Quantcast
Anything a Juno 106 is better at than the juno 60? - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Anything a Juno 106 is better at than the juno 60?
Old 2nd July 2013 | Show parent
  #31
Gear Addict
 
3Crystals's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
[QUOTE=draven5;9192214]I don't think we're talking about them with effects processed.

Maybe not but most around here use effects with Synths.Many,Many,Many threads on best effects to use with Synth's on this forum,Especially OD and Distortion..I wonder how many record either Synth in a solo setting without effects.Probably only when comparing the 2 synths.

[[ If you process a lot of syths you wouldn't be able to hear the difference or even what synth it is. I agree ]]
Old 2nd July 2013 | Show parent
  #32
227861
Guest
[QUOTE=3Crystals;9192354]
Quote:
Originally Posted by draven5 ➡️
I don't think we're talking about them with effects processed.

Maybe not but most around here use effects with Synths.Many,Many,Many threads on best effects to use with Synth's on this forum,Especially OD and Distortion..I wonder how many record either Synth in a solo setting without effects.Probably only when comparing the 2 synths.

[[ If you process a lot of syths you wouldn't be able to hear the difference or even what synth it is. I agree ]]
I'm aware of that but for the sake of the threads when we talk about the sounds of synths we usually talk about it's core sound.


Also everyone processes differently. So how would we even compare processed synths?
Old 11th August 2013
  #33
Gear Maniac
 
noi_max's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
I'd be using my 106 if the voice chip(s) weren't dead. I think the chorus is different, at least it sounds that way to me comparing it to the Juno-6.

I really like the layout of the 106. It makes a helluva lot of sense from a performance and programming standpoint. My only wish (except for not having faulty chips) is that it would respond to velocity like the Alpha Junos do.

The Alpha Juno is by far the better of the Juno synths, with the little exceptions being the lack of sliders for programming, and compared with the 6/60 the lack of an arpeggiator. Otherwise it has a MUCH quieter chorus, chord memory function, LCD display and it seems to be nearly maintenance free (my experience from the ones I've owned).
Old 11th August 2013 | Show parent
  #34
227861
Guest
[QUOTE=3Crystals;9192354]
Quote:
Originally Posted by draven5 ➡️
I don't think we're talking about them with effects processed.

Maybe not but most around here use effects with Synths.Many,Many,Many threads on best effects to use with Synth's on this forum,Especially OD and Distortion..I wonder how many record either Synth in a solo setting without effects.Probably only when comparing the 2 synths.

[[ If you process a lot of syths you wouldn't be able to hear the difference or even what synth it is. I agree ]]
You don't understand my point.

When someone compares sounds between two synths they're not talking about a synth processed by ect. They mean the base sounds.


I understand people process synths.
Old 25th June 2015 | Show parent
  #35
Lives for gear
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by saw wave analog ➡️
The 60 is better at everything, it is just all around the superior synth. I've had them both for years and the 106 sound does not hold a candle to the 60 imho. Add the Minerva kit and it is the best polysynth under 3 grand as far as I am concerned.


PS- this thread is old as balls!
Sorry but that is clear (and present) BS.

Better at everything? I've had ALL junos and I prefer the 106 to the 6/60 because of how it sounds. It's much much more musical, easier to work with, more playable and has a tone that sings. Works in many types of music.

The 60 is also a very good synth, and I can't deny for a fast ARP bass for example it wins the award on depth and punch, it has a very fast env attack sound that few other synths have - which is fine if that's what you need it for, but for most other things (90% of what I use poly analogs for - leaving mono to do the stuff mono is best at) the 106 is a far more usable and fun instrument.

Why is the 60 not "superior in everything to the 106"? if you were being more objective?

. Portamento (poly at that) this is very useful and often beautiful in combination with a long filter sweep. It's a sound that just sings and isn't anything like the same on an alpha juno, and can't be done on a 6/60 so...?

