Roland Juno-6/60 vs JX-3P
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 авг 2013
- The is a attempt of comparison between.
Both have there advantages and there contras
The Juno has a excellent filter resonance, it has real pulse width modulation, a fast LFO and a second chorus.
But is not very flexible, only one DCO.
on the other Hand
The 3P have 2 DCO which can be tune separately with LFO and Envelope modulation, faster Envelop, a sync and ring-modulation mode and a serial midi interface.
But the Filter Resonance is not as good as in the Juno and it has no real pulse width modulation.
I think both are great synthesizer :-)
Which is your favorite ? 
Видеоклипы
It should be noted that the brilliance slider is maxed out on the Jx3p. Center is neutral 0. This is going to make the Jx brighter.
and yet the juno is still brighter lmao
As a Juno lover I've totally fell for the JX3P, and I almost prefer it. The Juno is best for doing a few things no question, but the JX is seriously special, almost like a Juno with extra parameters. The cross mod is amazing
Great demo and review. The JX is massively underrated and its filters are so sweet. I have both and use each to their strengths.
This video brought back memories! The Juno-60 and JX-3P were my first two synths and I used them conjointly for a while. I didn't have the PG-200, although I eventually replaced the synth with a JX-8P with a PG-800. The Juno went when I decided to go down the MIDI sequencing route. Great synths!
Love your comparison! Thanks a lot. I own the 3P and I am very happy with that plastic board :)
Thank you for that great demo / comparison.
I like your comparison video. Very fair and detailed.
Different strokes for different folks, but I just would like to remind people about Harold Faltermeyer...
Axel F: Jupiter-6.
Fletch: JX-3P and JX-8P.
Personally, I prefer the JX-3P for pads over the Juno in most cases. The taper on the Filter seems a bit nicer.
The sounds after 3:30 are why people buy the old analog gear. It's also why I love synths so much. I never get bored of those sorts of sounds.
Lovely tunes you are playing btw :)
Nice review! Thanks!
great wrap-up statement.
Fantastic intro!
These are both great sounding synths. The Juno-6 seems to be lacking high end. The JX seems a bit more saturated sounding at times which could be changed by lowering the volumes of the oscillators ? I am getting a JX-3P soon and will probably do the KIWI upgrade. Seems worth the effort given its great sound.
Owning a Juno (106) since long, and with it a JX-3P. Bought both around the same time, and to be honest, did not know much about synthesis back then. The Juno had it's fair amount of troubles during the years, where the JX was stable, steady and reliable. Throughout the years the Juno was like a friend but the JX like the cool nephew of that friend who had a few (the least two say) more tricks up to his sleeves. The sequencer alone, makes it great for noodling, and it poops out the save a prayer riff one hundred procent identical, without the need of an external sequencer. The standard midi sysex out on the 106 is nice, but I prefer the trigger in and sequencer over that. Never felt the need for a kiwi upgrade. I keep al my synths original. I have to say, the JX is family of the Jupiter 6 for me. As for aging, the JX aged like a good pair of jugs, where the Juno began to hang to the knees. Brassy copper sounds? The JX. Pads? The Juno.
Both sound great
yes the 3p is nice sounding but can we see a new version of it in the future (just thinker on it ).
I love the JX3p but I always felt that it sounded slightly compressed and over driven with the chorus on or pulse width modulation on in comparison to the Juno 60.. It's still awesome but I would have to take the Juno 60...but a Juno 60 can have a noisy chorus as well. I guess you just buy both!
The wah pad song at 8:00 is lovely!
Great video, thanks. How do you make the pwm with the jx3p?
3p my fav synth ever... love that thing... use it on everything
mine has the kiwi mod... so its kinda like a jupiter-6, but with the 3p sound
Fantastishh!
I love my jx 3p, it's really flexible but has the classic roland sound. I think that this video might send prices soaring though as people will find out what they have been missing!
The DCOs seem really similar. The Juno's filter seems a little cleaner, and the chorus is way better. Is that worth one osc per voice? Dunno.
I don't know about the JX-3p, but on the JX-8 P you actually can get a pulse width simulation by using the Cross modulation, depending on the mode you are using. I can't remember it now out of the brain but one of the modes, if you are using pulse waves on both oscillators and modulate the pitch of one of them, you have the pwm. Sure you'll need both oscs for that, so you can't add another thing. But It's a true workaround if you need PWM on a JX. I bet it works on a 3 as well
hi just wondering if you raised the resonance on the jx3p internally as it sounds more similar to the Juno ?
What are you playing on the 5:27 marker. Please tell me! It sounds sick!
Great video! A topic many people have discussed. You simulate Pulse width on JX-3p. Obviously with SYNC and SourceMix full DCO2. But which waves do you select? Probably Square 50% on DCO2, but what about DCO1??
It's in the manual I believe.
One of my favorite videos on youtube. Keep it up.
The 3P goes further sonically than the Juno. The extra oscillator adds so much depth and harmonic richness to the 3P.
Can definitely hear the 3P filter stepping, on the whole, close but the 3P has some characteristics of digital
Would love to see your cartoon synths having a proper teardown, karate style - hilarious.
The Juno chorus is wider sounding - but then it needs to make up for the fact it doesn't have dual DCO's.
I own a JX-3P, and used to play it live - it always sounded massive on stage!
theyre 1 year apart in release, they literally share the *exact same* chorus chip, and you can look this up its no secret.
I have both of those synths and I'm a tech. I can tall by the sound of the square wave that both need to be calibrated. That is they have harmonics thata shouldn't be there if in spec.
Is your JX-3P adjusted internally for higher resonance? Mine doesn't seem to reach the same resonance yours does. I've never adjusted mine.
The attack of the 3P seems to bite more than the 60 for starters. The 60 sounds kind of hollow with some patches. When was the last time the calibration on the oscillators/voices? The saw pad was really fat but everything else sounded kind of thin.
Does anyone have any tricks or tips for programming a decent bass patch on the JX-3P? I've never been able to get much bottom end out of mine. My Juno-106 had amazing crunchy bottom end. When I had both running together I had some amazing sounds going on. Super Phat!
Yes, try setting the filter higher and then using an inverted envelope using the attack control to adjust how fast the filter snaps to a lower position. You'll find that the inverted filter is much snappier and pleasant sounding than the regular filter.
Also consider getting a KiwiTechnics 3P upgrade. Playing in unison mode obviously fattens this thing right up.
That being said, don't expect Minimoog/Pro-one bass sounds out of this, that's not its specialty, but for key/string/pads, you wont find a better vintage analog for the price.
The Juno (Like the JX8P) seems to ride on the Chorus feature. JX3P still sounds good when the chorus in not engaged. People moan about modern analogue synths having on board f/x, but the Juno's relied on it. If the JP6 had had the Juno Chorus on it, everyone would be singing its praises.
The Juno 6 sounds amazing without the chorus. I usually program sounds without the chorus, in fact, because it tends to sound less familiar, more unique.
Also, someone in the comment thread already mentioned it, but you can very easily use 5-10 instances of a Juno 6 in a song and make sound lush and beautiful … with no effort mixing wise. In fact, that’s probably the best use of the Juno 6/60, and it’s very easy to make sound like a Jupiter 8 that way, especially if you pan sounds?
The JX3P, from my understanding, is much harder to use in that way because the sound is naturally a little more aggressive and mid-rangy. For that reason, it can be a little more difficult to stack up multiple instances of the JX3P in a song without some adept mixing ability.
But yes, the Juno sings whether you have the chorus on or not. The JX3P sounds good too, but the simplicity and elegance of the Juno 6/60 is hard to beat. From that era, I think the Jupiter 8 is the only rival. But maybe the Jupiter 4 would have something to say, too?
Whoa, amazing comparison. A problem that often occurs with analog synths is that it's easy to come up with a sound that's mid heavy, meaning that it will be harder to use multiple instances of an analog synth in a song without having to tweak the mids a bit to preserve the air in a mix.
The most important difference to my ears between the 3P and the 6 is that the 3P is significantly heavier on the mids. This means that the 6 will be significantly easier to work with in a mix without having to EQ anything. The proportion in the weight of frequencies seems to be much more refined on the 6 and therefore in my opinion it's that much more usable. I would personally rather add some mids if need be to fatten up the 6 rather than having to struggle to remove potential mud from the 3P for every sound I program. I would rather work with the synth by adding weight, than against it by removing some, because adding stuff to something that already sounds good is so much more musical than removing stuff from something that doesn't sound so good to make it sound all right. To me, one action comes from a desire to embellish something that's already beautiful in order to make it amazing, the other comes from a critical mindset that tends to create tension, bandaging what could be perceived as "flaws", and kill creativity.
