The Official Sequential/Oberheim Forum
SEQUENTIAL/DSI => Prophet => Sequential Prophet-6 => Topic started by: robertsthebruce on June 02, 2017, 01:26:05 PM
-
I love the sound of the P6, but I have a problem that is showing up more and more frequently as I use it more often. The problem is this: there is literally no way to control either the filter cut off or the pitch manually with actual voltage control. Even the filter jack in the back is a quantized control, which means there is no way to manually sweep the filter without hearing very audible stepping. The same problem exists with the pitch bend wheel/ midi funcion; there is audible stepping in the pitch bend wheel and an octave limit in the midi pitch bend function. What is the point of having a great sounding analogue filter and great sounding analogue oscillators if the only way to control either of them is through low resolution digitally quantized controlls? Again, I love the sound of the oscillators and filter, but this issue is...kind of a big deal. What does everyone else who owns one think? Are you feeling limited by these factors, or am I making a mountain out of a mole hill?
-
The oscillators step in semitones for easy tuning. The filter is also harmonically tuned across a wide range, so it behaves the same way. To sweep without stepping, you can assign the LFO to the filter.
-
Right...I am aware that I can use the on board LFO. The issue I am pointing out is that the synth is also equipped with a filter CV input, the normal musical uses of which would be to control the filter with an expression pedal or modular piece of gear. However, unless you want to use an LFO to play a fast chromatic scale on the resonant filter, that CV input is rendered somewhat musically useless because it is quantized.
Similarly, I realize that the pitch of the oscillators is quantized to allow for easy tuning to one infamously out of tune western scale, but the function I am talking about is the pitch bend wheel, which by it's very definition needs to be able to break the limits of that quantization in order to function.
As both of these issues are clearly being governed and limited by the OS, rather than by hard wired circuitry, it would be nice if they were addressed, in order to render the filter CV input musically useful.
Again, the filter and the oscillators both sound great, but the ability to control them is limited by "features" that it's hard to imagine anyone making musical use of.
-
OK, this does seem strange; I thought that the point of the CV input, as well as the bender, etc., was to provide finer resolution, compared to the front-panel filter cutoff control, etc.
Why is it the case that I can do this on my Prophet-600 Gligli, but could not on a modern polysynth such as the Prophet-6? Is this a hardware constraint?
Also–given that the Prophet-6 and OB-6 share the same underlying control architecture, is this the case with the OB-6 as well?
-
I guess this is where I say it would be nice to sweep the filter with the Mod wheel and request (yet again) a 0Hz DC LFO setting to do so?
This request seems like a great way to address this reoccurring quantized pitch/filter freq complaint and add a sensible, coherent, and simple feature.
-
It would be nice for the new OS to disable the quantization for the tuning.
-
So the only way to create a smooth low pass filter sweep on the Prophet-6 is to use either an envelope or an LFO? Is the high pass filter quantized also? Surely it isn't.
-
So the only way to create a smooth low pass filter sweep on the Prophet-6 is to use either an envelope or an LFO? Is the high pass filter quantized also? Surely it isn't.
Are the OS filter the controls so that manual sweeps higher than a certain rate of change would sound smooth?
-
You *can* get smooth filter sweeps on the Prophet-6 using the cutoff knob, just like any of our instruments. If you are trying to go really slowly, then it steps in semitones for easy tuning. This is how all of our instruments operate.
-
Robot Heart. I feel a bit unheard here. I'm not sure how else to say this; I, and I think everyone else in this conversation understands that this is how your instruments operate. That IS the issue. We would like them to operate differently; namely, to have some way to control the filter in a non-quantized way, because I, and many other people CAN actually hear stepping in the filter- not just at ridiculously slow tempos, but at any tempo where a chromatic scale would normally sound like a scale rather than a glissando, since that is literally what the quantized resonant filter on the P6 is doing.
It seems, from the way you advertised the synth, that you would be able to do this with a CV input, but I, and many other people were disappointed to find that we cannot. Why not keep the knob on the front quantized, since you seem so attached to that "feature," but make the advertised CV input on the back an actual CV control, or at the very least, a much higher resolution...this doesn't seem like a ridiculous request to me, and I don't understand why your response is to basically deny that it's really an issue.
I hear that it isn't an issue to you, but it IS actually an issue to me and many of your other customers. Is DSI a company that cares about that?
-
I'm sorry you feel unheard. I hear you, I'm simply telling you how the instrument operates. I'm not trying to claim anything is or is not an issue for anyone. But because I know how our development works I am able to make reasonably accurate assumptions on how a feature request might play out, and I am communicating realistic expectations to you. It doesn't mean you have to like what I say though.
We do care about our customers, of course. We write down every request that is suggested, and many customer requests end up in the instruments.
I can tell you with the utmost certainty, because of my job function I am the single largest advocate for our customer base when features are discussed. While I am on the customer's side in most cases, I do not have the final authority to determine what will become a feature and what will not. Also, we simply cannot accommodate every request. This can be difficult and frustrating for anyone because naturally everyone's personal request is "the most important one", and it is, for their personal workflow.
I *will* add it to the feature request list, and I *will* bring it up the next time the Prophet-6 OS is discussed. I will warn you though, given all our instruments operate in the same manner for this particular request it is very unlikely the behavior will change. The Prophet-6 OS is relatively mature at this point and we have our hands full with other projects, so it will probably be a number of months at the earliest before it is revisited. Hopefully we both have a better understanding of each other's respective positions at this time.
-
I make changes to the filter cut off frequency constantly while playing. For quite a few compositions/improvisations, it's fundamental to the music, especially towards the end. I've tried using foot pedals for this and, regardless of the pedal's quality (I've used the Moog as well as the old DSI), there's no comparison between using the foot and using the hand. Trying to make a slow perfectly smooth sweep with your foot - whether while sitting or standing - is virtually impossible. It's especially difficult if the filter change is slight or very slow. And if you happen to be playing bass pedals, then forget it. So, even if it worked smoothly, a filter sweep on the Prophet-6 made with a pedal is still of minimal use.
I realize the Prophet-6 is the way it is, and that may never change. So be it. I'm not here to complain about it. I'm simply saying that - for future reference - an instrument that cannot create a smooth filter sweep with a hand manipulated parameter - be it a knob, or much more preferably, a modulation wheel - is an instrument that cannot create a smooth filter sweep. Period. Pedals are difficult enough to use even for making volume changes, but all the more for something so delicate as filter changes, even when you can narrow their range. Pedals should not be required for functions that are so essential to synthesis.
-
Maybe take a closer look at the algorithm filtering the front panel knob events for the filter cutoff knob(s)? Its a performance feature so it will not change how existing programs work but only how the filter cutoff knob behaves during changes. Maybe I should say: how the voice code reacts to the changes.
-
I've never had a problem with the filter being quantized at all. My ears can't detect it at all when I sweep....I mean you would have to be sweeping at an insanely slow rate for it to be detrimental I would assume.
-
Sacred Synthesis-
The operation of the cutoff knob on the Prophet-6 is exactly like the Prophet 08; make no mistake about it.
-
Robot Heart -
Then what is the issue here? The Prophet '08 filter sweep - however you do it - is as smooth as butter. I use it constantly, always by the modulation wheel, and often very slowly and slightly. I'm just trying to get a sense of the same on the Prophet-6, and it would seem that Robertsthebruce has a faulty unit.
-
It's not a faulty unit, the issue has been described in detail. It is due to the way the filter and the oscillators are harmonically tuned. It is possible to have some stepping between semitones when doing very slow sweeps manually. If you turn the knob at a reasonable speed you will not hear it.
-
Is this the case even when no resonance is used? We all expect the "stepping" of harmonics as you pass through the filter's range with a high resonance. And does the high pass filter also have this issue?
-
If you are used to any of our other instruments, the Prophet-6 behavior is identical.
-
Then what is the issue here? The Prophet '08 filter sweep - however you do it - is as smooth as butter. I use it constantly, always by the modulation wheel
If you always use the mod wheel for Prophet-08 filter sweeps, that may be an indication of what the difference/issue is. You can't manually modulate the filter with the mod wheel on the Prophet-6. You can only adjust the depth of an LFO modulating the filter.
Again DSI/Sequential, give us a DC 0Hz setting for the square LFO and you'll be able to tell customers they can sweep with the mod wheel.
Or, maybe intimate knowledge of the design informs you that this is not a workable solution? I'd be interested in knowing.
-
Right. I was actually agreeing with an earlier post of yours, but adding a bit to it.
-
to me the quantized oscillator pitch was one of my major disappointment when I discovered one cannot have the oscillator free running.
The P6 is still a killer but there are so many scenario I cannot bring to life that it's frustrating.
It was shortly discussed here also (only talking about the osc, not the filter): http://forum.davesmithinstruments.com/index.php/topic,96.msg696.html
-
I came into synthesizers from a jazz piano background, and after owning a Prophet 08 for a few months, traded it for a Prophet 6, because I like the "knob per function" layout. For about a year, from my limited perspective, the Prophet 6 seemed like an unfathomably deep instrument.
