Vintage Synth Explorer Forums

are you sure? It really sounded like he was referring to his own company... I was wondering the same thing actually

he means that he did a product once, won't do it again, there is no need to.

This is a prophet I can believe in.

megamanx wrote:he means that he did a product once, won't do it again, there is no need to.

Yes, I think that's the correct interpretation of Dave's remark that he "did it [meaning a product that he's produced previously] once" and therefore "won't do it again." I didn't get it at first, but your comment makes sense.

pflosi wrote:Digital LFOs / EGs, and sounds like Andromeda-style tuning correction (reading back the frequencies in realtime):

At 5:21 Rich from Korg is hanging out. I wonder how much insight synth mfgrs had in what Dave Smith was cooking up before NAMM?

I like how Dave digs that the Prophet-6 is cheaper than a Minimoog.

Just wondering about those membrane P5 style buttons. Aren't used on any other DSi synths... any reliability issues?

Looking at my P8 with its haywire endless encoders which I am yet to get fixed... Tempest (from the forum) still seems buggy... Any one else nervous?

Every time someone up hear bellyaches about digital envelopes and LFO's I want to stab myself in the eyeball. As mentioned, they AREN'T IN THE SIGNAL PATH, THEY'RE CONTROL SIGNALS. Envelopes control amplitude via VCA's that ARE in the signal path (come over and I'll hold your hand as we plug in the patch cables on my modular to prove it). And worrying that digital envelopes will have slow or "mushy" curves... there have been some moderate advances in digital processor speed since the 80s that might just alleviate this. (I'd be willing to bet that the LED's on the P-6 don't flicker when playing dense passages as they do on P-5 because its processor is overtaxed.)

<Good luck getting vintage out of a brand new synth that uses brand new, modern, components.>

A bunny dies every time someone spits out this stupidity. An old resistor or cap doesn't sound "better" than a new one. Resistors resist. If anything, it's worse from deterioration (at least in the case of caps). One can debate whether a thru-hole component sounds better than a tiny SMD equivalent, but I've posed this question to Tom Oberheim, and he actually laughed at me. When I told him lots of guys were convinced of this kind of thing (or that wider board traces in synths sounded better), he told me that anyone who believed that was as idiot. Now, a discrete circuit doesn't guarantee a better sounding synth... it of course depends on the design (not old components, ok?), gain-staging, etc. etc.

Now, with that said, the Prophet-6 will sound different because it doesn't use Curtis chips. I'm not 100% informed on its topology, but from what I gather, the oscillators and filters are mostly discrete, not voice chips, which in my experience always sounds better.

I already stated that I've yet to play a DSI synth that knocked me out as compared to my vintage P-5; but from the demos of the P-6 I have high hopes, and obviously find it annoying when guys troll and talk out their a*s.

Words cannot express how happy this news makes me. The World is a much better place now that Sequential is back. I've wanted a Prophet for the longest time and was considering a modded Prophet 600 as my next synth.

Prices have been on the rise the last 10 years but this should slow that down and return a modicum of sanity to the vintage synth market. Plenty of Prophet to go around for everybody now. Thank you Dave Smith, you badass Mopho! Godspeed you and this new venture!

I can't think of anything negative to say! The internet is imploding.

Aside from all the naysayers around here posting things like "blah blah blah we will never see another affordable analog poly with VCOs ever ever again, blah blah blah, I know everything because my buddy is friends with a guy whose roommate works at a Guitar Center"... and so on, who saw this coming this year?

Seriously, I can't wait to play one for myself. This is exactly what I've been waiting for.

jaypodesta wrote:Looking at my P8 with its haywire endless encoders which I am yet to get fixed... Tempest (from the forum) still seems buggy... Any one else nervous?

Nah. Not me. The P08 encoder issue was solved years ago. And besides, I assume that the P6 uses pots since that would be necessary to enable the front panel to be "live" when you go into patch mode.

I've heard gripes about the Tempest firmware, but I'm not aware of other DSI products that have buggy firmware. And with the P6 interface being so simple I'm expecting its firmware would be straightforward and not prone to bugginess.

Rooftree wrote:

jaypodesta wrote:Looking at my P8 with its haywire endless encoders which I am yet to get fixed... Tempest (from the forum) still seems buggy... Any one else nervous?

Nah. Not me. The P08 encoder issue was solved years ago. And besides, I assume that the P6 uses pots since that would be necessary to enable the front panel to be "live" when you go into patch mode.

I've heard gripes about the Tempest firmware, but I'm not aware of other DSI products that have buggy firmware. And with the P6 interface being so simple I'm expecting its firmware would be straightforward and not prone to bugginess.

There's another video floating around where it sounds like there won't be any software updates because of the lack of menu.

Well, what would you want to be updated?

I'd assume there's a facility to update the firmware in case of bugs (because how much less trouble is it to just put up a download on the company website compared to having to trade in EEPROMs via mail?) I expect what they mean is that there won't be a running update/improvement program for the OS because the interface is all right there on the panel and won't need tweaking.

celebutante wrote:<Good luck getting vintage out of a brand new synth that uses brand new, modern, components.>

A bunny dies every time someone spits out this stupidity. An old resistor or cap doesn't sound "better" than a new one. Resistors resist. If anything, it's worse from deterioration (at least in the case of caps). One can debate whether a thru-hole component sounds better than a tiny SMD equivalent, but I've posed this question to Tom Oberheim, and he actually laughed at me. When I told him lots of guys were convinced of this kind of thing (or that wider board traces in synths sounded better), he told me that anyone who believed that was as idiot. Now, a discrete circuit doesn't guarantee a better sounding synth... it of course depends on the design (not old components, ok?), gain-staging, etc. etc.

Next time you decide to run your mouth, consider thinking (and/or reading) beforehand. I said NOWHERE in that post that I was equating vintage to better; that's your projection. I did respond to people wondering if it was going to sound just like an older P5. I don't know how you equated some sort of relation of older kit being superior or better sounding. Simply, different.

pflosi wrote:Well, what would you want to be updated?

Add a multi timbral mode, for example or at least a way to double or split the six voices.

In any case, there will be some hidden functions anyway, there is a global button for setting MIDI channels, etc.

I really like the design, but I would have prefered a small screen for naming patches. Having a purely number readout was O k when you only had a few storage slots, with hundreds one has to have a separate way to track what is stored where. One aspect of vintage I do not miss. Other than that, I am happy Dave brought back Sequential.