View Single Post
Old 30th October 2006
Here for the gear

Originally Posted by dlmorley View Post
I agree that the Junos aren't "fat" in the typical sense of the word (and being a total synthslut, I can compare all of these with my Polyfusion, R.A.Moog Minimoog, 2600, 2500, Buchla, Serge etc etc) but the juno 60 IS fuller. Or at least the ones I have had are. ( I have had 2 106's and 3 60's) and ALWAYS found the 106's to be thinner. Everyone who worked with me also always found the 60's "better" sounding for deeper stuff. The 106 we used a lot for techno sequences (in the old days!) and it works because for me it is tightier and thinner. It fitted into the range above the low end. The 60 just worked better for me at anything like a bassline.
Mono mode on any of them SUCK I think.

Of course, my opinion (and those I worked or work with)

Personal choice is a great thing!
Its strange how perception works, or perhaps my 106 are an exception? Either way I think you should rethink the use of the monomode on 106. You can get some really weird phase distortion going on there if you mess around with the protamento.

and yeah I know, the juno-106 can be rather harsh or thin sounding if you have a high cutoff freq but that’s not what we are talking about. If you do a pad sound you probably want to have a middle to low kind of value on the cutoff, I don’t know exactly but at least <1500Hz, and in that case there is not a chance in the world that it sound thin when you got the HPF setting down on 0.

But it would be fun to really investigate a little further into this, when i have a little more time I will translate some good juno60 bass sounds to the juno106 as closly as possible, and translate some good 106 sounds to the juno60 and record them and doing some messurement to show you what I mean.

and yeah I agree with you; in the end its what works best with you that counts. But that does not eliminate the fact that you are wrong.

by the way
and if you like synthesizers be sure to check out my myspace project

Best wishes