Sequential Pro 3 Introduction

[Mr.Dezent]

In fact, Dave has a tendency to always create something new... Even the PRO2 is not obsolete because of the PRO3, it has a curtis filter, and four very different oscillators, and the filters can be routed... I think the only obsolete synth is the P8 since REV2.... Even aN Evolver still holds its own place today.

Pro 2 definitely doesn't have a Curtis filter in it. It should be a discrete 24db LPF SSM design with the second filter being the Oberheim SEM 12db SVF. And yes the filter-routing adds a lot of timbre´s since you can morph fluently between serial and parallel usage of the filters as well as how much of the signal is send to each filter (filter mix).
It feels like it will take years of dedication to outline every possible sonic option on this instrument.

Also you have 12 waveFORMS you can create sets of 3 with in any chosen order (does that make a short waveTABLE?)
In addition you have the superwaves of analog shapes and the waveforms which add to the feel of playing a multi-osc 4 voice poly.

I started out looking at the pro3 as a replacement or mk2, but am starting to realize they left out the most quirky parts.
Character Section and the custom effects via 4 delay lines with filters and panning each are another one.

I honestly think the Pro3 is much more sweetspot oriented and regarding the rising demand for synths (especially cheap-ass replicas) also more consumer-friendly while maintaining an not overwhelming but peculiar character.

[Razmo]

In fact, Dave has a tendency to always create something new... Even the PRO2 is not obsolete because of the PRO3, it has a curtis filter, and four very different oscillators, and the filters can be routed... I think the only obsolete synth is the P8 since REV2.... Even aN Evolver still holds its own place today.

Pro 2 definitely doesn't have a Curtis filter in it. It should be a discrete 24db LPF SSM design with the second filter being the Oberheim SEM 12db SVF. And yes the filter-routing adds a lot of timbre´s since you can morph fluently between serial and parallel usage of the filters as well as how much of the signal is send to each filter (filter mix).
It feels like it will take years of dedication to outline every possible sonic option on this instrument.

Also you have 12 waveFORMS you can create sets of 3 with in any chosen order (does that make a short waveTABLE?)
In addition you have the superwaves of analog shapes and the waveforms which add to the feel of playing a multi-osc 4 voice poly.

I started out looking at the pro3 as a replacement or mk2, but am starting to realize they left out the most quirky parts.
Character Section and the custom effects via 4 delay lines with filters and panning each are another one.

I honestly think the Pro3 is much more sweetspot oriented and regarding the rising demand for synths (especially cheap-ass replicas) also more consumer-friendly while maintaining an not overwhelming but peculiar character.

Ahh... So in general they added a ladder filter and removed the routing options on PRO3... Yes... The two PROs certainly can live side by side which is typical of Daves synths... Each has something unique about them... Only the Prophet8 has become redundant because of the REV2.

The character section I will not miss, I found it clearly digital on the Prophet12... And yes, I would count 3 waveFORMS in a waveTABLE just that... A waveTABLE.. To me, a waveTABLE could be simply two waveFORMS, as long as you can morph between them... They would be kind of boring though.

To me, the sellingpoint of chosing PRO3 vs. PRO2 is most notably these things:

1. Analog oscillators
2. More versatile Wavetable osc.
3. The Ladder filter addition.
4. The more FX options
5. The enhanced sequencer
6. The analog filter drive and distortion
7. The better FATAR keybed

[guyaguy]

The ProPHET 12 does have Curtis filters by the way.

[Mr.Dezent]

1. Analog oscillators
2. More versatile Wavetable osc.
3. The Ladder filter addition.
4. The more FX options
5. The enhanced sequencer
6. The analog filter drive and distortion
7. The better FATAR keybed

1. Agreed
2. Cannot judge yet, Superwaves, which are missing, are quite interesting for pads and drones (feels like having 48osc)
3. Sure, but there are already so many options in the auxilary filter department (Pedals, Eurorack)
4. More easily available yes, but not necessarily more optionwise (The 4 delays can have all their parameters addressed in the mod matrix and have 2 filters each, every known effect can be created)
5. ratcheting and 4 16step parts per preset, I agree (but why those buttons again? so unmusical if you compare them to KorgVolcas Sequencer Strip or those small RGB pads where you can just swipe over to select the steps to play)
6. Pro2 has Stereo Analog Distortion as a last step in the signal flow and the LPF has drive (boost) as well
7. Most probably a lot better, yeah

[Razmo]

I have been wondering about something regarding the wavetable resolution, that I hope someone who had their hands on one could tell me:

The parameter ShapeMod supposedly have an 8 bit resolution since the range is from 0 to 255...but if that is max resolution, then slow modulation at small ranges would be rather stepped.

