[sdiy] Roland Juno 106

[Quincas Moreira]

Maybe this could be done with an FPGA?

[image: QMA]

Quincas Moreira
Director | QMA
mobile:  5534988825
site:  quincasmoreira.com
email:  quincas at gmail.com



On Sun 18 Feb 2024 at 4:48 a.m. Rutger Vlek via Synth-diy <
synth-diy at synth-diy.org> wrote:

> Interesting discussion! What fascinates me is the following:
>
> Instruments are being 'cloned', and some clones are closer to the original
> than others (as Roland's JU-06 resembles a Juno 106 but not quite). If one
> is interested in exhaustively duplicating every single aspect of the
> original (including the UX-part), why not build the exact same instrument?
> I know, that's challenging given some part may no longer be available, but
> then the engineering question is: how do I make it work with modern parts
> without losing any of the properties of the old circuit.
>
> However, some properties of the original synth were actually not
> intentionally designed, but rather emerged as a consequence of other
> engineering decisions and properties of available parts. The original Juno
> 106 that we've become to like so much is only partially the result of
> clever engineering. The original Juno also had unintended properties, some
> of which turned out to be musically favourable/characterful. These were
> 'lucky accidents'. However, some unintended properties have no musical
> value whatsoever, or are even detrimental. So how do we differentiate
> between these two categories?
>
> It's easy to state that a clone is not resembling the original circuit,
> because in many cases it isn't. Whether that's a problem is another thing.
> Do we need all the quirks of the original, or only those quirks that have
> musical value? If someone states that a clone 'musically' falls short of
> mimicking the original, then we have to deepen our understanding of what
> actually makes a good instrument. However, the question is to what extent
> we can achieve that. And if we take musical instrument design to such a
> high degree of 'controlled engineering', don't we miss out on the chance to
> make our own 'lucky accidents' that fuel the gear lust of future
> generations?
>
> Rutger
>
> Op ma 12 feb 2024 om 01:04 schreef brianw <brianw at audiobanshee.com>:
>
>> On Feb 11, 2024, at 1:50 AM, Gordon wrote:
>> > On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 04:42:08PM -0800, brian wrote:
>> >> What's "the digital part"?
>> >
>> >> There's no need to 'clone' the firmware, since that digital aspect
>> doesn't really affect the sound.
>> >
>> > Okay, so you're saying that the way the control ranges interact, the
>> way the envelopes work over particular ranges, and the way the LFO works -
>> and the way that is all mixed together to control the oscillators and
>> envelopes - you're saying that this "doesn't really affect the sound"?
>> >
>> > That's an interesting take on it.
>>
>> Thanks for the details. If you forgive me my engineering focus on
>> semantics, then what you're saying is that the digital envelopes and
>> digital LFO, as well as the specifics of the frequency control for the DCO,
>> is what needs to be recreated. i.e. It's not a 'clone' of the CPU, per se,
>> or the entire firmware, but the audible aspects and characteristics of the
>> signals generated by the CPU - the envelopes and frequency controls - that
>> are critical.
>>
>>
>> >> I'm just curious what you're saying has yet to be reproduced with
>> modern technology...
>> >
>> > Nobody seems to really understand what the voice CPU is doing, so they
>> try to "improve" it. This is nothing short of disastrous. If you compare
>> the JU-06 to a real Juno 106 for example, it doesn't sound anything like
>> the "real deal" because it just doesn't get the envelopes even close to
>> correct.
>> >
>> > That's leaving out all the "higher order effects" like the inherent
>> wobblyness that the LFO has, the variation in the envelope times, and so
>> on. There's a lot going on in that 2kB of code and 1.5kB of lookup tables.
>>
>> This makes sense.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________
>> This is the Synth-diy mailing list
>> Submit email to: Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
>> View archive at: https://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/
>> Check your settings at: https://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>> Selling or trading? Use marketplace at synth-diy.org
>>
> ________________________________________________________
> This is the Synth-diy mailing list
> Submit email to: Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
> View archive at: https://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/
> Check your settings at: https://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
> Selling or trading? Use marketplace at synth-diy.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/attachments/20240218/ceafdb21/attachment.htm>