After becoming much more familiar with subtractive synthesis, the prophet, and apparently DSI's entire line up, reveals itself as bizzarely limited. The Prophet is packed with features that sound great on paper, and is capable of some really beautiful and interesting sounds, but then it is not capable of doing some of the most basic and satisfying real time improvised sounds that make analogue subtractive synthesis so satisfying to anyone who spends very long in that world. The really frustrating thing is that the marketing makes it seem like it would be capable of these things; it makes a big deal out of the "analogue components" in the Prophet, and advertises their CV connectivity.
I feel tricked, but I guess ultimately I'm going to decide to blame it on my own naivete; I know now that I want to play real analogue synths, not ones with "analogue signal paths."
I will probably sell the Prophet soon, in favor of something with actual analogue controls. I will also recommend to anyone who asks that they not invest in DSI gear; there are plenty of cheaper options for full time live keyboardists, and plenty of more flexible actual analogue options for studio work. I hope this changes in the future, because, as is being discussed in this forum, DSI synths have enormous potential, but that potential is ultimately crippled by the fact that DSI just "doesn't have time" to polish any of their products into actual masterpieces (see any online discussion of the Tempest for further reference), and doesn't have the inclination to make the OS open source (as is the case with Roger Linn's gear) so that customers can be directly involved with that process. So it goes.
-
Our stance was never "we don't have the time". On the contrary, our instruments are designed very intentionally and we build our them based on those design decisions. As I mentioned earlier that doesn't mean you have to agree with the decisions we made, but this is not a case of us "not having the time to do it right". It's simply a difference of opinion on the function of the instrument. I do sympathize with you on the frustration of an instrument operating contrary to your liking.
Designing instruments is a complex, resource intensive process. It's not always as easy as "oh it's just some code" or "it's just a 5 minute fix" to change the operation of an embedded hardware platform. Even seemingly very small changes can break things in other areas so we have to be careful when considering any new additions.
If you're set on selling your Prophet-6 we'll be sad to see you go, but musical instruments are such personal preferences so it is completely understandable that you'd want to find something that better suits your needs.
-
Robert, sorry to pester you, but has there been any additional review of the feature request to enable modulation with a DC 0Hz LFO setting? Carson has previously mentioned to me it made the review phase, but had been tabled.
I think this feature is a potential way to address this re-occuring owner concern by giving owners a desirable feature. Admittedly, the suggested feature would only be useful for positive modulation by allowing the user to increase the depth of a DC, 0Hz, Square wave (setting 0), but it seems better than nothing. The current mod wheel is a one trick pony as it stands.
Thank you for taking the time to help us out in the forum to understand the design intent. If the feature is still considered off the table, I would be interested in understanding why. I think the "why" would help me let go of the idea if it will never be in the cards.
Brandon
Our stance was never "we don't have the time". On the contrary, our instruments are designed very intentionally and we build our them based on those design decisions. As I mentioned earlier that doesn't mean you have to agree with the decisions we made, but this is not a case of us "not having the time to do it right". It's simply a difference of opinion on the function of the instrument. I do sympathize with you on the frustration of an instrument operating contrary to your liking.
Designing instruments is a complex, resource intensive process. It's not always as easy as "oh it's just some code" or "it's just a 5 minute fix" to change the operation of an embedded hardware platform. Even seemingly very small changes can break things in other areas so we have to be careful when considering any new additions.
If you're set on selling your Prophet-6 we'll be sad to see you go, but musical instruments are such personal preferences so it is completely understandable that you'd want to find something that better suits your needs.
-
Robert, I'm sorry for putting it that way. I know that designing an instrument like the Prophet 6 is a complex process, and I know enough about coding to know that it's not always easy to change a seemingly simple issue. I know that DSI puts tremendous thought and intention into the design of their products.
I'm less frustrated with the limitations of the instrument than I am by the knowledge that those limitations could be overcome if either DSI didn't "have their hands full with other projects," or if they decided to make their software open-source to let their customer base experiment, personalize and generally improve on instruments that are already really great. I understand the financial risks involved in opening up a proprietary model of business...I just long for the creative rewards: the Prophet 6 is perfectly capable of being an instrument that "better suits my needs," but because of economic limitations, it seems that it won't be able to be. I would love to see it be an instrument that can transcend the time that it was created in, but because of these limitations, it is less likely to be. This makes it a less wise investment as either purely analogue gear, which can be freely modified with a soldering iron, or gear that makes use of open-source software platforms, so that the software can grow beyond the constraints of it's creators.
-
I will also recommend to anyone who asks that they not invest in DSI gear; there are plenty of cheaper options for full time live keyboardists, and plenty of more flexible actual analogue options for studio work.
I couldn't disagree with your disliking of DSI synthesizers. We all have out personal tastes and preferences. But I wouldn't discourage others from trying Dave Smith's instruments and making their own judgments. They might feel very differently about them.
I've played analog synthesizers for many years, including a number of old school pure analog models. Among the more recent instruments, I owned a beautiful Voyager Old School. But after a couple of years, I found that I far preferred DSI synthesizers for both their sound and capabilities to all the previous instruments, including the Moog. After about eight years of using Dave's synthesizers (including the first one he designed under the DSI brand), I have grown only to appreciate them more and more. With every session of programming, playing, or recording, I'm consistently thrilled with their smooth interface and gorgeous sound. But still, some of us love them, and some of us hate them. And those who are disappointed with them can be thankful that there are now so many other synthesizers and brands from which to chose.
Again, I respect your right to prefer other instruments. But please, let's not put down or discourage the hardworking staff at DSI or the wonderful musical instruments they create for us year after year. They put in the time and effort, and it shows in their finished products.
-
I agree, the DSI staff are clearly hard working, and I agree that they make some amazing sounding instruments. However, I also don't think they're my buddies, or that they're doing me any favors; they're a proprietary company that I bought a nearly $3000 instrument from, and then found out that it can't do some things that the advertising for it made it seem like it would be able to do, and then found out that they don't have plans to continue making significant improvements to the instrument. I think that sucks, but like I said, I'm blaming my own naivete for it.
I'm frustrated in general with typical proprietary business models; I think that the way most companies do business is, at the least, extremely counterproductive to building social trust and making creative progress, and at the most, is bad for the earth on a grand scale (the enormous waste created every time a new model of iphone comes out).
Consequently, statements like "the Prophet 6 OS is relatively mature at this point" drive me nuts; it's "mature" two years after being released? This business model is like the iphone model, and I wish it wasn't a part of the new wave of synthesizer culture and manufacturing. I wish DSI was saying "we're creating instruments that we don't want to be "mature" for at least another 20 years, so that's why we're making them open and flexible, not releasing a bunch of new products so that we have time to polish the ones we have, and inviting the community to help build on them."
Instead, DSI, and Moog, and basically everyone else, is following the rest of the culture and creating products that seem destined to become obsolete, when either the music industry turns a different direction or the company releases a new model. I feel the exact same way about Moog's "new" Subsequent 37. I thought, after Moog offered the CV upgrade for the little Phatty, that they were going to continue along those lines, offering synth that had modular updates, rather than just another model with incremental improvements that suddenly make my existing sub37 kind of a bad investment. It's still a great instrument, but definitely not something that's going to hold much value, especially now that continuing to improve the OS isn't going to be a goal of theirs. So I wouldn't recommending that anyone invest in that gear either, in much the same way as I wouldn't recommend that anyone ever buy a brand new car off a lot. I want to buy something that has the potential to be greater several decades from now than it is today, and not just because some random trend made it hip again, but because it was actually designed in a way that let it change and grow to meet new trends and creative demands. I feel the same way about cars, and phones, and houses, and clothing and the internet and all technology. I don't recommend to anyone that they be a part of anything that seems built to become obsolete, to make way for the next "new" model. It makes more sense for a working musician to invest in gear that is modifiable and that can be fixed and improved on by themselves or by their community.
This doesn't mean the staff at DSI aren't hard working, or that they aren't making wonderful instruments. I don't even think it means that they are short sighted; the world will likely continue to work this way, in creative and non creative businesses. But I wish we had a different world; not just one with new sounds, but one with a new structure, and I have tremendous admiration for companies that are trying to make that world a reality (Roger Linn is one of the highest profile ones, but their are many others). So I'm going to recommend that people invest in those companies instead.
-
I also want to reiterate this; I think the Prophet 6 sounds AMAZING. I would not be saying any of this if it didn't. It is very nearly a masterpiece. It makes me smile and laugh every time I play it. It makes other people I play with smile and laugh and occasionally turn around on stage with their jaws hanging open. But it also makes me bang my head against it in frustration with it's random and completely fixable limitations.
It has already beautifully met the demands of it's time. It has enormous potential to be an instrument that transcends them, and I hope it does. I also hope open source software and hardware models are the future of music technology. So I'm trying to fight for the Prophet to fit into that hope, because I do love so much about how it sounds.
