Sequential Prophet 6 !!! NAMM 2015

[Shy]

If I remember right, when he came out with the Evolver synths, the entire path was converted before it got to the output.

With the P06, if we're talking about a mixer stage where the DSP effects signal is mixed in, then the pure analog signal path is always there, If you don't mix in the effects, you get a straight analog path.

An amazing concept (although it's still not a straight analog path). Edit: I guess there's no practical / marketable way to design a hybrid synth like Evolver with a way to bypass the A/D D/A when only DCOs are used, so it's forgivable.

I give a shit about people misleading others.

Well, it seems that Dave Smith is not misleading anybody. By-pass the digital effects and you get fully analog signal path.

Na, Dave Smith IS misleading you. It's still not really a fully analog signal path, because within that path, there are digital to analog converters passing signals that fundamentally effect the sound, including the envelope generator and low frequency oscillator signals. There is no modern mass-produced polyphonic synth with a fully analog signal path.

[lfm]

But if analog filters are there - it got to be something else than digital emulations.
It felt more digital TBH - not quite the fluffy feel of analog.

But he said true analog signal path, so, I must be wrong.

It's VCOs through analog LPF and HPF, all discrete circuits. The effects are digital (and I believe the envelopes and LFO as well), but the actual signal chain is 100% analog. The slop feature is there so you can reduce the auto tuning if you want more drift. But stable VCOs are a good thing in a polysynth.

You need digital to some part to save as presets obviously - digital with D/A to supply a voltage to control whatever. But one really wishes for actuall filters to be analog. When getting resonances and slopes through analog - to really capture and trace that down to math - not sure it's done yet.

I remember liking the idea of Prophet VS - that you can swap the joystick around and get something unexpected - something unique. I guess that is what you want with analog - the little unexpected sweet spot in there.

I guess user demos on YT will tell eventually on P6 what it can do....

[ghettosynth]

But if analog filters are there - it got to be something else than digital emulations.
It felt more digital TBH - not quite the fluffy feel of analog.

But he said true analog signal path, so, I must be wrong.

It's VCOs through analog LPF and HPF, all discrete circuits. The effects are digital (and I believe the envelopes and LFO as well), but the actual signal chain is 100% analog. The slop feature is there so you can reduce the auto tuning if you want more drift. But stable VCOs are a good thing in a polysynth.

You need digital to some part to save as presets obviously - digital with D/A to supply a voltage to control whatever. But one really wishes for actuall filters to be analog. When getting resonances and slopes through analog - to really capture and trace that down to math - not sure it's done yet.

It's generally accepted that modulators aren't on the "signal path." Once you start talking about presets, there really are virtually no purely analog polysynths. Even without presets, it's hard to build a polysynth without digital technology, monos, yes, but the only truly polyphonic pure analog synths are those similar in architecture to the Novachord.

Dave addressed what I think are the two major sticking points with this synth and I think that it's going to be a real winner. By adding VCOs and moving away from the CEM based filter to a variant of the original SSM I think that this has a chance of being a new classic. I haven't wanted a new analog in years, I might sell some vintage gear to get one of these.

[himalaya]

Na, Dave Smith IS misleading you. It's still not really a fully analog signal path, because within that path, there are digital to analog converters passing signals that fundamentally effect the sound, including the envelope generator and low frequency oscillator signals. There is no modern mass-produced polyphonic synth with a fully analog signal path.

So you are stating that the software envelopes and LFOs (if that's what they are) as implemented in P6 "fundamentally" affect the analog sound coming from the VCOs, VCFs etc... ? If the difference is that big, it can be perceived by all. What would you describe this fundamental difference to be ?

[Shy]

Envelope and LFO signals are fundamental in synths and effect most aspects of the sound, including pitch, amplitude and bandwidth. That's not arguable. Whatever anyone thinks about the difference, or lack of, in sound character between analog and digital envelopes and low frequency oscillators is irrelevant. The signals are generated in the digital domain and get converted by digital to analog converters in the signal path, which means that the signal path is absolutely not "fully analog". If you think Dave Smith is not misleading you, that's fine, but he is.

[Lotuzia]

Envelope and LFO signals are fundamental in synths and effect most aspects of the sound, including pitch, amplitude and bandwidth. That's not arguable. Whatever anyone thinks about the difference, or lack of, in sound character between analog and digital envelopes and low frequency oscillators is irrelevant. The signals are generated in the digital domain and get converted by digital to analog converters in the signal path, which means that the signal path is absolutely not "fully analog". If you think Dave Smith is not misleading you, that's fine, but he is.

Yep. JP8 osc behaving as LFO might be a basic and good example. Used in a lot of classic patches.

