Next New Sequential Instrument

[LoboLives]

More importantly to me....will we ever see the Sequential name on anything again?

That is an intriguing question.  Could the name be reserved for one and only one instrument?  It seems absurd.  I suppose the Toraiz AS-1 could be partially regarded as a Sequential instrument.  But what about an all-new instrument?  And must Sequential remain a backward-looking line of synthesizers and DSI the forward-looking one?

I think ever since the Prophet-6 there was simply no reason to use the Sequential name. I guess it could have been used for the OB-6 for technical reasons, since the OB-6 was based on the topology of the Prophet-6. With regard to content, though, using the name DSI in conjunction with "Tom Oberheim" first emphasized the latest names of the designers' companies (after all, DSI is newer than Sequential) and second it also drew more attention to the two individuals Dave and Tom.

As the REV2 is an upgraded Prophet '08, the name DSI was mandatory. That pretty much only leaves the AS-1, for which the Sequential banner could have been rightly used due to it being related to the Prophet-6. But I assume, since DSI is still the main or general name of the company, they choose it for collaborations. It would also be confusing if one Toraiz product carried the name DSI and the other the name Sequential.

If we're ever to see a VCO mono synth from Dave Smith, I would say it will be through the Sequential concept.  Perhaps a Prophet 1?

Well, we just saw a new monosynth like that and it's called the AS-1. And the official answer to a reissued Pro-One was the Pro 2, which is much more powerful and runs circles around a Pro-One both in terms of features and sonic flexibility. So the two extremes of a monosynth - one based on the Prophet-6 voice, one forward looking powerhouse - have already been released.
It would make little to no sense to design a third monosynth whose novelty only lies in combining the engine of the AS-1 with a housing that's similar to that of the Pro 2 in terms of size, especially since the market is already pretty saturated with VCO-based monosynths. Plus: the Prophet-6 can also already be used as that kind of monosynth with a generous keyboard. Releasing just another monosynth version that wouldn't offer anything substantially new inside would also most likely cause the then not unjustified reaction, "they're running out of ideas."

As for next designs: This is getting harder to predict, especially since the whole market situation changed significantly over the past couple of years and even months. With an increasing number of low-, mid-, and high-price competitors around who also release or start to release analog or hybrid polysynths, innovative functionality and features become more and more important in order to come up with a product that's different and unique enough. That can happen on a rather subtle level like the inclusion of new technology (an example would be the use of FPGAs in the PEAK), or on a conceptual level that provides a different take on the topology of a synth voice. While I'm not saying that we need an Evolver REV2, an instrument in the spirit of the Evolver or something like a West-Coast-inspired polysynth that chysn once insinuated would certainly cater towards a different take on the conceptual side.

An eccentric or overly experimental design, however, is not always without any risks either, as especially the Prophet '08, the Prophet-6, and the OB-6 proved that people are definitely more into simpler engines. It was never really a question, for example, whether the Poly Evolver or the Prophet '08 was the bestseller.

I'd be horribly disappointed if I don't ever see the Sequential name again. Why not have DSI for affordably priced synths and Sequential reserved for VCO based or higher priced synths or perhaps throwback type synths.

What is puzzling to me is Dave has often said "If you want more of X simply use the module" yet essentially the Rev 2 is just two 08 modules together with a better layout. So are we to expect a Prophet 6 Rev 2? Hell, let's take it one step further....4 synth engines under one hood. Prophet x4. With four patches that can be zoned across the key bed or stacked. With a simple 4 rows of Prophet 6/OB6 patch/ bank selection. Keep it away from the menu diving.

[Paul Dither]

One of my favorite Pro-2 tricks is to modulate the Slop amount with a slow, slewed random LFO... Dial it is as subtle or wild as you want. Gives life to the sound that screams analogue.

