New member here.
Just want to provide some feedback on this particular topic.
Until recently I was the proud owner of a beautiful Polyevolver Keyboard. I was the original owner and I purchased it new from bigcitymusic ages ago. I loved that thing but there was always one thing that grated on my nerves every time I'd patch up a new sound and play it - the limited polyphony. I should have purchased the rack units when they were on blowout for <$1000 each; but, I didn't
Anyway, last year GAS started hitting hard and I wanted something with more polyphony than what I already had. The only polyphonic synths remaining in my studio were the PEK, Juno60, RS-09, and a Deluge. Well now that I have a wife and a house full of kids I really can't justify buying anything for the studio unless I fund the purchase with proceeds gained by selling something from my studio. The RS-09 wouldn't sell for enough and there is no way I'm getting rid of the Deluge anytime soon as it's pretty much my main sequencer/sampler - that left the PEK and the Juno.... this was a tough decision as I am quite fond of both instruments and I've owned them for a real long time.
I'm trying to get to the point, so I'm going to cut out a long story in order to cut to the chase. After doing a lot of research, listening to every demo I could find, and watching every video available I settled on the Summit (unfortunately there is nowhere near where I live where I could demo one in person). I decided to keep the Juno60 because their value is skyrocketing (I'll eventually sell it) so that left me with the painful decision to sell the PEK. I was hoping that Sequential was going to announce a successor sometime this summer/fall after their announcement back in the spring that they were going to make two product announcements by August (or September?), but alas here we are and all we know of is the Take5...
For the record, this thread in particular was one source of information that I used to help make my decision. That is why I am providing some feedback here, in order to help other people who come here for the same reason I did.
Now my take on the Summit.
Interface:
It is easy to program. If you are comfortable flying around the PEK's internal and external interfaces then the Summit will be no problem. Period. This applies to those who are familiar with other DSI/Sequential products as well as the menu interface is similar across a lot of them. The people who complain about menu diving on the Summit really have no idea what real menu diving is really like. Sure, there is a menu. Sure, there are features that are only accessible from the menu. Sure you might actually have to flip through the menu to get to whatever page you are looking for. The reality of the situation is that the front panel has so much routing available on it that unless you are doing more advanced sound design (or are routing the mod wheel, velocity, or aftertouch) then you will not need to even touch the menus. You can route the LFOs and Envelopes to individual Oscillators' Pitch, Waveform Shape, FM Amounts, and Filter Cutoffs directly on the front panel with a knob. In addition to all the normal stuff you would expect to see on a front panel, you can modify VCA gain, Osc3 to Cutoff, Filter Overdrive, Ring Mod Amount, and other stuff directly on the front panel with a knob. You also have key controls for each of the three effects units on the front panel with dedicated knobs. Knobs everywhere. That said, the menu is dead simple to use and each section only has a few pages.
Mod Matrix:
As alluded to above, the mod matrix is super easy to use. That said, it is more limited than the PEK. The PEK seemed to have every feature as a source and/or destination. The Summit seems to be missing some things that I would want in the mod matrix. The sad thing is, right now I can't seem to recall what they are. There might not even be many that are missing. They just happen to pop up as I'm patching together a new sound. So, if you are into DEEP sound design make sure you review the sources/destinations in the mod matrix to make sure they hit all of your high points.
Filter:
The Summit's filter simply CRUSHES the PEK's filter. There is no comparison. The 4 voice polyphony was the PEK's #1 drawback. #2 was the filter. The filter simply didn't have much sonic character. That said, one thing I loved to do on the PEK was to route the stereo voices into a 'mono' channel and then apply a "spread" between the L & R filters such that when you did a filter sweep you could hear the two cutoffs at the same time. Well..... you can get the same exact effect (but it sounds even better) with the Summit because you can split the 4 pole resonant filter into two 2 pole resonant filters and then apply an offset between them. The Summit's filter is miles ahead of the PEK's on so many different levels. You can have two LPs, two HPs, two BPs, and mix any two together in either serial or parallel. It's simply wonderful and they sound so goooooood.
Oscillators:
The standard waveforms sound about what you would expect. One big difference with the standard waveforms between the PEK and the Summit is that on the Summit you can adjust the shape of the Sine and Triangle waveforms and you can turn the Saw into a massive SuperSaw. The wavetable scanning is nice addition. I will say though that a lot of the included waveforms sound a touch too nasally for my tastes though.
Voice Assignment:
The Summit is very flexible. There are different mono and polyphonic modes. Throughout those modes you can stack different numbers of voices as you wish. You want mono w/one voice, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 8? Sure! You want poly with two voices stacked, or 3, or 4, or 8? Sure! You want drift on each voice? Sure! You want to detune the voices? Sure! Also, the bi-timberal functionality is an absolute BREEZE to use and is very flexible.
