The world we live in now is Disney world for musicians. The first studio I worked had two 2 track Ampex machines. No synths other than a very few lab models that none of us had and they were quite limited compared to today. All the musicians played at once to get a take and an overdub was recording the band track on one machine and then running that thru the board and adding the vocals out to the other. One pass was the entire track. A "punch in" was splicing the best parts of 3 or 4 takes to wind up with the master. LOL! But many great songs were recorded like this. But today's "stuff" is beyond fantastic. Many fabulous pluggins are free, Cakewalk, one of the best DAW's ever is now free. What a time to be alive as a musician. I'm glad I lived long enough to enjoy the bounty! Great job with the video by the way!
@Terry Murray I still have a splicing block! Haven't used it in years of course, but fond memories. I now have a DM2000 Yamaha board, 48 tracks via light wire and of course however many sub mixes you need before it leaves the software making for unlimited tracks. But I've never needed more than the 48 dedicated tracks. But the capability is there in case I get crazy with it. One is only limited by ones imagination these days.
That had its advantages. I (as a jazz organist) recorded tracks for a metal band. Several takes on short segments, never once heard the composite track. THEN they hired me to DUPLICATE that track live... I had NO idea what to play, that wasn't me on the album... Just did my usual (fake it!) Only the bandleader noticed.
I always wondered how the tape could be precisely sliced without visual or material references, also how the singers could sing always in tune before digital autotune?
@@jimbotron70 What we did was hold the reels and find something like a kick drum or anything that created a spike so to speak and then rock the tape back and forth over the play head where we wanted to make the cut in the song and just as the kick passed the head you'd mark it with a grease pencil and cut it there diagonally. (Once you caught on to the technique, you could do it without the pencil) Then do the same with the piece you want to splice to, at the same place in the song of course and when you spliced it you really could not tell it had been done as long as the two tapes were from the same session with the same eq and mix so to speak. The mix of course also had to be done it real time. The diagonal cut was a bit like a quick cross fade. Worked quite well actually but you just had to know the limitations. As for the singers, they just had talent lol!
What I love most about hardware is that its all physical knobs and keys to play and I dont have to stare at my computer screen more than my office job requires. In that sense they feel like toys as I jam in my living room away from buzzing screens and office chairs.
That's your instrument, like a trombone slide or sax fingering - to get THIS sound, twist THIS like THAT. YOU make the MUSIC, it just makes the SOUND. As with every instrument... Now granted, SOME synths feel more controllable than others - MiniMoog was more playable than Arp 2600. But Juno was built to a price point. Jup-8 was gorgeous Juno is the annoying kid next door that wants to be like you but won't practice.
horse shit. Get a great midi controller keyboard set up your synths on your laptop. Spend 20 minutes mapping the knobs. Turn off sleep when you close your laptop lid, shut your lid and play til your hearts content. Its an excuse to defend the purchase of hardware. And i have quite a few hardware synths but to say it gets you away from the "buzz" of the computers is such a silly comment to me. There's so many ways to set up what you want without breaking the bank on a bunch of hardware synths.
I bought my first Roland digital keyboard almost 30 years ago, the Roland JV-90 (1993), at that time I paid $1,895 +Tax. Considering the inflation of 30 years (Gold went from $360 to $1,800 per ounce), that means my JV-90 would cost $9,000 today, so I guess $1.999.95 for the Juno-X is really cheap.
Thanks for the info. I bought a JV-90 for €225 in a heavy duty flight case. Still looks brand new. Only one scratch on the side, barely noticable. 2014, I think. Also bought a VE-1 for €37,50. Nowadays hard to find. It's a good midi board.
maximo, i get your point, but can't use gold price as an index, but yeah, when adjusted for inflation we're getting much better value today, and instruments we could only have dreamed of 30 years ago!
This isn't really accurate, though. Wages haven't increased with inflation(pretty much at all). So in terms of "Real money" vs. cost of living, it's about the same. (and yes, that is figured into the price because people are no doubt paid comparatively a *lot less* vs inflation to put this thing together)
@@SisterRose what are you talking about. Wages have way up. Only problem is, forced wage increases only makes everyone else raise their prices. My first job was $3.35 an hour . Same job now pays nearly $20 per hour, with more benefits .
Back in the old days, in my time when I discovered the synthesiser, the prices were still enormous and most of them unreachable. I am writing about the 70s and 80s, when the transition from analogue to digital started. Back then, you paid three times as much for second-hand equipment as you do today for new. So in that respect, it may be 40 years later but finally more synthesizers have become accessible.
Back in the old days you could by Juno's for dirt cheap. And you didn't have to get real lucky to find one that needed repaired, most of the used Juno's needed repaired. Remember the epoxied voice chips that Roland washed their hands of? I paid $50 bucks for my first Juno 60 that needed some voice cards replaced. I replaced all of them. All of them were still the original epoxied. It was 4 years old when I bought it. And I could have bought far more of them for about the same money. I found the sequencer for the Juno for less than what I paid for the Juno 60. Synths make up less than 12% of Roland's lineup now, which is why all you will ever see is re boxing for Roland. The Juno-X is no different. It is a nerfed MC-707 with a keyboard, literally. Why do I mention the 707? Because I bought one basically brand new in the box for 400 bucks, and it can do more than a JunoX. The MC series had not been out a year yet when I bought it for less than it's little brother, the 101.... I later sold it, I already have and use MPC's so I didn't really need it. Give it a year or three, and JunoX's will start to appear used for far less than what they cost new. Maybe I will pick a JunoX up when you can buy it for a few hundred bucks.
I "worked" in music shops from 1989 to 1998 and sold several Juno 6's for between £90 to £140. An SH101 would set you back around £120 in 1994 so I disagree with you. The best deal I ever made was a good condition, used Juno 6 and CR8000 drum machine for £140 combined in 1990. Kicking myself I didn't buy them at the part exchange trade price of £90. Everyone wanted digital, multi timbral synths like D10/20's and Korg M1's at that time. I also sold my JX3p for £75 to fund the purchase of a D10. I swapped my Siel Cruise for a digital FX pedal. Again, kicking myself. I recently (3 years ago) purchased a good condition Juno 6 for £1150. Now going for almost £2000. Back in 1990, we felt the lack of patch storage and MIDI was a problem although, we all now know, modern recording software makes them useful again in the studio environment. If nothing else, they're great to play and beautiful to look at. Perhaps a viable investment/gamble. When to cash in the chips is the big question. I Imagine in a few years, A Juno 6, SH101, CR8000 and anything similar will become a nightmare financial liability and thus, newer virtual models will possibly devalue the vintage gear. Who knows? One life, limited time so just do what you love with the instruments of your choice. Just write a good song and enjoy the music
And more 'standardized:' 1 or 2 osc saw and pwm, with a lowpass filter maybe resonant or even self-oscillating, 2 ADSRs , 1 LFO, one EG. Boring, buzzy sounds of the 80s through modern FX. Musically fine, creatively meaningless. Doesn't mean you cant make music, but won't set you apart.
I was17 put my guitar down and was into trance ,bass line ect but found Roland ,Yamaha (Didnt know of korg then) was way too expensive ,I settled for a huge electronic Casio ,midi built in the drum pads and 2 big reflex speakers,it had synth sounds sampled in only saw square space choir ,a low detune saw sound .fast forward after forgetting about making dance tunes and then comes the korg minilogue .
