Dave Smith Instruments Pro 2

Anything about hardware musical instruments.
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

I can't help but wonder if the hybrid thing with the Prophet 12 and Pro 2 and to a lesser extent the Tempest actually hinder the instruments capabilities. If Dave Smith made just a digital synth and not worried about having to run them through analog filters then I wonder if he didn't have to bother with Paraphonic and specific voice architecture. The Prophet 12 is capable of some very interesting sounds but the digital oscillators and character section are quite overpowering to the overall sounds that come out of it. I wonder if he just made a digital synth then he could have polyphony and more variety of effects and routing and be able to make it cheaper. I think that the modulations running at audio rate levels will probably not be as proficient with a full digital synth but it wouldn't be two different elements limiting each other trying to get along. Am I barking up the wrong tree here? My analog filters on the synths I already own sound nice but are they that important to the Prophets sound or does it still just end up sounding digital anyway.

Post

tonkatodd wrote:The Prophet 12 is capable of some very interesting sounds but the digital oscillators and character section are quite overpowering to the overall sounds that come out of it. I wonder if he just made a digital synth then he could have polyphony and more variety of effects and routing and be able to make it cheaper. I think that the modulations running at audio rate levels will probably not be as proficient with a full digital synth but it wouldn't be two different elements limiting each other trying to get along. Am I barking up the wrong tree here? My analog filters on the synths I already own sound nice but are they that important to the Prophets sound or does it still just end up sounding digital anyway.
The Prophet 12 can sound lovely when you are pushing the filters and feedback... then it is offering something you would not get with an all digital synth. If the Prophet 12 had the same filters as the new Pro 2, it would get tempting then!

Post

tonkatodd wrote:
The Prophet 12 is capable of some very interesting sounds but the digital oscillators and character section are quite overpowering to the overall sounds that come out of it. I wonder if he just made a digital synth then he could have polyphony and more variety of effects and routing and be able to make it cheaper. I think that the modulations running at audio rate levels will probably not be as proficient with a full digital synth but it wouldn't be two different elements limiting each other trying to get along. Am I barking up the wrong tree here? My analog filters on the synths I already own sound nice but are they that important to the Prophets sound or does it still just end up sounding digital anyway.
Dunno. I have an old ESQ-1 with incredibly crude digital wavetable oscillators driving analog filters, 8 voice, three osc per voice. If you WANT to make it sound bad, it can be set so as to expose the drop-sample transposition digital oscillators in a very ugly fashion. OTOH it sounds great on what its good at. ESQ will make most classes of analog sounds I care about, has quite a flexible mod routing capability, especially for the era.

The editing process is button and menu driven, but edits real fast and easy, easy to dial in sounds. Dusted off the old ESQ and played it last winter. The ESQ did osc's, EG's, LFO's all in digital. The digital was a slow cpu driving custom digital audio chips, which also had very poor processing power compared to nowadays. The ESQ filters are curtis chips.

Dave's stuff has lots more high-quality dsp generating his oscillators. Crazy higher resolution and processing cycles than in the old days. Saw a youtube video of a guy disassembling a prophet 12. That sucker had a bunch of sharc dsp's in there, looked like one per each two analog voices. The po old ESQ had a 68K or worse processor driving something like an early-era Q chip (ensoniq's custom sampler chip that was also sold into the industry for various thangs).

Dunno nothin about the quality or lack thereof on dave's digital oscillators. Would have to play the gadget awhile to decide. There certainly ought to be enough processing power in his boxes to git er done, considering that manufacturers were getting it done pretty good long ago with pitiful cpu's even slower than what you would put in a toaster oven nowadays. Dave was one of the first guys to do it!

Am curious whether folks who don't like the prophet 12 oscillators, also can't stand the early hybrids which used incredibly crude digital oscillators?

Post

JCJR wrote: Am curious whether folks who don't like the prophet 12 oscillators, also can't stand the early hybrids which used incredibly crude digital oscillators?
I've said a couple of times I'm not certain it's the oscillators that is responsible for the irritating overall sound. It's the easiest thing to point to, but I have a large quantity of all analog gear and I have a few filters that suck monkey nuts too. I have an EG that somehow bleeds distortion on the falling edge of the decay. etc ... etc..
So, simply blaming the oscillators is probably wrong.

