What, really, is the difference between SCI Pro 1 and P5?

Discussions about anything analog, digital, MIDI, synth technology, techniques, theories and more.
User avatar
madtheory
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
Posts: 5155
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 12:45 pm
Real name: Tomas Mulcahy
Gear: Flangebeast Mk1, Plonkotron, Morovdis Arpeggiator, Maplin My First EQ, Jeff Wayne Thunderchild rack, Thermostat, Buck Owens' Moog.
Band: Minim
Location: Cork, Ireland
Contact:

Re: What, really, is the difference between SCI Pro 1 and P5

Post by madtheory » Sun Jun 12, 2016 12:01 pm

Cool, thanks for the info :)

User avatar
Sir Ruff
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 11:55 pm
Gear: Two persimmon modulators and a frequency adjudicator.
Band: Ruff in the jungle
Location: Philadelphia

Re: What, really, is the difference between SCI Pro 1 and P5

Post by Sir Ruff » Sun Jun 12, 2016 12:09 pm

madtheory wrote:How is a VCA going to slow things down? It's just an amplifier that can take a CV for level control. Used as the summing amp, there's no envelope.
Sure. I guess I'm just imagining that anything extra in the signal chain might slew the signal somehow. Anyway, there's no actual emperical evidence that the P5 envelopes ARE slower at this point so we're just speculating on a potentially non-existent difference.

CfNorEna seems to confirm that it's probably the apparent differences in VCA gain that make the P1 seem "faster", when it's really just amplitude (and punchiness). The P1 signal really is hot.
Do you even post on vse bro?

analogholic
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:53 pm

Re: What, really, is the difference between SCI Pro 1 and P5

Post by analogholic » Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:02 am

Sir Ruff wrote:
madtheory wrote:How is a VCA going to slow things down? It's just an amplifier that can take a CV for level control. Used as the summing amp, there's no envelope.
Sure. I guess I'm just imagining that anything extra in the signal chain might slew the signal somehow. Anyway, there's no actual emperical evidence that the P5 envelopes ARE slower at this point so we're just speculating on a potentially non-existent difference.

CfNorEna seems to confirm that it's probably the apparent differences in VCA gain that make the P1 seem "faster", when it's really just amplitude (and punchiness). The P1 signal really is hot.
I have both.
The Pro One envelopes are WAY faster than the P5. It's not even funny.
Was actually comparing both the other day, controlling one voice of the P5
via its CV/gate inputs. The P5 is sluggish and not tight at all at faster tempos.
Yeah, was wondering what is causing that big difference.
The z80 processor? But the Jupiter 8/Juno 6/60 are ULTRA fast.
Would be interesting to compare the timing capacitors between the P1 and P5.

analogholic
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:53 pm

Re: What, really, is the difference between SCI Pro 1 and P5

Post by analogholic » Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:21 am

madtheory wrote:Just read a Vince Clarke interview where, again, they mention he has a P5, and then he says the Pro 1 is his favourite because of "fast envelopes". Surely the Pro 1 is the same as one voice of a rev 3 P5? And wouldn't a Pro 5 be better because it has memories? They both use the same envelope generator chip, CEM3310. I notice he nearly always keeps the P5 under the Matrix 12 on the wall behind his main workstation, the Pro 1 is off somewhere more remote...
In addition to different envelope speeds...

The mod routings are a bit different

The P1 has a darker, grittier and more punchy sound. The P5 has a more refined "hifi" sound
where the resonance sounds much better.

Waveform mixer. When you mix saw & Pulse on the P5 you get a louder, fatter signal.
On the P1 they cancel each other out and you get a lower signal. (When I got the P1 at first I really
thought something was wrong with it)

I really wish that I could read schematics....I would compare the circuits
around the CEM 3320 filter. And mod the P1 to have a sweeter resonance like the P5.