-
I'm frustrated in general with typical proprietary business models; I think that the way most companies do business is, at the least, extremely counterproductive to building social trust and making creative progress, and at the most, is bad for the earth on a grand scale (the enormous waste created every time a new model of iphone comes out).
Consequently, statements like "the Prophet 6 OS is relatively mature at this point" drive me nuts; it's "mature" two years after being released? This business model is like the iphone model, and I wish it wasn't a part of the new wave of synthesizer culture and manufacturing. I wish DSI was saying "we're creating instruments that we don't want to be "mature" for at least another 20 years, so that's why we're making them open and flexible, not releasing a bunch of new products so that we have time to polish the ones we have, and inviting the community to help build on them."
Instead, DSI, and Moog, and basically everyone else, is following the rest of the culture and creating products that seem destined to become obsolete, when either the music industry turns a different direction or the company releases a new model. I feel the exact same way about Moog's "new" Subsequent 37. I thought, after Moog offered the CV upgrade for the little Phatty, that they were going to continue along those lines, offering synth that had modular updates, rather than just another model with incremental improvements that suddenly make my existing sub37 kind of a bad investment. It's still a great instrument, but definitely not something that's going to hold much value, especially now that continuing to improve the OS isn't going to be a goal of theirs. So I wouldn't recommending that anyone invest in that gear either, in much the same way as I wouldn't recommend that anyone ever buy a brand new car off a lot. I want to buy something that has the potential to be greater several decades from now than it is today, and not just because some random trend made it hip again, but because it was actually designed in a way that let it change and grow to meet new trends and creative demands. I feel the same way about cars, and phones, and houses, and clothing and the internet and all technology. I don't recommend to anyone that they be a part of anything that seems built to become obsolete, to make way for the next "new" model. It makes more sense for a working musician to invest in gear that is modifiable and that can be fixed and improved on by themselves or by their community.
This doesn't mean the staff at DSI aren't hard working, or that they aren't making wonderful instruments. I don't even think it means that they are short sighted; the world will likely continue to work this way, in creative and non creative businesses. But I wish we had a different world; not just one with new sounds, but one with a new structure, and I have tremendous admiration for companies that are trying to make that world a reality (Roger Linn is one of the highest profile ones, but their are many others). So I'm going to recommend that people invest in those companies instead.
I feel that this is a wholly different discussion than the original topic.
In the case of the Linnstrument, there are no proprietary DSP libraries that might require binary blobs from the manufacturer in order to build and package a release*; the computing hardware, for that matter, has been founded upon a software libre / FOSS model from the get-go.
* - One cannot steer a bus from a rear wheel alone.
-
This doesn't mean the staff at DSI aren't hard working, or that they aren't making wonderful instruments. I don't even think it means that they are short sighted; the world will likely continue to work this way, in creative and non creative businesses. But I wish we had a different world; not just one with new sounds, but one with a new structure, and I have tremendous admiration for companies that are trying to make that world a reality (Roger Linn is one of the highest profile ones, but their are many others). So I'm going to recommend that people invest in those companies instead.
Instead of wishing for a different world, an ideal world, a relatively perfect world, why not do good in this most imperfect one that we have, with all of its blemishes and shortcomings? Take the imperfect and do the best you can with it. Even take these imperfect instruments - made, played, and heard by imperfect persons - and create imperfect beauty with them. Otherwise, you'll be waiting for a long long time for something that will satisfy you. Unless you've already found the perfect company and instruments and can share them with us?
-
DavidDever, you're right that it's a different discussion, and your points about the Linnstrument being a different beast than a synth are good ones. To continue your metaphor, I'm wondering if DSI could figure out how to make the rear wheel open source, even if they decide to keep the engine design secret for now. I feel like I'm wanting to change out the tires, and I'm being told that those are the tires the company intended to put on there and they don't intend to change them, rather than being told how to change out the tires, which is what I'd like to do. But I'm not really a mechanic, and maybe those who are can see that what I'm wanting is actually more like wanting to change out the engine.
Sacred Synthesis, I think those are wise words, and ones I need to take deeply to heart. I'm trying to find the balance between being thankful for and doing good with what I have, and desiring and working towards something better.
There's a lot to be thankful for in the Prophet 6, and in the folks at DSI. I'm sure they will continue doing great work.
I still wish the filter and oscillators could sweep without stepping. Ha.
-
There are no analogue polyphonic synths that come anywhere close to my ideals about free/open software. I'd love to try a Modal 008 but I have an especially thin wallet. I bought the Prophet and a Moog sub37 because they seemed the closest to my ideals, and now all my live bands rely too heavily on the sounds I've made on them to switch very easily, and both boards are worth significantly less than what I bought them for, which also makes it hard to switch.
My ideals are being lived out beautifully in the software world. I think that if I decide to revamp my set up, I'll go for a midi keyboard plus software for my live rig (further from my ideals sound wise but closer otherwise), and then go entirely analogue modular for my studio gear.
The Prophet 6 with open source hardware is about as close to my ideal as I can imagine. I use a DAW that is free/open, and I've been paying $4 a month for 3 years for it; for that price, I can continue viewing and editing the latest code, and be a contributing part of the community that works on it. It feels great to be a part of, and if I want some new feature, I can immediately start working on it. I'd be completely stoked to be paying $10ish dollars a month to be a part of a similar open/free Prophet 6 software community. If that was an available option, I would be preaching about them on every street corner and saving up to buy something else from DSI just on principle.
The other thing going on with me is that I've been a pianist for 28 years, and lately I'm becoming increasingly more interested in other intonation systems than 12 tone equally tempered. On acoustic piano, I have a style that I am increasingly realizing is largely a result of subconsciously trying to work around the limitations of that system. I've been using the Prophet with a program called alt tuner that a friend wrote, which allows me to retune each note in real-time to be in different ratios with other notes in the chord, but the constraints of the quantized functions/ lack of polyphonic mod functionality make this much less flexible than I want. Obviously this style of polyphonic retuning is only really possible with software/midi, but for studio recordings I've been thinking more and more about going back to playing each voice with analogue monophonic instruments so that I can get each one right where I want it by ear.
-
I feel tricked, but I guess ultimately I'm going to decide to blame it on my own naivete; I know now that I want to play real analogue synths, not ones with "analogue signal paths."
Just FYI, these issues have absolutely nothing to do with analog vs digital control (they would be trivial to fix in the firmware). It basically boils down to DSI - or more likely Dave Smith himself - deliberately ignoring customer wishes and stubbornly sticking to the "We designed it that way for a reason"-line - whether or not they ever actually researched what people want. My estimate is that they don't based on how many WTF-worthy things persist in all DSI instruments (such as arpeggiator midi sync that has been deliberately crippled).
-
Actually, it is a limitation of the hardware in this case. You only get so much resolution out of the DACs. And yes, it is designed to step in semitones. There's no denying some people would like finer resolution, but to be completely honest it's a request we hear once in a great while. We could probably count the number of requests for this on two hands. It doesn't mean we'll never consider it, but it's certainly not a feature that is in high demand by more than a handful of users.
-
From what I see, there are not many 4/5 octave polyphonic analogs currently distributed. Fewer if under $3k. Add a few more criteria, and DSI remains the only player. Include software in the comparison and it's an entirely different assessment- an incomparable one for some.
As an aside, Tempest forum talk is more terrifying from a distance. As a user, it's my opinion that the waters are actually calm & warm.
-
Actually, it is a limitation of the hardware in this case. You only get so much resolution out of the DACs. And yes, it is designed to step in semitones. There's no denying some people would like finer resolution, but to be completely honest it's a request we hear once in a great while. We could probably count the number of requests for this on two hands. It doesn't mean we'll never consider it, but it's certainly not a feature that is in high demand by more than a handful of users.
To qualify this properly - is this still quantized to (12-tone) equal-tempered steps, when using an alternate (i.e., not 12-TET) tuning table?
-
Actually, it is a limitation of the hardware in this case. You only get so much resolution out of the DACs. And yes, it is designed to step in semitones. There's no denying some people would like finer resolution, but to be completely honest it's a request we hear once in a great while. We could probably count the number of requests for this on two hands. It doesn't mean we'll never consider it, but it's certainly not a feature that is in high demand by more than a handful of users.
To qualify this properly - is this still quantized to (12-tone) equal-tempered steps, when using an alternate (i.e., not 12-TET) tuning table?
Yes David, it does still step in semitones even when using an alternate tuning table.
Robert, I don't see how this is a limit of the DAC's when both the LFO and the Envelopes can sweep the filter smoothly, and as far as I understand, they are both digital.
-
Apologies, I actually meant the ADC that reads the pots. I was curious so I looked into this further, and it turns out it's a limitation of the pots themselves over the ADC. You only get so much resolution from the pot, and once you build in hysteresis to get rid of the otherwise inevitable jitter from the pot landing in between values interpreted by the ADC you're not left with a ton of usable bits. The solution would be to find a pot with more resolution; perhaps an optical pot but not necessarily. But a more expensive pot for sure. If all pots on the instrument were to be this new hypothetical pot it would add significantly to the cost of the instrument.
