Found my 1981 Pro-One in loft!

[Forum Admin]

The replacement keyboards have been a revelation here. My Pro-One feels like a quality instrument, rather than the lighweight clacky beast it was. I'd highly recommend it.

Thanks Paul for that advice. Will explore that tip.

BTW, my serial number for the Pro-One is 5619. Not certain whether SCI did back then what lots of gear-makers do and start their serial number sequencing with an arbitrary number ie. '5' making mine model 619 (I hope). If anyone knows, would love to be enlightened on this point.

cheers,
Ian

[BJG145]

After a sip of coffee, I set to adjusting a patch and there it was, that syncing feeling.

Glad you and the Pro-One are recovering well.

[Folderol]

After a sip of coffee, I set to adjusting a patch and there it was, that syncing feeling.

Glad you and the Pro-One are recovering well.

Pah! You spoiled my fun. I was going to say exactly the same thing

[Forum Admin]

[Martin Walker]

BTW, my serial number for the Pro-One is 5619. Not certain whether SCI did back then what lots of gear-makers do and start their serial number sequencing with an arbitrary number ie. '5' making mine model 619 (I hope). If anyone knows, would love to be enlightened on this point.

Ironically, my internet searches soon turned up a lot of information re Pro-One serial numbers!

http://www.archfrenemy.com/projects/mods/sciproone.html

1. All Pro-Ones with Serial Numbers BELOW # 1500 were the ones with the Power Supply (including Heavy Transformer) Mounted on the Printed Circuit Board, which reduces durability.

2. The Pro One's with serial numbers BELOW # 8500 are equipped with the stable and easy to repair J-wire style keyboard

3. All Pro-Ones with Serial Numbers ABOVE # 8500 used the Cheap, Terrible (and Faulty!) MEMBRANE Keyboards.

So I can already tell you that your #5619 has the better quality J-wire keyboard, and doesn't have the heavy transformer hanging off the PCB

I also stumbled across one Pro-One for sale with serial number #55xx, described as being built between 1981 and 1984.
https://retrogearshop.com/products/sequ ... e-j-wire-1

Hope this helps!

Martin

[Forum Admin]

So I can already tell you that your #5619 has the better quality J-wire keyboard, and doesn't have the heavy transformer hanging off the PCB

Hope this helps!

Martin

Thanks - it does indeed help me, Martin. I think this is worth me investing in, as one reason I stopped using my 'live performance' (ie. no memories) Pro-One was mainly its clunky, clacks keyboard. When I bought it in 1981, I only had experience of the Transcendent keyed (crap) and I mainly used it in rehearsal rooms (posh name for local garage 'glass box' showroom on a Sunday and Tuesday nights) or for gigs, where ambient noise drowned out the clacks keypresses.

It deserves a nicer keyboard.

It also deserves a MIDI retrofit, so a Kenton Pro-Soloist might be added to my basket at SynthFest UK, where Kenton are exhibiting this October.

[Martin Walker]

Thanks - it does indeed help me, Martin.

[Arpangel]

What a thing to find, I had one in the nineties, it was a definitive leap from anything around when it came out, producing sounds that others weren’t capable of, it really stands out in my recordings at the time, due to its very flexible modulation routing, and unique sounding oscillators.

[Forum Admin]

This might sound like sacrilege, but I've been engrossed in YouTube videos about the Behringer Pro-1 module. It sounded pretty decent on headphones over YT to my ears and a module version would appeal to me as I need to save space. (Moving house next year and seriously downsizing.)

So, to avoid the cost of the quality keyboard retrofit and a Pro-Soloist to get it MIDIable, the Berry looks to be an utter bargain with some useful extra functions. I know it only has digital filter circuits and not the lovely Curtis chip analogue filter of the original keyboard synth, but...

So have any Forumites got a Pro-1 and do you like its sound?

[The Elf]

I thought it *did* have an analogue filter?!

