Roland Juno-X vs ACTUAL Juno 60 Synthesizer: Does it compare?!

[@ThisisRends]

The Juno-60 sounds wonderful. The Juno-X on the other hand sounds…..wonderful 👌

[@andyanderson398]

I think Roland made a classic in the Juno X, I really think this one is a game changer for them. Sounds Amazing!

[@K24U76]

Holy smokes😮 they sound the same to me.. I just purchased the X because of this video. Should be delivered in any day now.. thank you for this review. I was on the fence on buying a 106, honestly, I think the Juno X will get me there and more now I don’t have to worry about repairs. I think we’re in a time where we need to let go of the past and allow Roland to show us what innovation they have achieved.

[@peterkadarmusic9728]

I thought the latter two examples were particularly impressive. When you factor in how much vintage Junos go for - even a 106, never mind the 6 or 60 - it gets really hard to justify the older gear. Add to this the greatly expanded functionality and reliability of the newer instrument and it represents a huge value.

[@iixorb]

Roland’s logos were so much bigger in the 80’s than they are now. I wonder if that was because TV resolution was so much worse than it is today, so if they wanted people to notice it was a ‘Roland’ on TV, the logo had to be huge 🤷‍♂️🤣

[@lundsweden]

Probably you're about right. Standard resolution of TV was around 500 lines, VHS was only 240 lol!

[@marmite-land]

Even the synth's name ! The "Jupiter-6" of my unit is so much bigger compared to the "Jupiter-X" i've seen at the music store... And from the pictures i saw the "Jupiter-8" is even bigger and in a weird blue-grey colour. You can also see the Juno-60's logo being noticeable bigger on the original unit. Make the name bigger Roland !! Are you afraid of it ???

[@MorbidManoeuvres]

the Juno X is outstanding, i really wish my 106 to last many many years to come. but of course depending how long.. i would definitely switch to a Juno X

[@MichaelPhanLe13]

Don't forget you can always go into settings and change the temperature and age of the chips which gives it that "analog" instability ;)

[@EchoKraft]

That was awesome!!!

[@555atU]

The Juno sound will always be appreciated. The criticism of Roland recreating the classics I think is misplaced. The Juno-x is a winner and it's going to sell very well.

[@andre-pz1wv]

They’d make BANK if they did a fully analog reissue of a Juno or jupiter like Dave smith has been doing for the past decade at sequential, it’s too bad they haven’t realized that yet

[@555atU]

@@andre-pz1wv. My friend has and still does some contractual work for Roland. They've sold 22k Fantoms according to him. That's bank right there in itself. Jupiter-X is selling very well too. I wouldn't argue against you that they make a fully analog Juno if that's what you want...I know many others do as well. But they are doing well with Zencore.

[@andre-pz1wv]

@@555atU the fantom numbers don’t surprise me but I do have my doubts about Jupiter’s really being sold. I still believe a fully analog Roland would sell insane numbers though

[@555atU]

@@andre-pz1wv you can have your doubts, I have confirmation that it's true. And I'm not saying you're wrong about analog, I'm just saying it appears they don't need to based on their current sales. Peace.

[@andre-pz1wv]

@@555atU yea I get what your saying, but every time Roland puts out a new product, it seems like everybody is complaining about their neglect of a fully analog unit

[@erichkohl9317]

Thanks for this comparison. My Juno-X just got delivered yesterday, so it’s nice to hear it side-by-side with the “real deal.”

[@supadupahilton6848]

I think the original can be heard to be slightly darker (on some patches) which I would attribute largely to aging caps. I think the guys at Rolland did a great job on the reissue, so I wouldn't fault them at all.

[@digitaldiezel5870]

This was a great comparison! Hopefully I can grab a Juno-X one day! I don't expect it to be 100% the same as the Legacy synth. Don't need it to be. Just needs to sound good! High Quality digital synths are expensive. This is the cheapest of all those I'm actually considering.

[@vaiman7777]

Exactly, it a great sounding synth. I own a 60 and I'm getting one, purely based on the fact it sounds great. Dunno why these nerds get so defensive over their vintage stuff, I welcome the fact I can now have 2 JUNO's... arguably better imo

[@digitaldiezel5870]

@@vaiman7777 Agreed! Just ordered mine today! Had to sell some gear, but its going to be well worth it.

[@vaiman7777]

@@digitaldiezel5870 Awesome, you'll love it. There's a slight learning curve, but I've found it easy tbh. The Zencore sounds are also fantastic. Load 4 synths up and it's happy days :)

[@Jammonstrald]

The Juno-X sounds pretty good, but the 60 sounds sublime.

[@touchcircle22]

great video.....I am SO STOKED....waiting for my Juno X to come in.... been a long time since I was this excited about a new synth : }

[@donaldpriola1807]

Digital synths have come so far, and with their versatility, they are hard to beat these days. I'd pick up an X for sure, if I didn't feel guilty about having yet another synth.

[@kris_lx]

I recreated the sound from around 9:00 in the Roland Cloud Juno 60, Arturia Jun-6 V and TAL U-No-LX and they all sounded almost exactly the same. I guess I'll stick to software, way cheaper and it doesn't take up any space.

[@JobimSynthMusic]

The juno sound is the most copied and recycled polyphonic sound...

[@79Glitch]

And doesn’t provide any of the fun or inspiration in a musical sense. I like music, not computer programming. Vsts are great for demo’s, filling in space, automating sounds when needed. Musical satisfaction? Not so much. Why have sex when you can watch porn on the internet for free? The tits on the screen look exactly like the ones in real life, and you don’t have deal with all the complications of dealing with a real person. Right?

[@marmite-land]

TAL is rad and always make stuff that's criminally underpriced. Definetly check out their softwares

[@helisoma]

i have the TAL and Arturia and a Juno-6 and have played identical notes/patches (using the factory Juno-60 patch notes) and there are differences...with the Juno-6 just having a bit more depth and color especially in the low end ...btw i've used the Roland Chorus 60 VST with my Juno-6 and it's so lush 🤗

[@MrJaw-li9vs]

Yes they sound close, but there is one thing that the X can't give you and it's the inspiration and motivation to play on an original and classic synth. My 106 is always putting me in a special mood when I touching it.

[@Gear4musicSynthsTech]

Fast forward 40 years and perhaps we'll be doing a comparison video against some new contender and the Juno X? 😄

[@richardharris9708]

I disagree, the X has the look and feel of the Juno down perfect and should be just as inspiring to most musicians. With so many Juno VSTs existing on PC, that's practically the main reason to buy the Juno-X!

[@MD-fu6ly]

Don't be daft

[@jami.m7074]

Great comparison. Almost identical, at least through youtube. I've had my Jupiter-X for two years now and very happy about it. Would love to see that compared to a Jupiter-8 in a similar setup.

[@helisoma]

Jupiter-8 and Juno-6/60 have similar ICs so it should compare favorably to a Jupiter-8 as well (i have a Juno-6 and admire the Juno-X)

[@DiamondWoodStudios]

Yeah at the 9:00 mark you can tell what Roland was trying to do with this, Trying not to chase analog ghosts while still kind of giving the people remakes of their old synths, amazing video btw bro!

[@FakeGlasses]

“We don’t chase ghosts, we cash in on them.” - Roland

[@DiamondWoodStudios]

@@FakeGlasses I guess we can’t be mad when they told us their game plan 🤣

[@markcook5044]

Wow, that’s impressive. Sounds pretty close to me and thousands of extra modern sounds too with the x

[@halcyo]

That "sing songy thing" you're talking about with the filter resonance is totally normal- it's called self oscillation. It's actually a highly coveted part about great filters because you can actually "play the filter" as a whole 'nother oscillator if you design a patch around those high resonance settings. Tons of the great analog synths out there have this, and it's a feature, not a bug. The original Juno 60's is WAY nicer than the emulation on the X. The raw oscillator tones are well matched, but the filter is way more plasticky and artificial sounding on the X.

[@johnsaunders6510]

Excellent comparison. Thanks.

[@jonhamilton48]

Great job!

[@helisoma]

I have a Juno-6 and I'm very impressed by the Juno-X....I think even you were surprised at times how identical they were 😄...I'm actually happy there is this modern alternative and wouldn't mind owning one someday.

[@GuitarsAndSynths]

Definitely the Juno X sounds fantastic. Would love one to use with my Virus, Moog, and Oberheim for synthwave stuff.

[@friendlynoise]

The resonance in the Juno 60 sounds so much better.

[@ageshero]

I believe this to be true, sounds great

[@thesrabbit]

Yeah, I don’t think his 60 is all that wonky. My Juno-6 has just as much grit at high res. The Juno-X sounded weird there. The JU-06A does a pretty good job of mimicking the real deal at high res. I think they did a better job with the chorus on the X though. It sounds like they got the chorus rate right this time. Though the mod depth might be a tiny bit off.

[@MD-fu6ly]

No it doesn't.

[@DS-nw4eq]

Oh ok 👌

[@JobimSynthMusic]

I get that wobbling when resonance is at maximum in my 106 too. calibration? capacitors?

[@Gear4musicSynthsTech]

Mylar says he thinks it may just be the old slide potentiometer needing a clean. It's long overdue a service, bless it!

[@DNGMaestro]

Awesome!

[@justinmerritt3843]

They sound close enough and I mean that in the highest regards. Folks complain that the Juno X is too expensive when in fact, $2000 for a synth with these capabilities rather it be analog or digital is a all out steal, the Dx7 when it came out in the 80's was 4 grand a Juno 60 was about 3200 in the 80's, a Kurzweil k2000 fully upgraded in the 90's was $8500 you do the math on how much that would be in today's inflated market.

[@Jason75913]

Juno-X is a watered-down Fantom-0 with a price increase.

[@justinmerritt3843]

@@Jason75913 what's so watered down about the Juno X when its clearly its own product not trying to be remotely like the Fantom? If anything, its a boosted up 106..

[@thesrabbit]

The system-8 gives you better emulations for less, though with less voices and only 2 layers. It’s native VA / FM engine also kicks ass though, and you can use the Jupiter and Juno filters with the native engine in addition to all the others, which is very nice. I wish it had a better keybed and some sort of pan spread though.

[@justinmerritt3843]

@@thesrabbit I just watched a video of the system 8 versus the Juno X, and once they were set up the exact same way, they pretty much sounded the exact same like no difference. Check out mr tuna.

[@thesrabbit]

@@justinmerritt3843 I did and yeah, you can make it sound close enough for certain patches. The Sys-8 is still closer to the original for those little nuances. Probably doesn’t matter to most though.

[@ElektronicCricket]

Nice … like the Juno x … , Roland did a good job here… I had a Juno 60 in the past and now I miss this one very much … I was very curious about the difference between these two,thanks for the comparison. These days, with a little luck,you can still find a original Juno 60 but most of the time they are not cheap. Also , I know the limitations of the original and now with the Juno x , you can do much more and most important … it’s sounds great!

[@lundsweden]

Both synths are good, maybe the Juno 60 is 10-20% better on some patches. IMO analog filters still sound slightly better/fatter/warmer but I myself have the TAL UNO-LX plugin which is fantastic! I used to have a Juno 106, my filter sounded similar to the 60 in this video, unstable on high rez.

[@dekzan]

Nicely done, very useful info. Thanks 😊

[@JohnnyMacaw]

Loving all the Juno experts LOL

[@NoahLifMusic]

They both sound wonderful to me. What he might have done is not show which synth he is playing when comparing sounds until the end, for no placebo effect. I have a classic Juno 60, and what I love about it is the unpredictability (which is part of what I love about a lot of analog gear, though I also use tons of digital/virtual synths in my work) and the particular sound it has. I'd be quite happy with the Juno X if I didn't already have the classic. That said, there is definitely a sonic difference between the two here IMO...sometimes negligible sometimes very noticeable. I bought my Juno 60 in almost new condition around 2008 or 2009 when I was in the beginning of my career for only $225 (!!!). I was at a friend's studio who had one and he said he didn't understand why no one was talking about them, and that I should get one because they were so cheap and it would be valuable one day. After hearing his I went on eBay the next day and bought one...and he was right!

[@Gear4musicSynthsTech]

You got a legendary deal there! It's tricky drawing too final a decision from a quick comparison like this as you can see it was admittedly quick and quite casual. If more time and a forensic attention to detail was taken we think it might be possible to get even closer matches (or maybe not!), and of course it's hard to remove the human factor from our judgements as you say, unless we do the tests blind. And the end of the day the question any piece of gear must answer is...can you make great music with it?

[@NoahLifMusic]

@@Gear4musicSynthsTech Agreed! I will say also that, for me at least, the "vibe" and "feel" of an instrument or synth, outside of the technical sounds of them, can affect creativity in a big way as well.

[@JobimSynthMusic]

there is a kind of spread to the sound, even without any fx, that all these digital copies have. since the first sound you hear the 60 more direct, mono, dry. and the digital, slightly subdued, spread. not much of a difference. however, the price. the digital really should be much cheaper than it is. that's the main problem. an analogue deepmind also sounds the same (for practical purposes), and is 1/3 of the price of the digital. a digital mass produced synth should be cheaper than an analogue synth.

[@thesrabbit]

Yeah I noticed the same sort of spread when the Jupiter X came out. It’s a significant difference when compared to the real thing or even the system-8. The system-8 emulations sound fatter, but thicker and maybe even a bit congested, because it doesn’t have that spread like the new Zencore synths.

[@adriannicholasvaldez8376]

I read in an interview that the Synthwave band “Dance With The Dead”…. They don’t use Analog Synths at all. Everything they do is with Software Synths…and their tracks sound amazing!

[@henrikrasmussen9598]

I haven't been looking at digital synths for a while now , because there was always something lacking, and analog circuitry has come down in price so much with tons of nice replicas to choose from. But now when I stumbled across videos of Roland's X series it became clear to me that there's absolutely no tradeoff buying a Juno X instead of, well anything. I don't even need tons of gears anymore, its all right there.

[@ricardojsgw]

That "iaou" you hear in the Juno 60 is plain old lovely analogue envelopes which have a logarithmic shape vs the boring linear shape implemented by Roland in their zen core synths. For me, that's the one major drawback of the Juno-X, Jupiter-X and the Fantom which sadly all share the same base of hardware and software. My Fantom cannot achieve the same level of warmth as my good old JX-8P even with the new model "engine".

[@LohPro]

does the Juno X have any setting to make it seem like its aging or drifting, like old analog? either way, having a pretty damn close, if not spot on, recreation of the 106, the chorus, even with SuperSaw included for trance stuff + piano & other expansions, the Juno X is a hell of a deal. doesn't matter if some claim it to be a "vst in a box", its very immediate with a large selection of sounds & it just SOUNDS incredible.

[@iixorb]

I am seriously tempted to sell my two immaculate JU06 Boutique’s and two JP08 Boutique’s to help fund this…..

[@Jason75913]

I would be willing to buy one of each if the price is right ;)

[@ironinquisitor3656]

You'd basically just be doing it for the extra polyphony. the ACB in the Boutiques is far more accurate than Zencore.

[@ironinquisitor3656]

@@Jason75913 Same here lol.

[@iamtrevorlang]

Honestly I almost always prefer the vintage gear as far as sound goes even through KZbin compression and my phone speakers but the X sounds incredible

[@floridahiker1503]

I love the Juno X but I'll have to stay with my Juno DS61 until I can afford to update. Good comparison.

