The Official Sequential/Oberheim Forum
SEQUENTIAL/DSI => Tempest => Topic started by: dsetto on March 13, 2017, 12:39:30 PM
-
1.4.5.1 is a beta.
After being internally vetted, it is now in a public vetting period. I believe DSI will attempt to address functions they have officially stated as operational and have privately decided they want included.
We have the opportunity to ensure our favorite functions that have been officially and recently communicated as operational are still operational.
-
Unless you have had some magical communication with the mighty one, "The Dave" was quite clear:
"Though some of you continue to request new features and offer useful suggestions for improvement, we’ve reached what we consider the limits of the instrument's available memory and processing ability. For these reasons, we consider this release (OS 1.4.5.1) to be our final Tempest OS release." - The Dave
Seriously... read through this entire forum... then go and read through the old one... then come back with your newly formed beliefs.
-
I am confident in both my interpretation of the official communication and my suggested course of action.
-
Please enlighten us all. It would do the community good to know where you are getting your information from that says anything different than what "The Dave" has already said.
-
I am confident in ... my interpretation ...
It's merely my interpretation. I present it because it is different. And, this difference in interpretation could lead to different feelings and courses of action carried out by this forum's readers. And that may affect what we get in return. And that affects me and my Tempest.
So, with both personal and communal motives, I convey my interpretation to foster a constructive attitude and course of action.
-
While Dave Smith may enjoy creating new instruments, as a business owner, he must succumb to the realities of income and expenses. The expenses related to the Tempest have most likely far surpassed his budget. At this point there is no financial reason to develop it further. Be nice and cordial all you want, but that won't change Dave Smith's situation. The only hope we have is for Dave Smith to recognize the relationship between his past products reputation and his future products profitablity. He has been surprisingly not tuned in to this relationship. Being nice isn't going to change that. Helping him see this relationship is the only chance we have.
I love the Tempest. Because of that I fight for it. If I didn't really care for this instrument, my move would be very simple. Sell the damn thing and be done with it.
-
We are in 100% agreement regarding our passion for the Tempest. Our interpretations & intended action steps differ. I see pros & cons of both.
-
I don't think you help the situation at all refering to Dave Smith as "The Dave" and saying things like "he came down from the mountain/hill" if he reads these forums which i'm sure he does why do you think being like this helps the situation.
To be honest I also read Daves comment like they would be pushing the beta to live at some poiint whether this is in the state it is now or with a few more remaining bugs worked out, who knows.
All i do know is if a bunch of proffesstional people came here and said "I was working on a track and all of a sudden i ran into XYZ problem" he might actually look at this again, but while the same few people continually make stupid threads asking to be paid to be part of a beta and making snide comments why would he take another look????
Would you????? In all seriousness, your business model cannot reach the ends of the earth and you have to make a cut, then the guy who feels aggreived turns up and starts giving you shit, your just going to run with the cut because your getting the shit anyway right?
-
All fair points. After four years of this my ability to stay cool has certainly faded. I suppose it goes all the way back to when Chris was trying to explain away the flam behavior as "expected behavior". If you weren't around for that you've missed some really trying times.
As for calling him "The Dave"... well, that wasn't my choice. Given a different four years leading up to this point I might have seen a name selection like that in a different light.
I may have to take a que from John the Savage and let the newbies find their own path to frustration.
Good luck.
-
I may have to take a que from John the Savage and let the newbies find their own path to frustration.
Good luck.
Hey, don't drag me into this conversation (smirk). I'm struggling for objectivity as it is here, and seem to have misplaced my previously diplomatic disposition amidst my own frustration and overwhelming disappointment...
All I can say to those somewhat less-involved folks with their chins yet held high is... Drop me a line in a few years (wink).
Cheers!
-
Oh, and whatever you do, don't hold your breath.
-
Im think the difference is us newcomers dont hold any expectation and so we cannot be "as dissapointed" with the turn of events as they are past tense and we have not been on the other side of being told that things will be fixed only to be told that in fact they won't be.
In this day and age of technology being so advanced small errors in programming are not acceptable especially with that caveat that they "are" software based bugs that "can" be fixed. Personally if there are people here that can fix these bugs DSI should let them have a go and call that the "beta" OS... That would be the way to roll but i guess thats not going to happen either by the sounds of it.
I understand the dissapointment and do feel it although obviously not as actutely as some do here.
As i said before its a shame. Being pedantic though wont fix this.
-
Clue me in. Please share with me the top 5-10 "broken promises" that are fundamental functions. To me: fully functional SPP synchronization is one.
...
I want a better class-comparative understanding of the first note being late in a sequence-controlled external device.
