Welcome Back Indeed!

Re: Welcome Back Indeed!
« Reply #20 on: May 13, 2022, 11:47:12 AM »
:-\Hyper speculative price, and when you know the possibilities offered by technology today, you understand that owning this model is not interesting. Just to say "I have it"... etc.
Yeah you can always talk.
OBX-8 is a way to take advantage of the naivety of nostalgia.

Without me anyway.

I'd suggest that any nostalgia at work here - both in the creation of the new OBX-8 and in the desire to own one - isn't naive in the least! It's with full awareness. There's nothing wrong with nostalgia, anyway. That Tom and Dave are very much still with us and are seemingly delighted to honor their own legacies is nothing but a good thing, and not only are they speaking to their own histories, but they're acknowledging that instruments they created decades ago still inspire people today.

I just can't see anyone being duped into spending $5000 in a haze of "I wish I was that doctor guy in Prince's band..." One kinda has to be pretty awake to take that amount from a bank account!

LPF83

  • ***
  • 918
Re: Welcome Back Indeed!
« Reply #21 on: May 13, 2022, 12:35:05 PM »
I just can't see anyone being duped into spending $5000 in a haze of "I wish I was that doctor guy in Prince's band..." One kinda has to be pretty awake to take that amount from a bank account!

It's a pricey synth to be sure, especially one that didn't have the sonic reach of Prophet.. but I think $3.3k for a desktop is not too out of line with what similar VCO synths are going for, so hopefully I won't be disappointed when the (IMHO inevitable) announcement comes.
Prophet 10, Prophet 6, OB-6, Prophet 12m, Prophet Rev2-16, Toraiz AS-1, Virus TI2, Moog SlimPhatty, Hydrasynth desktop, Korg Minilogue XDm, Roland JP-8080, Roland SPD-30, Roland SPD-SX Special Edition, Roland KT-10, Maschine, Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 3rd Gen + Octopre, Strymon Pedals, Cubase Pro 11

Re: Welcome Back Indeed!
« Reply #22 on: May 13, 2022, 01:25:30 PM »
:-\Hyper speculative price, and when you know the possibilities offered by technology today, you understand that owning this model is not interesting. Just to say "I have it"... etc.
Yeah you can always talk.
OBX-8 is a way to take advantage of the naivety of nostalgia.

Without me anyway.

I'd suggest that any nostalgia at work here - both in the creation of the new OBX-8 and in the desire to own one - isn't naive in the least! It's with full awareness. There's nothing wrong with nostalgia, anyway. That Tom and Dave are very much still with us and are seemingly delighted to honor their own legacies is nothing but a good thing, and not only are they speaking to their own histories, but they're acknowledging that instruments they created decades ago still inspire people today.

I just can't see anyone being duped into spending $5000 in a haze of "I wish I was that doctor guy in Prince's band..." One kinda has to be pretty awake to take that amount from a bank account!

I think at some point we have to kind of ask ourselves why things cost what they cost. Before the OBX8 Tom was charging $5000 for a Two Voice Pro....that's two voices, no memory and smaller form factor.....and that was when he was a small operation....now $5000 for 8 voices, Oled screen, bi timbral, patch memory and what will likely be a mass produced product rather than small boutique limited run.....I understand nostalgia and name value have a price tag....but at what point is it just completely not justified?

Re: Welcome Back Indeed!
« Reply #23 on: May 15, 2022, 12:47:37 AM »
To be honest, the OBX8 is really want I wish the P5/10 reissues were. Taking a classic and pushing it forward. The reissues just seem like a small inch forward compared to the OBX8's features.

Not sure how P5/P10 missed out on what OB-Xa had from start, stereo out with voice panning?
- voice panning is such a major boost in perceived sound

Re: Welcome Back Indeed!
« Reply #24 on: May 15, 2022, 02:46:02 PM »
To be honest, the OBX8 is really want I wish the P5/10 reissues were. Taking a classic and pushing it forward. The reissues just seem like a small inch forward compared to the OBX8's features.

Not sure how P5/P10 missed out on what OB-Xa had from start, stereo out with voice panning?
- voice panning is such a major boost in perceived sound

Likely cause the Rev 4 is essentially just a reissue but with a few modern commonplace features whereas the OBX8 is a compendium and evolution of the OB catalog with a few nods to the SEM line.

Would I like to see a SEM Four Voice reissue? No. Would I like to see a modern evolution of the Four Voice? Hell yeah.

