juno 60 vs jx3p vs polysix.

A forum for comparing two or more synths against each other. Also known as "versus" threads.
User avatar
socalsynths
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 4:56 pm
Gear: Roland: JX10, Fantom FA76, Juno-60, Juno-106
Yamaha: DX7, SY77, Motif ES6
Korg: Triton Extreme, Wavestation
Location: San Diego

Re: juno 60 vs jx3p vs polysix.

Post by socalsynths » Sun May 10, 2009 5:34 pm

One thing I see left out about the Juno 60 is the fact that it has analog envelope generators- not even the 106 has them. The Juno 60 was the last Roland piece to utilize a voltage controlled envelope, which lends to its sharp comp and bass sounds. The 60 is much punchier than the JX3P, and has a more analog signal path, which, reliability aside (but it's very reliable!) makes the 60 a far better choice. Don't let the two-osc argument sway you- the 3P is a great but inferior synth to the 60, and was offered at a much lower price point that the 60. Price wise, a 3P gets $200 to $300 on the 'Bay, whereas the 60 gets $400 to $600, so that is a factor. Value wise, however, the 3P is a steal.

User avatar
Automatic Gainsay
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 3962
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:22 am
Real name: Marc Doty
Gear: Minimoog, 2600, CS-15, CS-50, MiniBrute, MicroBrute, S2, Korg MS-20 Mini, 3 Volcas, Pro 2, Leipzig, Pianet T, Wurli 7300, Wurli 145-A, ASR-10, e6400.
Band: Godfrey's Cordial
Location: Tacoma
Contact:

Re: juno 60 vs jx3p vs polysix.

Post by Automatic Gainsay » Sat May 30, 2009 4:48 am

If I were to list the most important, exciting, and defining components of any analog synth, I think envelopes would likely be the very last thing to be listed.
On top of that, most people will tell you that analog envelopes are not precise, and somewhat mushy compared to digitally generated envelopes.
I don't have the information in regard to the architecture of Jx-3P envelopes, but they are largely hailed as being the slowest and mushiest envelopes... which is hardly the trademark of digital.
On top of that "signal path" has absolutely nothing to do with envelopes. The signal path is the audio signal... the envelopes are not audio signals, but rather control voltages which control the amp or filter cutoff point. If you don't like the envelopes, that's fine... but to decry the Jx-3p as not being analog for something which has nothing to do with signal path is misleading. A lot of great modern analog synths have digital envelopes, and usually, digital envelopes are the punchy sort that most embrace.
The last thing that gives an analog synth an analog sound is the envelopes.

The JX3P has a lot of flaws... the horrible interface being foremost... but to portray the Juno 60, another DCO synth, as being "more analog" is just ridiculous.

The whole reason for analog being desirable exists in oscillators, filters, and signal path... to suggest that people not be swayed by a much greater timbral palette is horribly misleading. Envelopes are important, but are hardly that which defines an analog synth.

The JX3p and Juno 60 are remarkably similar, except for the fact that the JX has a shitty interface, but a vastly increased timbral scope thanks to its extra oscillator and its functionality.
‎"I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -Charles Babbage
"Unity and Mediocrity are forever in bed together." -Zane W.
http://www.youtube.com/automaticgainsay

Rangoon
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:49 am
Location: Kansas City

Re: juno 60 vs jx3p vs polysix.

Post by Rangoon » Sat May 30, 2009 7:33 am

Automatic Gainsay wrote:If I were to list the most important, exciting, and defining components of any analog synth, I think envelopes would likely be the very last thing to be listed.
On top of that, most people will tell you that analog envelopes are not precise, and somewhat mushy compared to digitally generated envelopes.
I don't have the information in regard to the architecture of Jx-3P envelopes, but they are largely hailed as being the slowest and mushiest envelopes... which is hardly the trademark of digital.
On top of that "signal path" has absolutely nothing to do with envelopes. The signal path is the audio signal... the envelopes are not audio signals, but rather control voltages which control the amp or filter cutoff point. If you don't like the envelopes, that's fine... but to decry the Jx-3p as not being analog for something which has nothing to do with signal path is misleading. A lot of great modern analog synths have digital envelopes, and usually, digital envelopes are the punchy sort that most embrace.
The last thing that gives an analog synth an analog sound is the envelopes.

