Oh the irony.....the irony.....

I mostly agree with him, FWIW (About Diva, and much of the output of a 60 being unremarkable and easily copied by any decent synth). So at least he needn't feel lonely with (some of) his misinformed opinions

Totally true.

Except when you're caught by the thought police of course : Walk this way, talk this way ....

No, you should NOT think that !

Diva has Juno modules amongst others so ofc it's gonna achieve similar results.doh.
but other quality synths without a juno filter (or a jupiter filter which is somehow close) are not gonna get same results as a juno60 no matter how much quality there's in that synth.
depends all on what kind of filter and envelopes they have ...and not to forget the DCOs (which do sound different from VCOs no matter what anyone says -somheow thinner and more piercing in upper scale).
in any case if a synth has a moog filter or an oberheim a 12b ms20 filter is not gonna sound like a juno. as simple as that.
not to mention there's only a few synths around with zero feedback filters...so u can count on yoda's fingers how many synths can really give same standard of results.
btw i wasn't much objecting to his last post...but a series of many posts all given out as expert verdicts.

as everyone likes to give verdicts i'll give one too:
the unolx juno filter and diva's minimoog filter are currently the best filters in software.
and the unolx is 35$....

Thanks, at least one kind person here

And I stick with my verdict. Although the U-NO sounds very good and has its own character, even TAL's own Noisemaker (which has a 24db zero-feedback delay filter as well) can get pretty close to that sound, and way beyond if you want it to. When you take any good virtual analog synth from the 100$+ league, it will come with a wide array of great filters and enough controls to pretty accurately recreate the U-NO sound, if you know how to. If necessary you can use effects to iron out differences.

We are just talking synths here, this is not a war or something. Just funny little software programs, ok?!?

Where on earth did I say I was an expert giving expert verdicts?!? I am just a normal user occasionally testing stuff, just like most people here...

OK, let's try to put some things into the right perspective:
When Roland launched the Juno-60, there was already the Jupiter-8 in the market, which had more features, and (supposedly and almost surely) better sound, and previously there were a Jupiter-4 too. A couple of years later, Roland also launched the Jupiter-6 and the JX-3P. They kept the Juno line though, with the Juno-106, and later the Alpha-Junos.
So, what were those for? Because they all sounded differently, and costed differently, and alternatives, specially if they are GOOD alternatives, are always good.
Sure you can get similar sounds to the Juno with other synths. It will cost you much more, in terms of programming, and those synths will be also more expensive, probably. Will they do more? Probably, yes. Will they fill the gap? Probably (arguably) no.
That said, I don't think that the U-NO-LX will fill the synth needs of anybody. Nor does it intend to. It just wants to give people who looks for the classic sound and simplicity of the Juno-60 that same classic sound and simplicity, with the sureness of achieving similar results when using similar configurations, down even to the peculiarities of the original.
That's what it is on the market for, and that's what people should judging it for. Not more, not less.

You can match a lot of Juno sounds with EG an old VA like the Access Virus. By "match" I mean hard to tell apart in or out of a mix context. Decent softsynth like DCAM SS? Same. The main difficulty is often copying the chorus. If that bits right it also helps cover other differences when they're small.

The 6/60 filter is stuck with a very plain synth architecture. Unless you manually animate the controls, or externally modulate it in some way, it's just sat there doing very little much of the time. This, along with the polite character and DCO sound, helps make it easier to create "knock off" copies of sounds with MANY synths. Every sound with every synth? I doubt anyone would suggest that.

It's nice that things like that are finally getting recognition, but perhaps the importance is sometimes over-stated. It doesn't make much of a difference for a lot of sounds, which is probably partly why it took as long for widespread recognition to happen amongst coders.

It's an important bit of "the puzzle" though (don't get me wrong). It's just synths like Diva have audibly more going on in that sort of department than "just" the zero delay filter thing. Too much focus on that, and not enough on other bits, maybe

K, Fair enough. I only really properly read the last one, and maybe the rest were being more silly than I thought.