It's like buying a Fender American standard bass or a Squier Chinese bass, you get two instruments that can achieve the same tones in essence, but in general one has significantly more clarity and adss that little 5-8% quality (better clarity and a better balance in the weight of frequencies) to the tone that takes the musical experience of the user that much further. I definitely don't think that it's surprising that the 6 costs up to 3 times more than the 3P with what I've heard, considering that it's exactly the same kind of proportion between an American and Chinese Fender bass, but I would definitely buy a 3P if one came up :D, because it remains very very usable, it just doesn't have the ultimate "wow" factor :) Cheers!
groovegcs I definitely disagree big time that the JX3P is comparable to a Chinese made Fender lol. It has a different character than the Juno but in no way is it a "cheaper" sound. It's more comparable to the difference between a Les Paul and a Strat. Different synths for different desired sounds. Parts of this video, the JX sounded far more interesting while other parts the Juno sounded better. It's all a matter of taste. Considering that the cost of the JX brand new was much higher than the Juno, there's no way a comparison to a cheap guitar is accurate here.
That is such an astute observation. I was around when the JX3P was released, (I'm reasonably old :) ), and to my ears it sounded aggressive and "fizzy". In practical terms it was difficult to make it "sit" in a mix properly without backing off some of that mid-range aggression with eq.
JX3P is nice sounding but having to use the PG200 is a pain, i much prefer the sound and interface of the Juno 60, i even use it more than my jupiter 8!
Exactly, I think the big faders are really nice. Sometimes little movements of the cutoff, when resonance is up can make a big difference, good to have the possibility to be really precise there.
I had both the Juno-6 and the Juno-60 and I traded away the 60. I like that you can add subtle tweaks to the high-pass filter on the 6. As Timm says, just the slightest movement can really affect the sound in wonderful ways.
would be a monster if those two were comboed into one machine :)
You say the filter resonance on the Juno is better.
Can you explain detailed why you think that is, in what ways?
From what I heard in the video the steps on the JX-3P are less finely grained, more audible when resonance is high. Is that all, or something else?
The reason I'm asking is that I'm interested in using the way the JX-3P does the resonance voltage controlling, it looks rather primitive but seems effective enough, and the parts count is rather low - which means, smaller PCB ==> cheaper to make :-)
But if I cannot get the usual roland resonant sound out of it, it would be a bummer.
damn, those jx3p filter sweeps
I was searching for both of synths and I found the Juno 60 more expensive than the Jx3p, however in the video, the Jx3p had the pg200 with it, which makes the whole things more expensive than the Juno 60 or make It reach almost the same value.
If I use a jx3p without the pg200, am I able to get the same range of modulation as the juno 6 at least?
You get the full range of JX-3P's modulation on its own. It's faster with the programmer, but it's easy to program without it too. You should also look into the DT-200 programmer for the JX. It's exactly the same as the PG-200 but new and way cheaper.
The JX is the better one (don't get fooled by the presets). The Juno is a bit hyped. Both have their strengths.
So hard to tell which one is the best. For me, JX waveforms sounds deeper with more harmonics when the Juno's ones are more linear. The fine detune is also a very good point for the JX. But the Juno PWM is so smooth from pulse to square when the JX one sounds weird, like something is going wrong at halfway. And the resonant filter of the Juno is always fluent even at low speed, th JX filter have an awful scaled aliasing effect.
I just watched this and I like the JX-3P sound better, but admit the Juno has smoother faders, the JX knob turns had stepping that was quite noticeable.
yes :-)
True
The jx3p is louder, the comparison would be better if they were more pair in volume. I prefer the 6, more density and space. But the JX-3P is definitely a fine one. Maybe the actual differences are probably more evident than in youtube...
Love this THE JX3p in the right hands is as as good as anything even a JUPITER 8
pulse width modulation can be achieved on the JX3P by setting the second oscillator to sync mode and applying the LFO to it. since DCO 2 is hard-synced to DCO 1 this causes the DCO2's waveform to restart every cycle the DCO 1 completes. with the LFO on, and the correct tuning settings (it takes some expiramentation) you can get a decent PWM.
what i'm confused about is why everyone complains the JX3P lacks a second chorus, well if you spent almost a grand or more on a vintage synth, can't you just buy an 80's Boss Chorus pedal?
