I only had it for three weeks – current record! Blame it on the Juno-6. It suddenly was for sale one block from where I live for a good price. I can confirm the fact that there’s a sonic difference, the Juno-6 sounds more organic/fatter/analog than the Juno-106. Not saying that I don’t like Juno-106, George Michael was right, it’s a great synth. But I don’t need both. The Juno-106 was near mint, so I thought I’d share some photos of it.
I just bought a Juno-6 from someone in the hood. It will replace the Juno-106 I bought less than two weeks ago. So far I’m very impressed by the Juno-6! It doesn’t have midi or polyphonic portamento (is it really useful?) but it does have an arpeggiator! And it sounds fantastic! More on the sonic differences in a later post.
Some quick history:
1982: Roland launches the first Juno ever – the Juno 6 – a six voice single DCO analog
1982: Because of the Korg Polysix and it’s ability to save patches, the Juno-60 is introduced which is a Juno-6 upgraded with patch memory. It also adds DCB (Roland’s own pre-midi standard)
1984: The Juno-106 replaces the Juno-60. The Juno-106 has midi and portamento, but the arpeggiator is gone. Also, some of the chips are now integrated. Time will later tell that these chips are prone to break
The Juno-106 is now for sale.
