Next New Sequential Instrument

[LoboLives]

Please, for the love of all that is holy, no more reissues. I really would hate to see Sequential fall down that rabbit hole. Let’s move forward please. A Pro One reissue makes no sense other than a gimmick. What exactly would it offer that a Pro 3 cant?

Dave said he’s not going to do a Prophet VS reissue or Prophet T8 reissue or whatever but if he goes back on that it would be really sad and come off as throwing in the towel against Uli’s clone crusade.

This is why I think the Prophet 5 reissue was great from a marketing standpoint and from a business standpoint...but it seems it’s also set a really bad precedent in terms of opening the flood gates to demands from people for OBX reissues, Prophet VS reissues, Linn Drum reissues, Pro One reissues. Now it feels that no matter what innovation Sequential come out with their customers have now been given the excuse “why can’t you reissue ___ instead?”

I was absolutely thrilled when the Prophet X got announced because I wanted Sequential to do something with samples but if they just came out with a Prophet 2000 reissue I likely would have face palmed.

Why not just bring back floppy discs while we are at it?

[LPF83]

Please, for the love of all that is holy, no more reissues. I really would hate to see Sequential fall down that rabbit hole. Let’s move forward please. A Pro One reissue makes no sense other than a gimmick. What exactly would it offer that a Pro 3 cant?

It would be capable of all of the limitations of the original that resulted in a lot of vintage music sounding the way it did.  Surely you realize there is an entire culture around carpentry and woodworking without using power tools?  Because some folks enjoy the creativity (and in many cases the differences in outcome of the final product) that results from working within creative limitations.  The chair you create without power tools isn't going to be able to do everything that a chair from Ikea or La-Z-Boy can do, but the creation of it can be a HELL of a lot more satisfying than placing an order online.  Same kinda deal with vintage synths.

For some of us, the experience of the journey of music making and sound design is far more important than how many features a synth has, or how many tracks we sell, or other measures, and vintage gear provides a hell of a journey.

Why not just bring back floppy discs while we are at it?

Checkout Espen Kraft's work.  I'm not sure he would allow a synth without a floppy disk drive in his studio!  (Unless it was a synth from before the days that floppys were an option).

[A Thousand Eyes]

@Lobo: Well what do you suggest to truly move forward? Now that you're a workstation man, perhaps you'll rethink the possibility of an analog workstation, which you scoffed at before... Other than that, a knobby linear FM synth, or a patchable modular ecosystem, I don't see much innovative things coming down the pipeline. Actually, if I had to invest in the real frontier of synthesis, I'd put money down on vocal modeling technology. 

[LPF83]

@Lobo: Well what do you suggest to truly move forward? Now that you're a workstation man, perhaps you'll rethink the possibility of an analog workstation, which you scoffed at before... Other than that, a knobby linear FM synth, or a patchable modular ecosystem, I don't see much innovative things coming down the pipeline. Actually, if I had to invest in the real frontier of synthesis, I'd put money down on vocal modeling technology.

That's the thing, the Golden Age of Synthesis has come and gone, and in the quest to advance the technology aspect of it, a lot of things were lost.  Innovation will come in various other forms (such as controllers), but I'm not sure where the actual synthesis aspect can go from here.

The first synth I ever owned was an additive synth (not many additive synths ever existed, it was a technology that just never took off).  On paper, it was the panacea, because the way harmonics are constructed during design of the sound makes it perhaps the only synthesis technology that is capable of faithfully reproducing or sculpting any sound imaginable.  On paper is one thing and reality is another....  having the technology available to do something, and actually doing it are two different things.  The Kawai synths were the best additive synths ever made, yet anyone will tell you that as instruments they lacked so much of the charisma of their peers at the time.  Programming them was difficult, but even more difficult was understanding the science behind what truly makes a sound what it is, even if you do have the tools to make it at your disposal.  Meanwhile subtractive synths were so easy to program -- limited yes, but easy and fun and much harder to go wrong since you can just intuitively find sweet spots, and when you find something that sounds good modulate it a little bit.   So subtractive synths won.  That is the paradox of synth technology.  More features aren't necessarily better.

[LoboLives]

Please, for the love of all that is holy, no more reissues. I really would hate to see Sequential fall down that rabbit hole. Let’s move forward please. A Pro One reissue makes no sense other than a gimmick. What exactly would it offer that a Pro 3 cant?