[himalaya]

Envelope and LFO signals are fundamental in synths and effect most aspects of the sound, including pitch, amplitude and bandwidth. That's not arguable. Whatever anyone thinks about the difference, or lack of, in sound character between analog and digital envelopes and low frequency oscillators is irrelevant. The signals are generated in the digital domain and get converted by digital to analog converters in the signal path, which means that the signal path is absolutely not "fully analog". If you think Dave Smith is not misleading you, that's fine, but he is.

That envelopes and LFOs are fundamental in synths is very true, they modulate the sound, and even add harmonics (audio rate LFOs). They can fundamentally transform the sound. Sure. This is 101 of synthesis, right? But, the general feeling from your posts is that even if the envelopes and LFOs are digital in P6 they "fundamentally" affect the sound in a negative way, taking away from the pure VCO+VCF+VCA sound? If this is so, what is this fundamental negative effect that you perceive?

[sqigls]

All over my face.

Time to sell that kidney.

you funny bastard, so true

[Shy]

himalaya, no offense but I'm not interested in anyone's general feeling they get from my posts on this thread, but only in possibly helping people to not be misled. I'm not interested in discussing what people think about "analog vs digital" or what is "better", because it just doesn't interest me. Analog as well as digital implementations vary widely, and people should decide on their own what works for them, but when they're told they're using one type of synth (one with "a fully analog signal path") when they're really not (far from it), it not only prevents them from knowing what they're comparing to what, it can prevent them from finding an instrument that would give them significantly different results.

By the way, I should mention that I'm not totally sure about Prophet 6 (no clear info yet), but the "full analog signal path" bullshit is in the description of Prophet 08, Mopho and Tetra, at least, and they definitely don't have fully analog signal paths. Not that it prevented me from getting a Tetra, but unlike most Tetra users, who think they got "a real analog synth" when they talk about it or write about it online, I actually knew exactly what I was getting.

[SLiC]

himalaya, no offense but I'm not interested in anyone's general feeling they get from my posts on this thread, but only in possibly helping people to not be misled. I'm not interested in discussing what people think about "analog vs digital" or what is "better", because it just doesn't interest me. Analog as well as digital implementations vary widely, and people should decide on their own what works for them, but when they're told they're using one type of synth (one with "a fully analog signal path") when they're really not (far from it), it not only prevents them from knowing what they're comparing to what, it can prevent them from finding an instrument that would give them significantly different results.

By the way, I should mention that I'm not totally sure about Prophet 6 (no clear info yet), but the "full analog signal path" bullshit is in the description of Prophet 08, Mopho and Tetra, at least, and they definitely don't have fully analog signal paths. Not that it prevented me from getting a Tetra, but unlike most Tetra users, who think they got "a real analog synth" when they talk about it or write about it online, I actually knew exactly what I was getting.

All the technical symantics make my brain hurt, I buy things based on a simple formula of 'how it sounds' multipled by 'how cool it looks' minus 'cost'

[Shy]

Consider omitting the "how it looks", because some of the best synths ever look terrible .

[Aiynzahev]

I think the practical reality though, Shy, is that most people are probably on the same page as DSI about this description.

I and many others are perfectly happy to to say this kind of configuration "contains" a pure analog signal path and can be configured to be. The simple requirement is that the source is delivered to the output without A/D D/A. LFO's & Envelopes are not in the signal path.

I honestly thought DSI's description of the Pro-2 was misleading. But this one seems perfectly level.

If you're talking about a fully analog signal path throughout the entire synth, sure, no way, but I think the vast majority of us are thinking merely about the 2 analog outs on the back of the synth.

[Shy]

Well, if that extremely limited scenario in which the signal path is "virtually purely analog" (this is getting really funny) is enough for some people to think that the description is not misleading, what can I say? I just don't think that's how people would really see it, I think most people are just utterly misled by DSI, based on countless comments I've seen.

[JCJR]

Processors can easily make numerous high quality lfo and envelope control voltages. Even rather old slow processors. Some of my favorite analog path polysynths in the good old days had software envelopes and lfos, rather than rank on rank of analog lfo and envelope circuits, controlled by voltages generated by the processor.

Unless the processor is stupid slow, if the processor has to have all those multiplexed voltage outputs anyway, to control analog lfo and envelope circuits, just eliminate the analog lfo and envelope and let the processor make just as nice control voltages direct thru the multiplexed cv outputs.

If soft control circuits make an analog polysynth ineligible for consideration, then several very nice polysynths of yesteryear would have to be removed from consideration.

[Aiynzahev]

Well, if that extremely limited scenario in which the signal path is "virtually purely analog" (this is getting really funny) is enough for some people to think that the description is not misleading, what can I say? I just don't think that's how people would really see it, I think most people are just utterly misled by DSI, based on countless comments I've seen.

Maybe we're not seeing eye to eye on what the word pure means in this case?

I am now far more interested in figuring out how you're looking at this than I am the actual issue. I just can't see it from your perspective and I don't know why.