JX-8P v Juno-60

[wrekkstylz]

Which do you think is better?

[spookyman]

Not better.

Only different.

[Yoozer]

I've got both.

For gentle pad sounds and metallic sync-effects: JX8P.
For plastic, chunky bass, PWM and bold string sounds: Juno.

Yes, the JX8P's better in synthesis and has a more versatile selection, but the Juno just can't sound bad.

[D-Collector]

I have never owned or played a Juno-60, but I love the sound of the JX-8P. The little demo is courtesy of "Dr. Awesome" Bjørn Lynne.

[braincandy]

Not better.

Only different.

Agreed. They're both good at different things.

I like the 8P for its warm, full pads and unison mode and I like the Juno because of its chorus, self-oscillating filter, arpeggiator, and its immediacy.

[Pro5]

I owned a Juno 6 (virtually the same as the 60) and currently have a JX-8P. The Juno has 'faster' hardware envelopes, filter same as JX-3p/jupiter 8, as above good for bass and fun to play around with (very immediate).

JX-8P is more interesting soundwise (to me) as it's architecture is more advanced. I don't make the kind of music that requires hard hitting synth bass (or if I do I use a variety of methods from soft synths to w/e to get it). JX-8P can do some 'evolving' pads and has 2 ENVS.

Of course Juno has knobs, JX-8P has menus/single slider (but I use a BCR2000 with it so have full control ). JX-8P also has patch naming/screen but that's nothing to do with the sound.

Overall the Juno has more 'street cred' and more vintage status/respect (if that bothers you) and both are good synths and fill different areas. I would like a Juno 60 again someday to replace my 6 (I didn't like lack of patch storage and midi on the 6 at the time). JX-3P probably sounds a bit more like a Juno 6/60 than the JX-8P does (Same filter) but again different (even to the JX-8P). 3P is by far my favourite from the Juno6/JX-8P/JX-3P that I have owned but 8P is still a very 'warm' and interesting synth to use.

The thing with Juno is, it's really good at a few certain sounds (one of the best) and has a sonic character that defines it, which also leads to (in my experience) it sounding 'samey' or at least less of a sonic pallete compared to the JX's.

However the JX's as much as I love them are not all singing/dancing either.. they lack ARPs for a start.

And finally JX-8P has velocity/aftertouch and built in midi + a lot more flexibilty. Juno 6/60 doesn't.

try them both if you can. I think more people generally are happy/proud to have a Juno... but I always appreciate the underdog and for me JX are great

[D-Collector]

However the JX's as much as I love them are not all singing/dancing either.. they lack ARPs for a start.

Yeah, I wish the 8P had an arpeggiator.
Nice summary, btw.

[iProg]

As a previous owner of a JX-8P and currently using the Juno-60 (although not mine) I must state that they are very different. I would prefer both in different situations. They excel at different things, but the Juno-60 is a lot more fun to play around with, and the arpeggiator is priceless and classic.

The JX-8P has a smooth, mellow beauty...

[Joey]

I owned a juno 106 for about 4 years and a MKS70 (JX in a rack) for less time than that.

I wasn't a fan of the JX sound but I can understand why people would like it, it sounds very rubber to me, if I had to pick a word. I don't mean plasticky, I just mean elastic. If that makes sense.

I was much more of a fan of the lushness of the juno series, but neither synths were really enough for me.

If I had to choose between the two I'd take the juno though.

[OriginalJambo]

I owned a Juno 6 (virtually the same as the 60) and currently have a JX-8P. The Juno has 'faster' hardware envelopes, filter same as JX-3p/jupiter 8, as above good for bass and fun to play around with (very immediate).

JX-8P is more interesting soundwise (to me) as it's architecture is more advanced. I don't make the kind of music that requires hard hitting synth bass (or if I do I use a variety of methods from soft synths to w/e to get it). JX-8P can do some 'evolving' pads and has 2 ENVS.

Of course Juno has knobs, JX-8P has menus/single slider (but I use a BCR2000 with it so have full control ). JX-8P also has patch naming/screen but that's nothing to do with the sound.

Overall the Juno has more 'street cred' and more vintage status/respect (if that bothers you) and both are good synths and fill different areas. I would like a Juno 60 again someday to replace my 6 (I didn't like lack of patch storage and midi on the 6 at the time). JX-3P probably sounds a bit more like a Juno 6/60 than the JX-8P does (Same filter) but again different (even to the JX-8P). 3P is by far my favourite from the Juno6/JX-8P/JX-3P that I have owned but 8P is still a very 'warm' and interesting synth to use.

The thing with Juno is, it's really good at a few certain sounds (one of the best) and has a sonic character that defines it, which also leads to (in my experience) it sounding 'samey' or at least less of a sonic pallete compared to the JX's.

However the JX's as much as I love them are not all singing/dancing either.. they lack ARPs for a start.

And finally JX-8P has velocity/aftertouch and built in midi + a lot more flexibilty. Juno 6/60 doesn't.

try them both if you can. I think more people generally are happy/proud to have a Juno... but I always appreciate the underdog and for me JX are great

Almost exactly how I feel about the 6/60, 3P and Super JX.

[snsr]

However the JX's as much as I love them are not all singing/dancing either.. they lack ARPs for a start.

Yeah, I wish the 8P had an arpeggiator.
Nice summary, btw.

Hook that mello-yello up to Live! for your arpeggiation fix. I recently also tried my midi keyboard as controller for my JX-8P, and wow! I never realized how expressive the synth can be with aftertouch working fully. That combined with the PG-800 make the JX-8p my favorite synth in the studio at the moment. The JX-8p without a programmer (or BCR) is significantly less fun. I wish there were more assignment options for the aftertouch.

[mute]

JX-3P probably sounds a bit more like a Juno 6/60 than the JX-8P does (Same filter) but again different (even to the JX-8P). 3P is by far my favourite from the Juno6/JX-8P/JX-3P that I have owned but 8P is still a very 'warm' and interesting synth to use.

There's a twist to this. The JX-3P and Juno 6/60 do use the same filters, the Roland IR3109 IC.. they also have the same VCA chip. Both of these chips are also used in the Jupiter 8 and 6. However... the rackmount version of the JX-3P - the MKS30 Planet-S - actually uses the Juno 106 chips, the failure prone 80017a's. I love me some JX3P.

[Pro5]

JX-3P probably sounds a bit more like a Juno 6/60 than the JX-8P does (Same filter) but again different (even to the JX-8P). 3P is by far my favourite from the Juno6/JX-8P/JX-3P that I have owned but 8P is still a very 'warm' and interesting synth to use.

There's a twist to this. The JX-3P and Juno 6/60 do use the same filters, the Roland IR3109 IC.. they also have the same VCA chip. Both of these chips are also used in the Jupiter 8 and 6. However... the rackmount version of the JX-3P - the MKS30 Planet-S - actually uses the Juno 106 chips, the failure prone 80017a's. I love me some JX3P.

Yep, this has been said a few times on here (the rack version of the JX-3P does NOT sound the same as the keyboard). Roland really liked to swap things up in their JX/MKS range, little did they know how many threads and debates this would cause over 20 years later on some cosy synth forum!

And yes JX-3P is one of my favourites too (of the cheaper DCO range)

[mute]

This might uncover my bias, but I own both the MKS30 and a JX3P (and two PG200s

[mute]

This might uncover my bias, but I own both the MKS30 and a JX3P (and two PG200s