Conference napalm::commusic_v1

Where was the ad?

This is something I'd been looking for Roland to market.  All
of the music stores told me that Roland had no plans to do so.

I'd be *real* interested in this box...

andy

RE < Note 2153.1 by TALLIS::SEIGEL "SYNTH when?" >

> Where was the ad?

	I picked up a free local music paper called "Metronome" and this unit 
was mentioned in an ad from Acton Music Center.

	Dan

    
  Rhythm City has no info. yet.
    
    rr
    

    
    oops......not quite right. Its a U20 in a rack. Pricing not
    quoted.
    
    ...so availibility up in air.
    
    rr

    So what's the diff between a U110 and a U20 (apart from the kybd)?
    Sounds like only a cleaned up signal path to me. 

-b

    
    Roland CM-64 LA/PCM Sound Module looks at first glance to be in
    PROTEUS territory. Says the Roland Product News sheet:-
    
    "......compact and affordably priced CM-64 is a powerful MIDI sound
    scource .. offers a wide variety of high quality Tones ranging from
    realistic PCM sounds to analog synthesizer sounds. For accessing
    more sounds, the CM64 is equipped with a card slot that will accept
    any card in the growing SN-U-110 Sound Card Library. This unit provides
    63-voice polyphony(max.), 15-part multi-timbral capability and digital
    effects, making it capable of reproducing the sounds of a full
    orchestra. The CM64 is ideal for computer enthusiasts..interested
    in music-making with computers."
    
    List price is 789 U.K. Pounds.
    
    Has anyone heard one of these?
    
    Regards, Brian

    63 voice polyphony???
    
    Is this like, "Roland Polyphony" (i.e. "partials", divide by 3 or 4 for
    realalistic polyphony),  or is it like REAL polyphony.
    
    Like can I get 64 simultaneous notes of "Orchestra Hit"?
    
    Does each patch in the U-110 take ONE voice?  If not, what is the
    average and maximum number of "partials" (or whatever they've decided to
    call them this time around) per patch?
    
    	db

    Im with Dave.
    
    Proteus is 32 voice.
    
    Each voice has TWO 'waveform players' (oscillators, so to speak)
    with an associated filter and VCA envelope ON EACH...with a 
    crossfade/cross-switch VCA to mix them. 
    
    How many voices in "roland mode" I wonder?
    
    Dave, because each oscillator can be detuned and/or transposed,
    you can easily have a 64 note (er, voice) Orchestra Hit.
    
    (assuming you, or your sequencer, can play that many keys).
    
    What I like about the Proteus is 16-bit stereo samples from
    the Emulator III library.
    
    No noise. Real sounds. Unreal sounds. NOISELESS LA style synthesis,
    Lotsa voices. Up to 8 'voices' assignable to each "key down"...all
    detuned (if ya want)...all the same...or different...or 
    
    lets talk modulation capabilities.
    
    hey, lets start playing the sample in a certain place based on velocity.
    
    Yes. You can. On and On and On......
    
    Roland? Please present your killer........soon.
    
    It's not without its weaknesses, of course, but hey, If you want
    to know about this mythical beast and what it's done RIGHT. Order
    an owners manual from Emu.   Dare ya.
    
    oh: $895 from Rhythm City. Yes, the 'original' Proteus. From what
    I can gather the difference is "64 user 'setup' slots vs. 100"....
    for $300 more.
    
    This was a month ago. Sent them a check and got it within a week.
    
    Maybe I lucked out.
    
    Sounds like a CD at times. See ron smile.
    
    CHECK OUT THIS THING!
    
    rr
    

    From RUG V7n3 ...

    CM-64 LA/PCM Sound Module

	This new compact sound module combines Roland's breathrough L/A
	technology with PCM sampling technology to create an impressive
	computer music device capabile of ** 63 ** voice polyphony and ** 15 **
	part multi-timbral playback.  ... Those capabilities, coupled with
	MIDI, sound card expandability (Roland U-110 ROM card compatible), on
	board digital reverb, headphone and stereo jacks, make it a veritable
	orchestra-in-a-box.  

    Yeah, yeah ... blah blah blah ... shows a picture of the unit, and goes
    on to say that the unit was "designed for use with a PC". There are NO
    controls anywhere except for a volume POT and a power switch. 

    I suspect that it does NOT respond to SYSEX and only a limited set of
    controllers.  I'll stick with a Proteus.
    
-b

    re: .-1
    
    I just got a CM-32L. Though its not a CM-64, it DOES repond to SYSEX,
    that would leave me to believe the -64 does as well.
    
    Scooter

RE < Note 2153.10 by TRCO01::FINNEY "Keep cool, but do not freeze" >

>    I just got a CM-32L. 

	What?  No review?!

	Dan

               <<< NOVA::DVD12:[NOTES$LIBRARY]COMMUSIC.NOTE;1 >>>
             -< * * Computer Music, MIDI, and Related Topics * * >-
================================================================================
Note 2190.0                    More info on U-220?                    No replies
IJSAPL::BOUWMANS                                     12 lines   4-DEC-1989 08:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hi,
    
    Has anyone got more info on the U-220?
    Is this just a rack version of the U-20, e.g. only two outputs
    in stead of the 6 on the U-110? 
    Does it have all the U-110 samples and more?
    Any extra goodies?
    Any info on availability/pricing?
    
    Regards,
    
    John.

	I just got my U20 yesterday ($1208 from Caruso's including shipping).
	My reasons for getting it were quite simple - I wanted great sampled 
	sounds in a portable keyboard that I could use live, as well as wanting
	an SGU that met my needs for trying to do a lot of orchestration.  
	Between this and my PX I think I'll be busy for quite a while. :^)  
	I'll post a review as soon as I can but for now a couple of comments:  
	
		1)  The piano is *great*.  It's a 'bright' piano so it
		    isn't fair to compare it with the PX's Grand Piano,
		    but I would say it is better than the PX's Bright
		    Piano.

		2)  The trumpets are incredible.  At the very high end I
		    noticed some noise, but this was beyond 'reasonable'
		    trumpet range.

		3)  A lot of D50ish type sounds that are very good and very
		    usable.

		4)  On the 'Orchestral Strings' ROM card, the Harps are the
		    best I've heard on *any* piece of gear.

		5)  Overall, a *very* quiet SGU.


	That's all for now,  more later...

	Dan(who_finally_has_a_piece_of_Roland_gear 8*)

    I bought one last week!
    
    Main reason was that I still had problems with the noise level of my
    U-110 (even with effects turned off) and the dealer offered me a
    reasonable trade-in price.
    
    Main advantages of the U-220 (as far as I know):
    
    - practically noiseless
    - extra samples (although I don't need most of them, the few
      that are useful are *very* useful)
    - delay, sustain, vibrato, reverb, panning
    - one extra channel (6 parts, seperate rhytm part)
    - a *very* intelligent stealing algorithm, reserving voices
      per part. furthermore when playing a sample that takes
      two voices per note, where one voice is heard during the
      first part of the sample, it only blocks two voices during
      that part of the sample. the result of this is that you
      can play the piano sample 0 (the best on the U-220 IMO)
      with a polyfony of more than 16 voices.
    - better user interface
    
    It has 'only' two slots for ROM cards, but for me that will do fine.
    
    I'm happy again.
    
    John.
                                                                        

Could anyone in the UK please give an
approximate price of a Roland U20?
(And, if possible, for a Rhodes 660).

Thanks.
Henrik

    So I find myself facing the decision of what to replace my MT-32 with.
    
    While I haven't ruled out getting a D-110, my primary choices seem to
    be a Proteus or a U-220.
    
    What I'm using this thing for is horsepower/polyphony supplement
    to my gigging rig: RD-300 (MKS-20 in an 88-key keyboard controller),
    Ensoniq SQ-80 (8-voice synth/sequencer), and assorted efx and a line
    mixer.
    
    My need for additional SGU is mainly due to lack of polyphony and
    separate outputs on the SQ-80.
    
    This weekend I did a side-by-side comparison of a Proteus and a U-220.
    
    Here are my impressions, and (I think) some surprising but perhaps
    useful conclusions.
    
    To these ears, the Proteus is a hands-down winner over the U-220.  I
    found the U-220 to be surprisingly noisey, and the samples themselves
    for the most part are not in the same league as a Proteus.
    
    However...  I'm now leaning heavily towards the U-220.
    
    Why?
    
    The sounds available in the Proteus 1 (and those planned for the
    Proteus 2) strike me as being highly oriented towards studio
    applications, specifically imitating actual instruments (pianos,
    guitars, strings, horns, percussion, etc.)  The factory samples
    and presets are pretty much devoted to that.
    
    However, what I've discovered with my sampler (S-550) is that it's
    good for a lot more than dead accurate imitation.  The ability to
    edit sounds at the waveform level make it ideal for getting
    interesting synthetic sounds that would be hard to realize on a
    synth architecture.
    
    What I liked about my MT-32 is that it had a very very wide range
    of available builtin sounds.  It always seemed to have something
    suitable for the need.  
    
    And I do NOT get that impression from playing through the builtin
    Proteus sounds.
    
    Now, of course, the Proteus is programmable (as is the U-220) and I
    imagine that all that I might need IS possible on the Proteus.  But...
    I'm not into programming from scratch, and the lack of removeable media
    makes it highly unlikely that much will be done in the way of 3rd
    party Proteus patches.  I also have a great respect for the better
    professional programmers (like Eye and Eye, Voyetra, etc.) and my
    opinion of the results from home-brew patch programming is "well, they
    can be nice, but almost never 'special'".
    
    Now, it's not real likely that there's gonna be much of a 3rd party
    market for U-220 sounds/patches but at least you CAN get additional
    samples and patches via ROM cards and Roland has produced a fair
    number of such ROM cards, and they do seem fairly committed to the
    U series.
    
    Plus, I find that the samples/sounds that COME with the U-220 give
    your average GB/T-40/rock guy more of what he needs than the Proteus.
    And if it doesn't come with the unit, there's a good chance it will
    be on one of the ROM's Roland has out.
    
