Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 14:02:40 -0800 (PST) From: That Damn 808 Subject: Prophet Xmas FlameFest On 18 Dec 95 at 17:54, DIPO5@aol.com wrote: > Robot your in left field on this one haveing both I can attest to the fact IMO > that they sound a lot difeerent the 600 is more roland like in its sound. Sorry, the 600 just doesn't have the envelopes to sound "more roland". And yes, I've owned both the P5 and P600 at the same time, and have used them side by side in tracks before. > P.S. Robot this was not useless fluff I posted Some people like historical > info as well As tech . > All I can say is stirring up trouble like what your trying to do is not good > for the list That's a matter of opinion. If you collect Holly Hobby dolls, then I suppose you might yearn for a sacharine list where everyone agrees with everyone else and we share a warm & fuzzy feeling of analogue comraderie. I prefer healthy disagreement & discussion of differing ideas, not to be confused with this degenerate namecalling drivel. On 19 Dec 95 at 15:35, Haible_Juergen#Tel2743 wrote: > > the P600 comes damn close without some of the bells and whistles and at a > > fraction of the cost it's a good bet. > > Well, really, this is nonsense. I mean, if You only want to make slow > pad sounds with limited modulation routings, You might even be true. Not with that damn P600 LFO, you won't. > But then again, for *some* sounds every cheap rompler will do. The > question is how far You can go *beyond* ! And the P5 serves 100 times > better here than the P600. Please quantify this statement. NOTE: THE FOLLOWING APPLIES TO THE REV.3 PROPHET 5 ONLY. I remember both of them not going low enough when using VCOs, but turning up the resonance and modulating the filter cutoff got some interesting low end out of the P5. The P5 sounded harsher, and the P600 sounded thinner. I found this thinness odd, since they both use CEM 3340s. The envelopes of the P600 were annoying. The P5's envelopes had this Moogish rubberiness. The P600 could not PWM one VCO w/ the other VCO set to square wave - they both PWMd at the same time. Oh, and the P600 LFO sucked. The P600 had an arpeggiator, the P5 didn't. The P600 had more memories, but it was so difficult to step thru them that I would use the patch change controller on Cubase to audition patches. The P600 was more reliable & ran cooler. They both responded oddly to 16th notes at fast tempos thru MIDI. I wound up selling the P5 for $500 more than the P600, though I did not think it was worth $500 more. I got quite good at programming P5 sounds on the P600 and JP6. I suspect that a lot of the hype surrounding P5s is based on the wonderful sound of the Rev.1/2 P5s, but KEYBORED is too clueless to make a distinction between these and the very different Rev.3 P5s. I thought I would miss the Filter FM, but now I have a Chroma, which has Filter FM that I much prefer to the P5 soundwise. The interface sucks, of course. You may ask, why did I sell a P5 and P600? Well, I believe it's possible to own too many CEM based synths. The CEM chips have this familial sameness about them that gets homogeneously bland when used too much. Since CEM dominated polyphonic analogue synths (see the Chipset FAQ), it's hard to avoid owning more than one CEM synth. I think the CEM P5 and the P600 are two of the less interesting members of the family, so I ditched them. Others would disagree, as it is a matter of personal taste. Note that I did not say that CEM synths sound the same, but that there is a sameness to their sound, in the way Moogs sound "Moogish" and Rolands sound "Rolandish". Some CEM synths sound more similiar than others, say the P5 and OB8, or the Xpander and the Polaris. > Hey, I cannot understand all Your rude tone. Juergen, you have a LOT to learn about Americans. 808