KVR Audio

eXode · Post by **eXode** » Sat Jan 24, 2015 7:43 pm

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

Or it could just be that most people don't give a shit about these details...

Shy · Post by **Shy** » Sat Jan 24, 2015 9:10 pm

Like you, right?

himalaya · Post by **himalaya** » Sat Jan 24, 2015 9:13 pm

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

That's a shame that you are not able to explain what is the source of your disappointment with the supposed digital envelopes and LFOs in Prophet 6. You make the claim that these affect the sound in a fundamental manner but can not explain why.

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

For me, the VCO+VCF+VCA signal path is enough to designate the synth to be fully analog. Yes, sure, it isn't really, there's all manner of digital stuff controlling the note allocation, keyboard scanning, preset storage, etc, etc. but in today day and age, none of it affects the underlying sound of the VCO+VCF and the main sound I can get from it. There is a real analog sound in there...

V0RT3X · Post by **V0RT3X** » Sat Jan 24, 2015 9:15 pm

Hey cmon guys lets not get too upset over this.

Back to the Prophet 6, well i think the demo video sounded excellent. It does sound similar to the prophet 5 which is a synth i always wanted to own one day. I hope DSI will release a desktop version!

himalaya · Post by **himalaya** » Sat Jan 24, 2015 9:19 pm

SLiC wrote:....I buy things based on a simple formula of 'how it sounds' multipled by 'how cool it looks' minus 'cost'

A simple but effective way to go about it.

My formula is simpler still, and is based on the first and last part of your formula.

himalaya · Post by **himalaya** » Sat Jan 24, 2015 9:34 pm

V0RT3X wrote:
Back to the Prophet 6,

Now that I've decided to spend that much on another poly synth, the P6, I'm actually thinking of the gloriously digital P12!

cryophonik · Post by **cryophonik** » Sat Jan 24, 2015 9:35 pm

himalaya wrote:
SLiC wrote:....I buy things based on a simple formula of 'how it sounds' multipled by 'how cool it looks' minus 'cost'
A simple but effective way to go about it.

My formula is simpler still, and is based on the first and last part of your formula.

My formula for this synth is much more complex and requires an Excel spreadsheet, but essentially goes:

IfWant=YES, Buy, else Buy

Aural Chaos · Post by **Aural Chaos** » Sat Jan 24, 2015 9:52 pm

Not sure why certain people have such a hard time grasping the concept.
There IS an all analog signal path, from the oscillators all the way to the outputs. You can send that through A/D converter, digital FX, D/A converter, and mix it back in to the analog path, if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that there is still all analog signal path. This is the same thing Elektron does with the AK/A4.

eXode · Post by **eXode** » Sat Jan 24, 2015 10:20 pm

By some people's standards there apparently hasn't been a true analog synth since before the introduction of the Prophet 5, as it was credited as the first programmable polyphonic synth and pretty much every analog poly after it has had some sort of digital components. The same is obviously true for any analog synth, poly or not, with MIDI, patch saving or a MIDI tempo syncable LFO.

Shy · Post by **Shy** » Sat Jan 24, 2015 10:39 pm

himalaya: envelopes and LFOs control the pitch of the VCO and the bandwidth of the VCF. There are several factors that effect what sound you'll get, and among them are the oscillator's waveform and the waveform of the oscillator or envelope that's modulating the oscillator's waveform.

Among the underlying components which create a "sound" and determine its character are not only audio range waveforms, but also sub audio range waveforms which modulate the audio range waveforms. If you realize (and you definitely should) that this is true for synths and all other musical instruments, then you know that for example the "underlying sound" of a modulated oscillator is not separate from either the "underlying sound" of a modulating oscillator which is in the audio range (which many low frequency oscillators can reach) nor from the "underlying infrasound" of a sub audio range modulating oscillator, unless the modulating oscillator is not effecting it at all. Any claim that a modulator's waveform doesn't effect the underlying sound is false.

Same idea with effecting filter bandwidth: the sound or infrasound of the waveform which modulates the filter's frequency cutoff point, and the filter's own characteristics, both determine how the filter sounds when it is effected. Same idea with global amplitude, the point is clear.

As for "my disappointment", I never mentioned such a thing, and you already agreed with the indisputable "claim" that LFOs and envelopes fundamentally effect the sound, so I don't know what else you want. I'm not interested in knowing every person's preferences towards one oscillator, envelope, processor or whatever implementation over another. I'm not gonna mention again that I don't want to discuss which analog or digital implementations I like and dislike, in here. I already mentioned what my point is and why I would like people to not be misled.

You may be trying hard to tell yourself that the "underlying sound" (or infrasound) of envelope and LFO signals / waveforms is not part of the underlying sound of a synth. If someone believes that, it's most probably because they just don't know how sound works, or they choose to ignore it and believe otherwise. If you believe that Dave Smith who has been claiming that synths like Mopho have a "fully analog signal path" has not been misleading people, even though signals in the synth are generated in the digital domain (not to mention the whole DCO "debate" which I won't expand on in here) and there are DACs all over the signal path, that's fine, as I said, but it doesn't change the fact that he has.

She Changed Her Mind · Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:56 pm

Impressive.

himalaya · Post by **himalaya** » Sun Jan 25, 2015 10:06 pm

Shy,
So what you seem to be saying, is that because the P6 uses software envelops and LFOs, we can not describe the Prophet 6 as having a full analog signal path, despite it having VCOs and VCFs?

