The Prophet '08 Among Prophets

[Fuseball]

It's ironic that we're choosing to use a relatively complex instrument, with regard to modulation in analog terms, to create sounds of great subtlety. For all the Prophet~6's simplicity, it's difficult to use the bare bones modulation for anything other than in-your-face effects. It's far from easy to make those single-digit parameter changes. I still far prefer sound designing with the P'08, if I'm honest.

I often wonder if the P'08 would be better regarded if it had built-in fx, like most other polyphonic synths in the past 20 years? I find a lot of synths pretty underwhelming when you turn the fx off. Even the OB-6 and P-6 are flattered by them. It's arguably a much more powerful tool than the modulation in shaping the sound of those two.

[Sacred Synthesis]

Well, having all those modulation possibilities still allows us to use them to the most subtle degrees.  It's good to have them there for the times when you want to "pull out all the stops," but those times should only be occasional. 

I've often wished that the Prophet '08 had onboard delay, like the Evolvers.  It would save us the trouble of having in our set ups yet another pedal and needing yet another power outlet and yet another set of wires.  It would be nice, but I wouldn't want any more effects than that.  One thing that has really turned me off the OB-6 videos - and therefore, the instrument itself - is the frequent use of the phaser.  I'm so used to hearing the OB-6 and its onboard phaser, that sometimes I forget it's even being used.  If an instrument needs that much help - and a phaser is a substantial contributor to a patch - then something is wrong with it.  The same is true for the chorus.  In general, I don't like the sound of a synthesizer run through either effect. 

By contrast, what I like about the Prophet '08 is that its modulation capabilities are so substantial that using a phaser or chorus never even crosses my mind.  Several years ago, I had both for the P'08, but I happily ended up selling them because they simply weren't needed.  There's no paucity in the instrument's sound that makes you search for an effect to compensate.  Reverb and perhaps delay are all that are needed.

[Fuseball]

I think even the most basic sounds I program on the P'08 use at least 2 or 3 LFOs and a couple of mod slots. As you say, it makes phasers and chorus redundant. I've tried both on the P'08 and found neither particularly useful, whereas I use them to compensate for the lack of other modulation on the P-6. Even then, just a little to the mix can work wonders rather than overpowering the core sound.

Agree 100% on the delays. I'm quite fussy about reverbs, so I don't mind keeping that external.

[Sacred Synthesis]

Fuseball -

I'm always amused to read your comments about the Prophet-6.  You seem to have a love-hate relationship with it, and I never know which you're going to express next.

[tumble2k]

I've been thinking a lot about delays lately. I really wish the Prophet '08 had a delay like the one on the Prophet 12. My understanding of the one on the Prophet 12 is that you can create delays, reverbs, chorus, phasers, and flangers with it using the LFOs, panning, and other parameters. I would imagine that the reverbs wouldn't be as nice as a top shelf reverb, but the delays would be a wonderful toolkit for creating effects.

It's funny that no manufacturer is creating a nice stereo multitap delay unit that can be configured in such a flexible way. I think that Dave Smith has mentioned that they've talked about creating a delay pedal like the Prophet 12 delay but just haven't gotten around to it. I for one would be very interested in it. If the Prophet '08 had it built in, well wow!

[Fuseball]

Fuseball -

I'm always amused to read your comments about the Prophet-6.  You seem to have a love-hate relationship with it, and I never know which you're going to express next.

It's a frustrating instrument insofar as I often can't quite get it to do exactly what I want... but the sounds I do come up with instead usually sound great. It's definitely more love than hate, but I'm not blind to its weaknesses.

I enjoy playing it a lot more than either the P12 or Pro 2, both of which I owned for a while. The P12 just made me realise that I still preferred the P'08, which I find is my perfect balance of simplicity and complexity. The Pro 2 was a strange one. On paper it looked amazing and I loved the sound of the two filters, but I don't think it made it onto a single track of mine. It could be bold and aggressive but I never got it sounding pleasingly solid like the best analog monosynths. It didn't help that, at the time, the OS and sequencer felt a bit undercooked. For leads and arpeggios I still get better results from the MEK.

The Prophet-6 is at least a whole lot more inspiring for me, but I still struggle to completely turn off that inner-voice that says "what if?" and wishes for that second LFO etc.

[Sacred Synthesis]

I think I would have the same reaction to each of those instruments as you did, Fuseball.  In nearly all things, I find the Prophet '08 to be just right.  I would get quickly exasperated with a synthesizer that offered anything less.

If it were only possible, I wish the Prophet '08 could have added to it an onboard delay, longer envelope times, and a high pass filter.  That would make an already excellent instrument approximately perfect, in my opinion.

[BobTheDog]

With all this P8 love I am wondering how it would be better than an 8 voice evolver setup?

[dslsynth]

Even though its the exactly same oscillator/filter Curtis chip as in the Evolvers I am left with an impression of the fully analog signal paths sonic advantages including a better bass.

. o O ( just like Iggy Azalea )

[Sacred Synthesis]

I can respond to both of your comments, because I've obviously got both instruments side-by-side and have many times compared the same patches on each.  An eight-voice (or twelve-voice) Poly Evolver is a pad masterpiece.  The hybrid aspect obviously allows you to go in one, the other, or both directions at the same time.  A number of the digital wave shapes respond beautifully to changes in the filter, making much more than merely typical sweeps, but something more enchanting.  It makes superb evolving pads with minimal effects that are both warm and dreamy.  That's what I most like about the PEK.  But by no means do the two synthesizers stand on equal footing when it comes to simple direct analog tone.  In this area, the Prophet '08 wins.  If I want an immense brass patch, or a rich string patch, or a sweet sawtooth solo patch, I always go to the P'08.

The Evolver has a cooler analog tone, which is not a problem when you're piling on all the oscillators.  There are various ways to compensate for the shortcoming, but when you use a simple clean sound - say, one or two analog sawtooths with minimal effects and modulation - it's quite noticeable. 

In addition, the two instruments have differently behaving envelopes.  I always use the linear setting on each, yet the response is different.  For something like a brass patch, again, the P'08 works much better; it seems easier to control and anticipate its behavior.

The Prophet '08 is also able to make finer increments - be it through after touch or in setting LFO modulation depth.  For example, when using the PEK's third envelope for a delayed vibrato, the first increment of modulation depth is already too deep for creating a moderate vibrato.

I realize in one sense the analog side of the PEK is identical to the P'08, but it must be that the AD/DA conversions have a substantial sonic effect.  There's no way these two instruments sound the same.  If they did, I probably would have sold my P'08s years ago; but, in fact, I much prefer them over the PEKs because I prefer quality over variety.

It probably seems strange to most of you.  I have two beautiful PEKs, and one of them is coupled with a PER.  And yet, I find myself constantly drawn more to the P'08s, which are significantly smaller and simpler instruments.  But that's consistently my ears' preference.

[Paul Dither]

Hiding behind my Prophet-6…

[tumble2k]

But by no means do the two synthesizers stand on equal footing when it comes to simple direct analog tone.  In this area, the Prophet '08 wins.  If I want an immense brass patch, or a rich string patch, or a sweet sawtooth solo patch, I always go to the P'08.

Well lucky for me, because the Prophet '08 was the only device in the DSI lineup I was able to afford! An eight or twelve voice Evolver setup is completely out of the realm of possibilities for me. I might just as well be talking about Modal.

In addition, the two instruments have different behaving envelopes.  I always use the linear setting on each, yet the response is different.

I didn't know about this linear setting. Can you tell me more? Or is it only an Evolver thing?

I realize in one sense the analog side of the PEK is identical to the P'08, but it must be that the AD/DA conversions have a substantial sonic effect.  There's no way these two instruments sound the same.  If they did, I probably would have sold my P'08s years ago; but, in fact, I much prefer them over the PEKs because I prefer quality over variety.

The conversions can make a huge difference. I had a decent audio interface board by Avid that I used for digital recording. I was completely surprised how obvious it was when I bypassed the board on my mixer or listened to the board just converting the signal to digital and converting it back to analog. The converted sound became noticeably more metallic even in instant A/B comparisons, which tend to hide subtle differences.

Paul, what's your opinion on the Prophet 6? I do get an inferiority complex thinking I couldn't afford the "real" analog synth .

[Paul Dither]

Paul, what's your opinion on the Prophet 6? I do get an inferiority complex thinking I couldn't afford the "real" analog synth .

I guess I can only act like the Judas of this thread. 

Seriously though, generally speaking I like them all: the Evolver, the Prophet '08, the Pro 2, and the Prophet-6 (those are all the instruments I can really speak for due to personal experience). Each of them sounds unique and cannot replace the other. The reason I basically switched from an Evolver and Prophet '08 setup to a Pro 2 and Prophet-6 setup doesn't say much about what I think about the first generation DSI synths, but was only a matter of finances and priorities, and also the fact that I prefer to keep my setup rather small because there are only so many synths I can fully explore at the same time. Plus: I prefer to get the most out of less instead of having one device per sound so to speak.

That said, it all depends on your use. I like to own the Prophet-6 because it sounds good, looks good, and feels good to play. And first and foremost it's a quite simple synth engine that nicely balances what the Pro 2 is capable of on the very other end of the complexity continuum. So in practice that means that I'm following a rather analytical sound design approach with the Pro 2, while I only go by ear and intuition on the Prophet-6. This may sound a bit more schematic than it actually is, but that's roughly how I approach both synths (happy accidents included).

The different architecture aside, I think that both synth's ingredients complement each other well: the different types of filters and the analog and digital oscillators. Both do cover entirely different sonic universes.

Could I only own one of these synths, though, I would probably pick neither, but rather a Prophet '08 for all of the aforementioned reasons in this thread, i.e. especially the sound and feature ratio. At least an 8-voice Poly Evolver setup would also be an option, albeit the more expensive direction. What I prefer about the latter over the Prophet '08 is the stereo signal path and the according filter settings it allows for. I was never too keen on its digital high-pass filter and distortion though, both of which I definitely prefer in the latest DSI designs.

Other than that, I always liked the Prophet '08 and found that the bad rep it received at times was totally unjustified and in many cases the result of impatience or ignorance.

[Sacred Synthesis]

Hiding behind my Prophet-6…

That's right, the Prophet '08 commission is coming for y'all.  We intend to rid the land of all Prophet 6's.  If we find anyone with a four-octave keyboard...chop!

[BobTheDog]

I can respond to both of your comments, because I've obviously got both instruments side-by-side and have many times compared the same patches on each.  An eight-voice (or twelve-voice) Poly Evolver is a pad masterpiece.  The hybrid aspect allows you to go in one, the other, or both directions at the same time.  A number of the digital wave shapes respond beautifully to changes in the filter, making much more than merely typical sweeps, but something more enchanting.  It makes superb complex pads that are both warm and dreamy.  That's what I most like about the PEK.  But by no means do the two synthesizers stand on equal footing when it comes to simple direct analog tone.  In this area, the Prophet '08 wins.  If I want an immense brass patch, or a rich string patch, or a sweet sawtooth solo patch, I always go to the P'08.

The Evolver has a cooler analog tone, which is not a problem when you're piling on all the oscillators.  There are various ways to compensate for the shortcoming, but when you use a simple clean sound - say, one or two analog sawtooths with minimal effects and modulation - it's quite noticeable. 

In addition, the two instruments have different behaving envelopes.  I always use the linear setting on each, yet the response is different.  For something like a brass patch, again, the P'08 works much better; it seems easier to control and anticipate its behavior.

The Prophet '08 is also able to make finer increments - be it through after touch or in setting LFO modulation depth.  For example, when using the PEK's third envelope for a delayed vibrato, the first increment of modulation depth is already too deep for creating a moderate vibrato.

I realize in one sense the analog side of the PEK is identical to the P'08, but it must be that the AD/DA conversions have a substantial sonic effect.  There's no way these two instruments sound the same.  If they did, I probably would have sold my P'08s years ago; but, in fact, I much prefer them over the PEKs because I prefer quality over variety.

Thanks for all the info.

I had been thinking of getting a second hand rack for my PEK but for the same sort of price I could buy a new P8 module. I think I might be tending towards the P8...

[Sacred Synthesis]

That's great.  Just make sure you first give it a good run through, since our tastes are probably quite different.

[tumble2k]

I made a discovery yesterday, and I'm not yet sure what it means. I've been using an inexpensive set of Ultimate Ears in ear monitors plugged directly into the headphone output of the Prophet '08. It sounds a little edgy and lacking in bass. I have read criticism of the Prophet '08 in both sound qualities.

When I use my home stereo I get the same general character, and it makes the keyboard somewhat uninvolving. Last night I plugged in my cheap iPhone headphones that pump the bass and roll off the highs.

What a difference! The Prophet came alive with a warm and rich presence I associate with vintage synthesizers. This is with the standard presets.

I am beginning to suspect that my recollection of "vintage" means an amplifier/monitor system with a "sagging top and flabby bottom," and that rose-tinted memory is so imprinted in my psyche that I subconsciously compare every synthesizer experience to it.

I read somewhere else that equalizing the Prophet '08 quickly makes up for any perceived lack of bass. That makes a lot of sense to me now.

[Sacred Synthesis]

Hmmm.  I'm wondering what to make of your finding, because when I record the Prophet '08, I tend to do just the opposite.  Using EQ, I open up the high end and trim off the lower end a tad.  The P'08 tends to rattle the house very easily.  I've recorded a few times without EQ-ing in this way and not been happy with the results.  But I tend to like a crisp sound.

I'll agree with you on your other point, though.  I, too, think our memories of the old vintage instruments have been pleasantly and unrealistically colored over time.  When I was playing my Juno 60, CAT SRM, Elka Rhapsody, and Taurus pedals, I distinctly remember often being frustrated with many issues, including sonic qualities.  I wasn't revelling in their famous  phatness, warmth, and richness.  I was too busy half of the time getting them repaired!  So, I do think we've quite romanticized the old synths into a synthesist's utopia.  Of course, that's not to say that modern synthesizers sound better, but just different.

[Paul Dither]

I, too, think our memories of the old vintage instruments have been pleasantly and unrealistically colored over time.  When I was playing my Juno 60, CAT SRM, Elka Rhapsody, and Taurus pedals, I distinctly remember often being frustrated with many issues, including sonic qualities.  I wasn't revelling in their famous  phatness, warmth, and richness.  I was too busy half of the time getting them repaired!  So, I do think we've quite romanticized the old synths into a synthesist's utopia.  Of course, that's not to say that modern synthesizers sound better, but just different.

That's actually what I've heard from a lot of people who were around when the classics have been released. I think a forum like Gearslutz would explode once the casual user had to deal with the issues of most of the highly praised instruments.

[Sacred Synthesis]

You're right, Paul.  My memories tell me so.  The problems were constant and expected.  I seldom have any problems now, even though I've got more equipment than ever before.

[I made a spelling correction to my post quoted above.]