Re: [AH] Roland Juno 106 vs Alpha Juno + PG300

From skkatter
Sent Sun, Mar 29th 2009, 10:44

I recently got an MKS80 without the programmer. It's all done over
sysex so it's possible to make an environment for it in Logic (or
Cubase, I use Logic though) so you can use any midi controller you own
to program it easily. I'm pretty sure the other MKS and the Alpha Juno
units can also be controlled this way too. Not ideal for a live
situation though.

The Doepfer Drehbank also sends sysex, if I remember correctly
Punkdisco on this list uses that to program his MKS80.


2009/3/29 David Evans <xxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xx>:
> On 29 Mar 2009, at 00:44, Mike Perkowitz wrote:
>> The alpha has more flexible programming -- multi-stage envelopes,
>> controllable chorus speed and depth, separate lfo speed and pwm speed,
>> aftertouch to filter. but it sounds less warm to me
> =A0I think Mike's assessment is about right. =A0I've had a JU-2+PG300 sin=
> around 1987 and it's always been reliable and sounded good. =A0The only t=
> to go wrong was that the aftertouch mysteriously stopped working, but tha=
> was because the ribbon connector for it fell out of its socket. =A0There'=
> probably a post from me about in the AH archives about it...
> =A0Anyway, I once had a 106 but got rid of it. =A0Why? =A0Well, while it =
did sound
> warmer than the JU-2, lots of things do so I felt I could easily get that
> somewhere else and the added goodies in the JU-2 architecture were too
> appealing. =A0To me the JU-2 is better than the 106 at sounds that use a =
> filter resonance but not self-oscillation (can the JU-2 filter even
> self-oscillate?), so there are lots of glistening bells and such that you
> just can't do on the 106.
>> don't bother without a pg300 though
> =A0Yeah, without some kind of programmer it is a world of hurt.