As for "my disappointment", I never mentioned such a thing, and you already agreed with the indisputable "claim" that LFOs and envelopes fundamentally effect the sound

You seem to be disappointed by the very fact of highlighting the supposed detrimental effect of having software envelopes and LFOs. I'm simply agreeing to the fact that envelopes and LFOs do indeed affect the sound, they modulate it. But I'm not convinced that with today's implementations there is anything to worry about, hence my questions to you, to at least provide some concrete information. I'd like to learn but all you have is, the 'rain is wet' , the 'wheel is round', type of stuff. Perhaps this is not the place, so I won't bug you for it.

Shy · Post by **Shy** » Mon Jan 26, 2015 12:47 am

I don't know how I seem, but I can tell you that I couldn't possibly be disappointed by the design of a synth I never had any interest in buying and never even heard or used. I just check what's new once in a while, out of mild interest and uninteresting reasons. It's actually kind of uplifting for me to see that things like this concern you enough for you to think of it in such emotional terms. Because I myself am emotional about musical instruments (and synths most of all), and I appreciate others who are, because they actually care about this stuff and make good things happen. I don't like discussing in general terms like "today's implementations" because the difference between specific implementations varies from mild to huge and it's not possible to make detached subjective observations and still make sense, especially if the discussion is about something that isn't available yet and it's only possible to bring too unrelated examples.

We probably shouldn't refer to Prophet 6 with certainty yet, since it's not released, and thanks to DSI's constantly misleading info, we won't know anything for sure about this latest synth until it is released. You could describe any synth with digital envelopes and LFOs as having a fully analog signal path if you wanted, but you would be wrong and misleading, because of the simple fact that synths with digital envelopes and LFOs don't have a fully analog signal path, and at least one of the digitally generated signals within that path has a fundamental effect on the sound in almost any practical usage. Any device with a functioning digital to analog or analog to digital converter within its signal path doesn't have a fully analog signal path. It's a simple fact. Technically, that would include synths where a DAC's only job is to transmit values which aren't related to effecting sound during musical performance other than to switch "preset" values, in which case you could dismiss them and still call the signal path "fully analog" despite it not being true, without being misleading. Because for all practical, functional, aural purposes, they don't produce a signal and effect anything, except when a preset is switched.

Gonga · Post by **Gonga** » Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:04 am

It's great that a new Prophet is coming. The end of an era is nearing. I'm also afraid the end of the era when mortal musicians could afford these synths has already passed! I paid $4000 for my Oberheim FVS, but I could never afford that today.

I think it's justified that some people are wary of analog synths that have digital sections. In my own experience, my Moog Voyager Rackmount literally sounded like shit (aliasing and zippering) all the time whenever I played it because of the way it handled midi pitch bend and modulation input. The people on their forum, including their techies, hardly gave it any attention, and never fixed it. The majority of users couldn't even hear the difference or didn't care! And as long as you used only voltage controllers, like on the regular Voyager, there was no problem. But the digital circuit was not done right by Moog and it has never been fixed.

So I think until a synth is out and people can tell you where problems may or may not lie in actual use, analog synths with digital components might be suspect if you've been burned before.

I have to say though, if anybody knows how to use digital circuits in analog synths, it's SC.

ghettosynth · Post by **ghettosynth** » Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:22 am

Shy wrote:Envelope and LFO signals are fundamental in synths and effect most aspects of the sound, including pitch, amplitude and bandwidth. That's not arguable.

What is arguable, is whether or not modulators are considered "on the signal path?" I think that it's a reasonable point to exclude them. Now, there are some cases where having analog modulators contributes to the "analogness" of a synth, but, in general, you don't actually "hear" modulators, you hear their effect, yes, but, up to the point where we're talking about FM, you only hear modulator signals where there is bleedthrough.

Whatever anyone thinks about the difference, or lack of, in sound character between analog and digital envelopes and low frequency oscillators is irrelevant. The signals are generated in the digital domain and get converted by digital to analog converters in the signal path, which means that the signal path is absolutely not "fully analog".

To be clear here, there are no signals "on the signal path" being generated in the digital domain. There is AD/DA conversion, yes, and that would be an issue for an "all analog signal path", but the "signal path" is generally meant to mean from the audio signal generation through to the audio output. For an element o be "on the signal path", a signal must pass through that element.

If you think Dave Smith is not misleading you, that's fine, but he is.

So pedantry aside, I think that the bigger issue is how "all analog signal path" has become a positive attrribute for synths. Whether he's misleading people or not, to me, is far less of an issue than how misleading it was to use that phrase to avoid talking about the hybrid (i.e. NOT analog) oscillators in the Prophet 08 and spinoffs. That was seriously misleading and as a result, we have people expecting their synths to have "all analog signal paths" and that the phrase has some meaning.

BTW: I'm sure that I'm not telling you anything, but, very few poly synths since the early eighties use analog envelopes and LFOs. Some of the mega-classics not only used digital variants, but have some character of the synth dependent of that fact. The M12 is famous for having slow envelopes and LFOs that vary in speed somewhat with increased modulator usage owing to increased demand on the synth's underpowered CPU.

Sequential Prophet 6 !!! NAMM 2015