Arturia V Collection 8 official thread

[briefcasemanx]

Feel free to speak for yourself on that one when you have the hardware in front of you to do a comparison. Until then, have fun talking about it on the internet.

Huh? Uh, yes: I talk about it on the internet. You know you're in an online forum, right? You seem confused about your whereabouts, it seems.

And I don't need actual hardware in front of me to know that your bias is real, just as it is for every dude in this forum who says silly things like "the hardware oscillators are more 3D."

Yeah, i'm on a forum talking about things that I actually have experience with...like experience with 5 minutes ago. That makes one of us.

Your real bias is that you parrot ideas you heard from other forum dwellers who also don't have have gear in front of them yet they have super strong opinions, enough to argue with people that do, based off of literally nothing except your own pre-concieved notion about certain words that I consciously chose to use despite knowing it might bring out people like you. Because I find those words to be good subjective descriptions of what I'm hearing. I literally added those words in after writing the rest of my post after deliberation, but decided to add them because I'm not going to let random forum guy X dictate how I speak about something I have right in front of me.

What's the larger bias, someone who has an opinion about a thing after spending hours listening and testing a thing? Or...someone who has an opinion about a thing based of the words used by another person who has actual current experience with a thing when expressing their opinion? There's an easy answer to that question.

I should also state that I haven't used my Juno in years, it was in storage, and it needs some TLC. I have no plans to use it any time soon with digital emulations this good. I absolutely WANT the emulations to match the hardware so that I never have to pull it out again. That's why I own so many Juno emulations, I want the best sounding Juno in my computer that I can get. The plugins sound as good or better than the hardware to me for a few situations where the hardware gets finnicky, but overall the hardware wins, specifically the filter and the square wave sounds from the oscillators. I'm actually biased against the hardware. It feels like an anchor that I keep solely out of nostalgia and because I adore how it looks (it's been useful in a few photoshoots).

I'll certainly entertain anyone the criticism of my adjectives from anyone with Juno hardware. Anything less is a waste of my valuable time, and the time of others that have to read this...unless you're down to lose that $1,000. We both live in the same city going by your profile so we could make that bet actually happen post-covid. Or we can just move on to more productive conversations, up to you.

[PatchAdamz]

This vibrato with 1+2 is also mentioned in the Arturia video. It seems to be the original behaviour of the Juno chorus.
Definitely a good free gift from Arturia! The chorus also works well on mono sounds like bass.
I tried this here with Mode I (bypassed the first bars).
Only Bass

...and all together with the enabled chorus on the bass (only 40s)
All

Nice job!
Yes, free is good, and useful.

[fmr]

I'll certainly entertain anyone the criticism of my adjectives from anyone with Juno hardware. Anything less is a waste of my valuable time, and the time of others that have to read this...unless you're down to lose that $1,000.

OK, as I already wrote, I have a REAL Juno-60. And, contrary to what happens with yours, mine is in good condition.

Mistake 1: You are comparing two different things. The Juno-106 is DIFFERENT. The oscillators are different, and the filter is different.

Regarding the "oscillators": First, I really laugh about a SINGLE MONO oscillator being 3D. I dare you to make recordings and post them. What makes the Juno sound 3D is exactly the chorus.

Second: You can't compare the sound of the two because they are based in different ICs. The ICs may be close, but they are not the same. And the Juno-106 was bass boosted when compared with the Juno-6 and Juno-60 which makes it sound a little different too.

This said, remember I HAVE A JUNO-60, so I'm not talking about hear-saying.

[briefcasemanx]

I'll certainly entertain anyone the criticism of my adjectives from anyone with Juno hardware. Anything less is a waste of my valuable time, and the time of others that have to read this...unless you're down to lose that $1,000.

OK, as I already wrote, I have a REAL Juno-60. And, contrary to what happens with yours, mine is in good condition.

Mistake 1: You are comparing two different things. The Juno-106 is DIFFERENT. The oscillators are different, and the filter is different.