Exactly. And by that you also mentioned another incredible option: the LFO slew parameter which comes in handy when you try to find the right balance between the modulation amount and the overall modulation intensity or rather amplitude. As for achieving a pleasant analog tone: With the help of subtle distortion you can easily thicken the sound by adding more harmonics and not necessarily distorting it in the typical distortion effect manner. In that sense you can make it work a bit like a boost pedal. That also works incredibly well on rather digital and ethereal pad sounds. Add a bit of delay to that and you'll end up with quite huge sounding pads. In fact, I would say that I did most of my favorite pad sounds on the Pro 2, as it also provides the most delicious filter combo of any DSI synth in my view.

[Paul Dither]

I'd be horribly disappointed if I don't ever see the Sequential name again. Why not have DSI for affordably priced synths and Sequential reserved for VCO based or higher priced synths or perhaps throwback type synths.

What is puzzling to me is Dave has often said "If you want more of X simply use the module" yet essentially the Rev 2 is just two 08 modules together with a better layout. So are we to expect a Prophet 6 Rev 2? Hell, let's take it one step further....4 synth engines under one hood. Prophet x4. With four patches that can be zoned across the key bed or stacked. With a simple 4 rows of Prophet 6/OB6 patch/ bank selection. Keep it away from the menu diving.

I see a niche market here for Sequential name plates. 

Seriously though, I could see the name reappear either on another reimagined classic (Prophet VS?) or on another VCO-based synth. But it's all hard to predict. As Dave once mentioned, he doesn't plan years ahead, so maybe he doesn't even know himself when or how to use the Sequential name next.

I'm pretty certain that we won't see a Prophet-6 REV2. First of all because the Prophet-6 is still relatively new and secondly because of pricing reasons. What a Prophet-6 with twice the voice count would cost can be easily estimated by adding the price of the keyboard and the module versions. It wouldn't get much cheaper, especially since you would have to create a new and bigger chassis, as 61 keys would be mandatory for that many voices.

[chysn]

It's all been done. I think the only way to go now is a 10-octave dual manual Prophet 6.

It shall be called the Prophet 12.

[Paul Dither]

It's all been done. I think the only way to go now is a 10-octave dual manual Prophet 6.

It shall be called the Prophet 12.

 

[Sacred Synthesis]

Now I had one of those a few years ago, and I'm sure if the keyboard had looked like that, I would have noticed. 

[chysn]

I'd love to be able to play on that for a little while. Imagine little piano students everywhere learning that the most important interval is the minor third!

[LoboLives]

I still think something that can do more than one split and layer point is the way to go. A simple one patch on the lower half and another on the upper half just isn't that fresh anymore.

[DavidDever]

I still think something that can do more than one split and layer point is the way to go. A simple one patch on the lower half and another on the upper half just isn't that fresh anymore.

Perhaps something along these lines, from the Tetra:

Though the other combos and program banks can be used as a starting point for building new combos, the actual programs used are copies, so any edits made in Combo Mode do not affect the source programs. The converse is also true. Say a combo is created using the program “Arid” and then Arid is subsequently edited in Program Mode. Those changes will not be propagated to the combo. (The edited program can be reassigned to the combo, though.) In other words, Combos contain all parameters for all four voices when saved, and do not rely on referencing or mapping other programs, making organization and maintenance much easier.

[Paul Dither]

I still think something that can do more than one split and layer point is the way to go. A simple one patch on the lower half and another on the upper half just isn't that fresh anymore.

I think the main reason for why multi-timbrality is not really a priority anymore amongst many musicians is the easy multi-tracking recording practice that goes hand in hand with using a DAW. From that perspective the only type of instrument where multi-timbrality would actually still make sense is the drum or rhythm machine that provides the option to assign a different MIDI-track to each percussive element of a given pattern. And instruments like the Tempest or the Analog Rytm do indeed allow for that. I think the Analog Four and the Vermona Perfourmer do too.

