Login / Register
 
prophet 5 revision 2 vs 3.3
New Reply
Subscribe
Xero
Thread Starter
#1
14th April 2012
Old 14th April 2012
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Xero's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Boulder
Posts: 3,922

Thread Starter
Xero is online now
prophet 5 revision 2 vs 3.3

so. I said if i ever had them both I'd do this and so I'm doing it. these were recorded at 24/96khz plugged directly into my audiofire 12.

no space echos, chorus, flangers, or fancy pre's here. raw prophet.

the rev3 is the one with the crackly keybed. I usually play it via midi and it won't crackle like that. It needs to be cleaned. Also, this is not intended to be a demonstration of my (not so good) playing ability by any means, rather an attempt to be consistent in playing. Once I have the rev2 modded with midi and cassette interface this comparison will get a lot more intense.

Okay, three clips. First is all of it together Listen with your eyes closed and you can guess which prophet is which, hah. you can kinda use the sound cloud wave diagrams to tell which are which when listening to the combined file.

Second is just the rev2. Third is just the rev3.

http://soundcloud.com/portable-beat-box/prophet-5-revision-2-versus
http://soundcloud.com/portable-beat-box/prophet-5-comparison-rev2-only
http://soundcloud.com/portable-beat-box/prophet-5-comparison-rev3-only

I'm comparing presets 11, 12, and 17.

unfortunately I don't have the cassette mod on the prophet 5 rev2 so these are trusting that the originals in the synth weren't changed too much or anything. I did go over them with the factory preset sheets in the manual to ensure they're as correct as possible with my given setup. I tweak it a bit during the performance to try and make them match.

I'm opening a huge can of worms here, I know, but I have the two synths on the same rack right now and it's been a very interesting experience so far. I'm going to hold my opinions for now and just let everyone listen for themselves.

I think it's especially worth nothing the difference in how the resonance sounds and effects the rest of the sound when listening to these clips.
Quote
1
#2
14th April 2012
Old 14th April 2012
  #2
Gear addict
 
JEBEQ's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: USA Colorado
Posts: 426

JEBEQ is offline
#3
14th April 2012
Old 14th April 2012
  #3
Gear nut
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Location: Munich
Posts: 114

Fluid Movement is offline
Haha i love how 2 people have already spammed on one of the tracks :D
Xero
Thread Starter
#4
14th April 2012
Old 14th April 2012
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Xero's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Boulder
Posts: 3,922

Thread Starter
Xero is online now
here it is sir! hot off the presses. both rev3 and rev2 doing it.

I'm basically just playing along with the song on the two synths.

you can tell which the rev3 is I bet, my patch on it sounds very similar to yours!

I can give similar "answer key" files as above later though! first I want you to hear it with out that and see what you think!

http://soundcloud.com/portable-beat-box/megatron
Xero
Thread Starter
#5
14th April 2012
Old 14th April 2012
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Xero's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Boulder
Posts: 3,922

Thread Starter
Xero is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fluid Movement View Post
Haha i love how 2 people have already spammed on one of the tracks :D
I know, wtf? this never happened before with soundcloud. It must be a recent thing. I hope they get it under control. I already removed it.
#6
15th April 2012
Old 15th April 2012
  #6
Gear addict
 
JEBEQ's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: USA Colorado
Posts: 426

JEBEQ is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xero View Post
here it is sir! hot off the presses. both rev3 and rev2 doing it.

I'm basically just playing along with the song on the two synths.

you can tell which the rev3 is I bet, my patch on it sounds very similar to yours!

I can give similar "answer key" files as above later though! first I want you to hear it with out that and see what you think!

http://soundcloud.com/portable-beat-box/megatron
Obviously this is just a raw recording and it will take a bit of processing and effects to make it sound just like Cowley's. On my mix I had to add EQ compression Chorus, Delay and Reverb to coax it to sound as close as possible to Cowleys.
A couple things from your sound demo though, it seems that the filter envelope is set a bit different on the Rev 3, it just cuts off and does not have the smoother decay that is set on the REV2. When the rev3 comes in at 25sec it does sound just a bit brighter but it might be the ENV amount. All in all, I am not finding the two P5's to have as huge of a difference as I was expecting it to, and I think that most of the P5 sound you here in Cowleys was due to EQing, effects and processing.
#7
15th April 2012
Old 15th April 2012
  #7
Gear nut
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 76

rodion is offline
thanks for the comparison!

it really seems to me that you have to get your rev3's output fixed my friend,
way too much crackling

but beside that there's quite a difference in the sound of the two prophet revs.
I wouldn't love to admit it, since I own a rev3
but the sound of your rev2 it's quite a lot fuller and beefier than the one of rev3.
again there's definitely something wrong in the output of your rev3,
it seems like some frequencies are missing out of the spectrum
but you can definitely hear the difference between the two, especially when it comes to filter tweaking.

rev2 sounds much more like 5 70ies monosynths playing togheter.
#8
15th April 2012
Old 15th April 2012
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,508

Radiance is offline
I once did a test between the two revisions...that is, I got a audio file from a rev 2 and I tried making the same sounds on my rev 3.
I even got patch sheets from the sounds made on the rev 2.

Using the same settings as the rev 2, I could hear quite some difference when reproduced on my rev 3.
However, when just trying to recreate the sound I think I could get it 95% right most of the time.
Only when doing filter sweeps there was a clear difference.

However, just adding a little EQ to the rev 3 made the sound indistinguishable from the rev 2.
And this is something most synth purist don't want to hear....most sounds we like from these old synth records are processed sounds.
The synth will provide the basic sound but that's just 70% of the whole sound IMHO. The other 30% is mic pre, EQ, fx and compression and what not...
Quote
1
#9
15th April 2012
Old 15th April 2012
  #9
Gear nut
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 76

rodion is offline
yep you're definitely right. 99% of the best music and records we love is made by eqing, compressing, effecting, carving and mixing togheter sounds from different machines and/or real instruments and vocals.
but as for any good mix, the mixing ingredients have to be good:
the better and more interesting they are, the cooler they will sound after the final mix and mastering.

I'm 100% sure that with a bit of eq and processing any rev3 could sound indistinguishable from a rev2, especially in a mix. the same more or less even applies to software and to anything:
with a nice ear and an arsenal of tools for working on sound, you can even make your balalaika to sound like an odyssey.

but I'm judging synths based on their instrument nature:
I love prophet for the way it is layed out, for the way in which I can tweak it and squeeze music and sounds out of it.

But no nerdy doubt I'd like my rev3 filter to sweep like a rev2 does
#10
15th April 2012
Old 15th April 2012
  #10
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,934

maisonvague is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodion View Post
But no nerdy doubt I'd like my rev3 filter to sweep like a rev2 does
Me, too -- though not always, of course. Filter sweeps and patches making extreme use of resonance are where the differences between rev2 and rev3 Prophets really come through for me. There is a harshness to the rev3 filter that occasionally crosses the threshold of pain for me. Rev2s can squeal, too, of course, but still... .

All in all though, I've never felt compelled to search out a rev2. I'm perfectly happy with my P-5 and P-10 -- basically 3x rev3 Prophets when used together. These synths are so bloody inspiring to work with I just don't feel the need for a rev2.

Not saying I wouldn't mind having one, though ;-)

Please make some more demos, Xero! As a big fan of Prophets, I enjoy these kinds of threads immensely! Cheers.

Quote
1
#11
15th April 2012
Old 15th April 2012
  #11
Lives for gear
 
golden beers's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,151

golden beers is offline
you're not really going to gain much insight comparing like for like presets for the reasons Radiance says, depends how the synths are calibrated for one.

really you would have to synthesise a sound from scratch designed to highlight the differences.. using FM and filter is the way i think.. am just letting my pro5 warm up.. will come back here in a couple of hours, (other duties permitting) with some rough settings to try out. and a wave from the rev2.

another big factor in the rev2 love is it's gritty organic-ness, basically in scientific terms, the synth's a little fuked-up.! low quality trim-pots mean you can't calibrate each voice to be exactly the same, which is a good thing. i've thought about replacing the trim-pots in mine (eg voice output level) but decided against it. the whole looseness of 'tuning' (not just in pitch terms) really adds something. anyway.. i'll try and get back today with a simple patch.. maybe tomorrow. all depends on what torchure the wife has planned for me
__________________
_____________________________________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by djugel View Post
The knob on the Source is perhaps the ballsiest knob ever made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LimpyLoo View Post
My gearection has gone from 'Fairchild' to 'Behringer'...
Quote:
Originally Posted by apprenticemart2 View Post
I like the sample packs with booby girls on the front cover or sound engineers lookin' 'ard as fur.
#12
15th April 2012
Old 15th April 2012
  #12
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,934

maisonvague is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by golden beers View Post
... all depends on what torchure the wife has planned for me
. Love it. Know precisely what you mean, my friend. Best of luck ;-)
Xero
Thread Starter
#13
15th April 2012
Old 15th April 2012
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Xero's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Boulder
Posts: 3,922

Thread Starter
Xero is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEBEQ View Post
Obviously this is just a raw recording and it will take a bit of processing and effects to make it sound just like Cowley's. On my mix I had to add EQ compression Chorus, Delay and Reverb to coax it to sound as close as possible to Cowleys.
A couple things from your sound demo though, it seems that the filter envelope is set a bit different on the Rev 3, it just cuts off and does not have the smoother decay that is set on the REV2. When the rev3 comes in at 25sec it does sound just a bit brighter but it might be the ENV amount. All in all, I am not finding the two P5's to have as huge of a difference as I was expecting it to, and I think that most of the P5 sound you here in Cowleys was due to EQing, effects and processing.
You're right, I did notice a minor difference in ENV, and I'm not sure it's my fault, I think the rev2 probably needs to be calibrated in that regard, but I did try to tweak out the minor differences, once I get the cassette interface, we'll know for sure as I'll be able to convert patches between the two (and my rev 2 will be freshly serviced and calibrated!) BTW. that's the rev2 at 25 seconds, not the rev3! The rev2 indeed sounds brighter. While the difference isn't huge in my cowley example, I think other examples show much greater differences. Especially in resonance. I feel like in the cowley example, the rev2 sounds less hazey, more open, more metallic even...In fact that brass sound was one thing I had much trouble making sound the same on both revisions! The rev3 would sound like someone threw a blanket over the speakers or something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodion View Post
thanks for the comparison!

it really seems to me that you have to get your rev3's output fixed my friend,
way too much crackling

but beside that there's quite a difference in the sound of the two prophet revs.
I wouldn't love to admit it, since I own a rev3
but the sound of your rev2 it's quite a lot fuller and beefier than the one of rev3.
again there's definitely something wrong in the output of your rev3,
it seems like some frequencies are missing out of the spectrum
but you can definitely hear the difference between the two, especially when it comes to filter tweaking.

rev2 sounds much more like 5 70ies monosynths playing togheter.
yes, the cracking is all just from the keybed, dirty j-wires or what not. it will sound fine if I play it over midi. It needs a cleaning BAD.

the first patch especially though, that brass just sounds insane on the rev2. very 70s like you said. I didn't want to admit it myself until I heard them side by side. To be brutally honest, the recording doesn't do it total justice, when playing them next to each other they seem to sound a lot more different, the range on the rev2's sound palette is just wider, IMO.

it's funny you say frequencies sound missing on the rev3, I do feel like the rev2's filter is able to apply it's character (as in, gently applying filter), but let more sound through, at the same time. It's like, the rev3 filter can't sound quite as open, nor can it "clamp down" as much when you want to. It seems to effect frequencies on a way different curve or something. I don't think anything's actually wrong with the rev3 in that regard, though. I think it's just the differences in the filter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radiance View Post
I once did a test between the two revisions...that is, I got a audio file from a rev 2 and I tried making the same sounds on my rev 3.
I even got patch sheets from the sounds made on the rev 2.

Using the same settings as the rev 2, I could hear quite some difference when reproduced on my rev 3.
However, when just trying to recreate the sound I think I could get it 95% right most of the time.
Only when doing filter sweeps there was a clear difference.

However, just adding a little EQ to the rev 3 made the sound indistinguishable from the rev 2.
And this is something most synth purist don't want to hear....most sounds we like from these old synth records are processed sounds.
The synth will provide the basic sound but that's just 70% of the whole sound IMHO. The other 30% is mic pre, EQ, fx and compression and what not...
Okay, so I said I'd save my opinions for later, but basically what I found is that I had more ease making the rev2 sound like the rev3, than vice versa. There was occasionally sounds that I just flat out couldn't make match either way, but most of the time, the rev2 could match the rev3 before I could get the rev3 to match rev2, MOST. As I was saying before, to me, it seemed as if there's just more range in the filter or something. Something is especially different about how the resonance effects the sound. I'm sure with enough EQ and effects you can drown out the differences enough so that it's less noticable, but not for everything. I agree though that most of these famous sounds from records and what not are a combination of the synth and the vintage recording and processing equipment from the time, but I'm now entirely convinced it's not JUST that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
Me, too -- though not always, of course. Filter sweeps and patches making extreme use of resonance are where the differences between rev2 and rev3 Prophets really come through for me. There is a harshness to the rev3 filter that occasionally crosses the threshold of pain for me. Rev2s can squeal, too, of course, but still... .

