Jump to content

Talk:Prophet-5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prices in infobox

[edit]

Does anyone know the dates and sources of the prices quoted in the infobox? I've not edited many pages about musical instruments, but with autos and aircraft, the price is generally the MSRP cited and dated for the first and/or last year(s) of production. Carguychris (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first time a price appeared in this article was this edit in Feb 2012 from an IP in Plymouth, UK. No reference was supplied. Because of the problem of "citogenesis", we should look for prices in sources published before 2012, to prevent circular sourcing. Such sources say:
Hope that helps. Binksternet (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does, thanks, and I've not heard of "citogenesis"— that's a good one! Yes, my exact concern is that the prices are hearsay that's been passed around the Internet, and 8 years on Wikipedia makes things worse. The $3,500 quote from Dave Smith is probably the most accurate, but I wonder if it's actually documented in a published source. I understand that early Sequentials were sold on a very ad hoc basis with very limited marketing, and the dearth of synthesizer-specific periodicals in 1978–1979 compounds the problem. Carguychris (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Selected list of albums featuring the Prophet-5

[edit]

I've tried to add a list of albums featuring the Prophet-5 synth, but now I'm only trying to make it clear that it's only meant to be a selected list of famous albums. For where references weren't included, the Prophet-5 should be mentioned on the album pages themselves, so it may not be necessary for me to put additional references. I have spent more than an hour or so setting up the section of the page. For XTC's mummer album, I don't have a copy of the Musician magazine issue that has the reference for the Prophet-5 appearing on "Wonderland", though I do know at least one 1983 issue does contain the reference, having found a result from searching Google books (unfortunately with no preview available). -- Reelcase 13:09, 1 May 2020 (GMT)

There are a few things here.
First, every claim on Wikipedia needs a reliable source. This is a fundamental pillar of the encyclopaedia. See WP:VERIFY. If you can't provide a reliable source for a claim, you can't add it to an article.
If the claim is properly cited on another article, you can just copy the citation from that article. But you can't leave it for readers or other editors to just figure it out. See WP:BURDEN.
The fact that many of the claims you're adding don't have reliable sources is only half of the problem. The other half of the problem is that you are just dumping an indiscriminate list of information into the article. This information should instead, when it's notable, be integrated into the prose. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Popcornfud (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think that lists of musical works that utilize a particular musical instrument very seldom have any encyclopedic value, and rapidly devolve into WP:FANCRUFT. Such discussions only warrant inclusion in special cases, such as when a particularly notable artist states that the instrument was so vital to the creation of a notable work that he/she would not have completed the work otherwise. Carguychris (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agreed. It's a blight on articles related to music production. Popcornfud (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music sample

[edit]

