Roland Jupiter Xm Filter Type Demo

This video, by gattobus, explores the various filter options available on the new Roland Jupiter-Xm synthesizer.

It demonstrates individual filter models – including Roland SH, Moog ladder, Sequential Curtis options – and then explores using the Xm’s filter types simultaneously, using its multi-timbral capabilities.

Video Summary:

Quick overview of the filter emulations inside the new Jupiter-Xm and multi-timbral capabilities. 5 arpeggiators running simultaneously on 5 parts, playing 5 legendary Instruments: SH-101, JUNO-106, JUPITER-8, JX-8P, all together in a single SCENE!!!

33 thoughts on “Roland Jupiter Xm Filter Type Demo

  1. I absolutely can’t believe Roland has the nerve to release a new Jupiter that’s not even analog. Everyone, I beg you, wait for the extremely warm, extremely phat, Behringer Bupiter 666. It will have the hottest most fiery sounds there are. Jupiter-X, come on Uli. Filter on a digital synth? Might as well smack my mumsy and throw lipstick on a pig!

    1. Your irrational prejudices are showing. This instrument sounds really good, and that should be all that matters.

    2. Hey PMP666, The world has moved on. Do you drive a car or do you use a horse and buggy? Do you still play VHS? Do you still listen to analog audio cassettes?

      1. First off, you took the trolls bait.

        Second off, your argument is flawed.

        The electric guitar did not replace the acoustic guitar, they even have acoustics with an output.

        There is a marlet for real analog just like there is for digital. No, not everyone has moved on….that’s why so many new analog synths are coming out as well as analog reissues of old instruments.

        Horse and buggy will tame ages to reach your destination.

        Digital and analog synths make sounds just as fast. I own both types of synths and find equal amount of use for them all.

  2. When the Jupiter 80 came out years ago I to believed that Roland was not being true to the original Jupiter series as analog synthesizers. Roland is simply using the Jupiter name as sophisticated class of synthesizer instruments regardless of what the makeup of the technology is. When you view things this way then it makes sense that they could employ digital technology or analog technology or what ever Roland wants and call it a Jupiter.
    What Roland is doing in the Jupiter X series can not be done in analog without it being a $10,000.00 instrument.
    Roland is taking what they have learned with their boutique and System 8 series. I would love there to be some analog bits in these synths and perhaps that will happen, but if the emulations in the Jupiter X are close then for what Roland is offering price per function will be hard to beat.

    1. I think that Korg is doing a really good job with its analog synths. In theory, Roland could do something similar. Yes, the sounds from the instrument are good. But it just makes me feel like wood grain vinyl and Naugahyde instead of oak and leather.

      Would I pay $1500 for it? Um, no. I bought a Korg Prologue, and the extra $500 is more than worth it. Part of it is the keyboard. The Prologue has a really good keyboard, and the XM has, *cough*, a mini keyboard. On a $1500 instrument.

      I’m sure that the Roland XM is fantastic for somebody, but I’d rather spend $1500 on more Eurorack modules.

  3. Woopty-doo !
    This is literally a sofware-VA running on a DSP CPU, with a custom hardware UI of knobs and ‘sniff’ mini-keys.

    The price they’re asking, is more based on nostalgia than technology.

  4. Wow, everyone sure has a bug up their butt over this one. The keys almost seem like an excuse for a case that simply has room for pitch/mod controls. The illusion of active playability will probably sell a few more units than only presenting it as a desktop. The price may feel a little steep, but it is a bi-timbral Roland history in a box. Its a smart way to have that in a smaller space. Nice form factor, too. If they’d included the D-50, I might have sniffed it harder. rats.:D

  5. Even if Roland made an all analog version people would still complain saying that it doesn’t sound like a Jupiter. As I states earlier an analog version would be super $$ especially if they tried to make it sound like the originals.
    So it makes sense that this Jupiter incarnation is digital so any issues with the sound would be a software upgrade away as opposed to doing an expensive hardware upgrade.

      1. They sort of did with the JDXA which I own but you are right. Roland should experiment with a fully analog synth. Thats why I said earlier it could still be called a Jupiter however people tend to have unrealistic expectations. Korg, the only big music manufacturer with the guts to experiment with analog again even their Prologue polyphonic analog synthesizer seems a bit weak in analog features compared to the digital elements in the synth.
        I don’t think it’s necessary to bash the new Jupiter series just accept them for what they actually are virtual swiss army knifes that will be great live performance tools.
        That said I also agree it’s time to move on from reissues and that Roland should take seriously what synth nerds like us have been saying for years.

        1. Careful what you wish for. They listened to synth nerds and stopped making the 303 because no one was buying it.

          The clue for was Roland want to do is with the System 8 etc. Digital versions of analogue synthesisers.

          Did the J8 always have DCB?

  6. I don’t care what the hell is inside it, it sounds real good. Gattobus has a penchant for making stuff sound bitchin’ & we all know that. My only complaint is the price for all of Roland’s new batch of releases: Fantom 61-key for what, $3200? The MC-707 for a grand? Both seem a little steep for me…knocking off about $300 per afore mentioned gear would make them palatable.

  7. It sounds good, is properly multitimbral and seems to be solidly built with balanced outs even. I am getting interested… at least if the price drops a bit, it is pretty expensive. It also has the Roland USB audio interface, which is fantastic if it has each timbre on a separate track. Anybody know if this is the case?

  8. When they start blowing these out for $1000, I’ll bet sales will jump for a bit. I’m amused at how people argue over it, because Roland is one of the main synth food groups, not a herpes sore, c’mon. Korg, Yamaha and Nord all recycle their DNA. Its called having a dependable sound. My Junos have always been outstanding glue for other instruments and this doubles that.

    BTW, analog shmanalog. If u-he can whip up Diva, then digital is advanced enough to do analog’s “job,” to a high degree. I had 2 Moogs at one time, so I get it. You’re not wrong to compare things, but if you don’t own at least five synths, why are you here? Ha! You fix it by purchasing two of each type and getting on with it. Milk your First World privilege, cadet.

  9. I’ve nothing against digital synths (well, except for the DX7), but to say the “Moog 24db” filter on this thing even approximates an actual Moog filter strains credulity to the breaking point. In fact all of “different filters” sound pretty much the same to me. Again, its not a “bad” sound but nothing special.

  10. I’m pretty sure you can have fun making some great-sounding music with this, regardless of how accurately it simulates its analog predecessors.

    Unlike most people on synthtopia, I’m not going to lambast Roland for making software models of all of its classic synths and packaging them together in a flexible, multi-timbral instrument. Maybe Roland will expand into the analog market someday beyond the SE-02 and JD-XA, but it’s not the end of the world if they don’t – there are other manufacturers making analog synths as well as modern clones of classic instruments.

    But I wouldn’t mind if they added D-50 (that boutique model has tempted me the most) and JP-8000 emulation into the mix.

  11. Sounds good. Roland would do well to release devices like this as modules given the ongoing key catastrophe they’re having.

Leave a Reply