first analog synth to get?

[EverythingIBM]

So I recently had my interest sparked back into analog synths, and, I decided I may as well buy one when I get the money: I have so many musical ideas for some nice analog synth accompaniment; the sound is so rich compared to software. It's not bad in terms of investment either since vintage synths generally just keep going up in value...

Anyways, I can't decide which to go for first, here's my list:
*Jupiter 4
*Jupiter 8
*Jupiter 6
*Juno-60

Obviously the ones I have listed above won't go for cheap, especially the Jupiter 8.

Now, I really like the sounds of the Jupiter 4, but the Jupiter 6 already has MIDI capabilities out of the box... the Jupiter 8 sounds generally good, but I heard these can be temperamental, especially with shipping. The JP 4 also requires frequent tuning (that's funny actually: not unlike a real acoustic instrument).

So, which should I aim for first? Like I said, the Jupiter 4 really caught my ear...

Supposedly you can get encore electronics to do a "midi retrofit" for something like the JP 8... but I wouldn't have the heart to modify a nice synth like that.

I realize without MIDI I'd probably have to play it by hand and record, then insert into a track, JP 6 as an exception... but that's alright, I still have my trusty JV-1080.

EDIT:
Here's a fairly good video demonstrating the Jupiter 4:

Great sounds for sure.

[PikachuDX]

IgqflcowgeiWwdWQBe$d88-T_{A5ku~&6E0_yXkM7IFC1.l(K3

[quadibloc]

Ah, yes. I found one of the creepy ones, for the Formanta Polivoks synthesizer.

I will have to admit, though, that if I were a musician, my inclination, if what I had was a digital synthesizer like the Roland JV-1080, to look into a sampling keyboard. For example, the Yamaha Tyros 2 and its successors seem to be able to approach the sound of an entire orchestra of acoustic instruments. That, to me, would seem to be the supreme test of any synthesizer.

[keyboardlover]

From the synth music I've heard, seems you really can't go wrong with a Moog. They sound amazing.

[piotrek]

If you feel that it sounds so rich compared to the software synths you use, then you just use them wrong.
It's pretty clear that you have to process your software synths and can't expect the same compressed sound from the get go.
Also learning to use the software synths and how to compress them will give you a lot more freedom than a hardware synth with a built in limiter or whatever.

[keyboardlover]

There are fundamental sound differences between digital and analog sound. It is technically impossible for digital to sound as good, because of the way the signal gets split. You lose all the "warmth" of the tone.

[PikachuDX]

(=~e9$8C'Gw2F1EfZBrCnLqEW];}UVI!ahQD.39a5_Or)}db}y

[EverythingIBM]

Check out WC Old Garb's channel. He demos loads of synths, both digital and analogue. Very nice demos too (and some quite creepy).

For a first synth, I recommend Korg MS2000. I think it's what the microKORG was based on, but has a lot more flexibility, and the sequencer is amazing. They can be picked up for pretty cheap, too.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Jexus

You're right, the MS2000s are fairly cheap. I'm generally a Roland guy, but if I can get one for real cheap, I'll definitely do so.

Ah, yes. I found one of the creepy ones, for the Formanta Polivoks synthesizer.

I will have to admit, though, that if I were a musician, my inclination, if what I had was a digital synthesizer like the Roland JV-1080, to look into a sampling keyboard. For example, the Yamaha Tyros 2 and its successors seem to be able to approach the sound of an entire orchestra of acoustic instruments. That, to me, would seem to be the supreme test of any synthesizer.

I really like the sound of the JV-1080, one of the better hardware modules around. Cheap(er) too.

From the synth music I've heard, seems you really can't go wrong with a Moog. They sound amazing.

Moogs are great, but the price range is a little insidious.

If you feel that it sounds so rich compared to the software synths you use, then you just use them wrong.
It's pretty clear that you have to process your software synths and can't expect the same compressed sound from the get go.
Also learning to use the software synths and how to compress them will give you a lot more freedom than a hardware synth with a built in limiter or whatever.

Kid, I know music. Software can do a lot these days, but it still lacks the qualities of genuine analogue.
You can software yourself to death with fancy filters, limiters, and compressors; it can never get as raw and powerful as real analogue. You cannot "emulate" it 100%, more like 0.01%. That's a little harsh, but it's how I feel. I do use a lot of software, but having a nice killer analogue lead would be satisfying to say the least.