The only bad reports of the Berry P1 I've heard are about the attack control, which seems to be a bit iffy at or near its minimum settings.

[Forum Admin]

I thought it *did* have an analogue filter?!

Not heard one in the flesh, so your comment is even better if it does.

The only bad reports of the Berry P1 I've heard are about the attack control, which seems to be a bit iffy at or near its minimum settings.

OK, will bear it in mind. Thanks.

[Tomás Mulcahy]

Yes it's an analogue filter. Digital envelopes is the difference with the original I think, maybe the cause of the issue Elf pointed out? They remade the original filter and oscillator chips in SMD form.

I've only used their Moog clone. It sounds superb. But the dials are really small, which is part of the Moog experience IMO. It was a lot harder to get the sweet spots compared to the big dials on a real MiniMoog. Or even Arturia Mini V controlled by my Novation KSR, which are the same size as the average dially controller. It put me off. I can see the same issue with the Behringer Pro One.

I guess though, you could sell the real Pro One and pay for several Behringer clones? Their ARP2600 did not feel small to me, and also sounds really great. I never used a real one, only the Arturia plugin.

[James Perrett]

(Moving house next year and seriously downsizing.)

Judging by the price of this one

https://mjq.co.uk/equipment/sequential- ... -for-sale/

selling it would probably pay your legal fees for moving house.

[Forum Admin]

(Moving house next year and seriously downsizing.)

Judging by the price of this one

https://mjq.co.uk/equipment/sequential- ... -for-sale/

selling it would probably pay your legal fees for moving house.

. And mine is rare, as it has the UC-1 Sequencer add-on integrated into the P1 with extra sockets (that adds another zero, doesn't it?).

[Folderol]

(Moving house next year and seriously downsizing.)

Judging by the price of this one

https://mjq.co.uk/equipment/sequential- ... -for-sale/

selling it would probably pay your legal fees for moving house.

. And mine is rare, as it has the UC-1 Sequencer add-on integrated into the P1 with extra sockets (that adds another zero, doesn't it?).

Yes, but which end of the number

[The Elf]

Yes it's an analogue filter. Digital envelopes is the difference with the original I think, maybe the cause of the issue Elf pointed out? They remade the original filter and oscillator chips in SMD form.

Yep, that's my understanding too.

[t-sun]

This might sound like sacrilege, but I've been engrossed in YouTube videos about the Behringer Pro-1 module. It sounded pretty decent on headphones over YT to my ears and a module version would appeal to me as I need to save space. (Moving house next year and seriously downsizing.)

So, to avoid the cost of the quality keyboard retrofit and a Pro-Soloist to get it MIDIable, the Berry looks to be an utter bargain with some useful extra functions. I know it only has digital filter circuits and not the lovely Curtis chip analogue filter of the original keyboard synth, but...

So have any Forumites got a Pro-1 and do you like its sound?

I have one, and the best analogy I can make is that it's the difference between having an original Lotus Elan vs having a brand new Mazda MX-5. It does what you're looking for and it doesn't break down, and you're nowhere near as worried about damaging it. On the other hand, it's not the original and it's not nearly as special.

It is an analog filter, but my understanding is that even though it's a clone, modern engineering techniques make it impossible to have exactly the same sound. You quite literally can't make them like that anymore, because the quality tolerances were so wide. So, it sounds as close as possible but the trade-off is that it's going to be able to reproduce the same sound every time.

[Tomás Mulcahy]

That's technically incorrect. The tolerances were actually really good by the time the Pro 1 was developed, since it uses dedicated ICs for the filter osc and amp. The whole tolerance myth is from the MiniMoog, where the general purpose 741 op amp in the later revs gave unstable tuning... but that was one of the first ICs ever. Very noisy device. It's from 1968, whereas the CEMs in the Pro 1 are from 1980- things moved on a lot in that time! Moon landing, robot space exploration, home computers, satellite comms: all those massive advances trickled down to the CEM design.

