Softube Model 84 (Juno 106)

[BONES]

You said you love Knifonium. You’ve even got it in you sig. You can keep trying to blow smoke up my ass if you want but no way someone “loves” a synth without liking the filter.

Of course you can. 90% of the time the character of the filter is irrelevant. I could play you 100 different synth sounds that we use in our songs and, other than basslines, there would only be a tiny handful where the filter made any meaningful difference to the end result. This is another excellent example of this stupid mindset that if you like something, you must like all of it and be totally unable to accept that any part of it is less than perfect. Well, to put it simply, I love Knifonium despite its filter, not because of it.

It’s too integral a part of the sound.

Go through the factory presets on any synth and see how many of them don't use any resonance. There are plenty of patches that don't rely on the filter's character at all, just the fact that it's there is enough. Try it yourself with a synth like DUNE. With the resonance at zero, go through all the different filters of a particular type, e.g. all the different Low-Pass 24dB/octave filters, and you will be able to get exactly the same sound out of any of them. You may not even have to change the cutoff value to do so.

Everyone here is like that

No, they're not. You certainly aren't, just look what you said above.

But I’m not the one coming on here and saying how not special something is and why waste the money only to be then later saying I bought it and I love it.

Who did that? I said from the get-go that I loved the sound and the GUI, whilst also acknowledging the pathetic feature-set. That hasn't changed and I certainly don't "love it", I just found a (shonky) justification for spending $79 on it. I'll find a few uses for it, I'm sure, but it ain't Union or bx_oberhausen or JP6K.

I mean hell you just said how you can see a thing for what it is then right after that go on about why didn’t Softube add this, that, or the other. That’s not seeing something for what it is.

Actually, that's exactly what that is. What you're talking about would be appreciating it for what it is, where I'd appreciate it a lot more if it had more features.

So oddly enough, you might not have gotten that same bass sound out of a real Juno-106, either (or the Roland Cloud version).

Yeah, that doesn't matter to me at all. I never rated any of the Junos back in the day and it's really the bits where emulations deviate from the originals that make them worth having most of the time. Hence my complaint with this that they didn't deviate enough. Or maybe they did, but only just enough.

[Arashi]

Yes, it is, but still. Knifonium is a weird tube synth that is supposedly a virtual model of an actual tube synth. I can see liking a tube synth for the aggressive tone of the oscillators, Ring Mod, and VCAs, but not loving the filter. Reaktor Spark is another example of a synth that I like but I don't love the weird 8-pole filter.

I like Knifonium's filter well enough, but TBH there are times when I wish it had Divaesque model choices. There are synths that I don't like the filter mostly, but it seems weirdly usable in a narrow range. Air's Hybrid, for example.

Fair points.

[chk071]

You can like a synth and not like it's filter though, just saying.

Arturia Pigments in a nutshell, hehe. It's alright though. The filter are usable, if you don't do some wild stuff.

For their next iterations of synths, I really hope they work on that department though... it can really make the difference between an average sounding, and a great sounding synth. Basically, the filters are no fun if being pushed, while on other synths, the fun just begins with the filters.

Bit offtopic, but, if you watch Starsky Carr's videos, when he covers the filters in a synth he introduces, he does some basic resonance tests, and then quickly says "Ok, now let's move quickly on, because it gets boring". ARGH! Th filters, and, especially the resonant behavior can be so vital that it's really not something you should quickly push aside. Don't get me wrong, I don't think his videos are bad, but, that's just a massive oversight.

[canadian_moose]

Bugger it! I finally caved in and bought it, even though I know I'll run out of uses for it in a week. I was just messing about with it and made this really cool bass patch. I tried to recreate it in DCO-106 but I couldn't get close. It's like a slap bass with resonance, nice and punchy with real depth. I think the difference is in the Unison implementation but it's not the kind of sound I'd ever have expected to get out of Model 84, which is all the push I needed, really.

I tried to match a few of the original Juno-106 preset sounds between the two also, and I think part of why the Model 84 has that "punch" and "depth" is more (in some cases) because they have a hidden EQ that DCO-106 doesn't have. On its "default" setting, it's a bass boost. I haven't read the manual yet, so I don't know exactly what it's boosting (or where), but it's pretty significant.

I haven't had a chance to look at your preset, but I found that on many of the presets where the Model 84 sounds "warmer" or "thicker" than the DCO-106, that bass boost was engaged. So oddly enough, you might not have gotten that same bass sound out of a real Juno-106, either (or the Roland Cloud version).

Steve

I’m pretty sure the hardware unit also has a hidden bass boost feature. If I recall, it’s when the HPF is set on either 0 or 1. I may well be wrong though but I’m sure somebody will let me know.

30 years ago my high school had a Juno 106 and a Roland D10 in a small studio with a few other bits of gear. Spent hours in there and I can honestly say the model 84 really is the first time I can almost feel like I’m back there. It sounds spot on to my faded memory

[Mr Arkadin]

If you watch the Starsky Carr video he goes through the low frequency bump on the HPF on the hardware, which is probably why Softube relabelled it EQ.

[perpetual3]

Simple, lacking modern features or not, it’s got the sound.

[canadian_moose]

If you watch the Starsky Carr video he goes through the low frequency bump on the HPF on the hardware, which is probably why Softube relabelled it EQ.

Thanks for that. Just watched it again. So on 0 then.

[rezoneight]

You can like a synth and not like it's filter though, just saying. FM8, nuff said.

Actually it's not nuff said. Thats a weird case. The other case is like saying well I like the 106 sound but I don't like the filter, its easily the weakest part. C'mon.

[rezoneight]

You can like a synth and not like it's filter though, just saying. FM8, nuff said.