[piotrek]

Kid, I know music. Software can do a lot these days, but it still lacks the qualities of genuine analogue.
You can software yourself to death with fancy filters, limiters, and compressors; it can never get as raw and powerful as real analogue. You cannot "emulate" it 100%, more like 0.01%. That's a little harsh, but it's how I feel. I do use a lot of software, but having a nice killer analogue lead would be satisfying to say the least.

So, kid, that's why you ask in a keyboard forum and have Jupiter synths as your first choice, yeah... you know music : D.
Have fun with your purchase, I hope you enjoy!

[microsoft windows]

Show Image

Your posts aren't music to my  ears.

[quadibloc]

Based on the discussion here, then, while I was originally tempted to suggest the Clavia Nord Wave keyboard mentioned to me in another thread, as it is a digital synth with analog style controls, clearly there's no point for you to spend a lot and risk being disappointed in the sound.

The Ensoniq ESQ-1 has some digital components in the sound chain, but the ones most important to the sound are analog, so it was one that offered the best of both worlds to some musicians.

I'd be inclined, though, to recommend getting a simple analog synth, so as to get that real analog sound when you need it without letting that tie up too much of your budget. Not, say, a Minimoog (that offered capabilities roughly equivalent to the Commodore-64's SID chip), but a slight cut above that - a monophonic two-VCO analog synth, like the Roland SH-5.

But if you can find a good deal on a Prophet-600 (an analog synth that was also the first synth with MIDI), go for it!

[keyboardlover]

FWIW, vintage Moogs can be found used for under $1000.

[quadibloc]

Finding that monophonic analog synthesizers like the Roland SH-101 go for $800 typically (and it only has one VCO) makes me think that it's harder to make a good recommendation.

The Prophet 5 was one of the earliest polyphonic analogue synthesizers; monotimbral, five voices. MIDI was only an option, so used ones might not have it. What is interesting, though, is that the first "virtual analog" digital synth from Clavia, the Clavia Nord Lead, was designed to have a similar signal flow, so as to be instantly recognizable to Prophet 5 users.

But then, if you do get a new synthesizer and not a used one, you can still get the real thing... Dave Smith of Dave Smith Instruments being the head of Sequential Circuits.

But then, there are other choices. There's something out there called the Alesis A6 Andromeda.

Unfortunately, their inexpensive entry-level synth, the Alesis Micron, only emulates an analog synth, and is internally digital.

[piotrek]

Your posts aren't music to my  ears.

bringing back those 1990 memes makes my eyes bleed :<

[nathanscribe]

OK.  So.  I know analogue.  I know synths.  I know prices.  I know how good it feels to play something covered in knobs (joke away, I care not) and how limiting it can be to have three buttons to control 96 parameters.  I understand completely the mentality of "give me analogue".

Your list, EIBM, is nice, and from it I would wholeheartedly recommend the Juno 60.  Why?  It is a good, solid, reliable, affordable bit of retro kit.  It has full and readily accessible panel control, it has memories (enough, not too many) and DCB (a proprietary Roland interface pre-MIDI which can be interfaced with via a device like the Kenton Pro-DCB, currently around £130, providing bi-directional use).  It sounds good too.  It lacks glide, lacks the VCO drift you'd get from the others, and has only 1 osc, yet sounds good and healthy like analogue should.

Jupe-4s are crotchety old beasts these days, will set you back a fair bit if in good order, and are liable to crap out.  The J6 is getting pricey too, and is nicely featured but a bit plain compared to the others.  The J8 is going to require re-mortgaging the house.  Your call.

Out of the lot, the 60 is the best bet for your first retro analogue.

However:

there are a boat load of others, old and new.  New, consider the DSI Prophet 08 mentioned above.  8 voices, plenty to do.  Clavia's Nord 2X is very good, but perhaps a bit clean sounding even when dirtied up.  A lot of folk like the Access Virus models, but I've never warmed to them.  Korg I've always found lacking somehow.  Lots of features, but the sound of their recent-ish stuff has left me cold.

Don't discount the old Roland JX synths - the 10 is a mammoth, a really classy lush thing.  Easier to edit with the optional PG-800 programmer though.

There are so many I could list I don't even know where to start...

If you fancied a mono, the Moog Little Phatty is a good modern one, and will sound creamy and mellow and thick and chocolatey.  The Voyager will do more and hit your wallet harder.  The DSI Mopho is stupidly cheap as a module, fairly cheap as a keyboard, and does lots.  As does the DSI Evolver.  The Evo is fantastic but even with all those knobs you might have to spend some serious time with it to get your head round what it can do.  Totally different feel to the Moogs.