. Key feel (Better keybed - same keys but more modern cup style over leaf switch)

. Feel, buttons, layout and looks (maybe subjective but I never loved the look of the 60 as it was overtly chunky and a bit antiquated, often the end caps are chipped or split.. yes it's very retro, almost atari like but it doesn't look as slick or as sleek as the 106) From the back the 60 and it's slanted rear DOES look cool and better, and maybe even the logo is better too but that's quite superficial vs the panel layout and ergonomic/aesthetic placement of things like the LCD an patch bank buttons (clearly a stuck on afterthough on the 60 to compete with the polysix after the 6 came out the gate without memory). 60 also takes up more space than needed and doesn't have Midi as standard, doesn't have 128 patch spaces... the 106 just feels like the complete, pro instrument and the 60 feels like the prototype! (the alphas shouldn't be mentioned here as they are VASTLY different machines with the horrible late Roland filter)

. Sound, sorry but the term 'hey your Juno sounds samey' was coined because of the 6/60... the 106 can yield to more types of sounds and that is part of the reason it's so popular among pros these days. It mixes more easily than the 60. I found I rarely used the 6/60 in my music as it was often harder to fit in and always had 'that juno sound', while the 106 can have that sound but more besides and its slightly more laid back, smoother and sometimes angelic (vs robotic on the 60) tone is perfect for most music, it has texture and class but doesn't hit you over the head with it.

. Sound part 2 - with the 60 I always felt it was very static sounding and not as liquid, but the 106 feels like a proper instrument all round. VERY playable by comparison and the sounds it makes, not being as dusty/in your face as the 60, is why it is so useful for music. I also think it sounds far sweeter (nicer) and smoother than the 60 ever did.

. I prefer the pitch bender with the modulation as part of it (the standard Roland went on to use on everything) When I'm pitch bending I don't really like reaching over to a seperate LFO trigger button (JX-3P/Juno 60). Small things and can work around but if it's already included why not enjoy it? And yeah I can get much more subtle modulation along with the pitch bend on a 106 (or any roland that followed) vs a separate switch as on the early synths.

Without trying to match the sounds (which can be done for a large range of both), they are essentially different synths in tone and feel and as a whole package the 106 feels very much like the real deal for an analog poly while the 60 felt more like a cool retro thing and is more a 'have it along with other synths for when you want its bass/punch and strings' - 106 is more an everyday synth. They both do things very very well, but I definitely felt more bored with the 6/60 then when I play a 106. I can play all night on a 106 and it never tires me, it keeps on singing (and inspiring) while the 60 had a more specific sound, good for now and then, but not worth keeping around (for me).

So please let's not introduce clear bias as 'fact', they do sound different and the 60/6 ARE going to kill the 106 on fast arp bass and punch, but you know the whole world isn't just about that, we read 'vintage tone' and 'fast envs/punch' as if it's universally always what's needed, but many times It just gives you a synth you can brag about (env speed) but not always what you actually use in music, nor a synth that feels expressive. The 106 is a winner because of the sum of it's parts, the package and the feel... very playable, and smooth, more versatile than the 60 and more vibe/analog sounding than the (by comparison almost digital sounding) alpha junos.

The key with these things is using them in music, yeah? and that's when you really find what works for you... so there is no 'better at everything' for everyone. If you A/B synths in isolation as so many of us do, you can sometimes pick the wrong 'winner' based on some quality that doesn't actually translate that well to making actual music.

An instrument should be balanced and sound good, I feel the 106 got the juno balance just right. And I was never the world's biggest juno fan (and have even said some bad stuff about the 106 in my time, before having enough time to use it in a recording or two when I woke up to WHY so many people use it and love it). I now think the Juno 106 is second only to the Jupiter 8 as roland's greatest ever analog poly (based on the balance of sound/spec/feel/usability not just on features or bullet points), and even then 106 inches ahead of the Jupiter for certain tasks.


tl;dr? > Juno 6/60 sound too 'hard', Juno 1/2 sound too 'soft', Juno 106 sounds 'just right' - Goldilocks owns a Juno 106 you know?

Old thread. I'd apologise for the bump but.. I Don't care.

Last edited by Pro5; 26th June 2015 at 12:38 PM..
Old 25th June 2015
  #36
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
they sound different, tho Roland-y.

Juno 6/60 sounds like the end-of-the-70's... analog, plain, strong, old-school.
Juno 106 is one of the first hybrid synths and can still sound (to my ears) modern.. the digital sheen
Old 25th June 2015
  #37
Lives for gear
 
xanax's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Anything a Juno 106 is better at than the juno 60?

MIDI
Old 25th June 2015 | Show parent
  #38
Lives for gear
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by robwood ➡️
they sound different, tho Roland-y.

