Being a Juno 60 owner for a long time, I let my ears do the leading. AS SOON as I played the 1st note of the plugin, I immediately recognized how close it was to the real thing.
This is no longer digital vs analog. It like comparing two Juno 60 from different years, having some components different. I wish someone would made this kind of digital synth in hardware. I also use Tal Bassline, a SH-101 emulator. While the filter doesn't self oscillate, the overall sound is superb. Great job TAL Audio!
hardware is better because it is generated by electronic circuit and sophisticated phisical processes going inside of active elements istead of digital modelling. To completely match the two the digital plugin version must work at ultimately high sample rate and use a floating point number bit depth and it should have a lot harder programming which may be not too good for realtime performance. In this case it would match the hardware, but only by modelling everything that happens in real circuit. By everything I mean literally everything, noises, parasite inductions, semiconductor dynamic characteristics etc. Why do you think they got giant supercomputers for scientific calculations?
I kind of laugh because why in the world are we trying to reproduce an electric instrument. Seems so out of the reason why these things were created. Also if you think you can do a blind test and call it every time I bet you can use Neil Young's Pono player. It was literally made for your ears. Also Tidal is the streaming service for you.
Real Juno has more Harmonics, clearly in the lower frequencies, making it fuller sounding synth. but tonal character is bang on. Well done Tal and to you for taking your time to make this demo.
Sorry for the late reply but you are proving an interesting point. Electronics back in the day had very broad tolerance when it comes to the electronic components. A resistor could vary 25% of it's rating in ohms (resistance) and the same could be for the rest of the components. This is the reason why many guitar pedals and synthesizers from the 80's could vary slightly in terms of how it sounded.
I have a Juno-6 and I'm impressed with this. It's not identical, but it's very close and is a pretty awesome alternative if don't have one and you want something Junoesque.. I think the main difference for me would be the fact that I can interact with all of the controls and sliders on the real instrument right in front of me. I guess you can assign your midi controller to do that, but it's obviously not quite the same, particularly as the Juno layout is specific to the Juno and a midi controller is more generic. Anyway, I'm several years late to this video, but thanks for the upload!
I’ve had a 60 and 106 in the past. They’re so much fun and inspirational, but honestly in the mix you’d be hard pressed to hear a difference between the U-NO and the real deal. Prices for 60s in particular have gone crazy and keeping them in working order is getting harder and harder. IMO, I prefer the U-No in the video.
@@ToniJXN buy Tesla or Apple or any star stock owned by big funds with the 1960€ difference and wait 20 years ;) Not sure the Juno will ever have enough synth players in the world to ever buy it... unfortunately. Now imagine what plugins will be in 20 years with new DSP or light based processors.
To me it seems like the VST has a more vibrant high end of the spectrum, and the original has a thicker, fatter low end. Which is actually pretty common in hardware vs software from what I've seen. In fact, even in software VS software, better VA VST emulations tend to have a much beefier low end. That said, the VST seems to get that uh... Vibrating quality right. Which honestly, is pretty important.
theeltea I should mention I'm also a fan of the DX7 and other old Yamaha synths. :P Though people often think I'm nuts, I'm actually a fan of the gritty sound the YM2612, the Sega Genesis' FM chip, produces.
Thanks for sharing your comparison. Even though this was years ago, it still clearly shows that the hardware folks enjoy their snake oil. BTW, I have always loved the Juno sound. I use the Arturia V collection one the most, but my favorite free soft-synth is the TAL U-No-62. In my opinion, if a soft synth can get you 98+% for a miniscule fraction of the cost then it is a no brainer decision.
i want to love the Arturia stuff but seems to be missing some mojo. i also have a love/hate relationship with, dare i say it, omnisphere...Tal and some of the Uhe seems nice but sometimes the software lacks some grit, some girth, some other g word...I'd say 95 percent, on a good day.
If you change the screen so you can't see which one he's playing (because yes, your eyes do shape your hearing - Google the 'McGurk effect') you honestly can't tell which is which. That's amazing. The only thing I noticed was the digital version was slightly less brittle on the top end (of which I actually prefer).
Pretty good replication. The differences weren't so obvious until I put on my monitoring headphones. Of course the body/harmonics of the real Juno's sound can't be exactly replicated by a vst, but the vst sounded really good, regardless. Thanks for sharing.
I had an actual vintage Juno 60, so I could compare these two side by side. To my ears, the TAL sounded nearly identical to the Juno (although you would need to set the sliders slightly differently). Of course, there is interfacing with real hardware is much nicer than mousing around on a screen, but personally I couldn't justify binding up that amount of money (specially while fearing that the vintage hardware would die on me any moment), so I ended up selling the Juno and soon did the same with my original vintage SH-101.