It would be capable of all of the limitations of the original that resulted in a lot of vintage music sounding the way it did.  Surely you realize there is an entire culture around carpentry and woodworking without using power tools?  Because some folks enjoy the creativity (and in many cases the differences in outcome of the final product) that results from working within creative limitations.  The chair you create without power tools isn't going to be able to do everything that a chair from Ikea or La-Z-Boy can do, but the creation of it can be a HELL of a lot more satisfying than placing an order online.  Same kinda deal with vintage synths.

For some of us, the experience of the journey of music making and sound design is far more important than how many features a synth has, or how many tracks we sell, or other measures, and vintage gear provides a hell of a journey.

Those limitations and sounds can easily be replicated in the Pro 3.

Do you record your music on tape or direct to wax?

[LoboLives]

@Lobo: Well what do you suggest to truly move forward? Now that you're a workstation man, perhaps you'll rethink the possibility of an analog workstation, which you scoffed at before... Other than that, a knobby linear FM synth, or a patchable modular ecosystem, I don't see much innovative things coming down the pipeline. Actually, if I had to invest in the real frontier of synthesis, I'd put money down on vocal modeling technology.

Well like for example the Prophet 5 reissue. Sequential got the chips and filters and almost everything exactly how the original was....I would like to see those chips in a bi timbral VCO poly synth with a poly aftertouch keyboard by expressive E.

I’d like to see multitimbral engine. Nothing crazy but something along the lines of an ARP Quadra (two mono synth engines, string synth, poly synth) or four mono synths that has poly stack mode. This is something I was hoping the Pro 3 could do with its 3 filters, 3 oscillators.

Or as you said a knob based FM synth.

I know people roll their eyes at things like vocoders but I think that would be a really nice option to add a different texture to one’s music. Not just for robot voices but really experiment with formant filter types.

[LPF83]

Those limitations and sounds can easily be replicated in the Pro 3.

If you take a power circular saw, unplug it, and use it to grind down a piece of wood manually using only the blade and elbow grease -- you have simulated one form of the limitation in the sense that you did it without power.  However you have not accurately simulated the experience one would have using legacy wood carving tools.  At the end of the day you might have a cut up piece of wood and be able to say you did it the hard way, but you have not recreated the authentic experience.

I get what you're saying..... I can make almost any synth sound mostly like any other synth, whether working with a limited synth and trying to make it sound like a more full featured one or vice versa....but don't forget, I'm describing the journey, not the end product.  Some of us find nostalgia inspiring, and it becomes part of the journey; additionally most people cannot be convinced that something should inspire them more than what already does.

Do you record your music on tape or direct to wax?

A lot of times I don't record at all, I will let it play straight out of my monitors for my own listening enjoyment.  I'm not involved in music professionally, so the music I create is not intended to entertain others.   I decided to make my money in software engineering rather than music, a career path I've never regretted.   I have not shared a song online since 2009.  I have to stress, it's the journey of the creation process I'm after, not the end product of the music.  Sometimes I want to hear something I wrote in the car just to remind myself how much fun I had creating it, but that's about the extent of it.   But I discard far more music than I keep.  Making music for me is like meditation for some...  Just a form of escapism that I truly enjoy.

... Don't take that to imply I'm opposed to newer synths with newer tech and more features.  I'm interested in those as well, but my interest in reissues isn't going away any time soon.

[LoboLives]

Those limitations and sounds can easily be replicated in the Pro 3.

If you take a power circular saw, unplug it, and use it to grind down a piece of wood manually using only the blade and elbow grease -- you have simulated one form of the limitation in the sense that you did it without power.  However you have not accurately simulated the experience one would have using legacy wood carving tools.  At the end of the day you might have a cut up piece of wood and be able to say you did it the hard way, but you have not recreated the authentic experience.

I get what you're saying..... I can make almost any synth sound mostly like any other synth, whether working with a limited synth and trying to make it sound like a more full featured one or vice versa....but don't forget, I'm describing the journey, not the end product.  Some of us find nostalgia inspiring, and it becomes part of the journey; additionally most people cannot be convinced that something should inspire them more than what already does.

Do you record your music on tape or direct to wax?

A lot of times I don't record at all, I will let it play straight out of my monitors for my own listening enjoyment.  I'm not involved in music professionally, so the music I create is not intended to entertain others.   I decided to make my money in software engineering rather than music, a career path I've never regretted.   I have not shared a song online since 2009.  I have to stress, it's the journey of the creation process I'm after, not the end product of the music.  Sometimes I want to hear something I wrote in the car just to remind myself how much fun I had creating it, but that's about the extent of it.   But I discard far more music than I keep.  Making music for me is like meditation for some...  Just a form of escapism that I truly enjoy.

