Talk:Roland JX-8P

Latest comment: 11 years ago by 188.129.73.60 in topic JX8P edit

Hi, please help me to build up this page.

As a former JX-8P user and enthusiast, I sadly found there was no page to this synthesizer, which was the base where the JX-10 "Super Jupiter" was made from. I created the page, then joined Wiki to keep modifying it until it stands to similar Roland Synthesyzer pages. What got me started was the allegation in the Super Jupiter wiki where it was stated that the Super Jupiter was to contest the Yamaha DX-7. This is not true as I was using both of them back on the day and the competition was between the 7 and the 8. The 10 went into the market when the Yamaha was well-established. Cheers.--Joey kaye 17:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the JX-10 was called the "Super JX", not the "Super Jupiter". The Super Jupiter was the MKS-80. --ApolloBoy 00:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That is the kind of information I need in the page, but as it turns out, MKS-80 was a "Super JX in a box" if my memory does not fail. One more time, I'd appreciate if anyone else is willing to help me with this. I can pull a picture for the front page, as I have one, but need to scan. It would be nice if seomebody put one, I don't want to go lurk the internet and post a picture that is not mine. Same thing with MIDI implementation. I just don't have the time to sit down and edit it for now. Cheers.--Joey kaye 22:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply



Hi,

As a user of an MKS-70, I was intrigued to read your article's information regarding the supposed re-triggering or single-cycle LFO "feature" mentioned in comparison to the continuous cycle LFO characteristics of the JX-8P. As a result, I tested the LFO response in both my MKS-70 and in my JX8P and compared for myself to hear if I noticed any differences. I was hoping to reproduce the cool re-triggering, single cycle LFO effect in my MKS-70. Unfortunately, I was disappointed by my results. In fact, my MKS-70 does not display any of the re-triggering LFO characteristics you mention. Rather, my MKS-70 LFO is continuous in exactly the same manner as my JX-8P LFO.

To test the MKS-70 LFO, I set the LFO to modulate the filter with a slow sine wave. The filter frequency sweep responded normally as a continuous cycle and oscillated with continuously smooth and uninterrupted cycles despite a flurry of keyboard triggers. Thus, apparently, not all MKS-70 modules share identical LFO cycling characteristics.

It would be useful to have classified the production run numbers if possible, from which to refer in differentiating between MKS-70 batches with Low Frequency Oscillators that are single cycle and those, like mine, with normal LFOs that are a continuous cycle like the JX-8P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.239.71 (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

JX-8P vs JX-10/MKS-70/Super JX edit

I recently tagged this section for lack of citations. Frankly the whole section takes up much more of the article than it deserves, and I don't really see the value of its inclusion. Much of the material presented in it is widely disputed. I am hoping that the original editor/contributor (or anyone who cares to) can add some much needed references. If not, I am inclined to delete this section fairly soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.49.92 (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Have deleted this section in the hope that someone can review the material in it and provide some sources or rewrite it as neccessary to come up to standard. 92.234.51.135 (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

JX8P edit edit

Hi - I've added some information to the first two paragraphs, removed some that I found too subjective, and tried to add helpful information for future owners, such as the warning about slow envelopes (synth enthusiasts *will* find it important) and the ability to control the instrument externally even without the rare PG-800 controller. Also, changed the phrasing of certain sentences, because some sounded awkward. Feel free to correct any spelling mistakes or bad grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.73.60 (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply