Pro 2 Announced

[Razmo]

My view on the new Pro 2...

it's exactly as I suspected, exept for those darn bells and whistles... maybe a few more bells and whistles than I had anticipated in the first place.

It's an engine "grown" , and "born" out of mother P12, that is very clear when you look at the specs, but Dave of course managed it to be so different, that it will apeal to anyone having any of their earlier models... and I'm in as well... have begun saving up for this, and hoping there will be a module version of it, because I feel the pricepoint is a little bit steep considering it's basicaly a 4 voice P12. There are no Curtis filter chips in this, and that must certainly lower the price, as the descrete filters are only one of each, being the paraphonic beast it is (I bet this paraphonic twist is a punch in the guts for Waldorf's Pulse 2).

But I can easily hear the discrete analog filters in this... it's so different than the P12 character, it's more "ballsy" and it even makes the oscillators sound less "digital" than on the P12 I think.

And then the bells and whistles.... the two filters, one being multimode and modelled from the Oberheim type, and the other after the SSM filter... this is probably the biggest bell and whistle of them all, in addition to the CV/Gate I/O... the software additions is nice... especialy the sequencer part, but I wonder if they have fixed the problems with oscillator sync sounds... and I wonder how much of the software additions will be ported to the P12 engine... but I'm not setting up any hope... I learned not to from the Evolver bugs still not fixed.

But one thing is certain... I'm not getting this right now. I'll wait and see if a module show up later, because I really don't need more keyboards.

... oh and by the way... I was wrong about the P12m module layout obviously... but I did see the OLED display and the encoders correctly when analyzing that picture from Dave's office... I guess the angle was simply too low, and the keyboard too small to effeciently see it. I guess that what surprised me the most was the analog discrete filters.

and by the way... I don't like the design of the keyboard really... I feel it looks too much like the P12... same font, same red colour writing, same knobs etc... I really think that it would have been a good point, to make a new look of it, when it's more or less a new line of synth.

And then those CV I/Os... neet for working with modular systems, and as we've already seen one module from DSI, I bet there is more coming exactly for using them with the CV/Gate I/Os ... This is clearly something DSI made to compete with the MOOGs and their Moogerfooger/Modular line of products. The genious plot in this is, that they have made the CVs routable in the Modulation Matrix... that makes it possible to integrate modular stuff as if it's almost a part of the enigne itself.... very VERY tempting! ... but I'm a little scared to start on that road, because I KNOW I'll never stop aquirering modules

So.... holding my breath that this Pro 2 will be available in a module version soon.

[Bald Eagle]

Great observations Razmo. The one point I am most curious about is if the sound is truly that different from the P12. It is the P12 engine after all. Yes, different filters but what else makes it stand out sonically. We will see as more demos become available.

[Martin]

Hi all,

Razmo well said. A110 or A 111 from doepfer or moogerfooger freqbox look like good options. Once you start Eurocrack one never knows whats gonna happen they say.
Dslsynth, Tempest has all the Evolver Waveforms in it they got no FM but looped. Some kind of FM would be nice in the Tempest. On thing the Evolver cant do is mix pre/post filter and the direct feedback without ADDA. I really like the Evolver but its DCO and AD DA concept got critic in the beginning, poeple bypassed the AD until the P08 arrived. Pro2 is different in many ways, Oscillator split seems nice and is new, the delays from the p12 are awesome and can be panned, now this and one tap is dBBD, controlable via Modmatrix. Maybe its not quite like but could save a MF-104M.

Just fooled arround with the VS waves from Tempest https://soundcloud.com/martin2-2/tempest-vswaves

Hope some like it,

Martin

[Razmo]

Great observations Razmo. The one point I am most curious about is if the sound is truly that different from the P12. It is the P12 engine after all. Yes, different filters but what else makes it stand out sonically. We will see as more demos become available.

Well... I guess that's hard to tell by the few demos that have been released thus far, but I can hear a more "firm" sound (in lack of better words), and I believe it's because of the new filters... it's as if the sound has a better "grip" on the speaker... more "solid" and "beefy"... hard to describe.

Anyhow, I can still hear the oscillators character from the P12, which is not that surprising, as it's probably the same way they're made (coded)... a few new tricks with the superwaveforms etc. but in general the tone seems to be the same is the P12.

Still... there are something special about a paraphonic synth... something that is not possible on polysynths, and that is the effect you get when you have a polyphonic oscillator section that has some release to the amp/vcf envelope... when this is routed through the one filter, the "tail" of the polyphonic oscillators "rings out" on successive keypresses... it gives a rather unique sound that I've not seen reproduced on poly synths.

One thing I wonder though is, why Dave settled with four voices when it's just digital in the oscillator section... why not eight? ... but I suspect this has to do with the Sharc DSPs in the machine... there were 6 of these in the P12... I wonder if 4 voices was what he could squeeze into just one of them to lower the cost maybe...

[Bald Eagle]

One thing I wonder though is, why Dave settled with four voices when it's just digital in the oscillator section... why not eight? ... but I suspect this has to do with the Sharc DSPs in the machine... there were 6 of these in the P12... I wonder if 4 voices was what he could squeeze into just one of them to lower the cost maybe...

I would suspect that the 4 voice architecture is simply a carry over from the P12 programing, one layer, four oscillators . Not so much a hardware savings of a few dollars but saving more in software development costs. Then again, why not just make it full poly or more poly than para? Poly oscillators with a shared filter/amp should have been easy. Marketing and sales opportunities come into play here.

[Razmo]

One thing I wonder though is, why Dave settled with four voices when it's just digital in the oscillator section... why not eight? ... but I suspect this has to do with the Sharc DSPs in the machine... there were 6 of these in the P12... I wonder if 4 voices was what he could squeeze into just one of them to lower the cost maybe...

I would suspect that the 4 voice architecture is simply a carry over from the P12 programing, one layer, four oscillators . Not so much a hardware savings of a few dollars but saving more in software development costs. Then again, why not just make it full poly or more poly than para? Poly oscillators with a shared filter/amp should have been easy. Marketing and sales opportunities come into play here.

The P12 is not four voices per layer, it's 6... it has four oscillators per voice though.

In the P12, a single Sharc processor is taking care of two voices at a time I suspect, since there are 6 of them, and 12 voices. I'll bet that Dave simply took the digital curcuit of one two-voice Sharc curcuit, and placed that in front of his new analog filter curcuits, as that would account for the one stereo output that the Pro 2 has, and then maybe was able to squeeze code into the Sharc DSP for four voices... Dave is good at reusing old code and curcuitry, so it could make sense. But I'm only guessing here og course...

[Razmo]

Just realized, after watching the Pro 2 release video again, that it's not 4 voices, it's actualy 4 oscillators that is used in paraphonic mode... Dave says this in the video outright.

In another thread, there was some debate about what the extra MIDI output would be for... this Dave actualy also tells you in that release video... he states it's for sequencing external gear from the internal sequencer.

He also states, that in paraphonic mode, each oscillator is individualy gateable (which is logical for a paraphonic synth), but I'm wondering, if it will be possible to control these from four different MIDI channels.... if not I'd warmly recommend DSI to take this into account in a future update because this opens up some interresting possibilities that I've been unable to find in other synths.

What I would like to do with individualy controllable oscillators from separate MIDI channels is to play different melodylines on each oscillator from four sequencer tracks... this combined with stuff like oscillator sync, FM, Ringmod etc. allow for some rather interresting patterns... this trick was used extensively on the old Commodore 64 SID to create wild rhythmical sound effects.

I know that you at DSI will probably say "this is possible with the internal sequencer/matrix of the Pro 2!"... I would asume that yes, and this is also the case even with the older Evolver and Prophet 08 line, but I want this to be controlable FROM AN EXTERNAL MIDI SEQUENCER.... an internal step sequencer is limited to 16 or in the Pro 2's case; 32 steps... I'd like to be able to continuoulsy vary this effect throughout a composition, so it would be absolute killer if the 4 oscillators could be controlled by each their own MIDI channel.... thank you

[dslsynth]

Dslsynth, Tempest has all the Evolver Waveforms in it they got no FM but looped. Some kind of FM would be nice in the Tempest. On thing the Evolver cant do is mix pre/post filter and the direct feedback without ADDA. I really like the Evolver but its DCO and AD DA concept got critic in the beginning, poeple bypassed the AD until the P08 arrived. Pro2 is different in many ways, Oscillator split seems nice and is new, the delays from the p12 are awesome and can be panned, now this and one tap is dBBD, controlable via Modmatrix. Maybe its not quite like but could save a MF-104M.

Yes they are different designs each with their own properties. For the AD/DA reason you mentions above I have been hoping for an analog Evolver design of which Prophet 12 and Pro2 are two cases of just without the DCO's (which I find essential). And yeah, Tempest digital oscillators are just a sample playback machine with very few mangling possibilities. Would love to hear use cases for post filter digital oscillator sounds in a normal synthesis engine.

One thing I would love to see added to Pro2 and Prophet 12 is a sine phase modulation oscillator wave form which would make DX7 style sounds possible with just that wave type. A more general phase modulation extension of these instruments would probably be too much to ask from DSI given how they work.

