We should probably also take into account that the older synths have been discussed at great length over a number of years. The newer instruments haven't received that level of scrutiny yet. That said, you mentioned using the 2-pole filter with the resonance maxed out recently, which was something I had actually never tried... and of course it sounds great and a little like an Oberheim. So there's still plenty of discussion mileage to be had with the P'08 and Evolvers.
There's a lot I want to say about the P-6 but it's hard to be critical without appearing overly negative. It's a synth that enchants and frustrates in equal measure. I will write about it sometime but I fully expect to shot down for it. ;)
With the P'08 I fully accept its limitations as the character of the instrument. There's nothing I would change and the UI and playing experience is as good as anything I've come across. Even changing something obvious like the filter wouldn't necessarily improve the instrument. The way the Curtis filter behaves is absolutely perfect for some sounds and I prefer its audio rate modulation to that of the P-6.
Hi guys, interesting discussion about the P08...
I don't know if you are aware of / need an editor for your P08 but if well, please have a look at the P08 Ctrlr panel made by Carl http://ctrlr.org/power08-editor-for-dsi-prophet08/ (http://ctrlr.org/power08-editor-for-dsi-prophet08/) .
I did myself a Sub37 one but I'm now busy with a Pro2 one (this is also a fantastic synth much better sounding than P12 mainly thanks to the filters).
There's a lot I want to say about the P-6 but it's hard to be critical without appearing overly negative. It's a synth that enchants and frustrates in equal measure. I will write about it sometime but I fully expect to shot down for it. ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91Hww1cMoiM&list=PL-CSFEgC2tTydFcvrBITryRPZHg4tUde5&index=17Wonderful pieces, both of them. I'd not heard that first one before. Such a beautiful expressive sound.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIDhhLgmwiI
Other than the perceptions about VCOs possibly sounding better, I think the Prophet 6 is getting more love because it has much more instant gratification. Millennials aren't the only generation who are getting shorter attention spans; our cell phones, internet speed, and high tech lifestyles make most of us struggle with it. With the Prophet '08, the message is essentially: "This isn't going to blow you away right out of the box; it's going to require a major commitment from you. Regardless of how much programming experience you have, you're going to have to spend a lot of time experimenting, digging, programming, setting up external effects, etc... But eventually, you will be very happy." That's just not what most people want to hear; they don't think they have the time. For those playing covers, many other keyboards offer huge selections of third party programs to imitate classic tracks, and so many players aren’t used to programming. Many stopped programming when the DX7 came out. With most workstations, the most we do is set up layers and splits of the sounds that others programmed.
If I could respectfully make a request, it would be for the PWM Brass and Sawtooth Solo patches used by Sacred Synthesis on his last two videos.
It sounds like we need an old-fashioned patch panel sheet for the Prophet '08, an editor page that could be filled in and posted. My computer is nowhere near my synthesizers, so giving a detailed description would take some effort. Perhaps later.If you are ever in a position to write up patch panel sheets, I would love to know the settings you use for the Oberheim-ish 2-pole sound you play. Just the oscillator and filter-related values would be fascinating. It's such a sweetly balanced sound.
If I could respectfully make a request, it would be for the PWM Brass and Sawtooth Solo patches used by Sacred Synthesis on his last two videos.
It sounds like we need an old-fashioned patch panel sheet for the Prophet '08, an editor page that could be filled in and posted. My computer is nowhere near my synthesizers, so giving a detailed description would take some effort. Perhaps later.
Regarding patch panel sheets, while a much better looking template could be developed, the text version above can be copied and pasted into Word (or another text document) and then printed. The larger spaces left on the original were compressed when I pasted it here, so there isn't as much space now. Still, most of the values are only going to be a two digit number, and more space could easily be added before printing. It's organized left to right across the top panel, followed by left to right across the lower panel. I probably missed some things.
Wonderful pieces, both of them. I'd not heard that first one before. Such a beautiful expressive sound.
I'm optimistic, Vinny, that Dave will resume the normal five-octave keyboard length. He seems to have received a number of complaints about the keyboard length of the Prophet-6 (he suggests this in his P-6 Module announcement video). As for the OB-6, that was obviously an exception, in that DSI took the P-6 body as a starting point. So, I do expect DSI to return to the full-length keyboard soon enough.
Like yourself, I've considered each of the latest DSI synthesizers, but nothing excites me more than the good old Prophet '08. I never find myself running out of notes or coming up short when programming it, and I always find the sound gorgeous. Folks complain about that blasted Curtiss filter, and I just don't get it. Are we all really listening to the same thing? I love the Curtiss filter - bright and bristly or dark and dreamy, superb for brass, strings, and other pads, bass and solo patches, and even sound effects. With the occasional exception of finding a monophonic patch slightly thin-sounding, I wouldn't want to change the P'08 low pass filter at all. As I wrote above, I'd only like to add a high pass filter and longer envelope times.
Do you know what else I like about the Prophet '08? The happy fact that it has been thoroughly vetted. I don't have to waste time scouring the synth forums to find out if there are any bugs, or if there's been an update to fix them. How much of this forum and the old one is spent on such discussions? "I found a new bug - I reported the bug - they just fixed the bug - wait, the fix has a new bug - let me report the new bug - now when will they fix the new bug?" Blah....Who wants to have these long dull discussions? It's like discussing head aches or tooth aches!
Meanwhile, we're off in our cheerful little Prophet '08 corner, content and making music, and posting only to share our enthusiasm and creative ideas.
should have said "Amount".
Another technique that I've been very interested in for some time is how you pan two instruments to opposite sides at the mixer. To clarify, you run both instruments in stereo? Both channels of one instrument go to the mixer and are panned to the left, while both channels of a second keyboard/module go to the right?
Yes, basically. I suppose at first thought it seems as if I'm running an instrument in stereo, but then panning it to only one side, thus losing the other side. But the Prophet '08 is a mono instrument with a panning circuit; it isn't truly a stereo instrument. The only stereo-like sound it creates is that of individual notes jumping from one side to the other, or a certain stereo field in the unison modes. So, as long as you're not using the Pan Spread parameter, you're not losing half of the sound by panning at the mixer.
Sacred Synthesis,
I've been experimenting with these panning techniques a lot over the last several days (both w/Tetra and A/B outs) and have several questions : (I realize you may not know the answer to the first few.) First, why isn't this being discussed by other keyboard players? (...not even here on the DSI forum?) Why haven't I heard of this before? I've been playing synthesizers for over thirty years and read more than many about the best ways to sound good. Is there something I can read that discusses this more? I mean, these are not subtle differences. The results are huge. Why isn't there an outcry to capitalize on these differences from a synthesizer design standpoint? Why can't a keyboard be designed that gets us these results with a single instrument?Yes, basically. I suppose at first thought it seems as if I'm running an instrument in stereo, but then panning it to only one side, thus losing the other side. But the Prophet '08 is a mono instrument with a panning circuit; it isn't truly a stereo instrument. The only stereo-like sound it creates is that of individual notes jumping from one side to the other, or a certain stereo field in the unison modes. So, as long as you're not using the Pan Spread parameter, you're not losing half of the sound by panning at the mixer.
So you disable all Panning parameters? This is mainly done by keeping Pan Spread at 0?
If so, couldn't we use just the Left out of the keyboard and the Right line out of the module... saving some cables and channels?
>>...Then I realized it was because the PEK's oscillators are hardwired to different sides.
So, one oscillator only comes out the Left channel and the other only comes out the Right? Is there no way to set up a sound like this on the '08?
Is there a way to know from a spec sheet whether an instrument is wired more like the PEK or the '08?? What about the OB6 and Prophet 6?
I have other questions, but that's more than enough for one post. Again, I really appreciate your knowledge and help.
-Jason
This approach is of no interest to me because I don't care for the mediocre results, so I've chosen to do things differently by striving for that rare musical immensity.
