Among the first in Roland's amazing Juno family! Six analog voices of polyphony and patch memory storage!! The Juno-60 sounds great, however, like the Juno-6 it lacks MIDI control. The Juno-60 includes 56 patches of memory storage. The Juno-60 is still popular due in part to opinions that it sounds better (punchier) than the Juno-106. The Juno-6 and 60 are very rich sounding synthesizers and are great analog machines as long as you can withstand the absence of MIDI control. The JSQ-60 sequencer is an external sequencer controller for the Juno-60 and is usually worth acquiring. Of course nobody can deny that the wooden side panel look is a true sign of Vintage status! Junos have been used by Enya, The Cure, Sean Lennon, Faithless, Astral Projection, Vince Clarke, Rabbit in the Moon, Men at Work, Flock of Seagulls, Olive, Dee-Lite, Howard Jones, Locust, Eurythmics and Add N to (X).

Cool Tips:
The Juno-60 can have 76 patches. By pressing down nr 5 and 1 or 2, at the same time, you get access to patch 57 to 76.

To access patches 80 to 98, (dead-patch) plug a cord into the PATCH SHIFT connector. Now you can access the test-programs 80-98: Keep 5 down and press 3 for bank 8, 5 and press 4 for bank 9.

Fire the Juno up with the KEYTRANSPOSE button pressed and the arpeggio mode-switch up to enter MONO-MODE. All 6 voices will be assigned to the last key pressed.

mrbasstrap

January 7, 2009 @ 2:58 am

Arguing that the Juno 106 has MIDI and more memory than the Juno 60 and is therefore a better synth is absurd. These are instruments – it makes sense to judge them by their sound and sound capability, no?

On the subject of MIDI, it's not like there is no external control with either of these earlier predecessors – they simply used Din-sync, which is a proprietary, non-standard communication protocol invented by Roland for use with Roland products before the standardization and public acceptance of MIDI. There are many Din-sync to MIDI 2-way converters available in the marketplace today.

mrbasstrap

January 7, 2009 @ 2:58 am

I have to agree with Chris here. Anyone who knows about these synths knows about the voice architecture/capability of the Juno 6 and 60 vs the 106. Sure, the 106 has more modern features, like MIDI, but it's sounds are thinner and lack the character of either the Juno 6 or 60.

The Juno 6 and 60 voice architecture is actually identical, save for the fact that presets can be stored on the Juno 60 - that's the only difference.

Mads

January 1, 2009 @ 9:23 am

CHRIS - You are so wrong. Sure the Juno 60 sounds good. But i cant make my Juno 6 sound like a Jupiter 8. The Juno 106 is a better synth. It features portamento, MIDI, 3 polymodes and more memory then the Juno 60.

Chris

December 22, 2008 @ 11:55 am

MADS- You'rer so wrong. There is no comparison, other than MIDI. The Juno-60 has analog envelopes, the 106 no. The 60 can use those analog envelopes to modify PW, 106 no. The 60 has a far more reliable voice architecture, the 106- well, I've owned 3 and they all lost voices. The 106 is a finwe sounding machine, but the 60 is a true, wood cladded, all metal high-dollar (1700 v the 106 1100 msrp) machine that gets 200-300 more on the bay daily. Listen to the two side by side- the 60 can sound EXACTLY like a JP8, the 106- NOT!!!

Mads

December 20, 2008 @ 3:22 pm

Get a juno 106. It has MIDI and it sounds more clean. The Juno 60/6 is in my opinion to dirty.

<987654321>

 

Post Comment!

Your Name: (Required.)

Email Address: (Required, not published.)

Image verification: (required)

Message:

 

Posting Rules:
Please keep your comments relevant! Do not post requests for help, do not use for sales, do not post unless you have something interesting to say about this instrument, or we may delete your post.

I have read and understand the posting rules.