The New Sequential Prophet-5 and Prophet-10

[A Thousand Eyes]

Honestly the DSI/Sequential effects aren't that great, especially the reverbs on the P6/OB-6. The only one I'd use is flanger 2 and the rest I'd choose alternatives if given the option. The P10 sounds so good you won't want effects most of the time. That said, even my mixer has effects and there are tons of usable plug-ins for free. The only pedal I think is worth buying these days is a real tape echo. As for sequencers, any that lack a song mode are useless for me. Hopefully something like the Tempest 2 comes along with extensive external polyphonic sequencing options.

The voice count option is a waste of resources to me, but to each his own...

[LPF83]

From a business perspective Dave might just be like “if you want 5 voices, use a P5.”

But upgradability from the P5 is an option too, it's probably an easy upgrade -- the Rev2 is like that, a little cheaper to get the 16 voice out of the gate than to add a voice board later.

[LPF83]

Honestly the DSI/Sequential effects aren't that great, especially the reverbs on the P6/OB-6.

I agree they're not great FX, but I find them useful for slight sound colorations (which is what I typically want with built in FX, as opposed to more dramatic enhancements with pedals or plugins).  Sometimes just being able to easy put a chorus before or after a delay while my hands are on the keyboard just feels more musical than workflow involving pedals or plugins. 

The voice count option is a waste of resources to me, but to each his own...

It depends on what types of music you like to make.  Even notwithstanding the mixing considerations of higher voice counts on long releases, there are certain situations when the note stealing of a 5 voice actually becomes a feature, and adds its own vintage character that can't quite be duplicated with higher polyphony.  I don't necessarily need to be able to duplicate specific characteristics to be happy with a synth.... I can find ways to be content with any good sounding tones, but it certainly is a plus for me if the option is there.  So the idea of not having note stealing, but simultaneously being able to dial it in, is very appealing for some.

[LoboLives]

From a business perspective Dave might just be like “if you want 5 voices, use a P5.”

But upgradability from the P5 is an option too, it's probably an easy upgrade -- the Rev2 is like that, a little cheaper to get the 16 voice out of the gate than to add a voice board later.

The REV2 has DCOs though...I think with VCOs it’s a bit more complicated which is why Moog did an 8 voice and 16 voice version of the Moog One and Korg did an 8 voice and 16 voice version of the Prologue.

[LPF83]

From a business perspective Dave might just be like “if you want 5 voices, use a P5.”

But upgradability from the P5 is an option too, it's probably an easy upgrade -- the Rev2 is like that, a little cheaper to get the 16 voice out of the gate than to add a voice board later.

The REV2 has DCOs though...I think with VCOs it’s a bit more complicated which is why Moog did an 8 voice and 16 voice version of the Moog One and Korg did an 8 voice and 16 voice version of the Prologue.

I think Moog's product direction is a bit out there and probably not as Bob would have it, so I kind of discard them as a reference.
Korg can be a bit mystical in their marketing decisions too, things like the 16 voice has a low frequency compressor, but the 8 voice does not...  the Minilogue XD has only 4 voices but sequencing capabilities its older brothers cannot compete with.   Whah???   Korg I think is a company that loves to shave costs, sometimes at the expense of musical value.  I'm not saying its not smart business, but their support just plain sucks.  The 'logues aren't class compliant USB devices.  Last time I looked, if you want to update the firmware you're good if on Mac and fucked if on Windows.   The MIDI driver on Windows has some of the worst "discount offshored" software implementation decisions I've seen in a software product, such as crapping the bed if it's not ordered correctly in the registry.   So, Korgs sound good by they sure ain't up to made in the USA software standards.

Basically I feel like some of these decisions are in the product positioning light by marketing people who may or may not be rational thinkers, rather than as a reflection of the actual production cost.  But, to be fair I don't know the differences in board upgrades between VCO and DCO, and it just occurred to me this would be an intriguing subject... I can imagine there would be differences, would love to know what they are.

[A Thousand Eyes]

I find them useful for slight sound colorations

This comes back to what I was saying earlier in my comparison. It almost defeats the purpose of why one would go out of their way to buy a P5 or P10, though I must stress this is simply the way I see it.