On the point of early hybrids. I despise the sound of the DX series. 80s syntho pop and elevator jazz which was dominated by the DXish synths and clones is an eartastrophy in my book. The ESQ series sounds like someone sanding a car using a western scale. :P 99% of the synth oriented dance music is unlistenable BECAUSE of the super saw sound, not because of the rudimentary musical content and repetitive beat structure. It's like someone is jamming an ice pick in my ear hole.

Those are clearly my opinions, not facts (other than my dislike, which is a fact). But, I know I'm not alone in disliking hybrids so far. Even the later OBx lost their sonic way. However, I can't deny the advantages from a player/performing viewpoint. One day One day :borg:
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer

Post

Thanks SJ_Digriz for the interesting ideas. I'm way too lazy to drive to atlanta or nashville to play either the 12 or 2. Youtube videos don't seem real helpful, to my limited tastes. Am just idly curious.

Demo patches on videos are often sounds I wouldn't use. Martian chainsaws, high q filter sweeps, sync sweeps, ring mod bells from hell, or whatever they call that ultra bright octave doubled chord patch, which by statute must be present in all modern pop euro disco songs? Is that the super saw?

Difficult to judge what other tricks it might be capable of.

If a new affordable high quality analog sounding axe was on the drawing board, regardless whether analog, hybrid, va-- If it was your job to define the spec-- What sonic character of a past classic would make your ear perceive high quality? Oberheim as you earlier mentioned? Or some other brand/model? Tis not a trick question. Genuinely curious.

Post

JCJR wrote:-- If it was your job to define the spec-- What sonic character of a past classic would make your ear perceive high quality? Oberheim as you earlier mentioned? Or some other brand/model? Tis not a trick question. Genuinely curious.
Interesting question ... I have a Voyager that I love. I have a modular with 6 or 7 different oscillators, and quite a few filters. I even think the VCAs have quite a bit to do with the overall sound. I think SEMs sounds great. The 2600 sounds great. The Roland 100 series sound great. The original prophet could sound great, but was usually played terribly shrill. Basically if you see that multiple VSTi devs have spent a lot of time trying to emulate a synth, then I probably liked what its source sound was like.

However, all of the above need a proper signal chain to sound good. I never really liked the old Rolands until I heard one played through a McIntosh Stereo Amplifier and full range speakers. Then it was awesome.How many times have you had a great sound in headphones but when trying to record that sound it doesn't sound/work right? This gets even harder because what sounds good stand alone can sound terrible when recorded with other instruments and vice versa.

So, sonic character ... hmmmmm
1) No extraneous oscillator "noise". The P-12 has a hiss & grain that is always present. You can turn the rest of the signal chain off and just play a wave form and there is a 'halo' around the sound. I do that with my modular oscillators (I even have a digital wave scanning one) and that is not the case. Again, I'm blaming the oscillators, but it is possible that it is the VCA, digital shaping or EG stages doing it based on the signal path that can't be completely eliminated. So, whatever is adding that needs to quit it.

2) Digitial VCAs (I suppose solid state really) on synths seem to lean towards over brightness. Although the truth is they probably don't under represent the ultra highs like the roll-off you get from circuit or tube based amplifiers. Most old school VCAs worked on attenuation principles, not amplification. It seems to me that hybrids work the other way round and that high output = not pleasant. So potentially I prefer the output from a attenuation architecture and should figure out how to get the same results from a amplifying architecture.

3) Digital Noise Shaping typically sounds like shit. For example whenever Dave Smith demos the Earth and Air knobs, I want him to immediately quit twisting those knobs.

As always, there are guys than can great sound from pretty much anything. These are all just gross over simplifications. There's probably someone somewhere playing a sonata on a modified vacuum cleaner that sounds tremendous.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer

Post

I think it's important to restate that I don't think there is anything inherently "wrong" or bad about the P-12 and potentially the P-2 (can't really comment without playing it). It's 100% a taste issue. I would never buy an ESQ-1 for example or re-buy a DX-7. That doesn't make those good or bad synths. I just don't like the way they sound when I'm playing them.

