|
I just have to mention; everyone says this is much better than a 106, punchier, warmer, etc. Well, let me ask you: why on earth does someone like Wiliam Orbit swear by a 106 and not this one: he only multisamples and rearranges anyway? and furthermore, it is not hard, nor terribly expensive to get the 60 midified, so that's not an argument. Many talk about the punchy basses you get out of this one that the 106 just can't do...this is a very wrong concept forwarded by unskilled, misguided programmers. True it is easier to dig up a very punchy bass on the 60, but, I have myself programmed and stored two bass-sounds in my 106, and, let me tell you, it doesn't get any fatter than this. One of them, when I go into unison, it's phatter than Dolly D and ol' grandma in the height of their career. What I am trying to tell you is, that the 60 and 106 sound similar; the 60 is a little beefier, true, but those phat basses is fully attainable on the 106, believe me, it takes a little more programming, that's all. Also, the 106 has the same warmth and lushness, yet can sound a bit 'thinner' (thin is not really a word I would use to describe any of the Juno's), a good thing, IMO, as these sounds often sits better in the Mix,... and that, my friends, is probably why Mr. Orbit prefers the 106. If you are a musician/keyboardist I would probably recommend the 60, though, as it has a somewhat beefier sound, is more solidly built, and is one of the coolest looking analogues around (it has a decent arpeggiator, too, mind you, but unfortunately no portamento). These words are just me, sharing what I believe to be knowledge. Hopefully, you can do your own thinking (and playing) and judge for yourselves.
|
listings
