Roland FA vs Juno DS

[Mr. Mojo Risin]

Hi. I'd like to get a second board with 76 keys to use primarily for synth sounds, as well as brass and orchestral sounds. I've already got an 88 key Yamaha that covers pianos, epiano, clav, and some acoustic and synth sounds. Looking for better leads, pads, etc. It seems like the FA has a built in VA. How is this? Does it justify the price difference? I've also heard some people saying the Juno sounds fatter/thicker and warmer. Anyone else think the lower cost Juno sounds better, if so why? From what I've heard the 76 key keybed on the FA is a big improvement over the 61 key synth actions Roland has been using lately. Is this true for the Juno as well? From an outsiders point of view the FA interface appears easier to navigate. Most importantly though (besides maybe key feel) is the difference in sound quality. Does one synth sound much better than the other?

[raffkey]

Probably not a whole lot of help here, but for what it's worth..

 

I've always had a Juno of one model or another, and currently own the DS 61 and use it to do what you want to do, minus the orchestral sounds of which I use my Kurzweil PC for.

 

I tried out the FA 76 and hated the key action but at that time I wanted the board for a light weight all in one board including piano, so I'm sure the action would be fine for the voices you want to play on the new board. I haven't played the DS 76,but I believe it's the same key bed as the 61.

 

IMHO, the DS is easier to navigate and just looks better, but then again, I'm used to the Juno line...To my ears, the synth, brass and misc sounds are just as good on the DS in comparison to the FA. Can't really remember if I was that much more impressed with orchestral sounds on the FA compared to the DS..

 

[gg22]

FA06 keybed = Juno DS61 keybed (Roland)

FA07 keybed = Juno DS76 keybed (Fatar)

 

Sampled sounds might be comparable, but SuperNatural pianos, EP's, organ and VA patches on FA sound much better than Juno's

[AnotherScott]

Yes, FA has the whole VA engine that the Juno DS lacks, and also the SuperNatural piano, EPs, clav, organ, basses, acoustic guitar, and ensemble strings. However the rest of the FA sounds come from the XV-5080, whereas the Juno DS sounds come mostly from the Fantom S/X (and maybe G?). So as a whole. the sounds OTHER than VA and those SN sounds I mentioned are probably better on the DS. So that probably answers the OP question, "Anyone else think the lower cost Juno sounds better, if so why?" That's why, and so it will depend on which sounds you're comparing, (The Juno DS actually has the entire Fantom-based Juno-DI sound set, plus a new bank, I don't know where those come from.) And another slant on this... the XV-5080 sounds can be loaded into the DS via axial. Which means you can actually get all the non-SuperNatural sounds of the FA on the DS, but you can't get the DS sounds on the FA. As fo other differences, from something I posted elsewhere...

 

FA OVER DS:

* SuperNatural sounds... VA synth engine, tonewheel organ engine, piano, EPs, clav, basses, acoustic guitar, ensemble strings, drums

* built-in full sequencer

* ability to load two expansion sets at once (instead of only one)

* Stereo Sub Out to send selected sounds to alternate external processing/locations

* Large color display

* Can put MFX effects on up to 16 sounds at once (instead of 3)... though unlike the DS, you can't put more than one on a sound a a time

* Functions as a 16-zone MIDI controller

* more trigger/select pads (though their functions between the two boards are not identical)

* ability to save many more user sounds/combinations... 512 User Studio Sets vs. 128 Performances; 896 tones (split among different categories) vs. 256 patches

 

DS OVER FA:

* ability to load custom samples as full keyboard-playable instruments (this can also be used as a way to partially get around being only able to load one expansion instead of two)

* ability to change performances (equivalent of FA's Studio Sets) without your previous sound cutting out

* ability to put 2 or 3 insert (MFX) effects on a single sound (but you cannot put MFX on 16 sounds at once like you can on the FA... 3 is the max if you assign one MFX to each. Effects on 16 channels is more important for sequencing than live performance, so it's a difference that makes sense since the FA has the 16 part sequencer and the DS doesn't.)

* when playing live with a 2-way split, you can easily adjust the volumes and octaves of each part on the fly with the front panel sliders and octave buttons (it's great to be able to quickly switch the octave of your RH sound when playing LH bass, for example... not so easy on the FA)

* vocal processor (i.e. pitch correction)

* You may find the DS basic sound set preferable. Apart from the SuperNatural sounds, the FA sounds are from the XV-5080, while the Juno DS sounds are newer (Fantom and up). Plus axial even gives DS owners a way to add the FA's XV-5080 sounds if you need them, but you can't add the DS/Fantom sounds to the FA.

