The Official Sequential/Oberheim Forum
SEQUENTIAL/DSI => Prophet => Sequential Prophet-6 => Topic started by: LPF83 on January 09, 2022, 02:02:14 PM
-
I find myself often frustrated when doing sound design on six voice synths when it comes to pads. This is due to the envelope retriggering that occurs with lots of note changes.
To understand what I'm referring to, starting with the init patch, set both the amp and filter envelopes attack and release knobs long, maybe around two oclock to create a very basic pad sound. Now hold two notes in the lower register with your left hand, three or four notes in the upper register with your right hand, and tap the right handed notes syncopated with the left to hear the envelopes become erratic, some of the notes suddenly have a fast attack.
I understand this is not how pads are usually played, but it rears its head often during sound design (and sometimes during playing) on synths with a low voice polyphony count. Its so much better with the 10 voices of the Prophet 10 or the 16 voices of the Rev2... in fact to really get the same effect on the P10 I have to put in 5 voice mode.
I confess to not even fully understanding why this happens, since the net effect is an attack that seems higher than the maximum value defined by the envelope, but I know its not an exclusive problem to Sequential synths (even my Hydrasynth does it).
Is there some sort of workaround for this for designing pads on lower poly-count synths (P6, OB6, P5)?
-
I have the same problem even with the eight voices of the Prophet '08. Patches with slow attacks and long delays are killers. I find that lifting in between note strikes - whether chords or melodies - solves the problem. It's with a smooth legato style that the problem is at its worst.
-
I have the same problem even with the eight voices of the Prophet '08. Patches with slow attacks and long delays are killers. I find that lifting in between note strikes - whether chords or melodies - solves the problem. It's with a smooth legato style that the problem is at its worst.
Indeed, even the 8 voices of the Hydrasynth isn't really enough to overcome the issue, although there are some retriggering options there which I have not fully explored. I've noticed there are very few pads in the factory patches of the Prophet6 which are what we think of as a true analog pad sound, a lot of them use modulation to create movement that helps mask the issue. There are a couple in there which seem not so immune to the issue, though I haven't dissected them to see exactly how they might be accomplishing it... I assume probably just optimizing/shortening the release to minimize the erratic note syndrome.
Its funny because I've had the P6 and OB-6 for quite a while now, and only recently decided to sit down and try to create good pads for the P6 before realizing how challenging it is. I guess adding a P6 module to the KB and polychaining is a workable option, but it's an expensive one.
-
Yes, the only meaningful solution is increasing the number of voices. It's fine once in a while to invent a work around. But in the name of creating the precise type of pad you want to, and then playing it just as you need to, work arounds are no good. Even playing in a detached way when using a long attack and release type pad (as I suggested above) is self-defeating, in that you're breaking with the intended smooth and dreamy musical effect. So, this issue provides a strong rational for 10-16 voice instruments. Some people consider this to be voice count overkill, but absolutely not. You can always use fewer voices than you have available, but you can't use more than are available.
-
I'd be content enough just to fully understand the phenomenon. I can understand a more recent note needing to steal the voice of an earlier pressed one, and even needing to retrigger the envelope, but I haven't wrapped my head around why the note wouldn't be retriggered with the slow attack rather than what seems to be the maximum env amount.
-
The best workaround is probably to just keep envelope release timings a bit lower/quicker and use an ample amount of onboard, or external delay/reverb to take care of the release phase. That's generally my strategy for big pads on a synth like P6, P5 or Polybrute.
Regarding understanding why the envelopes steal like they do: there is actually another type of Retrigger mode that could be implemented, with firmware development -- "Always Retrigger from Start". It was discussed a while back in the Pro 3 forum... and I added a graphic to show the differences: https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,4246.msg43715.html#msg43715
(https://www.presetpatch.com/images/synth-retrigger-types.jpg)
Optimally, you want to have both options available - standard retrigger, along with retrigger from start mode. The "Always Retrigger from Start" option still has a voice stealing sound, but its nice to have as an alternate option.
Ultimately if there was a slew control / smoothing variable on retrigger from start, that would be the ultimate in flexibility. This would be a great area of development for all Seqs synths... especially if its a shared library of code / IP that can be reused in future synths with similar envelope architecture. That plus ADR contour shaping would really be great advances for envelopes / sound design.
-
The best workaround is probably to just keep envelope release timings a bit lower/quicker and use an ample amount of onboard, or external delay/reverb to take care of the release phase. That's generally my strategy for big pads on a synth like P6, P5 or Polybrute.
Regarding understanding why the envelopes steal like they do: there is actually another type of Retrigger mode that could be implemented, with firmware development -- "Always Retrigger from Start". It was discussed a while back in the Pro 3 forum... and I added a graphic to show the differences: https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,4246.msg43715.html#msg43715
(https://www.presetpatch.com/images/synth-retrigger-types.jpg)
Optimally, you want to have both options available - standard retrigger, along with retrigger from start mode. The "Always Retrigger from Start" option still has a voice stealing sound, but its nice to have as an alternate option.
Ultimately if there was a slew control / smoothing variable on retrigger from start, that would be the ultimate in flexibility. This would be a great area of development for all Seqs synths... especially if its a shared library of code / IP that can be reused in future synths with similar envelope architecture. That plus ADR contour shaping would really be great advances for envelopes / sound design.
Yeah, I think Always Retrigger from Start and/or slew to take the edge off would be welcome fixes. I wonder if there are any synths currently that do this? And if not, is there some technical hurdle that makes implementing it challenging?
-
I am very often frustrated with the 6 voice limit of my Prophet 6. As a compromise, I often use one of my moogs for the low end and save the 6 voices for fat chords.
-
I don't have a six-voice instrument. I find eight voices to be restrictive enough. But if I did have a six-voice synthesizer, I'd use it for either right or left-hand parts - basically arpeggios, triads, bass, or melodies. It would never be the instrument I was fully facing, the main instrument, complimented by the others. It would serve quite well in those capacities, but not as the base instrument in a multi-instrument set up.
-
I don't have a six-voice instrument. I find eight voices to be restrictive enough. But if I did have a six-voice synthesizer, I'd use it for either right or left-hand parts - basically arpeggios, triads, bass, or melodies. It would never be the instrument I was fully facing, the main instrument, complimented by the others. It would serve quite well in those capacities, but not as the base instrument in a multi-instrument set up.
I only recently started really noticing this on the Prophet6 and OB-6 because as 49 key keyboards, I very rarely play them with both hands. More like left hand on the Prophet10, right hand on P6/OB6... or maybe I'd already recorded a lot of two handed work on the P10 so I'm using the P6/OB6 for a right-hand lead sound on top of it (which they're both astounding good at). What changed was when I got the Komplete Kontrol S61 to replace my previous (Novation) 61 key primary controller. Because it's so good at controlling other synths, I've started regularly playing the P6/OB6 through it just to get the extra octave and convenience.
Where I did notice it before was when putting the P10 into polyunison-2 mode, which of course reduces the voices from 10 to 5. The Rev2 and Prophet 12 handle pads nicely, of course, although I do stack a lot which in effect reduces them each to 8 and 6 voice synths respectively.
-
Polychain. 2 x Prophet 6's = Sweet.
-
Just get a Dexibell with unlimited polyphony and you'll be happy. LOL
In all seriousness there's two ways around this.
Either get a P6 desktop and poly chain them or get rid of the P6 all together.
Unfortunately that's it. The P6 and OB6 are basically "accept the instrument for what it is...warts and all....or don't use them." type of approach which I appreciate.
To be honest, the polyphony argument is never ending....I've seen people complain about 16 voices, 32 voices, and even 125 voices and even saw a complaint on the new Kurzweil which is over 200 voices. I honestly can't take the argument or demands seriously anymore.
-
Just get a Dexibell with unlimited polyphony and you'll be happy. LOL
In all seriousness there's two ways around this.
Either get a P6 desktop and poly chain them or get rid of the P6 all together.
Unfortunately that's it. The P6 and OB6 are basically "accept the instrument for what it is...warts and all....or don't use them." type of approach which I appreciate.
