BlahBlahCafe - Jean-Michel Jarre forum

I'll going to test that on music shop. I have read that the midi is not very good, but it will be enough for me, if it understoods incoming/outgoing midi data (and plays with its own sounds, when used with computer and sequencer program)

It does. That's the most basic midi function there is...

midi is really basic - note on/off

it has some sound creation limitations but i like it - one of my fav synths if you'll decide to buy it better find pg200. programming without this small module is extremly hard. i like step sequencer very much also it has trigger in so you can control the speed of sequencer using any external drumbox etc

some shots

and video

Wonderful video.

I hope that the synth is with pg200 in the music store.

jx3p has really nice chorus i'll provide you some samples from this vid in stereo

also you can hear some jx3p in my mp3 in other thread

other musicians -> rise of the robots

I used to own one of these. Excellent synth and much more warmer than the Junos IMO although they both are Roland and have DCO:s. The only thing I really dislike is the lack of a second envelope. But on the other hand the more expensive Juno lack that too.
Nice video and pics Radek...makes me wanna get one again (but with the PG200 this time that is ).

Mogwai wrote:Excellent synth and much more warmer than the Junos IMO

naaah... jx3p is much more "metallic"... really close is some ways to juno 106

but with fat sounds - juno 6/60 rocks

I really prefer a Juno!

I haven't tried any of them so I can't compare them, but the Juno does only have one VCO compared to the two DCO's. Personally I would use them for different kind of sounds.

I have never played a JX3P, only the Junos. And the Junos sound great, specially the Juno60. The filter is pretty good and so are the chorus and the modulation routings from the stick. I don't like the look of the JX3P and I don't like the fact of the necessity of an external programming unit either. And there's plenty of alternatives too.

juno 6/60 uses same filter so they sound really fat. juno 106 sounds a bit thinner because of diffrent chips - but it has midi and 128 writable patchs in memory and worst thing - no arpegiator [but maybe they tought if you have midi you can program sequences on external hardware].

you don't need pg200 on jx3p. there is a picture on the right side of synth where each parameter is explained. only you have to do is press each options and program the synth sth like in d50 but pg200 is really awesome

I tested the synth, and didn't like that a lot
(no pg200 with it) price is 240€

I noticed too that there was one E-mu drumulator. (Price was €190)

radek tymecki wrote:

Mogwai wrote:Excellent synth and much more warmer than the Junos IMO

naaah... jx3p is much more "metallic"... really close is some ways to juno 106

but with fat sounds - juno 6/60 rocks

Well, that's individual taste I guess. I agree that it sounds more metallic though.
For strings and bass I prefer the JX3P as it to me sounds warmer than a Juno 60. Maybe it has something to do with the two individual DCO:s!? That is something I really miss on the Juno. Overall the Juno is the better synth and I love my Juno 6. But there are some things about the JX3P that I really like it for.

Mogwai wrote: For strings (...) I prefer the JX3P as it to me sounds warmer than a Juno 60.

Well... Yest - JX3P is really great for strings/pads

But for bass... Juno is tha king

I own JX3P, Juno 6 and 106 - i have some comparision

What are the main differences between Juno 106 and JX3P ?