Roland JX-3p

[THEODICY]

Yeah, the Jx-3p has some interesting low end for what it is, but for me, it was never practical and the envelope is a bit on the slow side. I'd say the bass holds together better than a polysix, but I felt no Uuumph from it like I'm getting out of the 106. Higher octaves with the 106 the sound is a little blah and samey but I can deff say that this 106 bass is getting used, and a lot. A friend of who uses a minimoog a lot commented that the 106 can rival that of the moog.... well, maybe we were excited with the "shiny new toy syndrome," but that bass is solid. I think 106 is good for stabs too thanks to the portamento. Portamento would be GREAT with the Jx-3p.

[VictorStar]

Originally Posted by THEODICY

Yeah, the Jx-3p has some interesting low end for what it is, but for me, it was never practical and the envelope is a bit on the slow side. I'd say the bass holds together better than a polysix, but I felt no Uuumph from it like I'm getting out of the 106. Higher octaves with the 106 the sound is a little blah and samey but I can deff say that this 106 bass is getting used, and a lot. A friend of who uses a minimoog a lot commented that the 106 can rival that of the moog.... well, maybe we were excited with the "shiny new toy syndrome," but that bass is solid. I think 106 is good for stabs too thanks to the portamento. Portamento would be GREAT with the Jx-3p.

Bass is the main thing I keep my MKS-30 around for. It's got a great edge to it that I love, and end up putting on almost all of my tracks.

[alexp]

Originally Posted by THEODICY

Yeah, the Jx-3p has some interesting low end for what it is, but for me, it was never practical and the envelope is a bit on the slow side. I'd say the bass holds together better than a polysix, but I felt no Uuumph from it like I'm getting out of the 106. Higher octaves with the 106 the sound is a little blah and samey but I can deff say that this 106 bass is getting used, and a lot. A friend of who uses a minimoog a lot commented that the 106 can rival that of the moog.... well, maybe we were excited with the "shiny new toy syndrome," but that bass is solid. I think 106 is good for stabs too thanks to the portamento. Portamento would be GREAT with the Jx-3p.

I usually layer the 3P under my mini. Nothing can touch the mini IMO. Its godlike!



alexP

[THEODICY]

Originally Posted by VictorStar

Bass is the main thing I keep my MKS-30 around for. It's got a great edge to it that I love, and end up putting on almost all of my tracks.

Doesn't the MKS30 use the 80017 like the Juno 106? Maybe that helps it out.

[Pro5]

Originally Posted by alexp

This is interesting! I got rid of my 106 and got a 3P and use it for bass a lot. You can get it to sound good, it just takes a bit more fiddling!



alexP

I got rid of my Juno 6, the next synth I bought (a few years later) was the JX-3P and I've done far more interesting stuff with it, and it works very well in a mix. You do have to fiddle more with it definitely but it has a lot going for it!

I also do basses (of sorts) with it, great for layering with FM and has a unique/under-used sound (well they are being used more and more these days it seems according to artist interviews in sound on sound and online).

[THEODICY]

What kind of music are you doing? Do you have any examples with your Jx-3p in a mix? It seems like it can never take control and sit in the front of any mix I've attempted, and rather always took the backseat and used to "blend in" for a thickener. Blah.

[Pro5]

Hmm, it's bell sounds ring out in front of the mix (For example), it's pads can be quite abrasive and stand out (if you don't eq them or use cut off).

You are correct though, as always it's about the types of music we all make so when we discuss synths uses it's mostly irrelevent as we all make different sounds/music with them. For me it's ideal as it fits around my busy mixes (guitars/vocals) without swamping the low end, I don't need super bass synths with my music but if someone was making pure electronic and need fast/hard bass then a Roland SH/Moog/Juno would probably be more suited. I get results with it anyway, and what I use it most for is pads with texture where no single osc synth can do it, and also quirky 'bass-like' sounds layered over deeper bass or contrasting it (sometimes against a real bass guitar).

Overall I found it a very useful synth for all the types of sounds it has and it's 'retro' character, the Junos sound sweet straight away and inspire you to get bassy/leady but after a while I find I don't need that sound in every bit of music I make so the JX opens up more possibilities (I only speak of the 3P here, my favourite JX, not the 8/10 as they are different beasts with a completely different tone that I didn't use as much)

If it's working for you and inspiring you (If you are happy and love using it) that's the main thing, the way you feel about your 106 is how I feel about my JX/Polysix combo, but when I had my Juno 6/1/2 I didn't hate them or anything, they were just first to go when I got a bit tired of their sounds and limited range but they are nice sounding synths for sure (and 'better' at bass than JX's 'in general'). I like using the 3P in my music as it has character and is a bit different from the 'juno' sound while still having the roland DCO flavour.