Something to take into account with any product release is the user experience, or user interface. Anyone who has ever sat down in front of a Juno has experienced one of the most brilliant user interfaces ever deigned. Within minutes you are making great sounds and going on journeys and explorations. The idea that one can make all those classic Juno and modern sounds using the same great interface is very inviting to me. The only thing that keeps me from buying one is that I have all of these instruments through Roland Cloud, and the Super 6 provides a similar experience in a truly modern instrument.
Hi Woody , your ears may not be able to detect a difference between a digital vs true analog synth ( VCO) BUT and it’s a big BUT I’m sure your BRAIN will certainly detect the difference. You’ll play the true analog synth for hours on end without any boredom or fatigue , it will hold your attention, it will somehow put a smile on your face …. It must be subliminal l guess … much like a vinyl record vs a CD debate,back in the day . The Vinyl was sonically moorish making us want to listen to it over and over again.
Its not overpriced at all. It is way more powerful than an original Juno 106. Emulating the original 106 is just one of a thousand things it can do. Its a very very complete instrument and it sounds excellent indeed. It could easily be the centrepiece of any setup. Or join other polyphonic's in your studio.
I do thing the Juno X is overpriced, especially when compared to the Phantom O series. Those are full blown work stations and those are only around $1200. The Juno X is not. To me, they are feeding off the ridiculous market value of the vintage Juno’s. This board should be priced around $1200.
Well a synthesizer is much different then a workstation. I just want to say the ability to author tone and have good enough tones for music are the strength of synthesizers. But it’s more of a challenge to make a workstation author tone, but workstations are powerful when it comes to structuring music. Brother I love everything hahahaha I love both and all of them. But 2k is a bold price that implies that men that don’t look like eachother can all draw new musical colors/shapes with the articulation of drones, pulses, frequencies.
The reason Fantom-O is priced as such; is because it has significant technological limitations. If you like, it's a 'crippled' Fantom. It's not built - in the way that Juno-X was. The team had a very different mindset in mind for you. Fantom-O isn't considered a workstation by Roland. The tech, isn't up to that standard. Compare closely the differences between it; and the master board. From behavior cores, to the processing power and limitations. Juno-X as it's Jupiter sibling; have been made as modern iterations of their lineage lines. With an extremely high build quality for live musicians with full demands (like the full Fantom). So whilst it is true; that Fantom-O appears superior in feature set (breadth). It isn't the Fantom. In the way that Korg's lower tier workstation style units aren't a Kronos. So it's inferior in focus (depth). The Jupiter X/Juno-X are full versions of their respective systems. Not only that they are over-engineered to allow Zen-C to fully augment them with additional features. Fantom-O as a lone unit, lacks the computational power to do the same. That is a very primitive explanation. English isn't my first (it's my 4th) language. However hopefully you can get the general idea. Stage performance boards; that have been built to purpose for heavy use by people with many different racks and tiers; are not the same as low-tier home workstations. Where professionals will use FANTOM/JP-X and Juno-X commonly - they will use Fantom-O far less. Because it's got a greater amount of limitations in its intended area of use. Overpriced? It's actually underpriced (considering ALL pandemic variables) that my country is facing.
@@ErraticFaith It’s not true that Fantom 0 is not a synth and that it can’t do what Juno X can. Fact is that for Fantom 0 you have to buy additional synth models, but you have to buy them for Juno X as well (you get only Juno 106 and 60 synth models for free). So if you buy additional synth models for Fantom 0, you can play Jupiter 8, Juno 106, JX-8p and SH101 on Fantom 0 as well. One more thing that is important is that Juno X has keybed from Fantom 0 (those keys were built for Fantom 0). Besides that Roland is advertising Fantom 0 as a synth and it means for sound design. The difference is that Fantom 0 doesn’t have an aftertouch, comparing to Juno X and it has less controllers than Juno X. They have both the same Zencore sound engine. So I’m sorry, but I really didn’t understand what you want to tell us when you say that Fantom 0 is not a synth.
On the Fantom 0 you have to pay extra for the plug-out models though. Actually, I think this is a clever buisiness model, that you don’t need to buy new hardware to get the latest model, and can start with a lower entry price. As for me, I would have favoured an even better keybed with aftertouch to a multitude of sounds at entry level.
My Yamaha DX7, the first commercially successful digital synth. $2000 in 1985. 16 voices too. Still working almost 40 years later. It is now a trend to reissue old synths for nostalgia for the original owners and novelty for new owners who weren't even born yet.
Roland new introduction of the Fantom"O" and the JunoX with full sized keybeds and aftertouch are more affordable versions of the Fantom and JupiterX. Everyone will have to look closely at the features to find out what we are giving up for about $1000 savings. Digital is the ONLY way we can layer 4 poly sounds, NO analog available in production will do this. Polyphonic analog can sound bigger and more robust, but unless you are recording a solo synth, when orchestrated in a mix of other instruments good digital is fine. I find that for poly synths I prefer digital and for mono synths I prefer analog synths. So my studio is both digital and analog. All I care about is the over sound of the final mix of the song.
Wow! I totally agree with you. If a synth sounds good to me, I really don't care if it is digital or analog. I own a Roland Jupiter 80. It takes alot of flack, especially when compaired to analog synths from Roland's past. But in truth, I really do not care. It sounds fantastic to me and I love the sounds that come out of it!
I'll second that. I too have one of these and I'm never letting go of it. Yes, it's digital, yes it got (and still gets) lots of backlash, but the sounds, as you've rightly said, are absolutely amazing. And the build quality is absolutely top notch: Aluminum chassis all around.
Totally agree with this. I have 3 analog synths and 4 digital synths and most of the time it's the digital ones I turn on first because I enjoy them a lot more than the analog ones. There are quite a few analog snobs who will only ever use analog, but then they demonstrate and all they are doing is producing blips, farts, and other such notes from an arp or sequencer - not actually playing anything!
One thing to consider when comparing the Juno-X to a vintage Juno is the cost of maintenance and repair. If you happen to find a Juno-106 in good condition, you still need to factor in the possibility that you will need to have the voice modules (technically VCA/VCF) removed and stripped of their resin coating. This means either doing the work yourself or paying someone else to do it. The acetone bath treatment is also not guaranteed to be effective, and new replacement cloned modules aren't cheap either. This could easily bring the total price well above that of the Juno-X. I bought a Juno-106 recently for less than the cost of a new Juno-X. Cosmetically it is in excellent condition, but it had a crackling voice module. Fortunately I have the proper tools and knowledge to perform the repairs myself. I also enjoy working on older electronics and bringing them back to good working order. It's a labor of love, and I get a big smile on my face when the job is complete. I imagine that most people who are after that old vintage analog sound and physical user interface would be much happier without having to deal with maintenance and repair. For these people a Juno-X would be fantastic. It's loaded with more features than the originals, and the build quality seems to be excellent. While the price may be riding off of the vintage nostalgia, I think it is still reasonable for what you get.
People who say the Juno X is overpriced are lacking knowledge on what's on the market right now selling well with great reviews. Navation Summit £1,800 Moog Matriarch £1,722 so Juno X £1700 seems a decent price.
@ghost mall I agree. I have a Juno 60 and I have never needed to do anything to it other than calibration and I possess the knowledge and test gear to perform myself. Same for my Jupiter 8 and JX3P of the same age, within Oct 83 to Jan 84, according to the serial numbers. I've owned all the above since the mid 90s. I do check the PS caps regularly. The Juno 106 is unique with it's voice module problem from what I know. Apparently all Juno 106 synths will experience voice module failure. Matter of time as the epoxy ages.
@ghost mall Because I'm talking to multiple people about what I think. Should I wright something completely different for everyone I talk to in here? Dont be ridiculous.