Juno 6/60 sounds like the end-of-the-70's... analog, plain, strong, old-school.
Juno 106 is one of the first hybrid synths and can still sound (to my ears) modern.. the digital sheen
What do you mean by 'hybrid'? The 6/60 and 106 are all the same tech. DCO (analog oscs) through analog filter. The 60 and 106 have digital controls for patch storage but it doesn't make them hybrids (like a DW-8000 for example). And if you mean the 106 is a 'hybrid' as it uses some digital tech for control then the 60 is also as it's basically the same in that respect. If you are ref to the software envs in the 106 vs the 60, I don't think it makes it strictly a hybrid as we think of one (Digital oscs/samples through Analog filters - again like the DW-8000)

Yeah I'd agree the 60 sounds strong, and plain and a bit older. The 106 is a more useful synth because it can sound 80s but can also blend in better and be more modern. As said, it's the best all-rounder of the Junos imo.
Old 25th June 2015
  #39
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
yeh was thinking the Juno6 was vco like my Jupiter 4.
Old 26th June 2015 | Show parent
  #40
Lives for gear
 
dougt's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro5 ➡️

. Key feel (Better keybed - same keys but more modern cup style over leaf switch)
Wow this is the first time I've seen someone say they like the later rubber-dome carbon contact keybed more than the older metal leaf switch design used on the JP-8, JP-6, Juno-6/60... Maybe your 6/60 keybed was messed up?
Old 26th June 2015
  #41
Deleted User
Guest
Wow! Do I feel dumb! I passed up a Juno 6 about two years ago for $200, I snubbed it because
I said "Well it only has one oscillator, and my JX-3P has two". But now I read that the Juno 6
has VCOs, ouch. Oh well, so much for being an oscillator snob two years ago. I repent. But it is too late!
Old 26th June 2015 | Show parent
  #42
Lives for gear
 
kpsiegel's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
A Kiwi 106 upgrade in a 106 crushes a 60 for features. I am currently beta testing the V2.0 software and firmware of the Kiwi 106 mod and it puts the modded 106 in a totally different league than a Juno 60.
Old 26th June 2015 | Show parent
  #43
Lives for gear
 
dougt's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpsiegel ➡️
A Kiwi 106 upgrade in a 106 crushes a 60 for features. I am currently beta testing the V2.0 software and firmware of the Kiwi 106 mod and it puts the modded 106 in a totally different league than a Juno 60.
Tubbutec Juno-66 > Kiwi 106

Last edited by dougt; 26th June 2015 at 05:41 AM..
Old 26th June 2015 | Show parent
  #44
Lives for gear
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougt ➡️
Wow this is the first time I've seen someone say they like the later rubber-dome carbon contact keybed more than the older metal leaf switch design used on the JP-8, JP-6, Juno-6/60... Maybe your 6/60 keybed was messed up?
Nope my Juno 60 was *mint*. I sold it to the lead singer in a fairly high profile UK band a year or so ago for £1000 so obviously it was in very good condition.

I'm not saying it's a bad keybed at all, I just prefer the JX-3P/Juno 106 style (and latterly the Juno 2/D-50 style which is similar but has key weights and velocity/A/T). For me they feel smoother to play on as the action is a touch softer and not so on/off.

The juno 60 suffers from intermittent stuck notes or double triggering because the leaf switch on metal bar system is a bit dodgy at times (esp 30 years later). I fully refurb all my synths and that had to be sorted, but it can become a problem at any time if the contacts oxidise again.

Ergonomically, while there wasn't a lot in it (vs the 106) I found the keys a touch more clattery on the 60 due to the lack of rubber dampening provided by the cups, it felt very mechanical by comparison. I just felt the later keybed was softer in a good way, more inviting to play but no it's not night and day as they are the exact same keys other than the system/action.

Juno 60 still has a great keybed vs many of its contemporaries from the day, I just personally prefer the slightly quieter, softer and more modern feel of the keys from the 3P/106 onwards, they also give a touch more resistance to being pressed which feels nice and again feels more playable than the "on/off" action of the early keybeds.