-
The first beat being late is really poor for a 2k machine from two pioneers of this technology. I must admit if I was Dave or Roger I would not be letting this implementation be the final release....
-
On this subject, I am neither naive nor entitled. I can balance my expectations, purchase decisions, wants, and acceptance. If I were to get a heightened level of frustration with a product, I would assess if “it is not for me”. I would never, ever publicly deride a company that’s not engaged in actual evil. I would move on; assuming I was impetuous enough to be beguiled in the first place. ... Moreover, Dave Smith Instruments uniquely makes so many things I want, I am only fully appreciative of their work. I move slowly, sufficiently thoroughly, and when I am ready. And their influence is far-reaching. So, as I know myself, I know I would never try to shame them into shaping something to meet my wishes.
I have never, ever met an instrument I felt had intenionally wronged me. I have had an instrument that I struggled with. I was unsure if I would stay with it. And then, I got past it. But never in the course of that struggle did I blame the manufacturer. Instead, with great admiration for the maker, I was intrigued as to the motivations for the elements that bothered me. And for the aspects that were simply inferior; I figured one cannot have it all. And with that important instrument, it had some things, and did not have other things. I never considered publicly shaming the company as an expression of my frustrations.
As you have no idea at how I will act, your baseless predictions cast my way fall flat.
-
On this subject, I am neither naive nor entitled. I can balance my expectations, purchase decisions, wants, and acceptance. If I were to get a heightened level of frustration with a product, I would assess if “it is not for me”. I would never, ever publicly deride a company that’s not engaged in actual evil. I would move on; assuming I was impetuous enough to be beguiled in the first place. ... Moreover, Dave Smith Instruments uniquely makes so many things I want, I am only fully appreciative of their work. I move slowly, sufficiently thoroughly, and when I am ready. And their influence is far-reaching. So, as I know myself, I know I would never try to shame them into shaping something to meet my wishes.
I have never, ever met an instrument I felt had intenionally wronged me. I have had an instrument that I struggled with. I was unsure if I would stay with it. And then, I got past it. But never in the course of that struggle did I blame the manufacturer. Instead, with great admiration for the maker, I was intrigued as to the motivations for the elements that bothered me. And for the aspects that were simply inferior; I figured one cannot have it all. And with that important instrument, it had some things, and did not have other things. I never considered publicly shaming the company as an expression of my frustrations.
As you have no idea at how I will act, your baseless predictions cast my way fall flat.
Okay, you know what, dsetto? I saw that you thanked me in the beta-testing thread recently, and I can see that you're trying to be the voice of reason here; however...
This post is ignorant and misguided, and it undermines the efforts of a lot of rightfully frustrated people, including myself and the Tempest's own designer, who took up in protest for good reason, and have worked really hard to help bring this instrument to fruition only to see it fall short of its original design spec. There is a long history here, and you were not a part of it; so don't presume to know what motivates the more outspoken members of this community, or criticize their tact for that matter.
To suggest that any of us ended up in this situation by way of being "impetuous", or implying that we are upset simply because we don't connect with the Tempest or otherwise understand how it works, is condescending, insulting, and misinformed.
If you were hoping to encourage a little optimism among your fellow Tempest users by starting this thread, or solicit a little goodwill from DSI, I can respect that; but flaunting your self-proclaimed clarity, careful choices, and even-handed disposition, as though the rest of us lack these traits... That isn't going to make you any friends, and only demonstrates a lack of perspective on your part.
From where I'm standing, it's an easy correlation to make: those who have been the most patient and helpful are now the most angry and vocal... Let them vent. They've earned it, and the company has had it coming for a long time now.
As for your personal "interpretation" of recent events, you are of course entitled to your opinion; but I assure you that your take on the matter is yours and yours alone. It's over. For all intensive purposes, it's over.
Cheers!
-
Are there any issues with using the Tempest as a midi controller? I just tried to assign a pot to a mapping in abelton and it just won't pick up the pot, every other midi thing i ever used just auto recieves the signal, something i'm not doing here?
-
;D There's no midi implementation for that on T...Forget the controller side of things..
Are there any issues with using the Tempest as a midi controller? I just tried to assign a pot to a mapping in abelton and it just won't pick up the pot, every other midi thing i ever used just auto recieves the signal, something i'm not doing here?
-
Thats, well, weird.
-
I disagree with you on most counts.
The point of this thread is:
1.4.5.1 is a beta.
Now is the time to ensure what DSI claims to work, works.
—
Any issues that have not been stated as resolved will not be resolved.
I am focusing on:
Issues that have been communicated as resolved, but are not resolved. I want to foster a postive environment to ensure those will be resolved.
I do not believe deprecating measures will persuade DSI. I believe excessive deprecating measures are a downer, and push away folks who could otherwise be an asset to this surprisingly tiny community. I am communicating my voice in a longshot attempt to foster a positive attitude that can contribtue to a more welcoming forum. And from there, have a better working relationship between the forum and DSI.
—
Some folks are operating on their interpretation that 1.4.5.1 is absolutely final. If no one is able to successfully communicate to DSI that something they recently claimed is working, is not working, …. … Or relay that a new issue has arisen from the 1.4.5.1 beta, and it’s something DSI wants, is willing, and can address, …. Then, yes, 1.4.5.1, as-is, will be the final OS. Also, there is the chance that all that DSI claims to work works, and no new issues that DSI deem as necessary-fixes arise. And in that case, then yes, 1.4.5.1 will turn out to be final.
But, we have a chance right now to respectfully communicate new broken issues with 1.4.5.1 in an attempt to ensure that this beta is what DSI intends it to be.
I believe deprecating measures are not helpful for this goal. I see them as detrimental to this goal. I am passionate about making sure that 1.4.5.1 is what DSI wants it to be. I want to support a process and environment that I believe will bring this about.
—
I do not believe my previous post is ignorant, nor misguided. I am not trying to undermine a process, but push towards a similar objective, in a different way. And, for those that feel it is over, then there’s nothing I can be undermining.
-
;D There's no midi implementation for that on T...Forget the controller side of things..
Are there any issues with using the Tempest as a midi controller? I just tried to assign a pot to a mapping in abelton and it just won't pick up the pot, every other midi thing i ever used just auto recieves the signal, something i'm not doing here?
Do the pads work as MIDI controller?
-
I disagree with you on most counts.
The point of this thread is:
1.4.5.1 is a beta.
Now is the time to ensure what DSI claims to work, works.
—
Any issues that have not been stated as resolved will not be resolved.
I am focusing on:
Issues that have been communicated as resolved, but are not resolved. I want to foster a postive environment to ensure those will be resolved.
I do not believe deprecating measures will persuade DSI. I believe excessive deprecating measures are a downer, and push away folks who could otherwise be an asset to this surprisingly tiny community. I am communicating my voice in a longshot attempt to foster a positive attitude that can contribtue to a more welcoming forum. And from there, have a better working relationship between the forum and DSI.
—
Some folks are operating on their interpretation that 1.4.5.1 is absolutely final. If no one is able to successfully communicate to DSI that something they recently claimed is working, is not working, …. … Or relay that a new issue has arisen from the 1.4.5.1 beta, and it’s something DSI wants, is willing, and can address, …. Then, yes, 1.4.5.1, as-is, will be the final OS. Also, there is the chance that all that DSI claims to work works, and no new issues that DSI deem as necessary-fixes arise. And in that case, then yes, 1.4.5.1 will turn out to be final.
But, we have a chance right now to respectfully communicate new broken issues with 1.4.5.1 in an attempt to ensure that this beta is what DSI intends it to be.
I believe deprecating measures are not helpful for this goal. I see them as detrimental to this goal. I am passionate about making sure that 1.4.5.1 is what DSI wants it to be. I want to support a process and environment that I believe will bring this about.
—
I do not believe my previous post is ignorant, nor misguided. I am not trying to undermine a process, but push towards a similar objective, in a different way. And, for those that feel it is over, then there’s nothing I can be undermining.
It's no surprise to me that you disagree really. In many ways, that's my point. Here you are, again, telling me of all people that you intend to "foster a positive environment" and how that's going to "ensure" that these issues get resolved, and further accusing longstanding members of this community of taking "deprecating measures"... When in reality, you have no idea who you're accusing, what you're accusing them of, or how any of this actually came to be.
I realize that Stoss may have rained on your parade uninvited, but it was you who accused him of posting "stupid threads asking to be paid to be part of a beta and making snide comments...". But see, if you were at all in-the-know, you'd have gotten the joke (and it was funny) and demonstrated a little modesty. Instead, you chose to look down your nose, oblivious to the dynamics of this community, and refer to anyone with a bone to pick as "the same few people" and how you "see them as detrimental to this goal".
And that, my friend, is where I feel compelled to say something. You see, this "goal" that you've so arrogantly claimed as your own, it was our goal first. Those "same few people" that you've otherwise deemed a "detriment" to your goal, are in fact the only reason why you have so few complaints about your Tempest today. You are simply not in a position to defame or judge any of us for our contempt, and should be nothing but thankful for our protest and pointed remarks.
You're free, of course, to pursue this matter however it so suits you - and good luck to you, really - but you might garner more support if you were to, at very least, show some deserved respect to those who paved the road you're breezing down now.
