Why? I'm a fan of the Prophet 5, but not everyone is.egbert101 wrote:Sir, may I suggest a few cotton budszenophilix wrote: Because not everyone shares your exact point of view on things.
Bazille - most misunderstood synth?
-
- KVRian
- 782 posts since 21 Apr, 2016
Nobody, Ever wrote:I have enough plugins.
-
- KVRAF
- 16725 posts since 13 Oct, 2009
I'm not sure why you're excited by that video, it's a pretty bad presentation of a P5. But, let's not mince words, we aren't talking about an actual P5, are we? We're talking about an emulation of one. So, when we ask that question of whether or not an emulation is interesting we don't just have to compare it to other emulations of the same thing, we have to compare it to other similar modern softsynths.egbert101 wrote:How can anyone think this is not an interesting synth?
Pure analogue warmth and bliss.
I've owned a genuine P5 rev 3.3. I still have the poly sequencer. I sold it because, as analogs go, while awesome, it isn't more awesome "to me" than other analog polys. That doesn't mean that it's uninteresting, but, that, again, "to me", when considering whether to pay a lot of money for an analog synth is't fair to consider what other analog synths that I might like more.
If were to own a P5 again it would have to be a rev 1/2 because, to my ears, the SSM2040 makes for one of the best filters ever made.
But we're not talking about owning a P5, we're talking about owning a software P5. When we start talking about software we no longer have to be limited to the same things that the original was limited to. So, to the extent that a software P5 could sound like "awesome analog goodness", so can many other synths. For example, Diva! Moreover, we get more interesting synths than the P5 simply because we don't have the same hardware limitations.
Now, I'm not a super fan of the CEM3320. In fact, I sold pretty much all of my hardware synths that had a CEM3320, P5, OBXA, OBXS. I was even hesitant to pick up Repro-1 because of this, but Repro-1 is a monosynth and I think that tone works well enough in some mono contexts. But, if I don't really want an analog poly with a 3320, why would I want a clone of an analog poly with a clone of a 3320? I'd rather have a clone of polys that I do like, oh wait, I already have that, it's Diva.
I'm not really into emulations. get that some people want them because they're nostalgic for the past, but the only thing that I want from old synths is models of their various components. I'd much rather see Urs put the CEM3320 in Diva and then spend time building an SSM2040 model for Diva. Hell, put in something else and call it Grand Diva, I'll even pay for it.
So no, I'm not the least bit excited about a P5 emulation.
-
- KVRist
- 238 posts since 3 Apr, 2016
I owned a Pro-5 Rev2 and Rev3 in the past, and they are certainly classic synths, but they are not really what I'm interested in. I'm much more interested in new stuff, instead of trying to sound like 1970 all the time, so emulations aren't exactly my cup of tea.
That's why I like Bazille, it allows me to discover new sounds. I like Zebra for the very same reason. I hope Zebra 3 won't focus too much on analog emulation.
It's really weird to me that the latest technology in DSP is mainly used to emulate sounds from the past, instead of trying to take advantage of the possibilities that come with it.
I realize emulations are what the people want, though.
That's why I like Bazille, it allows me to discover new sounds. I like Zebra for the very same reason. I hope Zebra 3 won't focus too much on analog emulation.
It's really weird to me that the latest technology in DSP is mainly used to emulate sounds from the past, instead of trying to take advantage of the possibilities that come with it.
I realize emulations are what the people want, though.
-
- KVRian
- 969 posts since 5 Sep, 2014 from Heaven
Repro-1 isn't just an emulation. Most of the sounds I have made with it could not have been made with a Pro One in the 80's. A lot of very wild sounds too - stuff Bazille can't do either. Repro is pretty incredible.
As for the P5 emu, for sure Urs knows the SSM2040 is the best filter so for sure that's what we will get in the P5 emu. But as Urs mentioned, William is working on the P5 so direct all your P5 requests to William. I don't want anything distracting Urs from precious Zebra.
As for the P5 emu, for sure Urs knows the SSM2040 is the best filter so for sure that's what we will get in the P5 emu. But as Urs mentioned, William is working on the P5 so direct all your P5 requests to William. I don't want anything distracting Urs from precious Zebra.
M O N O S Y N T H S F O R E V E R -
- u-he
- 30180 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
Software is an incremental process. It (hopefully) gets better over time.
If we release a polyphonic installment of the Repro line, it's mostly that: A polyphonic version of Repro-1. We'd do so because it's by far the most requested feature (more reasons below). We'd furthermore have to strip it down to ease CPU, namely the feedback modulation options of the 2nd oscillator. What we then have is essentially the architecture of a Prophet-5, for which we'd throw in the otherwise missing noise modulator.
If you look carefully, Repro-1 already has a "P-5" oscillator preset. Hence sound wise - neglecting few differences in modulation options - Repro-1 already has a built-in equivalent of the Prophet-5 Rev 3.x. That's simply because the resistance network of the oscillator waveform mixing is the main sonic difference between Pro-One and Prophet-5. Who would have thought!
That'll be the second incremental step in which Repro-1 will improve, after it evolved from Repro-Alpha. We hope we can do this within less than a year and at moderate cost. It should be doable, the effort goes mostly into designing the voice logic, which we need anyway. Background: Repro-1 uses a new event scheduling method which we designed as remedy for flaws in our existing voice architecture. If we would like to take advantage of this in our other synths, we need to expand this into a poly model. There you go. Making a polyphonic Repro-1 is closely entangled with improvements for Bazille, Zebra, Hive, Diva and ACE. It's definitely something we need to do for Zebra3 anyway. I call it a "low hanging fruit".
Thence, yes, I do own SSM 2040s and I do have access to at least one Prophet-5 rev 2. At some point we'll spend a few days figuring out if the difference is worth the investment into such a project. I judge those things quite unemotionally. Like, when we decided not to add a full OB-X emulation to Diva simply because the oscillators wouldn't have expanded Diva's sonic capabilities enogh to warrant the effort and added complexity.
Anyhow, my feeling is we'll have a Bazille feature update before there'd ever be an emu of the Prophet-5 rev 2 by us. Don't expect any of this to happen in 2017.
If we release a polyphonic installment of the Repro line, it's mostly that: A polyphonic version of Repro-1. We'd do so because it's by far the most requested feature (more reasons below). We'd furthermore have to strip it down to ease CPU, namely the feedback modulation options of the 2nd oscillator. What we then have is essentially the architecture of a Prophet-5, for which we'd throw in the otherwise missing noise modulator.
If you look carefully, Repro-1 already has a "P-5" oscillator preset. Hence sound wise - neglecting few differences in modulation options - Repro-1 already has a built-in equivalent of the Prophet-5 Rev 3.x. That's simply because the resistance network of the oscillator waveform mixing is the main sonic difference between Pro-One and Prophet-5. Who would have thought!
That'll be the second incremental step in which Repro-1 will improve, after it evolved from Repro-Alpha. We hope we can do this within less than a year and at moderate cost. It should be doable, the effort goes mostly into designing the voice logic, which we need anyway. Background: Repro-1 uses a new event scheduling method which we designed as remedy for flaws in our existing voice architecture. If we would like to take advantage of this in our other synths, we need to expand this into a poly model. There you go. Making a polyphonic Repro-1 is closely entangled with improvements for Bazille, Zebra, Hive, Diva and ACE. It's definitely something we need to do for Zebra3 anyway. I call it a "low hanging fruit".
Thence, yes, I do own SSM 2040s and I do have access to at least one Prophet-5 rev 2. At some point we'll spend a few days figuring out if the difference is worth the investment into such a project. I judge those things quite unemotionally. Like, when we decided not to add a full OB-X emulation to Diva simply because the oscillators wouldn't have expanded Diva's sonic capabilities enogh to warrant the effort and added complexity.
Anyhow, my feeling is we'll have a Bazille feature update before there'd ever be an emu of the Prophet-5 rev 2 by us. Don't expect any of this to happen in 2017.
-
- KVRAF
- 16725 posts since 13 Oct, 2009
Which is what I'd expect. To be clear, my laments over filter choice are not a feature request. I only mentioned that to say that if you are working on a 2040 filter, that it would interest me. I'd still rather see it in Diva than have a P5 clone. However, I know that people like emus so, while I most likely wouldn't buy a poly repro-1, I hope that you get rich selling it so that you can keep working on the interesting things.Urs wrote: If we release a polyphonic installment of the Repro line, it's mostly that: A polyphonic version of Repro-1.
