Page 1 of 2

Debating whether or not to sell my trusty old Juno6

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:27 am
by RichShan
Well,

recently I have acquired an MKS70, a JV108 and I have a JX3p with PG200 lurking around too.

My poor Juno 6 seems to spend most of it's time these days propped up on its side twiddling its envelopes and waiting for a chance to get in amongst the others.

I think I've got most of the (budget) Roland sound covered and I'll never be able to afford a Jupiter8, so I'm thinking of letting her go. But, I'll probably sample the sounds I need and then sell on...

Anyone have any reason why I shouldn't sell her onward to someone who could use her and love her better?

I think I need help with my fence sitting!

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:59 am
by OriginalJambo
I had a Juno 6 too and once I acquired the JX-3P I felt that there was such a great overlap in their sonic palette and general character that I promptly ditched the Juno for the increased flexibility of the JX.

The Juno is a good synth, but if it isn't getting used there's really no point in hanging on to it. You can easily coax Juno-esque sounds out of the JX - it has the exact same filter and chorus!

So I'd say sell the Juno 6 unless you really love arpeggiators, PWM and must have some of the snappiest envelopes known to man. Otherwise the JX-3P has you more than covered, and then some.

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:09 pm
by RichShan
OriginalJambo wrote:I had a Juno 6 too and once I acquired the JX-3P I felt that there was such a great overlap in their sonic palette and general character that I promptly ditched the Juno for the increased flexibility of the JX.

I'd say sell the Juno 6 unless you really love arpeggiators, PWM and must have some of the snappiest envelopes known to man. Otherwise the JX-3P has you more than covered, and then some.
My thinking exactly, well except for the bit about the envelopes... I do love arpeggiators, as it happens. But the arp on the ju6 isn't exactly flexible. I tend to trigger it from my old TR626 to increase rhythmic complexity and have come up with some really interesting stuff... But then I could sample that or record it into logic...

The 3p is undoubtedly fatter (even when you do the unison "cheat" on the juno) and I've created some great bass sounds- amongst others. Very useful step sequencer too.

I reckon you could be right about selling.

Then I could put the cash toward that Waldorf XT I've been coveting

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:46 pm
by Jexus
OriginalJambo wrote: You can easily coax Juno-esque sounds out of the JX - it has the exact same filter and chorus!

hey...:arrow: I don't know the guts in either, but the sound is definitely different.

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 8:53 pm
by Hossinfeffa
Jexus wrote: hey...:arrow: I don't know the guts in either, but the sound is definitely different.
Yeah, the JX series has a more precise digital sound than the Juno-6. I remember looking a while back on here and the JX-3P had a few newer circuits than the 6.

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:41 pm
by carbon111
I sold my Juno 60 a couple years back and have regreted it ever since.

No other synth (except the Juno6) has THAT sound...the BBD chorus and Juno filter just can't be emulated.

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:12 pm
by nathanscribe
The Juno6 was my first real synth, and for a couple of years my only analogue - I saw a 60 in a local shop later and bought it, intending to sell the 6 - but I just never got round to it (or rather, never had the heart). Still got 'em both, fifteen or more years later, and I have to admit the 60 sees the use while the 6 is only occasionally switched on. It's only the interfacing that's the issue though, and the fact that memories makes things a little easier. But I used to use the 6's arp a lot, triggered from the 606. Now I tend to sequence the 60 over MIDI/DCB to cover the limitiations using just the arp imposed.

Anyway, if you have the ballpark sound covered elsewhere, want something you can interface, and have no emotional attachment to it, why not sell the 6 and fund something different? If you do miss it later, they're common enough to be able to pick up another without too much difficulty.

(this coming from the man who struggles to part with anything...)

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:27 pm
by Henfield
If you were located in the USA, I would tell you to sell the Juno 6, that way I could buy it! I love the sound and the Arpeggiator, and I don't mind the lack of digital stuff and presets!

Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:30 pm
by Hossinfeffa
nathanscribe wrote:The Juno6 was my first real synth, and for a couple of years my only analogue - I saw a 60 in a local shop later and bought it, intending to sell the 6 - but I just never got round to it (or rather, never had the heart). Still got 'em both, fifteen or more years later, and I have to admit the 60 sees the use while the 6 is only occasionally switched on. It's only the interfacing that's the issue though, and the fact that memories makes things a little easier. But I used to use the 6's arp a lot, triggered from the 606. Now I tend to sequence the 60 over MIDI/DCB to cover the limitiations using just the arp imposed.

Anyway, if you have the ballpark sound covered elsewhere, want something you can interface, and have no emotional attachment to it, why not sell the 6 and fund something different? If you do miss it later, they're common enough to be able to pick up another without too much difficulty.

(this coming from the man who struggles to part with anything...)
Don't feel alone, the Juno-6 was my first synth ever. Time to time I have considered buying a 60 to replace it, but I never do it. I have a big attachment to it. Even if someone was to offer me more than it's worth, I don't think I could sell it. Each piece of equipment that I get I can't imagine getting rid of. But then again, I'm like that with everything I buy rather than just music equipment.

Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:06 am
by OriginalJambo
Jexus wrote:hey...:arrow: I don't know the guts in either, but the sound is definitely different.
Well if this source is anything to go by then they do indeed have the same filter ICs:

http://analog.no/cms/roland-custom-integrated-circuits

Despite this you do have a good point, they aren't exactly the same - I'd say the Juno has a slightly fuller sound whilst the JX sounds mid rangy, sharper and possibly a bit more nasal. Then you take into account the more obvious differences - 2 DCOs vs 1 DCO per voice, no PWM vs. PWM, decent software envelopes vs. super snappy hardware ones, three different chorus settings vs. one, a filter that self-oscillates vs. one that doesn't etc.

At the end of the day there is no doubt that there is a lot of overlap in their sound - both are a little more clinical sounding thanks to the DCOs and make great 80s boards thanks to the chorus.

I'll say that I don't really miss mine - but that's probably because I'm more a Polysix man more than anything else. 8)

Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:38 am
by Mixolydian
The Junos have a sub-oscillator which the JX-3P doesn't. I had a 106 and would still like another - despite having 4 MKSs. I do like my MKS-30's 2 oscillators per voice, but there was something downtown about the Juno that it just can't do.

If you can afford to, I suggest you keep the 6.

BTW, the MKS-70 is quite a synth - a totally different category than Junos and JX-3Ps, but really deep and interesting.

Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:44 pm
by OriginalJambo
Mixolydian wrote:The Junos have a sub-oscillator which the JX-3P doesn't.
Bit of a moot point really since JX-3P has 2 DCOs per voice. You can easily detune one an octave below the other and hey presto - instant sub-oscillator.

You could argue that there will always be a slight beating that can't be avoided with two oscillators and can be with one + a sub, but it's really not a deal breaker IMO.

Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:01 pm
by Jexus
OriginalJambo wrote:
Mixolydian wrote:The Junos have a sub-oscillator which the JX-3P doesn't.
Bit of a moot point really since JX-3P has 2 DCOs per voice. You can easily detune one an octave below the other and hey presto - instant sub-oscillator.

You could argue that there will always be a slight beating that can't be avoided with two oscillators and can be with one + a sub, but it's really not a deal breaker IMO.

Yeah, who cares about suboscillators really...
The point is ; Juno sounds thicker and more lush.
JX3p sounds thinner (but it doesn't f**k mean worse!) and more metallic.

Jesus, am I getting myself into one of these endless pointless discussions what sounds what vs what? :lol:

Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:46 pm
by Automatic Gainsay
I'll be frank, I am not a fan of DCOs. Of the DCO synths I have had or played, the JX-3P is my favorite (although the SX-210 is also very nice). Why? For the simple reason that it can sound warm and analog without much effort. I admit that it is capable of a lot of nasal and piercing sounds... but I wouldn't necessarily define those sounds as its overall character.
It does sound reprehensibly eighties at times, but all Roland DCO synths do!
:)

On topic, though... it baffles me that people are so willing to dismiss synths like the Yamaha CS-50, the Micromoog, and even the PS-3100 because they're "only one oscillator," yet SO many people will favour the Juno 6 over the JX-3P. In my experience, their sounds are extremely similar except in the places where the JX-3P has MUCH more functionality... the second oscillator, the various sync modes, etc. The ONLY thing the Juno 6 has over the JX-3P is a vastly superior interface, and that is completely without question. I think the Juno 6 is an excellent synth to learn analog synthesis on for that reason.

But as they sound extremely similar (except where the JX has greater functionality), it pretty much comes down to whether you want a great interface or superior functionality.

So, I say ditch the Juno. :) Monopolize on the weird and increasing completely unfounded hype associated with the keyboard! :)

Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:59 pm
by tallowwaters
sell it and take up a new hobby where strangers dont have to validate your thoughts.