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 madtheory » Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:42 pm

Nope. The integration on the BA662 is on the same scale as the IR3109. And that's moot anyway, because the 106 has exactly the same chips as the 60 for the filter, just stuck on one PCB and covered in epoxy resin. Don't confuse the package with the scale of the IC, they're two different things.

The 106 sounds "warmer" because of the bass boost. The most common use of the term "warmer" is to describe a relative increase in bass or decrease in treble. So there is a minor difference, but you're attributing it to the wrong thing, and you're not reducing the variables to level the playing field.

You can easily test if your Juno 60 and 106 are correctly calibrated- if you can tune the resonant feedback to track the entire keyboard at concert pitch, then it's good. Makes a great organ sound. It's among the most stable and accurate analogue filters ever made.
User avatar
madtheory
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
 
Posts: 3296
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 12:45 pm
Location: Cork, Ireland
Real name: Tomas Mulcahy
Gear: Fabreeze, Buck Owens Moog, Korg Warlock 9000, Roland Sultan of Brunei, Moog Ribald Cat.
Band: madtheory

Advertisement:

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby philip » Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:42 pm

Both fantastic, for me 106 is the sweetest sounding synth on this planet
User avatar
philip
Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 6:52 pm
Real name: Philip

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby Theokretes » Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:01 pm

madtheory wrote:Nope. The integration on the BA662 is on the same scale as the IR3109. And that's moot anyway, because the 106 has exactly the same chips as the 60 for the filter, just stuck on one PCB and covered in epoxy resin. Don't confuse the package with the scale of the IC, they're two different things.

The 106 sounds "warmer" because of the bass boost. The most common use of the term "warmer" is to describe a relative increase in bass or decrease in treble. So there is a minor difference, but you're attributing it to the wrong thing, and you're not reducing the variables to level the playing field.

You can easily test if your Juno 60 and 106 are correctly calibrated- if you can tune the resonant feedback to track the entire keyboard at concert pitch, then it's good. Makes a great organ sound. It's among the most stable and accurate analogue filters ever made.


(Yeah I often play the filter for a chorused sine wave that way when the filter is in self-oscillation).

The chips are not exactly the same.
80017a uses IR3109N which is more integrated. It does not (I repeat), does NOT sound *exactly* like an older IR3109. When you change the integration of a filter circuit, it causes sonic differences. This is proven with any general filter design.

I've heard the resonance on the 106, while it sounds SIMILAR (almost 80%), it doesn't seem to get as harsh and noisy. It sounds a lot more stepped and controlled.

Again, you'll have to provide a resonance example to attempt to re-create the effects I've done on IR3109 with an IR3109N chip.
User avatar
Theokretes
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Canada, Alberta
Gear: JUNO-60, Jupiter-4, JV-1080, CS2x

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby polyjuno » Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:18 am

There is another difference between the 6/60 and 106, and that is how pitch data from the tune knob, bender and LFO affects the DCOs. In the 6/60 those control voltages are used to alter the master clock's frequency. This means that the resulting pitch varies continuously, and not in steps. The 106 takes a more digital approach by running them through A/D converters and summing them together with the portamento and keyboard data, and then using the result as the DCO timer value. I doubt that it is much of a noticeable difference as I never see it mentioned. I've seen some complaints about audible stepping by the Prophet 600 (especially when modulating the filter cutoff), but never about the Juno 106.
polyjuno
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:19 am
Location: Norway
Gear: Bass Station 2
Juno-6
Roland TR-606, Yamaha RX11
Fender Telecaster

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby cornutt » Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:30 am

Theokretes wrote:The chips are not exactly the same.
80017a uses IR3109N which is more integrated.


It's the same part, mounted in a gull-wing SMD package instead of a thru-hole package. Makes no diff until you get up to UHF frequencies.
Switches, knobs, buttons, LEDs, LCD screens, monitors, keys, mice, jacks, sockets. Now two joysticks!
User avatar
cornutt
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1875
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:03 am
Location: Rocket City USA
Gear: 6th

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby cornutt » Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:33 am

polyjuno wrote:There is another difference between the 6/60 and 106, and that is how pitch data from the tune knob, bender and LFO affects the DCOs. In the 6/60 those control voltages are used to alter the master clock's frequency. This means that the resulting pitch varies continuously, and not in steps.


That may be true of the 6 (I'll have to look at the schematics), but I am almost certain it is not true of the 60. I'll have to go look at it again, but I'm pretty sure that the (1) the master oscillator on both the 60 and the 106 is a crystal oscillator that is not variable in frequency, and (2) it's also the CPU master clock, so if it were to be varied, it would mess up the processor timing.
Switches, knobs, buttons, LEDs, LCD screens, monitors, keys, mice, jacks, sockets. Now two joysticks!
User avatar
cornutt
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1875
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:03 am
Location: Rocket City USA
Gear: 6th

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby polyjuno » Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:44 am

From the 60 service manual:

Master Oscillators TR58-TR62
An LC oscillator having a variable capacitance diode (D18) to which control voltages from BENDER, LFO and TUNE, - common to all VCOs, are supplied.


EDIT: The CPUs (master/slave) actually have their own oscillators in all three models. The difference in the 106 is that the master oscillator is changed from a voltage controlled LC circuit to a crystal based circuit.
polyjuno
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:19 am
Location: Norway
Gear: Bass Station 2
Juno-6
Roland TR-606, Yamaha RX11
Fender Telecaster

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby madtheory » Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:03 pm

cornutt wrote:
Theokretes wrote:The chips are not exactly the same.
80017a uses IR3109N which is more integrated.


It's the same part, mounted in a gull-wing SMD package instead of a thru-hole package. Makes no diff until you get up to UHF frequencies.

Thanks for explaining that more clearly than I did. I hope he understands... :twisted:
User avatar
madtheory
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
 
Posts: 3296
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 12:45 pm
Location: Cork, Ireland
Real name: Tomas Mulcahy
Gear: Fabreeze, Buck Owens Moog, Korg Warlock 9000, Roland Sultan of Brunei, Moog Ribald Cat.
Band: madtheory

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby cornutt » Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:16 am

polyjuno wrote:From the 60 service manual:

Master Oscillators TR58-TR62
An LC oscillator having a variable capacitance diode (D18) to which control voltages from BENDER, LFO and TUNE, - common to all VCOs, are supplied.


EDIT: The CPUs (master/slave) actually have their own oscillators in all three models. The difference in the 106 is that the master oscillator is changed from a voltage controlled LC circuit to a crystal based circuit.


Ah, I'll have to go look at that. Thanks.
Switches, knobs, buttons, LEDs, LCD screens, monitors, keys, mice, jacks, sockets. Now two joysticks!
User avatar
cornutt
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1875
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:03 am
Location: Rocket City USA
Gear: 6th

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby DesolationBlvd » Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:24 pm

Another Juno-60/106 thread and no mention of hardware vs. software envelopes? I think that would have a greater impact on the sound than the packaging of the filter. Though 106 has some pretty good software envelopes, they're still blah in comparison to IR3R01.

And, no mention of the lack of envelope PWM on 106?


Re: madtheory's response to Theokretes about the VCA, he was probably talking about the BA662-based filter on the Jupiter-4 that got changed to IR3109.
I'm the vaccine for the Access Virus.

Oberheim OB-Xa (8-voice) (sick) / DMX
Roland Jupiter-8 / SH-101 / JP-8080 / Alpha Juno 2
Moog Voyager RME
Boss CE-300 / DR-110
Yamaha DX7
Akai S5000
User avatar
DesolationBlvd
Junior Member
Junior Member
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:24 am

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby polyjuno » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:27 pm

The envelope generators can't really change the sound character (i.e. "cold", "warm" etc.), but there will of course be a difference in how they modulate the filter (such as attack time, the envelope curves, stepping and so on). I've never had a 106 myself, so I don't know what the differences are. What makes them blah in comparison to the IR3R01?
polyjuno
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:19 am
Location: Norway
Gear: Bass Station 2
Juno-6
Roland TR-606, Yamaha RX11
Fender Telecaster

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby DesolationBlvd » Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:35 am

I take back saying 106 envs are blah. 106 is fast, but it's more thumpy than snappy.
I'm the vaccine for the Access Virus.

Oberheim OB-Xa (8-voice) (sick) / DMX
Roland Jupiter-8 / SH-101 / JP-8080 / Alpha Juno 2
Moog Voyager RME
Boss CE-300 / DR-110
Yamaha DX7
Akai S5000
User avatar
DesolationBlvd
Junior Member
Junior Member
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:24 am

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby moremagic » Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:01 am

i thought the main problem with the 106s software envelopes wasnt with not being fast enough but rather that slow times have some audible stepping
User avatar
moremagic
Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:29 am
Location: nc
Real name: A.M.
Gear: small stone,nuo2,dd-6,ps-6,mf-102,mf-101,er-1,ps-5,mf-104z,pds-20/20,hd-1000,ep-501,mf-107,cp-251,mp-4,ad-9,pme-40x,s-10,sp-404sx,mpc2000xl,pds-1002

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby redchapterjubilee » Wed Feb 13, 2013 4:23 pm

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.
http://www.soundcloud.com/kellyminnis
ANALOG SYNTHESIZERS + EFFECTS + COMPUTERS
User avatar
redchapterjubilee
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:59 pm
Location: College Station, TX

Re: Juno-60 vs Juno-106

Postby philip » Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:54 pm

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.
User avatar
philip
Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 6:52 pm
Real name: Philip

PreviousNext

Return to Synth Shootouts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests