A second Fourm or a P5?

[Jupiter4]

Hello everyone

After 30 years of synth ownership I have bought my first Sequential polysynth. The Fourm has a stunning sound and I am very happy with it. I work dawless with a sequencer and I need an additional synth to round out my gear. The challenge is that I live in Brasil. And where I live the nearest shop is an expensive flight and hotel away. And prices here are much much more expensive than North America or Europe.  Hopefully you can help me decide.

The Fourm is R$7.000 here. A Prophet 5 desktop is R$30.000 and a Prophet 10 keyboard is R$40.000!  Is a Prophet really worth so much more than a Fourm? Second hand Prophets are never for sale here. If I was in Europe I could easily pick up a secondhand P5 desktop. 

I have never played a Prophet 5. 20 years ago I owned all of the Roland Jupiters, I was always a Roland guy, a Yamaha CS60, Mini Moog, Roland System 100 and many more but a secondhand Prophet never came my way. So I appreciate a great synth and also totally appreciate a tiny difference can make all of the difference; but if the price difference is huge is it worth it?

The rest of my set up is: Sequential Fourm, Yamaha MODX M7, Moog Messenger, Nord A1R, Roland TR8S, Akai Sample, Arturia Keystep Pro and Boss and Strymon effects pedals.

Would the average synth player be content with another Fourm or is the P5 so much more capable and is the sound so much better?

Two Fourms side by side give me a much bigger keybed and 8 note poly even without polychain and that’s exciting and maybe that’s the obvious way to go but there again …… a Prophet 5?

[Jpro600k]

The Prophet-10 Rev.4 is incredibly amazing.
That's correct.
******
My tracks.
Tears
Instruments: Sequential PROPHET-10 Rev.4
Ambient3
Instruments: Sequential PROPHET-10 Rev.4
Lounge of Spaceship
Instruments: Sequential PROPHET-10 Rev.4
Prophet-2024
Instruments: Sequential PROPHET-10 Rev.4

[LPF83]

I personally think the sound and playing experience of the P5/10 Rev4 is difficult to match.  This instrument is legendary for a reason... but let your ears be your guide.  Everything sounds better in person than on YouTube but you can still get a relative measure of how it appeals to you with enough research and time investment.

[Jupiter4]

The Prophet-10 Rev.4 is incredibly amazing.
That's correct.
******
My tracks.
Tears
Instruments: Sequential PROPHET-10 Rev.4
Ambient3
Instruments: Sequential PROPHET-10 Rev.4
Lounge of Spaceship
Instruments: Sequential PROPHET-10 Rev.4
Prophet-2024
Instruments: Sequential PROPHET-10 Rev.4

Thank you for your comment. I would say the same about the Fourm. But you don’t actually say why you think that the Prophet is better. I listened to some of your Fourm tracks. If you hadn’t of told me I would have assumed that you used a Prophet.

@Sequential do we really have to answer ten questions every time we want to create a post? Are you trying to dissuade people from engaging here? How many questions do we need to answer of we have to contact support? I have never seen this anywhere else since the internet started and as a new Sequential customer it’s concerning.

[Jupiter4]

I personally think the sound and playing experience of the P5/10 Rev4 is difficult to match.  This instrument is legendary for a reason... but let your ears be your guide.  Everything sounds better in person than on YouTube but you can still get a relative measure of how it appeals to you with enough research and time investment.

As I stated in my post I can’t get to hear the P5 without paying for an expensive trip including flight and hotels. It’s just not possible hence the post. Otherwise I would indeed just compare the two.

[markwilkins]

@Sequential do we really have to answer ten questions every time we want to create a post? Are you trying to dissuade people from engaging here? How many questions do we need to answer of we have to contact support? I have never seen this anywhere else since the internet started and as a new Sequential customer it’s concerning.

For whatever reason, the spam posts on this forum are rather common (particularly from some stupid game site with links to their site apparently for SEO ratings). As a result, the admins here have been ratcheting up the number of required posts to get past the initial “are you a human” gauntlet. At some number of posts (5? Maybe 10?), that gating logic is lifted. Or, better, if an admin reads this thread, they will be able to see that you are a human (most likely and remove that immediately from your account.

[LPF83]

As I stated in my post I can’t get to hear the P5 without paying for an expensive trip including flight and hotels. It’s just not possible hence the post. Otherwise I would indeed just compare the two.