    I also like the fact that whereas as Emu (and Kurzweil) obsoletes old
    instruments when new sounds are added, the U-220 is something you can
    expect to have around for awhile.  I think that's VERY important.
    
    Now, I'm hoping that Proteus users will read this and not feel this
    is preamble to war.  I think I've made it very clear that I'm talking
    in the context of my own particular needs, and I don't disagree with
    ANY of the good things that have been said about the Proteus.
    
    The Proteus technology seems significantly superior to the U-220
    and I have no doubt that in the 90's when they make a unit with
    loadable sounds, that the Proteus is going to have an impact
    on the MIDI market like nothing before.
    
    Until then, I think I'm going with the U-220 (but I'd love to have
    someone tell me I'm missing something).
    
    	db

Hi there !

There was a test in the German Keyboards June issue comparing 6 sample players.
If you want I can sent you a copy  :-)

The test was excellently structured. The compared the base sounds PLUS (!) they
used it with 3 or 4 different musical style sequences (Jazz, Rock, Classic...)
and checked where it fitted best.

All in all the rated the U220 as best in price/performance. The proteus was
suggested for excellent sound quality (i.e. piano) and certain music styles
(Jazz and Classic). Korg's M1R and M3R were rated surprisingly low. Yamaha's
TG55 was rated quite good with the most flexible programming capabilities for
the sounds (filters etc.), but only 16 voices polyphony.

I'm also close to buying a U220, so I looked in the ad's of German magazines
and found that a lot of companies already mention "new U220 sound cards
available shortly". So it seems there will be enough 3rd party support.

In addition to that I have heard that it's planned to build an interface that
allows any sampler to dump it's sounds into a U220's card slot. Since you have
a sampler you seem to become VERY flexible with the U220.

	best regards

		Richard

Dave!

Listen to the U20/220 in DRY mode.  Experience shows that the builtin effects
are the noise makers in the U series.  You have 6 individual outs on the 220
so each "slot" can have its own out and you can process them yourself.

"My" 220 I had to give back on Saturday but I was able to get a U20 for a
real good deal a month ago. 

Of course, I'd like the Proteus too.  I was ablt to play with one for a short

time on Saturday and really liked some of the bread and butter sounds as well
as some of the other ones.  Too bad I can't spend now.

Chad

    re: .17
    
>In addition to that I have heard that it's planned to build an interface that
>allows any sampler to dump it's sounds into a U220's card slot. Since you have
>a sampler you seem to become VERY flexible with the U220.
    
    God, please let that be true.
    
    If that's true, I will be one very happy clam with a U-220 and an
    S-550.
    
    	db

    What can I expect to pay for a U-220?
    
    Can anyone give examples of what they've seen them go for?  I'm
    interested in hearing all price quotes: good and bad,
    
    Also, it's 12-bit right?  Not 16-bits like the Proteus.

Chad said it well - the builtin effects, although much cleaner than the U110,
are still not the best.  Nonetheless, I really love the 220.  The cards
really make it easy to expand the sample base, whereas the Proteus/Kurzweil
gear requires extra chips, etc.  I don't quite agree with Dave's assessment
of the sound as compared to the Proteus, but, that's what makes horse races...
To my ear, the U220 sounds more interesting than the Proteus; perhaps brighter.
The Proteus, however, has far superior modulation capabilities.  And, not
that it's too important, but the Proteus is half the depth of the U220.

But, out of the box, and ready to go, I think the U220 has a better variety
of sounds and comparable sound quality, which is why I bought it.

a

RE .20, about $700 +/-.   Probably less now.  Rick at Caruso's is always
a good bet for Roland gear...

a

The Woodwind and the Brasswind was advertising $695 plus shipping. (MO)

Union in Worcester quoted me about 2-3 months ago $795.  (store)

Daddy's would probably go less than r about $800.  If you have a Daddy's card
that would get you close to the $1000 to qualify for the 5% back which
brings it close to $750.

Chad

      <<< Note 2153.16 by SMOP::BLICKSTEIN "This is your brain on Unix" >>>
                             -< Proteus vs. U-220 >-
>.......whereas as Emu (and Kurzweil) obsoletes old instruments when 
    >new sounds are added
    
    Huh ?  Dave, I don't have a Proteus, but I have an E-Mu EMAX - how many
    variants have they offered - original, EMAX HD, EMAX II, EMAX II HD..
    and as far as the Kurzweil 1000 boxes, you certainly must be aware of
    the sockets for the plug-in ROM expander sets, the PXA/PXB/PXC
    soundblocks..  Also I believe the Proteus is expandable in the same
    way.  Regarding customized patches, they're saved in NVRAM (like the
    1000's) and can be 'backed up' using a computer-based editor.
    
    I haven't read the intervening replies, but I felt I should rebut your
    reasoning here. thanks
    
    karl

    Karl,
    
    I don't want to get into the trap of defending my choice/positions
    here because I know to many Proteus and U-220 owners and I want
    both sets as friends.  I'll just clear up why I said what I said.
    
    I was speaking only of the Proteus.  Not other Emu products.
    
    In regards to Kurzweil, my understanding is that those "soundblocks"
    are almost the same price as a Proteus 1-1/XR upgrade (several hundred
    dollars) - is that right?  U-220 cards go for about $50.
    
    	db

U-220 cards go for $65. I've never seen them for less.

btw, I just bought another one for my U-110, "Synthesizers". I believe
most of the sounds on this card, or similar sounds, are already built in
to the U-220, so for me it's like upgrading. This card contains about
24 or so variations on breathy pads, fantasy bells, and pure wave tones.
I found about 12 or so of these to be useful. This card is one of three
new ones that I was very surprised to see that Roland added to their
collection. The new cards are numbers -08, -09, and -10, bringing the total
number of cards that I've seen to 10. The other two were "Guitars and
Keyboards" and "Rock Drums", neither of which I think I would have a need for.
Even if I did, I have already filled all 4 slots on the U-110 and I don't
want to have to plug cards in and out.

/Mitch

    >  U-220 cards go for $65. I've never seen them for less.
    
    I saw a sticker price somewhere in Boston (I think Daddy's) for $55.
    
    	db

Daddy's price is usually $65 but I know they have sold for less.

Chad

PS: I think that the new SAX and TROMBONE card is great and is number 11 or 12

    Well, thanks to the recent flurry activity in this note, I'm now
    the proud owner of a 1962 re-isssue telecaster!!
    
    I listened to what you all were saying about the U220, was fed up
    of waiting for a Proteus to arrive in my local store and decided
    to check out a 220. 
    
    Waiting for the salesrep I deal with, I just wandered into the guitar
    section and my mouth drooled over this lovely instrument. I guess
    the Proteus will have to wait 'till next year.
    
    I dont NEED another guitar so I assume this was purely self indulgence.
    The decision was made in less than 10 minutes! 
    
    Thanks guys!!
    

    What!?!  A quickie decision on OLD equipment?  Will wonders never cease
    ...
    
    Steve

    <<<< Also, it's 12-bits?  Not 16-bits like the Proteus. >>>>>
    
    I have had my U-20 for the past 8 months and when I traded in my Kawai
    K-1 I chose the U-20 over the Kawai K-4 which was a 16-bit unit and the
    Roland U-20 had 16-bits also.  I know for a certain that the K4 samples
    /sounds don't even come close to the U-20's clear samples.
    
    I'm find it had to believe that the U-20 is a 12-bit unit.
    
    
     

    A few comments, just to make certain everyone is in sync.
    
    First, the U220 uses *12*-bit samples, but a 16 bit signal path
    (spouting spec sheets) ... traditionally, Roland has done very well
    using 12-bit sampling technology (listen to the S330/550, which are 12
    bit; there's a lot more to signal processing than bit count).
    
    Regarding the U220/Proteus comparison ... there is a great deal to be
    said for the size/weight of the Proteus.  It's very small, and is very
    nice to rack or move.  It is *extremely* easy to program (imHo), and
    sounds very nice.  Not ever having A/B'd the two, I can't comment
    directly on how Proteus might compare to the U220 - but I doubt that
    the 220 can sound any better than Proteus.
    
    Dave, I'm not certain that your characterization of Proteus as being
    primarily acoustically imiatitive is accurate.  With the Proteus/1
    factory patches, perhaps it appears this way.  However, the Proteus/1
    XR has 383 patches (255 RAM & 128 ROM locations) and has a *wide*
    assortment of instruments, both acoustic and synthetic in nature. 
    There are lots of excellent "bread & butter" sounds, and it seems to me
    that the thing would be very useful for GB stuff.  The only lack in
    terms of patch selection is the DIGPNO/FM Rhodes type sound.  I've been
    trying to write my own (there are none in the factory set) but haven't
    had much time lately.  I have written several very decent synth pad and
    bell/choir type sounds.
    
    As for expansion, the Proteus/1 has 4Mb ROM; the Proteus/2 has 8Mb ROM. 
    The latter is aimed (so I've heard) at the "imitative" market.  The /1
    has lots of synth cycle and waveforms with odd/even/partial harmonics
    that make for great programming.  The expansion for the /1 (another 4Mb
    of ROM, which runs retail around $495, but can be had for around $400
    or less) is designed to *complement* the existing waveforms in the /1,
    and are made up of select samples from those contained on the /2.  No,
    it doesn't take cards or cartridges, but with up to 8Mb ROM and 383
    patches on board, who needs cartridges or cards?!?
    
    Again, the only thing about the Proteus that I view as a drawback is
    its lack of response to velocity - some of the samples aren't as
    "animated" (for lack of a better word) as I'd like, but it's possible
    to program around that.
    
    Don't take this as a rebuttal or anything, db.  I'm sure you'll be
    thorough in checking *both* units ... but make sure you don't sell the
    Proteus short unfairly.  Let us know what you decide.
    