[@Jason75913]

Learn how to make digital synths sound more analogue, Juno-DS can imitate the 106 appreciably but you will have to program such patches manually. There are numerous articles and YT videos on the topic, and though they may involve VSTs, just keep in mind that they will all be subtractive synths just as much as the Juno-DS, and subtractive synths are ~80% samey. Or if you only need a couple of sounds, use the PC editor to import good Juno-106 samples you find online. The memory is fairly limited, so it is ultimately more practical to simulate the 106 with the Juno's own wave ROM. EXP-02 may have extra waveforms that may be useful to you, I think, worth loading in to the Juno if you still have the EXP-06 that comes loaded by default. If you play piano and haven't tried EXP-04, that expansion's "PremierGrand" patch beats the Supernatural pianos in the FA, Fantom(-0), and Integra-7.

[@floridahiker1503]

@@Jason75913 . I love the sound of the DS and I've used up the 256 user patch memories and overwrite about 10 a week. I believe I've nailed the Juno 106 sound with it. My problem everytime Roland releases a new synthesizer I want to buy it. I will add something new when I can afford it. It's a fun time to be into synthesizers.

[@Jason75913]

@@floridahiker1503 It's not like you will gain much in new sounds by buying another Roland. MC-707 gets you Zen-Core at a lower price if you want to make custom patches on that new engine, and it is really great, too. Beyond that, synths from other makers would be better choices.

[@OleVinny]

To my ears the 60 shines in how the notes interact with each other. Has some lovely purring thing going for it. Note to note it's nearly identical, but the polyphony sounds a bit flatter on the X

[@wolfgang5912]

I’d take the Udo-6 desktop over the X. 500$ more but you get a great synth with analog filters. My Juno 60 had the same resonance behaviour, which I actually quite liked.

[@ageshero]

“It’s going to be hard to match the sounds”. 🚩

[@ageshero]

Why does it loose so much impact and volume when you add or manipulate the resonance? That bugs the crud out of me it’s like an instant turn off when you’re not getting that big juno60 sound

[@Gear4musicSynthsTech]

The loss of bass with increased resonance is a side effect of many filter designs - sometimes it can be compensated for with a built-in gain increase (at the cost of drive/noise), but more often that not, is not!

[@sasarasa88]

I did not like much the Roland guy in the previous video. This is the video I wanted to watch, where you are free to do your own thing that we all love and enjoy watching

[@sasarasa88]

Note to Roland marketing folks: a video like this makes me want to buy the new juno much more than watching official manufacturer videos

[@pyratellamarecordingstudio1062]

The x sounds thinner and more digital to me. But better than I thought it would

[@MD-fu6ly]

Nah. It doesn't sound at all digital and in a blind test you'd never know

[@spazkong]

Brill and thanks. With respect to everybody... What Roland have done is, well... A very nice continuation although!!! Being a poor boy :( I still have a Juno 6 and I also have a Jupiter X. I still ask myself, why do I have a Juno 6?.... If you have the vintage synthesizers, you know why

[@VirtualModular]

Great demo! I think they sound pretty close and Roland did a good job. I'm not precious about analogue stuff though, quite happy to use soft synths mainly. I do have an original Juno-6 purely because I bought it years ago (mid 90s) before prices got stupid, and fortunately never sold it. I use so many effects that the starting sound is almost irrelevant anyway! There's a lot you can do with programming to make digital/software more analogue sounding, especially with modular - subtle random pitch variation, patching a tiny bit of noise into pitch CV, running through lo-fi plugins etc. I honestly don't understand why people pay so much for the real thing any more.

[@555atU]

That's a great point about using effects. I don't hate or love analog, but in a mix, you can't really tell and most people listening don't care anyway.

[@VirtualModular]

@@555atU yep, spot on! People listen on mobile phones and tinny Bluetooth speakers anyway, nobody is going to tell the difference then.

[@555atU]

@@VirtualModular regards.

[@MrFgjklo]

Hey ...i like Gear demonstrations Videos , but why must everybody compare Sawtooth Sounds .....who likes & listen to Sawtooth really??? I dont know any Song just made with a Saw tooth haha...No more Saw tooth please! Only Pulse wave Video are good hahaha...just kidding . A pure saw tooth sounds exciting like dentist drill.... Ok later at 3:42 come some good Sounds... a Juno 60 is cool to have but old and no MIDI and maybe in a damage case.....and 4500€ on Reverb Really??? Juno-X seems nice....