Last edited by Pro5; 26th June 2015 at 11:51 AM..
Old 26th June 2015 | Show parent
  #45
Lives for gear
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphod Betamax ➡️
Wow! Do I feel dumb! I passed up a Juno 6 about two years ago for $200, I snubbed it because
I said "Well it only has one oscillator, and my JX-3P has two". But now I read that the Juno 6
has VCOs, ouch. Oh well, so much for being an oscillator snob two years ago. I repent. But it is too late!
None of the Junos have VCOs. This is always repeated around the net as if it's gospel. It even SAYS "DCO" on the control panel of the Juno 6/60 (and 106). They may have different kinds of control over them (circuit/clocking type etc - I don't know) but are essentially still "DCOS". People just assume the 6/60 is VCO cos it sounds a bit old and can sound a bit rough (also - wooden sides ). Put it next to a Polysix and you'll really hear what a discreet VCO is like!

The Early roland DCOs are pretty good though to me, they don't sound awful and they have the sound (along with the IR3109 of course) of the early to mid 80s that many of us remember fondly (usually kids in the 80s). - the later analogs (Alpha junos/JX-8p/10) don't sound as good to me but that's most likely because I do not like the IR3R05 filter that they changed to after the 106 (I think the 106 was the last Roland keyboard to use the IR3109 albeit shrunk down in the infamous all-in-one plastic coated voice modules)

JX-3P is also very good, esp for the price. It was always one of my favourites and its 2 oscs can do things no juno can do, but overall with hindsight, for most purposes I think the Juno 106 is a better all round synth even with only 1 osc, due to the better filter setup (same filter just sounds different) and obviously things like real PWM.

They can be made to sound almost identical on some patches (same with the Juno 60 as well) but they all veer off into areas the others don't excel at, for the 60 it's punchy attack, for the 3P it's the dual osc/xmod fun and for the 106 it's the low end, PWM and general versatility and musicality (and the unit itself is the most setup for general playability and ease of use with so much patch storage, midi, portamento etc) these simple synths could all do a decent job for most uses so the small differences are what defines them for the picky user.

And the 3P 60 and 106 could all be owned at the same time and brought out for their best uses as needed but if you were downsizing (as I am.. constantly trying to) and had all 3 then I have to say the 106 is the keeper because it does the job of being a musical instrument, an editable synth and an excellent, easy to mix recording tool better than the other two! (imo) unless you need that specific fast attack of the 6/60 often (I never did).

Along with typical pads and fast seqs I think the 106 (through effects obviously) can sound more 'epic' , more easily, than the 60 can on its best pads. It sounds more beautiful, more emotional - while the 60 is very much the 'old synth' thing, a bit harder, sometimes rawer sound, but not like a Polysix that sounds beautiful, the rawness reveals the DCOs more in a bad way than the 106 which glosses over them a bit and makes the best of DCO tech. It's like Roland tuned the 106 further to make it less raw and more musical, but not going TOO far to the point of cutting the balls of it (as they did when they went too far with the alpha junos and pretty much everything they released after)

http://equipboard.com/items/roland-juno-106-synthesizer <<< more pros use it than any other juno so it obviously 'just works'.


Last edited by Pro5; 26th June 2015 at 12:24 PM..
Old 26th June 2015 | Show parent
  #46
Lives for gear
 
dougt's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro5 ➡️
Nope my Juno 60 was *mint*. I sold it to the lead singer in a fairly high profile UK band a year or so ago for £1000 so obviously it was in very good condition.

I'm not saying it's a bad keybed at all, I just prefer the JX-3P/Juno 106 style (and latterly the Juno 2/D-50 style which is similar but has key weights and velocity/A/T). For me they feel smoother to play on as the action is a touch softer and not so on/off.

The juno 60 suffers from intermittent stuck notes or double triggering because the leaf switch on metal bar system is a bit dodgy at times (esp 30 years later). I fully refurb all my synths and that had to be sorted, but it can become a problem at any time if the contacts oxidise again.

Ergonomically, while there wasn't a lot in it (vs the 106) I found the keys a touch more clattery on the 60 due to the lack of rubber dampening provided by the cups, it felt very mechanical by comparison. I just felt the later keybed was softer in a good way, more inviting to play but no it's not night and day as they are the exact same keys other than the system/action.

Juno 60 still has a great keybed vs many of its contemporaries from the day, I just personally prefer the slightly quieter, softer and more modern feel of the keys from the 3P/106 onwards, they also give a touch more resistance to being pressed which feels nice and again feels more playable than the "on/off" action of the early keybeds.
Totally opposite from my experience. I have over a dozen Rolands with the leaf-contact keybeds and have never had to clean them or had any problems. I have had to clean the carbon contact keybeds on several of my synths espectially the later ones with velocity like the D-50 and JX-10.

