Battle of the junos: alpha juno 1 vs juno 60

[Sir Ruff]

Ok, we've managed to do every other possible juno 60 comparison, but no one's mentioned the most relevant of all... (This is prompted by my finally getting a juno 60, and deciding it's finally time to give my long unused juno 1 the boot).

We all know the specific technical differences-juno 1 would beat the juno 60 easily in that category (excepting envelope PWM which is a great feature that the juno 1 doesn't have), but what about the sound?
Ok, well the juno 60 should win easily in that category (it does for me at least), but when you factor in the increased parameter options of the juno 1, things get a little murkier...
Having a speed control for the chorus is very useful, as is having pitch env, etc... I also like the compact size of the juno 1.

So which is it to be?

[Z]

At this time, I have one of each generation of Juno synths (JU-60, JU-106 & HS-80 w/ PG-300) and was thinking of doing some sort of comparision video. I'd be happy to whip up something quick using the JU-60 & HS-80 if you need - I just need to know what exactly you'd like me to compare.

[braincandy]

I had Juno-1 for a few months about 5 years ago and reacquired a Juno-60 for the 2nd time this past December, so forgive me if my memory is a little foggy on the Juno-1.

I look at sound + fun and the Juno-60 wins hands down. The more advanced specs on the Juno-1 don't matter much to me. The one-slider-per-function interface on the Juno-60 and more real-time control is worth the extra cash. The Juno-1 never made me forget about the 60. I even preferred the 106 to the Juno-1 (before the 106 started having issues). I'm not saying the Juno-1 is a bad synth--it's a good choice for an analog poly for very little scratch and does some decent basses and pads.

Is this a situation where you have to sell one or the other, because I don't think Juno-1s even sell for that much anymore, do they? Might as well keep it and enjoy its compactness and use it as a "lap" synth when you're lounging around, if you don't need the cash.

[Sir Ruff]

Thanks for offer Z-but seeing as already have both now I don't really need help comparing them I definitely couldn't see owning all three-maybe one of the junos and and alpha, but not the 60, 106 AND alpha...

No braincandy, they do not sell for much (and I ain't askin a lot either!) That was basically my argument for keeping it so long... I actually had an mks-50 in the past with the pg-300, but that thing was so unintuitive-like, what the h**l is the difference between a patch and a tone on a mono-timbral synth?
Anyways, ironically, I actually enjoyed programming the juno-1 more sans pg-300... you just scroll through and edit as needed. Which is why I ended up keeping it.

But really, what is the point of keeping stuff just for the sake of keeping it? I am on a full-scale decluttering mission in anticipation of moving, and so now especially, the j-60 has made this redundant.

[Sir Ruff]

So I was totally set on selling the alpha.... the I started actually playing it again. It really does sound different in a few ways. Having a different LFO for chorus and PWM (and filter) really does open up the sound. It can also have much slower envelopes. I am able to produce my favorite early 90s techno filter sweeps that are just kind of too clean and bright (polite) on the 60. preset Syn Rise is awesome (taking advantage of all 3 LFOs)-straight off an early 90s german techno record. And Cosmo sweep is also super hot.

the 60 is much better sounding overall, but more polished and bright. It just doesn't have that resonant bite (but admittedly sounds a lot better without rez). dammit.. I'm almost considering selling the 60 or keeping both... argh!

[synthshaw]

I picked an HS80 up last year in mint condition, and i'm glad i did. Different tonal quality from the other Junos as you say, i find it great for booming bass and sub bass. The aftertouch on this model adds a lot of value for me, for opening the filter or adding vibrato. I like to put it in mono mode with glide and do that sliding rumble bass, great synth.

[Solderman]

I don't have much to add here, as I don't own a Juno 60, but in trying to emulate 60 sounds I've heard on the Alpha, the latter just cannot do that warm gooey stuff at all.
I chalk it up to the filter designs on each. 60 has a standard OTA 4 pole lowpass. Alphas have a 2 Pole Lowpass in series with a 2 Pole bandpass, just like the rev 5 MKS-80. The alphas seem to have a bit more sensitive VCF that clips easier in the mid-range, and some would say Roland perfected the tuning on the Alphas a little too much.

I personally like the resonant sweeps, bright strings and squelchy squares on my Alpha. Hoover sounds I can take them or leave them. I like the ability to modulate multiple parameters at once with the Env Depth and Mod Speed buttons too.

[Gossioii7]

Excellent tips .I really appreciate all these points, and I agree completely…

[Phenom]

I owned both together for a time with the Juno 1 sitting right on top of my 60, so I guess I compared them quite a bit. I echo what's been said here that the 60 was the superior synth. The 60 can sound quite thick with the chorus, tho without the dco's can sound a bit thin, though by no means unpleasant (unlike some DCO synths). The Alpha always sounds quite thin unless it's doing it's chavvy PWM trance and hoover stuff, it really should come with a fake burberry baseball cap. both can sound a bit plasticy I feel.