... Don't take that to imply I'm opposed to newer synths with newer tech and more features.  I'm interested in those as well, but my interest in reissues isn't going away any time soon.

You know as someone who shoots on film and has spent thousands of dollars on old movie cameras and film stock. I understand what you are saying.

[LPF83]

Those limitations and sounds can easily be replicated in the Pro 3.

If you take a power circular saw, unplug it, and use it to grind down a piece of wood manually using only the blade and elbow grease -- you have simulated one form of the limitation in the sense that you did it without power.  However you have not accurately simulated the experience one would have using legacy wood carving tools.  At the end of the day you might have a cut up piece of wood and be able to say you did it the hard way, but you have not recreated the authentic experience.

I get what you're saying..... I can make almost any synth sound mostly like any other synth, whether working with a limited synth and trying to make it sound like a more full featured one or vice versa....but don't forget, I'm describing the journey, not the end product.  Some of us find nostalgia inspiring, and it becomes part of the journey; additionally most people cannot be convinced that something should inspire them more than what already does.

Do you record your music on tape or direct to wax?

A lot of times I don't record at all, I will let it play straight out of my monitors for my own listening enjoyment.  I'm not involved in music professionally, so the music I create is not intended to entertain others.   I decided to make my money in software engineering rather than music, a career path I've never regretted.   I have not shared a song online since 2009.  I have to stress, it's the journey of the creation process I'm after, not the end product of the music.  Sometimes I want to hear something I wrote in the car just to remind myself how much fun I had creating it, but that's about the extent of it.   But I discard far more music than I keep.  Making music for me is like meditation for some...  Just a form of escapism that I truly enjoy.

... Don't take that to imply I'm opposed to newer synths with newer tech and more features.  I'm interested in those as well, but my interest in reissues isn't going away any time soon.

You know as someone who shoots on film and has spent thousands of dollars on old movie cameras and film stock. I understand what you are saying.

As I was typing that, I remembered you had an interest in replicating John Carpenter's sound, so I was pretty sure there was some common ground in there somewhere 

[Paul Dither]

I think there's definitely a finite limit on the number of products they would embark on recreating, but given the initial order demand for the P5/10 Rev4 (according to Dave.. he's kicking himself wondering why they didn't do this 10 years ago), I think a Pro One re-issue would make a lot of sense.  The exception to that might be the fact that the Pro One was originally an affordable/down market synth.  Dave might feel there are too many down-market competitors in this space already, and that a reissue wouldn't offer enough to warrant a modern "made in USA" price tag.  If he could do a reissue Pro One for the approximate price difference between market value of a vintage P5 and the reissue, then personally I think he would have a winner.

Despite there being a lot of demand for the Prophet-5/10, I would expect this kind of reissue to be a one-off. While the Pro 3 might not be exactly what one would call a limited instrument, it's probably the one Sequential instrument that's related the most to the Pro-One ever since the latter was released.

[LoboLives]

Those limitations and sounds can easily be replicated in the Pro 3.

If you take a power circular saw, unplug it, and use it to grind down a piece of wood manually using only the blade and elbow grease -- you have simulated one form of the limitation in the sense that you did it without power.  However you have not accurately simulated the experience one would have using legacy wood carving tools.  At the end of the day you might have a cut up piece of wood and be able to say you did it the hard way, but you have not recreated the authentic experience.

I get what you're saying..... I can make almost any synth sound mostly like any other synth, whether working with a limited synth and trying to make it sound like a more full featured one or vice versa....but don't forget, I'm describing the journey, not the end product.  Some of us find nostalgia inspiring, and it becomes part of the journey; additionally most people cannot be convinced that something should inspire them more than what already does.

Do you record your music on tape or direct to wax?

A lot of times I don't record at all, I will let it play straight out of my monitors for my own listening enjoyment.  I'm not involved in music professionally, so the music I create is not intended to entertain others.   I decided to make my money in software engineering rather than music, a career path I've never regretted.   I have not shared a song online since 2009.  I have to stress, it's the journey of the creation process I'm after, not the end product of the music.  Sometimes I want to hear something I wrote in the car just to remind myself how much fun I had creating it, but that's about the extent of it.   But I discard far more music than I keep.  Making music for me is like meditation for some...  Just a form of escapism that I truly enjoy.

... Don't take that to imply I'm opposed to newer synths with newer tech and more features.  I'm interested in those as well, but my interest in reissues isn't going away any time soon.

You know as someone who shoots on film and has spent thousands of dollars on old movie cameras and film stock. I understand what you are saying.