Is that the same though? I'm pretty sure the JX and 6/60 chorus circuits are the same as the Dimension D. I question if that same chip would be in a Boss pedal.
Or upgrade the 3P with the KIWI3P kit (with chorus mod). You then get full control of chorus speed and can vary it from high to low. The chorus mod also transmits CC and can be controlled via DAW as well as from the 3P's front panel.
@@Labyrinth1010 Most analog Boss choruses use Bucket Brigade chips, yes, but I think the delay time is a little longer. I believe the pitch modulation is a bit more radical on the Boss choruses. The JX and Juno choruses are similar to the Dimension D, but I believe the delay times are longer as well. They all sound very close to each other. A Boss CE-2B would probably be a viable option. An Electro Harmonix Small Clone or Stereo Electric Mistress (the one with Chorus and Flanging) would work well, probably.
I work mostly with software versions of the JX and Juno, and tend to find myself turning the internal chorus off and using an external chorus plugin.
My only issue with the 3p is the lack of bass. Have you ever been able to program a good bottom end bass patch with the jx3p?
Juno all the way for me!
My favorite is the Juno-6 !!! I keep mine since 1982, and never sail it !
Don't sail your Juno-6 Dominique!!! If you are looking for a synth to sail you should have opted for the Juno-60; it is water proof up to 60 feet! The Juno-6 is only water resistant.
Bouncy Brain lol ... I would say sale ... not sail !!! English is not my birth language ... sorry !
Olivier Lanoé I would say sell, but I wouldn't sell my Juno. Not criticising, you'd laugh your ass off if you heard my Spanish, French and German (usually mixed in the same sentence!). Ein cerveza si'l vous plait... ;P
for sailing Jupiters are much more reliable
the jx3p is a fantastic synth for the money, very 80's and dramatic pads can be achieved. the 60 sounds a bit richer and the chorus is bigger. both great synths!! mind that the average juno 60 costs 2 to 3 times more than a jx3p. the jx3p gives a lot of that oldskool roland sound for little money and has more modulation options + osc.
thanks for these video's!
+Ammer Reduron laughing.... JX3p sold for 1600 originally in 1983... in todays dollars that is $4000.... the Juno's sold for less than 1000
I don't understand this comment: JX3P sold for $1395 in 1983. The Juno 60 sold for $1795 in 1983. So the Juno was more expensive. I don't, however, know how much the PG200 sold for, so I can't add that in for comparison. But it's not clear what 'slammah2012' was referring to, since none of those prices make any sense.
@@MIDERA The prices you mentioned were the prices listed in Roland advertisements. If you were to walk into any big music store in the states in 1983-6 you would easily find Junos going for under $900 whereas the JX-3P with the programmer would run you a couple hundred more than that.
Feature wise the JX-3P was considered more high end and feature laden with the dual DCOs, MIDI, arpeggiator, polyphonic sequencer, osc sync, detachable controller etc.
JX-3P was THE semi-pro gigging keyboard back in the day for people who couldn't afford Jupiters or DX7s. Something about creating your own sounds with the PG-300 at home and then taking this slim looking DX-7 looking synth on the road just appealed to people. A close second would be the JX-8P which was basically Roland's attempt to cash in on the DX7 bandwagon before the D-50 came about.
@@michaelk3550 Interesting. I love my JX3P anyway :)
@@MIDERA No doubt, I love mine.
the jx3p is for people with patience. the juno 60 is for people who want it now. get both to suit your mood swings.
The JX-3P has more character to my ears
what does this word mean, character
It’s weird, I was just gonna say the opposite. For me, it sounds too clean and sharp, whereas the Juno sounds a bit more frail and “vintage”-y
"Meine Meinung" ist "my opinion" en Englisch. Sehr gut Video.
I think they are both excellent instruments. It is what they user wants and need. The -60 is in my opinion easier to create sounds on. But i have used to use to Juno a little more in about 30 years ago. Wouldn't mind to get my hands even on the -3P. But the prices are ridicoulous.
JX-3Ps still float around Western Canada for less than $500. One sold recently for $300. If you stay away from eBay the prices drop by 40%. Also, with all the new analogue gear coming out, a lot of long-time musicians are selling off their used gear for reasonable-ish prices.
In Europe these prices are almost doubled.