You are correct that the envelopes and LFO are digital.
Also, the name is not Robert ;)
-
Ha. Sorry for the misnomer Robot Heart. Thanks for looking into that and for providing some clarification on the issue. That makes sense to me, and does help me come to a bit more peace with the issue.
What I would love to see is something like a "true bypass" computer control. The computer would save your spot, but when you pressed the "panel" button, the computer would literally shut off, and the pots would be actual voltage controls. I don't know what the circuitry would have to look like to make that work, but I'm sure it's possible.
I played a gig yesterday in ridiculously hot direct sun; it was so hot I was having trouble even touching the keys. The prophet was not able to maintain anything near a constant pitch, and that's not a criticism; I think that's a positive quality about this instrument- it actually responds to the conditions of it's environment, which is what I want in an instrument. Often the role of a prophet is to be a canary in a coal mine; in this case, it was affirming that it was too hot for any living thing to be playing on an uncovered stage. I told the promoters "if you want us to play again, cover the stage."
Once again, ya'll made a beautiful instrument, and it's getting plenty of love out here, limitations aside.
-
I played a gig yesterday in ridiculously hot direct sun; it was so hot I was having trouble even touching the keys. The prophet was not able to maintain anything near a constant pitch, and that's not a criticism; I think that's a positive quality about this instrument- it actually responds to the conditions of it's environment, which is what I want in an instrument. Often the role of a prophet is to be a canary in a coal mine; in this case, it was affirming that it was too hot for any living thing to be playing on an uncovered stage. I told the promoters "if you want us to play again, cover the stage."
You're a braver man than I. I'd would have used a DCO-based synth for an outdoor gig, though I suspect that the amplification would have suffered long before the keyboards' pitch would have wandered!
-
What I would love to see is something like a "true bypass" computer control. The computer would save your spot, but when you pressed the "panel" button, the computer would literally shut off, and the pots would be actual voltage controls. I don't know what the circuitry would have to look like to make that work, but I'm sure it's possible.
That's exactly how the Moog Little Phatty works. Control is directly linked to the hardware when you move a pot. The expense of that approach is probably why it had only four parameter knobs. On later synths, Moog switched back to ADC scanning.
-
What's ADC scanning? I suspect it is, or is related to Analog-Digital conversion.
-
What's ADC scanning? I suspect it is, or is related to Analog-Digital conversion.
The pots are connected to an analog to digital converter and read by the microprocessor. The microprocessor then controls a digital to analog converter which sets the control voltages. There's no direct connection between the pots and the things they control.
-
yeah, I'd have to agree that while it is certainly a great instrument, there are some truly frustrating limitations.
It's frustrating that I get a smoother filter sweep on a digital synth like my waldorf blofeld than I do on an analog synthesizer that cost 10 times the price. And I've seen it addressed in these very forums as well as on others more than a mere handful of times. Every synthesist I've ever played with with my P6 comments on how terrible it is that there isn't a workaround for the chromatic stepping to the filter. The 0hz modwheel idea is brilliant and would make so many P6 owners fall in love again with the instrument, yet I guess it's clear that the instrument is too "mature" to fix its failings.
I've had such frustration getting "alternative scales" loaded in the synth - never works as it should and even support seems to lack the understanding of how to load user scales onto the P6. I sprung for the P6 largely for the microtonal capabilities, but sadly it doesn't really pan out in practice as an easily tunable instrument. Curious to try that Alt tuner with it, but I'd rather not have to have it tethered to a PC to tune the thing...
anyhow, I find it shocking that there are any owners who are truly pleased with the fact that you cannot take advantage of the beautiful analog filter and do a manual filter sweep without audible stepping...
when robot heart says "If you turn the knob at a reasonable speed you will not hear it." I just find that terribly tone deaf in more than one way. what is a reasonable speed? it's just hogwash. It's like a car dealership telling you to just drive at a reasonable speed if you're car is wobbling when you hit 40. yeah, just ignore it. it's designed to be that way... I'm sorry, I just expect more from a synth of this price point, and it's weird that I find myself getting jealous of my friend's smooth filter sweeps on her little korg monologue. I mean yeah, I can spring for one of those.. not a bad synth. but it just seems a bit insane to have the filter there in the Prophet and only be able to access its beauty through the sadly limited LFO or envelope sections.
wouldn't it be feasible to access finer gradation than semitones via NRPN messages??
-
The smooth filter sweep challenge is actually a very interesting technical problem. It would be interesting to learn what is going on inside the instrument and see if a better filtering of the timed events received from controls and MIDI can be processed in ways that would give a better user experience. And who knows maybe more than one variant of the filters could be offered via the pot mode global parameter?
Unfortunately I am not very good at analytical math so I am not able to serve a better solution. However it could be interesting if there are people with the right skills in the community to make some experiments in order to arrive at a better user experience than the current implementation is delivering.
-
I'd still like a technical answer on why the OHz LFO solution wouldn't work. Not that I deserve one or am entitled to it, I'd just like it.
-
the answer I've heard thus far is that Dave didn't want any hidden functions with these synths.
But in my mind this would not be any more "hidden" or awkward than some of the other workarounds in the P6 architecture, such as the transpose sequence function (holding the record button) or voice stacking (holding down unison and stepping through values).
further, it would add a simple and elegant means to access to the true beauty of the superb filter at the heart of the synthesizer!
if it is a hardware limitation, I'd love to know.. but if it's simply that they don't wish to stray from the way they've always designed synths, well then that's just willful indifference to the people who are paying their salaries (ahem... their customers)
-
+100
Please let us disable quantization, for some things it is essential
-
Moderator edit: please don't spam other boards with off-topic posts.
If you have a technical support issue, please contact us directly: support (at) davesmithinstruments.com
-
hi All, im a recent purchaser of the Prophet 6 keyboard and have really been enjoying the unit. modern classic. however this particular feature of quantized pitch of the oscillators and quantised filter steps is something that i wish could be selectable. I understand what the moderator is mentioning in regards to that the operation is the same across the other synths, i have previously used the PRO2 and noticed the same stepping. However, the range of control that i would i love in this machine to achieve manual non-stepping oscillator tuning beyond fine tune and also manual non stepping smooth filter control. the stepping is particularly obvious with high resonance and a slower but not ridiculously slow filter sweeps. please can we start this conversation again. maybe it is something that can be worked on whilst the world is in lockdown. love you all. matt
-
Question but didn’t the original Prophet 5 have quantized tuning?
-
Question but didn’t the original Prophet 5 have quantized tuning?
Yes, however the prophet 5 was not able to change to a larger number of steps like the prophet 6. When you use cc on prophet 6 it steps in musically useful way but if you switch to nrpn you will get finer steps.
But to answer your question yes it did.. funny nobody ever complains about that, as this synth is a modern nod to the five. There is allot of complaining about a vco poly under three grand that is actually stable and dependable.
-
Question but didn’t the original Prophet 5 have quantized tuning?
Yes, however the prophet 5 was not able to change to a larger number of steps like the prophet 6. When you use cc on prophet 6 it steps in musically useful way but if you switch to nrpn you will get finer steps.
But to answer your question yes it did.. funny nobody ever complains about that, as this synth is a modern nod to the five. There is allot of complaining about a vco poly under three grand that is actually stable and dependable.
I agree. It's really odd to complain about a synth operating in a manner that's similar to the original synth that inspired it. If it was on the P-5, it should be on the P-6. If people don't want it to be, they can find another synth.
-
This has been a constant battle with analog gear from the beginning. If you have detented encoders/pots you have the advantage of quickly recalling specific values. If you leave it unquantized the movements feel more smooth.
Dave made a decision a LONG time ago to do pitched values on the filter parameter on the Evolvers. That has carried through all our instruments. It allows you to pitch the resonance of the filter to fixed note values, which is a useful tool in many situations. It also allows you to track it to the notes you are playing, again, very useful. To that end, we need 0-164 steps on the parameter to cover the entire note range the filter is capable of. Each of those values represents a semi-tone.
0-164 is already on the upper end of the viability of the combination of the physical pots and the ADCs that we were using to recall the information cleanly. You may see things like '12 bit ADC' but in reality that isn't close to what you get, 0-255 is pushing it. Not to mention the fact that as you turn, small movements will jump past the edge of those values and it becomes difficult to jump back to the position you want as the resolution increases.
So the cutoff parameter itself is only 0-164... but the LFOs are running at quite a bit higher resolution, so when the LFO controls the parameter we don't have the limitation of the semi-tones and can do it smoothly. This is not the case with the mod wheel, or even the incoming CVs on the pedals, so we quantize to the param values in those cases, with the same tradeoffs as mentioned above.
But, you may say, if you have access to increased resolution internally, why doesn't it sound smooth when you move the pot?