As I was typing that, I remembered you had an interest in replicating John Carpenter's sound, so I was pretty sure there was some common ground in there somewhere 

But much like The Thing I would like to imitate and evolve at once.

[Manbird]

Please, for the love of all that is holy, no more reissues. I really would hate to see Sequential fall down that rabbit hole. Let’s move forward please. A Pro One reissue makes no sense other than a gimmick. What exactly would it offer that a Pro 3 cant?

It would be capable of all of the limitations of the original that resulted in a lot of vintage music sounding the way it did.  Surely you realize there is an entire culture around carpentry and woodworking without using power tools?  Because some folks enjoy the creativity (and in many cases the differences in outcome of the final product) that results from working within creative limitations.  The chair you create without power tools isn't going to be able to do everything that a chair from Ikea or La-Z-Boy can do, but the creation of it can be a HELL of a lot more satisfying than placing an order online.  Same kinda deal with vintage synths.

For some of us, the experience of the journey of music making and sound design is far more important than how many features a synth has, or how many tracks we sell, or other measures, and vintage gear provides a hell of a journey.

Those limitations and sounds can easily be replicated in the Pro 3.

I think possibly that the "replication of limitations out of a menu of many options" idea misses the point a bit, if I may poetically mangle your Pro 3 notion. I don't actually want to record on cassette 4-track anymore, and I find value in Pro Tools, Logic, Studio One and such, but what I long for is the making creative use of limitations. I dream of fewer options, not more.   

I posted ages back in the "What should DSI/Sequential do next?" sweepstakes that I'd love to see a polyphonic Pro One. I wasn't really serious, but my point was that a non-programmable poly that just kinda "did its thing and not much more" was very appealing to me. Limitation is appealing. We have so much of every possible everything, we're utterly swamped and generally overloaded/overwhelmed in life these days. The longer I spend on earth, the more music I make/release and the more synths/guitars/etc get added to my stack of worldly possessions, the more I dream of giving it all away except for a single (fill in the blank.)

That there are some people startled that the new P5 *only* has a mono output and no effects is funny to me. I'm not a retro-headed fiend, but I certainly never found a synth I love more than the Prophet 5. My Pro One gives me the same satisfaction. I tweak it, it sounds great, I record a track with it. The Pro One was my first synth, it's pretty much an archetypal synth, far as I can tell. I'm not actually invested in suggesting what Sequential should do next, but I deeply appreciate that Dave has re-issued the P5. I'd never knock a company for making something that works beautifully, sounds so good and brings people joy. A newly built (slightly sturdier) Pro One? It's an instrument loved by so many. They got it right the first time, and an imagined reissue would only make it available to more people. Nowt wrong with that.   

[A Thousand Eyes]

But much like The Thing I would like to imitate and evolve at once.

R.I.P. Morricone

[Sacred Synthesis]

Egads, if Uli ever touches the Evolver - any Evolver - I will move to another planet so as never to see or hear it. 

[LoboLives]

Egads, if Uli ever touches the Evolver - any Evolver - I will move to another planet so as never to see or hear it.

I feel the same way if Dave decides to start doing more reissues.

[LPF83]

I think there's definitely a finite limit on the number of products they would embark on recreating, but given the initial order demand for the P5/10 Rev4 (according to Dave.. he's kicking himself wondering why they didn't do this 10 years ago), I think a Pro One re-issue would make a lot of sense.  The exception to that might be the fact that the Pro One was originally an affordable/down market synth.  Dave might feel there are too many down-market competitors in this space already, and that a reissue wouldn't offer enough to warrant a modern "made in USA" price tag.  If he could do a reissue Pro One for the approximate price difference between market value of a vintage P5 and the reissue, then personally I think he would have a winner.

Despite there being a lot of demand for the Prophet-5/10, I would expect this kind of reissue to be a one-off. While the Pro 3 might not be exactly what one would call a limited instrument, it's probably the one Sequential instrument that's related the most to the Pro-One ever since the latter was released.

And as LoboLives pointed out, no doubt the Pro3 can sound like a Pro One.  But, if I search Youtube for videos of the Pro3, while many of them sound great (and all the features, filter options, sequencer, etc. look like much fun), not one of the videos I've seen captures the soul of the use cases of the original Pro One the way that the P5/10 reissue captures the original.  So from that perspective, having a synth with the look and feel of the original, that includes the same ranges of parameters, might strike the right chord with a lot of fans of vintage gear (and at the same time might be relatively inexpensive to produce, being such a simple instrument).  Dave could split his product line into "legacy" (reissue) and newer innovations, using successes of the P5 to expand the company's product line.

