The Official Sequential/Oberheim Forum
SEQUENTIAL/DSI => Prophet-5/Prophet-10 => Topic started by: A Thousand Eyes on October 01, 2020, 10:36:46 AM
-
Just put my preorder in for the 10! Been waiting for something like this for ages.
P.S. I tried to stop spending time on forums, but I just can't quit you Sequential.
-
Alas, the long-awaited day has arrived.
- Prophet-5: $3,500
- Prophet-10: $4,300
https://www.sequential.com/product/prophet-5/
https://www.sequential.com/product/prophet-10/
Sweetwater:
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Prophet5--sequential-prophet-5-61-key-analog-synthesizer
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Prophet10--sequential-prophet-10-61-key-analog-synthesizer
-
That was unexpected.
-
That was unexpected.
It was expectedly unexpected, if you know what I mean. It's a recurring theme, this looking to the past...and I like it!
-
Hunh. Not what I was expecting from the messaging earlier this year, either. I guess the different kind of musician is a wealthier one?
That said, love that these exist.
-
Shame that the 10 is not coming in a dual manual. In terms of announcements, this is HUGE!!!
-
I must admit while I absolutely love this....I am disappointed the P10 isn’t bi timbral. I understand it’s modelled after the single keyboard version and not the dual manual version but still. That’s the one thing putting me off of the P10.
Also kind of shocked the lack of poly sequencer, lack of effects, lack of arpeggiator etc. But I guess that’s means it is for a “different kind of player.”
Really considering dumping my P6 for a P5 but also looking at this from a practical point of view. Am I looking at this with nostalgia and aesthetic than something I can actually integrate into my setup? It requires some thought.
-
Hunh. Not what I was expecting from the messaging earlier this year, either. I guess the different kind of musician is a wealthier one?
That said, love that these exist.
Or just a “player”. No effects, no sequencers, no arpeggiator etc.
-
Hunh. Not what I was expecting from the messaging earlier this year, either. I guess the different kind of musician is a wealthier one?
That said, love that these exist.
Or just a “player”. No effects, no sequencers, no arpeggiator etc.
Very true!
-
No stereo, sub OSC, or HPF either. It's really all about the raw sound. To me the P5 is the still the greatest sounding synth of all time & this sounds just as good from what I've heard.
-
No Stereo!??!... Phew!!!! That removes me from having to even think about it.
I know, I know... the original... but man, a polyphonic synth with a mono out in 2020? I'm not criticizing, but that seems odd.
-
Hunh. Not what I was expecting from the messaging earlier this year, either. I guess the different kind of musician is a wealthier one?
That said, love that these exist.
Or just a “player”. No effects, no sequencers, no arpeggiator etc.
I think it's geared toward the nostalgic vintage P5 purist, a camp that I do fall into, at least partially... since the Prophet 6 was released, a lot of folks have expressed disappointment that it can't reproduce the P5 vintage sound due to the more aggressive envelopes, more accurate oscillators, etc. I've always wanted to own a P5, but couldn't fathom paying 7 or 8 grand for one that may be a repair nightmare.
So buying one brand new, with aftertouch / velocity (not to mention the different modes) for $3.5k is a bucklist item for some of us that grew up on 70s and 80s synth music.
It's a bit ironic though, because much of the sound I'm going for these days is more of a "synthwave" sound... which by definition doesn't really try to faithfully reproduce vintage necessarily (depending on the artist), but strives to result in a modern version of older new wave era music. So in the genre of modern synthwave, the Prophet-6 sound is probably more relevant. The P6 is a modern legend and in terms of feature set (and depending on musical goals) is probably the right board for most folks.
But then there are the Gen-Xers like myself for which the thought of owning a true Prophet 5 is just too much to resist.
-
... and I think most of you will find this humorous, and maybe informative.
I emailed my Sweetwater rep 2 words "How long?"
He responded with "10/16, 10/30 on the 10 voice"
-
The Prophet 10 feels like a missed opportunity to me. No one identifies the Prophet 10 with its single keyboard version. They wanted that dual manual version or at the very least a bi timbral version with poly sequencer. I appreciate Dave doing this but man....it was so close....even if it cost $10k I would put a pre order in for a synth like that so fast....
-
I don't care about arpeggiators, sequencers, or dual keybeds. Sure, it would be nice if it were bi-timbral, but that's not a deal breaker for me. Even the HPF on the P6 I barely used aside from filtering out some low end frequencies when necessary. I've had synths with endless options and I've always found them to be less productive for my workflow. In the end, quality always trumps quantity in my eyes.
When the P6 was released many complained it was no P5. A few folks retorted, if they remade the P5 people would still complain. Looks like they were right...
-
Oh, the stereo issue is a snap to solve. It was the first question I considered. Simply buy two Prophet 10s, stack them, MIDI the top to the bottom, and pan each instrument in opposite directions. The bottom synth will be a stereo monster, and the top one will be mono to one channel or the other. So simple! :(
While we're awaiting new demos, this has always been my favorite P-5 video. Such power and presence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40RiwZJgbTo
-
The Prophet 10 feels like a missed opportunity to me. No one identifies the Prophet 10 with its single keyboard version. They wanted that dual manual version or at the very least a bi timbral version with poly sequencer. I appreciate Dave doing this but man....it was so close....even if it cost $10k I would put a pre order in for a synth like that so fast....
In my experience, the original P-10 was a dog. It was a great idea but technology had not caught up to Dave Smith's brain. SS is right about just buying two P-5's. That's what most players did back in the day.
I will be one of those nostalgia people buying this synth once the bugs are worked out. Mono- check, no onboard effects- check, off to heaven!
-
The Prophet 10 feels like a missed opportunity to me. No one identifies the Prophet 10 with its single keyboard version. They wanted that dual manual version or at the very least a bi timbral version with poly sequencer. I appreciate Dave doing this but man....it was so close....even if it cost $10k I would put a pre order in for a synth like that so fast....
In my experience, the original P-10 was a dog. It was a great idea but technology had not caught up to Dave Smith's brain. SS is right about just buying two P-5's. That's what most players did back in the day.
I will be one of those nostalgia people buying this synth once the bugs are worked out. Mono- check, no onboard effects- check, off to heaven!
Except the technology has caught up at this point. Two Prophet 5s does not make a Prophet 10. Especially in its various voice modes.
-
Even better than paired keyboards for the stereo effect, Paul Dither has informed me that Sequential will issue module versions of these instruments. Go ahead, try to imagine the magnificent sound of a Prophet 10 Keyboard MIDI-ed with a Prophet 10 Module. I'm swooning at the thought.
-
Except the technology has caught up at this point. Two Prophet 5s does not make a Prophet 10. Especially in its various voice modes.
I said two Prophet 10s.
-
Even better than paired keyboards for the stereo effect, Paul Dither has informed me that Sequential will issue module versions of these instruments. Go ahead, try to imagine the magnificent sound of a Prophet 10 Keyboard MIDI-ed with a Prophet 10 Module. I'm swooning at the thought.
Ummm... now we’re talking.
-
https://youtu.be/f1Odq0Qu6bk
-
Except the technology has caught up at this point. Two Prophet 5s does not make a Prophet 10. Especially in its various voice modes.
I said two Prophet 10s.
I know ;) Still bummed about the P10. I think it would have been the one time to do the dual keyboard version. I understand people might not care that much but it just feels like a missed opportunity. Even when people visit the Sequential office almost everyone gravitates towards that P10.
-
I agree. As much as a few of us might find place for such a gigantic two-manual synthesizer, it would remain an esoteric instrument. In spite of the present analog/old school revival, it might be too much of a good thing, and a potentially expensive misstep for such a small company.
-
Even better than paired keyboards for the stereo effect, Paul Dither has informed me that Sequential will issue module versions of these instruments. Go ahead, try to imagine the magnificent sound of a Prophet 10 Keyboard MIDI-ed with a Prophet 10 Module. I'm swooning at the thought.
Ummm... now we’re talking.
Eh....you still wouldn’t be able to do the Prophet 10’s engine cycle...where each engine plays every other note. So essentially you are playing a different patch with each note.
-
I agree. As much as a few of us might find place for such a gigantic two-manual synthesizer, it would remain an esoteric instrument. In spite of the present analog/old school revival, it might be too much of a good thing, and a potentially expensive misstep for such a small company.
Even if it was a limited edition. Like if they said “we are going to do 100 of these at $10K”. I seriously would put a down payment on that right away in addition to possibly purchasing a P5.
-
Well, that's it for me. The last keyboard I'll ever buy. Prophet~10
Amen
-
It certainly makes one consider another option: rather than having your money spread over many instruments and devices, putting it all instead into one massive synthesizer. Mmmm....
-
I'd be very interested to hear an audio comparison between the Prophet-6 and the new Prophet-5/10, with each of them exerting their old school analog best.
-
Eh....you still wouldn’t be able to do the Prophet 10’s engine cycle...where each engine plays every other note. So essentially you are playing a different patch with each note.
Have they indicated the P5/P10 will not be poly-chainable?
-
I'd be very interested to hear an audio comparison between the Prophet-6 and the new Prophet-5/10, with each of them exerting their old school analog best.
I bet Starsky Carr is setting up his lighting as we speak :)
-
You're probably right!
-
Eh....you still wouldn’t be able to do the Prophet 10’s engine cycle...where each engine plays every other note. So essentially you are playing a different patch with each note.
Have they indicated the P5/P10 will not be poly-chainable?
It wouldn’t work that way though. Unless the modules are completely different and feature modes like “engine cycle” and perhaps the modules actually feature a poly sequencer built in. I’d be all over that. That’s really the only way I could justify the P10.
-
I think the better question is, how long till the inevitable purists start claiming the original P5 sounds so much better than the new P5? I'm sure some are already at it in the comment section of Youtube... ;)
-
Well now I’m in a real quandary. I have a prophet 6, and a prophet 600. I love them both. Can I justify a new prophet 5?
-
Those are three fairly similar instruments. I would think there would be far too much overlap to have all three.
-
I think the better question is, how long till the inevitable purists start claiming the original P5 sounds so much better than the new P5? I'm sure some are already at it in the comment section of Youtube... ;)
To the pit with the lot of em!
-
Those are three fairly similar instruments. I would think there would be far too much overlap to have all three.
I think you are correct. If I could poly chain the prophet 5 and 6 I’d be all in but doesn’t sound like it will be built for that. And I’m certainly not overburdened with money so may need to be one I admire from afar haha
-
I think the better question is, how long till the inevitable purists start claiming the original P5 sounds so much better than the new P5?
Remember they can hear the difference between surface mount and through-hole.
I'm waiting for the claims that the modern CEM 3340 and 3320 sound inferior to the originals because they aren't built using the same semiconductor fab process node. :o
-
As much as the Prophet 5/10 appeal to me, I think if I was looking at getting a new analogue synth then the Polybrute would probably be best for me. Hopefully I won't buy another one though because, like others, I have no space at all for any more!
-
Time for a little flashback. Spot the differences:
Rev1
(https://forum.sequential.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4668.0;attach=3062;image)
Rev2
(https://forum.sequential.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4668.0;attach=3064;image)
Rev3
(https://forum.sequential.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4668.0;attach=3066;image)
Rev4
(https://forum.sequential.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4668.0;attach=3068;image)
-
Is Dave getting old?? Why should i buy a p5 for those kind of money when i can buy a p6 cheaper and without curtisfilter??
And without effects?? WTF!!Pure nostalgia,hmm just wondering what a p5 or a p10 is going to cost in Sweden?
-
Why should i buy a p5 for those kind of money when i can buy a p6 cheaper and without curtisfilter??
Not a single person here is telling you why you should buy anything.
-
And what's wrong with nostalgia? After all, Dave Smith is a human being with a history he obviously cherishes. Besides, nostalgia is finally providing us with musical instruments (such as the ARP 2600) that fill a vacuum left by the many new synthesizers that do everything under the sun. Synthesists are apparently hungering for a distinctive quality sound, rather than limitless sound design capability that often results in generic variety, in a voice without character. For this, the past remains a valuable resource. And the simplicity of the control panels on these instruments tends to distract one less from the keyboard, resulting in more music and less sound effects.
If you don't like nostalgic instruments, you've got a plethora of other brilliant new synthesizers from which to choose, including a number from Sequential. But sometimes the constant innovation gets boring, even redundant, and it's refreshing to focus instead on just the fundamentals of synthesis.
-
@Nicko35: It's the CEM3320 featured in the P5 Rev 3, which is more highly regarded than the Curtis filter that you're probably associating with DSI products. In addition, it has a button to switch between those filters and the SSI2140, which is an improved recreation of the classic SSM2040 found in the P5 Rev 1&2 from the man himself who created the chip. While the Rev 1&2 are more highly sought after than the Rev 3, it's still a nice addition as they're obviously different enough to warrant having both in there.
-
I can't even say how delighted I am about this new P5. I was skimming a related post on another forum and of course there were people perplexed by all the things "lacking," like hi-pass filters, sub oscs, fx etc. Meanwhile, I'm giggling with glee to discover it's got only a mono output, right? I simply can't put time into explaining *why* this is so thrilling to me. Those who get it, get it. I adore the Prophet 6. I own two of them. And I have a rev3 P5 three feet away as I type. But this new rev4 model... there's no way around it. Must have it. Can't afford it, but must have it. Anyone want to buy a kidney?
-
I can't even say how delighted I am about this new P5. I was skimming a related post on another forum and of course there were people perplexed by all the things "lacking," like hi-pass filters, sub oscs, fx etc. Meanwhile, I'm giggling with glee to discover it's got only a mono output, right? I simply can't put time into explaining *why* this is so thrilling to me. Those who get it, get it. I adore the Prophet 6. I own two of them. And I have a rev3 P5 three feet away as I type. But this new rev4 model... there's no way around it. Must have it. Can't afford it, but must have it. Anyone want to buy a kidney?
My take on the matter is similar. For me, it's like this:
What if, two weeks ago someone told me I could get a vintage SCI Prophet-5, in mint condition and perfect working order, with direct support from Dave's team including warranty, and it would only cost me three and a half grand? Oh and by the way, it has been retrofitted with USB and a button that switches between Rev 1/2 and Rev 3 filter types, and a knob that simulates revision osc/env/filter sloppiness.
It would be a no brainer for most vintage synth enthusiasts to pull the trigger on Reverb or eBay or whatever. They wouldn't be complaining about mono, no effects, etc. They would just do it.
I still want to spend some time to hear it in a variety of situations, watch videos on impressions from others, etc.
Sounds fantastic in the J3PO video, but he also has 3 Strymon pedals on it, so it's not necessarily a showcase of the P5 reissue sound.
-
And what's wrong with nostalgia? After all, Dave Smith is a human being with a history he obviously cherishes. Besides, nostalgia is finally providing us with musical instruments (such as the ARP 2600) that fill a vacuum left by the many new synthesizers that do everything under the sun. Synthesists are apparently hungering for a distinctive quality sound, rather than limitless sound design capability that often results in generic variety, in a voice without character. For this, the past remains a valuable resource. And the simplicity of the control panels on these instruments tends to distract one less from the keyboard, resulting in more music and less sound effects.
If you don't like nostalgic instruments, you've got a plethora of other brilliant new synthesizers from which to choose, including a number from Sequential. But sometimes the constant innovation gets boring, even redundant, and it's refreshing to focus instead on just the fundamentals of synthesis.
Plus, the limitations of the instruments during the Golden Age of Analog were part of what made them so magical. Anyone who researches how many tracks the P5 was used on, and how different and distinctive they sounded, might rethink whether or not the P5 should be a generic "kitchen sink" synth.
Limitations breed creativity... otherwise the machinery is doing all the work for us, taking over the role of the musician.
-
And what's wrong with nostalgia? After all, Dave Smith is a human being with a history he obviously cherishes. Besides, nostalgia is finally providing us with musical instruments (such as the ARP 2600) that fill a vacuum left by the many new synthesizers that do everything under the sun. Synthesists are apparently hungering for a distinctive quality sound, rather than limitless sound design capability that often results in generic variety, in a voice without character. For this, the past remains a valuable resource. And the simplicity of the control panels on these instruments tends to distract one less from the keyboard, resulting in more music and less sound effects.
If you don't like nostalgic instruments, you've got a plethora of other brilliant new synthesizers from which to choose, including a number from Sequential. But sometimes the constant innovation gets boring, even redundant, and it's refreshing to focus instead on just the fundamentals of synthesis.
Plus, the limitations of the instruments during the Golden Age of Analog were part of what made them so magical. Anyone who researches how many tracks the P5 was used on, and how different and distinctive they sounded, might rethink whether or not the P5 should be a generic "kitchen sink" synth.
Limitations breed creativity... otherwise the machinery is doing all the work for us, taking over the role of the musician.
And let's not overlook the fact that the "Golden Age of Analog" coincided with the golden age of progressive rock, when remarkable musicians produced remarkable music on - by modern standards - unremarkable instruments. Look at what Tony Banks achieved with an ARP Pro Soloist, an instrument that would be regarded as a silly little toy by a modern synthesist. I doubt the result would have been as musically and compositionally impressive if the same musicians had all owned Waldorf Quantums. They would have wasted precious time in sound design. Musical beauty is often lost in the perennial quest for complexity.
-
As I statet in the other thread, I'm pretty sure, that I don't need a Prophet 5. But I watched the J3PO video and must admit, that it sounds absolutely beatiful. Yes, he uses the holy Strymon trinity on it... but that is exactly what I would do myself, since I own this pedals, too. This sounds so classic rock! ;-)
So now I can say, if I ever feel the urge to buy a reissue of any classic synth, then it would be this one.
-
Jok3r, perhaps you could find a place for the module version.
-
Jok3r, perhaps you could find a place for the module version.
Hm... my experience with modules is not very satisfying. For example I love my PEAK... it's a wonderful sounding synth. But I do not use it as much as all my other gear, since I cannot simply start it up and play. Having to hook up a midi keyboard everytime is really annoying. If have everything installed in my home studio then it is no problem, because I have a mio10 where everything is connected and I can play every synth from every other. But since I'm a gigging musician, half of my synth are in rehearsal rooms, other rooms in the house or simply in their road cases somewhere else. So most of the time, the PEAK is here, but I have to get some midi keyboard hooked up first. And that often stops me before have even started :'(
Perhaps that will change, when I find time to get some of my older keyboards out of my parents house to my own. I love my S90ES but don't use it live anymore. Perhaps I could install that permanently in my studio as master controller.
So I was just looking for keyboard versions of everything the last years. That is also the reason why I didn't buy a P6 module. I'm living in a big house in the country, so fortunatly space is not a problem.
-
Truth be told I likely will get a P5. I do hope the modules are slightly different. Perhaps the modules can feature a poly sequencer and hopefully poly chaining.
-
Time for a little flashback. Spot the differences:
This was a fun and educational exercise, thanks!
-
Time for a little flashback. Spot the differences:
This was a fun and educational exercise, thanks!
:)
-
I am a bit worried that this is going to end up being a limited run like the Minimoog Model D or ARP 2600 reissue.
-
I am a bit worried that this is going to end up being a limited run like the Minimoog Model D or ARP 2600 reissue.
Someone from Sequential chimed in on GS and said that this isn’t a limited edition. I got the sense that they intend to make them as long as people are buying them.
-
This is not a limited edition
I am a bit worried that this is going to end up being a limited run like the Minimoog Model D or ARP 2600 reissue.
Someone from Sequential chimed in on GS and said that this isn’t a limited edition. I got the sense that they intend to make them as long as people are buying them.
-
It's great to see Sequential bring back this icon of a synth.
And the Rev1/2/3 switch gives it all flavours. Nice.
:)
-
This is not a limited edition
I am a bit worried that this is going to end up being a limited run like the Minimoog Model D or ARP 2600 reissue.
Someone from Sequential chimed in on GS and said that this isn’t a limited edition. I got the sense that they intend to make them as long as people are buying them.
Wonderful.
-
Ugh I’m really torn on this. I know there is no pressure to buy it but my OCD and just my overall mindset towards it is really conflicting. To be 100% honest if they did the two keyboard version of the P10 (with the poly sequencer built in) I would have put a pre order in for both the P5 and P10 regardless of price. I think it’s just my obsession with that John Carpenter/Alan Howarth setup clouding my judgement but I also own one of the last Mitchell BNC 35mm motion picture cameras in the world...it’s totally impractical but I have an emotional impulse when it comes to purchasing and sometimes that has backfired badly.
I highly doubt the module versions are going to add anything to the synths as they are....but really would it be that cumbersome if they had the poly sequencer be part of the module? But I guess the answer will likely be “just use an external sequencer...it has midi.”
