Prophet 12 Signal Flow Diagram + FM algorithms

[proteus-ix]

Hi all - I've made these in the past for the Hydrasynth and Blofeld, thought I'd give it a go for the P12.  I was also inspired to add the FM algorithm routing possibilities from this thread:  https://forum.sequential.com/index.php?topic=263.msg2742#msg2742

My goal as always is to have a quick map of the basic architecture and modulation possibilities, which with the P12 are pretty immense!  But ironically it's a lot more straightfoward than either of the other 2 synths I've done so far...  Until you get to the FM setups, but... no shocker there.

Take a look and let me know if you see any errors or have any ideas on corrections!  Feel free to share, once I get a little feedback to make sure there's nothing majorly wrong, I'll probably share on r/synthesizers too.  If you print it out, let me know how it looks, I'd be curious if it makes a good enough studio poster.

Cheers!

[proteus-ix]

Made a few visual tweaks for clarity

[husker]

Made a few visual tweaks for clarity

Very helpful, thanks for doing this.

[NemoSynth]

Hi guys,

Thanks so much for the great and beautifully done work. Really appreciate the energy and persistence to make this happen.

Would be great if you could allow me to share my findings on this.

Concerning FM, as I recently posted to the thread linked below;
https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,263.msg69603.html#msg69603

...I found it is possible to mod the two oscillators bi-directionally, like B>A and B<A both applied simultaneously. It seems to give an endless infinite FM that can be still controlled by the FM amount and frequency ratio (pitch) of the two oscillators.

Likewise, I found that when you apply FM like D>C>B>A, then you can also add A>D to this, making this into a ring-shaped circular infinite FM. Naturally, similar thing can happen in all kinds of oscillator combinations.

Hence, with this...
  1) bi-directional mutual FM
  2) infinite circular FM
...capabilities, we can create a vast number of FM algorithm patterns freely. And the same goes with AM as well.
I'm still not sure how we can boil this down to a minimum number of possible algorithm patterns, but the redundant patterns may be abbreviated. Do any of you guys can figure out how we can reflect this situation to that beautiful diagram which is on this thread?

Again, thanks so much.

[proteus-ix]

Hi guys,

Thanks so much for the great and beautifully done work. Really appreciate the energy and persistence to make this happen.

Thanks so much, glad it was helpful.

 

Concerning FM, as I recently posted to the thread linked below;
https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,263.msg69603.html#msg69603

...I found it is possible to mod the two oscillators bi-directionally, like B>A and B<A both applied simultaneously. It seems to give an endless infinite FM that can be still controlled by the FM amount and frequency ratio (pitch) of the two oscillators.

Likewise, I found that when you apply FM like D>C>B>A, then you can also add A>D to this, making this into a ring-shaped circular infinite FM. Naturally, similar thing can happen in all kinds of oscillator combinations.

Hence, with this...
  1) bi-directional mutual FM
  2) infinite circular FM
...capabilities, we can create a vast number of FM algorithm patterns freely. And the same goes with AM as well.
I'm still not sure how we can boil this down to a minimum number of possible algorithm patterns, but the redundant patterns may be abbreviated. Do any of you guys can figure out how we can reflect this situation to that beautiful diagram which is on this thread?

Ah yes, I believe you are referring to modulation routing possiblities that can be implemented in the mod matrix?  Whereas the algorithms in the original post and my diagram are showing ONLY the routings that can be implemented directly from the oscillators themselves, with the goal of keeping as much of the mod matrix available for other stuff.  Correct me if I'm wrong there, I'm not at my P12 to confirm.

So with this in mind, yes if you include the mod matrix, then there are FAR more algorithms possible, as you state with bi-directional cross-mods and feedback loops connecting the "top" and "bottom" of algos.

I think if we were going to represent this visually, it would simply be a matter of using 2-directional arrows on the algos for 1., and closing the circuit with additional arrows that circle from the bottom back to the top for 2.

For 2, although it's actually sorta implied by the screenprint on the oscillators section on the P12 itself, I could include a "meta algo" that shows this feedback possibility, with the implication that you could insert any of the algos into it and they would complete that circuit.   But then the problem is that... you could ACTUALLY have MULTIPLE parallel feedback loops, with ANY oscillators outputting audio (carriers in Yamaha terms) routed back into ANY of the modulating oscillators (operators).  This would then become a bit more overwhelming to represent ALL the possibilities and organize them in a visually legible way.

So my question to you is.... how are you using these in your sound design?  Is it something extremely useful, or more a novelty?  If having a visual representation of literally every possible algo is beneficial, I can reflect a little more on how to diagram that in a way that is relatively easy to consume.

Of course, it would help if Sequential seemed to care about it too. 

[proteus-ix]

Made a few visual tweaks for clarity

Very helpful, thanks for doing this.

Happy to help!

[NemoSynth]

Thanks so much for the dedicated reply, proteus-ix, and sorry about not fully understanding the original concept behind this.

- I understood that the mod matrix possibilities are omitted for clarity. Your diagram is focused on what default connection brings. This is completely okay with me.
 
- I also understood that infinite circular mod is omitted for simplicity. Again, totally okay. 

- I finally figured out that the original idea by chaparral (which is on the thread web-linked here https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,263.msg2742.html#msg2742 as you quoted before) is to show every single possibilities of which oscillator influences which oscillator, and thus not exactly with the same concept with Yamaha DX style of Algorithm diagrams.
For instance, like what he says, if you crank up the FM parameter on Osc 1 and 2, then you'll have Osc 3 frequency modulating the Osc 2 directly, and also the Osc 1 indirectly which is done via Osc 2. In that case, both streams are depicted here as B>A and C>A, whereas a Yamaha guy would simply express it as C>B>A which is only showing the electronic connections and not fully bringing the every single possible actual mod influences into the light.
Ok, this concept is fine with me. It's easier for those who are not familiar with FM to comprehend what is doing what.

- Finally, concerning about how I find the extra mod capabilities, I'd say maybe they are not much practical for musical purposes but for making sound effects I find them fantastic. I'm a sound designer, not really a player or a composer. I'm very much a tone-guy, a timbre-centric guy, and am extremely fascinated toward SFX that other people would only recognize it as weird and not useful at all. Those sounds are intriguing and I express myself through sonic performances. Prophet 12 is a great tool for me in this regard.
But then again, this is not common among musicians. Furthermore, I can find my own solution through deep dive of parameter editing which not many people would do. Hence, I consider myself as a noise data in this music world, and am totally alright with the current status of the diagram you created.

Thanks so much again. Hats off to you for this immense work that you've created.

[proteus-ix]

For instance, like what he says, if you crank up the FM parameter on Osc 1 and 2, then you'll have Osc 3 frequency modulating the Osc 2 directly, and also the Osc 1 indirectly which is done via Osc 2. In that case, both streams are depicted here as B>A and C>A, whereas a Yamaha guy would simply express it as C>B>A

Hmmm, the way I understand it, a "Yamaha guy" would only express this as C>B>A for algorithms where C modulates B which is modulating A.  But algorithms with B>A and C>A are parallel modulations of A.

In my diagram, this (B>A and C>A) would be the "branch" algorithms where the modulation paths run in parallel from the operators to the carrier, where C>B>A is a "stack" algorithm where C only modulates A through B.

I don't think there's any difference in the framework used by the Yamaha algos and these; the only difference I can see in terms of algos is that Yamahas (and most hardware linear-FM synths) have pre-configured algos, whereas the P12 allows you to setup your own due to it's much more flexible mod assignment capabilities.

[NemoSynth]

For instance, like what he says, if you crank up the FM parameter on Osc 1 and 2, then you'll have Osc 3 frequency modulating the Osc 2 directly, and also the Osc 1 indirectly which is done via Osc 2. In that case, both streams are depicted here as B>A and C>A, whereas a Yamaha guy would simply express it as C>B>A

Hmmm, the way I understand it, a "Yamaha guy" would only express this as C>B>A for algorithms where C modulates B which is modulating A.  But algorithms with B>A and C>A are parallel modulations of A.

In my diagram, this (B>A and C>A) would be the "branch" algorithms where the modulation paths run in parallel from the operators to the carrier, where C>B>A is a "stack" algorithm where C only modulates A through B.

I don't think there's any difference in the framework used by the Yamaha algos and these; the only difference I can see in terms of algos is that Yamahas (and most hardware linear-FM synths) have pre-configured algos, whereas the P12 allows you to setup your own due to it's much more flexible mod assignment capabilities.

Thanks for the reply.

And yes, that's what I exactly am saying. That is my understanding. A "Yamaha guy" would express things just as you said. And I'm glad to know that your diagram was drawn under the same concept.

I must admit that with my limited English ability, I may have not completely understood what chaparrel is saying in the original thread (https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,263.0.html), namely on his definition of "loops". I was beginning to think that his algorithm was expressed under a different concept, but maybe I was wrong.

Okay, you win. We were singing on the same page of the book first, but then after a while, maybe I mistook a page.
Thanks again.

[proteus-ix]

I may have not completely understood what chaparrel is saying in the original thread (https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,263.0.html), namely on his definition of "loops". I was beginning to think that his algorithm was expressed under a different concept, but maybe I was wrong.

Yes absolutely his use of the term "loops" is confusing!  Normally that term implies an output that returns to the input path, which is not at all what any of the "loops" are doing in his algorithms.  Although of course we *can* create actual loops on the P12, as previously described.  I would say your command of English is quite good that you were able to identify that mis-used term as the source of confusion, many native English speakers might not have caught that.   

[NemoSynth]

I may have not completely understood what chaparrel is saying in the original thread (https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,263.0.html), namely on his definition of "loops". I was beginning to think that his algorithm was expressed under a different concept, but maybe I was wrong.

Yes absolutely his use of the term "loops" is confusing!  Normally that term implies an output that returns to the input path, which is not at all what any of the "loops" are doing in his algorithms.  Although of course we *can* create actual loops on the P12, as previously described.  I would say your command of English is quite good that you were able to identify that mis-used term as the source of confusion, many native English speakers might not have caught that.   

Thanks, dude. I feel priviledged.

[murw]

....the algorithms in the original post and my diagram are showing ONLY the routings that can be implemented directly from the oscillators themselves, with the goal of keeping as much of the mod matrix available for other stuff. 

sorry for the necro, but I just got a P12 module a couple of days ago, and I am trying to figure out how to get all these algo's without the modmatrix.
For instance, how would you setup the FM modulation routings of the first 'branch' algo? I must be missing something but I can't get an oscillator to have two modulators from its own oscillator menu (without the modmatrix that is)
It seems that I must be able to change the default FM mod routing somehow, but I can't see how...
any help much appreciated, thanks.

[g3o2]

You cannot change the circular wiring of the oscillators. What you can do is crank up the incoming FM amount from the modulating oscillator and oscillator level on the modulated oscillator. It is the combination of FM amounts and oscillator levels in the oscillator chain that allows you to _approximate_ these algorithms, that is without the mod matrix. As mentioned here above and in the other thread, only the mod matrix allows you to implement the pure versions of the algorithms. At least, this is how I've understood it.

[murw]

Ah, thanks. I'll stop looking for ways to change the default FM routing