I picked up a Juno 6 to possibly replace my 60, but it sounds surprisingly different. They're basically the same, but the 6 seems slightly dirtier-sounding, whereas the 60 is a tiny bit cleaner and punchier. Could this indicate the actual unit needs to be serviced, or have other people noticed this subtle difference?
I know it's kind of a rare case for someone to actually have both models, but figured I'd ask anyway.

I think you are hearing less model-to-model difference and more the individual synths differing. I have owned a 6 and now own a 60, they sound nearly identical to me... this must be why Vangelis had 2-3 of the same model, to bring out the individual characters of the synths on demand

That makes sense, thanks!

The voice boards are identical.

If you like the sound of the 'dirtier' one keep it as is. If you want it cleaner and snappier recap and recalibrate it.

bump...

iam planning to buy JUNO-6 or JUNO-60 - dont really care about the patch memory but want the best souding of the JUNO family... Vintage Synth Museum says: "Both of these synths sound virtually the same." Well anybody here to confirm ? Iam inclined to buy JUNO-6 because sometimes first attempt from the manufacturer is just right and starts the legend and subsequent updates often dont live up to the mother-model that made the series legendary...

so is Juno-6 better buy than Juno-60 or are they REALLY identical - iam bit suspicious...

soundboard may be identical but you know - nobody really knows whats going on in these vintage "black boxes" - its a mystery and magic together that no one can really recreate with current technology (sounds paradox but you know what i mean look at all those pathetic "emulations")

Nah, there is no magic. And aside from calibration settings, component health, etc. (which vary between synths of the same model), the two sound identical.

- CM

Yeah, because engineering isn't a science, it's all just random chance and magic.

L to the o to the L

It's funny when people comment on the different sound between the Juno 60/6 and it's along the lines of "I don't know man, I know they're supposed to be the same internally but they just sounded different. I can't explain it". lol

CALIBRATION!

Particularly calibrating the waveform width will give you a different tone. So easy to do too, all you need is your ears and your DAWs spectral analyzer zoomed in so you can watch the harmonics as you adjust til you get as clean a square as you can (minimize the even harmonics). Service manuals are your friend.

just to let u know.. the 6 didnt have MIDI when it came out back then.. the 60 did.. but the 6 CAN be retrofitted.. just something u might wanna know when u do make ur choice.

on the sound subject, i always looked at the 60 bein more "modern", since it came out at a later date, even though u guys say the boards are the same.

da relic

The Juno 60 was never offered with midi.

oops.. ur right.. im thinkin the 106. "facepalm".. always gettin them bastards confused.. lol

Roland with their infinite number of damn keyboards! curse them all!!

ya know.. maybe its the 106 u might want.. l to tha o..l..o...

da relic

There is one objective difference between the JUNO-6 and JUNO-60 concerning the High Pass Filter:

JUNO-60 offers only 4 HPF level settings, while the setting of the JUNO-6's HPF is continuous.

This has a slight effect on the possible sound variations and somewhat limits those of the JUNO-60 compared to those of the JUNO-6...

True dat. But the patch storage in the 60 makes it the clear winner!

the 60 sounds smoother what in my ears is better.. beside the other advantages

there are slight differences in the circuit which is a little more direct in the ju 6.. also the placement of the chorus board is different and this in relation to cpu tact bleedthru makes a difference too..

and please dont try to tell me that the cpu tacts are way above the listening range.. its exactly the stuff you cant hear that can color synth sounds more than some obvious background noise..

anyway.. component tollerances or differnt batches of parts give all theese old rolands a slightly different sound.. so i cant rule out that my opinion regarding the ju-6 sound is by accident.. only had 3 juno 6 in my hands in all the years but around 20 different ju 60..... just the 3 ju 6 allways sounded a bit more in your face and less silky than the ju 60´s.. and after 3 repetitions you start thinking that it might be a rule and no accident...

any particular reason for this? I'm rather curious. Thanks....