+b (who notes very rarely these days)

Having just got the used Proteus at Daddy's Nashua last week, I've spent a 
little time (honest to goodness only a few hours) playing with it.  Most of
that time was spent playing old songs of mine through it and trying to see
how well it sounded "in context".

It seems to have one major flaw that the Roland unit doesn't have -- 
assignability of drum sounds to note-numbers.  A glance at the manuals and 
through the parameters of the edit menu didn't help me find anything that
looks like it might do that.  The U220 allows you to assign each individual
drum sound to a note-number as well as a mute sound for it that will cause the
sample to mute when the mute-sound is played.  That allows you to map the
drums to whatever scheme you use, choose which kick-drum to have in the standard
slot you use or kick, etc.  The Proteus doesn;t seem to allow this, which means
that while some of their assignments of sounds are Roland like, some aren't
and as I use the (standard) roland assignments in songs I have to edit my
songs for the proteus.  Please someone tell me how to do this if it is possible.

Another thing that a quick glance at the Proteus leads me to believe can't
be done that the U220 can do is to dump by sysex only its temporary (edit)
buffers.  This allows you to non-destructively load a patch into your 220
for the current song.  (ie, when you dump it back in at the beginnig of the
song the current patches edit buffer is used -- the saved current patches aren't
touched).

But it sounds nice. (the 220 sounds nice too).

One thing that seems not to work on the 20/220 that I'd think would is sysex
between 220s and 20s.  Those parts of the architectures that are the same
(such as the patch buffers etc) should be able to exchange sysex.  I tried
dumping my 220 patches into the 20 but it didn't work [using the edit buffer
sysex] (yes I changed the unit id)

Chad

    Brad,

    I ended up picking up a U-220.

    I'm not sure my reasoning would be terribly applicable to anyone else
    so this is NOT an endorsement of the U-220 OVER the Proteus.

    My interest in the U-220 was to replace my MT-32 with a rack-mount
    device.  I considered the D-110 (and still AM considering it) but
    I'm not overly impressed with the sound of the D-110 although I'm
    floored by the variety of builtin sounds (as I was with the MT-32).
    It basically always seemed to have what I needed (if not always "exactly"
    what I needed.)

    The Proteus DID sound much better on many things to my ears, but as
    this device is mainly going to be used for live gigs, and as I have
    a theory that sound quality is significantly less critical and
    secondary to many other things at gigs, I basically ruled that they
    both sounded pretty good and I would have to decide on other factors.

    Basically, I felt that the loadable ROM samples in the U-220 was
    the important thing for me.   I need real versatility from this
    machine, and I want to have it a long time.  We'll have to see
    if Roland is good about continuing to come out with new sample ROMs
    (or whether 3rd party places start offering them), but that was
    a gamble I was willing to take.

    I felt that with the Proteus, I would be stuck with whatever was
    in memory already.  Besides, I'm working on the assumption that
    someday Emu will do the right thing and come up with a Proteus
    that takes ROM cards, and when that happens, I'll be the first in
    line.
    
    One extreme downside to the U-220 is it's interface/display.  It has
    a menu hierarchy system and while I haven't done any programming with
    it, I can already tell that programming this monster is time-consuming
    and cumbersome.
    
    And of course, not wishing to break the longstanding tradition, the
    Roland U-220 manual is your typical DEPLORABLE Roland manual. 
    Actually, they ARE getting better at organizing the manual, and
    providing more graphics and examples, but the text is often so
    contorted and confusing that you gotta wonder what they're smokin'
    over there at the Roland documentation department.
    
    Anyway, as I said, my needs/preferences/quirks are, I think, very
    unique and this is NOT an endorsement of the U-220 over the Proteus.
    These two creatures are different in many important ways and I think
    that if your making a decision between the two, you really have a lot
    of homework to do or you may end up making a decision you later regret.
    
    	db

    The problem with Roland manuals is not that the authors use mind
    altering substances, but that the manuals are written in Japan and
    then transrated into pidgin Engrish.  Somewhere along the way the
    content gets, uh, altered (you, know like you have your pet cat,
    uh, altered).
    
    Did I hear someone say somewhere back there that the Proteus doesn't
    respond to velocity?  Timbrally (e.g., filter intensity), or at all?
    
    len.
    

    	I think the statement made was that it lacks dynamic range when
    responding to velocity.  Brad has given the impression that this is true 
    of the factory sounds, but can be beefed up if you get your hands dirty with
    the programming interface.  I have auditioned the Proteus a number of
    times and was struck by how flat the sounds were.  They just didn't say
    anything to me.
    
    	I have looked at all of these sample player units and have been
    disappointed - mostly because they just don't have the kind of
    character that I look for in my arrangements.  I ended up picking up an
    M3R (Korg) as probably the closest thing I'll get to owning a sample
    player.  The M3R held my attention probably because it has some very
    nice analog-ish filtering while still making some nice sampled sounds
    available (strings, flute, elec guitar, etc.).
    
    	Dan
    
    

	I have a U-110 & find that for live use, it's excellent (you are 
	right about the noise issues, they often don't mean anything when 
	playing live). The programming is a B*tch on the U-110 & the manuals
	have important things that are referenced only casually (like how to
	save the configuration set up & assign voices).

	I might have bought a U-220, but they were blowing U-110's out
	at Rice Music (Colorado Springs) & I really wanted a better
	Sax sound & wanted it right away. The proteus may be hot, but I
	think that you eventually reach a point of technology saturation,
	and the improvements don't necessarily get you that much more.
	After all, I still use my CZ-101 (and wish there was a varient that
	was rack-mount-able) & find that it still offers quite a bit.

	Also, nothing irritates me more than a synth unit that won't allow (at
	minimum thru SYSEX) drum note re-assigments (The Kurtzweil modules
	and the VFX don't allow not reassignment). I have too many sequences
	that depend on them being at the default Roland locations to even
	think of modifying them. We must be getting spoiled.

								Jens

    Len,
    
    I really think that translation from Japaneese is the biggest problem, but
    not the only one.
    
    The S-550 manual has severe problems with grammar, layout,
    design (how fonts/headers/etc are used) and organization.  There's
    really NOTHING that would even earn a C- in a technical writing
    class.
    
    Translation is bad though.  There's times when I read it that I can
    actually HEAR a japanese accent!
    
    	db

    I think the document production is improving (fonts, organization,
    etc.), but the content is still wretched.  The R-8 and S-MRC manuals
    are major improvements over the earlier manuals, but products this
    complex need more than major improvements in documentation.
    
    (BTW, the grammar problems are translation induced.)
    
    len.
     

RE: Len & Proteus velocity
    
    Probably shoulda put this in the Proteus topic.  Uncle Edd can move if
    he wants to (SET NOTE/NOTE=x.y is a wonderful thing).
    
    Actually, it Proteus respond to velocity, and quite well.  The problem
    is related to the default velocity maps within the machine.  Proteus
    has 4 program maps, none of which are suitable (im NOTSO ho) for
    someone with a normal controller and normal touch.  Sadly, none of the
    curves are programmable, but each patch can be altered in the way it
    responds to velocity.
    
    I noticed this when trying to fool with the standard Grand Piano
    sample, which I thought was flat.  A change of one parameter a few
    units made lots of difference for me & my KX76.  Other folks?  Well, I
    don't really know.
    
    Incidentally, the drum maps in Proteus correspond directly to my old
    TR707 default layout, so I haven't tried to do any remapping.  Not that
    I use the thing for percussion (although I really like that tight
    processed snare sound - really smacks).
    
+b

    Hi,
    
    Is anyone aware of an editor for the U220 that runs on Atari?
    
    John.
    

Hi there !

Yes, Geerdes in Berlin have a U110/U220 Editor for the Atari I think it's
offered for 298,-DM. There was a market survey of all editors published in the
July issue of German KEYBOARDS magazine, which I can look up for other vendors.

	Richard

    Ever since the U series hit the street, people have been wondering
    about third party sample cards.  Well, Musitronics, the German firm who
    make the multi-timbral mod for the D-50 have gone one better and announced
    a "PCM Expansion System" that allows the user to "roll his own" sample
    cards!!!
    
    It runs on the Atari ST and takes either MIDI sample dump files or
    samples edited on the Steinberg/Jones Avalon program and burns them
    into RAM cards.  You can denote start and loop points, name samples,
    set single, dual, detune, v-mix, v-switch, etc.  You can have looped or
    one-shots and store up to 100 samples per RAM card (128K and 256K
    available).
    
    The system includes both SW and hardware needed to program the cards.
    U.S. price, $425, availability ????
    
    For D-50 fans, a new "PCM Expansion Board" comes with 50 new waveforms
    and allows you to use RAM cards blown on the above system as well (not
    compatible with U format, though).  Also $425.
    
    No price on RAM cards.
    
    Call Russ Jones Marketing at 818-993-4091 for more poop.
    
    						Brian
    
    P.S. With this, plus Korg and Peavey taking MIDI sample dumps direct
    from disk, I suspect a third party sample market in the MIDI dump
    format is going to explode.
    

    Hi Brian !
    
    Thanks on the Info about Musitronics. I'm not sure, but I think there's
    another company near the place I live (also in Germany), that's also
    working on a system to create own cards. The music store there also
    announced that they will offer a service where you can buy your samples
    from a choice list (what you get is what you hear and like). No more
    useless sounds. They said, it will be available for D70,U-series and
    YAMAHA TG,SY.
    
    However I have a question on the U220 also. Maybe one the fellow noters
    could tell or look it up in the manual. I would like to know if it's
    possible to select the controller number for modulation or whatsoever,
    i.e. can I use my breath controller  ???
    
    	thanks and best regards
    
    		Richard

    Everytime I buy a piece of Roland equipment I always seem to find
    a few gotchas.  The last one was the claim to "32 voice polyphony"
    for the MT-32, which most people agree has a practical polyphony
    of considerably less than that.
    
