Juno 60 "JU-60" marking

beenthere · Post by **beenthere** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:57 am

Hi everyone. I have not been able to find an answer to this question ANYWHERE.

I finally got a mint Juno 60 and I'm really curious about a discrepancy in the front and rear panel markings.

Some models say "Programmable Polyphonic Synthesizer" and others say "Programmable Polyphonic Synthesizer JU-60".

A friend of mine also just recently got a Juno 60 and both of ours have the JU-60 marking.

What does the JU-60 marking indicate (aside from the obvious 'Juno 60')? Year of production? Change in circuitry? A particular lot of serial numbers? Region of manufacture? Nothing at all, simply cosmetic?

It must mean something, even if it's insignificant. There must be a reason why some boards have the marking and others don't.

If anyone can shed some light on this, it would be really appreciated.

Thanks.

Alex E · Post by **Alex E** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:14 am

Try punching the serial numbers in here:

http://www.bossarea.com/serial/sndecoder.aspx

My guess is that the earliest models had the JU-60 name on it.

beenthere · Post by **beenthere** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:35 am

Alex E wrote:Try punching the serial numbers in here:

http://www.bossarea.com/serial/sndecoder.aspx

My guess is that the earliest models had the JU-60 name on it.

Thanks Alex.

You're correct about it being an early model marking.
I put in my serial# and it says "Produced October 1982," which is the year the Juno 60 was introduced.

However, knowing the date of manufacture still doesn't answer why Roland decided to remove the marking or what its significance is in relation to the boards that don't have that marking.

Maybe it's something as simple as some guy in Roland's marketing department saying "Hey guys, I think that JU-60 model abbreviation is a bit redundant. Let's remove it. I mean, it already says 'Juno 60' in giant type."

What I want to know is: are there any changes in internal components or improvements made to later boards produced without the JU-60 marking?

Post by **Synthacon** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:40 am

Mine does not say JU60, as far as I know there were no internal changes. The JP8000 also had changes to it's markings too, it does happen and is not always related to internal upgrades.

beenthere · Post by **beenthere** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:44 am

Synthacon wrote:Mine does not say JU60, as far as I know there were no internal changes. The JP8000 also had changes to it's markings too, it does happen and is not always related to internal upgrades.

I just want to know WHY the change was made and what that change entails (if anything at all).

Someone from Roland want to step up and take this one?

Alex E · Post by **Alex E** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:55 am

I can guarantee it was done for no reason other than aesthetics.

beenthere · Post by **beenthere** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:58 am

Alex E wrote:I can guarantee it was done for no reason other than aesthetics.

I hope this is the case

synthparts · Post by **synthparts** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:18 am

Yes it was only on the earlier ones. My SN 23xxx has it but not my SN 25xxx or any later ones. The Juno-6 had "JU-6" on it so it was a hold over for a while until they decided it was redundant...

Sir Ruff · Post by **Sir Ruff** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:29 pm

beenthere wrote:
Alex E wrote:I can guarantee it was done for no reason other than aesthetics.
I hope this is the case

Little known secret, the earlier ones actually used VCOs instead of DCOs.

Rooftree · Post by **Rooftree** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:04 pm

Sir Ruff wrote:
Little known secret, the earlier ones actually used VCOs instead of DCOs.

Yes. And Moog ladder filters too!

Sir Ruff · Post by **Sir Ruff** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:33 pm

Rooftree wrote:
Sir Ruff wrote:
Little known secret, the earlier ones actually used VCOs instead of DCOs.
Yes. And Moog ladder filters too!

Roland only started using the IR309 filters because of a Moog lawsuit, which is still sealed.

Post by **space6oy** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:55 pm

Sir Ruff wrote:
beenthere wrote:
Alex E wrote:I can guarantee it was done for no reason other than aesthetics.
I hope this is the case
Little known secret, the earlier ones actually used VCOs instead of DCOs.

do you know the point at which they switched?

Rooftree · Post by **Rooftree** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:09 pm

Sir Ruff wrote:
Roland only started using the IR309 filters because of a Moog lawsuit, which is still sealed.

Seriously? I thought you were making a funny. Do you have more information to share about this?

beenthere · Post by **beenthere** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:27 pm

Sir Ruff wrote:
Little known secret, the earlier ones actually used VCOs instead of DCOs.

right.... and i suppose the first 10 made featured a touchscreen interface.

pretty sure they're all DCOs that happen to sound like VCOs.

Post by **nathanscribe** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:23 pm

OK. The Juno never used VCOs. The circuits closely resemble VCOs (voltage-driven ramp with retriggering and subsequent analogue waveshaping) but the retrig point is clocked by a digital timer. It's a DIGITALLY CONTROLLED ANALOGUE OSCILLATOR. Fuxxake.

Also, the IR3109 IC is a bundle of 4 OTAs and an exponential current drive. It's there for convenience. Previous Roland filters of that type were made from 4 separate OTA ICs with intermediate FETs. More real-estate, more solder, so put it in one block to make things easier. It's nothing like a Moog filter.

Roland did use a filter that caused some issues but that was way before, in the original SH-3 if I remember rightly, and that was a transistor ladder, not series OTAs.

This thread is starting to become a BIG FICKING RETARDATHON. STOP IT.

Juno 60 "JU-60" marking

Juno 60 "JU-60" marking

Re: Juno 60 question

Re: Juno 60 question

Re: Juno 60 question

Re: Juno 60 question

Re: Juno 60 question

Re: Juno 60 question

Re: Juno 60 question

Re: Juno 60 question

Re: Juno 60 question

Re: Juno 60 question

Re: Juno 60 question

Re: Juno 60 question

Re: Juno 60 question

Re: Juno 60 question