I think the Prophet 10 is the way to go. It's a bargain imo. Like mentioned, you get more of an opportunity to have some great sounding overlapping voices with how they interact with each other.

Would it be cheaper to order from somewhere else and import it?

Does anyone know if the LFO is resettable with key? An important feature, even if there is only a common one for all voices.

Anyone looking for a true 1:1 P5, I don't think that's being completely realistic. Unless someone can source and build everything exactly, it just won't be. We all know by now to expect that regardless of the marketing on any product.

Every company will say they modeled something closely and all that jargon, but that's the way of marketing. Being how temperamental vintage synths are, it can't be easy to model. I don't think most companies like Sequential are being dishonest and actually are very straight-forward and honest with what they made. Nor do I think any of us are saying they are or any other company, for that matter.

Being that the Rev4 is a combo of all previous Revs, I'm not expecting it to sound the same because imo, it shouldn't if it is a combo of all Revs. However, it's going to give us flavors of Prophet goodness from all of those Revs. I'm just expecting it to sound great, which I can tell it does (though I can't tell to the full extent yet), and that it will be a new instrument for a new age.

Very exciting synth we have here.

Pardon my ignorance, but what's the point of the LFO that resets with each keypress? Playing staccato (aka 90% of regular notes) with a slow LFO rate means it doesn't move at all.

Yeah, can't be both lol. That's typical and comes from the society driven way of thinking, instead of considering what that actually entails. It's unfortunate for any company like Moog or Sequential to seemingly be in a position to where they just can't win over everyone.

I think what goes on is that once a company makes a clone (or any synth for that matter), people start to inquire about things they never thought of before like the technical aspects of what gives the synth it's sound.

Just like the Rev 2 wasn't a Rev 1 and Rev 3 wasn't a Rev 2, the same applies here. And what we have is a great instrument with DNA of the whole lineage. Incredible offering here.

Hoping a P10 rack is made available.

I would agree. OTOH in this case it's reasonable to expect it to have the P5's essential character, that something in its tone that makes the original sound so good.

That's what Behringer gets right - e.g. the Pro-1 doesn't sound excatly like the original but it has enough of the same character & 'mojo' and sounds great regardless.

I hope that's the case here. Being slightly disappointed with everything DSI / Sequential has released after the Evolver, reading about many things being digital / digitally modelled here, I'm not keeping my hopes up In the demos I haven't heard enough of the sounds that I think makes the P5 rev 3 so special. That's just me of course & YMMV. Many ppl love the new Sequential stuff.

If you’re modulating say cutoff with a slow LFO saw wave, it can be desireable to have it reset to the start of its cycle on keypress where it then functions as a kind of envelope.

You’re a sound designer. You should know that!

Consistent transients

This is *really* important. If you use a sawtooth/pulse wave to modulate filter, it becomes a rhythmic effect. You want that to re-start on key otherwise the effect is out of sync with your playing. With other effects such as vibrato (triangle --> VCOs) you want the opposite: free-running.

It's also useful to know whether the LFOs are per-voice (for cascading effects), or across all voices (for a unified effect overall).

Ideally with digital LFOs, these functions would be switchable in the firmware (e.g. via an editor app).

I dont know.. I have listened both demos epecially the one by Marc Doty, to me Prophet 6 sounds better than rev4 (Discrete osc vs ic not surprise). It has that super rich lush tone which is extremely rare. Also it has more functions, two filters. I really like how Prophet 6 sounds.

I dont know DSI stuff I own only vintages. If I had to choose modern poly it was Prophet 6 probably

I have a Minilogue XD and I am using that lfo feature 99 procent of the time with shape mod to get a consistent sound for every new note. Normally, this would be done by an envelope, but there is no envelope. The brain focusses on the new note rather than in the held old ones, do not a big deal. I find it quite important to set the exact behavior during attack.

And for dubstep kinda sounds it is mandatory (wasnt the Prophet 5 invented for dubstep?)