I like the U-NO, but it bugs me that the filter envelopes aren't fully polyphonic. They're more paraphonic: it keytracks correctly, but each note played resets all other filter envelopes. It doesn't do that on the original: each voice has its own envelope. I'm not sure why he overlooked that because it's a pretty important part of the sound, and the DCO envelopes work properly.
I doubt if U-NO can match the lows of the juno60. It does sound very much the same as my juno106, though. slightly different evelope speed, but with some creative programming it can sound very very close! This i one of my favorite plugins, which i use a lot for my music!
+Timecop1983 After seeing this video I got this and I love it! I then stumbled upon your patch and got that as well. It's great, thanks for making it! I have been having a blast making my own tones with it.
Different settings though. With some more tweaking, you can make U-NO-LX sound exactly like the Juno in that example. I wonder if the author of the video went by fader positions or by ears/oscilloscope/spectrum when copying these sounds - some of them are way different.
To my ears I couldn't hear a difference till the 2nd preset. I think it was the stereo width. Honestly would still go with the plugin. Cost, ease of use, multiple instances, speed of use. Everything about the plugin makes it more worth it especially considering the price. Is the real Juno the factor that going to make the song a hit? Probably not. Love these comparisons ✌🏾
Not bad sounding at all, especially considering the plugin costs 1/10 (or more like 1/20) as much. Great demo too! Aside from a few tiny gain differences you really showed how it stacks up side-by-side.
I'm hearing a bit more exaggerated chorusing on the Juno than the TAL. This extra motion has a thicker sound to me, and I personally prefer it. The TAL is an awesome plugin, but the Juno is an amazing instrument. Really enjoyed this video. Thanks for taking the time to produce it.
I can't say they sounds totally identical. The sound of hardware is bigger and warmer, it sounds much tighter, closer, right in the face for a known reasons. But I agree…. The price between these two synths is not so reasonable for now. As to me.. I used to have Juno-106. I was so tired of all the problems with seeking spare parts and fixing it. Now I use U-NO and have to say that it totally covers all my needs in sounds of the JUNO kind. It's like U-NO is the next generation of JUNO!!! Respect!!!
I used to have a Juno too, TAL is nice but it'll never be as good. However you can fatten up the sound with something like the The Precision Enhancer Hz from UAD or if you don't have an Apollo then Waves make some much cheaper bass enhancers too. WaveArts Tube Saturator is also great at warming stuff up.
The envelope speeds seem slightly different, like need to program it slightly different. The Chorus tone on the TAL seems darker/slightly different. Most other differences are probably imagined due to the two examples not being properly gain matched, or subtle tone differences I guess. TAL seems close enough!
+Andrew K It could also be that the components for the Juno have aged. I don't know how much of a difference that would make though. That said, the TAL is very close, definitely worth it if you can't afford a Juno 60.
I have both (got my Juno 60 new). TAL is an excellent substitute, very handy. But the real thing is FAR punchier and vivid. Use a TAL Uno64 if you don't have the real thing or if it's inconvenient. But if you hear them in your studio side by side (regardless of this comparison) you would hear the difference immediately.
SBRK But dont people cut out the low end of every sound but kick and bass, well they even cut low end from the bass to make room for the kick, and vice versa..so if the low end is gone from the synth, there's need to eq it out, now is there? Hope that made sense......
Anyone saying the sound is off on the TAL should take a blind test. A friend and I hooked up the TAL and a Juno and ran them both through a p.a. as we were setting up for a gig, and had our drummer play and keep track of our guesses. It's impossible to tell the difference in that setting. Both had that rich dark tone, and through the club speakers sounded dead on
On decent studio monitors the TAL is a little less present. Mostly it lacks the deep bass of the real thing, sometimes it sounds muddier, sometimes it misses that crispynes. I do think this is all fixable with EQ and subharmonics plugins though. TAL is a good bang for the buck.
It seems that bass sounds are quite accurate, but the VST seems to have less harmonics or distortion on higher sounds and thus produces more mellow and somewhat less 'melodic' sound
***** nah he's right. I have a 106 and I've also used a TAL U-NO vst. It is very close but there are harmonics missing in the vst. You can actually hear it very clearly here. Put on some headphones. The vst is really good but overtones and some thickness are missing
This is a really good sounding plugin but you can see where it falls short when it comes to the PWM and filters. They don't sound bad, just different. I'll probably get this. Thanks for the review!
I had the Juno-6, Juno-60 and the Juno-106. All of them broke and gone! No money to repair, even they are legend synths... now working with TAL U-No ;-)
Following on from my last post...... In the past 4 months I have been experimenting. I bought a Arturia Microbrute, my first real Analog Synth, and almost instantly noticed a big difference in sound between that, plug ins and my Korg MS2000R. Even when I recorded a simple mono bassline from the Microbrute into a tune I have been working on, it seemed to stand out that little bit more in the mix alongside all the other plug in synth tracks. The only way I can describe it is that physical Analog synths seem to have an almost 2D rounder feel to them, and now I am hearing it in this video, and it is the only subtle difference between the 2, but it is that difference that makes outboard gear special. Still love TAL tho.
I own a broken down Juno 106, which I bought new 1986. I used it a LOT back in the day. I think the plugin is superior in three ways: 1. The plugin is velocity sensitive, the hardware is not. 2. The plugin has an arpeggiator, which can be synced with MIDI tempo. 3. The plugin is able to be multitimbral via a DAW, which the hardware never was. And the sounds? I know we WANT to remember the old sounds like better, but I don't think they were. I am perfectly happy with the plugin, and have no intention to shell out 6000 kr in Sweden for repair (around 650 US dollars) - that's what it costed me new in 1986.
I agree, I love the fact with VSTs my music studio is so compact, and the ability to run several instances seals the deal. The velocity sensitivity is a big deal to me, and realistically I only play with the filter cutoff when playing, so easy to map that one parameter to a controller. Yes, I miss the physicality, looks, smell and interface of the original, but that is nostalgia!
Just downloaded the free demo. This thing rocks. As far as I can tell, the demo is the full synth, limited only by rising white noise once per minute. I've already got a work around though. So far I've exported an 8 measure loop while it was quiet, and imported it back into the project as a wav file. Works great. I'm leaving the original instrumentation in place, but muted, in case I want to make changes and create an updated wav loop. No problems saving and reloading with all adjustments in place. This is by far one of the most useable "broken" free demos I've come across yet.
Sure, you can play around with many VSTi demos. Especially in Renoise where there's an automatic option to render VSTi plugin as a Renoise sample instrument. Still, after playing around with this and TAL BASSLINE 101 for a short while, I had to buy them both just to support the awesome work of the authors. My first VSTi purchases ever.
i had a juno 6 for a couple years and had to sell it but i miss it terribly. had no clue this plugin sounded so close to the original. will be getting. the only missing from the video was arp simulation, but thanks for this video.
Something I’m not seeing anyone touch on in the comments is the aliasing in the filters (software) to me its pretty noticeable. Also, the one thing that can’t replace the hardware is that you can “touch” those filters and settings. Doing this with a mouse or with automation has always been kind of a drag. There’s nothing like tactile “feel.” On the flip side of that coin there is the fact that when you run the plugin through fx (let’s say some Valhalla room and furthermore the Softube Analog harmonic saturation plug) I’m pretty sure you’ll be blown away. All that digital quickly becomes this warm crunchy delight that compliments the Tal brilliantly. For me (soundwise) this closes the gap (however) assigning MIDI knobs to filters is like driving a 69’ Camaro with marshmallows for wheels. It blows. MIDI is and always has been a mess. In summary, being able to turn on the Juno and GO is the biggest + here. No computer required to totally rock out. That’s worth the money (if you’ve got it to burn)
There are differences but I doubt they will be noticeable in a mix. On another note - a real uno 60 or 106 aren't worth $2000+ like they are being sold today. It's just outrageous.
Wow that's close, awesome work. Sounds gorgeous. I'm hearing some things like static in the high note around 1:22, do you think that's from the emulator or just the recording?
Sounds damn close but the original has a touch more body & real-world charm. Well done TAL. I bought this and will be happy to use it. Some sounds on this can't be found anywhere else, the Juno 60 now TAL UNO
The TAL definitely pushes into the domain of diminishing returns. Juno's are expensive now, so if you just need that sound, it should get close enough for most people at a fraction of the price. Love the Juno's and if you have the money, by all means get one. For the rest of us, it probably makes more sense to get a modern poly synth (Korg minilogue/prologue, Dave Smith, UDO, Peak, even DeepMind) and plugins such as this to fill in the gaps and get the sounds of specific hardware.
I would like to own the real thing, but for now I will settle with the plugin. The character of the sound is the same, the plugin gives me enough inspiration to make music, and in the mix the difference will be less noticeable. The plugin is quite enough for the start, and I am happy with it.
Anyways, despite the audible difference between hardware synth and software emulation, maybe due to slight differences in params setup you can't really judge it since you can't hear them live but through a youtube movie, recoded from the original format to another one using a compression algorithm that introduced loss of information specially in the mid-high and high armonics. I have both the Junos and the TAL U-NO-60 and listening through KRK Rockit 6 hw synths sensibly differs from sw synth
I love my TAL Uno, and all their other plug ins too, use them on everything I do. Doesn't really matter if its as good as or better, its an amazing affordable VST ...................... and of course you can always add Tube or distortion to create more harmonics or a "warmer" sound. I run mine through a TL Audio valve compressor, and it sounds very lush. ........ and takes up less space lol.
Incredibly similar, only the filter resonance lets the vst down. Can hear it @5:00 Far smoother on the juno. This is also true for the new ob6 and prophet from dsi - great, but resonant filters don't sound as good as the old discrete stuff.
Listening closely to the difference in dry sound a simple eq can fill the gap. The real Juno has something organic in the attack part of the sound that is much more random (speed/phase). If plugin programmers can nail that attack part and program a faster slewrate, then the difference is pretty much gone. The chorus is another story but I guess that will be nailed as well in near future.
I just notice, listening again, that the player does not have the chorus settings the same on the real thing and the emulator. If you wee to set them the same they do sound much the same, ie stereo or more of a mono sound. They screwed up on this point.
Pretty close, but no cigar ol’ a Bambam. Analog has more presence, depth and sharper envelopes. You can really hear the difference in the filter when the resonance goes up. There’s more separation between the oscillator and filter on the analog synth and the resonance is smoother - less glassy. But a free plug in vs a now over €1000 synth, I’d take the plug. Glad I bought my 106 with steroid chips before the inflation :)
Being a Juno 60 owner for a long time, I let my ears do the leading. AS SOON as I played the 1st note of the plugin, I immediately recognized how close it was to the real thing.
theres literally a less than 5% difference in sound. that small difference is maybe a little more hollow in the mid highs on some notes
This is no longer digital vs analog. It like comparing two Juno 60 from different years, having some components different. I wish someone would made this kind of digital synth in hardware. I also use Tal Bassline, a SH-101 emulator. While the filter doesn't self oscillate, the overall sound is superb. Great job TAL Audio!
rolland botique j6
they do, I think it's called Behringer Deepmind :D
TAL U-NO-LX is kickass softsynth! Sounds like the real thing! :)
sounds like the real juno. wow that really is awesome. what a time we live in.
True for the treble and medium sound, not for the lower sound ! The analog sound fuller and more "round"
@@vincentmoisan9562 nothing you can't fix with a very simple EQ. Trust me, I've done that.
I just got it its awesome.
Next time, do a blind test, and see if the comments will still say "the hardware is better"
hardware is better because it is generated by electronic circuit and sophisticated phisical processes going inside of active elements istead of digital modelling. To completely match the two the digital plugin version must work at ultimately high sample rate and use a floating point number bit depth and it should have a lot harder programming which may be not too good for realtime performance. In this case it would match the hardware, but only by modelling everything that happens in real circuit. By everything I mean literally everything, noises, parasite inductions, semiconductor dynamic characteristics etc. Why do you think they got giant supercomputers for scientific calculations?
+Galova Pretty much an all around bullshit comment.
I kind of laugh because why in the world are we trying to reproduce an electric instrument. Seems so out of the reason why these things were created.
Also if you think you can do a blind test and call it every time I bet you can use Neil Young's Pono player. It was literally made for your ears. Also Tidal is the streaming service for you.
Just close your eyes😅
Bacon Brad Why is it a bullshit comment?
Real Juno has more Harmonics, clearly in the lower frequencies, making it fuller sounding synth. but tonal character is bang on. Well done Tal and to you for taking your time to make this demo.
the patches are not 100% dead on
I had 4 Juno 60s at one point and all sounded different. All had Slightly different characteristics.
The magic of analog 😉 (own two BTW)
Sorry for the late reply but you are proving an interesting point. Electronics back in the day had very broad tolerance when it comes to the electronic components.
A resistor could vary 25% of it's rating in ohms (resistance) and the same could be for the rest of the components.
This is the reason why many guitar pedals and synthesizers from the 80's could vary slightly in terms of how it sounded.
@@haraldkal 💎💯
I have a Juno-6 and I'm impressed with this. It's not identical, but it's very close and is a pretty awesome alternative if don't have one and you want something Junoesque..
I think the main difference for me would be the fact that I can interact with all of the controls and sliders on the real instrument right in front of me. I guess you can assign your midi controller to do that, but it's obviously not quite the same, particularly as the Juno layout is specific to the Juno and a midi controller is more generic.
Anyway, I'm several years late to this video, but thanks for the upload!
agreed. real sliders and layout are great, but, the ability to save patches is so handy (after years of writing them down)
Hey ! Alex ! Totally agree. :)
Sounds great, those chords starting at 1:30 are beautiful btw.
Pretty much the Madonna - Live to Tell - chords with a variation. Great song!
I’ve had a 60 and 106 in the past. They’re so much fun and inspirational, but honestly in the mix you’d be hard pressed to hear a difference between the U-NO and the real deal. Prices for 60s in particular have gone crazy and keeping them in working order is getting harder and harder.
IMO, I prefer the U-No in the video.
These are super close. And you can probably process the TAL enough to where it sounds identical.
£2000 for the synth, £40 for the plugin. You can't tell me theres a justifiable difference.
think about how much the synth be will worth in 10 or 20 years and how about the plugin.
@@ToniJXN buy Tesla or Apple or any star stock owned by big funds with the 1960€ difference and wait 20 years ;)
Not sure the Juno will ever have enough synth players in the world to ever buy it... unfortunately.
Now imagine what plugins will be in 20 years with new DSP or light based processors.
@@ToniJXN If you are an investor, yes. If you are a musician, no.
@@notalkguitarampplug-insrev784 tell me more about the dsp and light processor thing,interesting
For some sounds, the plugin sounds better haha
To me it seems like the VST has a more vibrant high end of the spectrum, and the original has a thicker, fatter low end.
Which is actually pretty common in hardware vs software from what I've seen. In fact, even in software VS software, better VA VST emulations tend to have a much beefier low end.
That said, the VST seems to get that uh... Vibrating quality right. Which honestly, is pretty important.
GravianS It's common in vintage analogs not to have that much low-end sheen... That's what partly makes them "thicker" and gives that "butter". :)
theeltea
Yyyyup. And I love that.
Trying to learn to make music myself, and I love just about every type of synth there is.
GravianS Whatever makes the music sound great is good. Don't get caught in the analog frenzy 8-)
theeltea
I should mention I'm also a fan of the DX7 and other old Yamaha synths. :P
Though people often think I'm nuts, I'm actually a fan of the gritty sound the YM2612, the Sega Genesis' FM chip, produces.
I forgot to thank you TausendAugen for making this video, so thank you !!!!
Thanks for sharing your comparison. Even though this was years ago, it still clearly shows that the hardware folks enjoy their snake oil. BTW, I have always loved the Juno sound. I use the Arturia V collection one the most, but my favorite free soft-synth is the TAL U-No-62. In my opinion, if a soft synth can get you 98+% for a miniscule fraction of the cost then it is a no brainer decision.
i want to love the Arturia stuff but seems to be missing some mojo. i also have a love/hate relationship with, dare i say it, omnisphere...Tal and some of the Uhe seems nice but sometimes the software lacks some grit, some girth, some other g word...I'd say 95 percent, on a good day.
If you change the screen so you can't see which one he's playing (because yes, your eyes do shape your hearing - Google the 'McGurk effect') you honestly can't tell which is which. That's amazing. The only thing I noticed was the digital version was slightly less brittle on the top end (of which I actually prefer).
Thanks for all the work you've invested in making this comparison video. Just know that your work is highly appreciated. :)
Welp, this black friday purchase was basically a no-brainer. Thanks for the nice comparison video!
Oh damn. Togu had deals? Fuck my life.
Pretty good replication. The differences weren't so obvious until I put on my monitoring headphones. Of course the body/harmonics of the real Juno's sound can't be exactly replicated by a vst, but the vst sounded really good, regardless. Thanks for sharing.
I had an actual vintage Juno 60, so I could compare these two side by side. To my ears, the TAL sounded nearly identical to the Juno (although you would need to set the sliders slightly differently). Of course, there is interfacing with real hardware is much nicer than mousing around on a screen, but personally I couldn't justify binding up that amount of money (specially while fearing that the vintage hardware would die on me any moment), so I ended up selling the Juno and soon did the same with my original vintage SH-101.
I did the same my juno 6 and 101 are sold
Wow that sounds almost exactly the same except on some sounds. I'm definitely going look into incorporating some VSTs.
I use this vsti so much! It's a really really good emulation! Some people may think different, but i hear hear no difference when used in the mix!
wtf Timecop1983 was here
I like the U-NO, but it bugs me that the filter envelopes aren't fully polyphonic. They're more paraphonic: it keytracks correctly, but each note played resets all other filter envelopes. It doesn't do that on the original: each voice has its own envelope.
I'm not sure why he overlooked that because it's a pretty important part of the sound, and the DCO envelopes work properly.
I doubt if U-NO can match the lows of the juno60. It does sound very much the same as my juno106, though. slightly different evelope speed, but with some creative programming it can sound very very close!
This i one of my favorite plugins, which i use a lot for my music!
+Timecop1983 love your music! greetings from Belgium!
+Timecop1983 After seeing this video I got this and I love it! I then stumbled upon your patch and got that as well. It's great, thanks for making it! I have been having a blast making my own tones with it.
It can't, but man its awesome stand alone. Far better than anything that Arturia has made.
indeed, at about 4:20 it's visible. but not bad anyway.
Different settings though.
With some more tweaking, you can make U-NO-LX sound exactly like the Juno in that example.
I wonder if the author of the video went by fader positions or by ears/oscilloscope/spectrum when copying these sounds - some of them are way different.
To my ears I couldn't hear a difference till the 2nd preset. I think it was the stereo width. Honestly would still go with the plugin. Cost, ease of use, multiple instances, speed of use. Everything about the plugin makes it more worth it especially considering the price. Is the real Juno the factor that going to make the song a hit? Probably not. Love these comparisons ✌🏾
Its very close, maybe closer now TAL has had 6 years of revisions since this video was made!
Not bad sounding at all, especially considering the plugin costs 1/10 (or more like 1/20) as much.
Great demo too! Aside from a few tiny gain differences you really showed how it stacks up side-by-side.
I'm hearing a bit more exaggerated chorusing on the Juno than the TAL. This extra motion has a thicker sound to me, and I personally prefer it. The TAL is an awesome plugin, but the Juno is an amazing instrument.
Really enjoyed this video. Thanks for taking the time to produce it.
That 2nd tone is just amazing
I can't say they sounds totally identical. The sound of hardware is bigger and warmer, it sounds much tighter, closer, right in the face for a known reasons. But I agree…. The price between these two synths is not so reasonable for now. As to me.. I used to have Juno-106. I was so tired of all the problems with seeking spare parts and fixing it. Now I use U-NO and have to say that it totally covers all my needs in sounds of the JUNO kind. It's like U-NO is the next generation of JUNO!!! Respect!!!
+Sergey Kharuta Yeah, the hardware definitely sounds fatter and richer, more punch
I used to have a Juno too, TAL is nice but it'll never be as good. However you can fatten up the sound with something like the The Precision Enhancer Hz from UAD or if you don't have an Apollo then Waves make some much cheaper bass enhancers too. WaveArts Tube Saturator is also great at warming stuff up.
Fuck you
Rob Robertson - Someone didn't get enough hugs as a kid.
The envelope speeds seem slightly different, like need to program it slightly different.
The Chorus tone on the TAL seems darker/slightly different.
Most other differences are probably imagined due to the two examples not being properly gain matched, or subtle tone differences I guess.
TAL seems close enough!
+Andrew K It could also be that the components for the Juno have aged. I don't know how much of a difference that would make though.
That said, the TAL is very close, definitely worth it if you can't afford a Juno 60.
I have both (got my Juno 60 new). TAL is an excellent substitute, very handy. But the real thing is FAR punchier and vivid. Use a TAL Uno64 if you don't have the real thing or if it's inconvenient. But if you hear them in your studio side by side (regardless of this comparison) you would hear the difference immediately.
SBRK
But dont people cut out the low end of every sound but kick and bass, well they even cut low end from the bass to make room for the kick, and vice versa..so if the low end is gone from the synth, there's need to eq it out, now is there? Hope that made sense......
very good analysis, agree 100%.
Anyone saying the sound is off on the TAL should take a blind test. A friend and I hooked up the TAL and a Juno and ran them both through a p.a. as we were setting up for a gig, and had our drummer play and keep track of our guesses. It's impossible to tell the difference in that setting. Both had that rich dark tone, and through the club speakers sounded dead on
On decent studio monitors the TAL is a little less present. Mostly it lacks the deep bass of the real thing, sometimes it sounds muddier, sometimes it misses that crispynes. I do think this is all fixable with EQ and subharmonics plugins though. TAL is a good bang for the buck.
It seems that bass sounds are quite accurate, but the VST seems to have less harmonics or distortion on higher sounds and thus produces more mellow and somewhat less 'melodic' sound
***** nah he's right. I have a 106 and I've also used a TAL U-NO vst. It is very close but there are harmonics missing in the vst. You can actually hear it very clearly here. Put on some headphones. The vst is really good but overtones and some thickness are missing
Great comparison...real Juno generally slightly warmer and bigger sounding - but its close and a good achievement...
Its nice to see a "comparison" using music, not just a guy holding one note... Thanks.
This is a really good sounding plugin but you can see where it falls short when it comes to the PWM and filters. They don't sound bad, just different. I'll probably get this. Thanks for the review!
I had the Juno-6, Juno-60 and the Juno-106. All of them broke and gone! No money to repair, even they are legend synths... now working with TAL U-No ;-)
Una bestia de software.
They did a really good job. I really can't tell the difference
Following on from my last post...... In the past 4 months I have been experimenting. I bought a Arturia Microbrute, my first real Analog Synth, and almost instantly noticed a big difference in sound between that, plug ins and my Korg MS2000R. Even when I recorded a simple mono bassline from the Microbrute into a tune I have been working on, it seemed to stand out that little bit more in the mix alongside all the other plug in synth tracks. The only way I can describe it is that physical Analog synths seem to have an almost 2D rounder feel to them, and now I am hearing it in this video, and it is the only subtle difference between the 2, but it is that difference that makes outboard gear special. Still love TAL tho.
Intro Madonna Live to Tell? :D
Listening around 1:30 it sounds like the Juno has some type of fast modulation that is not turned on in the software version. Is that the chorus?
Fantastic impersonation, sounds good and would do the job for most things. It just doesn't behave the same way and thats often where the magic is.
I own a broken down Juno 106, which I bought new 1986. I used it a LOT back in the day. I think the plugin is superior in three ways: 1. The plugin is velocity sensitive, the hardware is not. 2. The plugin has an arpeggiator, which can be synced with MIDI tempo. 3. The plugin is able to be multitimbral via a DAW, which the hardware never was. And the sounds? I know we WANT to remember the old sounds like better, but I don't think they were. I am perfectly happy with the plugin, and have no intention to shell out 6000 kr in Sweden for repair (around 650 US dollars) - that's what it costed me new in 1986.
I agree, I love the fact with VSTs my music studio is so compact, and the ability to run several instances seals the deal. The velocity sensitivity is a big deal to me, and realistically I only play with the filter cutoff when playing, so easy to map that one parameter to a controller. Yes, I miss the physicality, looks, smell and interface of the original, but that is nostalgia!
Just downloaded the free demo. This thing rocks. As far as I can tell, the demo is the full synth, limited only by rising white noise once per minute. I've already got a work around though. So far I've exported an 8 measure loop while it was quiet, and imported it back into the project as a wav file. Works great. I'm leaving the original instrumentation in place, but muted, in case I want to make changes and create an updated wav loop. No problems saving and reloading with all adjustments in place. This is by far one of the most useable "broken" free demos I've come across yet.
Sure, you can play around with many VSTi demos. Especially in Renoise where there's an automatic option to render VSTi plugin as a Renoise sample instrument. Still, after playing around with this and TAL BASSLINE 101 for a short while, I had to buy them both just to support the awesome work of the authors. My first VSTi purchases ever.
Still using that way isnt right! Sure I can record midi and bounce it down to audio to by pass the no saving but you should really buy it...
@@NathanChisholm041
Yeah, that got old real fast. Bought it within a month of posting that goofiness. Cheers.
@@SewerTapes The new version which I have to sound so awesome. So what style of music do you make buddy?
@@NathanChisholm041
Aggressively Amateur.
Very interesting comparison with nice synthpresets! Almost (ca 98%) identical sounds compared with the hardware!
i had a juno 6 for a couple years and had to sell it but i miss it terribly. had no clue this plugin sounded so close to the original. will be getting. the only missing from the video was arp simulation, but thanks for this video.
They sound so close I'm wondering if the controller on the bottom is triggering the Juno via midi.
Can you please make a comparison with the new IPad App?
Looking forward to have these presets!!
TAL-U-No-LX sounds ...../sound directory for Win XP
***** thank u very much!!!
Good emulation, I would say the Juno has more rawer/ warmer sound. But overall TAL plugin is pretty impressive.
I like that live to tell patch at the start ;)
Long story short: THE FILTER SOUNDS DIFFERENT. Chorus also.
Something I’m not seeing anyone touch on in the comments is the aliasing in the filters (software) to me its pretty noticeable. Also, the one thing that can’t replace the hardware is that you can “touch” those filters and settings. Doing this with a mouse or with automation has always been kind of a drag. There’s nothing like tactile “feel.” On the flip side of that coin there is the fact that when you run the plugin through fx (let’s say some Valhalla room and furthermore the Softube Analog harmonic saturation plug) I’m pretty sure you’ll be blown away. All that digital quickly becomes this warm crunchy delight that compliments the Tal brilliantly. For me (soundwise) this closes the gap (however) assigning MIDI knobs to filters is like driving a 69’ Camaro with marshmallows for wheels. It blows. MIDI is and always has been a mess. In summary, being able to turn on the Juno and GO is the biggest + here. No computer required to totally rock out. That’s worth the money (if you’ve got it to burn)
I never had problems assigning midi knobs/wheels/sliders to anything
You didn't test for nostalgia. And what about smoke smell - was the Juno used in a bar band?
The latest update added cigarette smell, but not alcohol yet. Almost there.
some of this has completely forgot to use an lfo on the plugin
man its almost identical ,I like some sounds better 0n the vst
sound the same to me, except plugin has a bit more low end, but it makes it sound warmer which I like
There are differences but I doubt they will be noticeable in a mix. On another note - a real uno 60 or 106 aren't worth $2000+ like they are being sold today. It's just outrageous.
they are barely noticeable like this, in a mix it's just impossible
did you level match for the video? The hardware sounds louder...
Very impressive replica this one!
I have the TAL U-NO-LX and can't find your presets. Where did you get your presets from?
Velly close! -Greetings from China
Where did you find the sounds that you are playing on the TAL? Or how did you make the sound called M_brigthpad01 on 1:48?
Lovely! It's not identical, still a very good emulation!
actually, TAL has a bit fuller sound
does anyone have any idea why this plugin doesn't show up in my plugin folder on ableton 8.2.2, but the other TAL plugins I have work fine?
in the end you will use Eq , compressor and such stuff and each one did you use to make music don't mean a thing.
very accurate emulation. love it!
best re creation ive heard yet,i have juno 106
I'll say they extra highs on the vst sound pretty good but other than that ,the mids/low mids and lows lack on detail ,warmth and energy
Wow that's close, awesome work. Sounds gorgeous. I'm hearing some things like static in the high note around 1:22, do you think that's from the emulator or just the recording?
here in 2019 and yes, No Roland Synth of yesteryear is the same.
Let that marinate into 2091 😋
Sounds damn close but the original has a touch more body & real-world charm. Well done TAL. I bought this and will be happy to use it. Some sounds on this can't be found anywhere else, the Juno 60 now TAL UNO
thanks for the patches
But does it have the lovely wooden ends! ..D50 and Juno - old electronic dance music acid house kind of
The TAL definitely pushes into the domain of diminishing returns. Juno's are expensive now, so if you just need that sound, it should get close enough for most people at a fraction of the price. Love the Juno's and if you have the money, by all means get one. For the rest of us, it probably makes more sense to get a modern poly synth (Korg minilogue/prologue, Dave Smith, UDO, Peak, even DeepMind) and plugins such as this to fill in the gaps and get the sounds of specific hardware.
great comparison, really well done!
Very impressive, listen to the sub freq or feel them on your monitor, different.
1:20 I can't clearly tell but I hear the software had faint white noise on top of the note compared to the hardware synth.
I would like to own the real thing, but for now I will settle with the plugin. The character of the sound is the same, the plugin gives me enough inspiration to make music, and in the mix the difference will be less noticeable. The plugin is quite enough for the start, and I am happy with it.
Well the real Juno is certainly louder
Anyways, despite the audible difference between hardware synth and software emulation, maybe due to slight differences in params setup you can't really judge it since you can't hear them live but through a youtube movie, recoded from the original format to another one using a compression algorithm that introduced loss of information specially in the mid-high and high armonics. I have both the Junos and the TAL U-NO-60 and listening through KRK Rockit 6 hw synths sensibly differs from sw synth
SUENA MUY BIEN!!!
GRACIAS POR ESTE REVIEW
SALUDOS DE ARGENTINA BS AS EZEIZA! :D
I love my TAL Uno, and all their other plug ins too, use them on everything I do. Doesn't really matter if its as good as or better, its an amazing affordable VST ...................... and of course you can always add Tube or distortion to create more harmonics or a "warmer" sound. I run mine through a TL Audio valve compressor, and it sounds very lush. ........ and takes up less space lol.
The Plugin sounds great. the Hardware has little more depth in dimension.
How is called the first song ?
Im guessing M_Brightpad is not a preset?
hey man, great job, did you ever get around to putting your patches up for download?
Incredibly similar, only the filter resonance lets the vst down. Can hear it @5:00 Far smoother on the juno. This is also true for the new ob6 and prophet from dsi - great, but resonant filters don't sound as good as the old discrete stuff.
I have my Juno-6! Plugin really sounds like synth!
awesomeeeee thank you very much!
Listening closely to the difference in dry sound a simple eq can fill the gap. The real Juno has something organic in the attack part of the sound that is much more random (speed/phase). If plugin programmers can nail that attack part and program a faster slewrate, then the difference is pretty much gone. The chorus is another story but I guess that will be nailed as well in near future.
I just notice, listening again, that the player does not have the chorus settings the same on the real thing and the emulator. If you wee to set them the same they do sound much the same, ie stereo or more of a mono sound. They screwed up on this point.
how do you load it in pro tools??
TAL = FLAT, JUNO = Dynamic
The plugin sounds better. Thanks for sharing this!
the patch at 1:27 is not the same on both instances ..... are u sure the effects settings were the same? they sound completely different
i feel the real juno more focused sound.but very close the U-NO. the U-NO sounds more light more soft or thin...but sounds good..close enough
Pretty close, but no cigar ol’ a Bambam. Analog has more presence, depth and sharper envelopes. You can really hear the difference in the filter when the resonance goes up. There’s more separation between the oscillator and filter on the analog synth and the resonance is smoother - less glassy. But a free plug in vs a now over €1000 synth, I’d take the plug. Glad I bought my 106 with steroid chips before the inflation :)
tnx man, nice work!!!