No analogue controls for analogue filter or oscillators

[Sacred Synthesis]

Right.  I was actually agreeing with an earlier post of yours, but adding a bit to it.

[ohmstudiste]

to me the quantized oscillator pitch was one of my major disappointment when I discovered one cannot have the oscillator free running.
The P6 is still a killer but there are so many scenario I cannot bring to life that it's frustrating.
It was shortly discussed here also (only talking about the osc, not the filter): http://forum.davesmithinstruments.com/index.php/topic,96.msg696.html

[robertsthebruce]

I came into synthesizers from a jazz piano background, and after owning a Prophet 08 for a few months, traded it for a Prophet 6, because I like the "knob per function" layout. For about a year, from my limited perspective, the Prophet 6 seemed like an unfathomably deep instrument.

After becoming much more familiar with subtractive synthesis, the prophet, and apparently DSI's entire line up, reveals itself as bizzarely limited. The Prophet is packed with features that sound great on paper, and is capable of some really beautiful and interesting sounds, but then it is not capable of doing some of the most basic and satisfying real time improvised sounds that make analogue subtractive synthesis so satisfying to anyone who spends very long in that world. The really frustrating thing is that the marketing makes it seem like it would be capable of these things; it makes a big deal out of the "analogue components" in the Prophet, and advertises their CV connectivity.

I feel tricked, but I guess ultimately I'm going to decide to blame it on my own naivete; I know now that I want to play real analogue synths, not ones with "analogue signal paths."

I will probably sell the Prophet soon, in favor of something with actual analogue controls. I will also recommend to anyone who asks that they not invest in DSI gear; there are plenty of cheaper options for full time live keyboardists, and plenty of more flexible actual analogue options for studio work. I hope this changes in the future, because, as is being discussed in this forum, DSI synths have enormous potential, but that potential is ultimately crippled by the fact that DSI just "doesn't have time" to polish any of their products into actual masterpieces (see any online discussion of the Tempest for further reference), and doesn't have the inclination to make the OS open source (as is the case with Roger Linn's gear) so that customers can be directly involved with that process. So it goes.

[Robot Heart]

Our stance was never "we don't have the time". On the contrary, our instruments are designed very intentionally and we build our them based on those design decisions. As I mentioned earlier that doesn't mean you have to agree with the decisions we made, but this is not a case of us "not having the time to do it right". It's simply a difference of opinion on the function of the instrument. I do sympathize with you on the frustration of an instrument operating contrary to your liking.

Designing instruments is a complex, resource intensive process. It's not always as easy as "oh it's just some code" or "it's just a 5 minute fix" to change the operation of an embedded hardware platform. Even seemingly very small changes can break things in other areas so we have to be careful when considering any new additions.

If you're set on selling your Prophet-6 we'll be sad to see you go, but musical instruments are such personal preferences so it is completely understandable that you'd want to find something that better suits your needs.

[blewis]

Robert, sorry to pester you, but has there been any additional review of the feature request to enable modulation with a DC 0Hz LFO setting?  Carson has previously mentioned to me it made the review phase, but had been tabled.

I think this feature is a potential way to address this re-occuring owner concern by giving owners a desirable feature. Admittedly, the suggested feature would only be useful for positive modulation by allowing the user to increase the depth of a DC, 0Hz, Square wave (setting 0), but it seems better than nothing. The current mod wheel is a one trick pony as it stands.

Thank you for taking the time to help us out in the forum to understand the design intent. If the feature is still considered off the table, I would be interested in understanding why. I think the "why" would help me let go of the idea if it will never be in the cards.

Brandon

Our stance was never "we don't have the time". On the contrary, our instruments are designed very intentionally and we build our them based on those design decisions. As I mentioned earlier that doesn't mean you have to agree with the decisions we made, but this is not a case of us "not having the time to do it right". It's simply a difference of opinion on the function of the instrument. I do sympathize with you on the frustration of an instrument operating contrary to your liking.

Designing instruments is a complex, resource intensive process. It's not always as easy as "oh it's just some code" or "it's just a 5 minute fix" to change the operation of an embedded hardware platform. Even seemingly very small changes can break things in other areas so we have to be careful when considering any new additions.

