Why Do We Still Care About the Juno? 

Sounds great.

I stayed to the end...and it was worth it. Its the first time in the History of youtube-audio-daw videos, thzat my little white ass was grooving to the awesome Song you Did. All I say is: THATS WHAT I CALL AN 80ies CHORUS!! I bow!

,>>

LIFE IS FOR LIVING 1 second ago ,>>

LIFE IS FOR LIVING 1 second ago ,>>

Yes, anti-DX7 in terms of panel controls too! I used to have a DX7 which paired with the Juno quite well as they do very different things.

Great description, very good way to describe it. Although cold and glassy would actually be yin and the warm/soft would be yang.

It always irks me when people describe the DX7 as bright, glassy and digital, because it can be incredibly warm and organic. I know that it's known for those rougher, digital sounds but it takes a bit of learning how to program it to realize it can have a more soft approach to it.

@@gasolineandwine this is true, but I'd argue it's more well known for its brighter bell/e piano patches. with enough effort you can make almost anything you want with FM synthesis, but if you wanted a rich warmer sound and had a choice in a synth it'd probably make more sense to use the one that's easier to get from point a to point b with

@@gasolineandwine No.... no it REALLY can't. Compare a DX7 to a juno and you'll realize you never knew what "warm" was. There. Is. Nothing. Warm. About. The. Dx7

the 808 had a chip that stopped being made and they couldnt match the sound as well as it being a sales flop.. and seen as a bit comical by most... no one could use the 303 and was also a 'flop'

@@jsaulkane5893 It WAS a flop. Remarketing and brand recognition is hugely powerful, and those synths kept them alive.

Irony is Junos, TB-303 and most of TR-X0X series were Roland at its worst because Roland thought they are doing hardware for the low budget segment. So of course Roland is incapable of competing with its "worst" for the past 3 decades because their modus operandi is making only the "best" things. So now they give us a VST with a keyboard for $2000.

The 808 and 909 were definitely not low budget turds- they were groundbreaking gamechangers. At least that's what they were meant to be. The ability to fully sequence the 808 was new, it just got shitted on techwise by the Linn and DMX etc that had "real" drum sounds. Everyone was chasing actual instrument emulation back then. The rest of the x0x's were budget pieces but the 808 and 909 were mid-high end. The Juno 6/60 were "budget", but they still cost the modern equivalent of 4500 or so. Roland build quality up until the mid 80's was absolutely top notch.

it's the same with SP series, especially the 404... they were meant to be live effects, they were meant to be groove boxes, they were meant to be a second performer when you were the only one. that's why the sequencers on all of them felt like an afterthought and it's why the new 404 mkii is so brilliant. they didn't try to make something "high end" or "new" but rather they revitalized the parts of the old that were lacking after a community they never meant to target decided it was theirs to use. say what you will about roland but you can't deny that they've made genre-defining gear in almost every style of music around

I am a smidge older than the Junos, but really I knew the sound later and found out what the sound was coming from much later again. I guess the pre-internet world is alluring. The grass is always greener and all that. Reverb - I guess they had things like the Lexicon 224, but they weren't easily accessible or footpedal sized. Would have probably blown their minds.

@@AlexBallMusic information spread much much slower pre-internet

@@AlexBallMusic Wow, what a wonderful track at the end. You really nailed the sound of the 80's "Synthie-Pop". I was a teenager when the Juno 6 came out and we loved the sounds and the music of that era. It's an interesting point, wether the grass was greener back in the day ;-) Tony Williams (Drummer) once said: remember the past and honor the past, but don't be stuck in the past. In german there's a (questionable) saying that goes like: back in the day everything was better. So, as someone who has grown up in the pre-internet world, I would answer: sure not everything. But quite a lot ;-) Cheers

@@michaelv.3655Dem kann ich nur zustimmen. Es hat was in einer Zeit aufgewachsen zu sein als es das Internet noch nicht gab.

It will die one day, that is certain.

not trying to be facetious, but ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0-AS5GZGLR4.html ; couldn't you say the same thing about any analog (1osc or mono) synth? What do you think?

Love stories like this.

"Just wish I'd bought one then..." is the constant lament of our generation, to be sure. When Yamaha's amazing-if-terrifying DX7 and Roland's D-50 counterthrust appeared and everyone started dumping analog gear like hot rocks was our window of opportunity, and none of us realized it at the time. Oh the humanity! :D

Yes, the tape strip!

Cheers!

Totally agree! Please Alex, tell us a bit more on how you treated your vocals. I can't believe it's only a vocoding effect in junction with the Juno. Great song btw :)

@@nicolaskavvadias8488 So it's a sample of my own vocals from a song I recorded in about 2015. I sampled it in mono into my Isla S2400 using the lofi settings and then re-pitched and chopped it. At 12:29 you can see it on the display. In the end choruses I added the on-board Juno-X vocoder which really does sound fantastic. Then it's just reverb and delay.