* DS has a pattern sequencer (of course FA has its own sequencers, but each can be better for different things)

* Roland has a Mac/PC editor/librarian for DS

* DS has a front panel MFX control

* Numeric entry works more smoothly, it repurposes the Favorites/Selection buttons (instead of the pads as on the FA), so it doesn't get in the way of your using the pads for other purposes; and as soon as you finish entering a number, the buttons revert to their previous function, whereas on the FA, once you use the pads for numbers, you have to use a multi-button sequence to manually switch out to get back to your normal pad function.

[AnotherScott]

Hi. I'd like to get a second board with 76 keys to use primarily for synth sounds, as well as brass and orchestral sounds.

In this case, I'd go for the FA over the DS. The synth section is better, and since there are two expansion slots, you could load the brass expansion and the orchestral expansion.

[ajstan]

If the DS and FA are the only two synths that the OP will consider, please disregard this post. If the OP is open to other options, then for a similar price to the FA07, the V-Combo VR-730 (it's 73 instead of 76 keys) and the MODX7 are worthy of consideration. The VR-730 has drawbars with a virtual tonewheel model organ and the Supernatural synth engine. It would be worth checking out to see if it has the presets you want. The MODX has the same sound technology as the flagship Montage with both an FM and a Sample/Synth engine, so you should be able to get close to most any sound you want.

[AnotherScott]

VR730 does have basically the same VA engine as the FA... the big difference is that, on the FA, you edit your sounds via its onscreen menus, whereas on the VR you do it via an iPad app. I think the app is nicer, but it does tie you to needing an iPad, and you have to worry about what happens if the app stops running on some future version of the OS. (And unlike Mac/PC, it's not so easy to keep an old OS environment around... though I think there are 3rd-party VR synth editors that do run on Mac/PC...?) The other VA differences would be in the different fx structures of the two boards, and different split/layering abilities. Other than that, I'd be inclined to the FA in this case because the orchestral and brass cards will probably give it better capabilities in those categories than what's built into the VR.

 

MODX is a great board, and might even be better than Roland in the orchestral/brass department (esp. since it also has the gigabyte free for loading your own or 3rd party samples), though weaker on VA. But maybe VA per se isn't absolutely necessary to get the leads/pads he wants, it's not like the MODX doesn't have a good selection of synthy pad and lead sounds. But if you really want something more VA-like, Roland is the better fit there.

[ABECK]

How about an integra 7? More $, but you will have pretty much the entire Roland Library and supernatural engine. You'd have to get a controller, or use your current 88.

[ProfD]

IMO, the Roland sound hasn't changed a whole lot over the years. I looked at the Juno DS prior to buying the FA-07.

 

If the OP doesn't need direct sampling capability and/or SuperNatural sounds, the DS is a fine choice.

 

[seratone]

I'm in the same situation as the OP - looking at the Roland Juno DS series as a top board swiss army knife - Brass, Strings ect

 

I have recently abandoned Mainstage as a live rig (too many hassles to mention here) and I'm going back to the simplicity of plugging a few 'Romplers' in.

 

My bottom board is a Nord Electro 4d which covers B3, Piano, Elec Piano, Strings. I also have a little Korg Micro x that I use for pads/choir/layers with the Nord.

 

The new board would be piano, for the songs I'm using the Nord for organ simultaneously, horns, orch and more pads.

 

I recently DID own a Roland FA06 - I set the performance pads up as favorites - but it took too many buttons clicks to get the board into performance mode. I want plug and play.

 

Even though it doesn't have the Supernatural Sounds I'm going to rent a DS 61 and give it a try.

[zephonic]

I"m looking to replace my Krome 73, and for me the FA-07 doesn"t offer anything over the DS-76 to justify the higher price.

 

It"s amazing how capable a $1000 board is these days. The Juno DS, Kross, and MX are all excellent value gigging axes.

[ProfD]

I"m looking to replace my Krome 73, and for me the FA-07 doesn"t offer anything over the DS-76 to justify the higher price.

 

It"s amazing how capable a $1000 board is these days. The Juno DS, Kross, and MX are all excellent value gigging axes.

As I mentioned before, the FA is a better choice if any sampling needs to be done.