Juno-60 vs Juno-106

A forum for comparing two or more synths against each other. Also known as "versus" threads.

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby Sir Ruff » Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:06 pm

philip wrote:
redchapterjubilee wrote:After years of reading this debate I finally had the chance to compare a 60 at the studio I used last year to my 106 and with as much argument that I've read off and on in the 8 years I've been a member on this board (and the year or two I lurked before that) that there really isn't much of a difference between the Juno 60 and 106 in basic tone. Even the engineer who owned the Juno 60 was surprised, as he's had his since the mid '90s and always felt like he had the ugly stepchild to the 106 instead of the real thing.



I would argue with that. I got both, and I find that in terms of tone they are pretty different. I think that 106 is more gentle and absolutely universal and can be used in many different genres.
While 60 is more straightforward and raw and for me is less inspiring than 106.
So I would say they have different characters and I would say they can complement each other.


Phew, after all the technical gibberish, it's really nice to hear a completely subjective opinion.
Do you even post on vse bro?
User avatar
Sir Ruff
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
 
Posts: 3369
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 11:55 pm
Location: Synthinnati
Gear: Two persimmon modulators and a frequency adjudicator.
Band: Ruff in the jungle

Advertisement:

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby nathanscribe » Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:18 pm

Sir Ruff wrote:I'm wondering, after I get both the 106 (for pads) and the 60 (for raw), if I should also get the 6... I keep reading that the lack of a quantized HPF and digital memory really makes it sound more analog.


No.

:lol:

I've been using a 6 and 60 side-by-side for nearly 20 years. There is bare any audible difference at all.

Over the 20 years I've had them, I don't think the two synths have ever sounded exactly alike, but neither have they sounded different enough that I can tell which is which in a recording, except where I remember which I used. The only thing I can say for sure is that my 6 feels slightly less stable than my 60, and is noisier. But that's not a 'more analogue' type of instability, and it's extremely subtle, and may well be due to factors other than the 60's digital storage. After all, the oscillators are driven in the same way, quantisation of envelope control voltages should have no timbral effect, and quantisation (and thereby, perhaps, stabilisation) of levels of modulation and audio are not, I think, major factors. If anything would be noticeable between the two synths because of the digital patch thing, it would be the filter cutoff and resonance. I don't find that it matters, if it's there. Certainly my two units could be calibrated differently, and maybe that's where the (very subtle) difference lies.

As far as I remember, never have I though the 60 sounded 'less analogue' than the 6. I never turn it on and think 'gosh I'm so disappointed'. If there's quantisation stepping in any of the slider parameters, it's not audible enough to be an issue, at least I never considered it so, or even noticed - except when fine-tuning the cutoff on the 60 and then re-loading the patch. Sometimes - only rarely - is it not quite where I wanted it. But the amount of difference is so minute it's not something I would worry about, as setting a slider free-hand is no less troublesome.

There are other factors though. The 6 forces immediacy, but the 60 tempts a certain degree of laziness with having those memories. Then again, the 60's DCB is nice as it can be sequenced without retrofits. Both can be clocked externally so arpeggios are no different.

I've heard rumours/read comments on the so-called 'stepping' of the resonance on these things. All I observe is the way the harmonics of the oscillator's wave are emphasised as the filter sweeps. No 'stepping' as such. The 60 does not sound digital, if that's what people mean when they talk about this.

Both are lovely synths. I originally got the 60 to replace the 6, but kept both. I haven't ever regretted that decision 8-)
User avatar
nathanscribe
VSE Review Contributor
VSE Review Contributor
 
Posts: 2936
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:03 pm
Location: The right side of the Pennines

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby Markham45 » Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:52 am

The Juno 6 takes the cake over both
Markham45
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:39 am

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby Pro5 » Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:53 pm

Markham45 wrote:The Juno 6 takes the cake over both


no way! I had a Juno 6 and hated the lack of patch memory. The sound difference (if any other than where you can set the HPF) between the 6/60 is negligible but lack of storage is not. You can dial in sounds fast on a Juno, but it gets so, so tedious in the studio when you need to recall exactly that nuanced sound you made. I think the lack of memory on the Juno 6 is what led everyone initially to say it (all Junos) are more limited actually, because nobody wanted to work too hard on a sound just to lose it forever (or take lots of photos and fiddle around for 20 minutes nudging the sliders in small amounts). Hated the SH-101 for that reason also. Call me lazy but I like to be productive AND have good sound - Juno 6 was flawed which is why Roland released the 60 so fast after they realised what the polysix was doing.

If you just want generic juno bass, pad, strings, sweep then yes a Juno 6 will do it nicely and you can get it there in seconds, but spend 5 minutes tweaking something really unusual but nice (for a Juno) and you'll wish you could STORE it somewhere! arghh! it put me off ever pushing that synth beyond it's basic sounds. I've played on a JU-60 and it sounded just as nice as I recall the 6 sounding, yet it felt better - more substantial, looked better too with the panel filled out with buttons etc :) I'm actually considering picking one up (a Juno 60 only!!) not a 6, definitely not a brighter/thinner sounding 106 moneypit without an arpeggiator!, had the alphas and they are lovely little synths but I'm after something older sounding with an ARP possibly to replace my Polysixes. I'm thinking musical instrument here not all singing all dancing super warm analog beast - and a Juno 60 falls sweetly in the category of "Musical" and analog enough. The patch storage takes care of my biggest worry (more vital to me than midi in fact!) and I love the juno arp synced to a drum machine - very punchy with those hardware envs.

And I'm glad someone else pointed out the PWM modulated by the ENV on the 60 (not on the 106) as It can be useful on a fairly limited synth in helping get a few more sounds of it.

anyway between the 60/106 - 60 obviously.
V-SYNTH | JX-3P | AN1x | JD-800 | POLYSIX x2 | PERFORMER
HAD: SH101/JUNO 1,2,6,60/MKS70,50/JX8P/D50,70/JV1080/AX80/SY77,85/DX7,IID,S,100 /TG77,500/TX802,81Z/MS2k/DW8000/PROPHECY/WAVESTATION/M1/KSRACK/CZ1
User avatar
Pro5
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: U.K

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby Virgule » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:34 pm

I'll post this clip just for the fun of it.

For the design and performance view, the 106 is clearly the winner.

Watch on youtube.com
Virgule
Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:46 pm

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby Pro5 » Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:45 pm

Virgule wrote:I'll post this clip just for the fun of it.

For the design and performance view, the 106 is clearly the winner.

Watch on youtube.com


not sure what your point is? yes a JX-3P can be made to sound like an early juno (even a 60 if you program them right). But for example the filter on the 3P doesn't open as far as on a 6/60 (not sure about 106 but I have a feeling the 106 has more of the 'later' sound that the 3P also had but the 3P made up for that with DUAL DCOS!).

There is stuff the JX can do that no juno can do at all with the lack of second DCO/X-sync etc. And there is stuff the Junos do that the JX can't. That difference is narrower on the 106 v JX-3P than it is between the 60 and 3P. The 60 has a few 'items' that make it worthwhile as an addition to a JX-3P while the 106 is a bit too similar and not different enough where needed.

PWM > ENV, Hardware envelopes, Arpeggiator, rounder sound, larger filter spread. The 106 doesn't have these so puts it closer to the 3P. The 3P is like the middle ground between the 60/106 in basic tone - when not using too much resonance, if so the 3P suffers more here it's not as sweet (even with the trimmers turned up inside - sounds a bit more metalic)

So if anything all that video shows me is if you own a JX-3P you should buy a Juno 60 if you want a juno, because both synths have VERY good advantages. The 106 has none of those advantages in sound. Only the portamento is a good addition but not worth downgrading, yes downgrading, from a 3P for!

And the Juno 60 can be midified easily and you get the best of both worlds then, the best Juno sound, the fastest envelopes, the arp and midi if you want it. Also the 60 looks 10x nicer and the build quality vs the 106 is night and day! ANd again - the voice chip failures on the 106 really make it hard to like for me even if they can be expensively replaced... not worth it for that sound. Just grab a 60 and/or a 3P and relax/make music!

Oh and get a PG-200 too - I love it :)
V-SYNTH | JX-3P | AN1x | JD-800 | POLYSIX x2 | PERFORMER
HAD: SH101/JUNO 1,2,6,60/MKS70,50/JX8P/D50,70/JV1080/AX80/SY77,85/DX7,IID,S,100 /TG77,500/TX802,81Z/MS2k/DW8000/PROPHECY/WAVESTATION/M1/KSRACK/CZ1
User avatar
Pro5
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: U.K

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby Virgule » Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:40 pm

I specified it was thrown in for no real reason other than to show all 3 (JX, 60, 106) have the same character, any which way you want to see it.
Virgule
Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:46 pm

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby Bitexion » Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:18 pm

I had a 106 a couple years ago. Casually watching my mixer one day, I noticed two small periodic signals going up and down on the juno channel, with no other sound. Turned up the volume really loud, and heard periodic "hissing" from the chorus. The hissing changed speed with the different chorus settings. So it's quite noisy. But damn, the 106 sounds creamy.
User avatar
Bitexion
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
 
Posts: 3588
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: Drammen, Norway
Gear: Alesis Andromeda A6
Roland D-50
Yamaha Motif XF6
Roland Gaia
Alesis Ion
Analogue Systems modular
+various assorted bits&bobs

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby Pro5 » Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:45 pm

Finally got one [ JUNO 60 ! ] - been a long time without my Juno 6 - and the 60 is beautiful. Patch memory is a godsend and the sound, while simple, is as juicy, full and airy as I recall. Happy days :)

I think I feel the same as Jexus does:

http://www.syntezatory.net.pl/roland_juno60.htm

The bass kicks ass. Huge sound. Well... pretty each & every sound from this synth kicks ass. The filter & chorus are so juicy and rich sounding. The appeal of its natural tone is inexhaustible. I'll say more: the appeal of its very existence is inexhaustible. I not only love it as a synth, I love it as a thing - a beautiful piece of craft that decorates my flat and fills it with noble history and pleasurable sound (I guess this is what a collector feels and strives for when building his collection. I'm no collector, yet I do feel it with some synths). This is why, despite being severely limited, this model is superb for me. I'm just madly in love. The sound enormously makes up for the engine gaps.
(You could ask "then what about the Nord Lead, isn't it the same case of great sound winning over the limited engine?" Well, since the Nord Lead is a not-that-cheap, modern VA synth, for my defense I'll say that I expect somewhat more of it. On the other hand the Juno-60 gained considerably in value over the last few years (2007-2012) so my argument is being eroded. And I'm beginning to get all tangled up while jumping between these explanations... Oh God it's so fucked up.)

Some people say the Juno-60 is simply a Juno-106 without MIDI, but let me tell you: the difference in the sound is quite intangible, yet it makes the two sufficiently different. The JU60 sound is so vintage, agile & organic, that I get goosebumps. The JU106 auditioned afterwards makes me gnash my teeth. An experience like seeing your girlfriend after a plastic surgery gone bad a bit. You need to hear it yourself to believe. Just don't get carried away with this approach; the difference is really tiny, yet big enough for me to simply choose the 60 over the 106 if I have such a choice. Or maybe... could it be that not the sound but the design and the slanted, thick panel wins my love?

There's no MIDI port but you can use >Digital Communication Bus to MIDI< converter (it costs around 1/3rd of the synth itself, I think).

This is a badass and extremely alluring synth that best defines what "analog" feels like. I have some strange feeling inside of me. I feel some mystical connection between our existence. I hear a voice from my childhood, ant this voice is the sound of the Juno-60.


And have been comparing it to my 3P/PG-200 all morning. It's true you can make them sound similar in some basic areas, but where they differ is where they both get more interesting. JX due to the X-mod, and second DCO and Juno due to PWM/ENV and nicer filter implementation at higher res (and yes I've tweaked the 3P to full whack res internally but it's not as organic/sweet as the JU-60). I can't see me dumping the 3P but find they are useful for different areas even given them sometimes similar tonality.

The filter on the Juno 60 opens up more, is more earthy and has a wonderful texture, it sounds smooth and pretty or can sound almost unison like when using just the PWM (esp with Env) and SUB, JX can't do that without sounding a bit muted and less pleasing. And conversely JX-3P can do this ringing out metal tones and thick dual dco bass blasts that the Juno doesn't do (the juno has a more honest bass end but seems the 3P has a bass boost eq somewhere - maybe like the 106 or MKS-80 implementation). LFO has better speed range on Juno, more shapes on JX, and at high res/low/med cut off the Juno's filter sounds more like you'd expect an IR3109 to sound (more jupiter-esque) slightly more pleasing, wetter, more cutting - 3P tends to sound more forced.

Overall they are around 25% similar and can be made to mimic each other in some basic sounds, but for the other 75% they sound different and great enough to warrant both.

Have also had some interesting findings comparing the 60 to the Polysix, but will save that for another time :mrgreen:


edit > some pics of my new beauty

Image

Image

Image
V-SYNTH | JX-3P | AN1x | JD-800 | POLYSIX x2 | PERFORMER
HAD: SH101/JUNO 1,2,6,60/MKS70,50/JX8P/D50,70/JV1080/AX80/SY77,85/DX7,IID,S,100 /TG77,500/TX802,81Z/MS2k/DW8000/PROPHECY/WAVESTATION/M1/KSRACK/CZ1
User avatar
Pro5
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: U.K

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby Pro5 » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:18 am

http://www.residentadvisor.net/feature.aspx?1688

Do you remember how you picked up your Juno-60?

I think it was a trade. My friend had a Juno-106, and I thought that was really cool. But then when I traded [something] for a Juno-60 and I plugged it in for the first time, I was like "Oh my God, this is like 20 times better." It was simpler than a Juno-106, and you do less on it but the sounds were warmer and had more of a personality. They made my spine tingle when I first started playing it. I was a New Wave guy, and the Juno-60 does beautiful synth pads. And I was also a Detroit and Chicago fan, and it does incredible basslines. It's easy to make basslines really quick, it's like instant gratification. It was the perfect synth for me.
V-SYNTH | JX-3P | AN1x | JD-800 | POLYSIX x2 | PERFORMER
HAD: SH101/JUNO 1,2,6,60/MKS70,50/JX8P/D50,70/JV1080/AX80/SY77,85/DX7,IID,S,100 /TG77,500/TX802,81Z/MS2k/DW8000/PROPHECY/WAVESTATION/M1/KSRACK/CZ1
User avatar
Pro5
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: U.K

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby Floss » Thu Mar 21, 2013 2:42 am

Holy crap... Sound wise can anyone say the difference between the 106 and the 3p
Floss
Junior Member
Junior Member
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby Pro5 » Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:41 pm

Floss wrote:Holy crap... Sound wise can anyone say the difference between the 106 and the 3p


yeah, simple, 106 has proper PWM and 3P has a second OSC with sync/x-mod. Filters if pushed are probably a bit different too (but I think the filters on the 106/3P are possibly closer than the sound of the Juno 60 vs the 106!).

The above video is showing only the sounds that both can do, not the sounds that they can do that the other can't (of which there are many). Lots of synths can be made to sound very similar not even just a pair of Rolands, it's where they can sound different that really defines a synth imo.
V-SYNTH | JX-3P | AN1x | JD-800 | POLYSIX x2 | PERFORMER
HAD: SH101/JUNO 1,2,6,60/MKS70,50/JX8P/D50,70/JV1080/AX80/SY77,85/DX7,IID,S,100 /TG77,500/TX802,81Z/MS2k/DW8000/PROPHECY/WAVESTATION/M1/KSRACK/CZ1
User avatar
Pro5
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: U.K

Previous

Return to Synth Shootouts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests