The DSI Rev2 topic made me consider this. Rev 2 is analog oscillators but their pitch is digitally controlled, correct? So they’re DCOs? But everything else about the synth is analog right? except maybe LFOs. I’m not counting mod matrix or sequencer btw…Just signal path.
Yet this synth which has 8 or 16 voices and four LFOs retails for $1k less than a Prophet 6 which is all analog VCOs, correct? Why is this? How is it that DCOs seemingly cost so much less? Or is the cost from elsewhere?
I think part of it is they need to have all the components respond in a similar way. Like if you have an oscillator thats a lil sharp, it doesn’t matter in a mono synth. But if you get 4 or 8 and they are all off in different ways it wont sound very good. Multiply that by every component in the circuit and every voice, its a lot more work to find components that all match up and also you probably end up discarding more that cant be used. I know this is a thing with vactrols and I am extrapolating to poly analog voices.
I think also labour cost as well. Like you can buy a DIY 8-voice vco analog poly kit for $1k USD, but a factory assembled version will be like $3.5k, the only difference is the time taken to solder it all up.
A lot is in the components. The Rev2’s architecture is like a whole voice per chip. Very compact, and inexpensive. As far as I know, it is only one like this in the current Sequential lineup. The P6 and the OB-6 use discrete electronics, and each voice has its own card.
For instance, here is an OB-6 opened up, which has 6 voices, and you can see the cards:
And here is an 8 voice expansion card for the Rev2:
But why does each voice need to have its own card to be “fully analog”? Is that the difference right there?
I was just explaining the cost difference between the two. The Rev2 uses much less expensive components. Each voice does not need its own card to be fully analog, the new Prophet 5 shows this much. That’s more of a thing vintage synths did, and I admire that they did that for the P6 and OB-6. And I feel like DCO synths are fully analog. The oscillator is fully analog, the signal path is fully analog, it’s just that the pitch is controlled with a digital processor, instead of voltage.
Yeah the prophet 5 rev4 has 5 voices on a card I think. Theres pics of the inside in the gearspace thread if you can be bothered wading though the thread.
Right, it has voices printed on a board, but not separate voice cards like the OB-6 & P6. The voices of the P5 is one one big board. The difference between the P5 and Rev2 is that on P5 board you can see the chips of the VCO, VCF, VCA, etc, whereas, with the Rev2, the chip is an all-in-one voice.
this guy pops his open about 5 mins in Prophet 5/10 rev4 Capacitor removal modification. ( Filter Fix) - YouTube
Personally I love looking at the inside of synths and pretending like i know what any of it does haha.
Just to add, the classic Juno’s had DCO’s. They are “Fully Analog” in my book, if the DCO term puts people off. Plenty of great classic synths had DCO’s.
Yeah I agree 100%. Also vintage modelling like VCM has made digital sound more analog, and analog tech has come a long way since the 90s to the point VCOs can be just as stable as digital ones. Thats why the P5 has a vintage knob.
…or take the cheap Behringer…
I think the 106 had DCOs and the 60 had VCOs.
So anyway…why would Sequential need to do all that extra work and charge an extra grand?
Have you had the opportunity to play both side by side? The experience is night and day imo, the P6 is such a joy to play and there is an audible difference in the weight and presence of each note. Not saying the Rev2 is lacking in any regard, it offers much more in terms of modulation and voice count.
To my knowledge, the 6, 60 and 106 all used DCO’s.
No idea. My best guess is that Dave Smith wanted it to sound a certain way, and that was the best way to get the result he wanted at the time.
I think I remember seeing an interview with Dave Smith who himself seemed to suggest he thought the prophet 12 (digital oscilators if I’m not mistaken) was his best synth. About the prophet 6 he said something like: yeah people seem to want vco’s, so we built this one…
I believe there’s a sonic difference some people might be able to hear, but I think psychoaccoustics play a huge role in this entire discussion. A lot of people genuinely think things sound better it theyre ‘fully analog’ because their brains trick them into hearing things that arent there when they know the synth is analog, or hearing some kind of ‘thinness’ when the know it’s digital.
In reality the level of accuracy digital instruments can accomplish these days (including vintage slop/warmth) is so great that most people wont hear any difference in a blind test. You’re paying more because the market allows conpanies to ask more for analog (because better), so you’re mainly paying for the experience.
I will probably get a lot of responses of people saying they can hear the difference, and they might, but generally in blind tests between good analog and good digital VA, even the gearspace community ends up in a 50/50 split, that should tell you something.
I have never played either side by side. I would just note that it is common in polysynths for each voice to be quieter, so I would expect a 6 voice to overall have more presence than a 16 voice on a note v note basis. More voices = louder = lower gain per voice to prevent unwanted distortion. I think it is also why monos are still best for basses and big leads.
I have actually! I even mentioned it in the rev2 thread. I played my friend’s prophet 6 and even barely tweaking the init patch sounded really good.
That’s reassuring, ha. I Loooooove my P12. I sold my OB-6 and kept the P12.
