sequential pro 3 Impressions of the Sequential Pro 3

[marino]

Ok, so I have had the Sequential Circuit Pro 3 at my place for some time, and despite having little time to fiddle with it, I can say that I know it fairly well by now â so I decided to share my impressions, and of course I'm interested in hearing opinions and comparisons with other users.

 

Disclaimer: This will °not* be a 'review', as in an 'objective' set of considerations. I'd like to talk freely of the Pro 3 features and sound as related to my personal tastes and needs.

This, however, will *not* make it more concise. On the contrary â it will be long. Toward the end, I'll embed a little video with some of my first sounds.

 

Premise: For the last several years, my main monosynth has been the Mono Evolver Keyboard (hi dB), which by now, we could call 'vintage'. I have programmed worlds of sounds on it, and I know it inside out. My idea was for the Pro 3 to take the place of the MEK, so I will make frequent comparisons between the two.

Other analog/hybrid mono synths - just the monos - which I have owned or played/programmed in these last years include the Studio Electronics SE-1 (which I have had for a long time), Hypersynth Xenophone, original Minimoog, Behringer Model D, MFB Dominion X. At school we have a Moog 15 reissue, a Doepfer modular and other stuff - plus I have had short but intense encounters with the Moog Matriarch, the Moog Sub 37, and the GRP A4.

Unfortunately, I have never been able to put my hands on a Pro 2, but I am somewhat familiar with the Pro-One from the early 80s.

 

To me, btw, the Pro 3 is the real successor of the Evolver, more than an evolution of the Pro 2. It has both analog and digital/wavetable oscillators, which to me is one of the secret ingredients of the Evolver sound.

In fact, when the Pro 2 came out, I started a thread on KC, asking SCI (then DSI) to consider using that architecture again. I also sent a message to DSI with the same considerations, saying that in exchange for having both types of oscillators, I could do without that 'Character' section, and I could even give up the stereo signal path...

Et voilà, after a few years, the Pro 3! Clearly, a number of other musicians shared my wiew.

And btw, I did *not* suggest to take an oscillator and an LFO away!

AND, thinking in retrospect, the stereo channel would have added a lot. Especially, having those 3 different yummy filters, being forced to only use one at a time is painful. For example, just a LP and BP in parallel would open a world of possibilities.

 

But the Pro 3 has a lot to offer â as well as a number of things that will leave you scratching your head. Let's start.

 

 

OUT OF THE BOX.

The Pro 3 offers a very solid feel. In fact, the BOX itself is built like a tank! And the actual instrument gives a similar feel of sturdiness. I'm not enthusiastic about the choice of color for the panel (I have the 'standard' model), but that's *not* the reason why I buy a synth.

Much more important are:

- Very solid feel from the knobs. Both the pots and the encoders offer great resistance.

- The keyboard feels *great*. One of the best synth actions I have ever played.

- INTERNAL POWER SUPPLY. Let's celebrate!

Too many 'pro' synths today don't have internal PSUs. And the music community is accepting it, instead of protesting loudly, as they should. Well done, SCI!!

 

Other reasons to rejoice: Rear connections are clearly labeled on the edge of the front panel; the headphone output is below the left-hand controllers; there's a programmable slider, with red lights to indicate the position and a 'Latch' button over it; the front panel layout is extremely clear and well laid out, and there's an excellent balance between what is controlled by the physical knobs and the menu functions. Whew - this thing was designed by someone who knows his way around synthesizers! Applause.

 

About that great keyboard: The first time I played it, I found that it had a highly exaggerated dynamic response. Once I found the right Velocity curve, however, all was well.

Strangely, though, I wasn't able to find an Aftertouch curve to suit my playing; it's either too abrupt or too shallow.

 

The knobs are part potentiometers, part dented encoders. I will have more to say about this later; for now, I'll just notice that the encoders have a rather brutal acceleration factor. A little movement can bring the value several dozen units away, and especially when editing the Mod Matrix with its long lists of parameters, it can be a little unnerving. I made a request for having an option to soften this response, like on the excellent Hypersynth Xenophone, where the acceleration factor is user-adjustable.

 

 

OSCILLATORS.

The Pro 3 has two VCOs and a digital/wavetable oscillator. But the VCOs can morph triangle/saw/square, plus they have a symmetry control ('Shape Mod'), starting from whatever waveshape you choose â and both settings are modulatable. Wow.

You have to be careful when modulating the morphing waveshapes, because in the in-between positions, they tend to lose their fundamental â something that you could also use musically, of course. Anyway, in these cases, the symmetry control can help give back some beef.

In my experience, the VCOs *never* go out of tune, not even of a few cents, unless you detune them â which left me a bit perplexed; are they digitally controlled after all?! They also don't need any warm-up time.

Regardless, they sound very much like 'modern analog' oscillators: Powerful but a bit 'straight', without that wild unpredictability of some (not all) vintage gear... but this can be a good thing too. A little detuning, plus a careful use of the 'Slop' factor can do wonders to restore some pitch movement... I said 'careful' because the slop builds up easily when you have three oscillators going, especially with rich waveforms and in the higher register. One useful trick is to modulate the Slop factor negatively with Note Number.

 

The raw waveforms in the Evolver, by comparison, sound a bit more... umm, raw, despite being DCOs, and a bit more open in the high harmonics. The Pro 3, on the other hand, sounds more, can we say 'produced'? A bit less presence perhaps, but more full and compact. This doesn't apply just to the oscillators, but to overall sound of the instrument as well.

The Slop factor on the Evolver was almost non-existent, so having all this precise control on the Pro 3 is very welcome.

The third, digital oscillator has 64 wavetables of 16 waveforms each â including the classic analog waves, which to me, sound rather identical to the ones from the VCOs. The more unusual wavetables are well chosen, with 'families' of waveforms which sound good when swept. I wish there was a crossfade control as well (unless I'm missing something).

You can modulate the wavetables by sweeping them with LFOs and Envelopes, or with more esotic sources like velocity (an old Wavestation trick) for extremely dynamic sounds.

What's really great is that with the latest 1.1 OS update, you can load your own wavetables! I'm looking forward to use this feature.

Like the VCOs, the third oscillator has a Slop factor control.

 

 

MIXER.

Ok, the Pro 3 mixer doesn't color the sound of the oscillators the way the Matriarch mixer does, for example - but it's nonetheless a key ingredient in the overall sound. Gain stagin is crucial in achieving the results you have in mind. If you overdrive the mixer with the oscillators' volumes, then you add filter drive (more on that later), resonance, and perhaps feedback and distortion, you're likely to have nasty cracks at the effects stage. On a paraphonic patch that I have programmed â a simple synthbrass-like sound which used quite a bit of resonance â I had to limit the oscillators' volumes to 25 or so (out of 127) in order to avoid loud pops and cracks, and distortion of the ugly kind. On a more subtle level, 'pushing' the mixer for a bit of saturation can sound quite musical, especially when you learn to balance that with all the other 'driving' modules.

Other than the three oscillators, in the mixer you find noise volume (white noise only, sorry) and volume of external audio.

 

 

FILTERS.

Now, to find different filter types on an analog monosynth is nothing new: The Hypersynth Xenophone and the MFB Dominion 1, for example, have 12 types each. The Pro 3, on the other hand, doesn't only have three different 'filter types', with a different slope, or a choice of LP or HP: There are three 'totally' different analog filters, each one with a strong and different character. First is the 4-pole Low Pass from the Prophet 6, a strong and full resonating filter. Then there is a Moog-style ladder filter, and finally a state-variable 2-pole filter based on the OB-6 (which in turn is loosely based on the SEM).

 

These three filters couldn't sound more different; they expand the sound design palette greatly.

On the state-variable filter, you can morph between LP-Notch-HP, and modulate the morphing. Then there's a separate 'BP' button to engage the band pass. What is not clear at first sight is the fact that you can morph the band pass with the other ones, too! It's on the list of mod destinations, so you can use an LFO, the mod wheel or whatever source to do it. How the 'regular' morphing interact with the BP morphing is not 100% clear to me, but just using my ears, I have achieved interesting and complex results.

 

The ladder filter has a great addition: A parameter to compensate for the notorious loss of bass response with high levels of resonance. I find it extremely useful, and I usually leave it on when I use the Moog-style filter.

All three filters sound good in their own way, so I can't help thinking how fuller this instrument would sound with the possibility of using two of those filters at the same time... series, parallel, parallel with return, stereo spread.... ok I know, I said it myself that I could have done without stereo (see above) â but with all this assortment of filters.... sigh.

 

The Drive parameter does wonders to 'enlarge' the sound of the filters, although you have to be careful in order to not oversaturate â and it will reduce the effect of resonance. Speaking of which.... if you have unwanted distortion from the effects stage, there are alternatives to reducing the oscillators' levels in the mixer: The vca envelope has an 'Amount' parameter, and there's also a general VCA level setting. This is also great to match the level of various patches according to your needs.

 

 

DISTORTION.

I confess that at first, the distortion circuit on the Pro 3 disappointed me. A little background: I have always found the distortion of the Evolver 'a little' harsh, but with time, I had found a way to use it, applying small doses and modulating the dist amount with envelopes. Curiously, the Hypersynth Xenophone has 'analog' distortion, but it sounds even harsher than the Evolver, so on that synth I usually avoid distortion altogether.

Well, anyway the Evolver distortion is very bright, so small doses are usually enough to add beef to lead and bass sounds... but the Pro 3 distortion isn't bright at all. At low settings, it has a gentle saturation effect, then â obviously â it become nastier as you increase the value; but at the same time, it muffles the high register quite a bit. Pratically, it works backwards compared to the Evolver in this respect.

In short, I had to learn to consider the use of Distortion in a totally different way than I was used to. This isn't a fault of the Pro 3, of course; just a different way to conceive this particular aspect. I often found myself to use Drive in the same way I used Distortion on the Evolver. So until now, I have found it a bit less useful than the Evolver distortion for my own sounds, but I'm sure that I will increase its use in my programming in the next future.

 

 

LFOs.

