Behringer DeepMind 12 vs Roland Juno 60

Martin Swan of Vile Electrodes shared this comparison of the new Behringer DeepMind 12 and the Roland Juno 60.

Here’s what Swan has to say about the video:

Rather than looking at every single feature of the DM12, it compares the basic building blocks of the sound – DCOs, VCF, VCA, Envelopes – of each synth. Personally I think they are pretty similar, but the DM12 has a few interesting advantages, and that’s before you even get to more advanced modern features such as the modulation matrix or the effects section.

The Juno is a classic synth, but the DM12 easily stands up to the Juno in my view. And whilst I’m not ready to get rid of my Junos (I do use them an awful lot!) I’m certainly going to be using the DM12 in place of the Juno for live duties, and for doing lots of things the Junos can’t.

This video has been made partially as a response to some of the negative comments that people (most of whom have never played the synth) have been making about the DM12.

My experience of using the DM12, its sound and build quality, and my dealings with Behringer and Midas, have been nothing but positive.

For the story behind the DM 12, audio demos and more, see our DeepMind 12 video playlist, below:

Pricing and Availability

The Behringer DeepMind 12 is now available in limited quantities, priced at US $999.

24 thoughts on “Behringer DeepMind 12 vs Roland Juno 60

    1. That seems to be the big remaining question. The reviews we’ve seen haven’t highlighted it as a problem. But the question will just be whether they do excellent production or whether we see things like cold solders. That’ll be the big concern.

      A secondary concern is whether or not Behringer has reasonably good post-sale service– anyone who is itching to buy one is well advised to make sure they know what the warranty and service is from their retailer.

    1. so meta. there are about 10,000 threads wether it is possible to differentiate the Juno 60 and the Juno 106 in spite of having the essentially identical signal path.

  1. things i noticed;

    raw waves – the DM12 has a rounder bass but less presence than the juno60, DM12 generally deeper sounding

    pwm – DM12 has a slightly unpleasant high frequency scratchy sound, juno60 sounds smooth

    resonant filter sweep – DM12 sounds like it’s distorting in the very high frequencies, juno60 sounds like it’s distorting in odd places on the square wave, but pretty smooth with no wave in the filter

    env – DM12 env goes shorter and longer than the juno60

    generally pretty similar though, both very nice synths right?

    1. I noticed some similar things. To my ear, the main difference in the raw waves is just that the square types have more fundamental frequency on the DM12, which I think could easily be matched with a little HPF. For PWM, the DM12 goes further with a much narrower pulse-width at the most extreme setting. The resonant filter sweep showed that the DM12 has a much wider cutoff range, and it also revealed a bunch of aliasing in the high frequencies. It’s unexpected since it sounds similar to digital aliasing. Another thing was that the LFO speed on the DM12 smokes the Juno.

      Bottom-line, I completely agree with your assessment. They both sound good and the DM12 held it’s own pretty well, and even excelled in some ways (which is to be expected since it takes advantage of some modern advances in technology).

  2. No match. JUNO 60 remains king. The DM12 shouldnt even be compared. Why compare them? Still I prefer de Juno sound better. But maybe im just a stupid dork.

  3. I bought a brand new Juno 60 back in the day, when Roland discontinued the model and offered them at significantly reduced prices.

    It was good in the 1980s for a financial mere mortal in a basement band who couldn’t afford a JP-8, OB-8, Memorymoog etc. That being said, with what is available nowadays, why anyone would choose to pay big bucks for an old Juno is beyond me. It was a poor man’s poly, limited in sound and features compared to what you really wanted but couldn’t afford.

    I feel bad for those suckers who pay over a grand for an old Juno. Personally, I would maybe pay $200 for one at the most. But hey, as long as someone is buying at exorbitant prices, someone is selling at exorbitant prices.

    Value is in the eye (in this case also the ear) of the beholder. Henry Ford’s son Edsel was an avid art collector and paid big bucks for famous works of art (many of which were donated by Edsel and his wife to the Detroit Art Museum). His father Henry once said that he wouldn’t give a nickel for all the art in the world. Like works of art, value/worth for a synth (or anything else) is subjective.

    All that to say, I wasn’t overly impressed with the Juno when I had one, and I was not initialially attracted to the DM12 because I heard that it is Juno inspired. However, from what I’ve seen and heard of the DM12, it seems to be much more than a Juno wannabe.

      1. When Roland discontinued the Juno 60, they significantly lowered the price to get rid of them. I remember going to a Guitar Center in Chicago and buying a brand new sealed in the box Juno 60 for $800. That was a lot of money back then (and still is). It was a poly, it had patch memory, it had an arpeggiator, and it was certainly great for a teenager in a basement band. I remember that I could get it to sound just like the synth in the bridge to YYZ.

        This is an absolutely true story: My high school friends and I had a band that practiced in my parents’ basement. A bathroom shower was located on the main floor of the house immediately above our practice area. A few months after I got the new, expensive and cherished Juno 60, my brother took a shower and unbeknownst to him or anyone else, the drain pipe was leaking. I happened to casually walk down to the basement at the time to discover to my utter shock and horror a large stream of water (I’m talking a lot of water) pouring right on top of the Juno 60 panel. It was like someone took a big bucket of water and was pouring it nonstop right onto the panel for minutes on end.

        I quickly moved the Juno 60 out of the way and was so distraught thinking that my expensive Juno 60 was ruined. I picked it up and tipped it sideways, and water literally started gushing out of the synth. I was mortified.

        After the water drained out, I turned it on (probably not the thing to do) to see if, hoping against hope, it still worked. I was pleased to see that the lights came on, but literally every patch in the patch memory sounded the same, like a the LFO was set for a slow, wide modulation. It sounded like a sick, slow siren, and that’s all it would do. I was crushed and started wondering how much money it would cost to repair it (money I didn’t have).

        I took a hairdryer and blow dried it for a long time and let it sit for days to dry out before turning it back on. When I turned it back on, it worked. I couldn’t believe it. The patches were all back except for one. This is the honest truth: All of the patches in the memory came back except one. One still made that sick siren sound. I don’t know why only one patch remained that way.

        I was impressed that my beloved Juno 60 came back from the brink. And I remember thinking at the time that Roland did something right with their build quality.

        1. Big lesson here is never turn on wet electronics. Give it time to dry completely first (put small things in a bag of uncooked rice for a day or so) and usually things will turn out ok. It’s the water that shorts out the circuits.

  4. even though this is only a video comparison, which is not a true comparison, I would prefer the Juno 60. I don’t have one, I don’t own an analogue polyphonic synth, but to my ears the Juno 60 simply sounds better.

    What does that mean, the Juno 60 simply sounds better? I don’t know.

    Actually I’m a bit surprised. I expected that the Behringer DM12 would at least sound equally to a Juno 60.

  5. To me, the DM sounds closer to the 106, with the bass boost from the bottom setting of the HPF than the 60; although I still think the DM sounds pretty different from the Junos. That’s totally fine, I already own a Juno-60, and prefer that the DM has it’s own character.

  6. I thought the DM sounded good and very close to the 60, but I found myself preferring the sound of the 60 in several places. The only thing that the DM had over it in this demo was in the wider modulation amounts. Still, if I didn’t already own a 106, I’d be happy to have a DM for a modern version of this sound.

    I’ve said it before, but IMO, this is the synth that Roland SHOULD have been working to create.

  7. It’s weird when you think of how our attitudes about the DM12 are impacted by Behringer’s mixed reputation. If this very same synth was being released by Korg or Roland or Yamaha, at this price point? People would be forcefully hurling their money at their browser screens.

    As it is, Behringer hit most of the right notes with this. It’s flexible and feature-packed, regardless of the aliasing (ring mod?) on the high resonance. Apart from a few instances of the audio-placebo-effect above, most hear that while it is not identical, the differences are just that, differences. With the mod matrix and built in effects, and high-range & resolution of controls, it’s worth more than the price.

    Even the person who made the video gives it the stamp of approval.

  8. There are no Juno-60 available today for less than two grand. Unless you are a money making musician or have a really good day job, it has become a luxury collector synth. You can get near enough for 1/4 of that price and there are even free VST that can do the job in a pinch as long as you aren’t soloing too much.

Leave a Reply