I'll be the first to agree that I use a small variety of sounds in my music, and that's deliberate. I've designed a much larger range of patches in my memory banks, but I tend not to favor them when it comes to serious music. I'm not trying to win any awards for programming, nor am I trying to show off or impress anyone. My primary interest is in pure traditional music. So, I prefer a small number of patches and try to develop and perfect them to the degree I can, with the intention of putting the rest of my efforts into composition or improvisation.That's interesting to hear someone else say that. Although I make very different music to yourself, I have the same rules about what sounds I use. I'm most often trying to evoke a specific feeling in any music I make and I have a certain palette of sounds that I go back to and refine for that. It's not uncommon for me to listen to banks of pre-programmed sounds and factory patches and find nothing that I would personally use. It doesn't mean they are bad sounds, just that they don't speak to me personally.
I wonder if a "normal" Left channel would sound identical to the "combined Left channel" in your set up? If the Left channel of your rig sounds identical to the Left channel of a typical rig, then there may be hope for another way. The answer to this (whether or not what comes out of your Right speaker sounds identical in both setups) also has bearing on how big of a difference this technique would make in a live situation in which most of the audience isn't sitting in the sweet spot of the stereo field.
have you done this sort of experimenting with your Tetra? It would be so easy to make a stereo instrument with those four outputs.
Btw, when it comes to your lead Saw sounds, it seems that a vintage MiniMoog D would be a great fit for you. (I'm not as excited by the Voyager.) Is there a reason that you've ruled it out?
This really is a synthesist's disagreement, and I have to laugh at it. Having been raised on organ and some harpsichord, and possessing a profound love and reverence for the immense repertoire composed for each of these instruments, the suggestion that using only a Prophet '08 synthesizer is musically limiting - this is a tad shocking to me. The only limitations each of us needs to be concerned about are our talent and our willingness to put that talent to work. This is where the real scarcity lies.
A Prophet '08, even a single Prophet '08, is more than enough to provide a lifetime of music making. Just ask Marc Melia, whom many here highly respect for his musical ability - as I do, too. The catch is, if you're thoroughly given to the synthesizer genre (which I'm not), then you're going to want to do the typical synthesizer thing - which is to own as many different instruments as your money and space allow. Hence, countless Youtube videos, and many synth forum sub forums, revel in showing off all the stuff.
This mass and variety of stuff could in no way serve my musical intentions. The fact is, I could be happy with nothing but several Prophet '08s, or whatever other instrument might serve as well, such as the Modal Electronics 008. My point is, the synthesizer - any decent synthesizer - already by its design offers so much sonic variety that the suggestion that having only one or even two synthesizers is too limiting - this is bizarre to me. I guess I'm not enough of a synthesist to feel the same way. I'm still struggling with my own limited musical talent, versus the immense musical potential of the instruments I play.
I'm not sure whether that is somewhat directed at me. In case it was, let me clarify:
First of all, I consider limitation to be a positive thing. Whether one focuses on a particular type of sound, whether one focuses on a particular type of instrument, and so on. I rarely use the term in a demeaning way, especially not in the creative realm. When I call the approach limiting to only use a Prophet '08 for example, I'm referring to sheer quantities only, not to the instrument's inherent possibilities. In this day and age, where almost everything seems to be possible and a keystroke away, focusing on just one instrument is a deliberately limiting choice. And I highly sympathize with that.
I've already made the points I've wanted to, so I won't repeat them. But the idea of limitation is also interesting. One of the difficulties in being a synthesist is in owning instruments that have an almost incomprehensible potential. There are a number of synthesizers that I've considered and studied in the last few years that, for me, would be totally frustrating to compose on, simply because I would always be aware of the inadequate use I was making of them. One example of this would be the Roland Jupiter 80. Perhaps it shouldn't matter, but it does as a sort of artist's distraction. I've always found too much of anything to be distracting, when concentration was needed. It's a bit like trying to write in a messy room or with junk all over your desk. Some minds need a Spartan orderliness in order to work well, and this is probably true for more people than realize it.
This is how music and instruments strike me. I actually like the limitation; I actually don't want a synthesizer that can do everything. A modest instrument like the Prophet '08 makes for a wholesome creative environment, and whatever it cannot do mysteriously becomes an aid to creativity.
I've composed many pieces for church organ, having at my disposal what - to a synthesist - would be a tortuously limited range of tones. And it was never ever a problem. The only problem or limitation came in the form of the organist!
On the other hand, even though I can appreciate the thought as a synthesist, I could never really look at a Prophet '08 as "limited" except in relation to other more sophisticated instruments. But unto itself, it's quite remarkable in its flexibility.
This approach is of no interest to me because I don't care for the mediocre results, so I've chosen to do things differently by striving for that rare musical immensity.
Are you is saying that Moog , Roland, Korg , Modal, Alesis make mediocre synthesizer ?
And speaking strictly for myself: Yes, Roland makes mediocre synthesizers.Today, yes. 30+ years ago not so much. All personal preference of course. ;) I'm pretty indifferent to Korg synths with the possible exception of the mono/poly.
I had a Juno 60 many moons ago. I thought it was good, especially the filter, but not worthy of the adulation it's given these days. A Prophet '08 could run circles around it.I can't argue with that. The Juno sounds great but has none of the versatility of the P'08. It was my first analog poly so I'm still a little sentimental about it.
I had a Juno 60 many moons ago. I thought it was good, especially the filter, but not worthy of the adulation it's given these days. A Prophet '08 could run circles around it.I can't argue with that. The Juno sounds great but has none of the versatility of the P'08. It was my first analog poly so I'm still a little sentimental about it.
It's a strange way of putting it, but one of the things I like about the Prophet '08 is that it sounds so much like a Prophet 600. I've always thought the two instruments sounded more similar than any other P'08 sound-alikes. And yet, the architecture more closely resemble the Prophet-6. I'd like to hear a P-600/P-6 video comparison.
This video is a good example of what I mean. My Prophet '08 is full of these types of programs, which I really like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZvgYxHpIOQ
But even with regard to the Prophet-6 I've read comments like "it has that typically thin DSI sound." Or with regard to the OB-6: "Thankfully, it doesn't have the typical DSI sound, but it still doesn't sound as good as a real vintage Oberheim."
The P6 / OB6 are very exciting, the Pro2 does a very different job wonderfully but the P8 always draws me back...
To state the obvious, string sections do not move back and forth while they're playing!
Will get it as soon as I sell my Ambika...
To state the obvious, string sections do not move back and forth while they're playing!
Thanks! That obvious and insightful comment made me smile on a gray Monday!
Sell your Ambika to Dslsynth. Problem solved.
My point was that, chorus and flanger can sound great when you want your synthesizer to really sound like a synthesizer. But I prefer to use other forms of modulation.
To state the obvious, string sections do not move back and forth while they're playing!
I'm sure if we looked through the loony bin we could find a piece written for a string section dressed in grass skirts and hanging from the ceiling, but you'll have to excuse me for never thinking in such terms.
It depends who's in it.
Classical musicians, who tend to be a tad less loony. ;D
Classical musicians, who tend to be a tad less loony. ;D
Based on my opera experiences I have to say: I beg to differ.
My point was that, chorus and flanger can sound great when you want your synthesizer to really sound like a synthesizer. But I prefer to use other forms of modulation.
I think there are good points here when it comes to chorus/flange versus building it into the sound. One of them is what the LFO in a chorus/flange effect really are up as its essentially an approximation to multiple players being ever so slightly different in pitch and timing. One delay line and an LFO will add some movement to the sound but not be a multi-player substitute.
Very practical with wonderful sound design advice from Sacred Synthesis. Thank you for the inspiration. You definitely have succeeded in making the Prophet 08 expressive like an acoustic instrument, even if it's not exactly like any acoustic instrument I know of.
It struck me that using a chorus was not the right way to design sounds, but more of a cover for poorly made patches. Again, a stereo chorus can sound fabulous, if that's the sound you're after. But it can also keep you from finishing your patch, from striving to create the very best sound without the effect - one that is so good that it doesn't need the effect.
Classical musicians, who tend to be a tad less loony. ;D
Similar to yourself, I was drawn to the immense and dramatic intensity of the brass sections found in the third and fourth symphonies of Robert Schumann. It's been my desire to re-create that sort of expressive musical power on the synthesizer. Hence, I think very much in terms of pipe organs and symphonies whenever I sit at my synthesizers, such that one of the main obstacles for me is the synthesizer's comparable smallness of tone. The gradations from delicate to massive are all necessary in producing great music, but the synthesizer is naturally capable of the former, but not so much of the latter. So, my mind is forever pondering ways of overcoming this inherent smallness.
So, my mind is forever pondering ways of overcoming this inherent smallness.
So, my mind is forever pondering ways of overcoming this inherent smallness.
You can start off with 12 SEM modules. ;D
Similar to yourself, I was drawn to the immense and dramatic intensity of the brass sections found in the third and fourth symphonies of Robert Schumann. It's been my desire to re-create that sort of expressive musical power on the synthesizer. Hence, I think very much in terms of pipe organs and symphonies whenever I sit at my synthesizers, such that one of the main obstacles for me is the synthesizer's comparable smallness of tone. The gradations from delicate to massive are all necessary in producing great music, but the synthesizer is naturally capable of the former, but not so much of the latter. So, my mind is forever pondering ways of overcoming this inherent smallness.
I'm looking forward to listening to the Schumann symphonies you mentioned. I find your comments about big and small very interesting. Looks like I have much to learn about sound design.
Similar to yourself, I was drawn to the immense and dramatic intensity of the brass sections found in the third and fourth symphonies of Robert Schumann. It's been my desire to re-create that sort of expressive musical power on the synthesizer. Hence, I think very much in terms of pipe organs and symphonies whenever I sit at my synthesizers, such that one of the main obstacles for me is the synthesizer's comparable smallness of tone. The gradations from delicate to massive are all necessary in producing great music, but the synthesizer is naturally capable of the former, but not so much of the latter. So, my mind is forever pondering ways of overcoming this inherent smallness.
I'm looking forward to listening to the Schumann symphonies you mentioned. I find your comments about big and small very interesting. Looks like I have much to learn about sound design.
Funny that the P'08 keyboard comes in for criticism. From my, admittedly non-pianist, experience the keys on the P'08 and MEK are the only ones I've played that give me aftertouch I feel able to control. How do other people judge keyboard quality?
What I'm getting from this discussion is that when creating an ensemble type of sound the more detuned (or not completely in sync) oscillators one has the more massive the sound. If the detuned oscillators are panned differently this gives a spatially massive sound. One advantage of the VCO over the DCO is that by its nature a VCO is not going to be completely in sync with a VCO running at exactly the same frequency. Of course with the Prophet 08 you can use slop or other subtle modulations to simulate this effect.
Wow that song brings back memories! That's a great album. I'd love to be able to write such great music.
Wow that song brings back memories! That's a great album. I'd love to be able to write such great music.
It brings back memories to me as well. Would you believe I remembered the attack of those chords all these years later? In my old band days, I used an organ sound that imitated Banks' - a drawbar organ through a phaser and a chorus. It's quite easy to get it just right. It's Banks' exceptional talent that also hooked me on the ARP 2600 and Roland Space Echo - two pieces I was never able to afford. I loved the gorgeous and layered electronic orchestral sound he mastered with such instruments as the Polymoog, Prophet 10, Mellotron, and ARP Quadra. Even his use of the ARP Pro Soloist was excellent. I have to admit that I'm still influenced by him today in both music and sound. He taught me the exceptional usefulness of the diminished seventh chord. That chord can segue between two unrelated harmonic places with remarkable grace. I'm sure my love of crescendi is partly through his influence, as well as the classic sawtooth solo patch that I use so much. My last improvisation ("Crescendi") is pure Banks.
And as for "Slop," it's probably the parameter for which I find the least use. I don't share the enthusiasm of other synthesists for it, nor do I think it effectively emulates the character of old analog oscillators.
The challenging thing in that piece is that the 9/8 time signature is not done in the usual three groups of threes. It's difficult to follow without counting out nine eighth notes because the notes are not grouped in the usual sets. Otherwise, 9/8 is usually an easy time signature to follow. Bach's "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" is in 9/8!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3UuGPCCm_I
When hearing complaints about the '08 sounding thin, I wonder how two combined 08's would compare to a single "thick" vintage synth. For example, how would a patch on two '08's compare to a similar patch on a single OB-X?
I find the OB-6 state-variable and the Prophet '08 2-pole filter to sound quite similar.
I find the OB-6 state-variable and the Prophet '08 2-pole filter to sound quite similar.
I've been forming the same impression.
I find the OB-6 state-variable and the Prophet '08 2-pole filter to sound quite similar.
I've been forming the same impression.
The Prophet '08 brass patch uses the 4-pole filter setting. So I agree, it doesn't at all resemble the OB-6 sound. I was referring to other patches that do use the 2-pole setting.
The Prophet '08 brass patch uses the 4-pole filter setting. So I agree, it doesn't at all resemble the OB-6 sound. I was referring to other patches that do use the 2-pole setting.
Oh I see. Thank you for the introduction to 4-pole vs. 2-pole sound.
This is how we get stupid opinions (mine) on forums about the Prophet 08. The poster (me) doesn't know anything about sound design, has heard a few Youtube videos, and doesn't want to be left out of the party. Sometimes the poster has paid considerably less for an inferior product (Ambika?) and wants to justify his purchase against a more expensive one that he can't afford (yet).
Anyway thank you again for clarifying. I'll go back to playing with Ambika (who doesn't have a 2-pole setting). :)
I haven't put much energy into creating a choir patch on the P'08, mainly because the Poly Evolver does such a fine job on this sound. I don't think the P'08 is quite up to this challenge, though, because of its filter, but you can get vaguely similar. The closest I've come is in "Improvisation LXII," but I wasn't even trying. The key is in using a lot of filter Keyboard Amount, setting the right amount of Resonance, finding the exact spot on the Cut Off Frequency, having a fairly wide vibrato depth (3), and using a moderately slow Attack.
Moinmoin,
Well, You needn't... (SCNR, Thelonius 8))
... use a formant filter to synthesize a choir.
Formants are nothing else than massive peaks within the frequency spectrum of a given sound, the main peaks of the most wanted vocal voices being at:
"U" ~ 320Hz ~ E4
"O" ~ 500Hz ~ B4
"A" ~ 1000Hz ~ B5
These peaks may be generated in multiple ways, of which a formant filter surely is one. But there are other possibilities:To get a choir You will have to do those things quite normal generating "many voices":
- setting a filter to nearly resonate at the (main) frequency of the required formant
- mixing the "normal" sound with a more or less filtered frequency (or noise, filtered as above) of the required formant
- syncing an oscillator with the formant's (main) frequency
Now care for those formants:
- set Osc waveforms to square to allow pulse modulation to mimick a kind of chorus
- use a stacked patch (A+B), which will again make the sound more chorus-like
- set slop to a value >3 as a third measure to mimick some more voices
You may start from here by tweeking Osc 1 frequency, Osc mix, filter, audio mod, and noise to Your taste. Audio mod and noise may be relevant, as formants do shine in a sort of mix more than in a sound only defined by one single frequency. If satisfied with the sound, try modulations (LFOs) and Envelopes on some parameters.
- set Osc 1 key follow to OFF (Osc 2 remains ON) to free Osc 1 to generate a frequency in the formant range
- set Sync to ON, and sync Osc 2 with the formant frequency set by Osc 1
You may even get two pleasing sounds and manage to "morph" between those by use of the modulation wheel:This is what I did to morph a sort of el cheapo male choir from "aaah" to "oooh" (see attached PDF), but do Yourself a favour:
- write down the differences in parameters of the two sounds
- set one of them with modulation wheel in its zero position
- set the parameter differences as parameters of the modulation wheel
Take the time to check the way described above before "mindlessly setting knobs"
Don't keep Yourself from learning...