My friend even suggested “Man, sell all your gear and get a Prophet 5 and that ARP 2600 reissue and there it is...that’s your setup...maybe that Isla S2400 drum machine added and you are good to go.” But then I’d be missing out on so many other forms of synthesis just to have the clout to say my setup IS a Prophet 5 and ARP 2600. No wavetables, no FM, no samples....and even still ...if I decide to just integrate it in my setup as a replacement for the P6....where does a raw Prophet 5 fit alongside a Prophet X in terms of functionality and purpose? I have friends who purchased the Moog Model D and they said it was a mistake.
I dunno, I’m just really torn on it. I really have to consider if I’m just buying this for the status of it rather than the practicality of it.
-
Ugh I’m really torn on this. I know there is no pressure to buy it but my OCD and just my overall mindset towards it is really conflicting. To be 100% honest if they did the two keyboard version of the P10 (with the poly sequencer built in) I would have put a pre order in for both the P5 and P10 regardless of price. I think it’s just my obsession with that John Carpenter/Alan Howarth setup clouding my judgement but I also own one of the last Mitchell BNC 35mm motion picture cameras in the world...it’s totally impractical but I have an emotional impulse when it comes to purchasing and sometimes that has backfired badly.
I highly doubt the module versions are going to add anything to the synths as they are....but really would it be that cumbersome if they had the poly sequencer be part of the module? But I guess the answer will likely be “just use an external sequencer...it has midi.”
My friend even suggested “Man, sell all your gear and get a Prophet 5 and that ARP 2600 reissue and there it is...that’s your setup...maybe that Isla S2400 drum machine added and you are good to go.” But then I’d be missing out on so many other forms of synthesis just to have the clout to say my setup IS a Prophet 5 and ARP 2600. No wavetables, no FM, no samples....and even still ...if I decide to just integrate it in my setup as a replacement for the P6....where does a raw Prophet 5 fit alongside a Prophet X in terms of functionality and purpose? I have friends who purchased the Moog Model D and they said it was a mistake.
I dunno, I’m just really torn on it. I really have to consider if I’m just buying this for the status of it rather than the practicality of it.
Ha.... I’m having the opposite reaction... I don’t want to like it because of the mono output, but I love the sound. This thing is pure tone... listening to the INHALT video now through my home theatre floor speakers.... just killer.
Someone was jokingly suggesting I get the keyboard and the module... Boom! Stereo! ... I’m considering it.
-
This is not a limited edition
I am a bit worried that this is going to end up being a limited run like the Minimoog Model D or ARP 2600 reissue.
Someone from Sequential chimed in on GS and said that this isn’t a limited edition. I got the sense that they intend to make them as long as people are buying them.
@Pym ... The rumor is that there will also be a module/desktop version. Can you confirm if this is true?
Thank you.
-
I'm not one for looking back at all; the P5 is just timeless.
-
It’s like dangling crack in front of a junkie....!!!!
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--VD4bb2I8Yk/UvFonp0La_I/AAAAAAAAALU/jDCnlEXEBAg/s1600/tyrone20biggums.jpg)
-
@Pym ... The rumor is that there will also be a module/desktop version. Can you confirm if this is true?
That's what it shows—Desktop version available? Yes—for the PROPHET-5 & 10 Rev 4 on the Sequential Synth Comparison Chart v5.1 PDF linked on each product page.
-
@Pym ... The rumor is that there will also be a module/desktop version. Can you confirm if this is true?
That's what it shows—Desktop version available? Yes—for the PROPHET-5 & 10 Rev 4 on the Sequential Synth Comparison Chart v5.1 PDF linked on each product page.
I deeply deeply hope that it's just more than a desktop version.
-
All signs point to yes
This is not a limited edition
I am a bit worried that this is going to end up being a limited run like the Minimoog Model D or ARP 2600 reissue.
Someone from Sequential chimed in on GS and said that this isn’t a limited edition. I got the sense that they intend to make them as long as people are buying them.
@Pym ... The rumor is that there will also be a module/desktop version. Can you confirm if this is true?
Thank you.
-
Someone was jokingly suggesting I get the keyboard and the module... Boom! Stereo! ... I’m considering it.
Or you could simply multitrack it and pan the tracks to the left and the right, as they occasionally did it in the early 1980s.
-
Does anyone know if the 5 can be upgradable at a later date to the 10 ?
-
Ugh I’m really torn on this. I know there is no pressure to buy it but my OCD and just my overall mindset towards it is really conflicting. To be 100% honest if they did the two keyboard version of the P10 (with the poly sequencer built in) I would have put a pre order in for both the P5 and P10 regardless of price. I think it’s just my obsession with that John Carpenter/Alan Howarth setup clouding my judgement but I also own one of the last Mitchell BNC 35mm motion picture cameras in the world...it’s totally impractical but I have an emotional impulse when it comes to purchasing and sometimes that has backfired badly.
I highly doubt the module versions are going to add anything to the synths as they are....but really would it be that cumbersome if they had the poly sequencer be part of the module? But I guess the answer will likely be “just use an external sequencer...it has midi.”
My friend even suggested “Man, sell all your gear and get a Prophet 5 and that ARP 2600 reissue and there it is...that’s your setup...maybe that Isla S2400 drum machine added and you are good to go.” But then I’d be missing out on so many other forms of synthesis just to have the clout to say my setup IS a Prophet 5 and ARP 2600. No wavetables, no FM, no samples....and even still ...if I decide to just integrate it in my setup as a replacement for the P6....where does a raw Prophet 5 fit alongside a Prophet X in terms of functionality and purpose? I have friends who purchased the Moog Model D and they said it was a mistake.
I dunno, I’m just really torn on it. I really have to consider if I’m just buying this for the status of it rather than the practicality of it.
The "clout" comment inspired me to respond.
I think something like this would be ( or should be ) more about love for what it is.
For me it has been more about responding to the love Dave clearly has for what he does. Its a work of art that will spur on more art hopefully for me.....
-
The P6 is so much more synth. Don’t really understand the design-choice for a mono output. Love the filter settings and improved ui-design though.
-
Ugh I’m really torn on this. I know there is no pressure to buy it but my OCD and just my overall mindset towards it is really conflicting. To be 100% honest if they did the two keyboard version of the P10 (with the poly sequencer built in) I would have put a pre order in for both the P5 and P10 regardless of price. I think it’s just my obsession with that John Carpenter/Alan Howarth setup clouding my judgement but I also own one of the last Mitchell BNC 35mm motion picture cameras in the world...it’s totally impractical but I have an emotional impulse when it comes to purchasing and sometimes that has backfired badly.
I highly doubt the module versions are going to add anything to the synths as they are....but really would it be that cumbersome if they had the poly sequencer be part of the module? But I guess the answer will likely be “just use an external sequencer...it has midi.”
My friend even suggested “Man, sell all your gear and get a Prophet 5 and that ARP 2600 reissue and there it is...that’s your setup...maybe that Isla S2400 drum machine added and you are good to go.” But then I’d be missing out on so many other forms of synthesis just to have the clout to say my setup IS a Prophet 5 and ARP 2600. No wavetables, no FM, no samples....and even still ...if I decide to just integrate it in my setup as a replacement for the P6....where does a raw Prophet 5 fit alongside a Prophet X in terms of functionality and purpose? I have friends who purchased the Moog Model D and they said it was a mistake.
I dunno, I’m just really torn on it. I really have to consider if I’m just buying this for the status of it rather than the practicality of it.
The "clout" comment inspired me to respond.
I think something like this would be ( or should be ) more about love for what it is.
For me it has been more about responding to the love Dave clearly has for what he does. Its a work of art that will spur on more art hopefully for me.....
I know....I absolutely think it's fantastic that he managed to get the parts and everything duplicated....but part of me is still like....why can't you just take that engine and expand on it? Even something as simple as making the Prophet 10 bi timbral.
-
The P6 is so much more synth. Don’t really understand the design-choice for a mono output. Love the filter settings and improved ui-design though.
I spent more than a few early months using only one output of my P6, eschewing the internal FX, and running the synth into an ancient chorus pedal. All in the spirit of "trying to make the P6 sound like a P5." I gradually made my way back to the stereo outs and internal effects of the P6, as I learned to love the synth as very much its own entity. I'm delighted to see a mono out, no fx, no sequencer/arp etc. on the new P5. The Fatar keybed and MIDI/USB are the sort of "modenr" features I'd expect, but I love that Dave has basically just made a new, "best of all worlds" Prophet 5. The P5 has such weight and majesty to its sound, and always sits easy in a mix for me. It's pretty self-contained in the best way.
I've truly fallen in love with the P6, and have said before that if I was to pick a single synth to use for everything, it'd be that one. I now own two P6s and have a rev 3 P5, but there's simply no way I can shake off the idea of "needing" a rev 4. The Prophet 5 has always been the ultimate synth to me.
-
I guess you're the man to ask, Ant. I'd be interested to read your comments on the comparison between the sound of the Prophet-6 and the Prophet-5. I don't care whether one can emulate the other. That's not my interest. I'm just curious as to how they compare one to the other.
-
So... I’m thinking the Prophet 5, and then add a Prophet 5 module later so that I can have a stereo synth (or bi-timbral layers of I wanted)...
Anyone care to tell me why that might be a bad idea?
-
I guess you're the man to ask, Ant. I'd be interested to read your comments on the comparison between the sound of the Prophet-6 and the Prophet-5. I don't care whether one can emulate the other. That's not my interest. I'm just curious as to how they compare one to the other.
I'm not sure how exactly soon I'll have a new P5 to talk about, but I'll certainly be keen to tell all when I can. (I sold a 1964 Australian telegram signed by Ringo Starr to cover the cost of my second P6 and I'm looking around the room for what else I can part with for $$$!) Even though my partner here in California is a synth-geek (it's her P5 I have handy), she's not convinced we need a second one in the house! I, on the other hand...
-
It would be interesting to do a social experiment and do a recording with the Prophet 6 but advertise it as a demo of the new Prophet 5 and not tell anyone. Just to see if anyone can really detect that something is amiss. More importantly document the reactions when the curtain is pulled back.
-
It would be interesting to do a social experiment and do a recording with the Prophet 6 but advertise it as a demo of the new Prophet 5 and not tell anyone. Just to see if anyone can really detect that something is amiss. More importantly document the reactions when the curtain is pulled back.
You just pulled the curtain back....
-
It would be interesting to do a social experiment and do a recording with the Prophet 6 but advertise it as a demo of the new Prophet 5 and not tell anyone. Just to see if anyone can really detect that something is amiss. More importantly document the reactions when the curtain is pulled back.
There's always been an abundance of sleight of hand on the Internet already though, the real value found today is in authenticity. What would be of value I think is sort of a quiz format, where a number of patches are done with both a P6 and a P5-Rev4, matching as closely as possible, and see if there is a statistically significant number of folks that can really guess which is which. I think anything less would be more of a house-egging prank than anything, but someone will probably do it anyway... if not with a P6 then a softsynth, just to mess with people.
-
It would be interesting to do a social experiment and do a recording with the Prophet 6 but advertise it as a demo of the new Prophet 5 and not tell anyone. Just to see if anyone can really detect that something is amiss. More importantly document the reactions when the curtain is pulled back.
You just pulled the curtain back....
Nah. I wouldn’t do it. I get enough hate mail.
-
It would be interesting to do a social experiment and do a recording with the Prophet 6 but advertise it as a demo of the new Prophet 5 and not tell anyone. Just to see if anyone can really detect that something is amiss. More importantly document the reactions when the curtain is pulled back.
There's always been an abundance of sleight of hand on the Internet already though, the real value found today is in authenticity. What would be of value I think is sort of a quiz format, where a number of patches are done with both a P6 and a P5-Rev4, matching as closely as possible, and see if there is a statistically significant number of folks that can really guess which is which. I think anything less would be more of a house-egging prank than anything, but someone will probably do it anyway... if not with a P6 then a softsynth, just to mess with people.
A friend of mine did this with a Moog One owner. He gave him a recording of the Korg Prologue and said it was the Moog One and this owner was talking about how much better the Moog One sounded over all the current poly synths on the market....once we told him he absolutely lost it.
-
So... I’m thinking the Prophet 5, and then add a Prophet 5 module later so that I can have a stereo synth (or bi-timbral layers of I wanted)...
Anyone care to tell me why that might be a bad idea?
It's an excellent idea. You'd have one of the best-sounding analog synthesizers on earth. The only way to improve on it would be to use instead the Prophet 10 keyboard and module. Then you'd be the king of the mountain.
-
I dunno, I’m just really torn on it. I really have to consider if I’m just buying this for the status of it rather than the practicality of it.
I don't think it would make sense from a practical standpoint. Your P-6 will do everything the P-5 can do and then some. Nobody's going to be able to tell the difference in a blind test. Would you be able to design better sounds with the P-5 over the P-6? Probably not.
Yes, it's a status question. I want it for total nostalgia purposes. I built a career in the '80's on a P-5. I've already said on this site a few years ago that I thought the P-08 was an improvement over the P-5. I don't think I will change my mind. However, to have a P-5 again? ;D Especially with the upgrades to bring it into the 21st century. Wow!
BTW, except for the ping pong effect of putting notes within the stereo field, stereo out does not add anything if there are no effects. An analog synth is basically a mono instrument. All the great stereo stuff comes from the downstream effects. I'm sure that's why DS made the synth mono.
-
Ugh I’m really torn on this. I know there is no pressure to buy it but my OCD and just my overall mindset towards it is really conflicting. To be 100% honest if they did the two keyboard version of the P10 (with the poly sequencer built in) I would have put a pre order in for both the P5 and P10 regardless of price.
Just buy two P5's and stack them. Or three. Expensive, yes, but you will go to heaven knowing your family can sell them at a profit and pay off your life time of synth debts.
My usual dealer sent me a feeler yesterday and I respond my interest in the P10 was solid, BUT, I want one (5 or 10) set up with the P6 so I can have a decent looong session first. Will be listening for clicking voice stealing particularly. Either way, P10 RESERVED ;D
-
Ugh I’m really torn on this. I know there is no pressure to buy it but my OCD and just my overall mindset towards it is really conflicting. To be 100% honest if they did the two keyboard version of the P10 (with the poly sequencer built in) I would have put a pre order in for both the P5 and P10 regardless of price.
Just buy two P5's and stack them. Or three. Expensive, yes, but you will go to heaven knowing your family can sell them at a profit and pay off your life time of synth debts.
My usual dealer sent me a feeler yesterday and I respond my interest in the P10 was solid, BUT, I want one (5 or 10) set up with the P6 so I can have a decent looong session first. Will be listening for clicking voice stealing particularly. Either way, P10 RESERVED ;D
As explained....two Prophet 5s does not make a Prophet 10.
-
The P6 is so much more synth. Don’t really understand the design-choice for a mono output. Love the filter settings and improved ui-design though.
I spent more than a few early months using only one output of my P6, eschewing the internal FX, and running the synth into an ancient chorus pedal. All in the spirit of "trying to make the P6 sound like a P5." I gradually made my way back to the stereo outs and internal effects of the P6, as I learned to love the synth as very much its own entity. I'm delighted to see a mono out, no fx, no sequencer/arp etc. on the new P5. The Fatar keybed and MIDI/USB are the sort of "modenr" features I'd expect, but I love that Dave has basically just made a new, "best of all worlds" Prophet 5. The P5 has such weight and majesty to its sound, and always sits easy in a mix for me. It's pretty self-contained in the best way.
I've truly fallen in love with the P6, and have said before that if I was to pick a single synth to use for everything, it'd be that one. I now own two P6s and have a rev 3 P5, but there's simply no way I can shake off the idea of "needing" a rev 4. The Prophet 5 has always been the ultimate synth to me.
I can imagine that a lot of pro players really welcome the new rev4 since a lot of the chips are not easy to find and the old ones are harder and harder to maintain. If there wasn’t a P6 I would consider the p5 or 10, but the P6 is also a machine that I fell in love with and just right. The HPF, the distortion, the effects, switchable velo and aftertouch are such great improvements, it is just an epic machine to be honest. If there would be a desktop version of the 5 or 10, rackable and soundwise a lot different than a P6 I will consider it.
-
It would be interesting to do a social experiment and do a recording with the Prophet 6 but advertise it as a demo of the new Prophet 5 and not tell anyone. Just to see if anyone can really detect that something is amiss. More importantly document the reactions when the curtain is pulled back.
There's always been an abundance of sleight of hand on the Internet already though, the real value found today is in authenticity. What would be of value I think is sort of a quiz format, where a number of patches are done with both a P6 and a P5-Rev4, matching as closely as possible, and see if there is a statistically significant number of folks that can really guess which is which. I think anything less would be more of a house-egging prank than anything, but someone will probably do it anyway... if not with a P6 then a softsynth, just to mess with people.
A friend of mine did this with a Moog One owner. He gave him a recording of the Korg Prologue and said it was the Moog One and this owner was talking about how much better the Moog One sounded over all the current poly synths on the market....once we told him he absolutely lost it.
It doesn't surprise me at all, as an owner of a Minilogue XDm. The Prologue lacks the brilliant sequencer of the XDm, but otherwise I believe sounds pretty much the same (Prologue has more voices though). I'm often amazed at how well a $550 Korg module holds up against three monsters (P6, OB6 and Rev2). In fact with three simultaneous onboard FX, and the motion tracks on the sequencer, at times it excels over my other boards for certain use cases, even though the raw tonal character of the oscillators isn't in the same league.
I may be stirring the pot with this one, but to my ears the Minilogue XD/ Prologue do in fact sound better than the Moog One even if we took the rediculous price difference out of the equation. I don't know why but in every video I've heard of the Moog One I just feel it punches way below its weight class. Sometimes I think I should just add a Minilogue XD Keyboard to supplement the module and have 8 voices.
-
Well that certainly is the expensive 10 voice option...
Are there any auto-pan euro rack modules whereby on can use the CV outs and implement an external pan spread?
So... I’m thinking the Prophet 5, and then add a Prophet 5 module later so that I can have a stereo synth (or bi-timbral layers of I wanted)...
Anyone care to tell me why that might be a bad idea?
-
So... I’m thinking the Prophet 5, and then add a Prophet 5 module later so that I can have a stereo synth (or bi-timbral layers of I wanted)...Anyone care to tell me why that might be a bad idea?
Well that certainly is the expensive 10 voice option...
Are there any auto-pan euro rack modules whereby on can use the CV outs and implement an external pan spread?
Ah... I should have predicated my statement better. It’s not about having a “10 voice” unit. In fact, the stats on Sequential.com (the synth comparison chart) don’t indicate that the Prophet 5 will be capable of poly chaining. So the Prophet 5 keyboard + module couldn’t polychain to replicate the Prophet 10.
But what I am after is 5 stereo voices. One of my favorite things to do on the Moog One (and Prophet 12) is to take a preset on Synth Layer 1, copy it to Synth Layer 2, and then make slight changes to the second layer (OSC shapes, Filter envelopes, Filter Cutoffs, LFO speeds and modulation amounts), and then pan the 2 layers hard left and hard right. The multiple small/minute differences between the two sides of the stereo field create such a lush and gorgeous sound.
I think the same thing could be done with a Prophet 5 keyboard and module. So I’m looking to create something that the 10 voice Prophet 10 can’t do, nor could it do even if it had stereo outs.
Many of the Moog One samples I did for the Prophet X we’re done this way.
-
One of my favorite things to do on the Moog One (and Prophet 12) is to take a preset on Synth Layer 1, copy it to Synth Layer 2, and then make slight changes to the second layer (OSC shapes, Filter envelopes, Filter Cutoffs, LFO speeds and modulation amounts), and then pan the 2 layers hard left and hard right. The multiple small/minute differences between the two sides of the stereo field create such a lush and gorgeous sound.
This is how I create nearly every patch now, including monophonic patches. But there's one terrible drawback with it: once you've heard this sort of broad stereo richness, you can never go back. After such an experience, a mono-signal synthesizer sounds sterile and lifeless.
-
One of my favorite things to do on the Moog One (and Prophet 12) is to take a preset on Synth Layer 1, copy it to Synth Layer 2, and then make slight changes to the second layer (OSC shapes, Filter envelopes, Filter Cutoffs, LFO speeds and modulation amounts), and then pan the 2 layers hard left and hard right. The multiple small/minute differences between the two sides of the stereo field create such a lush and gorgeous sound.
This is how I create nearly every patch now, including monophonic patches. But there's one terrible drawback with it: once you've heard this sort of broad stereo richness, you can never go back. After such an experience, a mono-signal synthesizer sounds sterile and lifeless.
Yeah... it's addictive. And that's one of the reasons why I truly enjoy the Prophet X -- it's stereo filters get you most of the way there.
I'm imagining a truly stereo synth (mono or poly) where every parameter (OSC shapes, filter cutoffs, filter resonances, all envelope stages, all LFO parameters, all modulation amounts) could have an adjustable offset between the left and right side of the stereo path. I already do this, as stated, on the Moog One and Prophet 12, but having this power available on 1 layer from the front panel... :)
-
That's the whole advantage of having two separate units. As on the Prophet '08, you can follow the more common method of designing a patch on one layer and then copying it to the other layer. But - just as you described - with a module next to the keyboard, it's much more inviting to continue making differences between the patches, until something immense has evolved. Before long, you've created two independent sounds that have much more life and scope then merely two layers played simultaneously. Plus, you have the ability to differently process them. Especially when in stereo, two independent patches with different amounts of reverb results in a wonderfully broad sound, like the instruments of an orchestra spread across a stage.
-
That's the whole advantage of having two separate units. As on the Prophet '08, you can follow the more common method of designing a patch on one layer and then copying it to the other layer. But - just as you described - with a module next to the keyboard, it's much more inviting to continue making differences between the patches, until something immense has evolved. Before long, you've created two independent sounds that have much more life and scope then merely two layers played simultaneously. Plus, you have the ability to differently process them. Especially when in stereo, two independent patches with different amounts of reverb results in a wonderfully broad sound, like the instruments of an orchestra spread across a stage.
You’ve done this before.
:)
-
That would be an understatement.
-
That would be an understatement.
3 prophet 08s?!?! That’s dedication, my friend!
-
One of my favorite things to do on the Moog One (and Prophet 12) is to take a preset on Synth Layer 1, copy it to Synth Layer 2, and then make slight changes to the second layer (OSC shapes, Filter envelopes, Filter Cutoffs, LFO speeds and modulation amounts), and then pan the 2 layers hard left and hard right. The multiple small/minute differences between the two sides of the stereo field create such a lush and gorgeous sound.
This is how I create nearly every patch now, including monophonic patches. But there's one terrible drawback with it: once you've heard this sort of broad stereo richness, you can never go back. After such an experience, a mono-signal synthesizer sounds sterile and lifeless.
Yeah... it's addictive. And that's one of the reasons why I truly enjoy the Prophet X -- it's stereo filters get you most of the way there.
I'm imagining a truly stereo synth (mono or poly) where every parameter (OSC shapes, filter cutoffs, filter resonances, all envelope stages, all LFO parameters, all modulation amounts) could have an adjustable offset between the left and right side of the stereo path. I already do this, as stated, on the Moog One and Prophet 12, but having this power available on 1 layer from the front panel... :)
Definitely agree that the stereo binarual is addicting! Basically creating a double tracked stereo synth sound in one pass, real time. About half of the patches in the VCM patch bank I did for Rev2 incorporate this type of sound design with stacked, hard panned layers. With a good stereo monitor setup, or headphones, they just sound so immense, and when you go back to a mono (or regular stereo) type of patch, they just sound so much more 1-dimensional... Minus bass sound designs and some specific famous/classic patch recreations, I use this technique extensively.
The Rev2 is quite capable of doing all what you said, Shaw... stacked/hard panned stereo layers, with per voice, per component offsets to osc tuning, env timing, filter cutoff, resonance, etc. On some patches, I've even got complex macro type behaviors on a per voice, stereo basis (osc glitches like you would find in old MemoryMoogs, osc tuning settle in the transient attack phase, per voice... etc) It requires a bit of setup, but once you know how to do it, its actually fairly quick. I generally do the main sound design, add in voice modeling offsets (2-4 minutes once you know how), then copy/paste/stack the patch, then do a little fine tuning to layer B to add a bit more per voice variance. This video shows my typical sound design process for this: https://youtu.be/jB9HG3k3vvQ?t=352
It's not automated, but like I said, once you do it a couple times and understand the value scaling and offsets, it only takes a few minutes to integrate deep, stereo voice modeling into the Rev2... It's also super customizable - you can target virtually any component for voice variance, including macro type behaviors, and you can even define "virtual voice counts" (ie: 5, 6, 8 virtual voices that have repeating patterns of imperfection)
My hope is that the next flagship synth from Seq will be a PolyEvolver 12 or 16, or a Prophet08 Rev3 - with bi/tri-timbral, two or three routable filters, mod transforms, and deep voice modeling implementation like outlined at the bottom of the VCM article: http://www.VoiceComponentModeling.com - Hoping next year we'll see something like this - that would be my dream synth.
Example from my VCM site of potential future implementation (more details at the bottom of the VCM website):
(https://www.presetpatch.com/images/rev2-voice-modeling-gated-sequencer-with-saved-templates.jpg)
-
That would be an understatement.
3 prophet 08s?!?! That’s dedication, my friend!
Oh, I couldn't get the second P'08 module in the picture that powers the bass pedals. :)
-
That would be an understatement.
3 prophet 08s?!?! That’s dedication, my friend!
Oh, I couldn't get the second P'08 module in the picture that powers the bass pedals. :)
4????
(https://media.giphy.com/media/GfAD7Bl016Gfm/giphy.gif)
-
Yes, four. 8)
-
Glad I’m not the only one with a synth obsession:)
-
Prophet 5 or Prophet 10? That's the question many folks here will wonder. With only an $800 difference for twice the voices, it's a bargain right? Maybe.
What I would recommend to anyone is to try a soft synth with adjustable voice count, and do some extensive playing with the types of sounds you plan to work with. I did this using Repro5 by U-He with pad sounds with long release times.
Without question, the right answer for me was "5 voices wins". The issue is when I put it on 8 voices, one or two notes tend to hang around a little too long on chord changes, which leads to a slightly muddy off key sound. This would be even worse on a true analog with looser tuning. With 5 voices the note stealing actually improved the sound of the playing by making sure the least relevant note always fell out of the queue. This is also the same limitation most vintage music made with a Prophet was subject to.
Your mileage may vary, but I highly recommend doing some experimentation before deciding.
Actually the 6 voices of the P6/OB-6 are ideal for my playing style, but it wouldn't be an authentic Prophet-5 with a sixth note! :) More voices may be better for your particular needs, but sometimes less is more. Now if someone tells me the P10 is going to have user-defined voice counts as a feature, then I'm all in on a P10. Otherwise it will be a P5 for me.
-
Just showed my mom the Prophet 5 and she wept....cause my Dad had an original he used to record some of his tracks in the 80s. Ugh....now I feel an obligation...otherwise he might come back and haunt my ass.
-
Just showed my mom the Prophet 5 and she wept....cause my Dad had an original he used to record some of his tracks in the 80s. Ugh....now I feel an obligation...otherwise he might come back and haunt my ass.
Woah... that could be the best reason I’ve ever heard to buy a piece of music gear. Yeah... you’re obligated. No doubt.
-
Prophet 5 or Prophet 10? That's the question many folks here will wonder.
Prophet 5 for me. Why? Becuase it has the Prophet-5 label. :D
-
What I would recommend to anyone is to try a soft synth with adjustable voice count, and do some extensive playing with the types of sounds you plan to work with. I did this using Repro5 by U-He with pad sounds with long release times.
Thank you for the suggestion! I have been going back and forth on which one to order and did just this with repro-5. And for my playing style I think I prefer more voices. And yet, once I turned on the effects and tried to be creative to overcome the voice stealing, I almost preferred the outcome. As if I was being forced to be more creative.
I also read somewhere that there was discussion to be able to limit the voice count to 5 on the p10. I'm not sure if that means user definable voice count or just an option for 5 or 10 but that does seem like a possible option in the future.
I am also partial to the prophet~5 badging so that's something I'd have to get over ;D I have to admit though, it's the fear of missing out that's driving me most to the P10 over the 5. I know that's not a good reason tho.
So yeah, thank you for the suggestion but I'm nowhere closer to a decision haha. I went for the P10, then changed my order to a P5, and want to think really hard again before I bug my dealer to switch it back to a P10. If I could buy a prophet 5 and have the option to upgrade down the road to 10 voices, it would be a no brainer.
-
Just showed my mom the Prophet 5 and she wept....cause my Dad had an original he used to record some of his tracks in the 80s. Ugh....now I feel an obligation...otherwise he might come back and haunt my ass.
Yeah, you better get the Prophet 5 for his sake, because that would be a terrible place to haunt. :o
-
Just showed my mom the Prophet 5 and she wept....cause my Dad had an original he used to record some of his tracks in the 80s. Ugh....now I feel an obligation...otherwise he might come back and haunt my ass.
Yeah, you better get the Prophet 5 for his sake, because that would be a terrible place to haunt. :o
I would never be able to play sitting down again...it be reverse Robert Fripp Syndrome.
-
Unless you have a 'Prophet 5 mode' where you can just treat it like a Prophet 5. We're discussing how we could do this easily, so not for sure yet but it's being discussed
Prophet 5 or Prophet 10? That's the question many folks here will wonder. With only an $800 difference for twice the voices, it's a bargain right? Maybe.
What I would recommend to anyone is to try a soft synth with adjustable voice count, and do some extensive playing with the types of sounds you plan to work with. I did this using Repro5 by U-He with pad sounds with long release times.
Without question, the right answer for me was "5 voices wins". The issue is when I put it on 8 voices, one or two notes tend to hang around a little too long on chord changes, which leads to a slightly muddy off key sound. This would be even worse on a true analog with looser tuning. With 5 voices the note stealing actually improved the sound of the playing by making sure the least relevant note always fell out of the queue. This is also the same limitation most vintage music made with a Prophet was subject to.
Your mileage may vary, but I highly recommend doing some experimentation before deciding.
Actually the 6 voices of the P6/OB-6 are ideal for my playing style, but it wouldn't be an authentic Prophet-5 with a sixth note! :) More voices may be better for your particular needs, but sometimes less is more. Now if someone tells me the P10 is going to have user-defined voice counts as a feature, then I'm all in on a P10. Otherwise it will be a P5 for me.
-
Unless you have a 'Prophet 5 mode' where you can just treat it like a Prophet 5. We're discussing how we could do this easily, so not for sure yet but it's being discussed
Prophet 5 or Prophet 10? That's the question many folks here will wonder. With only an $800 difference for twice the voices, it's a bargain right? Maybe.
What I would recommend to anyone is to try a soft synth with adjustable voice count, and do some extensive playing with the types of sounds you plan to work with. I did this using Repro5 by U-He with pad sounds with long release times.
Without question, the right answer for me was "5 voices wins". The issue is when I put it on 8 voices, one or two notes tend to hang around a little too long on chord changes, which leads to a slightly muddy off key sound. This would be even worse on a true analog with looser tuning. With 5 voices the note stealing actually improved the sound of the playing by making sure the least relevant note always fell out of the queue. This is also the same limitation most vintage music made with a Prophet was subject to.
Your mileage may vary, but I highly recommend doing some experimentation before deciding.
Actually the 6 voices of the P6/OB-6 are ideal for my playing style, but it wouldn't be an authentic Prophet-5 with a sixth note! :) More voices may be better for your particular needs, but sometimes less is more. Now if someone tells me the P10 is going to have user-defined voice counts as a feature, then I'm all in on a P10. Otherwise it will be a P5 for me.
It would be really cool if the voice count were user definable, even if only between 5 and 10 (so 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10) as opposed to simply a binary choice of 5 or 10. Would be really cool if it were possible for it to be a per-patch option as opposed to global too. Obviously you’ll know better than me what is actually possible within the structure of the code.
-
Unless you have a 'Prophet 5 mode' where you can just treat it like a Prophet 5. We're discussing how we could do this easily, so not for sure yet but it's being discussed
Prophet 5 or Prophet 10? That's the question many folks here will wonder. With only an $800 difference for twice the voices, it's a bargain right? Maybe.
What I would recommend to anyone is to try a soft synth with adjustable voice count, and do some extensive playing with the types of sounds you plan to work with. I did this using Repro5 by U-He with pad sounds with long release times.
Without question, the right answer for me was "5 voices wins". The issue is when I put it on 8 voices, one or two notes tend to hang around a little too long on chord changes, which leads to a slightly muddy off key sound. This would be even worse on a true analog with looser tuning. With 5 voices the note stealing actually improved the sound of the playing by making sure the least relevant note always fell out of the queue. This is also the same limitation most vintage music made with a Prophet was subject to.
Your mileage may vary, but I highly recommend doing some experimentation before deciding.
Actually the 6 voices of the P6/OB-6 are ideal for my playing style, but it wouldn't be an authentic Prophet-5 with a sixth note! :) More voices may be better for your particular needs, but sometimes less is more. Now if someone tells me the P10 is going to have user-defined voice counts as a feature, then I'm all in on a P10. Otherwise it will be a P5 for me.
This is what I meant by "user-defined voice count" on the P10 (I was thinking more of being able to set the voice count similar to setting unison voices than just switch between 5 and 10, but even just a toggle between P5/P10 mode would be lovely). I hope this particular feature is given early consideration, because knowing whether it will be there or not could have a big impact on which unit a buyer decides to purchase.
-
Unless you have a 'Prophet 5 mode' where you can just treat it like a Prophet 5. We're discussing how we could do this easily, so not for sure yet but it's being discussed
Prophet 5 or Prophet 10? That's the question many folks here will wonder. With only an $800 difference for twice the voices, it's a bargain right? Maybe.
What I would recommend to anyone is to try a soft synth with adjustable voice count, and do some extensive playing with the types of sounds you plan to work with. I did this using Repro5 by U-He with pad sounds with long release times.
Without question, the right answer for me was "5 voices wins". The issue is when I put it on 8 voices, one or two notes tend to hang around a little too long on chord changes, which leads to a slightly muddy off key sound. This would be even worse on a true analog with looser tuning. With 5 voices the note stealing actually improved the sound of the playing by making sure the least relevant note always fell out of the queue. This is also the same limitation most vintage music made with a Prophet was subject to.
Your mileage may vary, but I highly recommend doing some experimentation before deciding.
Actually the 6 voices of the P6/OB-6 are ideal for my playing style, but it wouldn't be an authentic Prophet-5 with a sixth note! :) More voices may be better for your particular needs, but sometimes less is more. Now if someone tells me the P10 is going to have user-defined voice counts as a feature, then I'm all in on a P10. Otherwise it will be a P5 for me.
It would be really cool if the voice count were user definable, even if only between 5 and 10 (so 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10) as opposed to simply a binary choice of 5 or 10. Would be really cool if it were possible for it to be a per-patch option as opposed to global too. Obviously you’ll know better than me what is actually possible within the structure of the code.
I for one would vote in favor of a global setting on the synth itself for this, because it completely changes workflow and puts the voice count setting in a "hard-to-know" place. If I sit down and make a conscience effort to put the synth in 5 voice mode, I don't want changing a patch to put it in another mode. Part of the allure of the P5 (and P6 and OB6) is not having too many parameters buried behind menus or guessing at what the params are.
-
I'm curious, why only 200 user/200 factory patches on the P5/10? Since memory space is pretty much a non issue, and the display has three digits like the P6/OB6, I'd rather have the same number of patch slots. Even if only 200 factory patches are created, I wouldn't mind having the other 800 slots for user patches, since many sound designers publish their sets as banks of 100. It allows easy swapping of banks without too much effort.
-
Nice to hear that a 5-voice mode for the P10 is being discussed!
Carson confirmed on GS that the voice allocation method for the New P5/10 Rev4 is per-key type of allocation, just like the vintage classics... I was wondering about that - that's a nice attention to detail to nail the classic character!, as round robin has less repeatable performance when playing chords or melodies... it should be more noticeable as you crank up the Vintage Knob too... a given chord progression will use the same voices-per-key each time you play it.
When I was researching classic voice variance this is one of the things I tried to document on each synth.... But I never tested exactly how the voice-stealing / prioritization works with the "per key" method on P5. For instance: if say C4 and F4 are normally assigned to voice 1, and you play C4 and hold, then hit F4, how does it decide the voice that F4 will get? Is that a sort of round robin choice, or does each key have a set primary, secondary, tertiary, etc.. voice priority? And then after the keys are released, if you hit F4 alone, will it play with its originally assigned voice number, or will it have a new primary voice based on the previous voice stealing?
My instinct is that probably every voice has a priority list of voices in order? (ie: C4: 1,2,3,4,5 C#4: 2,3,4,5,1), but I was wondering about that... if anyone can shed some light?
-
Will be great when the review from Nick batt appears and then it will be just a matter of trying one out in store and deciding between 5 or 10 voices if everything works out. 8)
Reading the manual it appears the LFO is true to the original and free running.
If that's the case, could the LFO frequency knob have an alternate job of a LFO clock divisions function when receiving midi clock set from the global settings with a firmware update? (No need to print anything extra on the panel, Just turn the frequency knob and listen for the clocked LFO)
Don't want to go down the rabbit hole of complexity as I guess that's the beauty of the Prophet 5/10 in it's original form.
At least the aesthetics of the synth would not be affected.
Just my 2 cents worth. :-X
-
I for one would vote in favor of a global setting on the synth itself for this, because it completely changes workflow and puts the voice count setting in a "hard-to-know" place. If I sit down and make a conscience effort to put the synth in 5 voice mode, I don't want changing a patch to put it in another mode. Part of the allure of the P5 (and P6 and OB6) is not having too many parameters buried behind menus or guessing at what the params are.
I have a different take on this and would like to make the case for storing the voice limit on a per patch basis.
Different patches require different playing styles. In fact, when I create a patch, I usually have a certain way of playing in mind. Whether I would want the release phase of a note to blend into subsequent notes or not, depends entirely on the context of a patch and its function in a piece of music.
I think this is conceptually very similar to the Key Priority Modes (Unison), which I believe are stored on a per patch basis as well.
-
I for one would vote in favor of a global setting on the synth itself for this, because it completely changes workflow and puts the voice count setting in a "hard-to-know" place. If I sit down and make a conscience effort to put the synth in 5 voice mode, I don't want changing a patch to put it in another mode. Part of the allure of the P5 (and P6 and OB6) is not having too many parameters buried behind menus or guessing at what the params are.
I have a different take on this and would like to make the case for storing the voice limit on a per patch basis.
Different patches require different playing styles. In fact, when I create a patch, I usually have a certain way of playing in mind. Whether I would want the release phase of a note to blend into subsequent notes or not, depends entirely on the context of a patch and its function in a piece of music.
I think this is conceptually very similar to the Key Priority Modes (Unison), which I believe are stored on a per patch basis as well.
I can totally see things from that perspective as well, I've just never owned a hardware synth that works that way, so to me it would feel unnatural to have this stored with the patch (contrasting that with Unison voices which are universally stored with patch). I have certainly seen the method you described on virtual instruments, but in those cases loading a different preset might mean utilizing an entirely different synthesis engine, in which case patch changes represent a very different workflow. So, accurately or not, in my mind I would tend to categorize voice-count as global as the "vintage hardware-synth like" method, and voice-count as patch parameter as the "virtual instrument-like" method.
Another way of looking at it: If a creator of a Prophet 5 Rev 4 can write a patch that, when loaded, is always limited to exactly three voices, then the Rev 4 experience is now dramatically different than the original synth on which it is designed to faithfully replicate.
-
Things like this are exactly why we won't commit to adding features. With a limited UI, hidden features are a huge tradeoff. You get to states where some users send emails to support going "Why the hell is it acting like this? Is it a bug?" and so we end up spending a non-trivial amount of time explaining to people what is going on. Have to be careful
I for one would vote in favor of a global setting on the synth itself for this, because it completely changes workflow and puts the voice count setting in a "hard-to-know" place. If I sit down and make a conscience effort to put the synth in 5 voice mode, I don't want changing a patch to put it in another mode. Part of the allure of the P5 (and P6 and OB6) is not having too many parameters buried behind menus or guessing at what the params are.
I have a different take on this and would like to make the case for storing the voice limit on a per patch basis.
Different patches require different playing styles. In fact, when I create a patch, I usually have a certain way of playing in mind. Whether I would want the release phase of a note to blend into subsequent notes or not, depends entirely on the context of a patch and its function in a piece of music.
I think this is conceptually very similar to the Key Priority Modes (Unison), which I believe are stored on a per patch basis as well.
I can totally see things from that perspective as well, I've just never owned a hardware synth that works that way, so to me it would feel unnatural to have this stored with the patch (contrasting that with Unison voices which are universally stored with patch). I have certainly seen the method you described on virtual instruments, but in those cases loading a different preset might mean utilizing an entirely different synthesis engine, in which case patch changes represent a very different workflow. So, accurately or not, in my mind I would tend to categorize voice-count as global as the "vintage hardware-synth like" method, and voice-count as patch parameter as the "virtual instrument-like" method.