[@user-cv8ud8qo9f]

Both sound great, but where true analogue develops it's warmth is in the notes being individually unstable and that isn't perceptable with single notes, it shows itself with chords because you get the individual instabilities interacting (as you do with an acoustic piano) so it would be nice to hear them compared mainly with chords without the chorus washing over it. single note comparisons and chords swamped with lush chorus kind of avoids what is the critical test ... sorry to sound negative, but whether the digital version sounds as analogue as the analogue version is presumably the point of this comparison.

[@ironinquisitor3656]

I prefer the ACB emulations. More accurate.

[@nonsequitur4704]

I was fiddling with my JU-06 right after loading the new engine onto my Jupiter Xm and did find it seemed more rich and the resonance seemed less harsh on the JU-06. I thought the models were still ACB, but I am guessing they are actually using the zen core engine on the Xm. The differences are very subtle, however. I would say ACB is just a bit warmer and richer sounding.

[@ironinquisitor3656]

@@nonsequitur4704 I completely agree.

[@aidancampbell78]

They both sound fantastic but the Juno 60 has a slightly warmer tone compared to the Juno-X

[@pawnotdaw4559]

Hope my old Juno 6 doesn’t find me watching this!

[@kevinnolan3592]

All the comments here that the Juno60 sounds better, or has more character, are utter and total superficial nonsense!

[@halcyo]

Every time you use the filter sliders it is IMMEDIATELY apparent how much fatter and more awesome the vintage 60 is in it's actual tone. Massive difference, unfortunately. I feel that if the Juno X was $1500 or less you might have a good argument for settling, but at $2k, you might be 2/3 of the way to just snagging the real deal somewhere.

[@fuma7162]

I feel you , and one important question , why would you remake a new vintage synth with all the limit that machine had , like make at least 2 lfo , more mod … 2000 per for that nhaa, i remember that another small company recreated a analog clone of the Juno , much much better with one third of the price of the Juno x

[@nfq-en7js]

wow Juno-60 sounds beautiful! X sounds harsh compared to 60

[@MD-fu6ly]

No it doesn't sound harsh

[@canipoable]

The timbre is the same I would say, but the Juno 60 has more "vibrato" to its sound.

[@thelovelaw]

Another one digital recreation of classic synth.

[@tenmilliondreamers]

The Juno-60 wins.

[@michaelpierce3264]

I hope enough people think they’re the same so the prices on the real ones. Go way down!

[@1st2mind]

Not one SINGLE of you claiming the 60 sounds better would be able to tell then apart in a blind test. I’ve seen loads of synth blind tests on KZbin, in Facebook groups etc. The results are ALWAYS that something like 9,99 out of 10 fail these blind tests. And of course the vintage police is always nowhere to be found in these tests untill after the results are revealed😂

[@ryankissel2734]

This is pure awesome witchcraft

[@revenantx1239]

Juno 60 and 106 are different synths

[@marcusholder495]

May Yahweh bless you brother thanks for the cool video, I like them both !!!!!

[@grigioviola8523]

Seiko alien...

[@Gear4musicSynthsTech]

Great catch ⌚👀

[@matthewlundstrom5792]

All the design character of the original is totally gone. Especially seeing them side by side.

[@morphoice]

They sound the same, but the sounds don't feel the same. One has soul, the other just sounds nice.

[@Jason75913]

prove it is not placebo that you "feel"

[@jsaulkane5893]

not even close on the filter.. the 60 round and warm.. the x cold modern hard and flat...

[@ChevyCamaro1978]

Nah

[@thesrabbit]

Yah

[@Strages_Powers]

You are right.

[@MD-fu6ly]

Wrong.

[@AMSRMX16]

Juno X sounds horrible.

[@fatthor2476]

Cat? 3:11

[@Gear4musicSynthsTech]

😹