u-he

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:28 am

EvilDragon wrote:For sure it is worth doing it! Because SSM > CEM

After studying the patents and talking to the designer of the SSMs ("why would anyone...") - I don't think so. The SSM 2040 filter chip may be the one that sounds different with reasonable compromise (stability, headroom, reliability), but unlike the CEM 3320 it also requires to have some of the main components crucial to filter sound in its surrounding circuitry. Which means much of the sound isn't the chip itself but whatever engineers do to create a feedback path for resonance. Which is probably why this chip was abandoned early on, because, maybe, it wasn't really worth using. And maybe it's being glorified because it's been put in only two vintage synthesizers of which, I guess, less than 3000 units were built, all before 1980, and which are very, very rare even by vintage synthesizer terms.

ghettosynth · Post by **ghettosynth** » Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:42 am

Urs wrote:
EvilDragon wrote:For sure it is worth doing it! Because SSM > CEM
After studying the patents and talking to the designer of the SSMs ("why would anyone...") - I don't think so. The SSM 2040 filter chip may be the one that sounds different with reasonable compromise (stability, headroom, reliability), but unlike the CEM 3320 it also requires to have some of the main components crucial to filter sound in its surrounding circuitry. Which means much of the sound isn't the chip itself but whatever engineers do to create a feedback path for resonance. Which is probably why this chip was abandoned early on, because, maybe, it wasn't really worth using. And maybe it's being glorified because it's been put in only two vintage synthesizers of which, I guess, less than 3000 units were built, all before 1980, and which are very, very rare even by vintage synthesizer terms.

My understanding is that it, like many SSM chips, had reliability issues. In any case, it's in at least five vintage synths that I'm aware of, most well regarded. Moreover, the recreations are often equally regarded.

AnX · Post by **AnX** » Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:13 am

Urs wrote:
Echoes in the Attic wrote:So I've heard that the P5 rev2 is said to be the better sounding one. Watched a sonic talk the other day where Dave Spiers was saying the rev2 had some magic lacking in the rev3. But I've read that repro-5 is based on the rev3. Do the modifiers allow for as much of a rev2 emulation?
Repro-5 is essentially a polyphonic Repro-1. If you like the sound of Repro-1, you'll probably like the sound of Repro-5.

We do have offers to borrow a P-5 Rev 2, but modeling it would involve creating a whole new set of algorithms because different parts were used. At this point of time I'm not convinced it's worth doing. Maybe once those inevitable comparisons come up - it would give us a reason to do an update in a year or two, not sure

Oh...I thought you were actually doing a pro5 emu....hence the dev time...

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:19 am

ghettosynth wrote:it's in at least five vintage synths that I'm aware of, most well regarded.

Hmmm, P-5R2 and Cat SRM are the only ones I know which have been produced in numbers *and* are highly regarded... know more?

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:23 am

AnX wrote:Oh...I thought you were actually doing a pro5 emu....hence the dev time...

There were several versions of Prophet-5s. A polyphonic Pro-One would merely match the 3rd revision, but not the second or first (which use that other chipset)

Elektronisch · Post by **Elektronisch** » Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:55 am

Urs wrote:
AnX wrote:Oh...I thought you were actually doing a pro5 emu....hence the dev time...
There were several versions of Prophet-5s. A polyphonic Pro-One would merely match the 3rd revision, but not the second or first (which use that other chipset)

I also thought its pro 5 emu

ok so its basicly 8 voice RePro 1.

Sorry but again, then there is no reason not to call it RePro 8

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:09 am

Elektronisch wrote:I also thought its pro 5 emu ok so its basicly 8 voice RePro 1.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive...?

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:16 am

Urs wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:it's in at least five vintage synths that I'm aware of, most well regarded.
Hmmm, P-5R2 and Cat SRM are the only ones I know which have been produced in numbers *and* are highly regarded... know more?

Perhaps not produced in numbers, but: RSF Kobol Expander I, Crumar Performer-2.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:17 am

Elektronisch wrote:I also thought its pro 5 emu ok so its basicly 8 voice RePro 1.

No, it IS a Pro-5 emulation, just a rev3, not rev2 or rev1, which use SSM chips instead of CEM.

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:38 am

EvilDragon wrote:Perhaps not produced in numbers, but: RSF Kobol Expander I, Crumar Performer-2.

Well, I also can't ever remember anyone raving about these... they might sound good and all, but...

mooneh · Post by **mooneh** » Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:44 am

Cant wait to try the rev 3, hoping its very accurate. Rev 2 the 80s horror movie synth would love that as a costly upgrade for all the hard work that's needed.

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:57 am

mooneh wrote:the 80s horror movie synth

No worries, Repro-5 covers those very well.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:04 pm

Some nice rev2 examples here (with a bit of TC4k reverb, which is golden):

http://www.babic.com/SYN/p5r2.htm

The rev2 strings-n-sweeps, polymodpad and 1974 demos showcase the spookiness/micro-instability that I'm just not finding in the rev3 sound in the same vein.

It's worth to emulate both, eventually

mooneh · Post by **mooneh** » Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:16 pm

Yes both please

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:06 pm

Ok then. Let's say we need six more months to make a Rev 2 emulation. Gotta factor that into the price and everything. Makes me think, it's still not worth it. Much rather spend the time on other things.