@Binksternet: Hey there. I see that you uploaded File:Twice Around the Sun - Oregon - 1987 sample.mp3. I'm unsure whether the sample is necessary to learn about the topic in question. If so, shouldn't the sample be no more than 30 seconds per MOS:SAMPLE, especially for longer songs/tracks? Furthermore, I think the bit rate is too high. If you don't mind, I can find the song's segment (probably from Spotify), resample it, and downgrade the audio a (little) bit more make it more inferior than the current revision. --George Ho (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the duration being too long. I'll fix it.
What bit rate is considered too high? The 160 kbps quality level is a lot lower than 1411 kbps CD quality. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... MOS:SAMPLE doesn't say much about what the maximal bit rate of a sample should be for a non-free content. Neither does WP:NFC either. Well, you can upload any 160-kbps version if you wish, especially if you find a superb 64-kbps (or lower) file more complicated to create. Indeed, I'll find the same segment heard in the sample and then help you downgrade the quality as much as I can.
I've been using Audacity recently. To me, even a 160-kbps sample would still be too large/big, so 64-kbps is my recommended maximal bit rate. MOS:SAMPLE assumed that, for an ogg file, "0" quality and "roughly 64 kbit/s" are usually interchangeable and synonymous. As I admit to admit, a 64-kbps sample may sound more inferior than the 160-kbps one, and a 40-kbps sample may sound worse than the 64-kbps one. If so, then I can assume that at least one of the settings is too low (or isn't correct). Usually, in my case, perhaps the sample rate is too low, stereo (or joint stereo) channel may sound worse (and more distorted or AM radio-ish) than mono channel, or there's something else wrong with another one of settings. Nonetheless, in most cases, I have been able to improve audio quality and then upload a sample when ready enough. George Ho (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe 10 percent quality is the general guideline, as suggested by the duration limitations. If so, 140 kbps would fall just below 10% of 1411 kbps. I can redo the sample at a rate of 140 or lower. Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well... MOS:SAMPLE doesn't mention the maximum quality; just the maxiumum length/runtime. Regarding quality, what I've done is running a sample on desktop and mobile devices, like smartphones and tablets, hoping that it sounds good enough for everyone. BTW, I also resampled another song and downgraded the quality of File:Joe Jackson - 1984 - Loisaida sample.mp3. I hope I didn't downgrade it too much, did I? I also thought about downgrading your other audio uploads; one or two of them are demos. George Ho (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's too much downgrading, especially summing a stereo source down to mono. You know I'm perfectly able to resample my own audio files. You can ask me to do it; a collegial kindness. Binksternet (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All then. Please would you kindly downgrade and/or trim down your samples... as much as you can. Thanks. (I hope there's kindness :D) George Ho (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? It's been three months, but then I decided to upload a new version of "Loisaida". I uploaded audio channel to joint stereo per your wish and then increased bit rate to "64-kbps average". The sample rate is still the same. Actually, (what happened is) I still have saved the master copy of the sampled segment I recorded at Audacity's very maximum sample rate, 384kHz. I was able to export it into multiple copies recently to choose which version. Then I chose the one I described. I can increase the sample rate and bit rate if necessary. George Ho (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One more method of assuring a lower sound quality than the original would be to establish a maximum size in kilobytes for the standard maximum duration 30-second sample. A range of file sizes may be seen in the Category:Wikipedia non-free audio samples, with some 30-second clips down near 200 kb, and other 30-second clips getting up around 600 kb, for instance File:074 - Mariah Carey - Make It Happen (1992).ogg and File:Avenged Sevenfold - Bat Country.ogg. I think we should have a WP:Request for comment to establish a maximum file size, because the quirky Vorbis system isn't the right way to judge sound quality. I wouldn't be surprised if we establish something like 500 or 600 kb as the maximum size. Binksternet (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC it is then, but where? WP:VPP, WT:NFC, or where else? George Ho (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's base it at NFC, and notify others at VPP and the music Wikiprojects. Binksternet (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the longer sample with the 30-second one. I downgraded sample rate to 22,050 Hz and bit rate to "64 kbps" average (resulting in 61~62 kbps). Channel is joint stereo. Format is 16-bit PCM. I hope you like the downgrade more than the other one I did for the other file. Or... George Ho (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: I set the root mean square loudness for the sample to -20.0 dB. George Ho (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That works, thanks. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First fully programmable polyphonic synthesizer

[edit]

@Popcornfud:, regarding the claim that the Prophet-5 was the first fully programmable polyphonic synthesizer, I suspect that the dispute relates to the 1939 Novachord and the 1975 Polymoog, as both have been characterized by published sources as programmable and polyphonic, although both use paraphonic divide-down oscillators, and as I understand it, neither is fully programmable like the Prophet-5 in that certain synthesis parameters cannot be directly changed by the user. (I can personally attest that this is true of the Polymoog; I've never even seen a Novachord!) I think that the underlying issue is that not all sources adequately differentiate between paraphony and "true" polyphony. Carguychris (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the claim is not true and this term doesn't have anything to do with polyphony. For example the Oberheim polyphonic synthesizer allowed all of its parameters to be controlled by the user. The CS-80 also allowed users to fully override the in-built presets. Technically even Moog Modulars are fully programmable as they don't have hidden settings baked in by the designers of the synth. StingR (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both for the replies, it is appreciated.
I wonder what is meant by the sources when they say "programmable" here. Maybe they mean the ability to save sounds as patches? Popcornfud (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Popcornfud: I see this term as something blurred both by marketing and by journalists' misunderstandings.
Some synths are preset synths, they are not programmamble as you can only use built-in presets, think of something like the Oberheim Matrix-1000.
Then, there are the programmable synths. It's basically a spectrum starting from preset synths with some user adjustable parameters to synths that allow you to freely adjust almost everything. So on one end, think of something like the Roland SH-1000 and SH-2000. These synths are programmable, albeit to a very limited extent. On the other end of this spectrum you can think of the Polymoog 203a. It is also only programmable, because it has a filter at the end of the signal chain and its settings are baked into presets which you cannot change. Other than switching presets to change the built-in settings of this filter, you have the option to disable it. However, you can change a ton of other parameters on the synth, basically everything else including like 2 other filters' settings as well. The Juno synths are also good examples as you cannot change the choruses' parameters, you can only switch them on or off.
Then there are synths which are fully programmable, you can change all parameters in them, nothing is baked-in, nothing is hidden from you. For example, the Prophet-5 or the Minimoog are such a synths. Actually most synths are fully programmable. Even the Yamaha CS-80 belongs to this category, as while it has built-in presets which can be only changed in a very limited fashion, they can be completely overridden by user settings. In this situation all settings are available for the user to change on this synth, and it came before the P5, so did the Oberheim polyphonic.
So I stand by my statement that the Prophet-5 is neither the first fully programmable synth, nor the first fully programmable polyphonic synth. I have to admit, that I struggled with understanding the actual meaning of the term "programmable synthesizer" until recently myself too, as it is relatively frequently tossed around and in some ways it feels like marketing talk. Regarding the sources, they probably refer to the ability to save presets, even if this term as I stated, has nothing to do with that. What the Prophet-5 was first in is that it allowed to save and load ALL user adjustable settings with basically just a push of a button. The Oberheim polyphonic synths also had a digital preset system, but it could only save a few settings and thus it wasn't really useful. And in the CS-80 you had to manually copy the settings of the main panel to a mini version of the main panel hidden behind a trapdoor and you couldn't save for example the settings of the chorus or the ring modulator, not even those of the LFO. StingR (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about the Oberheim Polyphonic synthesizer when I started this thread! <smh> That said, I still believe that the benchmark set by the Prophet-5 is that it's the first fully programmable and truly polyphonic synthesizer with CPU-controlled "mash-a-button" memory recall for every synthesis parameter—no need to manually change certain parameters after recalling the patch as with the Oberheim, Polymoog or CS-80. However, there are a LOT of qualifiers for the statement, and it's difficult to verify it with a published source because journalists and other writers aren't specific enough and/or make a muddle of the terminology. Carguychris (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better quality infobox image

[edit]

The current image is pretty low and blurry quality. It has been bothering me for a while now as I believe that such an important synthesizer would deserve a better infobox image in its wiki article. I have a photo already uploaded to commons of a [Prophet-10 Rev 4], but I'm not sure if it's the best to use that. Maybe we could ask an owner of a (probably vintage) Prophet-5 to take a photo and allow it to be used in Wikipedia? StingR (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your photo looks a lot better than the current one to me. Even if you don't think it's ideal, it's way better than the current one so we might as well use it until we get the "perfect" photo, whatever that might be.
To be honest, I don't think it's of huge importance which revision we depict in the photo - they all look essentially similar apart from the double-keyboard Prophet-10s. Popcornfud (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's just that my photo is of a Prophet-10 and it can be seen clearly on the image. That might confuse people why there is a Prophet-10 on the image while the title of the article and the infobox is "Prophet-5". Maybe we should update the infobox to include information about the P10 as well? Personally I'd like to do that as that would emphasise that they are basically the same synth and while the text makes that clear, the infobox makes no mention of the P10 at all. StingR (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree having a Prophet-5 would ideal. I would resolve the issue this with a caption - something like "A Prophet-10, a 10-voice version of the Prophet-5".
Including some data on the Prophet-10 in the infobox might make sense - try it and we can see how it looks. Popcornfud (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too many artists in the Impact section

[edit]

There might be too many artists listed in the Impact section. In fact, there are actually two sentences listing plenty of artists which makes no sense in my opinion and I'm afraid that it's getting too close to WP:FANCRUFT as well. In my memory, this article was cleaned of overabundant artist lists before and maybe this should be done again as it makes the article hard and tedious to read. I think one sentence is enough and the list that is sourced from MusicTech may not considered reliable outright, just because it was in an article there. In fact, that article is kinda Vintage Synth Explorer-like. StingR (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - even assuming all the artists are reliably sourced (which I haven't checked), it isn't readable. The prose should really explain how these artists used the instrument, why is this interesting? See the TR-808 article for an example that. Popcornfud (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, might be useful to split Impact into subsections, like pop, rock and soundtrack in the first place. StingR (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than split material while keeping its basic format, I agree with Popcornfud and would recommend removing any names that cannot be expanded upon, to tell the reader in prose about how the artist used the Prophet-5. Let's make this more informative, less a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. For instance, we can tell the reader that Greg Hawkes of the Cars used the Prophet-5's oscillator sync patch in the song "Let's Go" to get a "nasal"-sounding tone appropriate for synth leads; this was influential.[1] Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I will look into all of the artists which are sourced and see if there's a way to incorporate them into prose and then those may remain in the article in that form and the rest could be removed. StingR (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prophet-5&oldid=1204936879"