The Prophet '08 Among Prophets

[Sacred Synthesis]

I'm not preaching here, fellas - just trying to explain what works for me. 

Moog, Roland, Korg, Modal, and Alesis all make exceptional synthesizers; I'm not in any way suggesting they're "mediocre".  I use the word to describe only the limitations of using a single instrument at a time, a single unit. 

There are many individual fine quality violins, but it takes a violin section to make an orchestra and its wonderful sound.  The same is true regarding brass instruments, organ pipes, and voices.  We all know and love the ensemble effect.  Well, my method of combining identical instruments emulates this ensemble effect - simple as that.  We all do this to a degree in adding additional oscillators to a single oscillator, or in adding a chorus effect.  All I'm doing is bringing this coveted ensemble effect to the next level.  The key word in all of this is not "mediocre," but "immensity".   

I'll be the first to agree that I use a small variety of sounds in my music, and that's deliberate.  I've designed a much larger range of patches in my memory banks, but I tend not to favor them when it comes to making serious music.  I'm not trying to win any awards for programming, nor am I trying to show off or impress anyone.  My primary interest is in pure traditional music.  So, I prefer a small number of patches that best serve this music and try to develop and perfect them to the degree I can, with the intention of putting the rest of my efforts into composition or improvisation. 

What does not interest me or work for my type of music is a wide sonic range that lacks depth and fullness - the main exception being tones for melodies.  And remember, I play everything live, so there's no opportunity or need for multi-tracking.

[Fuseball]

I'll be the first to agree that I use a small variety of sounds in my music, and that's deliberate.  I've designed a much larger range of patches in my memory banks, but I tend not to favor them when it comes to serious music.  I'm not trying to win any awards for programming, nor am I trying to show off or impress anyone.  My primary interest is in pure traditional music.  So, I prefer a small number of patches and try to develop and perfect them to the degree I can, with the intention of putting the rest of my efforts into composition or improvisation.

That's interesting to hear someone else say that.  Although I make very different music to yourself, I have the same rules about what sounds I use. I'm most often trying to evoke a specific feeling in any music I make and I have a certain palette of sounds that I go back to and refine for that. It's not uncommon for me to listen to banks of pre-programmed sounds and factory patches and find nothing that I would personally use. It doesn't mean they are bad sounds, just that they don't speak to me personally.

I don't stick to DSI/Sequential instruments rigidly, but they usually make up at least 50% of the sounds I use. The rest is generally Roland (Jupiter 6 / Juno 60) and a bit of Moog bass. Of course, I'm more of a studio creature so I have the luxury of an expansive, constantly shifting set of instruments if I choose... but perfectly capable instruments by other manufacturers frequently get sidelined for the ones that always work for and mean something to me. In a more performance based setup I'm sure the DSI instruments would be my first choice due to their versatility and how configurable they are for expressive playing.

FWIW, I'm the same with guitars. I play a Fender Jazzmaster, which has a particular tone and feel that I love. I know that other Fenders, Gibsons and Rickenbackers would give me sounds quite different to my Jazzmaster but I don't need them to sound the way I want to. As it is, I understand the quirks and foibles of my guitar better than any of the guitar techs round here.

Slightly back on topic - The Prophet 08 is the closest I have to a synth equivalent of my Jazzmaster.  It's the synth I understand best of any I've had. It's a pleasure to have that level of understanding and commitment to a specific instrument, especially one that offers so few programming limitations compared to many.

[Sacred Synthesis]

In the last few years, I've owned Hammond, Roland, and Moog instruments.  In the more distant past, I've also owned Korg, Octave, Hohner, Elka, ARP, and whatever else.  It just so happens that presently DSI synthesizers best serve my needs.  If this were not the case, I wouldn't hesitate for a minute to switch to another company.  For example, I had seriously considered switching to Modal Electronics instruments, but decided their line was far beyond my financial reach.

This really is a synthesist's disagreement, and I have to laugh at it.  Having been raised on organ and some harpsichord, and possessing a profound love and reverence for the immense repertoire composed for each of these instruments, the suggestion that using only a Prophet '08 synthesizer is musically limiting - this is a tad shocking to me.  The only limitations each of us needs to be concerned about are our talent and our willingness to put that talent to work.  This is where the real scarcity lies. 

A Prophet '08, even a single Prophet '08, is more than enough to provide a lifetime of music making.  Just ask Marc Melia, whom many here highly respect for his musical ability - as I do, too.  The catch is, if you're thoroughly given to the synthesizer genre (which I'm not), then you're going to want to do the typical synthesizer thing - which is to own as many different instruments as your money and space allow.  Hence, countless Youtube videos, and many synth forum sub forums, revel in showing off all the stuff.   

This mass and variety of stuff could in no way serve my musical intentions.  The fact is, I could be happy with nothing but several Prophet '08s, or whatever other instrument might serve as well, such as the Modal Electronics 008.  My point is, the synthesizer - any decent synthesizer - already by its design offers so much sonic variety that the suggestion that having only one or even two synthesizers is too limiting - this is bizarre to me.  I guess I'm not enough of a synthesist to feel the same way.  I'm still struggling with my own limited musical talent, versus the immense musical potential of the instruments I play.

[Jason]

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.

I tried testing the above last night, and I think the combined Left and Right channels are definitely different from, and thicker than, a typical single channel. This suggests a few things: it suggests that the combination would clearly be beneficial in a live context. (Even if part of the audience is only hearing a single side, that side is clearly better.) Sadly, it suggests that there may be no other way to get these benefits. With hope dwindling, I started to move money into different accounts. 

It also suggests to me that the benefits may be coming more from the doubling of oscillators than it is from a stereo field. (Maybe describing it that way just makes more sense to me.) It seems to me that if the improvements came merely from it being a stereo image, then we should be able to create this effect by the normal means of creating stereo. In addition to chorus pedal experiments, a slight delay on one side should help get us there. I tried adding some Delay in the Amp Envelope of one layer last night, and, while it puts the two sides more out of phase and gives more of a stereo effect, it's nothing like the combined sounds that S.S. discovered.

The analogy of violins or horns seems appropriate. I've wondered numerous times why DSI isn't making synthesizers with three oscillators. I keep remembering the striking difference that the third oscillator made on my old MiniMoog. I would play one oscillator and think it sounded okay... then add the second and notice how much better it sounded- thinking that it would be a perfectly acceptable sound. But then, when I added the third, it would really put the smile on my face. Still, if adding the extra oscillator was all it took, then we should be able to get these desired results by simply using a layer of the exact same sound, which is not the case. So, S.S.'s technique seems to be a combination of the added oscillators with the stereo field.

So... is there a way to make a patch/layer only come out of one side?? If so, it may provide a way to get this effect for some songs/pieces in a concert without having to change cables and panning at the mixer. I ask because, as Paul noted, there are times when the thickness isn't as necessary in a band context, while other times it would make a big difference (when soloing for example). ...and this option could save me some money. 

Regarding the comparisons with other companies, the benefits of this technique don't seem to be a DSI benefit per se. It's not like DSI has noticed these techniques and worked to incorporate them into their instruments. This technique may work just as well with any analog synthesizer. I'm not sure we would get the same benefits with digital/sample based keyboards, but it's worth testing. So far, I've only heard of using this with analog synthesizer sounds. I can say that, when it comes to my experiences with getting analog sounds, this technique provides better and more satisfying results than anything I remember with my other keyboards (e.g. current Yamaha, Nord, Roland, old Korg M1, DX7, Oberheim Matrix 6, etc...)

It does make one wonder what the results would be of linking two MiniMoogs together in a similar way. Or what would happen if we added more oscillators to the '08 combination by panning two complete patchs from two '08's to the Left and another two '08's to the Right? With other instruments, including the human voice, the biggest changes to the tone, when adding other instruments, is found with fewer instruments, with the changes becoming more and more negligible with higher numbers of added instruments.

[Sacred Synthesis]

Jason -

You're analyzing this method far more than I ever did.  For me, it was simple: the Poly Evolver Keyboard sounds great.  Why?  Because of the stereo hardwired oscillators.  But much more importantly, why does this stereo effect sound great?  In my opinion, it's because it sounds natural. 

Sound most often comes to us from a general complex environment of sound.  Very seldom is it a straight narrowly directed occurrence, such as we hear from mono instruments coming out of one or two speakers.  Consider the sound you hear as you walk through the woods - sounds coming from every direction and being tossed about by the wind and being deflected off of solid objects.  Then consider "natural" or acoustic instruments and the ensembles they often are played in.  This is my ultimate objective in using this technique: it is imitating both nature and acoustic instruments in musical ensembles. 

To explain myself a bit, an orchestra is an expanse of musical sound.  The violins are over here, the trombones are over there, the tympani is back there, and the piano is up here.  The sound is widely spread out across an area.  The same is true with the pipes of an organ and the voices of a choir.  And this is precisely how natural sounds come to us in an expansive natural environment, such as in the woods or at a sea shore.

In my opinion, the stereo effect imitates these settings - both nature and the musical ensemble.  And that's why it has such appeal to our ears.  It's pleasing because it sounds more natural, whereas a mono signal, especially with large sounds (strings, brass, pads), sounds annoyingly unnatural and artificial.  So, if you were to amplify natural or orchestral sounds through a single high-quality speaker that could perfectly reproduce every frequency and nuance, it still wouldn't seem right.  The sound would be there, but the spatial aspect would not.

My objective with synthesizer is to make it sound more musically pleasing by making it sound less artificial, electronic, and synthetic.  A stereo field is essential to this.

As the photographs on my Youtube "videos" show, I'm an outdoorsy guy, an avid hiker.  My reference point has always been the outdoors, and it's the same when I sit to make synthesizer music.  Nature is a rule I try always to follow.

[Jason]

have you done this sort of experimenting with your Tetra?  It would be so easy to make a stereo instrument with those four outputs. 

Yes, I have tested your technique with both the Tetra and the A/B output option on the '08, and the results are equally satisfying. Your comment about the Tetra's four outputs is a good thought: I frequently forget that there are a few things that the Tetra has that the '08 does not. (One is the sub oscillator, which makes the Tetra better for bass, even though that's not something I'm currently looking for.) But I think you're right that the Tetra has greater flexibility with what is coming out of the four outputs. So I bet I could set it up as a very good, live, monophonic lead synthesizer that uses your stereo approach... and then switch patches and, without unplugging cables and changing the mixer, go back to a more traditional wiring in which I could use it as a four voice synthesizer.

Btw, when it comes to your lead Saw sounds, it seems that a vintage MiniMoog D would be a great fit for you. (I'm not as excited by the Voyager.) Is there a reason that you've ruled it out?

I bought the Tetra for a few reasons: One was to experiment with your setup, which has been eye-opening for sure.
Another was that I was interested in expanding the voices on the '08, especially when using layers and splits. With splits and layers in a "typical setup", it can give us six voices, which is usually sufficient compared to four, which is frequently limiting. But I find myself thinking that I'll eventually use the Tetra more from another keyboard in order to get three Prophet sounds going in a song without having to switch patches. (One source of frustration in the Prophet is that I can't use a pedal to quickly switch patches live.)

A third reason, which I think I mentioned elsewhere, is that I can safely download the other patches that are available from the DSI website into the Tetra. Once these are in the Tetra, I can easily move the ones I like to the patch number and bank that I want them in on the '08, and then dump the individual patches exactly where I want them. I don't have to worry that I'm gong to accidentally lose something that I want to keep. Frankly, this has been worth a lot, as I have found many good patches, and I was pretty fearful of losing the sounds that I had created. Of course, there is software for doing this, but I have also read of people accidentally losing their programs.

By the way, I was able to download some single patches from the old forum, but I have not been able to get them to load. The patch banks available from DSI load exactly as they should (and again, I found several there that I like). When I downloaded single patches from the old forum (for example, a Journey Separate Ways patch and an "improvement" on the Tom Sawyer Oberheim sound) they look the same/seem to be of the same format, but they won't load into the Tetra. Any ideas?

[Sacred Synthesis]

Btw, when it comes to your lead Saw sounds, it seems that a vintage MiniMoog D would be a great fit for you. (I'm not as excited by the Voyager.) Is there a reason that you've ruled it out?

I bought a Voyager Old School a few years ago, and I really disliked the sawtooth.  It sounded similar to a narrow pulse, no matter how carefully I set the waveform knob.  I've noticed this on Voyager videos as well.  It was quite a disappointment.

As much as vintage instruments would probably give me the sound I want, nevertheless, I don't want the headaches and expenses of maintaining old instruments.  Otherwise, I'd buy a Model D (which I had years ago) or a (full-sized) Odyssey. 

I'm presently searching for the "perfect' sawtooth.  The Sub 37 immediately comes to mind, but the instrument is just too small.  I'll probably put together a combination of things, such as an Oberheim module controlled by another synthesizer.

[Paul Dither]

This really is a synthesist's disagreement, and I have to laugh at it.  Having been raised on organ and some harpsichord, and possessing a profound love and reverence for the immense repertoire composed for each of these instruments, the suggestion that using only a Prophet '08 synthesizer is musically limiting - this is a tad shocking to me.  The only limitations each of us needs to be concerned about are our talent and our willingness to put that talent to work.  This is where the real scarcity lies. 

A Prophet '08, even a single Prophet '08, is more than enough to provide a lifetime of music making.  Just ask Marc Melia, whom many here highly respect for his musical ability - as I do, too.  The catch is, if you're thoroughly given to the synthesizer genre (which I'm not), then you're going to want to do the typical synthesizer thing - which is to own as many different instruments as your money and space allow.  Hence, countless Youtube videos, and many synth forum sub forums, revel in showing off all the stuff.   

This mass and variety of stuff could in no way serve my musical intentions.  The fact is, I could be happy with nothing but several Prophet '08s, or whatever other instrument might serve as well, such as the Modal Electronics 008.  My point is, the synthesizer - any decent synthesizer - already by its design offers so much sonic variety that the suggestion that having only one or even two synthesizers is too limiting - this is bizarre to me.  I guess I'm not enough of a synthesist to feel the same way.  I'm still struggling with my own limited musical talent, versus the immense musical potential of the instruments I play.

I'm not sure whether that is somewhat directed at me. In case it was, let me clarify:

First of all, I consider limitation to be a positive thing. Whether one focuses on a particular type of sound, whether one focuses on a particular type of instrument, and so on. I rarely use the term in a demeaning way, especially not in the creative realm. When I call the approach limiting to only use a Prophet '08 for example, I'm referring to sheer quantities only, not to the instrument's inherent possibilities. In this day and age, where almost everything seems to be possible and a keystroke away, focusing on just one instrument is a deliberately limiting choice. And I highly sympathize with that.

[Sacred Synthesis]

I'm not sure whether that is somewhat directed at me. In case it was, let me clarify:

First of all, I consider limitation to be a positive thing. Whether one focuses on a particular type of sound, whether one focuses on a particular type of instrument, and so on. I rarely use the term in a demeaning way, especially not in the creative realm. When I call the approach limiting to only use a Prophet '08 for example, I'm referring to sheer quantities only, not to the instrument's inherent possibilities. In this day and age, where almost everything seems to be possible and a keystroke away, focusing on just one instrument is a deliberately limiting choice. And I highly sympathize with that.

Paul -

My comments are not directed "at" you, but you're certainly a part of this discussion.  By the way, I'm enjoying this exchange, and I'm glad to have some interesting back-and-forth with you, which has been rather lacking on this new forum.

I've already made the points I've wanted to, so I won't repeat them.  But the idea of limitation is also interesting.  One of the difficulties in being a synthesist is in owning modern instruments that have an almost incomprehensible complexity and potential.  There are a number of synthesizers that I've considered and studied in the last few years that, for me, would be totally frustrating to compose on, simply because I would always be aware of the inadequate use I was making of them.  One example of this would be the Roland Jupiter 80.  Perhaps it shouldn't matter, but it does as a sort of artist's distraction.  I've always found too much of anything to be distracting, when concentration was needed.  It's a bit like trying to write in a messy room or with junk all over your desk.  Some minds need a Spartan orderliness in order to work well, and this is probably true for more people than realize it. 

This is how music and instruments strike me.  I actually like limitation; I actually don't want a synthesizer that can do everything.  A modest instrument like the Prophet '08 makes for a wholesome creative environment and tool, and whatever it cannot do mysteriously becomes an aid to creativity, or at the very least, not a distraction from it. 

I've composed many pieces for church organ, having at my disposal what - to a synthesist - would be a tortuously limited range of  tones.  And it was never ever a problem.  The only problem or limitation came in the form of the organist!

On the other hand, even though I can appreciate the thought as a synthesist, I could never really look at a Prophet '08 as "limited," except in comparison to other more sophisticated instruments - obviously.  But unto itself, it is quite remarkable in its flexibility.  Every synthesizer is.

[Paul Dither]

I've already made the points I've wanted to, so I won't repeat them.  But the idea of limitation is also interesting.  One of the difficulties in being a synthesist is in owning instruments that have an almost incomprehensible potential.  There are a number of synthesizers that I've considered and studied in the last few years that, for me, would be totally frustrating to compose on, simply because I would always be aware of the inadequate use I was making of them.  One example of this would be the Roland Jupiter 80.  Perhaps it shouldn't matter, but it does as a sort of artist's distraction.  I've always found too much of anything to be distracting, when concentration was needed.  It's a bit like trying to write in a messy room or with junk all over your desk.  Some minds need a Spartan orderliness in order to work well, and this is probably true for more people than realize it. 

This is how music and instruments strike me.  I actually like the limitation; I actually don't want a synthesizer that can do everything.  A modest instrument like the Prophet '08 makes for a wholesome creative environment, and whatever it cannot do mysteriously becomes an aid to creativity.

I'm 100% with you on that. The only difference is that I used to produce my music a lot with software-based instruments a couple of years ago. And at some point I realized that the abundance of chances at hand are not entirely productive. In a way it's like when everything seems to be possible, nothing ends up being possible anymore, because making decisions is becoming much harder. I also rarely ended up designing my own sounds anymore - first of all because it's not particular attractive to tweak sounds with a mouse anyway, second of all because I somehow got lost in a huge array of already existing presets that I only modified here and there. So when I went back to hardware synths, I made up the rule to only use my hardware for synthetic sounds, i.e. everything that goes beyond samples and sample processing. I also like to use only one of my hardware instruments to make an entire track, since that can be quite liberating and forces you into trying to get the best out of one instrument, which is what I liked about having only one synth as a teenager. You dig in deeper and won't find any cheap excuses like "okay, if I want a bass I just turn towards my Moog" or something like that.

I've composed many pieces for church organ, having at my disposal what - to a synthesist - would be a tortuously limited range of  tones.  And it was never ever a problem.  The only problem or limitation came in the form of the organist!

On the other hand, even though I can appreciate the thought as a synthesist, I could never really look at a Prophet '08 as "limited" except in relation to other more sophisticated instruments.  But unto itself, it's quite remarkable in its flexibility.

Right. It always comes down to how you go about your tools, which are rarely faulty by design. And I also agree on your statement about the Prophet '08: it's far from being limited. I'd be the last person to say so. And although I sacrificed mine in favor of a Prophet-6, I will always point out that it does highly depend on your setup what to choose. If I could only have one synth, I would probably rather pick a Prophet '08 over either a Pro 2 and a Prophet-6. Another thing: Just because I appear to have "moved on" (which is not precisely how I would put it personally, hence the somewhat sarcastically meant quotation marks), doesn't mean that I forgot about the strengths of the very first DSI instruments.

[Sacred Synthesis]

See?  We basically agree, with a few exceptions.  From knowing your instrument set up, I knew we couldn't be too far apart.

[chysn]

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 ?

The context here is "using lots of cheap synths superficially" versus "getting to know a small number of good synths really well." It's a position that I'm sort of coming around on, and if you graph my "number of synths" axis over time, there's definitely a downward slope. (Not to claim that I've achieved an expert level with anything).

And speaking strictly for myself: Yes, Roland makes mediocre synthesizers.

[Fuseball]

And speaking strictly for myself: Yes, Roland makes mediocre synthesizers.

Today, yes. 30+ years ago not so much. All personal preference of course. I'm pretty indifferent to Korg synths with the possible exception of the mono/poly.

[Sacred Synthesis]

I had a Juno 60 many moons ago.  I thought it was good, especially the filter, but not worthy of the adulation it's given these days.  A Prophet '08 could run circles around it.

[Fuseball]

I had a Juno 60 many moons ago.  I thought it was good, especially the filter, but not worthy of the adulation it's given these days.  A Prophet '08 could run circles around it.

I can't argue with that. The Juno sounds great but has none of the versatility of the P'08. It was my first analog poly so I'm still a little sentimental about it.

The Jupiter 6 appears to get quite a bit of bad press, presumably for not being a Jupiter 8. With thoughtful programming it can sound amazing. Often more rich and interesting than the Prophet 6 I have next to it, and with the Europa upgrade in some ways a more advanced and complete synth. There are certainly some features, such as the optimised voice allocation (rather than round robin) that I wish the DSI synths offered. The Jupiter 6 is the synth I use most after the P'08.

[Sacred Synthesis]

I had a Juno 60 many moons ago.  I thought it was good, especially the filter, but not worthy of the adulation it's given these days.  A Prophet '08 could run circles around it.

I can't argue with that. The Juno sounds great but has none of the versatility of the P'08. It was my first analog poly so I'm still a little sentimental about it.

I've started a separate Juno 60 discussion in the "Other Hardware/Software" sub forum because it's worthy of it and because I don't want to lead this discussion off track.

http://forum.davesmithinstruments.com/index.php/topic,346.0.html

[Sacred Synthesis]

It's a strange way of putting it, but one of the things I like about the Prophet '08 is that it sounds so much like a Prophet 600.  I've always thought the two instruments sounded more similar than any other P'08 sound-alikes.  And yet, the architecture more closely resemble the Prophet-6.  I'd like to hear a P-600/P-6 video comparison. 

This video is a good example of what I mean.  My Prophet '08 is full of these types of programs, which I really like.

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

[Paul Dither]

It's a strange way of putting it, but one of the things I like about the Prophet '08 is that it sounds so much like a Prophet 600.  I've always thought the two instruments sounded more similar than any other P'08 sound-alikes.  And yet, the architecture more closely resemble the Prophet-6.  I'd like to hear a P-600/P-6 video comparison. 

This video is a good example of what I mean.  My Prophet '08 is full of these types of programs, which I really like.

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

Hmm, I never owned a Prophet-600, but I've played one. My instant impression was that its core sound was much nastier than that of the Prophet '08.

[Sacred Synthesis]

That's surprising.  I've heard many videos of the Prophet 600 that immediately appealed to my conservative musical tastes.  Although I don't do vintage, if I did, it certainly would be one of my first picks. 

[Paul Dither]

I'm confident that one can tame it with careful programming and also some reverb. Yet, I would describe the Prophet '08 as sounding very polite in comparison.