Gorillaz used a 3P in a lot of their records (and a Polysix) no Junos, and they did OK but they prob used one of the monosynths for bass (I read about the gear Damon Albarn had in his studio, SH's, Moogs etc layered with a JV-1080 IIRC) but polysynth wise he pretty much only had the JX and Polysix. For bass I'd be inclined to go more for an SH-something anyway than use a polysynth, but as I layer things I can make 'different' bass, these days it's not just about deep bass but different bass, trying to find something that works with you and is a bit different from the over-used stuff.

Also, not my cup of tea music wise, but that recent song 'frisky' by 'tinie temper' is a lot of JX-3P inc for bass, if you hear it it doesn't sound like 'typical' bass which I guess is the point, bass can be bass-like and used as a melody, something more modern acts are doing rather than typical sub-bass.

quote from 'Labrinth' who produced 'frisky'

Ok, if I’m looking for melodies and little over-tones I’m going for the microkorg or the JX-3P. For inside the computer I’d go for either the mini-moog – I love that – or, the PolySix

Not that this proves anything V 106 just that plenty of (#1) artists are finding uses for the 3P! It's more about how you approach them and their tone than what they do for you 'out of the box' imo. Frisky got to #1/#2 in diff charts in the UK. I'll admit I do NOT listen to this modern 'stuff' so I only found out about it due to reading sound on sound. My own music is far more traditional stuff with electronic additions (lots of guitar, plenty of piano/strings, also plenty of synth at times)

His quote from sound on sound NOV 2010 (can't find it online)

With "frisky" we went with a similar vibe to passout (which was polysix) but this time I just used a BASS from my Roland JX-3P, an old school 80s keyboard, I used the JX-3P for the melody, too, and layered it with a sound from Rob Papen Blue VSTi

Not that, imo, it's much of a melody in that 'song'. And I've personally got bassier/punchier tones out of the 3P than is on 'frisky'.

And I've also read online many people (actual working artists not just random forum posters) that have cited the 3P as one of their favourites with the sound they like. So, anyway, the 3P is obviously capable of much more than some people give it credit for, it needs programming and pref with a PG/BCR to get the best out of it. I programmed it using the slider for ages and did OK but when I started using the knob box I was getting much better sounds out of it (more bassy, more interesing, more filter/lfo tricks etc). It's now my 'go to' analog


oh and with this upgrade: http://www.kiwitechnics.com/jx3pupgrade.htm It will become a mini jupiter! (Yes you'll get your portamento, unison, arp all that + 2DCOs is way more enticing than a 1OSC DCO machine + chorus to me! even if it does have hardware envelopes, the 3P isn't THAT sluggish, it's faster than the later JX's anyway) and I'll be building the knobs directly INTO the JX-3P (midi ones not PG as it's not gonna work with the mod according to the site; hint to PG owners, DUMP THEM NOW while they are still worth something cos this mod is gonna be popular and no-one will want the PG-200 after that!). For me I would prefer PWM on the 3P over it being 'more bassy' (if I could change only one thing, that isn't gonna be changed in the above mod - portamento is gonna be great on it as is solo/mono/unison mode!), it's because of where it sits generally in the spectrum that I like it so much, lots of stuff can do bass but not just anything can sound like a 3P ringing out with it's juicy metallic vibe (imo).

[VictorStar]

Originally Posted by THEODICY

Doesn't the MKS30 use the 80017 like the Juno 106? Maybe that helps it out.

I thought the MKS-30 was essentially identical to the JX-3P? I've owned both and they sound extremely similar.

[VictorStar]

Originally Posted by THEODICY

What kind of music are you doing? Do you have any examples with your Jx-3p in a mix? It seems like it can never take control and sit in the front of any mix I've attempted, and rather always took the backseat and used to "blend in" for a thickener. Blah.

The first 2 tracks I have on this page use the MKS-30 heavily. On "Alibi", the opening keys, the bassline on the bridge, and the high part on the chorus are all MKS-30. "Crazy" typifies what I love about the MKS-30/JX-3P - that bassline just cuts through.

Excuse the poor quality of the mixes and audio, these are all scratch tracks. I should really put these on SoundCloud instead of Myspace.

[blinky909]

Originally Posted by VictorStar

I thought the MKS-30 was essentially identical to the JX-3P? I've owned both and they sound extremely similar.

the MKS-30 has more in common with the GR-700 than the JX-3P even though the voice architecture is identical to the JX-3P. the MKS-30 uses the same filter as the Juno 106.

the MKS-30 allows for MIDI and the PG-200 at the same time - a huge slice of awesome.

if i had my choice of MKS-30 or JX-3P, i'd go for the MKS-30. toss in the PG-200 and it's game over. set it to METAL and you are now a techno god.

