Juno 106... good or bad?

A forum for discussing the pros & cons of buying a particular synth and for advice on buying synthesizers.
User avatar
Richard Gear
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 253
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:35 pm
Location: Qc, CANADA

Re: Juno 106... good or bad?

Post by Richard Gear » Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:38 pm

I'd have to agree with this guy above : If you are a newbie, you'd probably prefer the 106. But if you are familliar with synthesis, the 3p offers you more possibilities and the workflow is all right.

User avatar
nathanscribe
VSE Review Contributor
VSE Review Contributor
Posts: 2889
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:03 pm
Location: The right side of the Pennines
Contact:

Re: Juno 106... good or bad?

Post by nathanscribe » Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:28 pm

Automatic Gainsay wrote:[/website]
Hah, you wish.

THEODICY
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:06 am

Re: Juno 106... good or bad?

Post by THEODICY » Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:41 am

No one said anything about being a newbie... I've had tons of synths including the jx-3p with pg-200 (which sucked) and now I have two 106 junos. I'm more into writing songs after learning synthesis. By the way, why even bring up the Jx-3p? It has some more modulation possibilities and an extra oscillator but whoopity-doo... Just more cliche two osc sync c**p with only one envelope anyway... you speak like it has mind blowing possibilities... which is has not....

User avatar
elsongs
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:12 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Juno 106... good or bad?

Post by elsongs » Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:15 am

If analog synths were desserts, the Juno-106 is like a popsicle. It may not be creme brulee or tiramisu, but there's nothing like a popsicle when you really want one.

When I was a teenager, my folks were willing to get me a synth. It would either be a Juno-106 or a Yamaha DX7. I chose the DX7. I never regretted the choice, but for a long time I wondered what it would be like to have both. Back in 2006, I finally got one via an eBay bid. It's not the most sophisticated analog synth, but there's nothing like it.

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 106... good or bad?

Post by Automatic Gainsay » Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:25 am

THEODICY wrote:No one said anything about being a newbie... I've had tons of synths including the jx-3p with pg-200 (which sucked) and now I have two 106 junos. I'm more into writing songs after learning synthesis. By the way, why even bring up the Jx-3p? It has some more modulation possibilities and an extra oscillator but whoopity-doo... Just more cliche two osc sync c**p with only one envelope anyway... you speak like it has mind blowing possibilities... which is has not....
Let me paraphrase this just to see if I have it right:
"The JX3P has considerably more functionality than the 106, but so what?"
In which case, you answered your own question.

If you're asking if there's something MORE that makes the JX special other than extensive functionality, I'd also add that if you're a person who likes a warmer sound, the JX can provide that to a slight degree.

Other than THOSE things, there's the fact that the JX and the Junos and a number of other Roland synths of the time are pretty similar in structure, which makes them all pretty worthy of comparison. In the minds of some, I guess.

All of that being stated, yeah... the JX and the Junos have one ENV... along with a lot of Roland synths that are quite different... ? What point are you striving for there?

Perhaps you could be a bit more descriptive than "IT SUCKED?" I hope you're never going to represent yourself in court with that sort of defense.

"It has some more modulation possibilities and an extra oscillator but whoopity-doo..." This is a bit like saying "just because so-and-so is a millionaire and I'm not doesn't mean that so-and-so is richer than I am!


I would state, with evidence, that in comparison, the JX has considerably more functional possibilities than the Junos. Would you like me to post a point-by-point comparison which illustrates this inarguable fact (I've done it before, it might still be searchable on this site)? Or, would you rather just let it go? I'm glad you like the 106... that's awesome. But your pleasure doesn't negate the facts.
‎"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
tekkentool
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 3218
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:51 am
Real name: Steve
Gear: Lasers (ส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้ ωส้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้)
Band: none currently
Location: Sydney, australia.(I moved)

Re: Juno 106... good or bad?

Post by tekkentool » Mon Jun 20, 2011 6:55 am

The jupiter 8 only has 1 more oscillator and 1 more ADSR envelope on the Juno-106. Big deal whoop dee doo.

User avatar
EmptySet
VSE Review Contributor
VSE Review Contributor
Posts: 474
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:33 am
Gear: MS20, x0xb0x, JV-1080, JX-3P, JX-8P(PG800), Juno Stage, VFX-SD, VL-1, ARP Omni I, D-50, DW6000
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Juno 106... good or bad?

Post by EmptySet » Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:25 am

I think the magic combination that the 106 has – that very few other machines have: vintage analog (albeit DCO) + a great MIDI spec + lots of sliders. It was built right in the meaty part of the curve… MIDI had finally settled down and it wasn't rudimentary like on the JX3P… and the digitals hadn't totally taken over analogs yet. But it's not just that the 106 responds to velocity. It's that each and every slider ALSO sends MIDI. Which means you can record the slider movements to your sequencer. This turns out to be a fairly rare find. The chip problem is a nuisance, but not without remedy. (so far, I've been very lucky… all of my original chips still work!) And sure, it isn't a souped up 2 osc synth. But it's gosh darned simple to use. And sounds pretty decent in lots of situations. It's got one foot in the past and one foot in the future. I love mine.