Another way of looking at it: If a creator of a Prophet 5 Rev 4 can write a patch that, when loaded, is always limited to exactly three voices, then the Rev 4 experience is now dramatically different than the original synth on which it is designed to faithfully replicate.
-
Things like this are exactly why we won't commit to adding features. With a limited UI, hidden features are a huge tradeoff. You get to states where some users send emails to support going "Why the hell is it acting like this? Is it a bug?" and so we end up spending a non-trivial amount of time explaining to people what is going on. Have to be careful
Exactly....and this is coming from the perspective of someone who has been writing software since the early 80s, so for every feature I try to imagine I look at things from not only the end-user benefit, but what it means to the big picture including support, maintainability, etc. and all of the anti-benefits that inevitably follow every benefit.
Not only do I think that voice-count stored per patch would lead to support nightmares, it also creates a bigger problem for sound designers that are working with a Prophet-10. They are either faced with making everything a 5 voice patch, or left guessing what a 8-voice P10 patch behaves like when played on a P5 and that just seems like an unnecessary nightmare for me. Yes its true that a sound designer might write a patch on a P10 that doesn't play the same on a P5, but the inverse is true unless the P10 can be globally set to 5 voices for purposes of patch design.
... in terms of limited UI, an add-on programmer box would be an awesome way to add more features to the P5/P10 and another revenue opportunity for Sequential.
-
I'd be very interested to hear an audio comparison between the Prophet-6 and the new Prophet-5/10, with each of them exerting their old school analog best.
I bet Starsky Carr is setting up his lighting as we speak :)
Not Starsky Carr, but at least something of a comparison of functions between the Prophet-6 and the Prophet 5/10:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYjxaZ3zctI
-
... it also creates a bigger problem for sound designers that are working with a Prophet-10. They are either faced with making everything a 5 voice patch, or left guessing what a 8-voice P10 patch behaves like when played on a P5 and that just seems like an unnecessary nightmare for me.
I can see your point. But the perspective of a sound designer who creates patches for other people is just one of many possible use cases.
I am thinking about this more from the perspective of somebody who wants to create their own patches to perform them live. Obviously, I wouldn't want to change any global settings between songs on stage. That just isn't practical.
So if it were a global setting, I'd probably set it once and then leave it indefinitely. In other words, for somebody like me, having this as a global setting wouldn't really be any different than just making a purchase decision to get either the P5 or P10.
-
... it also creates a bigger problem for sound designers that are working with a Prophet-10. They are either faced with making everything a 5 voice patch, or left guessing what a 8-voice P10 patch behaves like when played on a P5 and that just seems like an unnecessary nightmare for me.
I can see your point. But the perspective of a sound designer who creates patches for other people is just one of many possible use cases.
I am thinking about this more from the perspective of somebody who wants to create their own patches to perform them live. Obviously, I wouldn't want to change any global settings between songs on stage. That just isn't practical.
So if it were a global setting, I'd probably set it once and then leave it indefinitely. In other words, for somebody like me, having this as a global setting wouldn't really be any different than just making a purchase decision to get either the P5 or P10.
I can see the gigging perspective, but for live gigs, the extra distortion / volume fluctuation or other potential issues from too many lingering notes (as well as the note stealing from not having enough) isn't usually as big of a deal as it is in the mix... Ancillary noise sources like people singing along or whatever that are perfectly acceptable live on stage would be considered a tragedy if they occurred during mixing. So, because of the high tolerance for imperfection while playing live, the need to worry about 5 vs 10 voices isn't as prominent.
-
Time for a little flashback. Spot the differences:
Rev1
(https://forum.sequential.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4668.0;attach=3062;image)
Rev2
(https://forum.sequential.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4668.0;attach=3064;image)
Rev3
(https://forum.sequential.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4668.0;attach=3066;image)
Rev4
(https://forum.sequential.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4668.0;attach=3068;image)
Every one of them gorgeous. One of the Rev4s on YouTube looks a bit like that rev1. That rev 3 has lovely wood grain too.
-
Prophet 5 or Prophet 10? That's the question many folks here will wonder. With only an $800 difference for twice the voices, it's a bargain right? Maybe.
What I would recommend to anyone is to try a soft synth with adjustable voice count, and do some extensive playing with the types of sounds you plan to work with. I did this using Repro5 by U-He with pad sounds with long release times.
Without question, the right answer for me was "5 voices wins". The issue is when I put it on 8 voices, one or two notes tend to hang around a little too long on chord changes, which leads to a slightly muddy off key sound. This would be even worse on a true analog with looser tuning. With 5 voices the note stealing actually improved the sound of the playing by making sure the least relevant note always fell out of the queue. This is also the same limitation most vintage music made with a Prophet was subject to.
Your mileage may vary, but I highly recommend doing some experimentation before deciding.
Actually the 6 voices of the P6/OB-6 are ideal for my playing style, but it wouldn't be an authentic Prophet-5 with a sixth note! :) More voices may be better for your particular needs, but sometimes less is more. Now if someone tells me the P10 is going to have user-defined voice counts as a feature, then I'm all in on a P10. Otherwise it will be a P5 for me.
That's why I love the Prophet-6 and OB-6. You can have fairly long release tails especially from a moderate to low sustain level and you hear just the right number if old notes lingering. Same with the arpeggiator that allows the last 6 voice releases to be heard. It creates so many beautiful added notes and chords into an arpeggios but allows the harmonies to flow xin to each other gorgeously. In that way, I'm glad they are not 8 voices. There's a particular way that these two instruments can be used that pleases me immensely. I prefer 6 voices to 5 definitely but if I had a new 5/10 I would have the P10. Especially if you can either 1. Have a simple 5 voice mode or 2. Have a user definable mo if voices or 3. Stack two lots of 5 in dual mode but the 3rd is not really necessary for me because I'm into less is more. I love single oscillator sounds on the OB6 for instance.
-
This is one more reason I'm excited about re-issues. I love the appearances of these vintage instruments. When did we stop appreciating rich grainy glossy wood and start preferring hard cold plastic and metal? There are so many synthesizers I'd like to try, and might even enjoy playing, but a severe modernist poverty of aesthetics leads me elsewhere. I simply will not make music on an ugly instrument. Generally, DSI/Sequential designs are excellent, but I'd like to see even more wood in future instruments.
-
Marcus V Warner doing a nice Prophet 6/Prophet 5 comparison.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24flDzB9nBI
-
When did we stop appreciating rich grainy glossy wood and start preferring hard cold plastic and metal?
1983 with the Yamaha DX-7... after the success of which, Yamaha, Roland and Korg flooded the markets with synthesizers in plastic and metal cases.
-
I was kinda being rhetorical, but I'm sure you're right. That was just about the time when I got out of synthesis, until the significant year of 2008. I left with the wood and returned with it.
-
I was kinda being rhetorical, but I'm sure you're right. That was just about the time when I got out of synthesis, until the significant year of 2008. I left with the wood and returned with it.
“I left with the wood and returned with it.”
— I’m sure somewhere in the world, there is an adult video by that name.
On a more serious note, my pre-order for a Prophet 5 is in with Sweetwater.
Anyone with some grilled crow, I’m happy to eat it. But the order is placed with the full intention of snagging a module when they become available to create a stereo, bitimbral pair.
Also, because I only room for a certain number of synths and something must go... somewhat ironically, when this rotation happens, my only two digital synths with both have the Prophet name on them: 12 and X.
-
That's a good plan, in my opinion. Congratulations on the two.
-
It is kind of odd seeing requests for things like LFO sync. I thought people buying this didn’t need fancy modern features?
-
Meh, the only thing I'll really miss is the ability to apply a negative envelope amount.
-
Has anyone else pre-ordered? And if so, what date are you expecting?
-
i ordered a Prophet-10 through Sweetwater, second week of October is what they told me.
-
i ordered a Prophet-10 through Sweetwater, second week of October is what they told me.
You are toward the front of the line. I was told mid-November for my P5 order. That’s what I get for waffling... :)
-
It was coached in a little, you know, I ordered my Moog One through them too.
-
Meh, the only thing I'll really miss is the ability to apply a negative envelope amount.
It may sound odd, but to me the lack of negative envelope amount is actually quite appealing. That's because it means that the full travel of that knob is availlable to give fine and precise control over the modulation amount. My main pet peeve with the P6 is that dialing in the right filter envelope amount can sometimes be incredibly fiddly.
-
Size comparison:
(https://forum.sequential.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4668.0;attach=3081;image)
-
Size comparison:
(https://forum.sequential.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4668.0;attach=3081;image)
Big knobs.... I’m a fan!
-
Big knobs.... I’m a fan!
+1!
-
@moderators... shouldn't this thread be moved to the main page under "Prophet Family of Synthesizers" in stead of here under "Off Topic" ???
I mean if there ever was a synth that deserves to appear under "Prophet Family of Synthesizers", the Prophet 5 would be at the top of that list. Right???
-
@moderators... shouldn't this thread be moved to the main page under "Prophet Family of Synthesizers" in stead of here under "Off Topic" ???
I mean if there ever was a synth that deserves to appear under "Prophet Family of Synthesizers", the Prophet 5 would be at the top of that list. Right???
I'll move it as soon as we have a dedicated Prophet-5/10 subforum.
-
Size comparison:
(https://forum.sequential.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4668.0;attach=3081;image)
Big knobs.... I’m a fan!
I have to stop reading this thread, because I don't need this beauty... ... ... ... but I can't. The knobs, the wood. It's like the Sirens from Greek mythology to me... it will wreck my ship... but I have to peek...
-
It's like the Sirens from Greek mythology to me... it will wreck my ship... but I have to peek...
+1
-
It's like the Sirens from Greek mythology to me... it will wreck my ship... but I have to peek...
https://youtu.be/_dl2L4v6ecM (https://youtu.be/_dl2L4v6ecM)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEJUWsHLTeI
-
I think someone mentioned waiting for Nick Batt to review this earlier on in this thread so I thought it worth mentioning that he's said a few times over the years that he's never got 'this prophet thing'. I don't think he reviewed the Prophet 6 although he did review the Rev2 and was quite complimentary about it.
Again in the live show this week he said that he wasn't one of the people who holds the Prophet 5 in high regard. I suppose even given that, he should be good enough to do a fair review :)
-
I think someone mentioned waiting for Nick Batt to review this earlier on in this thread so I thought it worth mentioning that he's said a few times over the years that he's never got 'this prophet thing'. I don't think he reviewed the Prophet 6 although he did review the Rev2 and was quite complimentary about it.
Again in the live show this week he said that he wasn't one of the people who holds the Prophet 5 in high regard. I suppose even given that, he should be good enough to do a fair review :)
He also said he thinks the Jupiter 8 doesn't sound good.
-
I think someone mentioned waiting for Nick Batt to review this earlier on in this thread so I thought it worth mentioning that he's said a few times over the years that he's never got 'this prophet thing'. I don't think he reviewed the Prophet 6 although he did review the Rev2 and was quite complimentary about it.
Again in the live show this week he said that he wasn't one of the people who holds the Prophet 5 in high regard. I suppose even given that, he should be good enough to do a fair review :)
He also said he thinks the Jupiter 8 doesn't sound good.
Yes he did, I'd forgotten about that! One of the guests (Ty Unwin) also said similar about the Prophet 5 but he has said that he's hoping his opinion is wrong and is actually ordering a Prophet 10.
-
Yes he did, I'd forgotten about that! One of the guests (Ty Unwin) also said similar about the Prophet 5 but he has said that he's hoping his opinion is wrong and is actually ordering a Prophet 10.
He seems to order just about anything if it is expensive enough to make a worthwhile tax deduction. ;)
-
I think someone mentioned waiting for Nick Batt to review this earlier on in this thread so I thought it worth mentioning that he's said a few times over the years that he's never got 'this prophet thing'. I don't think he reviewed the Prophet 6 although he did review the Rev2 and was quite complimentary about it.
Again in the live show this week he said that he wasn't one of the people who holds the Prophet 5 in high regard. I suppose even given that, he should be good enough to do a fair review :)
He also said he thinks the Jupiter 8 doesn't sound good.
I've met quite a few musicians who didn't gel with the Jupiter 8, or who found the Jupiter 6 more interesting. Some were big fans of it when they were young and couldn't afford it, but as soon as they actually played one decades later, they were slightly disappointed. This, of course, is not a rule, but it can happen as well, as with all formerly idealized objects. Apart from that, there have always been different preferences. That's why you had Sequential and Oberheim players in the past. The same happened after the release of the Prophet-6 and OB-6. You'll also find musicians and producers who always considered the Prophet-5 to sound particularly clean and neutral. Those typically tend to favor poly synths like the OB-X, OB-Xa, or the CS-80. I think Ty and Nick rather belong to that group. It may be, though, that the Vintage parameter can finally convince those guys, as it seems to introduce quite a lot of variance from voice to voice.
-
Apart from that, there have always been different preferences. That's why you had Sequential and Oberheim players in the past. The same happened after the release of the Prophet-6 and OB-6.
To me, Oberheims have a very definite character. There's something very "Science Fiction" about the sound: you're in no doubt that it's coming from a synthesizer. And I like that.
Just before the OB-6 came out I got to borrow a friend's Prophet-6 for a week. A very nice synth, but it lacked the sort of defining character that I tend to find desirable. When the OB-6 was announced there was no mistaking the fact that it was a member of the Oberheim family and that gave it far more appeal to me. I just couldn't resist buying one, and I remain extremely happy with it.
You'll also find musicians and producers who always considered the Prophet-5 to sound particularly clean and neutral. Those typically tend to favor poly synths like the OB-X, OB-Xa, or the CS-80. I think Ty and Nick rather belong to that group. It may be, though, that the Vintage parameter can finally convince those guys, as it seems to introduce quite a lot of variance from voice to voice.
I've been listening to all the demos of the new Prophet-5 and I'd agree with the "clean and neutral" assessment. Everyone is going crazy about it and I'm feeling like I haven't been invited to the party :( because I'm just not feeling any connection to the way it sounds. And it's not through a lack of "vintage" attributes, it's just the basic character is not for me. The same sort of thing is true of modern Moogs (Sub series, One) in comparison to the old modulars.
Now, if Dave and Tom decided to reissue the OB-X and got it as close to the original as the Prophet-5 Rev 4 is to the previous versions...
-
Carson posted two audio examples over at Gearslutz that demonstrate the effect of the vintage parameter.
The first example demonstates a filter sweep with the vintage parameter set to 1, 2, 3, and then 4.
The second example demonstrates the vintage parameter set between 1-2, between 2-3, and between 3-4.
For the recordings a Prophet-10 was used.
-
And another fresh and pleasing demo from today:
https://youtu.be/sAGGM79f5as (https://youtu.be/sAGGM79f5as)
-
Carson posted two audio examples over at Gearslutz that demonstrate the effect of the vintage parameter.
The first example demonstates a filter sweep with the vintage parameter set to 1, 2, 3, and then 4.
The second example demonstrates the vintage parameter set between 1-2, between 2-3, and between 3-4.
For the recordings a Prophet-10 was used.
Thanks for this. I was planning to wait a few months, because for me anticipation is part of the fun and I like to watch all the evolution of the demo videos unfold while I carefully discipline myself to order fewer and less frequent expensive food deliveries or other luxuries, in order to feel that I've earned the reward when the box actually arrives :)...
... but hearing this makes me want to just say F it and order my P5 now, because the vintage knob does exactly what I was hoping it would do.
-
I think someone mentioned waiting for Nick Batt to review this earlier on in this thread so I thought it worth mentioning that he's said a few times over the years that he's never got 'this prophet thing'. I don't think he reviewed the Prophet 6 although he did review the Rev2 and was quite complimentary about it.
Again in the live show this week he said that he wasn't one of the people who holds the Prophet 5 in high regard. I suppose even given that, he should be good enough to do a fair review :)
He also said he thinks the Jupiter 8 doesn't sound good.
In spite of the instruments he's reviewed, I don't think Nick is too enthusiastic about big polyphonic synthesizers.
-
In spite of the instruments he's reviewed, I don't think Nick is too enthusiastic about big polyphonic synthesizers.
Makes sense. He has a proverbial h@rd on for Dreadbox products. It's the only brand I've ever heard him randomly bring up how good or unique he thinks their synths sound.
-
"No one thought I was going to do it because I said I wasn't going to do it."
More of the same, please. :)
"We're really excited about the next [instrument]...and we're deep into it...."
That's always good news.
https://youtu.be/bzysljTb8NQ?t=19145
-
"No one thought I was going to do it because I said I wasn't going to do it."
More of the same, please. :)
"We're really excited about the next [instrument]...and we're deep into it...."
That's always good news.
https://youtu.be/bzysljTb8NQ?t=19145
Actually, he said yesterday that they are working on two new products. Wonder if it is P12 and Tempest “successors”.
-
"No one thought I was going to do it because I said I wasn't going to do it."
More of the same, please. :)
"We're really excited about the next [instrument]...and we're deep into it...."
That's always good news.
https://youtu.be/bzysljTb8NQ?t=19145
Actually, he said yesterday that they are working on two new products. Wonder if it is P12 and Tempest “successors”.
For reference:
https://youtu.be/FGL3JQDJjYo
-
"No one thought I was going to do it because I said I wasn't going to do it."
More of the same, please. :)
"We're really excited about the next [instrument]...and we're deep into it...."
That's always good news.
https://youtu.be/bzysljTb8NQ?t=19145
Actually, he said yesterday that they are working on two new products. Wonder if it is P12 and Tempest “successors”.
Great. The more the merrier.
-
In that vein, this is a fun synth: https://polyend.com/medusa/
-
About this new Prophet 5 REV4 from Sequential, I'll wait and try it for myself before I'll even consider getting it. Because, despite all of Dave's assurance, I'm not entirely convinced that this re-issue will be really up to the task of precisely matching it's ancestor soundwise. There have been attempts in the past to recapture the P5 glory with the P08, the Prophet 6, the Prophet REV2, without much success (being true to the original P5 I mean). Much like Moog Music tried and tried again to recapture the Minimoog D glory with the Moog Voyager, and a few other models until they finally realized that only a Minimoog D is worthy of that name, and they finally cloned it.
So far, the only company that is really successful at matching the sounds of the original machines they are cloning is...Behringer, and at a fraction of the price to boot! Why? Because they use the same schematics and same layouts as on the originals with cloned CEM3340 ICs from CoolAudio fab, not revised (read modified) re-issues like this OnChip Systems CEM3340 rev G.
So, we'll see, or rather hear, if this "modernized" Prophet 5 rev 4 can really shine as bright as its ancestor. I certainly hope so.
-
About this new Prophet 5 REV4 from Sequential, I'll wait and try it for myself before I'll even consider getting it. Because, despite all of Dave's assurance, I'm not entirely convinced that this re-issue will be really up to the task of precisely matching it's ancestor soundwise. There have been attempts in the past to recapture the P5 glory with the P08, the Prophet 6, the Prophet REV2, without much success (being true to the original P5 I mean). Much like Moog Music tried and tried again to recapture the Minimoog D glory with the Moog Voyager, and a few other models until they finally realized that only a Minimoog D is worthy of that name, and they finally cloned it.
So far, the only company that is really successful at matching the sounds of the original machines they are cloning is...Behringer, and at a fraction of the price to boot! Why? Because they use the same schematics and same layouts as on the originals with cloned CEM3340 ICs from CoolAudio fab, not revised (read modified) re-issues like this OnChip Systems CEM3340 rev G.
So, we'll see, or rather hear, if this "modernized" Prophet 5 rev 4 can really shine as bright as its ancestor. I certainly hope so.
I'm going to wait a while to purchase because I want to hear plenty of demos, I know Dave and crew have more backorders for the P5/P10 than they can handle at the moment, and I'm generally not in a rush... but my general thoughts on this are:
1. All Sequential synths sound amazing
2. Sequential is more qualified than any other company to do a proper re-issue
3. All signs point to Dave taking the pedigree of the P5 to heart and making the new one the best it can be
... so I see nothing on the radar that would give me a pessimistic outlook on the P5 reissue.
-
Shame that the 10 is not coming in a dual manual. In terms of announcements, this is HUGE!!!
I am certainly excited about the release of the Prophet 5 and Prophet 10 and will own one or the other soon enough. As an owner of other Sequential synths and older Oberheim gear, however, wondering why Dual and Split modes (or similar) are never included. My OB-8 and Xpander have those capabilities and they are over 30 years old. The new Prophet 10 would check all my boxes if it had similar voice architecture to the original.
-
Shame that the 10 is not coming in a dual manual. In terms of announcements, this is HUGE!!!
The new Prophet 10 would check all my boxes if it had similar voice architecture to the original.