To be honest, the polyphony argument is never ending....I've seen people complain about 16 voices, 32 voices, and even 125 voices and even saw a complaint on the new Kurzweil which is over 200 voices. I honestly can't take the argument or demands seriously anymore.
Oh don't get me wrong, my P6 and OB6 aren't going anywhere (I don't see ever selling them, they are excellent at what they do). For pads I have a third option available which is "use other synths for that", so it's not a deal breaker for me by any means. And creativespiral is right, the release can be shortened and reverb/echo added to take up the slack, so there's another option. Then of course there's multi-tracking (most of those amazing vintage Prophet 5 tracks were multitracked), and my favorite workaround of all which is just finding ways of playing the pad to avoid the peak-jump issue (I think it all becomes more interesting actually when the music itself becomes shaped by the limitations).
But, I thought it's worth discussing to see what if any workarounds folks had come up with... even if someone is researching whether the P6/OB6 is the right synth for them -- if two-handed pads with long releases are their primary need, they will at least want to be informed of the limitation or the potential need to polychain (although I have not ruled out that possibility yet -- I like the P6 enough that I would be more likely to expand than replace -- plenty of modules on the used market too).
Sometimes synths with high voice counts do in fact suffer surprising polyphony deficits. Especially in many VA synths like the Virus where the onboard FX reduce the available voice count... in those cases a "voice" is almost more like a slice of CPU than an actual "note" as we talk about them on an analog synth. The mention of Kurzweil reminded me of a K2000 I owned briefly back in the early 90's.... 24 voices with a note stealing algorithm that had a great reputation at the time, yet I still felt voice limited and ultimately sent it back. So, I mean to each his own, but I can understand the other side.
-
Yeah, I think Always Retrigger from Start and/or slew to take the edge off would be welcome fixes. I wonder if there are any synths currently that do this? And if not, is there some technical hurdle that makes implementing it challenging?
Yes, the Moog Sub 37 and Moog One both have this Always Retrigger From Start option available. It's called Envelope Reset on their products. In addition, the Moog One has some other really nice envelope options, like a Hold stage between Attack and Decay, the ability to switch timing of stages to ADR Sync Mode, which syncs ADR timings to BPM divisions for syncopated envelope motion, and ADR Contour/Curve Shaping, which allow for snappier bass/lead sounds, or smoother pad/string swells.
Envelopes are really the heart of sound design. If possible to add some, or all of these envelope options to current and/or future Sequential instruments, that would be at the top of my list of general feature requests / IP coding development, for both mono and poly instruments. (that, and adding a mod transforms layer in the matrix, which is a real game changer for advanced sound design -- with all sorts of simple operators for math transforms (square, root, basic functions), value limiting, quantizing, slew, and multiplexing with other mod sources)
-
Optimally, you want to have both options available - standard retrigger, along with retrigger from start mode. The "Always Retrigger from Start" option still has a voice stealing sound, but its nice to have as an alternate option.
Ultimately if there was a slew control / smoothing variable on retrigger from start, that would be the ultimate in flexibility. This would be a great area of development for all Seqs synths... especially if its a shared library of code / IP that can be reused in future synths with similar envelope architecture. That plus ADR contour shaping would really be great advances for envelopes / sound design.
Yeah, I think Always Retrigger from Start and/or slew to take the edge off would be welcome fixes. I wonder if there are any synths currently that do this? And if not, is there some technical hurdle that makes implementing it challenging?
In my experience, Elektron offers some of the best options for envelopes, you get a number of curve options with and without reset. Hydra also has a bevy of options that make good use of the interface.
-
If 6 isn't enough you can always multitrack for recording, and use shell/power chords live.
I've always got the other hand on the OB~6 or Rev2, so 6 is no issue for me ;)
-
The best workaround is probably to just keep envelope release timings a bit lower/quicker and use an ample amount of onboard, or external delay/reverb to take care of the release phase. .
AMEN
-
If 6 isn't enough you can always multitrack for recording, and use shell/power chords live.
I've always got the other hand on the OB~6 or Rev2, so 6 is no issue for me ;)
When playing one hand at a time its really not an issue. Multitracking to fill in lack of voices isn't really a possible solution for me.. because the issue is the sudden jump to the envelope peak (which is kind of a difficult anomaly to cover without simply lessening the envelope amount, and that's not always a feasible solution).
But I was doing a bit of experimenting on the P10 tonight with a sound which is particularly bad for this (even with 10 voices available), and my god what a difference it makes to put it in Prophet5 voice allocation mode instead of round robin, the issue basically goes away. So maybe just implementing P5 voice mode on other Sequential synths would be the answer? Yes it can change how a sounds when played, somewhat, but same could be said for most other solutions.
-
When playing one hand at a time its really not an issue. Multitracking to fill in lack of voices isn't really a possible solution for me.. because the issue is the sudden jump to the envelope peak (which is kind of a difficult anomaly to cover without simply lessening the envelope amount, and that's not always a feasible solution).
But I was doing a bit of experimenting on the P10 tonight with a sound which is particularly bad for this (even with 10 voices available), and my god what a difference it makes to put it in Prophet5 voice allocation mode instead of round robin, the issue basically goes away. So maybe just implementing P5 voice mode on other Sequential synths would be the answer? Yes it can change how a sounds when played, somewhat, but same could be said for most other solutions.
This is a very good callout. I found the same thing on Polybrute... almost always use the "Reassign" mode (aka: P5 / per key allocation) It does make a huge difference for pads, and would love to see this feature added on more current synths (like P6,T5) and/or upcoming synths. Ultimately it would be nice to have the "Reset/Backtrack" allocation type as well... which always tries to use the lowest voice number.
-
When playing one hand at a time its really not an issue. Multitracking to fill in lack of voices isn't really a possible solution for me.. because the issue is the sudden jump to the envelope peak (which is kind of a difficult anomaly to cover without simply lessening the envelope amount, and that's not always a feasible solution).
But I was doing a bit of experimenting on the P10 tonight with a sound which is particularly bad for this (even with 10 voices available), and my god what a difference it makes to put it in Prophet5 voice allocation mode instead of round robin, the issue basically goes away. So maybe just implementing P5 voice mode on other Sequential synths would be the answer? Yes it can change how a sounds when played, somewhat, but same could be said for most other solutions.
This is a very good callout. I found the same thing on Polybrute... almost always use the "Reassign" mode (aka: P5 / per key allocation) It does make a huge difference for pads, and would love to see this feature added on more current synths (like P6,T5) and/or upcoming synths. Ultimately it would be nice to have the "Reset/Backtrack" allocation type as well... which always tries to use the lowest voice number.
Interesting, I'd be interested to hear how that sounds. I assume its use the lowest voice number that's in the release stage, and if none available in release take one from sustain, as opposed to prioritizing stealing of the lowest note played?
-
This is a very good callout. I found the same thing on Polybrute... almost always use the "Reassign" mode (aka: P5 / per key allocation) It does make a huge difference for pads, and would love to see this feature added on more current synths (like P6,T5) and/or upcoming synths. Ultimately it would be nice to have the "Reset/Backtrack" allocation type as well... which always tries to use the lowest voice number.
Interesting, I'd be interested to hear how that sounds. I assume its use the lowest voice number that's in the release stage, and if none available in release take one from sustain, as opposed to prioritizing stealing of the lowest note played?
I think there may be a few varieties of Reset mode - or Reset/Backtrack. One of the classic Jupiter 8 modes (Poly 2) uses this type of allocation, where is tries to reassign the lowest available voice number.
The sound character is most evident when:
1. Playing Polyphonic Glide/Portamento patches (the glide action is generally smoother, since your gliding from more recent voices / usually closer notes)
2. Also, for patches where you are repetitively striking a single note, or a couple notes, there is more consistency to the sound... (the P5 allocation / per-key also has similar performance) This is more noticeable on vintage synths (or modern ones with ample amount of Per Voice Variance / Vintage Knob dialed up. A prime example is a repetitive pulsing bass line. If you're in round robin mode, and have lots of vintage voice variance, each consecutive strike on the same note may be a few cents off in tuning from the previous one, and envelope/filter performance may vary for each strike. But with Per-Key (P5) or Reset Allocation, your bass line will have more consistency when hitting a note repetitively (or with ARP).
I do really like having the three options on PB. Would love to see P5 allocation type ported over to Prophet 6 and Take 5... they would both benefit a ton, as they are in the Prophet family, with relatively voice counts... also, would love to see future Seq polys have these as standard choices. It's an often overlooked, but key aspect to achieving certain vintage style character.
-
I can understand a more recent note needing to steal the voice of an earlier pressed one, and even needing to retrigger the envelope
-
It always surprises me that folk don't consider this before splashing out on expensive analogue synths - but then again maybe not everyone gets the chance to play one to test it out before buying, or are just starting out and don't realise the way voices work. Some people on this thread have already hit on some ways of making things work in practice, it's best to look at each scenario. I find it such a shame that some people say they only use the P6 (or OB6) for certain things but not pads - it's a shame because both synths are capable of amazing pads. Some thoughts and suggestions:
Recording - a few options here:
- if you are running into voice stealing / envelope re-triggering problems you can split your performance and overdub. For example, record the left hand part first and then overdub the right hand. Or, if it's important to play a bass note and higher note together then just play the root note of the chord and fill in the rest later. Or anything in between - however will work best. There are lots of recordings out there with great pads created with overdubs from old Prophet 5's and even Mini Moogs - which had one voice and did not re-trigger the envelope! Overdubbing may sound painstaking but you can achieve wonderful things through it. And it's a great skill to learn too.
- if capturing a full 'performance' is important to you then for example get a polyphonic soft synth with plenty of voices (loads out there and inexpensive comparatively) and create a sound with similar envelope timing. Or a cheap hardware one - whatever! Capture your 'performance' via midi, then split that midi as needed and then trigger the P6 with however many parts and record them - then if you like you can bounce them together to create one audio file and process. Of course if you leave them split then you can mess around with each individually and come up with some unexpected and interesting stuff, it that takes your fancy!
- someone suggested the only solution is to get more voices, but I don't believe it is the only option as per the above - but still, it is an option! You would just need to decide if the cost is worth it.
Playing live - some options here too:
- as suggested by others in this thread reverb and delay are great ways of getting around voice stealing / envelope impacts. Turn the release down and use the tails created by the reverb / delay to simulate the release. With bucket bridge delays for example (and many digital ones which simulate this) the delays will effectively 'filter down' on each repeat so you can still achieve the feel of the filter envelope releasing. Of course this is not just limited to playing live, you can do this for recording too (I often do).
- if the music suits it adjust your playing style to play fewer notes. To be honest I don't find I tend to run into issues like this anyway because my playing style for pads on synths tends to be quite different to when I am say playing the piano. If you are playing with other instrumentation this should generally be achievable, but of course depends on your music and style so of course will not be applicable to every scenario.
- if you do need those extra voices another option for live playing would be to sample the presets you need and trigger them through a keyboard capable of playing samples (which can range from the extremely expensive to the relatively inexpensive). Takes time to set up, but also means you can potentially really cut down on the amount of gear you are lugging around - and means that you can leave your precious P6 safely at home!
- again, if it's worth it you can invest in the extra voices.
Sound design - the opening post mentions sound design being limited by voice stealing / env re-triggering, but I must say I don't really understand that at all, unless I have misunderstood what is being said.
The above are things of the top of my head which I have done before (apart from investing in the extra modules!) but I would seriously consider these or any other suggestions rather than denying your wonderful synth to express those beautiful pads.
-
imho. Using a long reverb tail on the Prophet 6 or OB-6 to create good, and smoothly triggered pad sounds is one of the best solutions.
Here is the Prophet 6 singing a chorale pad type sound, that is created with the help of the Strymon BigSky HW-FX Pedal, set on the 'Chorale' setting, with long decay time to blend the chords nicely, I also used quite long attack, and release values for the P6 pad sound. Also LFO to trigger the filter, and Amp modulations you hear happening in the track.
https://soundcloud.com/muziksculp/prophet-6-synth-singing-choral-music-with-help-from-bigsky-pedal-2?si=e854fca51a92445bb1cd20c166210a6d&utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing
What I find the Prophet 6 really good at is creating some very rich Lead sounds when set to Unison Mode, and adding some of the P6's Distortion. Also great for Basses, and Arps
Cheers,
Muziksculp
-
What I find the Prophet 6 really good at is creating some very rich Lead sounds when set to Unison Mode, and adding some of the P6's Distortion. Also great for Basses, and Arps
Agree, honestly I think for cutting leads, it's probably my favorite synth for that use; it just has something special in that domain. I also think it does bass better than any other poly I've tried. Before I got my Toraiz AS-1 (its a single-voice P6 basically but there are differences), it was my go to for bass, but then I got the AS-1 as a cost effective way to free up the P6 for higher voice count duties. So the AS-1 slightly one-upped the P6 for bass, but its a mono so the P6 remains the poly-king of bass sounds as well as leads. The arps, sequences, stuff that can be done with the HPF... all adds up to a synth I'll never sell.
Is it the best synth in my arsenal for pads? Maybe not, but as you mentioned reverb helps a great deal with that.
-
Yes, the Prophet 6 has become my go-to lead sounds synth. It's just so rich, organic, and expressive. Especially when you add some of the internal Distortion effect on it. I was actually very impressed when I discovered this. Couldn't stop jamming on it, while still editing parameters, so much variety, and timbral colors it can produce. Also Superb Basses !
-
Never understood this complaint. All my polies are six voices - P6, OB 6, Juno 106 and JX-8P and all are wonderful for pad sounds. In the case of the Juno and JX, they're legendary for string and pad sounds specifically.
You might think a big six-note chord sounds cool on it's own, but chances are that will sound muddy in a mix, so drop a couple notes. I usually have a basic triad with an extension like a maj7th or a suspended note to make it sound fancy. I invert it such that the four notes are spread out across a couple octaves and it sounds huge.
Also, it's not cheating to add some reverb. None of the big pad sounds you hear on albums were dry, I can almost promise you that. I invested in a 48-point patchbay so now I can easily route my synths through my effects pedals. It's almost an extension of the synthesis possibilities and I fully endorse it.
-
Here, I think the real issue being discussed (that evolved somewhat from the title) was envelope retriggering behavior (and how it's implemented) rather than just voices being dropped.
It can have an at times weird, and jarring effect when changing chords when the voice count isn't high enough.
Depending on how the pad is being played, it may be a non-issue. But my P6 and my P10 sit right next to each other, the difference is very noticeable.
-
Here, I think the real issue being discussed (that evolved somewhat from the title) was envelope retriggering behavior (and how it's implemented) rather than just voices being dropped.
It can have an at times weird, and jarring effect when changing chords when the voice count isn't high enough.
Depending on how the pad is being played, it may be a non-issue. But my P6 and my P10 sit right next to each other, the difference is very noticeable.
Fair enough. I guess I just haven't noticed that issue. Still, not terribly surprising that you'd have fewer issues with note stealing on a synth with significantly higher polyphony. Seems like there's your answer: use the P10 for pads if you don't like the way the P6 note stealing algo works?
Btw jealous of your P10! So tempted, man :)
-
Here, I think the real issue being discussed (that evolved somewhat from the title) was envelope retriggering behavior (and how it's implemented) rather than just voices being dropped.
It can have an at times weird, and jarring effect when changing chords when the voice count isn't high enough.
Depending on how the pad is being played, it may be a non-issue. But my P6 and my P10 sit right next to each other, the difference is very noticeable.
Fair enough. I guess I just haven't noticed that issue. Still, not terribly surprising that you'd have fewer issues with note stealing on a synth with significantly higher polyphony. Seems like there's your answer: use the P10 for pads if you don't like the way the P6 note stealing algo works?
Btw jealous of your P10! So tempted, man :)
Even with all it's limitations, the P10 remains my desert island synth, the instrument that inspires me the most, and I do recommend. That said if you want a more cost effective synth that's magical at pads, a 16 voice Rev2 is hard to beat. Sometimes DCOs work into the mix better for high voice count pads.
In terms of reproducing the behavior, try tapping some chords in a more staccato way than you normally would with a pad sound, and you can probably hear the envelope (lack of) retriggering behavior pretty quickly. Granted in context of playing real pads it is somewhat less common but can occur on chord changes unpredictably which, for me at least, can disrupt whatever vibe or inspiration I have going on during the moment.
-
The best workaround is probably to just keep envelope release timings a bit lower/quicker and use an ample amount of onboard, or external delay/reverb to take care of the release phase. That's generally my strategy for big pads on a synth like P6, P5 or Polybrute.
Regarding understanding why the envelopes steal like they do: there is actually another type of Retrigger mode that could be implemented, with firmware development -- "Always Retrigger from Start". It was discussed a while back in the Pro 3 forum... and I added a graphic to show the differences: https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,4246.msg43715.html#msg43715
(https://www.presetpatch.com/images/synth-retrigger-types.jpg)
Optimally, you want to have both options available - standard retrigger, along with retrigger from start mode. The "Always Retrigger from Start" option still has a voice stealing sound, but its nice to have as an alternate option.
Ultimately if there was a slew control / smoothing variable on retrigger from start, that would be the ultimate in flexibility. This would be a great area of development for all Seqs synths... especially if its a shared library of code / IP that can be reused in future synths with similar envelope architecture. That plus ADR contour shaping would really be great advances for envelopes / sound design.
Yeah, I think Always Retrigger from Start and/or slew to take the edge off would be welcome fixes. I wonder if there are any synths currently that do this? And if not, is there some technical hurdle that makes implementing it challenging?
several synths can work this way. Its not ideal either in truth - it brings its own problems for certain styles. You need both types, and for the choice to be patch savable to make these triggering methods actually work... Even then there may be times you need both types depending on what passage you play...
so it really is just down to polyphony. Low Poly synths are both great, and not great depending.... If you want slow attack/release pads, where your playing more than 3 note chords,,,, dont choose a 6 note poly. Or even 8 (though they are better). Good luck finding a 16 note VCO poly that isnt the very expensive moog one 16 voice....
Ultimately the limitations are also part of the charm.
-
If 6 isn't enough you can always multitrack for recording, and use shell/power chords live.
I've always got the other hand on the OB~6 or Rev2, so 6 is no issue for me ;)
This! Back in the day it also wasn't a problem, it just takes a bit more work if you are a composer (multitrack). Ofcourse for live we can imagine that it can be a pita, but then you have the ability to use another synthesizer for the bass notes for example, or just play less notes. ;D
-
I always thought this limitation was part of the magic of analog, and kinda what you pay for.. I mean the voices are analog discreet cards.. by their very function you can only fit so many.. And each cost a lot of money.. isn't that what having a analog poly is all about?
You can always get a va plug in if you want like repro 5 and get a ton of voices and similar sound.. you pay three and a half grand to get a limited wonky analog synth that had voltages and electricity flowing all through it under your fingers, limitations are the charm!!
-
I always thought this limitation was part of the magic of analog, and kinda what you pay for.. I mean the voices are analog discreet cards.. by their very function you can only fit so many.. And each cost a lot of money.. isn't that what having a analog poly is all about?
You can always get a va plug in if you want like repro 5 and get a ton of voices and similar sound.. you pay three and a half grand to get a limited wonky analog synth that had voltages and electricity flowing all through it under your fingers, limitations are the charm!!
I am a fan of limitations... but the real topic here is not as much about the number of voices available, but how they retrigger. Granted, the thread title is a bit misleading in the sense that retriggering behavior becomes less noticeable with higher voice counts (*sometimes), but I wanted to clarify the original topic wasn't directly about dropped notes.
*I said sometimes here because on the P5/10 Rev4 for example, if Prophet5 style voice allocation is used, the total number of voices available doesn't matter much. If you play a note with a long release, move off the note and then come back and play it again, it will play using the existing envelope instead of retriggering. Switching to round-robin voice allocation mode is typically better for pads for this reason. With some sounds, the unpredictable retriggering might have a pleasing sound and thus be desirable, though I find that to be the exception. I do sometimes wonder if that affected playing technique on all the tracks the P5 Rev1-3 was used on in the 70s and 80s.