Prophet X Preview video on Sonicstate

[jg666]

It’s not a full review but it’s a 9 minute preview video from Nick on Sonicstate

[Sacred Synthesis]

Here:

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

[jg666]

No that's not it, that's an old one.

This is the link for the new one, I couldn't post it before as I wasn't on my own PC

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

[jg666]

The full review is now available on Sonicstate....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pMDVBkiLso

[Gomjab]

Nick gets it.  It is a sound design tool.  Not a workstation.  I felt an immediate connection to the hardware when I played with one at Sweetwater Gearfest.  I’m saving up for something else right now or I would be tempted by the PX!

[Sleep of Reason]

Nick gets it.  It is a sound design tool.  Not a workstation.

Agreed, this is what I wanted to hear out of the PX all along. Glad they sent one to Nick.

I don't want to keep harping on DSI about UI, but really, no audio waveform visual?

[Shaw]

Was that the first video where Nick didn't drone on about PWM?   If so, the Prophet X deserves an award just for that!
 

[jg666]

 

Was that the first video where Nick didn't drone on about PWM?   If so, the Prophet X deserves an award just for that!
 

  Excellent!

[jg666]

I meant to say that I listened to this review through a good pair of headphones and the Prophet X sounded immense which was very pleasing

[Lady Gaia]

I don't want to keep harping on DSI about UI, but really, no audio waveform visual?

Given the lack of a large screen on the PX, I don’t see it as a significant omission.  Sure, the Prologue has one on a tiny OLED screen but it strikes me as more of a novelty than a truly useful tool.  I found a software-based oscilloscope on a computer screen with additional tools like spectrum analysis much more useful.  YMMV.

The review video was a good overview for those who haven’t been able to spend time with the PX, and I came to essentially the same conclusions myself.  I was only sorry he wasn’t able to provide any inside scoop on 8dio plans, forthcoming firmware, or anything else owners don’t already know.

[Shaw]

I don't want to keep harping on DSI about UI, but really, no audio waveform visual?

Given the lack of a large screen on the PX, I don’t see it as a significant omission....

I'd agree that the lack of waveforms on the display isn't a huge issue, but I would like to see a better algorithm for finding loop point when editing samples....

[LoboLives]

I don't want to keep harping on DSI about UI, but really, no audio waveform visual?

Given the lack of a large screen on the PX, I don’t see it as a significant omission....

I'd agree that the lack of waveforms on the display isn't a huge issue, but I would like to see a better algorithm for finding loop point when editing samples....

I think any in depth sample editing/mapping is going to be done with their software editor. I know it be nice if it was on board but I think they wanted to keep it as simple as they could.

[jg666]

New from Nick - Friday Fun: Prophet X and DrumBrute Impact Synth Jam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCcTq7ewk2s

[DMS]

Nice jam Nick. This prophet X is the easiest keyboard to just flat out find something that sounds different than anything else, but at the same time sound fantastic, that jam could easily be polished into a cinema score.

[Razmo]

That there is no more editing on the machine I actually find good... it would just allow for a lot more bugs on the device itself if it was to also do sample editing etc... it also simplifies the synth for those who do not want to create their own samples... i like the idea that you create the multisample setup on a computer into in essence, a complete sound... it makes the samples on the device seem much more like an oscillator... which is the approach i always wanted really.

Nick also talks about the sample length being more "grainy" the longer the sample is... this is logical when you look at how the parameter is supposed to be implemented in the Mod Matrix... if the resolution was to be the same as the length of the sample, then the parameter for the loop length/end/start would be different depending on the length of the sample which is not very practical... it's more practical to have a number that has a hardwired length... yes... it will make longer samples have larger chunks, but as long as there is a crossfade function i really do not care.

There is ONE thing I'm very curious about... how the editing software will load in .wav files... in this regard I'm thinking about ESPECIALLY the loop points... I can figure out, that if I use a sample and change the length/start/stop parameters, that I'll then be jumping more than one sample depending on the sample length, but how about if I do not?

I'd really like to know if the .wav that is loaded keeps it's original loop points made with the sample editing software you used? ... when i do sample loops I'm EXTREMELY perfectionistic... even a single sample off, and I'll hear it in 99% of times, and it's completely unacceptable to me in a sampler... I'm therefore curious if the X will take .wav files and their precise loop points? ... if not, then what use will you have for the looping function? ... yes if you loop rhythmic samples you may get away with the end point being some samples off, but if you want to create looped textures for further sound design approaches, then it is REALLY IMPORTANT that the original loop points are kept, and that not a single sample is skipped.

I'm pretty certain, that if the original sample loop is intact, then this is the sample/synth I'm looking for... but if not... then I'm going to have to reconsider if the X is for me... orignal loop points simply HAS TO BE kept!!! it's a total no-go for me if not.

[mildwest]

That there is no more editing on the machine I actually find good... it would just allow for a lot more bugs on the device itself if it was to also do sample editing etc... it also simplifies the synth for those who do not want to create their own samples... i like the idea that you create the multisample setup on a computer into in essence, a complete sound... it makes the samples on the device seem much more like an oscillator... which is the approach i always wanted really.

Nick also talks about the sample length being more "grainy" the longer the sample is... this is logical when you look at how the parameter is supposed to be implemented in the Mod Matrix... if the resolution was to be the same as the length of the sample, then the parameter for the loop length/end/start would be different depending on the length of the sample which is not very practical... it's more practical to have a number that has a hardwired length... yes... it will make longer samples have larger chunks, but as long as there is a crossfade function i really do not care.

There is ONE thing I'm very curious about... how the editing software will load in .wav files... in this regard I'm thinking about ESPECIALLY the loop points... I can figure out, that if I use a sample and change the length/start/stop parameters, that I'll then be jumping more than one sample depending on the sample length, but how about if I do not?

I'd really like to know if the .wav that is loaded keeps it's original loop points made with the sample editing software you used? ... when i do sample loops I'm EXTREMELY perfectionistic... even a single sample off, and I'll hear it in 99% of times, and it's completely unacceptable to me in a sampler... I'm therefore curious if the X will take .wav files and their precise loop points? ... if not, then what use will you have for the looping function? ... yes if you loop rhythmic samples you may get away with the end point being some samples off, but if you want to create looped textures for further sound design approaches, then it is REALLY IMPORTANT that the original loop points are kept, and that not a single sample is skipped.

I'm pretty certain, that if the original sample loop is intact, then this is the sample/synth I'm looking for... but if not... then I'm going to have to reconsider if the X is for me... orignal loop points simply HAS TO BE kept!!! it's a total no-go for me if not.

We will know more in December but based on the allowable size per sample group (posted before but can't remember off the top of my head though it is considerable for hardware) and the fidelity of the current 8dio samples I would be surprised if you'd have to truncate the .wav files for almost anything you'd want to do.

[Razmo]

I am not talking about truncating of samples... I am talking about loop start and end points... If these will allways be a number between say; 0 and 999, but the sample is say 10.000 samples long, then the parameter value of 500 would equal sample start 5.000, and value 501 would be sample start 5.100... But what iff the real sample start was 5.046 for example?

If the original sample loop points is quantized like that, then seamless loops will be impossible, and that is not acceptable to me.

[Lady Gaia]

If the original sample loop points is quantized like that, then seamless loops will be impossible, and that is not acceptable to me.

The Prophet X design is clearly intended to keep things simple, so there's no way to look at a waveform and choose an exact sample.  Instead, the system takes vague guidance and seems to try to do the right thing – but I hear you, it would be nice if the specific tactics it uses were better documented.  What we do know is that pitched samples "know" their exact pitch, so that in Pitched loop mode your loop will always be an exact multiple of the number of samples in a single cycle.  Similarly, in Sync loop mode the length of a loop is locked relative to the current MIDI clock.

So I think it's reasonable to assume that some similar automatic logic applies to the start of a loop.  Does it look for a zero crossing near the approximate location selected with the limited granularity?  Or assess the loop start and end and look for a good pairing based on level and slope?  Who knows.  I wish I did, but I'm expecting something sane to make life easy because that's consistent with other design decisions.

[mildwest]

I am not talking about truncating of samples... I am talking about loop start and end points... If these will allways be a number between say; 0 and 999, but the sample is say 10.000 samples long, then the parameter value of 500 would equal sample start 5.000, and value 501 would be sample start 5.100... But what iff the real sample start was 5.046 for example?

If the original sample loop points is quantized like that, then seamless loops will be impossible, and that is not acceptable to me.

Based on brief conversations with someone at DSI it sounds like further refinements may happen to allow even more precise zero crossing control may be available on the synth in a future update. So who knows. I just know it's something being looked at.

[Razmo]

But even zero crossing is not good enough in my case... i want the sample loop points to be EXACTLY what they were when I made the loop in my sample editor on the computer... if the PX change these, even a single sample back or forth, then I will not be able to get the loops i would want.

I get that the way it seems to work, is a cool things as well... i like the idea of it fixing the pitch and all that, but a simple standard sample playback with the integrated loop points of a .wav file really should be something any sample playback system should be able to do as well... so I hope it's going to be possible, but I guess I'll have to wait for an answer until more details are out about this.

Besides, if the loop points of the .wav file was used when the sample instrument is first chosen, and the loop points was not messed with by the OS until you chose to manipulate the loop on the PX itself, then it would not be a problem... just use the .wav files integrated loop points when the sample instrument is selected, and then change them if you mess with the loop parameters on the PX thereafter... maybe even just a simple parameter added where you can choose to use original loop points, or the altered ones would be perfect... for my use at least.

I may get a PX anyway, even if it will not feature this, as it will certainly be capable to make a lot of fun things with it, but it is a shame if I cannot play back an original sample loop.