Softube Model 84 (Juno 106)

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Instruments Discussion
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS
Model 84 Polyphonic Synthesizer

Post

You can make some pretty interesting synths in Softube modular using the 84 modules. But it’s not the same as having more features in the plugin. I personally love the sound, and I use Bitwig, so I can somewhat work around the limitations. But it’s a decision by Softube that convinced me that they want to push people to the modular platform.

Post

There was also an update for Softube Modular (2.5.15), but I don't know what new features or bug fixes.
Yes, it's true, the synth is really very simple and nothing special in terms of sound. A relic from a long time ago. But interesting as a module in the Softube Modular. The sound of Diva and Repro cover that very well. So I don't really need the synth.

Post

Juno 106 is a simple synth, but it got so many things right. You can't make it sound bad.

For example, when you mix it's sawtooth and square/pulse, it sounds nice because of the fixed phase difference between the waves. If you do the same with most synths, it sounds different and usually not so nice because the phase is different even if you sync the oscillators together. You can certainly mimic 106's oscillator setup with modern VSTs like U-he's Hive, where you can sync and adjust the phase, and you get about the same nice combination of sawtooth and pulse. But you need to do some work, where Juno 106 has this already built in. Also the filter is nice sounding and of course the chorus is legendary.

Yes, it's a simple synth but has so many things in a sweet spot, so you can make great sounds with little effort.

Post

Heh. 106 is so useless people are still making tons of music with them. So much for no use to anyone. People here just kill me sometimes.

Post

dionenoid wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:49 am I don't get why you'd want a 106. It's the most boring and simple Roland synth. Unlike other simple synths from that era it doesn't offer any quirks or unique features. Most ppl kept it around for the same reason as i did : it was a nice midi keyboard :)

I guess Softube made this one especially for their modular system.
I think you and Bones are completely mistaken. That synth sounds excellent, still fine enough for classic synth sounds. The intro of the video made by the Jamiroquai guy proves that. He could record an entire album using only that plugin for all synth sounds.
Sure, if you make EDM and need crazy features and modulations, get something else, but a lot of people are tired of that synth overkill, anyway.

And, this plugin looks very inviting, I wonder if they asked Roland for permission to make it look that authentic :hihi:

Post

The Juno 106 may have a simple architecture, but the simple sounds that it creates are very inspiring. There is something really special about that melancholy nostalgic tone, and the Model 84 captures this perfectly.

I also enjoy TAL's U-NO-LX, which is a Juno 60 emulation, but this Model 84 somehow sounds even better to me. Maybe I just prefer the tone of the 106.

Post

rezoneight wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:52 pm Heh. 106 is so useless people are still making tons of music with them. So much for no use to anyone. People here just kill me sometimes.
Agree. For me, the most musically useful sounds tend to be the least complex. I know there are far more aggressive styles of music than what I'd ever personally want to listen to where harsh tones with things like complex waveforms and/or OSC filter FM, and crazy modulations are a big part of the genre/style but that stuff's not for me. I've got a blender. I don't need the synth equivalent to the sound it makes when I stick forks inside of it over an obnoxious beat.

But yeah, I still might use a simple ass bass patch, or that classic warm saw type of pad in a track. Definitely not the most exciting sounds in the world but some of the basic things the Juno can do well and may work their way into things I might actually produce and/or listen to. Sometimes you need those to fill out space in a mix to contrast more exciting sounds. They're all just options. Plus the Juno resonance and PWM sound pretty cool, and give it a ton of character.

And if someone wants something more complex, there's plenty of synths that do that too. Someone would have to a be a fool to come into a Juno thread and complain that it's basic. Like uh...that's the point. Says "Juno 106" right at the top. Seems nuts to me that folks might see that, know what it is, click the link, then take time to post about how basic it is. Not that anyone would actually do that in real life.

Post

perpetual3 wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:00 pm You can make some pretty interesting synths in Softube modular using the 84 modules. But it’s not the same as having more features in the plugin. I personally love the sound, and I use Bitwig, so I can somewhat work around the limitations. But it’s a decision by Softube that convinced me that they want to push people to the modular platform.
To be clear, that's not at all what I'm saying. I will be the first to roll my eyes when it comes to discussing low budget synths from the 80s. When created, companies were not thinking about how they could create a classic synth that would be awesome for the music of the future, clearly. They were trying to figure out how to create a "keyboard" that they could sell to "keyboard players" on a lower budget.

What I am saying with respect to softube is that, at first glance, and based only on the video demos, they really seemed to have nailed the filter. Now, that might not matter to you, it probably doesn't matter much to most people. But, if true, then it's something of a benchmark whenever that happens. It's interesting enough to me that I would consider paying the intro price AND buying modular just to play with their model of the filter.

I bought NI's super 8 for one reason, to get the filter model in Reaktor. That's it, I could have saved myself $80 by just waiting for the next version of Komplete but I wanted to learn from it.

