The Official Sequential/DSI Forum

New Prophet VS video

Re: New Prophet VS video
« Reply #20 on: February 11, 2019, 05:16:26 PM »
I would have agreed with you on this up until recently. Plus what do you consider the "sound" of FM? I'm assuming you mean this... When linear FM synthesis was introduced, its main application was to replicate acoustic/electroacoustic instruments more accurately. By today's standards those sounds while cool in a kitschy sense are extremely cheesy. Why go with a FM electric piano over a round robin sample of a Wurlitzer electric piano?

To be fair though: FM is about more than just electric pianos and you can still create highly expressive and non-chliché sounds with FM.

I know that Fm is hard to work with, and unpredictable, but that's ok in a situation where you want to create new timbres that do not resemble anything from the real world.

FM is actually not that hard once you've wrapped your head around how it works, which is essentially: What happens if one frequency modulates another? – Anybody who uses an LFO can do that. In terms of parameters you're also dealing with way less than on most Sequential synths. The most essential sound shaping tools are always the same, only multiplied by the number of operators (at least if we're talking about the musically most convenient FM version in Yamaha synths). It is of course essential to understand how sound works and to be able to break down single sonic characteristics of either an already existing or an imagined sound into layers (of modulation) so to speak. But as a basic principle that's also something one does when working with subtractive synthesis if one doesn't produce sounds by accident all the time.

Re: New Prophet VS video
« Reply #21 on: February 11, 2019, 05:34:02 PM »
I think it would be awesome if they incorporated an aliasing parameter which would allow the user to dial in as much aliasing as they want. I actually like the harsh digital tones. Nice and clear and a perfect compliment to the sound of analog synths. It just has a totally different texture to it. Sharp and cutting and perfect for bells, metallic or glassy leads.

Perhaps instead of a joystick a large touch surface with the same material as the touch sliders of Tempest, P12 and PX would be nice. With a latch button of course.

For aliasing you basically only need to reduce the sample rate. That'd be the decimate parameter in Sequential's terms. Additionally, there's the hack parameter for manipulating the bit depth. One could of course modify the implementation of those parameters and add fixed steps like 4, 8 or 16 bit, for example, or fixed values in Hz when it comes to the sample rate.

I agree on the joystick alternative. A pressure sensitive touch pad with latch button would be the way to go these days, basically like on the Moog One.

Re: New Prophet VS video
« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2019, 10:01:45 PM »
...
Frankly, none of your arguments are in disagreement with what I said.  :)

I remember an interviewer asking one of the synth designers at Modal if the 002 has FM. The reply was basically you can get those sounds easily with the waveforms pretty much straight off the bat without having to fuss with anything. Anyhow, my point is, acoustic/electroacoustic instruments are harmonically richer regardless. I would rather use multilayered samples of said instruments as building blocks to create new and interesting complex sounds. While what I call "press a button to win" evolving sounds are perhaps good for film scores and impressing ones synth buddies, it doesn't have much of an application for my personal use. Though the PX for example surely holds its own in that regard.

As Brian so elegantly put it, a large part of the charm of past technology is due to jankiness. If people want to chase that dragon, then more power to them. I'm sure many will disagree with my assessment, but that's my personal view and I've taken up enough of this thread with it already.

megamarkd

  • **
  • 228
  • One day I will fund a vuvuzela marching band.
Re: New Prophet VS video
« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2019, 11:06:16 PM »
Behringer is not just retro... DeepMind12, Crave and Neutron are all their own modern work, though I'd say that the DeepMind12 is still the only one they've done that has any real interesting depth to it while also giving any preset memory.

I'm sure we'll see more in that category from them in the future... it just seems that currently they've gone into a "we deliver what the masses want!" kind of philosophy, trying to put every vintage piece to the market... those synths though, has none of my interest at all... they belong in the past if they do not come with added features and preset memory in my opinion.

Oh yeah they are releasing originals, but by 'retro' I was referring the they way all their synths are very much rooted in the past.  The Deepmind12 is pretty much a Juno with onboard FX and the Crave is like a Pro One with a Moog filter and a patch bay.  I'll pay you on the Neutron being an original with them coming up with their own filter design and all.  To tell the truth I'd forgot about the Neutron despite the thread here being occasionally getting a new post.

I have to agree, the grittier the better.  The Blofeld has an aliasing parameter but it's so-so.  Considering Sacred Synthesis' mentioning of the Evolver, it's worth noting the slop parameter for it's analogue Osc's.  Kind of ironic how back in 2002 there was a desire to replicate the imperfections of the 70's analogue tech when you think about the desire for crunchy sample quality we have now.

It's basically like what Brian Eno wrote about desirable artifacts in 1996: [snip]

Nice quote and I have to agree with it all.  I still miss tape saturation in my recordings.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2019, 11:17:50 PM by megamarkd »

Razmo

  • ***
  • 1735
Re: New Prophet VS video
« Reply #24 on: February 12, 2019, 02:15:10 AM »
...
Frankly, none of your arguments are in disagreement with what I said.  :)

I remember an interviewer asking one of the synth designers at Modal if the 002 has FM. The reply was basically you can get those sounds easily with the waveforms pretty much straight off the bat without having to fuss with anything. Anyhow, my point is, acoustic/electroacoustic instruments are harmonically richer regardless. I would rather use multilayered samples of said instruments as building blocks to create new and interesting complex sounds. While what I call "press a button to win" evolving sounds are perhaps good for film scores and impressing ones synth buddies, it doesn't have much of an application for my personal use. Though the PX for example surely holds its own in that regard.

As Brian so elegantly put it, a large part of the charm of past technology is due to jankiness. If people want to chase that dragon, then more power to them. I'm sure many will disagree with my assessment, but that's my personal view and I've taken up enough of this thread with it already.

Basically I disagree with that... you cannot get with the Modal's wavetables what you get with an FM synth... and I'm talking MODULATION ASPECTS here, not tone... in no way would you be able to create the same complex modulations with a wavetable as you would with several FM operators that have their parameters changeable in realtime.

I'm talking a 1:1 comparison here... I'm fully aware that you may be able to produce a lead sound with both techniques that would be "in the same category", but I'd like to see a 1:1 replica of a complex FM patch done with wavetables or sample synthesis for that matter... it is just not doable, and that is enough for me to want FM synthesis.

Sure... it's a hassle to work with FM, and it's unpredictable unless you really know what you're doing, and it's not the most friendly and intuitive synthesis technique available (probably the worst one I'd say), and if i had to choose three synthesis types, FM would definitely NOT be one of them because of the lacking ease of use... but FM synthesis surely has it's advantages too, and I want the option :)

That is my personal view... I would myself choose sample synthesis over FM... but when I can have both, i do not see why not :)

Razmo

  • ***
  • 1735
Re: New Prophet VS video
« Reply #25 on: February 12, 2019, 02:23:05 AM »
Behringer is not just retro... DeepMind12, Crave and Neutron are all their own modern work, though I'd say that the DeepMind12 is still the only one they've done that has any real interesting depth to it while also giving any preset memory.

I'm sure we'll see more in that category from them in the future... it just seems that currently they've gone into a "we deliver what the masses want!" kind of philosophy, trying to put every vintage piece to the market... those synths though, has none of my interest at all... they belong in the past if they do not come with added features and preset memory in my opinion.

Oh yeah they are releasing originals, but by 'retro' I was referring the they way all their synths are very much rooted in the past.  The Deepmind12 is pretty much a Juno with onboard FX and the Crave is like a Pro One with a Moog filter and a patch bay.  I'll pay you on the Neutron being an original with them coming up with their own filter design and all.  To tell the truth I'd forgot about the Neutron despite the thread here being occasionally getting a new post.

I have to agree, the grittier the better.  The Blofeld has an aliasing parameter but it's so-so.  Considering Sacred Synthesis' mentioning of the Evolver, it's worth noting the slop parameter for it's analogue Osc's.  Kind of ironic how back in 2002 there was a desire to replicate the imperfections of the 70's analogue tech when you think about the desire for crunchy sample quality we have now.

It's basically like what Brian Eno wrote about desirable artifacts in 1996: [snip]

Nice quote and I have to agree with it all.  I still miss tape saturation in my recordings.

Not in my opinion... the DeepMind is INSPIRED by the Juno's oscillators and filters, and that's about as far as it goes really... I cannot compare a Juno to a Deepmind at all simply because the DeepMind is so much more deep... it has a modulation matrix and one of the most flexible FX engines of any synth on the market... even the oscillator section is a bit expanded upon the Juno one... I do not see Behringer cloning anything with the DeepMind... at least not more than any other company that has that MOOG filter, That TB-303 sound or that 808, 909 emulation here and there etc. etc...

I do not see it as a Juno with FX... the whole magic of that synth is in the modulation matrix, the engine and it's combination with both the oscillator section, the filter and the FX engine (the FX engine is modulateable from the engine too). In my opinion, it's not even the Juno oscillator section or the filter that define the DeepMind, but the engine... It could have been any other oscillator type or filter, I'd still be interested in it because of the engine and FX section.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2019, 02:24:44 AM by Razmo »

Re: New Prophet VS video
« Reply #26 on: February 12, 2019, 07:28:31 AM »
you cannot get with the Modal's wavetables what you get with an FM synth... and I'm talking MODULATION ASPECTS here, not tone... in no way would you be able to create the same complex modulations with a wavetable as you would with several FM operators that have their parameters changeable in realtime.
This is the most frustrating thing about the Modal 002 for me: you have NCOs, so why aren't you able to do more wild and wacky stuff with them--or subtle and nuanced changes over time? For that matter, why is the modulation so restricted anyway? It sounds great, but it feels like it's the beginning of an even greater synth.
Prophet 12, Modal 002, MFB Dominion 1, Behringer DeepMind 12D, Korg Polysix & EX-8000, Roland JX-8P, Ensoniq SQ-80, Kawai K3m and now an OB-6!