User avatar
madtheory
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
Posts: 5155
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 12:45 pm
Real name: Tomas Mulcahy
Gear: Flangebeast Mk1, Plonkotron, Morovdis Arpeggiator, Maplin My First EQ, Jeff Wayne Thunderchild rack, Thermostat, Buck Owens' Moog.
Band: Minim
Location: Cork, Ireland
Contact:

Re: What, really, is the difference between SCI Pro 1 and P5

Post by madtheory » Fri Jul 01, 2016 8:43 am

Do you have a two channel storage oscilloscope? That would give the definitive answer, to get both outputs on screen at the same time. From what you're describing with the triggering, it does seem to be a processor issue. I'm thinking that the difference with the mod routings is that in the P5 they're limited by the digital encoder which AFAIK is 8 bit and scaled in some way? There's no memory in the Pro One so the CV range is not limited in any way. I gather this from what Urs has been saying.

Some interesting info here on envelope speed (incidentally, P5 is the same as JP8!). Makes the very important point that the envelope SHAPE can give the impression of "speed" or punch. Unfortunately, it doesn't analyse this information very well, but you can take a look at audio samples from various synths.

analogholic
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:53 pm

Re: What, really, is the difference between SCI Pro 1 and P5

Post by analogholic » Sat Jul 02, 2016 7:04 am

It's not just the range and no cv/scanning that's different

On the Prophet 5 you have OSC B (freq) and Filter (envelope) as sources and for destinations you have OSC A (freq), OSC A PW and Filter (cutoff). Also on the P5 you can have the LFO target OSC A (freq), OSC B (freq), OSC A PW, OSC B PW and Filter.

Pro-One is more indepth. You can set the sections to be controlled in by LFO, Mod Wheel, or a variable source (OSC B Freq and Filter envelope). The destinations are more indepth: OSC A freq, OSC B freq, OSC A PW, OSC B PW and Filter cutoff.

No, unfortunately I don't have an oscilloscope, but I'll do an audio comparison with them both triggered by
the sequencer of the Pro One. You will hear it VERY clearly.

Yeah, the env shape is very important. The shape on the P5 sounds linear and the P1 sounds almost
exponential in comparison. Very obvious on the decay stage
Again, my Juno-60 has the perfect envelopes IMO. Perfect shape for plucky ultra fast arpeggios.
I could only wish the P5 was anything near that...

I wouldn't totally trust analog.no for the envelope times.
JX-10 = 1 msek attack? No way....

User avatar
madtheory
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
Posts: 5155
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 12:45 pm
Real name: Tomas Mulcahy
Gear: Flangebeast Mk1, Plonkotron, Morovdis Arpeggiator, Maplin My First EQ, Jeff Wayne Thunderchild rack, Thermostat, Buck Owens' Moog.
Band: Minim
Location: Cork, Ireland
Contact:

Re: What, really, is the difference between SCI Pro 1 and P5

Post by madtheory » Sat Jul 02, 2016 8:51 am

Cool to see the mod destination differences laid out, thanks!

Audio demos would be awesome! If you can pan each synth hard left and right, and use 16 bit 44.1kHz wav (at least) for the upload, we could measure envelope times and see the shape as long as there is a section with just one note repeatedly triggered at a slow rate. All envelope times set to minimum with sustain at max, just the VCA envelope, VCF envelope won't matter. Then some music on the synths would be great too :lol:

chipaudette
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:00 am

Re: What, really, is the difference between SCI Pro 1 and P5

Post by chipaudette » Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:04 pm

madtheory wrote:How is a VCA going to slow things down? It's just an amplifier that can take a CV for level control. Used as the summing amp, there's no envelope.
It's not necessarily the VCA itself that slows things down...it's the command to the VCA that can be slow. On the final all-voice VCA in the Polysix (already mentioned), the VCA is normally closed so as to gate the background hiss that the Polysix generates. When a note comes along, the VCA opens up to let the note through. The problem is that this final all-voice VCA is not triggered by the key press, but is triggered by the audio itself. So, the audio from the voices needs to get to a certain amplitude before the final VCA opens. In other words, it blunts the attack, which makes it sound slower.

I removed the final VCA in my Polysix and I'm much happier: http://synthhacker.blogspot.com/2013/07 ... s-vcf.html


Chip

Post Reply