Post

Funkybot's Evil Twin wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 4:58 pm
rezoneight wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:52 pm Heh. 106 is so useless people are still making tons of music with them. So much for no use to anyone. People here just kill me sometimes.
Agree. For me, the most musically useful sounds tend to be the least complex. I know there are far more aggressive styles of music than what I'd ever personally want to listen to where harsh tones with things like complex waveforms and/or OSC filter FM, and crazy modulations are a big part of the genre/style but that stuff's not for me. I've got a blender. I don't need the synth equivalent to the sound it makes when I stick forks inside of it over an obnoxious beat.

But yeah, I still might use a simple ass bass patch, or that classic warm saw type of pad in a track. Definitely not the most exciting sounds in the world but some of the basic things the Juno can do well and may work their way into things I might actually produce and/or listen to. Sometimes you need those to fill out space in a mix to contrast more exciting sounds. They're all just options. Plus the Juno resonance and PWM sound pretty cool, and give it a ton of character.

And if someone wants something more complex, there's plenty of synths that do that too. Someone would have to a be a fool to come into a Juno thread and complain that it's basic. Like uh...that's the point. Says "Juno 106" right at the top. Seems nuts to me that folks might see that, know what it is, click the link, then take time to post about how basic it is. Not that anyone would actually do that in real life.
Totally with you. Nils Frahm (for instance) seems to be getting a lot of music done with the Juno-60s he's got.

But it was BONES so to be expected I guess :hihi:
Last edited by rezoneight on Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post

ghettosynth wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:48 pm
perpetual3 wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:00 pm You can make some pretty interesting synths in Softube modular using the 84 modules. But it’s not the same as having more features in the plugin. I personally love the sound, and I use Bitwig, so I can somewhat work around the limitations. But it’s a decision by Softube that convinced me that they want to push people to the modular platform.
To be clear, that's not at all what I'm saying. I will be the first to roll my eyes when it comes to discussing low budget synths from the 80s. When created, companies were not thinking about how they could create a classic synth that would be awesome for the music of the future, clearly. They were trying to figure out how to create a "keyboard" that they could sell to "keyboard players" on a lower budget.

What I am saying with respect to softube is that, at first glance, and based only on the video demos, they really seemed to have nailed the filter. Now, that might not matter to you, it probably doesn't matter much to most people. But, if true, then it's something of a benchmark whenever that happens. It's interesting enough to me that I would consider paying the intro price AND buying modular just to play with their model of the filter.

I bought NI's super 8 for one reason, to get the filter model in Reaktor. That's it, I could have saved myself $80 by just waiting for the next version of Komplete but I wanted to learn from it.
Did you mean to quote me?
As I said, I love the Juno sound / filter and I have modular, so I bought it. I still think that Softube should have added more modulation sources and destinations to the plugin itself.

Post

Hopefully this does not end up as a duplicate reply.

I have tried out the model 84. The quality and realism of the sound is very high. This synth has a very sweet sound.

I did have an idea for a potential change to make to the synth to expand its versatility beyond the 106. A second optional oscillator could be added that you could hide (classic mode) or show (extended mode).The second oscillator would be similar to the first oscillator with the following differences: The second oscillator can be tuned to any frequency (free (VCO), or specific notes (DCO)). The second oscillator could have an option for affecting the frequency of the first oscillator. The second oscillator would have a control that determines its volume relative to the first oscillator.

Post

BONES wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:13 am
ghettosynth wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 8:07 amOk, I'm not a pure emu guy, and I don't care that much for simple synths from that era, and Roland are so full of themselves, but, the Juno 6/60/106 are not "garbage."
Yes, they are. I went through it once but I'll go through it again, just for you - one oscillator (with sub), low-pass only filter, LFO with just one wave shape and a single ADSR envelope. Jupiter 6 was the real deal, the Junos were budget synths and, as I said, people bought them because they were a cheap way into MIDI and patch memory, not because they were blown away by the sound or the features. They were what you bought if you couldn't afford a Jupiter or an OB or a Prophet but you needed a polysynth. I'll guarantee that in the second half of the 80s you couldn't have given one away.
In the second half of the 80s you could buy many analog synths for peanuts. That's not an argument for anything other than tastes were different at the time.

The Jupiter 6 is an awesome synth, I know, I own one. I own a 106, and a 60 as well as several other Roland synths from the era. However, the Jupiter 6 has well understood limitations with respect to how they implemented the filter. For a pure lowpass with that delicious resonance, the 6/60/106 filters are generally thought of as superior to the Jupiter 6. Here's Florian Andwander's (RIP), a noted expert on synthesizer design and history, breakdown of the different filters in Roland synths of the era.

http://www.florian-anwander.de/roland_filters/

This is reflected in Roland's design aesthetic with respect to filters. The later filters based on the IR3R05 are generally viewed as having even less character. Roland was trying to compete with the DX7 at the time and customers wanted the clean sound of digital.

