Originally Posted by FRANZ KAFKA
"i agree, even the juno 60 sounds better, but the juno 60 sounds better than the andromeda - i have both"
"just ended up collecting dust getting in the way.( Wish I'd of kept it to cash in on the collectors market though...£1500!? what a joke!) I've got a Korg EX8000 worth about £200 which sounds much better than the JP-6"
"Yeah I agree. Roland always sounds right to me. Except the Jupiter 6 for some reason."
"The jupiter 6 and mks80 rev 4 sound like ass thanks to the good old CEM that ruins everything"
"i had a Jupiter 6 for a number of years. it was not the warm little brother of the Jupiter 8 i thought it would be or the cousin of the Juno 60. cold, sterile, and thin compared to many synths it is. blame the filter. those qualities are exactly why i liked it in a mix, i didn't muddy things up on the low end and the brittle high end was very clear in a mix. it was taking up all the space, it sat there nice and pretty with the 808 or 909"
"the J6 was very cold sounding"
"Easily the worst "sounding" analog synthesizer Roland had ever produced! Sure, it looks sensational... It has mad flexability and routing but has absolutely NO PUNCH! Trust me, I've owned or played all of the classic Rolands and this synth is a total embarassment! I finally sold mine and purchased three other so called lesser vintage synths all of which blew this guy out of the water! However, it was constructed quite well and never had any issues. Good arpeggiator too but sonically even treated with a ton of fx it was still a joke!"
are people on crack?
Well, there is either something in it (or is the entire internet wrong?) OR they were trying to stop price rises on the '6 so they could grab one?
I've always wanted to try one out but from demos I really don't think I'd prefer the intrinsic sound over my Juno 60/JX-3P combo even if it can do so much more than them pair!
As time passes I'm starting to realise I care less about a synths features/architecture and more about the sound. A guitar has only six strings and we whack them through pretty much the same pedals/effects for the past 50 years and they create great music, a synth that sounds good (not honky, harsh, thin - in a bad way) is like that, a great music maker. That's what counts really.
I could find a place in a mix for a JP-6 I'm sure, it appears to fill a frequency role (in bandpass mode at least) similar to the JD-800, another 'thin' synth that works great in a mix, not everything can be warm thick, you often EQ stuff away anyway. But when you consider the price (of the JP-6) and the general tone it does seem it's over-rated slightly based on it's looks and spec list rather than it's sound? If Juno 60 is accused of being over-rated (and over-priced) yet it constantly gets great reviews and users loving it, it's about the sound not the feature list and the '60 shows that.
I've often thought on deeper synths when making crazy new sounds, esp the slightly more advanced analogs I've had (The AX80, JX-8P etc) vs simpler synths like the Juno 60, is that you end up making a load of crazy unusual sounds that are just not that musical, you spend so much time wondering if you could, you don't stop to think if you should!
(Jurassic park ref)
JP-6 is a wonderful synth, if at a decent price. But soundwise there is obviously something that sets people's ears on edge in a lot of cases hence it getting so many people slating it, is it just because they expected more from the jupiter name and it's looks? and it's specs?