If you felt really mad, you could go for a modular.  Doepfer, AS, Modcan, synthesizers.com, you name it.  Technocrack, of the most addictive order.

Be warned, buying synths might be a whole new world of pain.  At leat they're not vintage guitars.

[keyboardlover]

****. Now I'm thinking about getting one!

I always wanted one though. And I have a Gibson SG that I've been neglecting for a while...

[nathanscribe]

"One" is how it starts.  I've been firmly off the wagon for twenty years.  The people who work at my bank just laugh when I get within 100 yards.

[EverythingIBM]

So, kid, that's why you ask in a keyboard forum and have Jupiter synths as your first choice, yeah... you know music : D.
Have fun with your purchase, I hope you enjoy!

Geekhack actually has a lot of members who are interested in a lot more than just computer keyboards. In fact, it's probably one of the most comprehensive forum in terms of knowledge on different topics. I've always got a response better than what I was expecting on here. Other forums that are for specific things never seem to be as good...
And yes, I do know music: I have nothing to prove, my compositions speak for themselves.

Based on the discussion here, then, while I was originally tempted to suggest the Clavia Nord Wave keyboard mentioned to me in another thread, as it is a digital synth with analog style controls, clearly there's no point for you to spend a lot and risk being disappointed in the sound.

The Ensoniq ESQ-1 has some digital components in the sound chain, but the ones most important to the sound are analog, so it was one that offered the best of both worlds to some musicians.

I'd be inclined, though, to recommend getting a simple analog synth, so as to get that real analog sound when you need it without letting that tie up too much of your budget. Not, say, a Minimoog (that offered capabilities roughly equivalent to the Commodore-64's SID chip), but a slight cut above that - a monophonic two-VCO analog synth, like the Roland SH-5.

But if you can find a good deal on a Prophet-600 (an analog synth that was also the first synth with MIDI), go for it!

The earlier pseudo analog-digital synths were most certainly better. I think there was some special edition Prophet released a few years ago. Kind of like the minimoog voyager. Great advice.

Finding that monophonic analog synthesizers like the Roland SH-101 go for $800 typically (and it only has one VCO) makes me think that it's harder to make a good recommendation.

The Prophet 5 was one of the earliest polyphonic analogue synthesizers; monotimbral, five voices. MIDI was only an option, so used ones might not have it. What is interesting, though, is that the first "virtual analog" digital synth from Clavia, the Clavia Nord Lead, was designed to have a similar signal flow, so as to be instantly recognizable to Prophet 5 users.

But then, if you do get a new synthesizer and not a used one, you can still get the real thing... Dave Smith of Dave Smith Instruments being the head of Sequential Circuits.

But then, there are other choices. There's something out there called the Alesis A6 Andromeda.

Unfortunately, their inexpensive entry-level synth, the Alesis Micron, only emulates an analog synth, and is internally digital.

Yes Dave Smith created MIDI if I'm not mistaken. I really do like those synths, but I want to get some good Roland ones for starters (Roland is the IBM of synthesizers ).

OK.  So.  I know analogue.  I know synths.  I know prices.  I know how good it feels to play something covered in knobs (joke away, I care not) and how limiting it can be to have three buttons to control 96 parameters.  I understand completely the mentality of "give me analogue".

Your list, EIBM, is nice, and from it I would wholeheartedly recommend the Juno 60.  Why?  It is a good, solid, reliable, affordable bit of retro kit.  It has full and readily accessible panel control, it has memories (enough, not too many) and DCB (a proprietary Roland interface pre-MIDI which can be interfaced with via a device like the Kenton Pro-DCB, currently around £130, providing bi-directional use).  It sounds good too.  It lacks glide, lacks the VCO drift you'd get from the others, and has only 1 osc, yet sounds good and healthy like analogue should.

Jupe-4s are crotchety old beasts these days, will set you back a fair bit if in good order, and are liable to crap out.  The J6 is getting pricey too, and is nicely featured but a bit plain compared to the others.  The J8 is going to require re-mortgaging the house.  Your call.

Out of the lot, the 60 is the best bet for your first retro analogue.