    There is one area of the U-220 that I found extremely dissapointing.
    The polyphony claim is 30 voices and while the practical polyphony
    may be a significant amount less than that, it's not nearly as bad
    as the MT-32 (the useful sounds don't all take 3 or 4 voices - more
    like 1 or two).
    
    However, IMO there IS a resource problem with the U-220.  It's with
    "parts".
    
    The U-220 hierarchy is 
    
    			Patch
    
       part1   	   part2      part3  	part4  	part5  	part6  rhythm-part
    
    
    Each part is assigned a timbre (the sound you want it to play) and
    a MIDI channel as well as other things.
    
    The problem/gotcha is that a lot of common functions "burn" parts.
    
    Things like splits, velocity cross-overs and layers require at least
    two parts. In my S-550, these things are generally done at the level of
    the "timbre" rather than the "patch".
    
    It's been my experience that to do, for example, a T-40 MIDI sequence,
    it's not uncommon to run out of parts IF you take the time to set
    up, for example, a bass patch that "pops" when you hit it hard,
    or a piano/bass type of split, or try to thicken sounds with layers
    and such.
    
    It's livable, but it's frustrating because the thing DOES have the
    polyphony to do these things, it just doesn't have the parts. 
    
    I should also mention that there are ways to get around this that
    involve a little extra work (like switching patches during the song
    which is probably the "intended solution) but I find them highly
    inconvenient.
    
    I'm beginning to think that the ideal T-40 MIDI duo type device is
    the Roland D-110.  It's just simple and has everything you need
    available quickly.  The sound quality is IMHO at best "acceptable",
    but I think "acceptable" is all that's needed for T-40/MIDI duo
    type things.
    
    	db

    Dave,
    
    I think that's what has been happening is that most boxes are going to
    an approach where you have a "normal" mode for playing single timbres,
    and a "multi" mode which is a catchall for splits, zoning, layers,
    multi-setups for sequencing, etc.  
    
    This makes sense in the case where you use a typical synth as
    controller; since it sends on only one MIDI channel, to do splits and
    layers you just go to the multi-setup and build one up from two parts
    set to the same channel. Unfortunately, we're mostly used to synths
    which allow splits and layers to be saved as *patches* which can be
    conveniently called up.
     
    The specific thing you are complaining about exists on all of the
    modules I've messsed with (FB01, MT32, K1, Symphony).  Then there's
    the other side issues, like can you disable program changes on a timbre
    basis or only globally, what about sending MIDI volume updates down the
    pipe when you have multiple parts on one channel, etc.  Yecch.  A lot
    of folks I've talked to don't use the multi setups on their modules if
    they can avoid them. It's easy to see why.  
    
    							Brian
    

>    The specific thing you are complaining about exists on all of the
>    modules I've messsed with (FB01, MT32, K1, Symphony). 
    
    I owned an MT-32 and I don't think it could possibly have this problem
    because each "part" had a fixed unique MIDI channel.
    
    The problem I am talking about is specific to doing functions such as
    splits, layers, cross-fades, etc via parts rather than patches.
    
    I think that's a mistake.  For one thing, on the U-220 (and any other
    similar kind of implementation that I can imagine) you now need
    to burn an extra channel (Rx  or "control" channel in Roland-speak)
    that does nothing but get MIDI program changes to determine what
    patch to use.  You essentially can't use the channel for anything
    but that.
    
    	db
    
    p.s.  In case folks don't understand the concept of the "control"
    channel:
    
    With the U-220, you have 6 parts with assigned channels.  The
    assignment of channels-to-parts (among other things) constitutes
    a "patch".   MIDI patch change msgs controls what sound ("timbre"
    in Roland-speak) plays on that "part".
    
    So how do you select what "patch" to use via MIDI?  That's what the
    control channel is for.
    

    Not sure I get your problem, then.
    
    On an MT-32 to get a layer, you need to send out identical information
    to two parts on *different* MIDI channels.  On the U-220 you assign two
    parts to the *same* channel.  So what, both ways use up two parts.
    
    The control channel thing can be a plus.  That way you can easily call up
    new multi-setups with program change commands.  Try that on an FB01,
    you have to do it via sysex dump or buttons on the front panel.   For
    live use, it can simplify things.  On a K1, for instance, programs 0-63
    are "single" patches, 64-95 are "multis".  You can build up complex
    split/zone/layers and call them up with one button push.
    
    To put it another way, you could equate the U220 "patch" or the K1
    "multi" to the ESQ1 mix/MIDI "template" (assuming all tracks are set
    local).
    
    						Brian

    Of course, the Proteus has no such limitation.
    
8-)

    re: .48
    
    The MT-32 has 9 parts which is half again as many parts as the U-220.
    
    The control channel IS useful, but I'd rather use it for other things
    such as routing my outputs,  shutting on and off MIDI channels, etc.
    
    Equating the U-220 to the ESQ "template" (or really "Sequence")
    again you have 8 instead of 6.
    
    I strongly suspect that the limitation of 6 was influenced by less
    than primary considerations like memory space and the number of
    outputs.  It's not clear to me that it actually requires more hardware
    and signal paths but I'm not really sure about that.
    
    re: .49 (Brad - you're baiting me- right, db?)
    
    >  Of course, the Proteus has no such limitation.
    
    Alas!  If ONLY it had loadable samples.  Sigh....
    
    Oh well, I'm sure they'll get it right NEXT time.  ;-)
    
    	baitin' db

    OK, now I understand, you're complaining about the fact that there are
    only 6 parts, not how the architecture itself is set up. 
    
    							Brian

    Well, it's because there are only 6 parts that I'm having problems
    but frankly, I'm not happy with the architectural aspect of putting
    x-fades, x-overs, splits and layers into the "multi" level of the
    hierarchy.
    
    IMHO the architecture should have the following components
    
    1. The "timbres" (individual sounds)
    
    2. The "programs" which combine timbres into splits, x-fades, x-overs
       layers, effects, etc.
    
    3. The "patches" which control response to individual MIDI channels
       and route the programs to specific outputs, transposition of
       specific parts.  Basically it controls what the "parts" do.
    
    4. The setup (only one "setup") which controls global things
       like "control channel", tuning, UI, etc.
    
    The problem is that the U-220 only has 1,3 and 4 and elected to dump
    2 with 3 rather than 1 (like on the S-550!).
    
    The key point here is that IMHO there's this notion of a "keyboard
    setup", which is sorta what happens with regards to splits, layers,
    velocity x-fades, etc. on ONE MIDI channel.  
    
    The problem with the U-220 design is that it throws into the
    MIDI "multi-mode" concept (the U-220 "patch") and I feel that 
    the "keyboard setup" is really something that you might want to
    "share" between "patches".  But with the U-220 architecture, the
    only way to "share" it between patches is to "duplicate" it.
    
    Basically I think they made a bad choice on where (2) got thrown
    in.
    
    However, even so, it's still better than a Proteus.  ;-)
    
    	db

    What in the world have I done?  Better than a Proteus?  Different, yes
    ... but *BETTER*?  Them thar's fiytn wurds!  I dare you to come to Ohio
    here and say that.  (If you do, bring some gear and we'll jam for a
    bit. 8-)
    
    Not that it pertains to the discussion, but Sweetwater Sound in Ft.
    Wayne, IN is selling Proteus 1 for $675, and Proteus 1/XR for $875.
    
    According to them, upgrade cards will be available sometime toward the
    end of the calendar year and will go for between $350-400 (real price,
    not list, which remains $495).  The new ROM supposedly is *synth*
    oriented (as opposed to acoustic duplication-oriented, like the P/2).
    The idea is simple: if you want a "synth" Proteus, get the /1.  If you
    want an "acoustic" Proteus, get the /2.
    
+b

    re: .44 (Richard Bauer) 
    
    >I would like to know if it's possible to select the controller number
    >for modulation or whatsoever,
    
    You can set 3 CC numbers to do any of the following:
    
    	Timbre level
    	Env Attack Rate
    	Env Decay Rate
    	Env Sustain Level
    	Env Release Rate
    	Auto Bend Depth
    	Auto Bend Rate
    	Detune depth
    	Vibrato Rate
    	Vibrato Depth
    	Vibrato Rise Time
    	Vibrato Modulation Depth
    
    	Chorus Level
    	Chorus Rate
    	Chorus Feedback
    	Reverb Level
    	Delay Feedback
    
    The U-220 also responds to the standard pitch bend, MIDI Volume, Chan
    and Poly aftertouch (which can be programmed to affect volume and/or
    pitch) CC's.
    
    > I.E. can I use my breath controller?
    
    You tell me.
    
    	db

>    
>    You can set 3 CC numbers to do any of the following:
>    
If CC number means controller number, then it should be possible to assign the
number for the breath controller (3 ?).

>    The U-220 also responds to the standard pitch bend, MIDI Volume, Chan
>    and Poly aftertouch (which can be programmed to affect volume and/or
>    pitch) CC's.
>    
I just learned that CUBASE has a built-in MIDI processor that allows to
redirect controller numbers, so I could map breath controller to aftertouch
(which is what CASIO is using for it's CS-100 "toy" sax).


thanks and best regards

	Richard

	re: .-1

	i.e. Midi Volume = CC 7

	The MIDI spec has a listing of all "registered controllers", and
	each manufacturer has the option of using "unregistered controllers"
	which are not to be confused with SYSEX parameters.

    > What's a CC?
    
    It stands for (I believe) "continuous controller".
    
    There are something like 64 possible CC's but some of them are
    defined by the MIDI standard to have standard functions: MIDI
    volume (CC#7), channel pressure/aftertouch, pitch bend, mod-wheel
    etc.
    
    > If CC number means controller number, then it should be possible to
    > assign the number for the breath controller (3 ?).
    
    Not sure what you're asking.  You can assign the U-220 to respond to
    controller #3 to do the specific things I listed earlier.  Also,
    I'm not sure if 3 is one of the standard CC's, in which case it
    may also be able to do other things.
    
    	db
    

    The Casio sax does not output any controller at all, just channel
    aftertouch, which is not the same as a controller.  Some of the
    Yamaha synths (like the TX81Z) will interpret aftertouch as though
    it was Breath Controller.
    
