TAL-U-NO-LX. Uber accurate Juno 60 emulation.

[audiouser720]

Duplicated

[Arashi]

Although of course Arturia modeled the Juno 6 not the 60, that one appealed to me a lot.

Doesn’t matter. The 6 and 60 are exactly the same thing, except the 60 can store presets.

[EvilDragon]

They're not EXACTLY the same. 6 has a continuous highpass whereas 60 has a 4-position one. 6 also doesn't quantize parameters precisely because there is no digitization of control voltages in order to store presets, so you have greater resolution on all parameters...

[zvenx]

Although of course Arturia modeled the Juno 6 not the 60, that one appealed to me a lot.

Doesn’t matter. The 6 and 60 are exactly the same thing, except the 60 can store presets.

That isn't the only difference between them..... albeit the others may be slight.

The HPF is different for one..(variable on the Juno 6, Four Parameter Values on the Juno 60)

rsp

[zvenx]

They're not EXACTLY the same. 6 has a continuous highpass whereas 60 has a 4-position one. 6 also doesn't quantize parameters precisely because there is no digitization of control voltages in order to store presets, so you have greater resolution on all parameters...

ED said it better than I did.
rsp

[electro]

Roland just released their juno 60 plugin. Wonder if it eventually sounds better than Tal.

Not a chance. Also consider the massive number of high quality 3rd party soundsets TAL-U-No LX has because for 10 years there were no onboard FX to make patch designers lazy. Also the DRM nightmare that is Roland Cloud. TAL-U-No-LX is the last word in Juno 60 emulations.

[Arashi]

Yes, I know the HPF is continuous rather than segmented. My point is the two synths sound exactly the same (other than calibration differences between real ones). It makes no real difference which one Arturia modeled. They also added numerous features not present on any of the Juno-6/60/106.

[Arashi]

They're not EXACTLY the same. 6 has a continuous highpass whereas 60 has a 4-position one. 6 also doesn't quantize parameters precisely because there is no digitization of control voltages in order to store presets, so you have greater resolution on all parameters...

That only affects recall, not live control, and in any case is not something that translates to the emulations, which is what we’re discussing here. (Again, my point was it doesn’t matter whether Arturia modeled the 6 or 60.)

[Arashi]

Not a chance. Also consider the massive number of high quality 3rd party soundsets TAL-U-No LX has because for 10 years there were no onboard FX to make patch designers lazy. Also the DRM nightmare that is Roland Cloud. TAL-U-No-LX is the last word in Juno 60 emulations.

Roland Cloud sucks, and their plugins use way too much CPU, but it is perfectly possible they did a better job modeling it than TAL. Only way to find out is to actually compare them properly.

[briefcasemanx]

I don't think the Roland Cloud Juno sounds very good other than the chorus (which sounds amazing and almost exactly like my hardware Juno 106). With the chorus off it sounds very digital. TAL is better and overall I think Arturia is best. TAL might have the most "analog" sounding filter.

There are much better and cheaper options than Roland cloud these days IMO.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Not a chance. Also consider the massive number of high quality 3rd party soundsets TAL-U-No LX has because for 10 years there were no onboard FX to make patch designers lazy. Also the DRM nightmare that is Roland Cloud. TAL-U-No-LX is the last word in Juno 60 emulations.

Roland Cloud sucks, and their plugins use way too much CPU, but it is perfectly possible they did a better job modeling it than TAL. Only way to find out is to actually compare them properly.

Let me tell you this: I own a System-8 hardware with the Jupiter-8 and Juno-106 models, AND I'm a Roland Cloud subscriber and have been for years. I've given Roland a lot of money...

...The TAL J-8 sounds a LOT better than the Roland Cloud Jupiter-8 in every way. So the one I spent like $80 sounds significantly better than the the one I spent over $2,000 on (if you factor in the hardware synth cost and a few years of Roland Cloud). The difference isn't subtle. The J-8 has a better low end, better sounding filters, better sounding effects (though just Chorus and Delay right now) and better features (Dual/Split, SC panel). But the raw sound is the most important thing and it crushes the Roland Cloud Jupiter-8 there. The TAL J-8 is one of my favorite softsynths, the System-8/Cloud Jupiter-8 has sounded bad to me for years.

The Juno's are a bit harder to compare. TAL still wins in raw sound (osc's+filters+VCA's), but the Roland Juno Chorus sounds better IMO, the Juno-60 adds the 1+11 mode missing from the 106, and replaces the phaser with a CE-1 model, and has the extra envelope which is the most important change. And it sounds decent. There's still the nasally sound I hear in the Roland Cloud Jupiter-8, but it's got a better sounding filter and is a more flexible synth due to the second envelope.

[Arashi]

...The TAL J-8 sounds a LOT better than the Roland Cloud Jupiter-8 in every way.

To you, maybe. I’ve tried it and completely disagree. Arpeggiator behavior is wrong too.

[Yorrrrrr]

J-8 is amazing and at first I thought it would make my U-No-LX completely irrelevant, but no...U-No-LX is its own little jewel. I'm so happy to have both.

[FapFilter]

I only have the SH-01A (HW) and prefer it over the bassline 101.
I wish i didn't, as i vastly prefer software over hardware.
And i love TAL.
Of course there are enough credible opinions about both synths with exactly opposite conclusions, but still i can't imagine how Roland stuff could be considered crappy sounding compared to anything.
The rest about the cloud, other than about the sounds, seems to be highly dubious of course though

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

...The TAL J-8 sounds a LOT better than the Roland Cloud Jupiter-8 in every way.

To you, maybe. I’ve tried it and completely disagree. Arpeggiator behavior is wrong too.

I have no idea what the the correct arpeggiator behavior is. And what's the point if the Roland Cloud version sounds like crap in comparison! To me. Obviously, you are a different person and will have different opinions. But I'm very familiar with both, spent several years with the Roland Jupiter-8 model (update: I've had it since fall of 2016 - plenty of time to familiarize myself with the model) and have every reason in the world to prefer that version and do not.

Also, if you're going to nitpick about the arpeggiator behavior then ok, I counter that with: the Roland Cloud version has no split/dual functionality. Which is a way important feature than the order of the note playback in the arpeggiator.