Softube Model 84 (Juno 106)

[woodsdenis]

Good lord, I agree with Bones , I think the point many are missing here is that a 106 did not have a variance in sound new as a lot of its predecessors. All 106's new sounded the same, there were no good revs or batch nos regardless of DCO or analog filters. As they age they didn't do well, unfortunately. I never owned one but played one for years in a band I was a session player in. The Softube 106 sounds and feels the same way I remember it in the same way the Synapse Legend reminds me of a Minimoog of which I did own one. Take that for whatever it means. To blindly say that it is impossible to recreate these instruments, especially with the circuit modeling that is employed these days to quote Bones is f**king bullshit.

[Rastkovic]

Good lord, I agree with Bones

Then you are lost.

[woodsdenis]

Good lord, I agree with Bones

Then you are lost.

Possibly, but rather than taking a 3rd party underhand dig at him ( I assume it was sarcasm not irony ) why not address your comments to him directly?

[Mr Arkadin]

Good lord, I agree with Bones

This is also happening to me more and more as this thread goes on. There's definitely some sort of displacement going on in the universe somewhere. The voice of reason is a guy who doesn't even like the Juno-106.

[BONES]

But he does quite like the Model 84. It is indeed very confusing. I did buy a Boutique JU-06 and it wasn't the sound I didn't like, it was how limiting it felt. I got exactly two good patches out of it and everything else I made was basically a variation on one or the other of those. At least Model 84 extends its possibilities enough to make it more useful.

[ghettosynth]

Specifically, it's a ramp generator that is reset digitally when it reaches the right point for the desired frequency, the square wave is then derived from that by a simple analogue comparator.

The Juno oscillator design is an ingenious invention that is almost purely analog, and even the 'digital' aspect of the reset signal could in theory be done in the purely analogue domain.

It is a ramp generator, but it is not reset "when it reaches the right point," at all. It is reset by one of the 8253 timing chips which strictly control the frequency of the oscillator. In fact, the ramp specifically does not reach the right point and, hence, the output level must be adjusted by a correction voltage. This is the fundamental difference between a DCO and a VCO. If it makes you feel better to call it analog, knock yourself out, but for many, it's not analog where it counts.

It is, at best, misleading to say that this reset circuit could be replaced by an analogue circuit. While true, this would mean that you would be constructing the rest of the VCO, frankly, with all the important bits. In particular, now your reset pulse is generated by a comparator that has some analog fluctuation at the VCO operating frequency and often you would need an expo converter on the front end. All of this contributes to the "analog" character of a VCO.

The high frequency clock in the Juno 106 runs at 8MHz and is crystal controlled. This means that it is extremely stable. To know that this is important for the sound of DCOs vs VCOs you only need to look at the Oberheim Matrix 6 schematic. The Matrix 6 circuit use three separate varactor controlled, e.g., not crystal controlled so less stable, oscillators so that oscillators within a voice have some variation from each other. This need for variation is more noticeable in a two oscillator synth. This higher cost circuit was ditched in the Matrix 1000.

What is analog about a DCO is the output waveform. This means that its harmonic content is similar to a very stable VCO.

See the Electric Druid explanation for more detail.

https://electricdruid.net/roland-juno-dcos/

Bottom line is that DCOs don't sound like VCOs and the Juno 106 DCO isn't anything special. Some of the variations they added to later circuits, e.g., the JX10, are a bit more interesting. But the Juno 106 uses essentially the same idea that is used in all of the early to mid 80s DCO based synths. It isn't any more analog than a M6/M1000 or any of the other assorted CEM3387 based synths of the day.

[cyberheater]

It is a ramp generator, but it is not reset "when it reaches the right point," at all. It is reset by one of the 8253 timing chips which strictly control the frequency of the oscillator. In fact, the ramp specifically does not reach the right point and, hence, the output level must be adjusted by a correction voltage. This is the fundamental difference between a DCO and a VCO. If it makes you feel better to call it analog, knock yourself out, but for many, it's not analog where it counts.

I have to disagree here. Yes. I know exactly how the Juno DCO works. Although as you say the timing of the reset is controlled by a timing chip so there is no analogue variation relative to frequency the important point if that the waveform generation is pure analogue. The Juno ramp waveform is bright and buzzy. You also have a square wave sub oscillators which is derived directly from the timing chip for wonderful tight basses.

Add in a great filter and have a poly synth that covers a huge range of sounds which explains the huge popularity of this synth and why it's still used today. A true synth legend.

[Synth Master Jedi]

Juno 106, overrated?

I would disagree with that. It's a classic synth that many people owned, it was relatively cheap priced and it sounded good, that sounds like a good combo and I'm not surprised that it became as popular as it did.

It was also very simple to program and even a person who has never touched a synth before can quickly get to know a Juno 106 if they bought one. I know, because it was one of the first synths that I ever owned a long time ago and I didn't know much about synths at the time, but I quickly got to know the Juno-106.

Not everybody cares about complex modular synths or synths with a million features on them.

Bob Moog was against the Minimoog I read recently, but ironically it turned out to be the synth that everybody wanted from Moog at the time. The Minimoog was smaller, cheaper and simpler than their larger synths, so I guess it makes sense that the Minimoog caught on.

