Roland JUNO-X vs JUNO-106 - Do They Sound The Same?

[@eldemasiadotoda]

Besides the frequency drift, the 106's tuning consistently sounded just a little bit above 440 Hz

[@jackduxbury1632]

It really is isn’t it?!

[@LaytonMechaley]

bro i hesrd that exact same thing bro

[@Ancaja123]

There is a tuning knob on the back, it could have been shifted a little bit

[@rossparker4374]

That’s the 80s calling

[@donaldpriola1807]

The tuning on the 106 is pretty off, beyond slop, even. In the end, I don't think anyone would notice any difference beyond that. Digital is so good these days, it's not worth being a purist, especially with the dodgy condition/cost of most 106s. Seems like an excellent synth.

[@Jason75913]

better condition 106 comparison: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oafOl6CDgNN8jNE

[@digitaldiezel5870]

The Juno-X sound better for modern music application. It sounds the way I expected it to sound in 2022! Glad Roland step the sound up a notch! Great Job!

[@fawkkyutuu8851]

Why do modern designs always have to look more ugly and cheap? Instead of a faithful recreation or even more expensive Improvement...

[@PaulLMF]

What an awesome machine the X is! I remember getting a Juno-106 new when they came out. It was DEFINITELY thinner sounding than a Juno-60, but it had MIDI which seemed like a good idea and a great editing interface, so we worked with it. The Juno-X patches sound richer and fatter just like i'd imagine they should. If you really wanted to simplify them i'm sure you could. I've had lots of Roland keyboards over the years, would get the X over 106/60 in a heartbeat.

[@shaft9000]

I have a Juno-6 here ($150 in 2006...whew!). I'm pretty sure that from the 106 onward the Juno EGs were digitized. Perhaps the VCAs are cleaner, too. Whereas the 6 and 60 still had the same EGs as the earlier Jupiter-4 and JP-8. It isn't often noticeable in many patches, but definitely is when doing staccato, arpeggios and funky sh*t. Not so much fatter sounding as livelier to play.

[@JAO911PLIST]

I guess the 106 was means to sound like the x, but sacrifices had to be made.

[@messybuttons7525]

I’m surprised how good the Juno X sounds tbh.

[@special_circumstancs]

I think the Juno-X sounded better anyway

[@revelationsoundstudio]

In a mix of a song (after they use Eq and reverb) or in a live gig, no one could hear any difference. The Juno X has so many more features, XLR outs, decent speakers and a quieter chorus. If your favorite songs were done with the Juno X and the analog sound came out years later, I doubt 99 percent of the people would choose the analog unit as having a preferred sound.

[@chandeleerjet5637]

Juno 106 has always been one of the most musical synths in the context of a song. I used to run a synth studio and the two synths I always went back to for writing songs is the 106 and the Ob8 out of 80+ vintage synths.

[@LaytonMechaley]

that dark pluck is so nostalgic

[@haslo_]

I don't really care. The JUNO-106 won't suddenly stop fully working if it doesn't go online for a couple of days.

[@fiscaldisco5234]

As far as looks go, it's a shame that I feel like it looks almost like the 106 except they took out my favorite little details about the 106 design. The candy buttons are now your standard light up transparent plastic buttons, the simple digital clock screen is now an ugly LED menu, the slider only aesthetic was broken by introducing tons of knobs, the loud and balanced accent color scheme has been toned down or mostly removed. I know these are small things, but small things are what make a design great. This is close, and I'm not saying it's not very similar, but to me it misses the mark on some of the most beloved aesthetic details about it.

[@parkerrieke9767]

I think this is a really fair point considering that an interesting-looking instrument will naturally draw the owner to it more often .

[@christianthompson1473]

It all sounds great, obv. The real question is how does it handle as a synth. Implementation and mapping of functions matters most to me, especially when it comes to loading up other models eg Jupiter. Woopti doo it really sounds like a Jupiter patch! but where are the jupiter controls mapped to when it comes to editing or sound design.? Are they labelled correctly? Thats what makes the difference for a synth getting used to the full.

[@JAO911PLIST]

Jupiter with juno mapping just means new sinth and might open up new ideas.

[@miltoeph]

As an owner of a couple of Juno-106s , usually my units , when they RECEIVE MIDI, one of the dots on the display FLASHES !!! What's going on man ?

[@DNGMaestro]

Great video! You should have used the chorus noise on the Juno-X (which has that option) just for a funny comparison!

[@ShelbyWatson]

I have to stop watching these videos. I bought a novation Peak last year and now I’m wanting the Juno X for the more classic sounds.

[@alexbowers6026]

The drift and slop is a brand new feature that definitely improves things on the JunoX - why on earth people are talking about drifting oscillators on a 106 is beyond me. 106s are DCOs - rock solid tuning. It's one of the things that makes unison so rubbish on a 106.

