemed a bit numb thanks to the JD-Xi’s compromised keyboard.

   You also made a good point here, “Roland seems to be saying the food is not very good, but the portions are great!” I agree with you that stuffing a little synth like the JD-Xi with presets simulating Steinways, Wurlitzers, Farfisas and Mellotrons seems unnecessary. It would have been better to provide a better filter controls to enhance the analog monosynth section, instead.

   All this said, I think the JD-Xi is a great leap ahead of Roland’s previous stab at the home studio user – the SH 201, which was a strange mongrel of a synth. That now-discontinued synth looked and felt cheaper than does the JD-Xi. Also, the SH-201 seemed lost in a “Devil’s Triangle” of tying to provide a half-baked simulation of their classic SH-101; a desparate attempt to throw in a grab-bag of features to compete with the (then-new) micorKorg; and trying to “build-to-an-affordable-price-point”.

   Maybe Roland will read our critiques and will fine-tune the JD-Xi in a future release?

9. Now I just think that this thing was designed by people how hate synthesis? Walking a thin line of being really annoying and having poor usability – which is ironically considered a progressive move for Roland by some people – crazy world.

10. Sonicstate’s Nick Batt says the JD-Xi is a “cracking synth”. I totally agree with him, simply because he’s always right, and he has a lovely British accent.

    1. Are we sure he didn’t mean the cheap plastic case cracks if you press the Shift button too hard?

       Pretty sure he was largely neutral and didn’t really express any personal desire to keep the demo unit, which is what he does when he loves a synth.

       1. Yes, if he had of removed Roland’s scaly member from his pursed lips then he may have been able to express himself adequately – Impartial reviews always involve a solid level of impartiality.

          1. Um, thats me you are talking about, I don’t recall having that particular experience. But yes I did think the JD-Xi was a cracking little synth and would stand by it, just depends on what you want/expect for $500 and under…

       2. Roland used to make metal keyboards, such as the JD-800, just like Ensoniq and Kawai. Everyone did. Dave Smith still does, and others such as Analog Solutions, because these small companies have not been engulfed by bean counters. Unfortunately companies that hope to ship thousands of units a week become victims of economies of scale.