Roland Juno-X VS Roland Fantom EX Review.

A very Quick Comparison Between My Newly Arrived Roland Juno-X with the Flagship Roland Fantom EX, I've tried to play some of the similar voices on both and played some of the preset scenes on the Juno-X.
Few synthesizers have blazed trails like Roland’s Juno duo of the 1980s. Powered by the same conceptual architecture, the 60 and the 106 synth engines delivered instantly recognizable polyphonic sound. The Juno’s sempiternal sonics have long awaited a worthy heir, and the Juno-X has arrived to pick up the mantle. This wouldn’t be a proper continuation of the Juno lineage if it didn’t have its own evolution of its predecessors’ engines. Sweetwater’s premiere synthesists are elated to report that the ZEN-core more than delivers, donning an enhanced version of Roland’s trademark Super Saw waveform that is paired with an equally worthy Chorus III mode. The Juno-X sits in the pantheon of iconic time-bending synths, effortlessly oscillating between past and future, gracing us with its presence in the present - and we’ve barely scratched the surface.

[@JustinCarey]

I love my Fantom. Both great boards, sounds good!

[@yamahamotifxs]

It would be great if the Fantom finally got an I Arp, or some editable independent arpeggio that can be set for all 16 Zones. It would throw a lot at the Fantom's abilities. The sound is very fine, but the Juno X basics demonstrate its potential very well. I hope that Roland will finally add I arp or a more advanced arpeggio. I've been waiting for this for years. Because of this, I think Montage M solves this issue much better. Now I'm waiting for a Montage M7, hopefully it will arrive in Europe soon. I think all synthesizers have the things that make us love them. I also have a Korg Nautilus, and the AL-1 engine is amazingly good at programming sounds. It can reproduce many of the sounds found in Fantom very realistically. I programmed a couple for Nautilus. The Juno 106, Jupiter 8, and JX8p sound very similar to the sounds found in the Fantom.