Prophet 12 or Prophet VS

Pro2 has a killer sequencer and cool filters and effects section. Not just a Euro controller

I wasn’t implying that the Pro 2 only has one use. It is very feature rich. The sequencer section is hella fun. I haven’t had any time with a Modulus, but it looks to have similar sequencer features. Of course the big thing about the Pro 2, at least to me, is the much more musical filter section.
I do think the price is a bit higher because of the Eurorack interface. That seems to also be a major part of the synth as a whole, so you won’t get 100% out of your Pro 2 without a modular.

All glory to the Hypnotoad! Let’s just say that the Prophet VS has that special sheen that sounds like no other, so good choice there! There’s nothing wrong with the Pro 12, the Pro 2 or that ESQ-1/SQ-80 either. But I like to think that once you come across something really classic at the right price that always wins out.

Both the Pro 12 and the Pro 2 told me: Buy me maybe. Some day I just might…

It was a difficult decision. Buying new is easier and modern things are more advanced. But you do wonder if more features means the basics are less perfect?

Also I like to think that the early works by a particular designer are their “vintage” years. Like people often tend to think the first few albums by a band are their best works.

The first few albums of artists are mostly covering their style and marks. This is later diminishing by commercial success and influence of major labels. Sad, but true…

Plus before you get a family and commitments, so have more time.

…but maybe later albums just mirror the personal development of the last - say in the case of my favorite band that still exists - 36 years. Id be sad if someday people tell me i have no personal development thru all these years.

Depends on the musical genre. If you’re doing classical stuff then you need experience, if you are doing R&B, soul, jazz and blues then it helps to have lived a bit first.

Some artists develop, others do to a degree but they do get stuck in a rut.

And some people would desperately need some development before they get commercially successful. There are things out there “even worse than Dieter Bohlen![](”:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZkejDqTuSM <- click at your own risk)

Getting back to the topic slightly, in some ways, the world has changed and specialised technology isn’t so widespread.

So take the C64 or Atari machines, custom hardware, interesting results. Early synths were often circuits, not audio computers.

These days? everything is fairly generic. Buy a games console it will be full of slightly tweaked off the shelf parts. This approach is good for the small hobbyist since custom hardware is very expensive. But in many ways the magic has been lost.

Theres next to no magic in todays commercially available Synthesizers…I’m the first who would buy a Kurzweil PC3 or Yamaha Motif if i would be on stage everyday to get the job done. But both fail make me shivering in the Studio by sheer sound.

The Amiga had an interesting custom chipset, the Atari ST did not had any custom ICs inside at all…

It’s tempting to start an Amiga vs ST war just because.

I would like to slightly disagree with the next to no magic statement as that’s not the full picture IMHO. Mass-manufactured stage things and workstation type synths - yes, they mostly bore me. Then we have a plethora of small-batch or DIY or otherwise boutique synths made these days. Some of those are surprisingly good. I really enjoyed testing both a BassStation 2 and a Boomstar, as well as a Phutney, the TTSH, all those Mutable thingies… Some recent VAs like the Q or the Radias are plenty fun too.

Well the Amiga was a product of ex-Atari people. The Atari 800 was much better than the C64 in many ways, but the SID was obviously the best.

But the point I was making was lack of real custom hardware that is so good it feels like magic.

Technology now seems to never be pushed anywhere near its limits, the shelf life of a computer is a few years and everything is coded with HAL layers and APIs which abstract the code from the hardware. While it’s great for portability, you never really fully realise the full power or get to use coding tricks.

Also, the ST was a Commodore design, some Commodore staff left for Atari and took designs for a 68000 based computer with them. This became the ST.

Sorry, my point was not to start another war; my point was that you can design great and original hardware even when you only use generic off-the-shelve components as in the original Atari ST. Or as with the Shruthi.

@jojjelito
You are to slooooow, old man (like a Matrix-1000 Envelope :wink: ), in my universe the Q and Radias are not in production anymore…… what i meant are the mainstream big players, sure there are some small nearly handmade Synths out there that are cool and adorable.

@fcd72: Yeah yeah, I’m proud to be a slobbering tardo :slight_smile: In my world those 2 examples recently got discontinued and can be picked up for a song if you know where to look - getting a Q keyboard on the Bay isn’t the recommended way.

The Radias was defo made by one of the big companies, Korg still makes the MS20-mini, lots of Vodkas and other weird things. Heck, even a Roland Aira could almost be cool on a good day if I can just get past all the greeeeeen decoration. I guess that the KorgARP will be nice too once they open the Kimono.

@t2k The ST was pretty ordinary in many ways. It’s saving grace was a good hi-res video mode, MIDI port and pretty good desktop.

It was a solid machine but the Amiga had all the cool stuff, the sampled sound, blitter and copper chips. The Amiga also had a lot of downsides, the OS didn’t fit into ROM and had to be partly booted, slow disc access and so on. Less available memory.

If you read about the sort of custom hardware Commodore had planned you’ll realise just what we missed, the AAA chipset and Hombre were going to be amazing stuff.

I’d say the first 16/32-bit consoles were the last time we got any really good custom chips in machines. Atari Jaguar etc.

@6581punk My take on this is a little different. The Amiga was pretty much ahead of anything else in the same price range for 6 to 8 years, but in the end its reliance on a tightly integrated custom chipset also meant that it inevitably was going to lag behind everything else.

Steve Jobs might actually have been right about when he remarked that the Amiga had “too much hardware” when he was shown the original prototype in 1984.

Apart from not actually being (far) ahead of what was being developed in the PC world, AAA had the problem of not being backwards-compatible with the AGA and ECS chipsets. This would mean that old software would either not have worked, or that it would have needed to be updated for the new chipset.

This is actually the same issue you see in the game console world where in most cases the new generation is in no way backwards compatible with the previous generation of consoles. That’s not a huge issue with games since they don’t get replayed that often, but it certainly is an issue for general-purpose computing.

The last time anyone really did any good custom chips was IMHO the mid-to-late 90s SGI workstations running IRIX. See this video of a good friend showing his O2 I made almost a decade ago.

What about Apple A4, A5, A6X, etc. custom chips…?