Re: Welcome Back Indeed!
« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2022, 03:08:52 PM »
Actually I am genuinely curious why the Prophet 5 is substantially more expensive than the Prophet 6. Size and form factor shouldnít cause THAT much of an increase

LPF83

  • ***
  • 918
Re: Welcome Back Indeed!
« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2022, 03:22:28 PM »
Actually I am genuinely curious why the Prophet 5 is substantially more expensive than the Prophet 6. Size and form factor shouldnít cause THAT much of an increase

In the US the difference is like $100.  The additional wood and labor of hand staining it alone justifies that IMHO.  Also a P5 can be converted to a 10 voice synth with just an expansion card, with P6 you'd have to polychain a second unit for 12 voices.  They each have their strengths...

Aside from the videos that show how alike they can sound (when pushed to do so), if you want to hear how different they can sound, try putting OSC 2 in low freq mode, crank the resonance and sweep the cutoff..  crank the frequency (pitch) up on each until it turns into an audible note and listen to the difference.  The Rev4 is capable of these haunting visceral tones that the P6 just doesn't do...just different oscillators and filters..  Knowing how much you're into horror soundtracks I'm surprised the Rev4 isn't your instrument of choice for that reason. 

Anyway I have no idea if the components/chips for the Rev4 would cost substantially more, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if so because Dave might have secured long term supply contracts that hold the price down of the parts for P6/OB6, where the Rev4 got released during the chaos of the pandemic which probably increased the price of parts... maybe dramatically based on the inflation we're seeing now.
Prophet 10, Prophet 6, OB-6, Prophet 12m, Prophet Rev2-16, Toraiz AS-1, Virus TI2, Moog SlimPhatty, Hydrasynth desktop, Korg Minilogue XDm, Roland JP-8080, Roland SPD-30, Roland SPD-SX Special Edition, Roland KT-10, Maschine, Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 3rd Gen + Octopre, Strymon Pedals, Cubase Pro 11

Re: Welcome Back Indeed!
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2022, 05:00:25 PM »
Actually I am genuinely curious why the Prophet 5 is substantially more expensive than the Prophet 6. Size and form factor shouldnít cause THAT much of an increase

In the US the difference is like $100.  The additional wood and labor of hand staining it alone justifies that IMHO.  Also a P5 can be converted to a 10 voice synth with just an expansion card, with P6 you'd have to polychain a second unit for 12 voices.  They each have their strengths...

Aside from the videos that show how alike they can sound (when pushed to do so), if you want to hear how different they can sound, try putting OSC 2 in low freq mode, crank the resonance and sweep the cutoff..  crank the frequency (pitch) up on each until it turns into an audible note and listen to the difference.  The Rev4 is capable of these haunting visceral tones that the P6 just doesn't do...just different oscillators and filters..  Knowing how much you're into horror soundtracks I'm surprised the Rev4 isn't your instrument of choice for that reason. 

Anyway I have no idea if the components/chips for the Rev4 would cost substantially more, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if so because Dave might have secured long term supply contracts that hold the price down of the parts for P6/OB6, where the Rev4 got released during the chaos of the pandemic which probably increased the price of parts... maybe dramatically based on the inflation we're seeing now.

Actually I just checked now. The P6 just skyrocket in price so itís very similar to the P5 in price. Even still, with a stripped down interface, less features etc, one would think it should be less or the same.

LPF83

  • ***
  • 918
Re: Welcome Back Indeed!
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2022, 05:19:38 PM »
Actually I am genuinely curious why the Prophet 5 is substantially more expensive than the Prophet 6. Size and form factor shouldnít cause THAT much of an increase

In the US the difference is like $100.  The additional wood and labor of hand staining it alone justifies that IMHO.  Also a P5 can be converted to a 10 voice synth with just an expansion card, with P6 you'd have to polychain a second unit for 12 voices.  They each have their strengths...

Aside from the videos that show how alike they can sound (when pushed to do so), if you want to hear how different they can sound, try putting OSC 2 in low freq mode, crank the resonance and sweep the cutoff..  crank the frequency (pitch) up on each until it turns into an audible note and listen to the difference.  The Rev4 is capable of these haunting visceral tones that the P6 just doesn't do...just different oscillators and filters..  Knowing how much you're into horror soundtracks I'm surprised the Rev4 isn't your instrument of choice for that reason. 

Anyway I have no idea if the components/chips for the Rev4 would cost substantially more, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if so because Dave might have secured long term supply contracts that hold the price down of the parts for P6/OB6, where the Rev4 got released during the chaos of the pandemic which probably increased the price of parts... maybe dramatically based on the inflation we're seeing now.

Actually I just checked now. The P6 just skyrocket in price so itís very similar to the P5 in price. Even still, with a stripped down interface, less features etc, one would think it should be less or the same.

About a year or so ago many synths already on the market, not just Sequential, got a price increase of about 15-30%.  The Rev 2 16 voice was $2000 when I bought mine new, now its $2600.  Even instruments where the hardware is cheap plastic like the Roland System 8 that have been on the market many years saw a price jump.  I think the Rev 4 was already priced with the supply chain issues in mind before it was released, so I think it only went up $100 or so.
Prophet 10, Prophet 6, OB-6, Prophet 12m, Prophet Rev2-16, Toraiz AS-1, Virus TI2, Moog SlimPhatty, Hydrasynth desktop, Korg Minilogue XDm, Roland JP-8080, Roland SPD-30, Roland SPD-SX Special Edition, Roland KT-10, Maschine, Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 3rd Gen + Octopre, Strymon Pedals, Cubase Pro 11

Re: Welcome Back Indeed!
« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2022, 06:30:19 PM »
Yeah true. In either case Iím not totally against the P5 or OBX8 or even owning them but I think it would be too slippery a slope for me personally. Iíd start to spend more time chasing the dragon of getting a Model D and ARP 2600 and getting rid of some future classics ďjust because.Ē I know I donít have to do it but I think there would be a tremendous amount of pressure to do so. Iím even feeling pressure to get a P5 now. From my GF gently pointing out my own hypocrisy that Iím shooting movies on black and white film with old cameras while simultaneously saying synthesizers need to move forward to my mom showing me a picture of my late father with his Prophet 5. Ugh I guess Im not against reissues or throwbacks I just donít think a company like Sequential should devote their focus on that while new ideas and concepts end up getting ignored. Thatís my biggest fear. Especially watching a recent video about the Poly Evolver and how unique and forward thinking a design it was.

In regards to your comment about horror soundtracks, itís not just analog synth scores Iím inspired by. My favorites are mostly the 50 to 70s scores but have a fondness for the 80s and 90s synth stuff. Even still, a lot of composers who used analog gear early on switched to digital synths later on. Brad Fiedel got rid of his Prophet 10 and OBXa combination he used for the first Terminator score and got two Fairlight CMIs for the rest of his scores. Claudio Simonetti switched from a Jupiter 8 to a DX7 and Emulator 2, Carlo Maria Cordio ditched his Polymoog for a D50. Etc etc.

Elric

Re: Welcome Back Indeed!
« Reply #30 on: May 16, 2022, 12:33:52 AM »

I think a lot of people fell for convenience over tone.
Tangerine Dream did that with "Optical Race". They switched to Atari.
I saw them twice. Once a few years before that (Optical Race), and then the Optical Race tour.
  The earlier show was 10 times better.

Can you imagine a tour of 3 people, each with Moog System-35/55 playing cool synth shit?
(And, as reference here, please check Ehsan Gelsi's "Big Nights In". The System-55 makes it better.)

Re: Welcome Back Indeed!
« Reply #31 on: May 16, 2022, 05:20:34 AM »

I think a lot of people fell for convenience over tone.


Yes and no. Some people just wanted a new sound or something different other than traditional subtractive analog synth sounds.

LPF83

  • ***
  • 918
Re: Welcome Back Indeed!
« Reply #32 on: May 16, 2022, 07:46:35 AM »

I think a lot of people fell for convenience over tone.


Yes and no. Some people just wanted a new sound or something different other than traditional subtractive analog synth sounds.

I can remember in the early 70s being in elementary school, and we had these "music appreciation" hours once a week or so with a specialized music teacher.  The synthesizer was "a new thing" at the time, so all of the amazement and wonder that was created around it was the fact that, in capable hands, it could imitate other things.  Nobody, and I mean nobody, was talking about the new sounds that analog brought to the musical landscape.  It was the novelty of the fact that technology was imitating reality.

So when digital (DX7s and samplers) emerged, there was this "holy crap why would we ever go back to analog?" mentality, because a DX7 could sound like a Rhodes and do bright string sounds that sounded more like the real thing than analog, and then samplers let you record and playback whatever audio source of the real thing you wanted.   Most musicians back then were not synthesis experts and just wanted presets so they could focus on what was being done with the patches instead of the design of the patch itself.  It was to the point that successful musicians were just paying someone else to do sound design for them when they wanted custom sounds.

There are other factors like tuning and reliability problems with discrete analog instruments, better portability with digital, etc.  but the above (i.e. the quest for realistic sounds) was the primary factor in the downfall of the golden age of analog.
Prophet 10, Prophet 6, OB-6, Prophet 12m, Prophet Rev2-16, Toraiz AS-1, Virus TI2, Moog SlimPhatty, Hydrasynth desktop, Korg Minilogue XDm, Roland JP-8080, Roland SPD-30, Roland SPD-SX Special Edition, Roland KT-10, Maschine, Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 3rd Gen + Octopre, Strymon Pedals, Cubase Pro 11

LPF83

  • ***
  • 918
Re: Welcome Back Indeed!
« Reply #33 on: May 16, 2022, 07:52:25 AM »
Yeah true. In either case Iím not totally against the P5 or OBX8 or even owning them but I think it would be too slippery a slope for me personally. Iíd start to spend more time chasing the dragon of getting a Model D and ARP 2600 and getting rid of some future classics ďjust because.Ē I know I donít have to do it but I think there would be a tremendous amount of pressure to do so. Iím even feeling pressure to get a P5 now. From my GF gently pointing out my own hypocrisy that Iím shooting movies on black and white film with old cameras while simultaneously saying synthesizers need to move forward to my mom showing me a picture of my late father with his Prophet 5. Ugh I guess Im not against reissues or throwbacks I just donít think a company like Sequential should devote their focus on that while new ideas and concepts end up getting ignored. Thatís my biggest fear. Especially watching a recent video about the Poly Evolver and how unique and forward thinking a design it was.

In regards to your comment about horror soundtracks, itís not just analog synth scores Iím inspired by. My favorites are mostly the 50 to 70s scores but have a fondness for the 80s and 90s synth stuff. Even still, a lot of composers who used analog gear early on switched to digital synths later on. Brad Fiedel got rid of his Prophet 10 and OBXa combination he used for the first Terminator score and got two Fairlight CMIs for the rest of his scores. Claudio Simonetti switched from a Jupiter 8 to a DX7 and Emulator 2, Carlo Maria Cordio ditched his Polymoog for a D50. Etc etc.

I think you'd love a P5 (moreso a 10 or upgraded P5 as the extra power is lovely and you can always drop it back to 5 voices with a couple of button presses if desired)...  but I wouldn't let any external pressures be the reason for getting one.  I would get one if you hear something in the tone that seems missing from the overall sound you want to achieve.

There is more YT content available now than when the Rev4 was first released.  Back then, a lot of the videos were demo-ing it dry (no FX) which was probably the right thing to do at the time but a lot of people were underwhelmed because they were used to synths with lots of built in FX...   But a couple of years later you should be able to get an idea of how it sounds through a good chorus and reverb, etc.   
Prophet 10, Prophet 6, OB-6, Prophet 12m, Prophet Rev2-16, Toraiz AS-1, Virus TI2, Moog SlimPhatty, Hydrasynth desktop, Korg Minilogue XDm, Roland JP-8080, Roland SPD-30, Roland SPD-SX Special Edition, Roland KT-10, Maschine, Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 3rd Gen + Octopre, Strymon Pedals, Cubase Pro 11

Re: Welcome Back Indeed!
« Reply #34 on: May 16, 2022, 09:58:48 AM »

I think a lot of people fell for convenience over tone.


Yes and no. Some people just wanted a new sound or something different other than traditional subtractive analog synth sounds.

I can remember in the early 70s being in elementary school, and we had these "music appreciation" hours once a week or so with a specialized music teacher.  The synthesizer was "a new thing" at the time, so all of the amazement and wonder that was created around it was the fact that, in capable hands, it could imitate other things.  Nobody, and I mean nobody, was talking about the new sounds that analog brought to the musical landscape.  It was the novelty of the fact that technology was imitating reality.

So when digital (DX7s and samplers) emerged, there was this "holy crap why would we ever go back to analog?" mentality, because a DX7 could sound like a Rhodes and do bright string sounds that sounded more like the real thing than analog, and then samplers let you record and playback whatever audio source of the real thing you wanted.   Most musicians back then were not synthesis experts and just wanted presets so they could focus on what was being done with the patches instead of the design of the patch itself.  It was to the point that successful musicians were just paying someone else to do sound design for them when they wanted custom sounds.

There are other factors like tuning and reliability problems with discrete analog instruments, better portability with digital, etc.  but the above (i.e. the quest for realistic sounds) was the primary factor in the downfall of the golden age of analog.

Very true. In the soundtrack world early synthesizers were mostly used for sound effects or textures. Oskar Sala scored I believe only one film with his Trautonium synthesizer (Strangler Of Blackmore Castle)...but when Hitchcock hired him all he asked Sala to do with it was replicate the sound of birds for his film The Birds. Even in the 70s it was mostly soundscapes or bleeps and bloop modular sounds. They really didn't become used in a musical context until Vangelis, Carpenter, Tangerine Dream came into the scene.

Re: Welcome Back Indeed!
« Reply #35 on: May 16, 2022, 11:06:41 AM »

I think a lot of people fell for convenience over tone.


Yes and no. Some people just wanted a new sound or something different other than traditional subtractive analog synth sounds.

I can remember in the early 70s being in elementary school, and we had these "music appreciation" hours once a week or so with a specialized music teacher.  The synthesizer was "a new thing" at the time, so all of the amazement and wonder that was created around it was the fact that, in capable hands, it could imitate other things.  Nobody, and I mean nobody, was talking about the new sounds that analog brought to the musical landscape.  It was the novelty of the fact that technology was imitating reality.

So when digital (DX7s and samplers) emerged, there was this "holy crap why would we ever go back to analog?" mentality, because a DX7 could sound like a Rhodes and do bright string sounds that sounded more like the real thing than analog, and then samplers let you record and playback whatever audio source of the real thing you wanted.   Most musicians back then were not synthesis experts and just wanted presets so they could focus on what was being done with the patches instead of the design of the patch itself.  It was to the point that successful musicians were just paying someone else to do sound design for them when they wanted custom sounds.

There are other factors like tuning and reliability problems with discrete analog instruments, better portability with digital, etc.  but the above (i.e. the quest for realistic sounds) was the primary factor in the downfall of the golden age of analog.

Very true. In the soundtrack world early synthesizers were mostly used for sound effects or textures. Oskar Sala scored I believe only one film with his Trautonium synthesizer (Strangler Of Blackmore Castle)...but when Hitchcock hired him all he asked Sala to do with it was replicate the sound of birds for his film The Birds. Even in the 70s it was mostly soundscapes or bleeps and bloop modular sounds. They really didn't become used in a musical context until Vangelis, Carpenter, Tangerine Dream came into the scene.

A Clockwork Orange, innit! Wendy Carlos back in '71...

Re: Welcome Back Indeed!
« Reply #36 on: May 16, 2022, 12:28:19 PM »

I think a lot of people fell for convenience over tone.


Yes and no. Some people just wanted a new sound or something different other than traditional subtractive analog synth sounds.

I can remember in the early 70s being in elementary school, and we had these "music appreciation" hours once a week or so with a specialized music teacher.  The synthesizer was "a new thing" at the time, so all of the amazement and wonder that was created around it was the fact that, in capable hands, it could imitate other things.  Nobody, and I mean nobody, was talking about the new sounds that analog brought to the musical landscape.  It was the novelty of the fact that technology was imitating reality.

So when digital (DX7s and samplers) emerged, there was this "holy crap why would we ever go back to analog?" mentality, because a DX7 could sound like a Rhodes and do bright string sounds that sounded more like the real thing than analog, and then samplers let you record and playback whatever audio source of the real thing you wanted.   Most musicians back then were not synthesis experts and just wanted presets so they could focus on what was being done with the patches instead of the design of the patch itself.  It was to the point that successful musicians were just paying someone else to do sound design for them when they wanted custom sounds.

There are other factors like tuning and reliability problems with discrete analog instruments, better portability with digital, etc.  but the above (i.e. the quest for realistic sounds) was the primary factor in the downfall of the golden age of analog.

Very true. In the soundtrack world early synthesizers were mostly used for sound effects or textures. Oskar Sala scored I believe only one film with his Trautonium synthesizer (Strangler Of Blackmore Castle)...but when Hitchcock hired him all he asked Sala to do with it was replicate the sound of birds for his film The Birds. Even in the 70s it was mostly soundscapes or bleeps and bloop modular sounds. They really didn't become used in a musical context until Vangelis, Carpenter, Tangerine Dream came into the scene.

A Clockwork Orange, innit! Wendy Carlos back in '71...

That's very true but it still wasn't a common thing until much later. Jerry Goldsmith's Reincarnation Of Peter Proud was most an orchestra with the ARP 2600 chirping and bleeping with a tape delay during some accented parts. Quincy Jones score for The Anderson Tapes sounded like old computer noises, Les Baxter's score for Frogs was just the sound of frog's croaking run into the ARP 2600 and ring modulated with some sample and hold on resonant filter etc. Later on they were used for melodies as part of a band (but that was likely just because a lot of funk/R&B bands had adopted the Minimoog and ARP Odyssey as part of their instruments and a lot of 70s scores were heavily influenced by jazz/funk of the time)

Re: Welcome Back Indeed!
« Reply #37 on: May 16, 2022, 12:35:27 PM »

I think you'd love a P5 (moreso a 10 or upgraded P5 as the extra power is lovely and you can always drop it back to 5 voices with a couple of button presses if desired)...  but I wouldn't let any external pressures be the reason for getting one.  I would get one if you hear something in the tone that seems missing from the overall sound you want to achieve.


Eh if I were to get one I might just get the P5 and not the P10 because I don't really associate the P10 with the single keyboard version and the dual manual version had more capabilities than the single, so even if I wanted to replicate Carpenter or Brad Fiedel's Prophet 10 work, I'd be missing something anyway. Was just listening to Rick Wakeman's score for the 80s slasher The Burning...all done on a dual Prophet 10. He was talking on the Blu Ray about how he wished he still had one because he loved it so much.

In fact the only time I think the single keyboard Prophet 10 was used was on Danny Zeitlin score for the 70s Invasion Of The Body Snatchers remake (Mostly doing weird warbles and gurgles) and Dan Wyman's scores for Without Warning and Hell Night (which played alongside an orchestra, mostly doing drones and pads)
« Last Edit: May 16, 2022, 12:44:08 PM by LoboLives »

Re: Welcome Back Indeed!
« Reply #38 on: May 17, 2022, 08:51:14 AM »

I think you'd love a P5 (moreso a 10 or upgraded P5 as the extra power is lovely and you can always drop it back to 5 voices with a couple of button presses if desired)...  but I wouldn't let any external pressures be the reason for getting one.  I would get one if you hear something in the tone that seems missing from the overall sound you want to achieve.


Eh if I were to get one I might just get the P5 and not the P10 because I don't really associate the P10 with the single keyboard version and the dual manual version had more capabilities than the single, so even if I wanted to replicate Carpenter or Brad Fiedel's Prophet 10 work, I'd be missing something anyway. Was just listening to Rick Wakeman's score for the 80s slasher The Burning...all done on a dual Prophet 10. He was talking on the Blu Ray about how he wished he still had one because he loved it so much.

In fact the only time I think the single keyboard Prophet 10 was used was on Danny Zeitlin score for the 70s Invasion Of The Body Snatchers remake (Mostly doing weird warbles and gurgles) and Dan Wyman's scores for Without Warning and Hell Night (which played alongside an orchestra, mostly doing drones and pads)

You always write such weird takes on synths... you do realise the NEW rev 4 Prophet 10 has very little in common with either iteration of the vintage Prophet 10? In so much as any short-comings of the old single keybed P10 do not apply to the rev 4 P10. And the 'extras' on the Dual manual P10 are just different, not better, and certainly a lot uglier and overblown (I mean that thing looks like an organ with the dual manuals).

I say this because you say you'd get the P5 rev 4 over the P10.. but some of the best features of the Rev 4 are ONLY or BEST useful on the P10... high poly in round robin sounds gorgeous (P5 will have note stealing), but moreso the poly unison mode which sounds better than the old P5 did and is basically useless on the new P5 due to low poly, but on P10 you're back to 5 voice in stacked mode but with some VERY interesting layering choices... not just simply mashing two voices together, it's esp prominent with different portament and velocity/aftertouch settings between layered voices. I don't think of P10 in stacked mode as a mere 2 sounds at once, they are ONE sound... designed with essentially 4 oscs, choice of 2 diff filters and differing 'vintage' settings... you can get some REALLY interesting stuff out of the rev 4 P10 you'd never have gotten out of the old P10 or P5... the velocity to filter expression is just the icing on the cake and blows away vintage prophets for atmosphere and beauty.

