Why is the PX forum so dead?

[LoboLives]

I’m genuinely curious why the Prophet X forum on here is so dead. Even the Facebook user group (which I moderate) barely anyone shares samples or discusses techniques. On the Nord forums, people are sharing samples with one another and discussing techniques they use for the Stage 3 and Wave 2 so I’m wondering what the reason could be that hardly any PX users interact or share samples here.

I actually have a feeling the PX is going to be discontinued within this year or next. I really think it was a complete disaster for Sequential.

[Sacred Synthesis]

I think you answered your own question with the expression "complete disaster."  Personally, I was surprised Dave would ever do such an instrument.  He's often scoffed at any notion of sound production other than purely variable synthesis.

With the exception of Tom Oberheim, DSI's/Sequential's collaborations don't work out so well.  Dave and the team are best at doing their own thing from the beginning to the end of an instrument.  I groan whenever they announce they've teamed-up with another company.  It's demeaning to their own genius. They don't need help from anyone.

[LoboLives]

I think you answered your own question with the expression "complete disaster."  Personally, I was surprised Dave would ever do such an instrument.  He's often scoffed at any notion of sound production other than purely variable synthesis.

With the exception of Tom Oberheim, DSI's/Sequential's collaborations don't work out so well.  Dave and the team are best at doing their own thing from the beginning to the end of an instrument.  I groan whenever they announce they've teamed-up with another company.  It's demeaning to their own genius. They don't need help from anyone.

I completely disagree. The Tempest is insanely good and I think if Roger Linn hadn't had a hand in it then it probably would be as innovative as it was.

Sequential needed 8Dio for their library. I suppose you could say they should have simply scrapped the synth out of the gate but that would certainly be a boring approach to engineering. If anything I think the Prophet X came out sooner than it should have. Had it come out after the Focusrite purchase then I think they would have had more resources and capabilities to support such a synth.

[Sacred Synthesis]

I think you answered your own question with the expression "complete disaster."  Personally, I was surprised Dave would ever do such an instrument.  He's often scoffed at any notion of sound production other than purely variable synthesis.

With the exception of Tom Oberheim, DSI's/Sequential's collaborations don't work out so well.  Dave and the team are best at doing their own thing from the beginning to the end of an instrument.  I groan whenever they announce they've teamed-up with another company.  It's demeaning to their own genius. They don't need help from anyone.

I completely disagree. The Tempest is insanely good and I think if Roger Linn hadn't had a hand in it then it probably would be as innovative as it was.

I'm not saying anything good or bad about the Tempest, except that it caused a tempest.  I don't know if you followed the forum discussions during the last year of the Tempest's career, but if was like the wild west over there.  I haven't seen such vitriol on a DSI/Sequential forum before or since.  Our old friend Razmo loathed the thing, and ranted about it at length.  And as for the Toraiz - how long did that survive?  Was it two or three years even? 

The collaborations have not gone smoothly, and the Propeht X is only one more example.  You yourself admitted it was a "complete disaster."

[LPF83]

And as for the Toraiz - how long did that survive?  Was it two or three years even? 

The collaborations have not gone smoothly, and the Propeht X is only one more example.  You yourself admitted it was a "complete disaster."

Do you mean the discussions about the AS-1 didn't survive or the product itself?  Pioneer still sells it.  Among my aresenal it remains my best sounding monosynth (including putting other synths in mono mode), and many folks have bought a second one because of the price point.  It's truly incredible sounding and to my ears the only modern worthy successor to the original Pro One.  It's not just a 1 voice P6 as advertised, it has a certain magic all its own.  It does beg for an external controller to get the most out of it, but MIDI knobs are not expensive or hard to come by.  It literally has become a "backbone" synth for me because of how good it is at bass.

[Sacred Synthesis]

I'm only saying that the collaborations are interesting but quirky.   

[LoboLives]

I think you answered your own question with the expression "complete disaster."  Personally, I was surprised Dave would ever do such an instrument.  He's often scoffed at any notion of sound production other than purely variable synthesis.

With the exception of Tom Oberheim, DSI's/Sequential's collaborations don't work out so well.  Dave and the team are best at doing their own thing from the beginning to the end of an instrument.  I groan whenever they announce they've teamed-up with another company.  It's demeaning to their own genius. They don't need help from anyone.

I completely disagree. The Tempest is insanely good and I think if Roger Linn hadn't had a hand in it then it probably would be as innovative as it was.

I'm not saying anything good or bad about the Tempest, except that it caused a tempest.  I don't know if you followed the forum discussions during the last year of the Tempest's career, but if was like the wild west over there.  I haven't seen such vitriol on a DSI/Sequential forum before or since.  Our old friend Razmo loathed the thing, and ranted about it at length.  And as for the Toraiz - how long did that survive?  Was it two or three years even? 

The collaborations have not gone smoothly, and the Propeht X is only one more example.  You yourself admitted it was a "complete disaster."

In the case of the PX, I believe it was a combination of 8Dio dropping the ball in terms of supporting it and leaving Sequential to scramble to handle everything and also terrible demos out of the gate by Gerry Basserman.

[Lady Gaia]

It's an unusual instrument, which seems to have led to a lot of people not being sure what to make of it.  It's definitely not just a conventional subtractive synth.  It isn't a sampler and never tried to be, nor is it a ROMpler.  It's more uniquely its own thing than a lot of instruments.  So it's more appreciated by people who are willing to approach it on its own terms rather than trying to fit it into a well-established role.

In that, I believe it's in good company with other unusual instruments the likes of the Prophet VS or the PPG Wave.

I still hear from people who are considering a Prophet X with questions that I'm happy to answer, and I intend to keep PXToolkit available and current to support those who find inspiration in the instrument and want to adapt sample libraries or create their own.  I gave up hope that 8dio wanted to help foster a community around the instrument long ago, and hope that Sequential can chart a course forward on their own.  I would love to see one more round of Sequential's refinements in a firmware update down the road - but that's entirely up to them.

[LPF83]

I'm only saying that the collaborations are interesting but quirky.

I definitely agree with that.  I'm not sure what the sales numbers for the Toraiz AS-1 are like, but I got the impression it isn't going away, because now with the Focusrite acquisition it would probably be harder for Pioneer to add the Dave Smith sound to their lineup.

In terms of Lobo's question about why the sparse community around the PX, I can only give my own reasons for not owning one:

1)  I don't really need a sampler/sample player, because my PC+DAW is hugely capable and tremendously flexible when it comes to sampling/editing/manipulation.  Its a very different situation than with analog synthesis, where the PC struggles to achieve the same sound quality as hardware.  Its like the tables are turned with sampling, where hardware struggles to keep up with the capabilities of a computer.  I have other HW samplers like SPD-SX and Maschine if I just want the fun factor of hardware samplers.
2)  No desktop module.  I would need the small form factor if I ever were to bite.
3)  The whole 8DIO thing.  There is a crazy amount of high quality content available in PC plugin format, and so much less I can get in PX format.
4)  I can't see that the synthesis engine provides anything I don't already have via other synths such as the P12. 
5)  No compelling hook...If there is truely something special there, the value proposition was never really presented well.  It might have some magic that I'm missing out on it, but if so I don't know what that is.  A device needs to have something about it that makes it compelling.  For example if they had licensed all the old Emulator II sounds and got it sounding identical, or it had a mode where it could sound exactly like an S10 or S50 (the sound of which has some nostalgic value with me) then for me those would be hooks, but I never could find one.

I can see how its the right instrument for some, it just never found a spot on my want list.

[LoboLives]

The difference between a hardware sampler and sampler plug in is the tactile experience and how quickly you can interact with the sample itself. The PX isn’t really meant to just play back samples (it can do that) and I think that’s what most people see it as. It’s more using those samples as if they are complexed oscillators and quickly manipulating them and turning them into something completely new. This combined with a basic synth engine is where the key lies. I’ll admit when I first got the PX, I said that they should have got rid of the synth engine and put two more sample sections....I was wrong. Some of the greatest sounds of the D50, Wavestation, K250 came from combining samples and synthesis and because the instrument focuses directly on that idea makes it much more than “I can play back samples.”

[Derek Cook]

I’m genuinely curious why the Prophet X forum on here is so dead.

I suppose it depends on not only how many forum members there are, but also why people need to post and how often.

Based on my own experience of moderating several keyboard forums over the last 20 years, most people only post when they have problems with their gear. Few ever post to share or say how good things are.

IMO with the PX, other than the startup and MIDI problems being discussed here, there is not much wrong with it (and the recent update solved my MIDI problems) and with all those knobs and limited menu diving it is pretty intuitive to use.

In general I find a lot of forums so quiet these days compared to their heydays, as I think that social media has stolen a lot of the bandwidth of users' time.

I actually have a feeling the PX is going to be discontinued within this year or next. I really think it was a complete disaster for Sequential.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by the PX being a disaster.

As a unique and interesting instrument where you can put samples as well as oscillators through the signal chain and those gorgeous filters, I think it is a huge success.

Has it been Sequential's best seller/flagship - probably not.

And as has been mentioned above, maybe people not knowing what it ISN'T as well as what it IS was not helped by poor marketing?

I have said before on this forum, and I know it is controversial, but when I was looking for a new analog/hybrid synth in 2019, my first choice the Novation Summit was as rare as hen's teeth due it being really new, limited supply and flying off the shelves, and I stumbled across a bargain PX at 2/3rds RRP, and I agonised a lot as to whether to get it or not. It was a little outside my budget, but the thought of finally owning a Sequential Prophet was intriguing.

Why was I agonising? Because I could not find any killer demos on the internet of what it could do - essential for me living out in the sticks - there was nothing that made me go "wow, I must have that"! I was also debating over whether the PX or a P12 would be better for me, but in the end the PX swung it by having more in the way of built in effects and I knew I could always load oscillator samples in the sample slots. I know since then that perhaps I should have looked on this forum and what people here are producing, but at the time I did not know about the forum!

Anyhow, it was Gordon Reid's SOS review that convinced me and the fact that where I was buying it from has a good returns policy.

Well, it never went back..... And I did finally get the Summit as well - they pair really well.

I think Gordon Reid's summary from the Sound On Sound - PX Review really sums it up for me. It and the whle review swayed my to try the PX, and after owning it for two years, my view has not changed

The Prophet X is not an alternative to a conventional ROMpler or digital workstation; it has capacious sample memory and it offers drum sounds and effects, but its limited polyphony and its even more limited multi‑timbrality (well... bi‑timbrality, to be precise) mean that it’s an altogether different type of instrument. Mind you, it took me a while to appreciate this and to complete the transition from slightly underwhelmed to greatly impressed. But once I had gotten to grips with it, I realised that it’s a hugely powerful and expressive synth that can sound wonderful and is both simpler to use and sonically deeper than it appears to be. Mind you, we won’t discover its limits (or the lack of them) until the sample import software becomes available. It’s not for everybody — apart from anything else, the hefty price tag takes care of that — but for those with deep pockets, this is a flagship synthesizer that will be creating new and interesting sounds for many years to come. 

[LPF83]

The difference between a hardware sampler and sampler plug in is the tactile experience and how quickly you can interact with the sample itself. The PX isn’t really meant to just play back samples (it can do that) and I think that’s what most people see it as. It’s more using those samples as if they are complexed oscillators and quickly manipulating them and turning them into something completely new. This combined with a basic synth engine is where the key lies. I’ll admit when I first got the PX, I said that they should have got rid of the synth engine and put two more sample sections....I was wrong. Some of the greatest sounds of the D50, Wavestation, K250 came from combining samples and synthesis and because the instrument focuses directly on that idea makes it much more than “I can play back samples.”

Maybe some of the original objections I had (there were others, aside from my short list in prior post) have been resolved with updates, but in terms of using samples as oscillators I have software like Serum, Halion etc. that do that splendidly and make importing samples a matter of dragging and dropping rendered audio into the plugin.  Last time I looked at the PX I needed a separate utility to prepare samples for import, the screen offered no visual waveform just a block, I wouldn't be able to do things like sync / glide etc with the sample oscillators and other functionality that one would expect from an oscillator.  It would absolutely have to be available in desktop format to be a buy for me, and even with that I would have trouble getting past many of the limitations which are non issues with software and hardware I already have.

From what I heard it sounds great and I can totally get how its the right instrument for some, I just couldn't make a case for it being right for me.

[LoboLives]

The difference between a hardware sampler and sampler plug in is the tactile experience and how quickly you can interact with the sample itself. The PX isn’t really meant to just play back samples (it can do that) and I think that’s what most people see it as. It’s more using those samples as if they are complexed oscillators and quickly manipulating them and turning them into something completely new. This combined with a basic synth engine is where the key lies. I’ll admit when I first got the PX, I said that they should have got rid of the synth engine and put two more sample sections....I was wrong. Some of the greatest sounds of the D50, Wavestation, K250 came from combining samples and synthesis and because the instrument focuses directly on that idea makes it much more than “I can play back samples.”

Last time I looked at the PX I needed a separate utility to prepare samples for import, the screen offered no visual waveform just a block, I wouldn't be able to do things like sync / glide etc with the sample oscillators and other functionality that one would expect from an oscillator.