Actually, it does... there is a small amount of slew being applied to the param changes so it doesn't jump immediately. If we remove that, you get nasty clicks when changing parameters too quickly. This is also a tradeoff. The more slew we put on the parameter, the slower it transitions... which means if you send a MIDI message, or even a CV, you start to get latency as you move the param. So we're back to the same problem, you could increase the slew and make it smoother for people doing sweeps, but for people doing jumps (and that includes ANY mod that affects the filter on a new note on event, like key tracked filters) you will get a small jump. Determining which one the user expected is pretty difficult and since one of the most common complaints of older instruments is the snappiness of the envelopes, we decided it was better to err on the side of quick and accurate.
That being said...
The Pro3 now has a greatly expanded parameter range for the cutoff, so you will not hear as much stepping. We have also solved some of the problems, hardware, software and design based and although it increases the cost of the hardware, and thus the instrument, we will likely be using this to improve the smooth response of instruments in the future. In fact, I rewrote the entire mod and sequencer section to handle a 14 bit range in ALL parameter modulation cases, so the future is bright!
Everything is a trade off
-
This has been a constant battle with analog gear from the beginning. If you have detented encoders/pots you have the advantage of quickly recalling specific values. If you leave it unquantized the movements feel more smooth.
Dave made a decision a LONG time ago to do pitched values on the filter parameter on the Evolvers. That has carried through all our instruments. It allows you to pitch the resonance of the filter to fixed note values, which is a useful tool in many situations. It also allows you to track it to the notes you are playing, again, very useful. To that end, we need 0-164 steps on the parameter to cover the entire note range the filter is capable of. Each of those values represents a semi-tone.
0-164 is already on the upper end of the viability of the combination of the physical pots and the ADCs that we were using to recall the information cleanly. You may see things like '12 bit ADC' but in reality that isn't close to what you get, 0-255 is pushing it. Not to mention the fact that as you turn, small movements will jump past the edge of those values and it becomes difficult to jump back to the position you want as the resolution increases.
So the cutoff parameter itself is only 0-164... but the LFOs are running at quite a bit higher resolution, so when the LFO controls the parameter we don't have the limitation of the semi-tones and can do it smoothly. This is not the case with the mod wheel, or even the incoming CVs on the pedals, so we quantize to the param values in those cases, with the same tradeoffs as mentioned above.
But, you may say, if you have access to increased resolution internally, why doesn't it sound smooth when you move the pot?
Actually, it does... there is a small amount of slew being applied to the param changes so it doesn't jump immediately. If we remove that, you get nasty clicks when changing parameters too quickly. This is also a tradeoff. The more slew we put on the parameter, the slower it transitions... which means if you send a MIDI message, or even a CV, you start to get latency as you move the param. So we're back to the same problem, you could increase the slew and make it smoother for people doing sweeps, but for people doing jumps (and that includes ANY mod that affects the filter on a new note on event, like key tracked filters) you will get a small jump. Determining which one the user expected is pretty difficult and since one of the most common complaints of older instruments is the snappiness of the envelopes, we decided it was better to err on the side of quick and accurate.
That being said...
The Pro3 now has a greatly expanded parameter range for the cutoff, so you will not hear as much stepping. We have also solved some of the problems, hardware, software and design based and although it increases the cost of the hardware, and thus the instrument, we will likely be using this to improve the smooth response of instruments in the future. In fact, I rewrote the entire mod and sequencer section to handle a 14 bit range in ALL parameter modulation cases, so the future is bright!
Everything is a trade off
Yes, there is a synth maker near you actually named Mike who made a synth for me, called the artisan trentasette, he put 14 bit resolution on all parameters and everything is smooth as butter.. but truthfully, I really like the old schoolness of Dave's stuff.. sure that will be awesome in the future, but for stuff like the prophet 6 and evolver, I think it really suits these synths the low resolution and I really appreciate it in a old school way, is actually rare and a cool feature. I think people just like to complain and you guys really do great!!
Now if you guys can add racheting to the prophet 6, now then I would be in heaven!!
-
This has been a constant battle with analog gear from the beginning. If you have detented encoders/pots you have the advantage of quickly recalling specific values. If you leave it unquantized the movements feel more smooth.
Dave made a decision a LONG time ago to do pitched values on the filter parameter on the Evolvers. That has carried through all our instruments. It allows you to pitch the resonance of the filter to fixed note values, which is a useful tool in many situations. It also allows you to track it to the notes you are playing, again, very useful. To that end, we need 0-164 steps on the parameter to cover the entire note range the filter is capable of. Each of those values represents a semi-tone.
0-164 is already on the upper end of the viability of the combination of the physical pots and the ADCs that we were using to recall the information cleanly. You may see things like '12 bit ADC' but in reality that isn't close to what you get, 0-255 is pushing it. Not to mention the fact that as you turn, small movements will jump past the edge of those values and it becomes difficult to jump back to the position you want as the resolution increases.
So the cutoff parameter itself is only 0-164... but the LFOs are running at quite a bit higher resolution, so when the LFO controls the parameter we don't have the limitation of the semi-tones and can do it smoothly. This is not the case with the mod wheel, or even the incoming CVs on the pedals, so we quantize to the param values in those cases, with the same tradeoffs as mentioned above.
But, you may say, if you have access to increased resolution internally, why doesn't it sound smooth when you move the pot?
Actually, it does... there is a small amount of slew being applied to the param changes so it doesn't jump immediately. If we remove that, you get nasty clicks when changing parameters too quickly. This is also a tradeoff. The more slew we put on the parameter, the slower it transitions... which means if you send a MIDI message, or even a CV, you start to get latency as you move the param. So we're back to the same problem, you could increase the slew and make it smoother for people doing sweeps, but for people doing jumps (and that includes ANY mod that affects the filter on a new note on event, like key tracked filters) you will get a small jump. Determining which one the user expected is pretty difficult and since one of the most common complaints of older instruments is the snappiness of the envelopes, we decided it was better to err on the side of quick and accurate.
That being said...
The Pro3 now has a greatly expanded parameter range for the cutoff, so you will not hear as much stepping. We have also solved some of the problems, hardware, software and design based and although it increases the cost of the hardware, and thus the instrument, we will likely be using this to improve the smooth response of instruments in the future. In fact, I rewrote the entire mod and sequencer section to handle a 14 bit range in ALL parameter modulation cases, so the future is bright!
Everything is a trade off
Yes, there is a synth maker near you actually named Mike who made a synth for me, called the artisan trentasette, he put 14 bit resolution on all parameters and everything is smooth as butter.. but truthfully, I really like the old schoolness of Dave's stuff.. sure that will be awesome in the future, but for stuff like the prophet 6 and evolver, I think it really suits these synths the low resolution and I really appreciate it in a old school way, is actually rare and a cool feature. I think people just like to complain and you guys really do great!!
Now if you guys can add racheting to the prophet 6, now then I would be in heaven!!
LOL but if they did that then you wouldn't buy the Pro 3 to sequence the P6. ;)
-
Sadly I've been told that the P6/OB-6 have "likely" been put out to pasture in regard to updates. The meaty P12/Pro 2 linear FM update will continue to be the shining exception and not the rule. :-\
My personal lockdown consideration vote would have gone towards a decent reverb, as the super-plate algorithm being transferred seemed feasible...
-
Sadly I've been told that the P6/OB-6 have "likely" been put out to pasture in regard to updates. The meaty P12/Pro 2 linear FM update will continue to be the shining exception and not the rule. :-\
My personal lockdown consideration vote would have gone towards a decent reverb, as the super-plate algorithm being transferred seemed feasible...
On another forum they said it's not possible to add the reverb. I think they will still do another update because they current one is still beta. I think they will do one more update and add some things. Racheting would be easy to add and would not compete with pro3. I'm not gonna buy that anyway, I have other synths too much in that vain. It's not like racheting is gonna turn the simple phrase sequencer on the p6 into a sequencing powerhouse.. it would just be a nice little fun added ability.
-
OK... so let's do an exercise about what that would entail so you understand why we don't port things back often:
Ratchet per step, at its most simple form, would require one ratchet param per step. Makes sense since it's a chord based polyphonic sequencer, not individual timbres.
If we conservatively say 2-8 ratchets we could get away with 4 bits per step. For a 64 step sequencer, that requires 32 8 bit params if we pack them. Since we didn't save room for params (because we were fairly certain we would not be adding large features due to the simplicity of the architecture) I didn't put unused params in the list, so we would have to expand it. The sound file would have be versioned and handled correctly. Not hard to do, we've done it on most of our more current instruments, but takes time when it wasn't baked into the code.
More importantly, what does the UI look like? Even if we could think of a simple way to indicate how many ratchets there are per step... how do you edit it on the front panel? How do you ratchet vs. no ratchet? Even if you can figure out a somewhat clean way of doing it this will feel clunky and un-intuitive. Not what the instrument is designed for.
And then the sequencer itself. It is low resolution, which means I would have to kick up the processor time and make sure that it runs smoothly faster to do clean ratcheting, at least 96ppqn. That would take a while. Anything over 24ppqn is a LOT more complicated because it runs faster than MIDI clock rate. That means you have to interpolate and run internal and external clock at the same time. That would take a while to port back to an older and slower processor. I rewrote everything from scratch on the Pro3 to handle all these new features, on a new chip, with a new faster OS.