Understood, but as I stated in my post, you can use YouTube demos as a relative measure of sound.  There is certainly a loss of fidelity when listening to synth demos over YT, but with a bit of practice you can calibrate your brain and ears to learn the tonal characteristics that you like and be able to identify what you like in a music instrument (synths, guitars, anything else).  It can take a bit of time/persistence/patience to narrow things down to a decision, but unless you live near a huge music retailer that has everything you'd want ready to demo, it's the most economical method and beats buying something expensive with regrets or sleeping on the synth of your dreams.

It is a far more effective method of synth evaluation that asking others "is it worth it???" on a forum.

[Jpro600k]

Thank you for your comment. I would say the same about the Fourm. But you don’t actually say why you think that the Prophet is better. I listened to some of your Fourm tracks. If you hadn’t of told me I would have assumed that you used a Prophet.

Good points
There's no need to try and imitate the sound of Prophet. Oh, needless to say, this sound is real Prophet.
Despite being an electronic instrument, it produces tones that feel just like a real instrument.
Sound fullness
Rich sound
Easy-to-use sound quality
Good Interface
Simple operation due to shallow menu hierarchy
Not overly complex
High-quality bass
Smooth sound extension
Can produce sharp, crisp sounds
No destination connection setup required
Stack and split functionality available (Prophet10)
Sufficient output even at low volume
Poly Unison

Concerns
Initial tuning is essential
Module temperature is relatively high

[Jupiter4]

As I stated in my post I can’t get to hear the P5 without paying for an expensive trip including flight and hotels. It’s just not possible hence the post. Otherwise I would indeed just compare the two.

Understood, but as I stated in my post, you can use YouTube demos as a relative measure of sound.  There is certainly a loss of fidelity when listening to synth demos over YT, but with a bit of practice you can calibrate your brain and ears to learn the tonal characteristics that you like and be able to identify what you like in a music instrument (synths, guitars, anything else).  It can take a bit of time/persistence/patience to narrow things down to a decision, but unless you live near a huge music retailer that has everything you'd want ready to demo, it's the most economical method and beats buying something expensive with regrets or sleeping on the synth of your dreams.

It is a far more effective method of synth evaluation that asking others "is it worth it???" on a forum.

Thanks for your comment. There is only one side by side (Fourm vs Prophet 5) vídeo on YouTube. That video shows that they are extremely close. But that’s not the full story because it was a limited comparison.

I ask questions sometimes in a forum because it takes time to get to know a synth and if someone has experience of both then they can maybe add some insight. Otherwise why does this fórum exist if just to say watch YouTube? Clearly the Prophet 5 has more modulation capabilities  but at over four times the price it’s a huge question mark for me.

Let’s see if anyone can give more of a comparative insight.

[Jpro600k]

Let’s see if anyone can give more of a comparative insight.

This comparison should make it clear that there are quite a few differences between the two models.
****************

While both instruments share the common feature of "analog voice architecture inherited from the Prophet-5," they differ significantly in size, playability, and target audience.

Key Takeaways
Prophet-5 Rev.4 is the ultimate choice for purists who want the true vintage experience, the flexibility of choosing different historical filter types, the "Vintage" knob slop, and a luxurious 5-octave wooden chassis.

Fourm is designed for modern musicians looking for a highly portable (under 4 kg) desktop-friendly powerhouse. While it lacks the wood and the 5th voice, it compensates with modern features like Polyphonic Aftertouch, an onboard Polyphonic Sequencer, and a highly versatile Modulation Matrix.


Main Differences and Points to Consider When Choosing
The Essence of Sound and the Reproduction of "Fluctuations"
The Prophet-5 Rev.4 is thoroughly committed to authentic vintage sound, featuring switchable filter chips from Rev1 to Rev3 and a "Vintage knob" that reproduces the tuning instability unique to vintage instruments. On the other hand, the Fourm uses a chip based on the Prophet-5 Rev2 design but enhanced with modern technology for increased stability, allowing you to more easily enjoy a pure, full analog sound without effects.

Playability and Expressiveness (Keyboard)
If you want to play comfortably with both hands on a traditional, large 5-octave keyboard, the Prophet-5 is the only choice. However, the Four, despite having mini keys (slim keys), features polyphonic aftertouch. Because you can apply individual modulation to each pressed key, the Four has advantages in terms of expressiveness.