    So the first trick is to convert channel aftertouch to a controller,
    then worry about making that controller affect the thing you want it to
    affect.

>    Not sure what you're asking.  You can assign the U-220 to respond to
>    controller #3 to do the specific things I listed earlier.  Also,
>    I'm not sure if 3 is one of the standard CC's, in which case it
>    may also be able to do other things.
>    
That's exactly what I was looking for ! Next action is to get an U-220......

	thanks and best regards

		Richard

  Hi.  I've noticed this on several U-220s now, so I know it's not just mine.
  On some patches, especially noticable on the acoustic piano patch, there is
  a very high pitched "ringing" sound when notes are played.

  Another owner of a U-220 said it had to do with the built-in effects.
  The level of the internal tones going into the reverb was "overdriving" it.
  He said lowering the level would alleviate the problem.  Well it did
  minimize it, but it didn't exactly alleviate it.

  This is my main quirk with the piano on the U-220.  Sometimes I don't even
  notice it, and other times it drives me crazy!

  Does anyone else know what I'm talking about?  How have you dealt with it
  and what IS causing it?

  Thanks.

-Tom
 

    Anyone out there have a U20 with version 3 ROM?

    The "ringing" in the acoustic piano patch is driving me crazy as well. 
    I played with it for several hours last night and only got more annoyed
    about it the longer spent.
    
    On factory patch #1 "Acoustic Piano" the ringing seems to be worst in
    the lower 5th octave.  As you pass from key D5 to D#5 it suddenly
    turns into a nice believable decay.  I found that by editing the timbre
    and selecting tone #1 (instead of the default tone #2), the point where
    the ringing ends is between B5/C5.  I wonder how many "samples" are
    spread across the keyboard and if there are seperate samples for each
    of the 10 piano "tones"???
    
    I also found that the effect could be lessened somewhat by setting
    the "decay" parameter of the timbre to +1 or +2, but it also takes
    much of the "life" out of the sound.
    
    I tried bypassing the effects unit with no success...  Although I
    didn't try sourcing from the "dry" outputs.  I also didn't try backing
    off on the module output level as suggested in .60
    
    Does this bother anyone else, or am I being over critical?  I find
    that any piece that requires B5-D5 for more than a whole note is
    real disturbing to my ears.  Since I'm pretty heavy on the sustain
    pedal, this happens alot.
    
    This all really suprised me since most companies put the piano patch in
    the #1 slot to showcase their products with.  Since the ringing isn't
    consistant across the whole keyboard, I assume there isn't a
    fundamental problem of some sort that a little more sample ROM couldn't
    have fixed.
    
    Brian
    
    

    Is U220 compatible with MT32 so that PC-games that support MT32 or
    MT32 librarian/editor would would work - to the extend of MT32
    capabilities, of course.
    
    I now have RA50, a Roland arranger which is basically a MT32 coupled
    with arranger functionality in the same box. That's from the SYSEX point
    of view as well. Would like to have more advanced SGU but retain the 
    game compatibility Sierra offers - has everybody been able to hear the
    music in games like ICEMAN, Larry III, Kings Quest V, Camelot - they
    are just SUPER played thru MT32!
    
    -Pasi-

    The U220 and MT32 are totally different beasts, and you cannot load
    MT32 sounds into a U220.  You might want to try a D110 instead, type
    dir/key=d110 to find the relevant notes.
    
    							Brian

I'm in the process of deciding between a U220 and a Proteus.  As part of my
"research," I've typed in the presets on the U220 and thought I'd share them
here.

SINGLE and V-SW tone types use 1 voice of polyphony per note, the others use
2 voices of polyphony per note.

U220 Preset Tones			

No.	Tone Name	Tone Type	Remarks
1	A. Piano 1	V-MIX		Soft
2	A. Piano 2	V-MIX	
3	A. Piano 3	V-MIX		Bright
4	A. Piano 4	V-MIX		Honky-tonk
5	A. Piano 5	SINGLE		Soft
6	A. Piano 6	DETUNE		Soft
7	A. Piano 7	SINGLE		Hard
8	A. Piano 8	DETUNE		Hard
9	A. Piano 9	SINGLE		Hard and bright
10	A. Piano 10	DETUNE		Hard and bright
11	E. Piano 1	V-MIX		Soft + Hard
12	E. Piano 2	SINGLE		Soft
13	E. Piano 3	DETUNE		Soft
14	E. Piano 4	SINGLE		Hard
15	E. Piano 5	DETUNE		Hard
16	BRIGHT EP1	SINGLE	
17	BRIGHT EP2	DETUNE	
18	VIB 1		SINGLE		Soft
19	VIB 2		DETUNE		Soft
20	VIB 3		V-MIX		Soft + Hard
21	BELL 1		SINGLE		Long decay
22	BELL 2		DETUNE		Long decay
23	MARIMBA		SINGLE	
24	A. GUITAR 1	SINGLE	
25	A. GUITAR 2	DETUNE	
26	A. GUITAR 3	DUAL	
27	A. GUITAR 4	DUAL		Added lower octave
28	A. GUITAR 5	V-SW		Slow attack/fast (v=100)b
29	E. GUITAR 1	V-SW		Muted/unmuted (v=100)
30	E. GUITAR 2	SINGLE		Muted
31	E. GUITAR 3	SINGLE	
32	E. GUITAR 4	DETUNE	
33	HEAVY.EG 1	SINGLE		Combination fifths
34	HEAVY.EG 2	DETUNE		Combination fifths
35	SLAP 1		SINGLE		"Thumbed, pulled, harmonics (E2, F#4)"
36	SLAP 2		DETUNE		"Thumbed, pulled, harmonics (E2, F#4)"
37	SLAP 3		SINGLE		"Thumbed, pulled, harmonics (B2, F#4)"
38	SLAP 4		DETUNE		"Thumbed, pulled, harmonics (B2, F#4)"
39	SLAP 5		V-SW		"Thumbed/pulled (v=100), harmonics (F#4)"
40	SLAP 6		V-SW		"Slow attack/fast attack (v=100), harmonics (F#4)"
41	SLAP 7		SINGLE		"Thumbed, pulled, harmonics (B2, C#4)"
42	SLAP 8		DETUNE		"Thumbed, pulled, harmonics (B2, C#4)"
43	SLAP 9		SINGLE		"Thumbed, pulled, harmonics (B2, C#4)"
44	SLAP 10		DETUNE		"Thumbed, pulled, harmonics (B2, C#4)"
45	SLAP 11		V-SW		"Thumbed/pulled (v=100), harmonics (C#4)"
46	SLAP 12		V-SW		"Slow attack/fast attack (v=100), harmonics (C#4)"
47	FINGERED 1	SINGLE		"Fingered, harmonics (C#5)"
48	FINGERED 2	DETUNE		"Fingered, harmonics (C#5)"
49	PICKED 1	SINGLE	
50	PICKED 2	DETUNE	
51	FRETLESS 1	SINGLE		"Fretless, harmonics (D#6)"
52	FRETLESS 2	DETUNE		"Fretless, harmonics (D#6)"
53	AC.BASS		V-MIX		Added fret noise
54	SYN.BASS 1	V-MIX		Soft + hard
55	SYN.BASS 2	SINGLE		Soft
56	SYN.BASS 3	SINGLE		Hard
57	SYN.BASS 4	SINGLE	
58	SYN.BASS 5	SINGLE	
59	SYN.BASS 6	SINGLE	
60	SYN.BASS 7	SINGLE	
61	SYN.BASS 8	V-MIX	
62	CHOIR 1		SINGLE		Long decay
63	CHOIR 2		SINGLE		Short decay
64	CHOIR 3		DUAL		"Long decay, added lower"
65	CHOIR 4		DUAL		"Short decay, added lower octave"
66	STRINGS 1	SINGLE		Long decay
67	STRINGS 2	SINGLE		Short decay
68	STRINGS 3	DUAL		"Long decay, added lower"
69	STRINGS 4	DUAL		"Short decay, added lower octave"
70	E.ORGAN 1	SINGLE	
71	E.ORGAN 2	DETUNE	
72	E.ORGAN 3	SINGLE	
73	E.ORGAN 4	DETUNE	
74	E.ORGAN 5	SINGLE	
75	E.ORGAN 6	DETUNE	
76	E.ORGAN 7	SINGLE	
77	E.ORGAN 8	DETUNE	
78	E.ORGAN 9	DUAL	
79	R.ORGAN 1	DUAL	
80	R.ORGAN 2	DUAL	
81	SOFT TP 1	SINGLE	
82	SOFT TP 2	DETUNE	
83	TP/TRB 1	SINGLE	
84	TP/TRB 2	SINGLE		Soft
85	TP/TRB 3	SINGLE		Bright
86	SAX 1		SINGLE	
87	SAX 2		SINGLE		Soft
88	SAX 3		SINGLE		Bright
89	SAX 4		DETUNE	
90	SAX 5		DUAL		Added lower octave
91	BRASS 1		SINGLE		
92	FLUTE 1		SINGLE		
93	SHAKU 1		SINGLE		
94	SHAKU 2		DETUNE		
95	FANTASIA	DUAL	
96	BELL PAD	DUAL	
97	SYN CHOIR	SINGLE	
98	BREATH VOX	DUAL	
99	SYN.VOX 1	SINGLE	
100	SYN.VOX 2	SINGLE	
101	L.CALLIOPE	DUAL	
102	CALLIOPE	SINGLE	
103	METAL HIT	DUAL	
104	RICH BRASS	SINGLE	
105	JP.BRASS 1	SINGLE	
106	JP.BRASS 2	SINGLE	
107	BRASTRINGS	DUAL	
108	STRINGPAD1	SINGLE	
109	STRINGPAD2	DUAL	
110	JP.STRINGS	SINGLE	
111	PIZZAGOGO	DUAL	
112	FANTA BELL	SINGLE	
113	SPECT BELL	DUAL	
114	BELL DRUM	DUAL	
115	SYNTH HARP	SINGLE	
116	PULSEWAVE1	SINGLE	
117	PULSEWAVE2	SINGLE	
118	PULSEWAVE3	SINGLE	
119	SAW WAVE 1	SINGLE	
120	SAW WAVE 2	SINGLE	
121	PIZZ		SINGLE	
122	METAL		SINGLE	
123	BREATH		SINGLE	
124	NAILS		SINGLE	
125	SPECTRUM 1	SINGLE	
126	SPECTRUM 2	SINGLE	
127	N.DANCE		SINGLE	
128	DRUMS		SINGLE		Refer to drums list
			
