Vintage Synth Explorer Forums

Yoozer wrote:

Juno6 wrote:According to the information so far, I´d call it "Prophet-800", instead of "Prophet 08".

JZ:

The 800 reminds too much of the 600, and everyone knows the 5 is more legendary .

That´s the point, the 600 had digital envs and lfos, arpeggiator and sequencer...

JZ:

Juno6 wrote:
That´s the point, the 600 had digital envs and lfos, arpeggiator and sequencer...

JZ:

Processors are an order of magnitude more powerful now than when the 600 was made both in terms of speed, resolution and d/a conversion, especially for voltages.
There are many good reasons to actually prefer digital modulation sources.

carbon111 wrote:

Juno6 wrote:
That´s the point, the 600 had digital envs and lfos, arpeggiator and sequencer...

JZ:

Processors are an order of magnitude more powerful now than when the 600 was made both in terms of speed, resolution and d/a conversion, especially for voltages.
There are many good reasons to actually prefer digital modulation sources.

Hi James. Partially agree. To me it worth it if you´ve the complexity of, say, the A6 envelopes. Having simple digital ADSRs have not advantages over analog ADSRs to me. By the contrary. EDIT: Except cost, of course.

JZ:

carbon111 wrote: Processors are an order of magnitude more powerful now than when the 600 was made both in terms of speed, resolution and d/a conversion, especially for voltages.
There are many good reasons to actually prefer digital modulation sources.

That's a good point that Gordon Reid brought up in his sospubs review of the Andromeda. He said that lingering biases against digital envelopes and LFOs are hold-overs from the days of the Z80 microprocessor.

I just want to say:

Juno6 wrote:
Having simple digital ADSRs have not advantages over analog ADSRs to me.

You wouldn't know the difference with today's hardware because they are just time/level curves. They would be identical.

Back in the days of the Z80 type processors you would see the difference easily in slowness, slop and quantization - today those things don't have to be an issue at all.

carbon111 wrote:

Juno6 wrote:
Having simple digital ADSRs have not advantages over analog ADSRs to me.

You wouldn't know the difference with today's hardware because they are just time/level curves. They would be identical.

Back in the days of the Z80 type processors you would see the difference easily in slowness, slop and quantization - today those things don't have to be an issue at all.

Hi again James,
There still IS a difference. As an A6 owner I can testify that if you modulate an oscillator´s pitch with it´s envelope (env1) over a big range with a fast decay time there´s a clear quantization effect. Same happens with most digital LFOs when you take them to the fastest rates.
That´s why Sunsyn uses analogue envelopes and lfos at an added cost.
Having said that, there are better (digital) envs than others. The JP6 is from the same age of the P600 and has 16 bit envelopes...
If I had to design a synth, I´d put digital AND analogue LFOs and Envs. Analog LFOs for fast rates, and digital ones to have midi-sync. Also digital envs for complexity, and analogue ones for fast and wide modulation.

JZ:

Hey DB, any chance of a limited desktop module or rack coming out so folks could get the sound without all the polyphony. Like the desktop evolver - poly evolver relationship?

r33k wrote:I just want to say:

I wholeheartedly agree!

(tip: use an image host ).

I'm not excited at all, I think making it with DCOs is a shamey dame and DSI's way of saying hey we can take a poly evolver strip it down add some voices and capitalize on the prophet name... the demos sounds just like the evolver DCOs that are completely uninspiring to me (and many MANY others). But hey that saved me $2000+

I just get the feeling like DS could care less about what people want(ed) the next prophet to be, which is maybe why he is releasing it so fast like this so that he doesn't have to hear all the tons people who would say we want fat VCOs like the Prophet name deserves, not digitally controlled oscillators... will he ever make something that sounds as good as the synths he made 20 years ago with inferior technology? Sadly I don't think so.

I will take a p5 or two p600's over this any day.

I do like the evolver desktop somewhat, I'm just uber dissapointed about this.

I really hope this makes the Prophet 600 cheaper ..

nadafarms wrote:I'm not excited at all, I think making it with DCOs is a shamey dame and DSI's way of saying hey we can take a poly evolver strip it down add some voices and capitalize on the prophet name... the demos sounds just like the evolver DCOs that are completely uninspiring to me (and many MANY others). But hey that saved me $2000+

I just get the feeling like DS could care less about what people want(ed) the next prophet to be, which is maybe why he is releasing it so fast like this so that he doesn't have to hear all the tons people who would say we want fat VCOs like the Prophet name deserves, not digitally controlled oscillators... will he ever make something that sounds as good as the synths he made 20 years ago with inferior technology? Sadly I don't think so.

I will take a p5 or two p600's over this any day.

I do like the evolver desktop somewhat, I'm just uber dissapointed about this.

i understand your frustration, but let me assure you, that DCOs not necessarily have to sound cold. The PPG can sound warm even it has digital oscillators that not even mimic drift. The Virus, that is totally DSP based, sounds full and warm even without effects. I agree, that DCOs are not desirable but even the JP6, that is using the same oscillator chips as the Prophet 5 (REV3) doesn't sound overly warm.

From the sound snipplets I get the feeling that Dave implemented a DDL to gain the stereo effect. One problem is that a Chorus (a short delay with modulation) always will sound like a chorus. It is like a one trick pony that will always give the sound the same NOTE.

I personally mislike the filter a little. I am not a big fan of the CEM filter to begin with but I felt already with the Evolver, that these filter are a little weak.

However, let's just wait for the specs and the first units in the stores. I wonder if the Creamware will be more Prophet than the P'08 in comparison.

nadafarms wrote:I'm not excited at all, I think making it with DCOs is a shamey dame and DSI's way of saying hey we can take a poly evolver strip it down add some voices and capitalize on the prophet name... the demos sounds just like the evolver DCOs that are completely uninspiring to me (and many MANY others). But hey that saved me $2000+

I just get the feeling like DS could care less about what people want(ed) the next prophet to be, which is maybe why he is releasing it so fast like this so that he doesn't have to hear all the tons people who would say we want fat VCOs like the Prophet name deserves, not digitally controlled oscillators... will he ever make something that sounds as good as the synths he made 20 years ago with inferior technology? Sadly I don't think so.

I will take a p5 or two p600's over this any day.

I do like the evolver desktop somewhat, I'm just uber dissapointed about this.

How can you write this off without playing it and then presume Dave Smith's intentions as a synth maker and business man? And this is the 30th year anniversary. I love the evolver because it's not a Pro One, VS or prophet and dig the p8 because of the way it sounds. If I wanted one of those I would get it. The pro one was knocked out in 6 months as Sequential as a business understood the market and filled a price gap with a solid product. It's how good businesses are run. No developer would can ever please everyone - but why should they?

WE didn't hear anything at NAMM from DSI about this. I don't know if they were even there. It's expensive to show there and I'd imagine that If I had a synth that was close to release but still not ready I'd rather just not make a big deal out something I couldn't show (unlike the boomchik which made sense to announce). Honestly Dave knows what he wants and I'm comforable with his skills - he obviosly listens to the market and is a great business man as he's 30 years deep and has wide national/international distribution. I'd also imagine that dave smith woud be one of the few company's to get away with shpping a synth to retail without a NAMM showing based on his reputation.

nadafarms wrote:I'm not excited at all, I think making it with DCOs is a shamey dame

Hey, the Elka Synthex got by with this pretty well, and so did the Junos and Roland JX8/JX10s.

and capitalize on the prophet name...

So you prefer the Juno-G?

At least he's got the rights to capitalize on the Prophet name.

the demos sounds just like the evolver DCOs that are completely uninspiring to me

Synth demos don't mean much in that regard. It's not what someone else is doing for you, it's what you're doing with it that counts.

will he ever make something that sounds as good as the synths he made 20 years ago with inferior technology? Sadly I don't think so.

It won't be easy, but try to strip all the mystique, the famous people performing with it, the ridiculous prices from the synth. In that regard every new unit is tabula rasa; it has to build up reputation and support.

KLAXON wrote:But I imagine that people are excited because Dave, unlike other manufacturers, actually listened to what a small and select group of people have been asking for the past couple years which is a new affordable analogue poly synth. There is no other new analogue poly near this pricepoint so Dave has listened to and reponded to the market.

The bold part is the best part of it all .

nadafarms wrote:I just get the feeling like DS could care less about what people want(ed) the next prophet to be, which is maybe why he is releasing it so fast like this so that he doesn't have to hear all the tons people who would say we want fat VCOs like the Prophet name deserves, not digitally controlled oscillators...

Dave uses DCOs because he prefers them, actually. He says they're more reliable than VCOs, and have all the same artifacts. I don't have enough hubris or knowledge to disagree with him.

As mentioned ad nauseum elsewhere, fatness/warmth/etc have mainly to do with the whole system and how the artifacts of the oscillators are handled within that system. It's really not possible to listen to raw oscillators - only to listen to an entire system, unless you can think of some way to take the filter and the amps out of the equation - which I don't believe you can.

I'm not an engineer myself, but Dave and several other pretty knowledgeable engineers have told me that putting a correctly tweaked DCO on a scope will produce a waveform indistinguishable from a VCO, and I see no reason to disbelieve them.

I'll take the MKS70's DCO system over the OB-Mx's VCO system any day of the week. I'll bet most of you would as well.

will he ever make something that sounds as good as the synths he made 20 years ago with inferior technology? Sadly I don't think so.

Unfortunately, Dave disagrees with you. He thinks the synths he makes today sound as good and perform as well (and in some ways better) than the ones he made in the past. Really...sorry if that bursts anyone's bubble, but it's true....and Dave's actually had the opportunity to do extended critical A/B testing.

Bottom line is that taste is relative; and, after listening to both, you may decide that you prefer the older one...but I have a hard time understanding how one can decide that without having played both.

dB
DSI