Now we need a new Pro One etc

[Mr_Clean]

So the P6 is great, right up there with my stupidly sold P5 and OBXa in sound and character.

So DSI to keep the legacy going we need a 'new" Pro One based on the P6 like what you did with P5  / Pro One in 80's........

I want a transposable step seq / arp, cv, gate (if possible) and everything the P6 has but 1 voice 2 oscillators etc.

But what ever you do make the seq / arp transposable with midi accesability to......... So get to work guys. cash waiting.........

[Sacred Synthesis]

We've had this discussion a number of times on this forum, and a few of us have requested the same thing: DSI, churn out a monophonic version of the Prophet-6.  It would be a cinch for you.  But it clearly is a trait of Dave Smith that he produces next whatever instrument most appeals to him. 

Although DSI listens to their customers regarding already existent instruments, it's a different matter with new instruments.  So, the request has been made, there has been no response to it, and so, those of us who have made it (including myself) have moved on to other solutions.  But go ahead with this thread; I'm all for the topic.  I'm just suggesting that you not hold your breath in anticipation. 

[Paul Dither]

With the recently reintroduced CEM 3340 chips, it would be possible to get even closer to an actual vintage Pro-One. However, I can't see that DSI would use them to end up with three different analog oscillator topologies along with the DCOs à la Prophet '08 and the voice cards à la Prophet-6 and OB-6.

It is my understanding that they're currently working on something, but I got the impression that it may be something bigger than a sort of Pro-One reissue or reimagination. Furthermore, the Pro 2 can be regarded as the 21st century version of the Pro-One, which has been released instead of a reproduction of the past; or to quote from its manual:

With the current demand for all things analog, I've been asked many times if I would ever consider reissuing the Pro-One monosynth. My response has always been the same: "You've got to keep moving forward." The simple truth is, I'm happiest creating new instruments—synths that put more power and better sounds into the hands of musicians with every iteration.

Plus: except for the CV connectivity of the Pro-One, there's nothing that gets in the way of using the Prophet-6 like a classic mono synth.

[blewis]

Random thoughts:

- seems weird to basically pull 5 cards out of a Prophet 6 and slightly adjust the gain structure to make a Pro One.
- why go through the hassle of making a new metal enclosure?
- why not save up, buy a Proohet 6, and hit Unison?
- I'm more interested in a "Pro-2a" - just like the Pro-2, except all analog VCOs. Pair it up with a Pro-2 for more hybrid goodnes.
- maybe a Pro-One is saved up for a rainy day in the DSI creativity department. Feels like they have more interesting ideas to work on.

[Sacred Synthesis]

The commonsensical thing to do - as Paul and Blewis said - is get a Prophet-6 and use it in unison mode.  But some of us would prefer to have an instrument that is at all times dedicated to monophonic playing and that comes with a monophonic price tag.  Otherwise, the new (and exceedingly expensive) Minimoog Model D is a possible solution.

[Mr_Clean]

Hi all, my post was meant to be slightly ironic........Re current DSI Pro 2, it doesn't sound right to me - digital ??... Agree re using P6 in unison mode, but the feel is slightly different, i don't know why....There is something about the snappiness of a great mono synth, and in particular the original Pro One when you engage the arp / seq etc. In any-case love the P6 and very happy with it.

[chysn]

- seems weird to basically pull 5 cards out of a Prophet 6 and slightly adjust the gain structure to make a Pro One.

I understand that, but my beef with the Prophet 6 is that it is an island. As of now, everything I've got connects to everything else via CV, and that's how I want to do synthesizers going forward.

I would love a Prophet 1, and I would probably buy one if it had CV outs at least for gate and pitch. Envelope out and modulation out would be great, and would match what I have now with my Little Phatty. Even something as humble as the MicroBrute is well-endowed with LFO and envelope outs, so DSI can do it.

Why not the Pro 2? I just don't like how it sounds that much. I really, really wanted to love it, and I kept listening to it hoping that I'd suddenly find the Lord or get struck by lightning or something. Nope.

Right now, the Little Phatty is lovely as a modular centerpiece. Its CV pitch out is dead nuts, it sounds really nice, and it can generate CV from both MIDI and USB. It sets a high bar, but I'd be willing to part with it if DSI makes the right thing, something that will function as a modular controller. That would differentiate it in the marketplace from the Sub37, especially if DSI included CV outs for aftertouch and velocity. Woah, that.

[Sacred Synthesis]

The suggestion is that DSI should quickly and easily draw from the Prophet-6 a one-voice version.  But wouldn't it be preferable if they designed an entirely different analog monophonic synthesizer, something fresh and original, with features that the P-6 rather famously lacks?  I don't think the P-6 provides a sufficient architecture for a powerful mono synth.

The Pro 2 is a superb instrument, but it isn't the answer to the Pro One hunger.

First the Mono Evolver Keyboard was called a sort of new Pro One (see the advertisement below), then the Mopho Keyboard, and now the Pro 2.  It's obvious that there really isn't a convincing modern version of the Pro One, which is why the claim has been made now regarding three different synthesizers.  Staying away from the whole re-issue routine, I'd love the see DSI make an all-new analog mono synth - a moderately sized instrument with a fresh face and a classic sound.

[Shaw]

The Pro 2 is a superb instrument, but it isn't the answer to the Pro One hunger.

When the Pro 2 was released, Dave said, "We set out to make the ultimate mono synth, and the result is the new Pro 2"

Based on that quote, DSI might not feel it necessary to be in such a hurry to make another mono synth.

Cheers!

[Sacred Synthesis]

Dave several times spoke somewhat disparagingly of the "VCO crowd."  He would be the last person to offer a VCO synthesizer, or to look back in his instrument designs.  And then, from out of the blue, the Sequential Prophet-6 appeared, surprising us all.

[chysn]

The suggestion is that DSI should quickly and easily draw from the Prophet-6 a one-voice version.  But wouldn't it be preferable if they designed an entirely different analog monophonic synthesizer, something fresh and original, with features that the P-6 rather famously lacks?

I want a Prophet-6-based monosynth because I like the sound of the Prophet-6, and I think its architecture is sufficient for a nice monosynth. Its sound is a known, whereas something brand new may or may not be what I'm looking for. That's why I like the "draw from the Prophet-6" idea.

As for starting over, I know that DSI is working on a new filter that will be included in the Feedback module. Would they design a new filter just to use in one product? Or is filter design such a big deal that we'll see it in other synths? I really don't know the answer to that.

Based on that quote, DSI might not feel it necessary to be in such a hurry to make another mono synth.

That's a distinct possibility, which is why I'm not getting too invested in whether they're going to do a VCO mono. If the worst-case scenario is that I keep the Little Phatty for the rest of my life, that's not so bad.

[Shaw]

Dave several times spoke somewhat disparagingly of the "VCO crowd."  He would be the last person to offer a VCO synthesizer, nor to look back in his instrument designs.  And then, from out of the blue, the Sequential Prophet-6 appeared, surprising us all.

No doubt Dave has a penchant for the DCOs, and most people don't mind because the technology has gotten to where they sound good -- great even.  (Just listen to the 1st minute and a half of Marc's review: )

[Sacred Synthesis]

Believe me, I'd be happy to see a one-voice version of the Prophet-6.  But since we're dreaming here, why not dream big?

[Paul Dither]

Dave several times spoke somewhat disparagingly of the "VCO crowd."  He would be the last person to offer a VCO synthesizer, nor to look back in his instrument designs.  And then, from out of the blue, the Sequential Prophet-6 appeared, surprising us all.

No doubt Dave has a penchant for the DCOs, and most people don't mind because the technology has gotten to where they sound good -- great even.  (Just listen to the 1st minute and a half of Marc's review: )

The Pro 2 does not have DCOs, the Pro 2 has digital oscillators, just like the Prophet 12. The only DSI products left with DCOs are the Prophet '08, the Mopho x4, and the Tempest. Those are not digital oscillators, but digitally controlled analog ones.

[Shaw]

Dave several times spoke somewhat disparagingly of the "VCO crowd."  He would be the last person to offer a VCO synthesizer, nor to look back in his instrument designs.  And then, from out of the blue, the Sequential Prophet-6 appeared, surprising us all.

No doubt Dave has a penchant for the DCOs, and most people don't mind because the technology has gotten to where they sound good -- great even.  (Just listen to the 1st minute and a half of Marc's review: )

The Pro 2 does not have DCOs, the Pro 2 has digital oscillators, just like the Prophet 12. The only DSI products left with DCOs are the Prophet '08, the Mopho x4, and the Tempest. Those are not digital oscillators, but digitally controlled analog ones.

Oops, yes, of course. Thanks for clarifying.   

Change "DCO" to "digital oscillators", and my statement makes more sense now.

Cheers!

[Paul Dither]

There.

[chysn]

Cool mockup!

The assignable CV is a good idea. Except that gate and pitch In/Out should always be available, and the assignable Ins and Outs should be independent, since Outs would be for entire sections (e.g., LFO, envelopes), and Ins would target specific parameters (e.g., HP cutoff frequency, LFO frequency).

For reference, the Little Phatty has CV Ins for pitch, gate, volume, and cutoff, and CV Outs for pitch, gate, amp envelope, filter envelope, and modulation buss (which can be assigned to LFO, oscillator 2, or filter envelope). The Outs are complete, but assignment of an In to an arbitrary parameter would be of immense value.

I'm not convinced that a monosynth needs an effects section like the Prophet 6 has. I'd prefer to see that panel space devoted to a second LFO, or sixteen knobs for a modulation sequencer.

[Shaw]

So DSI to keep the legacy going we need a 'new" Pro One based on the P6 like what you did with P5  / Pro One in 80's........

I'd love to see somebody do a blind sound test between a P6 in unison mode (set to 2 voices - 4 Osc, no sub) and a Pro 2 (4 Osc, no sub).

To be fair the comparison should be done so that the two synths are set as closely as possible to try and re-create the same patch… No effects, no overly complicated sequenced patches, etc.

Both would need to be limited in some ways, but that's fine for the sake of a good comparison.

My contention is that most of us would be hard pressed to pick out which is the analogue oscillators... I think the Pro 2 architecture is that deep.

My two cents.
 

[Sacred Synthesis]

There.

Now that is a thing of beauuuuuty!  Just add five more notes on the bottom end of the keyboard, and I'm all in for it.

[Sacred Synthesis]

I'd love to see somebody do a blind sound test between a P6 in unison mode (set to 2 voices - 4 Osc, no sub) and a Pro 2 (4 Osc, no sub).

Not to put the pressure on you, Paul, but....