Vintage Prophet 5 Rev 3.3 vs Modern Prophet 5 Rev 4 Head-To-Head Comparison

This video, via Neon Lights, is an extended head-to-head comparison of a vintage Prophet-5 Rev 3.3 to a new Sequential Prophet-5 Rev 4.

Sequential yesterday acknowledged an issue with early Prophet-5 Rev 4‘s that dulled the high end. Designer Dave Smith identified a manufacturing error, shared the fix and said the company would replace or update affected keyboards.

This video compares a Sequential Prophet-5 Rev 4 that has the recommended fix against its vintage counterpart.

Check it out and share your thoughts on how they compare in the comments!

16 thoughts on “Vintage Prophet 5 Rev 3.3 vs Modern Prophet 5 Rev 4 Head-To-Head Comparison

      1. I’ll save you the trouble. I’ve A/B’d my vintage Prophet with u-he and Arturia. The real one wins- it’s more “liquidy” and the PWM is nicer. Make no mistake, u-he and Arturia are fine virtual instruments, but the real thing is smoother/better. I’ve also A/B’d the new one and old (I had a prod proto for a while) and they’re indistinguishable (the prod protos didn’t have the high-freq capacitor roll-off issue, btw).

  1. Preferred the Rev3, there’s a vast difference in the top end ‘sizzle’ between the two (Rev4 is lacking) and the Rev4 is more refined and less organic. It should be noted which autotune routine each patch is using.
    More relevant though I want to hear the Rev2 versus the Rev4 using the SSI2044 fitlers.

    1. Yea I hope a comparison video between a rev2 and the rev 4 happens. Rev2 has better routing options so I would like that, but love the sounds of the rev 4…

    2. Have you listened closely to this new comparison video (as opposed to the first one he did)? The rev4 has every bit as much sizzle as the rev3, now that the fix is in.

  2. They definitely sound different. But that is also the case between one Prophet 5 and any other Prophet 5, so it’s hard to say this makes it not sound like one. I bet it sounds a lot like the Prophet 5s they tested it against, which sound different from each other and from this one this dude has.

  3. Mandatory synthtopia comments:
    1. Behringer bad!
    2. Behringer good!
    2.5 Why are you even talking about Behringer on a post has nothing to do with Behringer? (BTW I think Teenage Engineering is very bad/good/overpriced/worth it!)
    3. Too expensive! This should be cheaper than a Behringer.
    4. Sounds nothing like the original! Boo!
    5. Sounds just like the original! Hooray!
    6. Synth maker is great for re-releasing the classics! So much better than modern synths!
    7. Synth makers are bad for rehashing tired old designs! Don’t they have any new ideas?
    8. Just shut up and make music!
    9. This music sucks because it’s too original/derivative and player has too little/too much technical skill.
    10. There is too much/not enough talking in this video.
    11. I just want to hear the plain oscillators/a full piece using the instrument.

  4. I suddenly remember a time in 1986, I was really amused by rock guitarists trying to sound like Eric Clapton did in 1971. I was smug in my futuristic outlook and my newfangled synths with their all new forward looking sounds. “Synths are the future, they can make any sound, why look back” I said. Now we all live in museums.

    1. “Now we all live in museums”

      I know right? Some miscreants are still using pipe organs and violins like it’s the 17th century or something. Or the human voice, which is like music for neanderthals (who had much deeper bass range anyway due to their larger larynxes!)

      I demand nothing less than futuristic music composed by artificial intelligence for aliens!

  5. I’m sorry, but you could easily tweak either of the two to make up for any little difference you hear in this demo. There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference.

Leave a Reply