Given how many parts orders I've had over the years for Roland rubber contact strips I'd guess I'm not alone in that assessment.

I like the quicker action of the metal leaf contacts too. The rubber dome/carbon contacts seem to have a slower/"mushier" response.

Last edited by dougt; 26th June 2015 at 12:46 PM..
Old 26th June 2015
  #47
Lives for gear
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Yeah I'll agree the rubber contacts obviously will need cleaning (these are all 30+ years old - I do that routinely on getting any old synth regardless of the system it uses). Well tastes differ and as I said, i'm SURE i said, there was not a lot in it. When I'm banging away on the keys I prefer the feel of the softer later keys, while the 60/JP-8 etc felt more like 'switches', nice, light, fast switches but still switches.

As for you not having problems that's just good luck, plenty of people on this board alone have asked about how to fix double triggering on the Juno 60 and similar rolands.

If you prefer them that's cool. My posts are obviously just my own opinion/tastes (and tbh I wouldn't care if the 106 used the older style - the keybed difference is the least of my preferences over the rest of why I prefer the 106 to the 60).

As for parts orders for the rubber cups - to be expected and thankfully they are simple to replace, easy to buy and once you have new ones or cleaned ones they last years. The leaf contact systems are a bit more complex if they go wrong or if you bend/snap off one of the contacts, so repair bill wise the rubber cups are easier on the pocket too. Yamaha used leaf contacts (in a different/improved setup with no common long contact bar) in their best keybeds so I know full well how good they can be but again on the 60 it DID feel more switch like and not as smoothly playable as the 106, the tiny relay like click you can hear when you depress the keys attests to its switch like nature. Really not a deal breaker either way as said. I'm happy with either type so long as the synth is good.

BTW Some JX-8Ps came with the leaf switch system too but with weighted keys of course, and that also suffers from the hanging note syndrome caused by oxidised contacts (not so much double triggering as the keys are heavier so don't bounce against the bar on fast playing so much).


they can all do a good job and they are what they are, limits and all. Music is what matters, I'll go with the synths that make it into my music more than what's better on paper or in A/B isolation tests.

Last edited by Pro5; 27th June 2015 at 01:39 PM..
Old 26th June 2015 | Show parent
  #48
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
I think the 60 has the edge in terms of sound. There's something richer that I missed with the 106. Still love it though!

I wish there was a new Juno with the best bits of both. If Roland can do with the Junos what they did with the SH2 then I'd be all over an AIRA release, scatter wheel and all.
Old 26th June 2015 | Show parent
  #49
Deleted 0ea68bb
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro5 ➡️
Along with typical pads and fast seqs I think the 106 (through effects obviously) can sound more 'epic' , more easily, than the 60 can on its best pads. It sounds more beautiful, more emotional - while the 60 is very much the 'old synth' thing, a bit harder, sometimes rawer sound, but not like a Polysix that sounds beautiful, the rawness reveals the DCOs more in a bad way than the 106 which glosses over them a bit and makes the best of DCO tech. It's like Roland tuned the 106 further to make it less raw and more musical, but not going TOO far to the point of cutting the balls of it (as they did when they went too far with the alpha junos and pretty much everything they released after)
I'm at a loss how such vivid distinctions can be made between two synths that are virtually identical in architecture/technology, and incredibly similar in terms of sound. I'm not saying that there aren't some extremely minor differences in sonics, but this notion that one is better for one sound, and the better for another, "so use both", is kind of comical.

With the exception of how the sub-osc affects the sound and some minor differences in overall tone (60 = "slightly bigger"; 106 = "slightly thinner"), this demo shows quite nicely how truly similar they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK3OkpZfyuQ
Old 26th June 2015 | Show parent
  #50
Lives for gear
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Ruff ➡️
I'm at a loss how such vivid distinctions can be made between two synths that are virtually identical in architecture/technology, and incredibly similar in terms of sound. I'm not saying that there aren't some extremely minor differences in sonics, but this notion that one is better for one sound, and the better for another, "so use both", is kind of comical.

