Recent Posts
That’s why I was asking for a definition of harsh earlier on. One man’s harsh is another man’s super saw.
I recently read a bit from the CEM3396 datasheet, and it actually mention that they created exactly TWO VCA's to circumvent a particular distortion situation if it only had ONE VCA... it was something about the VCA envelope that would get possible distortion, if all volume was to be controlled thru only a single VCA CV... now I'm not sure if this has anything to do with this, but if you experience that this harshness/brightness goes away when lowering the Volume VCA, then it may be that it originate from the VCA curcuit maybe... i do not see how anything should be capable of overdriving the VCA stages, as they are the last in the signal chain inside the chip... the raw oscillators are obviously fed directly into the filter, and from there into the two VCA's after that... maybe it's a combination of the oscillators and the filter with resonance... i read in many Sequential manuals, that you CAN clip the Curtis chip with high resonance... so maybe the VCA's inside the chip can get driven too hard from the filter... or maybe if the output from the filter, when it's too low gets amplified and distorted in the VCA's somewhere? ... in other words, I do not know... but it would be fun to experiment a bit with the signal flow of the Curtis chip some day.
We haven't quite defined the meaning or cause of the "harshness" in this thread, so things are a bit vague. What I was referring to above was a harshness that was the result of slight distortion. Because I use layered patches all the time, distortion is a serious and constant problem for me. High audio levels, distortion, and a fully-open filter are a recipe for musical disaster. But again, I do think a full open filter can still be made to sound pleasant, rather than harsh.
Try running an pitch/mod wheel calibration.
Guess the problem to fit it in a desktop is that the X uses a standard Mini-ITX PC motherboard which is not under DSI design + the SSI 2144 analog board, with the Xilinx Artic 7 FPGA, which connects to the host board isn't small either. Then they need to find space for all the LCD displays, the controller boards and the harddisk. All in all it would be a pretty big undertaking + it would likely become more the size of a Benchtop than a Desktop, perhaps like the form factor of an MPC5000/MPC-X. Very simplified the X is equivalent to an USB based external controller with displays (Push like), a PC running headless Linux and a PCI-e (Thunderbolt) soundcard. Very impressive nevertheless.
http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/J3455-ITX/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8QDCocnt0M
I recently read a bit from the CEM3396 datasheet, and it actually mention that they created exactly TWO VCA's to circumvent a particular distortion situation if it only had ONE VCA... it was something about the VCA envelope that would get possible distortion, if all volume was to be controlled thru only a single VCA CV... now I'm not sure if this has anything to do with this, but if you experience that this harshness/brightness goes away when lowering the Volume VCA, then it may be that it originate from the VCA curcuit maybe... i do not see how anything should be capable of overdriving the VCA stages, as they are the last in the signal chain inside the chip... the raw oscillators are obviously fed directly into the filter, and from there into the two VCA's after that... maybe it's a combination of the oscillators and the filter with resonance... i read in many Sequential manuals, that you CAN clip the Curtis chip with high resonance... so maybe the VCA's inside the chip can get driven too hard from the filter... or maybe if the output from the filter, when it's too low gets amplified and distorted in the VCA's somewhere? ... in other words, I do not know... but it would be fun to experiment a bit with the signal flow of the Curtis chip some day.
The so called 'deep samples' are great. I played a 1928 Grand today, about eight different mic placements. On par w/ Galaxy Instruments grands. Very expressive despite the synth weighted keys.
Did you play with a suspend pedal? If so, how was the response, did it feel right? Basically asking to see of the PX could eventually replace my Nord Electro for piano and electric piano sounds..
It seems to be the claim here - at least among some - that the only way to avoid harshness in the Prophet '08/Rev2 is to somewhat close the filter. So, in 4-pole mode, a fully open filter creates an inescapable harshness? I wouldn't agree with this. There are ways of keeping a wide-open filter from being overbearing, the two most obvious being to restrain the VCA level and to be wary of resonance. With some patches, it even makes sense to slightly lower the VCA envelope sustain.
Yes, at higher amplitudes and with excessive resonance the instrument can sound harsh, but it isn't necessary; nor would I call such harshness a characteristic of the instrument. It's only a potential.
Of course I, too, agree with the above. My previous point was not so much about individual taste concerning filters and "good" sound in general though, but more a kind of praise of the Rev2 oscillators and filters "going to 11" (as Razmo mentioned earlier), which opens up for more sound possibilities. Considering it's a subtractive synth, the more starting material to subtract from, the better (generally speaking, of course it depends on the actual material character/quality as well, and the ways and designs to subtract from and modulate it etc etc etc).
Only reason I mentioned my general preference of filter settings on the Rev2 (not every other synth, I may add), was to relate to the main topic of "harshness" in this thread in what way I think the filter could be adding to this effect, and an idea on how to avoid it (since it doesn't seem to be the character that the original poster likes). So, my "opinion" on this was not in any way to suppose what is "good" or "bad", in any way. Did anybody not miss my point?
My opinion is this is an interesting topic.
... I did not even have your comment in my head when I wrote the above... it was just a general statement about the general debate I often see people have, on why this synth is better than that synth... you can certainly debate WHY someone have a bad feeling about a particular synth... I'll even call this thread an ok question... i like these debates if they are constructive, trying to analyze the "problem" etc... and as long as the debating parties have respect and a decent way of going about the debate 
... on other groups on the net, these kind of debates can quickly turn ugly... for no good reason really...