The Prophet '08 Among Prophets

F5D · « **Reply #140 on:** April 25, 2016, 10:43:31 PM »

The Prophet '08 is still a fantastic synth, no doubt about it. It is a bargain compared to the more expensive and limited P6 and OB6. I have never had a problem not liking the sound of the P'08. I will soon have the joy to play some more, as I am nearing completion of wiring of my current setup in a new place. I like modulations and the ones on offer in P'08 just work and sound really good. Don't know about the noise generator of the P6 and OB6, but the one in P'08 sounds lovely, also as a mod source, especially compared to the more digital sounding noise of P12.

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #141 on:** April 25, 2016, 11:05:07 PM »

F5D, I have to say that your recordings of the Prophet '08 have always been among my favorites. You effectively get at the heart of its raw analog sound, a characteristic that many assert it lacks. I'm sure your demos persuaded me to look more and more in the P'08 direction.

Jason · « **Reply #142 on:** April 26, 2016, 07:09:54 AM »

Quote from: Sacred Synthesis on April 25, 2016, 12:45:28 PM

And as for "Slop," it's probably the parameter for which I find the least use. I don't share the enthusiasm of other synthesists for it, nor do I think it effectively emulates the character of old analog oscillators.

Interesting. I guess I haven't experimented with it very intentionally. So you keep it at 0?

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #143 on:** April 26, 2016, 07:21:24 AM »

Yes, almost always. Slop is not an important part of any patch I've made. Although I experiment with it, I usually eliminate it in the end for causing an unnatural quality. For example, I used it in a small amount in an organ piece I recorded about a year ago, and at one point it moved the oscillators to a "1" tuning. The sound of one oscillator tuned to "0" and the other tuned to "1" is an exceedingly synthesizer-ish effect; it has an excessively electronic twisting quality that I really dislike. Ah well; a lesson learned.

To my ear, Slop just sounds sloppy. I hear it used in many demos, and it always jumps out at me as sounding very crude, very artificial. It sounds like your synthesizer is trying a little too hard to sound like some one else's synthesizer. Actually, that's exactly what it's for. Slop is the only parameter on the instrument that exists primarily to make a Prophet '08 sound like something other than a Prophet '08. Again, although I like an analog character, the infamous drifty oscillators are a problem to be shunned. I love the sound of a pipe organ, too, but I wouldn't design a sound on a synthesizer that imitated a rank of pipes during a hot humid July when they go out of tune! Besides, with the number of oscillators I often use all at once and the resultant amount of beating and swirling, the very idea of Slop becomes irrelevant.

Jason · « **Reply #144 on:** April 26, 2016, 08:35:25 AM »

Thanks for the thoughtful answer, S.S. I'll definitely have to play with that a bit more.

Do you ever change any settings on your doubling module compared to the keyboard instrument? For example, detune oscillators in one but not the other, or have one instrument detuned compared to the other? It seems like this could thicken things up nicely. But sometimes I'm surprised that detuning actually makes a patch sound thinner or less strong.

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #145 on:** April 26, 2016, 08:44:34 AM »

Yes, that's generally how I do it. Some times, when using identical patches, I thicken things up a bit by going to Global on the Module and detuning it by two or three digits. In addition, I often alter the patch on the Module and save it, so that, when I turn to a program on the Keyboard, both patches come up together.

Here's a bi-timbral example of the two units having completely different sounds saved on the same program number. The second sound slowly comes in beginning at 2:34. I adjust the volume on the mixer as I play.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzBVP5RCNVI

Jason · « **Reply #146 on:** April 26, 2016, 09:03:15 AM »

Yes, it seems like that would open up many more options by changing the sounds on each instrument. So you may have the LFO frequencies and rates different on the two instruments? But you always have the module coming out of the one side and the keyboard coming out the other? You don't generally MIDI them the the way most players tend to, even when the sounds are fairly different?
Thanks for the insight.

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #147 on:** April 26, 2016, 09:12:25 AM »

I never poly chain the two, but only Midi connect them and set the Globals so that any parameter changed on the master/Keyboard unit effects the slave/Module unit as well. If I want different patches on each, then I make the changes to the Module and save the program.

As for the stereo field, that is set at the mixer. If I want the two units entirely on separate sides, or if I want to partially or entirely draw them both to the center, I simply do so at the mixer. What I like about this arrangement is that I can adjust the panning as I play.