That's too bad. It's funny though, a few years ago I was looking for a CS01 and couldn't find one locally or even in North America for less than $400 (for a freakin' toy!!) I finally managed to locate one in Europe for $175.
They sound very similar, however, the Juno 60 to me sounds a little phatter...but a lot of it is the chorus effect
sehr gut. danke sehr
I've had my JX-3P since I bought it back in 1984 (OMG! That can't be right! I think I've misplaced a decade somewhere) :) I bought the PG-200 Mod Box years later but couldn't find a connector cord for it. I've never changed the battery (that's 32 years!) yet it still has a sequence that I programmed into it over 20 years ago. I used to have the Juno-106 as a mate for it but sold it in the early 90's for $600. That is a regret as they sounded great together.
Even though it's spent most of the past 20 years in it's case I'm sure I will use it for a track or two on some future project... I'd sure like to find a cord for the PG-200 though! I never actually looked for one. I just know that Roland discontinued them :(
+Howard Bailey I have all three...I love them all for different reasons. Here's a PG-200 cable
www.ebay.com/itm/Roland-Cable-Synth-PG-200-800-MPG-JX-MKS-6-Pin-DIN-5ft-1-52m-/282022833548?hash=item41a9deed8c:g:SeEAAOxyGJFR7GtN
Rise Of The Machine
Thanks for the link. I'll keep it on file but I'm hoping to find a chord in Canada. With exchange, tax, shipping and duty (if there is any) it starts costing a lot more fast :o
I'm going to buy another Juno-106 eventually...or maybe someone will build a really good software version. The Juno had such great bass response. Apart from that sale I've never let any of my instruments go. They all have a special sound. I bought an old Yamaha Electone B-6B for $25 from a second hand store last year. Apart from a little hum it sounds amazing. I'll definitely be using it on a couple tracks. It's never worth selling old gear unless you absolutely never use it. Then you might as well give it to someone who will.
Were these stock sounds?
The best intro ever!)))
I just sold my Juno 60. I loved it but wanted something different. If you have the mod box for the JX3P I think it is superior because it has 2 oscillators per voice and so more can be done.
I always wonder why the Juno is so popular, maybe the filter sounds a little softer, but I think the most people don´t know what the 3P is capable of.
***** i have wondered that too. Why does the Juno fetch so high price compared to the say the JX3p or the oberheim matrix
Raj Patel
dedicated sliders, complete sysex on the Juno 106, and hype. Its useful enough to a pro, and so simple even a beginner pick up programming easily.
It's nonthreatening, like a Miata.
+Raj Patel I've read that is is due to the fact that there are no program control knobs and sliders on the JX-3P. I have a PG-200 with mine but you can program it fairly easily (albeit more slowly) using the combination buttons.
I think it´s also because the Juno 60 looks so nice and the controls are really comfortable and big, plus it has an arpeggiator, which is a really big plus.
Juno 6 slightly more sine(y)? .. Purer, Less digital control, Sniping, Higher resolution.
It doesn't sound like a fair comparison. It sounds like the Roland JXP has a higher volume, and better EQ. They sound pretty close. I think I like the Roland JXP better, but I just hate that diagram on the right that reminds you that you don't have knobs to play with.
Digital access has never stopped me from getting great sounds , I have a Standard Rompler a Juno Stage and it has some huge sounds.
For me the Juno - 6 won the price. Now I want it so badly.
Juno in a very different league but JX still sounds very good in a different genre anyway. Best is to own them all :)
Much more low freq in Jx3P, but the huno is better in chorus !
We have to consider the fact that the jx-3p is digitally controlled when comparing filters
They're both DCO synths, and they share the same Roland IR3109 filters.
Is a Juno 6 just a Juno 60 minus its patch bank and less features?
No patch storage, no arpeggiator. BUT, you get a non-stepped high-pass filer.
The arpeggiator is my favourite feature on the Juno-6. It also has a completely analog HPF interface allowing subtle and continuous adjustments. The Juno-60 added patch storage and DCB (pre-MIDI) digital interface.
JX3P sounds a bit more aggressive and present, maybe the Juno is a little warmer (imho).
I had the JX3P: heavy and awesome.
hab beide als Boutique- und beide haben ihre Daseinsberechtigung. Stimme auch deiner Sichtweise feminin/maskulin und Juno als Beginner Synth zu.