Except it does. The original Prophet 10 wasn’t bi timbral. They had to make it bi timbral with the dual manual keybed in order to help with overheating. Danny Zietlin who scored the 70s version of Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers used a single keyboard Prophet 10 alongside an orchestra. It was actually the first score to ever use a Prophet synth. He said his P10 would constantly go out of tune due to overheating and he could only use it a bit at a time to record.
-
https://youtu.be/rVNGtj7tsN4
https://youtu.be/cJvF658lSOE
-
I have yet to hear a convincing demo of the Prophet 5 REV4 that will demonstrate that it is as good sounding as the original one.
And these demos certainly don't help.
-
https://youtu.be/rVNGtj7tsN4
https://youtu.be/cJvF658lSOE
I can not say how unimportant it is for me if it sounds like the original or not. It just sounds really really good.
The second video is so great, really nice patches.
-
I have yet to hear a convincing demo of the Prophet 5 REV4 that will demonstrate that it is as good sounding as the original one.
And these demos certainly don't help.
Give it some time, I don't think anyone should expect to see lots of comparison videos this early in the product's lifecycle.
It's unlikely we will see huge numbers of people who own a vintage P5 and are also first in line to order the new one, because for most people, owning either a vintage or a rev4 will be enough, and very few will own both. Even among the small percentage of people who do want to own both, many of them are still waiting on their new unit at this point. Dave's already said the demand was higher than expected and it's a backorder situation for many buyers.
Over time, we will see more cases such as someone borrowing a vintage P5 to make the comparison video, etc.
-
Danny Zietlin who scored the 70s version of Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers used a single keyboard Prophet 10 alongside an orchestra. It was actually the first score to ever use a Prophet synth. He said his P10 would constantly go out of tune due to overheating and he could only use it a bit at a time to record.
Those Prophets had tendencies to die of spontaneous combustion? ;D
-
My SW rep tells me I may get my P5 the second week of November....
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kkHn_mPFdTo/VpDqum2k2TI/AAAAAAAAHiM/0YlH55arOd0/s1600/smiley-crossing-fingers.png)
-
My SW rep tells me I may get my P5 the second week of November....
Very nice!
-
As an ex Prophet 6 owner I’d say this new P5 may well fix some of my gripes with the P6. First the 61 key keybed, probably my primary reason to sell the P6. Second the fact that the P6 does not produce a clean triangle wave. This was really frustrating because it meant that you had to use the filter to cutoff the erroneous harmonics. Meaning the filter couldn’t be used to add the third oscillator in the classic organ patch etc. Third (and it’s so long ago since I had my hands on a P5- 1982! So I can’t remember if the P5 has this!) but the P6 can’t be made to produce a deterministic DC LFO level, this is very frustrating for many live modulation effects, where you want to add a static offset controlled in depth by mod wheel or AT etc.
So the P6 went.. but this new -old - P5 looks like it might address some of these issues.
Also I’m wondering if Dave has used the same modular internal structure for the P5 as DSI championed on the P6. Ie each voice was a module plugged into a back plane.
-
Also I’m wondering if Dave has used the same modular internal structure for the P5 as DSI championed on the P6. Ie each voice was a module plugged into a back plane.
This is how it's done in the Prophet-5/10 (the photo was posted in the French Audiofanzine forum and features the mainboard of a Prophet-10 with the extra 5 voices on top):
(https://medias.audiofanzine.com/images/normal/sequential-prophet-5-rev4-3111312.jpg)
-
I must admit while I absolutely love this....I am disappointed the P10 isn’t bi timbral. I understand it’s modelled after the single keyboard version and not the dual manual version but still. That’s the one thing putting me off of the P10.
Also kind of shocked the lack of poly sequencer, lack of effects,...
Really considering dumping my P6 for a P5 but also looking at this from a practical point of view. Am I looking at this with nostalgia and aesthetic than something I can actually integrate into my setup? It requires some thought.
I'm not surprised by lack off effects, etc. It's a P5 or P10. A bit surprised by monononly output though but like the old one can be stereoised by external FX. If you dump the P6 for a P5, you may well miss the extra features, which I like.
As for the 10 voice, I would prefer 10 to 5. I find 5 not enough but six is enough andmakes the P6 kind of analogous to a 12 string guitar, 6 voices, 2 oscillator per voice. OB6 too. I would love the 10 voice version because it was an aim in 1978 that didn't really come off. One voice per finger unless you were Russ Conway. Having bitimbrality is a can of worms because then it becomes another Prophet T8.
I would think that the option to shut down 5 voices on the P10 would be nice so it plays like a P5, or to choose number of voices anywhere from 5 to 10, even better.
One other idea would be a 5 voice dual mode, with all 10 voices under 5 notes with the same patch, 4 oscillators per voice. That would not need storage of 2 patches only one. That would be cool but less complex than bitimbrality.
-
The Prophet 10 feels like a missed opportunity to me. No one identifies the Prophet 10 with its single keyboard version. They wanted that dual manual version or at the very least a bi timbral version with poly sequencer. I appreciate Dave doing this but man....it was so close....even if it cost $10k I would put a pre order in for a synth like that so fast....
Well, Dave said on a synth chat video that there are two more products in the works excluding P5/10 modules and NOT a new Prophet-VS.
As for the single manual Prophet-10 from 1978, this couldn't really be done reliably then - and now it can. I think it's a great idea. I would choose that over a 5 if I had the money, which I don't. I'm gonna have to be contented with my P6, which I am but if cash came showering on me I would wait to see what Dave is bringing out next and then, depending on that, go for the present P10, unless he does another T8.
A T10 would be nice move for a bitimbral version with 76 keys poly aftertouch. That would be real competition for a certain 8000$ competitor. That's within reach really, just needs a few more knobs and a longer chassis.
-
"Really considering dumping my P6 for a P5 but also looking at this from a practical point of view. Am I looking at this with nostalgia and aesthetic than something I can actually integrate into my setup? It requires some thought."
It's good to see from the manual that there are 7 velocity response curves and 8 aftertouch response curves, so that's more than my P6. It would be good if these curves were illustrated or published somewhere on the site.
-
Also I’m wondering if Dave has used the same modular internal structure for the P5 as DSI championed on the P6. Ie each voice was a module plugged into a back plane.
This is how it's done in the Prophet-5/10 (the photo was posted in the French Audiofanzine forum and features the mainboard of a Prophet-10 with the extra 5 voices on top):
(https://medias.audiofanzine.com/images/normal/sequential-prophet-5-rev4-3111312.jpg)
I see a pattern here (Prophet REV2):
(https://medias.audiofanzine.com/images/normal/1843189.jpg)
-
All I can say is that Sequential smashed it out of the park with this one. I've owned at least one version or another of all of DSI-Sequential's instruments (aside from the Pro line), plus plenty of flagship synths/instruments from other brands. The P10 is by far my favorite instrument I've ever owned. When it was announced both the SSM and CEM filters would be featured, I thought it was a bit redundant considering how much people claim the REV 1/2 sound vastly superior, but I can happily say that the CEM is certainly different and will be used almost equally by me as it sounds phenomenal as well.
The only real negative which is purely subjective is that I don't like the action on FATAR keybeds on any of the keyboards I've owned, which range from the TP/40Wood to the TP/9 & 8.
-
The Prophet 10 feels like a missed opportunity to me. No one identifies the Prophet 10 with its single keyboard version. They wanted that dual manual version or at the very least a bi timbral version with poly sequencer. I appreciate Dave doing this but man....it was so close....even if it cost $10k I would put a pre order in for a synth like that so fast....
Well, Dave said on a synth chat video that there are two more products in the works excluding P5/10 modules and NOT a new Prophet-VS.
As for the single manual Prophet-10 from 1978, this couldn't really be done reliably then - and now it can. I think it's a great idea. I would choose that over a 5 if I had the money, which I don't. I'm gonna have to be contented with my P6, which I am but if cash came showering on me I would wait to see what Dave is bringing out next and then, depending on that, go for the present P10, unless he does another T8.
A T10 would be nice move for a bitimbral version with 76 keys poly aftertouch. That would be real competition for a certain 8000$ competitor. That's within reach really, just needs a few more knobs and a longer chassis.
I don’t see a monster VCO synth happening from Sequential again. In fact I don’t even see another Prophet happening.
-
I don’t see a monster VCO synth happening from Sequential again. In fact I don’t even see another Prophet happening.
Dave Smith is a prophet factory. I expect to see at least several more prophets come from Sequential.
-
I don’t see a monster VCO synth happening from Sequential again. In fact I don’t even see another Prophet happening.
Dave Smith is a prophet factory. I expect to see at least several more prophets come from Sequential.
A recent video interview he said he's sick of the name and so are most of the people at Sequential.
-
I don’t see a monster VCO synth happening from Sequential again. In fact I don’t even see another Prophet happening.
Dave Smith is a prophet factory. I expect to see at least several more prophets come from Sequential.
A recent video interview he said he's sick of the name and so are most of the people at Sequential.
What would he use next... Messiah? Visionist? Palm-Reader? The Snake Handler!?!?
— I’m joking, of course.
-
I don’t see a monster VCO synth happening from Sequential again. In fact I don’t even see another Prophet happening.
Dave Smith is a prophet factory. I expect to see at least several more prophets come from Sequential.
A recent video interview he said he's sick of the name and so are most of the people at Sequential.
Although, he did also point out the reason it has been recycled so many times is that it is really hard to come up with decent product names that aren't already used. If were Dave, I would just make sure that the name "Prophet" is used only for products that are truly aimed to capture the spirit of original instruments that are in the same vein. For example, I think the use of Prophet '08, Prophet 6, Prophet Rev 2 are appropriate because they all have a certain "sounds like a Prophet" characteristic to them. It was with Prophet 12, and Prophet X that I think things might have gone a little sideways, simply because of purely digital oscillators and each has a sound that (while good) differentiates itself greatly I think from the original Prophet. Yes I know, there was the Prophet VS back in the day, but I think that was a candidate for a non-profit name as well. At the same time, look how badly Roland has abused Juno/Jupiter names, and by that measure I don't think too much bad can be said about Dave's naming choices.
-
All I can say is that Sequential smashed it out of the park with this one. I've owned at least one version or another of all of DSI-Sequential's instruments (aside from the Pro line), plus plenty of flagship synths/instruments from other brands. The P10 is by far my favorite instrument I've ever owned. When it was announced both the SSM and CEM filters would be featured, I thought it was a bit redundant considering how much people claim the REV 1/2 sound vastly superior, but I can happily say that the CEM is certainly different and will be used almost equally by me as it sounds phenomenal as well.
The only real negative which is purely subjective is that I don't like the action on FATAR keybeds on any of the keyboards I've owned, which range from the TP/40Wood to the TP/9 & 8.
Glad to see this kind of feedback... can you comment on what other synths you currently have (or recently had) that you're comparing it to? I'm particularly interested in hearing from those who have (or had) a P6, because like a lot of P6 owners, I'm wondering how much overlap or difference there is between the two -- especially since I'm planning on getting a P10, but have no intention of selling my P6.
-
All I can say is that Sequential smashed it out of the park with this one. I've owned at least one version or another of all of DSI-Sequential's instruments (aside from the Pro line), plus plenty of flagship synths/instruments from other brands. The P10 is by far my favorite instrument I've ever owned. When it was announced both the SSM and CEM filters would be featured, I thought it was a bit redundant considering how much people claim the REV 1/2 sound vastly superior, but I can happily say that the CEM is certainly different and will be used almost equally by me as it sounds phenomenal as well.
The only real negative which is purely subjective is that I don't like the action on FATAR keybeds on any of the keyboards I've owned, which range from the TP/40Wood to the TP/9 & 8.
Glad to see this kind of feedback... can you comment on what other synths you currently have (or recently had) that you're comparing it to? I'm particularly interested in hearing from those who have (or had) a P6, because like a lot of P6 owners, I'm wondering how much overlap or difference there is between the two -- especially since I'm planning on getting a P10, but have no intention of selling my P6.
I never had any issues with the feel of my P6's keybed but in comparison the new P5's keyboard feels better to me than the P6's. A bit less "clunky" for the lack of a better word. Smoother.
-
The only reason I sold my P6 is because I like to keep my setup minimal and had a hunch Sequential would do something special once the SSI2140 was in production. Kinda weird comparison, but the best way I can compare the two is by using an analogy ... The P6 is like some modern productions that are overly polished and overly round, whereas the P10 cuts out the unnecessary fat and nails the right EQ every time. I'd either have to add a little distortion, HPF, & perhaps sprinkle in some effect to get it in the ballpark of where I wanted with the P6 pre-EQ. Sometimes it would take all of the above, whereas the P10 doesn't need any of that and still gets the exact quality that my ears are personally attuned to.
P.S. I privately messaged you the laundry list.
-
All I can say is that Sequential smashed it out of the park with this one. I've owned at least one version or another of all of DSI-Sequential's instruments (aside from the Pro line), plus plenty of flagship synths/instruments from other brands. The P10 is by far my favorite instrument I've ever owned. When it was announced both the SSM and CEM filters would be featured, I thought it was a bit redundant considering how much people claim the REV 1/2 sound vastly superior, but I can happily say that the CEM is certainly different and will be used almost equally by me as it sounds phenomenal as well.
The only real negative which is purely subjective is that I don't like the action on FATAR keybeds on any of the keyboards I've owned, which range from the TP/40Wood to the TP/9 & 8.
Glad to see this kind of feedback... can you comment on what other synths you currently have (or recently had) that you're comparing it to? I'm particularly interested in hearing from those who have (or had) a P6, because like a lot of P6 owners, I'm wondering how much overlap or difference there is between the two -- especially since I'm planning on getting a P10, but have no intention of selling my P6.
I never had any issues with the feel of my P6's keybed but in comparison the new P5's keyboard feels better to me than the P6's. A bit less "clunky" for the lack of a better word. Smoother.
What are your initial thoughts about the overall sound of P5 vs the P6? I know that most analog polys can (mostly) come very close to each other when recreating certain sounds -- but I always think that what a synth "does naturally" and "what it can potentially do" are two different things. So I'm hoping to get some feedback on P5/10 vs P6, both in their natural habitats so to speak. Raw tone comparisons without FX, filter differences, impact of the vintage knob / rev button, etc.
-
The only reason I sold my P6 is because I like to keep my setup minimal and had a hunch Sequential would do something special once the SSI2140 was in production. Kinda weird comparison, but the best way I can compare the two is by using an analogy ... The P6 is like some modern productions that are overly polished and overly round, whereas the P10 cuts out the unnecessary fat and nails the right EQ every time. I'd either have to add a little distortion, HPF, & perhaps sprinkle in some effect to get it in the ballpark of where I wanted with the P6 pre-EQ. Sometimes it would take all of the above, whereas the P10 doesn't need any of that and still gets the exact quality that my ears are personally attuned to.
P.S. I privately messaged you the laundry list.
Interesting. Would you attribute that to the effort required to make the P6 sound more vintage? Or was it not really a matter of modern vs vintage preference?
-
Off the top of my head, I suppose I'd say the CEM3340 has a softer, i.e. more pleasing quality (to my ears at least) than the discrete VCOs on the P6, which are more brazen. Unlike the P6, there's a steep drop in the low-end once resonance is added. I know that the SSI2144 has the ability for low-end compensation for resonance, so if that's the case with the SSI2140, I'd make the suggestion of having that fully kick-in on the (modern) 4 setting of the vintage knob, which Dave described as altering more parameters than simply slop, as that would help cover more bases. There does seem to be slightly more low-end presence/lower frequency resonance as the vintage number goes in ascending order, but the max possible low-end compensation on the 4 would be welcome if that can be done.
-
I don’t see a monster VCO synth happening from Sequential again. In fact I don’t even see another Prophet happening.
Dave Smith is a prophet factory. I expect to see at least several more prophets come from Sequential.
A recent video interview he said he's sick of the name and so are most of the people at Sequential.
Although, he did also point out the reason it has been recycled so many times is that it is really hard to come up with decent product names that aren't already used. If were Dave, I would just make sure that the name "Prophet" is used only for products that are truly aimed to capture the spirit of original instruments that are in the same vein. For example, I think the use of Prophet '08, Prophet 6, Prophet Rev 2 are appropriate because they all have a certain "sounds like a Prophet" characteristic to them. It was with Prophet 12, and Prophet X that I think things might have gone a little sideways, simply because of purely digital oscillators and each has a sound that (while good) differentiates itself greatly I think from the original Prophet. Yes I know, there was the Prophet VS back in the day, but I think that was a candidate for a non-profit name as well. At the same time, look how badly Roland has abused Juno/Jupiter names, and by that measure I don't think too much bad can be said about Dave's naming choices.
Eh I dunno about that there’s been like 5 Prophets with digital oscillators at this point. Prophet 2000, Prophet 3000, Prophet VS, Prophet 12, Prophet X/XL. I think it’s gone passed the point of reserving the name for analog synths exclusively.
-
I don’t see a monster VCO synth happening from Sequential again. In fact I don’t even see another Prophet happening.
Dave Smith is a prophet factory. I expect to see at least several more prophets come from Sequential.
A recent video interview he said he's sick of the name and so are most of the people at Sequential.
Although, he did also point out the reason it has been recycled so many times is that it is really hard to come up with decent product names that aren't already used. If were Dave, I would just make sure that the name "Prophet" is used only for products that are truly aimed to capture the spirit of original instruments that are in the same vein. For example, I think the use of Prophet '08, Prophet 6, Prophet Rev 2 are appropriate because they all have a certain "sounds like a Prophet" characteristic to them. It was with Prophet 12, and Prophet X that I think things might have gone a little sideways, simply because of purely digital oscillators and each has a sound that (while good) differentiates itself greatly I think from the original Prophet. Yes I know, there was the Prophet VS back in the day, but I think that was a candidate for a non-profit name as well. At the same time, look how badly Roland has abused Juno/Jupiter names, and by that measure I don't think too much bad can be said about Dave's naming choices.
Eh I dunno about that there’s been like 5 Prophets with digital oscillators at this point. Prophet 2000, Prophet 3000, Prophet VS, Prophet 12, Prophet X/XL. I think it’s gone passed the point of reserving the name for analog synths exclusively.
I guess we can just be grateful there isn't an "iProphet", some shitty phone app :)
(unless, that is, the iProphet turned out to really be an extra controller, that via bluetooth unlocked a bunch of LFOs / modulation possibilities that weren't available from the front panel of the P5/P10.... now THAT would be a helluva easter egg).
-
Off the top of my head, I suppose I'd say the CEM3340 has a softer, i.e. more pleasing quality (to my ears at least) than the discrete VCOs on the P6, which are more brazen. Unlike the P6, there's a steep drop in the low-end once resonance is added. I know that the SSI2144 has the ability for low-end compensation for resonance, so if that's the case with the SSI2140, I'd make the suggestion of having that fully kick-in on the (modern) 4 setting of the vintage knob, which Dave described as altering more parameters than simply slop, as that would help cover more bases. There does seem to be slightly more low-end presence/lower frequency resonance as the vintage number goes in ascending order, but the max possible low-end compensation on the 4 would be welcome if that can be done.
All of this is good news to me so far, and in line with my plans. I don't want to lose the punchiness of the bass or the pronounced leads that come out of the P6, but do want the softer/looser option, so hearing this, particularly the comments about the oscillators, reinforces my idea of keeping P6 while obtaining the new P (most likely a 10).
-
Just saw this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shxj7VeKxLg
-
Just saw this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shxj7VeKxLg
Need to adjust some of the envelopes on the P6 to decrease the “click” of the snappy envelopes.
-
Need to adjust some of the envelopes on the P6 to decrease the “click” of the snappy envelopes.
The similarities in sound in that particular video do still make me want to add a P5/10, but also make me want to hold off, really think through my existing setup, and decide if the new version of old is different enough from the P6 to be what I need in my next synth.
One one hand, yes, I already know it is, because I was already thinking of buying a second P6 (I like mine that much), while just having the 5 octave key bed, bigger knobs, etc. and the more vintage sound would be a huge plus. Problem is, the next synth will occupy prime real estate on my 4 tier stand, so the choice must be made carefully. I also have a 2 tier Ultimate and a 1 tier stand that aren't currently in use, but the 4 tier is where it all happens.
Some say the P6 and the OB-6 are too similar, but to me they are entirely different animals that complement each other, and the similarities are a plus (for speed of workflow). My guess is that the same would be true by adding the P5/10 to my setup... similar and different in the right amounts. But I want to be certain, especially since the P5/10 will also probably result in some FX pedal purchases to do the things a P6 already does, over and above the four plus grand the synth itself costs.
-
Need to adjust some of the envelopes on the P6 to decrease the “click” of the snappy envelopes.
The similarities in sound in that particular video do still make me want to add a P5/10, but also make me want to hold off, really think through my existing setup, and decide if the new version of old is different enough from the P6 to be what I need in my next synth.
One one hand, yes, I already know it is, because I was already thinking of buying a second P6 (I like mine that much), while just having the 5 octave key bed, bigger knobs, etc. and the more vintage sound would be a huge plus. Problem is, the next synth will occupy prime real estate on my 4 tier stand, so the choice must be made carefully. I also have a 2 tier Ultimate and a 1 tier stand that aren't currently in use, but the 4 tier is where it all happens.
Some say the P6 and the OB-6 are too similar, but to me they are entirely different animals that complement each other, and the similarities are a plus (for speed of workflow). My guess is that the same would be true by adding the P5/10 to my setup... similar and different in the right amounts. But I want to be certain, especially since the P5/10 will also probably result in some FX pedal purchases to do the things a P6 already does, over and above the four plus grand the synth itself costs.
You would require at least 3-4 effects pedals, an external sequencer and arpeggiator to accompany the P5 to get close to the features of the P6...but even the gentleman in the video said the P6 also has more range in terms of the values (Even plus negative parameters on envelopes and poly mod). I discussed the envelope settings in the comment section of the video and he admitted that the P6 has such a wide range to the parameters compared to the P5 that you really need to dial both of them differently to match the sound. It's still incredibly close though.
-
Need to adjust some of the envelopes on the P6 to decrease the “click” of the snappy envelopes.
The similarities in sound in that particular video do still make me want to add a P5/10, but also make me want to hold off, really think through my existing setup, and decide if the new version of old is different enough from the P6 to be what I need in my next synth.
One one hand, yes, I already know it is, because I was already thinking of buying a second P6 (I like mine that much), while just having the 5 octave key bed, bigger knobs, etc. and the more vintage sound would be a huge plus. Problem is, the next synth will occupy prime real estate on my 4 tier stand, so the choice must be made carefully. I also have a 2 tier Ultimate and a 1 tier stand that aren't currently in use, but the 4 tier is where it all happens.
Some say the P6 and the OB-6 are too similar, but to me they are entirely different animals that complement each other, and the similarities are a plus (for speed of workflow). My guess is that the same would be true by adding the P5/10 to my setup... similar and different in the right amounts. But I want to be certain, especially since the P5/10 will also probably result in some FX pedal purchases to do the things a P6 already does, over and above the four plus grand the synth itself costs.
You would require at least 3-4 effects pedals, an external sequencer and arpeggiator to accompany the P5 to get close to the features of the P6...but even the gentleman in the video said the P6 also has more range in terms of the values (Even plus negative parameters on envelopes and poly mod). I discussed the envelope settings in the comment section of the video and he admitted that the P6 has such a wide range to the parameters compared to the P5 that you really need to dial both of them differently to match the sound. It's still incredibly close though.
Although, in the comments he also expressed a slight preference for the P5, and mentioned on how the big knobs of the P5 really helped dial in that exact sound he was after. This is something that actually matters a lot to me in terms of realtime playing/recording into the DAW. I've never felt this was a shortcoming of the P6 or OB-6 for that matter, but large knobs do sound appealing.
Also, knowing me I would end up with pedals on the P5, but it's amazing what you can do with cheap or free plug-ins these days. I mentioned Valhamma Supermassive (free) in another post, and already have Valhalla Vintage (also excellent and only $50)... these plug-ins are surprisingly competitive with my BigSky, so they're an option (and delay and chorus type pedals aren't all that expensive).
Then I come back to one fact -- like many, I've drooled over a vintage P5 for a long time, but was held back by concerns of needed repairs and reliability, worrying about whether a Rev 2 or 3 were better, the $7-8k pricetag, etc. and then to all of a sudden to be able to buy a brand new one with Sequential warranty support at the prices they are asking, that has varying "vintagism" and switchable filters.... when I think about it from that standpoint, I'm like "what am I waiting for, just order it!"...
... then I remember I'm waiting for word on whether the P10 will be offering settable voice count or not..
-
Need to adjust some of the envelopes on the P6 to decrease the “click” of the snappy envelopes.
The similarities in sound in that particular video do still make me want to add a P5/10, but also make me want to hold off, really think through my existing setup, and decide if the new version of old is different enough from the P6 to be what I need in my next synth.
One one hand, yes, I already know it is, because I was already thinking of buying a second P6 (I like mine that much), while just having the 5 octave key bed, bigger knobs, etc. and the more vintage sound would be a huge plus. Problem is, the next synth will occupy prime real estate on my 4 tier stand, so the choice must be made carefully. I also have a 2 tier Ultimate and a 1 tier stand that aren't currently in use, but the 4 tier is where it all happens.
Some say the P6 and the OB-6 are too similar, but to me they are entirely different animals that complement each other, and the similarities are a plus (for speed of workflow). My guess is that the same would be true by adding the P5/10 to my setup... similar and different in the right amounts. But I want to be certain, especially since the P5/10 will also probably result in some FX pedal purchases to do the things a P6 already does, over and above the four plus grand the synth itself costs.
You would require at least 3-4 effects pedals, an external sequencer and arpeggiator to accompany the P5 to get close to the features of the P6...but even the gentleman in the video said the P6 also has more range in terms of the values (Even plus negative parameters on envelopes and poly mod). I discussed the envelope settings in the comment section of the video and he admitted that the P6 has such a wide range to the parameters compared to the P5 that you really need to dial both of them differently to match the sound. It's still incredibly close though.
Although, in the comments he also expressed a slight preference for the P5, and mentioned on how the big knobs of the P5 really helped dial in that exact sound he was after. This is something that actually matters a lot to me in terms of realtime playing/recording into the DAW. I've never felt this was a shortcoming of the P6 or OB-6 for that matter, but large knobs do sound appealing.
Also, knowing me I would end up with pedals on the P5, but it's amazing what you can do with cheap or free plug-ins these days. I mentioned Valhamma Supermassive (free) in another post, and already have Valhalla Vintage (also excellent and only $50)... these plug-ins are surprisingly competitive with my BigSky, so they're an option (and delay and chorus type pedals aren't all that expensive).
Then I come back to one fact -- like many, I've drooled over a vintage P5 for a long time, but was held back by concerns of needed repairs and reliability, worrying about whether a Rev 2 or 3 were better, the $7-8k pricetag, etc. and then to all of a sudden to be able to buy a brand new one with Sequential warranty support at the prices they are asking, that has varying "vintagism" and switchable filters.... when I think about it from that standpoint, I'm like "what am I waiting for, just order it!"...
... then I remember I'm waiting for word on whether the P10 will be offering settable voice count or not..
While I absolutely support adjustable voice count I also think it might cannibalize the P5’s In regards to interest. The Moog One offered this option and almost no one bought an 8 voice version because of it.
From a business perspective Dave might just be like “if you want 5 voices, use a P5.”
-
Honestly the DSI/Sequential effects aren't that great, especially the reverbs on the P6/OB-6. The only one I'd use is flanger 2 and the rest I'd choose alternatives if given the option. The P10 sounds so good you won't want effects most of the time. That said, even my mixer has effects and there are tons of usable plug-ins for free. The only pedal I think is worth buying these days is a real tape echo. As for sequencers, any that lack a song mode are useless for me. Hopefully something like the Tempest 2 comes along with extensive external polyphonic sequencing options.
The voice count option is a waste of resources to me, but to each his own...
-
From a business perspective Dave might just be like “if you want 5 voices, use a P5.”
But upgradability from the P5 is an option too, it's probably an easy upgrade -- the Rev2 is like that, a little cheaper to get the 16 voice out of the gate than to add a voice board later.
-
Honestly the DSI/Sequential effects aren't that great, especially the reverbs on the P6/OB-6.
I agree they're not great FX, but I find them useful for slight sound colorations (which is what I typically want with built in FX, as opposed to more dramatic enhancements with pedals or plugins). Sometimes just being able to easy put a chorus before or after a delay while my hands are on the keyboard just feels more musical than workflow involving pedals or plugins.
The voice count option is a waste of resources to me, but to each his own...
It depends on what types of music you like to make. Even notwithstanding the mixing considerations of higher voice counts on long releases, there are certain situations when the note stealing of a 5 voice actually becomes a feature, and adds its own vintage character that can't quite be duplicated with higher polyphony. I don't necessarily need to be able to duplicate specific characteristics to be happy with a synth.... I can find ways to be content with any good sounding tones, but it certainly is a plus for me if the option is there. So the idea of not having note stealing, but simultaneously being able to dial it in, is very appealing for some.
-
From a business perspective Dave might just be like “if you want 5 voices, use a P5.”
But upgradability from the P5 is an option too, it's probably an easy upgrade -- the Rev2 is like that, a little cheaper to get the 16 voice out of the gate than to add a voice board later.
The REV2 has DCOs though...I think with VCOs it’s a bit more complicated which is why Moog did an 8 voice and 16 voice version of the Moog One and Korg did an 8 voice and 16 voice version of the Prologue.
-
From a business perspective Dave might just be like “if you want 5 voices, use a P5.”
But upgradability from the P5 is an option too, it's probably an easy upgrade -- the Rev2 is like that, a little cheaper to get the 16 voice out of the gate than to add a voice board later.
The REV2 has DCOs though...I think with VCOs it’s a bit more complicated which is why Moog did an 8 voice and 16 voice version of the Moog One and Korg did an 8 voice and 16 voice version of the Prologue.
I think Moog's product direction is a bit out there and probably not as Bob would have it, so I kind of discard them as a reference.
Korg can be a bit mystical in their marketing decisions too, things like the 16 voice has a low frequency compressor, but the 8 voice does not... the Minilogue XD has only 4 voices but sequencing capabilities its older brothers cannot compete with. Whah??? Korg I think is a company that loves to shave costs, sometimes at the expense of musical value. I'm not saying its not smart business, but their support just plain sucks. The 'logues aren't class compliant USB devices. Last time I looked, if you want to update the firmware you're good if on Mac and fucked if on Windows. The MIDI driver on Windows has some of the worst "discount offshored" software implementation decisions I've seen in a software product, such as crapping the bed if it's not ordered correctly in the registry. So, Korgs sound good by they sure ain't up to made in the USA software standards.
Basically I feel like some of these decisions are in the product positioning light by marketing people who may or may not be rational thinkers, rather than as a reflection of the actual production cost. But, to be fair I don't know the differences in board upgrades between VCO and DCO, and it just occurred to me this would be an intriguing subject... I can imagine there would be differences, would love to know what they are.
-
I find them useful for slight sound colorations
This comes back to what I was saying earlier in my comparison. It almost defeats the purpose of why one would go out of their way to buy a P5 or P10, though I must stress this is simply the way I see it.
It depends on what types of music you like to make. Even notwithstanding the mixing considerations of higher voice counts on long releases, there are certain situations when the note stealing of a 5 voice actually becomes a feature, and adds its own vintage character that can't quite be duplicated with higher polyphony. I don't necessarily need to be able to duplicate specific characteristics to be happy with a synth.... I can find ways to be content with any good sounding tones, but it certainly is a plus for me if the option is there. So the idea of not having note stealing, but simultaneously being able to dial it in, is very appealing for some.
Sorry, I don't subscribe to any of this, but again, to each their own.
because so many of us are waiting for the decision before deciding which to purchase.
Perhaps I'm wrong here, but I have the feeling you're taking a vocal minority to be a larger group than there are buyers who actually feel as strongly about it as you do...
-
because so many of us are waiting for the decision before deciding which to purchase.
Perhaps I'm wrong here, but I have the feeling you're taking a vocal minority to be a larger group than there are buyers who actually feel as strongly about it as you do...
Intrinsically I try to keep myself honest, so I'll say you may be right about the above statement, but for my long-term credibility (just so I don't come across as an ass that believes that everyone wants what I want), I drew that conclusion from a combination of watching a thread on GS (one that I admittedly bailed on after about page 80-something), a number of youtube videos (of random source and credibility), and other forums (including this one). And I got the impression others were in the same boat as me -- unencumbered by the thought of $800 extra, but wondering if they would have the ability to duplicate that magical 6th note steal that occurs on vintage P5s. It could be a case of magnification by association, just know that wasn't my intent. I am a big believer in the idea that all instruments have traits that give that instrument its character. On vintage tracks, sometimes that was a P5 alone, sometimes it was a P5 multitracked, sometimes it was a P10.
-
I don’t see a monster VCO synth happening from Sequential again. In fact I don’t even see another Prophet happening.
Dave Smith is a prophet factory. I expect to see at least several more prophets come from Sequential.
In a recent video interview he said he's sick of the name and so are most of the people at Sequential.
And so? How many times have we been through this?
I think his next instrument should be called the "Non-Prophet" so and so.
-
I know that the SSI2144 has the ability for low-end compensation for resonance, so if that's the case with the SSI2140, I'd make the suggestion of having that fully kick-in on the (modern) 4 setting of the vintage knob, which Dave described as altering more parameters than simply slop, as that would help cover more bases. There does seem to be slightly more low-end presence/lower frequency resonance as the vintage number goes in ascending order, but the max possible low-end compensation on the 4 would be welcome if that can be done.
I believe the resonance compensation is activated when the Vintage knob is all the way at 4. I will double check that.
-
Hopefully you're right as that would make the most sense. However, that's not how it functions on my unit. It's acting really strange on mine and it becomes discernible on certain filter settings and acts differently on different notes... The vintage knob functions differently on D4 and E♭4, for example. My unit was damaged during shipping, so unless it's a bug, I'm now assuming that was one of the effects... There's something rolling around on the inside & the globals button is wonky. Other than that the P10 seems to be functioning normally... It certainly sounds incredible! :P
Edit: my sustain pedal (that I've used on all other DSI/Sequential products) won't work with it. *This was my bad.
-
A recent video interview he said he's sick of the name and so are most of the people at Sequential.
Jimmy Buffet said that he's sick of the name Margaritaville too. Price of success. I don't think Jimmy Buffet will stop playing it anytime soon. Dave Smith ---?
-
… and my sustain pedal (that I've used on all other DSI/Sequential products) won't work with it.
The default on the Prophet-5 Rev4 is different than modern synths to match the original Prophet-5 mode of operation. Take a look at the Chapter 2: Prophet 5 Controls > Global Settings > Globals—Bottom Row (p.15) of the manual for a description of the Release/Sustain switch setting. And, of course, that the sustain pedal is plugged into the Release jack.
Just in case that's the issue with your sustain pedal.
-
Doh! That was indeed the issue with the pedal and I remember skimming through that bit now... Thanks for the reminder!
-
A recent video interview he said he's sick of the name and so are most of the people at Sequential.
Jimmy Buffet said that he's sick of the name Margaritaville too. Price of success. I don't think Jimmy Buffet will stop playing it anytime soon. Dave Smith ---?
I remember when they first introduced the REV2...just REV2....everyone thought it was a dumb name (and it was) and they demanded the Prophet name be put on it....and Dave went with the Prophet REV2. Unless he is going to start resurrecting names like "Trax" "Max" etc from the old Sequential catalog I think the only name they can really put on a poly at this point is a Prophet ____ or Poly Evolver. Anything else is going to get a hard reception I think
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ5r_--i1wA
-
New demo by Jamiroquai's Matt Johnson:
https://youtu.be/xM1PRJPceKE
-
A recent video interview he said he's sick of the name and so are most of the people at Sequential.
Jimmy Buffet said that he's sick of the name Margaritaville too. Price of success. I don't think Jimmy Buffet will stop playing it anytime soon. Dave Smith ---?
I remember when they first introduced the REV2...just REV2....everyone thought it was a dumb name (and it was) and they demanded the Prophet name be put on it....and Dave went with the Prophet REV2. Unless he is going to start resurrecting names like "Trax" "Max" etc from the old Sequential catalog I think the only name they can really put on a poly at this point is a Prophet ____ or Poly Evolver. Anything else is going to get a hard reception I think
Agreed. I think the Prophet name has dignity and nobleness among other modern synthesizer names, some of which are horrible. I liked "Tetr4" and "Evolver," too. But the name "Prophet Rev2" doesn't actually make sense because it doesn't specify which, among the many Prophet synthesizers, it's a revision of. The name of the instrument should be "Prophet '08 Rev2".
-
Technically speaking, the first model of something shouldn't be called a "revision" in the first place. I get there's an historical precedent at Sequential that they're still following, but that aside, the Prophet REV would have been a more eloquent title and made more sense if it wasn't for the aforementioned precedent. That is, unless the '08 PE is considered an official revision, which I'm assuming it's not... Not that any of my semantics really matter regardless.
-
My take:
The name "Prophet '08" probably made sense, and was arguably even clever at the time, because of the voice count and timing of release. And I'm sure it made sense in late 2007 because, who knew how this analog resurgence thing was going to go in the late 2000s when it was conceived? Problem is, the name doesn't scale well to the next revision, something I'm sure Dave was probably cringing over during the naming process for the Rev2.
So, the Prophet Rev2 dropped the year indicator (which is almost certainly a good idea), but made it sort of weird because there was a Prophet 5-Rev2 many decades back, and with voice count not being part of the name (it can't because there is a 8 and 16 voice version), it sort of comes across like the Prophet Rev 2 is *the* Prophet or flagship Prophet synth (when of course it is not).
This also creates a quandry for the Prophet 12, which did choose to include voice count in the name (but becomes a potential source of confusion when you release a Prophet 10 many years later, which is upmarket from the P12).
I'll just say, I don't have all the answers. I understand the challenges that went along with all this.... there's a saying among computer scientists that naming things is the hardest part (often sung in Tom Petty's voice), and I know marketing types like to think they have it all worked out, but after 40 years in technology product engineering, I'm say I'm REALLY glad Sequential is not a marketing-driven company, and it's one of the primary reasons they're still making great products.
In terms of naming Prophet 5 and Prophet 10, things seem to be on the right track to me here... I'm not sure these synths should ever see a "Rev 5", because reissuing vintage gear was their reason for existence.
For future product naming.. questions remain. What should the Prophet 12 successor be named? Maybe Propholver? Or Polyphet Digital Deluxe? :)
Prophet X line, from a sheer naming perspective, is in pretty good shape (could be Prophet X2, X3, etc).. It's just that the word is that Dave's samplers (however good I'm sure they are) do not appear the be the big seller for the company, so who knows where this will go.
Tempest2, 3, etc. (should they choose to go that route) I don't see a problem there.
Hopefully success of P5/10 leads to successful remakes of Oberheim units, just use the old name.
...One guy's opinion anyway.
-
Technically speaking, the first model of something shouldn't be called a "revision" in the first place. I get there's an historical precedent at Sequential that they're still following, but that aside, the Prophet REV would have been a more eloquent title and made more sense if it wasn't for the aforementioned precedent. That is, unless the '08 PE is considered an official revision, which I'm assuming it's not...
Not that any of this really matters. :P
If I could complicate matters even more, the totality of the OS updates to the Prophet '08 might also have merited being called a revision, even if slight. Whereas the Rev2 has enough changes to it from its predecessor that it could have been called the Prophet '08 Mk II. But "Prophet Rev2" just seems vague and confused to me.
Again, if the name issue becomes a serious problem, Sequential can restart the process all over again with the name "Non Prophet". Then they can re-use all the old numbers. ;D
-
My take:
The name "Prophet '08" probably made sense, and was arguably even clever at the time, because of the voice count and timing of release. And I'm sure it made sense in late 2007 because, who knew how this analog resurgence thing was going to go in the late 2000s when it was conceived? Problem is, the name doesn't scale well to the next revision, something I'm sure Dave was probably cringing over during the naming process for the Rev2.
So, the Prophet Rev2 dropped the year indicator (which is almost certainly a good idea), but made it sort of weird because there was a Prophet 5-Rev2 many decades back, and with voice count not being part of the name (it can't because there is a 8 and 16 voice version), it sort of comes across like the Prophet Rev 2 is *the* Prophet or flagship Prophet synth (when of course it is not).
This also creates a quandry for the Prophet 12, which did choose to include voice count in the name (but becomes a potential source of confusion when you release a Prophet 10 many years later, which is upmarket from the P12).
I'll just say, I don't have all the answers. I understand the challenges that went along with all this.... there's a saying among computer scientists that naming things is the hardest part (often sung in Tom Petty's voice), and I know marketing types like to think they have it all worked out, but after 40 years in technology product engineering, I'm say I'm REALLY glad Sequential is not a marketing-driven company, and it's one of the primary reasons they're still making great products.
In terms of naming Prophet 5 and Prophet 10, things seem to be on the right track to me here... I'm not sure these synths should ever see a "Rev 5", because reissuing vintage gear was their reason for existence.
