who wrote: "This synth is total rompler."

BZZZZ! WRONG. Have you actually used one? If so you would know the PCM side is completely bypassable/option and in most cases (In the best of the patches used today) the patches use Stucture 1 which if you knew anything about the D-50 you would know doesn't include ANY PCM SAMPLES at all. It's actually akin to a Virtual Analog in this regard (in fact, many say it was the first VA synth ever - it just didn't know it).

Everything that followed were ROMPLERS (M1 I'm looking at you with disgust and lack of filters) but the D-50 has an AMAZING synth architecture. What roland did was take stock of their analog synths up to that point (JP-8, JX-8P/Super JX) and say 'how can we get this but in a digital world?' And the D-50 was the answer. It's actually a very strange way to go about finding a solution to the 'problem' back in 87. It is this strangness that today makes the D-50 and infinitely programmable *SYNTH* (not a sample playback machine). Also you have to see it's wealth of features (Ring mod, PWM, 2 virtual analog synth 'units' for patches) to realise it was like a 'super synth' done in compact digital form.

After the M1 is when things changed (for the worse) not the D-50. Even Roland eventually followed (as did Yamaha) releasing pure romplers (some with great filters i.e the SY85, some with complete lack of anything special -i.e the M1).

I can't help thinking you wrote the above based on other people's misguided opinions and certainly not from any time spent actually looking at the synth's architecture. Seriously STRUCTURE 1 is an amazing thing to use on the D-50.. no samples... it's obviously not as 'fat' as a true analog (some anyway) but that misses the point, it's how it can use that unique character combined with the things only DIGITAL synths can do which makes it stunning.

Any fan of synthersizers in general who can not accept and appreciate the D-50 must be mad. I think they are actually fans of 'keyboards' and want all singing/dancing 100% realistic piano/horn/string workstation machines. It's the lack of all this that makes the D-50 able to hold it's own against certain 'classic' analog gear, those analogs can't always do what the D-50 can pull off however.

And: "The D50 is not multitimbral, unlike other D range synths. The effects are very primative. The D20 is a better deal."

Proper synth users don't really give a shit about multitimbrality.. we don't do 'all in one box' stuff. For me (and my room of synths) the D-50s lack of multitimbrality (technicaly it's bi-timbral btw) is a bonus. I love it's focus, and I love it's LACK of sequencer etc. I DETEST the modern 'synths' all singing/all dancing? Why bother? our Computers are for that (DAWS). The D-50 is to the synth world as a a Telecaster is to the guitar world. It's not an 'all in one solution' and I for one am glad. As for your 'D-20' (or any other 'D' synth) comment. I can only laugh. :)

And no it's not meant to do convincing 'real' sounds (Piano, Guitar etc), at least in today's context. At the time, yeah it made a stab at it (as did the DX7 - another misunderstood synth in a modern context), but it's seriously programmable and very powerful. Dump the presets, grab some analog banks or an editor and go to town. Beautiful.

On top of this, it has a good feel and LOOKS AMAZING, compact but purposeful, sleek and exciting. Roland hasn't made a better synth (in context) since this. It's up there with the Jupiter 8 as one of the best Roland ever made.

Grab one now before prices get even higher. Mine was £80 in almost mint condition with no faults. If I can find more for similar money I'd gladly own more of them they are that nice.