P-6-Front-Angle

Never say never.

Few would have imagined just a few short years ago that essentially all – not most, but all – the major 2015 electronic instrument news out of the annual NAMM trade show would come down to 70s-/early 80s-style analog synthesizers, in the form of keyboards and modular.

Nor would you imagine two of the big names would still be Tom Oberheim and Dave Smith, alongside Korg and Moog. (Well, maybe Tom and Dave did – how ambitious were you three decades ago, gentlemen?)

Certainly, no one ever expected to see the name Sequential Circuits again. But that’s what happened. Oddly, I think to most synth crowds now, the name Dave Smith Instruments is more recognizable than Sequential. But the Sequential name was the one worn by his early synths, including the legendary Prophet, and was part of that historic first-ever MIDI connection. Now, it’s back, courtesy what is described as an unprecedented gesture of good will. It doesn’t appear Dave Smith Instruments is changing its name, but it does mean you can proudly haul that adorably dated typography with you on stage. Everything old is new again.

Now, having gotten that out of the way, the Sequential name isn’t the most important thing about the unveiling of the Prophet 6 synthesizer.

No, what’s most important is that the Prophet 6 is now one of three Dave Smith flagships vying for your attention – and that Dave and company, in bringing back the Prophet-5, have taken an approach to their legacy best described as “the past, but better.”

On one hand, the new Prophet isn’t a reimagining or reboot of the Prophet-5 – no digital remake here or successor in name only. The oscillators, filters, and amplifiers are all analog, and share an architectural approach derived from the classic. (As noted in comments, it’s worth emphasizing the language “discrete oscillators” – true voltage-controlled oscillators.) But nor is this a “reissue” or (as Moog did recently) “resurrection.” In fact, even the analog section has a new design. The two oscillators plus sub are “newly designed,” and while the four-pole, resonant, low-pass filter is “inspired by the original Prophet-5 filter,” you also get a two-pole, resonant, high-pass filter. Modulation and unison features from the original are back. There’s also a new analog stereo distortion effect, for instance.

The path from oscillator through filter to amplifier is all-analog, but the Dave Smith name has always been about mixing digital and analog when the need arises. So, enter the digital goodies: effects, a polyphonic step sequencer, and an arpeggiator.

P-6-Top

The 24-bit, 48 kHz effects include reverbs, delays (standard and BBD), chorus, and phase shifter. Now, for analog purists, DSI are quick to advertise a true bypass switch so you can say your signal path is 100% analog. Hey, you know, whatever helps you sleep at night. (Seriously, I hope someone does a double blind test with that bypass switch to see if you can feel the warm analog spirit being sucked from the signal, the dark evils of digital falling like a veil over your soul. I’m guessing you won’t, but, hey – double blind test is the only way to tell for sure.)

There’s no question this is a versatile instrument, because of the rich, clock-able arpeggiator and sequencer, and all those effects to turn this unit into a single gigging workhorse, no external gear required. The Poly Mod section is nice, too: you can route to both oscillator parameters and filter.

It’s impossible not to compare DSI to the approach of some of its synth rivals, particularly at NAMM. Moog were present with only a museum piece available to the super-wealthy – interesting, but perhaps the most slavish new analog hardware ever, refusing to make any changes to the original and even reproducing original manufacturing processes. That might have gone unnoticed, except that modular fans were keen to get their hands on something more practical and accessible. And Moog noticeably have no polyphonic entry in their lineup. There’s the monophonic Minimoog and the paraphonic Sub Phatty line, but that’s it. Certainly, Moog have a massive lineup of other stuff, but it’ll be interesting to see if they enter this category of instrument down the road.

Then there’s KORG, whose ARP Odyssey followed in the footsteps of the MS-20 mini by shrinking its keybed – apparently with only “slim” keys, but still. (Botched photo opportunity moment of NAMM – while I can’t verify this, rumor spread that Stevie Wonder complained.) Dave Smith can still weigh in under 10 kg – it’ll take up more room, but you get a full four-octave keyboard with full-sized keys. On the other hand, the KORG reissues are also still that – sure, you get USB MIDI, but they’re mostly the same as the original.

So, where Dave Smith comes in is still new analog and hybrid territory that revisits a legacy, without being limited by it.

P-6-back

If you do decide you like the Dave Smith sound and design, now the question is now which “flagship” to buy. There’s no official pricing on the Prophet-6 yet, but we’re hearing around US$2800 – a significant, but not impossible investment for many. And certainly this is one keyboard you could expect to cover all your needs.

If that were all DSI made, you’d probably have made your decision. But it isn’t.

If you’re not overly dedicated to analog oscillators, there’s also the Prophet 12, which is also available in an economical desktop unit if you’ve already got your keyboard. Bonuses: wavetables, and lots of cross oscillator modulation, plus loads of effects. If you’re just looking for a do-everything synth and you don’t need to brag about analog signal path, the P12 might be more practical than the P6. (Obviously, try both to see which sound you prefer.)

Or, there’s the Pro 2, the paraphonic analog offering. That gives you more oscillator coloring options, a more out-there digital effect section, dual filters with an Oberheim SEM-inspired option, tuned feedback, and a really deep modulation section, plus control voltage expansion. And yes, this is the one I’d have, if anyone is shopping for … erm … Valentine’s Day presents for me. Or something.

It’s also worth mentioning the similar Prophet ’08. Fundamentally, they take the same approach: start with real analog oscillators, and build a multi-voice successor to the early Prophets, with extra controls, preset storage, an arp, and step sequencer. The Prophet-06 I believe features some new oscillator and filter circuitry; we have to talk to DSI about that and find out how it sounds. The Prophet-08 seems to have greater modulation capabilities than the Prophet-06, but it lacks the new P-06 effect section. I don’t think the P-06 will be stealing any P-08 customers, but for new DSI buyers, there will be some reflection required.

So, the Prophet-6 really occupies some middle ground. It’s a real analog synth, but with an effects section so you don’t have to haul separate effects. It’s eminently playable. It has 6, not 12 voices, but… for a lot of applications, you don’t need 12 anyway. And it’s ready to tour.

To me, the Pro 2 remains the most interesting recent Dave Smith creation, because its sound design options are so absurdly deep. The Prophet-6 is noticeably absent CV connectivity, if that’s important to you. But the Prophet-6 deserves some credit both for its vintage good looks and badge, and it’s a nice update to the Prophet legacy. It’s not really the most adventurous of the DSI offerings, but it rounds out the line for the gigging keyboardist.

And, in the midst of lots of splashy modular news, this is the instrument that those gigging players may most welcome out of the product news starting this year.

I look forward to getting some reviews of this when it arrives.

DSI Prophet-6 [Product Page]

Here’s Sonic State with a great video with the dude himself.

  • Daniel

    For me, this is the star of WNAMM’15.
    For those of us who care, there’s actual discrete VCO’s in the Prophet 6, albeit controlled from a DSP (No, it does not make them DCO’s, the biggest difference between a VCO and a DCO is in the core, not what’s generating the signal controlling them). This digital control is no different in concept than the type you find in vintage poly VCO synths of yesteryear such as the original Prophet 5, Roland Jupiter 6/8, or the Moog Memorymoog to mention a few. Although actual execution might be different, to obtain an even greater level of tracking, etc.
    Dave stated in one of the NAMM’15 interview’s that if you open the lid to the Prophet 6 and blow on the board the tune will go all over the place. VCO’s in other words.
    The fact that he’s used new discrete VCO’s, new discrete VCF’s (LP filter is same as Pro 2 apparently) and VCA’s obviously add to the cost. Regardless I’m really happy to se this re-imagining of a vintage classic! 🙂

    • Good point. Added the mention of those discrete VCOs to the article … though I’d be curious to get into a discussion of how great an impact this has on sound. (Blowing it out of tune doesn’t count, though I get Dave’s point!)

      The star of WNAMM … hmm. I have to think about that, though.

      • Daniel

        As for the differences, The Prophet 08’s DCO’s actually has a digital core afaik, generating a pulse. This pulse then gets converted to the traditional waveforms by being sent to an analog waveshaper. However because it has a steady digital clock providing the pitch (or oscillations) it won’t really go out of tune. A VCO on the other hand has an analog core (capacitors that charge and discharge to create a basic waveform that oscillates). This basic waveform is then also sent through an analog waveshaper. This is all simply put of course.

        A user on Gearslutz posted a great comment on how digital tuning of a VCO works: It’s like trying to hold up a tree with a stick and a rope. So there’s some difference compared to the DCO. However the actual real world difference remains to be seen, obviously, but in theory at least there are factors that could impact the sound one way, or the other. 🙂

        • hobonix

          Strictly speaking, the digital portion of a DCO just generates the reset pulse that discharges a capacitor, not the initial waveform in the signal path. Most VCOs start with a saw or triangle core and pass through a waveshaper at some point, but even with a DCO the waveshaped signal is still analog.

          You can glean this from the CEM3396 datasheet (since you referenced it above, skip to page 9 and “Waveform Converters”) http://www.midibox.org/dokuwiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=3396:cem3396_datasheet.pdf

          This is all fairly pedantic at the end of the day, and I don’t imagine that the VCO vs DCOness of the P6 will end up being its most distinctive audible difference, to the extent that it is one. Dave was probably smart to avoid the digital bogeyman here, though.

          • Daniel

            Not only. The clock is also used for the actual core waveform, a square most commonly, by the use of a comparator, iirc, that is then converted through the aforementioned analog waveshaper.

            I don’t remember if it was the Juno series, or the 3396 (or both), but basically the master clock is divided into # number of voices/oscillators with divide down chip’s etc. Fwiw the Oberheim Matrix 6/6R actually used 3 clocks, while the Matrix 1000 only used one. The fact that all voices are derived from the same master clock on the Juno is probably why it sounds terrible in unison, because all six voices are always in phase. This is probably easier to circumvent today as prices have gone down and computing power have gone up. But at the end of the day, anyway, without an external signal from a clock sent to the DCO you won’t have a source waveform either.

          • Daniel

            However, you are correct in that it is fairly pedantic, but otoh I want people to know the difference because by some people’s definition, a DCO is an analog oscillator controlled by digital tuning, and that is simply not correct.
            At the end of the day I’m well excited about this synth and can’t wait to try it out. A new poly analog with discrete circuitry and VCO’s, VCF’s, and VCA’s for what’s looking like less than $3000 USD. What’s not to like (if you’re a synth nut like me)? 😀

      • Charles

        More natural pitch drift, plus the VCOs can do oscillator FM; the DCOs in the P-08 can’t (they don’t like rapid pitch mod much either).

        Re WNAMM: who else is even in contention?

        • Charles

          (By “natural” I just mean not simulated; it remains to be seen if it actually sounds better than the Slop feature on the P12/Pro2. The degree of autotuning can be user-determined, too.)

    • Yes, best instrument!
      From what I’ve heard, I reaaally love the sounds it has. And for the layout it seems something you can play over and over just for the pleasure of it.
      Pro 2 is interesting too, a lot, and probably can go weirder but this is class!

  • Daniel

    For me, this is the star of WNAMM’15.
    For those of us who care, there’s actual discrete VCO’s in the Prophet 6, albeit controlled from a DSP (No, it does not make them DCO’s, the biggest difference between a VCO and a DCO is in the core, not what’s generating the signal controlling them). This digital control is no different in concept than the type you find in vintage poly VCO synths of yesteryear such as the original Prophet 5, Roland Jupiter 6/8, or the Moog Memorymoog to mention a few. Although actual execution might be different, to obtain an even greater level of tracking, etc.
    Dave stated in one of the NAMM’15 interview’s that if you open the lid to the Prophet 6 and blow on the board the tune will go all over the place. VCO’s in other words.
    The fact that he’s used new discrete VCO’s, new discrete VCF’s (LP filter is same as Pro 2 apparently) and VCA’s obviously add to the cost. Regardless I’m really happy to se this re-imagining of a vintage classic! 🙂

    • Good point. Added the mention of those discrete VCOs to the article … though I’d be curious to get into a discussion of how great an impact this has on sound. (Blowing it out of tune doesn’t count, though I get Dave’s point!)

      The star of WNAMM … hmm. I have to think about that, though.

      • Daniel

        As for the differences, The Prophet 08’s DCO’s actually has a digital core afaik, generating a pulse. This pulse then gets converted to the traditional waveforms by being sent to an analog waveshaper. However because it has a steady digital clock providing the pitch (or oscillations) it won’t really go out of tune. A VCO on the other hand has an analog core (capacitors that charge and discharge to create a basic waveform that oscillates). This basic waveform is then also sent through an analog waveshaper. This is all simply put of course.

        A user on Gearslutz posted a great comment on how digital tuning of a VCO works: It’s like trying to hold up a tree with a stick and a rope. So there’s some difference compared to the DCO. However the actual real world difference remains to be seen, obviously, but in theory at least there are factors that could impact the sound one way, or the other. 🙂

        • hobonix

          Strictly speaking, the digital portion of a DCO just generates the reset pulse that discharges a capacitor, not the initial waveform in the signal path. Most VCOs start with a saw or triangle core and pass through a waveshaper at some point, but even with a DCO the waveshaped signal is still analog.

          You can glean this from the CEM3396 datasheet (since you referenced it above, skip to page 9 and “Waveform Converters”) http://www.midibox.org/dokuwiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=3396:cem3396_datasheet.pdf

          This is all fairly pedantic at the end of the day, and I don’t imagine that the VCO vs DCOness of the P6 will end up being its most distinctive audible difference, to the extent that it is one. Dave was probably smart to avoid the digital bogeyman here, though.

          • Daniel

            Not only. The clock is also used for the actual core waveform, a square most commonly, by the use of a comparator, iirc, that is then converted through the aforementioned analog waveshaper.

            I don’t remember if it was the Juno series, or the 3396 (or both), but basically the master clock is divided into # number of voices/oscillators with divide down chip’s etc. Fwiw the Oberheim Matrix 6/6R actually used 3 clocks, while the Matrix 1000 only used one. The fact that all voices are derived from the same master clock on the Juno is probably why it sounds terrible in unison, because all six voices are always in phase. This is probably easier to circumvent today as prices have gone down and computing power have gone up. But at the end of the day, anyway, without an external signal from a clock sent to the DCO you won’t have a source waveform either.

          • Daniel

            However, you are correct in that it is fairly pedantic, but otoh I want people to know the difference because by some people’s definition, a DCO is an analog oscillator controlled by digital tuning, and that is simply not correct.
            At the end of the day I’m well excited about this synth and can’t wait to try it out. A new poly analog with discrete circuitry and VCO’s, VCF’s, and VCA’s for what’s looking like less than $3000 USD. What’s not to like (if you’re a synth nut like me)? 😀

      • Charles

        More natural pitch drift, plus the VCOs can do oscillator FM; the DCOs in the P-08 can’t (they don’t like rapid pitch mod much either).

        Re WNAMM: who else is even in contention?

        • Charles

          (By “natural” I just mean not simulated; it remains to be seen if it actually sounds better than the Slop feature on the P12/Pro2. The degree of autotuning can be user-determined, too.)

    • Yes, best instrument!
      From what I’ve heard, I reaaally love the sounds it has. And for the layout it seems something you can play over and over just for the pleasure of it.
      Pro 2 is interesting too, a lot, and probably can go weirder but this is class!

  • Jens

    What I miss are comparisons to the Prophet P08 (seems really similar to the P05) and/or the Evolver-series (re. the P12). Any thoughts?

    • Good question. Biggest difference (apart from this having two fewer voices) is you get a different modulation structure and the P-06 adds this big effect section. I suppose on modulation alone (or if I got a better deal), I’d favor the P-08, but for the effects, probably the P-06. What I need to find out from DSI is how different the new oscillators and filters are, though, that’s the other significant difference.

      • Charles

        The oscillators and filters are completely different. P-08 uses the Curtis synth-on-a-chip, Pro6 uses discrete VCOs and VCF based on the SSM2040 (ie the LPF from the Pro2, minus the 2-pole mode), plus the discrete HPF from the P12. The P-08 has much better modulation options, the Pro6 probably wins on pure sound (but will also be more expensive).

  • Jens

    What I miss are comparisons to the Prophet P08 (seems really similar to the P05) and/or the Evolver-series (re. the P12). Any thoughts?

    • Good question. Biggest difference (apart from this having two fewer voices) is you get a different modulation structure and the P-06 adds this big effect section. I suppose on modulation alone (or if I got a better deal), I’d favor the P-08, but for the effects, probably the P-06. What I need to find out from DSI is how different the new oscillators and filters are, though, that’s the other significant difference.

      • Charles

        The oscillators and filters are completely different. P-08 uses the Curtis synth-on-a-chip, Pro6 uses discrete VCOs and VCF based on the SSM2040 (ie the LPF from the Pro2, minus the 2-pole mode), plus the discrete HPF from the P12. The P-08 has much better modulation options, the Pro6 probably wins on pure sound (but will also be more expensive).

  • Daniel

    Some quick spec differences:

    Prophet 6 has VCO’s. Prophet 08 has DCO’s (digital core, analog waveshaper).
    Prophet 6 has a sub-oscillator.
    Prophet 6 has a 4-pole LP filter and a 2-pole HP filter. Prophet 08 has a 2 and 4-pole LP.

    Prophet 6 has 6 voices, monotimbral. Prophet 08 has 8 voices, bi-timbral (layer/split)
    Prophet 6 has two digital FX. Prophet 08 has no FX
    Prophet 6 has Poly Mod (offers OSC FM etc). Prophet 08 has a 4-slot mod matrixProphet 6 has a simple polyphonic sequencer. Prophet 08 has a 4-row 16-step sequencer.
    Prophet 6 has 1 LFO and 2 EG’s. Prophet 08 has 4 LFO’s and 3 EG’s

    Then there are some other smaller differences (it’s in the details), The Prophet 6 oscillators offer smooth waveshaping from triangle through sawtooth to square, with a separate adjustable pulsewidth for the square. It allows for Saw+Square/Pulse mixes that the Prophet 08 can’t do.

    The big question will obviously be if these new VCO’s and the filter sound different (or different enough) to warrant it’s place. But from looking at the specifications only, I does seem very nice imho. 🙂

    • Thanks for that – nicely put!

      What I’m hearing is that beyond those specs, the sum of these architectural differences is a really unique experience on the P-06.

      Certainly, to me now both the P-06 and Pro 2 have entered potentially interesting waters, and represent some real achievement from DSI.

    • aaron

      DCO isn’t digital core, it’s digitally clocked. A DCO oscillator is still fully analogue, just clocked digitally for more stability in tuning and higher resolution. The very characteristics that it fixes are also the reason some people don’t like them (but also why Dave always stood by it… he probably got tired of answering the question in literally every single interview he’s done on DSI synths and finally gave VCO’s a chance =P). Also depends what you mean by digital. Early DCO’s like the JX’s were “digitally clocked” through a series of BBD’s. The “DCO’s” on CZ synths weren’t DCOs at all, despite them calling it that, but digital wavetable synths with waveshaping.

      The new P06 VCO’s use a auto-tuning stabilizer to help keep it in tune much like many of the new VCO products out there like Korg’s. Which is why he still includes the “slop” parameter like he did on his other DCO-based synths.

      • Daniel

        I’m sorry aaron, but you are incorrect. I asked Dave directly when I owned the evolver (when he still answered his own support e-mails). The DCO core is digital but is converted through an analog waveshaper. The same is true for the CEM3396 used in the Matrix 6/6R/1000. If you look at the specs it’s ‘only’ an analog waveshaper, filter, and amp.

        • Daniel

          Fwiw, the JUNO DCO’s operate in a similar manner…

          http://www.electricdruid.net/?page=info.junodcos

        • Tony K

          Aaron is spot on. DCO based oscillators have current source charging a capacitor, and the digital clock only controls when the cap gets discharged, defining the frequency.

          • Daniel

            Yes, but my point is that without the clock you won’t have an initial waveshape either, as the core square wave is derived from the clock as well.

        • aaron

          Nah, you got it crooked somewhere.
          “The early DCOs got a bad rap since they were not very well implemented. Some don’t realize that a DCO is completely analog in the signal generation; a capacitor gets charged just as in a VCO, and is the base shape in the oscillator. The only difference is that the timing of the capacitor reset comes from digital circuitry. Best of both worlds; you never have to deal with tuning problems (which even now still plague most VCO synths), but you have 100% analog signal.” – Dave Smith.

          • Daniel

            Did you even read the spec sheet/webpage I pointed to? The core square wave is derived from the digital clock, that’s a fact.

          • aaron

            You just don’t know what you’re looking at. I’m not going to get in a century old debate about DCO’s with ya.. if you want to remain uninformed, that’s fine.

          • Daniel

            Says the person who didn’t even comment my wikipedia quote right infront of him…

          • MaxZorin

            It doesn’ matter. Signal is NOT discrete. What is a “digital clock”? Are string machines digital instruments? Are ring modulator inside ARP Odyssey & MS-20 digital, because of CD4011 which is used in digital circuits?

          • Daniel

            From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digitally_controlled_oscillator

            “A common DCO design uses a programmable counter IC such as the 8253.

            This provides stable digital pitch generation but square waves only. Further analog waveshaping is provided afterward. Sawtooth generation is formed by amplifying the integration of the original signal. A control voltage is used to control the sawtooth amplitude since no reset comparator and feedback loop are provided as with an actual analog oscillator core.

            This method differs from an analog core (which dictates pitch through oscillatory feedback) to a pitch directly produced by a counter and controlling CPU.”

          • Matt

            Same Wiki : “The term “digitally controlled oscillator” has been used to describe the combination of a voltage-controlled oscillator driven by a control signal from a digital-to-analog converter, and is also sometimes used to describe numerically controlled oscillators.”
            I think you’re both right.

          • Daniel

            Thanks Matt, I was talking about the Prophet 08 specifically. The DCO in the Prophet 08 isn’t just a VCO tuned by a digital clock, but it’s dependent on the digital signal to be able to function as an oscillator. No clock/digital signal = no oscillations. Cheers. 🙂

        • Neil B

          Guys, I studied electronic engineering and without using Wikipedia; VCOs and DCOs are both analogue. The difference is that the frequency of a DCO is controlled (i.e. the ‘C’) digitally (1s and 0s), whereas the frequency of a VCO is controlled by electronic components which produce a varying voltage (the ‘V’). As electronic circuits are susceptible to heat, and temperature varies the resistance of the circuits, so the controlling voltage is not stable and hence why early analogue oscillators were prone to going out of tune. Digital synthesizers produce waveforms using digital waveform generators which are not oscillators: Oscillators are analogue circuits.

  • Daniel

    Some quick spec differences:

    Prophet 6 has VCO’s. Prophet 08 has DCO’s (digital core, analog waveshaper).
    Prophet 6 has a sub-oscillator.
    Prophet 6 has a 4-pole LP filter and a 2-pole HP filter. Prophet 08 has a 2 and 4-pole LP.

    Prophet 6 has 6 voices, monotimbral. Prophet 08 has 8 voices, bi-timbral (layer/split)
    Prophet 6 has two digital FX. Prophet 08 has no FX
    Prophet 6 has Poly Mod (offers OSC FM etc). Prophet 08 has a 4-slot mod matrixProphet 6 has a simple polyphonic sequencer. Prophet 08 has a 4-row 16-step sequencer.
    Prophet 6 has 1 LFO and 2 EG’s. Prophet 08 has 4 LFO’s and 3 EG’s

    Then there are some other smaller differences (it’s in the details), The Prophet 6 oscillators offer smooth waveshaping from triangle through sawtooth to square, with a separate adjustable pulsewidth for the square. It allows for Saw+Square/Pulse mixes that the Prophet 08 can’t do.

    The big question will obviously be if these new VCO’s and the filter sound different (or different enough) to warrant it’s place. But from looking at the specifications only, I does seem very nice imho. 🙂

    • Thanks for that – nicely put!

      What I’m hearing is that beyond those specs, the sum of these architectural differences is a really unique experience on the P-06.

      Certainly, to me now both the P-06 and Pro 2 have entered potentially interesting waters, and represent some real achievement from DSI.

    • aaron

      DCO isn’t digital core, it’s digitally clocked. A DCO oscillator is still fully analogue, just clocked digitally for more stability in tuning and higher resolution. The very characteristics that it fixes are also the reason some people don’t like them (but also why Dave always stood by it… he probably got tired of answering the question in literally every single interview he’s done on DSI synths and finally gave VCO’s a chance =P). Also depends what you mean by digital. Early DCO’s like the JX’s were “digitally clocked” through a series of BBD’s. The “DCO’s” on CZ synths weren’t DCOs at all, despite them calling it that, but digital wavetable synths with waveshaping.

      The new P06 VCO’s use a auto-tuning stabilizer to help keep it in tune much like many of the new VCO products out there like Korg’s. Which is why he still includes the “slop” parameter like he did on his other DCO-based synths.

      • Daniel

        I’m sorry aaron, but you are incorrect. I asked Dave directly when I owned the evolver (when he still answered his own support e-mails). The DCO core is digital but is converted through an analog waveshaper. The same is true for the CEM3396 used in the Matrix 6/6R/1000. If you look at the specs it’s ‘only’ an analog waveshaper, filter, and amp.

        • Daniel

          Fwiw, the JUNO DCO’s operate in a similar manner…

          http://www.electricdruid.net/?page=info.junodcos

        • Tony K

          Aaron is spot on. DCO based oscillators have current source charging a capacitor, and the digital clock only controls when the cap gets discharged, defining the frequency.
          After looking at your Juno reference, we’re all saying the same thing. You just need to look at the functional division inside their ‘waveshaper’ block and see the cap, transistor and op-amp is the core analog part that is the waveshape you are hearing. There is nothing digital about that.

          • Daniel

            Yes, but my point is that without the clock you won’t have an initial waveshape either, as the core square wave is derived from the clock as well.

        • aaron

          Nah, you got it crooked somewhere. Nothing digital about his DCO’s other than the clock (which is not signal path) as I described in my first post.

          “The early DCOs got a bad rap since they were not very well implemented. Some don’t realize that a DCO is completely analog in the signal generation; a capacitor gets charged just as in a VCO, and is the base shape in the oscillator. The only difference is that the timing of the capacitor reset comes from digital circuitry. Best of both worlds; you never have to deal with tuning problems (which even now still plague most VCO synths), but you have 100% analog signal.” – Dave Smith.

          • Daniel

            Did you even read the spec sheet/webpage I pointed to? The core square wave is derived from the digital clock, that’s a fact.

          • aaron

            You just don’t know what you’re looking at. I’m not going to get in a century old debate about DCO’s with ya.. if you want to remain uninformed, that’s fine.

          • Daniel

            Says the person who didn’t even comment my wikipedia quote right infront of him…

          • MaxZorin

            It doesn’ matter. Signal is NOT discrete. What is a “digital clock”? Are string machines digital instruments? Are ring modulator inside ARP Odyssey & MS-20 digital, because of CD4011 which is used in digital circuits?

          • Daniel

            From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digitally_controlled_oscillator

            “A common DCO design uses a programmable counter IC such as the 8253.

            This provides stable digital pitch generation but square waves only. Further analog waveshaping is provided afterward. Sawtooth generation is formed by amplifying the integration of the original signal. A control voltage is used to control the sawtooth amplitude since no reset comparator and feedback loop are provided as with an actual analog oscillator core.

            This method differs from an analog core (which dictates pitch through oscillatory feedback) to a pitch directly produced by a counter and controlling CPU.”

          • Matt

            Same Wiki : “The term “digitally controlled oscillator” has been used to describe the combination of a voltage-controlled oscillator driven by a control signal from a digital-to-analog converter, and is also sometimes used to describe numerically controlled oscillators.”
            I think you’re both right.

          • Daniel

            Thanks Matt, I was talking about the Prophet 08 specifically. The DCO in the Prophet 08 isn’t just a VCO tuned by a digital clock, but it’s dependent on the digital signal to be able to function as an oscillator. No clock/digital signal = no oscillations. Cheers. 🙂

        • Neil B

          Guys, I studied electronic engineering and without using Wikipedia; VCOs and DCOs are both analogue. The difference is that the frequency of a DCO is controlled (i.e. the ‘C’) digitally (1s and 0s), whereas the frequency of a VCO is controlled by electronic components which produce a varying voltage (the ‘V’). As electronic circuits are susceptible to heat, and temperature varies the resistance of the circuits, so the controlling voltage is not stable and hence why early analogue oscillators were prone to going out of tune. Digital synthesizers produce waveforms using digital waveform generators which are not oscillators: Oscillators are analogue circuits.