For future product naming.. questions remain. What should the Prophet 12 successor be named? Maybe Propholver? Or Polyphet Digital Deluxe? :)
Prophet X line, from a sheer naming perspective, is in pretty good shape (could be Prophet X2, X3, etc).. It's just that the word is that Dave's samplers (however good I'm sure they are) do not appear the be the big seller for the company, so who knows where this will go.
Tempest2, 3, etc. (should they choose to go that route) I don't see a problem there.
Hopefully success of P5/10 leads to successful remakes of Oberheim units, just use the old name.
...One guy's opinion anyway.
Unfortunately Gibson didn’t own the Oberheim name when they gave it back to Tom as a “gesture of good will” or whatever it was just them trying to save face from the whole “Play Authentic” PR disaster. So unfortunately I don’t think Tom has the trademark for it. I actually think Uli does from what I’ve read.
As far as the Prophet X goes. Sadly as sentimental as I am about the instrument and as much as I love it, it was likely a disaster for Sequential in terms of sales and 8Dio not pulling their weight with the collaboration. As much as I would love a Prophet XS (Desktop Model) I think Dave is done venturing outside his comfort zone because of the PX and also likely not interested in collaborations on future instruments. I really don’t see Tempest X happening ever.
As far as a P12 successor....I really like Paul Dither’s design for the Sequential Waves
-
As far as the Prophet X goes. Sadly as sentimental as I am about the instrument and as much as I love it, it was likely a disaster for Sequential in terms of sales and 8Dio not pulling their weight with the collaboration.
Sequential really should’ve been more careful on the front end with their dealings with 8dio.... and I lay the blame at the feet of the attorney who negotiated this on behalf of Sequential. Such a deal should have been written with specific performance obligations and penalties for failure to meet those obligations.
-
As far as the Prophet X goes. Sadly as sentimental as I am about the instrument and as much as I love it, it was likely a disaster for Sequential in terms of sales and 8Dio not pulling their weight with the collaboration.
Sequential really should’ve been more careful on the front end with their dealings with 8dio.... and I lay the blame at the feet of the attorney who negotiated this on behalf of Sequential. Such a deal should have been written with specific performance obligations and penalties for failure to meet those obligations.
Agreed. Part of the blame is also on Sequential for really awful demos as well. Gerry Basserman is a super nice dude but he really didn’t appear familiar with the instrument until the PXL rolled along and I think that really hurt the first impression of the instrument for people. Like the Sweetwater demo was embarrassing and even the brief No talking/all playing demo at Kraft music is literally just using synth sounds.
I almost feel Sequential would have been better off partnering with David Rossum.
I actually think they removed the 8Dio logo off of the synth’s front panel now.
-
I actually think they removed the 8Dio logo off of the synth’s front panel now.
They did.
-
As far as the Prophet X goes. Sadly as sentimental as I am about the instrument and as much as I love it, it was likely a disaster for Sequential in terms of sales and 8Dio not pulling their weight with the collaboration.
Sequential really should’ve been more careful on the front end with their dealings with 8dio.... and I lay the blame at the feet of the attorney who negotiated this on behalf of Sequential. Such a deal should have been written with specific performance obligations and penalties for failure to meet those obligations.
My experience with west-coast startup culture has been that sometimes a little too much is done based only on a handshake, not enough Ts crossed and Is dotted. And I can only speculate, but my hunch is that what likely happened here was that (because obligations are usually bilateral), Dave didn't want to be on the hook to pay 8Dio X amount of money over Y amount of years, so he probably just carved out a small royalty for Sequential on each sample pack that's sold. It's not a bad concept, because it incentivizes the content producer to not only produce more content, but to produce quality content that would make customers want to buy more packs. Doing it any other way would just create incentive for the content producer to crank out poor quality content, only to meet their quantity obligation.
The question is, what happens when the primary product doesn't meet certain sales numbers, and the backbone for incentive isn't there for the content producer? I feel this is what happened.
-
Some racket was made about the LFO so far, but I for one like it (& also OSC2 lo freq) a lot better than the ones featured on the P6 and OB-6. You can get some pleasantly broken sounds when combining the shapes and also mixing in noise as a source. The only time I ever used random was at high frequencies to turn it into noise anyhow.
-
As far as the Prophet X goes. Sadly as sentimental as I am about the instrument and as much as I love it, it was likely a disaster for Sequential in terms of sales and 8Dio not pulling their weight with the collaboration.
Sequential really should’ve been more careful on the front end with their dealings with 8dio.... and I lay the blame at the feet of the attorney who negotiated this on behalf of Sequential. Such a deal should have been written with specific performance obligations and penalties for failure to meet those obligations.
My experience with west-coast startup culture has been that sometimes a little too much is done based only on a handshake, not enough Ts crossed and Is dotted. And I can only speculate, but my hunch is that what likely happened here was that (because obligations are usually bilateral), Dave didn't want to be on the hook to pay 8Dio X amount of money over Y amount of years, so he probably just carved out a small royalty for Sequential on each sample pack that's sold. It's not a bad concept, because it incentivizes the content producer to not only produce more content, but to produce quality content that would make customers want to buy more packs. Doing it any other way would just create incentive for the content producer to crank out poor quality content, only to meet their quantity obligation.
The question is, what happens when the primary product doesn't meet certain sales numbers, and the backbone for incentive isn't there for the content producer? I feel this is what happened.
They should have just hired me to demo it lol
-
They should have just hired me to demo it lol
This forum really needs a “like” button.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaTDmYh3Ilo
Could they really sound that different? Or has he done something wrong?
-
Could they really sound that different? Or has he done something wrong?
Initially it just sounded to me like the cutoff wasn't opened enough on the Rev4, but reading the comments it appears to not be the case, and that others are reporting similar issues. Hopefully some sort of early production issue. My other Sequential synths don't sound flat like that Rev4, nor does the Rev4 sound like that in all vids I've seen.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaTDmYh3Ilo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaTDmYh3Ilo)
Could they really sound that different? Or has he done something wrong?
GS has literally exploded over this... My suspicion is that it is either a) a few guys got faulty units, or more likely b) user error.
There are simply too many videos where this thing sounds deadly accurate (Inhalt, J3PO, Matt Johnson, Paul Schilling, James Terris) and guys whose ears I trust saying it is spot on (Matt Johnson and others).
Mine hasn’t shipped yet, but I’m sure as hell not cancelling or reconsidering my pre-order based on this. One of the luxuries of dealing with SW (and some other great retailers out there)... if I don’t like it for any reason, I can send it back. I think I could literally tell my SW guy that it doesn’t smell right, and they’d take it back. So it is zero risk at this point.
-
I didn't want to make anybody overthink his pre-orders. ;-)
It was just the first comparison video to an older P5 I saw and posted it, before watching until the end. I edited my post and added my question then. I think it has to be user error or a faulty unit, too.
-
Could they really sound that different? Or has he done something wrong?
This seems to confirm what I suspected all along (by listening carefully to many demo videos). This new P5 REV4 is not up to the task of matching the sound of an original P5. It seems to be missing the "bite" and "sizzle" of the original.
-
Could they really sound that different? Or has he done something wrong?
This seems to confirm what I suspected all along (by listening carefully to many demo videos). This new P5 REV4 is not up to the task of matching the sound of an original P5. It seems to be missing the "bite" and "sizzle" of the original.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. My Prophet 6 sounds more like the P5-Rev3 than the P5-Rev4 does in that video... hell, my soft synths sound more like a real analog synth than that one does. I think it must be some sort of temporary production problem, hope they can get it worked out quickly. I decided to get a P6 some months back rather than to hold out and see what the new synth announced would be, because I don't like to be an unpaid tester. Prefer to buy after the bugs are worked out.
-
hell, my soft synths sound more like a real analog synth than that one does.
What's your definition of more like "real" analog? I don't have time at the moment to watch the entire vid, but what little I did watch, it sounded like the filter is not opening up all the way on the Rev 4...
-
And here I registered to avoid the noise of the GS thread only to see it has infected this forum... :) Oh well my P10 is due to arrive Wednesday. I will know more then...
-
And here I registered to avoid the noise of the GS thread only to see it has infected this forum... :) Oh well my P10 is due to arrive Wednesday. I will know more then...
Don't worry, that's very rare around here.
-
And here I registered to avoid the noise of the GS thread only to see it has infected this forum... :) Oh well my P10 is due to arrive Wednesday. I will know more then...
It's pretty good over here... more helping, less bitching.
-
And here I registered to avoid the noise of the GS thread only to see it has infected this forum... :) Oh well my P10 is due to arrive Wednesday. I will know more then...
I'm not even a member on GS and read it 3 times in a year at max. Sequential forum is the best synth community out there... at least for my taste.
-
GS is a boil on the ass of music websites.
-
Found this in one of the replies, supposedly from GS:
Update from Dave Smith:
Houston, we have a problem, but we already know the fix: Read yourself:
Prophet 5 / Prophet 10 hardware tweak
"As some users have noticed, there is a drop in high frequencies on the current units in the field. I checked into it yesterday, and I’m highly embarrassed to say that we screwed up. Short story is there are some capacitors that were not meant to be installed, but did in fact get installed, causing the frequency drop.
A fair question would be “how did we not notice this?” This turns out to be due to my ears lacking any high end; too many Yardbirds, Who, Cream etc. concerts in the ‘60s. I picked up serial #1 on October 1st, and it sounded great to me! Since then, we’ve shipped every unit we’ve made because we have a huge backlog. And, with everyone working at home due to the pandemic, no one else played a production unit except me.
Those are just excuses; the real issue is that units in the field need to be corrected. Fortunately, it’s a fairly easy mod if you have access to a soldering iron, or a service center nearby. Two capacitors need to be removed; that’s it.
We will happily swap boards if that is preferred, or swap entire units. We will do whatever is required to make things right.
This affects serial numbers 1 to 195 on Prophet 5s, and 1 to 159 on Prophet 10s.
I owe everyone a deep apology for this; it’s not how we normally work, and I’m really sorry this fell through the cracks. Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
Dave Smith
I would like to also apologize for any inconvenience and frustration this has caused any of you. While yesterday was stressful, hectic, and overwhelming, I'm glad that we could all work together to better qualify the described problem.
Rest assured that we will make sure to make this right at no cost to owners whom purchased any units within the noted serial ranges."
-
Found this in one of the replies, supposedly from GS:
Update from Dave Smith:
Houston, we have a problem, but we already know the fix: Read yourself:
Prophet 5 / Prophet 10 hardware tweak
"As some users have noticed, there is a drop in high frequencies on the current units in the field. I checked into it yesterday, and I’m highly embarrassed to say that we screwed up. Short story is there are some capacitors that were not meant to be installed, but did in fact get installed, causing the frequency drop.
A fair question would be “how did we not notice this?” This turns out to be due to my ears lacking any high end; too many Yardbirds, Who, Cream etc. concerts in the ‘60s. I picked up serial #1 on October 1st, and it sounded great to me! Since then, we’ve shipped every unit we’ve made because we have a huge backlog. And, with everyone working at home due to the pandemic, no one else played a production unit except me.
Those are just excuses; the real issue is that units in the field need to be corrected. Fortunately, it’s a fairly easy mod if you have access to a soldering iron, or a service center nearby. Two capacitors need to be removed; that’s it.
We will happily swap boards if that is preferred, or swap entire units. We will do whatever is required to make things right.
This affects serial numbers 1 to 195 on Prophet 5s, and 1 to 159 on Prophet 10s.
I owe everyone a deep apology for this; it’s not how we normally work, and I’m really sorry this fell through the cracks. Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
Dave Smith
I would like to also apologize for any inconvenience and frustration this has caused any of you. While yesterday was stressful, hectic, and overwhelming, I'm glad that we could all work together to better qualify the described problem.
Rest assured that we will make sure to make this right at no cost to owners whom purchased any units within the noted serial ranges."
Sounds like all will be right with the world.
-
hell, my soft synths sound more like a real analog synth than that one does.
What's your definition of more like "real" analog?
My definition of a real analog synth is... well... an actual analog synthesizer, as opposed to a virtual one.
-
Found this in one of the replies, supposedly from GS:
Update from Dave Smith:
Houston, we have a problem, but we already know the fix: Read yourself:
Prophet 5 / Prophet 10 hardware tweak
"As some users have noticed, there is a drop in high frequencies on the current units in the field. I checked into it yesterday, and I’m highly embarrassed to say that we screwed up. Short story is there are some capacitors that were not meant to be installed, but did in fact get installed, causing the frequency drop.
A fair question would be “how did we not notice this?” This turns out to be due to my ears lacking any high end; too many Yardbirds, Who, Cream etc. concerts in the ‘60s. I picked up serial #1 on October 1st, and it sounded great to me! Since then, we’ve shipped every unit we’ve made because we have a huge backlog. And, with everyone working at home due to the pandemic, no one else played a production unit except me.
Those are just excuses; the real issue is that units in the field need to be corrected. Fortunately, it’s a fairly easy mod if you have access to a soldering iron, or a service center nearby. Two capacitors need to be removed; that’s it.
We will happily swap boards if that is preferred, or swap entire units. We will do whatever is required to make things right.
This affects serial numbers 1 to 195 on Prophet 5s, and 1 to 159 on Prophet 10s.
I owe everyone a deep apology for this; it’s not how we normally work, and I’m really sorry this fell through the cracks. Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
Dave Smith
I would like to also apologize for any inconvenience and frustration this has caused any of you. While yesterday was stressful, hectic, and overwhelming, I'm glad that we could all work together to better qualify the described problem.
Rest assured that we will make sure to make this right at no cost to owners whom purchased any units within the noted serial ranges."
Sounds like all will be right with the world.
Great follow up from a great company. What I want to know is, how many of those existing videos where it already sounds great is one of the affected units? I assume since the issue was just discovered, it has to be all of them (minus pre-production units)? If they sound that good now I can only imagine once repaired or replaced.
-
The fix is not going to make them more analog (by your very definition in fact) or (for others) make up in some perceived lack of bottom end.
Edit: I don't mean to come off rude here, but that's what I'd expect given the statement and what little I watched of the comparison video.
-
The fix is not going to make them more analog (by your very definition in fact) or (for others) make up in some perceived lack of bottom end.
Edit: I don't mean to come off rude here, but that's what I'd expect given the statement and what little I watched of the comparison video.
Doesn't seem rude... Exceedingly non-sequitur given that all I actually said was that the broken Rev4 sounded like a soft synth to me... but not rude. I think you confused what I said with some sort of debate over "what real analog is", and that has nothing to do with my comment.
-
Found this in one of the replies, supposedly from GS:
Update from Dave Smith:
Houston, we have a problem, but we already know the fix: Read yourself:
Prophet 5 / Prophet 10 hardware tweak
"As some users have noticed, there is a drop in high frequencies on the current units in the field. I checked into it yesterday, and I’m highly embarrassed to say that we screwed up. Short story is there are some capacitors that were not meant to be installed, but did in fact get installed, causing the frequency drop.
A fair question would be “how did we not notice this?” This turns out to be due to my ears lacking any high end; too many Yardbirds, Who, Cream etc. concerts in the ‘60s. I picked up serial #1 on October 1st, and it sounded great to me! Since then, we’ve shipped every unit we’ve made because we have a huge backlog. And, with everyone working at home due to the pandemic, no one else played a production unit except me.
Those are just excuses; the real issue is that units in the field need to be corrected. Fortunately, it’s a fairly easy mod if you have access to a soldering iron, or a service center nearby. Two capacitors need to be removed; that’s it.
We will happily swap boards if that is preferred, or swap entire units. We will do whatever is required to make things right.
This affects serial numbers 1 to 195 on Prophet 5s, and 1 to 159 on Prophet 10s.
I owe everyone a deep apology for this; it’s not how we normally work, and I’m really sorry this fell through the cracks. Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
Dave Smith
I would like to also apologize for any inconvenience and frustration this has caused any of you. While yesterday was stressful, hectic, and overwhelming, I'm glad that we could all work together to better qualify the described problem.
Rest assured that we will make sure to make this right at no cost to owners whom purchased any units within the noted serial ranges."
This may not be enough for some P5/10 owners, but it's the definition of transparency. Dave made an honest mistake. Take it or leave it.
-
. I think you confused what I said with some sort of debate over "what real analog is", and that has nothing to do with my comment.
Actually, you were the one who turned it into that. Admittedly I only watched the first patch comparison up to the filters being fully opened. Silly me, I didn't realize the unit was actually "broken" and sounded less like real analog than a soft synth... Here I thought it had to do with the two capacitors... ;)
-
This forum really needs a “like” button.
Damn it!... had to actually reply to LIKE your comment!! I've been thinking the same for years. Having emotes really does improve forum engagement - makes people more interested in posting content (as they're more likely to receive positive feedback) and in general it improves positivity and forum growth.
Would be awesome to switch over to Xenforo forums. It's such a great forum system... nice looking skins good navigation and UI, waaaay better search functionality, like/love/haha/sad/angry emotes, great composition tools, etc...
https://xenforo.com/solutions/#xf
Fractal Audio uses Xenforo... It's the best run / most active / positive forum out there.
... I'd even be willing to help set it up if there's interest ...
-
Fractal Audio uses Xenforo... It's the best run / most active / positive forum out there.
Absolutely love the Fractal forum (guitar gear for you synth heads who aren’t hip).
Intelligent, helpful... less snarky.
But this forum has great folks too... it just needs a “like” button. I agree about not having the “like” button encourages discourse... but sometimes you just want to give a post a quick “yeah, mate”!
-
Could there be those two same capacitors in my Prophet REV 2 that I could remove to get a better high-frequency response? Because compared to my OB6, the sawtooth waveform on my REV2 sounds somewhat dull, much like the new "faulty" P5 REV4.
(one can always dream...)
-
. I think you confused what I said with some sort of debate over "what real analog is", and that has nothing to do with my comment.
Actually, you were the one who turned it into that. Admittedly I only watched the first patch comparison up to the filters being fully opened. Silly me, I didn't realize the unit was actually "broken" and sounded less like real analog than a soft synth... Here I thought it had to do with the two capacitors... ;)
You don't feel that adding two unintentional capacitors on the assembly line "breaks" the intended functionality of a synth? Interesting.... Dave and crew apparently does. ;)
For sake of not beating a dead horse, perhaps we can try replacing the word "broken" with "defective", to see if it adds clarity. For the (easily confirmed) record, my point was only that to my ears, the "defective" Rev4, or "that Rev4 which was produced with an overabundance of unnecessary parts" sounded like a soft synth to me. Anyone is free to go back and read my message and confirm I didn't try to dip a toe in philosophical discussions about what constitutes real analog. I think you'd really enjoy some of the endless pedantic debates that take place on the GS forums. Me I have a very limited "filter" (no extra charge for pun) on how much time I'm willing to waste on those, so you probably won't find what you're fishing for here with me.
-
Anyone is free to go back and read my message and confirm I didn't try to dip a toe in philosophical discussions about what constitutes real analog. I think you'd really enjoy some of the endless pedantic debates that take place on the GS forums. Me I have a very limited "filter" (no extra charge for pun) on how much time I'm willing to waste on those, so you probably won't find what you're fishing for here with me.
I think you confused what I said with some sort of debate when you decided to take the original comment out of context by focusing only on the first sentence. You've been mulling about whether or not to pick one up ... my point is maybe the P5/P10 fundamentally won't live up to your standards even when the fix comes, which ended up being the needed removal of two capacitors that were resulting in a drop in high frequencies.
-
Anyone is free to go back and read my message and confirm I didn't try to dip a toe in philosophical discussions about what constitutes real analog. I think you'd really enjoy some of the endless pedantic debates that take place on the GS forums. Me I have a very limited "filter" (no extra charge for pun) on how much time I'm willing to waste on those, so you probably won't find what you're fishing for here with me.
I think you confused what I said with some sort of debate when you decided to take the original comment out of context by focusing only on the first sentence. You've been mulling about whether or not to pick one up ... my point is maybe the P5/P10 fundamentally won't live up to your standards even when the fix comes, which ended up being the needed removal of two capacitors that were resulting in a drop in high frequencies.