Please make some more demos, Xero! As a big fan of Prophets, I enjoy these kinds of threads immensely! Cheers.
oh they can both squeal on resonance alright! the rev2's resonance is ridiculously nice though. I was trying to hold my opinions back so badly in the first post! I will definitely be posting more demos. I've currently got a kenton midi kit on order, so I've got until that gets here to play with it and make more demos. Once it arrives though, it's off to get serviced and upgraded! Then once I get it back, the real demo will begin! I'll be able to copy patches via cassette and play identically on both.



Quote:
Originally Posted by golden beers View Post
you're not really going to gain much insight comparing like for like presets for the reasons Radiance says, depends how the synths are calibrated for one.

another big factor in the rev2 love is it's gritty organic-ness, basically in scientific terms, the synth's a little fuked-up.! low quality trim-pots mean you can't calibrate each voice to be exactly the same, which is a good thing. i've thought about replacing the trim-pots in mine (eg voice output level) but decided against it. the whole looseness of 'tuning' (not just in pitch terms) really adds something. anyway.. i'll try and get back today with a simple patch.. maybe tomorrow. all depends on what torchure the wife has planned for me
Luckily the rev2 is getting serviced/upgraded shortly. The rev3 I'll be holding on to in the mean time, but eventually I do need to get it's keybed cleaned, badly....the rev2's organicness is definitely pretty awesome, although it's not as "horribly off" as some people would like to make you think, I think the filter differences are by far the biggest, but the rest of the SSM chipset, I'm sure, has something to do with it as well.
#14
15th April 2012
Old 15th April 2012
  #14
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 226

chromex is offline
Years ago I was privileged to be at an AHMW meeting where a recently serviced rev 2 and a recently serviced rev 3 were present. They were both hooked into the same mixer and played through the same PA live. This , BTW, is the best comparison method IMO. Presets and from scratch patches ( using the same settings) were compared.
The results were audible to all attending and the differences were manifest and not subtle. The general feeling was that the rev 2 had a fuller sound and better bass. But everyone present heard there were distinct differences between the two.
Everyone also liked both synths.
Xero
Thread Starter
#15
15th April 2012
Old 15th April 2012
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Xero's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Boulder
Posts: 3,922

Thread Starter
Xero is online now
http://soundcloud.com/portable-beat-box/unison-resonance

keepin' em coming!

rev2 vs rev3 unison mode resonance tweaking. I love how the rev2's resonance almost sounds like sample and hold or something when I'm playing notes really fast causing it to ramp off at slightly different points.
#16
15th April 2012
Old 15th April 2012
  #16
Lives for gear
 
golden beers's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,151

golden beers is offline
back from the torchure..i watched Tom and Jerry and made a clay snake with my son... not a bad day!

if you can be bothered, here's a patch to try out on the rev2/rev3.
something with lashings of juicy modulation and filter FM

poly mod section
FIL.ENV. =0
OSC 2 =2 (i may have moved this up, maybe to 5, no more than that for sure)

DESTINATION = Filter

LFO section

RATE= 7

SHAPE= triangle+square

wheel mod section

SOURCE = LFO (0)
DESTINATION = FREQ1 + PW1

oscillator 1 section

FREQUENCY = 6.5
SHAPE = square
PW = 5
SYNC = on

oscillator 2 section

FREQUENCY = 3
FINE = 5
SHAPE = triangle
KEYBOARD FOLLOW = on

mixer section

osc 1 + 2 = 100%
noise = 0%

Filter section

CUT OFF = 4.5
RES = 7 (about 1 number down from when it start to self oscillate)
ENV FOLLOW = 2
KEYBOARD FOLLOW = off

filter ADSR
A = 6
D = 7.5
S = 0
R = 7.5

AMP ADSR

A= 4
D= 6
S= 10
R= 7.5

thats the sound you can hear in this soundcloud track below for reference.. it's worth skipping though if you've had enough of it as there's a unison part at the end, where i changed osc 2 to square and added PW modulation, moved the filter around a little. sorry but the track itself is just a simple live improv and will probably bore you to tears..

http://soundcloud.com/golden-beers/pro5-rev2-patch-example
#17
15th April 2012
Old 15th April 2012
  #17
Gear addict
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 303

analogholic is offline
I have both revs myself.

