I had a Juno 6 waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back, and a Juno 60 just a couple of years ago. Both cool, if limited, synths (prefer the JX-3P for most things but that's a different tale). Loved the arp/punch of the 6/60 (which the 106 I had also didn't have but that instead had a more liquid smooth tone and nice sub end).

So 6 vs 60 over a decade apart I couldn't be used as a witness, but I do recall the 6 was a touch less tame sounding than the 60, the 60 was possibly a bit smoother and maybe cleaner, both punched liked mofos, but the 6 from memory only always felt a bit more raw and unrefined (not always in a good way). 60 didn't last long here as I found it was weak in one or two areas (vs the polysix, JX-3P next to it) and I got bored of all junos quite fast even though they sound beautiful.

As others said, it could be less to do with any designed in differences and just calibration/aging (my Juno 6 I had in the early 90s so was a lot newer than my Juno 60 in 2013 or w/e it was), 20 years newer in fact.

Interesting... I remember fixing the chorus on that absolutely mint 60, and keeping that 6, but didn’t want to post again. People on here with their gear will argue about anything that goes against the money they spent. Or they know and don’t want people to buy up all the juno 6s: For good reason too. I bought that juno 6 for 300$ lol. Me and my big mouth.


@ ToneControl that’s how I felt too when I had both. It’s the reason that if I was getting a Juno 60 today I wouldn’t calibrate it. Kinda take my chances on what character it’s developed over the years. The more beat up the better sound haha


@ Robo celot send me one

Interesting, others seem to prefer the 6 for the same reasons: a bit rougher and misbehaved. Also that chorus III setting sounds delicious to me. I also wonder if there’s an audible difference between quantized scanned parameters and free-running CVs. I guess I’ll know soon enough, as I have a 6 coming my way.

Where did you guys get these Juno for cheap? I’m looking for one.

Just because it's so unusual for anyone on Gearsltz to ever admit they were wrong about anything - props to 'Deleted 26d6446' for fronting up here.

This Forum could do with a bit more humility like this.

ok I'll bite.
I don't want to add to any myths but I too have a preference for the Juno6 over the 60.
I have played and worked on dozens of both and my honest opinion is based on a good bit of experience. I find the chorus and overall tone of the Juno6 preferable.
I won't speculate whether it's any differences in the HPF, final VCA (on 60) and/or the chorus but it is definite for me. I currently have a few 6's and 60's and the pic attached is the one I have wired up in the studio...(2nd pic shows some of the Juno's together). I've loved them for years and starting hoarding them back when they were going for ~$300 - sadly for my wallet I also sold my Jupiter 8's (overrated) around the $3400 mark!

Never mind the differences - that's just a beautiful collection of Junos to behold!

Roland really lost the plot when they replaced the wooden cheek-ends on the 106 with those revolting hollow plastic ones - first thing I did with mine (along with renewing all the voice-chips) was fit it out with proper wood!

Juno 6 was my first analog poly. Followed by the 60 (still here). I remember that the 6 sounded a bit warmer, a bit more magic. But I sold it anyway (no memory).

I missed this, but another forum member did find out the circuits were different which matches my observation compared to my brand new 60 at the time, but just to be fully transparent my beat up 60 def needed a new chorus. Sold the brand new one because it felt “dead.” I miss the Juno days. I can’t believe how much the price has risen. From 800$ to 3000$! While this thread was running

no, juno 6 does sound rougher and more direct. I liked the smooshed 60 more. Basically the circuit around the HP filter is responsible for the difference.

the sides of the 106 are beautifull., its actually the 60 that got more often poshed up by metal Side Parts Like Jupiter 6.