I really want an early 80's Roland poly. Suggestions?

[maindeglorie]

Alright...
I'm going to bite on a 8p or 3p, and see what I do with it. My fear... I want the pads of the 8p, but I want that early vintage vibe that I've heard come from the 3p. If I buy the 3p, I'm still going to want the 8p. LOL.

[Pro5]

df df whats phater the juno106 or the juno 60? looking to buying one

J106 has common failure of voice chips so I'd avoid it for that alone unless you can get one cheap, they can be fixed of course but factor it into the price if you don't trust the work carried out.

J60 is mostly reliable and has the previously mentioned chip differences. Technically the 106 has that ir3109 but in a packaged form within the 800017A. Whether this is the only reason they sound different or if there's a change in other areas to affect the sound, I do not know.

Another point is the rackmount version of the JX-3P (MKS30) also uses the 800017A vs the IR3109 non packaged. And the JX-8P/10 etc use IR3R05 as found in the Alpha junos.

A good working Juno 106 is another case of are the upgrades worth it? Midi etc. I find it hard to hate any of these old Roland synths, a lot of the sound differences actually matter for nothing in a full mix, but can mean a lot when you audtion them/play around with them on their own (depending on your ears and pedantry )

[Pro5]

Alright...
I'm going to bite on a 8p or 3p, and see what I do with it. My fear... I want the pads of the 8p, but I want that early vintage vibe that I've heard come from the 3p. If I buy the 3p, I'm still going to want the 8p. LOL.

Looking at your gear list I'm suprised you are left wanting for much in the sound dept already!

I will say again, the 8P blends in better as a glossy/subtle pad machine. Obvioulsy retro but not in your face so. The 3P really sounds it's age (to me, in a good way) but will impart an obvious '80's edge' to a lot of stuff you record unless you 'tame it' (eq etc). Again I like it because of that edge so I prefer the 3P.

The 8P is definitely more useful in more situations though. And it can 'do' similar sounds to the 3P obviously, I've done patches on both (bell like ringing lead tones) and they sound almost the same. The 8P if anything has a more muted tone to it not quite as vital but good in it's own way. I couldn't really do some of the pads I have on the 8P on the 3P as it's lacking the 2nd envelope for starters. Both fit in mixes well but 3P (I think) is more obvious.

I've done passable 'bass-ish' tones on both, they are not Juno 60s but can do some good sounds. 8P can sound nasty and screaming (esp in unision/unsion2 mode) but easily slips into 'harsh/brittle' territory if pushed (resonance), the 3P gets a bit more squelchy in a pleasing way before loosing it's grip (and you can up the res by tweaking the internal pots to make it a more angry beast - the bottom end isn't massive though and too much res on any JX will loose the bottom compared to a Juno 60).

The solo and portamento modes on the 8P also makes it useful for silky leads (not quite moog of course ) this is impossible on the 3P which to me is a full on 'chords' and 'rhythmic/staccato leads' machine. It's great at 'choppy' chords (i.e the gated sound) - the 8P feels more sloth like in that dept.

I probably should have saved all I wrote about these 2 damned machines by now and just stuck it in a book, I'm sorry for boring anyone reading - it's because I'm open to a lot of synths that I can see pros/cons in everything, I'm not really biased against any machine/maker and realise that all synths are better at somethings than others so... again, get the combo - if it doesn't suit you then sell off whichever you didn't like, or both, and get the Jupiter 6 (or Juno 6/60 or Korg Polysix etc )

[braincandy]

I regret selling my JX-3P back in '98 or '99. I didn't care for the interface and was in a phase of buying/selling stuff pretty quickly. I never really gave it enough time. Luckily, they're still not that expensive, especially when compared to the Junos.

Wanna say something about that JX-10 you have?

I'm still torn between the JX-8p/10 and the 3p. Leaning more towards the 10/8p.

