Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: All about the Roland Jupiter-series

previous by date index next by date
previous in topic topic list  

Subject: Re: Jupiters

From: "Verschut, Ricardo" <Ricardo_Verschut@...
Date: 1999-04-19

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Larry Hendry [mailto:jlarryh@...]

> From: Chad Gould <Chad_Gould@...>
> Euro prices vs. US prices? The Juno 2 goes for $350 here, the Juno 1 for
> $250, it really hasn't moved much in the last several years.
> Juno 106 goes for $350-$400 now, 60 is around $300 I think.
> In Europe its higher...

Excellent point Chad. I am often guilty of thinking in terms of US dollars
and forgetting what a global medium this is. Thanks for the reminder.

> Only those with a self-osc resonant LPF, the MKS-80 does _NOT_ have one
> instance. The Junos (106 and 60 at least) have one of the best piercing
> resonances out there I think. There's some cool Juno sounds that are
> impossible on the MKS-80 because of this.
> The oscillators sound way different too, I think if you are looking to
> DCO bleepy sounds on VCO synths and are picky about your sound you will
> disappointed.
> The Jupiter 6s and MKS-80s envelopes are software-based and are a bit
> sluggish compared to at least the 106 in gate mode, I think all the Junos
> use hardware envs (at least up to the 106).
> So in short, I would _NOT_ buy a Jupiter solely to get Juno sounds,
though I
> do think the Jups are better synths overall.

More excellent points Chad. When thinking about the filters, I was
thinking of my JP-6 and not MKS-80. Since I have aquired the JP-6 I find
the MKS-80 getting less and less use. And, you are right about Junos
having a signature of thier own. My Juno 60 falls into that class of synth
I will take with me to the grave. I paid $1250 US for my first one and
only $165 the second time around when they had slipped greatly in
popularity. Because of some of the very things you have pointed out, I
missed my J-60 so much after selling it, I had to buy another.

Thanks for another point of view.