Roland cloud Juno 106

[Arashi]

I have both the Roland and Softube Juno-106 plugins. I’ve compared them extensively, and prefer Roland’s version. They both did an excellent job modeling the hardware, and sound pretty much identical (I’ve copied many patches from each one to the other and had no trouble getting them to match). But Roland’s has some extras like two envelopes (if you want them; if not you can disable the filter env to have the same behavior as the original), more voices (Softube’s only supports six voices; Roland lets you increase it to eight), and the ability to control pulse width with either envelope (which is actually really useful).

Softube does beat Roland on price (Model 84 is frequently on sale for very reasonable prices) and licensing model — even if you buy a “lifetime key”, you still need a Roland Cloud account, and Roland Cloud Manager has to be launched at least once a month to keep the license active. Softube uses iLok, which isn’t my favorite, but sure beats Roland Cloud.

Arturia’s Juno is pretty good too, actually, but they modeled the Juno-6, which is similar to the 60 and different from the 106. (And on that note, TAL did a great job too, of course, but again that’s the 60.)

[Arashi]

I have a feeling Roland is just being too pedantic. I suspect they modeled a "perfect" 106, meaning they put all the components modeled at ideal values, keeping all drifting and other oddities at a minimal and possibly unrealistic level.

May have been true initially (though I always liked the way it sounds), but they have since added a parameter called Circuit Mod, which is basically a “vintage” knob. Turning it up introduces tuning instability and offsets in the envelopes and filter.

[bmanic]

I have a feeling Roland is just being too pedantic. I suspect they modeled a "perfect" 106, meaning they put all the components modeled at ideal values, keeping all drifting and other oddities at a minimal and possibly unrealistic level.

May have been true initially (though I always liked the way it sounds), but they have since added a parameter called Circuit Mod, which is basically a “vintage” knob. Turning it up introduces tuning instability and offsets in the envelopes and filter.

Yeah but that circuit mod thing may be very superficial under the surface. It may be as simple as just modulating the various bits in the background "with an lfo".. just some smoothed noise. That would be the quick and dirty way of doing it.

This is just speculation on my part but if you go further and actually model noise and always moving non-linearities within the virtual components themselves, you get a more nuanced and somehow more organic output.

I've experimented with this myself in Reaktor and you can get quite far with just using filtered noise as a mod source for various targets like cutoff frequency per voice, pitch variations, envelope slop etc.. but it sounds different to doing basically the same thing but to the internal components that make up the virtual circuit. It gets more chaotic and noisy in a different way. Or I may have entered a placebo hole here or just don't know what I'm doing (which I truly don't! I'm just an amateur tinkerer in Reaktor with stuff that other people have actually created! ).

Anyhow, just speculating here. Haven't tried the latest iterations of the Roland version. I only gave it a go long time ago and I don't think there is a way to renew the demo.

[chk071]

I'm surprised Roland's own emulation isn't the most accurate - why would this be?

The quality of software is obviously also dependant on the quality of the developers. As zvenx also pointed out.

[PAK]

I'm surprised Roland's own emulation isn't the most accurate - why would this be?

I compared Roland’s with Softube’s when it came out (I deliberately made the same sounds on both) and I didn’t consider there to be much difference between either. EDIT - I see Arashi did the same, and concluded much the same as me. The main one being Softube bakes in voice variations in their emulations and Roland didn’t add their take on this until their V2 revision. Before Roland added this it may have sounded "too perfect" depending on your tastes.

Roland's also adds more features, making it easier to stray from how the original sounded. I'm not that keen on the interface of either, and found I like TAL’s Uno LX better if you’re going to create sounds. If someone’s a preset person then Roland’s has the best support, but it’ll also force you to login every 30 days to keep the product licensed. Arturia’s is my least favourite in terms of the sound. I don’t use any of Cherry Audio’s products, so can't comment on those.

[PAK]

Or I may have entered a placebo hole here or just don't know what I'm doing

Hehe. It obviously depends on the sound (and what elements they expose more of.) But I often found the biggest bulk of the difference is simple stuff like the pitch between the voices and the envelope curve/timing.

I do think emulations tend to avoid certain areas, like drift in filters etc. Perhaps because it adds complexity, perhaps because certain drift might not always be desired due to phase type issues etc. But I'd sooner take the rough with the smooth to give more "life" to a sound.

For me, Arturia's Juno sounded noticeably "softer" and "less forward" than the hardware, which (I assume) is more related to what they're doing (or rather aren't) with their VCA code, since you won't notice this to the same degree if you turn down the hardware volume. In fairness to them this is common in software (IMO), and still the main thing I'd look for if someone was asking me to "tell the difference" of hardware Vs emulated.

[Gam456]

The difference between Softube, Roland and Cherry Audio

Softube if you close your eyes it give the feeling of a real hardware, there is more grit, more alive. Frequently on sales. If you don't like the noise. You can turn off and use the free TAL chorus, almost no difference. Velocity, aftertouch.

Roland sound more like a copy, polished, more hifi. More option, like effect, 2nd enveloppe, more voices, Never on sales.

Cherry Audio it's just a joke, everything is off. A waste of money.

[chk071]

I never tried one of Roland's Cloud synths, but, yeah, Softube and Cherry Audio is day and night IMO.

I'm quite convinced of Softube's Roland synths and also their Prophet 5 emulation. Not so convinced about the Minimoog, which IMO lacks the snappiness of the real thing.