The JX3P has a lot of flaws... the horrible interface being foremost... but to portray the Juno 60, another DCO synth, as being "more analog" is just ridiculous.

The whole reason for analog being desirable exists in oscillators, filters, and signal path... to suggest that people not be swayed by a much greater timbral palette is horribly misleading. Envelopes are important, but are hardly that which defines an analog synth.

The JX3p and Juno 60 are remarkably similar, except for the fact that the JX has a shitty interface, but a vastly increased timbral scope thanks to its extra oscillator and its functionality.
Your notion that analog envelopes are somewhat mushy compared to digitally generated envelope generators is 180 degrees opposite of all conventional opinion on that matter, particularly for early 80's era analog synthesizers. Analog envelope generators are generally viewed as being faster and having a steeper more exponentially shaped curve relative to non-analog envelope generators of that era. Under that assumption it is fair for someone to suggest that a Juno 60 (which has analog envelope generators) has more "analog desirability" than a JX3p (which has non-analog envelope generators), both in terms of the shaped sound and by the literal definition of analog...

User avatar
Pro5
Expert Member
Expert Member
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:30 pm
Gear: OB-6 | SH-2 | JX-3P | JD-800 | Performer
Location: U.K

Re: juno 60 vs jx3p vs polysix.

Post by Pro5 » Sat May 30, 2009 10:51 am

If you make/use sounds that REQUIRE fast envelopes then the Juno is the one to get, but My Juno 6 was fairly samey in it's sounds. I found the JX-3P, while being less 'punchy' (and less good for basses) to offer more interesting possibilities and actually be more fun to program because of the architecture. Juno is very simple.

Yes the interface holds the 3P back. If it had a 'proper' analog interface it would be more respected, but that's why Roland invented the PG-200 (or midi mod + BCR box ;) )... I'm looking at a way now to integrate some BCR knobs into my JX-3P but things are tight in there (obviously with midi expansion mod too). Would probably need the new ends and expanded panel as per the JX-3PG (custom synth).

Once you get those knobs on it it's a different matter (even though it's 'easy' to program without).

one of my favourite 3P vids for showing the diversity of sound while tweaking a live sequence:


User avatar
Automatic Gainsay
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 3962
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:22 am
Real name: Marc Doty
Gear: Minimoog, 2600, CS-15, CS-50, MiniBrute, MicroBrute, S2, Korg MS-20 Mini, 3 Volcas, Pro 2, Leipzig, Pianet T, Wurli 7300, Wurli 145-A, ASR-10, e6400.
Band: Godfrey's Cordial
Location: Tacoma
Contact:

Re: juno 60 vs jx3p vs polysix.

Post by Automatic Gainsay » Sat May 30, 2009 6:03 pm

Rangoon wrote:Your notion that analog envelopes are somewhat mushy compared to digitally generated envelope generators is 180 degrees opposite of all conventional opinion on that matter, particularly for early 80's era analog synthesizers. Analog envelope generators are generally viewed as being faster and having a steeper more exponentially shaped curve relative to non-analog envelope generators of that era. Under that assumption it is fair for someone to suggest that a Juno 60 (which has analog envelope generators) has more "analog desirability" than a JX3p (which has non-analog envelope generators), both in terms of the shaped sound and by the literal definition of analog...
Well, admittedly, my own statement indicates that the Jx3p, which purportedly has digitally generated envelopes, has the mushiest envelope generator ever, so I'm opposing my own viewpoint. :lol: I guess I am out of the loop of the great debate of the quality of envelopes on low-end likely-Roland DCO polysynths of the 80s. :wink:

I don't know which 80s synths you're using as an ideal. I've never had or played the Jupiters, but I'm guessing that's probably what you're talking about due to the increasing scarcity of analog synths in the 80s. (There was a time when people didn't even consider the Junos, etc. to be analog due to DCOs, but the current viewpoint is much more inclusive. )
In any case, I own a number of analog synthesizers, mostly from the 70s, and the envelopes (despite being apparently digital) on the JX have a response more similar to analog envelopes than many of the 80s synths I've played.

