Feature Request Prophet-5 vintage knob function in P6/OB6

Check Mate · « **on:** October 02, 2020, 10:22:25 AM »

First of all congratulations on the Prophet-5 reissue! I'm happy for everyone who wants- or will be able to buy it!

Pym already mentioned that it might be possible to alter the function of the "slop" parameter in the Prophet-6 / OB-6 to make it closer to the "vintage" knob on the new Prophet-5.

If things have settled and you @Sequential find some time to look into ist I think this would be more than awesome and I opened this thread for other P6/OB6 users to express their agreements.
I think I'd even be willing to pay for it.

Keep it going guys and gals, you're awesome!!

ensoniq70 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 02, 2020, 12:28:23 PM »

I think this is a good idea, if it's possible to change the behavior of the "slop" knob. But i think we need a function switch between "slop" and "vintage". Otherwise all presets with "slop" will not sound correct.

Manbird · « **Reply #2 on:** October 02, 2020, 12:32:34 PM »

Quote from: Check Mate on October 02, 2020, 10:22:25 AM

First of all congratulations on the Prophet-5 reissue! I'm happy for everyone who wants- or will be able to buy it!

Pym already mentioned that it might be possible to alter the function of the "slop" parameter in the Prophet-6 / OB-6 to make it closer to the "vintage" knob on the new Prophet-5.

If things have settled and you @Sequential find some time to look into ist I think this would be more than awesome and I opened this thread for other P6/OB6 users to express their agreements.
I think I'd even be willing to pay for it.

Keep it going guys and gals, you're awesome!!

I'd not heard about the possibility of a Slop tweak, but I'm all for it. While the P5 has that undeniable "beautiful blur," the oscs on the P6 seem to remain too At Attention. Slop, to my ear, only pulls the oscs apart, it doesn't meanwhile fill in the gaps with glue as you'd hear on the 5.

louis · « **Reply #3 on:** October 02, 2020, 12:36:09 PM »

Yes congrats on the new prophet5 release! Amazing! Please don't forget about us prophet6 owners though and look into adding this function for us as well!

innervisions · « **Reply #4 on:** October 02, 2020, 12:51:33 PM »

Quote from: Check Mate on October 02, 2020, 10:22:25 AM

Pym already mentioned that it might be possible to alter the function of the "slop" parameter in the Prophet-6 / OB-6 to make it closer to the "vintage" knob on the new Prophet-5.

If things have settled and you @Sequential find some time to look into ist I think this would be more than awesome and I opened this thread for other P6/OB6 users to express their agreements.
I think I'd even be willing to pay for it.

I agree (for OB-6). Paying a little extra for it (like 50$) would also be ok.

MPM · « **Reply #5 on:** October 03, 2020, 10:14:59 PM »

Quote from: Check Mate on October 02, 2020, 10:22:25 AM

Pym already mentioned that it might be possible to alter the function of the "slop" parameter in the Prophet-6 / OB-6 to make it closer to the "vintage" knob on the new Prophet-5.

If things have settled and you @Sequential find some time to look into ist I think this would be more than awesome and I opened this thread for other P6/OB6 users to express their agreements.
I think I'd even be willing to pay for it.

I hope not. The slop parameter is already incorporated into half of the patches on both synths. To change it would ruin them all.
I'm not being disagreeable, just practical.

studio460 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 04, 2020, 12:15:28 AM »

I would really welcome an option to have the new vintage circuitry replace the slop algorithm on both my P6 and OB-6. This would be immensely appreciated! Charge whatever you like, I would be first in line!

Check Mate · « **Reply #7 on:** October 04, 2020, 04:39:15 AM »

Maybe it would be possible to have an optional firmware where interested users pay a small fee to get it?
Or make the function switchable in the globals menu (i.e. 2-9)?

Quatschmacher · « **Reply #8 on:** October 04, 2020, 05:01:25 AM »

Quote from: MPM on October 03, 2020, 10:14:59 PM

Quote from: Check Mate on October 02, 2020, 10:22:25 AM

Pym already mentioned that it might be possible to alter the function of the "slop" parameter in the Prophet-6 / OB-6 to make it closer to the "vintage" knob on the new Prophet-5.

If things have settled and you @Sequential find some time to look into ist I think this would be more than awesome and I opened this thread for other P6/OB6 users to express their agreements.
I think I'd even be willing to pay for it.

I hope not. The slop parameter is already incorporated into half of the patches on both synths. To change it would ruin them all.
I'm not being disagreeable, just practical.

I’m sure they’d take that into consideration when implementing it and have it as a switchable mode global or per-preset mode.

Kja · « **Reply #9 on:** October 04, 2020, 11:43:26 AM »

I would very much love this.. even just having it affect the envelopes would be huge from what I understand.. I can make new patches and tweak old ones, no big deal..

patilon · « **Reply #10 on:** October 04, 2020, 12:57:14 PM »

I´d also be in for an update for the slope knob. i only find it musical useful until maybe 12 o´clock,
beyond that it feels way out of tune. and of course integrating envelopes (and whatever else is possible) to be
different between the voices.. would be absolutely wonderful!

Tarjeijazz · « **Reply #11 on:** October 07, 2020, 08:00:20 AM »

If the vintage knob function is possible to implement in the P6/OB6 i would get a heart attack if they actually add it. I would love it! BALL IS IN YOUR COURT SEQUENTIAL!

repairerofreputations · « **Reply #12 on:** October 08, 2020, 04:59:55 AM »

I created an account just to say that as a Prophet 6, OB-6 owner, I am in favor of this as well. It would be great to have the option to switch between the two, but even if it wasn't possible, I wouldn't mind, especially if it's possible to switch back to the older firmware (for gigs where I need presets that I haven't updated).

I personally don't think it takes anything away from the Prophet 5, which sets itself apart with it's filters and keyboard. It would be great to bring the digital side of the Prophet and OB-6 more in line with the vintage synths. I love both of those synths, as modern synths, but the ability to more easily bring in the 70s/80s soundtrack sounds would be fantastic.

LPF83 · « **Reply #13 on:** October 08, 2020, 07:10:57 AM »

Vintage knob addition to P6 / OB-6 would be great if it doesn't impact current patches. I'd be more than happy to pay a reasonable fee for optional OS upgrades, and would never expect Sequential to invest the resources to develop and test this sort of thing and just eat the cost on products which are already past their peak sales cycle.

Polydata · « **Reply #14 on:** October 08, 2020, 06:38:24 PM »

YESSS please!!! I have the p6 and OB-6 and have always thought this would make them complete! Having some envelope slop/voice mismatching would make these instruments the most perfect they can be. It could even be added in the global parameters just like the alternate tunings. I would even be happy with an "on/off" global parameter, "on" could be around "2" on the vintage knob. I would pay for this as well!!!

blewis · « **Reply #15 on:** October 09, 2020, 07:47:46 PM »

Since having the slop @ 50% and above induces sea sickness, it would be nice if any future upgrade (however unlikely) used the last 64 steps of the Slop knob for Vintage.

That way, existing presets could still use slop at 0%-50% and be thresholded at 50%. Only those presets with extreme Slop would be less... sloppy.

Then if you turn the slop knob to 51%, we'll you're 1% into the vintage realm.

Or, to make it less discontinuous, value of 50% to 100% of the Slop knob are actually 50% to 0% Vintage (reverse direction)

That way crossing over from 50% slop to 50% vintage is a bit smoother. The algorithm would be discontinuous, but the resulting effect would be equally as deep - just derived from a different vector.

That creates a gradient of the slop knob like this:

clean -> mild slop -> pretty sloppy -> very sloppy -> very vintage -> pretty vintage -> mild vintage -> barely vintage

Almost like a PWN knob for slop/vintage!

That would be killer. I would pay for an upgrade to that. And it makes it easier for people to choose to try the new firmware because they'd feel like it was the "best of both worlds"

Quote from: ensoniq70 on October 02, 2020, 12:28:23 PM

I think this is a good idea, if it's possible to change the behavior of the "slop" knob. But i think we need a function switch between "slop" and "vintage". Otherwise all presets with "slop" will not sound correct.

markwilkins · « **Reply #16 on:** October 11, 2020, 05:35:55 PM »

Quote from: blewis on October 09, 2020, 07:47:46 PM

<snip> ... it would be nice if any future upgrade (however unlikely) used the last 64 steps of the Slop knob for Vintage.

<snip>
Then if you turn the slop knob to 51%, we'll you're 1% into the vintage realm.

Or, to make it less discontinuous, value of 50% to 100% of the Slop knob are actually 50% to 0% Vintage (reverse direction)

<snip>

clean -> mild slop -> pretty sloppy -> very sloppy -> very vintage -> pretty vintage -> mild vintage -> barely vintage

@blewis: That is a great proposal. I think it would be a really good way to add this functionality. And I am one to pile on with the “I would pay for this type of upgrade” me too comment. Definitely would be worth some dollars.

From a practical software dev standpoint, I have a hard time imagining that a “pay for upgrade” approach would work that well for a small development team if the free upgrade path is also maintained. It would mean you would need two branches of the source code that have be maintained with some features merged into both. It is certainly possible but it vastly increases the testing footprint and release complexity. But maybe the team already has this kind of thing setup and working. It would be a super nice addition!

andow · « **Reply #17 on:** October 12, 2020, 08:49:42 AM »

Yes pleaaase! That would be incredible!

blewis · « **Reply #18 on:** October 12, 2020, 10:18:00 AM »

I agree with you Mark, I think it would be quite tricky for them to charge for it, maintain it, and it’s really not their style.

But somehow I wanted to communicate that it would be worth something to us and that I’d be willing to pay for it.

Quote from: markwilkins link=topic=4671.msg47167#msg47167 date= 1602462955

From a practical software dev standpoint, I have a hard time imagining that a “pay for upgrade” approach would work that well for a small development team if the free upgrade path is also maintained.

LPF83 · « **Reply #19 on:** October 12, 2020, 10:31:53 AM »

Quote from: markwilkins on October 11, 2020, 05:35:55 PM

Quote from: blewis on October 09, 2020, 07:47:46 PM
<snip> ... it would be nice if any future upgrade (however unlikely) used the last 64 steps of the Slop knob for Vintage.

<snip>
Then if you turn the slop knob to 51%, we'll you're 1% into the vintage realm.

Or, to make it less discontinuous, value of 50% to 100% of the Slop knob are actually 50% to 0% Vintage (reverse direction)

<snip>

clean -> mild slop -> pretty sloppy -> very sloppy -> very vintage -> pretty vintage -> mild vintage -> barely vintage

@blewis: That is a great proposal. I think it would be a really good way to add this functionality. And I am one to pile on with the “I would pay for this type of upgrade” me too comment. Definitely would be worth some dollars.

From a practical software dev standpoint, I have a hard time imagining that a “pay for upgrade” approach would work that well for a small development team if the free upgrade path is also maintained. It would mean you would need two branches of the source code that have be maintained with some features merged into both. It is certainly possible but it vastly increases the testing footprint and release complexity. But maybe the team already has this kind of thing setup and working. It would be a super nice addition!

I think you're absolutely right, thinking about it from the release management perspective, it seems possibly not worth the trouble to charge money for this feature, as the merge maintenance hassle would probably offset any additional revenue.