From bit@hyperreal.com Fri Aug 9 08:33:29 1996 9 Aug 96 11:33:15 +0500 8 Aug 96 13:54:54 +0500 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 10:37:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Butcher Cc: analogue Heaven Subject: Re: Juno 106 VS Juno 60 (Sound only) > The question: Among people who have actually used both a lot is there > *that* much of a difference to justify having both? Please offer any > details you can. Welp, I've used both side-by-side, and I'm pretty familiar with both. MIDI stuff aside, here are my impressions. In terms of features, there's a bit of a tradeoff. With the 60 you get the arpeggiator and env->pwm mod, but with the 106 you get portamento. The LFO on the 106 seems to have more range to me than the 60's. As far as sound goes, there's no comparison as the two synths have such a different character. The architecture is virtually identical (except for the 60's additional env->pwm routing), but the sound is completely different. The 60 is very warm and full, where the 106 is more thin and "precise" as I would say. And before you (not you dave ;) start bitching at me that the 106 is fat and full, just go listen to the 60 and the 106 side by side. Anyway, a couple of last details. The chorus on the 60 is hard to beat. I've never heard a chorus as rich as that one. When the resonance is all the way up on the 106 and you tweak the filter cutoff, you may notice some minor zipper noise... I definitely can hear the stepping, but some can't. I don't notice stepping on the 60. As far as having them both... they do sound different enough so that they both work in a mix together. A number of tracks we've produced at Orbitrecords feature both, and they actually compliment each other quite nicely. However, with the current "going rate" of the 106, I'd much rather have the 60 and something a little more diverse. But that's just me. Tom Butcher [bit@hyperreal.com] Orbitrecords [412.392.1505] || orbitrecords information superlink || http://hyperreal.com/music/labels/orbitrecords/