Paraphonic synths are polyphonic by definition

Yeah in the end, that is all that matters, happy campers, and we all now we like as manny filters possible! ( pro synth )

I usually like to use the technically correct description on stuff, but on this topic i feel a bit different. hehe. I’m pretty shure the therm parafony has been used for this kind of synths long before internet opinions where a thing. I learned about it from a friend mid 90’s before all these forums where a thing.

And another thing is that words change meaning over time. Alot of words and phrases ment different things a hundered years ago.


Well, have you looked?

My Analog Keys seems to store the envelopes underneath.

1 Like

I know I should let this thread die.
Just can’t resist.

1 Like

Good explanation again :wink:
I have a Dominion 1 with a monophonic mode and a polyphonic mode that is paraphonic. :+1:t2:

Edit: ah hmm. But it works with hi and low note priority in a pretty strange way so I’m not sure if he considers that really paraphonic. :grin:

@LyingDalai, this made me laugh today. I thought of you and this thread immediately.50 AM


Please don’t put pictures of my wife and I on the internet.



apologizes paraphonically

I think this whole argument is quite ridiculous, of course a paraphonic synth can play notes polyphonically when each note starts and ends simultaneously, but that still does not qualify it to be called polyphonic, because the notes are not able to fully articulate individually, and more importantly each voice isn’t duplicated in its entirety, as is the case with true polyphonic synths.

If you are going to argue the case for paraphonic synths to be termed polyphonic then you might as well pretend that legato mode doesn’t exist in monosynths either, because that is exactly just as stupid.

These terms exist and have existed for a long time, for a reason, to allow people to differentiate between them, I don’t understand the reasoning behind wrongly using accurate descriptors.

Oh and lemons and oranges are the same, except nope they really aren’t.

I quite like Marc Doty, but this is just daft IMHO.

Edited: For clarity


Seems clear to me that Marc’s point is that we are using the wrong term for what has long been held to be “polyphonic”. It should be “multiphonic”

It’s most likely beyond that point as a common parlance is defined by its usage(especially in the world of marketing!). Not always related to it’s historical use.

This hardly makes Marc wrong. His opinion on this, given how well researched it is, is probably the most correct-ish.


I guess it is a case of arguing “what should be” to “what is” though, for years polyphonic when used to describe a synth has meant multiple VCOs, envelopes, filter, VCAs and paraphonic has meant multiple VCO’s single envelopes, filter, VCA.

I don’t think we need to use a different term really, the current ones suffice as most people who care about such things already understand them.

1 Like

Well, I think it’s clear from his video and history lesson that that is simply not true :slight_smile: his whole point is that nowadays some of us are actually using the terms wrong.

1 Like

Yeah I get his point, but I find it pointless :wink:

1 Like

I guess that was sort of my point :grinning:

It IS pointless. But your words show you haven’t taken the time to watch the video :tongue:


So we should rename polyphonic to multiphonic, so that the paraphonic synth could be called polyphonic. …

I would like to stick to the old terminology, like piano is polyphonic, and trumpet monophonic, and , yes , paraphonic is something that can not replicate each voice separately, but it can change intervals of oscillators or duplicate the pitches of oscillator in some other way, and that is like just third way to being polyphonic :slight_smile: If that makes sense ?

I am not watching the video half an our long about the topic hahah i am already worried about my mental health

Well, if one feels like they can loose time in their life to post in this pointless thread, it is my opinion that they should push this nonsense to take the time to listen to the old man :wink:



You would think this all discussion is about being right or wrong. But you’re wrong :sweat_smile:

It’s about history and misuse, but also internet and how people may forge and display their opinion without taking the time to educate themselves.

In such angle, Doty’s intervention is even more interesting.

1 Like

This thread is polyphonic. Lots of voices running in parallell, talking about different things.

There’s the perception of what something is. Then there’s the academic truth to what it is. Then there’s the relevance of any of this.

Depending on context, they matter in different ways.

Truth is not an absolute currency, as today’s global climate shows. It’s just one piece of the puzzle that is your idea of what something is.

Which is why threads like these go on forever. The idea of what’s right here is subjective enough that the academics behind it don’t matter all that much.

1 Like