Presence or Absence of Sequencer
The Prophet-5 has neither a sequencer nor an arpeggiator (it's all up to the player's skill). The Fourm features a 64-step polyphonic sequencer, allowing for not only phrase playback but also modern sound creation, such as using the sequencer as a modulation source to rhythmically manipulate the filter.

Size and Portability
The Prophet-5 weighs over 14kg and has a heavy wooden casing, making it primarily a studio-based instrument. The Fourm, at approximately 4kg, is extremely lightweight and compact, making it suitable for space-saving desktop placement or easy transport to live performances.

The Prophet-5 Rev.4 is for those who value tradition and status, while the Fourm is for those seeking agility and the latest performance expression (Poly-AT).


Fourm
Concept: Compact & modern analog synth with P5 DNA
Polyphony: 4-voice
Keyboard: 37 Tactive slim keys
Aftertouch: Polyphonic Aftertouch
Oscillators (per voice): 2 Oscillators (modern chips inspired by Prophet-5 Rev2)
Filter: 4-pole low-pass (classic design with bass compensation)
Vintage Knob: No (However, there is a parameter 11.VINTAGE, and you can adjust its value.)

Modulation: Modulation Matrix
Effects: None (Pure analog signal path)
Sequencer / Arpeggiator: 64-step Polyphonic Sequencer & Arpeggiator
Audio Output: Monaural (1/4 unbalanced), Headphones
External Interfacing: None
USB Port: USB-C (MIDI only)
Chassis: Solid Steel
Dimensions (W×D×H): 562 x 251x70 mm
Weight: 3.97 kg (8.75 lbs)

Prophet-5 Rev.4
Concept: Authentic reissue of the legendary vintage synth
Polyphony: 5-voice
Keyboard: 61 full-sized, semi-weighted keys (Fatar)
Aftertouch: Channel Aftertouch (Monophonic)
Oscillators (per voice): 2 VCOs (based on CEM 3340)
Filter: 4-pole low-pass (switchable between 2140 and 3320)
Vintage Knob: Yes (recreates component drift and behaviors)
Modulation: Poly Mod (Classic Prophet-5 architecture)
Effects: None (Pure analog signal path)
Sequencer / Arpeggiator: None
Monaural (1/4 unbalanced), Headphones
CV IN/OUT, Gate IN/OUT
USB Port: USB-B (MIDI only)
Chassis:Steel and premium black walnut heartwood
Dimensions (W×D×H): 949.2x 415.2 x151.1 mm
Weight: 14.51 kg (32lbs)

[Jpro600k]

The Prophet-5/Prophet-10 Rev.4 really does satisfy my ears right away. As for the FOURM, I personally have less experience with it, so there's plenty of room for exploration, and the fun continues.

[Jupiter4]

Let’s see if anyone can give more of a comparative insight.

This comparison should make it clear that there are quite a few differences between the two models.
****************

While both instruments share the common feature of "analog voice architecture inherited from the Prophet-5," they differ significantly in size, playability, and target audience.

Key Takeaways
Prophet-5 Rev.4 is the ultimate choice for purists who want the true vintage experience, the flexibility of choosing different historical filter types, the "Vintage" knob slop, and a luxurious 5-octave wooden chassis.

Fourm is designed for modern musicians looking for a highly portable (under 4 kg) desktop-friendly powerhouse. While it lacks the wood and the 5th voice, it compensates with modern features like Polyphonic Aftertouch, an onboard Polyphonic Sequencer, and a highly versatile Modulation Matrix.


Main Differences and Points to Consider When Choosing
The Essence of Sound and the Reproduction of "Fluctuations"
The Prophet-5 Rev.4 is thoroughly committed to authentic vintage sound, featuring switchable filter chips from Rev1 to Rev3 and a "Vintage knob" that reproduces the tuning instability unique to vintage instruments. On the other hand, the Fourm uses a chip based on the Prophet-5 Rev2 design but enhanced with modern technology for increased stability, allowing you to more easily enjoy a pure, full analog sound without effects.

Playability and Expressiveness (Keyboard)
If you want to play comfortably with both hands on a traditional, large 5-octave keyboard, the Prophet-5 is the only choice. However, the Four, despite having mini keys (slim keys), features polyphonic aftertouch. Because you can apply individual modulation to each pressed key, the Four has advantages in terms of expressiveness.

Presence or Absence of Sequencer
The Prophet-5 has neither a sequencer nor an arpeggiator (it's all up to the player's skill). The Fourm features a 64-step polyphonic sequencer, allowing for not only phrase playback but also modern sound creation, such as using the sequencer as a modulation source to rhythmically manipulate the filter.

Size and Portability
The Prophet-5 weighs over 14kg and has a heavy wooden casing, making it primarily a studio-based instrument. The Fourm, at approximately 4kg, is extremely lightweight and compact, making it suitable for space-saving desktop placement or easy transport to live performances.

The Prophet-5 Rev.4 is for those who value tradition and status, while the Fourm is for those seeking agility and the latest performance expression (Poly-AT).


Fourm
Concept: Compact & modern analog synth with P5 DNA
Polyphony: 4-voice
Keyboard: 37 Tactive slim keys
Aftertouch: Polyphonic Aftertouch
Oscillators (per voice): 2 Oscillators (modern chips inspired by Prophet-5 Rev2)
Filter: 4-pole low-pass (classic design with bass compensation)
Vintage Knob: No (However, there is a parameter 11.VINTAGE, and you can adjust its value.)

Modulation: Modulation Matrix
Effects: None (Pure analog signal path)
Sequencer / Arpeggiator: 64-step Polyphonic Sequencer & Arpeggiator
Audio Output: Monaural (1/4 unbalanced), Headphones
External Interfacing: None
USB Port: USB-C (MIDI only)
Chassis: Solid Steel
Dimensions (W×D×H): 562 x 251x70 mm
Weight: 3.97 kg (8.75 lbs)

Prophet-5 Rev.4
Concept: Authentic reissue of the legendary vintage synth
Polyphony: 5-voice
Keyboard: 61 full-sized, semi-weighted keys (Fatar)
Aftertouch: Channel Aftertouch (Monophonic)
Oscillators (per voice): 2 VCOs (based on CEM 3340)
Filter: 4-pole low-pass (switchable between 2140 and 3320)
Vintage Knob: Yes (recreates component drift and behaviors)
Modulation: Poly Mod (Classic Prophet-5 architecture)
Effects: None (Pure analog signal path)
Sequencer / Arpeggiator: None
Monaural (1/4 unbalanced), Headphones
CV IN/OUT, Gate IN/OUT
USB Port: USB-B (MIDI only)
Chassis:Steel and premium black walnut heartwood
Dimensions (W×D×H): 949.2x 415.2 x151.1 mm
Weight: 14.51 kg (32lbs)

Thanks for taking the time to comment but all of that information is already in the public domain.

I was really hoping that someone who had spent time with both could give a more specific answer about the sound, not specs. Whenever you write about the Prophet I am saying to myself the same applies to the Fourm; except that I agree that the output is a bit weak.

I have much experience with 70s and early 80s analogue synths, I know the sound, the Fourm fits in that era well, and I am just trying to find out if the Prophet 5 sound is so much ‘more’. But it needs a very nerdy answer.

My reference points are Gary Numan and Level 42. The Fourm easily covers those sounds from 1979 to 1982. But when I think of Japan’s Tin Drum and Richard Barbieri’s work I wonder if the Fourm would compete well with the Prophet.

[LPF83]

Thanks for taking the time to comment but all of that information is already in the public domain.

I was really hoping that someone who had spent time with both could give a more specific answer about the sound, not specs. Whenever you write about the Prophet I am saying to myself the same applies to the Fourm; except that I agree that the output is a bit weak.

I have much experience with 70s and early 80s analogue synths, I know the sound, the Fourm fits in that era well, and I am just trying to find out if the Prophet 5 sound is so much ‘more’. But it needs a very nerdy answer.

My reference points are Gary Numan and Level 42. The Fourm easily covers those sounds from 1979 to 1982. But when I think of Japan’s Tin Drum and Richard Barbieri’s work I wonder if the Fourm would compete well with the Prophet.

I own a Rev 4 and have spent time with a Fourm.  You seem to be seeking a very specific answer with stringent requirements (needs to be nerdy) to an incredibly vague and non-specific question.  Your original question, paraphrasing seems to be "does it sound good enough to justify the cost difference"?

The problem with that, and the reason I tried to steer you toward a solution that would answer your question better is that "what sounds good" is highly subjective.  If you make a major purchase based on what someone else tells you sounds good, it's a coin toss as to whether you're happy with the results.

The human eardrum differs among individuals.  The individual variation in what we each hear is far greater than the manufacturing variance that causes no two analog synthesizers (even of the same brand and model and manufacturing batch) to sound exactly alike.  So what sounds good to someone here on this forum may not sound good to you.

If you want my personal opinion of the two, the Fourm is a good synth for the price, but in terms of raw tone, not in the same league as the Prophet 5/10 Rev 4.  That's according to my eardrum, taste in music, tone, etc. and not anyone else's so your mileage may vary.  Yet, the Fourm has more features than the Rev 4 and to some folks that may be an important factor.  When I tried the Fourm I did not attempt to make metallic tin drum type sounds so I can't compare that very specific aspect you've asked about, other than to say I would not buy an expensive polyphonic analog synth for the sole purpose of making percussive sounds in this day and age, there are too many other options that weren't available in the late 70's or early 80's to justify the cost for that sole reason.  The envelope speed of the Fourm led me to believe it was not really designed with percussive tones in mind.

So there you go.  You asked why does a forum like this exist if only to send one to YouTube?  I would say the primary value to a forum like this is probably more in the potential troubleshooting aspect, Q&A on how to accomplish certain tasks, and community support for understanding or learning better how to use whatever instrument(s) you've purchased.  Secondarily, I would say the value is in simply connecting with others who have the same instruments as you to hear how they're using them, etc. to enhance your own enjoyment of the synth.

I do think that expecting typed characters and subjective opinions of what sounds good to consistently result in a good purchase decision is a futile exercise... I was just trying to share something I've learned over the last four decades or so of doing this... it's best to let your own ears determine (as best as you can) what sounds good rather than expecting others to tell you what your ears will probably enjoy.

[Jupiter4]

Thanks for taking the time to comment but all of that information is already in the public domain.

I was really hoping that someone who had spent time with both could give a more specific answer about the sound, not specs. Whenever you write about the Prophet I am saying to myself the same applies to the Fourm; except that I agree that the output is a bit weak.

I have much experience with 70s and early 80s analogue synths, I know the sound, the Fourm fits in that era well, and I am just trying to find out if the Prophet 5 sound is so much ‘more’. But it needs a very nerdy answer.

My reference points are Gary Numan and Level 42. The Fourm easily covers those sounds from 1979 to 1982. But when I think of Japan’s Tin Drum and Richard Barbieri’s work I wonder if the Fourm would compete well with the Prophet.

I own a Rev 4 and have spent time with a Fourm.  You seem to be seeking a very specific answer with stringent requirements (needs to be nerdy) to an incredibly vague and non-specific question.  Your original question, paraphrasing seems to be "does it sound good enough to justify the cost difference"?

The problem with that, and the reason I tried to steer you toward a solution that would answer your question better is that "what sounds good" is highly subjective.  If you make a major purchase based on what someone else tells you sounds good, it's a coin toss as to whether you're happy with the results.

The human eardrum differs among individuals.  The individual variation in what we each hear is far greater than the manufacturing variance that causes no two analog synthesizers (even of the same brand and model and manufacturing batch) to sound exactly alike.  So what sounds good to someone here on this forum may not sound good to you.

If you want my personal opinion of the two, the Fourm is a good synth for the price, but in terms of raw tone, not in the same league as the Prophet 5/10 Rev 4.  That's according to my eardrum, taste in music, tone, etc. and not anyone else's so your mileage may vary.  Yet, the Fourm has more features than the Rev 4 and to some folks that may be an important factor.  When I tried the Fourm I did not attempt to make metallic tin drum type sounds so I can't compare that very specific aspect you've asked about, other than to say I would not buy an expensive polyphonic analog synth for the sole purpose of making percussive sounds in this day and age, there are too many other options that weren't available in the late 70's or early 80's to justify the cost for that sole reason.  The envelope speed of the Fourm led me to believe it was not really designed with percussive tones in mind.

So there you go.  You asked why does a forum like this exist if only to send one to YouTube?  I would say the primary value to a forum like this is probably more in the potential troubleshooting aspect, Q&A on how to accomplish certain tasks, and community support for understanding or learning better how to use whatever instrument(s) you've purchased.  Secondarily, I would say the value is in simply connecting with others who have the same instruments as you to hear how they're using them, etc. to enhance your own enjoyment of the synth.