Regarding the "oscillators": First, I really laugh about a SINGLE MONO oscillator being 3D. I dare you to make recordings and post them. What makes the Juno sound 3D is exactly the chorus.

Second: You can't compare the sound of the two because they are based in different ICs. The ICs may be close, but they are not the same. And the Juno-106 was bass boosted when compared with the Juno-6 and Juno-60 which makes it sound a little different too.

This said, remember I HAVE A JUNO-60, so I'm not talking about hear-saying.

You should probably re-read my post because I was talking about the comparing all of the Juno plugins. Adjectives are subjective, I feel that the oscillator has depth to it that the plugins (106, 60, or 6) lack, most specifically the square wave (did most of my testing using the sub-oscillator). Feel free to ignore that I said the dreaded word "3D" if you only allow yourself to take it hyper literally, I'm sure there are some others that understand what I'm talking about.

Not to mention some of the plugins sound similar in the oscillators, so either the different Junos aren't reaaaalllly that far apart or the plugins fail to capture the analog oscillator sound perfectly. None of them captures the certain quality that I hear in my hardware that to me, subjectively, sounds "deep" or even, gasp, "3D". Maybe the hardware Juno 60 you have has oscillators sound worse or something, but I doubt it. I do specifically remember thinking the raw Juno-6 oscillators sounded better than the Juno-106, but I sold the Juno-6 anyway because the 106 had patch memory.

Tell me more about this bass boost though, do you mean like EQ type circuitry? I thought the Juno-6 was actually *better* for basses when I had one. I remember the low end sounding more coherent than the 106, Maybe the bass boost thing you're talking about is what I was hearing? The Juno-6 to me sounded more aggressive and punchy, regardless of which one pushed more bass frequencies.

[fmr]

OK, as I already wrote, I have a REAL Juno-60. And, contrary to what happens with yours, mine is in good condition.

Mistake 1: You are comparing two different things. The Juno-106 is DIFFERENT. The oscillators are different, and the filter is different.

Regarding the "oscillators": First, I really laugh about a SINGLE MONO oscillator being 3D. I dare you to make recordings and post them. What makes the Juno sound 3D is exactly the chorus.

Second: You can't compare the sound of the two because they are based in different ICs. The ICs may be close, but they are not the same. And the Juno-106 was bass boosted when compared with the Juno-6 and Juno-60 which makes it sound a little different too.

This said, remember I HAVE A JUNO-60, so I'm not talking about hear-saying.

You should probably re-read my post because I was talking about the comparing all of the Juno plugins. Adjectives are subjective, I feel that the oscillator has depth to it that the plugins (106, 60, or 6) lack, most specifically the square wave (did most of my testing using the sub-oscillator). Maybe the Juno 60 oscillators sound worse or something, but I doubt it. I specifically remember thinking the raw Juno-6 oscillators sounded better than the Juno-106, but I sold the Juno-6 anyway because it had patch memory.

The Juno-60 also had patch memory (that's the one I have).

Explain this bass boost though, do you mean like EQ type circuitry? I thought the Juno-6 was better for basses when I had one. I remember the low end sounding more coherent than the 106, Maybe the bass boost thing you're talking about is what I was hearing? The Juno-6 to me sounded more aggressive and punchy, regardless of which one pushed more bass frequencies.

Regarding the bass boost, yes you can look at it as some kind of EQ applied. It is in the 106, NOT the previous units. That's maybe because maybe the VCA in the 106 isn't so good as the previous ones. The envelopes in the 106 are not as punchy and aggressive (reportedly). I know that the envelopes in the Juno-6/Juno-60 are very punchy and aggressive, and that may lead to a perceived more powerful bass, since they add a kind of "click" to the beginning of the sound.

[fmr]

deleted (double post)

[briefcasemanx]

Yeah I definitely remember the Juno 6 sounding punchier. The thing ripped. The Juno 60 sounds like the best of the 3 with the patch memory (and wood side paneling, lol). I don't remember why I decided on the 106 over the 60 back in the day, but I think it might have been midi, which I needed at the time. I feel like I also remember hearing later that someone came out with an easy kit for retrofitting the 60 with midi using CV or something like that, which pissed me off. Information about synth stuff was way harder to come by at that time.