Drums List			
Note	Tone Name		
35	Bass Drum 1		
36	Bass Drum 2		
37	Rim Shot		
38	Snare Drum 1		
39	Hand Clap		
40	Snare Drum 2		
41	Low Tom Tom 1		
42	Closed High Hat 1		
43	Low Tom Tom 2		
44	Open High Hat 2		
45	Middle Tom Tom 1		
46	Open High Hat 1		
47	Middle Tom Tom 2		
48	High Tom Tom 1		
49	Crash Cymbal		
50	High Tom Tom 2		
51	Ride Cymbal		
52	China Cymbal		
53	Cup (Mute)		
54	Off		
55	Off		
56	Cowbell		
57	Crash Cymbal		
58	Snare Drum 3		
59	Ride Cymbal		
60	Off		
61	Off		
62	Off		
63	Off		
64	Off		
65	Off		
66	Off		
67	Off		
68	Off		
69	Cabasa		
70	Off		
71	Off		
72	Off		
73	Off		
74	Off		
75	Off		
76	Off		
77	Off		
78	Off		
79	High Pitch Tom Tom 2		
80	Off		
81	High Pitch Tom Tom 1		
82	Off		
83	Off		
84	Bass Drum 3		
85	Bass Drum 4		
86	Snare Drum 4		
87	Snare Drum 5		
88	Snare Drum 6		
89	Low Tom Tom 3		
90	Closed High Hat 2		
91	Middle Tom Tom 3		
92	China Cymbal		
93	High Tom Tom 3		
94	Ride Cymbal		
95	Off		
96	Off		

Hi folks !

Since the U110 is sold fairly cheap (new and even more used ones), it would be
interesting to know if anybody had a chance to compare the sound of the U110 
and U220. I know the differences technically (31 vs.30 voices, 4 slots vs. 2,
static vs. dynamic voice allocation). However, they also claim that the sound
would have improved (less noise). Is it essential ? Is it worth the money ?
Also, has anybody had a chance to compare the drum sounds of the U110/U220 with 
the R8(M) ?

	thanks for sharing...

		Richard

    Re .67
    
    This kind of issues is always quite personal IMO. Two years ago I
    bought a U-110, since I thought it was the best choice available 
    then. Last year I recorded a compact disc with three other 
    musicians (flute, base, drums) and a wind band. Especially for
    piano intro's I found that the U-110 had too much noise, even
    without using the in-built effects. I therefore decided to trade
    in my U-110 for a U-220, which cost me $500. I found it worthwhile,
    although the studio might have been able to reduce the noise from the
    U-110.
    If you want to hear the difference: reduce the output level to around
    40 and then turn up the volume knob to around maximum. Try this with
    in-built effects off and on. Then try to decide whether this is
    acceptable in your situation. For live performances, you can always
    blame the amplifiers (!).
    
    John.
    
    
                              

    
    Does anyone know where I can get a U220 patch editor for the ATART ST.
    
    I'm sick of fiddling with little buttons!!!!!
    
    
    

    
    Dr. T's XOR will handle the U220, plus is a "generic" editor that can
    handle all of your other SGUs (if you have any).
    
    Hybrid Arts GenEdit is a similar product.  Both are pricey (>$200).
    
    							Brian

    The U-220 isn't compatable with the MT-32.
    
    I'm a guy who sold his MT-32 and has just finished converting a bunch
    of his MT-32 based sequences to the U-220.  Learned A LOT about the
    U-220 in the process.
    
    I think what you want is the D-110 - my understanding is that it's
    not 100% compatable with the MT-32 either, but that all you need to
    do to make it 99% compatable is to create a patch map, and I think that
    Ram Sudama has already done that and published it in here somewhere.
    
    I haven't found it very hard to convert most of my MT-32 sequences
    to U-220.  The main problem has been missing sounds.  I recently
    bought the LATIN-2 card and it filled in a lot of gaps in terms of
    T-40 sounds (mainly latin percussion, orchestra hits, etc.)
    
    First, I think I should avoid a pratfall with terminology.  What we
    normally think of as a "patch" (a sound like strings, organ, etc.)
    is actually called a "timbre" in U-220 nomenclature.  A U-220 patch
    is what other companies often call a "performance setup".  A U-220
    patch basically determines how each of 6 "parts" responds to MIDI
    such as:
    
    	o What "timbre" the part plays]
    	o What MIDI channel it responds to
    	o Whether or not to ignore MIDI program changes and MIDI volume
    	  changes
    
    The way *I* converted my sequences was to completely AVOID mapping.  
    In my sequences each particular sound has it's own dedicated channel.
    That is I don't really use MIDI program changes to change sounds
    for a particular channel, and I have a generally followed standard
    as to how channels are used (like bass is always channel 4, drums are
    channel 10, horns are 7, strings are 8, etc.).
    
    To convert a tune, all I had to do was find the right U-220 sound and
    assign it to a "part" and have that part NOT respond to patch changes.
    
    Generally speaking the only thing I had to do to the sequencer data
    was to add one MIDI PROGRAM change to select the right "patch" for
    the song.
    
    	In case this is confusing, each U-220 part responds to a
    	MIDI channel, and MIDI program changes select what sound ("timbre")
    	to play on that channel.  However you can designate one channel
    	as a "control" channel and program changes on THAT channel
    	select what "patch" to play).
    
    I was actually thinking of dumping my U-220 in favor of a D-110 just
    to make the conversion easier, but I found out it wasn't really that
    hard to do the conversion from the U-220 side (rather than from the
    sequencer) and the U-220 sounds are MUCH more realistic and clean
    than the D-110.
    
    I'll tell you this about the D-110 and MT-32 however.  I have found
    them to have the most USEFUL combination of builtin sounds for the
    stuff I do, and I've looked at a LOT of similar devices.  It basically
    has everything you seem to need to do rock and particularly T-40
    stuff (which is mostly what I use it for).  I've never needed a sound
    that the MT-32 didn't have.
    
    	db

    One programming tip for the U-220.
    
    I think the obvious habit to fall into when "looking for sounds" is
    to search through the timbres that come with the unit.
    
    This is NOT a good idea.
    
    The right way to search for sounds is to search through the TONES.
    
    I.E. I think it's important to setup a generic, basic "blank" timbre
    (I keep it in slot 128) that has no modulation, detuning, auto bend
    or anything like that.   I also find it handy to call it "ZZZZZZZZ"
    only because it makes renaming it easier as capital Z is sorta
    the halfway point in the range of letters that are typically used
    and because you have to step through letters and such, renaming
    your patch can be among the most time-consuming parts of creating
    a patch.
    
    	(What I wouldn't give for the VFX feature that allows you to use
    	the keyboard keys to "type" in the name!  Each key selects a
    	character/letter/number/etc and advances the cursor)
    
    So anyway, when you're looking for a sound, get into the
    EDIT/TIMBRE/TONE page and just loop thru the tones until you find
    whatever seems to best suit the need, and THEN modify the other
    parameters of the timbre.

    	I've got a copy of Dr T's XOR for the Atari-ST...  It does come
    with a U-220 driver and seems to do a pretty good job of allowing you
    to easily select sounds, build "timbres/patches" and play with the effects
    settings.  The real beauty of the beast is that you can diddle all your
    SGUs within the realm of the same program and then save the entire
    set-up away to be recalled later.  If you have the Omega release of
    KCS, you can even restore your entire set-up from a KCS sequence.
    
    	XOR can be had for $199 at several mail-order places.  It looks
    like a good deal to me if you have 2 or more SGUs to control.  It
    seems to support most of the larger selling synths from the past
    2-3 years, and there is a BBS that you can down-load new drivers from
    at no charge.  It also comes with the tools to write your own drivers,
    but it doesn't look like a week-end sort of job...
    
    Brian
    

    Captain Techno-Ignorant here ;-)
    
    Are the "brains" of the U-20 (keyboard) and the U220 (SGU) the same?
    Is the patch list a few replies back that same as in the U-20?
    
    Thanks.
    
    Steve

    
    I'm a new U-220 owner and very new to MIDI. Man, am I havin' fun...
    
    How can turn the chorus effect completely off for a specific sound.
    (acoustic piano)
    The effect options menu consists of CHORUS/REVERB. What if you want
    neither? The manual doesn't say how to turn it off (from what I can
    see). I tried just setting all the CHORUS parameters to zero but
    that still seems to leave a trace of chorus sound...
    
    Thanks for any input
    
    Phil

    re: .75
    
    This is from memory but I think here's the menu chain you want to
    be in:
    
    	EDIT/PATCH/PART/OUTPUT
    
    There's a parameter on that page - I'm not sure what it's called but
    look in the manual - it's DEFINITELY there although, being a
    more-or-less typically pathetic Roland manual, it may be hard to
    understand.
    
    Again, one of the things I think EVERY U-220 owner should do is create
    a 'BASIC' "patch" and a basic "timbre".  That is a patch with all
    settings set to something fairly simple (no modulation, reasonable
    velocity response, dry output, etc.) and ALWAYS START from those
    patches (i.e. edit them into what you need).
    
