Talk:Prophet-5

Musical Instruments Start‑class Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Prices in infobox

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:

March 1999. Sound On Sound magazine. Prophet 5 original price £3395 UK, Prophet 10 original price £5600 UK. I don't have the conversion figures for 1978 to 1980 from US dollars to UK pounds or vice versa.
1988. Electronic Musician. "20 Great Achievements" #8 "Sequential Circuits Prophet 5 Synthesizer", pages 5–6. Quoting Dave Smith, "[The first Prophet-5] was introduced at $3,500; we raised the price immediately to $4,000 and finally to $4,500, which was its standard price for the next two years after that."
2011. Keyboard Presents Synth Gods, page 118. "You can imagine what the thrill was like when, in early 1978, Dave introduced the Prophet-5, the first completely programmable polyphonic synth. Even though the Prophet-5 cost $4,595—and people paid full retail then—everyone bought it..." (Thjs was originally published in Keyboard magazine in 2007.)
2000. Electronic Musician. "In the Spotlight: Sequential Circuits Prophet-5 Produced: 1978–1984 Made in: USA Designed by: Dave Smith, John Bowen Number produced: 7,500 Synthesis system: analog, subtractive synthesis Price new: $4,595..."
1995. Keyboard. "Then take a look back at what you had to pay 20 years ago for a then- state-of-the-art synth like the Oberheim Four Voice or Sequential Prophet-5, each of which cost about $4,000."

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

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

@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]

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

@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]