Nevertheless, there has been a sort of paradigm shift. I got my first synth in the 90s where it was considered to be standard to have 16 or at the very least 8 times multi-timbrality. It would have been hard for me to do any hardware MIDI sequencer based recordings without that feature. But the recording environments have changed.

What also needs to be considered is that many regard analog synths as specialized tools that are mostly used for particular sounds only analog synths can provide and not because of their MIDI capabilities. The amount of diversification that goes hand in hand with a more specialized assignment of instruments also runs counter to the idea of the classic workstation or instruments that should be capable of almost anything all by themselves. Today, the DAW took over that role for the most part. In many cases, it's the only center left in studios with lots of instruments that are supposed to take over particular tasks gathered around it.

Finally, CV gained a returning popularity over MIDI. There are even circles in which MIDI has become a dirty word, or in which people don't even know anything about the advantages anymore, or where they are simply not needed.

[Sacred Synthesis]

Plus the popularity of looping which turns one instrument into an ensemble, although a very repetitious one.

[dslsynth]

Since you've come from GS, you may need to enlist in our series of intensive deprogramming sessions in which, after having several differences of opinions with other posters, you'll be physically restrained and made to respond to them without profanity, abuse, or face-in-palm emoticons.  If you survive, then you'll be declared clean and fit to post.

. o O ( Gear Skunks )

[LoboLives]

I still think something that can do more than one split and layer point is the way to go. A simple one patch on the lower half and another on the upper half just isn't that fresh anymore.

I think the main reason for why multi-timbrality is not really a priority anymore amongst many musicians is the easy multi-tracking recording practice that goes hand in hand with using a DAW. From that perspective the only type of instrument where multi-timbrality would actually still make sense is the drum or rhythm machine that provides the option to assign a different MIDI-track to each percussive element of a given pattern. And instruments like the Tempest or the Analog Rytm do indeed allow for that. I think the Analog Four and the Vermona Perfourmer do too.

Nevertheless, there has been a sort of paradigm shift. I got my first synth in the 90s where it was considered to be standard to have 16 or at the very least 8 times multi-timbrality. It would have been hard for me to do any hardware MIDI sequencer based recordings without that feature. But the recording environments have changed.

What also needs to be considered is that many regard analog synths as specialized tools that are mostly used for particular sounds only analog synths can provide and not because of their MIDI capabilities. The amount of diversification that goes hand in hand with a more specialized assignment of instruments also runs counter to the idea of the classic workstation or instruments that should be capable of almost anything all by themselves. Today, the DAW took over that role for the most part. In many cases, it's the only center left in studios with lots of instruments that are supposed to take over particular tasks gathered around it.

Finally, CV gained a returning popularity over MIDI. There are even circles in which MIDI has become a dirty word, or in which people don't even know anything about the advantages anymore, or where they are simply not needed.

I get that but honestly, I think it comes down to laziness. Everything is slowly becoming redundant now in terms of synths. I think Multi-timbrality would spice it up. It might not be "NEEDED" but frankly....guitar amps, actual analog synths, and hardware synths aren't "NEEDED" either. Nor are actual orchestral musicians for composers. Yet they still exist. The point I'm trying to make is, everyone's needs are different and it's good to have options. All I see now is DSI rehashing synths from the past, Moog stagnating, Korg releasing toys, and Waldorf essentially making a similar digital synth in varying bodies with slightly different features. Time to shake things up. There's about as much reason to release a multi timbral analog synth as there is to release a no preset/monophonic, 3 octave analog synth.

[dslsynth]

Everything is slowly becoming redundant now in terms of synths. I think Multi-timbrality would spice it up.

General synthesizer design advice: go for a walk in the Eurorack Wilderness (TM).

One extra vote for powerful multi-timbral features in new and existing products.

