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.
Well, I think it’s clear from his video and history lesson that that is simply not true 
his whole point is that nowadays some of us are actually using the terms wrong.
Yeah I get his point, but I find it pointless 
I guess that was sort of my point 
It IS pointless. But your words show you haven’t taken the time to watch the video 
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 If that makes sense ?
P:S
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
You would think this all discussion is about being right or wrong. But you’re wrong 
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.
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.
I just hope everybody’s sleeping well at night…
Admittedly I didn’t watch all, but enough to get what he was saying, I respect the guy, his synth exploration videos are amongst the best, no doubt about it.
But I find the whole thing a little unnecessary, and more importantly potentially just confusing the terminology that has been widely accepted.
The Behringer Poly D has polyphony, but that doesn’t qualify it as a polyphonic synth, because that describes a synth which has polyphony and individual note independence, so on that basis it should not be marketed as such.
I will agree that the term polyphony has been used incorrectly in the past so in that sense yes he is right, but it all feels a bit like swimming up the river and doubling down.
Up next Marc Doty tells us why we’re wrong about Drum’n’Bass: “other music has drums and bass” 
Yes, but is it really a history and misuse, or just stories and free interpretations ? let us ask someone on internetz to see if we can make an hour long footage about it.
EDT
last sentence is cynic and unnecessary. But i will live it here, because this is unfortunately part of my character 
Don’t forget that those aren’t real drums (for the most part) either… kettle, meet fish.
Let’s just all call it polaraphonic and be done with it.
Or wait until time travel becomes reality and go back into the past and rename everything 
So your saying Drum’n’Bass should be called “percussive and low frequency”?
I favour “sampled breakbeat ‘n’ sine wave sub bass, chipmunk style vocal optional” 
Edit: actually we should drop the ‘n’ in favour of “and” for logical reasons
Anyone heard any modern DnB? Its all treble nowadays… drum and treble anyone?
Edit… Sampled Drum break ampersand Treble?