Roland cloud Juno 106

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Instruments Discussion
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

lotus2035 wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2024 12:02 pm
Arashi wrote: Sun Apr 14, 2024 4:18 pm 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.
Most of the Cherry Audio stuff is pretty good — even the ones that don't quite nail the emulation, like PS-20, which sounds nothing like an MS-20 but is still a good synth. But I think DCO-106 is an exception. Setting aside whether it sounds like a Juno-106, it just don't like the way it sounds and will never use it for anything.
Stormchild

Post

Arashi wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2024 1:35 pm
lotus2035 wrote: Mon Apr 15, 2024 12:02 pm
Arashi wrote: Sun Apr 14, 2024 4:18 pm 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.
Most of the Cherry Audio stuff is pretty good — even the ones that don't quite nail the emulation, like PS-20, which sounds nothing like an MS-20 but is still a good synth. But I think DCO-106 is an exception. Setting aside whether it sounds like a Juno-106, it just don't like the way it sounds and will never use it for anything.
One thing you notice immediately is that DCO-106 is a lot duller than a real 106. However, this can be dealt with easily with some EQ. Heck, i even made a track with it that sold pretty well so in a final mix you won't be able to hear it. But it really is strange why Cherry Audio made the synth so dull sounding. Maybe they thought duller is less digital sounding, but they were wrong with that one :)

Post

Anyhow, Softube is selling an essentials bundle including Model 84 for € 49,-

Post

I think Roland outsources the creation of some of its software products to other developers, and that's why the emulations aren't the most accurate, but I'm not sure.

Post

musicartist99 wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2024 10:22 am I think Roland outsources the creation of some of its software products to other developers, and that's why the emulations aren't the most accurate, but I'm not sure.
Nope. Apart from the original Roland Cloud sample playback things, which were developed by the Canadian company they originally partnered with (and were mostly awful), they develop in-house, as far as I can see.

Post

musicartist99 wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2024 10:22 am I think Roland outsources the creation of some of its software products to other developers, and that's why the emulations aren't the most accurate, but I'm not sure.
All their emulations are developed by Roland in Japan.

With the exception of TB-303 (which IMO falls short of the hardware, and is beaten by ABL3 in software), I think Roland's plugins are on par with anything else out there. They aren't flawless (for example, the JX-3P cross mod has been shown not to model the hardware behavior correctly), but I've done a lot of patch matching between the Roland plugins and the best alternatives, and they are always neck-and-neck. In most cases I can get them to sound pretty much exactly the same.

There are cases where one can sound better than the other (or produce sounds the other can't match) due to extra features that weren't on the originals — things like using envelopes to control pulse width on the Juno-106 (the Roland plugin has it, but the original hardware and Softube plugin don't), or the unison stereo spread feature on TAL J-8 (not available in the original hardware or Roland plugin). But setting those aside, Roland's emulations are (IMO) generally as good as or better than anyone else's.
Stormchild

Post

Arashi wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2024 2:55 pm But setting those aside, Roland's emulations are (IMO) generally as good as or better than anyone else's.
I agree, in terms of the emulation side - they're really pretty good. Their *interfaces* though leave a lot of room for improvement, when you compare to current standard bearers. They could look, feel, and work a lot better than they currently do.

Post

beely wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2024 3:38 pm
Arashi wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2024 2:55 pm But setting those aside, Roland's emulations are (IMO) generally as good as or better than anyone else's.
I agree, in terms of the emulation side - they're really pretty good. Their *interfaces* though leave a lot of room for improvement, when you compare to current standard bearers. They could look, feel, and work a lot better than they currently do.
Agreed. I'm pretty happy with the recent 2.0 updates, which added high res graphics (which look fantastic, and honor the beautiful designs of the original hardware), new preset browser with ratings (and a few key controls you can tweak while browsing), and some other improvements. But the old modal patch management window is still there, as it's still needed for a couple things, and still sucks.

The older plugins all need the 2.0 treatment, and the old clunky patch window needs to be eradicated. I'm sure they're working on it, but progress has been slow, and we haven't gotten any new instruments in quite awhile either.

The situation with software developed outside of Japan — Roland Cloud Manager, ZenBeats, and Galaxias — is a lot more grim. Every attempt to improve Cloud Manager has just replaced one bad interface with another. ZenBeats is a UX nightmare that I don't think can be salvaged. And Galaxias, I'm sorry to say, is a cluttered mess too. Fortunately, I have zero interest in ZenBeats or Galaxias anyway (I've already uninstalled both), but we all have to use Cloud Manager, and at this point all I can hope for is that they don't make it any worse.
Stormchild

Post

Dark Fiber wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2024 6:11 am Anyhow, Softube is selling an essentials bundle including Model 84 for € 49,-
Yep, sweet deal. Also includes British Channel (Neve), FET Mk2, Tape and their Wasted Space reverb. I already had the latter, so I only paid $39 for the bundle.

Post

Im surprised that people are shitting on DCO-06, its a better emulation of Juno then Roland cloud is. Here is some comparisons and food for thought. Here is Model 84 vs Juno 106 which is basiclyu 99.9 percent accurate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duuUbFn7css&t=176s

DCO-06 is very very very close to Juno 106 when it comes to parameter preset matching only difference is EQ tone, which you can fix by just EQ which will always apply same profile. Other Junos by Arturia, Roland, Tal, U-He, Image-Line just gets it wrong, especially when mixing Saw and Sub oscillators, you dont get this smooth sound like with Roland, Model and DCO-06. I strongly advice to re-evaluate Cherrys Audio attempt, despite having different profile (being dull) its really one of the best emulations.