I don't want you to take my word for it though, even though it's been well documented for decades. Here are the words of Rob Keeble from AMSynths. Rob is a notable expert on this subject and the following quote is from his module based on the IR3R05.

"The IR3R05 does not go into self oscillation at high resonance levels in Roland synthesizers, this is a deliberate design by Roland to stop distortion and to provide a smoother more digital sound."

https://amsynths.co.uk/home/products/fi ... x-vcf-vca/

Rob also describes the JP6 filter as having a "more aggressive sound than a simple 4-pole OTA based filter as used in the Jupiter 8, along with a lot more flexibility in sounds." This is often viewed from the alternate perspective that the 4-pole OTA based filter in the 6/60/106 sounds smoother or more "buttery." These aren't technical words but they do capture the perception difference from, not only users, but someone who is an expert on their design and implementation.

There's a reason that Juno 6/60s command far more than they should based purely on their features, for what they do, they sound great. Yes, in the 80s they were a shit replacement for a piano, but nobody is trying to do that with them today any more than they are trying to replace a bass player with a TB303. There's also a reason why the JX10 + PG800 sells for less than a Juno 60 even though it is, on paper, a more capable synthesizer. Again, see Rob's comment above.
the IR3109 VCF chip has something, it's probably my favorite Roland filter.
So what? Like I said, I quite like the sound but the point, the problem, is that they lack enough features to be of any use to anyone.
Well, if you don't care about that kind of subtlety, and judging by your comments on the JP6, I don't think that you're familiar enough with the details to understand the consequences, then you're right, it won't matter to you.

But, whether you agree or not, experts have long documented that the difference between basic Roland filter designs reflects particular tastes in sound and that those tastes manifest in demand for the products on the vintage market. Despite Roland's claims today that they were pioneers for today's music, they, in fact, made many bad decisions that were based on a cost driven narrow viewpoint of the day. Many of their products were actually market failures because of their weird thoughts about music, e.g., TB303, TR909. I think that the icing on this cake is how bad their "techno" music demos were throughout the 90s. Roland has always been a company that, IMO, is out of touch and the very definition of unhip. That said, their early analog designs sounded great and your simple feature driven analysis doesn't change that.

In other words, the 4-pole OTA IR3R09 filter is special among Roland filters and that's, in part, what drives the price up and is also why a (new) model of that filter has some value. For me, it's almost worth getting it just to compare it to Diva and use that as a benchmark to evaluate Softube's ability to implement solid VA designs.

Post

perpetual3 wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:04 pm
ghettosynth wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:48 pm
perpetual3 wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:00 pm You can make some pretty interesting synths in Softube modular using the 84 modules. But it’s not the same as having more features in the plugin. I personally love the sound, and I use Bitwig, so I can somewhat work around the limitations. But it’s a decision by Softube that convinced me that they want to push people to the modular platform.
To be clear, that's not at all what I'm saying. I will be the first to roll my eyes when it comes to discussing low budget synths from the 80s. When created, companies were not thinking about how they could create a classic synth that would be awesome for the music of the future, clearly. They were trying to figure out how to create a "keyboard" that they could sell to "keyboard players" on a lower budget.

What I am saying with respect to softube is that, at first glance, and based only on the video demos, they really seemed to have nailed the filter. Now, that might not matter to you, it probably doesn't matter much to most people. But, if true, then it's something of a benchmark whenever that happens. It's interesting enough to me that I would consider paying the intro price AND buying modular just to play with their model of the filter.

I bought NI's super 8 for one reason, to get the filter model in Reaktor. That's it, I could have saved myself $80 by just waiting for the next version of Komplete but I wanted to learn from it.
Did you mean to quote me?
As I said, I love the Juno sound / filter and I have modular, so I bought it. I still think that Softube should have added more modulation sources and destinations to the plugin itself.
Yes, I though that you were referring to my comment about the value of the filter with respect to the modular and I was just trying to clarify. I will probably pay over $100 just to isolate their model of that filter and play with it. I got a little off tangent though and was just addressing the thread in general.

Post

BONES wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:13 am
Yes, they are. I went through it once but I'll go through it again, just for you - one oscillator (with sub), low-pass only filter, LFO with just one wave shape and a single ADSR envelope.
You have just written down what makes them so good. The simplicity. I have a Juno 6. So no midi or patch memory. And yet, because of the simplicity, I can pull up any type of sound in a second. Pianos, pads, bass, flute, oboe, you name it, this thing will do it - quickly.

Yes, you are right, it is ridicuously simple, but its bigger than the sum of its parts.

By the way, a guitar is very simple as well.

Post

dellboy wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:30 pm
Yes, you are right, it is ridiculously simple, but its bigger than the sum of its parts.

By the way, a guitar is very simple as well.
Love the guitar comment :D

Post Reply

Return to “Instruments”