    I.E. avoid taking the factory patches and editing them unless they
    are already close to what you need.
    
    	db

    
    re. -1 
    
    db,
    
    Thanks much, that did the job. Definitely understand why you suggest
    creating a "template" patch, now that I've played around with the
    U220 a bit. 
    
    The manual looks like it was supposed to be an internal reference guide 
    for the engineers did the U220 design. 
    
    Phil

    Just diagnosed what I think could be a common "gotcha" with the U-220.
    
    It will stall and cause a brief but noticeable glitch in your sequence
    if you attempt to change rhythm kits (drum kits, whatever they call it)
    on the fly.
    
    As my sequencer sends patch change at the beginning of each sequence
    in a song, I was running across this quite a bit and had no clue what
    was causing it until I found that PARTICULAR sequences cause the 
    MIDI recieve light to flicker (switching from one sequence to another)
    while other almost identical sequences didn't and figure out the
    difference was that the glitching sequences were sending VALID
    kit changes, and the non-glitching sequences were sending INVALID
    kit changes (program # above the legal range) which, it turns out,
    are ignored.
    
    So there are two possible solutions:
    
    	o Have it ignore rhythm kit changes (a SETUP option) or
    
    	o Give it INVALID patch changes
    
    I use the former as all my rhythm kits are selected by the PATCH.
    
    	db

    Another neat U-220 trick - reverse or "swelling crash".
    
    There's an effect used on lots of T-40 tunes these days.  Generally
    speaking it is a crash cymbal run in reverse - it "swells" and is
    usually abruptly ended by a snare hit or some other kind of accent.
    
    It's very simple - each instrument in the drum kit has it's own
    envelope.  I chose the main crash cymbal sound (I think it's like C#3,
    instrument #49 or so),  and used the envelopes to get the "swell"
    (if anyone is really interested, let me know and I'll post the
    exact settings - btw you also need to set one of the parameter (name?) to
    Sustain Instead of NoSustain).
    
    You use the "mute" feature to have other sounds cut this one off.
    
    I set this SUSTAIN part of the envelope to have a gentle sustain.
    This gives you a couple of options:
    
    	1) If you don't cut the sound off, this sound works as a decent
    	   cymbal roll
    
    	2) You can cut the sound off by hitting some other drum that
    	   specifies this sound as its "mute"
    
    	3) If you want to cut the sound off by hitting a non-drum
           (something you can't specify a "mute" for), say an orchestra
    	   hit, or even just to do a swell that abruptly ends without
    	   an accent (pretty effective too) what I do is this:
    
    	   I reserve one key not to have ANY sound associated with it.
    	   I have found this useful for punching-in on my synth (this
    	   is due to how my SQ-80 punches in and not worth going into).
    
    	   If you specify the reverse crash as this "blank" keys mute
    	   you can cut the crash off quickly w/o having any other sound
    	   by hitting the blank key.
    
    This really adds a lot to some T-40 sequences.

    A question for U220 owners...(which will no doubt display my
    MIDI-illetracy...)
    
    One basic function of MIDI seems to be "chaining" SGUs together to get
    "fatter" sounds, say - using the Rhodes sound of an MKS20 MIDI'd with
    the strings of a U220 (that kind of thing).
    
    Where the U220 has built in effects, is it possible to create a "patch"
    (may not be the right word) in the U220 that is soley effect?  The
    purpose of that would be to have the U220 act as a MIDI FX unit (albeit
    limited no doubt).  In keeping with the above example, you might use
    the Rhodes sound of an MKS20 MIDI'd with the U220, only the "sound"
    you're triggering in the U220 is the reverb or delay.
    
    Anyone know if that's possible?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Steve
  

    re: .-1
    
    You're not likely to find any synths or samplers that add efx to an
    externally generated sound.  Most of them, the U-220 included, can only
    apply effects to INTERNALLY generated sounds.
    
    I'm not aware of anything that can do what I think you are looking
    to do.  True EFX processors really require AUDIO inputs, not MIDI inputs. 
    
    	db

    Re: -.1, -.2
    
    The U220 will not do what you want, as Dave said.  
    
    However, Korg just announced the first SGU that *does* let you route
    external signals through the FX; the rack version of the WaveStation
    has this feature.
    
    						Brian

    Does the 220 have a "wet/dry" mix control?
    
    If yes, then you could pick your favorite patch, add reverb, set
    to 100% wet, and MIDI to your favorite sound. When you play back,
    only the reverb from the 220 hits the mixer. 
    
    You could have a piano that reverberates as horns, or whatever...
    
    Edd

    hmmm...
    
    >You could have a piano that reverberates as horns, or whatever...
    
    Youch!  Great idea!  8-)
    
    Thanks for the info, all...
    
    Steve

    re: .83
    
    I'm not 100% sure but I don't think the U-220 has a wet-dry mix, I
    think its more like an "effects depth" mix so you have no control
    over how much direct goes to the outputs its always 100%.
    
    Basically the answer is "no", you really need a true reverb.

    
    I didn't buy the U220 for it's drums sounds but was suprised to find
    that this unit has no Latin percussion sounds from the factory.
    Buying a $65 card (which I assume there must be one) for Latin
    sounds is a drag, as this make the stock drums really limited. 
    
    Are prices for cards still $65?? Anybody know of some good deals
    via Mail Order???
    
    Orchestral Strings is real nice. 
    
    Phil  (still don't know a lot about this unit, but it's coming along)
    
    

    re: .86
    
>    I didn't buy the U220 for it's drums sounds but was suprised to find
>    that this unit has no Latin percussion sounds from the factory.
>    Buying a $65 card (which I assume there must be one) for Latin
>    sounds is a drag, as this make the stock drums really limited. 
    
    Well, I was a bit surprised too.  I don't care so much about the
    $65 as I do having for having to take up one of the two ROM slots
    for what is more or less "standard" percussion sounds used in a
    large portion of songs.
    
    Anyway, the card you want is LATIN-2 and I think you will be VERY
    happy with the sounds on it.
    
    I was pleasantly surprised that it had quite a few other useful
    things besides latin percussion including something I desperately
    needed for my T-40 band: Orchestra Hit.
    
    It also has stuff like: Zap gun, scratch, alarms, non-latin (strictly
    speaking) percussion and stuff like that.  I'm quite happy with it.
    
>    Are prices for cards still $65?? Anybody know of some good deals
>    via Mail Order???
    
    I got mine on sale at Daddy's for something lik $56 less a 15% VIP
    discount.  But generally speaking these things don't seem to be heavily
    discounted.
    
>    Phil  (still don't know a lot about this unit, but it's coming along)
    
    I was very dissapointed with it at first, but once I sorta got round to
    using it more, I'm quite happy with it.  I just wish there were more
    ways to "tweak" the sounds (like having a TVF).
    
    I'm still dissapointed that they haven't come out with more cards for
    it.  I bought it over the Proteus largely on that basis but a Roland
    rep has promised me that a batch more cards are in the works.
    
    Brian Rost and I have observed that Roland is VERY fickle about
    architectures.  Almost every synth is incompatable and it seems (at
    least to me) that they come out with a lot of things with ROM card
    slots or loadable software, they produce maybe a half a dozen cards
    and then something newer and slightly incompatable comes out and
    that's all you get.
    
    I'm dissapointed that more hasn't been done with the S-550 software,
    and I'm disssapointed that there aren't many more cards for the U-220.
    
    A lot of companies have this problem - its life in the COMMUSIC world
    that you don't stay current for very long - but I think that could
    be greatly improved upon by adopting some sorta of common architecture.
    
    I see no reason why ANY card that contains PCM sampled data couldn't
    be used for ALL of Rolands PCM-sampled based stuff - U-110, U-220,
    D-70, R-8, etc. etc.
    
    Roland is big enough to really throw some leverage on these ROM cards
    if they were to just do this.
    
    

There's a tale told 'round COMMUSIC campfires late at night that Roland *did*
invent a common sample card architecture once upon a time. However, the design
was inadvertently put on a WOM (Write-Only Memory) card and thus lost to us
forever. Oh, alas and alack!

Cheers,
	Bob (feeling somewhat fey today)

    Hi Folks !
    
    If Roldand doesn't do it, then 3rd parties may do it. There is a German
    company called Musitronics that has specialized in Roland add-ons. They
    have built the D50/550 M.EX Expansion (multi-mode), the D50/550 PCM.EX
    for PCM sample expansion, a D50/550 Speed-System (40% faster) and brand
    new the PCM Programmer.
    
    The PCM-Programmer is a box built your own cards for
    D-70,U-20,U-220,U-110 (and all other compatible like RA50 etc.)+ D50/55
    with the PCM.EX mentioned above. It's connected to the DMA-Port of the
    ATARI and can receive dumps via MIDI Sample Dump and in AVALON format. 
    The software allows specification of Name, Single, Dual, Detune, V-Mix
    and V-Switch. Start- and Looppoints are programmable or are taken from
    AVALON-Format. The available RAM-Cards of 1-Mbit and 2-Mbit allow up to
    100 PCM samples or up to 50 LA samples. The price aroud 500 DM ( about
    300$).
    
    	Richard

    
    .79;
    
    That's a clever idea. I can't wait to get home and try it !
    Maybe U220 owners could place some of their tricks and such in here for
    the benefit of all.
    
    Dave, maybe you could post the exact settings hinted at in .79 ?
    
    peter
    
    
    

    re: .90
    
    >  Dave, maybe you could post the exact settings hinted at in .79 ?
    
    I'll try and remember to have a look tonite and jot them down.

    
    Anyone know what U-220's are going for these days?  The slimy sales guy
    I spoke with last night said the Roland raised the price (yeah, sure!).
    
    Can it still be had for around 700 bux?
    
    -Ed
    

    They *did* up the price!  I was really shocked.  I remember last year,
    I had called Caruso's and they quoted $695 - now I believe they're
    getting about $750 (don't quote me on this) and other stores are
    charging more.
    
    I'd suggest finding a used one.
    
