Conference napalm::commusic_v1

 I have a JX3-P it's a nice machine. If you do buy one don't waste your 
money on the programmer, you can do the same thing with the edit 
functions just by using the edit map on the right hand side of the synth 
(where the  programmer generally sits). The salesman may try to tell you 
it's very difficult to use, I learned to do mine in about 20 min and 
haven't had to refer to the book since.

good tunes

dave

Wow, this is a hard one.  I've got a Juno-106 and I love it; I looked at
the JX-3P and decided against it, but I don't remember why.  Dave's right
about the programmer; it's a convenience feature (frill to some).  I'm
a really bug fan of Roland gear, so I think either one will be a winner.

len.
\

That's BIG fan.  My magic fingers aren't up to playing correctly yet.

I can't help you on the choice of synthesizer, since I don't own one yet and
would very much like to sometime in future.  But since I have a MacIntosh 
home computer and just acquired the Deluxe Music Construction Set software
for it, I thought I'd share my experience with that.  My wife has ten years
of piano lessons (I had 5) and she is teaching my children to play, also.
Of interest to us is the matter of composition, since we believe that all
people get musical ideas ("hear tunes in their heads") from one time to another
and it occurred to us that maybe our kids ought to practice composition from
the very beginning.  I'm going to spring this new composition software on my
kids for Christmas (they and their mother are out of town, so I can use the
software and then wrap it up before they get home--sneaky, huh?)

Anyhow, I have always been really jazzed by my MacIntosh, but with this 
Deluxe Music Construction Set (DMCS) package, I think my family's excitement
is going to really skyrocket.  For a trivial $34, I can now create polyphonic
(4 simultaneous instrumental voices) compositions, using the MacIntosh
synthesizer chip, with my choice of 27 instruments and about 10 different
"playing styles" (legato, staccato, sustain, normal, etc.) for each.  If I
have a MIDI interface (Assimilation's MIDI Conductor, for example) and a
sysnthesizer of the sort you are investigating, I can compose on 16 MIDI
channels with my choice of 127 instrumental presets, if that many are avail-
able to me.  I can create almost any imaginable combination of notes with
beams, ties, etc. and in all the standard key signatures with automatic
transposition at the push of a button (the mouse button, that is).  And when
I finish my composition, I can save it to disk or print it on paper to hand
out to my friends (the print quality, by the way, is excellent!).  If I have
a Laserprinter (which I don't), I can print on that, too.

Needless to say, I am very excited about having this "intermediate step" 
between an upright piano and a full-blown keyboard synthesizer.  I figure that
by the time my wife, 2 older kids (9 and 7) and I have gotten real comfortable
with the composition process, we'll be tired of the 27 canned voices in the
softare package and want to try somebody els's or create some of our own.  At
that point, we can either spend another $35 to buy DMCS's chief competitor,
Concertware Plus, which allows you to tweak the voice generator and create 
your own.  If I'm feeling really aggressive, I'll just jump right to the
keyboard synthesizer (assuming I've got any money available!)  

The trade-off in this scenario is that the computer does the playing for us
unless we print out the composition and play it on our piano.  We also do not
have the flexibility in choosing instrumental sounds that a synthesizer affords.
For me, though, the opportunity to create beautiful music which I myself am 
not even able to play on the keyboard, or to create 4-track music which the
four of us cannot yet play and haven't the instruments for anyway--that's 
exciting stuff!  

don't know if this was helpful--maybe it was a not-so-thinly-veiled pitch for
you to consider getting the home computer and composition software first.  I
could see a person going either way successfully, though, so good luck in 
your decision-making.

I forgot to mention in my previous reply that the DMCS softare/MacIntosh
combination allows me to cable the output to my Yamaha receiver and Bose 901
speakers.  Room-filling sound sure beats the 4" speaker in the Mac!  We can
also record that output on our Hi-Fi VCR tape (1 for each child), so that
they can play their own compositions on the stereo for their own enjoyment
and for our relatives and friends.  I expect their self-esteem to jump an
order of magnitude when they can do that.  Maybe they'll watch fewer cartoons...

Re: .0

THe JX3P came out before the JUNO 106 so it is in "end-of-life" phase as
they say, being replaced by the JX8P, which has more features at a comparable 
price to the original JX3P.

The reason I didn't like the JX3P was that it has a rather bogus modulation
controller.  It is a button.  The JUNO 106 has its modulation controller
built into the same piece as the pitch bend level.  Slightly more convenient
to my taste.

I would say that you can't go too far wrong with either one.  The JX3P also
has a retrofit chip which allows it to receive MIDI velocity information,
which the JUNO 106 can't currently do.

The JX3P also has two oscillators per voice, which can give you more sound
programming flexibility.  However, the JUNO 106 has a built in stereo chorus,
which helps make its one DCO per voice seem thicker.

One nice thing about MIDI: your old synth doesn't become obsolete!!

		Happy synthing!!
		Derek

Thanks for the replys.

