Would not the most accurate description be the most ideal?
Like how a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn’t a square. I could call a square a rectangle and be technically correct, but compared to calling it a square it’s less correct than actually calling it a square
Also, that “unison” mode seems like they’re playing towards a persons misunderstanding of poly and para
Oh, so now we’re all just supposed to start dissing bears and sh$&. Like, what’d a bear ever do to you, man. That’s messed up. I’m a bring em out of hibernation just for proper representation. Ain’t even no bears here to mess with and y’all still throwing shade!
I though that at first also but then I realized the korg mono/poly calls the it unison/share in the poly mode… makes me think they probably were taking most of there “poly” inspiration from the mono/poly. If you think of it as a mash up of a model D and a mono/poly the behringer poly D name maybe starts to make a bit more sense. Although you would have thought they would have gone out of there way to show the inspiration from korg also in there launch trailer if this is really the case.
Marc Doty is treasure to synth heads. Thanks for expanding my knowledge 
At last a fellow comrade!
I just ordered a Novation Poly Station then! Nice!
I dont think that what is technically maybe correct is the important thing. Its more what has been used to describe it for the last 40 years is more important. I will still think of a polyfonic synth as a synth with dedicated filter and vca’s pr voice.
Of course. But now you know what is underneath, and you choose usage over technically correct 
But didnt he make up his own description? I didnt see the whole 10 hour video* he made with his rabling on the subject, but did watch some of it when it was first made. But isnt everything just his oppinion? And making a long video on the subject doesnt necessarily make it correct.
*= some exaggerations may appear in this post! 
He underlined that today what’s closest to the truth is largely made from Internet opinions and self referring communities, but less and less by facts. I actually took the time to read a lot of his notes. If you feel like you need funded answers to your questions, maybe you could do the same, starting with the links above
I feel sorry for the sales people who will have to go through endless conversation with customers about whether it’s a polyphonic or paraphonic and what the hell the definition may or may not be.
They’ll want to avoid customers returning to say, “Hey! It’s not really a polyphonic synth!” 
So you can be sure they’ll tell customers from the start that it’s actually paraphonic with a few voicing options. Otherwise, it’ll be the lawyers who decide the “true” definitions and what they mean.
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.
I know I should let this thread die.
Just can’t resist.
Good explanation again
I have a Dominion 1 with a monophonic mode and a polyphonic mode that is paraphonic. 
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. 
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