Rev 2 sounds more 70´s and/or like 5 good monosynths thrown together.
More "open" and "organic".

Like the Rev 3 better for bass and polymod sounds as the aggressive filter works better for those sounds imo

Also, mixing the waveforms work quite differently on those two:

Rev 3: mixing saw and pulse adds fatness/more volume and the triangle is subtle in volume to add bottom to either saw or pulse.

Rev 2: mixing saw and pulse cancel each other out a little while adding the triangle is way louder and dominates the mix unlike the Rev 3.

So right there they sound VERY different.
Xero
Thread Starter
#18
15th April 2012
Old 15th April 2012
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Xero's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Boulder
Posts: 3,922

Thread Starter
Xero is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogholic View Post
I have both revs myself.

Rev 2 sounds more 70´s and/or like 5 good monosynths thrown together.
More "open" and "organic".

Like the Rev 3 better for bass and polymod sounds as the aggressive filter works better for those sounds imo

Also, mixing the waveforms work quite differently on those two:

Rev 3: mixing saw and pulse adds fatness/more volume and the triangle is subtle in volume to add bottom to either saw or pulse.

Rev 2: mixing saw and pulse cancel each other out a little while adding the triangle is way louder and dominates the mix unlike the Rev 3.

So right there they sound VERY different.
glad you mentioned pulse wave form differences...that's something else I forgot to mention. The pulsewidth definitely sounds different on the rev2 and rev3. I haven't made a demo explicitly of that yet, but if you listen to when I add modulation to the pulsewidth, it's clearly a bit different. I still think the only way I can describe the PWM on the rev2 is...well, kinda rolandy. Though perhaps roland was trying to sound like prophet 5? who knows. It reminds me of the PWM on my jp8 or something, much more so than the rev3 does anyway. it's PWM always seemed a bit more brash.

I originally went into this thinking I'd want to sell the rev3, although I still love it for basslines and such too, although the rev2 is just as fat if not fatter on some types of bass IMO. Just depends on what you want. I think my mks-80rev4 and prophet 5 rev3 make basslines that sound more similar to each other than to the rev2. something about those CEM oscillators, I guess.


Quote:
Originally Posted by golden beers View Post
if you can be bothered, here's a patch to try out on the rev2/rev3.
something with lashings of juicy modulation and filter FM
I will definitely have to give that one a try.
#19
15th April 2012
Old 15th April 2012
  #19
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 178

leaf studios is offline
basically 3x rev3 Prophets when used together. These synths are so bloody inspiring to work with I just don't feel the need for a rev2.

same here , the rev2 never crosses my mind ...

I thought it was common knowledge the 2 versions sound quite different ? the rev2 etc more fat and organic and drifty and the rev 3 more stable and with a slightly more refined sound but still fat as f....? the differences are well known and very odvious but not really of concern when Both revisions sound so f.....good.
Xero
Thread Starter
#20
16th April 2012
Old 16th April 2012
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Xero's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Boulder
Posts: 3,922

Thread Starter
Xero is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaf studios View Post
basically 3x rev3 Prophets when used together. These synths are so bloody inspiring to work with I just don't feel the need for a rev2.

same here , the rev2 never crosses my mind ...
for me, this just wasn't an option. I guess because I grew up listening to a lot of stuff which had rev2 on it, like the cars and such. All that late 70s stuff which had the rev1/2...I wanted that sound.