HTH
Martin
I haven't found Sync to be helpful in creating a large realistic chorus sound. It is useful in creating an individual voice, although one that is a bit humorous and lacks dignity.
That's a pretty understated and hilarious description. Do you mean it sounds like "mow mow mow?" But I think your earlier comments about creating ensembles apply here. There's no substitute for cubic inches!
I am ever more convinced you're just trying to get me to buy another Prophet '08 module even before I've received my keyboard version yet. You're pretty evil considering your moniker (just kidding!)
I'll try to make something like this patch on my Teenage Engineering OP-1 to see what I get.
Martin, I too would love to hear an audio sample if you'd be willing to create one.
I'm not trying to talk you into buying a Prophet '08 Module, Tumble2k. Okay, I am. No, wait, I'm not.... :P
The problem is, the Prophet '08 is an excellent instrument as is, but it has a potential that it cannot reach without that other module. It's transformed by the second unit. That's the "problem." I would say the same about a Poly Evolver Keyboard: it's transformed by a Rack. I consider voice-count to be of extreme importance, as important as the length of the keyboard. These are just the basic necessities of music, and coming up short on them leaves one musically handicapped in ways that can't be easily overcome. So, my personal approach is to have only a few larger/expanded instruments, rather than have many smaller ones.
sort of el cheapo male choir from "aaah" to "oooh"(don't forget that "cheap", although I really use this sample) and post it.
Moinmoin,
don't know what Sacred Synthesis is trying to convince of, but IMHO P'08 is the synth currently available giving me most of what I need.
In my case: It is a musical instrument of own worth, and although I sometimes use it for "mimicking something", I prefer the sounds unheared yet, which it is capable to produce a lot of: I need knobs to extensively use them in realtime!
I will take a sound sample of myQuotesort of el cheapo male choir from "aaah" to "oooh"(don't forget that "cheap", although I really use this sample) and post it.
Will take me until friday this week as I am on travel.
Martin
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.
Well, using the techniques from MartinM's post I was able to put together this choir sound.
once you've worked with the instrument for a while, you're going to see the logic of coupling the keyboard with a module, as you see your best ideas limited by a four-voice result. The Prophet '08 cries out to be a sixteen-voice instrument.
I discovered that if I set the Pan Spread to 127, the two layers are always panned to opposite sides. This means that if the two layers are similar you still get the spacious sound. I certainly can't tell that with each note played the voices are swapping between the left and right channels.
In addition to the module, I use my Prophet '08 keyboard to control a Hammond organ module (btw, the best one that I've found is the HX3). I intent to keep the Midi channel on 3 for controlling the module and then switch to Midi channel 1 or 2 to play the organ. I'm hoping that, with only these two slaves, I won't need a Midi thru box. When I make the switch from playing synthesizer to playing Hammond, I first turn down the volume on the keyboard and then change channels. As long as the volume is turned down, it works fine. The issue is that when I change to channel 1, the module also changes to channel 1. So if I accidentally touch the Prophet's volume pedal, the module volume jumps up and becomes audible.
You won't find all effects You like with stereo inputs. To find an effect with two stereo inputs is nearly impossible. But if You use a mixer with aux outputs (effect send), You will be able to use effects with monophonic inputs on the P'08 stereo outputs.[/li][/list]
Since you're using one keyboard to control two modules, why wouldn't you make the changes at a little keyboard mixer? It would be as simple as releasing one button and pressing another; it would take one second. There would be no need to go into Global or to adjust volume levels. I make this kind of change constantly while I'm playing, and even though I'm in a music room, still, everything I do is live.
- The P'08 has some output noise at high frequency that is independent of its volume setting. This is minimized by cranking the P'08 volume totally up and setting the overall volume at the mixer (which is the right method of mixing, anyway...).
I've been keeping my eye on the "TS to TRS Question" with the hopes that someone will hit on a way to cut down on the number of channels I'm using!
Thanks for the idea. ...So just keep it set to channel ALL and control with the mixer volumes. That hadn't actually occurred to me because I have been intending to put the mixer down on the floor on a rack or something, so that it's not as visible to an audience. However, I haven't actually done this yet; I still have it up on a stand similar to your setup. I have a lot to learn about mixers, but I don't think I have mute buttons that will work as simply as yours. Please advise if you see an option:
http://www.allen-heath.com/ahproducts/zed-10fx/
I just did a big bass sound for Foreigner's Cold as Ice.
Foreigner's Cold as Ice. Ohhh! Let's here it, please. :)
By the way, is there a way to track these LFO's with the keyboard? In the same video by Porcaro, he demonstrates tracking the LFO's so that they get faster as you play higher. This allows the strings to sound better across the whole keyboard. If there's a way to do this on the '08, I can't figure it out.
I've been getting a lot of crackles on presets, and I was beginning to wonder whether the internal circuitry was running too hot or something. Last night I discovered the VCA Env Amount knob! Turning this knob sets the output level of the voice into the mixer. Seems to make the sound have less of that drilling brightness, but that could be my imagination.
Once I started to get control of the filter I was creating sounds that I wanted to hear. I also modulated the oscillator frequencies with noise (I used a mod amount of 1) and added some audio mod to brighten the filter.
I'm especially interested in: "I also modulated the oscillator frequencies with noise (I used a mod amount of 1) and added some audio mod to brighten the filter. These are tricks that mephistofeles wrote about in another forum." I noticed this in another thread and attempted to use a random wave shape to modulate an oscillator... but I didn't have good results. Would you please give your settings for this and for the audio mod?? Is there still a link to check out these old posts?
I noticed that Sacred Synthesis mentioned using audio mod on his last (brilliant) video, and I really don't understand what how it works.
I often use VCA velocity amount on the Prophet08. If I do that, I have to dial back the VCA env amt, because its initially at 127. There's no higher value possible, so the VCA vel amt can't add anything to it. This is why I always use the inverse value (e.g. vel amt 64 -> env amt 63 | vel amt 80 -> env amt 47), if I want to retain volume but not cutting off high velocity values.
I also, like you said, dial back VCA env amt, if my patch seems to distort, but it seems to me that lowering the overall patch volume (misc parameters -> voice volume) is achieving the same result.
I believe you can create a modulation with the key number as the source and an individual LFO frequency or all LFO frequencies as the destination.
I also, like you said, dial back VCA env amt, if my patch seems to distort, but it seems to me that lowering the overall patch volume (misc parameters -> voice volume) is achieving the same result.
I haven't been able to get good results from using the Random LFO. Mephistofeles says that the rate is best between 70-100 IIRC, but I still hear the oscillators burbling. Higher LFO rates did not help this problem. I think this is what you're saying doesn't give good results..
Jason, the audio mod parameter is a type of FM synthesis where the actual output of oscillator 1 modulates the frequency of the filter. If you have the resonance way up you can get real FM sounds, but with the resonance lower audio modulation just adds some more higher harmonics to the filtered sound. Mephistofeles suggested using it to brighten up the filter when the cutoff is set really low.
I did notice today how it added some highs to the filter (I was using pretty low resonance.) Did Mephistofeles or anyone else offer a range that is most helpful?
Perhaps that is why Marc Doty recommended modulating the frequency of the oscillators when he created his video about making the Pro 2 sound "vintage"? I'm still trying to figure this out.
I had lengthly discussions with people who are professionals in analog and digital signal processing and one guy mentioned, that the older synths have a kind of pink noise (or even darker) in the pitch-CV of the OSCs. So basically each OSC has a slightly different dark noise modulation (much different than what you can try to achieve with a single digital noise source for all OSCs) that makes the harmonics seem to sound "broader" and thus "fatter" if you want to stress that terminology.
So, I'll have to part ways with the popular view here, and say that I'm never striving to destabilize the Prophet '08's sound; no, just the opposite.
So, I'll have to part ways with the popular view here, and say that I'm never striving to destabilize the Prophet '08's sound; no, just the opposite.