Irrespective of whether digital or analog envelopes are fast or slow or "snappy" or etc. in comparison, the point is for most people, oscillator function, sound, and count is far more important than how the envelopes are generated, and even their specific performance.
Of course, this statement will get the 3 people in the world who are most vehement about the importance of envelopes to pipe up. :wink:
‎"I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -Charles Babbage
"Unity and Mediocrity are forever in bed together." -Zane W.
http://www.youtube.com/automaticgainsay

User avatar
Automatic Gainsay
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 3962
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:22 am
Real name: Marc Doty
Gear: Minimoog, 2600, CS-15, CS-50, MiniBrute, MicroBrute, S2, Korg MS-20 Mini, 3 Volcas, Pro 2, Leipzig, Pianet T, Wurli 7300, Wurli 145-A, ASR-10, e6400.
Band: Godfrey's Cordial
Location: Tacoma
Contact:

Re: juno 60 vs jx3p vs polysix.

Post by Automatic Gainsay » Sat May 30, 2009 6:08 pm

Pro5 wrote:Yes the interface holds the 3P back. If it had a 'proper' analog interface it would be more respected, but that's why Roland invented the PG-200 (or midi mod + BCR box ;) )... I'm looking at a way now to integrate some BCR knobs into my JX-3P but things are tight in there (obviously with midi expansion mod too). Would probably need the new ends and expanded panel as per the JX-3PG (custom synth).
I would LOVE a JX3P with full size, built in pots... that would be extremely cool.
‎"I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -Charles Babbage
"Unity and Mediocrity are forever in bed together." -Zane W.
http://www.youtube.com/automaticgainsay

User avatar
OriginalJambo
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 2560
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:04 am
Gear: Check my sig
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom

Re: juno 60 vs jx3p vs polysix.

Post by OriginalJambo » Sun May 31, 2009 2:17 am

Automatic Gainsay wrote:I don't have the information in regard to the architecture of Jx-3P envelopes, but they are largely hailed as being the slowest and mushiest envelopes... which is hardly the trademark of digital.
I believe that honour lies with the JX-8P/10. Even with the attack at its lowest setting, to me, it still feels like there's a noticeable lack of snap. Then again, that "Soundtrack" preset more than makes up for this shortcoming!
Automatic Gainsay wrote:I would LOVE a JX3P with full size, built in pots... that would be extremely cool.
Just in case you missed it the first time around, behold:

Image

Shame about the colour scheme though - I'm not a fan.
Last edited by OriginalJambo on Sun May 31, 2009 3:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Automatic Gainsay
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 3962
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:22 am
Real name: Marc Doty
Gear: Minimoog, 2600, CS-15, CS-50, MiniBrute, MicroBrute, S2, Korg MS-20 Mini, 3 Volcas, Pro 2, Leipzig, Pianet T, Wurli 7300, Wurli 145-A, ASR-10, e6400.
Band: Godfrey's Cordial
Location: Tacoma
Contact:

Re: juno 60 vs jx3p vs polysix.

Post by Automatic Gainsay » Sun May 31, 2009 2:49 am

OriginalJambo wrote:Just in case you missed it the first time around, behold:

Image

Share about the colour scheme though - I'm not a fan.
I have seen that before, and I really like it...
I don't mind the colour scheme... I don't really like the new font... but anyway... the only problem with that well constructed thing, is that it still has the original PG-200 pots, which are difficult to control and see on stage!
I was thinking of big fat knobby knobs! : ) (that would only require a total redesign... ha ha ha)
‎"I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -Charles Babbage
"Unity and Mediocrity are forever in bed together." -Zane W.
http://www.youtube.com/automaticgainsay

User avatar
OriginalJambo
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 2560
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:04 am
Gear: Check my sig
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom

Re: juno 60 vs jx3p vs polysix.

Post by OriginalJambo » Sun May 31, 2009 3:17 am

Automatic Gainsay wrote:I don't mind the colour scheme... I don't really like the new font... but anyway....
My main beef isn't that it's white, I just don't think the other colours really gel with it. There's no denying that the Juno-60 is the looker either way though.
the only problem with that well constructed thing, is that it still has the original PG-200 pots, which are difficult to control and see on stage!
I was thinking of big fat knobby knobs! : ) (that would only require a total redesign... ha ha ha)
Well if the PG-200 pots are standard then you might be able to replace the knobs with something more substantial. There looks like enough leeway to at least get away with a few of 'em if that's the case.