However:

there are a boat load of others, old and new.  New, consider the DSI Prophet 08 mentioned above.  8 voices, plenty to do.  Clavia's Nord 2X is very good, but perhaps a bit clean sounding even when dirtied up.  A lot of folk like the Access Virus models, but I've never warmed to them.  Korg I've always found lacking somehow.  Lots of features, but the sound of their recent-ish stuff has left me cold.

Don't discount the old Roland JX synths - the 10 is a mammoth, a really classy lush thing.  Easier to edit with the optional PG-800 programmer though.

There are so many I could list I don't even know where to start...

If you fancied a mono, the Moog Little Phatty is a good modern one, and will sound creamy and mellow and thick and chocolatey.  The Voyager will do more and hit your wallet harder.  The DSI Mopho is stupidly cheap as a module, fairly cheap as a keyboard, and does lots.  As does the DSI Evolver.  The Evo is fantastic but even with all those knobs you might have to spend some serious time with it to get your head round what it can do.  Totally different feel to the Moogs.

If you felt really mad, you could go for a modular.  Doepfer, AS, Modcan, synthesizers.com, you name it.  Technocrack, of the most addictive order.

Be warned, buying synths might be a whole new world of pain.  At leat they're not vintage guitars.

Yes, I absolutely love having a vast array of knobs for tweaking. For music and synthesizers, minimalism is the enemy. The more knobs generally mean the more customization that's available. Some people look at all the knobs and immediately become intimidated, but once you know what each knob & switch does, it's really easy and quite enjoyable.

Alright, Juno-60.

But I have a question, would the Juno-106 be a good option too: or stick with the Juno-60? It does have MIDI. The only reason holding me back is that the voice chips go bad.

And a quick question about the JP-4, what do you mean by "crap out?" I suppose tuning the oscillators could be tricky, but it looks like a nice little synth from what I've seen. But I haven't seen it in person, and that's the real issue. I do realize it's extremely old, so, there's bound to be something quirky.

Buying synths can be a pain in two ways:
#1 when they malfunction and you lose your money
#2 the desire to "keep on buying"

However, I just want a few nice Roland synths, and that's all for me. You can only have so many options before some synths begin to sound either generic, boring, or all the same. I like synths that have a "punch", unique from all the rest. Or something that I can tweak in such interesting ways... a software equivalent is Sytrus, that FM/RM synth I can play with all day and make some of the most interesting sounds.

[nathanscribe]

The Juno 106 has broadly the same sound creation feature set as the 6 and 60, but as you point out it has MIDI.  That saves you buying another interface.  However, as you also rightly point out, the voice chips have a higher fail rate than the circuits in the 6 or 60.  It's basically the same circuits but parts of it were made as surface-mount and encapsulated, and it seems the resin used for that eventually either corrodes the parts or shorts them out.  Some have reported removing the resin helps, but there are a couple of folks making drop-in replacements.  I don't know how true to the original parts they are, but I hear good reports.

The other differences between them are minor.  Still, the general consensus among analogue nuts is that the 60 is the better choice.  The 106 might have MIDI but lacks the arpeggiator, and there are rumours it lacks something sonically that the 6 and 60 had.  I would treat that like other internet speak without being able to directly compare all three side by side.

Regarding the Jupiter 4, it's not as "little" is it might look... it's deep, tall, and 20kg.  By "crap out" I mean it has a noticably flaky stability.  Mine played fine for a year, but has started to do insane things when it feels like it.  I suspect a power supply issue, so if you can recap a circuit you might be OK.  Aside from that it sounds great, something quirky about it - and there's no real interfacing (arp clock in but no external sequencing), though a chap somewhere is making a MIDI board that slots neatly inside and adds extra memories and some more functionality.

I'd feel happier spending less on a Juno 60 than more on a Jupiter 4, and happier transporting the Juno, using it daily, and feeling like I could still rely on it.

I have one of each, so I speak from my own experience, as well as a little unscientifically gathered opinion from the interwebs.

[nathanscribe]

The Juno 106 has broadly the same sound creation feature set as the 6 and 60, but as you point out it has MIDI.  That save you buying another interface you'd sequence the 60 with.  However, as you also rightly point out, the voice chips have a higher fail rate than the circuits in the 6 or 60.  It's basically the same circuits but parts of it were made as surface-mount and encapsulated, and it seems the resin used for that eventually either corrodes the parts or shorts them out.  Some have reported removing the resin helps, but there are a couple of folks making drop-in replacements.  I don't know how true to the original parts they are, but I hear good reports.