Effects:
The effects are all piled on at the end of the audio chain. Which is fine. You can also route the effects into each other, or in parallel with each other, however you want. The reverb is awesome. I wish there was a dedicated rack mounted reverb, which didn't cost a fortune, which sounded as good as the Summit's. The chorus is good. It is usable. Is it as nice as the Juno60's? Absolutely not. No comparison. I like the distortion. It sounds pretty good. The delay is one of my biggest gripes with the Summit. I honestly find the delay uninspiring. I have never had to work with a delay so much to get it to sound the way i expect as I have had to with the Summit.
Biggest Complaints:
1) I am not a fan of the Envelope's attack and decay curves. I wish they were adjustable. It seems that everything else on the Summit is, so I feel like this was a huge missed opportunity. I mean you can adjust the phase on each of the LFO's so why can't I adjust the response curve of the Envelopes from linear, to log, to antilog, etc? It's a simple lookup table. Nothing too hard to do there. Now, I say that it is a complaint, but obviously it isn't a deal breaker.
2) The delay is annoying. I feel like I have to do a ton of tweaking to get the delay to work the way I want it. I find myself just turning the delay's level all the way down and using my outboard delays a lot of times - which is aggravating because I really want the delayed signal to be swept away within the Summit's ab-so-lutely-amazing reverb. If I put enough work into the delay I can get close to what I want most of the time but my God it shouldn't be an arm wrestling match to do so, it's a delay for crying out loud!
3) I do not like the majority of the custom wavetables provided within the Summit. I feel like they really could have put more thought into adding a variety of different sounds onboard. There are too many that share too many characteristics. In addition to that a lot of them sound very nasal in tone. Yes, I know you can upload user defined wavetables using their software - I've used it and it is easy to use, I just haven't uploaded any custom ones yet.
4) I haven't yet wrapped my head around the alternate tuning tables. It should be easy but I'm clearly missing something here.
5) Again, I have this nagging feeling that on occasion I am missing something that I want in the mod matrix. I can't even think of what they are though. That said, I am coming from the PEK so I am very spoiled in that regards. On the PEK, if I wanted to adjust something in the mod matrix there was a 99.9% chance it was there. I feel like the Summit is more like 95% covered. I know, I have no idea what I'm talking about.
PEK vs. Summit:
1) I love the PEK's true stereo signal path. I miss it every day I play with my Summit. I loved being able to adjust the panning of the voices however I wanted to. This is the #1 feature that I miss. The only way you can really appreciate stereo in the summit is through the effects (Reverb, Chorus, and/or Delay). The voice spread is ok but it's not the same by any stretch of the imagination.
2) The PEK's 3 delays were more like an integral part of the synth's voice than an effect, but they could be applied as a standard delay effect if you so desired. I loved the PEK's delays they ADDED so much character to the synth. The Summit's delay is simply an effect - a frustrating one to use at that.
3) The Summit's filters are sooooooooooooooooooo much better than the PEK's. They even sound good when overdriven by the oscillators, the PEK's filter sounded worse when overdriven.
4) There is no discernible stepping (at least to my ears) when I grab the Summit's cutoff knob and give it a twist - I cringe when I think about the stepping on the PEK's (yes, I know if you assign cutoff to real time controllers, and pot edition, and blah blah blah).
5) 16 voices per patch or 8 voices split across two complete synth engines and control them in an intuitive manner VS. 4 voices per patch or 1 voice across 4 complete synth engines and control them with a hope and a prayer. The Summit is on top here.
6) You can overdrive the filter's output and also apply distortion as a separate effect on the Summit but it still doesn't get anywhere near as crunchy as the PEK. The PEK can easily turn into a noise machine simply by looking at it. If you want some awesome distorted sounds the PEK crushes the Summit.
Final Conclusion:
I should have sold the Juno60 and funded the Summit with it rather than with my PEK. I kind of regret that decision. Don't get me wrong. The Summit is a great instrument. It can be very experimental and it is a great sounding instrument, BUT I find myself creating more traditional synth sounds on it as they come out sounding beautiful. It takes a lot of effort for whatever reason, FOR ME, to crank out more experimental sounding patches on the Summit. I feel that outside of the Juno's unique Chorus and Filter the Summit can do everything the Juno60 does but so much better. The PEK was a special instrument. Others have said that I should have replaced the PEK with the new Hydrasynth Deluxe rather than the Summit. They might have been right - but the filters on the Summit are sooooo yummy it's hard to believe that Hydrasynth's would be as good.
Said another way:
I should have sold the Juno60 and replaced it with the Summit and I should have sold the PEK for the non-existent PEK rev2 with better filters and more polyphony (which sadly doesn't exist - I am holding a grudge against Dave Smith because of this). I think a massively polyphonic Pro2 or Pro3 would have fit the bill quite nicely but whatever. I really wanted to give Dave Smith my money again but the Take 5 was a release in the wrong direction (for me at least).
I do like my new Summit but I also miss my old PEK. Would I reverse the trade? Nope
-Jim