How many extra would we sell? I can't imagine we'd sell any just because of this feature honestly, and we already have it working on new products so it wouldn't give us technology we didn't already have. As an economical decision it makes very little sense.
That's the short answer of why it won't happen on the P6/OB6
Sadly I've been told that the P6/OB-6 have "likely" been put out to pasture in regard to updates. The meaty P12/Pro 2 linear FM update will continue to be the shining exception and not the rule. :-\
My personal lockdown consideration vote would have gone towards a decent reverb, as the super-plate algorithm being transferred seemed feasible...
On another forum they said it's not possible to add the reverb. I think they will still do another update because they current one is still beta. I think they will do one more update and add some things. Racheting would be easy to add and would not compete with pro3. I'm not gonna buy that anyway, I have other synths too much in that vain. It's not like racheting is gonna turn the simple phrase sequencer on the p6 into a sequencing powerhouse.. it would just be a nice little fun added ability.
-
OK... so let's do an exercise about what that would entail so you understand why we don't port things back often:
Ratchet per step, at its most simple form, would require one ratchet param per step. Makes sense since it's a chord based polyphonic sequencer, not individual timbres.
If we conservatively say 2-8 ratchets we could get away with 4 bits per step. For a 64 step sequencer, that requires 32 8 bit params if we pack them. Since we didn't save room for params (because we were fairly certain we would not be adding large features due to the simplicity of the architecture) I didn't put unused params in the list, so we would have to expand it. The sound file would have be versioned and handled correctly. Not hard to do, we've done it on most of our more current instruments, but takes time when it wasn't baked into the code.
More importantly, what does the UI look like? Even if we could think of a simple way to indicate how many ratchets there are per step... how do you edit it on the front panel? How do you ratchet vs. no ratchet? Even if you can figure out a somewhat clean way of doing it this will feel clunky and un-intuitive. Not what the instrument is designed for.
And then the sequencer itself. It is low resolution, which means I would have to kick up the processor time and make sure that it runs smoothly faster to do clean ratcheting, at least 96ppqn. That would take a while. Anything over 24ppqn is a LOT more complicated because it runs faster than MIDI clock rate. That means you have to interpolate and run internal and external clock at the same time. That would take a while to port back to an older and slower processor. I rewrote everything from scratch on the Pro3 to handle all these new features, on a new chip, with a new faster OS.
How many extra would we sell? I can't imagine we'd sell any just because of this feature honestly, and we already have it working on new products so it wouldn't give us technology we didn't already have. As an economical decision it makes very little sense.
That's the short answer of why it won't happen on the P6/OB6
Sadly I've been told that the P6/OB-6 have "likely" been put out to pasture in regard to updates. The meaty P12/Pro 2 linear FM update will continue to be the shining exception and not the rule. :-\
My personal lockdown consideration vote would have gone towards a decent reverb, as the super-plate algorithm being transferred seemed feasible...
On another forum they said it's not possible to add the reverb. I think they will still do another update because they current one is still beta. I think they will do one more update and add some things. Racheting would be easy to add and would not compete with pro3. I'm not gonna buy that anyway, I have other synths too much in that vain. It's not like racheting is gonna turn the simple phrase sequencer on the p6 into a sequencing powerhouse.. it would just be a nice little fun added ability.
Whoa man no.. your making it really complicated. I already explained you can put it in the UI with no trouble, you already have hit back to erase a step right? So same procedure just forward and the note press to rachet, since a rachet is a forward step before next step.
Second, don't make it polyphonic, you already have triplets in the Arp right? Same thing, just one event(note) between next step. Only first note of a chord or single note, chords would sound messy.
Third, you should because it's main competitors already can.. super six and matriarch both rachet. Just one more in-between note would be huge for us and would compete better with the others.. another reason to go for this over the competition. I don't know about the programming but if you can squeeze even one note of rachet in, it would be really huge, prophet 6 is to good a synth to not have it, nomatter what comes from you guys in the future.. This synth is special, history bring created again I believe.. please, please, think about it!! No confusing ui, it makes sense. A killer feature too.
-
On another forum they said it's not possible to add the reverb.
There was no indication of that when I asked just the other day.
"I don't expect that the Super Plate would be ported back to the Prophet 6/OB-6, but it's been requested before and is on our list of user feature requests."
-
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. It's not going to happen. This synth was not designed to have a complex interface or sequencer response. It would take a lot of work to implement due to all sorts of reasons. Maybe a simple way could be figured out but even if we could it would take a while to design it. Then code it. Then test it. Then fix bugs. Etc, etc. For a feature that very few people have requested. We are a very small company and choose where we put our resources very carefully to stay in business. Was just giving you a little idea of how we do that
OK... so let's do an exercise about what that would entail so you understand why we don't port things back often:
Ratchet per step, at its most simple form, would require one ratchet param per step. Makes sense since it's a chord based polyphonic sequencer, not individual timbres.
If we conservatively say 2-8 ratchets we could get away with 4 bits per step. For a 64 step sequencer, that requires 32 8 bit params if we pack them. Since we didn't save room for params (because we were fairly certain we would not be adding large features due to the simplicity of the architecture) I didn't put unused params in the list, so we would have to expand it. The sound file would have be versioned and handled correctly. Not hard to do, we've done it on most of our more current instruments, but takes time when it wasn't baked into the code.
More importantly, what does the UI look like? Even if we could think of a simple way to indicate how many ratchets there are per step... how do you edit it on the front panel? How do you ratchet vs. no ratchet? Even if you can figure out a somewhat clean way of doing it this will feel clunky and un-intuitive. Not what the instrument is designed for.
And then the sequencer itself. It is low resolution, which means I would have to kick up the processor time and make sure that it runs smoothly faster to do clean ratcheting, at least 96ppqn. That would take a while. Anything over 24ppqn is a LOT more complicated because it runs faster than MIDI clock rate. That means you have to interpolate and run internal and external clock at the same time. That would take a while to port back to an older and slower processor. I rewrote everything from scratch on the Pro3 to handle all these new features, on a new chip, with a new faster OS.
How many extra would we sell? I can't imagine we'd sell any just because of this feature honestly, and we already have it working on new products so it wouldn't give us technology we didn't already have. As an economical decision it makes very little sense.
That's the short answer of why it won't happen on the P6/OB6
Sadly I've been told that the P6/OB-6 have "likely" been put out to pasture in regard to updates. The meaty P12/Pro 2 linear FM update will continue to be the shining exception and not the rule. :-\
My personal lockdown consideration vote would have gone towards a decent reverb, as the super-plate algorithm being transferred seemed feasible...
On another forum they said it's not possible to add the reverb. I think they will still do another update because they current one is still beta. I think they will do one more update and add some things. Racheting would be easy to add and would not compete with pro3. I'm not gonna buy that anyway, I have other synths too much in that vain. It's not like racheting is gonna turn the simple phrase sequencer on the p6 into a sequencing powerhouse.. it would just be a nice little fun added ability.
Whoa man no.. your making it really complicated. I already explained you can put it in the UI with no trouble, you already have hit back to erase a step right? So same procedure just forward and the note press to rachet, since a rachet is a forward step before next step.
Second, don't make it polyphonic, you already have triplets in the Arp right? Same thing, just one event(note) between next step. Only first note of a chord or single note, chords would sound messy.
Third, you should because it's main competitors already can.. super six and matriarch both rachet. Just one more in-between note would be huge for us and would compete better with the others.. another reason to go for this over the competition. I don't know about the programming but if you can squeeze even one note of rachet in, it would be really huge, prophet 6 is to good a synth to not have it, nomatter what comes from you guys in the future.. This synth is special, history bring created again I believe.. please, please, think about it!! No confusing ui, it makes sense. A killer feature too.
-
I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. It's not going to happen. This synth was not designed to have a complex interface or sequencer response. It would take a lot of work to implement due to all sorts of reasons. Maybe a simple way could be figured out but even if we could it would take a while to design it. Then code it. Then test it. Then fix bugs. Etc, etc. For a feature that very few people have requested. We are a very small company and choose where we put our resources very carefully to stay in business. Was just giving you a little idea of how we do that
OK... so let's do an exercise about what that would entail so you understand why we don't port things back often:
Ratchet per step, at its most simple form, would require one ratchet param per step. Makes sense since it's a chord based polyphonic sequencer, not individual timbres.
If we conservatively say 2-8 ratchets we could get away with 4 bits per step. For a 64 step sequencer, that requires 32 8 bit params if we pack them. Since we didn't save room for params (because we were fairly certain we would not be adding large features due to the simplicity of the architecture) I didn't put unused params in the list, so we would have to expand it. The sound file would have be versioned and handled correctly. Not hard to do, we've done it on most of our more current instruments, but takes time when it wasn't baked into the code.