[Paul Dither]

And as LoboLives pointed out, no doubt the Pro3 can sound like a Pro One.  But, if I search Youtube for videos of the Pro3, while many of them sound great (and all the features, filter options, sequencer, etc. look like much fun), not one of the videos I've seen captures the soul of the use cases of the original Pro One the way that the P5/10 reissue captures the original.  So from that perspective, having a synth with the look and feel of the original, that includes the same ranges of parameters, might strike the right chord with a lot of fans of vintage gear (and at the same time might be relatively inexpensive to produce, being such a simple instrument).  Dave could split his product line into "legacy" (reissue) and newer innovations, using successes of the P5 to expand the company's product line.

As for the use cases of the Pro-One and the Pro 3: Due to the different features both instruments provide, musicians are of course using them in different manners. I do get your point about simplicity and immediacy, though, which is why I enjoy an instrument like the Moog Grandmother, for example. However, I do think that the Prophet-5/10 reissue won't cause something like a legacy series. No Sequential synth was/is as iconic as the Prophet-5 and the company's size doesn't exactly allow for split development teams.

[LPF83]

And as LoboLives pointed out, no doubt the Pro3 can sound like a Pro One.  But, if I search Youtube for videos of the Pro3, while many of them sound great (and all the features, filter options, sequencer, etc. look like much fun), not one of the videos I've seen captures the soul of the use cases of the original Pro One the way that the P5/10 reissue captures the original.  So from that perspective, having a synth with the look and feel of the original, that includes the same ranges of parameters, might strike the right chord with a lot of fans of vintage gear (and at the same time might be relatively inexpensive to produce, being such a simple instrument).  Dave could split his product line into "legacy" (reissue) and newer innovations, using successes of the P5 to expand the company's product line.

As for the use cases of the Pro-One and the Pro 3: Due to the different features both instruments provide, musicians are of course using them in different manners. I do get your point about simplicity and immediacy, though, which is why I enjoy an instrument like the Moog Grandmother, for example. However, I do think that the Prophet-5/10 reissue won't cause something like a legacy series. No Sequential synth was/is as iconic as the Prophet-5 and the company's size doesn't exactly allow for split development teams.

The P5/10 could very well be the last reissue ever done, but even if so, I will be thankful it happened.  I don't think that doing reissue synths is what Dave really wants to be doing, and the reissue of vintage gear is quite possibly a fad with a limited life span.  However I once did some rough spreadsheet estimations (key word being estimations), which were probably far from accurate, but may have been in the ballpark, in terms of what Sequentials net profits have been like (based on my own experiences with tech companies, manufacturing and cost estimates of doing business, the number of synth units sold), and my conclusion matches what Dave and Andrew said in a recent video that nobody is in the synth business to get rich.  This is why small synth companies have a habit of going out of business.  So from that perspective, when Dave temporarily puts down his engineer hat and puts on his business hat, I think he will go where the sales successes go first.  It's not an uncommon strategy to use the things you don't necessarily want to do / yet sell well, as a strategy for funding the things you do want to do.

[CoffeePockets]

I like the pro 3, think it’s an awesome instrument. But I prefer the Pro One. My previous comment was mostly a joke but if I had the choice between a pro 3 and a new, excellent build quality pro one I’d go pro one in a heartbeat. For the same reasons that someone would want a reissue prophet 5/10 over a prophet 08, Rev2, 6, 12, whatever else. As far as dirty old monos go I’d say the pro one is nearly as legendary as the 5 is to polys. You synth guys are a fickle lot, crippling nostalgia Sunday-Wednesday, fervent futurists Thursday-Saturday 

[LoboLives]

I like the pro 3, think it’s an awesome instrument. But I prefer the Pro One. My previous comment was mostly a joke but if I had the choice between a pro 3 and a new, excellent build quality pro one I’d go pro one in a heartbeat. For the same reasons that someone would want a reissue prophet 5/10 over a prophet 08, Rev2, 6, 12, whatever else. As far as dirty old monos go I’d say the pro one is nearly as legendary as the 5 is to polys. You synth guys are a fickle lot, crippling nostalgia Sunday-Wednesday, fervent futurists Thursday-Saturday 

I once had a discussion about guitars and someone admittedly said Tom Anderson and Suhr guitar’s are miles better than a Fender. From the sound, the playability, the craftsmanship, everything...but they would still buy a cheap Mexican made Fender over them because Clapton and Hendrix played a Fender. I truly believe none of this interests in reissues (of anything really) has anything to do with sound. It’s just a name and status most are interested in. That’s perfectly reasonable just as long as they aren’t trying to convince people otherwise.