Softube did a great job with their plugin of both the Minimoog and the 106.

[gondii]

$59 until 24th. I think I‘ll go for it now.

Edit: with code SYNTHHEAVEN

[briefcasemanx]

There is nothing interesting about the Juno-106 DCO? I disagree. My Juno-106's oscillators (the square wave mostly, the saw is kinda "meh") sound better and subtly "deeper" than any of the VST emulations I've tried on a basic patch with the filter fully open. I cannot describe in technical terms what "deeper" means mathematically, but neither can the devs because they aren't adding it to their emulations (or maybe they are excising it with performance optimizations?).

Although without taking component level readings I can't 100% say it's the oscillator, I guess it could be some sort of subtle distortion or saturation from going through analog circuitry that's not being properly emulated (maybe emulating extremely subtle distortion between each and every component for every single voice would be wildly cpu inefficient?), but there's something subtly different. It's the only analog synth I own currently, but I imagine I'll find other similar subtle differences when I buy a prophet.

Again, the differences I heard were subtle, but I doubt it's a "differences between 2 units" thing, because I just haven't heard ANY plugin fully recreate some of the nicer sounding analog PWM/square wave sounds, like Roland stuff especially Jupiter-4 or Minikorg 700fs. Juno-106 square sounds really nice to me too, despite it's stable pitch.

[zerocrossing]

As usual, all I care about is, “do I like it.” I do. The Juno 106 was my first synth, but it was purchased new, and I’ve not really touched one since 1987 or so. Model 84 brings me right back, but memory is a tricky thing and all I can say is it feels like I’m back with my old synth when I play with it. Is it 100%? Yes, but to me. By that I mean, I really don’t care about having an exact Juno 106 sound, as I’m never going to buy one again. Too limited to take up that much space in my world, and I don’t want to deal with elderly electronics. So, having something that gets very close but doesn’t have any of the down side is fine by me.

[briefcasemanx]

As usual, all I care about is, “do I like it.” I do. The Juno 106 was my first synth, but it was purchased new, and I’ve not really touched one since 1987 or so. Model 84 brings me right back, but memory is a tricky thing and all I can say is it feels like I’m back with my old synth when I play with it. Is it 100%? Yes, but to me. By that I mean, I really don’t care about having an exact Juno 106 sound, as I’m never going to buy one again. Too limited to take up that much space in my world, and I don’t want to deal with elderly electronics. So, having something that gets very close but doesn’t have any of the down side is fine by me.

This is the most important thing, far, FAR more important than how accurate the emulation is.

[zerocrossing]

As usual, all I care about is, “do I like it.” I do. The Juno 106 was my first synth, but it was purchased new, and I’ve not really touched one since 1987 or so. Model 84 brings me right back, but memory is a tricky thing and all I can say is it feels like I’m back with my old synth when I play with it. Is it 100%? Yes, but to me. By that I mean, I really don’t care about having an exact Juno 106 sound, as I’m never going to buy one again. Too limited to take up that much space in my world, and I don’t want to deal with elderly electronics. So, having something that gets very close but doesn’t have any of the down side is fine by me.

This is the most important thing, far, FAR more important than how accurate the emulation is.

I should also say that a big part of why I purchased it is because I‘m a huge fan of Softube Modular, so I really wanted the components for extra variety.

I do like having hardware analogs. I have 7 of them. I still love using software too, because it fills gaps in my little studio, which is lacking any sort of hardware Roland sound. I own the Roland Aria 106 as well, along with the Jupiter 8, 4, JX, 808 System 8 and System 100. That’s the exact amount of Roland I like in my world.

[briefcasemanx]

As usual, all I care about is, “do I like it.” I do. The Juno 106 was my first synth, but it was purchased new, and I’ve not really touched one since 1987 or so. Model 84 brings me right back, but memory is a tricky thing and all I can say is it feels like I’m back with my old synth when I play with it. Is it 100%? Yes, but to me. By that I mean, I really don’t care about having an exact Juno 106 sound, as I’m never going to buy one again. Too limited to take up that much space in my world, and I don’t want to deal with elderly electronics. So, having something that gets very close but doesn’t have any of the down side is fine by me.

This is the most important thing, far, FAR more important than how accurate the emulation is.

I should also say that a big part of why I purchased it is because I‘m a huge fan of Softube Modular, so I really wanted the components for extra variety.

I do like having hardware analogs. I have 7 of them. I still love using software too, because it fills gaps in my little studio, which is lacking any sort of hardware Roland sound. I own the Roland Aria 106 as well, along with the Jupiter 8, 4, JX, 808 System 8 and System 100. That’s the exact amount of Roland I like in my world.

How is Jupiter 4? I haven't tried it yet but I'll prolly be subscribing to cloud again soon.

[Septic Underground]

The JP4 is the only legendary synth in use by me, the circuit mod potmeter is really cool when dialed all the way up and making some elektrolines with it. In fact after 5 years of RC subbing the only thing I use is the ZenologyPro and the JP4
(I got 10 lifetimekeys as a reward for subbing)