Personally I think you're just spoiled with that Minimoog though! ;)

User avatar
Tchammosaur
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:50 pm
Contact:

Re: juno 60 vs jx3p vs polysix.

Post by Tchammosaur » Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:12 am

Automatic Gainsay wrote:Even with the shitty but silly-fun interface, the JX blows away all non-two-osc DCO 80s polysynths.I've never had a Polysix, but from what I've heard, the VCOs are nice. You've got to ask yourself, though... is that nice sound going to trump functionality for you?
:::shrugs:::
Right because even if you have an ugly sound, at least you have ... good modulation options? I don't understand that argument. For me, a Juno is the large majority of the time way better sounding than a JX-3P.

User avatar
Automatic Gainsay
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 3962
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:22 am
Real name: Marc Doty
Gear: Minimoog, 2600, CS-15, CS-50, MiniBrute, MicroBrute, S2, Korg MS-20 Mini, 3 Volcas, Pro 2, Leipzig, Pianet T, Wurli 7300, Wurli 145-A, ASR-10, e6400.
Band: Godfrey's Cordial
Location: Tacoma
Contact:

Re: juno 60 vs jx3p vs polysix.

Post by Automatic Gainsay » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:39 am

Tchammosaur wrote:
Automatic Gainsay wrote:Even with the shitty but silly-fun interface, the JX blows away all non-two-osc DCO 80s polysynths.I've never had a Polysix, but from what I've heard, the VCOs are nice. You've got to ask yourself, though... is that nice sound going to trump functionality for you?
:::shrugs:::
Right because even if you have an ugly sound, at least you have ... good modulation options? I don't understand that argument. For me, a Juno is the large majority of the time way better sounding than a JX-3P.
Well, you'd understand the argument if you realized that a lot of different synth players have different tastes.

How can the Juno be "way better sounding" than the JX-3P? You're going to have to qualify that incredibly subjective statement.
1. Both have DCOs. Are you saying the Juno's DCOs are better than the JX's?
2. Are you saying that the Juno has a better filter?
3. Are you saying that any differences in architecture lend the Juno a "better sound" even though the JX has a similar architecture and extended functionality?
4. Are you saying that sound trumps functionality? (I'm usually inclined to agree with this, but a single DCO synth with a great interface in no way trumps a dual DCO synth with the same basic sound but a lot more functionality)
5. Sound trumping functionality was a question, not a suggestion... and I wasn't talking about the Juno sound trumping the JX sound because they're both cheap-a*s low-end DCO synths from Roland. The Polysix, however limited and single-osc, at least has VCOS going for it.

Look back through this thread... there are a lot of people who wouldn't describe the JX as having an "ugly sound."
‎"I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -Charles Babbage
"Unity and Mediocrity are forever in bed together." -Zane W.
http://www.youtube.com/automaticgainsay

User avatar
pflosi
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 3620
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:14 pm
Gear: more than 150 characters...
Location: zürich
Contact:

Re: juno 60 vs jx3p vs polysix.

Post by pflosi » Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:36 am

hey originaljambo,

are you jeff from customsynth?

or dave from umop?

User avatar
Tchammosaur
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:50 pm
Contact:

Re: juno 60 vs jx3p vs polysix.

Post by Tchammosaur » Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:49 pm

Automatic Gainsay wrote:
Tchammosaur wrote:
Automatic Gainsay wrote:Even with the shitty but silly-fun interface, the JX blows away all non-two-osc DCO 80s polysynths.I've never had a Polysix, but from what I've heard, the VCOs are nice. You've got to ask yourself, though... is that nice sound going to trump functionality for you?
:::shrugs:::
Right because even if you have an ugly sound, at least you have ... good modulation options? I don't understand that argument. For me, a Juno is the large majority of the time way better sounding than a JX-3P.
Well, you'd understand the argument if you realized that a lot of different synth players have different tastes.