The additional advantage of this set up is that I can process each unit differently. In the improvisation I linked to above, the soft pad has a moderate amount of reverb, while the high shrill patch has lots of reverb to give it an extra ethereal quality.

Paul Dither · « **Reply #148 on:** April 26, 2016, 12:49:51 PM »

Quote from: Sacred Synthesis on April 25, 2016, 10:37:12 PM

The challenging thing in that piece is that the 9/8 time signature is not done in the usual three groups of threes. It's difficult to follow without counting out nine eighth notes because the notes are not grouped in the usual sets. Otherwise, 9/8 is usually an easy time signature to follow. Bach's "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" is in 9/8!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3UuGPCCm_I

That, and the fact that the keyboard part is strictly speaking in 4/4 against 9/8. Also interesting that the whole solo is basically done on top of a suspended chord.

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #149 on:** April 27, 2016, 08:44:07 AM »

Quote from: Jason on April 23, 2016, 08:42:45 AM

When hearing complaints about the '08 sounding thin, I wonder how two combined 08's would compare to a single "thick" vintage synth. For example, how would a patch on two '08's compare to a similar patch on a single OB-X?

I think there's now an opportunity to make nearly a side-by-side comparison.

There are many variations on the brass patch in this excellent OB-6 demonstration (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjArgGTGhec). Compare it with my Prophet '08 pair brass patch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PKz3qwN1-0).

I find the OB-6 state-variable and the Prophet '08 2-pole filter to sound quite similar. There's a greater similarity in tone between these two instruments than between the OB-6 and the Prophet-6.

BobTheDog · « **Reply #150 on:** April 27, 2016, 10:54:13 AM »

2 poles LPF difference, which is huge really.

dswo · « **Reply #151 on:** April 27, 2016, 06:34:09 PM »

Quote from: Sacred Synthesis on April 27, 2016, 08:44:07 AM

I find the OB-6 state-variable and the Prophet '08 2-pole filter to sound quite similar.

I've been forming the same impression.

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #152 on:** April 27, 2016, 07:06:30 PM »

Quote from: dswo on April 27, 2016, 06:34:09 PM

Quote from: Sacred Synthesis on April 27, 2016, 08:44:07 AM
I find the OB-6 state-variable and the Prophet '08 2-pole filter to sound quite similar.

I've been forming the same impression.

Interesting. Is it those upper frequencies that are allowed to pass through the filter? Even as it's being closed, there's a fizziness that prevails. I work a lot with the Prophet '08's 2-pole filter, and it's a character that sounds familiar.

tumble2k · « **Reply #153 on:** April 27, 2016, 09:53:39 PM »

Quote from: dswo on April 27, 2016, 06:34:09 PM

Quote from: Sacred Synthesis on April 27, 2016, 08:44:07 AM
I find the OB-6 state-variable and the Prophet '08 2-pole filter to sound quite similar.

I've been forming the same impression.

I'm not sure I hear what you guys are talking about. I really like the refinement of Sacred Synthesis's brass. The Oberheim patches are really bristly on the top end. They don't sound similar at all to me, and I'm not that fond of the Oberheim sound.

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #154 on:** April 27, 2016, 09:58:56 PM »

The Prophet '08 brass patch uses the 4-pole filter setting. So I agree, it doesn't at all resemble the OB-6 sound. I was referring to other patches that do use the 2-pole setting.

Fuseball · « **Reply #155 on:** April 28, 2016, 01:00:57 AM »

Of course the OB-6 state-variable filter can do a lot more than just 2-pole low pass. However, when I listened to the recent OB-6 Classic/vintage demo yesterday it also struck me how close the P'08 2-pole mode gets to that sound. I'm also undecided on how musically useful I would find the non-low pass states anyway.

tumble2k · « **Reply #156 on:** April 28, 2016, 06:56:07 AM »

Quote from: Sacred Synthesis on April 27, 2016, 09:58:56 PM

The Prophet '08 brass patch uses the 4-pole filter setting. So I agree, it doesn't at all resemble the OB-6 sound. I was referring to other patches that do use the 2-pole setting.

Oh I see. Thank you for the introduction to 4-pole vs. 2-pole sound.