[@Lofyne]

Nice comparison. Apart from the Chaka Khan patch and the brass, I did actually prefer the sound of the Juno X here. There was clearly a lot more noise from the chorus on the old one, and it didn’t quite sound as punchy either.

[@gabrielegelfofx]

Let's compare the Roland Cloud Juno 106 vs the Juno - X

[@bombjelly5795]

I literally played my vst Jun v 6 (Arturia version ) as I watched this video and it sounded pretty identical to the x . Pretty sad for Roland there. The Juno’s warmth really stood out in this case even more ha

[@bombjelly5795]

@ghost mall maybe this machine is for people who do no research on synths and basically want something that has great looks ha

[@ErraticFaith]

If you are too stupid to even understand the driving principles behind our respective engines, don't comment. The fact you are upvoted for such stupidity - is really indicative of a much wider issue. Rampant ignorance.

[@ewwitsantonio]

There is a slight quality to the 106 that I like more. (Although the chorus noise is pretty awful) Patches where the envelope is a bit longer and you can hear the filter doing it's work, I find the individual notes of the 106 to be slightly more distinct form one another, and creating a more interesting overall sound. On some other patches, I could not detect a difference. I think the Juno X is a great piece of gear, although BOTH are overpriced in my opinion. Without a care about money, I would get a 106 for studio use. For live shows, I'd go with the Juno X hands downs because it will be reliable for years to come.

[@nathanaeldavenport2251]

Yes! The chorus noise! Who wants that? Strike 1-2-3 for the 106 on that alone. Outside of that, the differences between them are, to my ears, purely academic. And truly good music can easily withstand those differences.

[@prizmprty6479]

Regardless of what Jack said in the video not all Juno-106's have that issue. Just the one's that haven't been taken care of. I bought mine in mint condition and it has 0 noise when the chorus is on.

[@samuelreyes9279]

I would have liked to have you play each patch, without identifying which of the two keyboards you were playing, and see how many would be able to tell which was which. You always have the group that claims they prefer the analog synth when it's identified first.

[@SerErris]

With the noise issue it would be anyhow very easy.

[@averyetvspecial1487]

@@SerErris Yeah, I first listened to the audio of this on headphones with my phone in my pocket and it’s blindingly obvious when it’s the 106 and not the X.

[@Kevindnowak]

The x is way cleaner

[@bomiller7908]

the 106 looks way better and sounds slightly better. the only thing that bugs me is this could easily be an 800 dollar synth. and they know that so roland goes what else can we shove in here to justify a 2k price point and it's just jam packed with stuff most people don't want.

[@sweetgoose64]

finally someone speaks the truth. they could have done something cool like a pseudo-deepmind 12 with digital-controlled analog oscillators for that insane price.

[@Jason75913]

"most people don't want" Synth collectors, no; Juno-106-loving keyboardists, yes This reviewer says in a comment reply that the build quality is a cut above most of Roland's products: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oafOl6CDgNN8jNE That helps explain the rather high price for what it is, in my opinion. edit: wrong link

[@sauermusicDE]

@@Jason75913 I read about an inferior keybed everywhere. If that's true, the Juno-X ain't worth THAT much money.

[@Jason75913]

@@sauermusicDE regardless of the build quality, it is still overpriced, and you don't even get as much for your money as a Fantom-0 gives for less money than a Juno-X

[@sauermusicDE]

@@Jason75913 True.

[@hippoferd]

They are not exactly in tune with each other ....

[@jorhay1]

Plugin in a box should not be even mentioned, except that the Juno x sounds like a plugin in a box. Yawn

[@djjuno106]

The juno106 will sound slightly different because it’s nearly 40 years old.but the new Juno x still sounds brilliant

[@user-JM1967]

If you play Cmajor 7+ on analog synth it will sounds with natural tremulo. On digital version, nothing, just two notes, without tremulo.

[@mmckmusic]

106 has so much more character and charm to my ear.

[@sub-jec-tiv]

That’s because Roland’s digital synths have the character of the carton beneath a dozen eggs.

[@user-zd4qy5zl7i]

@@sub-jec-tiv is juno-x the same as roland cloud juno106??

[@machineagevoodoo2106]

@@user-zd4qy5zl7i of course

[@user-zd4qy5zl7i]

@@machineagevoodoo2106 oh really?

[@bronxcartel6193]

Nah, that’s just the noise floor. Enjoy your analog lol

[@TrentonF505]

The Juno X is at least 95% accurate, less noisy, and will require less maintenance. I think unless you’re a vintage synth collector, the answer is clear.

[@ironinquisitor3656]

The clear answer for me is System-8 and Juno Boutique ACB over Juno X lol.

[@poloxl9122]

woow i wasnt expect how good juno x is

[@kamill67]

Most cases the Juno-X sounds fuller for me, it has more bottom end.