Not a lot to tell here: Three LFOs, each with triangle, saw up, saw down, square and s&h. A Slew Rate parameter can smooth the transitions between values, which is great, especially for creating 'Sample & Glide' waveforms. The Slew Rate, unfortunately, is absolute, so once you have found the optimal value, if you later change the frequency of the LFO, you have to readjust the slew too. Not critical by any means, but a little annoying. I have made a request for an option to anchor the two parameters in a future OS update.

LFOs can be synced, phase-locked to note on, and their initial phase can be adjusted.

All LFOs have a Destination and Amount parameters, but can be also assigned to whatever other parameter and amount in the Mod Matrix (more on that later).

 

 

ENVELOPES.

What's better than an envelope? Four envelopes. Two hardwired to VCA and VCF (but also assignable to everything else), and two 'free'. All envelopes are ADSR but have a Delay option, and can loop the Delay/Attack/Decay portion. Then there are Destination and Amount parameters (see LFOs), and a preset 'Velocity' function. The latter can be useful in a hurry, but its amount can't be adjusted, so I usually set velocity control of Envs from the Mod Matrix, to have more precise control.

About envelope curves: The Evolver has a very crude switch to select Linear or Exponential response for the whole patch. On the Pro 3, you don't have any switch, but having a Mod Matrix with tons of slots, you can use the old trick of modulating individual envelope segments with the envelope itself, and set precise amounts of exp/log behavior. This can be a little tedious, frankly; I prefer the envelopes on the Hydrasynth, where you can set those amounts directly from the Envelope page, starting from a linear response. The Pro 3 has a default exponential response, with no provision for linear.

Btw I have noticed that to achieve a Minimoog-style response on medium/fast attacks, a mod amount of 2 is generally enough. And modulating attack time with velocity, to make it very slightly faster as you hit harder, can make it really expressive.

Which brings me to a head-scratching consideration: On all DSI/SCI instruments, to decrease the value of a time segment, you have to modulate it positively! And viceversa, of course: To lenghten the duration of a segment, you modulate it in negative. I can't think of another instrument or brand behaving like this.

 

Even more head-scratching: On all DSI/SCI instruments, the time values for Delay, Attack, Decay and Release aren't displayed in absolute values like milliseconds, but in arbitrary 0-127 values. This wouldn't be a big hindrance, but the scaling seems different for every segment! Or maybe it's just the exponential curves... For example, value 75 means different times for Attack and Decay. So if you need, for example, to set identical decay and release lenghts, you have to use your ears only â and if you decide to shorten or lenghten those values later, you have to start over. I guess every genius is entitled to some oddities...

Something that could be improved about the envelopes is the fact that there is one 'Retrigger' switch for all envs at once. It would be much more useful to have individual control of each one.

 

Furthermore, I find the 'Retrigger' parameter a bit brutal; it always starts from the current value, not from the actual zero/start of the envelope. Now, I understand that many analog envelopes behaved like this, but this one sounds so abrupt that playing legato with sounds that have a long attack is quite difficult.

And a last thing: The envelopes can loop Attack/Decay, but the 'standard' Attack and Decay segments on the Pro 3 are not linear: In fact they are exponential in a rather pronounced way. So to obtain an LFO-like response to emulate a simple triangle LFO, you have to go thru a laborious process of modulating the segments with the envelope itself, and 'calibrating' the two modulations as you go on... an option for linear envelope response wouldn't hurt.

 

Again, the Xenophone has 5 different retrigger modes, plus a choice of several curves....

 

 

THE MODULATION MATRIX.

The real heart of the Pro 3. A *very* long list of sources and destinations, and a million modulation slots. How many? 32 â plus the five assignable mods from the Envs and LFOs.... 37 modulations! (The Evolver has FOUR. Plus a few hardwired ones) And *each* of these 37 can modulate the amount of another modulation. Folks, I used to complain about the 20-mod limit on the Matrix-12 (and people looked at me like I was nuts), but with the Pro 3, I was incapable to approach its ceiling! If you can't do it with 37 slots....

So what can you modulate? Pretty much everything. The sources start with the oscillators and noise, for crazy FM stuff â only exponential FM, unfortunately, so the ability to program in-tune FM sounds is limited. Then the control modules, the physical modules, the CV inputs... literally, every parameter of the Pro 3 can be a destination.

Synth ads from last century used to say, 'the only limit is your imagination' - so you bought the instrument, just to discover that it had a whole lot of limits. Now we can have analog beef, plus a huge grid for virtual patch cords. And patch memory. Allelujah.

 

 

EFFECTS.

They sound, umm, good. There are two separate slots (reverb only in the second slot, and only Plate), and with a little ingenuity, you can make them an important part of the patch's design. Every effect parameter can be modulated. I'd love to know why the 'Stereo Delay' and the 'BBD Delay' have totally different time scalings, but life is too short. Next.

 

 

SEQUENCER, ARPEGGIATOR and PARAPHONY.

Sorry, I have barely touched these, as they are the aspects that interest me least in a monosynth. I 'have' used them a bit and had fun â but not enough to speak about them with any kind of expertise. Also, I haven't used the CV/Gate connections. So I will jump to-

 

 

BUGS.

