 |
|
|
|
Average rating:
4.5 out of 5
|
|
Only got mine a week ago but to be honest it is everything i hoped it would be . Seem to get a bit of noise on the outputs but i reckon that is down to age . Apart from that, it is very nearly a Juno6 with the bonus of memories and a MIDI spec which , in other words means it has just about got the lot . I have a Juno 6 and although i freely admit the sound is absolute magic and i don't think the 106 gets near , the lack of any MIDI makes it a poor relation for me as my synth skills rely more on programming than playing . This is why i bought the 106 and is probably the reason why the 6 will have to make way . Although i said the 6 sounds better than the 106 , i see no need to get too hung up on this as people don't generally listen to a song and say "Shame he didn't use a Juno6 there - it would have sounded better than the 106" so anyone making such comparisons is a little misguided in my view and should put their energy into making music. If your biggest concern regarding these 2 great machines is which one has a slightly better sound then i think you should give your equipment to someone who will enjoy it . Cheers
|
|
This is the best synth ever made. Easy, powerful and warm.
|
|
The Roland Juno-106 is primarily for achieving incredibly authentic emulations of ye ol' Juno60.Word to the wise the lcd's tend to dim or out right burn out after 20 or so yrs.
|
|
sorry to say but the juno 160 snds to my experienced ears very tinny, metallic and thin. mind you its capable of making great reed emulations along with amazingly realistic gongs and dulcimers for days.
|
|
The Juno 106 is a pretty good synth. Prices are starting to become more realistic again after reaching the $1,000(AUD) mark a few years back. They now go for around $600 - $700(AUD) and must be about the only analogue synth who's value has recently depreciated. There's just so many of them out there. In terms of sonic capability, you're better off going for the Juno 60 or the 6, because unless you're prepared to use it in a MIDI set-up, the 106 misses out on so much by having lost the arpeggiator. I have a Juno 6 and a friend of mine had the 106. The 106 just isn't as fun to play! You can make so many different sound effects and crazy noises with the 6/60's arpeggiator. It's almost like having a second LFO. If you compare the beefiness/warmth of the 106 with the 6/60, there is really only a subtle difference, but it is noticable. The 106 sounds a bit thinner, but it's still got a good sound. There is audible stepping on the 106's VCF cut-off, which is really annoying, and the envelopes aren't as quick as on the 6/60, though the latter's release time is not nearly long enough. On the other hand, the 106 has (polyphonic) portamento, which gives it certain sonic possibilities out of the 6/60's league, but that still doesn't make up for the lack of arpeggiator. Incidentally, the Juno 106's designer, Ikutaro Kakehashi is quoted as saying that "...(the 106) overall is about 80% digital and 20% analogue".
|
Add your review of the Roland Juno 106 Synthesizer
NEW SYSTEM - to keep the user reviews focussed, we are now approving all submissions before they appear.
We will endeavour to process your comments within 24hrs
Please keep your reviews on topic.
Questions, requests for manuals, ongoing conversations and inappropriate comments are not reviews, and will not be approved.
Manuals can often be found on the links section for this model.
If you want to chat or ask questions, visit the Gas Station, the dedicated user forum here at Sonic State.
|