DM12 has no voice card issues, has more polyphony, extended features (2 LFOs, 3 ADSRs, tunable sub with crossmod, all effects from X32 built in - including things like rotary speaker and guitar cabinets, aftertouch etc) and tbh sounds just as good, if not better due to the sheer depth of options. Vibrato + shimmer reverb and stereo delay controlled by aftertouch on your lead sound, anyone?
I think this whole entire argument is spurious nonsense. Replacing voice chips is one of the easiest and actually fun things you can do as a layperson, and it's important work. These new digital machines are unserviceable, and in 20 years will be in the scrap heap while the vintage Junos will be selling for 15,000.
These digital emulations have become incredibly accurate. But it also seems like most manufacturers use the current focus on analog sound as an excuse to also strip down the functionality of their new digital products. Instead of giving us the best of both worlds, they often adapt their digital concepts a bit too much to the limited aspects of analog tech and offer less powerful products compared to the 90s and early 2000s when digital synths didn't try to sound analog but "just good". And some of these older digital synth have an amazing sound character and are becoming increasingly sought after and their value for money is better than most of the new stuff imo. Made in Japan is usually an indication for a great quality build and can sometimes still be found at good prices used. Waldorf Micro-Q, Access Virus, Novation Nova and KS series, the Roland JV and XV series, all extremely powerful and great sounding stuff with plenty of bang for the buck, also many old samplers... the Kurzweil stuff! Who knows how long these great machines will still be affordable. If you do want analog sound at a bargain price - the original Minilogue (true VCO four voice) and the Roland Alpha Junos are still incredible deals for analog poly synths and if you're looking for a more affordable modern workstation that also does decent sounding analog emulations I would recommend the Roland MC-707 with basically the same Zen Core sound engine as in the Fantoms, only less voices (128 instead of 256), less presets, no analog filter (but great sounding digital ones) and none of the complex electric and acoustic piano models from the Fantom. But eight parts instead of the four in the Juno X. Makes a lot of sense especially if you already have a MIDI controller / keyboard...
A misconception that people have is that the Juno 106 is a analog keyboard, it's not, it's a digital keyboard, I've replaced the voice chips enough times to verify this. Also after watching many deep dives comparing the sound of the Juno 106 vs the Juno X before purchasing a Juno X, and it's not that the Juno X sounds nearly like a Juno 106, it sounds exactly like it down to the screeches and errors you can pull out of it, having both I can verify this and the Juno X is astounding, plus you can do so so much more with it.
To my preference I enjoy the fidelity of an analog over an emulation, there is a certain quality and behaviour that makes analog a bit more musical and interesting to me. For an analog synth, complexity and features doesn't matter that much, because those are not the reasons for buying one. I like to have both a digital and analog synth at my setup, to fullfill different purposes.
I have to agree. It wasn’t until I got a Moog Matriarch that I realized how much better an analog synth fits in a mix. It was a real eye opener. I have tons of soft synths and plugins and some sound excellent but there is a big difference between analog and digital emulations in my experience.
The problem is, true analog aficionado’s will only be satisfied with the original, and maybe some of the super expensive true analog reissues. The latter ones you can gig with, the originals is for studio use only where they can sit in an optimal environment. A gigging musician need 2-3 boards that can do 99% of the sounds you could ever want, is practical to use and sturdy enough to carry around and set up/pack down 50-200 times a year. This is not an optimal settings for a maybe 30 or 40 year old synth/keyboard. I do fully agree that no emulation sounds as good as a real B-3, CS-80, Jupiter 8 etc, but as much as I’d like to have them at Home, I would never gig with them.
A waveform is a waveform. I think it's the instability of analogue we all like. Fortunately, Roland are addressing (ironically) this with the ageing algorithms. The only real loss is the mud, which (ironically) Roland are addressing (in the technical sense). Things are getting better, not worse
@@jamessisson3703 There is many really nice “remakes” of classic instruments that would cost an arm and a leg if we had to even find the original in just a “working” conditions. I also really love the new prophet reissues. They sound absolut amazing, but Honestly I can’t justify the pricetag for such a narrow synth, and even Its not even close to be the feeling of the real thing I can still if I use enough time make some fair prophet sounds on my Kronos or use Arturia’s 20 something softsynths for a fraction of Its price, and the audience wouldn’t even notice. In the end Its what we do with what we have at our disposal, not how many money you can throw after having all the ultimate synths in the world.
@@mrdali67 I know what you mean. In honesty, for studio applications, nobody really needs hardware synths at all if it's just making music we're interested in. It's like an obsession. Some people collect motor cycles or cars. Some collect model railways. We collect synthesizers and we are a unique breed of primate indeed!
I totally agree with your analysis on the digital / analogue debate. I can safely say that owning an actual physical synth and then using the Roland Cloud for example. I really struggle to hear the difference. A lot of it as well, if there is a difference can be sorted in the mix. So the days for custom specific will become more and more niche. Goldfrapp for example are using some very competent Roland keyboards on their recent tour, but for the most part are actually merely midi interfaces triggering sounds from mainstage. The days of the specific keyboard as opposed to the VST are becoming more and more a reality. I think we are closer to it that most of care to think, or realize as well.
In my view, I like the broad range of options now on offer. It's full of sparkle (if you want that) and they offer the mess of vintage if you so require. They're on the right path. Most of us, let's be honest are waiting for Yamaha to step up and blow everyone out of the water. Remember the VL synths? Imagine that multiplied 512 times over or even 1024. This is all to come so watch the future
I made a blind test with a guy that owns loads of analogue synth with my Modx (you know well that synth😎) loaded with the last easysound sounds pack "Nostalgia" and he couldn't believe the sounds I made were from a digital synth. So completely agreed, the matter is only how it sounds. And of course, cheaper than this new Roland, with also FM engine and 8 multitimbrical parts (using its keyboard).
I think all the detractors have completely missed the point. It sounds amazing, it can import synths from Roland Cloud, so you can add a Jupiter-8, JX8P or JD-800. The I-ARP is amazing for performance and inspiration and being able to just have hands on ability to shape the tone with no (or very little menu diving) is brilliant.
I had an 8 voice Sequential Rev 2 and currently have a Jupiter X. The Rev 2 could cost half of the Juno X and I wouldn’t buy it over the X. The Rev 2 has a horrible filter and DCO combo. It just has a tiny sweet spot if it has one at all.
Juno-X was built from the ground up here - for the person who seeing it; will know it's for them. With little doubt. Pricing in the current global climate is challenging and whilst I could say much, I'll refrain. Partially because western disrespect tries my patience. I have no interest in putting myself into a position of saying things I may regret. If you enjoy the instrument (whoever that may be addressing) then the engineers will be fully glad of it. Since every moment; was one of the best of intentions. I've little interest in the opinions of this channel (personally) but if the information provided; promotes discussion that alleviates the senseless bickering; and unkindness towards those who do want to try it - all the better.
Great presentation. Agree with your analysis. Prices have gone up in the last two years in the US. The Juno DS 88 which I purchased in 2019 is #300.00 more now. Thanks for your efforts.
Great video. In the uk the juno x is much cheaper. I've seen videos comparing the juno 106 and the x. The difference in sound are so small. I'll go digital any day.
Speaking of “overpriced”, I think the “Bad Gear” guy did a review this week of the Teenage Engineering OP-1 mini workstation. Now THAT is an overpriced piece of kit.
so true robo, if only I had thought of that, it would have got a mention in the video. but to put it in perspective, we're all happy these days to pay $1000+ for a mere phone...