I'm not sure that destabilizing an oscillator is a popular view. I would bet that most of us are going for similar qualities regarding sound design. (I, for one, consider the sounds that you are able to get to be the high watermark.) I think the clearest difference here is that you have probably experimented with and abandoned these ideas long ago, whereas, I have only experimented with them briefly and recently. As I said, my results weren't favorable, but there are still several things I would like to experiment with... including the suggestions you give in the second part of your email.
I say the result will be the same as Doty's - a sterile sawtooth that has been destabilized by random modulation, and not a tone that now sounds warm, rich, musical, or greatly improved.
The modulation amount of 1 is still too high to get the required variation without sounding like an artifact (that fine line between "wow" and "aaaargh" that Martin refers to). I found that modulating the frequency with noise was better, but it's still a little too obvious, especially if you're listening to the plain oscillator.
I suspect (but I don't know for sure) that if I could set the modulation amount lower (I can't find a way to do this because the logic of Prophet '08's modulation system seems to disallow finer adjustments) I might be able to get the oscillator to sound pure and yet not have that flat and static sound.
Indeed, the Prophet '08 is a relatively simple instrument...
Playing around with adding noise to the VCO frequency in very small amounds I think I confirmed what Sacred Synthesis was saying: if you add enough noise to provide movement the oscillator doesn't sound realistic.
Sacred Synthesis's method of mixing in a small amount of a slightly detuned oscillator is great. It does provide a subtle movement while maintaining the integrity of the original oscillator.
Fuseball -:D
I'm always amused to read your comments about the Prophet-6. You seem to have a love-hate relationship with it, and I never know which you're going to express next.
But by no means do the two synthesizers stand on equal footing when it comes to simple direct analog tone. In this area, the Prophet '08 wins. If I want an immense brass patch, or a rich string patch, or a sweet sawtooth solo patch, I always go to the P'08.
In addition, the two instruments have different behaving envelopes. I always use the linear setting on each, yet the response is different.
I realize in one sense the analog side of the PEK is identical to the P'08, but it must be that the AD/DA conversions have a substantial sonic effect. There's no way these two instruments sound the same. If they did, I probably would have sold my P'08s years ago; but, in fact, I much prefer them over the PEKs because I prefer quality over variety.
Paul, what's your opinion on the Prophet 6? I do get an inferiority complex thinking I couldn't afford the "real" analog synth :).
Hiding behind my Prophet-6…
I can respond to both of your comments, because I've obviously got both instruments side-by-side and have many times compared the same patches on each. An eight-voice (or twelve-voice) Poly Evolver is a pad masterpiece. The hybrid aspect allows you to go in one, the other, or both directions at the same time. A number of the digital wave shapes respond beautifully to changes in the filter, making much more than merely typical sweeps, but something more enchanting. It makes superb complex pads that are both warm and dreamy. That's what I most like about the PEK. But by no means do the two synthesizers stand on equal footing when it comes to simple direct analog tone. In this area, the Prophet '08 wins. If I want an immense brass patch, or a rich string patch, or a sweet sawtooth solo patch, I always go to the P'08.
The Evolver has a cooler analog tone, which is not a problem when you're piling on all the oscillators. There are various ways to compensate for the shortcoming, but when you use a simple clean sound - say, one or two analog sawtooths with minimal effects and modulation - it's quite noticeable.
In addition, the two instruments have different behaving envelopes. I always use the linear setting on each, yet the response is different. For something like a brass patch, again, the P'08 works much better; it seems easier to control and anticipate its behavior.
The Prophet '08 is also able to make finer increments - be it through after touch or in setting LFO modulation depth. For example, when using the PEK's third envelope for a delayed vibrato, the first increment of modulation depth is already too deep for creating a moderate vibrato.
I realize in one sense the analog side of the PEK is identical to the P'08, but it must be that the AD/DA conversions have a substantial sonic effect. There's no way these two instruments sound the same. If they did, I probably would have sold my P'08s years ago; but, in fact, I much prefer them over the PEKs because I prefer quality over variety.
I, too, think our memories of the old vintage instruments have been pleasantly and unrealistically colored over time. When I was playing my Juno 60, CAT SRM, Elka Rhapsody, and Taurus pedals, I distinctly remember often being frustrated with many issues, including sonic qualities. I wasn't revelling in their famous phatness, warmth, and richness. I was too busy half of the time getting them repaired! So, I do think we've quite romanticized the old synths into a synthesist's utopia. Of course, that's not to say that modern synthesizers sound better, but just different.
Last night I plugged in my cheap iPhone headphones that pump the bass and roll off the highs.
What a difference! The Prophet came alive with a warm and rich presence I associate with vintage synthesizers.
I had read somewhere that turning up the bass in the EQ could had some warmth to the '08, but I guess I hadn't experimented with it before. Today I turned the EQ bass from 12:00 to 3:00, and I turned the highs from 12:00 back to 11:00. I then added about five to the filter setting in order to get the brightness where I had it before. I have to say that I think you're on to something here! My initial experiments were that I liked just about all the sounds better. Keep in mind that in my typical band setting, I am not playing a lot of low notes on the Prophet, and so I was mainly testing right hand parts. I went through many of my favorite sounds with good results. The other thing that I didn't yet experiment with is using the Prophet and Module pair. Maybe making the above adjustment on one and leaving the other one straight would be the way to go?
I have been playing around with random modulation of pitch in a way to add some movement to the P'08's DCOs. I used dswo's techniques to lower the amount of modulation so that it is not perceptible directly. Specifically I use the following settings:
LFO 3 Freq: 149
LFO 3 Amount: 0
LFO 3 Shape: Random
LFO 3 Dest: Osc 1 Freq
LFO 4 Freq: 143
LFO 4 Amount: 0
LFO 4 Shape: Random
LFO 4 Dest: Osc 2 Freq
Env 3 Dest: LFO 3 Amount
Env 3 Amount: 1
Env 3 Delay: 0
Env 3 Attack: 0
Env 3 Decay: 0
Env 3 Sustain: Anything less than 10
Env 3 Release: 127
Mod 4 Source: Envelope 3
Mod 4 Dest: LFO 2 Amount
Mod 4 Amount: 1
So with this setup I can modulate the modulation level using the Envelope 3 Sustain knob.
For a lot of my tests I run the two oscillators slightly detuned say +-2 and the slop at low levels or off. What I find is that if the sustain level is at 10 I can start hearing the beats between the two oscillators, and it sounds lumpy and unnatural. However, if I have the sustain level below 10 I can't hear the lumpiness.
Here's the crazy part. At this low level of modulation, the P'08 oscillators *feel* more alive. I just can't prove it's so because it's really subtle; if I was doing a double blind test I probably would not be able to tell the difference. Anyway, I've set up the basic patch with these modulations as the basis for my analog emulation patches and will experiment further. If anyone else has or cares to play around with these ideas I'd love to hear about it.
QuoteIn addition, the two instruments have different behaving envelopes. I always use the linear setting on each, yet the response is different.I didn't know about this linear setting. Can you tell me more? Or is it only an Evolver thing?
I have been playing around with random modulation of pitch in a way to add some movement to the P'08's DCOs. I used dswo's techniques to lower the amount of modulation so that it is not perceptible directly. Specifically I use the following settings:
LFO 3 Freq: 149
LFO 3 Amount: 0
LFO 3 Shape: Random
LFO 3 Dest: Osc 1 Freq
LFO 4 Freq: 143
LFO 4 Amount: 0
LFO 4 Shape: Random
LFO 4 Dest: Osc 2 Freq
Env 3 Dest: LFO 3 Amount
Env 3 Amount: 1
Env 3 Delay: 0
Env 3 Attack: 0
Env 3 Decay: 0
Env 3 Sustain: Anything less than 10
Env 3 Release: 127
Mod 4 Source: Envelope 3
Mod 4 Dest: LFO 2 Amount
Mod 4 Amount: 1
So with this setup I can modulate the modulation level using the Envelope 3 Sustain knob.