This is how we get stupid opinions (mine) on forums about the Prophet 08. The poster (me) doesn't know anything about sound design, has heard a few Youtube videos, and doesn't want to be left out of the party. Sometimes the poster has paid considerably less for an inferior product (Ambika?) and wants to justify his purchase against a more expensive one that he can't afford (yet).

Anyway thank you again for clarifying. I'll go back to playing with Ambika (who doesn't have a 2-pole setting).

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #157 on:** April 28, 2016, 07:19:46 AM »

Quote from: tumble2k on April 28, 2016, 06:56:07 AM

Quote from: Sacred Synthesis on April 27, 2016, 09:58:56 PM
The Prophet '08 brass patch uses the 4-pole filter setting. So I agree, it doesn't at all resemble the OB-6 sound. I was referring to other patches that do use the 2-pole setting.

Oh I see. Thank you for the introduction to 4-pole vs. 2-pole sound.

This is how we get stupid opinions (mine) on forums about the Prophet 08. The poster (me) doesn't know anything about sound design, has heard a few Youtube videos, and doesn't want to be left out of the party. Sometimes the poster has paid considerably less for an inferior product (Ambika?) and wants to justify his purchase against a more expensive one that he can't afford (yet).

Anyway thank you again for clarifying. I'll go back to playing with Ambika (who doesn't have a 2-pole setting).

Your humor and humility are refreshing. Don't lose either.

tumble2k · « **Reply #158 on:** May 06, 2016, 09:44:57 AM »

Well I just ordered a Prophet '08. Eagerly anticipating trying all of the sound design techniques in this thread.

Right now I'm thinking about a method for making a harp sound where I use two oscillators. Oscillator 1 is a base triangle wave, and oscillator 2 is a waveform rich in higher harmonics. I would use envelope 3 to cause osc2 to decay quickly by modifying the mix.

Then I use the filter with a moderate Q to simulate the resonance of the harp. Keytracking would be off.

I remember when I saw Fellini's Satyricon (very bizarre by the way), one of the characters played a simple harp. Just the sound of a single note was amazing, much more so than anything coming out of the low-calorie Yamaha TX-81Z that I had at the time.

I know I won't be able to create that exact sound, and why would I do that? Better to just sample it. But perhaps I can create a sound reminiscent of the harp that has a strong and beautiful character of its own.

The other sound that I'm going to try to create is a choir. I suspect I will fail miserably because I will need to create a formant filter, which is really three parallel bandpass filters. With layering I would only be able to get two of them.

One more of my random thoughts. I've heard complaints that the Prophet '08 does not produce good bass. Others have said that the filter does not compensate for the Q, which makes me think that with the proper modulation one could put the Q compensation in the patch by varying the VCA output with the resonance. An issue may be that with increasing resonance, the amplitude probably should not increase linearly. Anyway, I think it's pretty cool that with increasing Q the Prophet '08 filters become more like bandpass filters.

Sacred Synthesis · « **Reply #159 on:** May 06, 2016, 10:21:07 AM »

The Prophet '08's bi-timbrality leaves a lot up to your imagination, but the results often turn out other than the way you had anticipated. I've had a number of "great" bi-timbral ideas that ended up falling flat when I finally tried them out. But don't be too easily discouraged. You're entering a domain that is quite different from the usual designing of synthesizer sounds, and it requires a different sort of patience.

I haven't put much energy into creating a choir patch on the P'08, mainly because the Poly Evolver does such a fine job on this sound. I don't think the P'08 is quite up to this challenge, though, because of its filter, but you can get vaguely similar. The closest I've come is in "Improvisation LXII," but I wasn't even trying. The key is in using a lot of filter Keyboard Amount, setting the right amount of Resonance, finding the exact spot on the Cut Off Frequency, having a fairly wide vibrato depth (3), and using a moderately slow Attack.

When you get your Prophet '08, don't forget to experiment with the B Output jacks on the back panel! It unfortunately leaves you stuck in a limited configuration, but that configuration offers some fabulous musical/sonic opportunities. And I have to warn you, Tumble2K, once you've worked with the instrument for a while, you're going to see the logic of coupling the keyboard with a module, as you see your best ideas limited by a four-voice result. The Prophet '08 cries out to be a sixteen-voice instrument.