Bazille - most misunderstood synth?

[Dasheesh]

^^^you're a collector, you like having lots of gear. It's inspiring for you, there's nothing wrong with that so don't get your panties in a bunch. I used to be a collector too. That's not where I'm at any more. I'm at the focus stage, so it depends on where you are and what you are doing I guess. Maybe I'll be a collector again one day, but that's not today.

[Dasheesh]

Just to get back on track, my point is, for me Hive was the most misunderstood synth. I totally underestimated it at first.

[egbert101]

<delete>

[fmr]

It's awkward that something as boring as a digital copy of some old synth is even discussed in a Bazille thread.

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).

Emulating old synthesizers makes no sense in software, but developers do it anyway, because those old synthesizers are inspiring and create passion for electronic music, and people are willing to actually pay for them.

It probably doesn't make much business sense to emulate a prophet 5 compared to a Minimoog, but then, I'm not sure it made business sense making a Pro 1 emulation, so passion probably played a part in it.

I was just trying to generate a bit of passion for the old boring Prophet 5

The first synthesizers that existed were the modulars. The first music created with synthesizers was pure avant-garde classical electronic music. The first big hit created with synthesizers was Wendy Carlos renditions of Bach music using the Moog Modular (Switched-On Bach, in 1967). So, the "old (not) boring analogue synthesizers that inspired" a whole (or several) generations of musicians were not exactly the Prophets (at least, they don't come in first, nor in second, or even in third). Things like the Moog Modular, the Minimoog, the CS80, the VCS-3, the DX7 and others, certainly come way before the Prophet-5.

[egbert101]

<delete>

[.jon]

You know what you're completely missing? Innovation. When it was released, Prophet 5 was groundbreaking. It had literally no competing product for at least a year. There would be no Prophet-5 if Dave Smith would have built just another copy of some older synth. 38 years later, he's still not interested in remakes, emulations or copies.

That's why I think Bazille is the king of U-he lineup.

[NerdMcBoon]

Exactly!

[ghettosynth]

^^^you're a collector, you like having lots of gear. It's inspiring for you, there's nothing wrong with that so don't get your panties in a bunch. I used to be a collector too. That's not where I'm at any more. I'm at the focus stage, so it depends on where you are and what you are doing I guess. Maybe I'll be a collector again one day, but that's not today.

Actually no, you're reading way too much into my comments. I have never thought of myself as a collector, but, at one point I had well over 40 analog synths and concluded, shit, I'm a collector. I sold most of them because I was spending too much time integrating them into my workflow.

In the 90s it was tough to produce music without having gear, although, having said that my older self looks back and regrets some lack of focus. Today, however, I don't really collect gear at all. I don't even collect software really. This season was my first binge on new tools since I went ITB in 2009.

What I did get from that experience though was, wait for it, experience. When you have 10 synths that all use CEM filters you really start to see that what you thought were 10 different synths really aren't. You actually experience that the really big difference between synths, beyond features and architecture, is the sound of the filter.

So nowadays I'm really picky about new hardware. When I say that I'd rather have a P6 than a P5 it doesn't mean that I'm going to buy one, I'm not. I'm just saying that I'm not nostalgic for the past. Vintage gear is useful when the hardware is genuinely inspiring in some way.

I am going to add the DeepMind to my studio, but I need a new controller and I really can't think of something that I want more as a controller.

[ghettosynth]

the DX7 and others, certainly come way before the Prophet-5.

I'm sure that you've already been corrected, but seriously, turn in your synth nerd card.

The P5 was groundbreaking in 1978 when it came out. If you aren't into the tech you may not really grok why. It wasn't really groundbreaking because of the sound, per se. Although, the first two revs were indeed awesome because of the awesome SSM2040. Dave Smith has never been a brilliant analog designer, rather, he used off the shelf synth components from SSM/CEM with basically reference designs. What he was good at was digital design and low level programming. What was groundbreaking about the P5 was the P, for poly. It was the first legitimate poly analog synthesizer with patch memory that was affordable. Sure the Oberheim N-Voice stuff came first, as did the Korg PS series stuff and any number of fully polyphonic string synths, but, none of those were proper synthesizers with patch memory at an affordable price. It was Dave's knowledge of programming, microprocessors, and digital design that made that happen.

So people going on about the sound are really doing that from a nostalgic perspective. It was hugely popular because it was hugely useful as a tool for musicians. However, even by standards then, the later revisions were not regarded as one of the best sounding polys among the synth elite. Consider that Moog's entry into the poly market, the MemoryMoog, was willing to compromise every single circuit in their designs to make use of the same CEM chips that Dave Smith used, save one, the filter. Even Roland made use of those chips, except, in the filter. To me, it's a shame that SSM weren't as good at business as CEM were, we'd have many more much better sounding synths today otherwise.

The P5 changed music history and there is no doubt that it was exceedingly important. In fact, if I had to name synths that changed music in that way I would say that it is every bit as important as the minimoog. However, I think that a lot of what people think about its sound today is really colored by this importance in history. It's also colored by the rev 1/2 models which is what really appeared on all of those awesome 80s records.

[ghettosynth]

You know what you're completely missing? Innovation. When it was released, Prophet 5 was groundbreaking. It had literally no competing product for at least a year. There would be no Prophet-5 if Dave Smith would have built just another copy of some older synth. 38 years later, he's still not interested in remakes, emulations or copies.

That's why I think Bazille is the king of U-he lineup.

+1! You're not going to be thought of as groundbreaking by releasing copies of old stuff. It will never be thought of with the same reverence and people will always complain about the minute differences. That is, it will always be in the shadow of the original.

[egbert101]

<delete>

[ghettosynth]

You know what you're completely missing? Innovation. When it was released, Prophet 5 was groundbreaking. It had literally no competing product for at least a year. There would be no Prophet-5 if Dave Smith would have built just another copy of some older synth. 38 years later, he's still not interested in remakes, emulations or copies.

That's why I think Bazille is the king of U-he lineup.

+1! You're not going to be thought of as groundbreaking by releasing copies of old stuff. It will never be thought of with the same reverence and people will always complain about the minute differences. That is, it will always be in the shadow of the original.

Prophet 6

The P6 is not a P5 clone, it is a very modern poly that attempts to capture what was great about the rev 1/2 P5 and reimagines that in a modern design.

While I don't believe everything that Dave Smith puts in sales copy, he's really telling you like it is here.

The Prophet-6 is Dave Smith’s tribute to the poly synth that started it all—the Sequential Prophet-5. But it’s not simply a reissue of a classic. Rather, as Dave puts it, “It’s the result of our effort to build the most awesome-sounding, modern analog poly synth possible.” The Prophet-6 takes the best qualities of the original Prophet-5—true voltage-controlled oscillators, filters, and amplifiers—and adds enhancements such as studio-quality effects, a polyphonic step sequencer, an arpeggiator, and more. The result is pure, unadulterated analog tone with the stability and reliability of a state-of-the-art modern synth.

The P6 is really a great synth. IMO, it's a better synth today, by far, than the original P5. That's not to slight the P5 in that regard, it's just that technology has improved in many ways.

However, the P6 is not what Dave will be remembered for, clearly, not what people think is groundbreaking. You have just demonstrated that by trying to imply that it's some kind of P5 clone. The masses don't actually respect clones as innovation, yet, they still want you to produce the thing that they know.

[Urs]

Not gonna type a lengthy answer on my phone, but don't underestimate the CEM3320. After I figured out how it works I believe it is a marvel. Of course if one has 10 synths using it, it gets boring. But ITB there's probably just one which does *that*.

[ghettosynth]

Not gonna type a lengthy answer on my phone, but don't underestimate the CEM3320. After I figured out how it works I believe it is a marvel. Of course if one has 10 synths using it, it gets boring. But ITB there's probably just one which does *that*.

I like it more today than I did then. But it's really difficult to separate life from its context so that could be for any number of reasons. That said, it's just not my favorite filter by a mile. One thing that I've realized in retrospect is that I like the CEM3320 more than I like the later CEMS. Part of that, I believe, is that I don't like the resonance compensation of the later CEMS.

In any case, sure, I bought repro-1 because of the ITB filter model. I just don't care about a poly variant. In fact, I already have one, 4X copies of Repro-1 work nicely inside of MUX on my five year old i5. I'll have my hex core i7 in the studio soon which should allow five without any issue. However, I mostly did that for fun.

I do think that the CEM has a sound and I think that it would be cool to see that model in Diva. In some sense though, I'd rather see it in ACE where I think that it would really shine. While we're on that topic, I think that Bazille needs your obi filter as a complement to the existing model.

[egbert101]

<delete>