For a lot of my tests I run the two oscillators slightly detuned say +-2 and the slop at low levels or off. What I find is that if the sustain level is at 10 I can start hearing the beats between the two oscillators, and it sounds lumpy and unnatural. However, if I have the sustain level below 10 I can't hear the lumpiness.
Here's the crazy part. At this low level of modulation, the P'08 oscillators *feel* more alive. I just can't prove it's so because it's really subtle; if I was doing a double blind test I probably would not be able to tell the difference. Anyway, I've set up the basic patch with these modulations as the basis for my analog emulation patches and will experiment further. If anyone else has or cares to play around with these ideas I'd love to hear about it.
Thanks, Dswo.
I rarely spend time any longer on the other synth forums, but today I stopped by the Moog Forum. There's an interesting thread on the Prophet-6. It was mostly positive, but even in the midst of the kind words directed towards DSI, there were the usual criticisms of the Prophet '08 and its "thin" tone. I'm glad I don't consider such comments to be worth a cow flop, and it reminded me of something I've wanted to post for a while, I suppose somewhat ironically.
If you're trying to make a decision about musical instruments, take the forums very lightly. They can serve the purpose of providing additional information to company and music store websites, but the voluminous comments and opinions can confuse and lead you astray when it comes to making an actual decision - the decision that is right for you. I have found far more bad advice on these forums than good, and been led in the wrong direction more often than the right. People often suggest that you do or buy what they would do or buy, and give advice that suits their interests, as if you would benefit from being them. I would say, if you're trying to make a gear decision, eliminate or at least limit this mass of forum twaddle, be selective in what you read, and go light on opinions and heavy on facts. Spend your time analyzing your own needs and comparing them with each instrument's capabilities. Careful private research based entirely on facts is far more beneficial than reading a thousand opinions and then trying to come up with their average. YouTube videos are very helpful, even if the sound quality is only moderate. But cut way down on the volumes of viewpoints, which can cloud your thinking.
I say this recalling all the warnings I've come across the past seven years concerning the Prophet '08's and Poly Evolver's dreadfully bad Curtiss filters, thin tone, and etc. Right. I am sooooo happy with these instruments, and if I had taken too seriously this mass of negative opinions, I wouldn't have bought them; I would have bought, instead, what was right fro some one else.
I've been fortunate enough to be able to consult with a few knowledgeable pals on this forum, such as Paul Dither, and it's been both helpful and enjoyable. But most of what is found on the forums in general strikes me as utter rubbish when it comes to clarity of thought, so that going against the tide has been the wiser method of making right decisions. There's much to be said for a generous amount of self-reliance when making these decisions.
I've been fiddling with my P'08 for a few months now sometimes getting good sounds and sometimes not. I've always found the filter somewhat grating, but better when I played it through an old school amplifier that cut the highs and boosted the bass somewhat. Last night I realized (I think the word might be rediscovered) that I might be overdriving the output stage of the P'08 because of the output level was set too high. The default voice has the level set to 127, and yes, that does drive the output hard to the point it's slightly clipping.
When I dialed the output level down (to a very conservative value of 90) I found that the filter smoothed out quite considerably. Gone was the tendency to go instantly from too bright to muffled. The P'08 is definitely brighter than the P5 in the video, but in a nice modern way, as if the output stages aren't cutting everything off above 12kHz or so.
I opine that the bad rap the P'08 filter gets is due to the output clipping. I'm still playing with the overly stable DCO question but my results are inconclusive. I still owe Inetzel a recording, which will be improved now that I have the output level set correctly. I may need to get a P6 to find out what VCOs bring to the party that DCO's don't, if anything.
Now there's an interesting viewpoint. The Prophet '08 just isn't a Prophet 5; Oh no, it's better than a Prophet 5!
I must confess that, contrary to an Internet full of complaints, I've liked the P'08 filter right from the start. I've always been mystified by the excessive belly-aching about it, as if it made the most dreadful sound on earth...
I opine that the bad rap the P'08 filter gets is due to the output clipping. I'm still playing with the overly stable DCO question but my results are inconclusive. I still owe Inetzel a recording, which will be improved now that I have the output level set correctly. I may need to get a P6 to find out what VCOs bring to the party that DCO's don't, if anything.
Very interesting! I've been working on guitar recently, so my P08 hasn't had much love. But I'd be curious to hear what others think of this.
My point is, though, that the random and constant detuning of notes does not emulate the character of a vintage mono synth.
That said, the Prophet 08 is still a fantastic instrument in it's own right, and offered at a very affordable price. I find it much more tempting than i.e. the upcoming Behringer synth (based on comparing features and interface alone).
That said, the Prophet 08 is still a fantastic instrument in it's own right, and offered at a very affordable price. I find it much more tempting than i.e. the upcoming Behringer synth (based on comparing features and interface alone).
Absolutely! I'm not complaining at all about the Prophet '08. I'm just trying to pinpoint a particular quality that so many folks like in VCO instruments. The fact is, I don't like Slop at all for monophonic patches and would be fine without it altogether. I only play around with it because it's there. And I like DCOs.
I think the problem with slop, like I think have been touched upon already, has something to do with the frequency division and that is probably why you can never get a DCO with natural sounding drift.
It's the only logical explanation to me, as there is software out there today that is virtually indistinguishable from their hardware counterpart, and that emulates different VCO properties in a very realistic way.
When I dialed the output level down (to a very conservative value of 90) I found that the filter smoothed out quite considerably. Gone was the tendency to go instantly from too bright to muffled. The P'08 is definitely brighter than the P5 in the video, but in a nice modern way, as if the output stages aren't cutting everything off above 12kHz or so.
I opine that the bad rap the P'08 filter gets is due to the output clipping.
I personally find the P6 VCOs so stable as to offer no discernible benefits over DCOs. If anything, the P'08 has the edge as you can precisely fine tune both oscillators apart from each other. :)
On slop:
I was playing the T8 Strings preset and tweaking it to my taste: enabling velocity sensitivity, disabling aftertouch, turning down the voice volume, which smooths out the filter, etc. When I was able to control it right I started playing some string pieces. Hmmm. Someone is playing out of tune. Is this high school orchestra? Oh yeah, slop! The slop was set to 2 or 3. I turned it to 0 and ... okay this sounds more professional! I think Sacred Synthesis said that slop recreates the worst quality of an old vintage synth, and I definitely agree.
tumble2k-
i tweaked the X-strings patch too. Attached are a couple of examples. It's just a test piece. The performance is not that great, but i think it gives the flavor of an OB-X type string patch. One is dry and the other has a little reverb and chorus added on for good measure. Enjoy! If you like it, I'll give you some of the tweaks I did.
So I made the measurement. I played a D below middle C, which has a frequency of approximately 147 Hz. The minimum beat frequency I could generate was around 1/14 Hz or around .07 Hz. This gives a frequency resolution of around 0.04%. I'd expect that the total noise on the control voltage of a VCO would be in this ballpark, which would mean that the modulating a DCO with noise would not result in a normal frequency distribution as we'd expect with a VCO. Instead we'd get three spikes, one at 147 - 0.07 Hz, 147 Hz, and 147 + 0.07 Hz. Based on that I think that the DCO would have a lot of trouble sounding like a VCO just as eXode says. Darn!
Don't know which bit is currently used in the P'08, but I am curious what kind of impact using 64 bits (with high frequency clocks) would have on the frequency resolution of a DCO.
(mere humans, does anybody remember the Illuminatus trilogy?)
Moinmoin,
tumble2k askedQuoteDon't know which bit is currently used in the P'08, but I am curious what kind of impact using 64 bits (with high frequency clocks) would have on the frequency resolution of a DCO.
If this is meant as resolution of the DCO control signal, it would be pretty useless:
The human ear/brain-combination will not be able to resolve 64 Bit resolution, which equals to 2-64 = 5,4 * 10-20 = 5,4 * 10-18% = 0,000 000 000 000 000 005 4%.