Even thru three OS updates, my Pro 3 has showed quite a few anomalies, and by reading the various forums, it seems that I'm not alone. I've exchanged many emails with SCI support, and like DSI in the past, they are very responsive. I understand that they have started updating this synth during the Covid-19 lockdown â it must haven't been easy.... I hope that they will be able to solve the remaining bugs with the next updates.

My main concern is the screen jumping by itself to different pages. I have performed *many* different tasks, including opening the instrument, under the guidance of a very dedicated service guy, but nothing has worked to eradicate the problem. They say that it *should* be due to the very sensitive pots updating themselves, which makes me even more worried in a sense: What is a little nuisance during programming or playing at home, could be disastrous on stage, with all the vibrations and shaky stands.

But I remain hopeful. I love this instrument; I feel like I have been waiting for it for a long time. So I really wish to be able to use it without too many worries.

Which brings to-

 

 

OVERALL FEEL.

What to say â despite any critique I may have made, this is a synth to love. I almost feel it was designed for me personally. Yes, I have my 'if only....' moments with it, but this is closer to what I would have designed myself if I had the capacity, than any other monosynth I've played. The sound, ergonomy, architecture, personality, patch memory, versatility, make it an unified experience. To me, it's important that a synth feels like a whole musical instrument, almost like an acoustic instrument. See, the sound comes from here, this thing with this shape, feel, dimensions, weight, color... (well, I'm not crazy about the color, but it's a very small detail ) The internal PSU, keyboard action, and great panel all contribute to an overall satisfying feel. I hope to play it for many years.

 

 

BUT HOW DOES IT SOUND?

Full, compact, a bit dark, and as I said, somewhat 'produced'. It seems to need little processing to fit in a mix, and stand out when necessary. To me, it has definitely a lead personality (oops ). But that's in part because for me, that's the main role of a monosynth. In practice, it's equally at home with bass sounds, ambient, sequences, fx, or whatever.

Can the ladder filter make it sound like a Minimoog? Not exactly, but somewhat in that ballpark, definitely. It can take you thru any Mini part, without being a clone. If I need more Moog than that, I have my SE-1 and the little Boog.

The OTA/Prophet filter is probably the most useful to build vintage-style patches; sounds that aren't exactly Moogish, but have that moving, alive character.

The SV filter is obviously the most versatile, and it also has a kind of power and presence that are stunning. I have used it for both atmospheric streams and stinging percussive stuff.

 

 

AM I READY TO DUMP MY MEK FOR THE PRO 3?

No. Not yet. Not for a long time. They are different beasts. Programming the Pro 3, I have learned many things about my Evolver sounds, realizing â or better yet, recalling â how many compromises I had to make because of the lack of modulation slots. On the other hand, the MEK has its own sound, more raw and bright. Plus, it has hundreds of my patches inside, years of work which I'm not ready to discard yet. And I still like its form factor and ergonomy. So it stays.

 

Here's a little video with the first patches I've programmed on the Pro 3:

 

[video:youtube]

 

Are we done yet? Almost: Just a little coda. Here's a couple of gripes which don't apply exclusively to the Pro 3, but are recent tendencies in synth design that leave me perplexed.

 

 

OLED DISPLAY.

Ok, it looks beautiful. But does it have to be so damn *small*? I thought that the tendency was toward bigger and bigger screens, and touch screens, etc. So why should I be forced to look at those microscopic characters, which I can't read without glasses? What you say, it's small because OLEDs are more expensive than LCDs? And also have a much shorter life?! Give me back old-fashioned displays, *now* - and make them big! Absurd.

 

 

POTS vs. ENCODERS.

This is a subject which I have discussed many times. Simply, having potentiometers â as opposed to endless encoders - on a synth with patch memory makes no sense to me. I hear several fellow musicians saying, 'I prefer to have visual feedback of where the parameters are'. Well, I can understand it in the case of a Minimoog, where by looking at the panel, you can almost have an idea of what it will sound like. But in case of a synth with patch memory, in *no case* you have visual feedback. Whatever editing system you use, 'Jump', 'Pass Thru' or 'Relative' (SCI offers all three), when you recall a patch, every parameter is set at a certain value, and its relative knob is set somewhere else. Then when you start editing, you'll have some knob which position matches the actual value of its associated parameter, and some other (the one which you haven't touched yet) which are placed differently. And when you first use a knob, you are *forced* to look at the screen, to check the actual starting value that was stored in memory.

 

So the logic solution is to use endless encoders, which always start from the stored value, then go in increment or decrement from there. I have learned this in the old times on the Matrix-12. Of course, you have to have the screen showing both the parameter and its value as it changes. And perhaps, also a visual reference associated with the knob, LED ring or whatever. What's sure to me is, with pots you can *not* have immediate visual feedback.

SCI uses a combination of both pots and encoders, which to me is even more confusing. I mean, it's manageable, but irrational and counter-intuitive. Once again, the Xenophone only uses encoders: Both dedicated ones, and four 'soft' encoders over the main screen. Hats off.