...then it produces no modulating result whatsoever for staccato notes. It just adds envelope like offset.

I am a sound designer. And i know that.

Just increase the release phase and there is the LFO.

…envelope being a form of modulation. Of course.

What am I missing here? I don’t understand why (being a sound designer—and an excellent one at that) you would dismiss LFO reset on keypress.

As for the original question of the new Prophet’s having this capability, I would doubt it. Which LFOs would one reset? The global LFO or OSC B in LFO mode?

It is very VERY important actually.

Say I want LFO to open and close the filter on staccato notes. Let's start with how it was designed - I mean the whole point of LFO is to automate things. Rite?

So why on earth would I want the LFO to re trigger with each key press and turn itself into an envelope. I already have a filter envelope to do that!

With pitch application it is different since it is in 90% gradually applied via mod wheel (aka classic funky stab), so it doesn't matter whether the LFO is reset or free run which just further reinforces that LFO in a synth should always be free running. Those who reset it should be arrested on spot.

In order to have a more complex envelope. E.g. a slow saw LFO modulating CUTOFF could be triggered by a keypress reset to begin at the top of its cycle, meanwhile the filter envelope is set to a slow attack (that otherwise would not be heard without that initial LFO “burst” hitting the filter at the beginning of its cycle) which could then continue on with its decay, sustain and release portions assuming the LFO is slow enough to not reach another cycle before the envelope was complete.

Also, who set the goal posts at staccato notes? I didn’t see in the original post that the question of LFO reset was made in the context of staccato notes.

Its important when designing complex patches with several parallel modulators, ever used xpander m12?

The Oberheim 4VS and Yamaha CS series polys appeared several years before the Prophet, and they had keyboards. It’s also notable that the Yamaha PASS system in the CS series was originally developed on the GX-1, which was launched in 1973.

Another notable keyboard poly that came out before the Prophet was the Korg PS 3300.

Wasn't that all analog computing though ? As far I understand it the Prophet-5 was the first microprocessor-based analog polysynth. That also contributed to its portability changing the game.

I really don't understand why this seems so strange to you. It just opens a lot of additional possibilities and leaving them out greatly reduces sound design.

The simple answer is: because often you have only ONE additional envelope and you would like to have more. You have more control of the rhythm. You could also ask, why do companies include LFO sync to midi. Sometimes there is no midi sync but you need precise control of the LFO phase and not letting it wobble around just like that. For mono synths this is even more obvious.

And in step sequencing this feature is also crucial.

If we start with what's on the synth we can see that P5 already has a filter envelope. Routing a slow saw tooth LFO to VCF produces the same result as a filter envelope when we are playing staccato notes. I think I should have emphasized that the topic in here are staccato notes, not the LFO itself. For example a bass or arpeggio. In order to slowly open an close the filter I would need an LFO. But if it resets with each key press, how do I open and close that filter?

Nope. Doesn't work. See above.

Never heard of those. From which site do i download m12?

Eventually you will figure out

Was there ever a clear answer from Pym on if the P10 will have a "voice limiting" ability to limit the voices to 5 to imitate the P5 perfectly?

Ok you got me interested in this subject.

So I went up the attic and found some old junk:

1309156-post14823033

Is that the one?

Sneaking in neighborhood with some wood sounds about right

The first time this was asked. Pym confirmed they had a recent meeting about it. So it could happen.

If I put down a 20% deposit on Andertons (roughly £660) then I can afford it over 9 months at 0% APR with ease (and I'm never going to pass up a 0% finance deal).
My car is coming to the end of it's contract in November so I need to worry about buying that from the finance company first, but once that is out of the way, I'm buying a P5. Nothing short of dying can stop me.

They are still discussing it.

Maybe a simple voice defeat feature like on the old ones would be the best option for free choice on voice count and also, after some years if a voice goes south one could just defeat it. Simple and elegant feature, perfect as it was imho.

If you want a 5-voice P5 then just buy a P5 Otherwise go for the 10 and enjoy the extra polyphony.