Synthesist Nicolas Melis shared this head-to-head comparison between the Roland Juno-60 and its Behringer knockoff, the JN-80.
While there are audible differences between some patches on the two synths, the Behringer JN-80, in many cases, gets very close.
Is this as close as one can get, when comparing old analog synths to their modern counterparts? Check out the video and let us know what you think in the comments!
For me, it’s a no.
The bass lacks body and, what’s more, I don’t know how to put it, the sound feels a bit ‘cheap’ in terms of detail.
Okay, I have to call you out. “The sound feels a bit cheap in terms of detail” is meaningless babble. You might as well say, “it sounds too orange, and not in a good way.”
It’s definitely lacking bass and not in a good way. Envelopes are a clicky mess too.
yeah, there’s a slight difference, but it’s meaningless for me as the overall tone is great.
My ears tell me the replica sounds thin, reedy and harsh in the upper-mids and highs compared to the Roland. The Behringer’s chorus is pitchy and not as rich. The filter is not as musical on the Behringer – the Roland wins there, too.
Some sounds are closer than others, some not very close at all — most of the clone’s sounds are too orange, and not in a good way. It’s nice that there is an affordable clone that is at least in the ballpark, but it’s pretty easy to hear the difference between them if you listen.
Too orange and no in a good way?
Sounds like Trump 🙂
It sounds like a clone, like Biden 😀
…
The stereo field sounds narrower in the emulation, the chorus less harmonically rich. To my ears anyway. But think about it – if this were being used in home studio for tracking in a DAW, that can be remedied. Just my 2 cents.
I can hear what you’re saying but for the price difference it’s negligible to me honestly
There is a definite lack of lower-end “oomph” in the Behringer as compared to the Roland. I’m perfectly willing to admit when a copy sounds as good as (or better than) the original, and I have no loyalty to the Juno 60, but I think anyone with a decent set of ears could tell in a blind test which is the Roland, and which is the Juno.
People are going to jump on your “cheap” comment as cognitive bias, but it’s a good way to describe that sound difference. The only reason to own a synth this simple is if it does it’s job exceptionally well, and the Behringer does not.
It’s a budget copy. While the newer components can make it sound cleaner and more modern, they’re also the reason it doesn’t capture the character and warmth of the vintage original.
OK. No oscilloscope, just my old ears and a lifetime of listening to music. Many of the patches sound the same – possibly 100% accurate. Several sound different, which I could put down to slight differences in the filter settings. A couple, noticeably the bass sounds on the Behringer, do not sound as ‘full bodied’ or as I like to say “ballsy” as the Juno. It’s not scientific but it is my opinion.
great video, thank you! except some minor differences, mostly due to different settings of the synths (eg different speed of chorus), the sound is practically identical. although hearing some differences, i could not tell which sound origins from which synth.
They are close, but they are still different instruments. They are both great.
Violinists have been doing the comparison game for a very long time. If I played a Stradivarius for 30 years and then tried a high quality copy, I would notice the difference. However, if I were unfamiliar with both the copy and the original, I wouldn’t be able to tell which is which in a blind test.
Similarly, if I play a Juno-60 for 40 years then tried the JN-80, I would notice. If I never played a vintage Juno or a JN-80, I wouldn’t know which one is the “original” in a blind test. There are both great instruments, and it is amazing how close the JN-80 gets at that price.
There are harmonic differences and that’s a big one for me. Not saying it’s a bad synth but it’s not a Juno. Get the real deal for the same price; Juno Alpha 2
“Juno” is almost synonymous with “Moog” as a generic term for a synth. Its a rare rig that’s complete without at least one select piece each from the Big Three.
My advice: pick a favorite from Roland’s Cloud, then nab a couple of the great emulations from elsewhere, like Arturia, TAL or Cherry Audio. I’m happy to have that covered so well. You can go for a Jupiter or Fantom if you prefer hardware, but the soft versions aren’t lacking at all.
The “Big Three” meaning Roland and YamaKorg. Its not as if we don’t also sprinkle things with goods from Moog, ARP, Alesis, EML., Ensoniq, etc., etc.
Never mind the sound. The UI is awful. Done by a monkey?
Me, personally, I like hardware. I went from DAW/plugins in 2023 to 100% hardware.
There were two reasons:
1: I work in IT and stare at a monitor all day. I found it uninspiring to go down to my studio and stare at a plugin on another monitor.
2: Feeling that spark of creativity, go to the studio, launching the DAW only to find out there’s zero sound to be heard and no level activity on the mixer channels (what’s wrong? Nothing changed since the last time), then spending the time it takes to troubleshoot it before you get going. Oh, and plugins and DAW crashes (they DO happen from time to time).
Third alternative: Launching the DAW only to find out I had ~50 plugin and DAW updates waiting.
But, this is what works for me. Other people have other ways of working.
You called it on the lurking updates, it sucks to be inspired then futz around with downloads, updates and restarts, to the point that the inspiration has left the building.