I can't really compare it with the 3P since I only had it for a couple of months nearly 10 years ago. I'll just reiterate what I've said in other threads on the JX-10:

Cons:
It is rightly criticized for the shared tone system which makes patch organization/creation a headache. Editing is more straightforward on the 8P. stillearning keeps a notebook of all of the tones and their locations so that he doesn't mistakenly edit a tone and then alter all of the patches using that tone. And it's well-known that the MIDI functions on the JX are a*s-backwards. Something to look out for if you're in the market for a 10--the button switches on some units may not trigger or may require repeated hard presses to trigger. Rhino explained to me that the rubber pads underneath these switches have disintegrated. This requires the button switches and padding underneath them to be replaced. I don't know how widespread this is, but Rhino fixed his, and I'm about to start the process of getting mine taken care of.

Pros:
It comes down to sound, for me. I really like the sounds it's capable of and I prefer it over the 8P because it's just more of a good thing. You can approach it from a variety of ways--an 8P with double the polyphony (whole mode), layering patches from 2 JX-8Ps (in dual mode), splitting the keyboard and using 2 JX-8P sounds (split mode), and even using dual mode to layer the same tone with itself and using the dual detune feature for an even fatter sound. There's a reason it has such a great reputation for lush, warm, smooth pads and thick, wall-rumbling (if not snappy) bass sounds. It's everything the 8P can do and more. On top of that, the 76-key keyboard feels wonderful, the aftertouch on mine works like a charm, and the bigger display is nice.

Check out the review/demos on Bluesynths if you want to hear some examples:
http://www.bluesynths.com/modules.php?n ... ent&id=118

[cornutt]

trust the work carried out.

J60 is mostly reliable and has the previously mentioned chip differences. Technically the 106 has that ir3109 but in a packaged form within the 800017A. Whether this is the only reason they sound different or if there's a change in other areas to affect the sound, I do not know.

I don't think it's the fact that they're packaged together. I just can't see what difference that makes. A while back, I took a close look at the J106 and J60 schematics. What I found is that the VCO, VCF, and VCA circuits are identical (other than the IC packaging), but the HPF is different. On the 60, position 0 is pass-through. On the 106, there really isn't a pass-through setting; position 1 is close, while position 0 is actually a bass boost.

[maindeglorie]

Looking at your gear list I'm suprised you are left wanting for much in the sound dept already!

Well for me, it's really about the vibe certain instruments have. And recently I have been listening to a lot of records that feature the JX's and there is a sound to the Rolands that I just can't get on the Prophet 5, OBX-a or anything else.
The only synth that comes the closest is the Prophet 08, but it still doesn't have that Roland character.

I think Roland analogs are the weirdest of them all, for the reason that you can always hear one in a mix and say "wait, that synth is different." You may not identify it right off the bat, but it's definitely got it's own unique character like an Oberheim does. When you hear a certain pad, you know without a doubt that it's an Obie. I think the same is true for Roland.

[Pro5]

Looking at your gear list I'm suprised you are left wanting for much in the sound dept already!

Well for me, it's really about the vibe certain instruments have. And recently I have been listening to a lot of records that feature the JX's and there is a sound to the Rolands that I just can't get on the Prophet 5, OBX-a or anything else.
The only synth that comes the closest is the Prophet 08, but it still doesn't have that Roland character.

I think Roland analogs are the weirdest of them all, for the reason that you can always hear one in a mix and say "wait, that synth is different." You may not identify it right off the bat, but it's definitely got it's own unique character like an Oberheim does. When you hear a certain pad, you know without a doubt that it's an Obie. I think the same is true for Roland.

Maybe the 'famous' Roland chorus comes into play here also? (I'd say it places it more obviously in a mix, giving it the Roland character compared to bypassing and using a modern chorus/if any). Both have nice chorus (8P/3P) I still can't escape my bias towards the 3P though

[Pro5]

trust the work carried out.

J60 is mostly reliable and has the previously mentioned chip differences. Technically the 106 has that ir3109 but in a packaged form within the 800017A. Whether this is the only reason they sound different or if there's a change in other areas to affect the sound, I do not know.