The other differences between them are minor.  Still, the general consensus among analogue nuts is that the 60 is the better choice.  The 106 might have MIDI but lacks the arpeggiator, and there are rumours it lacks something sonically that the 6 and 60 had.  I would treat that like other internet speak without being able to directly compare all three side by side.

Regarding the Jupiter 4, it's not as "little" is it might look... it's deep, tall, and 20kg.  By "crap out" I mean it has a noticably flaky stability.  Mine played fine for a year, but has started to do insane things when it feels like it.  I suspect a power supply issue, so if you recap a circuit you might be OK.  Aside from that it sounds great, something quirky about it - and there's no real interfacing (arp clock in but no external sequencing), though a chap somewhere is making a MIDI board that slots neatly inside and adds extra memories and some more functionality.

I'd feel happier spending less on a Juno 60 than more on a Jupiter 4, and happier transporting the Juno, using it daily, and feeling like I could still rely on it.

I have one of each, so I speak from my own experience, and a little unscientifically gathered opinion from the interwebs.

[piotrek]

Trolling aside, where can one listen to your compositions that speak for themselves?

[EverythingIBM]

The Juno 106 has broadly the same sound creation feature set as the 6 and 60, but as you point out it has MIDI.  That saves you buying another interface.  However, as you also rightly point out, the voice chips have a higher fail rate than the circuits in the 6 or 60.  It's basically the same circuits but parts of it were made as surface-mount and encapsulated, and it seems the resin used for that eventually either corrodes the parts or shorts them out.  Some have reported removing the resin helps, but there are a couple of folks making drop-in replacements.  I don't know how true to the original parts they are, but I hear good reports.

The other differences between them are minor.  Still, the general consensus among analogue nuts is that the 60 is the better choice.  The 106 might have MIDI but lacks the arpeggiator, and there are rumours it lacks something sonically that the 6 and 60 had.  I would treat that like other internet speak without being able to directly compare all three side by side.

Regarding the Jupiter 4, it's not as "little" is it might look... it's deep, tall, and 20kg.  By "crap out" I mean it has a noticably flaky stability.  Mine played fine for a year, but has started to do insane things when it feels like it.  I suspect a power supply issue, so if you can recap a circuit you might be OK.  Aside from that it sounds great, something quirky about it - and there's no real interfacing (arp clock in but no external sequencing), though a chap somewhere is making a MIDI board that slots neatly inside and adds extra memories and some more functionality.

I'd feel happier spending less on a Juno 60 than more on a Jupiter 4, and happier transporting the Juno, using it daily, and feeling like I could still rely on it.

I have one of each, so I speak from my own experience, as well as a little unscientifically gathered opinion from the interwebs.

Yeah, so I think a Juno-60 would be the better choice? At least I wouldn't have to worry about the voice chips dying, that would be devastating and saddening, especially if you grow to really like a synth. And like you said, you can get DCB stuff to make it work (mildly) with MIDI, all I'd need is something to shoot note data at it for playback and then record the audio output. Otherwise, I have to do the old fashioned way of playing it by hand and listen to the piece while I play on headphones: to ensure I'm playing in sync.
The Juno-60 lacks portmanteau; but I don't really care... well not now anyways.

Trolling aside, where can one listen to your compositions that speak for themselves?

Do I really trust you? lol
I'll think about it. If I decide yes, I'll send you a lower encoded MP3 version of a recent piece (used Harmless and Sytrus). I got harmless for $8 when image-line had a special deal: if anyone buys software, always do so at christmas time, huge deals [end of advertising].
Alright, how about you send me your [real] email address in a PM, then I can email it to you. Of course this is only if you want to hear my music. Another member in this forum already did I might add; but he's a highly trustworthy fellow.

[piotrek]

You could upload a 128kbps on Soundcloud, I didn't even think about copyright infringement .
Pure curiosity, you just seem to be a analog geek and even though I'm not a fan of raw synthmusic my interest is pretty high.
I listen (and enjoy) all kinds of music besides K-Pop and Metal I guess (although I think Metal music has a lot more to offer than the commercial standard which seems to be made for shy teenagers on a self-discovery trip) and always try to get the essence of it while keeping the technical aspects aside.
So yeah, this is real interest : D.