I think there's a flaw in the argument of price of acoustic guitar vs price of synthesizer, and it's this: an acoustic guitar will only ever sound like an acoustic guitar. The equivalent synthesizer can sound like many things. That is not to denigrate the acoustic guitar, and I would prefer a real acoustic guitar over electronic simulations any day. But it does remain that that is all it will ever sound like. Also, it depends what the instrument is. A decent acoustic grand piano will set you back the price of a house. The equivalent electronic piano is a tiny fraction of that. (I have an antique Bechstein 3/4 grand, and an RD-2000 stage piano. I know which I would rather take to gigs!) As for analogue vs digital, in the studio, yes, I agree with you completely. If it sounds good, it IS good regardless of whether it's analogue or digital. However, for the gigging keyboard player who is his own roadie and has to fit everything in a station wagon (and fit on a one- or two-tier stand) absolutely no doubt about it: digital is king.
You can then argue that it takes more craftmanship to make a decent acoustic/Electric instrument. Take a lot of the Roland synths of today. They each have “1” unique sound engine combined with all the JV sounds that is up to 3 decades old. Those samples must have earned themself 100’s of times back 😉
@@mrdali67 True. There is no comparing the craftsmanship that went into my Bechstein piano with that of my RD-2000. They're like oranges and apples. Totally different. However, my uses of them are totally different. They do different jobs.
I think why people say digital sucks, is because you can download a basic emulator and be able to make the same exact sounds with a standard laptop, and a midi keyboard, just add monitors, and an interface. Arturia has a CS-80 VST that sounds just as good as what costs $275,000 US to acquire, if one is even available. Analog is where I'd put some real cash, or modular.
I don't think new synth from Roland is overpriced. I think it is not interesting enough for me. I play live in cover bands and I am using computer and VSTs. This feticism for analog is ridiculous. No one is able to tell the difference from a good simulation or a digital recreation
Wrong. Espen Kraft did a video playing sounds on a Roland Boutique and the real synth. Spotted the Boutique a mile off, didn't sound anywhere near as good. I have barely any analogue synths too, so I'm not an analogue purist.
@@bassc I tested the JX08 because Roland gave me one. Unless it happens again I will not test the Juno-X, not right now anyways when everyone spits out videos. I have no interest in such races. I'm quite busy doing my own things. ;-)
It's a hit song we all need. A Juno X is up to the job if it fits the genre you're aiming for. When you start talking about hand crafted instruments v pressed out electronic devices, it all sounds a little harsh but, we often tend to forget the deep development and generations of electronics and digital/software engineers contributing to the brain pool. Digital and hybrids are now the only way forward for developing the future sound. Heaven knows what that's going to sound like. STILL NO ARP TRIGGER INPUT!
@@thesoundsmith I meant, setting up jamming rigs with drum machine triggers controlling arpeggiators in rhythmic patterns rather than constant although, the Arp synths are high on my list of "to get" machines. I occasionally like to steer away from software. Some random outcomes and magic often occurs!
Interresting comparison, I would add that the advantage of a virtual analog is the tuning stability. The analog circuits can be very temperamental in regards environmental conditions such as temperature and humidity, causing them to detune. To me if it sounds good, it is good. Digital or analog, doesn’t matter to me. The Roland Juno X seems to pack a lot of features for the price. If people are willing to spend over a 1000 dollars on a flagship phone, which they use for maybe 2 years until it is obsolete then a 2000 dollar synth with a lot features that you have years of enjoyment from seems quite a better value for money to me. A good acoustic drumkit isn’t cheap either, it’s the craftsmanship and quality control that makes the difference. I have a very krusty “Mark V” accoustic drumkit, it was quite cheap and it’s not in the same quality range that we had at the local music school. Just the Remo heads they had there where so much nicer to play on.
it's funny, the new j-x has temperature sensor on motherboard which the algos use to emulate the tuning instability (can be adjusted in the settings.... :)
I tend to think that most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the sounds on the original Juno 60/106 and the sounds on this one, unless you told them which one was which. I think that it also comes down to buying new vs used dilemma. Yes, there are many people that go into great lengths of restoring the classic 80's synths, but we're still talking about 40+ year old units that could malfunction at the worst possible moment. It seems to me that having a hardware synth that can emulate all these classic Junos could be a safer bet, especially for the live setting. In a studio, you can always use a VST, but if you play live a lot, having a brand new machine that emulates the vintage unit well enough is invaluable. One thing that I keep wondering about this new synth is that it's an actual ZEN-Core engine synth, with inputs/designs that mimic the 1980's Juno line. As such, how would a synth user then take advantage of the latest and greatest that ZEN-Core based synth has to offer if its user interface is limited to a 1980's paradigm? It seems there could be a potential mismatch brewing between the synth engine and the user controls/interface.
When everybody lusted for analog synth back in the day Roland delivered. When everybody lusted for digital synth later Roland delivered. When everybody lusts for analog synth again now Roland releases an emulator. So... Behringer here is another chance for you.
Synth Prices these days are Crazy. I Remember when the Prophet Rev 2 Did cost around $1200 for the 8 voice and $1499 for the 16 Voice in 2017-2019 and the JD-Xi where Around $370 in my country and now Cost Close to $600 . I Think the Fantom 06 is the better Value for the Price Compared to their Recent offerings or if you prefer to Work with Vst in your PC or Mac the Zenology Pro is even a Cheaper option.
I agree; after working for a Pro MI (musical instrument) and studio equipment trailer chain in the UK many years ago just before the internet sucked dry music shops profit margins I can assure you the Synths of years gone by offered better value and were constructed of better materials. Making everything out of plastic guarantees planned obsolescence; The Roland Juno-X is a bit of a folly synthesiser- it’s surprising they released it in their anniversary year after releasing an excellent Phantom 0 upgrade series earlier in the year; although again lots of plastic everywhere not like the older and excellent Phantom series synths Roland manufactured. No Juno-X Logo on the back to show off whilst gigging or for re-sale values. No midi thru on synths anymore (all manufacturers) as well I guess they really consulted the general public (not!) on that one or are they just saving money? Woody, you are very polite to the MI industry although there are lots of changes that are not the best for professionals and joe public that are now adopted. Grateful for your channel and content. 😎👍
I dont think prices are crazy at all Navation Summit £1,800 Moog Matriarch £1,722 Juno X £1700 I think there are all decent price. If you dont like big sythersizors then buy small ones which make much of the same sounds but with a keyboard half the size all priced undrr $700
Greetings from Australia! Awesome video loaded with common sense, I very much mirror your opinions. I have a small handful of analogue synths, analogue synths and plugins. I love them all! I love the fun of using my analogue synth through loads of effects pedals, it’s great to get hands on. I love the recall of my digital synth. I also equally love my plugins, when I’m in a songwriting session at my studio they’re quick, convenient and often end up staying on the track, never being replaced with the ‘real thing.’ Interestingly enough no one has every called out my synths as sounding digital or not as good as analogue. Not once in over ten years. To touch on price point, the original Juno 106 launched at $999 in 1984, adjusted for inflation that’s $2750 today. I feel like the Juno-X is excellent value with all things considered. Thanks for the awesome content!
Another guy tells me D-50 was an equivalent of ~$4k in today's money, I don't see anyone complaining. That said, Fantom-0 really makes Juno-X look overpriced. So the Juno-X sports more aluminum. Korg's M50 also sports much more metal than Fantom-0, FA, Juno-DS, Juno-Di, and Juno-Gi and it went for $1200 back in a day (Krome's predecessor).