Is the internal resolusion for scanning a wavetable larger than 8 bit to smooth things out?... I know that filter cutoff usually has a larger internal resolusion when routing lfos or envelopes to filter cutoff... I would suspect the same with wavetable resolusion?

[guyaguy]

I have been wondering about something regarding the wavetable resolution, that I hope someone who had their hands on one could tell me:

The parameter ShapeMod supposedly have an 8 bit resolution since the range is from 0 to 255...but if that is max resolution, then slow modulation at small ranges would be rather stepped.

Is the internal resolusion for scanning a wavetable larger than 8 bit to smooth things out?... I know that filter cutoff usually has a larger internal resolusion when routing lfos or envelopes to filter cutoff... I would suspect the same with wavetable resolusion?

Was wondering that too. It did sound stepped in the NAMM demos where Dave was using the slider.

[Razmo]

I have been wondering about something regarding the wavetable resolution, that I hope someone who had their hands on one could tell me:

The parameter ShapeMod supposedly have an 8 bit resolution since the range is from 0 to 255...but if that is max resolution, then slow modulation at small ranges would be rather stepped.

Is the internal resolusion for scanning a wavetable larger than 8 bit to smooth things out?... I know that filter cutoff usually has a larger internal resolusion when routing lfos or envelopes to filter cutoff... I would suspect the same with wavetable resolusion?

Was wondering that too. It did sound stepped in the NAMM demos where Dave was using the slider.

In the demo, he allocated the whole 256 steps to the slider (or rather maximum modulation amount), or turned the direct initial ShapeMod knob thru it's entire range... he did not scan just a little of the range there... so I think, that the stepping heard in the video is probably more related to the individual waves being different or something.

On the older Microwave synthesizers, Waldorf fixed this with a Smooth mode so you could decide for yourself if you wanted stepped or fine resolution... the Quantum also have this feature. Point is that if you for example want to use a wavetable's first two waveFORMS as the start and end point for modulation, then with only 256 values, you would essentially only have 15 interpolations between the two waveFORMS when you route, say, an LFO to the ShapeMod parameter via the matrix... with even middle speed of that LFO, you would no doubt get steps in the audio.

So I hope the resolusion of 256 is only in the initial parameter setting, just like it is with Cutoff Frequency for example... I hope that as soon as you start using ModWheel, Slider, Pitch Wheel, Aftertouch, LFO, EGs etc. that the resolution is a lot greater, otherwise it will not let you use the wavetables in more subtle modulations, especially when the range of the waveTABLE you scan is smaller than the full range.

But I would think that this has already been taken care of... I cannot think that Sequential did not see this as important... so unless they want to answer the question here, we'll just have to wait until I got my PRO3... then I'll make a test on it.

[guyaguy]

In the demo, he allocated the whole 256 steps to the slider (or rather maximum modulation amount), or turned the direct initial ShapeMod knob thru it's entire range... he did not scan just a little of the range there... so I think, that the stepping heard in the video is probably more related to the individual waves being different or something.

Ah that makes sense. Wasn’t sure what had already been programmed in the presets.

Mine arrives on the 19th so I can try it out then. It’s gonna be a long week!

[ensoniq70]

The parameter ShapeMod supposedly have an 8 bit resolution since the range is from 0 to 255...but if that is max resolution, then slow modulation at small ranges would be rather stepped.

Is the internal resolusion for scanning a wavetable larger than 8 bit to smooth things out?... I know that filter cutoff usually has a larger internal resolusion when routing lfos or envelopes to filter cutoff... I would suspect the same with wavetable resolusion?

I test it with my Pro 3 (arrived yesterday, but not enough time until next Wednesday) and this is no problem. If you set the ShapeMod as a destination and the amount to a small number, all is very smooth. I test it with one slow rate lfo and with the touch stripe.

That much I can tell you: A wonderful sounding synthesizer with a very good workmanship (normal version)

[Quatschmacher]

Looking forward to hopefully trying one out tomorrow.