That's kind of a special case though. A filter on an FM synth is like legs on a snake. Knifonium is a subtractive synth, so the filter matters.

Yes, it is, but still. Knifonium is a weird tube synth that is supposedly a virtual model of an actual tube synth. I can see liking a tube synth for the aggressive tone of the oscillators, Ring Mod, and VCAs, but not loving the filter. Reaktor Spark is another example of a synth that I like but I don't love the weird 8-pole filter.

I like Knifonium's filter well enough, but TBH there are times when I wish it had Divaesque model choices. There are synths that I don't like the filter mostly, but it seems weirdly usable in a narrow range. Air's Hybrid, for example.

Anyway, I'm just kibitzing.

Fair enough. But to this:

Reaktor Spark is another example of a synth that I like but I don't love the weird 8-pole filter.

Were you normally on here talking it down and calling anyone who liked it a moron only to come back later yeah I bought it! Probably not

[ghettosynth]

Reaktor Spark is another example of a synth that I like but I don't love the weird 8-pole filter.

Were you normally on here talking it down and calling anyone who liked it a moron only to come back later yeah I bought it! Probably not

Well, sometimes it's hard to be human and I think that life might be better as a cat. My cat cuts me some slack when she doesn't get the squishy food that she likes, although she definitely shoots me the stink eye if I fail to give here what she likes two days in a row, but the purring continues in any case. So there we are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J---aiyznGQ

[e-crooner]

You can like a synth and not like it's filter though, just saying.

Bit offtopic, but, if you watch Starsky Carr's videos, when he covers the filters in a synth he introduces, he does some basic resonance tests, and then quickly says "Ok, now let's move quickly on, because it gets boring". ARGH! Th filters, and, especially the resonant behavior can be so vital that it's really not something you should quickly push aside. Don't get me wrong, I don't think his videos are bad, but, that's just a massive oversight.

Sorry, but most people might simply be interested in musical sounds, not highly resonant ones, for which there is only so much use in music.

I rarely turn resonance beyond 12 o'clock, usually much less than that.

[e-crooner]

Didn't various Roland synths have that bass boost when the HP filter is set to min? Maybe it is only perceived as such when the HP filter actually reduces high frequencies, working like a LP filter. Just wondering...

[chk071]

You can like a synth and not like it's filter though, just saying.

Bit offtopic, but, if you watch Starsky Carr's videos, when he covers the filters in a synth he introduces, he does some basic resonance tests, and then quickly says "Ok, now let's move quickly on, because it gets boring". ARGH! Th filters, and, especially the resonant behavior can be so vital that it's really not something you should quickly push aside. Don't get me wrong, I don't think his videos are bad, but, that's just a massive oversight.

Sorry, but most people might simply be interested in musical sounds, not highly resonant ones, for which there is only so much use in music.

I rarely turn resonance beyond 12 o'clock, usually much less than that.

How is that relevant to what I wrote though? I wrote what I (and obviously a lot of other people who do their tests like that as well) think is a good test to find out how the filter is.

[e-crooner]

You can like a synth and not like it's filter though, just saying.

Bit offtopic, but, if you watch Starsky Carr's videos, when he covers the filters in a synth he introduces, he does some basic resonance tests, and then quickly says "Ok, now let's move quickly on, because it gets boring". ARGH! Th filters, and, especially the resonant behavior can be so vital that it's really not something you should quickly push aside. Don't get me wrong, I don't think his videos are bad, but, that's just a massive oversight.

Sorry, but most people might simply be interested in musical sounds, not highly resonant ones, for which there is only so much use in music.

I rarely turn resonance beyond 12 o'clock, usually much less than that.

How is that relevant to what I wrote though? I wrote what I (and obviously a lot of other people who do their tests like that as well) think is a good test to find out how the filter is.

What do you mean by good? When I try a new synth, I barely touch the resonance knob. Resonance is kind of irrelevant to me. I need to like what I hear when using a resonance value of 50% max. I don't care whether or not a filter falls apart at 80 or 100% of resonance because I will never use such settings, anyway.

Take Sylenth1 for instance. It gets ugly with high resonance values, there are artifacts and what not. But I didn't mind that when it was my default synth because I never used it in that way.

[chk071]

You can like a synth and not like it's filter though, just saying.

Bit offtopic, but, if you watch Starsky Carr's videos, when he covers the filters in a synth he introduces, he does some basic resonance tests, and then quickly says "Ok, now let's move quickly on, because it gets boring". ARGH! Th filters, and, especially the resonant behavior can be so vital that it's really not something you should quickly push aside. Don't get me wrong, I don't think his videos are bad, but, that's just a massive oversight.

Sorry, but most people might simply be interested in musical sounds, not highly resonant ones, for which there is only so much use in music.

I rarely turn resonance beyond 12 o'clock, usually much less than that.

How is that relevant to what I wrote though? I wrote what I (and obviously a lot of other people who do their tests like that as well) think is a good test to find out how the filter is.

What do you mean by good? When I try a new synth, I barely touch the resonance knob. Resonance is kind of irrelevant to me. I need to like what I hear when using a resonance value of 50% max. I don't care whether or not a filter falls apart at 80 or 100% of resonance because I will never use such settings, anyway.

Take Sylenth1 for instance. It gets ugly with high resonance values, there are artifacts and what not. But I didn't mind that when it was my default synth because I never used it in that way.

I just realized that I was in the wrong topic with my response. Apologies. You reply was on topic, of course (i.e. in response to the statement that you can like a synth, and not like its filter). I agree. I like Pigments as well, even though I don't necessarily like the filter(s).

Although I definitely prefer synths with good filters. Actually, it's quite important for me. In Pigments, I don't really use the VA engine much, and, with the other engines, the filters are not that important (even though it'd still be nice if they were great).