Softube Model 84 (Juno 106)

[e-crooner]

Luckily, the times of bad filters in softsynths are over. Some might be a bit bland, but you can compensate that with good sound design.

[BONES]

There is only so much you can do with sound design. You're never going to get a big, deep resonant bassline from anything with a Ladder filter, for example, no matter how good your sound design skills are.

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.

For me it's not about it "falling apart", it's how useful the sound is at medium to high resonance. e.g. With ladder filters, turning up the resonance attenuates the whole signal so the bass drops out, which makes them very poor for the kind of squelchy basslines we like to use. OTOH, a SEM style filter is great for that, because as the filter closes, the resonance pumps up the bottom end, making it even fatter. And with a really good filter, you will get that effect with relatively modest resonance settings.

I also prefer resonance with a wider "Q" value, so you don't get that perception of separation of the resonant peak at high settings.

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).

I'm sorry but that's absolute rubbish. I can't think of a synth with such a variety of filter types. It's a highlight of that instrument. Remember, too, Pigments is made by the same company that does all the big synth emulations so the SEM, Matrix 12, MiniMoog and Jupiter-8 filters in Pigments are all going to sound very close to the real thing.

[AnX]

no

[e-crooner]

There is only so much you can do with sound design. You're never going to get a big, deep resonant bassline from anything with a Ladder filter, for example, no matter how good your sound design skills are.

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.

For me it's not about it "falling apart", it's how useful the sound is at medium to high resonance. e.g. With ladder filters, turning up the resonance attenuates the whole signal so the bass drops out, which makes them very poor for the kind of squelchy basslines we like to use. OTOH, a SEM style filter is great for that, because as the filter closes, the resonance pumps up the bottom end, making it even fatter. And with a really good filter, you will get that effect with relatively modest resonance settings.

I also prefer resonance with a wider "Q" value, so you don't get that perception of separation of the resonant peak at high settings.

I never know what people here mean by that word
But when the bass diminishes, you can turn up the overall volume, right? The Minimoog was often used for bass, obviously, being monophonic...

By q you mean the width of the frequency range covered by the resonance peak?
Like with an equalizer?

[Super Piano Hater 64]

I never know what people here mean by that word

"Squelchy" means it sounds almost like a viscous fluid being squeezed through a tight opening. Like if you're squirting ketchup out of a bottle, or stepping on a jellyfish with your bare foot.

[Echoes in the Attic]

I never know what people here mean by that word

Think 303 acid sound. High resonance squeeling.

But when the bass diminishes, you can turn up the overall volume, right? The Minimoog was often used for bass, obviously, being monophonic...

Usually with low or no resonance.

[Arashi]

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...

The Juno-106 has a bass boost when HPF is at zero. I don't know of any other synths (Roland or otherwise) with that feature. The Juno-6/60 don't have the bass boost.

[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...

The Juno-106 has a bass boost when HPF is at zero. I don't know of any other synths (Roland or otherwise) with that feature. The Juno-6/60 don't have the bass boost.

Found this:

"The MKS-70, JX8P, JX-10 and Alpha-Junos all use the same filter topology: A 2 Pole lowpass in series with a 2 Pole Bandpass. This is quite different than the JX3P, which is an honest to goodness 4 Pole lowpass, as you say, of the same IC manufacture generation of the Juno 60 and Jupiter 8.

...

It's hardwired in series, giving you a 24db/oct Lowpass slope, and 12db/oct Highpass slope. You just don't always notice it because the non-resonant Highpass stage that comes after both has a bass boost circuit."

http://forum.vintagesynth.com/viewtopic ... 2&start=30



In the manual of the free JX-8P emulation PG-8X it also mentions the bass boost:

"The filter section contains a simple 6dB/oct high pass filter
(HPF) and a 24dB/oct low pass filter. The HPF does not have
any dynamic controls and only 4 settings. It should be noted
that '1' is the neutral setting, while '0' acts as a bass boost. '2'
and '3' enable the fixed frequency high pass filter."

[BONES]

But when the bass diminishes, you can turn up the overall volume, right? The Minimoog was often used for bass, obviously, being monophonic...

Only if everything is static but if you're modulating the filter with envelopes and velocity, you end up with some loud notes and other notes being quiet, usually the opposite way to what you want. i.e. Notes with low velocity values end up being louder than notes with higher velocity. It doesn't work.

By q you mean the width of the frequency range covered by the resonance peak?
Like with an equalizer?

Yes, the range of frequencies affected by the resonance value. It might not be exactly what it is but some filters get squealy and some feel richer in tone as you increase the resonance.

[ghettosynth]

nm

[_leras]

So my question stands - what need does M-84 fulfill that's not already fulfilled by Diva?

It emulates the Juno-106.

Yeah, but that's not a need! Ok, maybe it is for someone who's an obsessive compulsive collector of synths (and there might be one or two such people on KVR), but it shouldn't be a need for a producer. If a producer is thinking of what specific synth they need for a part instead of what sound they need for a part, they're really doing it wrong!

Or maybe you're doing it wrong?

Some people like to choose a set of instruments to work with, and then just use those to create their music.

These people may well looks for the best sounding 3-4 synths that fill theirs needs before they start.

[pixel85]

I think that in such simple synths like Model 84 filter is very important because there are not many modules in the entire synth. Comparison to DX7 / FM8 or even Pigments doesn't make any sense.

Ps.
NI Super 8 has a nice sounding filter. But put resonance to 100% or around - your ears will bleed - it's simply a disgusting piece of noise. Unusable for crazy fx sweeps etc. It's funny because filters in MX are clear even on 100% resonance.

Ps. e-crooner - you said that you don't pay attention to filter resonance when you're trying a new synth. It's the first or second thing I'm checking while I'm trying a new synth. The high resonance behaviour of the filter is the benchmark for the synth. Different people, different needs

[_leras]

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.

In next week's installment, Bones caves and picks up a second hand minitaur for phat ladder bass.

[sin night]

I love the Moog sound, I have various synths (including the Minitaur) and pedals by this brand, but if I want a solid bass I need to keep the resonance turned down (and that’s what I do most of the time). Being able to turn up the resonance without losing bass is nice and it’s something I miss when using a Moog (or any synth with a similar behaviour of the filter).
It’s a matter of fact that if you want to make a sound with a solid low end and play with the resonance, a Moog filter is not the wisest choice...

[Arashi]

Found this:

"The MKS-70, JX8P, JX-10 and Alpha-Junos all use the same filter topology: A 2 Pole lowpass in series with a 2 Pole Bandpass. This is quite different than the JX3P, which is an honest to goodness 4 Pole lowpass, as you say, of the same IC manufacture generation of the Juno 60 and Jupiter 8.

...

It's hardwired in series, giving you a 24db/oct Lowpass slope, and 12db/oct Highpass slope. You just don't always notice it because the non-resonant Highpass stage that comes after both has a bass boost circuit."

http://forum.vintagesynth.com/viewtopic ... 2&start=30



In the manual of the free JX-8P emulation PG-8X it also mentions the bass boost:

"The filter section contains a simple 6dB/oct high pass filter
(HPF) and a 24dB/oct low pass filter. The HPF does not have
any dynamic controls and only 4 settings. It should be noted
that '1' is the neutral setting, while '0' acts as a bass boost. '2'
and '3' enable the fixed frequency high pass filter."

Good info, thanks.