One cent BTW makes a difference of 0,000 577 789 5 = 0,057 778 95%
As a comparison some maximum deviations of pretty common instruments:
Hammond B3 (largest deviation being contra G# with 0,71 cent): 0,041 023 054 5%
M086 (one of the more accurate TOS-chips used in the eighties): 0,069%
The sensitivity of human ear/brain-combination depends on the human individual, of course. But more on the sound's purity - whether exact sine or not - level, and duration. Under optimal conditions, which never occur when listening to music, involving a talented, healthy, and even trained person under test, also using an exact sinewave of ideal level and duration, it may be given as:
Less than 3Hz for frequencies < 500Hz, resulting in 0,000 06% in the ultimate best case. For frequencies above 1kHz, this reduces to about 0,6%.
But as 1000Hz sits in between B5 and C6, which already are fairly "high" notes, we will ignore this bad value, throwing bad light on us humans compared to possibly higher developed beings in this universe...
We mehums (mere humans, does anybody remember the Illuminatus trilogy?) will never need 64Bit resolution, as this results in an accurracy 14 decades higher than necessary. Even DCOs designed by morons will never use up this reserve ;)
In order to get reasonable binary resolution for DCOs, You might calculate backwards: 2-x < 0,000 06%, which would result in a resolution of 21Bit (0,000 0476 837%).
As we normally do not like to listen to pure sinewaves, prefer some chords over single notes, and usually have some other noises involved (excuse me, drummers 8)), this still remains overkill. So take 16Bits and happily get 0,001 525 879%, which is 45 times more accurate as the M086 and its siblings, which were used in numerous organs and string machines of the seventies.
Martin
The sensitivity of human ear/brain-combination depends on the human individual, of course. But more on the sound's purity - whether exact sine or not - level, and duration. Under optimal conditions, which never occur when listening to music, involving a talented, healthy, and even trained person under test, also using an exact sinewave of ideal level and duration, it may be given as:
Less than 3Hz for frequencies < 500Hz, resulting in 0,000 06% in the ultimate best case. For frequencies above 1kHz, this reduces to about 0,6%.
But as 1000Hz sits in between B5 and C6, which already are fairly "high" notes, we will ignore this bad value, throwing bad light on us humans compared to possibly higher developed beings in this universe...
Having said that I agree with your conclusion that 64 bits is overkill for this purpose. I sat down and calculated that the number of bits used on the Prophet 08 DCO is approximately 18. 32 bits should be quite sufficient to get VCO type frequency jitter from a DCO.
All I want(ed) to tell is that brute force aproaches - and using 64Bit is exactly that - will neither help nor even lead to the right direction, they never do.
Martin
Beating with ~0,1Hz (one full circle in 10 seconds) in this frequency range will result in deviations of ~1% and ~0,00001% at the low/high end respectively. As even those of us with bat-ears may not really enjoy listening to string sounds with fundamentals at 12kHz, we may restrict the higher end to practical values in the 1kHz region, resulting in minimal deviations of about 0,01%.
This would be possible with 20Bit resolution, gaining 2-20 = 0,0095%.
The engineer having said all that, this is a very academic discussion: MIDI teaches us, that even 7Bit are enough as control signal width. All the rest said here may be handled DCO-internally: As DCOs are digital, two or more of them would react exactly the same, if digital calculations are made before the very control of the analog part.
I do not know, where DSI generates this "real thing" controlling the analog part of the DCO, but there are so many ways to achieve this.
eXode, I agree it would be very interesting to see whether using a higher resolution DCO would help it sound more natural. The digital timers/counters on modern SOCs have 32 bit resolution and typically run at the system clock speed which could be in the tens of megahertz range. Additionally, the Prophet 12 generates its waveforms digitally, which allows for extremely fine frequency resolution at all pitches if designed properly. So that is perhaps the better synth to use for emulating a VCO. Kind of ironic, huh? ;)
I shouldn't derail this thread about the excellent Prophet 08 any further, so I give you Marc Meliŕ :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpYfuUX9hVM
Moinmoin,
sorry for the long post(s), but one of my most sensitive spots has been hit ;)
Thank you. Granted, this chat has more or less remained about the Prophet '08. But I would suggest that one of you start a new thread on resolution or whatever has become the actual theme here. Things have drifted away from the original topic, which is a direct hands-on general use/appreciation of the Prophet '08, together with various ideas in applying its musical/sonic capabilities. Less technical, more practical.
Thank you. Granted, this chat has more or less remained about the Prophet '08. But I would suggest that one of you start a new thread on resolution or whatever has become the actual theme here. Things have drifted away from the original topic, which is a direct hands-on general use/appreciation of the Prophet '08, together with various ideas in applying its musical/sonic capabilities. Less technical, more practical.
My bad. I've been considering creating a tumble2k rant thread about my Prophet'08 discoveries. Some of what I've contributed to this thread I've later found to be untrue or at least not the whole story. This is a testament to the depth of this instrument.
Over the course of the VCO and DCO investigation, I have a new appreciation for DCOs. When you're looking for purity of tone they are second to none. VCOs may have some natural movement and digital oscillators may have more flexibility, but the Prophet'08 has some beautiful pristine oscillators especially in the high frequencies. Ahhh!
Listening to so many video demonstrations on YouTube and recordings on Soundcloud, I've been convinced of one thing: the best string sound comes from the Prophet '08. Yes, it needs reverb, but it doesn't need chorus or any other effect. I dare say, the same is true for many other types of sounds, such as brass and various pads. This has occurred to me since the early Prophet 12 demos appeared, it was strikingly apparent in Starsky Carr's videos, and the latest from Synthetic Things makes it painfully clear. I think one of the main reasons is the P'08's abundance of modulation. In my opinion, it generally sounds more natural to produce modulation with LFOs than to try to compensate for a lack of modulation with an effect such as chorus. If you feel the need to add chorus, something is wrong with your instrument. Effects make a synthesizer sound excessively electronic and unnatural. Some folks like this, but I definitely do not.
In spite of the instruments that have come out since the Prophet '08 was released in late 2007, I haven't heard anything that substantially surpasses what I'm able to create with my P'08 Keyboard/Module pair, or even with a single unit. Which is only to say that each instrument has its strengths and weaknesses - of course. But the musical excellence of the Prophet '08 has not faded one iota beside the newer DSI synthesizers. I think it shines all the more these days.
DSI has confirmed it through an email. Both the Prophet '08 Keyboard and Module have been cancelled and the company is out of stock.
My only regret for the Prophet '08 platform was the omission of the dual sub-octave generators featured in the Mopho / Tetra, which really made a difference in terms of extending the voice flexibility (e.g., set Osc 1 to 8' with PWM on LFO 2, Osc 2 to 4' with PWM on LFO 3, with a bit of the sub under each)–by that account, I was much more bummed about the demise of the Tetra (which remains screamingly good value for money)–as every other DSI offering provides sub-octave functionality.
and the programmable feedback of the Tetra in my opinion. I think the feedback is great for adding a bit of extra bite.
DSI has confirmed it through an email. Both the Prophet '08 Keyboard and Module have been cancelled and the company is out of stock.
DSI has confirmed it through an email. Both the Prophet '08 Keyboard and Module have been cancelled and the company is out of stock.
Mine's working fine, but I wonder what impact this will have on repairs.
Paul's assessment is correct. We still service every DSI instrument that's been made, even the long discontinued ones.
Paul's assessment is correct. We still service every DSI instrument that's been made, even the long discontinued ones.
Paul's assessment is correct. We still service every DSI instrument that's been made, even the long discontinued ones.
Nice to know, thanks! Could the "still service" indicate that that would not continue on the longer term? What could make DSI stop servicing old instrument one day? Any official policy on this?
I do get the common sense and to a large extend agree with it. However, what I am fishing for is an official long term hardware maintenance policy from DSI.