[Pro5]

Originally Posted by blinky909

the MKS-30 has more in common with the GR-700 than the JX-3P even though the voice architecture is identical to the JX-3P. the MKS-30 uses the same filter as the Juno 106.

the MKS-30 allows for MIDI and the PG-200 at the same time - a huge slice of awesome.

if i had my choice of MKS-30 or JX-3P, i'd go for the MKS-30. toss in the PG-200 and it's game over. set it to METAL and you are now a techno god.

'Cept the 3P sounds nicer (yes an internet fact!)

And with the 'mod' you can use the PG (or any midi box) at the same time as an external sequencer!

As for differences, the MKS-30 has the packaged chips ala Juno 106 vs the 'unpackaged' IR3109+assorted circuits of the 3P. They of course sound similar, but the JX-3P has always sounded a bit warmer and nicer in the filter to me, so no they are not 'identical' but MKS30 is closer than anything else. More important than the (minor) sound differences is the fact the MKS-30 *WILL* die thanks to having that timebomb voice package same as the 106. Therefore *I* and I would suggest most others would wisely chose the more robust, sexier and more hands on JX-3P


go here to hear another song that's full of JX-3P (it's even mentioned in the lyrics somewhere).

http://www.reverbnation.com/play_now/song_5767163

[pulse_divider]

Great underrated synth, I like it better than the junos.
Also, the sequencer is super fun, I can't believe it's not getting more mention!

[THEODICY]

The 80017a chips ARE fixable. The thing I like about the 106 filter is that when you crank the resonance and drop the cutoff, the sounds doesn't "cut out" or disappear. It does with the Jx-3p filter which always caught me as "whispy" or silky. The 106 filter is robust and more aggressive, more useable resonance in an electronic music setting. The 106 must have a gain compensation circuit in the chip.

When I had the Jx-3p, I could layer it with my polysix (through midi) and create these swirling pads. They were lovely and nice and pretty. BUT, I want to get down and dirty when making tracks and pump some jams out dunchadunchaduncha style and the Jx-3p couldn't fit. It's strong point was those lovely layered pad sounds IMO and I'm not trying to be Yanni

[Pro5]

Originally Posted by THEODICY

The 80017a chips ARE fixable. The thing I like about the 106 filter is that when you crank the resonance and drop the cutoff, the sounds doesn't "cut out" or disappear. It does with the Jx-3p filter which always caught me as "whispy" or silky. The 106 filter is robust and more aggressive, more useable resonance in an electronic music setting. The 106 must have a gain compensation circuit in the chip.

When I had the Jx-3p, I could layer it with my polysix (through midi) and create these swirling pads. They were lovely and nice and pretty. BUT, I want to get down and dirty when making tracks and pump some jams out dunchadunchaduncha style and the Jx-3p couldn't fit. It's strong point was those lovely layered pad sounds IMO and I'm not trying to be Yanni

Yeah it's a nice inspiring 'hands on' instrument, more so than the 3P for sure (but 3P goes deeper, more rewards and you can mod the heck out of it to make it an amazing synth for the money!). My J6 was the same and was very bassy and had a nice tone. If it's inspiring you and making your smile (and keeps you making music) that's all that matters, and it does have some plus points of the 3P of course, and you are also correct about the filter getting whispy (as it does on many synths) when you whack the res up, my AX80 doesn't seem to do that though - it keeps getting more aggressive and doesn't lose volume, though it's not a 'sweet' roland sound of course, it's a bit more like the death star attacking

Oh you can open up the 3P and tweak up the resonance pots a bit which makes it a bit more ... something. I always heard/read the filters on the 106 were not as meaty/sweet as the 6/60 but I don't miss the rest of the synth that much to justify JUST the filter, I just felt I'd had enough of it after a couple of years as it was too basic, something I've not found with my JX-3P which is one of my favourites and something I'm STILL finding new tricks on! (and is in more of my music than any of my other (hardware) synths too)

[biographers]

Does anyone know specifically what each internal resonance trimmer does in JX-3p? I just got one and want to make the filter much more squelchy. I opened it up and there are four or five internal trimmers that are all labeled "resonance" (I believe) and I wasn't sure which to tweak. I turned all of them up but now my cutuff knob only lets the synth output sound when its up past 9 o'clock.

I have a juno 60 and I'd like to get the filter and resonance sounding as close as I can.