If you're set on selling your Prophet-6 we'll be sad to see you go, but musical instruments are such personal preferences so it is completely understandable that you'd want to find something that better suits your needs.

[robertsthebruce]

Robert, I'm sorry for putting it that way. I know that designing an instrument like the Prophet 6 is a complex process, and I know enough about coding to know that it's not always easy to change a seemingly simple issue. I know that DSI puts tremendous thought and intention into the design of their products.

I'm less frustrated with the limitations of the instrument than I am by the knowledge that those limitations could be overcome if either DSI didn't "have their hands full with other projects," or if they decided to make their software open-source to let their customer base experiment, personalize and generally improve on instruments that are already really great. I understand the financial risks involved in opening up a proprietary model of business...I just long for the creative rewards: the Prophet 6 is perfectly capable of being an instrument that "better suits my needs," but because of economic limitations, it seems that it won't be able to be. I would love to see it be an instrument that can transcend the time that it was created in, but because of these limitations, it is less likely to be. This makes it a less wise investment as either purely analogue gear, which can be freely modified with a soldering iron, or gear that makes use of open-source software platforms, so that the software can grow beyond the constraints of it's creators.

[Sacred Synthesis]

I will also recommend to anyone who asks that they not invest in DSI gear; there are plenty of cheaper options for full time live keyboardists, and plenty of more flexible actual analogue options for studio work.

I couldn't disagree with your disliking of DSI synthesizers.  We all have out personal tastes and preferences.  But I wouldn't discourage others from trying Dave Smith's instruments and making their own judgments.  They might feel very differently about them. 

I've played analog synthesizers for many years, including a number of old school pure analog models.  Among the more recent instruments, I owned a beautiful Voyager Old School.  But after a couple of years, I found that I far preferred DSI synthesizers for both their sound and capabilities to all the previous instruments, including the Moog.  After about eight years of using Dave's synthesizers (including the first one he designed under the DSI brand), I have grown only to appreciate them more and more.  With every session of programming, playing, or recording, I'm consistently thrilled with their smooth interface and gorgeous sound.  But still, some of us love them, and some of us hate them.  And those who are disappointed with them can be thankful that there are now so many other synthesizers and brands from which to chose.

Again, I respect your right to prefer other instruments.  But please, let's not put down or discourage the hardworking staff at DSI or the wonderful musical instruments they create for us year after year.  They put in the time and effort, and it shows in their finished products. 

[robertsthebruce]

I agree, the DSI staff are clearly hard working, and I agree that they make some amazing sounding instruments. However,  I also don't think they're my buddies, or that they're doing me any favors; they're a proprietary company that I bought a nearly $3000 instrument from, and then found out that it can't do some things that the advertising for it made it seem like it would be able to do, and then found out that they don't have plans to continue making significant improvements to the instrument. I think that sucks, but like I said, I'm blaming my own naivete for it.

I'm frustrated in general with typical proprietary business models; I think that the way most companies do business is, at the least, extremely counterproductive to building social trust and making creative progress, and at the most, is bad for the earth on a grand scale (the enormous waste created every time a new model of iphone comes out).

Consequently, statements like "the Prophet 6 OS is relatively mature at this point" drive me nuts; it's "mature" two years after being released? This business model is like the iphone model, and I wish it wasn't a part of the new wave of synthesizer culture and manufacturing. I wish DSI was saying "we're creating instruments that we don't want to be "mature" for at least another 20 years, so that's why we're making them open and flexible, not releasing a bunch of new products so that we have time to polish the ones we have, and inviting the community to help build on them."

