Starsky Carr Throws Down: Sequential Fourm vs Pro-One – Modern Muscle or Vintage Voodoo?

Modern Muscle, Vintage Bones

Starsky Carr kicks things off by laying out the battlefield: the Sequential Fourm, a modern monosynth with all the Prophet DNA you could want, versus the Pro-One, a legend that’s made dancefloors quake for decades. Both pack dual oscillators, classic envelopes, and a modulation section that screams old-school, but the Fourm isn’t just a clone – it’s got its own tricks up its sleeve.

You can feel the respect for the Pro-One oozing through the screen, but Starsky’s not here to worship at the altar of vintage. He’s after vibe, playability, and whether the Fourm can actually inspire the same kind of sonic mischief. The intro jam sets the tone: this isn’t about pixel-peeping specs, it’s about whether the Fourm can hang in a real-world, sweat-soaked studio session.

Oscillator Rumble: PWM and FM Face-Off

Oscillator behaviour is where things get spicy. Starsky dives into pulse width modulation and frequency modulation, showing that the Fourm’s approach to PWM is a bit left of centre – literally. The modulation doesn’t sweep equally around the centre point like the Pro-One, which gives it a slightly different flavour when you’re sculpting those classic tones.

When it comes to FM, the Fourm doesn’t quite go as wild as the Pro-One. You get about 70% of the modulation depth, which might matter if you’re into pushing things to the edge of toaster-fight territory. Still, the Fourm holds its own, and for most mortals, the difference is more about nuance than night-and-day. If you want to hear the real grit, you’ll need to crank the video and let your speakers sweat.

"You know, if that was out when I was buying the Pro-1, maybe it wouldn't have bought the Pro-1."

© Screenshot/Quote: Starskycarr (YouTube)

Filter Wars: Low-End Depth and Resonance Mayhem

Now for the filter shootout. Starsky puts both synths through their paces, dialling in deep bass and cranking the resonance to see which one can make the room shake. The Fourm’s filter is no slouch – it delivers that Prophet punch and can get seriously gnarly when pushed, but the Pro-One still has a bit more rawness when you really lean in.

It’s not just about the numbers; it’s about the feel. The Fourm’s filter is smooth and powerful, but the Pro-One’s got that unpredictable edge that makes you grin like a maniac. If you want to know which one will make your neighbours call the council, you’ll have to watch Starsky’s face as the walls start rattling.

Bass That Bites: Sub Power and Room-Rattling Tones

"All sorts of things are rattling in this room."

© Screenshot/Quote: Starskycarr (YouTube)

Bass is where legends are made, and Starsky doesn’t mess about. He dials in subs and shakes the room, showing the Fourm can absolutely deliver deep, aggressive tones that punch through a mix. The Pro-One’s reputation for bass is well-earned, but the Fourm gets dangerously close – close enough that, in a blind test, you might not care which is which.

Starsky’s verdict? Both synths can bring the thunder, but the Fourm’s modern edge gives it a bit more flexibility. If you want classic bass with a twist, the Fourm’s got your back. But if you’re after pure, unfiltered vintage filth, the Pro-One still has the upper hand. Either way, your subwoofer’s in for a workout.

Final Round: Contender or Pretender?

So, does the Fourm dethrone the Pro-One? Not quite – but it’s a worthy contender. Starsky’s impressed by the Fourm’s playability, punch, and the sheer size of its sound. It’s got balls, and it’s not afraid to show them. The only real gap is in the PWM and the absolute extremes of modulation, where the Pro-One still rules the roost.

But here’s the kicker: for most producers, the Fourm is more than enough. It inspires, it delivers, and it stands tall in the shadow of a legend. If you want every gritty detail and the full sonic slugfest, you’ll need to watch the video – some things just can’t be squeezed into words, no matter how hard we try.