Cheers!
-
I disagree with you on most counts.
The point of this thread is:
1.4.5.1 is a beta.
Now is the time to ensure what DSI claims to work, works.
—
Any issues that have not been stated as resolved will not be resolved.
I am focusing on:
Issues that have been communicated as resolved, but are not resolved. I want to foster a postive environment to ensure those will be resolved.
I do not believe deprecating measures will persuade DSI. I believe excessive deprecating measures are a downer, and push away folks who could otherwise be an asset to this surprisingly tiny community. I am communicating my voice in a longshot attempt to foster a positive attitude that can contribtue to a more welcoming forum. And from there, have a better working relationship between the forum and DSI.
—
Some folks are operating on their interpretation that 1.4.5.1 is absolutely final. If no one is able to successfully communicate to DSI that something they recently claimed is working, is not working, …. … Or relay that a new issue has arisen from the 1.4.5.1 beta, and it’s something DSI wants, is willing, and can address, …. Then, yes, 1.4.5.1, as-is, will be the final OS. Also, there is the chance that all that DSI claims to work works, and no new issues that DSI deem as necessary-fixes arise. And in that case, then yes, 1.4.5.1 will turn out to be final.
But, we have a chance right now to respectfully communicate new broken issues with 1.4.5.1 in an attempt to ensure that this beta is what DSI intends it to be.
I believe deprecating measures are not helpful for this goal. I see them as detrimental to this goal. I am passionate about making sure that 1.4.5.1 is what DSI wants it to be. I want to support a process and environment that I believe will bring this about.
—
I do not believe my previous post is ignorant, nor misguided. I am not trying to undermine a process, but push towards a similar objective, in a different way. And, for those that feel it is over, then there’s nothing I can be undermining.
This is exactly correct. The purpose of posting a BETA OS is to help ensure that bugs we find to be fixed in our internal testing are, indeed, fixed. This is why we post a change log along with new BETAs. We want the bugs we are claiming to be fixed to be verified as fixed by the user base before we release to production. And yes, a positive environment makes things better for everyone.
-
Are you serious? Of course, I know yours and all the others role in where the Tempest is at today. I've expressed my acknowledgement and gratitude of this repeatedly. Do NOT try to paint me otherwise.
I have no idea what you are referring to with this: I realize that Stoss may have rained on your parade uninvited, but it was you who accused him of posting "stupid threads asking to be paid to be part of a beta and making snide comments...".
I think you're amassing me with others.
You started in on me. All I am trying to communicate is that I believe that:
1.4.5.1 is a beta.
Now is the time to ensure what DSI claims to work, works.
You guys are coming on telling me my posts are naive, ignorant, and counter-productive. And that in time, I will feel and respond like you. I disagree. I am open-minded enough to accept the possibility that you could be right. But, I do not like how you are dismissing what I believe in passionately today.
-
Do the pads work as MIDI controller?
Hey DSI... since John the Savage is no longer working directly with Roger Linn to help you improve the firmware which you have clearly stopped all work on... maybe this user who has apparently developed a deep connection with the instrument can be your replacement. You'll have to give them a couple of years though to read the manual and all of the previous threads.
Best wishes, and may you achieve success for all of us!
-
I have no idea what you are referring to with this: I realize that Stoss may have rained on your parade uninvited, but it was you who accused him of posting "stupid threads asking to be paid to be part of a beta and making snide comments...".
I think you're amassing me with others.
You know what, I apologize for that one. Looking over the thread a second time, I see that it was actually RobH who made that particular inflammatory remark. But that was not the post I initially responded to, so... If you cannot see how your choice of words, which I have otherwise accurately quoted, may have rubbed some folks the wrong way, well then, carry on I guess.
Cheers!
-
John, I acknowledge I blew my lid on Reply #14. And I see clearly that my response there, is a response to things beyond this thread, beyond this forum, beyond this instrument, and beyond this company. I laid the briquettes, Stoss added fluid, you added a spark, and I lit up. Then we were in flames. In other words, I clearly amassed a thousand unique voices into one collective “them”.
That said, in reviewing what I was thinking, I don’t believe I was trying to single out anybody. But, I accept that regardless of my intention, that can be interpreted. When I apply that same lens to your initial replies in this thread (#’s 9 & 10), it just further supports my first sentence in this reply.
And I will repeat, what I wrote in #14 is beyond this thread, this forum, this instrument, this company. It is towards a figurative attitude, one that I have constructed in my mind. Each individual flows in and out of other people’s concepts of “them”, “me”, “us”.
-
Edit - oh yeah I did say that but it wasn't meant to be inflammatory just a reasonable observation.
I'm sorry but I don't see I made Any inflammatory remark... All I said was calling people names and not communicating in a professional manner doesn't help anyone...
The OP even accepted those points as common sense....
I tgink Dsi should fix the outstanding main issues like the top 5 before really finishing this project....
-
;D There's no midi implementation for that on T...Forget the controller side of things..
Are there any issues with using the Tempest as a midi controller? I just tried to assign a pot to a mapping in abelton and it just won't pick up the pot, every other midi thing i ever used just auto recieves the signal, something i'm not doing here?
Do the pads work as MIDI controller?
Also yes the pads work. I'm not totally sure about the strips it was just the pots I assumed would be midi mappable and I guess that they are not which I find a little bizarre because every other device made in the last decade is midi mappable and Dave smith kind of invented midi and roger goes on to make a midi violin guitar kind of midi instrument (that looks amazing). I'm really not sure why the designed it without midi I'm not sure if anyone knows?
-
Ah. Ok I see now that the name 'the dave' is. Actually Dave smiths forum name....
Ok I apologise I've obviously misread some things and apologise to anyone who did feel I posted inflammatory remarks which I guess they might have been. Apologies
-
So, are you still working on fixing bugs, such as LFO sync, in the Tempest?
I disagree with you on most counts.
The point of this thread is:
1.4.5.1 is a beta.
Now is the time to ensure what DSI claims to work, works.
—
Any issues that have not been stated as resolved will not be resolved.
I am focusing on:
Issues that have been communicated as resolved, but are not resolved. I want to foster a postive environment to ensure those will be resolved.
I do not believe deprecating measures will persuade DSI. I believe excessive deprecating measures are a downer, and push away folks who could otherwise be an asset to this surprisingly tiny community. I am communicating my voice in a longshot attempt to foster a positive attitude that can contribtue to a more welcoming forum. And from there, have a better working relationship between the forum and DSI.
—
Some folks are operating on their interpretation that 1.4.5.1 is absolutely final. If no one is able to successfully communicate to DSI that something they recently claimed is working, is not working, …. … Or relay that a new issue has arisen from the 1.4.5.1 beta, and it’s something DSI wants, is willing, and can address, …. Then, yes, 1.4.5.1, as-is, will be the final OS. Also, there is the chance that all that DSI claims to work works, and no new issues that DSI deem as necessary-fixes arise. And in that case, then yes, 1.4.5.1 will turn out to be final.
But, we have a chance right now to respectfully communicate new broken issues with 1.4.5.1 in an attempt to ensure that this beta is what DSI intends it to be.
I believe deprecating measures are not helpful for this goal. I see them as detrimental to this goal. I am passionate about making sure that 1.4.5.1 is what DSI wants it to be. I want to support a process and environment that I believe will bring this about.
—
I do not believe my previous post is ignorant, nor misguided. I am not trying to undermine a process, but push towards a similar objective, in a different way. And, for those that feel it is over, then there’s nothing I can be undermining.
This is exactly correct. The purpose of posting a BETA OS is to help ensure that bugs we find to be fixed in our internal testing are, indeed, fixed. This is why we post a change log along with new BETAs. We want the bugs we are claiming to be fixed to be verified as fixed by the user base before we release to production. And yes, a positive environment makes things better for everyone.
-
Well, this isn't the first time that the Tempest has been a source of friction within the community (grin).
It has been a long and taxing project for everyone involved, including the designers. And when you consider that this instrument's development has garnered more fanfare, participation, and conversation among users than all other DSI products combined—nearly 35,000 posts, in some 3,000 threads, in the two main forums alone, never mind everywhere else online—it's easy to imagine how impassioned and polarizing this topic can be at times.
I've seen people lose their cool after a week with the Tempest, and others hang on for years before cracking-up (smirk).
The only thing that matters, I suppose, is whether or not we can be civil to each other; if not in the heat of the moment, then with a little reflection. Anyway... No ill will, gentlemen. It's not always easy to interpret the tone or sentiment of comments made online. But it seems we've survived another fierce debate (wink).
Cheers!
-
So, are you still working on fixing bugs, such as LFO sync, in the Tempest?
I disagree with you on most counts.
The point of this thread is:
1.4.5.1 is a beta.
Now is the time to ensure what DSI claims to work, works.
—
Any issues that have not been stated as resolved will not be resolved.
I am focusing on:
Issues that have been communicated as resolved, but are not resolved. I want to foster a postive environment to ensure those will be resolved.
I do not believe deprecating measures will persuade DSI. I believe excessive deprecating measures are a downer, and push away folks who could otherwise be an asset to this surprisingly tiny community. I am communicating my voice in a longshot attempt to foster a positive attitude that can contribtue to a more welcoming forum. And from there, have a better working relationship between the forum and DSI.
—
Some folks are operating on their interpretation that 1.4.5.1 is absolutely final. If no one is able to successfully communicate to DSI that something they recently claimed is working, is not working, …. … Or relay that a new issue has arisen from the 1.4.5.1 beta, and it’s something DSI wants, is willing, and can address, …. Then, yes, 1.4.5.1, as-is, will be the final OS. Also, there is the chance that all that DSI claims to work works, and no new issues that DSI deem as necessary-fixes arise. And in that case, then yes, 1.4.5.1 will turn out to be final.
But, we have a chance right now to respectfully communicate new broken issues with 1.4.5.1 in an attempt to ensure that this beta is what DSI intends it to be.
I believe deprecating measures are not helpful for this goal. I see them as detrimental to this goal. I am passionate about making sure that 1.4.5.1 is what DSI wants it to be. I want to support a process and environment that I believe will bring this about.
—
I do not believe my previous post is ignorant, nor misguided. I am not trying to undermine a process, but push towards a similar objective, in a different way. And, for those that feel it is over, then there’s nothing I can be undermining.
This is exactly correct. The purpose of posting a BETA OS is to help ensure that bugs we find to be fixed in our internal testing are, indeed, fixed. This is why we post a change log along with new BETAs. We want the bugs we are claiming to be fixed to be verified as fixed by the user base before we release to production. And yes, a positive environment makes things better for everyone.
The answer is no.
-
This is exactly correct. The purpose of posting a BETA OS is to help ensure that bugs we find to be fixed in our internal testing are, indeed, fixed.
So, are you still working on fixing bugs, such as LFO sync, in the Tempest?
*crickets chirp*
*tumbleweeds roll by*
-
This is exactly correct. The purpose of posting a BETA OS is to help ensure that bugs we find to be fixed in our internal testing are, indeed, fixed.
So, are you still working on fixing bugs, such as LFO sync, in the Tempest?
*crickets chirp*
*tumbleweeds roll by*
And the wind howled through the bare trees, kicking up sand that stung as it hit the sun-weathered faces of the small group of vigilantes.
-
I wonder if DSI products are capable of third party software?
-
Each with a crazier eye than the next. :o
-
Tempest was doomed from the start
Its just not enough memory to improve
On the tempest I wish these manufactures would stop try to cut corners to make money. Greed is the worst
-
Agreed to a point. For plus $2000 synths paying an additional $300 for cpu/memory is totally worth it. I paid $2700 plus taxes (13% in Canada)...still I would pay more given the nature of the demographic higher end products appeal to. It's not like Tempest V2 will wver be made...but I am cool with that...just wish the R&D was better planned out.
-
Agreed to a point. For plus $2000 synths paying an additional $300 for cpu/memory is totally worth it. I paid $2700 plus taxes (13% in Canada)...still I would pay more given the nature of the demographic higher end products appeal to. It's not like Tempest V2 will wver be made...but I am cool with that...just wish the R&D was better planned out.
Isn't the main CPU, memory and all the analog voice machinery on the same main board? I remember Pym mentioned quite some time back that larger memory would require upgrade of the other digital parts too. So it could very well be that it requires a significant redesign of the main board to improve on the situation. In other words it is quite likely not going to happen.
However if DSI ever makes a Tempest successor then either a board upgrade could be designed for existing Tempest users based on the newly developed technology. Or perhaps some sort of time limited advantage program to existing Tempest users could make sense.
-
We've just released an update for Tempest which should resolve the LFO drift and OSC 3/4 key follow issues.
-
We've just released an update for Tempest which should resolve the LFO drift and OSC 3/4 key follow issues.
I going to test it now thankyou!!!!!!
-
Well on my end at least the lfo sync seems to be working like a BOSS!!!!!!!
Its fucking so good, i've got a nice square wave chopping my beats about and it seems tight to me, i'm sure other users will have ways to put its through its paces but, at the moment for me at least, i'm not experiencing any drift even when i change the tempo through LIVE the lfo keeps the sync this is in all modes, off note beat and play!!!
Good work DSI I am sorry I ever doubted you!!!! Please accept my sincere apology!!!
-
Great:) ill have to check it out!
-
Exciting times. I am very happy for this community that has wanted these topics addressed. Looking forward to the day I get there. Thank you, DSI and this Tempest forum!