I quite like the look of the Juno-X as a controller if they allowed the replacement of all the models with the classics like SH-101, etc. For Juno sounds, the DeepMind fills the role for $599, though the price has probably gone up some. And if you want a drum track, there is the RD-808 and RD-909.
I own a Deepmind 6 - it gets Juno-ish, but nowhere near what the Juno-X sounds like. The Juno-X nails the 60 and 106 tones - the Deepmind doesn't get that close.
What most young hipsters don't know is that analog synthesizers during the 1970s and early to mid 80s cost as much as, and in some cases more than, an average automobile. The main reason that synthesizers seem so expensive today is that the same sounds can be had for a few hundred dollars in a software version. You don't need a PhD in economics to figure that out 😉
"Analog sounds warmer and better and digital sounds like nothing in comparison" Except when they would hear the sounds in a blind test or if the audio was swapped in a test then they would say that the digital synth sounds more analog and warmer and that the analog synth didn't sound like anything in comparison..
Analog will sound better generally. Digital varies. When modeling is done right, you can’t tell the difference. The problem is it’s not always done right. Every comparison video I’ve ever seen shows Roland digitals as nearly indistinguishable from originals. I personally don’t like playing their keyboards…the digital also kills some sort of wow factor.
@@tdzucker To me it comes down to this. I love physical synths and analog synths and especially late 70's early 80's synths, so i will buy physical analog synths when i can but i don't have 35 000$ for a real Jupiter 8 or +200 000$ to get all analog synths i ever want, so until i can buy physical synths the circuit behaviour recreations will do perfectly fine. And the VST versions are much more powerful because they are always midi synced and every single knob can be automated that can't be done on physical classic synths. And often the digital recreations offer more features too. Like the recently recreated Roland Cloud Juno-60 has a toggle switch between a Juno-60 filter and a Juno-106 filter.
Totally agree. There's a lot of research, design and hard work producing an instrument from scratch. On a reissue or a knock off is a completely different story but some people forget that these companies are paying salaries to thousands of people. Analog synths are expensive instruments, probably because of the components. Digital synths like the Juno X, or the Nautilus, are way more complex than any analog synth, plus all the programming and design and putting in thousands of instruments as you said, is not a cheap or easy task. The problem is with people thinking that we are still living in the 90s, when the first samplers and PCM synths had so many limitations, as computers and phones and so many other things, but today, 30 years ago, is a completely different story and technology evolved a lot. I have a Jupiter X and it is just a beast, and I bought an OB-6 to have a different sound and I had to pay almost the same money as for the Jupiter X. I love the OB-6 but in comparison with the Jupiter X, it is too limited. As a musician, the OB-6 is like having only one color with thousands of tones or gradients, but having a Jupiter X, is like having all the possible colors. The analog or digital thing doesn't matter to me. I like sound possibilities, and a lot. I'm lucky to have the opportunity to buy the X and the OB-6, but in a situation where I can only buy one, I would go for the Jupiter X (or Juno X if I can't get a Jupiter X). They're amazing instruments, cheaper than any analog synth, and with tons of possibilities. You can make a whole track with these synths and you can play any kind of instrument, from a classic realistic piano or string, to analog synths, to super saws for a trance track, adding drums from 40 years of music history, adding a vocoder.... You don't have to look only at the price: you need to look at what you are getting in return, always, on any single thing you buy, and the Juno X is not an expensive synth at all. There's a lot of hard work and possibilities on that synth and it's totally worth it.
Nice video Woody! Taxes here in the USA vary between 1.7% to 9.45% depending on which state your in. I think it averages around 6%. It's Far less than VAT. My brother moved to Europe over 30 years ago, and electronics in general were far more expensive in part because of VAT. Computers were about twice as expensive for example. But remember health insurance is expensive and paid separately, and also that a lot of electronics were made here and now more, designed here and made in Asia. A couple years ago you could often avoid the taxes ordering through the mail, although you had to pay shipping costs. One state 2-3 hours away had zero sales tax, so a large purchase like a keyboard might be worth the trip if it were thousands of dollars. Now hardly anything is stocked in keyboards, and most are ordered through the Internet via mail. For people that want an authentic Juno 106 made by Roland in hardware format, I think the Fantom 06 at $1500 + $150 for the Juno 106 expansion model might be the way to go. It offers a full B3 engine, and other abilities as a multi-synth the Juno-X does not have. However, many want the original controls of the Juno, which is the main attraction for them to the Juno-X. Many are willing to pay a premium for that. The Fantom 0 is a better all around keyboard for doing more than just using it as a Juno, and cheaper too. But I still much prefer my MODX6 + combination of laptop with VST's for tons of sound engines, including Juno's. I think soft synths are the real winner as far as value and portability for Juno sounds, but many don't like computers or the interface of it. I happen to love computers and working with soft synths and actually prefer it over hardware synths. It was soft synths in 1985 on the Amiga 1000 that originally drew my interest in synths, only things are so much better now with what they can do. Totally agree on the analog vs digital. I'm strictly a live performer that plays in bands. Seeing the view of others on analog, I think where it would make a more significant difference is in a high end recording studio with audiophile quality monitors and really hgh end recordings. It may sit better in a mix. For live performance, I'm convinced that the sound difference is so small, it's a moot point, and that digital offers a ton of benefits such as cost, reliability, and more. I A/B tested my 1973 ARP vs a VST model of it through a small home PA. While I could acknowledge differences in a couple patches, the differences were so minuscule, that I don't believe one person in the audience or my bands could even pick up on the differences. Ridiculously close, so I cashed in, and ultimately paid for my MODX with the money and some accessories. I'm not recording albums for Genesis or something. But even Tony Banks loves soft synths now.
@@ShallRemainUnknown Yes that was one of them. I was using it originally when it was called Musicraft and produced by Commodore-Amiga corp themselves. I never understood why they sold it off? Another cool one I had (still have my original box even) emulated the Ensoniq Mirage sampling keyboard. Disks from the Mirage could actually be loaded on the Amiga's disk drive and played back via MIDI keyboard. I used others as well.
@@n8gouletHey, could you please give me the title and developer of the Amiga soft that let's you directly load/play Mirage samples? (Asking for a renowned member of tge "synth community" who asked me a while ago, and I just located your comment! Thanks!)
@@ShallRemainUnknown I'm not sure if my earlier reply went through, but the software was called Sound Oasis by New Wave Software. I sold my original boxed copy on eBay recently, check sold items to see photos. I no longer need it as I use PC's for soft synths now, but the Amiga was incredible for the 80s.
Isn't is also true that these newer Roland keyboards have access to thousands of sounds via the Roland Cloud, their technology supports that means of expanding the sound palette? I think we are also paying a premium to Roland for those features as well.
plus USB audio (just about everything they make is practically Mainstage compatible lately), not just USB MIDI, and they are using a custom ARM CPU of sorts for their Zen-Core products (the BMC chip), plus everything is compatible with their software like you say
yes, I believe you are correct, not sure exactly how it works, but the synth comes loaded from factory with much more than just juno sounds, and other sound packs can be installed.
Imagine being on stage, you're about to start your gig, switch on your Juno-X and you've reached the 30th power cycle... your Juno asks for you to pick up your mobile phone and authorize the sounds you've got on there with the Cloud.... but you don't have proper internet on stage... you're stuck and can't play. HOW IS THIS A THING????!!!!
Regarding the Jupiter XM, one thing you may have forgotten is the different models it comes with. While it and the Juno X both have the Juno 106, XV5080 and RD Piano models, the XM also adds the Jupiter 8 (obviously), JX8P and the SH101. The Juno X only adds the Juno 60 and I BELIEVE the Juno 6 which are both pretty similar to the 106 already. Having said that, once you go beyond those capabilities and factor in the build quality, keys and controls, the Juno X pretty much makes up for it in those categories
The Juno-X isn't overpriced in Europe. Look at the price at Thomann and compare to the USA price at Sweetwater. We're getting gouged in the US, big time.