More importantly, what does the UI look like? Even if we could think of a simple way to indicate how many ratchets there are per step... how do you edit it on the front panel? How do you ratchet vs. no ratchet? Even if you can figure out a somewhat clean way of doing it this will feel clunky and un-intuitive. Not what the instrument is designed for.
And then the sequencer itself. It is low resolution, which means I would have to kick up the processor time and make sure that it runs smoothly faster to do clean ratcheting, at least 96ppqn. That would take a while. Anything over 24ppqn is a LOT more complicated because it runs faster than MIDI clock rate. That means you have to interpolate and run internal and external clock at the same time. That would take a while to port back to an older and slower processor. I rewrote everything from scratch on the Pro3 to handle all these new features, on a new chip, with a new faster OS.
How many extra would we sell? I can't imagine we'd sell any just because of this feature honestly, and we already have it working on new products so it wouldn't give us technology we didn't already have. As an economical decision it makes very little sense.
That's the short answer of why it won't happen on the P6/OB6
Sadly I've been told that the P6/OB-6 have "likely" been put out to pasture in regard to updates. The meaty P12/Pro 2 linear FM update will continue to be the shining exception and not the rule. :-\
My personal lockdown consideration vote would have gone towards a decent reverb, as the super-plate algorithm being transferred seemed feasible...
On another forum they said it's not possible to add the reverb. I think they will still do another update because they current one is still beta. I think they will do one more update and add some things. Racheting would be easy to add and would not compete with pro3. I'm not gonna buy that anyway, I have other synths too much in that vain. It's not like racheting is gonna turn the simple phrase sequencer on the p6 into a sequencing powerhouse.. it would just be a nice little fun added ability.
Whoa man no.. your making it really complicated. I already explained you can put it in the UI with no trouble, you already have hit back to erase a step right? So same procedure just forward and the note press to rachet, since a rachet is a forward step before next step.
Second, don't make it polyphonic, you already have triplets in the Arp right? Same thing, just one event(note) between next step. Only first note of a chord or single note, chords would sound messy.
Third, you should because it's main competitors already can.. super six and matriarch both rachet. Just one more in-between note would be huge for us and would compete better with the others.. another reason to go for this over the competition. I don't know about the programming but if you can squeeze even one note of rachet in, it would be really huge, prophet 6 is to good a synth to not have it, nomatter what comes from you guys in the future.. This synth is special, history bring created again I believe.. please, please, think about it!! No confusing ui, it makes sense. A killer feature too.
ok that's cool.
-
On another forum they said it's not possible to add the reverb.
There was no indication of that when I asked just the other day.
"I don't expect that the Super Plate would be ported back to the Prophet 6/OB-6, but it's been requested before and is on our list of user feature requests."
From a sequential employee named on another forum:
"No, the super plate reverb will not be back ported to the Prophet 6 and OB-6."
Sorry man...
-
Kja - I threw it out there hoping that one of the guys from sequential would weigh in on it is possible.. I'm definitely not the first guy to say that they want this in a update... I'm still hoping..
cbmd (Carson) - No, the super plate reverb will not be back ported to the Prophet 6 and OB-6.
At this point in their life cycle, I already get it's almost certainly not going to happen given Sequential's modus operandi. Perhaps Dr. Henry "Kazoo" Pym, aka the programmer at Sequential, can give a definitive answer as to whether it's technically possible or not...
How many extra would we sell? I can't imagine we'd sell any just because of this feature honestly, and we already have it working on new products so it wouldn't give us technology we didn't already have. As an economical decision it makes very little sense.
There's certainly no shortage of users that bemoan Sequential's comparative lack in the update department. The addition of any one feature per se might not culminate in direct sales, yet it's certainly something that's highly appreciated by potentially repeat customers. That said, many of us are aware of what happened in '87 and we want the best for Sequential's sustained longevity.
-
No, that uses more processor power, it isn't possible for us to port back without doing a large rewrite of the DSP to get processor time back. Won't happen on this product
You will likely see an update enabling MPE on the older instruments and that will likely be the final update for some of them
You'll also see some pretty major feature improvements to the Pro3 because I have a lot more flexibility there both on the processor and in the UI (I left some things blank on purpose for additional features I wanted to make). I'm using it for something of a test bed for future products. Not all my ideas will be released (have some in test OSes right now that are freaking neat but may not fit with our aesthetic) but there is a lot being done
Kja - I threw it out there hoping that one of the guys from sequential would weigh in on it is possible.. I'm definitely not the first guy to say that they want this in a update... I'm still hoping..
cbmd (Carson) - No, the super plate reverb will not be back ported to the Prophet 6 and OB-6.
At this point in their life cycle, I already get it's almost certainly not going to happen given Sequential's modus operandi. Perhaps Dr. Henry "Kazoo" Pym, aka the programmer at Sequential, can give a definitive answer as to whether it's technically possible or not...
How many extra would we sell? I can't imagine we'd sell any just because of this feature honestly, and we already have it working on new products so it wouldn't give us technology we didn't already have. As an economical decision it makes very little sense.
There's certainly no shortage of users that bemoan Sequential's comparative lack in the update department. The addition of any one feature per se might not culminate in direct sales, yet it's certainly something that's highly appreciated by potentially repeat customers. That said, many of us are aware of what happened in '87 and we want the best for Sequential's sustained longevity.
-
You'll also see some pretty major feature improvements to the Pro3 because I have a lot more flexibility there both on the processor and in the UI (I left some things blank on purpose for additional features I wanted to make).
Just curious and NOT complaining, actually very satisfied - but - could those improvements include swapping out the osc3 wavetables?
Thanks, I love this synth
-
You'll also see some pretty major feature improvements to the Pro3 because I have a lot more flexibility there both on the processor and in the UI (I left some things blank on purpose for additional features I wanted to make).
Just curious and NOT complaining, actually very satisfied - but - could those improvements include swapping out the osc3 wavetables?
Thanks, I love this synth
As in being able to import your own wavetables? I mean Dave said they weren't really looking into that but even the interviewer was like "Come on, please." and Dave responded with a "maybe."
Personally I think it would be a slight oversight to not implement this. The Pro 3 is still fantastic but the idea of having a factory wavetable be of someone saying "SEQUENTIAL" and not being able to do the same with my own name or something would be a tad annoying.
I have faith we will see it though, not sure how it can be implemented but I think it's the number one request from the Pro 3 and with Novation launching their fantastic wavetable software for the Peak/Summit, I'm assuming it's something Dave and co are looking into quite a bit now in addition to their new synth.
-
No, wouldn't allow you to swap them out. Those will stay fixed. But doesn't mean we aren't looking into something better, just stay tuned
You'll also see some pretty major feature improvements to the Pro3 because I have a lot more flexibility there both on the processor and in the UI (I left some things blank on purpose for additional features I wanted to make).
Just curious and NOT complaining, actually very satisfied - but - could those improvements include swapping out the osc3 wavetables?
Thanks, I love this synth
-
No, wouldn't allow you to swap them out. Those will stay fixed. But doesn't mean we aren't looking into something better, just stay tuned
You'll also see some pretty major feature improvements to the Pro3 because I have a lot more flexibility there both on the processor and in the UI (I left some things blank on purpose for additional features I wanted to make).
Just curious and NOT complaining, actually very satisfied - but - could those improvements include swapping out the osc3 wavetables?
Thanks, I love this synth
I'm almost sure the answer is no, but could you add in the next update for prophet 6 the ability to decide how many voices we can pitch bend? Just like how we decide how many voices we can use in unison?
-
That's pretty much what MPE is, but you'll need an MPE controller or MPE enabled DAW to make use of it
No, wouldn't allow you to swap them out. Those will stay fixed. But doesn't mean we aren't looking into something better, just stay tuned
You'll also see some pretty major feature improvements to the Pro3 because I have a lot more flexibility there both on the processor and in the UI (I left some things blank on purpose for additional features I wanted to make).
Just curious and NOT complaining, actually very satisfied - but - could those improvements include swapping out the osc3 wavetables?
Thanks, I love this synth
I'm almost sure the answer is no, but could you add in the next update for prophet 6 the ability to decide how many voices we can pitch bend? Just like how we decide how many voices we can use in unison?
-
That's pretty much what MPE is, but you'll need an MPE controller or MPE enabled DAW to make use of it
No, wouldn't allow you to swap them out. Those will stay fixed. But doesn't mean we aren't looking into something better, just stay tuned
You'll also see some pretty major feature improvements to the Pro3 because I have a lot more flexibility there both on the processor and in the UI (I left some things blank on purpose for additional features I wanted to make).
Just curious and NOT complaining, actually very satisfied - but - could those improvements include swapping out the osc3 wavetables?
Thanks, I love this synth
I'm almost sure the answer is no, but could you add in the next update for prophet 6 the ability to decide how many voices we can pitch bend? Just like how we decide how many voices we can use in unison?
I know and I appreciate it, but I don't mess with that stuff.. I just wish I could hold down the pitch wheel button and choose how many voices get pitched. Would that be really hard to add?