    Gee - maybe Dan Gosselin might be selling his ;-)  
    (it's a joke son, I say, it's, I say it's a joke!)
    
    Steve

    I saw in a computer magazine a place advertizing U220's for $599.
    
    Too bad I can't find that magazine anymore... 8^)
    
    	Dan
    

    Sightsinger Music in Santa Ana, California has 'em for $700. Downey
    Music in Downey, California has 'em for $700. Why pay more?
    
    -Paul

    Have any U-220 users out there tried any 3rd party Users manuals
    for the Roland U-220. There are manuals published by Alexander Pub,
    and one from an outfit in Santa Monica, CA. 
    
    I bought two of the Alexander books on the Korg M1 and felt like
    I didn't get much for my money which is why I'm trying to ascertain
    if there are any manuals Worth their price on the U-220.
    
    "I won't get fooled again!"
    
    So, if you've bought a manual on the U-220 please reply here and
    give a critique of it for everyone's benefit. THANK_YOU!!!
    
    -Paul

    
    re: .-1
    
    It's got to be better than the Roland Manual !!
    
    								
    

    >     It's got to be better than the Roland Manual !!
    
    Believe it or not, the U-220 manual is probably the best Roland manual
    I've read.
    
    Of course, it still sucks compared to almost any other MIDI manual
    I have.
    
    	"You want a good manual, or a good product?"
    
    		- Chuck Vandemann, regional Roland rep

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Anyone know if any new cards have been released ? Is there anyway to
    add more sounds to this beast if Roland decides not to make any new cards ?
    
    Peter
    
    

    See .89.  Unless this German system shows up, you may be outta luck.  I
    think Roland has added one or two cards recently, but since they're not
    100% compatible with the newer Roland boxes (see the D-70 note for
    more) as promised, they may not bother to keep cranking 'em out.
    
    Other than cards there is no way to add new sounds unless a clever
    hacker comes along...
    
    						Brian

    My understanding is that there are third-party cards available.  The
    folks at Wurly's indicated that their Boston store has/had them.
    I've looked in a couple of trade rags, but haven't seen ads for them.
    And, I've been hounding Wurly's for Roland D70 PCM cards.  They don't
    hear anything.  It's almost as though Roland said, "You won't buy this
    synth unless you can add more PCM sounds?  There, now you can add PCM
    sounds.  What, you want we should make 'em for ya?  Well, ..."
    
    I suspect that Roland is moving toward sample dump standard in an LA
    box since the trend seems to be that way.  Once they do that, bye bye
    PCM cards ...  Hmmm, I might have to trade up ...  Meanwhile, I'm
    keeping my eye half-way open for U110 cards that will work on the D70.
    
    Steve

    
    BTW, the last card I got was a Rhodes 660 card(ETHNIC - Tablas,Sitars,
    etc). It works fine in a U220.
    
    
    Peter
    
    
    

Hi there !

Just an update on the PCM.EX programmer for U220 (and compatibles). It's still
not available, but should be ready within the next three months. However, they
are already providing additional cards. The distributor in the States is
Steinberg Jones.

BTW, the equivalent thing for Yamaha wavecards (SY/TG55,SY/TG77,SY99,RY30) is
even further out. They didn't want to give any date.

	best regards

		Richard

    
    re .-1;
    
    Where/how can one get information from Steinberg Jones about what is 
    available ?
    
    Peter
    
    

    Hi Peter !
    
    I'm sorry but I don't have any address or phone number for Steinberg
    Jones. However, I think some of our friendly noters also have Cubase
    bought in the states and should therefore have the address/phone
    number.
    Any takers ?
    
    	Richard

    
    Steinberg Jones
    17700 Raymer St,Suite 1001
    Northridge, Ca.  91325
    818-993-4091  
    
    I am going to contact them and ask about U220 compatable cards.
    
    
   Peter
    
    

    
    I just spoke to someone at Seinberg Jones. I've been told that they
    (Steinberg Jones) are not and will not be distributing any cards for
    the U220.
    
    Peter
    
    

    Hello
    	I need some help fast.  I am in a sequenced duo and all our 
    sequenced info is from Atari (c-lab) to Alesis data disk (for
    live sequencing) and it plays a U220 sound module.
    
    	 This is fine with the exception that the U220 is borrowed.  So
    I went to buy one of my own and find out that there is only a couple
    left in the country as Roland have stopped procuction.
    
    	My question is :  Is the U20 (keyboard ver) totally compatible with
    the U220.  for example will I be able to hang it straight of the data
    disk hit start and the patches will be all called up properly.
    
    	Second question:  How many outputs does it (U20) I know the U220
    has 6.  If it has only say 2 outs do you think this will be a limiting
    factor (I normally only use 2)
    
    Thanks 
    Peter

I've been  sequencing  some John Williams movie soundtrack music recently, and
discovered that I needed some more sounds...

So I  picked  up  "Orchestral  Winds",  card number 6, from Caruso's for $58 +
shipping.

Now my 2 slots are taken (I also have Orchestral Strings).

Orchestral Winds:

6 Oboes (bright,normal,mellow,sf-p,detune,dual)
5 Bassoons (normal,mellow,sf-p,detune,dual)
6 Clarinets (bright,normal,mellow,sf-p,detune,dual)
5 Bass Clarinets (normal,mellow,sf-p,detune,dual)
6 French Horns (bright,normal,mellow,sf-p,detune,dual)
5 Tubas (normal,mellow,sf-p,detune,dual)
2 Timpani (v-mix,forte)

First impressions:

At 35 sounds, Orchestral Winds has a lot more sounds than Orchestral Strings.
For the most part, they are very good, but nothing REALLY blew me away.

The woodwinds  are  pretty  good,  within  a limited range of pitches (which I
believe  is  smaller than the actual range of the instrument).  I compared the
Clarinet  to  the  Kurzweil  1000PX  Clarinet.   I  felt the 1000PX was a more
realistic  sound,  especially  in the lower end of the range.  Near the top of
the range, the U220 started sounding better.

I played  French  Horn  for  4  years  back  in  high school.  I felt that the
"mellow"  variation  was the most realistic rendition on the card, although it
sounded  somewhat  affected, rather than raw.  The Baritone Horn on the 1000PX
sounds  similar,  but  is  an  extremely raw and straight tone (typical of the
1000PX).

In general,  I  thought  the higher pitched instruments (Oboes, Clarinets, and
French  Horns)  sounded  better  than the lower pitched instruments (Bassoons,
Bass Clarinets, Tubas, and Timpani).

The Timpani sounds surprised me with their lack of "boominess".  I thought the
V-MIX  version was much better than the forte version, since it gives an extra
dimension of expression.

As on  the  Orchestral  Strings  card,  the  sf-p  versions  seem to be pretty
useless.   I  think the Tremelo Strings of the Proteus 2 is the most realistic
sf-p I've heard.

Overall, a very good card!  Excellent bang for the buck.

Jim

    I pretty much agree, although when you use this with a D70 you lose
    some of the samples.  Tradeoff is that I can do lots with each sample. 
    Not sure how much control you get over amplitude and filtering with the
    U220.  I like the timpani and used it heavily for the title track of my 
    (coming out any day now) album (Tantara).  I tried using the violins of
    the "Orchestral Strings" card and was greatly disappointed by the fact
    that they INCLUDE vibrato in the samples.  Boo, hiss!  Result is you
    get zip control over vibrato with the raw sample.  There is a way
    around it with the D70 (sort of).  You can do a DLM on the sample to
    get something that sounds like a violin, but I haven't played with that
    much.  I've basically gone back to the samples on board for strings.
    I'll probably use the strings on the card for a violing solo - someday.
    
    If you like the horns, you should probably take a look at the Sax and
    Trombone card.  It's got really useful stuff for horn solos.  If I had
    the money and the immediate need, I'd probably spring for the guitar
    card.  Maybe one o' these days ...  I've got four cards so far. 
    Already I'm running against the problem of wanting to use more than one
    card for a piece.  :)
    
    Steve

    I'm getting much an unhappy camper with these cards.
    
    I bought the U-220 over the Proteus (note title of .0) largely because
    of the expandability you get from cards.
    
    Roland has dissapointed me greatly:
    
    	1) They haven't made many cards available
    	2) They don't seem to have encouraged third party cards
    	3) The quality of the sounds has been generally not much
    	   better than "not bad" but very few sounds have really
    	   grabbed me
    	4) The selection of what gets onto the cards has been 
    	   dissapointing.
    
    I'm beginning to wish I had bought a Proteus because at least THOSE
    sounds grab me!  Ultimately, I don't think I have been "better off"
    buying the U-220.
    
    C'mon Roland - you guys produce such great products and then doom them
    with:
    
    	1) Lack of continuing support (cards, upgrades, etc.)
    	2) Manuals of nearly legendary poor quality
    	3) Poor repair service
    
    I've just about had it with Roland.

    Not to dig, db, but the InVision expander for Proteus/1 makes the thing
    *highly* preferable to the U220, U220 fx notwithstanding.  I'm not
    sorry I opted for Proteus.
    
+b

    There are third-party cards for the U220 and D70.  I've not heard them. 
    One o' these days I might.  Also, my understanding is that new cards
    have been introduced at NAMM for the D70.  Dunno about the U220, but
    the D70 can take a pretty crummy sample and make it sound pretty good.
    
    Steve

	Re .112:

	I'm about to buy a Proteus/1-XR and I'm curious about 
	this InVision expander you mentioned.

	Could you provide more info about it, or point me to an
	appropriate note?

	Thanks,

		Roberto.

Hi Roberto,

I would say start with Topic # 1886. That is the main Proteus Note.

Mike D 

    re .109, specifically Roland timpani samples - same complaint about the
    R-8's timpani (on an R-8 ROM card).  Even with the timbre modification
    features of the R-8 I can't get what I want (the sound of Vic Firth
    in Symphony Hall).  I think Roland believes that timpani are supposed
    to sound that way (not like Vic, like there samples).
    
    len.