Post

Lbdunequest wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2024 12:36 am Im surprised that people are shitting on DCO-06, its a better emulation of Juno then Roland cloud is. Here is some comparisons and food for thought. Here is Model 84 vs Juno 106 which is basiclyu 99.9 percent accurate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duuUbFn7css&t=176s

DCO-06 is very very very close to Juno 106 when it comes to parameter preset matching only difference is EQ tone, which you can fix by just EQ which will always apply same profile. Other Junos by Arturia, Roland, Tal, U-He, Image-Line just gets it wrong, especially when mixing Saw and Sub oscillators, you dont get this smooth sound like with Roland, Model and DCO-06. I strongly advice to re-evaluate Cherrys Audio attempt, despite having different profile (being dull) its really one of the best emulations.
That is the problem and it should sound like a 106 without having to add external effects or it have failed as a Emulation.

It doesn't sound close and needs Eq to almost get there.
The hpf Doesn't boost as it does on the hw when set at 0.
The Chorus is totaly wrong and introduces weird artifacts.

You can create similar sounds with many synths if you get creative enough with effects and the point with a Emulation is that you buy it to get that sound without having to do lots of extra work to get there.

If you want that sound you go for something that Emulates it properly from the start like Roland or Softube.

Post

D-Fusion wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2024 2:26 am
Lbdunequest wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2024 12:36 am Im surprised that people are shitting on DCO-06, its a better emulation of Juno then Roland cloud is. Here is some comparisons and food for thought. Here is Model 84 vs Juno 106 which is basiclyu 99.9 percent accurate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duuUbFn7css&t=176s

DCO-06 is very very very close to Juno 106 when it comes to parameter preset matching only difference is EQ tone, which you can fix by just EQ which will always apply same profile. Other Junos by Arturia, Roland, Tal, U-He, Image-Line just gets it wrong, especially when mixing Saw and Sub oscillators, you dont get this smooth sound like with Roland, Model and DCO-06. I strongly advice to re-evaluate Cherrys Audio attempt, despite having different profile (being dull) its really one of the best emulations.
That is the problem and it should sound like a 106 without having to add external effects or it have failed as a Emulation.

It doesn't sound close and needs Eq to almost get there.
The hpf Doesn't boost as it does on the hw when set at 0.
The Chorus is totaly wrong and introduces weird artifacts.

You can create similar sounds with many synths if you get creative enough with effects and the point with a Emulation is that you buy it to get that sound without having to do lots of extra work to get there.

If you want that sound you go for something that Emulates it properly from the start like Roland or Softube.
If thats the case then Roland Cloud version also fails in tone regard :) But when it comes to precision, interaction between components, DCO, Cloud and Model the only ones that get its right. Just compare Saw and sub oscillators with the rest, Tal, Arturia, Diva, you will hear what i mean :) and that is more important then some tiny eq, because tiny eq - can be fixed, phasing between oscillators - cant be fixed.

Post

Arashi wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2024 2:55 pm
musicartist99 wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2024 10:22 am I think Roland outsources the creation of some of its software products to other developers, and that's why the emulations aren't the most accurate, but I'm not sure.
All their emulations are developed by Roland in Japan.

With the exception of TB-303 (which IMO falls short of the hardware, and is beaten by ABL3 in software), I think Roland's plugins are on par with anything else out there. They aren't flawless (for example, the JX-3P cross mod has been shown not to model the hardware behavior correctly), but I've done a lot of patch matching between the Roland plugins and the best alternatives, and they are always neck-and-neck. In most cases I can get them to sound pretty much exactly the same.

There are cases where one can sound better than the other (or produce sounds the other can't match) due to extra features that weren't on the originals — things like using envelopes to control pulse width on the Juno-106 (the Roland plugin has it, but the original hardware and Softube plugin don't), or the unison stereo spread feature on TAL J-8 (not available in the original hardware or Roland plugin). But setting those aside, Roland's emulations are (IMO) generally as good as or better than anyone else's.
I have rebuild Roland patches in Arturia, Tal and Softube - they sound identical but the other companies are cheaper and use much less resources.
Every Roland plugin uses 10 percent cpu consumption without playing any note

Post

Lbdunequest wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2024 12:36 am Im surprised that people are shitting on DCO-06, its a better emulation of Juno then Roland cloud is.
If you mean DCO-106…no. It's really bad. Not even close.
Stormchild

Post

sacer wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2024 2:54 am I have rebuild Roland patches in Arturia, Tal and Softube - they sound identical but the other companies are cheaper and use much less resources.
Every Roland plugin uses 10 percent cpu consumption without playing any note
That's true. Roland's ACB emulations are not as CPU-efficient as other plugins. My guess is they're using an emulation layer so the plugins can run exactly the same code that runs on their custom DSP chips (BMC/ESC2) in the System-1/8 and boutiques, to ensure identical sound and behavior.

On my previous machine (a 2015 iMac with quad Intel i7 @ 4 GHz), this inefficiency was really frustrating. The plugins would always use the same amount of CPU, even when idle, and had occasional CPU spikes as well. It was really only an issue with the poly synths; for a single voice, it's not so bad. Last year I got a Mac Studio (M2 Max) and I haven't had any issues since.
Stormchild

Return to “Instruments”