Endless encoders, like OLED displays, are more expensive and have a shorter life span - but in this case, I feel that they should be adopted universally. In more than 30 years, I have replaced the encoders on my Matrix-12 exactly once. I think that's more than acceptable!

 

Ok, in case someone has had the endurance to read up to here, I'm done for this time. I hope this has been of some interest and/or utility to at least some of my fellow keyboard players. I know I have messed up with grammar or syntax occasionally, but as I said a couple of times, life is too short.

Btw - it's been refreshing having the freedom to write a 'non-review'!

It's possible that I'll follow with some integration about new findings, new discoveries, new sounds in the near future. It's not a threat.... just a possibility. For now, bye.

[David Emm]

Now that's a player's demo! Well done. Its a lovely synth that smells like Dave, as you'd hope. I started with a P-5 & a couple of P-600s, but I veered over to Korg hard and ultimately, 95% softsynths. It'd still be a Prophet-6 for me, if I was looking, but this one is among THE synths you should consider if you have modular goals. I'm not inclined to devote a room to all of that again, but if you are, here's a contender as a solid nerve center.

 

I also have a weakness for good paraphonic modes.

[Doerfler]

Disclaimer: This will NOT be a 'review', as in an 'objective' set of considerations.

 

Best non-review I have ever read.

Thanks for taking the time to post this.

[Dave Bryce]

Wow...

 

As usual, a thorough and thoughtful evaluation. Really useful and informative.

 

Thank you, my brother!

 

dB

[Markyboard]

Awesome run down Carlo. I really like your unapologetic approach, incorporating your likes and dislikes whether subjective or not. I just happen to agree with most of them. Except the endless encoders vs pots. There you"re clearly just wrong.

 

Quick question: The guitar lead type patch at 6:21- which filter type does it use and are you using feedback in the path? I"d appreciate if you could give a patch breakdown.

[marino]

Awesome run down Carlo. I really like your unapologetic approach, incorporating your likes and dislikes whether subjective or not.

 

Thanks! That's where most of the fun was. If I had to treat it as a review, I would have approached it quite differently.

 

I just happen to agree with most of them. Except the endless encoders vs pots. There you"re clearly just wrong.

 

Fair enough... well, in fact, this is one of the few points where I'm pretty sure to be "right". I mean, it's not an artistic category, just a very practical matter.

I would be genuinely interested in hearing your reasoning. Only, please don't say something like "I prefer to have visual feedback of where the parameter values are". I have gone to a certain depth/lenght to demonstrate that it's an illusion. I would love to be proven wrong by some equally articulate thinking.

 

Quick question: The guitar lead type patch at 6:21- which filter type does it use and are you using feedback in the path? I"d appreciate if you could give a patch breakdown.

 

Quick question, long answer. Actually, I used 21 modulations on that patch. So it's a big collage of elements. Trying to summarize the most important aspects, this is one of the very few patches where I used Distortion extensively. In fact, I didn't even bother to modulate it: I left it to a constant 127. Another important factor is Feedback: Amount 21, Tune 19. Then there's osc sync: Osc 1 is synced to osc 2, tuned one octave higher, and its pitch and amplitude are modulated by several sources. All oscs are on rich waveforms, with some modulations on Shape and Shape Mod. Osc 2 is tuned one octave lower than the others. Filter is the Ladder with low end compensation, starting at about 1/4 Cutoff and 64 resonance - but both are then modulated by multiple sources. Filter Env is at around 100, with Velocity control.

These are the main ingredients, followed by many steps of fine-tuning and crossing modulations.

 

Btw, I appreciate the questions and interest. This kind of response makes me think that it was worth to write all that stuff...

[Markyboard]

Thanks for your detailed reply Carlo. I'll comment on the pots vs encoders in a second reply (this reply alone may wear you out ).

 

The reason I asked about that particular patch (which btw I really like) is that signal path feedback is one my favorite things to explore. The old mini-moog overdrive trick fascinates and frustrates me. Most use it as a way to enhance the bass or thicken up the sound which is fine. But trying to use it for a screaming lead sound?

 

The mini generates distortion artifacts but mostly with lower frequencies signals. When I think of wailing guitar feedback it screams well above the fundamental frequency. More importantly the pitch and amount of distortion/feedback should be controllable. I've never been able to do this with a mini, Voyager or anything else. It's the Voyager that I use most for attempting this type of sound in conjunction with an Empress overdrive/distortion pedal. But as with the mini the threshold where the sound distorts in a pleasing musical way vs armageddon is extremely narrow; almost like an on/off switch. And its very note dependent over a very narrow range. That's probably why it works better for bass. Here's an example I pulled up (not me):

 

[video:youtube]

 

Intuitively I always think that increasing the resonance will bring out those higher harmonics . But what it really does is thin out the signal which means less or not enough signal to overdrive the filter. This feedback trick wants low to medium frequency energy.

 

A couple of weeks ago I was re-configuring pedals used with my Voyager and effects and working up my best feedback/overdrive sound again when I accidentally uncovered the holy grail; the series Lowpass/Highpass filters. I'm not sure if its the highpass filter itself or just extending the feeddback path or maybe both that's doing it but this thing totally wails now. Can't do it with a LP filter only ala mini but I also tried it with the Cwejman S1 MKII. So far no dice.

 

On the Voyager I'm using one pedal for controlling the amount of headphone signal into the external input and simultaneously controllling the amount of output into the Empress. A 2nd foot pedal for the filter cutoff and together this thing is now something you can control from clean to ripping and everything in between (with a bit of practice).

 

When I heard your Pro3 patch I was curious whether it was using the SV filter toward the HP end. But it sounds like the LP is working great with all the other stuff you have going on which is really impressive. Thanks again for your response.

[marino]

The reason I asked about that particular patch (which btw I really like) is that signal path feedback is one my favorite things to explore. The old mini-moog overdrive trick fascinates and frustrates me. Most use it as a way to enhance the bass or thicken up the sound which is fine. But trying to use it for a screaming lead sound?

 

The short answer: You can forget it.

I, too, have always had a fascination for distortion and saturation circuits. At some point, I even tried to study the physics behind it, but all I have learned is that every circuit of that kind works differently, and consequently, has a different sound.

About the filter feedback on the Mini, I have used it for more than 35 years, so I know its limits fairly well. Check this video, where I used the feedback trick in several spots, including the beginning:

 

[video:youtube]

 

You can use the Mini filter feedback to thicken your sound, but the *only* thing which gives you the right kind of saturation is a genuine distortion circuit.

 

For many years, I tried to emulate it with the old trick from the '80s of using two synced oscillators with rich waveforms, then modulating the pitch of the synced oscillator with velocity, envelopes *and* LFOs. It sounds good, but when compared directly with a screaming guitar, it just disappears. Just ask Jordan Rudess... A bandpass filter helps too. Better yet, a lowpass *and* bandpass in parallel.

 

For that patch, I used the sync thing, plus distortion, plus filter drive, plus tuned feedback, plus a lot of tweaking. Nothing scientific, or even planned: The only knowledge base I had was that every distortion sounds different. So I just experimented with the various distortion/saturation stages until I had a satisfying sound, then I fine-tuned it to make it as playable as possible.

 

Now about those knobs...

[Markyboard]

That sound starting at 16:08 made the back of neck tingle. Gorgeous! Regarding the screaming lead sound on the mini, thanks for confirming what I suspected for a very long time. I always wonder if I'm missing some secret knob/button combination everyone else knows about except me.

 

Now this could be the case with the Voyager. Maybe that's the cost of never going through the presets, many of which got overwritten with my own before I started using it more often than not like a preset-less mini. I need not tell you though how satisfying it is when you hit that eureka moment. This one is so fun to control in real time. I'll try to put together a short demo this week but I'll have to wait since my wife threw her back out and is home for the next day or 2. No need to cause her additional pain and suffering.

 

 

For that patch, I used the sync thing, plus distortion, plus filter drive, plus tuned feedback, plus a lot of tweaking. Nothing scientific, or even planned: The only knowledge base I had was that every distortion sounds different. So I just experimented with the various distortion/saturation stages until I had a satisfying sound, then I fine-tuned it to make it as playable as possible.

 

Exactly how I like to work - the only way to fly.

 

Now about those knobs...

 

Assuming you don't mind I think I'll start a thread on KC for the pot/encoder discussion since it's applicable to all hardware synths. We may get more participation there.

[marino]

I always wonder if I'm missing some secret knob/button combination everyone else knows about except me.

 

Well, there's always the 'other' old trick... take the low-level output of the Mini and patch it directly into the console. Then patch the high-level one into a guitar amp + mic or just a pre-amp, tweak that to taste and patch that into a different channel. Then balance the two sounds, perhaps adding chorus and delay to the direct channel.

 

Assuming you don't mind I think I'll start a thread on KC for the pot/encoder discussion since it's applicable to all hardware synths. We may get more participation there.

 

I can't stop you... let's just hope the s/n ratio doesn't become excessive.

 

Perhaps you could include the "Encoders vs. Pots" section of my post, along with your thoughts.

[Markyboard]

Perhaps you could include the "Encoders vs. Pots" section of my post, along with your thoughts.

 

Yup - Exactly what I was planning.

[Doerfler]

The reason I asked about that particular patch (which btw I really like) is that signal path feedback is one my favorite things to explore. The old mini-moog overdrive trick fascinates and frustrates me. Most use it as a way to enhance the bass or thicken up the sound which is fine. But trying to use it for a screaming lead sound?

 

The short answer: You can forget it.

 

well, that settles that.

[Markyboard]

Apologies for taking this off track (but I sure did enjoy that discussion). Now about those Pro 3 filters....

 

 

FILTERS.

Now, to find different filter types on an analog monosynth is nothing new: The Hypersynth Xenophone and the MFB Dominion 1, for example, have 12 types each. The Pro 3, on the other hand, doesn't only have three different 'filter types', with a different slope, or a choice of LP or HP: There are three 'totally' different analog filters, each one with a strong and different character. First is the 4-pole Low Pass from the Prophet 6, a strong and full resonating filter. Then there is a Moog-style ladder filter, and finally a state-variable 2-pole filter based on the OB-6 (which in turn is loosely based on the SEM).

