The Prophet '08 Among Prophets

[Sacred Synthesis]

Regarding patch panel sheets, while a much better looking template could be developed, the text version above can be copied and pasted into Word (or another text document) and then printed. The larger spaces left on the original were compressed when I pasted it here, so there isn't as much space now. Still, most of the values are only going to be a two digit number, and more space could easily be added before printing. It's organized left to right across the top panel, followed by left to right across the lower panel. I probably missed some things.

I really was making only an old school joke about this, but on second thought, patch panel sheets of the post-able type really would make sense.  It's an excellent approach because it's more visual and is far more pleasant than having a long list of digits.

[Sacred Synthesis]

Wonderful pieces, both of them. I'd not heard that first one before. Such a beautiful expressive sound.

By the way, the filter sweeps in that Prophet '08 video are created by a slow LFO set to Key Sync.  The sound begins at each key strike with the filter at the frequency cut off setting, but then opens slowly by the LFO.  Entirely by keyboard technique, you can control the sweeps.  If you play shorter more rapid notes, the sound remains dark and mysterious because the LFO doesn't get a chance to open up the cut off.  As you play more slowly, it begins to open, and if you play very slowly, the filter goes to full open.  It's a wonderful experience to play this patch.

If the Prophet '08 were a paraphonic instrument, this sound would be a disaster.  It's the independence of each individual note - opening the filter differently on each other note - that gives the patch its character.

[Jason]

Sacred Synthesis,
Thanks for the insight - and for the inspiration! I've watched all your videos, and they influenced my decision to buy the '08.

I'm pretty new to Pulse Width Modulation, in fact, until rather recently, I didn't know what PWM stood for when I saw it as part of a name for a patch. Am I right that in order to use it, you have to use a Pulse Wave waveshape oscillator? If so, what is your starting place when selecting the Oscillator Waves? Close to 50 (square)? Different for each Osc? They just don't seem as pleasing as a Sawtooth.

Thanks,
-Jason

[Sacred Synthesis]

Thank you, Jason.  A sawtooth obviously has the fullest richest harmonic content.  The pulse width is far more limited in its harmonics, but sweeping its range (PWM) results in something far richer than a static sawtooth.  Depending on the patch, I generally set the pulse width at 48 (the purest sounding square), and then add an LFO modulation depth of about 70.  But the whole range of PWM depth gives you a substantial amount of variety.  For example, by adding a modulation depth of only 5, you'll get the general character of the pulse width setting, plus a soft chorus effect.  If you do this around a narrow pulse width - say 18 - then you'll get a reedy sound with  a soft chorus effect.  It takes the finest minutest adjustments to each parameter, but you end up with a wonderfully sweet and distinctive tone. 

This is all obvious enough, but I think we tend to use PWM primarily at the extremes.  This is to overlook a vast range of timbres.  Considering the limited range offered by analog oscillators, it's a lost opportunity to expand on what they do offer.

Here's an example of a patch with a very slow and limited pulse width modulation. (The reed melody is also a Prophet '08).  It enters at about 2:25, but you can hear it best from 4:15 to the end:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jWgovXSMo

This piece uses nothing but pulse widths - every single sound, including the bass.  Even the flute sound used in the fist half is a subtle PWM patch.  These are really beautiful timbres to me that are often passed over.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTUHXLQgY5o

[Jason]

Very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to go over that; it gives me a lot to experiment with this weekend. I've been skipping over pulse waves a lot in the past and need to spend some time with them.

Btw, I think that second video is among your finest.
Regards.

[vinnyburns1@mac.com]

Some great tips in this thread and lovely sound examples too from Sacred Synthesis.
I still love my Prophet 08. With the obvious omissions on the P6 and OB6, I have not been tempted by them at all.
Don't get me wrong, had the OB6 had the 8 voices and 61 keys, I would have had one as it sounded excellent in every clip I heard. There have been no P6 clips that I have particularly liked. They sound flat and lifeless. No movement and bland.
Started looking at getting an OB8 or a Matrix 12. Would rather not have the headache of keeping these old synths serviced but it seems the only new things coming out are like toys. The new Roland and Yamaha went along these lines as did the recent Korg reissue of the ARP and MS20. Stupid mini keys or mini key beds with 49 keys or less. 4 voice instead of 8 on the new Roland range.
The Prophet 08 is such a wonderful synth. Never regretted getting mine. Will it be the last great 8 voice polysynth to be made by DSI? I really hope not.

[Sacred Synthesis]

I'm optimistic, Vinny, that Dave will resume the normal five-octave keyboard length.  He seems to have received a number of complaints about the keyboard length of the Prophet-6 (he suggests this in his P-6 Module announcement video).  As for the OB-6, that was obviously an exception, in that DSI took the P-6 body as a starting point.  So, I do expect DSI to return to the full-length keyboard soon enough.

Like yourself, I've considered each of the latest DSI synthesizers, but nothing excites me more than the good old Prophet '08.  I never find myself running out of notes or coming up short when programming it, and I always find the sound gorgeous.  Folks complain about that blasted Curtiss filter, and I just don't get it.  Are we all really listening to the same thing?  I love the Curtiss filter - bright and bristly or dark and dreamy, superb for brass, strings, and other pads, bass and solo patches, and even sound effects.  With the occasional exception of finding a monophonic patch slightly thin-sounding, I wouldn't want to change the P'08 low pass filter at all.  As I wrote above, I'd only like to add a high pass filter and longer envelope times.

Do you know what else I like about the Prophet '08?  The happy fact that it has been thoroughly vetted.  I don't have to waste time scouring the synth forums to find out if there are any bugs, or if there's been an update to fix them.  How much of this forum and the old one is spent on such discussions?  "I found a new bug - I reported the bug - they just fixed the bug - wait, the fix has a new bug - let me report the new bug - now when will they fix the new bug?"  Blah....Who wants to have these long dull discussions?  It's like discussing head aches or tooth aches!

Meanwhile, we're off in our cheerful little Prophet '08 corner, content and making music, and posting only to share our enthusiasm and creative ideas.

[Jason]

I had a great time playing with PWM over the weekend and came up with a few exciting patches. I believe when you said Depth, that refers to Amount, which worked very well around 70. I then was putting the Frequency around 15 on one and around 35 on the other. Any other suggestions?

How does Key Sync work in the LFO section?

Thanks for the help Sacred Synthesis.

[Sacred Synthesis]

You're right.  I should have said "Amount".   

Key Sync resets the LFO with each individual key strike; it restarts its cycle each time you play a note.  If you use it with PWM, the result can be a slight "pop" at the beginning of the note.  If you use an LFO to slowly sweep the filter frequency, then the effect of Key Sync will be like the attack phase of an envelope opening the filter, only much more interesting.

PWM sounds more extreme in the lower registers and less extreme in the higher registers.  So, if you want a fairly intense setting, set the frequency (LFO rate) and amount while holding the lowest note you'll use.  This will ensure that your PWM sounds satisfactorily musical across the whole keyboard.  Otherwise, the lower notes might sound out of tune.

Remember that you can use multiple LFOs to modulate the pulse width at different frequencies and amounts.  This is useful all by itself, but it's especially helpful if your oscillators are set to different octaves.  In other words, the higher octave be be modulated more extremely (regarding frequency and amount) than the lower, so as to give the maximum richness to that higher octave.  Another interesting effect is to modulate the pulse width rapidly with one LFO and very slowly with another.

Remember also that, between the pulse width parameter in the oscillator and the LFO amount, you can locate the movement between two points anywhere along the pulse width range.  This gets tricky and time consuming, but the rewards are worth it.

[vinnyburns1@mac.com]

I'm optimistic, Vinny, that Dave will resume the normal five-octave keyboard length.  He seems to have received a number of complaints about the keyboard length of the Prophet-6 (he suggests this in his P-6 Module announcement video).  As for the OB-6, that was obviously an exception, in that DSI took the P-6 body as a starting point.  So, I do expect DSI to return to the full-length keyboard soon enough.

Like yourself, I've considered each of the latest DSI synthesizers, but nothing excites me more than the good old Prophet '08.  I never find myself running out of notes or coming up short when programming it, and I always find the sound gorgeous.  Folks complain about that blasted Curtiss filter, and I just don't get it.  Are we all really listening to the same thing?  I love the Curtiss filter - bright and bristly or dark and dreamy, superb for brass, strings, and other pads, bass and solo patches, and even sound effects.  With the occasional exception of finding a monophonic patch slightly thin-sounding, I wouldn't want to change the P'08 low pass filter at all.  As I wrote above, I'd only like to add a high pass filter and longer envelope times.

Do you know what else I like about the Prophet '08?  The happy fact that it has been thoroughly vetted.  I don't have to waste time scouring the synth forums to find out if there are any bugs, or if there's been an update to fix them.  How much of this forum and the old one is spent on such discussions?  "I found a new bug - I reported the bug - they just fixed the bug - wait, the fix has a new bug - let me report the new bug - now when will they fix the new bug?"  Blah....Who wants to have these long dull discussions?  It's like discussing head aches or tooth aches!

Meanwhile, we're off in our cheerful little Prophet '08 corner, content and making music, and posting only to share our enthusiasm and creative ideas.

Absolutely spot on. Well said.

[Jason]

should have said "Amount". 

I was just confirming that I understood you correctly.

I really appreciate your help. I hadn't considered that we can do PWM with more than one LFO on the same Osc. I was thinking that I could only use one LFO for one Oscillator and a second for the other. I guess we could (for example) have a third controlling both with All Oscillators Pulse Width. Interesting.

Another technique that I've been very interested in for some time is how you pan two instruments to opposite sides at the mixer. To clarify, you run both instruments in stereo? Both channels of one instrument go to the mixer and are panned to the left, while both channels of a second keyboard/module go to the right?

Please keep in mind that I don't want this to be true! The idea of putting more money in another '08 makes me more than wince. (How am I ever going to save up for an OB-6 or MiniMoog if I decide to get another '08?) So I'm curious how you came to this technique. I've never heard of doing this before, and I'm curious how many other keyboardists do this. I find myself questioning why we don't hear of the pros doing this, or maybe you have. I've recently experimented with this technique with my Tetra, and for those of you who haven't tried this and doubt, let me assure you that it really makes a huge difference. The patches sound much bigger.

So my quest has been to consider how else to possibly get this effect. It seems like a chorus effect could help; it basically splits the signal and alters one side. In looking at chorus effects, we would want it to be analog and stereo (in and out). I decided to get a Diamond Halo Chorus pedal, which has a combination Delay/Pitch Modulation/Phase Modulation. The combination of pitch and phase modulation can be used together or individually for traditional chorus or in order to get a wide spatial separation. It appears that one of the main goals when they were designing it was to generate a wide stereo image. I finally got the pedal (which took a lot longer than it should have- another story) and was able to give it a try this weekend. I can’t say that I was able to nail the sound in my initial experiments, but it does get pretty close. After I got it somewhat dialed it, I thought that it really improved all of the Prophet sounds. Sacred Synthesis, if you would like to borrow the Halo Chorus pedal to see how close you can get it, shoot me a PM, and I’ll send it to you. I think the results are encouraging.
http://www.diamondpedals.com/products/halo-chorus/

[Sacred Synthesis]

Another technique that I've been very interested in for some time is how you pan two instruments to opposite sides at the mixer. To clarify, you run both instruments in stereo? Both channels of one instrument go to the mixer and are panned to the left, while both channels of a second keyboard/module go to the right?

Yes, basically.  I suppose at first thought it seems as if I'm running an instrument in stereo, but then panning it to only one side, thus losing the other side.  But the Prophet '08 is a mono instrument with a panning circuit; it isn't truly a stereo instrument.  The only stereo-like sound it creates is that of individual notes jumping from one side to the other, or a certain stereo field in the unison modes.  So, as long as you're not using the Pan Spread parameter, you're not losing half of the sound by panning at the mixer.

The keyboard/module combination allows for several arrangements; first, by polychaining, it can make the Prophet '08 a sixteen-voice instrument; second, by connecting the two instruments by MIDI but not polychaining, it can make it an eight-voice bi-timbral instrument; and third, it can make it a truly stereo instrument.  In the latter case, you simply dump the programs from the master to the slave, and pan at the mixer.  With proper Global settings, the parameters of the former will control those of the latter, including the program numbers and banks.  Of course, you can know what half of this would sound like by using a single keyboard with the Output B jacks on the back, and then panning at the mixer.  Have you experimented with this?

I can easily explain how I came to using this technique.  My first DSI synthesizer was a Prophet '08.  Later, I bought a Poly Evolver Keyboard as well.  For a few months, I used the PEK very little.  But as I began using it more and more, I found myself preferring its sound to the P'08's, but without understanding why.  Then I realized it was because the PEK's oscillators are hardwired to different sides.  It is truly a stereo instrument, and it has two filters as well.  That's one of the reasons it's so good at pads.  It's very much a stereo instrument!  As I did more and more side-by-side comparisons between the two instruments, I realized that, if I had a P'08 Module, I should be able to emulate the PEK's deep rich stereo sound.  And that's how I came to the keyboard and module technique.

[Jason]

Sacred Synthesis,

I've been experimenting with these panning techniques a lot over the last several days (both w/Tetra and A/B outs) and have several questions : (I realize you may not know the answer to the first few.) First, why isn't this being discussed by other keyboard players? (...not even here on the DSI forum?) Why haven't I heard of this before? I've been playing synthesizers for over thirty years and read more than many about the best ways to sound good. Is there something I can read that discusses this more? I mean, these are not subtle differences. The results are huge. Why isn't there an outcry to capitalize on these differences from a synthesizer design standpoint? Why can't a keyboard be designed that gets us these results with a single instrument?

Yes, basically.  I suppose at first thought it seems as if I'm running an instrument in stereo, but then panning it to only one side, thus losing the other side.  But the Prophet '08 is a mono instrument with a panning circuit; it isn't truly a stereo instrument.  The only stereo-like sound it creates is that of individual notes jumping from one side to the other, or a certain stereo field in the unison modes.  So, as long as you're not using the Pan Spread parameter, you're not losing half of the sound by panning at the mixer.

So you disable all Panning parameters? This is mainly done by keeping Pan Spread at 0?

If so, couldn't we use just the Left out of the keyboard and the Right line out of the module... saving some cables and channels?

>>...Then I realized it was because the PEK's oscillators are hardwired to different sides.

So, one oscillator only comes out the Left channel and the other only comes out the Right? Is there no way to set up a sound like this on the '08?

Is there a way to know from a spec sheet whether an instrument is wired more like the PEK or the '08?? What about the OB6 and Prophet 6?

I have other questions, but that's more than enough for one post. Again, I really appreciate your knowledge and help.
-Jason

[Sacred Synthesis]

Sacred Synthesis,

I've been experimenting with these panning techniques a lot over the last several days (both w/Tetra and A/B outs) and have several questions : (I realize you may not know the answer to the first few.) First, why isn't this being discussed by other keyboard players? (...not even here on the DSI forum?) Why haven't I heard of this before? I've been playing synthesizers for over thirty years and read more than many about the best ways to sound good. Is there something I can read that discusses this more? I mean, these are not subtle differences. The results are huge. Why isn't there an outcry to capitalize on these differences from a synthesizer design standpoint? Why can't a keyboard be designed that gets us these results with a single instrument?

Yes, basically.  I suppose at first thought it seems as if I'm running an instrument in stereo, but then panning it to only one side, thus losing the other side.  But the Prophet '08 is a mono instrument with a panning circuit; it isn't truly a stereo instrument.  The only stereo-like sound it creates is that of individual notes jumping from one side to the other, or a certain stereo field in the unison modes.  So, as long as you're not using the Pan Spread parameter, you're not losing half of the sound by panning at the mixer.

So you disable all Panning parameters? This is mainly done by keeping Pan Spread at 0?

If so, couldn't we use just the Left out of the keyboard and the Right line out of the module... saving some cables and channels?

>>...Then I realized it was because the PEK's oscillators are hardwired to different sides.

So, one oscillator only comes out the Left channel and the other only comes out the Right? Is there no way to set up a sound like this on the '08?

Is there a way to know from a spec sheet whether an instrument is wired more like the PEK or the '08?? What about the OB6 and Prophet 6?

I have other questions, but that's more than enough for one post. Again, I really appreciate your knowledge and help.
-Jason

Jason -

I'm laughing at your response!  Yes, I'm as mystified as you are as to why this technique is not considered and discussed more on a serious level.  I know it has been just a bit on GS in response to some of my postings, but that's about it.  Even on the two DSI forums, it's been met with indifference.  I several times suggested this technique with the Prophet 12 as a means of improving its some times unsatisfactory digital tone, and the response has been, "Yes, the P12 can achieve a stereo field through modulation.  And so?"  Yet, I've never found a recording of a person doing so.  If the complaint is made that it's just too expensive to buy both keyboard and module versions of either the P'08 or the P12, then my obvious response would be, "Try using the Output B option.  It's the same thing, but with half the voices."  Hence, my second Prophet '08 Keyboard is used mostly for monophonic purposes, and I have it set up using the Output B jacks.  Whatever the program, I copy the Layer A sounds to Layer B, and pan at the mixer.  And this creates a stereo monophonic synthesizer.

On the Prophet '08 Keyboard-Module pair, I normally eliminate panning by leaving it at 0.  Otherwise, there can be inconsistencies in voice volumes.  The reason I don't then use only one P'08 output jack from each unit and save on mixer channels is that I want the option to use the Pan Spread here and there.  It is useful at times, for example, with the unison mode. 

With the PEK, you have several stereo options, by means of an Output Pan parameter.  The oscillators can be entirely panned, moderately panned, or set to mono.  I think this is one reason that some people think the instrument sounds thin.  If you use in stereo just the analog oscillators or just the digital, then you have two sound sources that are completely removed from each other to opposite channels.  The result is the elimination of oscillator beating.  As you draw them together with this parameter, the beating begins and the sound fills out.  But if you leave them in stereo, it can sound as if you're using only one oscillator.  It becomes crucial when using something like a classic sawtooth lead.  However, when using all four oscillators on a thick rich pad, full stereo is compensated for (since there are now two oscillators coming from each channel) and it sounds just fabulous.

The Poly Evolver Keyboard has a brilliant design, and I don't know why Dave has not copied it on his later instruments.  It also provided me with much food for thought - this stereo issue - and I learned a ton from it.  Never before had I thought about this subject.

I don't know which non-DSI synthesizers are stereo, but I would expect each company would be more than happy to brag about it on a spec sheet.  As for the Prophet-6 and OB-6, I believe they're mono instruments with stereo panning and stereo chorus.  Some one can correct me if that's not right.

Then again, there is now a Prophet-6 Module, isn't there?   Tempting....

[Jason]

Thanks for your quick and thoughtful response, S.S.

It's easy to see why people are loath to even consider going down this road- even to do the simple experiments to hear how it sounds. We can certainly understand the thoughts: "There's no way I'm going to buy another $1400-$2800 redundant keyboard, even if it does sound a little better!" There is also the reasonable notion that something like this would have been discovered long ago if it had any validity.

I'm more incredulous than most people, but it's also an easy experiment to test on our own. When you get it set up, it's like: "Yes, now that's how I want my keys to sound!"The skeptic in me wants to keep looking for another way to get this result. The chorus pedal is getting me maybe 70%-80% of the improvement, and I'm definitely going to keep experimenting with it. Unfortunately, the more movement it gives me (with higher values), the more it colors the sound- whereas, your technique just makes it thicker, fuller, and better.

What would the result of such a duel-setup be with two PEKs? It seems like there should be no improvement, right?

I'm trying to read up more on stereo fields in the hopes of figuring out another way. Normally, a stereo field comes in part from one channel being just slightly out of phase with the other and because of the slight delay that occurs between two microphones. So I intend to start experimenting with a delay pedal. 

I think I'm going to start turning the Pan Spread down to zero and see what happens with running a single line out from each sound source. With no pan spread on a patch, I wonder if a "normal" Left channel would sound identical to the "combined Left channel" in your set up? If the Left channel of your rig sounds identical to the Left channel of a typical rig, then there may be hope for another way. The answer to this (whether or not what comes out of your Right speaker sounds identical in both setups) also has bearing on how big of a difference this technique would make in a live situation in which most of the audience isn't sitting in the sweet spot of the stereo field. That's where my thoughts go next; how big of a difference would it make live, when most of the audience isn't hearing true stereo?

Best Regards.

[Sacred Synthesis]

Along the same lines, I would say that most synthesists want as much variety as they can manage.  The idea of putting so much money into only one thrill, one instrument, is disappointing.  On the contrary, I prefer to have only three or four keyboards, but to get those few instruments to sound as good as possible.

I haven't tried this set up in a live format, but I do think it would still be worth the trouble, even for those who are not sitting in a central location regarding the sound.  Remember, I also use this for eight-voice bi-timbral pads, so the complexity of it has various purposes.

I did try running the Prophet '08 through a stereo chorus, but I've never liked that sound.  It's too synthetic to my ears.  I much prefer the complex and natural modulations that come from using multiple oscillators and coupled instruments.

By the way, have you done this sort of experimenting with your Tetra?  It would be so easy to make a stereo instrument with those four outputs.  I had a Tetra a few years ago, but I sold it.  I wish I had done these experiments with it.  It is a superb-sounding synthesizer. 

[sylvain alias leo]

IMHO every synth company offering different color because electronic components are not the same and therefore offered sounds are very different. Yamaha korg Roland Alesis Modal Moog have their own sound and advantage over others. That's why it is often more interesting to have synthesizers from different company. This widened our range of sound. I love my P8 but I don't want another one. Because I want to expand my possibilities. So I look for a more complementary synth.

[Sacred Synthesis]

Sure, that's the common reasoning, but you never get beyond a certain degree of quality by that approach.  Then it's all about sonic variety, which can ironically get pretty monotonous.  I'm simply saying that it's an entirely different approach to strive for a superlative quality with a single instrument, as opposed to the more common approach of using one different instrument after another after another.  A set up that consists of multiple moderate to small-sized synthesizers can cover a wide range of sounds, but unfortunately, it can only attain a modest degree of musical immensity with those sounds.  This approach is of no interest to me because I don't care for the mediocre results, so I've chosen to do things differently by striving for that rare musical immensity.

[Paul Dither]

Interesting inversion.

I'd say it certainly depends on what you're trying to achieve or what you would like your closest musical environment (in terms of the gear you use) to be like. It is an extremely good challange to limit oneself to one particular instrument as it forces you to overcome its particular limits, work around them, or find other ways of mastering the instrument. It's a process that requires lots of patience and rewards you with some imaginative outcomes.

You have to really like one particular instrument, though, if you follow this path for other reasons than just monetary constraints or creative rules of the game. In this particular case and with regard to the stereo debate, the limitation even involves a little bit of extra cash. Not everyone can or would like to afford the keyboard and the module version of one and the same synth just to achieve a broader stereo image - even if it sounds superior to any compensating techniques. In the studio it's easy to compensate this effect anyway, as it just takes two recordings of the same passage hard-panned to the left and the right.

Genres and particular uses also come into play. Some might not even want a sound that gets that big. What serves a soloist just right, might be too much for a band context, to pick just two traditional models. I always regarded the stereo pan parameter as an option that serves the latter and the purpose to make according multitrack recordings: It widens the sound, but doesn't make it appear twice as big and hence taking up too much space.

[sylvain alias leo]

This approach is of no interest to me because I don't care for the mediocre results, so I've chosen to do things differently by striving for that rare musical immensity.

Are you is saying that Moog , Roland, Korg , Modal, Alesis make mediocre synthesizer ? If this is the case what did you play before DSI happening again? Personally I use synthesizers for 40 years. I had EMS VCS 3 , several Korg, several Roland , Yamaha , Moog and with time I just realized that the synthesizer offered a different color. I do not think one synthesizer can replace all. It is a question of hardware, chipset. I agree that there are different grades because there are different markets. I listen some of your demos (very good) but you often use the same type of sound. This is probably the reason for which the prophet 08 satisfied you. But dont get me wrong I love the prophet 08.