The Official Sequential/Oberheim Forum
SEQUENTIAL/DSI => Prophet => Sequential Prophet-6 => Topic started by: Check Mate on October 02, 2020, 10:22:25 AM
-
First of all congratulations on the Prophet-5 reissue! I'm happy for everyone who wants- or will be able to buy it!
Pym already mentioned that it might be possible to alter the function of the "slop" parameter in the Prophet-6 / OB-6 to make it closer to the "vintage" knob on the new Prophet-5.
If things have settled and you @Sequential find some time to look into ist I think this would be more than awesome and I opened this thread for other P6/OB6 users to express their agreements.
I think I'd even be willing to pay for it.
Keep it going guys and gals, you're awesome!!
-
I think this is a good idea, if it's possible to change the behavior of the "slop" knob. But i think we need a function switch between "slop" and "vintage". Otherwise all presets with "slop" will not sound correct.
-
First of all congratulations on the Prophet-5 reissue! I'm happy for everyone who wants- or will be able to buy it!
Pym already mentioned that it might be possible to alter the function of the "slop" parameter in the Prophet-6 / OB-6 to make it closer to the "vintage" knob on the new Prophet-5.
If things have settled and you @Sequential find some time to look into ist I think this would be more than awesome and I opened this thread for other P6/OB6 users to express their agreements.
I think I'd even be willing to pay for it.
Keep it going guys and gals, you're awesome!!
I'd not heard about the possibility of a Slop tweak, but I'm all for it. While the P5 has that undeniable "beautiful blur," the oscs on the P6 seem to remain too At Attention. Slop, to my ear, only pulls the oscs apart, it doesn't meanwhile fill in the gaps with glue as you'd hear on the 5.
-
Yes congrats on the new prophet5 release! Amazing! Please don't forget about us prophet6 owners though and look into adding this function for us as well!
-
Pym already mentioned that it might be possible to alter the function of the "slop" parameter in the Prophet-6 / OB-6 to make it closer to the "vintage" knob on the new Prophet-5.
If things have settled and you @Sequential find some time to look into ist I think this would be more than awesome and I opened this thread for other P6/OB6 users to express their agreements.
I think I'd even be willing to pay for it.
I agree (for OB-6). Paying a little extra for it (like 50$) would also be ok.
-
Pym already mentioned that it might be possible to alter the function of the "slop" parameter in the Prophet-6 / OB-6 to make it closer to the "vintage" knob on the new Prophet-5.
If things have settled and you @Sequential find some time to look into ist I think this would be more than awesome and I opened this thread for other P6/OB6 users to express their agreements.
I think I'd even be willing to pay for it.
I hope not. The slop parameter is already incorporated into half of the patches on both synths. To change it would ruin them all.
I'm not being disagreeable, just practical.
-
I would really welcome an option to have the new vintage circuitry replace the slop algorithm on both my P6 and OB-6. This would be immensely appreciated! Charge whatever you like, I would be first in line!
-
Maybe it would be possible to have an optional firmware where interested users pay a small fee to get it?
Or make the function switchable in the globals menu (i.e. 2-9)?
-
Pym already mentioned that it might be possible to alter the function of the "slop" parameter in the Prophet-6 / OB-6 to make it closer to the "vintage" knob on the new Prophet-5.
If things have settled and you @Sequential find some time to look into ist I think this would be more than awesome and I opened this thread for other P6/OB6 users to express their agreements.
I think I'd even be willing to pay for it.
I hope not. The slop parameter is already incorporated into half of the patches on both synths. To change it would ruin them all.
I'm not being disagreeable, just practical.
I’m sure they’d take that into consideration when implementing it and have it as a switchable mode global or per-preset mode.
-
I would very much love this.. even just having it affect the envelopes would be huge from what I understand.. I can make new patches and tweak old ones, no big deal..
-
I´d also be in for an update for the slope knob. i only find it musical useful until maybe 12 o´clock,
beyond that it feels way out of tune. and of course integrating envelopes (and whatever else is possible) to be
different between the voices.. would be absolutely wonderful!
-
If the vintage knob function is possible to implement in the P6/OB6 i would get a heart attack if they actually add it. I would love it! BALL IS IN YOUR COURT SEQUENTIAL!
-
I created an account just to say that as a Prophet 6, OB-6 owner, I am in favor of this as well. It would be great to have the option to switch between the two, but even if it wasn't possible, I wouldn't mind, especially if it's possible to switch back to the older firmware (for gigs where I need presets that I haven't updated).
I personally don't think it takes anything away from the Prophet 5, which sets itself apart with it's filters and keyboard. It would be great to bring the digital side of the Prophet and OB-6 more in line with the vintage synths. I love both of those synths, as modern synths, but the ability to more easily bring in the 70s/80s soundtrack sounds would be fantastic.
-
Vintage knob addition to P6 / OB-6 would be great if it doesn't impact current patches. I'd be more than happy to pay a reasonable fee for optional OS upgrades, and would never expect Sequential to invest the resources to develop and test this sort of thing and just eat the cost on products which are already past their peak sales cycle.
-
YESSS please!!! I have the p6 and OB-6 and have always thought this would make them complete! Having some envelope slop/voice mismatching would make these instruments the most perfect they can be. It could even be added in the global parameters just like the alternate tunings. I would even be happy with an "on/off" global parameter, "on" could be around "2" on the vintage knob. I would pay for this as well!!!
-
Since having the slop @ 50% and above induces sea sickness, it would be nice if any future upgrade (however unlikely) used the last 64 steps of the Slop knob for Vintage.
That way, existing presets could still use slop at 0%-50% and be thresholded at 50%. Only those presets with extreme Slop would be less... sloppy.
Then if you turn the slop knob to 51%, we'll you're 1% into the vintage realm.
Or, to make it less discontinuous, value of 50% to 100% of the Slop knob are actually 50% to 0% Vintage (reverse direction)
That way crossing over from 50% slop to 50% vintage is a bit smoother. The algorithm would be discontinuous, but the resulting effect would be equally as deep - just derived from a different vector.
That creates a gradient of the slop knob like this:
clean -> mild slop -> pretty sloppy -> very sloppy -> very vintage -> pretty vintage -> mild vintage -> barely vintage
Almost like a PWN knob for slop/vintage!
That would be killer. I would pay for an upgrade to that. And it makes it easier for people to choose to try the new firmware because they'd feel like it was the "best of both worlds"
I think this is a good idea, if it's possible to change the behavior of the "slop" knob. But i think we need a function switch between "slop" and "vintage". Otherwise all presets with "slop" will not sound correct.
-
<snip> ... it would be nice if any future upgrade (however unlikely) used the last 64 steps of the Slop knob for Vintage.
<snip>
Then if you turn the slop knob to 51%, we'll you're 1% into the vintage realm.
Or, to make it less discontinuous, value of 50% to 100% of the Slop knob are actually 50% to 0% Vintage (reverse direction)
<snip>
clean -> mild slop -> pretty sloppy -> very sloppy -> very vintage -> pretty vintage -> mild vintage -> barely vintage
@blewis: That is a great proposal. I think it would be a really good way to add this functionality. And I am one to pile on with the “I would pay for this type of upgrade” me too comment. Definitely would be worth some dollars.
From a practical software dev standpoint, I have a hard time imagining that a “pay for upgrade” approach would work that well for a small development team if the free upgrade path is also maintained. It would mean you would need two branches of the source code that have be maintained with some features merged into both. It is certainly possible but it vastly increases the testing footprint and release complexity. But maybe the team already has this kind of thing setup and working. It would be a super nice addition!
-
Yes pleaaase! That would be incredible!
-
I agree with you Mark, I think it would be quite tricky for them to charge for it, maintain it, and it’s really not their style.
But somehow I wanted to communicate that it would be worth something to us and that I’d be willing to pay for it.
From a practical software dev standpoint, I have a hard time imagining that a “pay for upgrade” approach would work that well for a small development team if the free upgrade path is also maintained.
-
<snip> ... it would be nice if any future upgrade (however unlikely) used the last 64 steps of the Slop knob for Vintage.
<snip>
Then if you turn the slop knob to 51%, we'll you're 1% into the vintage realm.
Or, to make it less discontinuous, value of 50% to 100% of the Slop knob are actually 50% to 0% Vintage (reverse direction)
<snip>
clean -> mild slop -> pretty sloppy -> very sloppy -> very vintage -> pretty vintage -> mild vintage -> barely vintage
@blewis: That is a great proposal. I think it would be a really good way to add this functionality. And I am one to pile on with the “I would pay for this type of upgrade” me too comment. Definitely would be worth some dollars.
From a practical software dev standpoint, I have a hard time imagining that a “pay for upgrade” approach would work that well for a small development team if the free upgrade path is also maintained. It would mean you would need two branches of the source code that have be maintained with some features merged into both. It is certainly possible but it vastly increases the testing footprint and release complexity. But maybe the team already has this kind of thing setup and working. It would be a super nice addition!
I think you're absolutely right, thinking about it from the release management perspective, it seems possibly not worth the trouble to charge money for this feature, as the merge maintenance hassle would probably offset any additional revenue.
-
Since having the slop @ 50% and above induces sea sickness, it would be nice if any future upgrade (however unlikely) used the last 64 steps of the Slop knob for Vintage.
That way, existing presets could still use slop at 0%-50% and be thresholded at 50%. Only those presets with extreme Slop would be less... sloppy.
Then if you turn the slop knob to 51%, we'll you're 1% into the vintage realm.
Or, to make it less discontinuous, value of 50% to 100% of the Slop knob are actually 50% to 0% Vintage (reverse direction)
That way crossing over from 50% slop to 50% vintage is a bit smoother. The algorithm would be discontinuous, but the resulting effect would be equally as deep - just derived from a different vector.
That creates a gradient of the slop knob like this:
clean -> mild slop -> pretty sloppy -> very sloppy -> very vintage -> pretty vintage -> mild vintage -> barely vintage
Almost like a PWN knob for slop/vintage!
That would be killer. I would pay for an upgrade to that. And it makes it easier for people to choose to try the new firmware because they'd feel like it was the "best of both worlds"
I think this is a good idea, if it's possible to change the behavior of the "slop" knob. But i think we need a function switch between "slop" and "vintage". Otherwise all presets with "slop" will not sound correct.
Sometimes you want to induce sea sickness.w
-
I think I would like this feature. As I understand it, it works more like I'd expect "Slop" to than it actually does. I suppose it might affect the sound of existing patches, but I don't really see how it would do so in a way that was inconsistent with their intention. Like, if you turned up the slop knob on a patch, you wanted slop. It might be achieved a different way, but would it really catastrophically change the way patches sound? I guess I'd need to hear some comparison examples to know.
-
I would also add that it’s particularly essential on these two synths, since with the other polys you create envelope slop / voice mismatching with the mod matrix. The “vintage” algorithm is a great and simple solution for adding flexibility to digital envelopes.
-
Very keen for this feature too! Happy to pay for it if need be :)
-
I would also add that it’s particularly essential on these two synths, since with the other polys you create envelope slop / voice mismatching with the mod matrix. The “vintage” algorithm is a great and simple solution for adding flexibility to digital envelopes.
It's a completely different sound. Even Dave said it's nothing like Slop.
-
Doesn't the Prophet have a few unused global settings slots? Maybe the behavior could be selectable that way.
-
Right. Possibly. But at some point you have to decide if this would be per patch or global.
Valid arguments for both. I have a preference.
This came up in P10 voice limit discussions. Per patch or global? Pym noted valid args for both.
Doesn't the Prophet have a few unused global settings slots? Maybe the behavior could be selectable that way.
-
++ for OB-6 as well.
Behringer UB-Xa is out soon, so the vintage knob will be a great USP.
-
That would be amazing! Ready to pay for this. I think the most clever way to make it would be to give option to select between the SLOP and the Vintage Knob. So all the presets using the slop would be kept as is... And... what about a P6 REV 2 with Vintage knob, 5 octaves, bigger knobs and filter selection between P5 (rev 1-2, rev3) and P6! I still dream! :)
-
Check this out! Jonathan used VCO 2 to emulate the vintage knob behavior... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhvjXPwjWkM&ab_channel=JonathanRoberts
-
+1! the vintage knob on the prophet 5/10 is MAGICAL!
Please make the p6 an ob6 even more better!
-
Yeah this is what we thought about as the easiest way to integrate it but the problem is it changes a TON of stuff in the background and having it all blend right would require a great deal more code
This is why it's taking a while to determine , designing the integration isn't easy.
Since having the slop @ 50% and above induces sea sickness, it would be nice if any future upgrade (however unlikely) used the last 64 steps of the Slop knob for Vintage.
That way, existing presets could still use slop at 0%-50% and be thresholded at 50%. Only those presets with extreme Slop would be less... sloppy.
Then if you turn the slop knob to 51%, we'll you're 1% into the vintage realm.
Or, to make it less discontinuous, value of 50% to 100% of the Slop knob are actually 50% to 0% Vintage (reverse direction)
That way crossing over from 50% slop to 50% vintage is a bit smoother. The algorithm would be discontinuous, but the resulting effect would be equally as deep - just derived from a different vector.
That creates a gradient of the slop knob like this:
clean -> mild slop -> pretty sloppy -> very sloppy -> very vintage -> pretty vintage -> mild vintage -> barely vintage
Almost like a PWN knob for slop/vintage!
That would be killer. I would pay for an upgrade to that. And it makes it easier for people to choose to try the new firmware because they'd feel like it was the "best of both worlds"
I think this is a good idea, if it's possible to change the behavior of the "slop" knob. But i think we need a function switch between "slop" and "vintage". Otherwise all presets with "slop" will not sound correct.
-
Yeah this is what we thought about as the easiest way to integrate it but the problem is it changes a TON of stuff in the background and having it all blend right would require a great deal more code
This is why it's taking a while to determine , designing the integration isn't easy.
Since having the slop @ 50% and above induces sea sickness, it would be nice if any future upgrade (however unlikely) used the last 64 steps of the Slop knob for Vintage.
That way, existing presets could still use slop at 0%-50% and be thresholded at 50%. Only those presets with extreme Slop would be less... sloppy.
Then if you turn the slop knob to 51%, we'll you're 1% into the vintage realm.
Or, to make it less discontinuous, value of 50% to 100% of the Slop knob are actually 50% to 0% Vintage (reverse direction)
That way crossing over from 50% slop to 50% vintage is a bit smoother. The algorithm would be discontinuous, but the resulting effect would be equally as deep - just derived from a different vector.
That creates a gradient of the slop knob like this:
clean -> mild slop -> pretty sloppy -> very sloppy -> very vintage -> pretty vintage -> mild vintage -> barely vintage
Almost like a PWN knob for slop/vintage!
That would be killer. I would pay for an upgrade to that. And it makes it easier for people to choose to try the new firmware because they'd feel like it was the "best of both worlds"
I think this is a good idea, if it's possible to change the behavior of the "slop" knob. But i think we need a function switch between "slop" and "vintage". Otherwise all presets with "slop" will not sound correct.
Implementing new features in a way that's guaranteed to retain backward compatibility with all existing created content can be very challenging.. I'd imagine doing this in a way that doesn't risk breaking existing sound banks could be no small order!
-
Check this out! Jonathan used VCO 2 to emulate the vintage knob behavior... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhvjXPwjWkM&ab_channel=JonathanRoberts
Nice video, thanks. I wonder what would happen if you send the random LFO to FREQ 2 as well, combining OSC2 to filter and Random LFO to OSC2?
-
I think you're absolutely right, thinking about it from the release management perspective, it seems possibly not worth the trouble to charge money for this feature, as the merge maintenance hassle would probably offset any additional revenue.
Also I don't know how it would be possible to validate a paid upgrade. The minute the OS gets out it would be all over the place. License keys would cause a huge hassle when renting a board from a backline vendor and needing to update the software, for example.
That being said, there are lots of features I'd toss some money at for the various Sequential/DSI products I have bouncing around.
-
I think you're absolutely right, thinking about it from the release management perspective, it seems possibly not worth the trouble to charge money for this feature, as the merge maintenance hassle would probably offset any additional revenue.
Also I don't know how it would be possible to validate a paid upgrade. The minute the OS gets out it would be all over the place. License keys would cause a huge hassle when renting a board from a backline vendor and needing to update the software, for example.
That being said, there are lots of features I'd toss some money at for the various Sequential/DSI products I have bouncing around.
Not everyone's a thief though. Cracked versions of plug-ins or other musical software have been around all along, yet some of us have legit licenses for everything.
-
I don't think Sequential's interested in bribes, they just want to make sure they can release it in a supportable way and most likely that means they'd rather have one version to support than two.
-
This would be very exciting!
As creative as the bipolar idea would be, I would be happy with something as simple as the slop knob being completely replaced as a vintage knob. Yes, it would subtly change some sounds that I have made (as well as many presets), but I think I would like the change, at least for any patches that I've made that use slop. I feel that way because anywhere I used slop either subtly or drastically, the "vintage" aspect would be equally subtle or drastic. Having played around with the Rev4, I think turning "slop" into "vintage" would always line up with (or enhance) my intentions, at least personally.
However, I can see the desire to not have this alter any previous presets or custom patches. Because of that, maybe making it a global option makes the most sense if it can't be saved per patch. (Maybe that could be done by expanding the range of the existing "slop" parameter (e.g. doubling the range of the current slop parameter with the current range just being "slop" and the upper levels being "vintage," that could potentially leave existing patches alone and allow for new patches to use the new feature) but I have no idea if that's doable or not.)
Of course more options than just "slop" and "vintage" would be nice (like the bipolar idea or being able to adjust how "sloppy" the filters or the osc are getting per patch INDEPENDANTLY (e.g. the slop knob alone adjusts just the osc slop and a keypress plus the slop knob adjusts just the filter's slop)) - but I don't want to get greedy. I'd really be happy with anything.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but we're just talking about expanding what get's sloppy with slop, right? That's why I feel like even just replacing the slop knob with a "vintage" knob would be musical in most cases.
(Obligatory "I made an account just because I am excited to comment on this.")
-
I like the way you are thinking!
-
Adding envelope variation to the slop knob would be a massive improvement and would be a huge gesture to prophet 6 / ob6 owners. I'd certainly pay for it. Frankly, I'm trying hard not to feel a bit resentful about being an after thought... especially because poly-mod is very weak in comparison to the vintage Sequential and the new prophet 5/10. Even Behringer's poly-mod goes deeper. That's a whole project that has needed fixing for sometime.
I made an account just to comment on this as well and perhaps create a poly-mod request, if one hasn't been already.
-
Adding envelope variation to the slop knob would be a massive improvement and would be a huge gesture to prophet 6 / ob6 owners. I'd certainly pay for it. Frankly, I'm trying hard not to feel a bit resentful about being an after thought... especially because poly-mod is very weak in comparison to the vintage Sequential and the new prophet 5/10. Even Behringer's poly-mod goes deeper. That's a whole project that has needed fixing for sometime.
I made an account just to comment on this as well and perhaps create a poly-mod request, if one hasn't been already.
The poly mod section has a wider range on the P6 than the P5. In fact, everything does on the P6.
-
The poly mod section has a wider range on the P6 than the P5. In fact, everything does on the P6.
[/quote]
My direct experience is my pro one goes deeper (I will compare again though), and I recall the prophet 3.3 going deeper as well. I was told that prophet 6 is deeper on another thread, but I don't think so. Perhaps I'm wrong about depth or it is other factors or perhaps prophet 6 just sounds tamer, but it definitely sounds a bit tame in comparison. Around 31 minutes in this video he gets into poly-mod and offers a good demonstration of what I'm referring to with poly-mod.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkF5aI3t7hY&t=2672s
-
The poly mod section has a wider range on the P6 than the P5. In fact, everything does on the P6.
My direct experience is my pro one goes deeper (I will compare again though), and I recall the prophet 3.3 going deeper as well. I was told that prophet 6 is deeper on another thread, but I don't think so. Perhaps I'm wrong about depth or it is other factors or perhaps prophet 6 just sounds tamer, but it definitely sounds a bit tame in comparison. Around 31 minutes in this video he gets into poly-mod and offers a good demonstration of what I'm referring to with poly-mod.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkF5aI3t7hY&t=2672s
[/quote]
I'm not sure what else to tell you but if someone from Sequential confirms that the Poly Mod section of the Prophet 6 has a wider range (in fact everything on the Prophet 6 does compared to the P5) then I'm fairly confident that it's nothing more than a subconscious thing rather than actual fact.
-
Poly mod on p6 doesn't go as high because the oscillator doesn't go as high.. I believe this is a result of the filter needing the same range as it is a poly mod source too.. The filter doesn't go as high because it is able to have bass compensation with resonance that the p5 does not have.. Personally i would rather have bass compensation..
And you can get it higher then in that video by using negative amount of poly mod.
-
Perhaps someone from Sequential can confirm that.
-
Thanks for the update. It sounds amazing, makes it feel so alive!
-
Nothing to add--I just think this post should go to the top. Salivating for some demos!
-
>> Feature: Slop now supports normal slop or Vintage operation
I've put the latest firmware on my Pr6. How do I activate the Vintage operation instead of the normal slop operation?
Chip
-
>> Feature: Slop now supports normal slop or Vintage operation
I've put the latest firmware on my Pr6. How do I activate the Vintage operation instead of the normal slop operation?
Chip
Oh, I got it. Hold "bank" and then hit "globals". This is a 3rd page of globals. Press button "4". This is Vintage on/off. His the "select" button to toggle up to "on".
Sweet.
-
>> Feature: Slop now supports normal slop or Vintage operation
I've put the latest firmware on my Pr6. How do I activate the Vintage operation instead of the normal slop operation?
Chip
Oh, I got it. Hold "bank" and then hit "globals". This is a 3rd page of globals. Press button "4". This is Vintage on/off. His the "select" button to toggle up to "on".
Sweet.
Where did you find that info?
-
>> Feature: Slop now supports normal slop or Vintage operation
I've put the latest firmware on my Pr6. How do I activate the Vintage operation instead of the normal slop operation?
Chip
Oh, I got it. Hold "bank" and then hit "globals". This is a 3rd page of globals. Press button "4". This is Vintage on/off. His the "select" button to toggle up to "on".
Sweet.
Where did you find that info?
It’s in the update notes
-
The Vintage knob sounds great with the differences introduced on the envelope timings...especially for those Tom Sawyer high-resonance sweeps. Nice work!
I did have a not-so-secret hope, however, that the Vintage knob would also introduce variations in the glide rate for each voice. The goal here would be to recreate the detuning effect that is often heard when gliding / portamento between notes on vintage synths. To my ears, it's a super-exciting effect.
http://synthhacker.blogspot.com/2013/04/portamento-voice-spreading-from-monopoly.html
This transitory detuning effect occurs because, in an old analog synth, each voice had its own glide "circuit" (capacitor) whose values had wide tolerances. As a result, each voice had its own glide rate. When played in unison, the different glide rates would cause that detuned-swarm that would eventually resolve once all the voices got to their destination pitch. So cool (to me). It's unfortunate that this effect didn't end up as part of this (delightfully free!) Vintage knob upgrade.
Very grateful, though! Love the variation in envelope timing...it really gives some magic to the Unison mode of the Prophet 6!
Chip
-
ah, I see. thanks. I didn't think to look in the file that says it's about MPE to find the Vintage mode instructions.
-
thanks sequential, great update!
what exactly happens to saved patches when changing from slop to vintage?
does vintage have the same value as the slop value i saved or is it zero?
-
How does one say "thank you" in a meaningful way, for such a characterful upgrade to an existing product?
Vintage Mode absolutely transforms the P6, relative to the existing Slop functionality and - while I'm probably not necessarily the obvious target for a P5/P10r4 - shows that Sequential goes the extra mile for their existing customers.
Now I'm _really_ tempted to hear what this does to an OB-6.
I've noticed that, with Vintage Mode engaged, I play the device differently than I did previously, having to accommodate for the variation in attacks, filter cutoff, etc. It's a different kind of articulation.
I haven't done any sound design starting with Vintage Mode engaged yet, so I suspect that that will change my approach on patches that would otherwise use up an LFO somewhere.
Also - I feel bad that I haven't tried out the MPE support; that's no minor functional update in and of itself. Good job, Sequential!
-
Thank you deeply Sequential for adding this to the P6.
I can finally get the sound I wanted ever since purchasing my P6.
Recently I watched Julian Pollack on Youtube comparing the P5 and P6.
The P6 stood out as very "clinical" and "sterile" compared to the randomness and musicality as an effect of using the Vintage knob on the P5.
Now it seems that the exact same feature has really been implemented, and I already feel a lot more inspiration and musicality flowing out from the instrument than ever before.
I think that the P6 has grown over night making it a much more "completed" and iconic instrument.
Absolutely the best thing that happened so far in 2021 ;)
-
I have two Requests for this update. 1. For some patches I prefer slop over vintage and we have no way to save each patch with slop or vintage. Wish Vintage vs slop was not a global option but a per patch option. 2. In vintage mode up to 50% the tuning variation is practical but after 50% it get so out of tune that it not musical but the other random parameters seem fine. I wish the tuning would have a slope to it that at 50% it was less intense and past 50% to 100% it adds only a little more. This way the vintage could be practical at high settings.
Added: Changed my mind on the pitch request - seems very patch specific and often its just fine as it is.
-
Added: Changed my mind on the pitch request - seems very patch specific and often its just fine as it is.
Lol - well seem I changed my mind again after more testing. Seems the pitch variation does get out of control after 50%. In addition it would be cool if the Vintage knob would add a little bit of random to the distortion only if its turned up past 0.
-
Any videos or audio examples of this in action?
-
I had a similar sensation/revelation when hearing it. I likened it to the “feel and sag” of a good guitar amp modeler. On those products, how the device responds to touch is part of how you play it and how it ultimately sounds to the musician (or “operator” in my case)
I've noticed that, with Vintage Mode engaged, I play the device differently than I did previously, having to accommodate for the variation in attacks, filter cutoff, etc. It's a different kind of articulation.
-
So, if I've got it straight, the Vintage Knob is engaged when you hit Bank and Global, go to 4 and click Yes. Could anyone point me to a preset in the original presets where I could really appreciate the difference. I think I've got cloth ears as I'm not hearing much of a difference. I know I do have cloth ears, which is why I ask. Is there a preset for the cloth-eared amongst us (i.e. me) to really hear what the vintage knob is doing. Thanks. :)
-
Don't worry. I think I've trained my ear up. You can actually go between Vintage and Slop without having to leave Global so it becomes easier to swtich between the two and hear the difference. It is especially noticeable to me on unison patches and also when the arpeggio is running as I hear the variations in the filter envelope. The detune is also more subtle than SLOP. It's a really nice update actually. I loved my P6 before, but this update gives it a more 'lived in' vibe. Thank you DSI.
-
Try playing the built in sequences for factory patches 500-999.
As the sequence plays, crank the Vintage setting. It’s more obvious on some than others, but letting the synth play patterns for you will help you focus on what the Vintage setting is doing.
-
Try playing the built in sequences for factory patches 500-999.
As the sequence plays, crank the Vintage setting. It’s more obvious on some than others, but letting the synth play patterns for you will help you focus on what the Vintage setting is doing.
That was a good tip. Thanks. I've played through a bunch of the presets (500-582) adding the vintage knob to see what it does. As you say, subtle with some, more obvious with others. But for all of them, I can't imagine the P6 without the vintage knob now, and it's only been a day. It's like it was always supposed to have this option. Odd, I think - ironic even - that what must be software has been used to make an analog synth sound more 'vintage'.
-
The poly mod section has a wider range on the P6 than the P5. In fact, everything does on the P6.
My direct experience is my pro one goes deeper (I will compare again though), and I recall the prophet 3.3 going deeper as well. I was told that prophet 6 is deeper on another thread, but I don't think so. Perhaps I'm wrong about depth or it is other factors or perhaps prophet 6 just sounds tamer, but it definitely sounds a bit tame in comparison. Around 31 minutes in this video he gets into poly-mod and offers a good demonstration of what I'm referring to with poly-mod.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkF5aI3t7hY&t=2672s
[/quote]
In this video I simply put the same settings on both synths... 2 sawtooths tuned the same (so tuning is not the issue) I think then add poly mod with OSC2 as the source. The P5 definitely, absolutely and undeniably has more depth. I don't know where the quote about having a wider range comes from, but it simply doesn't have anywhere near the same depth of modulation. Turning mod negative, which I do in the video as well, doesn't increase the mod as someone suggested. Having both in front of me I can absolutely confirm there's not as much mod depth on the P6. Perhaps the 'range' in the quote isn't referring to the modulation depth, but to the range of parameters modulated?? Even the P5 has a much wider range of osc2 with KYB disengaged going all the way to C9. Perhaps 'range' refers to the P6 OSC2 range going to C5 and the P5 to C4 with KYB engaged? Whatever it means, it can't refer to the depth of modulation.
Just thought I'd clear that up... I made the video clearly showing what I'm doing with both synths in front of me and it's obvious to anyone listening that there's more depth on the P5. ... which is why I make them ... to clear up confusion and help anyone without access to both to hear demonstrations of their functions side by side. Hope that helps.
-
Added: Changed my mind on the pitch request - seems very patch specific and often its just fine as it is.
Lol - well seem I changed my mind again after more testing. Seems the pitch variation does get out of control after 50%. In addition it would be cool if the Vintage knob would add a little bit of random to the distortion only if its turned up past 0.
I agree with you, overall. I really like how the vintage mode works - but it is far more subtle when it comes to pitch than slop. That means that any patch that was programmed with slop - especially subtle slop - suddenly has practically none.
To my ears, the amount of vintage pitch variation is right around where slop would get at level 3 (or the 4th tick mark, if you count the first tick mark).
For a vintage mode, honestly, I think that's great. Turned up all the way, it sounds almost exactly like the same analog drift that I saw with my prophet 6 module in the first few days (interestingly, while the module took over a dozen tuning sequences to get to a stable pitch, the keyboard version, which I returned the module for, has only needed one).
I also really like how the vintage knob treats the 6 voices as distinctly different - just like how it really behaves when it's out of tune due to temperature.
I don't want to sound ungrateful - what Dave Smith has done here is simply wonderful. They make the best synths (in my opinion) and the seem to be one of the best companies out there. Their support of their products seems second to none.
What I would like to see added is a second vintage mode. This first, tasteful one and a second one that is more aggressive with detuning; something that is more in line with the amount of detune and craziness that slop gave: a slop+vintage mode.
My gut says that simply matching the slop knob's pitch variation one-to-one wouldn't work well if they kept the exact same amount of variation of the other parameters that the vintage knob changes. (I imagine that hearing both at 10, together, wouldn't sound very good.)
That makes me think that what would be musical for a 3rd mode (slop+vintage) could be:
1) The "vintage" elements stay the same and the pitch variation is slightly more aggressive. Maybe allowing 10 on the knob to match where slop alone would be when was set to 6, instead of 3 (which is where the current vintage max seems to be).
2) A more complex arrangement where the "vintage" elements and the pitch elements don't increase across the full knobs movement. E.G. 0-5 works exactly like the current vintage mode and 5-10 only increases pitch variation OR 5-10 adds the all voice drift that slop was famous for. It's less vintage, but it would allow for the degree of craziness that slop can achieve.
3) Let slop be exactly the same amount of variation as "original slop" and just let the vintage elements get even crazier as you turn up the knob. (I imagine this would result in a "tasteful" vintage setting being just barely turning up the knob, which might not be desirable. I also think maxing both out would be a but too much, personally.)
4) A different, non-linear approach to both vintage and slop that would allow strong control over vintage but also the breadth to get as crazy detuned as what slop originally allowed.
5) The simplest: let "vintage" go further - at least twice, if not three times as far. If the current mode maxes out the pitch variation where slop was at 3, doubling (or tripling) it doesn't seem unreasonable.
Option 2 and 3 would allow the amount of "slop" programmed into existing patches to remain largely untouched. Option 1 would bring vintage mode closer to what was intended on the patches. I think option 3 or 4 would be really desirable options.
However, regardless of what I think is best, I believe a new, 3rd mode is necessary - I want to be able to leave the mode on globally, and still be able to turn that knob to maximum to get something as crazy as what was originally intended. That knob has always pushed the bounds of tastefulness - and I think it still should be able to. Every improvement with the new vintage mode is positive - except the range for it.
Right now, I'm debating reprogramming a lot of patches with a different amount of slop to match the vintage mode requirements to get the same pitch variation versus continuing to toggle vintage mode on/off.
The only thing that keeps me coming back to the original slop is the fact that vintage, while it can get crazy, cannot match the detuned craziness that slop could achieve. I approve of the current vintage knob's tastefulness. I just wish that there was a way to capture that while ALSO allowing that one knob to get as crazy as the original.
I applaud the new vintage mode - and the incredible support for their products - but that knob originally allowed pushing the bounds of tastefulness and I would like to see it not applied in such a safe way.
-
Hey guys, update done on my P6 and i love it so much ! 😜
Well i've just noticed that the polymod depths (both filter env & osc 2) are affecting the vintage behavior. That's quite intriguing. Even when no destinations are selected, i can clearly hear them work on the vintage "messiness" in both their respective ways.
So i wonder if you guys have experienced that too, and if this was intentional programming from Sequential or not...
Anyway i personnally think this is an awesome hidden feature and make this wonderful synth even more unique 😎