 

These three filters couldn't sound more different; they expand the sound design palette greatly.

On the state-variable filter, you can morph between LP-Notch-HP, and modulate the morphing. Then there's a separate 'BP' button to engage the band pass. What is not clear at first sight is the fact that you can morph the band pass with the other ones, too! It's on the list of mod destinations, so you can use an LFO, the mod wheel or whatever source to do it. How the 'regular' morphing interact with the BP morphing is not 100% clear to me, but just using my ears, I have achieved interesting and complex results.

 

The ladder filter has a great addition: A parameter to compensate for the notorious loss of bass response with high levels of resonance. I find it extremely useful, and I usually leave it on when I use the Moog-style filter.

All three filters sound good in their own way, so I can't help thinking how fuller this instrument would sound with the possibility of using two of those filters at the same time... series, parallel, parallel with return, stereo spread.... ok I know, I said it myself that I could have done without stereo (see above) â but with all this assortment of filters.... sigh.

 

The Drive parameter does wonders to 'enlarge' the sound of the filters, although you have to be careful in order to not oversaturate â and it will reduce the effect of resonance. Speaking of which.... if you have unwanted distortion from the effects stage, there are alternatives to reducing the oscillators' levels in the mixer: The vca envelope has an 'Amount' parameter, and there's also a general VCA level setting. This is also great to match the level of various patches according to your needs.

 

In the short time I played with the Pro 3 at NAMM I attempted to hear the unique characteristics of each filter type. Maybe not surprising I really struggled between the OTA and the 24dB ladder filter. I don't recall messing with the bass boost compensation switch but I did walk away with the impression the 2 filters weren't all that different. Again this was at NAMM

 

Can you point me to any clips in your demo above that clearly show one vs the other? I realize with this not being the goal when programming it may be difficult to attribute the filter itself to the characteristic sound.

 

Thanks.

[marino]

Apologies for taking this off track (but I sure did enjoy that discussion). Now about those Pro 3 filters....

 

In the short time I played with the Pro 3 at NAMM I attempted to hear the unique characteristics of each filter type. Maybe not surprising I really struggled between the OTA and the 24dB ladder filter. I don't recall messing with the bass boost compensation switch but I did walk away with the impression the 2 filters weren't all that different. Again this was at NAMM

 

Can you point me to any clips in your demo above that clearly show one vs the other? I realize with this not being the goal when programming it may be difficult to attribute the filter itself to the characteristic sound.

 

You're not taking it off track at all, Mark - we're discussing the Pro 3 here.

 

That said, I think it would be pointless (and a bit tedious) to say "this patch uses the ladder, this other patch uses the OTA", because there are so many other things running before, after and around the filter stage. There's no "comparison" patch, and I have no way to record one right away.

 

What I can say is, they do sound quite different, for being both four-pole resonant LP. The Prophet filter sounds a bit fuller, the ladder is more dynamic in cutoff changes by envelopes or anything else, and a bit of resonance accentuates the difference. They don't sound *radically* different, but if you think about it, the original Prophet filter (the Rev 2, anyway) didn't sound radically different from a Minimoog, either. Now, before the purists eat me alive, let me explain: What I mean is that there were, and are, several analog LP filters which sounded "more different" from either. Any Roland or Korg filter, Steiner-Parker, Odyssey Mark III, Oberheim, Buchla, etc. etc.

[Markyboard]

Makes sense and thanks again Carlo. I look forward to the day I can check one out at our local music store. I"m not looking to buy one (or anything for that matter) but I still need to know.

[Markyboard]

Here's that Voyager feedback demo I promised:

 

[video:youtube]

[Doerfler]

Here's that Voyager feedback demo I promised

 

[Dave Bryce]

[video:youtube]

 

dB

[marino]

I came here to post the new video, and - Dave has beaten me on it.

He's always two steps ahead......

 

Btw, this time I experimented with more 'serious' synthesis, and was able to conjure up some complex textures, often of an ominous/perverse nature.

However, I totally avoided the sequencer, the arpeggiator, and the paraphonic functions.

[Doerfler]

Holy moly, sounds f'n great Carlo.

[marino]

Holy moly, sounds f'n great Carlo.

 

Thanks, Dave - glad that you liked it. I'm slowly becoming a Pro 3 expert....

[Markyboard]

I absolutely love the sound at 10:22. I would love for you to dissect that sound and maybe a few others. Rather then attempting to respond with written words it might be cool to do a Zoom Event where this is the focus. Anyone could share something cool that they discovered or just want to show others.

 

I don"t want to dominate our other Zoom meetings with my geekiness so I can set up a separate meet if anyone"s interested. I"ll let you suggest a time that works best for you Carlo. Only I need to wait until my converter box comes back from repair so maybe in a few weeks?

[Dave Bryce]

If it's helpful, MPN does have a Zoom account.

 

Not that we use it much, but it's there and it's available if needed.

 

dB

[Doerfler]

"Google Meet" is a free, secure alternative also

[Jim Alfredson]

Great overview, Marino, and fantastic playing. I own a Pro2 and I absolutely love it. Sequential clued me in to the Pro3 before it was released, as I was looking to purchase a b-stock Pro2 from them (I wound up purchasing one from a forum member instead). So I knew this was coming. The feature set is fantastic despite one less oscillator. And it looks beautiful; the design is classic yet modern. The only thing that turned me off was the three octave, 37 note keyboard. Even on a monosynth, I think four octaves is the bare minimum for a player, ie the "Minimoog standard".

 

I played it at NAMM and loved the sound but just wished it had four octaves. What are your thoughts on this?

[marino]

What are your thoughts on this?

 

Well, Jim, what to say. I am a player, and I'd love for every instrument to have a piano-sized keyboard! Pratically speaking, 73/76 notes is kind of my favorite keyboard lenght. The Minimoog range, which is three octave and a half, is a good compromise for portability in monophonic instruments, but sadly, it never became a standard, and I know very few instrument with that range other than the Pro 2.

 

Consequently, I have a number of three-octave synths (MEK, Miniak, Pro 3, plus others in the past), and I have learned to operate the octave switches quickly when necessary, as you can see occasionally in these videos, and especially in my Miniak videos, since the Miniak is polyphonic.

 

Of course I hate it. I would really like to have a fuller range at my disposal at any given moment, without worrying about reaching for extra controllers placed outside the keyboard. But it's just not available. You could use another keyboard to control the Pro 3, but then you lose the immediacy of the front panel controls. It's a constant compromise, like many others that the keyboard player has to accept. For about ten years, my main controller has been a Roland XP80, because of several factors: it was light, it had a decent 76-key keybed, decent sounds onboard, room for expansions, and good master capabilities.

But I had to adapt to the Roland left-hand paddle, which I dislike, and I even learned to play 'pianistically' on it, although that was a torture.

 

So yes, the 3-octave keyboard is a compromise even for a mono synth, but so is the Minimoog-style range. Personally, I was so used to play the MEK, that I was prepared to use the same octave tricks on the Pro 3. And I have to say that the great action on the Pro 3, and the very good feeling of the left-hand controllers, made everything much smoother. Not to speak of the fact that I love the sound!

 

Several times, I have been tempted to get an used Pro 2. It's a great instrument, and in some ways, it has more features than the Pro 3 - stereo channel with two simultaneous filters being the most obvious.

But I'm glad that I waited: The Pro 3 feels just right to me. I'll happily live with its limitation.

Now, if they would only fix the bugs................

[marino]

I absolutely love the sound at 10:22. I would love for you to dissect that sound and maybe a few others. Rather then attempting to respond with written words it might be cool to do a Zoom Event where this is the focus. Anyone could share something cool that they discovered or just want to show others.

 

If it's helpful, MPN does have a Zoom account.

Not that we use it much, but it's there and it's available if needed.

 

Guys, I'm flattered by your trust and I'll be happy to help... I had no intention to ignore Mark's request, I am just surrounded by simultaneous challenges at the moment.

 

 

I don"t want to dominate our other Zoom meetings with my geekiness so I can set up a separate meet if anyone"s interested. I"ll let you suggest a time that works best for you Carlo. Only I need to wait until my converter box comes back from repair so maybe in a few weeks?

 

Absolutely!

[Markyboard]

Hey cool Carlo. I figured you might be swamped with life and so didn"t want to push. Also I had to send my converter back again as the first 'fix' didn"t work. It should hopefully be returned to me in a couple of weeks.

 

More importantly this Zoom meeting should really be at your convenience. I"m in no hurry and also flexible so no pressure. Just give us maybe a few days notice when time allows. And thanks!

[Doc Tonewheel]

Let me first say thank you Carlo (and everyone else who takes time from their life) to write these to share and help their keyboard brethren. Your demos are extremely helpful and the sounds you get are amazing. I am currently thinking about replacing my old Korg Mono/Poly with the Pro3 mainly due to the fact that it can do so much more, sounds fantastic, and I only want to deal with maintaining a Hammond, clav, and an original Minimoog as far as vintage gear goes at this point in my life. I kept the Mono/Poly because it inherently sounds so different than my other synths, but from your post, I think the Pro3 would also be able to do so as well.

 

Thank you again!

[marino]

Let me first say thank you Carlo (and everyone else who takes time from their life) to write these to share and help their keyboard brethren. Your demos are extremely helpful and the sounds you get are amazing. I am currently thinking about replacing my old Korg Mono/Poly with the Pro3 mainly due to the fact that it can do so much more, sounds fantastic, and I only want to deal with maintaining a Hammond, clav, and an original Minimoog as far as vintage gear goes at this point in my life. I kept the Mono/Poly because it inherently sounds so different than my other synths, but from your post, I think the Pro3 would also be able to do so as well.

 

Thank you again!

 

Glad to be of help, Doc. Frankly, if I were you I would try to get a Pro 3 without getting rid of the Mono/Poly. It doesn't have all the functions of the Pro3, but it has a very personal sound - especially when connected to good external effects.