With the exception of how the sub-osc affects the sound and some minor differences in overall tone (60 = "slightly bigger"; 106 = "slightly thinner"), this demo shows quite nicely how truly similar they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK3OkpZfyuQ
Don't quote Youtube demos at me (like you don't think I've seen that video and many more many times already?). Have you actually owned and used them both like I have? If so you know, and have no need to go scouring for demos to prove some pointless point. (I already said above did I not that if you try to match them you can make them basically sound identical!? !???) - isolation tests on waveforms are completely different to when you use it in music as an overall package, that's when you notice the differences (not that one is 'worse' than the other - just that they both have different, small but noticeable strengths). Watching a YT video won't convey that, esp one that is precisely meant to show how close they can sound!

The fact is they DO sound different in their basic character and the 106 is definitely more fitting for a lot of 'modern music', if that's because it's a bit thinner that's fine with me. It's not even just a bass/eq problem, it's the general tone the 60 sounds harder and I could barely ever get inspired by it to fit it in or make any music with it, conversely in quick time a Juno 106 made it onto recordings and enhanced them in a way my masses of old synths couldn't touch (inc the 60).

Find it 'comical' if you so wish, my ears and experience tell me which feels better as an instrument for my needs. And if you are at a loss about why someone like myself (and others) can spot the distinctions in the small differences in the sound, the problem lies with your ears not my analysis. Don't blame me if you can't feel, hear or tell the differences.

I was being diplomatic by saying use both if you want the strengths of each, personally I wouldn't, it would be giant overkill so you pick which one is more towards the type of use you'll want from it and there is definitely a case for either, it comes down to taste and preference, not one being 'better in every way' than the other.

This applies to any synth no matter how simple or advanced, good tone is good tone, musical/productive results are musical/productive results. My point of entering this old thread was to point out why the 60 isn't just 'the best - end of story' to a previous poster, but if any of you use these machines for real music once in a while you'd already know it's an absurd notion to even debate further than the small but obvious differences then leave it at that (which I had).

The juno 60 I had did not gel with me, and it had a hard, almost too DCO sound (that's the only way I can care or be bothered to try to explain it right now), while the 106 feels warmer in a good way (not a punchier, more unstable vintage analog way) just warmer like a 'great synth should' regardless of digital or analog, softer and easier to blend with other instruments. I said all this in far too many words already.

/

Last edited by Pro5; 26th June 2015 at 05:36 PM..
Old 26th June 2015 | Show parent
  #51
Lives for gear
 
James Lehmann's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Ruff ➡️
With the exception of how the sub-osc affects the sound and some minor differences in overall tone (60 = "slightly bigger"; 106 = "slightly thinner"), this demo shows quite nicely how truly similar they are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK3OkpZfyuQ
Thanks for posting that.

Juno 106 owner here, which I purchased solely for the MIDI. I don't have a 60 to compare.

But the clip would appear to illustrate the snappier attack of the Juno 60 that a lot of people refer to, the raw tone being indeed very similar.

So... with a more relaxed attack, the 106 is just great for pads and melodic stuff, which I think is what most of its rep is built on.

Onboard chorus is way noisy - I never use it, mine goes through a Dimension C pedal instead.
Old 26th June 2015 | Show parent
  #52
Deleted User
Guest
I run two JX-3Ps in tandem, with #1 controlling #2 via midi. I edit the 32 user programs to my taste on #1 , port them to #2 via a ZOOM H1 (via tape load) then
change up the ADSR on #2 to compliment or contrast #2 . I rout #1 to Left amp and #2 to right. This gives me a 4 oscillator stereo synth.
This of course could be done with any two matching synths.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Pro5 ➡️

JX-3P is also very good, esp for the price. It was always one of my favourites and its 2 oscs can do things no juno can do, but overall with hindsight, for most purposes I think the Juno 106 is a better all round synth even with only 1 osc, due to the better filter setup (same filter just sounds different) and obviously things like real PWM.
Old 26th June 2015 | Show parent
  #53
Lives for gear
 
kpsiegel's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougt ➡️
Tubbutec Juno-66 > Kiwi 106
The V2 Kiwi 106 firmware supports using sequencer tracks to control various parameters on the synth. This is unbelievably powerful obviously and a huge leap forward in functionality of this already great mod. I would say that makes it superior to anything available currently on a Juno 60.
Old 26th June 2015 | Show parent
  #54
Lives for gear
 
R3Member's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Ruff ➡️
With the exception of how the sub-osc affects the sound and some minor differences in overall tone (60 = "slightly bigger"; 106 = "slightly thinner"), this demo shows quite nicely how truly similar they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK3OkpZfyuQ
I remember seeing that video awhile back and it's really not a good comparison because starting at 2:45, the guy has the Juno-106's HPF set to 1 while the Juno-60 is set to 0.