Anything you can do with the oscillators you can do with the samples on the PX. The loop function offers syncing to the BPM in forwards, reverse, forwards and reverse etc, you can glide the samples when sample stretch is enabled, you can FM a sample against another or even use them as a modulator to FM the oscillators or vice versa, GLASYS actually did a great "Vinyl Piano" which uses the noise samples to audio rate modulate the filter and frequency of a 1928 Steinway sample and it sounds like you are listening to a crackling vinyl jazz record.

[LPF83]

The difference between a hardware sampler and sampler plug in is the tactile experience and how quickly you can interact with the sample itself. The PX isn’t really meant to just play back samples (it can do that) and I think that’s what most people see it as. It’s more using those samples as if they are complexed oscillators and quickly manipulating them and turning them into something completely new. This combined with a basic synth engine is where the key lies. I’ll admit when I first got the PX, I said that they should have got rid of the synth engine and put two more sample sections....I was wrong. Some of the greatest sounds of the D50, Wavestation, K250 came from combining samples and synthesis and because the instrument focuses directly on that idea makes it much more than “I can play back samples.”

Last time I looked at the PX I needed a separate utility to prepare samples for import, the screen offered no visual waveform just a block, I wouldn't be able to do things like sync / glide etc with the sample oscillators and other functionality that one would expect from an oscillator.

Anything you can do with the oscillators you can do with the samples on the PX. The loop function offers syncing to the BPM in forwards, reverse, forwards and reverse etc, you can glide the samples when sample stretch is enabled, you can FM a sample against another or even use them as a modulator to FM the oscillators or vice versa, GLASYS actually did a great "Vinyl Piano" which uses the noise samples to audio rate modulate the filter and frequency of a 1928 Steinway sample and it sounds like you are listening to a crackling vinyl jazz record.

I had to look to find where I got some of my the ideas I have about the PX's functionality, I believe a lot of them came from the Tim Shoebridge video (specifically the limitations section).  Those limitations might have been addressed in an OS update since.  But, even if I misunderstood the features or they were updated later, perhaps it partially goes toward addressing the question posed by the thread topic... maybe its just a matter of market confusion regarding what the features actually are?

A lot of the best products ever made (in music gear or otherwise) never catch on in popularity, simply because they are different and consumers (especially at the price points of premium synths) tend to resist spending on things they don't feel they fully understand.  The price of innovation, I suppose.

I've heard many inventors say they they make two kinds of products:   the things they want to make, which don't sell well, and then the things they don't want to make but do sell; the latter category provides support for the former.

Luckily I've never been on the hook to do product marketing on any significant scale.  Because, I know I would be lousy at it.

[LoboLives]

The difference between a hardware sampler and sampler plug in is the tactile experience and how quickly you can interact with the sample itself. The PX isn’t really meant to just play back samples (it can do that) and I think that’s what most people see it as. It’s more using those samples as if they are complexed oscillators and quickly manipulating them and turning them into something completely new. This combined with a basic synth engine is where the key lies. I’ll admit when I first got the PX, I said that they should have got rid of the synth engine and put two more sample sections....I was wrong. Some of the greatest sounds of the D50, Wavestation, K250 came from combining samples and synthesis and because the instrument focuses directly on that idea makes it much more than “I can play back samples.”

Last time I looked at the PX I needed a separate utility to prepare samples for import, the screen offered no visual waveform just a block, I wouldn't be able to do things like sync / glide etc with the sample oscillators and other functionality that one would expect from an oscillator.

Anything you can do with the oscillators you can do with the samples on the PX. The loop function offers syncing to the BPM in forwards, reverse, forwards and reverse etc, you can glide the samples when sample stretch is enabled, you can FM a sample against another or even use them as a modulator to FM the oscillators or vice versa, GLASYS actually did a great "Vinyl Piano" which uses the noise samples to audio rate modulate the filter and frequency of a 1928 Steinway sample and it sounds like you are listening to a crackling vinyl jazz record.

I had to look to find where I got some of my the ideas I have about the PX's functionality, I believe a lot of them came from the Tim Shoebridge video (specifically the limitations section).  Those limitations might have been addressed in an OS update since.  But, even if I misunderstood the features or they were updated later, perhaps it partially goes toward addressing the question posed by the thread topic... maybe its just a matter of market confusion regarding what the features actually are?

A lot of the best products ever made (in music gear or otherwise) never catch on in popularity, simply because they are different and consumers (especially at the price points of premium synths) tend to resist spending on things they don't feel they fully understand.  The price of innovation, I suppose.

I've heard many inventors say they they make two kinds of products:   the things they want to make, which don't sell well, and then the things they don't want to make but do sell; the latter category provides support for the former.