you can program the hpf setting on the ju 60.. on the ju 6 there is no patchstorrage..therefore the signal can pass directly to the filter..

the cmos switch in the signal part of the ju 60, that does that hpf switching, is known to mush up the sound a little.. in the juno 106 you have even more of theese cmos switches in the signal path ..or in the jupiter 6... Theese cmos switches are mainly responsible for the sound differences.. beside such structural differences the circuits of a jupiter 6, 8 , juno 6,60 and 106 are allmost identical.. but each machine has a very different sound just because of little differences.

than other little things like that the ju 60 has a bipolar output cap instead an unipolar in the ju 6... a little detail that makes the sound a tiny bit smoother too.. and such little differences add up..

wether you prefer the more direct and therefore technical better sound of a ju-6 or the cmos smoothended and part quality upgraded sound of a 60 is a matter of taste.. practical the 60ß wins because of the patch storrage and upgrade options like minerva mod for example...

Owned both at the same time. Played exact patches. Compared like crazy. The sound is identical.

maybe so... but over long periods i had two juno 60 in permanent action and i cant say that them sounded identical...
And there are differences in the circuit design between a 6 and a 60..
Wether these are more dominant to the sound as the anyway exsiting differences between ju 60´s by component tollerances and slight detunings of filter and vca settings is a question i cant answer..

to check that i would need to change a juno 60 to the ju 6 hpf filter design and when the absence of the cmos switch is altering the sound than it would be prooved that the ju-6 is supposed to have a different sound.. but why such a proove? i have a ju 6 here right now and it dont sounds as nice to me than my old ju 60´s.. so maybe i can nicen it up by changing some transitors..

thats actually also a not unlikely reason for experienced sound differences...

Roland often changed the transistor types during production and machines with different transistor types do have a different sound... that applys to 303 and 808´s aswell and i allready have beautified devices with a more sad sound by giving them theire intended standard types.. once had a 303 for service that had a brilliant sound and used a very untypical transistor type,. sadly one that is not available anymore.. beside that i can say that sc945 303´s do sound smother than sc1815 303´s..and when you have a 808 with very sharp sounding hats and cymbals its probably a a version with 1815 transistors..

On my endless to do list i ve very down under the experiment to try to make my ju 106 sound like a ju 60.. just in the moment i like the 106 sound a lot.. but i am curious because the 106 sounds very different to the 60 while the circuit is in many areas almost identical.

Processing power I believe.
To have the patch storage, the CPU was maxed out so they limited the HPF to 4 settings. This is what I have been told..true?? No idea..

has nothing to do with the cpu.. just the hpf is no voltage controled filter.. so to make this setting storable they needed to resort to a switch instead having a continues fader as the voltage controled parameters got..

Surely the envelopes (or many other sliders) are also not Voltage controlled so would need a switch to?

where do you got that info from? maybe you should check the service manual than you might get a better idea of what is going on inside the synth

Why would I check the service manual?
If you KNOW then fine. The explanation didn't make sense to me. Are you saying all modules except the HPF on a juno 60 are voltage controlled?
As I said, I was told something and repeated it STATING that I wasn't sure.
But hey, thanks for the advice.

all other modules are polyphonic..so 6 of them each..how do you want control a parameter on each of them without a voltage? 6 pots for the attack time?

Me too. Kept the 60 sold the 6. Having patch storage (and therefore repeatability) is way more important for me. I have enough old mono analogs without patch storage, adding a poly without storage is not worth it. And I did not hear any difference if programming exactly the same patch on both.

Honestly, I am a technical moron. So I now understand what you are saying.
I am presuming that then the 60 has steps compared the 6. What resolution would those pots be. 256 steps? I still don't see why they couldn't have the same amount of steps for the HPF.

JX-3P has a 'smooth' HPF adjustment and is patch storable!? JX-3P is so under-rated. Only a year later in electronics tech than Juno 60 allowed this? or was it really some cost cutting on the J60? (or a rush job to meet the threat of the Polysix??)