Roland Juno 106 & Juno 60 vs. JX-3P & JX-8P - Analog DCO Showdown
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 янв 2021
- Today Zach is taking a look at some great synthesizers that use DCOs (digital controlled oscillators), as opposed to VCOs (voltage controlled oscillators). Each of these Roland synthesizers, the Juno-60, Juno-106, JX-8P, and JX-3P have certain benefits when compared to the rest. Whether they be tonal or feature capabilities, each one of these instruments has a unique voice and great value for music making today. Take a listen to each of the demos and tell us which of these DCO based synthesizers you like the best!
JUNO-60 - 13:08
JX-3P - 21:28
JUNO-106 - 30:03
JX-8P - 37:58
__________________________________________________________________
♪ Contact us: www.alamomusic.com/contact
♩ Call toll-free: (844)251-1922
♬ Connect:
Twitter → / alamomusic
Instagram → / alamomusic
Facebook → / 1375975579208745 
Видеоклипы
The difference in architecture is due to the difference in background - the Junos came from the synthesizer division whereas the JX3P emerged from the guitar synthesizer division - the JX3P's voice board is version 1 of the GR700's voice board and has the IR3109 & BA662s on the main board, whereas when the GR700 eventually came out they had been moved to the 80017a package (this version of the voice board was the one used in the MKS-30 as well) - the 80017a would also be used by the Juno 106 later...
Solid video, well done. The 3p doesn't have an arp, but it has a sequencer. So you can get the same effect and far more. Huge point I didn't hear you mention, but maybe I missed it. It's also extremely easy to program without the PG-200, although not knob per function. The diagram on the right hand side of the front panel is a programming road map, not just Roland's attempt to get you to buy the controller. ;) I own all 4, except a 6 instead of 60. The 3P is definitely my favorite.
Would be interested to hear why and your thoughts on all 4. I have had the 60 and 106 and kept/prefer the 106, which i guess puts me in the minority. The 60 is more 'accurate/cleaner' of a tone, and the arp is fun, but for the price and my personal sound tasted the things the 106 best and/or as good as the 60 plus the more 'high/classic' 80s and glassy pads were my favorite. I have a 106 and an OB6. I've looked at the 3p and 8p, also the new UDO Super 6 and Prophet 5. I dont see me ever selling my 106.
@@FakeGlasses Values aside (If not I'd take the JU-60 and sell it to buy a JX-3p, Akai AX80, and a Sequential Prophet 600 or Korg Polysix), my picks would honestly be 1) Jx-3P 2) Juno-60 3) JX-8P (JU-60 barely beats it though) 4) Juno 106. The 60 and the 106 are single DCO synths with as single envelope. Having dual oscillators gives you so much more flexibility, especially with cross mod (Roland did use this term to describe multiple effects over the years) and detune. They all have the MN3009 chorus. The 8p also has a 2nd envelope. To me, the 3p is the best of them all. Snappy envelopes, dual oscillators, sequencer, and chorus!
Great overview , thanks. I had a juno6 back in 82. Never really liked it because all I could hear was the chorus . No velocity was the real dealbreaker, so after the first affordable synths came out, out it went. The upgrade was an ensoniq esq1 . Wow what a difference that was! Fat ,prophet like, pads, moog-like lead sounds ( I had the moog to compare) and PPG ish digital sounds. Still have that synth
Great video. Very informative. Thanks for making!
1:28
Juno 60 (1982)
JX-3P (1983)
Juno 106 (1984)
JX-8P (1985)
Great presentation.. Fun to hear the sounds of these Rolands.. I had a 106 for a while in the 80's.... It was alright but I was more into my Oberheim OBXa... Rolands were priced right and still hold there own these days!!
Personally, I like to call the JX-8P the Super Nintendo synth cause a lot of sounds you make out of it really comes close to sounding like video game music. I love the JX-8P for that reason!
The tone choices are kinda samey on each synth. I own a JX3p and have spent time with the Juno 60 and the jx8p. I know it's hard to fit so much in a short video but these synths go way deeper, especially the JX synths.
8:26: The JX3P, 8P and Juno's all contain the same BBD chorus chips (MN3009) but operate at different frequency rates per synth.
Great video though about these synths.
I never owned a 106 but the Juno-60, JX-3P and JX-8P (with PG-800) were my first three synths back in the mid-to-late 80s. I let the Juno and JX--3P go in 1990 (for peanuts) and the JX-8P a couple of years later.
One thing to note is that DCO synths still have a VCO circuit, but the input of that is a digital signal passed through a D/A converter, rather than having an inherently unstable analogue signal from a capacitor.
Still binge watching
Brilliant presentation as always. I like them all sonically although, wooden ends win the aesthetic race for me! I'd have wooden ends on everything in life if it were an option although, not sure how that works with hula hoops!
Well, wood veneer, no solid wood on these
Just a small correction, the Juno-6/60 have analogue envelopes and the Juno-106 already had moved to digital envelopes. The envelopes on the 106 are fast, despite being software generated, but the ones on the 6 and 60 are just insane. The JX-3P is also decent in speed and he JX-8P is where things were starting to feel more sluggish, though it's not as bad as other synths of its time.
3p has the same envelopes ad Ju-60.
@@mmrva No, not really. Juno 6 and 60 have hardware IR3R01 envelopes, while in the 3P and 106 are generated by the CPU.
I just looked at my 106 and it says VCA right before the envelopes. Are you sure?
@@peterkadarmusic9728 Yes, the Juno 106 uses software envelope generation, same as JX3P and 8P. One significant difference between the J106 and the JX3P uses the 8051 processor to do everything and ran a scan and envelope update in about 10ms. The J106 uses two uPD7810 processors (one does key scan and key assignment, the other runs the DCOs and VCA/VCF CVS), and it also has a 4 or 5ms scan time, so its software envelope are snappier since they run around double the speed. The JX8P uses two processors, the same 8051 to run the DCOs and CV generation, but a separate processor, a HD63B01, does key scan and that sort of thing.
Love my Roland Jx-8p. Brutal bass. Brilliant sounding analog synth designed to try an compete with the yamaha devilX7.
excellent👍
The 3p has one of the best sequencers ever, and it wasn't mentioned?
Love my Juno60
Read the comments had all juno. The 60 was fab. I'm not a fan of 106 at all. The juno 1 can do things the 106 can't do. Fantastic video.
jx3p was my first synth, and will be my forever synth
Youre an ACE , Zach,- ☺
love my 60 looking into a jx3p
I think JX.3p came 1983 and Juno-106 1984.
Correct
Roland Juno 60 - 1982
JX-3P - 1983
Juno 106 - 1984
JX-8P - 1985
In that order, Sir!
I have had my 3P since the day it came out and it is capeable of some amazing pads and strings. Your demo of this synth was awful. Turn that damn LFO off and show off the beauty of this awesome synth!
Agree. He never played any of its strength patches....
I don't know if it's a question of different revisions, but my JX-8P doesn't sound like this at all.
You sure that the chorus is different? It sounds identical. And it has the same chips as well.
The JX8P sounds way better than I remember 🤔
What about the JP6 & JP8? Those were the flagships.
🤫 video on those this week hopefully...🤞
Those were VCO designs; this is about the early DCO synths. That said, it would be nice to give the Alpha Juno 2 some love. :)
It would be more logical to imagine Alpha Juno instead of two almost identical Juno 60 and 106. Alpha Juno has the same filters and colors as JX-8. But at the same time, there is one oscillator, like all Junos. But the Alpha oscillator is even more complex (and I think he is digital). It is strange that Alpha Juno was bypassed in this review. And it should probably be noted that there are also digital DCOs Like in Casio CZ-101, Kawai K1, Kawai K4 etc... Not all DCOs are analog. Maybe that's why they have such a reputation?
my rankings from your demonstration:
1) JX-3P
2) Juno 106
3) Juno 60
4) JX-8P
And the winner is....
ALPHA JUNO 2 !!! (Sorry, I just had to...)
Nő.
Juno 106 keys have a special cheesiness to them.
Out of your demos, I actually liked the Juno 106 the best. Overall I have to say I feel your playing and the choice of sounds didn't do these synths justice. I only have the JX-8 P but that can sound way better. Just the "Soundtrack" proves it, but also the brasses and Horns. Would have liked to hear these on the JX and the Junos.
Almost every string preset in the jx8p sound fantastic.
@@trejogregorio Right and there is choir and sync and even Synthbass can sound nice. The Horns, Brass basically everything missing what is essential for these Polys.
I'm in the JX camp... i think they sound better....
I really like these reviews, but they completely fall apart when you start playing them. You are very knowledgeable about the synths but it seems like you have no idea how to program one while you are playing. Your performance does not do these synths justice at all.
Come on man - Joe B.
Agreed. He's litterally constantly choking the synth with tweaks instead of letting us enjoy complete sound cycles that show how... the synth actually sounds
JX-10p LOL!
I prefer the JX-50p which was five times more expensive (Uk based humour alert)
It's a rare skill when you're able to make every synth sound like total shit. Two thumbs up 👍👍.
Puhh. I never had such shitty sounds out of a juno 60... worse than the factory presets, you immediately changed thoose when the ju60 arrived.. prest surfjng gasnt been an option with the junos, and that was s good thing. This demo misses to dial in the sweetspots in the patches.. nobody would use that sounds in production, so why demoing a synth with them. Do you try to bring the second hand prices down? Clever.. that might actually work.
Best list.
1.Juno 60
2.Jx8p
3.Jx3p
4Juno106