I still have much respect for them both, though. This is in no way intended to bash the rev3 say "rev3s are all useless in comparison to rev2s" but, rather to put this information out there so next time there's someone in my boots they have a reference point before having to buy both and do side by side comparisons themselves...of course that is probably one of the best ways to compare them, but it's not the cheapest way to make a decision.
#21
16th April 2012
Old 16th April 2012
  #21
Lives for gear
 
The Real MC's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Location: secluded tranquil country
Posts: 2,969

The Real MC is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by chromex View Post
Years ago I was privileged to be at an AHMW meeting where a recently serviced rev 2 and a recently serviced rev 3 were present. They were both hooked into the same mixer and played through the same PA live. This , BTW, is the best comparison method IMO. Presets and from scratch patches ( using the same settings) were compared.
The results were audible to all attending and the differences were manifest and not subtle. The general feeling was that the rev 2 had a fuller sound and better bass. But everyone present heard there were distinct differences between the two.
Everyone also liked both synths.
I remember that show. In tweaking both synths I felt the rev 2 filter had more color in the resonance, but the rev 3 VCOs were more stable in tuning.
__________________
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it. But lead a horse to liquor...
#22
16th April 2012
Old 16th April 2012
  #22
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 178

leaf studios is offline
[QUOTE=Xero;7783285]for me, this just wasn't an option. I guess because I grew up listening to a lot of stuff which had rev2 on it, like the cars and such. All that late 70s stuff which had the rev1/2...I wanted that sound.

thats a valid point , i think the rev1/2 have ' that ' sound and the rev 3 a slightly less ' characterfull ' tone in relation to all those early recordings but its own character , i was always into midi and sound diver librarian which swayed me a bit and theres alot of very scary wives tales about rev 2 reliability which sent me straight for a 3.3 ?

Maybe you rev 2 owners can lay to rest this idea the rev1/2 are a f....nightmare on a yearly basis becauses thats what many people seem to think .

I read that as possibly due to many being gigged hard but i often wondered just what the main reliability issues with the rev2 are or were that got everyone so negative about the early versions ?

Personally i dont believe they can be that unreliable once serviced well ?
#23
16th April 2012
Old 16th April 2012
  #23
Lives for gear
 
golden beers's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,151

golden beers is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaf studios View Post
thats a valid point , i think the rev1/2 have ' that ' sound and the rev 3 a slightly less ' characterfull ' tone in relation to all those early recordings but its own character , i was always into midi and sound diver librarian which swayed me a bit and theres alot of very scary wives tales about rev 2 reliability which sent me straight for a 3.3 ?

Maybe you rev 2 owners can lay to rest this idea the rev1/2 are a f....nightmare on a yearly basis becauses thats what many people seem to think .

I read that as possibly due to many being gigged hard but i often wondered just what the main reliability issues with the rev2 are or were that got everyone so negative about the early versions ?

Personally i dont believe they can be that unreliable once serviced well ?
the problem with mine was bad solder. and a bad ribbon cable.

i have a hunch these are the issues causing the faults that people keep sending their rev2's back to the tech for.

after a new cable and re-flowing a few joints on mine it was sorted. does need a good calibration though..
Xero
Thread Starter
#24
16th April 2012
Old 16th April 2012
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Xero's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: Boulder
Posts: 3,922

Thread Starter
Xero is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaf studios View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xero View Post
for me, this just wasn't an option. I guess because I grew up listening to a lot of stuff which had rev2 on it, like the cars and such. All that late 70s stuff which had the rev1/2...I wanted that sound.
thats a valid point , i think the rev1/2 have ' that ' sound and the rev 3 a slightly less ' characterfull ' tone in relation to all those early recordings but its own character , i was always into midi and sound diver librarian which swayed me a bit and theres alot of very scary wives tales about rev 2 reliability which sent me straight for a 3.3 ?

Maybe you rev 2 owners can lay to rest this idea the rev1/2 are a f....nightmare on a yearly basis becauses thats what many people seem to think .

I read that as possibly due to many being gigged hard but i often wondered just what the main reliability issues with the rev2 are or were that got everyone so negative about the early versions ?

Personally i dont believe they can be that unreliable once serviced well ?
you know, I bought the rev3.3 originally because of the reliability thing and what not as well. The truth is, if any synth hasn't been serviced, calibrated, and gone over after 20-30 years, it's asking for trouble. There's not as many rev2's out there and even less in perfect condition due to neglect and aging. Mind you, with cassette interface, the 120 memory upgrade (yes, for rev2), kenton midi, and the new firmware that is being worked on which adds live edit mode, the rev2 is not really too far from the rev3.3 feature-wise. It's not as "factory" upgraded ala the factory midi kit, and it won't support sysex patch dumps, but I can live with cassette/wavefile dumps. With modern recording interfaces, cassette dumps can just be loaded with any sound file player and are a piece of cake, for me anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real MC View Post
I remember that show. In tweaking both synths I felt the rev 2 filter had more color in the resonance, but the rev 3 VCOs were more stable in tuning.
fwiw, today after turning them both on, the rev2 went out of tune faster initially, but stayed in tune longer after warming up. the rev3 on the other hand, has to be re-tuned more often over time. No amount of warmup seems to effect that. I notice that with my other cem synth as well, the mks-80rev4. None of them are as stable as my jp8 though, that thing is extremely stable for a VCO synth. Mind you, both my prophets probably need a good calibration.


Quote:
Originally Posted by golden beers View Post
the problem with mine was bad solder. and a bad ribbon cable.

i have a hunch these are the issues causing the faults that people keep sending their rev2's back to the tech for.

after a new cable and re-flowing a few joints on mine it was sorted. does need a good calibration though..
I have read that rev1s and some of the first rev2's didn't have proper solder masks or something so the boards are prone to solder joint issues like this and such. I'm sure touring them around as was often done, greatly aggravated such problems. I imagine once that kind of thing is fixed, with typical studio use, it's probably fine. If it's a later board with the solder mask, I can't imagine it'd be that much different from a rev3...I know on the prophet 5 forum there's at least 3-4 people with working rev1's, so solder problems be damned!
#25
16th April 2012
Old 16th April 2012
  #25
Lives for gear
 
golden beers's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,151

golden beers is offline
btw i've just realised that i recorded that sound of mine through my desk with all the bass scooped out and the high mids boosted
#26
16th April 2012
Old 16th April 2012
  #26
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,934

maisonvague is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by golden beers View Post
btw i've just realised that i recorded that sound of mine through my desk with all the bass scooped out and the high mids boosted
Ah, so THAT would explain it.

No matter, had a brilliant time messing around with your patch this afternoon on my P-10. I dialed it into both the upper and lower manuals with more or less the same settings, set up the CV pedals to control LFO amount and filter and conjured up this haunting ditty. Disclaimer: very lo-fi recording straight into a Zoom H1 @ 192 kbps MP3. No FX, etc. Distorts at the end. Kinda fun, though. Great patch, Mr. Beers!
Attached Files
#27
16th April 2012
Old 16th April 2012
  #27
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,934

maisonvague is offline
Here's another one for you. Same (truly awesome) patch as above. Same disclaimer as well ;-)
Attached Files
#28
16th April 2012
Old 16th April 2012
  #28
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 351

jachin boaz is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
Ah, so THAT would explain it.

No matter, had a brilliant time messing around with your patch this afternoon on my P-10. I. Distorts at the end. Kinda fun, though. Great patch, Mr. Beers!
nice thread , loving these creepy 1950's sci fi movie demos.

Quote:
Originally Posted by golden beers View Post
btw i've just realised that i recorded that sound of mine through my desk with all the bass scooped out and the high mids boosted
glad its not just me that does this .
#29
17th April 2012
Old 17th April 2012
  #29
Lives for gear
 
dougt's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 1,192

dougt is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaf studios View Post
Maybe you rev 2 owners can lay to rest this idea the rev1/2 are a f....nightmare on a yearly basis becauses thats what many people seem to think .
Yes his has been totally overblown I think. I have a Rev 1 that has been totally reliable since I got it a few years ago. I haven't even had to tune/calibrate the voices...
__________________
Doug
http://www.synthparts.com
#30
17th April 2012
Old 17th April 2012
  #30
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,934

maisonvague is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaf studios View Post
... i was always into midi and sound diver librarian which swayed me a bit and theres alot of very scary wives tales about rev 2 reliability which sent me straight for a 3.3 ...
Are you saying you used SoundDiver with your P-5? I could never get SoundDiver to work properly with mine (Rev 3.3 with factory MIDI). I could send individual patches via sysex, but I wasn't able to receive or edit them, or do bulk dumps to/from the synth. Just curious.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
tigermuzik / Post Production forum!
4
stereobot / Music Computers
1
andrewj / Music Computers
6
gdeusthewhizkid / Rap + Hip Hop engineering & production
4
Laura / So much gear, so little time!
4

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.