I don't think it's the fact that they're packaged together. I just can't see what difference that makes. A while back, I took a close look at the J106 and J60 schematics. What I found is that the VCO, VCF, and VCA circuits are identical (other than the IC packaging), but the HPF is different. On the 60, position 0 is pass-through. On the 106, there really isn't a pass-through setting; position 1 is close, while position 0 is actually a bass boost.

maybe this?

well, yes they all use IR3109 Quad OTA IC. but story doesnt end there. There's more to this filter circuit than this IC - if you as little as change the values of accompanying capacitors , and/or route the signal differently , you get different sounds, different resonance as a function of cutoff curve, different peaks/valleys etc. Several AH members, (who fix synths) and couple of synth techs, including Kevin Lightner, confirm this. just check the schematics..

so, as i see it, looking at Roland development and 'hardware 'generations' you get three different filter implementations/sounds with IR3109. which is quite obvious if you play them side by side.

first one - the juicy, silky , creamy, blah blah.. is in JP8, JP4 (2nd REV), Juno-6 and Juno-60 (1979-1982), resonance is warm and musical.

second one is drier, more hard/agressive. resonance bites. used on Jupiter 6 (multimode variant), MKS80 Rev4 (Lowpass variant), and SH101 (i think). (1982-1983).

third one is softer, no such agresiveness, less warm and comparably more plastic/sandy. used on Juno 106 and MKS-7, and in some variant even on Juno1 and 2. (1984-1987)

i had Juno60 and 106 borrowed a few months ago, sitting next to my MKS80 REV4. of course, compared to something extremely different like MS20 or SEM filter, the three roland filters have common ground, but in reality - among themselves, they're not alike at all. My MKS80 cannot/will not EVER sound like a JP-8 no matter how much the E-Bayers try to convince you of that 'dogma' . "JP8 in rack", yeah right..

Taken from another forum.. once.. when I was bored

[Escobar]

One of the major flaws on JX10 - the midi sysex - has been resolved by a modification of the sysex code in the assigner board ROM made by Colin Fraser. Check it out:

http://www.colinfraser.com/jx10/jx.htm

[Mooger5]

trust the work carried out.

J60 is mostly reliable and has the previously mentioned chip differences. Technically the 106 has that ir3109 but in a packaged form within the 800017A. Whether this is the only reason they sound different or if there's a change in other areas to affect the sound, I do not know.

I don't think it's the fact that they're packaged together. I just can't see what difference that makes. A while back, I took a close look at the J106 and J60 schematics. What I found is that the VCO, VCF, and VCA circuits are identical (other than the IC packaging), but the HPF is different. On the 60, position 0 is pass-through. On the 106, there really isn't a pass-through setting; position 1 is close, while position 0 is actually a bass boost.

That was a great find. But at position 1 in the 106 HPF the signal actually does pass through unchanged! I´ll edit that portion of the service manual.

[Mooger5]

Here:
Y0 and Y1 outputs correspond to position 3 and 2 of the HPF respectively, judging by the values of the series capacitors. Y2 is where the signal passes through - position 1. From Y3 - position 0 - there´s the bass boost you found. But wait a minute: that circuit is not in series; it´s in paralel to the pass-through signal! I wonder about the odd phase artifacts it may be generating. The Juno 60 obviously lacks this. Removing R25 and of course increasing the value of R24 and we could be onto something here.

Edit- the filtering caps C8 and C9 might need to be halved in value too...

Edit 2 - I think, given what so far has been found, if anyone wants their 106 to sound closest to the 60, just set the High Pass Filter to 1.

[Mooger5]

Well, Roland must have had a thing about HPFs since the Juno 6 features a even more different circuit. Can somebody explain the schematic, as I quite don´t get it. The full signal goes through that tiny cap in series, that´s a high-pass filter with a very high cutoff point, isn´t it? So what happens next? It´s then amplified by TR2 and enters a VCA through high gain negative feedback? Isn´t this adding too much noise to the lower frequencies? Well, the signal then goes on to the chorus section...

To remain on topic, has anyone made a direct comparision between the 6 and the 60 yet? Apparently the differences don´t resume to one having memories and the other not.

[maindeglorie]

Wow.

I never knew there was a difference between the 6 and 60.

That schematic is certainly interesting.

[MrFrodo]

Wow.

I never knew there was a difference between the 6 and 60.

That schematic is certainly interesting.

Meaning, the 60 has more changes to it than just the addition of patch memory storage?

[maindeglorie]

I guess so. Seems there are small internal circuit differences.
They sound exactly the same to me! LOL

I really enjoy the 6, it's a fun synth. The lack of memory really makes you a good "synth" player and forces you to be creative.