I do think that expecting typed characters and subjective opinions of what sounds good to consistently result in a good purchase decision is a futile exercise... I was just trying to share something I've learned over the last four decades or so of doing this... it's best to let your own ears determine (as best as you can) what sounds good rather than expecting others to tell you what your ears will probably enjoy.

Thanks for taking the time to comment. I agree that it’s a difficult thing for others to help someone when it comes to sound because it is subjective. But I try as best as I can to triangulate answers to arrive at a conclusion.

Dave Smith used to say that the filter was the determining factor. I also think that for the music that I produce that I need a certain type of envelope. The Fourm has a P5 Rev 2 filter and P5 envelopes if I remember correctly. That’s perfect for me. It seems to have decent VCOs. And so for the sake of a small difference in modulation that the P5 offers it seems to me to be a tough choice between the two given the price difference.

For what it’s worth the Fourm sounded a lot better to me than the Take 5.  The Fourm has that vintage sound that I wanted.

When I think about what I could buy for the same price as a Prophet 5 I tend to circle back to buying another Fourm plus maybe a UDO Super 6 or Novation Peak.

Maybe the smart thing to do is wait until Sequential launch their next poly aftertouch synth that they commented on recently.

[Jupiter4]

Thanks for taking the time to comment but all of that information is already in the public domain.

I was really hoping that someone who had spent time with both could give a more specific answer about the sound, not specs. Whenever you write about the Prophet I am saying to myself the same applies to the Fourm; except that I agree that the output is a bit weak.

I have much experience with 70s and early 80s analogue synths, I know the sound, the Fourm fits in that era well, and I am just trying to find out if the Prophet 5 sound is so much ‘more’. But it needs a very nerdy answer.

My reference points are Gary Numan and Level 42. The Fourm easily covers those sounds from 1979 to 1982. But when I think of Japan’s Tin Drum and Richard Barbieri’s work I wonder if the Fourm would compete well with the Prophet.

I own a Rev 4 and have spent time with a Fourm.  You seem to be seeking a very specific answer with stringent requirements (needs to be nerdy) to an incredibly vague and non-specific question.  Your original question, paraphrasing seems to be "does it sound good enough to justify the cost difference"?

The problem with that, and the reason I tried to steer you toward a solution that would answer your question better is that "what sounds good" is highly subjective.  If you make a major purchase based on what someone else tells you sounds good, it's a coin toss as to whether you're happy with the results.

The human eardrum differs among individuals.  The individual variation in what we each hear is far greater than the manufacturing variance that causes no two analog synthesizers (even of the same brand and model and manufacturing batch) to sound exactly alike.  So what sounds good to someone here on this forum may not sound good to you.

If you want my personal opinion of the two, the Fourm is a good synth for the price, but in terms of raw tone, not in the same league as the Prophet 5/10 Rev 4.  That's according to my eardrum, taste in music, tone, etc. and not anyone else's so your mileage may vary.  Yet, the Fourm has more features than the Rev 4 and to some folks that may be an important factor.  When I tried the Fourm I did not attempt to make metallic tin drum type sounds so I can't compare that very specific aspect you've asked about, other than to say I would not buy an expensive polyphonic analog synth for the sole purpose of making percussive sounds in this day and age, there are too many other options that weren't available in the late 70's or early 80's to justify the cost for that sole reason.  The envelope speed of the Fourm led me to believe it was not really designed with percussive tones in mind.

So there you go.  You asked why does a forum like this exist if only to send one to YouTube?  I would say the primary value to a forum like this is probably more in the potential troubleshooting aspect, Q&A on how to accomplish certain tasks, and community support for understanding or learning better how to use whatever instrument(s) you've purchased.  Secondarily, I would say the value is in simply connecting with others who have the same instruments as you to hear how they're using them, etc. to enhance your own enjoyment of the synth.

I do think that expecting typed characters and subjective opinions of what sounds good to consistently result in a good purchase decision is a futile exercise... I was just trying to share something I've learned over the last four decades or so of doing this... it's best to let your own ears determine (as best as you can) what sounds good rather than expecting others to tell you what your ears will probably enjoy.

And just to respond to my apparent stringent requirements as you put it. I don’t think it unreasonable to ask for opinions about sonic differences. People comment constantly on here and where about differences in filter resonance brightness, oscillator weight, envelope response, etc etc. I am asking the same type of question. And also asking opinions on value. 

[LPF83]

In terms of value...

