Rev 2 or Prophet 6

[Razmo]

And I do love my prophet 6. And my moog and all the other gear I have . And just like you, I will get a REV2. So if you are upset that I suggested the prophet 6 in the manner I did , and the way I communicated it than again for the second time .

BUT I still stand by my prophet 6 statement ! To my ears , richer , creamer , warmer and more suited to your style . But then again , BMW or Mercedes... both seem pretty damn good to me

Don't get me wrong, I fully respect others opinions and tastes... as said; it's a personal thing really... If you like the P6 better, then you like it better, that's not even up for discussion... neither is my preference for the REV2 .. though... if we talk about P6 and the 8 voice REV2 version, I'd probably go for the P6 too because of the almost identical voicecount, except that I like some of the deeper features of the REV2... the two Layers, the Mod Matrix... the sheer depth of the engine, compared to the P6... but again... it's my personal preference...

[AlainHubert]

Praising this or that synth is not a pissing contest. It's a matter of personal taste and preferences. To each his, or her own.

We can be thankful that we have such choices to make and live in an era where hybrid analog synths are so popular.
Let's agree to disagree without the bickering perhaps ?

Thanks.
BTW, the more I discover the REV2, the more I'm impressed... I've managed to get some really rich brass sounds out of it that I didn't think it was quite capable of, and without the help of any effects. 

[Pidcin]

Hi

I am considering a Rev 2 or a Prophet 6 and am looking for some advice to help me pull the trigger on one or the other.

I will mainly be using the DSI synth for Chords. My band's productions typically revolve around a Moog Minitaur for Monophonic Bass and an Electric Guitar for Lead Melodies (we are primarily an instrumental group so the electric guitar tends to take the role of the lead vocalist). Since lead guitar, monophonic synth bass and polyphonic synth chords are the 3 core elements of our music (aside from drums), I want a very rich, solid analog synth to lay the chordal foundation for our productions.

Secondary elements of our music include drones, pads, arpeggios, sequences, plucks, etc. I currently use VSTs such as Xfer Serum, Spectrasonics Omnisphere, and U-he ACE and DIVA for those sounds. Depending on the sound, I would consider replacing some of these secondary elements with sounds created by the Prophet...though the most important consideration for my purchase is the core element of chords.

While it seems reviews suggest the Prophet 6 is the superior sounding synth, it seems many of the artists I listen to use the Prophet 08, so there must be a reason why they choose that synth over the 6 (i.e. Radiohead). I'd like to hear a bit more about the differences between the synths from a sonic standpoint from those of you who have experience with both. I understand the differences in the synths from a technical standpoint, though I'd like to hear some opinions on whether the Rev 2 or 6 is more suited to my specific use.

I'm considering the Prophet 6 desktop version, since I typically compose directly in Midi with a mouse and just use a keyboard to sketch my ideas (I use a basic Novation 61 key midi controller). When we perform live, the Moog and DSI will be triggered via Midi directly from Ableton, so having a keyboard isn't really essential for performance. Though I'd consider the keyboard version if it will hold it's value better in the long run...any thoughts on Keyboard version vs Desktop for my situation?

Thanks!

IMO I would get the prophet 6.

People downplay the complexity of the prophet 6 in contrast to the rev 2. Sure it has more LFOs and this and that . But at the end of the day , would you prefer 2 oscillators that sound rich , warm , creamy and massive ? Or 4 that sound perhaps , and don’t get upset , a bit lesser ? And the polymod, and LFO , after touch mod wheel , and other routing options IMHO are ENOUGH , if not more than what most people can actually artistically create and design great sounds with. And trust me when I say If you learn the prophet 6 and how to design sounds properly on it , you’ll realize it’s absolutely timbrally superior than the rev2 for your needs . And for all those big dummies who keep saying but it has 16 voices! Keep in mind .. from a players standpoint , not a synth nerd , that 6 voices is MORE than enough, as you’d never want to play chords that are stepping into bass frequencies , or lead registers , you need it to fit in its own space , and sometimes 3 - 4 notes is just enough, and 6 when you need to take up more space . Either way, I suggest checking out this link, watching these links  from YouTube  vand try to learn the prophet 6 like you already own it , so when you goto the music store and play it for yourself you can play, design and hear efficiently as if you owned it already . And then compare it to the rev 2.



http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHGZsq10nFV_vumpxOF5NrJH1MkU8d4gT

Why do you have the need to call people with differing opinions for "dummies"!? ... honestly, if the guy want to play Chords (as I've stated once already), and he is playing other sounds but organ sounds which has a bit of length to them after you release the keys, then 6 voices won't do you good at all... that's a simple fact, unless you like the sound of voice stealing, or have the doe to purchase a module for polychaining

And honestly... the P6 does not sound that much more "creamy" than the REV2... you have some valid points, but it depends on what you want from your synth for sure... but I sure as hell do not like people refering to me as a "big dummy" just because I favor the REV2... please have some respect!

A bmw or Mercedes , both amazing . Think of me calling someone a big dummy like red Sanford .

Also contextually , based off his personal needs , IMO, the prophet 6, sounds a bit more tuned to that taste.

Sorry for the harsh words my love .

My love!? ... I'm not so sure you gave that apology because you meant it... I don't really give a shit about your opinion, if you cannot give people some respect for their opinion, so go love your P6 instead little friend.

Ok... so I guess you don’t know the great comedian from Sanford and son who would say “you big dummyyy” I guess you’re a bit more sensitive . So again, my apologies.

I'm from Denmark, so I do not follow a lot of comedians from foreign countries ... no... but nevermind, if the apology was sincere, it's accepted... I see no reason to dispute over a pair of synths... I agree that the sound of the P6 is probably "better" (whatever that is)... it is also a synth costing a fair deal more than a 16voice REV2.

I was not dissing the P6 (I actually wrote that in my first reply)... I was taking the topic starter's criteria into account when I wrote what I did, and he also asked what peoples opinion is... I gave mine, and that's about it... choosing a synth in this pricerange is a very personal thing, and I'd advice him to actually try them both out before making his choice (instead of relying on other peoples opinions... their usage may differ greatly from his own).

I just know that I myself also do a lot of chords... in my case it's ambient music where almost all pad sounds have looooong release tails on them... I just bought the 16voice upgrade for the 8-voice version I bought, simply because that 8 voices is too little for me... I get lots of note stealing, especially when using two layers...

Would I love to have the P6 oscillators and filters in my REV2!? damn yes! ... I just do not think I'd be able to afford it

Oh my god .  That’s what I’m talking about. Do you know if it’s possible to daisy chain rev2 and p6? Or 3x p6?   

[Razmo]

Yes, you can polychain the P6... I'm not sure if you can polychain more than two though... but 12 voices is also a lot more acceptable for chord playing with longer tails... most of DSI's machines have a polychain feature... I actually believe that the only one NOT polychainable is the REV2 simply because it's not really needed with those 16 voices.

But polychaining different synths is probably not very useful... it should be the same type of synth with the same voice architecture, otherwise it'll sound REALLY weird.

[philroyjenkins]

And the polymod, and LFO , after touch mod wheel , and other routing options IMHO are ENOUGH , if not more than what most people can actually artistically create and design great sounds with.

It honestly depends on what your doing. I've done a lot of stuff on my REV2 I could have never done on P6. I'd argue there isn't a whole lot you can do on the P6 that you couldn't replicate on a REV2.

The P6 is surely more focused when it comes to bread and butter / vintage poly synth sounds and its strength is in that focus and ease of access to these kind of sounds. I'd recommend it if your looking for simpler and right beneath the surface kind of sounds (and I mean that in a good way.)

But the extra depth of the REV2 cannot be understated. If your the type of person who likes to experiment and try things without really knowing where you will end up, the REV2 is fantastic. I've had this for 3 months and I still wake up in the middle of the night with a new idea for a modulation. Sometimes it sounds good, sometimes it doesn't work out but the journey has been my favorite part.

I might have made more music if I got a p6, but I've enjoyed more of a meditative/in the moment kind of patching experience on my REV2 which was my main goal for getting into synthesis anyways. The REV2 is a wonderful synth to explore in this way (and it can handle the bread and butter stuff just fine too.)

I'll leave you with a awesome example of the power of deeper modulations on a p8. The Rev2 adds to this substantially with its effects and ability to modulate them. Not my video but a great one. He has a few other nice songs that feature the p8 and really show off its sound (which is different than the P6 but just as viable musically.)



And a few visuals I really enjoyed making on my REV2 through a spectrogram, which is a sort of visual representation of the frequencies (vertical) over time (horizontal). I've lost afternoons just making stuff like this by attaching LFOS to LFOS to LFOS to LFOS to modulations etc, just to shape the visual image created.

While certainly not part of my argument for the the REV2 in any kind of musical sense, its a quite literal depiction of the power of the REV2s modulations and their ability to shape sounds.



I hope you guys can enjoy these as much as I enjoyed making them. They certainly look better than they sounded but that was the point.

[musicmaker]

In the past year or so went through many demo's on the net and tried the  REV2 and P6 several times in a store as well. Always got the same kind of result. Both can make great bell sounds (as almost all DSI synths can),  but for me the major distinction is that when I listen to the P6 I see circles and smooth sine waves and got some "WOW what's that..." moments. For the REV2  I see mostly corners, square waves and sharp edges (like on the OB6) and sometimes a "yes, this sound really nice but not WOW and other synth could probably do the same or very close". The softness and smoothness of the P6 is hard to neglect. Will probably get a REV2 as well as a "nice to have" because of it's deep functionality (not as deep as the P12),  many voices - also great for sequencing - and bi-timbres, but the P6 sound is definitely a "must have". (well ... for me).. Perhaps you share this kind of  feeling ? Both won't be substitution for the P12 because it can do complex things and has it's own characteristic sound the P6 and REV2 can't create, though my expectation is that the REV2 will cover lot of ground the P12 can do as well. Just my two cents. Liking sound is all very subjective and personal.

[Razmo]

In the past year or so went through many demo's on the net and tried the  REV2 and P6 several times in a store as well. Always got the same kind of result. Both can make great bell sounds (as almost all DSI synths can),  but for me the major distinction is that when I listen to the P6 I see circles and smooth sine waves and got some "WOW what's that..." moments. For the REV2  I see mostly corners, square waves and sharp edges (like on the OB6) and sometimes a "yes, this sound really nice but not WOW and other synth could probably do the same or very close". The softness and smoothness of the P6 is hard to neglect. Will probably get a REV2 as well as a "nice to have" because of it's deep functionality (not as deep as the P12),  many voices - also great for sequencing - and bi-timbres, but the P6 sound is definitely a "must have". (well ... for me).. Perhaps you share this kind of  feeling ? Both won't be substitution for the P12 because it can do complex things and has it's own characteristic sound the P6 and REV2 can't create, though my expectation is that the REV2 will cover lot of ground the P12 can do as well. Just my two cents. Liking sound is all very subjective and personal.

I've had the P12 before, and will get one again next month... you're right, that the P12 can do a lot of what the REV2 does, but like you say there is this "wow" effect to the P6 contra REV2, there is also a "wow" effect that the REV2 has, that the P12 do not (mainly because of it's digital nature) ... There are also a couple of other things that make both REV2 and P12 nice to have side by side because both has something the other do not... REV2 has an FX section that is a lot different than the P12.... it's not much extra, but I personally find the FX section in the REV2 as it's nicest new touch, especially because you can modulate the FX parameters... if DSI would just put in more weird sound sculpting FX, it would set the REV2 even more in it's own niche with DSI instruments... and it also has a much better keybed... in my opinion.

[marzzz]

What would really knock me over is if DSI would make a REV2 with the Prophet 6 filters. Oh yes, I would pay for that....

[DavidDever]

What would really knock me over is if DSI would make a REV2 with the Prophet 6 filters. Oh yes, I would pay for that....

...which would require a new waveshaper circuit, to replace that of the PA397 used in the Rev2.

[AlainHubert]

What would really knock me over is if DSI would make a REV2 with the Prophet 6 filters. Oh yes, I would pay for that....

...which would require a new waveshaper circuit, to replace that of the PA397 used in the Rev2.

The waveshaper has nothing to do with the low pass filter. In a DCO it generates the different waveforms derived from the pulses sent by a timer.

No, they could simply route the output signal thru an additional external P6 filter circuit, keeping everything intact from the PA397.
But I think that the biggest difference between a REV2 and a P6 is precisely the oscillators.

[DavidDever]

What would really knock me over is if DSI would make a REV2 with the Prophet 6 filters. Oh yes, I would pay for that....

...which would require a new waveshaper circuit, to replace that of the PA397 used in the Rev2.

The waveshaper has nothing to do with the low pass filter. In a DCO it generates the different waveforms derived from the pulses sent by a timer.

No, they could simply route the output signal thru an additional external P6 filter circuit, keeping everything intact from the PA397.
But I think that the biggest difference between a REV2 and a P6 is precisely the oscillators.

https://github.com/ekosynth/CEM3396

In the CEM3396 and MS1215 / PA397, there's no post-waveshaper / pre-filter output tap (the waveshaper directly feeds the filter), so that'd be a lot of wasted circuitry (and probably a fairly different output impedance).

I believe that the MS1215 / PA397 also includes a panning VCA pair beyond the 3396 spec, but I'm not entirely sure that'd make a difference to the above.

[AlainHubert]

In the CEM3396 / MS1215 / PA397 (which integrates a waveshaper, filter + panning VCA), there's no post-waveshaper / pre-filter output tap (the waveshaper directly feeds the filter), so that'd be a lot of wasted circuitry (and probably a fairly different output impedance).

One could simply take the signal output of that chip (with the filter cutoff left wide open) and feed it to an external additional filter, much like DSI is doing when sending it to the ADC for the digital effects in the REV2.

[hoodoo_ray]

I'm actually considering this choice right now. I have had a Prophet 08 for a long time, and it is my favourite synth. I have the module version, but really want keys.. I have tried the Rev 2 and I love it. I have not yet tried the Prophet 6.

One thing that no one has mentioned on this thread is how well the synths sit in a mix. Sure, if you listen in isolation you can say the Prophet 6 sounds 'richer' etc because it has VCOs.. but does it make a big difference once other instruments / synths come into play in a mix?

It is one of the things I love about the Prophet 08.. it sounds fabulous on its own, but you can get it to really sit well in a mix without losing the character of the sound you have programmed, and that is something which cannot be said of all synths. This makes it a great instrument for me.

Does anyone have any examples / experience of the Prophet 6 within a mix?

[Manbird]

I'm actually considering this choice right now. I have had a Prophet 08 for a long time, and it is my favourite synth. I have the module version, but really want keys.. I have tried the Rev 2 and I love it. I have not yet tried the Prophet 6.

One thing that no one has mentioned on this thread is how well the synths sit in a mix. Sure, if you listen in isolation you can say the Prophet 6 sounds 'richer' etc because it has VCOs.. but does it make a big difference once other instruments / synths come into play in a mix?

It is one of the things I love about the Prophet 08.. it sounds fabulous on its own, but you can get it to really sit well in a mix without losing the character of the sound you have programmed, and that is something which cannot be said of all synths. This makes it a great instrument for me.

Does anyone have any examples / experience of the Prophet 6 within a mix?

I've had my P6 for a couple years now. I love it, but I admit I've sometimes struggled more than I thought I would getting it to sit easy in a mix. It works wonderfully with itself, and I've done a few tracks that are P6 only. I'm learning slowly to twiddle and tweak with care, whereas I can always get the P5 to fit/sit with nearly no effort. Anyway, here's a new tune with a few P6 parts alongside Micromoog and Juno 6. There's a bit more detail regarding who's doing what on the SC page itself...

https://soundcloud.com/anton-barbeau/when-paul-was-young-mix1/s-95pal

Hope it's helpful.

[tumble2k]

I curious, what does it mean to "sit well in a mix?" My thinking is that if the synth's spectral energy is confined to a certain region, it will sit well in the mix. But if the spectral energy is strong across a wide range of frequencies it will obscure other instruments. I suspect this is especially true for instruments that fill the bass and the mids at the same time.

Am I on the right track?

If that's the case, then I'd expect that a synth that's satisfying as a solo instrument because it alone can fill the entire spectrum would not sit well in a mix.

The fix could be to use the high pass filter to remove some of the bass content or the LPF to remove some of the mids.

[hoodoo_ray]

I curious, what does it mean to "sit well in a mix?" My thinking is that if the synth's spectral energy is confined to a certain region, it will sit well in the mix. But if the spectral energy is strong across a wide range of frequencies it will obscure other instruments. I suspect this is especially true for instruments that fill the bass and the mids at the same time.

Am I on the right track?

If that's the case, then I'd expect that a synth that's satisfying as a solo instrument because it alone can fill the entire spectrum would not sit well in a mix.

The fix could be to use the high pass filter to remove some of the bass content or the LPF to remove some of the mids.

Yep that's pretty much exactly what I mean. EQ is normally the way, and sound selection in the first place of course. What I find with the P08 is that when I apply EQ, compression of needed etc. and have other instruments going on the patch does not lose its character - it seems to retain it somehow. I find this with the Moog Voyager too. However other synths really lose the character of the patch e.g. Elektron Analog Keys which I have too.

Listening on its own the Prophet 6 sounds sublime - and don't get me wrong, its clearly a great synth, and it's going to sound terrific whatever situation it is in! But yes the question I am asking is whether it does lose some of its character when mixed with other synths / instruments.

[AlainHubert]

I remember Dave Smith himself saying, in an interview that, when they designed the Prophet 6, and compared it to the Prophet 5, that some carefully programmed patches on both could be so similar that they would be hard pressed to tell them apart in a blind test. That's pretty ironic, because they went to all this trouble of trying to match that P5 sound which is generated by early CEM chips with discrete components (op amps and transistors), whilst the REV2 already has CEM/DSI chips in it, but doesn't sound anywhere near a Prophet 5 or Prophet 6 for that matter because late CEM chips don't sound like early ones. 

[extempo]

The Prophet 6 LPF is an implementation of the SSM2040 VCF IC using discreet components. The SSM2040 was the filter IC used in the Rev1 and Rev2 versions of the Prophet 5. The Rev3 versions of the Prophet 5 used the CEM3320 VCF IC, which is a different design than the Curtis part in the Prophet Rev2.

Of all three synths mentioned, the Prophet 6 is the only one with a discreet filter design. The old Sequential products all used ICs.

[AlainHubert]

Yes indeed, the very early P5s are SSM equipped. And that's why they sound bloody great ! Which begs the question: why in the world did Sequential switched to Curtis in the first place ? I did have a P5 rev3.3 at one point and, although it sounded very good, it was not a rev1 or rev2. But it still sounded slightly better than my Prophet REV2. It had a "je ne sais quoi" about its timbre that stood out. Although what the REV2 might lacks in sonic quality it makes up for in modulation possibilities in spades. 
So if the P6 is recreating the SSM2040, that explains its wonderful sounding filters !

[DavidDever]

Yes indeed, the very early P5s are SSM equipped. And that's why they sound bloody great ! Which begs the question: why in the world did Sequential switched to Curtis in the first place ? I did have a P5 rev3.3 at one point and, although it sounded very good, it was not a rev1 or rev2. But it still sounded slightly better than my Prophet REV2. It had a "je ne sais quoi" about its timbre that stood out. Although what the REV2 might lacks in sonic quality it makes up for in modulation possibilities in spades. 
So if the P6 is recreating the SSM2040, that explains its wonderful sounding filters !

Questionable reliability of the SSM ICs (specifically the VCO?) is the oft-quoted reason.

I own a fair number of synths with SSM filter ICs (E-mu Emax SE / Kawai K3 / DCO-based Siel Opera 6 / Crumar Orchestrator), but haven't had any issues with these, for whatever reason (these are mostly different than those used in the Prophet 5 rev 2).