Dave Smith Instruments Pro 2

[JCJR]

Yeah the philosophy and prefs on various synth techs is real interesting and maybe deserves a separate topic. Maybe I could learn something, though it probably abuses this thread topic too much.

I suppose judging by my behavior, analog hardware doesn't rate high on my priorities. Wore out a bunch of analog synths in the dim past playing em nightly, but currently only own one lonely synth with analog filters, and none at all with analog oscillators. Guess if it was a high priority sound, I would still own one or more pure analog synths. Not that I'd refuse a matrix 12 if somebody wanted to give me one.

[SJ_Digriz]

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

?? I'm pretty sure several of us have given props to him for trying the hybrid approach and coming up with some great feature sets.

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

?? what does that have to do with the price of rice, and only vaguely true. In reality unless you have severe temperature change during use, the vast majority of quality older synths stay in tune pretty well.

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

What makes it a compromise? It's only good enough if it sounds good to me.

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

I guess I don't know what this means. I think of digital synths are largely Lo-Fi. And analog era synths are exactly the opposite of Lo-Fi, so clearly we have a definition/communication gap.

[janostman]

I think you know exactly what I mean?

You think that chopping up an analog signal, 44, 96 or even 192Ktimes per second is destroying it.
If that's not enough, even quantizing it from being perfectly analog to begin with.

Even I think playing a vinyl from time to time can be great fun.
And it has it's own charm.

But leaving a lot to be compared to digital audio?

An speaking of digital synthesizer, they cost nothing to develop compared to an analog one.
The knobs might cost the same on both but not the sound hardware.

That makes it possible to cram in alot more synth for the same money?

[tonkatodd]

I have a lot of respect for Dave Smith and his creations and discussion about new products are only natural among enthusiasts and potential customers. I think Dave Smith may even like the attention around his products. I could be wrong but I have always thought that Paraphonic was made for analog synths to compete in an emerging digital poly market so I find idea of a paraphonic dco synth to be kind of stupid so my question was if Dave created a full digital Prophet then he may not have to deal with the the two different hybrid elements compromising each other to work sufficiently together. That was my initial question because I never really hear users describe the P12 as warm or it's character importantly sounding analog, I mostly hear "harsh" in regards to the p12 and the character section adding to that but as some users here have pointed out that the p12 analog elements do ad to it's character and sound . I also think that maybe because they are so expensive that it kind places them on a pedestal and opens them up for critism. If it was $500 cheaper I would buy one no question.

[janostman]

And making it hybrid may take some of the harsh sound of a DCO, rounding it of and making it sound warmer.

It's like when you do bit reduction and purposely add noise to the signal

[SJ_Digriz]

I think you know exactly what I mean?

No, I still think you are misrepresenting the conversation.

You think that chopping up an analog signal, 44, 96 or even 192Ktimes per second is destroying it.
If that's not enough, even quantizing it from being perfectly analog to begin with.

Then how do explain my post where I said I have digital wavetable modules that I like, and that they don't exhibit the noise/sound that bothers me on the P-12? Or that I have VSTi (all digitial doing the chopping bit) that I don't have a problem with? You can't, because I never made the statement or even implied what you are saying.

What I do say is that I haven't found many digital hardware synths that I like. I've also said that I'm not sure exactly which piece of the architecture puts me off.

Ok, that's enough carping ...
I liked the demo sounds I heard on the Pro 2. I like CV in/out. I like the arp (although the features of it still seem a bit ambiguous). I like the delay.

So, I am very interested in this synth. And am hopeful I'll like it.

[ghettosynth]

Yeah the philosophy and prefs on various synth techs is real interesting and maybe deserves a separate topic. Maybe I could learn something, though it probably abuses this thread topic too much.

I suppose judging by my behavior, analog hardware doesn't rate high on my priorities. Wore out a bunch of analog synths in the dim past playing em nightly, but currently only own one lonely synth with analog filters, and none at all with analog oscillators. Guess if it was a high priority sound, I would still own one or more pure analog synths. Not that I'd refuse a matrix 12 if somebody wanted to give me one.

M12s are complex and powerful, no doubt, but they have quite a few limitations that, for me, at least, do not make them the poster child for what I'm talking about. I think that the most representative synths for that sound are probably the Rev 1/2 P5 and the Jupiter 8. Two analog VCOs and a fantastic lowpass filter. The other features make each model distinct but the commonality is what's important. The Jupiter 6 and the M12, in fact, virtually all polys with CEM based filters have a much more clinical sound, the M12 moreso than the JP6 (to clarify, the JP6 does not have a CEM filter, I'm simply lumping it in with the more clinical sounding synths). Don't get me wrong, the M12 filter is interesting enough, but it's no SSM2040.Take either aspect away, the VCOs, or the great filter, and you have lesser synths. The Juno 60 is a single DCO synth with essentially the same filter as the Jupiter 8, but it's much much less of a synth. Even the two DCO variant, the MKS-30, doesn't sound anywhere near as good. Add clinical filters and you get the Rev 3 P5.

It's not about revisiting the past as much as it is about producing great analog instruments.

[ghettosynth]

I think you know exactly what I mean?

You think that chopping up an analog signal, 44, 96 or even 192Ktimes per second is destroying it.
If that's not enough, even quantizing it from being perfectly analog to begin with.

You seem to have a very simple, in fact I would say trivial, understanding of why analogue matters in synths. I think that you're out of your depth.

Even I think playing a vinyl from time to time can be great fun.
And it has it's own charm.

The nature of vinyl has nothing to do with this. Analogue by itself isn't inherently better in all cases. This is why I'm critical of nonsense like "all analog signal path" because that simply isn't important. The analogue nature of synth components lends specific characteristics to those components. If we could so easily replicate those attributes then there would be no need for hardware at all. We can, in fact, do quite well. Well, by we, I mean some developers.

An speaking of digital synthesizer, they cost nothing to develop compared to an analog one.
The knobs might cost the same on both but not the sound hardware.
That makes it possible to cram in alot more synth for the same money?

Or a lot less synth, depending on your perspective.

[janostman]

Ok, end of discussion.
Since you weren't the target in the first place

[ghettosynth]

And making it hybrid may take some of the harsh sound of a DCO, rounding it of and making it sound warmer.

What makes you think that DCOs sound harsh? You are conveying that you don't understand the technology. DCOs, at least as far as any that have been implemented in mass produced synths for the last 30 years or so, have an analog integrator so their waveform is no more or less "harsh" than that of a VCO. That isn't what matters and that isn't why DCOs are not VCOs.

[janostman]

I was talking about DCOs that are DAC based, aka an algorithm spitting out numbers.

Not the Roland/Korg ones that are digital timer based and integrates the pulse into other waveforms.
Some even into a sinewave.

Those are not really digital.
They are a by definition analog and only timed by a digital timer.

[JCJR]

I also think that maybe because they are so expensive that it kind places them on a pedestal and opens them up for critism. If it was $500 cheaper I would buy one no question.

Well, according to the us gubment's bls inflation calculator, a $4000 street price for a prophet 5 in 1978 would be the same fiscal distress as dumping $14,595 for a prophet 5 today. Yet ordinary penniless working musicians were buying the thangs, so they must have wanted em real bad!

Tis doubtful that an all analog poly synth would have to cost $14,595 in 2014, but probably a bit spensive compared to hybrid or digital.

The prophet 5 I used most was an early rev owned by a studio I did some engineering at. We had to push the tune button about every hour at least. I got in a reflex habit of automatically pushing the tune button before every take, just to make sure. I liked it and would have liked to have one, except for the price, but thought it didn't have enough timbral variety, and a "soft" "feminine" "mellow" tone.

Would like to hands on revisit a lot of the old poly synths. I would at the time judge an axe as to whether it would pay for itself in playing commercial music people were willing to pay me to play. If it couldn't make a certain set of sounds I needed, maybe I didn't pay close enough attention to the other sounds an axe might have been good at, if they were sounds I didn't expect typical customers to tolerate at the time.

My memorymoog was lots worse to hold tune than the prophet. It was maddening. I wore out the screw holes taking that thing apart so much.

Yamaha cs-60 was real stable, never once had to tweak the oscillators, but I didn't care for the sound much. Have heard people make real pretty tracks with cs however. It just didn't sound fat enough to me.

About the only oberheims I would have paid the big bucks for, was the old four voices with SEM modules, but that would have been a nightmare to take on a commercial pop music gig.

For whatever reason, didn't get knocked out by roland such as super jupiter either, though people can make real sweet tracks with em. Maybe my ears were too narrow minded.

[ghettosynth]

I have a lot of respect for Dave Smith and his creations and discussion about new products are only natural among enthusiasts and potential customers. I think Dave Smith may even like the attention around his products. I could be wrong but I have always thought that Paraphonic was made for analog synths to compete in an emerging digital poly market so I find idea of a paraphonic dco synth to be kind of stupid .

Not exactly. In the past paraphonic was regularly used to meet a price point and still offer polyphony. This was true even when digital wasn't quite ready for prime time. The Korg poly800 was released in 1983 and had DCOs with a single filter. The Seil DK-80 came out in 1985 and was also a DCO synth with a single filter. The DX9 came out shortly after the DX7 but it was still $1400 whereas other analogs, particularly paraphonics, were much less. The Poly 800 was $799 retail.

In fact, DCO/DO synths, much moreso than VCO synths make sense as a paraphonic instrument. The reason is that the tone generators could often be implemented completely in LSI chips under digital control. Instead of having to drive 8 filters with a lot of cv demultiplexing, you only had to drive one.

Today, the reason is obvious. It's the same reason from the past, it's a selling point for a monosynth. One of the key differences between the Radio Shack MG-1 and the Moog Rogue is that the Radio Shack MG-1 has a simple "poly" section which is just a simple divide down organ tone generator that feeds into the filter. If you want to play chords, you can. Since the oscillators in many modern synths are digital, it's just software to generate a poly voice in place of a mono voice, and you then put it through the same filter.

[tonkatodd]

I also think that maybe because they are so expensive that it kind places them on a pedestal and opens them up for critism. If it was $500 cheaper I would buy one no question.

Well, according to the us gubment's bls inflation calculator, a $4000 street price for a prophet 5 in 1978 would be the same fiscal distress as dumping $14,595 for a prophet 5 today. Yet ordinary penniless working musicians were buying the thangs, so they must have wanted em real bad!

True compared to the market back then but the market is very different these days with the virtual market and very affordable products from Elektron and Waldorf etc. I think price these days don't necessarily reflect quality. I don't live in the United States but I think manufacturing is taking quite a hit. Many of the components from manufacturers from all over the world all come from the same factories and international distributors in China. I think the manufacturing conditions in the United States are very tough and I suspect mostly responsible for the prices of products made there currently.

[ghettosynth]

I was talking about DCOs that are DAC based, aka an algorithm spitting out numbers.

Those are digital oscillators, not DCOs.

Not the Roland/Korg ones that are digital timer based and integrates the pulse into other waveforms.
Some even into a sinewave.

Those are not really digital.
They are a by definition analog and only timed by a digital timer.

They are by definition, a DCO. They are, at best, a hybrid oscillator, they are not analog. The analog integrator does not "oscillate" without the help of the digital oscillator which can function completely without the integrator.

For the sake of discussion. I do not refer to digital oscillators as DCOs, they are Digital Oscillators. Neither does Dave Smith, the P2/P12 oscillators are not referred to as DCOs.

The Prophet 12's brand new hybrid voice has a digital front end followed by an all analog signal path output. Each voice has five high resolution digital oscillators,

DCO is really a misnomer that was probably chosen because it was similar to VCO but incorporated digital in a time when digital was not a dirty word. Regardless, it has come to mean something specific. Virtually all DCOs that are of interest here consist of a digital pulse generator followed by an analog integrator. There are minor variations on this theme, and there are a few more significant variants that could still be correctly called a DCO, but the essence of the definition is that it has components of an analog oscillator where voltage control of pitch has been replaced by digital control.