[@lesaventuresdegorman]

Yes, the bass is louder. But this is where it can sound better at start and trick you into the (according to me) wrong choice. If you listen carefully, you'll notice the 106 has a deeper and richer sound. It is a bit more centered, less stereo too. Be sure that your ear will like it better with time.

[@DiamondWoodStudios]

@@lesaventuresdegorman well said!

[@zyxyuv1650]

The JUNO-X sounds cheap and fake compared to the real DCO analog Behringer DeepMind which is far more powerful and costs 1/3rd of the price. Roland is a joke nowadays. I am totally dumbfounded by these newbies who write stuff like "What an awesome machine the X is!" ... JUNO-X is a literal joke compared to the Behringer.

[@ErraticFaith]

No more or less a joke than your laughably biased ignorance. They aren't remotely comparable. Go cry someplace else.

[@robinwindsrygg9568]

The 106 is slightly sharper in pitch, making the test faulty. Should’ve been properly tuned before testing.

[@darrickkeels6387]

Over KZbin they pretty much sound identical to me. If I close my eyes and listen they are super close. If Jack had two 106's they wouldn't sound completely identical either, that's the reality of analog. Great video!

[@MIDERA]

Of course, this won't entirely matter to many people but the point that two 106's won't sound identical can be seen as sort of a benefit. However, every Juno-X will sound the same... I have a JX3P that I'm pretty sure sounds different than other JX3Ps, and in that respect, that's what's so interesting about the analog gear, even if the differences may seem small. Plus, you can open this gear up and modify it in many ways, even just adjusting the filter resonance.

[@defrigge]

Sorry, Darrick, can't quite agree: in fact, apart from similar basic patch settings, they sound quite different to me with some of the patches. It's not so difficult to get a similar sounding pluck, but the brass patch for example is altogether significantly different in basic character!

[@keneokpareke1753]

@@defrigge I think we are deeeeep in hair splitting territory.

[@defrigge]

@@keneokpareke1753 Sorry, to my ears this is much too obvious with some patches to be hair splitting. I use a Jupiter Xm in my gear, and I like all the advantages of VA. But Zen Core modelling is not even as close to the analog originals as Roland's own ACB modelling is. It's completely ok for me, because I don't try to nail the original gear sound. But it always amuses me, when people claim it does: it's good enough, but still no real replacement for the original tone.

[@ErraticFaith]

You're effectively correct. Benched in Japan and correctly set - the difference is minimal. Whilst your media is replete with the ignorant bias of relic hunting hasbeens; they will sell just fine.

[@smokey5100]

This made me want a vintage 106 even more.

[@Ndlanding]

The camera's original decision was by far the most appropriate.

[@Digiphex]

The blue and the red are wrong on the new Juno. The old Juno has kind of an aqua blue and a bright red and orange buttons which gives it that retro look. It was totally missed on the new one. Also, it is quite rude of Roland to only give you one user slot to put a different model synth into, all slots should be unlocked.

[@OgamiItto70]

Some of those patches that were strong in the low end sounded warmer on the 106. Not necessarily better, but warmer.

[@danield_sounds]

If this was a blind test , 99% of people saying that prefer the 106 would prefer the X 😂

[@Folkstone1957]

Based on what ?

[@ZenMountain]

They sound different. The X sounds fine, but lacks warmth. It's a very cool VST in a $2000 shell. Roland refuse to listen over and over again. Honestly, I think Roland sucks. Great video.

[@fawkkyutuu8851]

Seems like they're never gonna go back to analog again... just sad.

[@ErraticFaith]

@@fawkkyutuu8851 Because we have no interest in mental illness. As per our own teams research and professional artist commentary, there is no 'warmth'. These people are just thick.

[@carstenaltena]

They sound the same at times, different at other times, but always great.

[@ohheyitskevinc]

Not exactly sold to be honest. If you want 106 sounds and they both cost the same, go with a 106. The chorus white noise and slight detuning gives it character. Let’s face it - if a Jupiter 8 cost the same as a Jupiter X - we wouldn’t bother with the X. The new unit looks nice, and obviously does more, but I’d get a real one. If I want an emulation - there’s loads of really good ones to choose from.

[@TonyAndersonMusic]

Hats off to a beautiful comparison. Great work man!

[@jackduxbury1632]

Thanks so much for your kind words Tony. I feel equal parts honour and embarrassment when I see that you’ve watched a video. Your music and general artistic output is truly inspirational my good man. Sending all my best wishes and respect to you fine Sir 🫡

[@TonyAndersonMusic]

@@jackduxbury1632 No way man!!!! I’m honored. I learn SO much from your playing and demonstrations / sound design. You have been a fantastic teacher and long distance friend through KZbin during the last few years. Hope we get to hang one day.

[@dankeplace]

People will complain regardless, the Juno X is a fine instrument for anyone wanting an old interface that brings familiarity but has no real issues with the upkeep of older analog. 1 isn't always better than the other, it's what you intend to do with it and trust me no one would hear the difference in a mix anyways.

[@SoundMadeVisual]

BINGO!

[@snesmocha]

this thing is just a bloody juno106 vst with a fancy casing. i see no point of using this at all

[@dankeplace]

@@snesmocha cool, so you have no need for it, Roland never made this for you, just like Ford made another Mustang replica that I have no need for. Many others still drive it though.

[@Ndlanding]

"1" is not "one", in this context. Sharpen your skills!

[@dankeplace]

@@Ndlanding really? 1 isn't the context? I mean this is all you could bring to the conversation then try to insult me? You know where the door is.

[@LangleyNA]

I love your Rufus _"Ain't Nobody"_ bit with *"Funky 1."*

[@k.l.graham5860]

All the Juno X is missing is about $1000 worth of value.

[@jansonrawlings8169]

Precisely. This thing should be like 1200 dollars tops

[@k.l.graham5860]

@@jansonrawlings8169 I was ready to pre-order during the first video until I saw the price.

[@prizmprty6479]

I could see them dropping the price of these in the future. I think they'll need to.

[@jazzbwooy8889]

killa outro beat! u get 1 like for that!

[@keekeefries6298]

There is clearly more freq drift on the original 106 than the X. I wonder if you could use the internal parameters on the X to adjust that a bit more.

[@coolo73]

Yeah. There is a 'pitch drift' parameter and even a global setting called 'ageing' which simulates how an analog synth is affected by temperature and the amount of time the unit has been turned on. Roland did a good job with this one...very tempting.

[@lorenmorgan1931]

@@coolo73 actually the Zen engine has the aging and the drift separately. Pushing the drift slightly further will get it drastically closer to the real one shown here, that is clearly a little out of calibration on each voice/env. I do wish Roland Would expand the drift to be a little more controllable like TAL-UNO, Arturia, DIVA, and OP-X PRO II are. On all those you can make a global micro calibration change to each voice or env and honestly that is 99% of the magic everyone complains that VA is missing. Again, had he added it here, I doubt you would tell much difference between the two, other than the real thing now has way more character than the perfectly tuned and calibrated VST driven one.

[@lorenmorgan1931]

It's also very clear like I was saying above, the attack on real hardware is a little off from factory calibrated as well. Again I wish the Juno had better global controls to tweak this, and I assure you people could calibrate the X to their real deal, and would be happy unplugging the original. So glad Roland added the drift functions in addition to the aging as well though, as used properly and lightly makes all the difference. Also note I am, saying this from my Jup X and Zen Core experience. This Juno which I have yet to see might have way more detail under the hood we have yet to see. :)

[@Jason75913]

@@lorenmorgan1931 it's "Analog Feel" on all older products, I tend to always crank it up on my custom patches, more than 30-40 on that parameter is a little too much for me, most of the time, so at higher values you get really wacky drift

[@jackduxbury1632]

👋 Andy showed in another that up that you can do exactly what you said and crank those settings up to imitate those characteristics. We all understand the that to some people that me be desirable and to some it may not right?! Thanks for watching and providing your perspective. I’m fascinated to see how divisive this product is 🤯

[@gacekwilkooki]

To my ears Juno-X sounds even better than 106. Strange thing. Maybe because of age and instability of Juno-106.

[@prizmprty6479]

That’s really the difference between digital and vintage analog. Digital is more pristine and vintage analog has more unpredictable behaviors. Depends on what you want. I find my vintage Juno sounds great for lofi stuff.

[@davidfaustino4476]

Honestly.. we'll never know. Capacitors and other components degrade over time.. thus extra "character" on the analog synth. I'd bet the Juno X can sound indistinguishable from what a NEW Juno would have sounded like.

[@Jason75913]

plus a new 106 back in a day would have none of the component and oscillator drift of current day 106s

[@leenitv]

Love this back to back comparison. I don’t have a 106 on hand to compare with my Juno X, so this is cool to hear. Also the chorus options on the X add that noise back in if you want it.

[@Acrimonious_Snake]

Of course I can hear the difference! Juno X sounds MUCH BETTER and offers much more options!

[@magicseadog8674]

Corporate wants you to work out the differences between these two sounds

[@producewithjt]

That 106 is simply out of tune, while the chorus is faulty. It’s certainly not all 106s, and no, you wouldn’t “just” go for a chorus plugin in Your DAW 😅

[@project-95]

How can you tell if someone's an analogue synth purist? Because they'll tell you, again and again and again

[@martipants870]

From a visual perspective - I think the Juno 106 looks so much nicer. The colours and buttons are way more pleasing.

[@ToreHansen]

Does that make better or bad music? This is the most important question since Jesus made water to wine.

[@martipants870]

@@ToreHansen if it looks good it’s more likely to entice me to make music.