It was a budget synth to begin with…. so
I have zero problems with its sound
If I know what I’m listening to, the test might be entertaining but it isn’t scientific. It would be more practical and way less biased if each sound didn’t show the synths playing, only revealing at the end of each example which was the jn80 and which was the juno-60. Sometimes the differences are huge, sometimes negligible. It does seem like the original has more interesting movement at longer sounds, it sounds more musical and rich on many examples, but I’m not sure how much of that is just knowing what I’m hearing. In the bass examples, the original definitely has more low end but some examples are just way off and don’t tell you anything.
I find the attack more “straight” on the Behringer. I prefer the original, but it is probably psychologic. In a mix 99% of the people won’t notice the difference.
It really worth the price compared to the original.
That I-work-at-a-monitor-all-day thing is a serious issue. Been there. I can easily see where the fatigue sets in. I started with a workstation and got tired of staring into THAT kind of screen. The bigger one with a DAW is my idea of a win.
I have a 106 and two Alpha Junos here at the studio, as well as a JX-3p and did have a 60 here at one point as well as a 6. I think I’m pretty familiar with the sound and I think that overall they seem to have done a good job cloning the sound based on the results I’m hearing in this video. I think some of the differences were down more to programming differences like Env. Amt. to the filter or resonance settings being a bit off.
What I would like to have heard is how similar they sound when you push the OG to greater extremes in terms of filter resonance, and modulation settings like really short envelopes. Also, I’d love to have heard a basic patch and then bring the sub up and the HPF down to see what happens in the bottom end.
Still, it seems quite promising. Before you get this, know that you can likely find an Alpha Juno 1, 2, or HS-80 for maybe the same or less than what you might pay for a new Behringer. They sound great and can do a lot that the 6/60/106 can’t do, at the cost of having a more tame resonance response.
most of these early analog synths are super basic
and if you cant make it sound good, thats on YOU
not the synth
It sounds close enough and it could sound even closer with better tweaking than what the video shows. This is a basic synth and it good enough for the 99% scenarios the thing will probably be used for. For the remaining 1% go to Reverb.
Now compare the sound to the Juno-6 and Juno-106. They’re all in the same ballpark. This model of synth has never appealed to me because of the lack of oscillators and the lack of waveforms, but I’m sure there’s a ton of songs played with the J-6, J-60, J-106 that I like.
This post really is a dream topic for the Behringer-hater trolls <3
The problem with doing one-to-one comparisons between modern recreations versus vintage synths is that over the 40+ years of component aging each vintage analog synth will wind up sounding different. The DCOs in a Juno shouldn’t have drifted as much as a VCO synth but we all know those chips started going bad some time ago, and the caps and transistors will have aged and gained ‘character’.
So the comparisons are useful, but the modern synth would never sound precisely like the vintage one because none of the vintage synths will sound precisely like each other.
If I made that video I would have flipped the audio and just trolled everyone. The replies would literally be the same.
Yep.
But the Behringer ‘hate’ seems to have lost some traction lately.
All the big manufacturers could easily issue new releases of old classics, to a wanting audience. But only a handful have chosen to do so; Korg, notably.
I think the Behringer hate stopped once we saw (NAMM 2025?) their Yamaha DX1 prototype clone, with CS-80 filters.
At that point I think everybody thought: “Oh, I definiately want that one.”
How do you know they didn’t?
These comparisons are interesting but musically not very revealing. Am I the only one who thinks that a more controlled low end is likely a positive? Unless you buy this synth specifically for bass sounds (why?) you’d probably roll off the bass in a mix anyway. I wish that every comparison video would include a spectrum and some examples of how each type of sound sits in a mix without any or only mild eq.
And don’t forget, in a mix not even the most pristine ear would be able to tell the difference.
A Juno-60 is priced from $2600 all the way up to almost $7000 on Reverb.
Behringer’s JN-80 clone/copy is cheaper than the Novation 61SL MKIII on Thomann US – a MIDI keyboard.
Let’s not forget most people online are full of bs.
The only value saying “Can’t hear it in a mix” has is knowing your hearing sucks.
“It’s cheaper than..” means nothing as well.
Lucky me. I do not hear any difference 🙂
Even vst is good enough for me.
The Juno sounds wonderful, but part of that might just be that it’s louder. Does seem to have more bass though.
But the JN seems like a very usable synth with a good sound, similar UI, and a smaller keyboard. Really no complaints if it comes in at a low price. The DeepMind is also worth considering in the Juno-like synth space.
Hmm, somehow my comment vanished. Anyway, JN-80 seems like a very usable synth, even if it isn’t quite as wonderful (possibly louder also, at least in the bass frequencies) as the Juno. But the DeepMind is also worth considering.
the Behringer is brighter
the filter needs to be a little more closed …
at least its 8 voices, 6 voices suck with the envelopes …,
6 voices are really unmusical, so thats fixed.
While it is a cool clone, I did cancel my pre order since I know I would rather have the JT-16 and BX1 when they come out. They are going to cost more than this too.