  • heinrichz

    ‘I hope someone does a double blind test with that bypass switch to see if you can feel the warm analog spirit being sucked from the signal, the dark evils of digital falling like a veil over your soul.’
    Touchė Peter, i would like to place a bet, that some might like the processed signal better.

    • Tony K

      The analog signal is never completely routed through a digital process. The digital effects are sidechained into the analog output. This is very different from the Evolver where the entire signal is A/D/A converted for the DSP functionality.

  • heinrichz

    ‘I hope someone does a double blind test with that bypass switch to see if you can feel the warm analog spirit being sucked from the signal, the dark evils of digital falling like a veil over your soul.’
    Touchė Peter, i would like to place a bet, that some might like the processed signal better.

    • Tony K

      The analog signal is never completely routed through a digital process. The digital effects are sidechained into the analog output. This is very different from the Evolver where the entire signal is A/D/A converted for the DSP functionality.

  • Colaverde

    true bypass for the digital effects is not necessary…a wet dry pot is better……

  • Colaverde

    true bypass for the digital effects is not necessary…a wet dry pot is better……

  • I’ve got the Pro-2, and as much as the new Prophet-6 does fuel my GAS infinitely, I am more than happy to keep the Pro-2. It is just the most amazing machine Dave Smith ever made. All the goods from the Evolver series, plus all the good new stuff from the Prophet 12.

    And personally, I really couldn’t care less about all those reissues/resurrections coming out otherwise. Seriously, that is so boring. Yes, of course, a Fender Stratocaster is not boring, just because it has been played 100 gazillion times on so many songs. But, here, I really appreciate Dave’s approach to combining the best of his legacy/history with whatever can be done today.

    • I tend to agree, but at the same time …

      In the “slavish reissue” category: the Moog modular is a kind of manufacturing experiment, in reproducing the production methods alongside the design. I don’t think anyone else is crazy enough to try that, so credit to Moog for seeing what happens when you go that route. Some group of people out there will presumably see that they sell out this limited run. And while they didn’t show anything of the sort at NAMM, Moog is a company that’s still designing new and digital things (Theremini, Animoog on iPad), reworking old things (Voyager), and doing new instruments in the same way as DSI is (Phatty), along with selling affordable more mass-produced non-historical pedals a lot of guitarists might buy (Minifooger). I mean, the Model 55 is crazy, but it’s sort of “crazy, file under interesting.”

      KORG reissued the MS-20 and ARP Odyssey as-is, but that’s partly because the appeal of those instruments is a specific sound. Dumping a new effects section on them wouldn’t make much sense, and if they were to rework the internal architecture, they’d change the sound and defeat the purpose. I’m going to break with everyone else and say those “slim” keys are worth it if it means the ARP is easier to carry. Kudos to them for being true to the original, because Korg had otherwise, like Roland and Yamaha, been content to shipping these as presets on digital workstations. (And let’s not forget – Korg still does that. So I’m very grateful for the reissues, because frankly I think they’re far more fun to own and play.)

      Tom Oberheim rethought his own designs with his recent recreations, too. Tom isn’t Dave, or the team at DSI, so they’re doing things differently. (they’re seeing each other more than I am either of them, seeing as they’re in the Bay Area and I’m in … uh … Germany, but I think that’s fair.)

      I’ll echo what other commenters are saying here and simply wonder why there aren’t more good digital synths. Or at least wish for them.

      One hint, though: it’s not necessarily that much easier to build and then successfully sell digital hardware than it is analog.

      We could back *way* up and revisit the question of why many people don’t want electronic keyboards in the first place… certainly not those that require larger investments… and then we could follow that story all the way back to the 1970s and the general losing battle to convince people synths are cooler than guitars.

      In the meantime, DSI are building some nice instruments and this continues that roll.

      • celebutante

        <>

        I usually agree with you on stuff like this, but “easier to carry”? Carry where? To a gig? Home from the store?

        I seriously doubt many will be brave enough to trot an Odyssey out to a gig, even with modern stability. 1) no patch presets (I’m not trying to say they should’ve included them; I’m 1000% ok with that in the studio), 2) ever tuned the oscillators on an Odyssey or 2600? Coarse and fine sliders with no detented octave positions. Unless you’re doing avante-garde noise, probably not something you want to tango with at a gig.

        • celebutante

          BTW, discus added all those crazy quotes, not me!

        • Izzy Bee

          Gee, I wonder how all those guys back in the day, from Herbie Hancock to Chick Korea… Ultravox to Gary Numan, were able to perform live with the Odyssey without presets!? They must of had magical powers or something!

          • celebutante

            I didn’t say it couldn’t be done, I basically said it’s a giant PITA (for the record, I’ve done live gigs with a modular), and that most likely very few would take a non-preset monosynth to a gig. The artists you mentioned only did so because they had no other options. Last time I saw Gary Numan, the stage was covered with Access Viruses, and I bet they were making use of the newfangled patch storage feature.

      • Jeff Blanks

        I look (and listen) around me these days and I’m not sure “losing battle” is the way to put it. As long as synths are considered more than cool enough to share a stage with guitars, that’s victory enough for me.

      • Please, don’t get me wrong. It’s all fine that we are getting more and more options (ok, that Moog beast is just an option for very few of us…) to play with and to make music with. The more the merrier.

        My point was really just that, to me, thinking new ways is just so much more interesting. It doesn’t mean that you couldn’t make amazing music with a reissued Odyssey. But an MFB Dominion (here is, for a change, an actually musical demo of this wonderful synth: http://youtu.be/8ItpXuMvEso) or this Prophet-6, and in fact much more the Pro 2, are really what makes the good in “analog” great for me. Or, on an entirely different budget, the Volcas are in my opinion much more forward thinking while at the same time building upon Korg’s legacy than reissueing an MS-20. And yes, technically that’s comparing apples and pears, but it’s the conceptual idea that I am after.

        VCOs or DCOs, DSPs that make the basic waveform? Whatever. Digital effects onto an analog signal path? Just give me different options for different purposes. There is not one thing sounding better than the other, or being worse than something else. Either, it’s got the mojo – or not.

        • mercury

          how about this for an excellent demo:

          https://soundcloud.com/elektron/elektron-analog-four-9?in=elektron/sets/analog-four-site-sounds

          reminds me a little bit of orbital

          • Yes, I like that too. And the A4 is definitely also one of those interesting options in the analog synth world that I much prefer over those reissues and resurrections et al.

        • Nickolas

          This is a cool demo, but to my ears the sound is very digital and lacks “thickness” .. for me the idea of analog is to give warmth to the machine-like compositions we make via electronic music .. this MFB sounds incredible but the sounds shown here are very very synthetic sounding .. good sounds, but seems like a limited palate. I think at the end of the day its also very much about what kind of music you’re trying to make with the tool you’re looking at ..

          • REENO

            “Synthetic” sounds from a SYNTHESIZER? Oh dear? What shall we do?

  • I’ve got the Pro-2, and as much as the new Prophet-6 does fuel my GAS infinitely, I am more than happy to keep the Pro-2. It is just the most amazing machine Dave Smith ever made. All the goods from the Evolver series, plus all the good new stuff from the Prophet 12.

    And personally, I really couldn’t care less about all those reissues/resurrections coming out otherwise. Seriously, that is so boring. Yes, of course, a Fender Stratocaster is not boring, just because it has been played 100 gazillion times on so many songs. But, here, I really appreciate Dave’s approach to combining the best of his legacy/history with whatever can be done today.

    • I tend to agree, but at the same time …

      In the “slavish reissue” category: the Moog modular is a kind of manufacturing experiment, in reproducing the production methods alongside the design. I don’t think anyone else is crazy enough to try that, so credit to Moog for seeing what happens when you go that route. Some group of people out there will presumably see that they sell out this limited run. And while they didn’t show anything of the sort at NAMM, Moog is a company that’s still designing new and digital things (Theremini, Animoog on iPad), reworking old things (Voyager), and doing new instruments in the same way as DSI is (Phatty), along with selling affordable more mass-produced non-historical pedals a lot of guitarists might buy (Minifooger). I mean, the Model 55 is crazy, but it’s sort of “crazy, file under interesting.”

      KORG reissued the MS-20 and ARP Odyssey as-is, but that’s partly because the appeal of those instruments is a specific sound. Dumping a new effects section on them wouldn’t make much sense, and if they were to rework the internal architecture, they’d change the sound and defeat the purpose. I’m going to break with everyone else and say those “slim” keys are worth it if it means the ARP is easier to carry. Kudos to them for being true to the original, because Korg had otherwise, like Roland and Yamaha, been content to shipping these as presets on digital workstations. (And let’s not forget – Korg still does that. So I’m very grateful for the reissues, because frankly I think they’re far more fun to own and play.)

      Tom Oberheim rethought his own designs with his recent recreations, too. Tom isn’t Dave, or the team at DSI, so they’re doing things differently. (they’re seeing each other more than I am either of them, seeing as they’re in the Bay Area and I’m in … uh … Germany, but I think that’s fair.)

      I’ll echo what other commenters are saying here and simply wonder why there aren’t more good digital synths. Or at least wish for them.

      One hint, though: it’s not necessarily that much easier to build and then successfully sell digital hardware than it is analog.

      We could back *way* up and revisit the question of why many people don’t want electronic keyboards in the first place… certainly not those that require larger investments… and then we could follow that story all the way back to the 1970s and the general losing battle to convince people synths are cooler than guitars.

      In the meantime, DSI are building some nice instruments and this continues that roll.

      • celebutante

        <>

        I usually agree with you on stuff like this, but “easier to carry”? Carry where? To a gig? Home from the store?

        I seriously doubt many will be brave enough to trot an Odyssey out to a gig, even with modern stability. 1) no patch presets (I’m not trying to say they should’ve included them; I’m 1000% ok with that in the studio), 2) ever tuned the oscillators on an Odyssey or 2600? Coarse and fine sliders with no detented octave positions. Unless you’re doing avante-garde noise, probably not something you want to tango with at a gig.

        • celebutante

          BTW, discus added all those crazy quotes, not me!

        • Izzy Bee

          Gee, I wonder how all those guys back in the day, from Herbie Hancock to Chick Korea… Ultravox to Gary Numan, were able to perform live with the Odyssey without presets!? They must of had magical powers or something!

          • celebutante

            I didn’t say it couldn’t be done, I basically said it’s a giant PITA (for the record, I’ve done live gigs with a modular), and that most likely very few would take a non-preset monosynth to a gig. The artists you mentioned only did so because they had no other options. Last time I saw Gary Numan, the stage was covered with Access Viruses, and I bet they were making use of the newfangled patch storage feature.

      • Jeff Blanks

        I look (and listen) around me these days and I’m not sure “losing battle” is the way to put it. As long as synths are considered more than cool enough to share a stage with guitars, that’s victory enough for me.

      • Please, don’t get me wrong. It’s all fine that we are getting more and more options (ok, that Moog beast is just an option for very few of us…) to play with and to make music with. The more the merrier.

        My point was really just that, to me, thinking new ways is just so much more interesting. It doesn’t mean that you couldn’t make amazing music with a reissued Odyssey. But an MFB Dominion (here is, for a change, an actually musical demo of this wonderful synth: http://youtu.be/8ItpXuMvEso) or this Prophet-6, and in fact much more the Pro 2, are really what makes the good in “analog” great for me. Or, on an entirely different budget, the Volcas are in my opinion much more forward thinking while at the same time building upon Korg’s legacy than reissueing an MS-20. And yes, technically that’s comparing apples and pears, but it’s the conceptual idea that I am after.

        VCOs or DCOs, DSPs that make the basic waveform? Whatever. Digital effects onto an analog signal path? Just give me different options for different purposes. There is not one thing sounding better than the other, or being worse than something else. Either, it’s got the mojo – or not.

        • mercury

          how about this for an excellent demo:

          https://soundcloud.com/elektron/elektron-analog-four-9?in=elektron/sets/analog-four-site-sounds

          reminds me a little bit of orbital

          • Yes, I like that too. And the A4 is definitely also one of those interesting options in the analog synth world that I much prefer over those reissues and resurrections et al.

        • Nickolas

          This is a cool demo, but to my ears the sound is very digital and lacks “thickness” .. for me the idea of analog is to give warmth to the machine-like compositions we make via electronic music .. this MFB sounds incredible but the sounds shown here are very very synthetic sounding .. good sounds, but seems like a limited palate. I think at the end of the day its also very much about what kind of music you’re trying to make with the tool you’re looking at ..

          • REENO

            “Synthetic” sounds from a SYNTHESIZER? Oh dear? What shall we do?

  • ja

    Even though all old and cool analog synths are coming back, my mind starts loving all those digital synths from 80s and 90s even more. They might sound dull, but they’re becoming more original in modern music. Weird…

    • Yes, oddly, this ground is pretty well-tread now, leaving a lot of room in the digital realm. Weird, for instance, that Casio is bringing back the CZ only as an iPad app. 😉 I mean… not that that would *necessarily* be a huge seller as hardware, but it does illustrate the strange and arbitrary world in which we’re currently living.

      • Random Chance

        Not so strange and arbitrary actually. It has happened before. People in the 80s were probably fed up with analog machines that pretended to sound like real drum kits but didn’t and the same old subtractive standard presets on some analog poly or mono synth. Digital (including sampling technology) was a breath of fresh air. And to my ears it is again.

      • lambdoid

        Oli Larkin also made a CZ VST clone called VirtualCZ.

    • lambdoid

      I’m heavily into synthwave at the moment. All those cheesy sounds that I used to hate in the late 80s, I now love, which caught me by complete surprise.

  • ja

    Even though all old and cool analog synths are coming back, my mind starts loving all those digital synths from 80s and 90s even more. They might sound dull, but they’re becoming more original in modern music. Weird…

    • Yes, oddly, this ground is pretty well-tread now, leaving a lot of room in the digital realm. Weird, for instance, that Casio is bringing back the CZ only as an iPad app. 😉 I mean… not that that would *necessarily* be a huge seller as hardware, but it does illustrate the strange and arbitrary world in which we’re currently living.

      • Random Chance

        Not so strange and arbitrary actually. It has happened before. People in the 80s were probably fed up with analog machines that pretended to sound like real drum kits but didn’t and the same old subtractive standard presets on some analog poly or mono synth. Digital (including sampling technology) was a breath of fresh air. And to my ears it is again.

      • lambdoid

        Oli Larkin also made a CZ VST clone called VirtualCZ.

    • lambdoid

      I’m heavily into synthwave at the moment. All those cheesy sounds that I used to hate in the late 80s, I now love, which caught me by complete surprise.

  • Raffa van der Koont

    I commend Yamaha for their generosity with giving such a well known name back to its owner. It’s glimmer of hope that even in the murky corporate world, sensibility and compassion can be expressed without a price tag.

    Looking forward to trying a Prophet 6 first hand when it arrives in the local music production store. I am particularly interested in hearing the digital effects, though I would likely be happy just hooking it up to some Moogerfoogers for that added lushness. Though with all of the new analogue gear and rack modules, there is a lot to play with and choose from.

  • Raffa van der Koont

    I commend Yamaha for their generosity with giving such a well known name back to its owner. It’s glimmer of hope that even in the murky corporate world, sensibility and compassion can be expressed without a price tag.

    Looking forward to trying a Prophet 6 first hand when it arrives in the local music production store. I am particularly interested in hearing the digital effects, though I would likely be happy just hooking it up to some Moogerfoogers for that added lushness. Though with all of the new analogue gear and rack modules, there is a lot to play with and choose from.

  • synapticflow

    That was brilliant! And you know some audiophile/musicians will indeed lay claim to telling a massive difference.

    “Seriously, I hope someone does a double blind test with that bypass switch to see if you can feel the warm analog spirit being sucked from the signal, the dark evils of digital falling like a veil over your soul. I’m guessing you won’t, but, hey – double blind test is the only way to tell for sure.”

  • synapticflow

    That was brilliant! And you know some audiophile/musicians will indeed lay claim to telling a massive difference.

    “Seriously, I hope someone does a double blind test with that bypass switch to see if you can feel the warm analog spirit being sucked from the signal, the dark evils of digital falling like a veil over your soul. I’m guessing you won’t, but, hey – double blind test is the only way to tell for sure.”

  • Chris Stack

    First, again let me say “Kudos to Yamaha”. Very classy move on giving back the Sequential name.

    Unfortunately, I was not at NAMM so I have not had a chance to play a P6 yet. The sounds on the DSI demo video are REALLY great, and I can’t wait to explore this beast. Seems like a real “players” instrument. My favorite music ever (Jon Hassell, Peter Gabriel, David Sylvian/Japan) had tons of P5 on it, and I’m looking forward to exploring similar spaces on a P6. I think I even remember Ralph Towner of Oregon playing a P5 back in the day. That says a ton about the musicality of Dave’s designs.

    Great to know that a quality, knob-laden analog poly can be made in that price range!

    That being said, if forced to choose between the two, I’m pretty sure I’d go with the Pro 2. It’s 4-voice paraphony is beautiful, and even in mono mode I stand by my earlier statement that it is by far the most useful synth I’ve ever owned, and I’ve had a lot of them.

    In addition to its great sound, sequencer, modulation routing and expressive features (2 pressure sensitive sliders!), its massive CV functionality adds great value to a big chunk of my other gear. My MicroBrute, Voyager, Little Phatty (with CV outs), Slim Phatty, Moog Guitar and Moogerfoogers are all more useful to me now that I have a Pro 2 in the setup.

    On the gear I just listed, being able to (via the Pro 2) step sequence the filter, ring mod osc frequency, delay time, MuRF envelope shape etc, and run it through something like an Eventide H9 synced to the same clock is a whole new kind of magic I’m having a great time exploring.

    An expression pedal input can very often be used as a CV in, so I am looking forward to trying to control other things via CV as well. TC-Helicon Voiceworks, Yamaha MO8 and Alesis Micron being at the top of the list.

    The Pro 2 is like a great synth with a souped-up version of a Moog Multi-Pedal built in. I also plan to try connecting it and a Multi-Pedal. Things will get deep fast with that combo.

    The only photo I found of the P6 back panel was a little low res. I think I made out a jack labeled low pass filter exp pedal or something similar. Sounds like there is some good fun to be had with a Pro 2 and P6 then.

    Yeah, that’s it. I REALLY need them both. If I start saving now…

  • Chris Stack

    First, again let me say “Kudos to Yamaha”. Very classy move on giving back the Sequential name.

    Unfortunately, I was not at NAMM so I have not had a chance to play a P6 yet. The sounds on the DSI demo video are REALLY great, and I can’t wait to explore this beast. Seems like a real “players” instrument. My favorite music ever (Jon Hassell, Peter Gabriel, David Sylvian/Japan) had tons of P5 on it, and I’m looking forward to exploring similar spaces on a P6. I think I even remember Ralph Towner of Oregon playing a P5 back in the day. That says a ton about the musicality of Dave’s designs.

    Great to know that a quality, knob-laden analog poly can be made in that price range!

    That being said, if forced to choose between the two, I’m pretty sure I’d go with the Pro 2. It’s 4-voice paraphony is beautiful, and even in mono mode I stand by my earlier statement that it is by far the most useful synth I’ve ever owned, and I’ve had a lot of them.

    In addition to its great sound, sequencer, modulation routing and expressive features (2 pressure sensitive sliders!), its massive CV functionality adds great value to a big chunk of my other gear. My MicroBrute, Voyager, Little Phatty (with CV outs), Slim Phatty, Moog Guitar and Moogerfoogers are all more useful to me now that I have a Pro 2 in the setup.

    On the gear I just listed, being able to (via the Pro 2) step sequence the filter, ring mod osc frequency, delay time, MuRF envelope shape etc, and run it through something like an Eventide H9 synced to the same clock is a whole new kind of magic I’m having a great time exploring.

    An expression pedal input can very often be used as a CV in, so I am looking forward to trying to control other things via CV as well. TC-Helicon Voiceworks, Yamaha MO8 and Alesis Micron being at the top of the list.

    The Pro 2 is like a great synth with a souped-up version of a Moog Multi-Pedal built in. I also plan to try connecting it and a Multi-Pedal. Things will get deep fast with that combo.

    The only photo I found of the P6 back panel was a little low res. I think I made out a jack labeled low pass filter exp pedal or something similar. Sounds like there is some good fun to be had with a Pro 2 and P6 then.

    Yeah, that’s it. I REALLY need them both. If I start saving now…

  • Tritone

    Why/how did Yamaha end up with the Sequential name? Did the DX7 run everybody out, and Yamaha just came in and bought them up? I’d never heard this story.

    • Charles

      Basically. SCI went bankrupt and Yamaha bought them and used Dave and at least some of his team to form the Korg USA R&D group that created the Wavestation (Yamaha also owned Korg). Giving him the name back is pure class.

  • Tritone

    Why/how did Yamaha end up with the Sequential name? Did the DX7 run everybody out, and Yamaha just came in and bought them up? I’d never heard this story.

    • Charles

      Basically. SCI went bankrupt and Yamaha bought them and used Dave and at least some of his team to form the Korg USA R&D group that created the Wavestation (Yamaha also owned Korg). Giving him the name back is pure class.

  • matthew

    Damn…wish the Pro-2 had the “Sequential” badge on it! Just so lovely to see…

    • Synthlabs

      There’s space for one on the front, just like the P6.