Re: New Prophet VS video
« Reply #27 on: February 12, 2019, 07:44:39 AM »
you cannot get with the Modal's wavetables what you get with an FM synth... and I'm talking MODULATION ASPECTS here, not tone... in no way would you be able to create the same complex modulations with a wavetable as you would with several FM operators that have their parameters changeable in realtime.

This is the most frustrating thing about the Modal 002 for me: you have NCOs, so why aren't you able to do more wild and wacky stuff with them--or subtle and nuanced changes over time? For that matter, why is the modulation so restricted anyway? It sounds great, but it feels like it's the beginning of an even greater synth.

Talking about the beginning of something new: I actually liked what I've seen and heard from Paula Maddox's WTF module so far. That would make a great digital front end for a new hybrid. It's really simple, but effective – one of those modules that make you ask why this hasn't been done before. Aside from the window-based blending of different waveforms (single or dual) it allows for smooth or stepped waveform interpolations as well as frequency modulation.

http://dove-audio.com/wtf-module/
« Last Edit: February 12, 2019, 07:53:16 AM by Paul Dither »

Re: New Prophet VS video
« Reply #28 on: February 12, 2019, 07:57:52 AM »
...
Frankly, none of your arguments are in disagreement with what I said.  :)

I know. I just wanted to point out that FM synthesis (or PM in Yamaha's case) is about more than just cheesy electric pianos and can go beyond the 1980s in terms of sonic aesthetics.

Re: New Prophet VS video
« Reply #29 on: February 12, 2019, 08:32:54 AM »
Talking about the beginning of something new: I actually liked what I've seen and heard from Paula Maddox's WTF module so far. That would make a great digital front end for a new hybrid. It's really simple, but effective – one of those modules that make you ask why this hasn't been done before. Aside from the window-based blending of different waveforms (single or dual) it allows for smooth or stepped waveform interpolations as well as frequency modulation.

http://dove-audio.com/wtf-module/

Agreed. It's a pity she left Modal, but it sounds like she's happier on her own. If I were into Eurorack, I'd have funded that Kickstarter.
Prophet 12, Modal 002, MFB Dominion 1, Behringer DeepMind 12D, Korg Polysix & EX-8000, Roland JX-8P, Ensoniq SQ-80, Kawai K3m and now an OB-6!

Re: New Prophet VS video
« Reply #30 on: February 12, 2019, 08:58:36 AM »
Agreed. It's a pity she left Modal, but it sounds like she's happier on her own. If I were into Eurorack, I'd have funded that Kickstarter.

She just started a new job this year, so I assume she won't release a new product right away (developing instruments is not her main job). But she's definitely not short of ideas and even entertained the idea of developing a full synth voice or poly synth that could contain the WTF oscillator. She asked for some input via Twitter last year and also considered adding phase modulation. So I assume we haven't heard the last from her.

Re: New Prophet VS video
« Reply #31 on: February 12, 2019, 10:09:39 AM »

Re: New Prophet VS video
« Reply #32 on: February 12, 2019, 02:32:37 PM »
I would have agreed with you on this up until recently. Plus what do you consider the "sound" of FM? I'm assuming you mean this... When linear FM synthesis was introduced, its main application was to replicate acoustic/electroacoustic instruments more accurately. By today's standards those sounds while cool in a kitschy sense are extremely cheesy. Why go with a FM electric piano over a round robin sample of a Wurlitzer electric piano?

To be fair though: FM is about more than just electric pianos and you can still create highly expressive and non-chliché sounds with FM.

I know that Fm is hard to work with, and unpredictable, but that's ok in a situation where you want to create new timbres that do not resemble anything from the real world.

FM is actually not that hard once you've wrapped your head around how it works, which is essentially: What happens if one frequency modulates another? – Anybody who uses an LFO can do that. In terms of parameters you're also dealing with way less than on most Sequential synths. The most essential sound shaping tools are always the same, only multiplied by the number of operators (at least if we're talking about the musically most convenient FM version in Yamaha synths). It is of course essential to understand how sound works and to be able to break down single sonic characteristics of either an already existing or an imagined sound into layers (of modulation) so to speak. But as a basic principle that's also something one does when working with subtractive synthesis if one doesn't produce sounds by accident all the time.


Hmmmm Prophet FM sort of has a nice ring to it.
Prophet 6, Prophet X, Moog Sub 37, Oberheim SEM-Pro, Tempest Drum Computer, Roland V Piano,Kurzweil K2600XS, Roland FA-08, Baldwin Upright Piano, Fender Stratocaster, Fender Telecaster, Gibson Chet Atkins SST, Jackson King V, Ibanez Jem, Roger Linn Adrenalinn iii

Re: New Prophet VS video
« Reply #33 on: February 12, 2019, 02:52:16 PM »
Hmmmm Prophet FM sort of has a nice ring to it.

It would be musically most flexible to base it on phase modulation, though, like Yamaha did. That way you get the most consistent and predictable outcome.

A knobby interface for the operator section could easily be done. You would just need all operator parameters once plus the typical operator/oscillator switches (all knobs would have to be endless encoders for convenience), an algorithm field, and a tangible mixer. I once tried to translate an 8-OP-DX front end to that approach (see below).


Shaw

  • ***
  • 649
Re: New Prophet VS video
« Reply #34 on: February 12, 2019, 03:06:10 PM »
Hmmmm Prophet FM sort of has a nice ring to it.

It would be musically most flexible to base it on phase modulation, though, like Yamaha did. That way you get the most consistent and predictable outcome.

A knobby interface for the operator section could easily be done. You would just need all operator parameters once plus the typical operator/oscillator switches (all knobs would have to be endless encoders for convenience), an algorithm field, and a tangible mixer. I once tried to translate an 8-OP-DX front end to that approach (see below).


Your mock-up almost has me convinced, Paul.  As interesting as this would be, I don’t see Sequential doing FM... it doesn’t seem to be their thing.
Prophet X  |  Prophet 12  |  OB-6
"Classical musicians go to the conservatories, rock´n roll musicians go to the garages." --- Frank Zappa

Re: New Prophet VS video
« Reply #35 on: February 12, 2019, 07:41:35 PM »
Hmmmm Prophet FM sort of has a nice ring to it.

It would be musically most flexible to base it on phase modulation, though, like Yamaha did. That way you get the most consistent and predictable outcome.

A knobby interface for the operator section could easily be done. You would just need all operator parameters once plus the typical operator/oscillator switches (all knobs would have to be endless encoders for convenience), an algorithm field, and a tangible mixer. I once tried to translate an 8-OP-DX front end to that approach (see below).


Your mock-up almost has me convinced, Paul.  As interesting as this would be, I don’t see Sequential doing FM... it doesn’t seem to be their thing.

Well they had it as a big implementation for the P12. Even made a video about it with John Chowning.
Prophet 6, Prophet X, Moog Sub 37, Oberheim SEM-Pro, Tempest Drum Computer, Roland V Piano,Kurzweil K2600XS, Roland FA-08, Baldwin Upright Piano, Fender Stratocaster, Fender Telecaster, Gibson Chet Atkins SST, Jackson King V, Ibanez Jem, Roger Linn Adrenalinn iii

Re: New Prophet VS video
« Reply #36 on: February 12, 2019, 07:58:51 PM »
Hmmmm Prophet FM sort of has a nice ring to it.

It would be musically most flexible to base it on phase modulation, though, like Yamaha did. That way you get the most consistent and predictable outcome.

A knobby interface for the operator section could easily be done. You would just need all operator parameters once plus the typical operator/oscillator switches (all knobs would have to be endless encoders for convenience), an algorithm field, and a tangible mixer. I once tried to translate an 8-OP-DX front end to that approach (see below).

Between your Prophet 8 and Sequential Wave designs I'm shocked you don't have a job at Sequential. What program do you use cause these are incredible.
Prophet 6, Prophet X, Moog Sub 37, Oberheim SEM-Pro, Tempest Drum Computer, Roland V Piano,Kurzweil K2600XS, Roland FA-08, Baldwin Upright Piano, Fender Stratocaster, Fender Telecaster, Gibson Chet Atkins SST, Jackson King V, Ibanez Jem, Roger Linn Adrenalinn iii

Re: New Prophet VS video
« Reply #37 on: February 13, 2019, 03:29:14 AM »
Between your Prophet 8 and Sequential Wave designs I'm shocked you don't have a job at Sequential. What program do you use cause these are incredible.

Thanks. It's all been carved out by hand in MS Paint. No, seriously, as an Adobe Cloud subscriber I'm using Illustrator. No big deal really. The above one was only done to figure out how a knobby DX-like UI could be done without ending up with something like those humongous DX-controllers, which to me always looked more intimidating than the membrane buttons of a DX7. It was of purely theoretical interest and of course I realize that I didn't include the EG section yet.