-
Yes, it is that hard to add
You have no control over which keys play which voice, so how would you know which held keys to pitch bend? No way to do this. You can do this in our other synths by having a split point, then you can pitchbend notes above the split point but not below. There isn't really any other good way of doing it
That's pretty much what MPE is, but you'll need an MPE controller or MPE enabled DAW to make use of it
No, wouldn't allow you to swap them out. Those will stay fixed. But doesn't mean we aren't looking into something better, just stay tuned
You'll also see some pretty major feature improvements to the Pro3 because I have a lot more flexibility there both on the processor and in the UI (I left some things blank on purpose for additional features I wanted to make).
Just curious and NOT complaining, actually very satisfied - but - could those improvements include swapping out the osc3 wavetables?
Thanks, I love this synth
I'm almost sure the answer is no, but could you add in the next update for prophet 6 the ability to decide how many voices we can pitch bend? Just like how we decide how many voices we can use in unison?
I know and I appreciate it, but I don't mess with that stuff.. I just wish I could hold down the pitch wheel button and choose how many voices get pitched. Would that be really hard to add?
-
Yes, it is that hard to add
You have no control over which keys play which voice, so how would you know which held keys to pitch bend? No way to do this. You can do this in our other synths by having a split point, then you can pitchbend notes above the split point but not below. There isn't really any other good way of doing it
That's pretty much what MPE is, but you'll need an MPE controller or MPE enabled DAW to make use of it
No, wouldn't allow you to swap them out. Those will stay fixed. But doesn't mean we aren't looking into something better, just stay tuned
You'll also see some pretty major feature improvements to the Pro3 because I have a lot more flexibility there both on the processor and in the UI (I left some things blank on purpose for additional features I wanted to make).
Just curious and NOT complaining, actually very satisfied - but - could those improvements include swapping out the osc3 wavetables?
Thanks, I love this synth
I'm almost sure the answer is no, but could you add in the next update for prophet 6 the ability to decide how many voices we can pitch bend? Just like how we decide how many voices we can use in unison?
I know and I appreciate it, but I don't mess with that stuff.. I just wish I could hold down the pitch wheel button and choose how many voices get pitched. Would that be really hard to add?
Is there any way that a polyphonic sequence can be transposed on the fly without the need to hold down the recording button? I know you've implemented this in Unison mode but is there a way that one can press play on a polyphonic sequence and then press record afterwards and give you the ability to transpose a polyphonic sequence on the fly?
Also will this type sequencer transpose be implemented on the Prophet X or Rev 2? Unison mode or otherwise? I know that you can transpose sequences by holding down record but it would be nice (especially in split mode) where a bass sequence can be transposed with the left hand while you play a lead or pad with the right. It would be a helpful performance feature.
-
The feature isn't too difficult obviously, it's the UI. Every way I could think of that felt 'simple' meant an existing feature and workflow was crippled in a way that would have messed with some users. It's a difficult balance.
Now that I have double tap working I was thinking maybe double tap hold puts you into a transpose mode, or something like that, but we typically try to avoid modal behavior in the UI if we can
I'll keep thinking about it
Yes, it is that hard to add
You have no control over which keys play which voice, so how would you know which held keys to pitch bend? No way to do this. You can do this in our other synths by having a split point, then you can pitchbend notes above the split point but not below. There isn't really any other good way of doing it
That's pretty much what MPE is, but you'll need an MPE controller or MPE enabled DAW to make use of it
No, wouldn't allow you to swap them out. Those will stay fixed. But doesn't mean we aren't looking into something better, just stay tuned
You'll also see some pretty major feature improvements to the Pro3 because I have a lot more flexibility there both on the processor and in the UI (I left some things blank on purpose for additional features I wanted to make).
Just curious and NOT complaining, actually very satisfied - but - could those improvements include swapping out the osc3 wavetables?
Thanks, I love this synth
I'm almost sure the answer is no, but could you add in the next update for prophet 6 the ability to decide how many voices we can pitch bend? Just like how we decide how many voices we can use in unison?
I know and I appreciate it, but I don't mess with that stuff.. I just wish I could hold down the pitch wheel button and choose how many voices get pitched. Would that be really hard to add?
Is there any way that a polyphonic sequence can be transposed on the fly without the need to hold down the recording button? I know you've implemented this in Unison mode but is there a way that one can press play on a polyphonic sequence and then press record afterwards and give you the ability to transpose a polyphonic sequence on the fly?
Also will this type sequencer transpose be implemented on the Prophet X or Rev 2? Unison mode or otherwise? I know that you can transpose sequences by holding down record but it would be nice (especially in split mode) where a bass sequence can be transposed with the left hand while you play a lead or pad with the right. It would be a helpful performance feature.
-
The feature isn't too difficult obviously, it's the UI. Every way I could think of that felt 'simple' meant an existing feature and workflow was crippled in a way that would have messed with some users. It's a difficult balance.
Now that I have double tap working I was thinking maybe double tap hold puts you into a transpose mode, or something like that, but we typically try to avoid modal behavior in the UI if we can
I'll keep thinking about it
Yes, it is that hard to add
You have no control over which keys play which voice, so how would you know which held keys to pitch bend? No way to do this. You can do this in our other synths by having a split point, then you can pitchbend notes above the split point but not below. There isn't really any other good way of doing it
That's pretty much what MPE is, but you'll need an MPE controller or MPE enabled DAW to make use of it
No, wouldn't allow you to swap them out. Those will stay fixed. But doesn't mean we aren't looking into something better, just stay tuned
You'll also see some pretty major feature improvements to the Pro3 because I have a lot more flexibility there both on the processor and in the UI (I left some things blank on purpose for additional features I wanted to make).
Just curious and NOT complaining, actually very satisfied - but - could those improvements include swapping out the osc3 wavetables?
Thanks, I love this synth
I'm almost sure the answer is no, but could you add in the next update for prophet 6 the ability to decide how many voices we can pitch bend? Just like how we decide how many voices we can use in unison?
I know and I appreciate it, but I don't mess with that stuff.. I just wish I could hold down the pitch wheel button and choose how many voices get pitched. Would that be really hard to add?
Is there any way that a polyphonic sequence can be transposed on the fly without the need to hold down the recording button? I know you've implemented this in Unison mode but is there a way that one can press play on a polyphonic sequence and then press record afterwards and give you the ability to transpose a polyphonic sequence on the fly?
Also will this type sequencer transpose be implemented on the Prophet X or Rev 2? Unison mode or otherwise? I know that you can transpose sequences by holding down record but it would be nice (especially in split mode) where a bass sequence can be transposed with the left hand while you play a lead or pad with the right. It would be a helpful performance feature.
Since one has to hold down the record button anyway in order to transpose the sequence. Would it not be possible to simple just press REC once while the sequence is playing and have it light up indicating "Transpose" mode is active and then press REC again while the sequence is playing to come out of it? This way the original functionality of the sequencer remains intact and "Transpose Mode" only engaging when the REC button is pressed during playback...which it has to be anyway if one wants to transpose the sequence. In essence you would simply be latching the REC button's functionality that was already present. Would this be problematic?
-
Yes, it is that hard to add
You have no control over which keys play which voice, so how would you know which held keys to pitch bend? No way to do this. You can do this in our other synths by having a split point, then you can pitchbend notes above the split point but not below. There isn't really any other good way of doing it
That's pretty much what MPE is, but you'll need an MPE controller or MPE enabled DAW to make use of it
No, wouldn't allow you to swap them out. Those will stay fixed. But doesn't mean we aren't looking into something better, just stay tuned
You'll also see some pretty major feature improvements to the Pro3 because I have a lot more flexibility there both on the processor and in the UI (I left some things blank on purpose for additional features I wanted to make).
Just curious and NOT complaining, actually very satisfied - but - could those improvements include swapping out the osc3 wavetables?
Thanks, I love this synth
I'm almost sure the answer is no, but could you add in the next update for prophet 6 the ability to decide how many voices we can pitch bend? Just like how we decide how many voices we can use in unison?
I know and I appreciate it, but I don't mess with that stuff.. I just wish I could hold down the pitch wheel button and choose how many voices get pitched. Would that be really hard to add?
I mean like if you set it to three, then the first three notes you play in a chord are pitch bent, if you let the cord go it resets, if you play one note only it will pitch bend, if you play a chord with one hand and hold it down and play two more with another hand them only the first three notes of the first chord pitch bend. It would work like that.
-
In the latest sequential video they explain how to make the mod wheel to cutoff.. I feel really dumb I didn't think of this trick but it works!! So go to town you guys!! You finally got what you have been wanting!!
-
In the latest sequential video they explain how to make the mod wheel to cutoff.. I feel really dumb I didn't think of this trick but it works!! So go to town you guys!! You finally got what you have been wanting!!
The only issue is you have to turn the clock down which would be completely useless if you are syncing to an external clock.
-
Yes but you can't have everything.. it still steps though with the resonance.. but if you set the parameter transmit to nr instead of cc the steps are much smaller and I can't really hear stepping.. it sounds about the same as my non digital controlled analog synths.