THEODICY
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:06 am

Re: Juno 106... good or bad?

Post by THEODICY » Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:59 am

AG: "it sucked" for me because it took up too much room for one synth that could not cover all the bases I was looking for. This is FOR ME mind you, if you have love for your 3p and it "works for you" then awesome but FOR ME, I really disliked it. The envelope was slow with a weird contour, it had no bottom end, no portamento, LFO was not fast or slow enough, blah blah... it does not have what is important for me, mainly the sound was grating to my ears. I just couldn't like the sound of the 3p like I really really wanted to. This argument is crazy because you say I'm wrong from what my experience was but then I try and defend what my opinion is from that experience... and I'm willing to admit that, but don't try to prove me wrong for believing my own experience because that will never happen. Your opinion can say that I'm wrong but you will not change my mind.

I never argued the 3p had less functionality for the record, as you imply. If you want to go your "FACT" route, then a lot of vsts should sound better than the Jx-3p as long as it has better "functional possibilities," right?

THEODICY
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:06 am

Re: Juno 106... good or bad?

Post by THEODICY » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:02 am

tekkentool wrote:The jupiter 8 only has 1 more oscillator and 1 more ADSR envelope on the Juno-106. Big deal whoop dee doo.
not really.... :?

User avatar
calyx93
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 5:48 am
Gear: PPG Wave 2.2, Waldorf μWave x3, Roland JP6+V-Synth, SCI P5+600, Ensoniq SQ-80, Kawai K-3
Location: Winston-Salem, NC

Re: Juno 106... good or bad?

Post by calyx93 » Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:19 am

s a r c a s m
“I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window to window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance.” - Rimbaud

User avatar
Richard Gear
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 253
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:35 pm
Location: Qc, CANADA

Re: Juno 106... good or bad?

Post by Richard Gear » Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:02 am

The 3P can deliver bass, but with less buttom. Can sound great in the mix with a deep bass kick fe.


slippast
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:02 pm

Re: Juno 106... good or bad?

Post by slippast » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:22 pm

I think the 106 is great. I have one on the stack right above my JP6. I think the more complex an instrument is the more it gets in the way of creativity - that's how it is for me, anyway. That's a big perk of the 106, it's inspiring to play and there's basically no learning curve. You can get to pretty much every sound it makes extremely quickly.

I can make my JP6 exactly emulate everything coming from the 106 (except the chorus), plus a lot more, but the 106 stays because it's more fun.

So to each his/her own. I'm currently getting rid of any gear that slows the process or doesn't actually *feel* creative for me (or exchanging said equipment from keyboard to rack when possible ;) ).

User avatar
Pro5
Expert Member
Expert Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:30 pm
Gear: OB-6 | SH-2 | JX-3P | JD-800 | Performer
Location: U.K

Re: Juno 106... good or bad?

Post by Pro5 » Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:35 pm

Wow is this deja vu? 3P vs 106 again?

My take as if you didn't know :

the 3P is a VASTLY UNDER-RATED synthesizer (which punches way above it's weight and has a great tone and an edgey vibe that is a bit diff from the over-used stuff. Fairly reliable too)

The 106 is a VASTLY OVER-RATED synthesizer (which looks OK has sliders and the 'name') but honestly sound wise it's a vanilla as they come - even the alpha junos have something more going for them (and that's saying something)! and also happens to be really quite un-reliable hence bit of minefield when buying - esp at the over inflated prices they tend to go for.

For the price of a 106 you could buy a 3P and... ANOTHER synth combined. You would not miss the 106 I'm sure.

Both make sounds - use whichever you prefer the sound and features of. There is no right answer. There is a saner/wiser answer but that's for those that prefer sound+features over name+sliders.

Also, personal observation here, the polysix + 3p makes a wonderful combo that covers a lot of bases and just SOUNDS good.

The junos sound 'sweet' (all of them) in their primary roles but never really throw up any interesting surprises or sounds and frankly if anything takes up 'too much room for it's usefulness' it's a juno. In the case of the 106 I've heard some sounds from it that I'd be ashamed to hear coming from a 'home keyboard' from the 80s - very sterile. It's only the bassier end and the PWM that cheers it up in comparison but there's much better synths out there if you want that.

Junos were marketed at the lowest end of the market (the JX was above them then the jupiters) and didn't even have VCOs to make up for it's simplicity. Single DCO synths bored me to tears. For me it's either Twin DCO or Single VCO for the sweet spot of price>performance. Two+ VCO is the king of course but $$$$$$$$

Post Reply