.1  My interpretation of the programmer box was to allow additional flexibility
    so that one could "play" with a sound more than the edit schematic would
    allow.  I am not that knowledable...yet...to fully understand the how to 
    determine such differences.  Please help me here if I am not geting it 
    right.

.2 & .4
 
   The salesman told me that the JX3P could not act as a MIDI controller due to    a limitation...channel one always has to be channel one.  Is this important
   enough to be a concern? 

.3  Your setup is where I would like to be.  But I would have a hard time
    convincing my wife to have our boys jump from a musical keyboard to a
    computer keyboard.  Since my wife puts a lot of emphasis on theory and
    composition, there is hope that in the not too distant future for a 
    home computer setup similiar to what you have.

I have only visited one store...E.U.Wurtitzer in Framingham.  I live in
Hudson, Ma. and this is relatively close for me.  Is is worth my while to
trek to Boston an check out Daddys.  I originally wanted to look at Yamahas
also, but E.U. did not carry them.  My budget is under $1000.  Do I get a 
lot more in a synth spending a little more ($100-$200) over my budget?
Remember, this is primarily for two young teenagers.  They may really get
into it or, on the other hand, the synth may be a flop.  

My deadline for purchasing is approaching fast...this will be the boys BIG
Christmans present.  Certainly much bigger than I ever intended.  

Fast replies will be most appreciated.

Ken

re: the programmer

The programmer allows you an easier way to access the voice parameters than
selecting the parameter you want to edit and then moving a single slider
to make the modification.  To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing
on the JX3P you can't edit without the programmer that you can edit with
it.  For those of us brought up using analog synthesizers with lots of slides,
pots, and switches, this is simply "more like home".  The tradeoff is that
all those nice analog controls cost bucks.

re: using the JX3P as a MIDI controller

It all depends on what you mean by a MIDI controller!  If by a MIDI controller
you mean being able to use the keyboard on the JX3P to control another MIDI
synth, that works.  But if you mean using it like a $1700 Roland MKB1000
with split keyboard and 2 different MIDI channels, etc., no it won't do that.
The Yamaha DX7 has the same limitation of only transmitting on one channel,
but hundreds of people use it as a MIDI controller.

I don't think spending an extra $100 to $200 dollars will buy you much more.

It couldn't hurt to check Daddy's too for some comparison shopping purposes,
but seeing how close Christmas is, I guess you don't have much time :-).

Good luck!  I think you could do much worse than a JX3P or a JUNO 106.  My
vote is for the 106.

		Derek Speed

The JX-3P's limitation of sending only on channel 1 is only a problem
if you want to do multichannel multitimbral stuff.  This would require
a sequencer and a multitimbral synth (which the JX-3P is not) or a bunch
of synths (which I doubt you would care to pay for).  Almost all MIDI
instruments allow you to specify the receive channel, so you could use the
JX-3P as a controller just by telling everything else to receive channel 1.
I wouldn't look at this as a limitation, just a minor inconvenience.
You can even get around it later as some sequencers can do channel reassignment
(e.g., the Roland MSQ-100 can offse and record any incoming channel number by 
-16 to +16).

len.

Thanks again for all the helpful comments.  I bought the Juno 106, but I
will not be able to comment too much about for awhile until I...err...
my kids have a chance to play with it.  Unfortunately, I listened to a
salesman demo a unit called "Sequential".  I believe he referred to it a
a "digital sampler".  The sound was terrific.  He had some kind of loadable
programming that emulated particular instruments, like a Yamaha grand piano.
I was certainly tempted to go for it.  It was $2500....maybe next year.

Ken

The inexpensive samplers that I have heard only sound good
when playing music which has a lot of noisy background.  I
suspect this is because they only use 8 bits per sample, and
you can't produce clear, simple, tones with so few bits.
Things may be better next year, of course.  Before you buy,
ask the salesman to demonstrate a flute or recorder, or other
simple instrument.  If he can't, or if it sounds noisy, pass
it up.
    John Sauter

The instrument .9 was shown was probably a Sequential Circuits Prophet 2000.
From what I hear, it's pretty good.  I'm thinking seriously about acquiring
one, but it will depend on how well it can sample cymbals.  I'll report
on my experiments if I can get my friendly neighborhood purveyor of msucial
(that's musical) instruments to let me try them.

len.

I would expect it to sample cymbals pretty well.
    John Sauter

	Sackbuts.  If it can't do a good sackbut, what good is
it?

						- Karl

What's a sackbut?
    John Sauter

.11  Yes, it was a Sequential Circuits Prophet 2000, and it sounded terrific.

.13  Had I not just heard the Boston Camerata, I would not know what a sackbut
     is.  Other interesting instruments played by the group include both bass
     and tenor viols, vielle, dulcian, shawn, and organetto.

Ken

Gee, there was an article just last month on the Electronic Sackbut in
Keyboard!  (Seriously!)

len.