Luckily I've never been on the hook to do product marketing on any significant scale.  Because, I know I would be lousy at it.

I actually think a lot of the "limitations" weren't even there to begin with. I think it was due to the terrible demos by Gerry Basserman. He would admittedly say "I don't know much about it." or "I haven't read the manual" while he's demoing this synth for the first time. It was embarrassing him constantly demoing a piano over a sawtooth wave over and over. Even the people who did patches on the synth would claim it didn't do things (Can't turn key follow off on samples, can't by pass the filter etc) and then a Sequential worker would have to correct them.

This all could have been avoided if they had asked me to demo it. I've got dozens of videos on it, reviews, user samples, custom patches, patch creation, techniques and songs. I don't think Sequential ever shared a single video of mine that I can remember. Sheesh!

[Sacred Synthesis]

I actually think a lot of the "limitations" weren't even there to begin with. I think it was due to the terrible demos by Gerry Basserman. He would admittedly say "I don't know much about it." or "I haven't read the manual" while he's demoing this synth for the first time. It was embarrassing him constantly demoing a piano over a sawtooth wave over and over. Even the people who did patches on the synth would claim it didn't do things (Can't turn key follow off on samples, can't by pass the filter etc) and then a Sequential worker would have to correct them.

This all could have been avoided if they had asked me to demo it. I've got dozens of videos on it, reviews, user samples, custom patches, patch creation, techniques and songs. I don't think Sequential ever shared a single video of mine that I can remember. Sheesh!

I think this has been an ongoing problem with DSI/Sequential for many years.  It was the same with the Prophet 12 - absolutely terrible domos that badly misrepresented the instrument, and other instruments as well.  I've brought it up many times, but with no interest.

As for Basserman, I can't stand to watch his videos because of all the gyrations and weird movements.  It's always struck me that so much time, energy, and care are put into the production of a new synthesizer, only to leave its demonstration to happenstance.  I wish Sequential would select a few of us long-time enthusiasts to give far more meaningful introductions to their instruments; and I mean of the musical sort, not only of the constant tweaking types.  There will always be an abundance of those.

[jg666]

As for Basserman, I can't stand to watch his videos because of all the gyrations and weird movements. 

I'm glad someone else thinks the same as me. I had to stop the video playback as I found him annoying. I do agree with what has been said above about the demos, they haven't been great from Sequential/DSI over the years. I know that when I purchased my first DSI synth (the Rev2) it was due to watching a video on Paul Dither's channel which was more of a "how to" video than a review but it still won me over.

Personally, I was very interested in the Prophet X but it was the reports of hardware failures that put me off.

[LoboLives]

As for Basserman, I can't stand to watch his videos because of all the gyrations and weird movements. 

I'm glad someone else thinks the same as me. I had to stop the video playback as I found him annoying. I do agree with what has been said above about the demos, they haven't been great from Sequential/DSI over the years. I know that when I purchased my first DSI synth (the Rev2) it was due to watching a video on Paul Dither's channel which was more of a "how to" video than a review but it still won me over.

Personally, I was very interested in the Prophet X but it was the reports of hardware failures that put me off.

Those are generally resolved. It was mostly an issue with the PXL from what I gather and the power supply board needing to be replaced (which users can do themselves) or someone not following sample import instructions properly and bricking their synth.

[jg666]

As for Basserman, I can't stand to watch his videos because of all the gyrations and weird movements. 

I'm glad someone else thinks the same as me. I had to stop the video playback as I found him annoying. I do agree with what has been said above about the demos, they haven't been great from Sequential/DSI over the years. I know that when I purchased my first DSI synth (the Rev2) it was due to watching a video on Paul Dither's channel which was more of a "how to" video than a review but it still won me over.

Personally, I was very interested in the Prophet X but it was the reports of hardware failures that put me off.

Those are generally resolved. It was mostly an issue with the PXL from what I gather and the power supply board needing to be replaced (which users can do themselves) or someone not following sample import instructions properly and bricking their synth.

That's worth knowing, thanks for that

[Julienne Fractals]

I have owned my PX about 3 months after its release date. I bought it second hand and I have never had any issues whatsoever with it. Except for midi issues which they have fixed out along the way with OS updates. One of my favourite synths + more. Its a keeper. 8DIo and their support has been more than questionable. But I can feed in any material I want thanks to ThinkerSnacks aka Lady Gaia. And this is was the cherry on the cake that 8DIo hosed up so badly in their effort. Well done Sequential. Shame on you 8Dio. (P.s as of today the 8DIO Mapping Utility is still in beta since its 2018 release - quite the record.)