I only have the Jx3P on my Hand, But i Remember the Juno from my Scool-Band Member Tiziano who played the Juno 60.
For me the Jx3P is extremly verstale and you can do realy, realy crazy and nice stuff. With the P200 its very comfotably to do some nice Tweek Performances. I will upload my First one on >Soundcloud. The Envelopes and Filters are incredibel! It sounds like you expect a analog Synth, and one bit more. Now i know why it was borring to Tweak Software Synths ioi
The J60 sounds sometimes a bit like Bitdepth degration. In Direction to a C64 Sound(?) It can be charmant.
The Only Thing i realised is, that when you Loop a Sustained Note on a Sequenzer/DAW, the Note want repead until you shorten the End of this sustained Note a bit. Otherwise only hear a click (stopped) Note or even no Tone at all.
Do someone have a similar Experience maybe on a other analog Synth??
the 3p is better at 'sharp' sounds,the juno is warmer-i prefer the juno but would deffo add a 3p if one was cheap enough.to be honest neither sound like a jupiter 8 which isnt really surprising.the jupiter 8 can do all sorts of sounds some typical some off the scale in wildness.i program my jupiter 8 and ive had some of the wildest sounds immaginable out of it-BUT ive saved the sounds and come back to it and its all lost apart from the orig building block.thee two are great but id actually stick my kneck out and say the jupiter is the best synth of all time-specs are not everything
Because of the 'sharp' & punchy nature, I suspect that the JX-3P will be able to cut through the mix when performing live with a full band.
Roland have to make a juno with jx3p filter...thats must sound great.
They both have the same filter inside, along with the Jupiter 8.
@@timmbrockmann959 No they don't. They sound distinctly different. I an I preffer the Juno-60 filter by a mile.
JX-3P sounds more 'alive'
@@Doppeltgemoppelt09 I agree more power and alive.
That cartoon is fucking hiilarious
:-))
Actually I’m happy to own a JX-3P refurbished synth.
the jx-3p!!
The JX has a sequencer
The Juno has an arpegiator
JX-3P isn't plastic, it's metal with wooden base.
The side-caps are plastic, I guess. It's a nice solid synth for sure.
JX3P sounds fatter where Juno sounds more detailed and scooped. Good to have both.
Wow tms?
I kinda regret selling my JX back in '98
Juno 60
jx has pulse width mod as well! hidden feature!
hörst du Dir auch zu, nachdem Du an opinion abgelassen hast? Die beiden Geräte sind unterschiedlicher Entwicklung in der Zeit und so ein Vergleich ist schon fast kindisch...
800 dollars lol... juno 60 goes for 1000+ now at the moment...! Prices are getting ridiculous.
Marcusmiller go for the boutique models.
And now it's 2000 :D
JX-3P looks like Satoru Iwata :D
Magnus Cholok Mauser RIP Iwata
Weirdly the JX sounds the better of the two to my ears. Wasn't expecting that. It's got a bit more buzz and heaviness on the low end.
The Juno 6(0) sounds sooo much better there is literally no contest......
Only $800 for a Juno 6?! Oh we were so young and dumb once.
Jx03 vs ju06a
Was hast du geraucht als du die intro gemacht hast? hahahahah zwei Sonnen und dieses "I am", das deutscheste in dem kein Deutsch gesprochen wird. Sonst ein guter Vergleich, nach Möglichkeit. JX all nite, ist auf meiner Wishlist
I had subtitles on when watching - VERY FUNNY, which synth youtube translate prefers. Watch the video below:
ruclips.net/video/neR0cWZaG8M/видео.html
People just continue to say stupid shi-,no matter how inaccurate it is,so it's two ways to get to similar results.If you want to use the programmer,get the JX-3P,and if not,use the Juno.I have the HS60,the Juno with onboard speakers and you can route external signals through..
Filter is sweeter on the Juno, no stepping either. I like both though...
I wish the Juno6/60 were still $800... :( i really don't think they are worth over $2000
$3000 now. Well deserved, IMHO. Warmest. Synth. Ever. ..PERIOD..
Disco vs House
Sounds great but the JX steppy filters are ass
the best synth ever made is the Polykobol II RSF .
thank u for yours too
thank u for yours too
My favourite sandwich is grilled cheese.
or just ob-x
Rhodes Chroma is pretty neat too :)
jx3p wins!! at home...it always wins! :)