I am personally excited right now because I have enjoyed DAW-Tempest Sync bliss with Logic all day today. I needed to experience it firsthand. And I have. Logic Pro 10.3.0 controlling Tempest via direct USB, and no other sync or MIDI boxes. Totally tight, zero drift, and fully reliable. And I tried to trip it up. I tried. And I could not.
It's an **entirely** new world compared to the various sync drift issues I was experiencing with Pro Tools 12.4.
--
When I got over-concerned on Friday, please keep in mind:
- I was experiencing real sync drift issues & a few T freezes
- I took to heart the collective dismay expressed here- of steps backward accompanying steps forward- and truly believed the "sync sky" was falling, as that is what I was experiencing
- Anxious about the near-final OS.
- I had never tested for or used tight, non-drift sync before- at all.
- I had tested SPP correlation with DIN MIDI and found that greater than measure 9 SPP issue. This- plus all else- made me think it was possible my issue could be a broad issue.
- I am not experienced or well-versed in the Tempest development journey
- It didn't occur to me that an established program like Pro Tools could be the source of the problem.
As I've had 100% successful sync results with Tempest, I fully concur with the experts here that my sync drift issue was NOT with my Tempest, nor Beta 1.4.5.1. It's just something I had to hear firsthand.
Thank you, Rob, for recommending me I try a DAW other than PT.
My fingers are crossed, Lucid, John, idm, et al. Best wishes, all, on the remainder of this epic journey.
-
Exciting times. I am very happy for this community that has wanted these topics addressed. Looking forward to the day I get there. Thank you, DSI and this Tempest forum!
I am personally excited right now because I have enjoyed DAW-Tempest Sync bliss with Logic all day today. I needed to experience it firsthand. And I have. Logic Pro 10.3.0 controlling Tempest via direct USB, and no other sync or MIDI boxes. Totally tight, zero drift, and fully reliable. And I tried to trip it up. I tried. And I could not.
It's an **entirely** new world compared to the various sync drift issues I was experiencing with Pro Tools 12.4.
--
When I got over-concerned on Friday, please keep in mind:
- I was experiencing real sync drift issues & a few T freezes
- I took to heart the collective dismay expressed here- of steps backward accompanying steps forward- and truly believed the "sync sky" was falling, as that is what I was experiencing
- Anxious about the near-final OS.
- I had never tested for or used tight, non-drift sync before- at all.
- I had tested SPP correlation with DIN MIDI and found that greater than measure 9 SPP issue. This- plus all else- made me think it was possible my issue could be a broad issue.
- I am not experienced or well-versed in the Tempest development journey
- It didn't occur to me that an established program like Pro Tools could be the source of the problem.
As I've had 100% successful sync results with Tempest, I fully concur with the experts here that my sync drift issue was NOT with my Tempest, nor Beta 1.4.5.1. It's just something I had to hear firsthand.
Thank you, Rob, for recommending me I try a DAW other than PT.
My fingers are crossed, Lucid, John, idm, et al. Best wishes, all, on the remainder of this epic journey.
Yeah its ok man, i literally tried to trip my tempest up at really high BPM i don't normally run it at to see if i could recreate some of the drift and freeze issues you were having, but i could not, thats why i was kind of thinking it was ProTools, i've heard its not the best midi program in the past (hence why people use logic who are midi heavy). Its a much better program for that kind of thing.
Glad its sorted anyway. Chillax we all get a "stuck wtf" moment haha. Trust me. I have them a few times a day ahaha
-
Congrats brother;) Glad to read the news!!
Cheers;)
-
We've just released an update for Tempest which should resolve the LFO drift and OSC 3/4 key follow issues.
Continuing work on the Tempest to resolve these glaring bugs was nearly unavoidable. It was the only reasonable resolution to that problem. There would have been no practical customer support or technical support response to related inquires in the future.
Now... If I may be a bit selfish for a moment... Using the beat roll (as a fill effect, 'cause that's what it's good for) while you have a beat playing using any amount of swing does not feel right. It never has. It has always felt like a performance oriented mistake. Applying the swing settings to the beat roll should be standard, or at least a selectable option. It's no secret I have been a champion of this, among other performance based delicacies that make the Tempest feel right.
Add swing to beat roll and I will let the world know why this is such a wonderful instrument.
Reengage with John the Savage and Roger Linn, fix the entire remaining list, and as I've said before, you've got a reason to reintroduce this product to the industry as the most capable, most interesting, most polished drum machine available. You would be doing that with the full support of your most harsh critics. That is very powerful.
As always... I love my Tempest and genuinely want success for the small group of individuals responsible for it.
-
I'm Tempest young. Last night I explored Roll for the first time while not at a test-speeding, freeze-inducing BPM. I thought, "what a deceptively peripheral, but amazing & essential 4-lettered button."