Also the elephant in the room is inflation, everything has gone up by 25% due to many factors from increase in labor costs and the parts themselves went up. They also need to price relative to their other models
There are always going to be laggards when it comes to technology. The people who still have flip phones a decade after smartphones came out. It's not worth arguing with them that the world can move on and get better because they bought something 30 years ago and that's as good as it gets. They feel like this because they refuse to try the things they moan about in most cases. A $3,000 workstation with 3,000 sounds works out at a dollar a sound and that doesn't include the hundreds of other features you get. In isolation a saxophone or guitar may well sound better, but mixed into a song I very much doubt anyone would know it was an electronic replication unless they were told.
Thanks Woody! One further point is the resale value of a true analogue synth (for right or for wrong) is almost always better than for a here today gone tomorrow 'new' digital synth. Btw the Deepmind build quality is actually good - all metal and wood. Cheers 🍻
True but you're still looking at a depreciation of several hundred, which is more than the price of most VST's. Also VST's have demo versions so ideally you shouldn't have to change your mind and be forced to sell.
I had a Deepmind and it was a decent first-time attempt from Behringer not quite Juno sounding a little bit grungy compared to the Roland, i actually broke the pitch bender on mine so i took it apart and there's a hell of a lot going on inside the synth. it's basically packed to the brim with circuitry and the build quality inside and out is top-notch just as good if not better than any of the top manufacturers. I didn't quite jell with the synth though so i sold it and brought some of their mono's instead which are fantastic and sound awesome.
If you think the Juno X is too expensive, Roland Cloud is your friend. I think the price is fair considering the increased costs of materials these days. The supply chain issues are unreal if you’re actually looking at bringing a product to market right now. It’s a very real issue I have to deal with on the daily. If you think it’s too expensive, don’t buy it.
It's a watered-down Fantom-0 with a price hike, it's not like they are plating the front panel in pure silver with rhodium accents. Roland is whack, unless it is true that this is mainly for Japanese keyboardists and they make it available overseas just in case anyone else is interested.
well said matthew, yes, it's great of roland to provide these sounds in software plugins, for those of us that can't afford, or don't want to spend 2 grand.
You covered most of the instruments that I would have named. But I think that two of them stand out: 1. If you want a powerful digital with an authentic Juno 106 plugout, a sequencer, drums and multi-timbres, than the Fantom-06 makes a lot more sense. The Juno model expansion (same as the Juno-X) is an extra $150, but it still costs only $1,650--cheaper than the Juno. And it has more zones and far more overall power. In fact, you can layer 16 Juno sounds and play them all together at once. And of course, it has a range of pianos, organs and other sounds, too. The only thing it lacks are all of the front panel sliders, but it does have some synth controls and the rest are on the touchscreen. 2. If you want an authentic copy of a vintage Juno 106 in hardware, than the Behrenger DeepMind 12 (or the even cheaper DeepMind 6) is a much better alternative. It doesn't do everything that a Juno-X or Fantom-06 does--but it does everything that a vintage Juno would and is authentically analog too. Behrenger's build quality is excellent, with real wood and solid construction. Finally, if you just want Juno sounds on a budget, there are many excellent VSTs such TAL-U-NO-LX for $90 or Cherry Audios DCO-106 for $40. These actually are very close to the original and you definitely can't come close for this kind of money with hardware. I do agree that HW synths are expensive compared to software--which has many of the same development and sound design expenses. On the other hand, synths now are a steal compared to the 70's or 80's. Back in 1980, a PolyMoog sold for the modern equivalent of over $25,000! Even a MiniMoog was nearly as expensive as a used car.
great options, thanks for filling in the gaps in my presentation! i agree about fantom-0 as a great alternative for the sound, but I do wonder how it feels to program a juno on the touch screen.... :/ maybe you missed my recent upload where I discussed cheap alternatives, including your great suggests! :)
You're not wrong on anything you've stated. I have a Juno-X and it's the most fun synth I've ever owned for playing around with ideas and the integration with Roland cloud works really well. For playing on stage, the build quality, XLR outs, and vocoder makes it a great option. I like the Deepmind but it doesnt ooze Juno but rather its just inspired by it. Peace.
Great job Woody. My main gripe is that I believe you can buy a lifetime key for the juno-60, juno-106 and xv5080, each for about $150 per plugin. So it's not that digital is bad or worse than analog, it's that the core sounds of this Juno-X (minus the core X engine) are already available from Roland in cheaper plugin format. Why one would shell out $2000 for this when they could use the plugins/midi controller is baffling to me. And if the interface is the reason one could buy the Soundforce-SFC 60, a beautifully made controller meant for juno emulations. But to each their own!
you raise some great points, in my opinion though, although you can get the sound engine of the juno as a vst, in my experience, it's not very satisfying to use, when the glory of the real juno is the control panel. for me, i'm happy to use piano vsts, where only sound is important, but for synths, where sound is only half the story, they all seem to fall short when played from a generic midi controller.
I think it's more that Roland's whole thing is making digital recreations of a bunch of instruments. Then they price them at about the same price as the originals. So like my LX708 costs about as much as a fairly good upright piano (though not the most premium)... but has grand piano modelling, can be used with headphones to play at night, supports high quality midi and audio backing tracks (also midi in general is a plus) and never goes out of tune. So I think the Juno X is priced the way it is because it's an alternative for people looking to buy a used Juno 106, and so it's around the same price.
Difference between analog and digital is the signal is continuous. Digital is a sample of that continuous signal. You hear more of a difference when playing live as opposed to recordings because when recording the analog is sampled down into 44.1 k HZ. Both are great don't get me wrong, but live I find a huge difference playing a MOOG bass than a digital emulation. Whereas for higher chimey tones I prefer digital synths as they can pull off the higher end more clearly.
Agree with you all the way on this one. Yes, it would be nice if it were a little cheaper, but it has a lot of features. I had an original Juno 106, bought new in 1985, until I sold it a few years ago (parts were starting to fail, and the second-hand market was in a good position) for pretty much the same price as I paid for it all those years ago. I have a number of VST Juno emulations, some of which are very good, and I have the Jupiter XM. But I still want to get my hands on the Juno X - in addition to the sounds, it just looks so good!
Got mine this week. Yes, it has some really gorgeous and expensive-sounding patches in there - especially the new Juno-X engine and the nice arpeggiated sounds - and the filters are great, the layout of the front panel is reassuringly familiar, and the hands-on editing is great to work with (though I think I'm only really just scratching the surface). But there's still this nagging voice in my head telling me that I have several Juno emulators, both software and hardware (I have the Jupiter XM and System-8), and that a bulk of the other sounds on here come from the XV5080, which dates back to 2000 - and I already have the XV5050, which has all the 5080 sounds plus more, so basically, I've paid an awful lot of dough just for those Juno-X sounds. It does look good though.
🤠 $1999 USD is roughly $2815 AUD, but the RRP for the Juno-X here in Straya is $3799 AUD. Must be a war tax in place. The Fantom-06 represents better value. The sound engine is similar but you lose aftertouch. Aftertouch isn't that great on Roland keyboards anyway--it lacks sensitivity. Good for adding growl to Rhodes or bass but a smooth, slow filter sweep on a pad is impossible. If you're just after the Zen sound engine, the MC-707 is a good option as long as you already have a MIDI keyboard & a DAW. Earlier this year I was thinking of getting a Hydrasynth Explorer or Opsix. I just find it hard to justify gear purchases these days.