If I have any preference between the two, it's that owning a Juno-60 gives me wood.

Old 26th June 2015 | Show parent
  #55
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by R3Member ➡️
I remember seeing that video awhile back and it's really not a good comparison because starting at 2:45, the guy has the Juno-106's HPF set to 1 while the Juno-60 is set to 0.

If I have any preference between the two, it's that owning a Juno-60 gives me wood.

To me your wood sides look like an Ikea furniture. They look cool but they're made of cardboard. And what's with those screws? I've had both Juno 60 and 106 and I still prefer my Nord Lead 2.
Old 26th June 2015 | Show parent
  #56
Lives for gear
 
R3Member's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by coffee ➡️
To me your wood sides look like an Ikea furniture. They look cool but they're made of cardboard. And what's with those screws? I've had both Juno 60 and 106 and I still prefer my Nord Lead 2.
Hey, nothing wrong with Ikea furniture. I shop there all the time and my whole house has this weird retro Industrial design/Art Decco look it to. I don't have any kids or pets to screw up my place, so I've turned it into this Satanic version of Pee-Wee's playhouse filled with lava lamps, mannequins, weird vintage oddities I find at thrift stores, an absinthe themed minibar, etc. I even keep a theremin in my living room with a bunch of dental plasters I found set on it. Creeps out every guest I invite over, haha.
Old 26th June 2015 | Show parent
  #57
Lives for gear
 
blinky909's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Lehmann ➡️
Thanks for posting that.

Juno 106 owner here, which I purchased solely for the MIDI. I don't have a 60 to compare.
while there is some overlap in the sounds these synths can produce, they each offer sonic possibilities the other can not produce. i would say the overlap isn't very large given the more liquid filter and wider sound of the 60. the 106 has a more polite sounding filter.

i have and love both. i tried in vain to recreate a sound on my 106 that i did on the 60 for an upcoming show but the low end growl just wasn't going to happen. tried to replicate that same sound on the Nord Lead 2 and again, that low end growl was missing.

the best demo is in front of you with both hands, both ears, and both eyes.

Old 26th June 2015 | Show parent
  #58
Deleted 0ea68bb
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by blinky909 ➡️
while there is some overlap in the sounds these synths can produce, they each offer sonic possibilities the other can not produce. i would say the overlap isn't very large given the more liquid filter and wider sound of the 60.
Of course they can make the same sound--they are identical in terms of architecture. The demo I posted showed that very clearly. These aren't complicated synths--they are probably the simplest polyphonics out there, so your "sonic possibilities" are pretty dang limited to being with.

If you prefer the tone on one to the other that's one thing, and I agree there is some tonal difference, especially in terms of the sub-oscillator, but let's get over the "each is capable of doing different sound" semantics--it just perpetuates mis-information. A pad/bass/string sound on a juno 60 compared to a 106 is going to virtually the same when compared to virtually any other polyphonic analog.
Old 26th June 2015 | Show parent
  #59
Lives for gear
 
WozNYC's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted 8456dd3 ➡️
Every slider can be recorded over midi on the Juno 106..
The sliders actually send SysEx. If you want MIDI CC's on all of the sliders, you'll need the Kiwi mod.
Old 26th June 2015 | Show parent
  #60
Lives for gear
 
blinky909's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Ruff ➡️
Of course they can make the same sound--they are identical in terms of architecture. The demo I posted showed that very clearly. These aren't complicated synths--they are probably the simplest polyphonics out there, so your "sonic possibilities" are pretty dang limited to being with.

If you prefer the tone on one to the other that's one thing, and I agree there is some tonal difference, especially in terms of the sub-oscillator, but let's get over the "each is capable of doing different sound" semantics--it just perpetuates mis-information. A pad/bass/string sound on a juno 60 compared to a 106 is going to virtually the same when compared to virtually any other polyphonic analog.
do you know how i know you don't own both?
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 70 views: 34698
Avatar for Deleted 859c1b8
Deleted 859c1b8 24th June 2016
replies: 2140 views: 207023
Avatar for Don Solaris
Don Solaris 23rd August 2012
replies: 9469 views: 861987
Avatar for greggybud
greggybud 4 days ago
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump