REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)

[Sacred Synthesis]

I think DSI reserved Sequential for the P5 successor. I also feel that's the end of poly VCOs from them. That may be best, as it keeps those two as flagship legends. An 8 or 12-voice would be amazing, but then you can just grab a module. Same for the short keybed...it is what it is.

It is a shame to see the Sequential name come back for a very late encore appearance, and not be used further. Sequential Circuits sounds and looks a lot cooler than DSI. Sorry, but it's true lol. However, the Prophet line is an even cooler name and series, so I'm excited to see that continue on the Rev2!

If such is the case, if this is Dave's actual reasoning, then it would be consistent to bring back as well a successor to the Pro One.  I know - there's the Pro 2 - but that's an entirely different instrument.  A Pro One REV2 would be one voice of the Prophet-6.  It could be called a "Prophet One".

[LoboLives]

I think DSI reserved Sequential for the P5 successor. I also feel that's the end of poly VCOs from them. That may be best, as it keeps those two as flagship legends. An 8 or 12-voice would be amazing, but then you can just grab a module. Same for the short keybed...it is what it is.

It is a shame to see the Sequential name come back for a very late encore appearance, and not be used further. Sequential Circuits sounds and looks a lot cooler than DSI. Sorry, but it's true lol. However, the Prophet line is an even cooler name and series, so I'm excited to see that continue on the Rev2!

If such is the case, if this is Dave's actual reasoning, then it would be consistent to bring back as well a successor to the Pro One.  I know - there's the Pro 2 - but that's an entirely different instrument.  A Pro One REV2 would be one voice of the Prophet-6.  It could be called a "Prophet One".

Or a Prophet X which is Two Prophet 6 modules in a single keyboard that are totally independent of each other and optional second tier! Basically a VCO based Prophet REV2 with the option of a lower tier that the first can be placed on.

[Sacred Synthesis]

Do you mean a successor to the Prophet 10 - "X" meaning the Roman numeral ten?  Now you're talking!  But of course, this is pure fantasy.  In the age of portability, it's hard to imagine DSI producing anything larger than the standard Prophet '08/Prophet 12 sized instrument.

[LoboLives]

Do you mean a successor to the Prophet 10 - "X" meaning the Roman numeral?  Now you're talking!  But of course, this is pure fantasy.  In the age of portability, it's hard to imagine DSI producing anything larger than the standard Prophet '08/Prophet 12 sized instrument.

You know...I never even thought about the Roman Numeral but that works too! I was more or less thinking X as it Cross meaning you could split the keyboard, stack and have each module running individually of themselves. So you can cross both modules any way you'd like...sort of inspired by the X Mod section of the OB6. Can't really call it a Prophet 12 now can we

While DSI is focusing on portability, this is still feasible as an option. Meaning you can buy the synth as is (5 octaves) and there is also the option of a separate base/controller that you can buy individually (Much like the Hammond XK-3 Lower Manual) with no modifications to the Prophet X itself. The synth basically attaches/detaches from it and with a midi connection it hooks up to it. In fact let's take it even further....TWO Midi Ins and TWO Midi Outs, ONE Midi through.

[Sacred Synthesis]

There are two-manual five octave MIDI keyboard controllers that could control DSI modules.  Even Synthesizers.com has smaller two-manual controllers.

http://www.synthesizers.com/qkb.html

[LoboLives]

There are two-manual five octave MIDI keyboard controllers that could control DSI modules.  Even Synthesizers.com has smaller two-manual controllers.

http://www.synthesizers.com/qkb.html

Where's the fun in that?

[dsetto]

I would be interested in the Prophet REV2 sixteen-voice even if it was mono-tymbral.

I agree fully.

[TacticalHamster]

I think DSI reserved Sequential for the P5 successor. I also feel that's the end of poly VCOs from them. That may be best, as it keeps those two as flagship legends. An 8 or 12-voice would be amazing, but then you can just grab a module. Same for the short keybed...it is what it is.

It is a shame to see the Sequential name come back for a very late encore appearance, and not be used further. Sequential Circuits sounds and looks a lot cooler than DSI. Sorry, but it's true lol. However, the Prophet line is an even cooler name and series, so I'm excited to see that continue on the Rev2!

I really hope that's not the case. What a waste that would be to make such a big deal about "Sequential is back" for just a one off.

Perhaps, just speculating here. There would be a branch off or subsidiary company under the DSI banner with the Sequential name which focuses on higher end instruments (higher price range, VCOs, VS synthesis etc) with limited production while the DSI name focuses on lower cost more accessible instruments. Perhaps if DSI grows larger (Which I'm confident it will) this may be a possibility.

Indeed on all points.

It seems logical that DSI would utilize the Sequential name specifically for flagship VCO synths, minus collaborations.

I've heard that the P08 and others have sold more units than the P6/OB6 (cost being one, and versatility winning over whatever buzzword we want to give VCOs). If the Rev2 sells exceptionally well, and I know it will at the USD $1500 & 2000 price points, I think we'll see an additional successor of the P10 with Sequential branding.

Out of all the older poly synths I played or owned, the Prophet 5 was my favorite. It didn't have overt character or a hip moog interface, but it was awesome. I forgot about it as Roland, Korg, Moog, and others did their thing and DCOs became the workhorse staple designs. When the P6 rolled around, I was hooked. Maybe similar to running into a high school sweetheart, and both being single. Haha.

Back to Rev2 though:
I did pre-order the Rev2, and hoping it fills some gaps in the studio. I'm never an early adopter, but I can't find information on whether or not DSI synths go through product changes after initial launch. Is it just software that patches initial problems, or iare there hardware revisions too?

[Sacred Synthesis]

I'm never an early adopter, but I can't find information on whether or not DSI synths go through product changes after initial launch. Is it just software that patches initial problems, or iare there hardware revisions too?

Oh my Oh my, yes, they do!  OS updates, bug fixes, occasionally added features.  The various phases of finding problems and fixing them last a total of about one year.  There are discussions about it on this forum and some clear descriptions of the time frames by Robot Heart.  But some times these problems are minimal, as with the OB-6.  I'm hoping that the Prophet REV2, since it's something of an upgrade rather than a new instrument, will spare us this difficult time.

[TacticalHamster]

I'm never an early adopter, but I can't find information on whether or not DSI synths go through product changes after initial launch. Is it just software that patches initial problems, or iare there hardware revisions too?

Oh my Oh my, yes, they do!  OS updates, bug fixes, occasionally added features.  The various phases of finding problems and fixing them last a total of about one year.  There are discussions about it on this forum and some clear descriptions of the time frames by Robot Heart.  But some times these problems are minimal, as with the OB-6.  I'm hoping that the Prophet REV2, since it's something of an upgrade rather than a new instrument, will spare us this difficult time.

Does it historically involve changes to hardware (i.e. revisions to mainboard), or is it usually software that can be patched by us?

I can put up with software fixes but being put out due to hardware flaws I simply cannot deal with.

[Sacred Synthesis]

It's just software updates from the DSI web site.  They do a great job of it, but some times people get a bit heated over the waiting period.  If you're good at doing this sort of update, then you'll be fine.  Nothing to worry about.  The board swapping is involved only when you need an instrument repair.

[jdt9517]

So really at what point does it just become unnecessary and too cacophonous to really work alongside anything.

It really depends upon how the instrument is being used.  In live work, one can really eat up a lot of voices quickly like Sacred Synthesis points out. 

OTOH, in the studio situation, a production can be done with few voices.  In my recording days of old, 5 voices on a synth were plenty.  There would be multiple tracks, but for the most part, 2 or 3 voices were the max I would use per track.  Each track would be layered one at a time against a "click track" until the finished product was produced.  So, the P-5 easily handled most studio situations.  Bette Davis Eyes (Kim Carnes) or Sweet Dreams (Eurythmics) are good examples of this kind of application. 

However, in live use, I had to make sure any use of the P-5 was limited to 5 voice situations.  This usually meant 2-4 voice string accompaniment, clavinet sounds, etc.  Nothing large and lush.   When the DX-7 came out with 16 voices, suddenly a synth could do piano parts.  That's why the Rhodes sounds from the DX became such an important mainstay.  No synth before that time could effectively perform electric/acoustic piano sounds. 

[Sacred Synthesis]

My perspective comes from a solo synthesist arrangement in which there are no other musicians and no other sounds, but only those produced by the solo synthesist.  When you remove all other instruments and instrumentalists, it's amazing how much musical room you have for yourself.  Elements such as a singer's voice, a drummer's cymbals, or a guitarist's power chords occupy an immense amount of sonic room.  In such an environment, it is indeed prudent for a synthesist to limit his or her number of voices.  But in the soloist environment, where you've got to occupy all the sonic space yourself, and where little imperfections such as note re-assignment "pops" are painfully noticeable, the wisest policy is, the-more-the-better.  The greater the number of voices available, the better.  The bigger the sound potential, the better.  The longer the keyboards and pedalboards, the better.  That's one of the reasons I'm all in for the Prophet REV2 sixteen-voice, even though I'll approach it with a certain amount of caution, just to make certain it really does sound as good as, or even better than, the Prophet '08.

In addition, my style of music does not use sounds and effects such as distortion and feedback that often leave little room for other sounds and effects.  With the exception of massive organ, brass, string, and other large scale pads, the sounds used are very clean and light.  For example, one of my favorite accompaniment sounds is called "PWM Piano," which I use quite often.  With this patch, I could easily play arpeggios that cover the entire range of a five-octave keyboard without creating any muddiness or lack of clarity.  For such a part, six or eight voices simply do not suffice.  There are other sounds, such as dreamy pads with slow attacks, long delays, and slow filter sweeps, that demand ten or more voices if they are to achieve the beautiful mysteriousness that I'm after. 

I could go on and on here, giving many other examples, such as bell and carillon patches.  My simple point is, for solo synthesizer music of the more classical type, the more voices and sonic power the better.

[jdt9517]

+1  Well said.

[Sacred Synthesis]

Thanks, Jdt.

[LoboLives]

Horses for courses I guess. I've never experienced voices being robbed but again my stuff is more simplistic John Carpenter style stuff but I just feel the 16 Voice Polyphony should be utilized better like it did with the Andromeda. 

[Sacred Synthesis]

Lobo, I'm just saying I'm happy to see something of a large-scale synthesizer.  It's rare these days, with so many small, little, tiny micro, mini, instruments that are perfectly useless to me.

[jtweito]

Nice in depth video. Even shows the 8 voice extension card that can be added in the field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1QPp5yVQGA

[Sacred Synthesis]

Excellent video interview and demonstration.  That particular REV2 must have been either an eight-voice, or else, a sixteen voice in Stack Mode for a few patches, because several times you can hear the notes being stolen.  How quickly a synthesizer runs out of voices.

[jtweito]

Excellent video interview and demonstration.  That particular REV2 must have been either an eight-voice, or else, a sixteen voice in Stack Mode for a few patches, because several times you can hear the notes being stolen.  How quickly a synthesizer runs out of voices.

I agree. I'm opting for the 16 just for long tails not having any note robbery going. And I think that you are dead on about that being the 8 voice keyboard. I listened again and I can distinctly hear the note loss. That video showed off the mod new mod assign style and now I'm super excited. It's the little things that changed that I'm looking forward to the most (like not using a pot to select osc wave).