I think the rev 4 engine is now so good and so flexible, moreso than the old prophets, to the point that 5 voices seems a waste... all that power and not enough poly to express it, that is why the Prophet 10 is THE best prophet ever (Rev 4).

I'm not sure wtf you should care what someone from 40 years ago associates with more or why when it comes to buying a modern synth, unless you're getting an actual dual manual prophet 10 then the sane and BEST buy is the new Prophet 10. The prophet 5 rev 4 is a ridiculous handicap for such new layering and poly unison power... and ftr nobody gives AF about the P5 badge since rev 4 release... the P10 is now the 'Daddy' and unless you own a battered old vintage P5 neither of the new ones have any kudos beyond their respective NEW powers... and there, the P10 owns everything... inc the OB-X8 with it's too low 8 voices (4 stacked), weaker VCOs, and less direct/convoluted layout with menu diving.
Prophet 10 Rev 4

Re: Welcome Back Indeed!
« Reply #39 on: May 17, 2022, 09:01:35 AM »

I think you'd love a P5 (moreso a 10 or upgraded P5 as the extra power is lovely and you can always drop it back to 5 voices with a couple of button presses if desired)...  but I wouldn't let any external pressures be the reason for getting one.  I would get one if you hear something in the tone that seems missing from the overall sound you want to achieve.


Eh if I were to get one I might just get the P5 and not the P10 because I don't really associate the P10 with the single keyboard version and the dual manual version had more capabilities than the single, so even if I wanted to replicate Carpenter or Brad Fiedel's Prophet 10 work, I'd be missing something anyway. Was just listening to Rick Wakeman's score for the 80s slasher The Burning...all done on a dual Prophet 10. He was talking on the Blu Ray about how he wished he still had one because he loved it so much.

In fact the only time I think the single keyboard Prophet 10 was used was on Danny Zeitlin score for the 70s Invasion Of The Body Snatchers remake (Mostly doing weird warbles and gurgles) and Dan Wyman's scores for Without Warning and Hell Night (which played alongside an orchestra, mostly doing drones and pads)

You always write such weird takes on synths... you do realise the NEW rev 4 Prophet 10 has very little in common with either iteration of the vintage Prophet 10? In so much as any short-comings of the old single keybed P10 do not apply to the rev 4 P10. And the 'extras' on the Dual manual P10 are just different, not better, and certainly a lot uglier and overblown (I mean that thing looks like an organ with the dual manuals).

I say this because you say you'd get the P5 rev 4 over the P10.. but some of the best features of the Rev 4 are ONLY or BEST useful on the P10... high poly in round robin sounds gorgeous (P5 will have note stealing), but moreso the poly unison mode which sounds better than the old P5 did and is basically useless on the new P5 due to low poly, but on P10 you're back to 5 voice in stacked mode but with some VERY interesting layering choices... not just simply mashing two voices together, it's esp prominent with different portament and velocity/aftertouch settings between layered voices. I don't think of P10 in stacked mode as a mere 2 sounds at once, they are ONE sound... designed with essentially 4 oscs, choice of 2 diff filters and differing 'vintage' settings... you can get some REALLY interesting stuff out of the rev 4 P10 you'd never have gotten out of the old P10 or P5... the velocity to filter expression is just the icing on the cake and blows away vintage prophets for atmosphere and beauty.

I think the rev 4 engine is now so good and so flexible, moreso than the old prophets, to the point that 5 voices seems a waste... all that power and not enough poly to express it, that is why the Prophet 10 is THE best prophet ever (Rev 4).

I'm not sure wtf you should care what someone from 40 years ago associates with more or why when it comes to buying a modern synth, unless you're getting an actual dual manual prophet 10 then the sane and BEST buy is the new Prophet 10. The prophet 5 rev 4 is a ridiculous handicap for such new layering and poly unison power... and ftr nobody gives AF about the P5 badge since rev 4 release... the P10 is now the 'Daddy' and unless you own a battered old vintage P5 neither of the new ones have any kudos beyond their respective NEW powers... and there, the P10 owns everything... inc the OB-X8 with it's too low 8 voices (4 stacked), weaker VCOs, and less direct/convoluted layout with menu diving.

Meh