Regardless, I'm in love with the Arturia Jun-6v. Trying to figure out now if I like the Jupiter v4 or the Tal J8. I bought both because I'm an idiot, but they sound awesome and uhhh, from initial impression very different?

[fmr]

I also remember hearing later that someone came out with an easy kit for retrofitting the 60 with midi using CV or something like that, which pissed me off. Information about synth stuff was way harder to come by at that time.

They used the DCB port. Actually, the MIDI spec was partially based on the protocol developed by Roland for that port, which was featured in the Juno-60 and the Jupiter-8 (at least).

[Arashi]

DCOs are trivial to emulate. The character of the Juno-6/60/106 is in the filter and chorus.

[Lint_Huffer7]

I've been demoing all the Juno 6/60/106 softsynths [etc etc]

So basically none of the softsynths sound like a busted Juno that's been sitting in storage for years? Good to know, I guess.

none of them sound completely analog

The Juno-106 had digitally-controlled oscillators (this was one of the major selling points back in the day), so if yours sounds "analog" then it's time for a refurbish.

There was a youtube video of a blind comparison of repro patches vs the real thing, and I got 8/10 correct.

Ah, yes, an unlinked Youtube video made by someone who may or may not have programmed their patches properly, whose original Juno-106 may or may not have been sending telltale line noise out the jacks.

But I suppose I should be a little more understanding - after all, my uncle works at Nintendo and I got an 8/10 on the last stage of the new Mario where he can ride on Sonic and you can buy a dragon with Dragon Coins and you get a score for how well you did.

[dumbledog]

what's with the attitude, dang

[garliccorgi]

I think both arturia and juno clones bring this out in people more than anything so it was bound to happen with an arturia juno clone lol

[Sequent]

The Clone Wars.

[briefcasemanx]

I've been demoing all the Juno 6/60/106 softsynths [etc etc]

So basically none of the softsynths sound like a busted Juno that's been sitting in storage for years? Good to know, I guess.

none of them sound completely analog

The Juno-106 had digitally-controlled oscillators (this was one of the major selling points back in the day), so if yours sounds "analog" then it's time for a refurbish.

There was a youtube video of a blind comparison of repro patches vs the real thing, and I got 8/10 correct.

Ah, yes, an unlinked Youtube video made by someone who may or may not have programmed their patches properly, whose original Juno-106 may or may not have been sending telltale line noise out the jacks.

But I suppose I should be a little more understanding - after all, my uncle works at Nintendo and I got an 8/10 on the last stage of the new Mario where he can ride on Sonic and you can buy a dragon with Dragon Coins and you get a score for how well you did.

It sounds like I have hurt you in some way by having a subjective opinion about gear that I own.

Without getting into the minutiae of your comments, is there anything positive you are adding to the conversation? Whether you like or dislike it, I'm at least giving input based off my experience. Your post exists as an ego stroke. The validity of my subjective opinion about gear that I have in front of me is not part a contest that will get you forum points.

I absolutely fully concede that my hardware might be broken in a way that sounds better than a spec Juno-106. I mean, I doubt it, but it's possible. DCO has nothing to do with what I'm hearing it's not fundamental pitch fluctuations. DCO is still an analog oscillator, lol.

This conversation is not fun, it is a huge waste of my time and I have productive things want to do outside of pointless internet arguments. I predict ego stroke replies to this comment as well, trying to "win" in a forum argument about one person's subjective opinion of gear that's actually in front of them (totally respect fmr's input though). I very much hope I'm wrong but being that this is KVR I'm almost assuredly not.

ANYWHO, ignoring replies to the above, the new rhodes sounds pretty damn good IMO. I never used the last version but I can definitely see myself using this, especially with distortion on it!!!

[LoveEnigma18]

Crossgrade from CHORUS JUN-6 (which was free recently) to V Collection 8 is only $399!