Stoss, I *now* can hear how mouth-watering swinging beat role would be in this instrument!
Like a Smeagol to Gollum ensemble, this forum is. ... Best wishes to all.
-
I'm Tempest young. Last night I explored Roll for the first time while not at a test-speeding, freeze-inducing BPM. I thought, "what a deceptively peripheral, but amazing & essential 4-lettered button."
Stoss, I *now* can hear how mouth-watering swinging beat role would be in this instrument!
Like a Smeagol to Gollum ensemble, this forum is. ... Best wishes to all.
A feature request I made quite some time ago which was generously implemented by DSI was the inclusion of momentary footswitch control of Roll and Reverse. Do yourself a favor and jam with the Tempest in 16 Beats or 16 Mutes mode using footswitches to control beatwide Roll and beatwide Reverse. The immediate and expressive control you get is fantastic. I like to set my beatroll quantize to 32nd notes and drop in little bursts here and there. Very, very nice.
-
Excellent! Drummers have feet. Right.
-
Swing on beat roll is an essential- come on lets have it!
-
Oh, yes. Swing on beat roll would be lovely, please, DSI.
Thank you for the latest update, too.
-
Hi everyone,
Must i re-calibrate the analog oscillator and filters after this update ?
thank you in advance.
-
Hi everyone,
Must i re-calibrate the analog oscillator and filters after this update ?
thank you in advance.
Of course.
-
The only thing I'd like to see is better Midi capabilities. I'd like the Tempest to sequence two monophonic synths at the same time.
-
From the official DSI instructions:
"INSTALLATION NOTE: It is recommended to recalibrate the oscillators/filters and reset the system parameters after installing a Main and/or Voice OS update. These functions can be found in the system menu."
Hi everyone,
Must i re-calibrate the analog oscillator and filters after this update ?
thank you in advance.
-
The only thing I'd like to see is better Midi capabilities. I'd like the Tempest to sequence two monophonic synths at the same time.
Why stop there? Why not have it sequence 16 external synths with 8-note polyphony for each?
MIDI sequencing was never in the original Tempest specification, as much as one might make the case that it should have been, and development on the janky monophonic 'sequencing' we have now has demonstrably frustrated and/or distracted from fixing legitimate bugs with functions that were in the original spec.
Selfishly, I'd like Tempest to have a full MIDI CC implementation for all parameters because it would suit my particular situation/workflow, but this late in the game I nevertheless try to limit my lobbying and requests to what's realistic and to fixing/solidifying what's in the original spec.
-
The only thing I'd like to see is better Midi capabilities. I'd like the Tempest to sequence two monophonic synths at the same time.
Why stop there? Why not have it sequence 16 external synths with 8-note polyphony for each?
MIDI sequencing was never in the original Tempest specification, as much as one might make the case that it should have been, and development on the janky monophonic 'sequencing' we have now has demonstrably frustrated and/or distracted from fixing legitimate bugs with functions that were in the original spec.
Selfishly, I'd like Tempest to have a full MIDI CC implementation for all parameters because it would suit my particular situation/workflow, but this late in the game I nevertheless try to limit my lobbying and requests to what's realistic and to fixing/solidifying what's in the original spec.
I wonder if Roger or Dave will do another Tempest.
Personally I sort of like the LM-1 design.
-
thank you !!!! :)
From the official DSI instructions:
"INSTALLATION NOTE: It is recommended to recalibrate the oscillators/filters and reset the system parameters after installing a Main and/or Voice OS update. These functions can be found in the system menu."
Hi everyone,
Must i re-calibrate the analog oscillator and filters after this update ?
thank you in advance.
-
The only thing I'd like to see is better Midi capabilities. I'd like the Tempest to sequence two monophonic synths at the same time.
Why stop there? Why not have it sequence 16 external synths with 8-note polyphony for each?
MIDI sequencing was never in the original Tempest specification, as much as one might make the case that it should have been, and development on the janky monophonic 'sequencing' we have now has demonstrably frustrated and/or distracted from fixing legitimate bugs with functions that were in the original spec.
Selfishly, I'd like Tempest to have a full MIDI CC implementation for all parameters because it would suit my particular situation/workflow, but this late in the game I nevertheless try to limit my lobbying and requests to what's realistic and to fixing/solidifying what's in the original spec.
Just give me the ability to control the sliders with MIDI CC. Such a small feature, but such massive capabilities.
-
Actually found a work around for that, but you need an MFB dominion for it :P
You can route the modulation and pitch strip from dominion via cv to the expression pedal inputs of the Tempest. These touch strips are controllable via midi ;) then you can route any modulation destination to the expression pedals. Voila!