I think many (including myself) want a Juno synth at a good price with the tones and programmability of the original (I.e. no menu-diving and lots of knobs and controls).Not a Juno workstation. That would be in the “nice to have and why not” category. It should be $999 for a win and $1299 worse case I think.
@ghost mall I was going to reply and say the same thing. I love my DM12 and think it sounds fantastic for what I paid for it ($500 USD "open box"). RU-vidr "Jorb" shared his full set of Juno 106 preset patches for it for free and most of them sound remarkably close to the original patches. To be honest, I bet many would have a hard time telling the difference in a blind test. The biggest difference is the chorus. The DM12 does a respectable job and sounds fine there but it's just not quite the same as the Juno. At the end of the day, the DM12 is probably one of the best values out there.
The Catch-22 with EVERY synth maker and product is features vs. controls. The more advanced/complex the synth engine, the more menu diving there will be. Even a DM 12 has menus and there's always gonna be a..."wish there was a button/knob/slider control for blah blah blah." For my two cents, if you want/need a Juno 6/60/106 it's hard to imagine you wouldn't be happy with the sound of this, and the used prices for those at minimum cost as much if not more than a new Juno X. The control panel is damn close to identical function per function and if you used it for NOTHING else you're still saving money plus it's brand new and under warranty. You even get velocity and aftertouch, piano sounds, drums, a sequencer and so much more than just a 106 synth. When the Moog ONE came out, the prices of Memorymoogs actually went up. My guess is the same thing will happen to the prices for the 6/60/106 machines, which will make the new X an even better bargain if you gotta have that flavor.
yeah agree, a juno-x-lite would be pretty awesome, with the same build quality but similar feature set as the original, digital would be quite ok with me, but yeah, for $999, would be a win!
I think its best synth to compare it to price wise is the ASM Hydrasynth deluxe. Basically same price, both digital. Maybe the Hydra is not much of a workstation but it has the upperhand in some ways. I'm not overly a Juno sound type person, more of an Oberheim fan but I do appreciate the layout of the synth. I do think it should be alittle cheaper because its not DCO's but it is what it is. I'm not going to get upset, but I could see Juno fan getting upset.
The price for a Juno 106 back in the day was about $1200- new in 1984. So for about 300 bucks more today you can get a real close Juno 106 plus many more features and not have to replace the voice chips at 100 to 300 bucks. I recently replaced my voice chips and love my 106, however that Juno X is something most of us have been wanting for a while. I would buy it, its worth 1500 bucks. Thanks for the comparisons and opinion I share with you on analog/digital, its all about the sound.
that's a fanastic point you make, thanks. if roland today made a perfect 1-to-1 analog re-issue of the JUNO-106, alongside and at the same price as the JUNO-X, I wonder how many would actually choose the former, and why?
if one had a quality keyboard or a keyboard controller, like I do, then the Roland SH-4d may also be an excellent choice for under 500€ here in Germany. You will get a lot of emulations and also 4+1 Parts with a great sequencer. As an opponent to the Fantom 06 there is also the Yamaha MODX+ and in the price range of the Korg Kross2 there is the Yamaha MX61. But, as Woody said, it depends of what you need and if you like the sound.
Most Roland hardware synths are a drip feed of severely dated ROMpler tech with a software synthesizer or two (or four) thrown in. Very unremarkable and humdrum from a technical perspective compared to what we are spoiled with in the virtual instrument world. The boutiques (nord, sequential, access, moog et al) have been resting on their laurels for ages. Korg is doing some really nice stuff as always (but also offer their 90s ROMplers repackaged several models). Behringer are in the process of giving us cheap analogue recreations. So... Does that mean you should waste your money on them? Welllll... Actually yes... The second hand market suggests you won't lose much if you buy new and decide to sell, and if you bought second hand you are likely to break even. If you have the money, the physical space, maybe a soundcard with lots of inputs, enjoy the tactile feel of the hardware itself and can't be assed learning to do it all with a midi keyboard and software... then go for it!
WOODY! Thank you 🙏🏿! I must humbly fall on my sword and agree with you. I too have complained about the price but taking these thoughts into consideration, I can say I was mistaken. I also think we could add the Novation Summit and the Waldorf Iridium Keys into the price comparison and the result would be the same! Great post!
Let’s just call this thing what it is, a very limited controller with limited capability. My guess noobs will suck them up, get disappointed quik and dump them at half price.
There are sythersizors new and old for a whole range of prices it's sort of irrelevant, the only reason you pay more then usual is the nostalgia and if they are vintage but only a small amount of sythersizors become collectible usually associated with pop bands using them. Phil Collins used the Minimoog regularly for his biggest hits, just one example.
"Phil Collins used the Minimoog regularly for his biggest hits" >> I'm not so sure about that. The Instrument was used on "Sussudio" and on "Who said I would" from the "No jacket required" album (played by David Frank). Apart from that I only recall that he used the Moog Taurus bass pedal synth on his first two albums.
@@sauermusicDE I have seen videos of Phill Collins live on Top of the Pops and so on and He has the Minimoog on stage regularly. There is a possibility that He had a larger Moog in his studio and the Minimoog was easier to transport to perform with.
@@HOLLASOUNDS I have a feeling that you are actually talking about the Sequential Circuits Prophet 5. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HtH3378gCno.html
US citizens have to pay for everything extra and upfront. The ten percent income tax sound great until you realize that there is no investment in public infrastructure and public services, healthcare, kindergarden, public schools are shit etc. I will happily pay 25% VAT, if I get spared US circumstances of living!
The name Juno was never really used to describe a certain engine or sound, it was rather used for the 'budget' range that Roland made, to distinguish it from the more versatile and capable synths that were called Jupiter. I think this in itself should translate to the digital versions as well or at least it could have. There are a lot of advantages to digital synths, more stable, less weight, full DAW integration and most importantly: cheaper to produce. Considering the free TAL juno VST which sounds absolutely spot on I really don't think anyone should be paying several thousands of euros or dollars for the encasing and hardware connections that Roland built around their emulation, but everyone else seems to be having the same business plan. A middle ground between the boutique miniatures and this full-sized version would perhaps be more interesting for most people.
true, but personally never found it much fun to operate synth vsts due to the lack of physical controls. mapping up a midi controller doesn't really get you there, some manufacturer needs to step up and figure that out.
Or laptop with Roland Cloud and a decent MIDI controller gives you the same sounds, plus the ACB vintage emulations, plus whatever other VSTs you want for slightly less money than the Juno X. Arguably less "plug-and-play" but miles more flexible and can even be your DAW. I think what makes the digital synths seem so expensive is exactly that - better hardware can be bought to do exactly the same job (using the same algorithms) for less money.
Exactly. Now if only Yamaha made a real DX7 61 key "Reface DX7" that didn't feel like a Guitar Hero Controller from 2007 I'd quit lugging this 31lb DX7 and MacBook Air combo (Amazon Monitor arms Bolt to DX7s really easy) everywhere and buy that.
@@emilyquinn5047 Does the MODX not fit the bill? Obviously the MODX is a bit more than just a regular synth, but seems to be pretty decent for the money.
Good video. Just one thing about the Jupiter-Xm. It’s really in a different category than the rest. The Xm is a portable version of the Jupiter-X. A better comparison would be to the Microkorg, the Reface series, Mininova, Minilogue, Hydrasynth Explorer, Cobalt 5S, etc.