Instead, DSI, and Moog, and basically everyone else, is following the rest of the culture and creating products that seem destined to become obsolete, when either the music industry turns a different direction or the company releases a new model. I feel the exact same way about Moog's "new" Subsequent 37. I thought, after Moog offered the CV upgrade for the little Phatty, that they were going to continue along those lines, offering synth that had modular updates, rather than just another model with incremental improvements that suddenly make my existing sub37 kind of a bad investment. It's still a great instrument, but definitely not something that's going to hold much value, especially now that continuing to improve the OS isn't going to be a goal of theirs. So I wouldn't recommending that anyone invest in that gear either, in much the same way as I wouldn't recommend that anyone ever buy a brand new car off a lot. I want to buy something that has the potential to be greater several decades from now than it is today, and not just because some random trend made it hip again, but because it was actually designed in a way that let it change and grow to meet new trends and creative demands. I feel the same way about cars, and phones, and houses, and clothing and the internet and all technology. I don't recommend to anyone that they be a part of anything that seems built to become obsolete, to make way for the next "new" model. It makes more sense for a working musician to invest in gear that is modifiable and that can be fixed and improved on by themselves or by their community.

This doesn't mean the staff at DSI aren't hard working, or that they aren't making wonderful instruments. I don't even think it means that they are short sighted; the world will likely continue to work this way, in creative and non creative businesses. But I wish we had a different world; not just one with new sounds, but one with a new structure, and I have tremendous admiration for companies that are trying to make that world a reality (Roger Linn is one of the highest profile ones, but their are many others). So I'm going to recommend that people invest in those companies instead.

[robertsthebruce]

I also want to reiterate this; I think the Prophet 6 sounds AMAZING. I would not be saying any of this if it didn't. It is very nearly a masterpiece. It makes me smile and laugh every time I play it. It makes other people I play with smile and laugh and occasionally turn around on stage with their jaws hanging open. But it also makes me bang my head against it in frustration with it's random and completely fixable limitations.

It has already beautifully met the demands of it's time. It has enormous potential to be an instrument that transcends them, and I hope it does. I also hope open source software and hardware models are the future of music technology. So I'm trying to fight for the Prophet to fit into that hope, because I do love so much about how it sounds.

[DavidDever]

I'm frustrated in general with typical proprietary business models; I think that the way most companies do business is, at the least, extremely counterproductive to building social trust and making creative progress, and at the most, is bad for the earth on a grand scale (the enormous waste created every time a new model of iphone comes out).

Consequently, statements like "the Prophet 6 OS is relatively mature at this point" drive me nuts; it's "mature" two years after being released? This business model is like the iphone model, and I wish it wasn't a part of the new wave of synthesizer culture and manufacturing. I wish DSI was saying "we're creating instruments that we don't want to be "mature" for at least another 20 years, so that's why we're making them open and flexible, not releasing a bunch of new products so that we have time to polish the ones we have, and inviting the community to help build on them."

Instead, DSI, and Moog, and basically everyone else, is following the rest of the culture and creating products that seem destined to become obsolete, when either the music industry turns a different direction or the company releases a new model. I feel the exact same way about Moog's "new" Subsequent 37. I thought, after Moog offered the CV upgrade for the little Phatty, that they were going to continue along those lines, offering synth that had modular updates, rather than just another model with incremental improvements that suddenly make my existing sub37 kind of a bad investment. It's still a great instrument, but definitely not something that's going to hold much value, especially now that continuing to improve the OS isn't going to be a goal of theirs. So I wouldn't recommending that anyone invest in that gear either, in much the same way as I wouldn't recommend that anyone ever buy a brand new car off a lot. I want to buy something that has the potential to be greater several decades from now than it is today, and not just because some random trend made it hip again, but because it was actually designed in a way that let it change and grow to meet new trends and creative demands. I feel the same way about cars, and phones, and houses, and clothing and the internet and all technology. I don't recommend to anyone that they be a part of anything that seems built to become obsolete, to make way for the next "new" model. It makes more sense for a working musician to invest in gear that is modifiable and that can be fixed and improved on by themselves or by their community.

This doesn't mean the staff at DSI aren't hard working, or that they aren't making wonderful instruments. I don't even think it means that they are short sighted; the world will likely continue to work this way, in creative and non creative businesses. But I wish we had a different world; not just one with new sounds, but one with a new structure, and I have tremendous admiration for companies that are trying to make that world a reality (Roger Linn is one of the highest profile ones, but their are many others). So I'm going to recommend that people invest in those companies instead.

I feel that this is a wholly different discussion than the original topic.

In the case of the Linnstrument, there are no proprietary DSP libraries that might require binary blobs from the manufacturer in order to build and package a release*; the computing hardware, for that matter, has been founded upon a software libre / FOSS model from the get-go.

* - One cannot steer a bus from a rear wheel alone.

[Sacred Synthesis]

This doesn't mean the staff at DSI aren't hard working, or that they aren't making wonderful instruments. I don't even think it means that they are short sighted; the world will likely continue to work this way, in creative and non creative businesses. But I wish we had a different world; not just one with new sounds, but one with a new structure, and I have tremendous admiration for companies that are trying to make that world a reality (Roger Linn is one of the highest profile ones, but their are many others). So I'm going to recommend that people invest in those companies instead.

Instead of wishing for a different world, an ideal world, a relatively perfect world, why not do good in this most imperfect one that we have, with all of its blemishes and shortcomings?  Take the imperfect and do the best you can with it.  Even take these imperfect instruments - made, played, and heard by imperfect persons - and create imperfect beauty with them.  Otherwise, you'll be waiting for a long long time for something that will satisfy you.  Unless you've already found the perfect company and instruments and can share them with us?

[robertsthebruce]

DavidDever, you're right that it's a different discussion, and your points about the Linnstrument being a different beast than a synth are good ones. To continue your metaphor, I'm wondering if DSI could figure out how to make the rear wheel open source, even if they decide to keep the engine design secret for now. I feel like I'm wanting to change out the tires, and I'm being told that those are the tires the company intended to put on there and they don't intend to change them, rather than being told how to change out the tires, which is what I'd like to do. But I'm not really a mechanic, and maybe those who are can see that what I'm wanting is actually more like wanting to change out the engine.

Sacred Synthesis, I think those are wise words, and ones I need to take deeply to heart. I'm trying to find the balance between being thankful for and doing good with what I have, and desiring and working towards something better.

There's a lot to be thankful for in the Prophet 6, and in the folks at DSI. I'm sure they will continue doing great work.

I still wish the filter and oscillators could sweep without stepping. Ha.

[robertsthebruce]

There are no analogue polyphonic synths that come anywhere close to my ideals about free/open software. I'd love to try a Modal 008 but I have an especially thin wallet. I bought the Prophet and a Moog sub37 because they seemed the closest to my ideals, and now all my live bands rely too heavily on the sounds I've made on them to switch very easily, and both boards are worth significantly less than what I bought them for, which also makes it hard to switch.

My ideals are being lived out beautifully in the software world. I think that if I decide to revamp my set up, I'll go for a midi keyboard plus software for my live rig (further from my ideals sound wise but closer otherwise), and then go entirely analogue modular for my studio gear.

The Prophet 6 with open source hardware is about as close to my ideal as I can imagine. I use a DAW that is free/open, and I've been paying $4 a month for 3 years for it; for that price, I can continue viewing and editing the latest code, and be a contributing part of the community that works on it. It feels great to be a part of, and if I want some new feature, I can immediately start working on it. I'd be completely stoked to be paying $10ish dollars a month to be a part of a similar open/free Prophet 6 software community. If that was an available option, I would be preaching about them on every street corner and saving up to buy something else from DSI just on principle.

The other thing going on with me is that I've been a pianist for 28 years, and lately I'm becoming increasingly more interested in other intonation systems than 12 tone equally tempered. On acoustic piano, I have a style that I am increasingly realizing is largely a result of subconsciously trying to work around the limitations of that system. I've been using the Prophet with a program called alt tuner that a friend wrote, which allows me to retune each note in real-time to be in different ratios with other notes in the chord, but the constraints of the quantized functions/ lack of polyphonic mod functionality make this much less flexible than I want. Obviously this style of polyphonic retuning is only really possible with software/midi, but for studio recordings I've been thinking more and more about going back to playing each voice with analogue monophonic instruments so that I can get each one right where I want it by ear.

[Antti]

I feel tricked, but I guess ultimately I'm going to decide to blame it on my own naivete; I know now that I want to play real analogue synths, not ones with "analogue signal paths."

Just FYI, these issues have absolutely nothing to do with analog vs digital control (they would be trivial to fix in the firmware). It basically boils down to DSI - or more likely Dave Smith himself - deliberately ignoring customer wishes and stubbornly sticking to the "We designed it that way for a reason"-line - whether or not they ever actually researched what people want. My estimate is that they don't based on how many WTF-worthy things persist in all DSI instruments (such as arpeggiator midi sync that has been deliberately crippled).

[Robot Heart]

Actually, it is a limitation of the hardware in this case. You only get so much resolution out of the DACs. And yes, it is designed to step in semitones. There's no denying some people would like finer resolution, but to be completely honest it's a request we hear once in a great while. We could probably count the number of requests for this on two hands. It doesn't mean we'll never consider it, but it's certainly not a feature that is in high demand by more than a handful of users.

[dsetto]

From what I see, there are not many 4/5 octave polyphonic analogs currently distributed. Fewer if under $3k. Add a few more criteria, and DSI remains the only player. Include software in the comparison and it's an entirely different assessment- an incomparable one for some.

As an aside, Tempest forum talk is more terrifying from a distance. As a user, it's my opinion that the waters are actually calm & warm.

[DavidDever]

Actually, it is a limitation of the hardware in this case. You only get so much resolution out of the DACs. And yes, it is designed to step in semitones. There's no denying some people would like finer resolution, but to be completely honest it's a request we hear once in a great while. We could probably count the number of requests for this on two hands. It doesn't mean we'll never consider it, but it's certainly not a feature that is in high demand by more than a handful of users.

To qualify this properly - is this still quantized to (12-tone) equal-tempered steps, when using an alternate (i.e., not 12-TET) tuning table?

[robertsthebruce]

Actually, it is a limitation of the hardware in this case. You only get so much resolution out of the DACs. And yes, it is designed to step in semitones. There's no denying some people would like finer resolution, but to be completely honest it's a request we hear once in a great while. We could probably count the number of requests for this on two hands. It doesn't mean we'll never consider it, but it's certainly not a feature that is in high demand by more than a handful of users.

To qualify this properly - is this still quantized to (12-tone) equal-tempered steps, when using an alternate (i.e., not 12-TET) tuning table?

Yes David, it does still step in semitones even when using an alternate tuning table.

Robert, I don't see how this is a limit of the DAC's when both the LFO and the Envelopes can sweep the filter smoothly, and as far as I understand, they are both digital.

[Robot Heart]

Apologies, I actually meant the ADC that reads the pots. I was curious so I looked into this further, and it turns out it's a limitation of the pots themselves over the ADC. You only get so much resolution from the pot, and once you build in hysteresis to get rid of the otherwise inevitable jitter from the pot landing in between values interpreted by the ADC you're not left with a ton of usable bits. The solution would be to find a pot with more resolution; perhaps an optical pot but not necessarily. But a more expensive pot for sure. If all pots on the instrument were to be this new hypothetical pot it would add significantly to the cost of the instrument.

You are correct that the envelopes and LFO are digital.

Also, the name is not Robert

[robertsthebruce]

Ha. Sorry for the misnomer Robot Heart. Thanks for looking into that and for providing some clarification on the issue. That makes sense to me, and does help me come to a bit more peace with the issue.

What I would love to see is something like a "true bypass" computer control. The computer would save your spot, but when you pressed the "panel" button, the computer would literally shut off, and the pots would be actual voltage controls. I don't know what the circuitry would have to look like to make that work, but I'm sure it's possible.

I played a gig yesterday in ridiculously hot direct sun; it was so hot I was having trouble even touching the keys. The prophet was not able to maintain anything near a constant pitch, and that's not a criticism; I think that's a positive quality about this instrument- it actually responds to the conditions of it's environment, which is what I want in an instrument. Often the role of a prophet is to be a canary in a coal mine; in this case, it was affirming that it was too hot for any living thing to be playing on an uncovered stage. I told the promoters "if you want us to play again, cover the stage."

Once again, ya'll made a beautiful instrument, and it's getting plenty of love out here, limitations aside.