If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.
Personally this synth has made me realise that enough is enough. Like you and your P12, I’m good with what I have. I’m not going to spend thousands just to neglect what already works for me. Hell, I already neglect three perfectly awesome synths for the three more awesome-er synths sitting on my bench. The madness has to end.
4 Likes
You are probably right. But I’m curious to try something that’s on the opposite of complex, just see what that does to the workflow. Might not be so much about trying to fix something as perhaps progressing along a still trailing path.
So I’m more curious than lusting, I’d say. I’m certainly not going to try this without making sure I can either return it or play a few sessions in a store.
But it took me some time to get to know the Prophet 12, what I’m doing with it now, no way I could’ve done that the first few weeks I had it, so there’s just that getting to know an instrument, really takes time.
These are just thoughts, mind you. While they come and go, I keep making music I’m comfortable with on what I have.
The Prophet 5 is a beautiful instrument, no doubt… but I’d be looking more at the P6 as an accompaniment to a P12. I think that is a killer combo - P12 for shifting modulated textures and the P6 for rich classic tones (without being quite as limited as the 5). From what I’ve heard the new “vintage” knob makes quite a significant difference to the P6, getting it closer the feel of the 5 too.
2 Likes
Very good point. Actually, one of the arguments for me as far as the Prophet 5 goes, is that it is limited. It would be the polar opposite of the Prophet 12 within the Sequential realm, the 12 being kindred to the Evolver in complexity and sculpting, and the Prophet 5 more like “just shut up and play”-instrument.
As it happens, I’m finishing a track now where I got all the sequences saved as midi files as well, which I almost never do. So I can easily replicate this track from any synth, so I figured I’ll wrap this one up, post it in all the usual places, and then record it from a Prophet 5 and see where that takes me. I can get enough time with a 5 in the store to get that done.
So the same song, but one made with the 12, one with the 5.
1 Like
I would also consider looking at other processing to get a more vintage vibe from your P12. A pair of Rupert Neve Designs 542 tape emulators would give you a couple flavors of transformer saturation, and a couple flavors of tape saturation. And in stereo.
Just pour some juice on that P12!
I’ve been running a Nord Wave through a pair of Bogner Harlow pedals with Neve transformers this weekend.
It does not suck!
2 Likes
interesting approach. and a great idea. would love to hear the results!
are you looking to swap P12 for P5/10 possibly or just add to the 12? I ask because I know you love the P12 and they did just stop making it. obviously there’s always an option to pick a used one up later, but it’s always just a bit more difficult letting something go, not knowing how easy it’ll be to get again if you want to. (just to add to your difficult decision making, lol)
this resonates with me a LOT right now. going through some decision making about letting some stuff go. but the P5 stays.
2 Likes
Im super curious how the new Sequential Prophet 5 V3 in mono mode compares to a Sequential Pro One?
Also, how big a difference is the sequencer on the Pro One being part of the synth? as i really rate the sequencer on the Roland SH101. And a SH101 is certainly very different from a Juno 106 when thinking of other similar poly to mono synth comparisons.
I definitely live in the complexity from mono synths and simplicity from poly synths camp, but listening to your music I think you do a good job of balancing a more complex poly and making it fit your music. Seems like trying new gear is part of your process even if you always come back to the P12.
2 Likes
Thank you.
And yes, you’re right. I’m always curious to try out new stuff but am very grateful for what I got and don’t take it for granted 
I have been reading this thread with great interest ever since the Prophet 5 reissue was announced, so I thought I would share my thoughts on the synth having recently purchased one. Unfortunately, I can’t really speak to whether anyone else should get one – these are very personal questions of taste, and I haven’t played either a Prophet 12 or a Prophet 6 so I can’t say much by way of comparison – but I can at least give my impressions on its strengths and limitations. Please excuse me for the length of this post. The TLDR is that the P10 is an extraordinarily lovely synth and I am currently in the phase where I feel physical pain whenever I have to be apart from it. I am writing this mainly because I am visiting family this week and I can’t stop thinking about the P10 back home.
Once the reissue was announced, I knew that I had to pick one up. One of my formative musical influences was the Talking Heads, and I grew up steeped in the sounds of the Prophet 5. I have always loved the searing hard-synced leads in Stop Making Sense, but also the melancholy quavering pads that are so central to their haunted sound. However, I don’t have a lot of space in my little desktop studio, so I had to wait for the module to come out – a very painful wait, I assure you. In the meantime, I sold some other synths and pedals to raise money for the purchase; I’m now down to three: the Prophet, the Matriarch, and the Hydrasynth.
I ordered the P10 module and received it last week. I haven’t seen a lot of discussion of the module, so I will report that in person it is dangerously sexy in a way the photos don’t convey. I had an OB-6 module in the past, and I was expecting the P10 to have the same chunky form factor. Instead, it’s much slimmer, and closer in size and shape to the Hydrasynth module. It still has the massive knobs from the keyboard version, and I don’t find it cramped in the slightest even though it has certainly been compressed. I’ll note that it runs slightly hot. Those 10 VCOs are doing a lot of work. I’d keep it well ventilated.
I’ll start with the negatives. I have only had it for a week or so, and I’ve only been able to devote 5 or 6 hours to it, so it may be that I will discover more problems as I go on. For now, I will say that the limitations built into it are very real, and will be very noticeable to anyone used to a more modern synth. The most obvious is the lack of LFO sync, which strikes me as unnecessarily purist – one extra button would not have dispelled the classic aura of the P5. Second, the lack of modulation options is sometimes painful. Don’t get me wrong: the polymod is very powerful and I know I have not fully scratched the surface of it, but the sound of the synth is so gorgeous that I long to have more destinations for routing modulation. Finally, and perhaps most notably for me, I really miss negative envelopes. I love using negative envelopes for pitch or filter, and I wish I had the option of them here. Given those limitations, I would not want the P10 as my only synth. A P6 sounds similar and can cover a lot more ground in terms of modulation.
One limitation others have mentioned is the mono output. It doesn’t really bother me. The OB-6 was stereo, but mainly just in the effects and the pan spread, which I found too gimmicky and uncontrollable outside of playing with the arpeggiator. I find stereo more interesting in synths that are built around it, like the Matriarch and the Hydrasynth. I have plenty of effects I can use to stereo-ize the P10, and I’d prefer a mono input for those anyway.
As for the positives, the only one that really matters is the sound. It is exactly the sound I wanted. With the resonance low and a long attack you can get rich, dark, creamy, Guinnessy pads that crest in little flares of sawtooth brightness. Raise the resonance, and it is that sound: the melancholy reedy voice that sounds like a wheezing harmonium with the richly ornamented spectrum I’ve always wanted out of a high-pass filter but never found. One point in the J3P0 comparison video that really strikes me as spot-on is his description of how the resonance is always part of the sound, rather than another layer on top. It’s hard to describe, but it is the most beautiful resonance I’ve heard: uncanny, otherworldly and alive. I can’t compare it to the P6, having never owned one, but I briefly owned the Pro3 and I can say that it beats that in its purity (that said, the Pro 3 was a wonderful synth, and far more versatile than the P10).
The envelopes are lovely also: someone described it above as a pianistic synth, and that’s exactly right. I’m terrible at piano, but I really appreciate how easy it is with a bit of muscle memory to quickly sculpt out a pluck, add some velocity modulation to the filter, and then warble your way through some Blade Runner-y e-piano blues. The effect is extraordinarily musical, especially with the P10’s endlessly unfolding release envelopes. For reasons I can’t put my finger on, the P5 has always sounded the most like an acoustic instrument of any analog synth I’ve heard.
I will say that I think it’s worth getting the P10 over the P5, if that’s feasible. First, because of those long releases I just mentioned. And second, because of the new poly-unison feature added with the latest firmware. It’s a shame that feature was developed too late for all of the initial reviews because it really is a selling point. One of my favorite features on the Peak and the Rev2 was the ability to double-up for a poly-unison sound, and the sheer power of that effect on the P10 is breathtaking. You can easily get a MiniMoog bass that shakes the walls, and the poly unison adds enormous depths to my lazy two-note interval pads.
All in all, I am absolutely in love. In my experience, the only other synth available now that compares in beauty is the Matriarch, but the wonders of that synth are a story for another day. That said, this is my intensely personal point of view, and I can only speak from my very peculiar taste. As I mentioned above, the P10 is a shockingly limited synth by modern standards, and I would absolutely not recommend it to anyone as their single synth. Moreover, my partiality is no doubt derived from the fact that having been born when I was, I know the sound of the P5 as well as my mother’s voice. Without that emotional association, I could imagine someone finding it dull. Finally, I think there’s little doubt the P6 is a more capable synth, and is at least 95% of the way to sound of the P5 and better in many regards. I would only get it if you must have the exact sound of the P5. It is a very expensive way to scratch that itch, but it has been entirely worth it to me. I sold several synths to get there, but I am not looking back.