[News From The Sky]

To the best of my knowledge the Pro2 is a mono signal path until the delays are added. Would be cool if the filters could be panned individually but knowing DSI I doubt they have done it so. Essentially its just one voice of a Prophet 12 with better filters, CV control and some software updates (super waves, sequencer, dBBD delay).

The filters are different, so even if it's possible to run them in parallel with independent panning (and I doubt it is), the two channels would sound different (which sometimes is desirable but often is not). You can use the delays to create a stereo spread by panning the direct signal to one side and the delayed signal to the other side, but if the delays are the same as on the P12 it's not possible to balance the two channels evenly, as the delays are 8 dB down from unity gain. On the P12 you have to use unison or layering (in other words, burn polyphony) to get a proper stereo spread effect. I'm hoping this gets fixed, especially since the Pro2 can't do layering or unison.

Of course you can also leave the dry signal in the center and pan two delays to opposite sides, but while this can sound good too it's not the same result (and it requires 2 of the delay lines).

[Mefistophelees]

Hi all,

I wasn't looking at a new mono apart from maybe something cheap as I've got a few already.
However I also have a Eurorack system and the CV outs are looking very interesting. I could even replace some modules by routing functions out of a Pro 2.

It is a bit spendy but...

I would just love to see the production cost split between keyboard, front panel and voice board as percentages of the full product price. Not that I expect DSI to reveal such data as it may help competitors. Guess it must be an expensive DSP and filter components they put into the Pro2. Agree very much with the idea to put exactly those two filters in the design.

I'll think you'll find the panel and all the controls on it are a major portion of the manufacturing cost.
I've heard some of the Eurorack makers say that the circuit board can be the cheapest part of the module!

OTOH the Voyager is over twice the price...

[dslsynth]

Hi Mefistophelees, its good to read you again!

I have heard the same of circuit boards. My impression is that the the only thing that can drive up the price of circuit boards are (surprise surprise) expensive components. I am sure some of the analog parts and digital processors on Pro2 are in the expensive category. I would just love to see a module version of Pro2 with a not too expensive user interface. It was certainly a good direction to see DSI develop their voice architecture in.

[peter m mahr]

Here is a very short demo I recorded today: https://soundcloud.com/petermmahr/dave- ... o-2-demo-1

[Bald Eagle]

Very nice and interesting example Peter. Thanks for posting.

[dslsynth]

Agree! Nice demo, Peter! Feel free to send us more Pro2 goodies.

Now what could be really interesting are tracks where a few creamy VCOs are controlled from a Pro2 and processed by its filter via its external input. Will be interesting to hear that difference from the digital oscillators only case.

. o O ( #analogrescue )

[peter m mahr]

Did you listen to Cord's and Rozzer's demos on soundcloud? You can find the links on the bottom of my blog entry.

Regarding analog oscillators feeding the Pro 2's external in - I am sorry, but unfortunately I do not have the time now.

Beside that I am curious if DSI will ever release a "Pro A" [= same as the Pro 2, with one exception - 3 analog oscillators instead of the four digital ones]. On the other hand I have to admit that I really love the P12 as it is. To me it is the most fascinating and best synthesizer I owned in the last years. The workflow is amazing and reminds me on the Voyager. Whenever I turn either of the two on I end up with at least one new sound or a new sound and an idea.

and by the way... I don't like the design of the keyboard really... I feel it looks too much like the P12... same font, same red colour writing, same knobs etc... I really think that it would have been a good point, to make a new look of it, when it's more or less a new line of synth.

Agreed to a certain extent. But the Pro 2 is in my opinion clearly a member of the P12/P12 module family. It shares more or less the same oscillators and their waveforms, has a comparable hybrid structure, although with new filter(s), similar Mod Matrix, similar LFOs and fast EGs. etc. No doubt, new are the CV Ins / Outs + Gate and the 32 step sequencer. But to me these features make more sense in a monophonic keyboard. However, these connections raise the question what is DSI developing next?

So, now it is time for a drink and then some work on the Pro 2.

Peter

[dslsynth]

Have fun, Peter! Time for cooking Pro2 presets for the factor banks? And yes I did listen to mentioned Pro2 tracks.

[peter m mahr]

Here is another one: https://soundcloud.com/petermmahr/dsi-pro-2-res-bass

Peter

[dslsynth]

Sounds great, Peter!

[peter m mahr]

The sequencer is really amazing! And the sound... well, I leave this up to the listener.

Cheers,
Peter

[dslsynth]

I can imagine! Their way of supporting parameter locks via a record button press and changing parameters is really cool. Guess it allocates new sequence tracks as more parameters are recorded. Plus what one can see of the sequence editor on the OLED display in the videos is certainly a cool step forward.

And yes discrete electronic filters do have their advantage on the sound front. . o O ( crying credit card )

Have lots of fun, Peter! And not even a single word about gear envy from me!