We appear to have reached the limits of electronic instrumentation. Analog/digital analog, FM, samples, granular, what more is there to explore -as SOURCE? What we NEED are control surfaces to make _music_ with the cacaphone in front of us. But today, they pretty much sound alike per category. How many sawtooth generators and ADSR controllers does the market need? Now, it's about getting serious about real-time control.
...One step at a time. I'd LOVE a wireless (not Bluetooth, too slow) MIDI Melodica controller with breath, bite, velocity/aftertouch and a pitch bend controller, perhaps a 2-axis pad on the left thumb. And a set of modeled winds, flute to bari and trumpet to tuba. It's not that hard to do...
no mention of what you get with the korg prologue? Analogue and digital oscs, will you ever do a video to address this keyboard? I honestly think it's one of the best synths ever made, the sound is just so thick and mono modes sub osc is just dreamy, yet it is either never talked about or shunned because of some bizarre obsession with LFO's, you get so much for your money.
You could probably get a decent laptop, usb interface, and a decent 61 controller for the price of the Kross. Most of the controllers and interfaces come with vst sounds and a DAW which would rival a lot of the big keyboard companies in sound quality. Nevertheless, awesome video as usual.
U need to consider, that synths like Juno and Jupiter can also act as Audio Interfaces and recording devices. Plug in a laptop and you got yourself mini recording studio.You cant do that with your guitar od drumset
Sequential circuits for me out of these. I don't care if a synth is analogue or digital there are many synths of either type I really like, but out of these I trust my ears and go with SC. The price does seem fair for the Juno X compared to the competition.
Thanks for the interesting video you make great points. I think this is where the roland cloud has cannibalized to their own sales and set these expectations. The moment I saw the Juno X I thought it looked awesome and my immediate reaction was to get one. Then I thought how can I justify it when I have almost all of this in the Roland cloud and eventually these models come out for the Roland cloud and I already have a great controller. It would make sense if you were actually playing it out somewhere but in the context of a studio if you have a Mac with an M1 and Roland cloud I think you are set.
totally agree! although nothing beats a real synth with 1-to-1 controls, keyboards with mapped generic knobs and sliders never seem to do it for me. but for playing presets and some basic tweaking the cloud version of the juno and jupiter is superb!
I was around in the 70s when synths were new-ish and quite expensive, I sort of dropped out of the scene for some time in the 90's and 00's, and got back into it over the last 10 years or so. I was frankly somewhat shocked at the prices of keyboard gear still being so premium, especially when compared to a home studio setup where you spend some money on a good desktop computer, software and a solid keyboard controller. You're essentially paying over and over again for a keyboard(which, to be fair if done well isn't cheap to design), and a lot of money for the OS and sound synthesis/rompler. It might make some sense if you're touring, but frankly just doesn't make sense to me.
Yeah, I spent much time on EQing, compressing, distorting and saturating the living hell out of sound. Thanks to corona! Then I started to experiment with time effects. Because some VSTs are that good, there is no longer is any need for synth hardware IMO, other than a keyboard and a drumcomputer to get some drum samples.
It may be overpriced, but most Roland gear is priced higher. I have a Juno-X, its easily the most enjoyable synth to quickly play around with ideas. The Roland Cloud integration works awesome with tons if patches to explore
I am thinking of buying the Juno X, appreciate this video is a year old but current price here in the UK is £1,450, still looking at cheaper alternatives but nothing compares for me.
Do you consider the Juno X to be much more of an attractive proposition all round considering it's price point today? I know there's still so many other options, probably including analog, but I think I really need to demo a few of them. But Juno X does seem like quite a versatile package!?
I bought a System 8 last year and I still think it's the best choice if one wants the classic Roland analog sound without the hassle of the vintage units. It's better on what matters most IMO. YMMV.
Because engineers, developers, sound and pattern programmers also account on the final price. It's not only the materials. In fact, the things a synth can do nowadays are much more than the sum of its parts.
I just went in on one of these for my niece with her dad. She is a budding musician and I wanted to get her something that will teach her synthesis and offer her lots of options. I like the big physical controls for patch editing for learning. Furthermore she loves 80s music and the aesthetic I hope will keep her excited. She is also a piano player and I wanted her to have more than 49 keys to play on or control vst’s in the future if she gets into DAW’s. Also I felt that with her dads help she will take care of it and if she loses interest can likely sell this for a good chunk of our initial investment. There were other options but this one checked the most boxes. I doubt I’ll regret my decision.
@@WoodyPianoShack also FWIW I have directly compared Roland's Fantom engine with real vintage classics and it is really amazingly accurate. In this video I am switching between Fantom and Jupiter 8 (I recreated the Fantom patch Burned Bass including effects so some minor differences). Esp. in the mix it is almost identical: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9WVUIaepMJw.html
in Turkey minimum wage is approx usd 275,- and we pay usd 3.800,- for yamaha montage.6 . taxes are insane...thinks that u r a turkish citizen and u r musician...
Hi Woody. Great video. I'm pleased you said that about digital vs analogue technology. I'm not knocking any synth or people's love of analogue, but I own a few bits of analogue kit and I wouldn't be seeking out anymore. To my ears there just isn't enough difference and, aside from the tech advances of digital, analogue just needs so much more looking after. I was hankering after a Sequential Prophet REV 2 but I'm more likely to get an ASM Hydrasynth now. It's a good point about the cost factor of relative instruments. Yes, it must be the R&D which drives the prices so high. If you think about it, it must really irritate the big manufacturers that so many of us lust after old gear. They always need to come up with new technology to keep themselves in jobs.
The Juno-X costs nearly 23K Swedish kronor on Thomann, there is no way I'd ever pay that amount of money for a digital Juno-106. Sure, it has a drum machine and sequencer but those things could be bought separately. I use a DAW so a drum machine and sequencer are pretty much useless features for me personally. If you're going to spend that kind of money on a digital synth, you're better off buying a Virus TI.
If analogue sounds better than digital why are prices for so many older digital synths going up fast? It's not digital that sounds bad, it is certain types of digital synths, those that used DSPs with not enough power to produce alias free filtering. Dedicated digital osc and filter chips like on the D50 or SY77 can produce better sound than DSP algorithms. Obviously a fast DSP like those used on the John Bowen Solaris can now produce the sort of sound we expect, but it's 2022 and so that's expected. I paid around £500 for a Roland JD990 they're now going for £900+. I paid £300 for a Ensoniq SQ80 a few years ago, they go for £600-1000. People are getting tired of the same old analogue sounds.
Sure research cost something, but then you have here VSTs like Omisphere (arround 400eur), Native instrument komplete for around 500eur, and Halion for around 300eur. How Korg or others would justify additional 400eur for plastic case, inside one small cheap IC with 2-4GB flash at max, and cheapest DAC (if not directly integrated in main IC). Regarding digital, back in that days (80's, 90's, 00's) it was much easier to justify price of keyboard, or RACK module, because, there has been used mostly custom based ICs, quite expensive DACs and ROM was really expensive, plus there has been used quite premium materials for flaghips. If you google mainboards of old Roland Fantom X or Yamaha Motif ES, you can see for what you pay for, large mainboards full of ICs with main heatsinked DSP of size and look of GPU. In compare to, Jupiter X, have really small mainboard with one BMC chip, of size mobile phone CPU (maybe it is really some modified version). :-)
good point about the vsts requiring large development effort also, when buying hardware then, you're paying extra for the keybed, chassis, screen, circuitry, connectors, and of course front panel controls. i imagine synths don't sell in huge volumes, so some margin needed to recoup design and tooling costs.