Finally, I will say that with the P10, the Matriarch, and the Hydrasynth, I feel strangely settled in the first time in my years of synth collecting. I have all the sounds I wanted when I started, and I don’t need anything else. It’s a good feeling. (Though maybe now would be a good time to pick up the Digitakt to add some sampling capabilities… here we go again…)
20 Likes
Nicely written and thoughtful review.
Do you use it and your other synths at the same time? If so, and you’re making heavy use of the P10’s release envelopes, do you find it makes the P10 sound like it’s overpowering the Hydrasynth and Matriarch in the mix?
Or do you just use your P10 standalone?
My two cents…
It depends on whether or not you consider yourself more of a sound designer or more of a player.
For me, as a sound designer, having a modulation-heavy synth, like the P12, isn’t about using all that modulation all the time; but rather, it’s simply about knowing that ‘X’ parameter is at your disposal as needed. Whereas “character” synths, as I like to call them, like the P6, are more about pandering to the sound and limitations of that instrument. Which means it’s more about the composition, about the notes you play, and less about the palette.
To that end, I struggle with the same philosophical questions in that regard. There’s something undeniable about the clarity-of-mind that comes with a synth of limited potential that otherwise sounds great. On the other hand, it can be very frustrating to run up against trivial limitations, when you’ve got a sound in your head and can’t bend the synth to your will.
Now, I do feel compelled to say, while the devil is indeed in the details (my favourite expression right there); from my experience, one DSI synth is more-or-less the same as the next. I’ve owned a lot of them, still have my Tempest, and have never felt as though one was heads above the others.
Since you asked. 
Cheers!
2 Likes
To be honest, I’ve only noodled around with P10 standalone and I haven’t had a chance to try it out with the others. That said, I think your concern is definitely valid: with the long releases it does fill up a lot of space, especially if you’re using the poly-unison or engaging multiple oscillator shapes (I love the sound of the square and saw superimposed). Long releases are a vice of mine (I always keep my foot on the damper pedal on a piano), but if I were trying to fit it in a mix with something as huge as the Matriarch, I would definitely want to rein it in. I’m anxious to get a chance to try it out with the other two synths once I get back home!
1 Like
Cool, looking forward to your further thoughts.
I used to assume that peeps who bought more than one synth always used all of them all the time. It was interesting to learn that some peeps use only a handful at a time - only one at a time in some cases - to help maintain focus and not be overwhelmed.
Sound advice as usual. Thanks, John. I usually do a lot of my modulations live anyway, as I record my stuff, so it’s possible I wouldn’t miss it all that much, given my process. But you’re right, each Sequential might be far apart from each other as long as you compare them only so, but they’re still quite similar in character if you look wider.
I love that character, tho 
it’ll be interesting to see the difference between the same song using both synths to write different versions of it.
1 Like
Hey, I’d be lying if I said I hadn’t lusted after a P6 or an OB6.
Cheers!
2 Likes
It’s an interesting point you’re making on playing and sound design, and which one takes precedence. For me, it’s very much about context. I’m a piano player first and foremost, or so I’ve always thought of myself. I’ve taken that skill into my meanderings within electronic music, but I’m learning that I actually prefer my work when I’m not by the keyboard, instead operating sequencers that seem to work with my idea of musical structure rather than playing the keys themselves. This is why I don’t much like Elektron’s workflow anymore and love the Blackbox sequencer, this one being almost baroque (in the Bach kind of way) in its way to approach how you can enter and exit sequences independently of each other, create almost canon-like ideas and free running layers on top of a solid structure, with little effort.
So I’m starting to wonder if maybe I’m not so much a keyboard player when it comes to electronic music, but much more a song writer and sound designer, where I for some reason just get closer to the results I like myself, when working with a sequencer that thinks the way I do. Whereas sitting down and playing the piano is sometimes close to a divine experience for me, one I’d never part with. But the could be very different from each other and maybe that’ just fine.
I’ve always assumed that being a fairly proficient piano player, naturally I’d write my electronic songs on a keyboard first and foremost. But I’m not getting results I like as much as when I just work with say the Blackbox sequencer or the Deluge, for that matter.
5 Likes
That’s one of the big questions nowadays that everyone is forced to think about. Who am I. Isn’t it?
3 Likes
Well, you know what they say—if it ain’t baroque, don’t fix it.
Cheers!
4 Likes
So here’s the finished piece, based on something else I wrote last week and just made in a context where it comes more into its own. If I’m going down the trying out the Prophet 5 road, this is the song I’ll write on it -
5 Likes