Question about Juno G & Gi
I am interested in Juno as a second synth (lightweight) even if my Fantom G is fantastic it is heavy sometimes.
1. About Juno G or Gi sound, which comes closest to Fantom G patch "099 Deeper Pad" & "001 Manhattan Grand" ? (I do not found those sounds in the pdf soundlist)
2. Is it correct that Juno G can play 16 internal sound patches at same time (16 layers) but Gi can only play 4 internal patches at same time (4 layers) ?
3. It seems to be only a couple of houndred patch sound for Juno G to download ? ( I compare to Acces Virus with over 4000 free patch to download + thousands payed patches)
4. What about Piano sounds, some write those are more and better on Juno Gi compared to Juno G ?
Best ragards / Lasse
Juno G or Gi
Re: Juno G or Gi
Lasse
In regard to your Item #2, see the following posts I have made within the past 24 hours in another thread here on this forum on this same subject:
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=48012#p275304
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=48012#p275331
As for comparisons between the G and the Gi, the G has a 16-track onboard MIDI sequencer while the Gi has an onboard professional quality 8-track audio recorder, so whether your workflow is more with MIDI or audio can be a determining factor in which unit is best for you.
In side-by-side tests, the Gi would most likely win out in sound quality on most tones, as its sound engine is based on a more recent design than that of the G. I think Roland included the 4-tone "LiveSet" architecture in the Gi strictly as a marketing ploy to make the Gi seem like it was more in the class with the Jupiter 50 and 80 synths, which use that same architecture, when in fact, you can do pretty much the same thing with 4 of the 16 parts with the G.
As for comparing the G or Gi to the Virus Access, that is difficult, as they are two entirely different technologies with entirely different capabilities. The Virus Access is a pure synthesizer for manipulating synthesizer type sounds, while the Juno-G is a ROM-based (ROMpler) MIDI workstation with a wide selection of acoustic instrument and synth sounds permanently burned into ROM. The Juno-Gi is similar, except that it is a ROM-based audio workstation.
Good luck ! These kind of decisions are never easy.
Regards,
Ted
In regard to your Item #2, see the following posts I have made within the past 24 hours in another thread here on this forum on this same subject:
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=48012#p275304
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=48012#p275331
As for comparisons between the G and the Gi, the G has a 16-track onboard MIDI sequencer while the Gi has an onboard professional quality 8-track audio recorder, so whether your workflow is more with MIDI or audio can be a determining factor in which unit is best for you.
In side-by-side tests, the Gi would most likely win out in sound quality on most tones, as its sound engine is based on a more recent design than that of the G. I think Roland included the 4-tone "LiveSet" architecture in the Gi strictly as a marketing ploy to make the Gi seem like it was more in the class with the Jupiter 50 and 80 synths, which use that same architecture, when in fact, you can do pretty much the same thing with 4 of the 16 parts with the G.
As for comparing the G or Gi to the Virus Access, that is difficult, as they are two entirely different technologies with entirely different capabilities. The Virus Access is a pure synthesizer for manipulating synthesizer type sounds, while the Juno-G is a ROM-based (ROMpler) MIDI workstation with a wide selection of acoustic instrument and synth sounds permanently burned into ROM. The Juno-Gi is similar, except that it is a ROM-based audio workstation.
Good luck ! These kind of decisions are never easy.
Regards,
Ted
Re: Juno G or Gi
Also, i'm not entirely sure about this, but something to consider is the fact that the Juno G screen has a reputation of going bad, I heard a lot about this issue and it was the main reason why i never considered the Juno G for myself.
Re: Juno G or Gi
WOW ! Xtrife !
Thanks for bringing that up. I completely forgot about it. That is how I ended up with the Jupiter-50. I was just looking for a 76-key unit with a good selection of decent piano voices. Musician's Friend had a brand new Juno Stage in the box for $1000 that I had pretty much decided on when I read that the Stage suffered from the same display malady as the Juno-G, so I went with the JP-50. To my knowledge, Roland never corrected this problem, and many of the displays they replaced failed again soon after replacement, because they never corrected the production problem that was producing bad displays.
Again - Thanks !
Thanks for bringing that up. I completely forgot about it. That is how I ended up with the Jupiter-50. I was just looking for a 76-key unit with a good selection of decent piano voices. Musician's Friend had a brand new Juno Stage in the box for $1000 that I had pretty much decided on when I read that the Stage suffered from the same display malady as the Juno-G, so I went with the JP-50. To my knowledge, Roland never corrected this problem, and many of the displays they replaced failed again soon after replacement, because they never corrected the production problem that was producing bad displays.
Again - Thanks !
Re: Juno G or Gi
You're welcome!
It's a shame really. I think i'd like to own a Juno G even today, but with the screen issues, thats definitely out of the question. I never really put much attention on the Juno Stage because I really prefer 61 key synths. Too bad no Jupiter comes in that size either.
It's a shame really. I think i'd like to own a Juno G even today, but with the screen issues, thats definitely out of the question. I never really put much attention on the Juno Stage because I really prefer 61 key synths. Too bad no Jupiter comes in that size either.
-
rolandagent£££
- Posts: 22
- Joined: 10:33, 7 February 2014
Re: Juno G or Gi
get the new roland fa - its basically a revamped Juno G 2014 style. and if your going back a few years, it would be the same price. a decent onboard midi sequencer is a good and rare thing - audio recording favoured in the crappier Gi can easily be done with a cheap mixer. The roland sequencers are great. but ye i'd say thanks to this new FA not even out yet - I'd skip the G. I'ts even being suggested that this new Roland FA workstation is outdoing the Fantom G in some respects. Obviously the fantom g has heaps of inner functionality being a trad workstation, but the FA has the supernatural sounds, and many of the best features/useability from the fantom.