[Paul Dither]

I get that but honestly, I think it comes down to laziness. Everything is slowly becoming redundant now in terms of synths. I think Multi-timbrality would spice it up. It might not be "NEEDED" but frankly....guitar amps, actual analog synths, and hardware synths aren't "NEEDED" either. Nor are actual orchestral musicians for composers. Yet they still exist. The point I'm trying to make is, everyone's needs are different and it's good to have options. All I see now is DSI rehashing synths from the past, Moog stagnating, Korg releasing toys, and Waldorf essentially making a similar digital synth in varying bodies with slightly different features. Time to shake things up. There's about as much reason to release a multi timbral analog synth as there is to release a no preset/monophonic, 3 octave analog synth.

I didn't mean to call into question any needs. I was just trying to consider a couple of current trends and developments that do also shape what is being produced and how. Beyond that: Fully agreed on the plurality of needs!

[proteus-ix]

I think DSI would respond: The Prophet 12 is the Evolver Mk II

Do you think this is an accurate assessment?

[proteus-ix]

can a Pro 2 really serve in the place of a Pro One type VCA synthesizer?  The former is an excellent instrument, but I don't see it as a front line analog substitute with a warm raw analog tone.  Folks, correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't presently see the Pro 2 in this way.  Otherwise, I would have bought one by now.

Same here.  All of my listening and research has convinced me that I'm just going to have to save up for good condition J-Wire Pro One.  I really like the sound of the Mopho line, the AS-1, the Pro 2... I want them all!

But not one of them will give me the bass sounds I want from a Pro One.  This is not something I can compromise on.

[Sacred Synthesis]

I think DSI would respond: The Prophet 12 is the Evolver Mk II

Do you think this is an accurate assessment?

I've never played or heard a Prophet 12 in person.  That's my disclaimer.  I've only heard it in YouTube and Soundcloud recordings, but I've listened to all of them over and over again.  My opinion is that the sonic character of the Prophet 12 is nothing like that of the Poly Evolver.  I won't repeat the details because I've posted them many times before, but I'm not at all convinced that a P12 could substitute for a PEK.  If I though otherwise, I'd positively be a P12 owner.

[synthguy]

Welcome to the DSI Forum, Synthguy.  Since you've come from GS, you may need to enlist in our series of intensive deprogramming sessions in which, after having several differences of opinions with other posters, you'll be physically restrained and made to respond to them without profanity, abuse, or face-in-palm emoticons.  If you survive, then you'll be declared clean and fit to post.

Woah... okay, when do I face towards Master Dave and how many times do I bow?    

Anyway, I'm a pretty good indicator of what many of the other synth heads want.  If Novation had demoed another monosynth at Superbooth, I doubt many people would be fussed about it like they are for the PEAK.  Or Waldorf, another mono or paraphonic module over the grand unveiling of Quantum at Musikmesse, which has many of us drooling - yes, at possibly more than $3000 US.  And then there's the Relic-6 set to appear this summer at some $3500-ish.  The monosynth market really is awash with synths already, not the least of which is the dreaded Pro2.  Honestly, the mono I'm most interested in is the MatrixBrute, or the Softube Eurorack Modular.

I'm wanting to see Something Big from Dave and associates like I posted before.  While the Prophet REV2 is an outstanding synth, I'm much more chuffed about the Prophet~6 and OB-6.  If Dave is going to peel my eyes away from them, he should, as Sly says, "Be bold."   

I would also like to associate myself with the posts by Paul Dither.  On the point of multitimbrality, I could see some advantage to that, perhaps, but mostly because "analog bias" is rather strong on this planet.  I'm of the opinion that a solid VA or softie is plenty interchangeable in a mix with an analog.  I might have something more to say on that in the hopefully near future.  Still, the sex appeal of a multitimbral analog might just push it to the top of the lust list for the majority of synth buyers.

[LoboLives]

I do have to say I hate the patch selection on the Rev 2. Scrolling through patches with a knob just doesn't have the same immediacy as the Prophet 6 layout or even the Prophet 12 song list selection. It's going to be really annoying for real time recording not having that with the Rev 2