@@AlexBallMusic To quote some psychedelic/prog ensemble you might've heard of, You've gotta get an album out you owe it to the people! :D

That song…. So good.

absolutely.

100% I owned a Juno 60 and than I bought an 106 to replace it. I played on both for 3 days and I kept the 60. A great synth and great memories. This days I am mostly on soft synths. But I would buy a Juno 60 if .... Great video.

@@DrDAADyou bought a 106 and kept it for 3 days? BS

@@panamaJ yes. Because I had a Juno 60 already. If you red my post you'll understand that I wanted to replace my Juno 60 with 106 but I liked the sound of Juno 60 better so I changed my mind and kept it, selling the newer synth in stead. I had no reason (or budget) too have both. Keep in mind this happened in the early 80's when those synths were both new and just a "compromise" for those who couldn't afford a Jupiter 6 or 8 for ex. Very affordable and far from the "cult" status of today! So no! No BS. But I guess you're too young to understand (and also use a better language). Good look with your music! By the way, Juno 106 is a great synth! But there are many others that prefer the sound of Juno 60 even if they are only slightly different!

You mean the Juno-60

@@synthesizerhome2041 I have the 06 not the 60. Presets would be nice though.

@@Scottzilla1970 There is no Juno-06, I think you mean the Juno-6...

@@synthesizerhome2041 whatever

We really need a Juno or 101 of each type of synthesis, especially FM and granular

Yeah, you nailed it. What a lot of gearheads don't realize is that actual musicians want to write music, so they only care about two things: how good it sounds and how easy it is to get good sounds out of it. And those two synths are kings in both categories.

Thats actually a really good way to describe its sound! Whenever i play mine i'm always feeling that too, maybe it's the melodies we know from old that give it that automatic feeling/memory though? I dunno, but somehow you hit the nail on the head with that!

I believe it is the dark synth on Taylor Swift's "Maroon", it really defines the mood of the song.

I couldn't have said it betta.

Yep, totally leads you through the learning processes whilst getting rewarded along the way. It's like the first level of Super Mario.

What sweet spot would that be, pads 1, 2 or 3 thru 88? These boards are the last bastion for vintage seller hopefuls (espec after dumping more $ for voice repairs).

Also, I never cared about synths till the DCO.

Like a synth pillow.

@@AlexBallMusic *drools over the keys and snores

Thanks.

Thank you, I had to borrow some of the 80s from you. I'll drop it back next Tuesday.

@@AlexBallMusic Plenty more of the 80s to go around around here. ;-)

Indeed, and sequencers were around since the early modular days of the 60s, however.... In the specific case of the Junos, triggering an arpeggiator from a drum machine and having to manually change the chord or notes the arpeggiator cycles vs fully polyphonic, hands free midi sequencing with parameter sequencing and program changes etc is an entirely different kettle of fish. It expanded hugely upon the side of things. DCB was the intermediary of course, albeit very briefly.

It is indeed.

It is not just nostalgia. There is some kind of magic to the old analog synths... maybe the components aged like a fine wine or something esoterical ... dunno you can't really grab it by facts. But no matter how hard the manufacturers try, there's still some special edge to the old original that they cannot recreate I also don't know if you would replace every single component in a vintage analog with a new one that dose the same job, would the synth loose its magic and sound just like the other new analogs? That would be a costly experiment... FOR SINCE ! 🤓✊

You can't be talking about a Juno 60 as it predated the DX7. 106? Alpha juno?

Thanks David!

It does sound awesome. I had to send my super 6 back tho. It was a love/hate relationship lol.. it's not a perfect instrument by any means, but I'm sure one of these days udo will perfect their craft.

I have a Super 6, yep. Great synth.

Yes, great synth. Definitely heavily inspired by the Juno line. The Behringer Deepmind also started as a Juno clone. There are a bunch of them out there but none will ever be as dear to me as my JUNO-6

@@lo-firobotboy7112 Someone should make a modern analog truly resembling the JUNO 6 in sound and simplicity with only MIDI, delay, reverb, and a sequencer added.

@@electrosonicnebula Soundforce makes the Juno 60 oscillator clones for eurorack. they're really expensive though around £1.400 for 6

you seem to be implying ‘hype’ as meaning people trying to be cool. Indeed it is hype- just as any timeless, great sounding, well-designed instrument has hype. Deserved hype.

P.S. According to Peter, Philip will be the only one who can generate a bad sound out of an OG Juno. Stupid t----

Peak isn't a 1 oscillator synth. It has fewer voices than Summit, though

@@GizzyDillespee I knew I was going to get the specs wrong. =]

Ah yes, the quirky HS-60. Doesn't that have an external audio in that goes through the chorus? Very handy. I did an Alpha Juno video earlier this year. 😀

Thanks!

That said I do have a 3p and honestly like it more.

@@irife2771 Yes the JX-3P is a much more capable synthesiser.

Cheers!