[@prizmprty6479]

@@ToreHansen well, you're going to be looking at it every time you play it. Why buy a nice car...any model will drive you from point A to Point B. Let's not pretend like looks don't matter. There's a million synths and guitars out there. Any smart person buys the one that sounds great and looks good to them too.

[@ToreHansen]

@@prizmprty6479 I have a white Arturia and 600VST so why should I spend time on how things looks? I make music not a art show.

[@prizmprty6479]

@@ToreHansen do whatever you want! I’m a designer & producer so sound, layout, user interface and aesthetics matter to me. I’ve never had trouble finding synths that check all those boxes.

[@thesrabbit]

Not all JUNOs are that noisy. My JUNO-6 and JX-3P are nowhere near as bad as your 106, and in some cases, the emulations have more noise than the original hardware. I noticed that when I had a JU-06A. It's also something that could be fixed or at least greatly improved by a tech.

[@ДмитрийКужеев]

I agree, a lot of noise

[@legomyfego]

I agree, my 106 doesn’t have nearly as bad of a noise issue

[@specialistsound]

I've had 2 X Juno 6 and 1 x 106, and they're noisy as hell. You guys are the exception then. Old Juno chorus noise was a thing.

[@Angelstarscotland]

This will probably be an unpopular opinion….. but here it is for me in most cases the Juno X sounds better

[@Judasz696]

I tried thhis action synth keybed in fantom O7 and it rly feels cheap. This one is better only becouse of aftertouch

[@prizmprty6479]

It all depends what you want. Jack here isn't trying to sell you on a vintage Roland. He can't stock those and what would that do for his relationship with Roland? They don't profit off the selling of their old vintage synths. Understand that first. Next ask your self what you want: A classic vintage analog heard on thousands of records that does less better or a digital workstation in a Juno shell that does several things and still sounds good. I see all the menu diving on these X controllers as a negative. I had synths like this in the past but I have option paralysis...it was hard to get things done with so much. Limitations can be a great thing for productivity. I sold all of those for 3 simple analog synths Roland SH-101, Juno-106 & a Moog Matriarch. I've never been so productive in the studio in my whole life. That was a game changer for me but if your a person that likes to build a whole song in one synth and you don't mind digging in menus this is probably the one for you. For me that's what a DAW is for not a synth. If you get a vintage 106 buy it already fully serviced or send it out to a specialist to who will restore and futureproof it. If you send it to the right place, like Belltone Synthworks for instance, you should only have to do that once. They'll replace the voice chips and take care of that chorus hiss. It's the same money you'll pay to buy more cloud synths from Roland to load into your X. You just need to decide. Do I want...a workstation and a million options or a dedicated, immediate, great sound analog synth. The best option is the one that's best for you.

[@prizmprty6479]

​@@MakeMagic Disagree. I'm a producer and I see Juno-106's in pro studios all the time. They are classics for a reason. You might not like them but that doesn't mean they aren't popular and loved by many. If they weren't Roland wouldn't be trying to sell you this new one for $2000.

[@prizmprty6479]

@@MakeMagic Hah! That's all conjecture. You have no idea what your talking about.

[@prizmprty6479]

@@MakeMagic data point? What’s your source? Nobody is doing a worldwide census of whose returning Juno’s. It’s your made up nonsense. Why’d you even come to a video comparing Juno’s if you think they’re not that special? You’re wrong. The Juno-106 is one of Roland’s biggest sellers and it’s universally loved. If you don’t like it that fine, but don’t act like it’s not a classic. Roland would not be remaking it if it wasn’t.

[@suga4all]

The Juno X sounds polished and will blend well in the mix. Having said this, the 106 just has this analogue character that even Zen Core can't recreate. Best example is the comparison starting at 4:26. Ever wondered what people mean by vintage analogue sound? That's it! The Juno X sounds flat against the 106. Its a very clear difference there.

[@martinjmusic]

A lot of “vintage analogue sound” is subjective. If you don’t have them side by side, the digital emulations will give you the same feeling imho. You can’t recreate a Hammond with Leslie with two stereo monitors, that’s a fact. It just doesn’t feel and sound the same in the room. On the contrary, you will have a lot of joy playing those emulations, because there’s only so much difference you can actually hear.

[@williamsonsam4420]

@suga4all Agreed.

[@suga4all]

@@martinjmusic Absolutely agree here. We just have to accept that a Juno X is not even close to a Juno 60 or 106 for that matter. One is a digital synth and the other is analogue. I even think that the Juno X sounds great. I just commented for the sake of the video and the great opportunity to point to a good example where you can perfectly hear the difference. My real complaint about the Juno X is the price. Why does it cost 2 grand? Digital synths should be in the 1k ballpark at most.

[@rui5421]

@@MakeMagic all things you can do with the Juno-x and it’s internal effects. I think people don’t realize how far you can go with the engine when you mean to make a dirty 40 year old analog emulation. Versatility is the feature here. No straining a computer to do the same with Roland cloud. Lots of features and effects and a great stage/studio piece of gear. I hate the interface and learned my lesson with the Jupiter x. I just got a fantom and called it a day. The engine is solid. People just misunderstand the full potential in favor of more expensive nostalgia.

[@kanenewman5517]

The 106 just has something magic about it compared…

[@jimjamjerry]

Agreed!

[@SerErris]

Great Video, baut you said it. You either use a plug-in (Roland’s own) or the original. So I do question even more the reasoning of this release and the hefty price for it, that is probably the compute power of an arm chip. The problem with this classic synth are, they are ver limited in sound capabilities. It is giving you that sound, but nothing more. And for that a VST in a box is just by far to expensive. Skipping

[@matthewgaines10]

Some people still are into hardware devices. Your logic and reasoning matters little to them. That approach isn’t inferior to yours. The reasoning Roland uses is they will make a thing they believe they can sell profitably. They know their business reaches beyond an individual consumer such as yourself. Your individual preferences don’t determine the entire market.

[@Acrimonious_Snake]

If you don't feel the difference between a computer and a musical instrument, that's weird. What's good for creating music in a studio is not good for a musician's routine practice and live performance.

[@SerErris]

@@Acrimonious_Snake I do understand and feel the difference, but if you do not create an Juno analog version it is not a Juno and it will not sound like a Juno (it does not). So why then have a "Juno" look alike? That makes no sense and Roland can do much better. They just choose not to. This is not about hardware vs. VST. it is about Rolands inability to listen to its audience and release a real modern analog Juno.

[@Acrimonious_Snake]

@@SerErris First, the Juno X does sound like Juno and even better. But if you wish, you can always plug it into a dying 30-year old amplifier with dead capacitors to get the dirty sound of an aged unreliable device (which is NOT an aim of most professional musicians). Second, the idea of Juno is to be an affordable polyphonic synth with great sound and with simple controls. The Juno is a legendary synth because it doesn't have the sweet spots in some of the knobs positions. It is all around sweet and organic at almost any knobs positions, its sound is one wide sweet piece of cake. I have a Juno DS - it IS Juno, but it is not Juno-106 or 60, not an Alpha Juno or whatever. But it has the heart of Juno. It has its signature and organic sound, it is affordable, it is great and simple and so on. In my opinion, analog is not better, analog is worse than modern Roland synths. Modern Roland synths sound much better than their analog predecessors and offer much more. You can, of course, be an analog purist, but I personally wholeheartedly disagree that analog sound is any better. Roland VSTs (and synths via USB audio) offer 24 bits of crystal clear dynamic range (more than 100 dB). No analog synth can do that. AndRoland becomes only better over time.

[@michaelmoore1697]

Roland always puts out the minimum effort on hardware, then markets it heavily on KZbin. Don't trust anything you see of Roland on KZbin. The devil is in the bugs and glitches and lack of software updates and bug fixes. Always a big headache.

[@alexbowers6026]

It sounds like the real one - trouble is the real one is really not difficult to emulate, as it's so basic. I wouldn't buy either. I have a real 106 - someone give me $2000 for it and I can go buy something far better. I can get a Korg Prologue16 for less than the cost of this joke (better filters by far, filter drive, VCO, VCF, better FX, pro keys)

[@ErraticFaith]

Prologue is also a discontinued and failed product line; with a far more limited sound set. If you must compare - at least endeavor to do so with related instruments. Not those in entirely different category ranges.

[@alexbowers6026]

@@ErraticFaith Prologue is not discontinued. Still very much for sale. More limited than Junos? In what weird world? Not sure there were any more limited poly analogues than Junos - 1 env, 1 LFO, unusable unison on 106s, characterless filters, no velocity on keys...

[@iixorb]

I had a 106 until about 2002 I think, and sold it when I heard about chip failures. I’ve been aching to get another one but now I think the Juno-X might well ‘scratch that itch’ without the headache and worry associated with owning vintage analogue.

[@Jason75913]

Or just get the Behringer Deepmind.

[@Acrimonious_Snake]

@@Jason75913 Deepmind, which is less powerful, sounds like lo-fi equipment and doesn't have Juno's character. Of course, some people prefer the Chinese Abibas to the real Adidas.

[@Jason75913]

@@Acrimonious_Snake this guy thoroughly proves otherwise: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWKyo4B7a9xqpLM I have lo-fi equipment and hi-fi equipment, I have heard more up-scale analogue gear, Deepmind doesn't sound lo-fi at all before its built-in effects.

[@Acrimonious_Snake]

@@Jason75913 I had lots of issues with Behringer stuff in the past... Don't even argue, Behringer is a lo-fi equipment company, that is from my own experience.

[@Jason75913]

@@Acrimonious_Snake to each their own

[@Riktenstein]

The 106 sounds more unstable. Up to you what you prefer.

[@tonystephen6312]

The Juno X also should be able to do that - aged?

[@lab-by-the-sea]

some sounds sounded like a different tuning on the 106... a bit wrong what do you think?

[@compucat]

Most likely, the 106’s pitch trim was set slightly sharp.

[@QuantizStudioRecords]

Hello guys. I just bought Juno-X but I see that my keyboard does not work and responds to After Touch. But I don't see anything related to this in the settings either. Isn't aftertouch the keyboard? as it says in the specifications!

[@halcyondaystunes]

That Juno 106 looks brand new 😲

[@1Live2Love3Thrive]

Strings on the 106 are better, though it has the chorus noise

[@thedarkestrainbow]

They sound as close as any two vintage Junos would. I think this is a really nice package. I do with they had kept the chorus buttons for nostalgia’s sake. This is probably the first modern synth from Roland I’d actually consider getting. I liked the system 8 but golly was that ugly.

[@retro-dademusic6403]

@ghost mall same here 😎

[@ZenMountain]

No.

[@PorchBass]

They sound very different. Take the celeste... If you can hear it on KZbin, it will be obvious in person

[@ErraticFaith]

It's as you say and we can disregard the laughable bias here - as the agenda ridden garbage that it is. We don't spend years with players/rnd and benched originals - for some nobody online to claim to have the 'inner secrets' on what we have and haven't done. Give it a rest. Your tedious addiction to old relics is both boring and laughably exaggerated. Both Jupiter and Juno X are the pinnacle of what the director demanded was made. According to our own professional artists they exceeded that aim and then some. They aren't 'lifeless'. You're just ignorant, biased and deaf. Move along.

[@QuantizStudioRecords]

It is possible with JunoX that after you put a few notes in a pattern in the Step sequencer, instead of the pattern remaining with the fixed notes, it will work in another scale as well. like an arpeggiator? That is, to move up and down the scale? Because I can't find any function related to Pitch shift or something

[@MurrayDagostino]

The 106 sounds richer, darker, fuller.

[@davidfaustino4476]

Sounds more dull and less deep to me.

[@MarcoAntonio-mk9wj]

f i need it

[@analogalex3103]

I have a Juno 106 and it’s my favorite synth ever. Would never sell it. I also have a prophet 5 and OB6. There’s just something cool about the 106. It’s so simple and sounds amazing. I’m slightly interested in the Juno x because it looks like a new cool version of the original with more sounds. This is as close to getting a new Juno 106 as it can get. Seems to sound great but it’s hard to tell on KZbin. Not a huge fan of digital because it’s just not that special. But it looks pretty sweet though. I might get one of these. Would be nice if they were closer to $1k. 🤘🔥🔥🤘

[@magiusicgician4102]

I mean, you're Analog Alex after all lol

[@FakeGlasses]

Alex go get a Super 6 and we'll have the exact same synth collection.

[@briancoyne6700]

You exaggerated the "noise" on the Juno 106 to make it look bad. Not fair. I own a real Juno 106. Yes, there's a little bit of noise when the chorus is on--but it's insignificant. .Either your 106 needs servicing or you exaggerated the noise.

[@jackduxbury1632]

I hear ya Brian and thanks for watching and commenting. Imagine a grown man going to the lengths of exaggerating the clock noise of a Chorus on a Synth Demo - I can’t and we certainly didn’t 😂 I’m not in the business of tricking people mate I can assure. My Juno, along with the 10 or so other I personally have played must all need a rehaul. I’m glad you’ve got a “Quite” one and thanks again for stopping by ✊

[@JohnMichaelBurns]

Besides the hiss there's no question in my mind that the original Juno is a much nicer sounding instrument. Definitely another example of digital tech being a great option but sadly lacking something of the analog loveliness.

[@fatkev1983]

Not just the JUNO-106... Many JX3Ps do it too when I put chorus on. I instantly recognised the noise. But having said that, it is far fainter on my old JX3P and can only really pick it out if you aren't playing and put the volume up quite high.

[@lordpotaynut2283]

While it's a shame that Roland isn't making brand new synths and going full digital, I will say that the Juno X is almost spot-on in terms of emulating the 106. The panel on the X definitely doesn't have the same "here to have fun" look as the 106, but overall I think it's a good product in my opinion.

[@Underview]

Your hearing is bad.

[@HunterShawMusic]

Some patches are almost indistinguishable, but any patches with a slower filter attack or with resonance really show how good the analog filter on the 106 sounds. There's a bubbly-ness and character to the filter sound of the 106 that the X doesn't quite capture. A Juno X with an analog filter though... that would probably be indistinguishable.

[@Judasz696]

This explanation that it's not real deal at beginning just made my day 🤣👌

[@jami.m7074]

Definitely close enough for live use. You could have added chorus noise while playing the X to make it a bit closer.