It depends on what types of music you like to make.  Even notwithstanding the mixing considerations of higher voice counts on long releases, there are certain situations when the note stealing of a 5 voice actually becomes a feature, and adds its own vintage character that can't quite be duplicated with higher polyphony.  I don't necessarily need to be able to duplicate specific characteristics to be happy with a synth.... I can find ways to be content with any good sounding tones, but it certainly is a plus for me if the option is there.  So the idea of not having note stealing, but simultaneously being able to dial it in, is very appealing for some.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to any of this, but again, to each their own.

because so many of us are waiting for the decision before deciding which to purchase.

Perhaps I'm wrong here, but I have the feeling you're taking a vocal minority to be a larger group than there are buyers who actually feel as strongly about it as you do...

[LPF83]

because so many of us are waiting for the decision before deciding which to purchase.

Perhaps I'm wrong here, but I have the feeling you're taking a vocal minority to be a larger group than there are buyers who actually feel as strongly about it as you do...

Intrinsically I try to keep myself honest, so I'll say you may be right about the above statement, but for my long-term credibility (just so I don't come across as an ass that believes that everyone wants what I want), I drew that conclusion from a combination of watching a thread on GS (one that I admittedly bailed on after about page 80-something), a number of youtube videos (of random source and credibility), and other forums (including this one).   And I got the impression others were in the same boat as me -- unencumbered by the thought of $800 extra, but wondering if they would have the ability to duplicate that magical 6th note steal that occurs on vintage P5s.  It could be a case of magnification by association, just know that wasn't my intent.  I am a big believer in the idea that all instruments have traits that give that instrument its character.  On vintage tracks, sometimes that was a P5 alone, sometimes it was a P5 multitracked, sometimes it was a P10.

[Sacred Synthesis]

I don’t see a monster VCO synth happening from Sequential again. In fact I don’t even see another Prophet happening.

Dave Smith is a prophet factory.  I expect to see at least several more prophets come from Sequential.

In a recent video interview he said he's sick of the name and so are most of the people at Sequential.

And so?  How many times have we been through this?

I think his next instrument should be called the "Non-Prophet" so and so.

[PaulSchilling]

I know that the SSI2144 has the ability for low-end compensation for resonance, so if that's the case with the SSI2140, I'd make the suggestion of having that fully kick-in on the (modern) 4 setting of the vintage knob, which Dave described as altering more parameters than simply slop, as that would help cover more bases. There does seem to be slightly more low-end presence/lower frequency resonance as the vintage number goes in ascending order, but the max possible low-end compensation on the 4 would be welcome if that can be done.

I believe the resonance compensation is activated when the Vintage knob is all the way at 4. I will double check that.

[A Thousand Eyes]

Hopefully you're right as that would make the most sense. However, that's not how it functions on my unit. It's acting really strange on mine and it becomes discernible on certain filter settings and acts differently on different notes... The vintage knob functions differently on D4 and E♭4, for example. My unit was damaged during shipping, so unless it's a bug, I'm now assuming that was one of the effects... There's something rolling around on the inside & the globals button is wonky. Other than that the P10 seems to be functioning normally... It certainly sounds incredible! 

Edit: my sustain pedal (that I've used on all other DSI/Sequential products) won't work with it. *This was my bad.

[jdt9517]

A recent video interview he said he's sick of the name and so are most of the people at Sequential.

Jimmy Buffet said that he's sick of the name Margaritaville too.  Price of success. I don't think Jimmy Buffet will stop playing it anytime soon.  Dave Smith ---?

[composerjk]

… and my sustain pedal (that I've used on all other DSI/Sequential products) won't work with it.

The default on the Prophet-5 Rev4 is different than modern synths to match the original Prophet-5 mode of operation. Take a look at the Chapter 2: Prophet 5 Controls > Global Settings > Globals—Bottom Row (p.15) of the manual for a description of the Release/Sustain switch setting. And, of course, that the sustain pedal is plugged into the Release jack.

Just in case that's the issue with your sustain pedal.

[A Thousand Eyes]

Doh! That was indeed the issue with the pedal and I remember skimming through that bit now... Thanks for the reminder!

[LoboLives]

A recent video interview he said he's sick of the name and so are most of the people at Sequential.

Jimmy Buffet said that he's sick of the name Margaritaville too.  Price of success. I don't think Jimmy Buffet will stop playing it anytime soon.  Dave Smith ---?

I remember when they first introduced the REV2...just REV2....everyone thought it was a dumb name (and it was) and they demanded the Prophet name be put on it....and Dave went with the Prophet REV2. Unless he is going to start resurrecting names like "Trax" "Max" etc from the old Sequential catalog I think the only name they can really put on a poly at this point is a Prophet ____ or Poly Evolver. Anything else is going to get a hard reception I think

[LPF83]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ5r_--i1wA

[Paul Dither]

New demo by Jamiroquai's Matt Johnson:

https://youtu.be/xM1PRJPceKE

[Sacred Synthesis]

A recent video interview he said he's sick of the name and so are most of the people at Sequential.

Jimmy Buffet said that he's sick of the name Margaritaville too.  Price of success. I don't think Jimmy Buffet will stop playing it anytime soon.  Dave Smith ---?

I remember when they first introduced the REV2...just REV2....everyone thought it was a dumb name (and it was) and they demanded the Prophet name be put on it....and Dave went with the Prophet REV2. Unless he is going to start resurrecting names like "Trax" "Max" etc from the old Sequential catalog I think the only name they can really put on a poly at this point is a Prophet ____ or Poly Evolver. Anything else is going to get a hard reception I think

Agreed.  I think the Prophet name has dignity and nobleness among other modern synthesizer names, some of which are horrible.  I liked "Tetr4" and "Evolver," too.  But the name "Prophet Rev2" doesn't actually make sense because it doesn't specify which, among the many Prophet synthesizers, it's a revision of.  The name of the instrument should be "Prophet '08 Rev2".

[A Thousand Eyes]

Technically speaking, the first model of something shouldn't be called a "revision" in the first place. I get there's an historical precedent at Sequential that they're still following, but that aside, the Prophet REV would have been a more eloquent title and made more sense if it wasn't for the aforementioned precedent. That is, unless the '08 PE is considered an official revision, which I'm assuming it's not... Not that any of my semantics really matter regardless.

[LPF83]

My take:

The name "Prophet '08" probably made sense, and was arguably even clever at the time, because of the voice count and timing of release.  And I'm sure it made sense in late 2007 because, who knew how this analog resurgence thing was going to go in the late 2000s when it was conceived?  Problem is, the name doesn't scale well to the next revision, something I'm sure Dave was probably cringing over during the naming process for the Rev2.

So, the Prophet Rev2 dropped the year indicator (which is almost certainly a good idea), but made it sort of weird because there was a Prophet 5-Rev2 many decades back, and with voice count not being part of the name (it can't because there is a 8 and 16 voice version), it sort of comes across like the Prophet Rev 2 is *the* Prophet or flagship Prophet synth (when of course it is not).

This also creates a quandry for the Prophet 12, which did choose to include voice count in the name (but becomes a potential source of confusion when you release a Prophet 10 many years later, which is upmarket from the P12).

I'll just say, I don't have all the answers.  I understand the challenges that went along with all this.... there's a saying among computer scientists that naming things is the hardest part (often sung in Tom Petty's voice), and I know marketing types like to think they have it all worked out, but after 40 years in technology product engineering, I'm say I'm REALLY glad Sequential is not a marketing-driven company, and it's one of the primary reasons they're still making great products.

In terms of naming Prophet 5 and Prophet 10, things seem to be on the right track to me here... I'm not sure these synths should ever see a "Rev 5", because reissuing vintage gear was their reason for existence.

For future product naming.. questions remain.  What should the Prophet 12 successor be named?  Maybe Propholver?  Or Polyphet Digital Deluxe?

Prophet X line, from a sheer naming perspective, is in pretty good shape (could be Prophet X2, X3, etc)..  It's just that the word is that Dave's samplers (however good I'm sure they are) do not appear the be the big seller for the company, so who knows where this will go.

Tempest2, 3, etc. (should they choose to go that route)  I don't see a problem there.

Hopefully success of P5/10 leads to successful remakes of Oberheim units, just use the old name.

...One guy's opinion anyway.

[Sacred Synthesis]

Technically speaking, the first model of something shouldn't be called a "revision" in the first place. I get there's an historical precedent at Sequential that they're still following, but that aside, the Prophet REV would have been a more eloquent title and made more sense if it wasn't for the aforementioned precedent. That is, unless the '08 PE is considered an official revision, which I'm assuming it's not...

Not that any of this really matters. 

If I could complicate matters even more, the totality of the OS updates to the Prophet '08 might also have merited being called a revision, even if slight.  Whereas the Rev2 has enough changes to it from its predecessor that it could have been called the Prophet '08 Mk II.  But "Prophet Rev2" just seems vague and confused to me.

Again, if the name issue becomes a serious problem, Sequential can restart the process all over again with the name "Non Prophet".  Then they can re-use all the old numbers.