pkennethk's forum posts 2051

all that with 1 comment.... this is just a mixture of existing stuff they've already been doing. Its built on their "poly D" chassis which is in itself a moog voiced mono/poly rip off, 4 paraphonic oscillators? yup. I want to say that korg used CEM oscillator chips in this one (which they already reissue as cool audio) and I think it shares the SSM ladder filter chip of the poly6 (which they might reissue too, I forget). So not a lot of R&D here. It should be hella cheap. That said I've enver been a big fan of the mono/poly. It sounds good but I'm not a big paraphonic fan (although for the 200 bucks t cost me I don't know why people hate on the poly800 so much, served me well for years til I sold it)... and then the unison sound? Its cool but I tend to want odd numbers of oscillators, I dunno, its neat. I can just tell why Uli picked this one. No R&D needed apart from some gains taging and power supply mods to thepolyD. Now a poly6? That I'd talk about. Its such a specific sound and limited engine that the asking prices are ridiculous, but man does it sound good. If I could get one for udner a rgand? Uli you get my money. Just don't fuck it up like the junomind.

Re: paraphony: For me, Mono/Poly has always just been a funky 4-osc monosynth that's thicker than most anything Roland produced in that era, but, sonically, it still isn't a full-on American bruiser like a Moog or Arp. For chords, I'd still use a polysnyth 99% of the time.

Re: R&D... I have no idea what goes on inside of Behringer HQ, but in general, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the platform their Monopoly is using was originally concieved of for Monopoly, or some other yet-to-be-announced synth, but the Poly D productization of that platform just ended up crossing the finish line before the others... it happens. Order of release doesn't always = originally intended release order... the fact that it's the same chassis isn't a turn off for me, that's just efficient product planning.

Controversy aside, Behringer undoubtedly has some very competent and dedicated Engineers working on these products, and getting any product out the door, regardless of how similar it is to an existing one, is not something I'd describe as easy... but I agree that, in terms of relative effort, R&D for a project that's essentially "clone this old synth, but cost-reduce with modern tech and manufacturing where possible" is gonna be a smaller expenditure than a wholy new synth from the ground up... I doubt they'd have greenlit the clone if someone wasn't already making new & viable versions of Mono/Poly's curtis chips (I think you're right re: original Mono/Poly using Curtis 2033 & 2044)... and synth nerds like me would be suspicious if a curtis-based synth like this was cloned using an enterely different approach for VCO/VCF.

Anyway... either the end product sounds great or it doesn't, we both know nobody will care how much or little effort went into it in the long run. If pedal companies can get away with charging $$$ for minor tweaks to 50 year old analog designs they themselves didn't originate... IDK... seems like some aspects of Behringer's MusicTribe approach will become normalized within the marketplace over time, even if there are other aspects beyond the tech itself that merit ongoing debate.

yes, you get it, Mike. Good example. :)

For me, personally, I've spent the last 10 years wanting Mono/Poly, and if this clone launched with a totally different look and layout than the dream I've had for so long, it would be a tougher sell... but this new Monopoly has a similar layout, a decently-large-enough form factor, it sounds the part thus-far... it's likely 25% of the price of a well-preserved original, plus it has midi, connectivity, it checks off a lot of boxes... the contentious aspects of the Behringer brand and approach are being discussed everywhere, so no point in going there in this non-behringer thread... but all that aside, I like the way they've packaged this vintage Korg clone... The appeal of a product like this is more emotional than rational (like high end furniture and fashion), but I think they'll be more successful with this approach, sales-wise, than launching something with a more modern look and interface... if you go the modern route, it's probably best to go all-in and make something that both looks and sounds new, and can make all manner of DSP and DSP-analog hybrid noises... which is exactly what Korg has been doing with the 'logues for the past 5 years... and they sell a #$@% load, from what I've heard.

Anyway, to bring it back around, the Juno 6/60s sound amazing. Nobody has launched an analog clone that captures every aspect of that sound or UX yet... which is why Jim is hunting, and why I'm probably going to drop hundreds restoring mine.

Be thankful you're able to get great joy and results you love from a version of the Juno design that doesn't require hunting for parts, DCB-2-MIDI converters, and expensive tech bills. :)

...but if you ever just play one next to a 6 or 60? no contest. 106 is the poor relation sonically.

If you're making capital-T Techno or acid, in the grand ol' 90s style, and wanna squelch away, I suspect that the ways a 106 differs from earlier Junos sonically could be an asset... I mean, the 106 is all over so many 90s dance records... but overall, I'd agree with Jim's sonic assment between the 6/60 and the 106. I own a 60 because, years back, a musician friend that owned both told me to absolutely seek out the 60 over the 106, because the 106 oscillators sounded like a cheap imitation of the 60s in his opinion... I mean, these are all just subjective opinions, and anyone with any lick of talent could make the same great track with a 6, 60, 106, Deepmind, TAL U-No-LX v2, Roland Cloud/Boutique... the differences mentioned here are a real and audible, but I trust everyone reading this already knows that a real vintage Juno is no longer a must-have for any specific type of music. Juno 6/60 vs 106 vs Deepmind 6/12 vs software isn't the decision that's gonna make or break one's Yazoo cover band. ;)

Deepmind doesn't seem tough to program, far from it, and it also sounds great, and it's a hell of a deal pricewise... it's just that with the screen in the middle, edit modes, etc there is (to me) significantly more that one has to ignore to keep the experience as simple as a Juno 6/60/106... I like limitations... I like knowing I've used the darn thing to its fullest... blah blah blah, tyranny of choice, etc, etc.... I don't even like hardware synths with built-in FX... I mean, even if you can turn the FX off completely, they're still there, annoying me... I'm weird.