[@feliciagal9752]

X all day...more sounds, drums, stepsequencer 5 tracks, iArp, soundcard ASIO, Vocoder,...models ...big polyphony, XLR outputs, and much important: NEW

[@lundsweden]

TAL UNO-LX plugin sounds as good, cheap as chips and does'nt take up any room!

[@gophercrow]

The Juno-X is a very good emulation, and can do lots more as well. Good value for money. The question for me is whether or not I should still do a full restoration of my 106, which needs service. The voice packs are prone to fail, and one of mine is bad. Power supply, front panel faders and buttons can be cleaned or replaced. The noisy chorus is also a common problem that can be fixed by replacing the analog chorus chips. To me, if you already have an old 106 like I do, getting it serviced makes sense. If I didn't already have one, though, I'd probably lean towards the Juno-X if I wanted these sounds.

[@QuincysAmericanDream]

Take/ship it to Bell Tone Synths in Philly. They do 106s so often that they could do it in their sleep. Amazing shop and service.

[@Rhezoloution]

Im on same boat with 106 repair needed

[@Whaever_1981]

I'll buy the Behringer 106 instead. The Juno X sounds digital as Funk!

[@adamjacksonmedia]

In the first brass patch... the Juno X smoked the old Juno 106!

[@3phaseBerlin]

Idiotic comparison with simple sounds that never get extreme and a broken chorus 106.. with new chorus chips then are not very noisy.

[@MorbidManoeuvres]

i would have loved a similar Arpeggio section as the original, but looks like they messed that up. Also they could have added Tempo (unless it shows on that small screen) Still sounds killer, and i like that its ever so slightly more sterile/ cleaner.

[@nickA7078]

What piece if any starts at the 3:41 mark, or is it a Jack original? Well played either way. That patch suits it perfectly.

[@NigelMarston]

Funny but I sold my "60" (30 years ago this year) because it didn't have MIDI, and yet I never craved for a 106. The subtle styling differences made the 106 look plainer (to my eyes) and the sounds were a little thinner but really I think I just wanted a MIDI "60" and nothing else. Childish stomp..!! The Juno X looks great but WHY did they put speakers in it? That undermines its cred to me. Speakers are for kid's toys. Regardless, I had opportunity to play with one local to me and I did like it. At the time it was a little too rich so I bought a JU-06a but I still crave the lovely piece of furniture that my "60" was so perhaps a Jupiter X might find its place on my rack when eBay pays me for everything I've hocked recently.

[@machineagevoodoo2106]

4:30 the patch 47 is a good example of the differences even though the preset has been designed to be precisely the same. There is a variation and life to the analog synth, on the transients that just isn't there on the software version. It kind of spits out sound in a less linear and predictable way, and I'm sure that anyone can hear that on this particular example pretty easily. Does this make it not worthwhile? well no, but then any VST will do the trick just as well

[@Jason75913]

the difference in that patch sounds like the 106 is out of whack, I bet you wouldn't hear that on a new 106 or one in better, less drifty condition

[@machineagevoodoo2106]

@@Jason75913 a new 106? :)

[@Jason75913]

@@machineagevoodoo2106 a new one if you could time travel to the '80s

[@anijon]

Very nice

[@tonywhetton9015]

If the original 106 sounded like the X (in It’s day) and vice versa, you could say the “old X” sounds better than the “new” 106. Originals aren’t necessarily better (or as Good as) there successor’s etc. I mean does the Jupiter 8 sound better than the Jupiter X ? I wonder if It’s just a novelty to “think” originals where better. Just my opinion😊

[@musicxtn]

Why not turn off the Chorus in both and do a fair comparison considering many use DAW plugins for processing anyways?

[@TwinCitiesOxygen]

106 has the swishing/panning chorus noise of some of the old Roland’s like my old jx3p

[@Subtronik]

Thankfully the June-60 V2 chorus pedal doesn’t have any noise.

[@DrewArmstrongMusic]

My Juno 106 is not that noisy at all, and it’s totally stock as far as the chorus is concerned. I do really like the idea of this Juno X, just wishing it had more of an analog heart to it!

[@prizmprty6479]

Same with my 106. No chorus noise whatsoever. It’s probably on models that weren’t taken care of very well.

[@silkscreen.3495]

Mine is noisy aswell but like a distant sea, not as overwhelming as the noise in this comparison.

[@spintonik]

@@silkscreen.3495 I used to have 106 which had Analogue Renaissance VCA/VCF chip upgrade and re-calibration. I think my Juno VCA signal was pretty hot - that may affect. Further, @jake it may help to check High Mid Low -setting from back of the Juno, in conjunction to chorus hiss. Last, it was many years ago and I may remember wrong, but your chorus hiss seems quite top end heavy, perhaps it bothers more because of that.

[@leopoldbluesky]

My 106 chorus definitely isn't as noisy as that one. Great comparison though, it's almost tempting to sell the old girl and get the new one - but I'm too attached to it!