I think where Uno LX really does the hardware proud is that it makes it easy to get results just like it. Reminds me of OP-X Pro in that sense. You can nitpick the differences with the hardware, yes. But it sounds like a Juno without requiring a bunch of tweaks, and probably gets closer to most sounds even if you spent the extra time with the other synth. In that sense I think it's succeeded pretty well at its goal, and some kudos is due to TAL for delivering that

im sure you can use Rubberduck and make it sound like a [insert fav synth here] if you use fx and eq and ........... It may be impossible to tell which one is which in a mix.

I always react when people talk badly of synths that obviously someone put a lot of hard work in. And yes, saying that freeware can do the same or that another synth can "emulate" is talking badly in my book. You damage sales. Had there been a ripoff, poor support or too much hype/marketing then fine - then you're looking out for your vst loving borthers and sisters.
I remember some jacka$$ saying Diversion was bad because the saw was 3db lower than another synth's. Someone said bullshitaudio was bad because the word shit was in the name - not by judging the quality or usability of the product. Recently a real lowlife tried to manipulate people into thinking that a brand new highspec synth was outperformed by one of the oldest free synths.
If you hurt sales for no good reason then you hurt the vst market.

I find it so hard to understand why you try to damage a guy who obviously gave you a synth for free that you enjoy. Just be quiet and enjoy it!!! I would like to see Tal's U-NO-LX be a success so that we can see more synths from him in the future. And effects!

question about this synth: downloaded the demo and started playing around. went to put on a second track and it was so out of tune; it was crazy. i tried using different sounds and imported the same midi part. still out of tune. I loaded an instrument from Logic, used the same midi part and still out of tune. had to use a pitch correction tool to get it close.

the hardware synths were always a little wonky, but I have a bunch of Roland synths and none of them are ever this off. I even went and grabbed my Juno to compare tuning issues. The Roland was actually pretty close to being in tune when I plugged it in.

I really like the sound of the emulation, so I am hoping that it's just a limitation on the demo. anyone know anything about that? thanks.

I am damaging TAL's sales by saying other synths can produce very similar sounds?! Really, I thought this was a free message board for musicians, not a sales platform. I didn't know the motto of this thread is: either praise the U-NO or shut up. But when like in another thread someone explicitly asks for recommended freeware and someone else chimes in and recommends TAL's commercial U-NO, I indeed do get the impression that this board has turned into a sales platform.

Nobody told TAL to offer all their stuff for free up until now. Lots of people use TAL stuff. When someone offers stuff for free, it tells me they don't really need the money. And if they do need the money, they should charge for their products, after all many TAL products are at commercial level.
Plus, I did donate something for Noisemaker, I wonder how many other people using TAL products did the same.

Nobody told TAL to make a Juno emulation, they don't have a right to positive reviews only. If people like me think it was not worth it, it is my right to share that view. In another thread some guy wrote that he wished TAL had developed the Noisemaker further into a commercial product instead of the Juno. And I fully agree with that, I would pay 50-100$ for an updated (e.g. 12 voices instead of 6, latest filter designs, etc.) Noisemaker license, but certainly not for the U-NO, which in my view is a step back from the Noisemaker as far as the company's product line is concerned.

I can see why you think that, but I don't agree. I think it kinda goes with the territory, especially when you're talking about simple synths like the Juno. "Why should I get a synth as simple as this? What does it do that other synths don't?". It's an inevitable question, and the same thing people sometimes ask of the hardware too.

And the answer is the same as the hardware - Uno LX delivers good sounding results easily. If Juno sounds aren't to your taste then you'll maybe scratch your head. But, if they are, this synth easily sounds good enough to stand on its own two feet, without much worry about "talk" from anybody

You forgot UA's Moog MMF. It has zero-feedback filters (for the record, it had them long before Diva did), and an overdrive circuit that would suit any Diva.