From a feature standpoint the hardware synth world is merging with the convenience of the virtual world. You can argue if it is happening fast enough, but there is no denying that the P-12, Mopho SE and coming P2 have tremendous hands on feature sets that we could only dream about on our legacy gear.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer

Post

SJ_Digriz wrote:
JCJR wrote:-- If it was your job to define the spec-- What sonic character of a past classic would make your ear perceive high quality? Oberheim as you earlier mentioned? Or some other brand/model? Tis not a trick question. Genuinely curious.
The original prophet could sound great, but was usually played terribly shrill.
To clarify, for those that don't know, there are two distinct sounds of the "original prophet." The first and second revs used SSM chips with the incomparable 2040 based filter. The rev three prophets, which are by far the most common variant, used CEM based chips with a filter based on the CEM 3320. This difference is significant and the synths do not sound the same. Quite a few people think that the reputation was built on the sound of the original rev 1/2 models, but, artists primarily used rev 3s live because they were SO much more reliable.

The CEM models do, in fact, sound less "warm" and more "shrill" than the SSM based models.

Now with respect to this thread, the question becomes, is the P2 filter based on the SSM2040, or the CEM3320. Neither chip is available in quantity today, and, Dave states that the filter is "new" so this suggests that he's not using the PA397, also a CEM chip.

If the former, then that is exciting. I would like to have a poly with a filter cloned from the SSM2040. Yes, I get the P2 isn't a poly, I mean that there is a greater chance that a future poly will be based on this filter. In fact, I think a lot of people would pay for a redesigned P5 using surface mount clones of the SSM designs and an updated CPU. I don't even think that five voices is a limitation. It wouldn't be for me. Not going with analog voices would be, however, and I don't mean this "all analog signal path" bullshit which doesn't mean anything that matters. I mean true analog VCOs.

With respect to the SSM2040, there are several successful clone designs in existence today. I have exactly one synth with an original, an Octave Cat. I'm looking forward to playing the P2 in order to evaluate the sound of this "new" filter. I'm fairly certain that the P12 contains the PA397 as it's filter chip, even though they don't use the chips DCOs.

Post

http://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/viewto ... ?p=1596745


Sounds fcking amazing as far as I'm concerned.

Post

ghettosynth wrote:I don't even think that five voices is a limitation. It wouldn't be for me. Not going with analog voices would be, however, and I don't mean this "all analog signal path" bullshit which doesn't mean anything that matters. I mean true analog VCOs.
Your reminder about the early revisions of the prophet are dead on. But, I'm not sure I follow what you are trying to say in the last sentence above? Are you suggesting that you really want nothing but analog VCOs? If so, I'm not sure I totally agree. There are enough great sounding boxes out there with DCOs, wavetable modules and even VSTi to convince me that 100% analog VCOs are not required to get where we want to go. But, maybe that isn't what you meant.
With respect to the SSM2040, there are several successful clone designs in existence today. I have exactly one synth with an original, an Octave Cat. I'm looking forward to playing the P2 in order to evaluate the sound of this "new" filter. I'm fairly certain that the P12 contains the PA397 as it's filter chip, even though they don't use the chips DCOs.
Agreed ... I'm also looking forward to giving it a spin.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer

Post

SJ_Digriz wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:I don't even think that five voices is a limitation. It wouldn't be for me. Not going with analog voices would be, however, and I don't mean this "all analog signal path" bullshit which doesn't mean anything that matters. I mean true analog VCOs.
Your reminder about the early revisions of the prophet are dead on. But, I'm not sure I follow what you are trying to say in the last sentence above? Are you suggesting that you really want nothing but analog VCOs? If so, I'm not sure I totally agree. There are enough great sounding boxes out there with DCOs, wavetable modules and even VSTi to convince me that 100% analog VCOs are not required to get where we want to go. But, maybe that isn't what you meant.
Let's differentiate here, we != me. So, maybe you don't need 100% analogue VCOs in an analogue poly, but for me, I don't need any more DCO synths. I have a rack full and the market has been littered with them ever since they became dominant in the mid eighties.

As I said "five voices wouldn't be a limitation for me but not going with analog voices would be ( a limitation for me.)

I'm not looking to buy average analogue synthesizers. I have plenty of those, further, I think that plugins have that ground fairly well covered. I don't like DSI DCO synths and, in particular, I don't like the PA397. It is, in essence, a CEM3396. I view the P08 as largely a Matrix 6 with knobs and a few extra tricks.

I don't need any hardware with digital oscillators either. At one point that had value to me, I still have my Nord G1 and I got a lot of use out of it. Today, if I want digital oscillators, I'll take them in software.

Maybe the sound that you don't like in the P12 relates to pumping signals through the PA397 that aren't its internal oscillators? The detail of how this is done is in the 3396 datasheet.