I have a System 8 also, but swapped out the Juno for the more useful System 100 plug-out.

@@group-music how is it more useful in your opinion?

@@DEADLINETV The System 100 plug-out has 2 oscillators and a filter with the classic 1970s Roland sound. As well as the modulation capabilities. It is great for vintage sound design. The Junos are just very basic. They sound okay with the chorus unit on I suppose, but so do most synths.

@@group-music Thanks for the tip! I will look into that plug-out!

@@DEADLINETV It sounds great in my opinion.

and the one downfall of the 106 is no arpeggiator

@@MrSneaksfulNot quite the loss you might think, because of the inclusion of midi.

Compares the same really, the difference is this is the Zen engine built into a Juno shell. Same for the Jup X as well. Remember since they are digital they can continue to update the firmware for all of it. They sound amazing, feel analog, and even have a very large amount of Dynamic Range which is something pretty much all VA synths fail at. So kudos to Roland on the X/Zen series!

You and I seem to be in the minority in not caring about the Junos. It seems crazy to me that a lowly Juno 106 now sells for more money than a Prophet 600 or many other synths that are much better than a Juno. Having only one oscillator means no phase sync, no cross modulation, no FM. It's just too limited. Also, without the chorus on, it sounds like arse.

@@group-music I also prefer the Poly 6 and 61 over a Juno. I used to layer my 61M with recorded samples from the Roland MKS-100 sampler when the sound needed to be thicker. You could also use the VP-330 samples in the Keys pack from Roland to really flesh out the strings into full stringer territory. I think running these through a flanger produces a better sound than a chorus. I think a lot of the Juno love (and Roland love in general) is from people that want to fight back against Moog love.

@@johnmiddleton4291 I had a Poly 61 and it's a very under-rated synth. A nice warm sound.

Lots of interesting and well thought out comments My road gear started with Hammond & Leslie, followed with Wurlitzer Piano and ARP Omni. Next were Minimoog and Odyssey - Odyssey has more sonic range, but a good useable, likeable, sound could be found a lot quicker on the Mini; Moog also cut through the mix competing with guitars. Added a Yamaha Electric Grand CP70B and Hohner Clavinet. Our band was doing a lot of Supertramp, Styx, and cover material. Replaced the Mini and Odyssey with an Oberheim 4 voice. Gradually down-sized since we were doing original stuff and opening for bigger acts. Got down to Electric Grand, Oberheim for some synth, and Korg Poly 6 which functionally replaced: a Korg CX3 Hammond clone, Omni Strings, Clavinet, plus the Korg adequately replicated a Prophet 5 used for our recording sessions. I loved being able to edit and revise Factory Settings and easily back-up sequenced patches for various song set lists. Three big regrets of the Poly 6: 1) It was pitched sharp on the extreme low notes and flat on the high end - manufacturing flaw, not possible to re-calibrate; 2) very cheap key contact component - piece that looks like a broken pencil lead mounted in a small rubber plunger contacts a circuit board point - extremely susceptible to dirt and tobacco smoke - no velocity sensitivity or aftertouch capability, plus 3) I actually wanted the MIDI feature. So, as much as I enjoyed the Poly 6, it was exchanged for the Juno 106. Sort of like with the Mini / Odyssey trade-off: I prefer the 2 octave overtone plus Unison mode of the Poly 6 over single octave split available, and the Unison mode of the Juno 106, but the re-trigger options and the choruses unit of the Roland are superior. I tried to substitute a Jupiter 6 which has fantastic subtle nuances but found it too thin and overwhelmed by guitars and drums and went back to the Juno. Eventually as I was doing club dates, I went with the Juno 106 MIDI-ed with a Yamaha DX7. My present go-to setup is an aged Korg SGproX. Features full 88 note board (made for Clavinova - I prefer it over Fatar) faster and a bit lighter touch than Yamaha M08 and Kronos. I was able to edit sounds (you delete stuff you don't like and replace it with another tweaked sound - for instance I morphed something into a usable reed organ, another to accordion. You can also set flexible split and layer fields. On occasions that call for some Funk or R & B material I may include a Roland VK7 and I if it's really greasy Soul, possibly run it through the Neo Ventilator. Interesting how it comes back down to Korg and Roland, but Yamaha and Kurzweil are still tempting. p.s. The Juno 106 works great as a 'lower organ manual' MIDI-ed to the VK7. I agree with Mr. Ed Straker considering the practical limitations that the asking price is ludicrous, nonetheless, I am quite happy that I still have a Juno 106 along with the Clavinet, and DX7.

Same here. Always preferred, and loved Polysix!

I didn't think it was possible, but I tried pressing and holding a few times and it worked, so I included it in the video.

If only I could grow the hair.

I think the juno-x underlines their lack of interest in reviving true analogue. They're happy to leave it to other manufacturers.

Cheers!

Thank you Oscar, nice of you to say. I'm always striving for that balance, so it's great to know it's coming across.