[EverythingIBM]

You could upload a 128kbps on Soundcloud, I didn't even think about copyright infringement .
Pure curiosity, you just seem to be a analog geek and even though I'm not a fan of raw synthmusic my interest is pretty high.
I listen (and enjoy) all kinds of music besides K-Pop and Metal I guess (although I think Metal music has a lot more to offer than the commercial standard which seems to be made for shy teenagers on a self-discovery trip) and always try to get the essence of it while keeping the technical aspects aside.
So yeah, this is real interest : D.

I'm not uploading my music on any pubilc sharing site (email or no deal). Heck, guys like Bjorn Lynne even had jackasses selling his music under different titles and whatnot.
Music can be a dirty business... when you've got something good, you don't throw it around carelessly; unless you're well-known and are backed by an impressive legal team.
However, a site for my music and other stuff is under progress, so, if you want to WAIT until all of this is finished, then feel free to do so. It'll take awhile though (especially since we're still doing heavy school work which sucks).

I wouldn't consider myself as a "raw analog geek", I have a very high taste for baroque music (MrA500 does too), and also am a huge fan of the harpsichord.
Electronic music has a special charm though; it's very good for going straight to melodies without boring ambient pauses or something... let's take the Philips Schubert recordings, they're atrocious! Some parts go really soft and slow, THEN LOUD, then soft, THEN LOUD. Make up your bloody mind! It's also annoying because if you turn up the volume to actually hear the quiet parts, you'll go deaf when the louder parts draw near.

Anyways... here's the juno-106 replacement chips:
http://www.analoguerenaissance.com/D80017A/
Everything about them seems to be positive. I suppose some purists would scream and reject that though.
I guess if you have six good working original chips, you can just take off the resin.

And here's the page for the kenton pro:
http://www.kentonuk.com/products/items/dcb/prodcb.shtml
I don't get what's the difference between 14 and 20 pin cable boxes though...

[nathanscribe]

The Juno 60 has a 14-pin DCB connector, the Jupiter 8 had either a 14 or 20 pin connector depending on version (if memory serves).  Not a lot of kit had the DCB interface as MIDI came along and superseded it pretty quickly.  I know there were a couple of sequencers and sync boxes that used it, but I can't think of another synth with it.

One good thing about the Kenton DCB unit is that it's bi-directional, so you can record MIDi from the Juno's arpeggiator, for example.  Some people say that Kenton are expensive, but I disagree - they're well priced for what you get.  They're very sturdy and I've never had a Kenton fail on me yet.

[keyb_gr]

However, as you also rightly point out, the voice chips have a higher fail rate than the circuits in the 6 or 60.  It's basically the same circuits but parts of it were made as surface-mount and encapsulated, and it seems the resin used for that eventually either corrodes the parts or shorts them out.

Sounds like the sealing compound that Kenwood TS-440S owners have had fun with (some kind of synthetic rubber, apparently). (The TS-440S is a late-'80s shortwave transceiver.) The stuff wasn't a bad idea per se, as it kept shock and temperature changes away from the oscillators, but alas it was hygroscopic. The accumulated water would eventually throw the VCOs out of alignment and cause one or more PLLs to unlock, and apparently it could damage some components, too.
The fix included removing the compound from critical VCO components by hand (no solvents) and replacing it with hot glue in the end. It was suggested to replace said critical components, though apparently they may be reusable unless too far gone.

[nathanscribe]

Interesting.  One fix I've seen for the Juno parts was to soak them overnight in acetone.  Kind of fitting that Roland's original name was AceTone... the soak softens the shell and it can be peeled off.  Apparently rather than solder resistors on those boards they used printed carbon.

[EverythingIBM]

The Juno 60 has a 14-pin DCB connector, the Jupiter 8 had either a 14 or 20 pin connector depending on version (if memory serves).  Not a lot of kit had the DCB interface as MIDI came along and superseded it pretty quickly.  I know there were a couple of sequencers and sync boxes that used it, but I can't think of another synth with it.

One good thing about the Kenton DCB unit is that it's bi-directional, so you can record MIDi from the Juno's arpeggiator, for example.  Some people say that Kenton are expensive, but I disagree - they're well priced for what you get.  They're very sturdy and I've never had a Kenton fail on me yet.

The price for the kenton units is perfectly fine. Hey, just be glad they even SELL those: not many companies (even Roland themselves) have any interest in supporting that old hardware anymore.

The DCB interface, of course being quickly superseded by MIDI, still means Roland was ahead of the game and anticipating something like that to be mainstream sooner or later. They created the standard instruments for the MIDI canvas on that note.