To me, the Deepmind is like if someone made a reproduction of a '57 Stratocaster, but added an LCD screen on the body and shift buttons next to each knob... it's a different beast at that point... a better, more versitile, more useful kind of different for some, a distracting kind of different for others.

Fight it, brother!

My unsolicited 2 cents: If you're going to give into temptation, do it for a very clean example that would be easier to flip for crazy money in a few years... when Behringer or someone else has inevitably come out with a more compact, midi and Eurorack-ready, but otherwise sonically and aesthetically 1:1 DCO-based clone*... and the folks still putting up big money for Juno 6s want museum-pieces.

The Juno 6/60 is (as you know) freaking huge, physically. Having one of your largest synths be also one of your most trashed might be kind of a bummer... that said, we both know if it's 100% functional and sounds correct, that's what matters most.

*I know Deepmind is essentially a luxed-out Juno clone, but it misses the beautiful simplicity of using a Juno 6/60/106 by miles. And Roland's DSP-based clones are still limited to 4-voices and (I think) 16-bit D2A... c'mon Roland...

Congrats! I bet that 600 is bags of fun, especially one that is Teensy-accelerated. :D Great Find!

I just did an ebay search, and sellers are now offering newly-manufactured sliders for Juno 6/60. Praise the gods!

My decade of procrastination in fixing this thing has finally paid off. ;)

I hear you re: the 60 being a more complicated beast due to patch memory, but aren't the sliders mechanically the same units between the 6 & 60, even though the circuits they control are far more complex on the 60? Very possible I am mistaken.

My issues with them have not been related to position recall or storage, but just in their mechanical action being wildly uneven due to the ravages of time and (previous owner) neglect. Some slide easily, some take quite a bit of force, and some have uneven friction levels from one end to the other... and this is after doing all the deox/lube I can safely do without complete disassembly... several of the sliders barely budged when I first got it... it must have sat for quite awhile...

Hi Jim! The comical overkill in my reply was in no way intended to imply that you wouldn't treat all your gear with extreme care. You started a thread on specifically seeking a Juno-6 instead of a 60 afterall... going with the vintage car analogy you mentioned, that's like seeking a vintage early-80s Porsche 911SC instead of the (nearly identical) late 80s Carrera 3.2 because you don't have much need for the improvements introduced in the later, even more expensive models...in other words, it is entirely self-evident that you know exactly what you are doing.

...and we both know one cloxor-wipe bath isn't going to dull the 35+ year old enamel on a Juno. :)

(and also, my proclamation that you know what you are doing doesn't mean that I think I know exactly what I'm doing too)

In an attempt to contribute something of actual value to this thread, I will say that the sliders have been the trouble-spot for me with my Juno 60, and I believe several sliders are identical part#s between the Juno-6/60 and Jupiter 8. The sliders are troublesome because nobody makes remanufactured replacement sliders for these models (last I checked), even though replacement sliders for the later 106 are very easy to find. My current theory is that the design of the 6/60 sliders was meant to accomodate disassembly/re-assembly, unlike the cheaper sealed units in later models... so perhaps this is why I can't find replacements... but I've no clue how to go about a full teardown and rebuild of each slider... and would much rather just replace the ones that still feel way too stiff or way too loose after the usual goto clean and lube methods haven't remedied things... so be sure to ask sellers (as I'm sure you do) about how smooth and consistent the slider operation is... and I'd advise readying a strategy for how you'd go about servicing or replacing a slider or two that just isn't right.

Clorox?

No, Jim. Just... no.

Scorch the top layer of the shipping box with a flamethrower if you must, but the only way to clean a pre-MIDI Roland polysynth is to massage it with the softest microfiber cloth you can find, ever-so-slightly dampened with warm, distilled water, while whispering to it with soft affirmations of your undying affection.

Did the nuns who devoted their lives to treating lepers greet each new patient by whiping them down with Clorox? No.

Faith Jim... faith.

Faith in Golden Age Roland.

Faith in Mr. Takahashi, Mr. Izuchi, and Mr. Matsui.

Faith that COVID-19 can only live for days, not weeks, on metal, plastic, and (probably tragically-scarred) wood-laminate endcaps.

I have a friend with DTs, I agree they are very nice and very comfortable -- open-back design is great if you have to communicate with others while you work. I know you already know this, but making mixes on headphones that translate well to speakers is very tough -- a headphone amp can compensate for diminshed bass and volume due to very "thirsty" headphones, but mixing on headphones will still be a challenge, even with the amp. Best of Luck!

I see you have ATH-m50x in your Equipboard. I bet the m50s are a much better match for the Scarlett. Are you not able to use those headphones instead? If you are currently using the 250 OHM DTs with your Scarlett and they are not loud enough and/or the bass is much weaker than expected, then yes, you need a headphone amp to properly power those higher-impedance headphones. A dedicated headphone amp would connect to the rear line outputs on the Scarlett, not the headphone jack.

Re: whether or not a 80 OHM pair of headphones can be properly driven by the Scarlet, it is my understanding that it's more than just the impedance rating that determines whether or not they would be a good match, but impedance is definitely a big factor. Personally, I would be surprised/disappointed if the Scarlett couldn't drive an 80 OHM pair of headphones well, but I'm not an Engineer, and I don't own a Scarlett. My 64 OHM HD 280s, for example, don't pair as well with some headphone outputs as my ATH-m50s do... the m50s can handle even the crappiest headphone outputs.

(original post edited for brevity)