I'm not surprised by this, the filters oscillators, and final VCA are pretty much identical and only inches, if that, away from the datasheet reference design. The only thing that's really forced a bit to be dramatically different in a poly variant is that you have to replace the mechanical waveform selection switches to, in this case, cmos switches which then impacts the overall mixer design.That's simply because the resistance network of the oscillator waveform mixing is the main sonic difference between Pro-One and Prophet-5. Who would have thought!
Awesome. Have you had any thoughts on more advance envelopes in a future variant of Bazille? For me, two stage decay is an important aspect of many FM sounds that I don't find easy to replicate cleanly in Bazille.Anyhow, my feeling is we'll have a Bazille feature update before there'd ever be an emu of the Prophet-5 rev 2 by us. Don't expect any of this to happen in 2017.
-
- KVRAF
- 5851 posts since 9 Jul, 2002 from Helsinki
This <3NerdMcBoon wrote:I owned a Pro-5 Rev2 and Rev3 in the past, and they are certainly classic synths, but they are not really what I'm interested in. I'm much more interested in new stuff, instead of trying to sound like 1970 all the time, so emulations aren't exactly my cup of tea.
That's why I like Bazille, it allows me to discover new sounds. I like Zebra for the very same reason. I hope Zebra 3 won't focus too much on analog emulation.
It's really weird to me that the latest technology in DSP is mainly used to emulate sounds from the past, instead of trying to take advantage of the possibilities that come with it.
I realize emulations are what the people want, though.
It's awkward that something as boring as a digital copy of some old synth is even discussed in a Bazille thread.
-
- KVRAF
- 16725 posts since 13 Oct, 2009
Non-sequitur much? If you don't get from this thread that Bazille is misunderstood then I don't know what will convince you.egbert101 wrote:What I've tried to point out is that it's not that Bazille is misunderstood, but that the very reason why such projects as Bazille even exist is because of old boring analogue synthesizers in the first place (or music made by them)..jon wrote: It's awkward that something as boring as a digital copy of some old synth is even discussed in a Bazille thread.
I'm sure that you can generate this in spades in a thread of its very own.I was just trying to generate a bit of passion for the old boring Prophet 5
-
- u-he
- 30180 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
-
- KVRAF
- 4751 posts since 22 Nov, 2012
Creating new instruments is what needs to happen to take advantage of what we have been given in today's hardware. Creating new instruments yesterday is why we buy emulations today. The difference is often that yesterday's instruments were made because they had georgious tonality while today's instruments aften lack that musical nature and character.
I love the idea of making future classics, but in order to do that you have to discover what makes something sound musical. I think that's what I really appreciate about U-he. That discovery process. Bazille may be the most advanced pure synthesis engine I know of with a solid organic sound, but Hive is the most beautiful and playable sound I've found in software. Hive was a massive lesson for me as a player.
I love the idea of making future classics, but in order to do that you have to discover what makes something sound musical. I think that's what I really appreciate about U-he. That discovery process. Bazille may be the most advanced pure synthesis engine I know of with a solid organic sound, but Hive is the most beautiful and playable sound I've found in software. Hive was a massive lesson for me as a player.
-
- KVRAF
- 16725 posts since 13 Oct, 2009
Nonsense. The P5 Rev3 is really a great example of how business decisions have always driven product development. The Rev 1/2 P5s are considered the superior poly by most aficionados, that is, they had that "gorgeous tonality" that you refer to. However, they were not reliable owing to a number of issues, but, in part the SSM chipset. The Rev 3 redesigns used CEM chips which compromised sound quality for a more reliable product.Dasheesh wrote:Creating new instruments is what needs to happen to take advantage of what we have been given in today's hardware. Creating new instruments yesterday is why we buy emulations today. The difference is often that yesterday's instruments were made because they had georgious tonality while today's instruments aften lack that musical nature and character.
I would much rather have a contemporary P6 than a vintage P5, especially if I had to have a rev 3 unit. I think that there's a lot of various biases that come into play when people are playing instruments.
We are in a really nice time for new instruments. Software instruments are amazing and there are a lot of awesome choices for hardware as well. I do think that you have to look past the big three to get the most interesting instruments, however.