At any rate, for me, what makes an analogue poly great, beyond the design in general, is high quality VCO/VCF/VCA chain. Even if I like the sound of DCOs for some applications, I don't need polys with them and I won't respect any attempt at "reissue" that doesn't capture this basic aspect of the vintage analogue poly. I do think that there's something to more than one analogue VCO per voice in a polysynth that we have not quite captured with digital oscillators or DCOs. YMMV.

I will compromise on envelopes because I don't think that analogue EGs are worth the cost today and software EGs have been with us since the early eighties. The Jupiter 6 sounds great and it has software EGs.

So, yes, what "I" want to see is homage to the traditional two oscillator analogue poly with no real compromises in the signal chain. The point of my post is that 8 or 12 such voices would be cost prohibitive and I don't think that we need to go there. The need for analog polyphony today is not what it was in the 80s when there was no other choice. Five voices is probably too stingy, but, I think that Dave could get away with it because that's what the original P5 had and I think that it's better to release a true analogue poly that is in the "affordable for middle class nerds" range than it is to release something that competes with the likes of the M12 or the Andromeda. So, no, I won't spend thousands of dollars on a new poly that doesn't have analogue VCOs. I won't spend that money on a new DCO/DO synth, it's much more likely that I'd spend the same money on vintage hardware instead.

Post

EvilDragon wrote:http://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/viewto ... ?p=1596745


Sounds fcking amazing as far as I'm concerned.
I must say the rrich demo sounds do sound great for the most part. I don't hear that same level of squishyness and fuzz in all the sounds.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer

Post

Why do some of you guys peck on Dave for wanting to do something new and not build a 100year old synths anymore?

Heck, they even have a hard time staying in tune when staying in one piece.

He did a compromise and kept the analog filters.
But not even that is good for you?

Why?
The sound just about as Lo-Fi as they ever did in the analog era?

He only put them there so that you would buy the synth.
They are easier put on the dsp itself, digital and belong on a backyard sale?
___________________________________________________
Developer and proud owner of http://www.dspsynth.eu

Post

janostman wrote:Why do some of you guys peck on Dave for wanting to do something new and not build a 100year old synths anymore?
Dude, don't simplify my criticism like that. Dave is using a chip that was designed in the mid 80s. The P08 isn't "new", it's a rehash of a basic two DCO synth from the eighties with knobs.
Heck, they even have a hard time staying in tune when staying in one piece.
No they don't, if yours do, then they're either broken or out of calibration. Mine stay in tune just fine.
He did a compromise and kept the analog filters.
But not even that is good for you?
Nope, it's not.
Why?
The sound just about as Lo-Fi as they ever did in the analog era?
LoFi isn't the goal man, if you can't hear the difference, then use whatever you like.

Why do some of you get so upset that others are critical of a product? It's not "your" product. Why so much ownership in something that you had nothing to do with? I think that Dave Smith makes great products. I just happen to also think that they're average synthesizers. I'm only interested in great synthesizers. If all you own is shit, then they're a step up for you, for me, they're a meh.

So far I like the Pro 2 for what it is. I think that it's moving in the right direction and I'd like to see more growth from DSI in that area. It's the first synth of his since the P08 that I want to put my hands on and play with. Depending on actual street price, and filter implementation, I would consider one as a new centerpiece of my monophonic setup because the cv i/o and sequencer sound useful in that context. That said, I'm not interested in the P12 or any of his current poly offerings. I just don't have a need for polysynths with digital oscillators or DCOs, if you do, well you have some to choose from, but don't project your needs onto others. I've been buying and selling analogues for a long time and I'm quite happy with what I have currently and I'm not interested in adding just anything to my setup.

I have quite a few "new" synths and I like them very much. You weren't paying attention. I like digital synths, I just don't need them in hardware. I'm really enjoying Bazille right now, I don't need that in a box, it runs fine in my computer. If you want to buy an underpowered computer in an overpriced box, knock yourself out. I'm only willing to shell out for analogue engineering myself, and that's my prerogative.

Post

You're not one of those pecking picky guys.
But you replied :)

I just think that those old synths are fine just as is.
if you find one then cherish it and be happy.

New synth aren't meant to be like those.
They are meant to be something new.

You don't make a Stradivarius Mk-II with nice LED's on it.
Your happy to find an original old one.
___________________________________________________
Developer and proud owner of http://www.dspsynth.eu

Post Reply

Return to “Hardware (Instruments and Effects)”