But I haven't been mulling whether to pick one up. Since before it was announced what the Rev4 was going to be (and was an unannounced product), I mentioned in a couple of posts (such as this one https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,4499.msg45879.html#msg45879 (https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,4499.msg45879.html#msg45879)) that I decided to go ahead and buy a Prophet 6, because of the risks of early adoption of any new synth. When it was announced that the new synth was a P5 reissue, I also stated I would get one. So it's not a matter of if I will get a Rev4, it's just a question of when, and whether I get a P5 or P10 (which for the time being looks like a P10). What I am also mulling is whether I want to buy a P10 (as opposed to a P5) without knowing whether a voice count limiter feature will be added, because the stealing of the sixth note is a feature I desire.. I do however also like the flexibility of a higher voice count such as 6 or 8 voices, and as long as they are configurable the option for more is nice too. And unfortunately since the discussion thread I started around it was locked shortly after I posted it, we may not have a reasonable gauge of what the overall demand for that feature will be (not that it matters, as Dave has said that he thinks forums are a terrible place to collect customer feedback).
So, because of the uncertainty around the voice count limiter and early manufacturing issues, my purchase has been delayed, but at this point is not at all in question with regard to whether it will eventually happen or not.
One thing is for sure, forum discussions can certaintly lead to miscommunications, so hopefully I've clarified things here.
-
I have a Prophet 6 and had a Prologue 16. The Prologue 16 had an incredible months long tuning issue some time ago, and the actual Korg Japan management had executed appalling silence silent about the issue back then for many months, until they finally acknowledged it. Even then they did not commit to a fast solution, nor named a rough time frame for fixing. I sold my Prologue some days ago, for this and other reasons, and will definitely consider the new Prophet 5, now that the darkened sound issue is found and fixed.
I always wanted a Prophet 5 in good condition and really like the straightforward way of Dave's acknowledging a problem and taking full responsibility with a fast fix. I am also extremely satisfied with how useful the Prophet 6 has been for me. One thing I would love to hear before a final decision on any Prophet 5 buy though, are sound demos from fixed (or later) Prophet 5 units without the issue (audio files or Youtube sound demos).
-
Comparison after the fix:
https://youtu.be/6tsV0eVijYY
-
Am I the only person who is worried about the seemingly lack of quality control here with this release? I've held off from getting a ProphetX due to a seeing quite a few issues involving units being bricked during updates etc and now a whole batch of the new synth has gone out with this problem.
-
https://www.sequential.com/note-dave-concerning-encoder-issues/
https://forum.sequential.com/index.php?topic=1573.
No. Frankly these sort of things happen all the time, especially with early batches and boutique companies. Not to mention we're currently going through a pandemic... It's how they respond that matters.
-
That's all well and good but it's no fun being this side of the Atlantic and being faced with having to return an expensive item. I also wouldn't expect to have to get a soldering iron out to repair a brand new item.
Anyway I've said my piece, I don't want to cause an argument or major diplomatic issue so I won't go on about it :)
I still want to buy every synth Dave makes every time I hear him speak about them!!!
-
Am I the only person who is worried about the seemingly lack of quality control here with this release? I've held off from getting a ProphetX due to a seeing quite a few issues involving units being bricked during updates etc and now a whole batch of the new synth has gone out with this problem.
Whatever may be the case, it can all be avoided by never buying any instrument that has a low serial number. Folks have such urgent GAS problems that they don't temper their desires with prudence. Very simply, buy an instrument only after the main problems have been found and fixed, even if it takes a year or two.
-
Am I the only person who is worried about the seemingly lack of quality control here with this release? I've held off from getting a ProphetX due to a seeing quite a few issues involving units being bricked during updates etc and now a whole batch of the new synth has gone out with this problem.
Sequential, formerly DSI, is a small company, with limited resources and staff. And despite having had some early problems with my Prophet REV2, I must say that the dedication of the support team in resolving potential issues for customers is top-notch. Even if their quality control is perhaps not always the case. And with this virus thing, it most probably complicates things a bit.
If this new P5 was really a faithful clone of the original circuits, I wouldn't hesistate to get one. But this "reworked" and "revised" board doesn't inspire me confidence.
My big question is this: why would any electronics engineer at Sequential decide to put unnecessary capacitors to dull out the sound on the PCB to begin with? What were they supposed to try to filter/mask out?
-
If this new P5 was really a faithful clone of the original circuits, I wouldn't hesistate to get one. But this "reworked" and "revised" board doesn't inspire me confidence.
Do you mean the revised board in the most recent video Paul Dither posted doesn't sound enough like the vintage P5 to you? Or do you just mean from a quality perspective?
My big question is this: why would any electronics engineer at Sequential decide to put unnecessary capacitors to dull out the sound on the PCB to begin with? What were they supposed to try to filter/mask out?
I wondered the same thing. The facetious side of me wanted to believe that they secretly were planning to sell a lesser quality board to Berhringer for the discount market, and someone at manufacturing got the two board versions confused :)
-
Do you mean the revised board in the most recent video Paul Dither posted doesn't sound enough like the vintage P5 to you? Or do you just mean from a quality perspective?
I mean from a technical standpoint. A clone is a clone. Anything else is just a diluted copy.
...The facetious side of me wanted to believe that they secretly were planning to sell a lesser quality board to Berhringer for the discount market, and someone at manufacturing got the two board versions confused
That's a good one! ;D
-
If this new P5 was really a faithful clone of the original circuits, I wouldn't hesistate to get one. But this "reworked" and "revised" board doesn't inspire me confidence.
Do you mean the revised board in the most recent video Paul Dither posted doesn't sound enough like the vintage P5 to you? Or do you just mean from a quality perspective?
My big question is this: why would any electronics engineer at Sequential decide to put unnecessary capacitors to dull out the sound on the PCB to begin with? What were they supposed to try to filter/mask out?
I wondered the same thing. The facetious side of me wanted to believe that they secretly were planning to sell a lesser quality board to Berhringer for the discount market, and someone at manufacturing got the two board versions confused :)
Brings up a good point. If Sequential trademarked the new Prophet-5/10....could Uli even still do a clone?
-
Brings up a good point. If Sequential trademarked the new Prophet-5/10....could Uli even still do a clone?
Obviously, he cannot clone this new P5 rev 4. But I think he could perhaps clone the original P5 up to rev 3?
-
(https://forum.sequential.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4668.0;attach=3126;image)
;D
-
If this new P5 was really a faithful clone of the original circuits, I wouldn't hesistate to get one. But this "reworked" and "revised" board doesn't inspire me confidence.
Do you mean the revised board in the most recent video Paul Dither posted doesn't sound enough like the vintage P5 to you? Or do you just mean from a quality perspective?
My big question is this: why would any electronics engineer at Sequential decide to put unnecessary capacitors to dull out the sound on the PCB to begin with? What were they supposed to try to filter/mask out?
I wondered the same thing. The facetious side of me wanted to believe that they secretly were planning to sell a lesser quality board to Berhringer for the discount market, and someone at manufacturing got the two board versions confused :)
Brings up a good point. If Sequential trademarked the new Prophet-5/10....could Uli even still do a clone?
The trademark would only cover the actual name Prophet 5, etc., meaning as long as it's labeled something slightly different (for example the UBXa versus OBXa), to the best of my knowledge, it's all fair game. If the P5 did something specific that is a clearly defined proprietary invention, that invention could be patented.
For example, when Bob Moog started out, he only patented the ladder filter -- because it was the only thing he believed could be reasonably claimed/defended as invented by him (and of course that patent has expired, as all patents eventually do). Everything else he was doing with electronics was fair game, that someone else was already doing (or at least that's what he believed at the time).
-
Just learned that my P5 may ship Nov. 6th. Somebody is giddy!
https://youtu.be/jAvD3r9obKs
-
Just learned that my P5 may ship Nov. 6th. Somebody is giddy!
Great news! I'm excited for you.
-
So after removing the redundant parts, will the updated Rev4 be a little cheaper then? ;D
-
So after removing the redundant parts, will the updated Rev4 be a little cheaper then? ;D
Sure thing.
2 * $0.00878 = $0.01756 cheaper:
https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/kemet/C0402C152K5RACTU/411031?s=N4IgTCBcDaIAQGEAMAWJYEEYCsYDS2ASgIIIAqAqnCALoC%2BQA (https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/kemet/C0402C152K5RACTU/411031?s=N4IgTCBcDaIAQGEAMAWJYEEYCsYDS2ASgIIIAqAqnCALoC%2BQA)
;)
-
I've always been curious to know how companies like Sequential, and Moog Music, set their selling price point for a given item? :o
-
I've always been curious to know how companies like Sequential, and Moog Music, set their selling price point for a given item? :o
Somewhere between market value and [the cost of production + the cost of business (employees, property leasing, taxes, etc.)]
-
I've always been curious to know how companies like Sequential, and Moog Music, set their selling price point for a given item? :o
I doubt that it is overly complex. Figure out the cost of the parts and the labor and expected support costs and then factor in the R&D costs and add a bit to try to make a small profit. I have a hard time imagining anyone at sequential is getting rich on this (although I do hope that Dave himself is doing really well). Even if the profit on a Prophet (sorry) is 50% of total selling price, there isn’t a whole lot of money to spread around after that considering the relatively low volume.
I think that the selling price is a screaming deal (for those of us purchasing these) and quite a bit below the true value. For example, the R&D costs are probably way undervalued (total uneducated and baseless guess on my part); I bet that Dave Smith spent many hours working on this that are not factored into the true cost. I also think that those of us buying these instruments have a somewhat warped sense of value because of mass produced items such as phones, which are absolute marvels of technology but assembled by workers who don’t get a terribly good paycheck.
But, boy oh boy, I really do want a P5. I am super happy that companies like Sequential exist and make these types of wonderful instruments.
-
After carefully re-watching the P5 rev4 (capacitors removed) versus P5 vintage video posted earlier here, I'm still not convinced that this new P5 is matching the venerable P5 in timbre on identical patches. I could easily afford it but, no sale for me. Sorry. I want the punch, sizzle, and bite of the original, which is unfortunately missing from this latest revision. I certainly looks the part, but not the content.
-
After carefully re-watching the P5 rev4 (capacitors removed) versus P5 vintage video posted earlier here, I'm still not convinced that this new P5 is matching the venerable P5 in timbre on identical patches. I could easily afford it but, no sale for me. Sorry. I want the punch, sizzle, and bite of the original, which is unfortunately missing from this latest revision. I certainly looks the part, but not the content.
Hehe. Sounds like a future P5 owner putting off the inevitable. ;)
-
After carefully re-watching the P5 rev4 (capacitors removed) versus P5 vintage video posted earlier here, I'm still not convinced that this new P5 is matching the venerable P5 in timbre on identical patches. I could easily afford it but, no sale for me. Sorry. I want the punch, sizzle, and bite of the original, which is unfortunately missing from this latest revision. I certainly looks the part, but not the content.
Someone from Sequential stated that his Rev 3 (which the owner admitted to having serviced by a 3rd party) was noticeably brighter than the several Vintage Rev 3s they used when developing the Rev 4.
At any rate, I see no reason to accept his particular Rev 3 is the “gold standard”. Especially when I hear Rev 4 demos that sound phenomenal.
-
Someone from Sequential stated that his Rev 3 (which the owner admitted to having serviced by a 3rd party) was noticeably brighter than the several Vintage Rev 3s they used when developing the Rev 4.
Well, I guess my Prophet 5 rev 3 that I had back in 2009 must have been "noticeably brighter" too! ::)
-
For me, if you like the sound of the synth and it does everything you want it to then it doesn't matter if there are miniscule differences in sound. I know we're all different and all have different hearing and likes and dislikes so everyone has to decide for themselves.
In my case, I get that certain tingle when I hear a synth that I like :) Actually the Moog Matriarch gave me that feeling straight away but I've not bought it due to me being too lazy to play about with patching and then not being able to save my patch in memory.
-
This is the trap that a company will fall into if it persists in releasing re-issues: the product will be judged, not by a standard of quality, but by a standard of comparison. There's a happy freedom in creating only newly designed instruments, and equally in buying them. No nagging references to the past.
-
Someone from Sequential stated that his Rev 3 (which the owner admitted to having serviced by a 3rd party) was noticeably brighter than the several Vintage Rev 3s they used when developing the Rev 4.
Well, I guess my Prophet 5 rev 3 that I had back in 2009 must have been "noticeably brighter" too! ::)
That is very easily possible. I think people are underestimating the degree of variance between individual examples of these vintage synths. Especially once you through into the mix decades of maintenance (or the lack thereof) by 3rd parties having wildly varying levels of expertise in maintaining vintage synths.
... and I'm certainly not talking down any of these synths... if it sounds good to you, that is all that matters. My point was simply that I just don't think any one Prophet 5 can be said to be the standard ...
-
This is the trap that a company will fall into if it persists in releasing re-issues: the product will be judged, not by a standard of quality, but by a standard of comparison. There's a happy freedom in creating only newly designed instruments, and equally in buying them. No nagging references to the past.
Well said.
-
This is the trap that a company will fall into if it persists in releasing re-issues: the product will be judged, not by a standard of quality, but by a standard of comparison. There's a happy freedom in creating only newly designed instruments, and equally in buying them. No nagging references to the past.
Well said.
This is why I hope they don’t even entertain the idea of it. It’s pointless because no one will ever be happy with it. It’s a dangerous trap to fall into.
-
This is the trap that a company will fall into if it persists in releasing re-issues: the product will be judged, not by a standard of quality, but by a standard of comparison. There's a happy freedom in creating only newly designed instruments, and equally in buying them. No nagging references to the past.
Well said.
This is why I hope they don’t even entertain the idea of it. It’s pointless because no one will ever be happy with it. It’s a dangerous trap to fall into.
I do believe this is the case. The harder companies try, the more people get frustrated at the lack of a perfect match between the sound of the old and that of the new. YouTube video comments are full of such complaints.
When the Prophet '08 first came out in 2007, there were endless complaints that it didn't sound enough like the Prophet 5. It was presumed that such was the only standard by which the instrument should be judged. I personally didn't care because I had never played a P5. And now I'm thankful for it, for not carrying such a burden, because it demonstrably spoils one's enjoyment of excellent modern instruments.
-
This is the trap that a company will fall into if it persists in releasing re-issues: the product will be judged, not by a standard of quality, but by a standard of comparison. There's a happy freedom in creating only newly designed instruments, and equally in buying them. No nagging references to the past.
Well said.
This is why I hope they don’t even entertain the idea of it. It’s pointless because no one will ever be happy with it. It’s a dangerous trap to fall into.
I do believe this is the case. The harder companies try, the more people get frustrated at the lack of a perfect match between the sound of the old and that of the new. YouTube video comments are full of such complaints.
When the Prophet '08 first came out in 2007, there were endless complaints that it didn't sound enough like the Prophet 5. It was presumed that such was the only standard by which the instrument must be judged. I personally didn't care because I had never played a P5. And now I'm thankful for it, for not carrying such a burden, because it demonstrably spoils one's enjoyment of excellent modern instruments.
Was just saying earlier in another thread I don’t even think it’s about the sound it’s about the status. I fell into that for a while with guitars and amps but eventually after so many mishaps on stage and so many disasters on eBay I really couldn’t care when something was made or if so and so played it...I just want it to sound good and be reliable.
-
What's the difference between the Prophet 5 reissue and the Prophet 6?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnWUHld91Ko
J3PO (unwrapped via www.matrixsynth.com)
"In this video, we take a deep dive into the key differences between the Sequential Prophet 5/Prophet 10 (Rev 4) Reissue and the Sequential Prophet 6. This video focuses on the sound and functionality of the two synthesizers; where they differ and where they overlap.
Chapters:
00:12 - Introduction
00:58 - Part 1: Prophet 6 "main" differences
04:03 - Part 2: Prophet 5/10 "main" differences
06:48 - Part 3: "direct" sound comparisons (similar patches)
27:17 - Part 4: patches that begin to reveal inherent differences
32:44 - Part 5: Prophet 6 "unique" patches
39:31 - Part 6: Prophet 5/10 patches, demonstrating raw "tone" & "timbre"
48:55 - Part 7: Conclusion and Final Thoughts
The two synthesizers were recorded directly into Pro Tools at 48khz with Universal Audio Apollo preamps. No external FX were used in the recording of the sounds unless where noted in the video. The two synths were leveled in terms of gain as carefully as possible to create the most unbiased listening environment.
Three things to note when viewing this video:
1. I use the terms "Prophet 5" and "Prophet 10" interchangeably, as the only difference between the two synths is that the Prophet 10 has five additional voices.
1. Though I contributed to some of the "factory" presets for the Sequential Prophet 5/10 (rev 4), we are not comparing "factory" presets in this video. I have crafted all the presets in this presentation to show you as carefully as possible how similar the synths can sound, and how vastly different they can sound.
2. We will not be discussing any of the technicalities of "what's under the heard" in terms of components, but rather, focusing on sound and functionality, and the experience. For technical information, please visit www.sequential.com."
-
I have a Prophet 6 and had a Prologue 16. The Prologue 16 had an incredible months long tuning issue some time ago, and the actual Korg Japan management had executed appalling silence silent about the issue back then for many months, until they finally acknowledged it. Even then they did not commit to a fast solution, nor named a rough time frame for fixing. I sold my Prologue some days ago, for this and other reasons, and will definitely consider the new Prophet 5, now that the darkened sound issue is found and fixed.
I always wanted a Prophet 5 in good condition and really like the straightforward way of Dave's acknowledging a problem and taking full responsibility with a fast fix. I am also extremely satisfied with how useful the Prophet 6 has been for me. One thing I would love to hear before a final decision on any Prophet 5 buy though, are sound demos from fixed (or later) Prophet 5 units without the issue (audio files or Youtube sound demos).
The Prologue is definitely rock solid now (via firmware update which was simple), though it did do a number on their rep but it's a great synthesizer for a great price. I have a Prologue 16 and absolutely love it, it's so musical and beautifully built and very unique sounds are available that don't rely on modulation to dress up basic sound but the core tone and VCOs themselves are very textured (and the filter is kinda unique sounding too).
I also like that the Prologue 16, like the Prophet 5/10 REV 4 has 'full sized' knobs with a nice granular turning circle vs the Prophet 6, and 5 octaves of course (though the Prologue has metal pot caps and pot shafts which is super high quality and the sequentials I've owned were all plastic on those parts :/). I think the fact I could coax (non bandpass) OB-6 sounds from my Prologue 16 and like them just as much, and also coax P6's sounds from it but like them better than the P6 - then it also does japanese jupiter/juno/polysix/ms20 ish stuff too makes it a much nicer team-mate with my future Prophet 10 than a Prophet 6 (waaaaaaaay too much character overlap + downsides I didn't like in the P6's tone anyway) or even the OB-6 would.
I had a Prophet 6 for a good while but was never convinced by it, as much as some 'prophet aspects' of its operation appealed, it didn't feel or sound like the real deal unlike the new REV 4s. I also owned and loved the OB-6 but with the 4 octave thing, (my) personal underuse of the notch filter and using it for the same kinda sounds over and over and all of them having that same obie rasp, I sold them both without regret. The Prologue is very unique but far less restrained/pigeon holed than the P6/OB-6 was... and now I have that freedom of tone (and 16 voice poly with layering) I can look at a more basic but raw synth like Prophet 10 rev 4 with renewed interest.
Weirdly it's by having a Prologue 16 I can now see where a Prophet 10 could fit in with it, before.. the options being basically P6/ob-6 both felt underwhelming after the sparkle, depth and solid low end power of the Prologue 16 (which is a highly under-rated synth btw - def don't judge on videos/presets), FTR I've not yet heard a better BASS sound on a poly than the Prologue in mono mode with voice depth turned up to add an analog sub. It's way beefier and aggressive than the P6 or Ob-6 were (and they were pretty cool themselves).
I am eyeing up an Prophet 10 and plan to get one, but I'll be keeping the Prologue 16 for sure. Both different sounds (Jap vs US - 12db vs 24 db) but both high quality, 5 octave, high poly genuine VCO synths. I preferred the Prologue to the OB-6 and Prophet 6 I had previously too in many ways and think it'll make a good 'proxy jupiter 8 - and more' companion to the Prophet 10 in my modern classic legend combo of P5+JP8 stand ins! :)
-
I'd be very interested to hear an audio comparison between the Prophet-6 and the new Prophet-5/10, with each of them exerting their old school analog best.
I bet Starsky Carr is setting up his lighting as we speak :)
He's just got his Prophet 5 and here's his first video, but he does mention he'll be doing comparisons :)
https://youtu.be/fnfrW6avujU
-
"And let's not overlook the fact that the "Golden Age of Analog" coincided with the golden age of progressive rock, when remarkable musicians produced remarkable music on - by modern standards - unremarkable instruments. Look at what Tony Banks achieved with an ARP Pro Soloist, an instrument that would be regarded as a silly little toy by a modern synthesist."
Lifelong Yes fan here, this is so true, and I have a Model D, what Yes was able to achieve before MIDI is amazing.
-
https://youtu.be/E4cUF0p5M4g
-
My P10 just shipped from Sweetwater, all praise the gods!