Why are older Junos more popular/expensive than later Roland analog synths?

As the title says: why are the earlier models of Roland's analog synths such as the Junos more popular and expensive than say the alpha 1/2 or JX-3P/8P? From what I have read they are as good or better in many ways? Is it the digital interfaces or a sound difference?

Kindly,

Joachim

"(Sigh ...) Maybe, you just had to be there."  

At the time, there was simply no way to achieve these sounds, except through the application of discrete hardware on big-fat circuit boards, which was far too expensive for most of us.  All that we could do, at the time, was to lust after what all of us were then reading in the pages of [Contemporary] Keyboard magazine.

And so, now, many decades later, after it finally becomes possible to own one of these devices ... perhaps, "nothing else will do."

(Not even a demonstrably-better-than-perfect digital replica.  "Hey, dude, you're missing the point!!")

... Like I said, you really had to be there. When all of this wonderful stuff was being born, right before your eyes (and well below the reach of your middle-class pocketbook). 

- - - 

Spoken as the proud owner of several pieces of now-vintage personal computer equipment ... all of it n-o-t for sale(!) until my estate-sale happens "over my dead body."  ... I would nevertheless frankly suggest that you should "content yourself with the demonstrably-better-than-perfect digital replica," and stay focused on "making music ... in the present day."

After all, "the artists of that day" necessarily "made magic with what they had," and very-promptly moved on to better technology at the earliest opportunity.  They were never "in love with it."  They simply "made magic with it, at that time, then moved on to better and better ways of making magic."

Probably for the same reason guitar players insist on playing old, beat-up guitars with bad fret work and grimy pickups, even though newer guitars will usually play and sound better in every way... they believe the older, more inconvenient instrument is possessed by an imaginary quality they call "mojo."

A bit harsh. There are reasons some guitarists prefer older gear vs the newer versions. Wood changes tonal qualities with age. And for example a Mashall Silver Jubilee reissue, while being a great amp, doesn't sound the same as the original Marshall Silver Jubilee! 

Back to the Juno, you're comparing two different beasts. The new ones are hybrid (they use digital LFOs) while the original are all analog. Not the same results. There's also the control panel! Not talking about the sound, just the controls are not the same. The originals are definitely more fun to interact with as the newer ones are. 

The idea that the sound of an electric guitar changes as it gets older is 100% snake oil. Wood changes its tonal quality with age if you're playing an acoustic, but not a solid body electric. The only thing a Strat does when it ages is get older.

As for the Silver Jubilee, neither the old one nor the new one will sound as good as a Two-Rock, a Splawn, a Divided by 13, or my own devastating Fuchs ODS 50. If someone gave me a vintage Marshall, I'd sell it.

I don't mean to sound harsh. 

[back to the Juno, you're comparing two different beasts. The new ones are hybrid (they use digital LFOs) while the original are all analog. Not the same results. There's also the control panel! Not talking about the sound, just the controls are not the same. The originals are definitely more fun to interact with as the newer ones are. 

From what I’ve read, now that I’ve read up on the subject for a couple of days, the DCO’s are to be considered a hybrid of analog and digital. The digital part of the DCO is meant to stabilise the pitch. When people talk about analog sound in synths they often refer to “drift”, and a pitch stabilised analog synth doesn’t drift. Metallic, cold refers to digital, and warm, swaying pitch, as I understand it, refers to analog. And all this is said with the objective to distinguish lifelike to dead sound.

My take on all gear, vintage or not:

You are making music, which means making a long, long line of creative decisions, including instrument voice and timbre. The goal is to make a piece of music that you are happy with and that makes other people feel something.

Does exactly, precisely nailing a sound you heard on another record get you closer to that goal?

Nope.

None of that answers OP's question though Jim.

When people talk about analog sound in synths they often refer to “drift”, and a pitch stabilised analog synth doesn’t drift

In many situations this is actually a good thing. It took a while to develop really stable oscillators. You can definitely get very drifty sounds through modern synthesizers via slow (or erratic) modulation of the pitch parameters. If you want more drift, run it through a tape plugin, or send it out to a tape machine for drift, saturation, compression, etc.

Back to your question, have you seen this video comparison of the