One approach you might consider, getting a used P5 desktop and if it turns out to not be worth it to you, just sell it?   If you shop around you might even make money on the resell, or worst case a small loss and then at least you know for sure what's right for you.

There are other (relatively) inexpensive options like a used Prophet 6 desktop (which I think sounds better than the Fourm personally, and has 6 voices which I greatly prefer as a minimum voice count on a poly, 4 just isn't enough for my needs) but I could not tell you it sounds as vintage as a Prophet 5/10 Rev 4... in fact, for sure it is not as vintage sounding....so I figured if you narrowed it down to the Rev 4 already there must be a reason.

For me, the value of the Rev 4 was undeniable... vintage P5s are much more expensive and sound the same.. it was a bucket list synth for me and having both filter types on the same synth, plus the option for 10 voices but being able to limit them to 5, etc. was just too good to pass up.   It is the most expensive single instrument I own but I would also say, because I always wanted one, I view it as one of the best values for my needs of the instruments I own.

[Jupiter4]

In terms of value...

One approach you might consider, getting a used P5 desktop and if it turns out to not be worth it to you, just sell it?   If you shop around you might even make money on the resell, or worst case a small loss and then at least you know for sure what's right for you.

There are other (relatively) inexpensive options like a used Prophet 6 desktop (which I think sounds better than the Fourm personally, and has 6 voices which I greatly prefer as a minimum voice count on a poly, 4 just isn't enough for my needs) but I could not tell you it sounds as vintage as a Prophet 5/10 Rev 4... in fact, for sure it is not as vintage sounding....so I figured if you narrowed it down to the Rev 4 already there must be a reason.

For me, the value of the Rev 4 was undeniable... vintage P5s are much more expensive and sound the same.. it was a bucket list synth for me and having both filter types on the same synth, plus the option for 10 voices but being able to limit them to 5, etc. was just too good to pass up.   It is the most expensive single instrument I own but I would also say, because I always wanted one, I view it as one of the best values for my needs of the instruments I own.

I live in Brasil. There isn’t really a secondhand market for high end synths here. And the P5 desktop is far too new for it to come up secondhand. I tried the Prophet 6 when it came out when I lived in London but really didn’t like the sound of the filter and funnily enough nor did any of the guys who worked in the store because it didn’t have the vintage sound that we all loved.

Thanks everyone for responding. I think that for now I shall buy a second Fourm and see if the P5 starts calling me again in the future. Right now it just doesn’t seem good value compared to the Fourm.  And maybe Sequential will come out with a bigger version of the Fourm with additional modulations etc. That would probably get my vote.

[Jpro600k]

My reference points are Gary Numan and Level 42. The Fourm easily covers those sounds from 1979 to 1982. But when I think of Japan’s Tin Drum and Richard Barbieri’s work I wonder if the Fourm would compete well with the Prophet.

Prophet-5/10 Rev.4 produces a sound that is very close to what I envisioned, no matter how I use it, so I am very satisfied.
I really love Japanese tin drums and the works of Richard Barbieri. I once tried to recreate a similar sound by making one myself, and I was very happy with the tone.
p10-sound-demo-like-richard-barbieri
Instruments: Sequential PROPHET-10 Rev.4

Even if it's not the manufacturer's proprietary polychain, you can probably connect two units and pan them via MIDI, allowing you to reproduce complex chords. So, your decision to add a second FOURM is a good idea. The ability to layer two different sounds is also a nice feature.

[Jupiter4]

My reference points are Gary Numan and Level 42. The Fourm easily covers those sounds from 1979 to 1982. But when I think of Japan’s Tin Drum and Richard Barbieri’s work I wonder if the Fourm would compete well with the Prophet.

Prophet-5/10 Rev.4 produces a sound that is very close to what I envisioned, no matter how I use it, so I am very satisfied.
I really love Japanese tin drums and the works of Richard Barbieri. I once tried to recreate a similar sound by making one myself, and I was very happy with the tone.
p10-sound-demo-like-richard-barbieri
Instruments: Sequential PROPHET-10 Rev.4

Even if it's not the manufacturer's proprietary polychain, you can probably connect two units and pan them via MIDI, allowing you to reproduce complex chords. So, your decision to add a second FOURM is a good idea. The ability to layer two different sounds is also a nice feature.

Thanks so much for posting that Track. I also found your Fourm Hometown track. Listening to both, and not being a P5 owner, I would not be able to identify the P5 vs Fourm in these tracks.