How can the Juno be "way better sounding" than the JX-3P? You're going to have to qualify that incredibly subjective statement.
Ha! It is a subjective statement, and I'm making that clear with the words "for me". I am nowhere saying that is the same for everyone. Increased functionality doesn't necessarily make a synth better sounding to a larger number of people. You're the one claiming knowledge of other people's tastes based on "functionality". I'm not making any such claim.
Automatic Gainsay wrote: 1. Both have DCOs. Are you saying the Juno's DCOs are better than the JX's?
2. Are you saying that the Juno has a better filter?
3. Are you saying that any differences in architecture lend the Juno a "better sound" even though the JX has a similar architecture and extended functionality?
Since when does one have to be an electrical engineer to appreciate the sound of a synthesizer?
To be more specific, I'll say that the Juno sounds richer, better balanced. But, there is also just something that I can't quite qualify, and I am certainly allowed to make that claim without full understanding of the synth's circuits. They are different synthesizer with different sounds, and even if this difference is based on circuitry, I'm not going to go in and dig through the circuits to find out what's making one better sounding for me.
Automatic Gainsay wrote: 4. Are you saying that sound trumps functionality? (I'm usually inclined to agree with this, but a single DCO synth with a great interface in no way trumps a dual DCO synth with the same basic sound but a lot more functionality)
5. Sound trumping functionality was a question, not a suggestion... and I wasn't talking about the Juno sound trumping the JX sound because they're both cheap-a*s low-end DCO synths from Roland. The Polysix, however limited and single-osc, at least has VCOS going for it.

Look back through this thread... there are a lot of people who wouldn't describe the JX as having an "ugly sound."
Saying something like "sound trumps functionality" is kind of a catch-22 I think. To me, the functionality of a synthesizer lies only in the spectrum of acceptable sounds that it makes, not in the large number of modulation options ... ... When the sound is pleasing, the more modulation options the better though!

Rangoon
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:49 am
Location: Kansas City

Re: juno 60 vs jx3p vs polysix.

Post by Rangoon » Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:22 am

Automatic Gainsay wrote: ....they're both cheap-a*s low-end DCO synths from Roland.
That's my sentiment also. They're hardly worth arguing over....

User avatar
Automatic Gainsay
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 3962
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:22 am
Real name: Marc Doty
Gear: Minimoog, 2600, CS-15, CS-50, MiniBrute, MicroBrute, S2, Korg MS-20 Mini, 3 Volcas, Pro 2, Leipzig, Pianet T, Wurli 7300, Wurli 145-A, ASR-10, e6400.
Band: Godfrey's Cordial
Location: Tacoma
Contact:

Re: juno 60 vs jx3p vs polysix.

Post by Automatic Gainsay » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:07 am

Tchammosaur wrote:Ha! It is a subjective statement, and I'm making that clear with the words "for me". I am nowhere saying that is the same for everyone. Increased functionality doesn't necessarily make a synth better sounding to a larger number of people. You're the one claiming knowledge of other people's tastes based on "functionality". I'm not making any such claim.
Ha ha, you need to post here more. :wink:
I am the resident "sound trumps functionality" guy. I've been trying to tell people for years that a Minimoog trumps much simply because it sounds so nice... but SO MANY people place a vast list of functionality over beautiful sound.

Tchammosaur wrote:Since when does one have to be an electrical engineer to appreciate the sound of a synthesizer?
To be more specific, I'll say that the Juno sounds richer, better balanced. But, there is also just something that I can't quite qualify, and I am certainly allowed to make that claim without full understanding of the synth's circuits. They are different synthesizer with different sounds, and even if this difference is based on circuitry, I'm not going to go in and dig through the circuits to find out what's making one better sounding for me.
Fair enough!
Irrespective of functionality, I've found the JX sound to be warmer and messier than the other DCO synths.
:::shrugs::::
It is a very subjective thing.


Tchammosaur wrote:Saying something like "sound trumps functionality" is kind of a catch-22 I think. To me, the functionality of a synthesizer lies only in the spectrum of acceptable sounds that it makes, not in the large number of modulation options ... ... When the sound is pleasing, the more modulation options the better though!
Well, the JX3P has more modulation options. :lol:
‎"I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -Charles Babbage
"Unity and Mediocrity are forever in bed together." -Zane W.
http://www.youtube.com/automaticgainsay

Post Reply