ProTip for DSI: The best such policy is "as long as the parts are available". ;)
I'm going to follow up on an old topic, making the Prophet '08 DCOs to sound like VCOs. I have what I think is a pretty good method that is subtle and doesn't consume a lot of LFOs.
tumble2k , that was really helpful - took me down the path to what i think is my best patch in a while.. so thanks!
Something that is relatively new to me is using the repeat function of the ENV 3 to have cyclic modulation with different shapes to an LFO that are possible to further modulate. Can get very expressive and interesting rhythms with it!
I'm not sure there is an internal way to get the VCO sound out of the '08... But I applaud your efforts and will continue to try your suggestions!
When I listen to the simple VCO sound of the something like a OB-X, like in this video, I can't help wishing that I could get such a full, alive sound. Why can't someone develop an effect to give us a sound like that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQzth1wRO9Y
I believe that VCOs sound the way they do is that the VCO has a small amount (+/- 0.02% or 0.39 cent on the Korg ARP Odyssey according to jdt9517's measurements) of random frequency variation. When you mix two of them they don't beat in a predictable way and therefore blend together. On the Prophet '08 the DCOs are so precise that when they are detuned they create a slow beating sound (jdt9517 described this as "phasing"). Additionally when you first press the key, the two oscillators are in phase on the Prophet '08 and then slowly move out of phase.
I suppose an effect to do the same thing would be a phasor with a tiny random phase. Is there any effects box that does this?
I believe that VCOs sound the way they do is that the VCO has a small amount (+/- 0.02% or 0.39 cent on the Korg ARP Odyssey according to jdt9517's measurements) of random frequency variation. When you mix two of them they don't beat in a predictable way and therefore blend together. On the Prophet '08 the DCOs are so precise that when they are detuned they create a slow beating sound (jdt9517 described this as "phasing"). Additionally when you first press the key, the two oscillators are in phase on the Prophet '08 and then slowly move out of phase.
...But when you're trying to make classical sounding instruments like I am, you need some high frequency action. The Prophet '08 seems to be very good in the highs: clean and clear without digital hash.
I meant traditional classical acoustic instruments. My impression is that vintage synths are too bloated and dark to sound like classical acoustic instruments. I love the sound of old Moogs and stuff, but it's not what I'm trying to create, and it's not necessarily good combined with other instruments. Is that what is meant by "sitting well in a mix?"
The advantage the Prophet '08 has over a ROMpler is that I can quickly and easily modify the articulation of the sound without having to switch samples. Granted the sound won't be as realistic, but I feel that with samples you start to get this Uncanny Valley effect where the sound is so much like the real thing that small differences become jarringly obvious. It takes more and more work to fix these differences until it becomes all you do.
The analog nature of the Prophet '08 has a couple of advantages too. For one, it has a good amount of dynamic impact, like a real instrument. In other words, it's not always polite and subdued. Also I'm never wondering if the sound is thin because some aliasing is interfering with the harmonics.
You should ask, Sacred Synthesis. You're a huge sound design influence on me.
I meant traditional classical acoustic instruments. My impression is that vintage synths are too bloated and dark to sound like classical acoustic instruments. I love the sound of old Moogs and stuff, but it's not what I'm trying to create, and it's not necessarily good combined with other instruments. Is that what is meant by "sitting well in a mix?"
The advantage the Prophet '08 has over a ROMpler is that I can quickly and easily modify the articulation of the sound without having to switch samples. Granted the sound won't be as realistic, but I feel that with samples you start to get this Uncanny Valley effect where the sound is so much like the real thing that small differences become jarringly obvious. It takes more and more work to fix these differences until it becomes all you do.
The analog nature of the Prophet '08 has a couple of advantages too. For one, it has a good amount of dynamic impact, like a real instrument. In other words, it's not always polite and subdued. Also I'm never wondering if the sound is thin because some aliasing is interfering with the harmonics.
You should ask, Sacred Synthesis. You're a huge sound design influence on me.
The advantage the Prophet '08 has over a ROMpler is that I can quickly and easily modify the articulation of the sound without having to switch samples.
For one, it has a good amount of dynamic impact, like a real instrument. In other words, it's not always polite and subdued.
When I listen to the simple VCO sound of the something like a OB-X, like in this video, I can't help wishing that I could get such a full, alive sound. Why can't someone develop an effect to give us a sound like that?
Third, I set the modulation wheel to control the filter cut off frequency for dynamic changes, and I use this a lot throughout the music. Fourth - and here's the catch - the patch has to have a deep stereo field. Since I use a P'08 Keyboard in conjunction with a P'08 Module, I dump the patch from the keyboard to the module and then pan each instrument to opposite sides at the mixer. This is essential to the overall sound and gives it a spacious depth that a mono signal could only envy.
So there are two ways I know of to inject some variation into the rock solid frequencies of the oscillators: use an LFO or use the modulation matrix. The advantage of using the LFO is that modulation slots are kind of valuable -- you only have four (I wish we had 16 like the Prophet 12!). But I haven't been able to get good results from using the Random LFO. Mephistofeles says that the rate is best between 70-100 IIRC, but I still hear the oscillators burbling.
One thing I've learned from emulating the stereo spread of the Poly Evolver on the Prophet '08 is that, having heard it, there's now no turning back to a mono sound. Whatever instrument I intend to use, it must have a parallel module version available to combine with the keyboard version. Period. That's an expensive requirement, but absolutely worth it. This allows for the Prophet '08, the Prophet 12, the Prophet-6, the OB-6, and hopefully in the near future, the Rev2 as well.
Well you got your wish! A Prophet REV2 with a module! Are you going to invest in the 8 voice or the 16 voice now?
Yes, that's our old forum. You can't see the links unless your registered.
Maybe it's been abandoned? The moderator hasn't updated the site for years.
I guess you're responding to the original post of this thread, so it must be me that you're addressing. These discussions can get emotional, as people take comments and opinions personally, and I'd rather not fall into that sort of mess. But I haven't changed my original opinion.
I would say, based on your YouTube video (which has some excellent sounds), that our personal ideas of a string patch substantially differ. When I use the term in reference to my own music, I mean a fairly realistic emulation of a string section; not perfect or exact, but realistic enough. So, I think you and I are speaking in similar terms but with differing meanings.
I don't want this discussion to make it seem as if I'm criticizing the Prophet 12. I'm not criticizing, but comparing. One month with a P12 completely turned me around. My opinion of it drastically changed for the better, so that I'm presently hoping that my Poly Evolver Keyboard will soon sell on Craigslist, so that I can buy one. That should say it all. There's nothing like a Prophet 12!
Neither the P12 or Rev2 will make a convincing real string sound IMO, but then they shouldn't...they're synths! :)
I don't want this discussion to make it seem as if I'm criticizing the Prophet 12. I'm not criticizing, but comparing. One month with a P12 completely turned me around. My opinion of it drastically changed for the better, so that I'm presently hoping that my Poly Evolver Keyboard will soon sell on Craigslist, so that I can buy one. That should say it all. There's nothing like a Prophet 12!
Well, I never thought I would see the day ;)
Strangely I have backed down from selling my PEK, P12 and P2. I couldn't bring myself to do it, loosing those three to get a Modal 002 seemed like a good idea to begin with but after some thought I have stuck with the idea that the combination of the three DSI synths offers much more than a shiny new 002.
Also the thought of getting rid of the PEK was haunting me a bit, I had got to the position where I only wanted to sell it to someone that I knew would treat it well; a bit like screening prospective husbands for a daughter, none of whom would ever be good enough!
I am very interested in what you come up with on your new P12 once you have studied it to the same level as you have with the Evolver, I'm guessing there will be some good stuff.
I don't want this discussion to make it seem as if I'm criticizing the Prophet 12. I'm not criticizing, but comparing. One month with a P12 completely turned me around. My opinion of it drastically changed for the better, so that I'm presently hoping that my Poly Evolver Keyboard will soon sell on Craigslist, so that I can buy one. That should say it all. There's nothing like a Prophet 12!