  • matthew

    Damn…wish the Pro-2 had the “Sequential” badge on it! Just so lovely to see…

    • Synthlabs

      There’s space for one on the front, just like the P6.

  • oscdrift

    I have a Rev2 P5 that, knock on ‘Side Panels’, has been holding up well. It’s my percussion/noise making machine….lovely cross mod. I tried out a friends P08 when they first came out and it just sounded a bit ‘lifeless’ to me(Of course I know we’re comparing DCO’s to the original SSM chips). That said, I love the DCO’s in my Juno 60. It will be interesting to test out the P6 onceit’s available…… my guess it will be closer to the Rev3 P5,
    We’ll see, 😉

  • oscdrift

    I have a Rev2 P5 that, knock on ‘Side Panels’, has been holding up well. It’s my percussion/noise making machine….lovely cross mod. I tried out a friends P08 when they first came out and it just sounded a bit ‘lifeless’ to me(Of course I know we’re comparing DCO’s to the original SSM chips). That said, I love the DCO’s in my Juno 60. It will be interesting to test out the P6 onceit’s available…… my guess it will be closer to the Rev3 P5,
    We’ll see, 😉

  • joe

    I never thought I’d own analog even a couple of years ago but now enjoy a P12 desktop/Tetra/Sub Phatty combo. One thing that strikes me is how much of these instrument’s sonic detail and breadth is lost on these demo videos. Even worse when they are using the camera’s built in mic! Absolutely a must to check them out in person to really get a feel for them. Exciting to watch the rebirth of analog at this year’s show.

  • joe

    I never thought I’d own analog even a couple of years ago but now enjoy a P12 desktop/Tetra/Sub Phatty combo. One thing that strikes me is how much of these instrument’s sonic detail and breadth is lost on these demo videos. Even worse when they are using the camera’s built in mic! Absolutely a must to check them out in person to really get a feel for them. Exciting to watch the rebirth of analog at this year’s show.

  • flyffy

    I´d love a re-issued pro-1, even knowing the market is full of monosynths.

    • Re-issue? Not going to happen with Dave… He already made the Pro 2 instead.

  • flyffy

    I´d love a re-issued pro-1, even knowing the market is full of monosynths.

    • Re-issue? Not going to happen with Dave… He already made the Pro 2 instead.

  • Synthlabs

    I’m getting a P6. It’s a beauty. It’s like a revitalization of the neighborhood I grew up in. BUT there is one issue that’s hard to ignore, and a huge surprise they made the decision (hopefully not set in stone yet). 1000 patches identified but bank and numbers only? 120 was a pain. But in 2015 to decide not to have patch names? Not looking forward to that. “Hey man, check out the bottom end on 354.” “What are you talking about? That’s a harpsichord patch.” “No I mean, B354.” “Hmmm, I think I changed that one, but I don’t remember. Maybe I changed B355.”

  • Synthlabs

    I’m getting a P6. It’s a beauty. It’s like a revitalization of the neighborhood I grew up in. BUT there is one issue that’s hard to ignore, and a huge surprise they made the decision (hopefully not set in stone yet). 1000 patches identified but bank and numbers only? 120 was a pain. But in 2015 to decide not to have patch names? Not looking forward to that. “Hey man, check out the bottom end on 354.” “What are you talking about? That’s a harpsichord patch.” “No I mean, B354.” “Hmmm, I think I changed that one, but I don’t remember. Maybe I changed B355.”

  • PUTINISCOWARD

    This is a hobby for people. Unless you’re making big bucks from contracts, you don’t need another synth to satisfy your mental imbalance. I see most guys using VST, and It blows anything away from these so called analog purists. It’s truly comical seeing people argue about this nonsense.

    • PUTINISCOWARD

      I sold all of my analog synths and went to VST for the ease. I now work with Logic and finish everything up in Pro-tools. When I mix and master everything with true outboard gear, you can’t tell if it was Moog or Omnisphere.

    • PUTINISCOWARD

      Different strokes for different folks.

  • Paul Abruzzo

    I passed on it because of the keyboard. Dave Smith is like a parody of himself at the moment. Modal came by and bitch slapped him hard with the 008, which is where I’m putting my money. I’d rather spend $2000 more and get a proper 5 octave keyboard and two more voices – although I had no problem with the 6 voices in the prophet, but the two extra in the modal are nice. But yeah, Modal gets it. Dave Smith though is more like a lost lamb. Getting 90% of the way there and dropping the ball. Dave, that is bush league shit! Get it together, man.

  • Paul Abruzzo

    I passed on it because of the keyboard. Dave Smith is like a parody of himself at the moment. Modal came by and bitch slapped him hard with the 008, which is where I’m putting my money. I’d rather spend $2000 more and get a proper 5 octave keyboard and two more voices – although I had no problem with the 6 voices in the prophet, but the two extra in the modal are nice. But yeah, Modal gets it. Dave Smith though is more like a lost lamb. Getting 90% of the way there and dropping the ball. Dave, that is bush league shit! Get it together, man.

  • Matthias Köhler

    I played the Prophet 6 all factory presets and posted the two videos on my YouTube “Matthias plays” channel. Enjoy this great machine – I was really surprised by the warmth and big sound this great synth really has. The potential is in my opinion enormous. Enjoy, and please reshare when you like it as well as subscribe to my YouTube channel. Thank you very much for your support. This is the link to the Prophet 6 videos from me, best Matthias

    Prophet 6 all factory presets – Part 1 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOng5YTTd3E
    and this is part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2LGiv6XLLE

  • Matthias Köhler

    I played the Prophet 6 all factory presets and posted the two videos on my YouTube “Matthias plays” channel. Enjoy this great machine – I was really surprised by the warmth and big sound this great synth really has. The potential is in my opinion enormous. Enjoy, and please reshare when you like it as well as subscribe to my YouTube channel. Thank you very much for your support. This is the link to the Prophet 6 videos from me, best Matthias

    Prophet 6 all factory presets – Part 1 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOng5YTTd3E
    and this is part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2LGiv6XLLE

  • MadeInMachines

    I had a 08 and never really liked the sound too much. It sounded too hi-fi, polished, too brittle and lacked real analog warmth or excitement. I hope this sounds much better. I notice all the descriptions apart from yours seem to gloss over the modulation specs hiding that it has only 1 LFO. Seems really limited compared to the 08 but maybe the sound can make up for that. I wish it had both though. 1 measly LFO on a £2200 synth!

  • MadeInMachines

    I had a 08 and never really liked the sound too much. It sounded too hi-fi, polished, too brittle and lacked real warmth or character so I didn’t feel excited when using it. From what I’ve heard in demos the 6 sounds much better. I notice most descriptions seem to gloss over the modulation specs hiding that it has only 1 LFO. Seems really limited compared to the 08 but maybe the sound can make up for that. I wish it had both though. 1 measly LFO on a £2200 synth!

    “Seriously, I hope someone does a double blind test with that bypass switch to see if you can feel the warm analog spirit being sucked from the signal, the dark evils of digital falling like a veil over your soul.”

    Brilliant!

  • polysix

    I wouldn’t take a Prophet 6 over a Prophet REV2 even if both were free. VCO vs DCO in this case is almost moot.