The filter on the 60 is so sweet and pretty, almost sacharine at times, the filter on the alpha has less character, which is not helped by it's lack of self-osc. The env attack times was better on the 60, the LFO on the Alpha is nice tho, great for ultra long sweeps and drones. One thing I will say for the Alpha is that it is a unique sounding synth, and the waveform options are fab, and the sound always moves and swirls, almost digital in it's transparancy. I miss the Alpha a bit actually.

The performance section on the 60 is much nicer with the old Roland joystick control of filter cutoff, which is so obvious, but so fun I don't care, and the arp is very nice since I can now sync it, via my Pro DCB or my 808, so it sees a bit more action than it used to.

[Sir Ruff]

I chalk it up to the filter designs on each. 60 has a standard OTA 4 pole lowpass. Alphas have a 2 Pole Lowpass in series with a 2 Pole bandpass, just like the rev 5 MKS-80. The alphas seem to have a bit more sensitive VCF that clips easier in the mid-range, and some would say Roland perfected the tuning on the Alphas a little too much.

This is really interesting, I had no idea... thanks for posting! the resonance of the 60, like someone else said, is very clean and pretty... the alpha on the other hand really bites... perhaps that's the effect of the bandpass filter in series? but it definitely doesn't sound like the mks-80 ver 5. (although admittedly, I never compared them side by side, and without the chorus, the alpha rez wouldn't soud quite as good.)

[Solderman]

This is really interesting, I had no idea... thanks for posting! the resonance of the 60, like someone else said, is very clean and pretty... the alpha on the other hand really bites... perhaps that's the effect of the bandpass filter in series? but it definitely doesn't sound like the mks-80 ver 5. (although admittedly, I never compared them side by side, and without the chorus, the alpha rez wouldn't soud quite as good.)

Same as the Juno-60 doesn't sound like the Jupiter 8 in 4 pole mode. They use the same generation IC for VCF, but there's so much more to consider. I can only make my 2 pole LP -> 2 Pole BP observation from looking at schematics, so there could be more to it than that. Since the Alpha's VCF doesn't self-oscillate, my guess is you're getting a thinner and higher resonant peak for some part of the upper midrange, so it comes off sounding more harsh.
The chorus designs on each Juno are also slightly different; mostly updated parts with a similar architecture. The Alpha's chorus is nearly identical to the Boss CE-300, which I use with my Jupiter, and it's great for that. Biggest difference is the Boss has an Expander circuit in addition.

[lhm1138]

The Alphas have a slightly cold sound to them, perfect compliment to more thick analog synths. Not the best workhorses, but if you have other stuff they play quite well with others.

[nameless wonder]

Reviving the thread to make a post:

Comparing the Alpha to the 106 - I agree the Alpha is very very clean and transparent - It is missing the "dirt" aka "thickness" aka "rawness" of the 106/60/6, but excels at patches that are clean - bell-like tones in particular. Again, they designed the look of the Alphas to mimic the DX7, and the sound design was very likely to sound closer to a DX7 too - super clean. Not coincidentally, the Alpha/MKS50 were the last analog polys created by Roland before they switched whole hog to digital.

The 106/60/6 use a 4 pole filter, which equates to thicker murkier darker mids-forward tones. The Alpha on the other hand is a 2 pole into a bandpass, which is of course lighter and brighter. Both have their uses. If I had to choose one, I would choose the 106 because it has that very "vintage" period tone used a lot in the early 80s.

[Psy_Free]

the sound design was very likely to sound closer to a DX7 too - super clean.

DX7's aren't super clean. They are artifact riddled and noisy. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing.

[Solderman]

Wow another flashback post, when I still had a JP8.

Again, they designed the look of the Alphas to mimic the DX7, and the sound design was very likely to sound closer to a DX7 too - super clean. Not coincidentally, the Alpha/MKS50 were the last analog polys created by Roland before they switched whole hog to digital.

I would argue that aside from minimzing it being a cost-saving measure, knob/slider-laden interfaces were just becoming out of fashion, even before the DX7.(JX3P, Source, Chroma, etc.) The Juno brand was Roland's mid-priced line, so the design choices represent cost-saving measures more than anything. Seeing as midi was a fledgling technology and you could buy a separate sysex-based programmer for the Alpha Junos, I'm more inclined to think Roland were just using what parts they had from their JX line, only slimmed down. So maybe not meant to sound like FM synthesis, that's just where technology was headed. I would agree Casio's implementation of phase distortion did this though.

The 106/60/6 use a 4 pole filter, which equates to thicker murkier darker mids-forward tones. The Alpha on the other hand is a 2 pole into a bandpass, which is of course lighter and brighter. Both have their uses.

I'm not so sure now if that filter topology is correct, although no self-oscillation usually indicates 2 pole slope. The service manuals for Alpha Junos and MKS-50 conflict in how this topology is described, although both indicate an IR3R05 configured as a pair of 2 pole filters in series, giving 4 pole lowpass slope in either. The Alphas seem more bassy than the others, and I've never looked into whether the bass-boost circuit is implemented in the same way as the 106. I always thought the lower-mids thickness of the earlier Juno's was due to the DCO output being derived from a Sawtooth integrator. The Alpha's DCO design is pulse counter based.