[Arashi]

I have a feeling Roland is just being too pedantic. I suspect they modeled a "perfect" 106, meaning they put all the components modeled at ideal values, keeping all drifting and other oddities at a minimal and possibly unrealistic level.

May have been true initially (though I always liked the way it sounds), but they have since added a parameter called Circuit Mod, which is basically a “vintage” knob. Turning it up introduces tuning instability and offsets in the envelopes and filter.

Yeah but that circuit mod thing may be very superficial under the surface. It may be as simple as just modulating the various bits in the background "with an lfo".. just some smoothed noise. That would be the quick and dirty way of doing it.

That's not what it does. I find it really effective. It even managed to breathe new life into their Jupiter-8 emulation, which was a bit too "perfect" and lacked the warmth of the real hardware. With Circuit Mod it's become a really good take on the JP-8.

You should give it another try.

[Arashi]

Cherry Audio it's just a joke, everything is off. A waste of money.

I think Cherry Audio has made some pretty good plugins, but I have to agree that DCO-106 is not one of them. It sounds nothing like a Juno-106, and should be avoided.

[Arashi]

Softube bakes in voice variations in their emulations and Roland didn’t add their take on this until their V2 revision. Before Roland added this it may have sounded "too perfect" depending on your tastes.

Of the four Roland emulations that have Circuit Mod (so far), I think the Jupiter-4 and 8 really benefit from it a lot, and have to admit the JP-8 was lacking a big chunk of character without it (the original "Condition" parameter doesn't do anything useful…a swing and a miss, IMO). I now dial at least a little bit of Circuit Mod into every JP-8 patch, and have updated all my previous ones to use it too.

As for the Juno-60 and 106, I think the original emulations were already excellent, and Circuit Mod, while nice to have, is not such an essential part of the sound. The (actual hardware) Juno synths — with all their circuitry integrated into voice cards instead of discrete components — don't have the same level of analog instability as the Jupiter 4 and 8. Circuit Mod lets you dial in per-voice variations that far exceed what you'd ever experience on the real Junos. It can be pretty nice though, especially when used subtly.

I think at least part of the negative opinions of Roland's plugins stems from (justifiable) resentment of the poorly conceived Roland Cloud service, and the fact that you're stuck using it for authorization even if you're willing to buy their overpriced "lifetime" keys. I really like their plugins, but I don't feel I'm getting any real ongoing value from paying $20/month for Roland Cloud, and wish they would just sell me a bundle. For that reason, I can only recommend their plugins with an asterisk, and often steer people toward Softube, Arturia, and TAL instead.

[bmanic]

I never tried one of Roland's Cloud synths, but, yeah, Softube and Cherry Audio is day and night IMO.

I'm quite convinced of Softube's Roland synths and also their Prophet 5 emulation. Not so convinced about the Minimoog, which IMO lacks the snappiness of the real thing.

Softube's Minimoog is definitely completely off as soon as you use feedback. When you do, it goes into weird territory where no actual analogue minimoog has gone before. To be fair, that's one of those things that absolutely nobody has nailed and where most emulations _completely_ fail. Like not just a little bit failed but like trying to be a recording of a violin when sounding like very poor imitation on a Yamaha DX7.

[D-Fusion]

I never tried one of Roland's Cloud synths, but, yeah, Softube and Cherry Audio is day and night IMO.

I'm quite convinced of Softube's Roland synths and also their Prophet 5 emulation. Not so convinced about the Minimoog, which IMO lacks the snappiness of the real thing.

Softube's Minimoog is definitely completely off as soon as you use feedback. When you do, it goes into weird territory where no actual analogue minimoog has gone before. To be fair, that's one of those things that absolutely nobody has nailed and where most emulations _completely_ fail. Like not just a little bit failed but like trying to be a recording of a violin when sounding like very poor imitation on a Yamaha DX7.

The Model 72 also fails in making Punchy Thump wood basses that has that short knock sound in the beginning of the note because the filter adr is way off too.

The Filter Decay makes the sound either to soft or to short with no energy in it compared to the HW and a few of the other Emulations and the Decay and Sustain feels disconnected from each other.

For me The Model 72 is in the same Ballpark as the Cherry Audio DCO 106 is compared to a Juno 106.

It sounds great as it's own thing but there are sounds you can't make because of this flaw like for example the Analog version of the Lately Bass.

[lotus2035]

Cherry Audio it's just a joke, everything is off. A waste of money.

I think Cherry Audio has made some pretty good plugins, but I have to agree that DCO-106 is not one of them. It sounds nothing like a Juno-106, and should be avoided.

Maybe it doesn't but to be honest as long as a softsynth sounds objectively good then it's usable for something and I don't think any of the Cherry Audio stuff sounds bad. I would agree that emulations should be named something else if they don't sound like the original.

[chk071]

The Model 72 also fails in making Punchy Thump wood basses that has that short knock sound in the beginning of the note because the filter adr is way off too.

The Filter Decay makes the sound either to soft or to short with no energy in it compared to the HW and a few of the other Emulations and the Decay and Sustain feels disconnected from each other.

That's what I meant with "lacking snappiness" or punch.

Monark is far snappier, for example. more reminiscent of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pRiUSf_QFw

There's another emulation which is highly regarded here, which I can't name, which has the same issue (lack of snap/punch).