Ya the poly version of the Pro 1 (the P5) had stability issues, but these were addressed as time went by with the different versions to the point where some folk complained the rev 3.3 was too stable... the Pro 1 is from the same design as the rev 3.x, albeit with a wider range of CV values since the DAC is not limited to what can be stored in limited RAM as on the P5. All that means is the Pro 1 has a wider range for modulation than the P5.

In short- the original is stable, and it's safe to assume that so is the Behringer.

[tea for two]

to the point where some folk complained the rev 3.3 was too stable... the Pro 1

This is quite interesting to me.

There's an OB-X8 vs OB-X from Oberheim Official utube.

To my dodgy ears utube to phone (terrible lol) : original OB-X has a slight unsteadiness to it compared to modern X8. Makes original X sound a bit more lively a little unhinged even, which I like.

**

This might sound like sacrilege, but I've been engrossed in YouTube videos about the Behringer Pro-1 module. It sounded pretty decent on headphones over YT to my ears and a module version would appeal to me as I need to save space. (Moving house next year and seriously downsizing.)

So, to avoid the cost of the quality keyboard retrofit and a Pro-Soloist to get it MIDIable, the Berry looks to be an utter bargain with some useful extra functions

Berry (b)ro1 I was surprised it's as low priced as it is.
If berry is 80-90% there, inspires near as original pro1, similar amount of fun, then why not.

**

(I just wish uli would not have as his management guru jr ewing from dallas).

[Tomás Mulcahy]

That’s an interesting example. OB-X uses earlier CEMs, has a few design errors with chip voltages, and uses RCA CMOS chips that were basically not as well made as they could have been. All making it less stable and reliable then later models like Xa and 8. Plus an old one is likely not to be at factory spec anyway. This page will put you off ever wanting one :
http://www.analoguediehard.com/studio/k ... index.html

That said it’s an outstanding bit of design way beyond my ability to fully understand. We are blessed that people like Tom Oberheim and Dave Smith got into the music biz and passed on their skills to many of their employees too. Taking all that industrial engineering and turning it into a musical instrument is amazing.

[Martin Walker]

Plus an old one is likely not to be at factory spec anyway. This page will put you off ever wanting one :
http://www.analoguediehard.com/studio/k ... index.html

Ouch - that page is pretty damning Tomás

However, the author does provide some sensible component-based workarounds

[Tomás Mulcahy]

You’re right. And it was quite generous of him to provide all of that info. I gather it’s definitive. As long as you already know how to deal with a Z80 based embedded system I guess! That’s beyond me. The 6800 was the in thing when I was in college, and I barely passed that module lol.

[Arpangel]

Yes it's an analogue filter. Digital envelopes is the difference with the original I think, maybe the cause of the issue Elf pointed out? They remade the original filter and oscillator chips in SMD form.

I've only used their Moog clone. It sounds superb. But the dials are really small, which is part of the Moog experience IMO. It was a lot harder to get the sweet spots compared to the big dials on a real MiniMoog. Or even Arturia Mini V controlled by my Novation KSR, which are the same size as the average dially controller. It put me off. I can see the same issue with the Behringer Pro One.

I guess though, you could sell the real Pro One and pay for several Behringer clones? Their ARP2600 did not feel small to me, and also sounds really great. I never used a real one, only the Arturia plugin.

This is the issue I have with Behringer clones, the knob size, my Berry 2600 is in its box right now, haven’t used it for ages, I find the sliders too small, you only have to touch them and you get massive changes.
As has been said, part of the experience, and playability, is the physical size of the controls.
This is one synth, that really did sound radically new compared with others around at the time, it sounded very modern, very new.

(Moving house next year and seriously downsizing.)

Judging by the price of this one

https://mjq.co.uk/equipment/sequential- ... -for-sale/

selling it would probably pay your legal fees for moving house.

Goodness me, that site James, some tasty stuff there.