The Official Sequential/Oberheim Forum
SEQUENTIAL/DSI => Evolver => Poly Evolver Keyboard => Topic started by: LoboLives on July 28, 2017, 08:47:36 AM
-
With DSI sort of taking a nod back to the Prophet 08 with the Rev2 could DSI's next instrument be a new Evolver or at least a synth heavily inspired by the Evolver? I'd love to see it happen. Not sure what else they can do in the analog only realm...save for multitimbrality.
-
I'd love to see that too.
As for multitimbral synths something like the 6 Track or Max would be nice again.
-
With DSI sort of taking a nod back to the Prophet 08 with the Rev2 could DSI's next instrument be a new Evolver or at least a synth heavily inspired by the Evolver? I'd love to see it happen. Not sure what else they can do in the analog only realm...save for multitimbrality.
Have you tried the Prophet 12? If so, did you think there was a similarity between the two instruments?
-
With DSI sort of taking a nod back to the Prophet 08 with the Rev2 could DSI's next instrument be a new Evolver or at least a synth heavily inspired by the Evolver? I'd love to see it happen. Not sure what else they can do in the analog only realm...save for multitimbrality.
Have you tried the Prophet 12? If so, did you think there was a similarity between the two instruments?
I did try it. The Prophet 12 does get some great tones but i think the Poly Evolver is more versitile sonically. The 12 seems to be about getting an analog sound with digital oscillators. You can get some nice digital sounding stuff out of it but it's still missing those VS waves. It also a bit limited in effects.
-
I think the P12 basic oscillator waveforms are extremely similar to the Evolver analog oscillators, I always thought they modelled them on the Evolver.
It would have been nice to have the digital waveforms as well.
-
The catch with the Poly Evolver Keyboard is that you can get attached to its specific wave shapes. I've adopted these as the overall sound that I want to have, and it's hard to imagine composing or improvising without them. Granted, many are musically unusable, but a substantial number are quite beautiful when tastefully set.
Having recently spent some quality time with a Prophet 12, I can finally say with certainty that it's a superb synthesizer. It's right up there with the other instruments in the DSI line up. But it has also shown me all the more what an exceptional synthesizer is the PEK. The good old Evolver is totally unique, a bit unpredictable, and for a partly digital instrument, has an unpolished rawness that has a musical charm that's hard to put aside. And that's a key difference between the two instruments: whereas the Poly Evolver has a rawness that hints at earlier digital instruments, the P12 is the ultimate in polished and refined synthesis. In a sense, it's perfect. But I don't think I could blindly recognize the voice of a P12, whereas I can recognize the voice of an Evolver in a second.
-
Dem VS waves though..
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tqtVmESoTVc
-
I couldn't hope for a better instrument than a Poly Evolver Keyboard Rev2. Fixed bugs, cleaned up wave shapes, more voices, perhaps the VS's joystick. What could be better?
-
I couldn't hope for a better instrument than a Poly Evolver Keyboard Rev2. Fixed bugs, cleaned up wave shapes, more voices, perhaps the VS's joystick. What could be better?
It would be nice to see Dave and John Bowen collaborate again. I still say a 4 engine synth would be wild including 2 analog oscillators and two digital oscillators with one of them including samples.
-
I couldn't hope for a better instrument than a Poly Evolver Keyboard Rev2. Fixed bugs, cleaned up wave shapes, more voices, perhaps the VS's joystick. What could be better?
Now that's something I may well buy :)
-
Now the 08 Rev2 has emerged, maybe there is the tiniest ray of hope?
-
I wouldn't, if I were you. We've registered this hope many times with DSI staff, only to be told each time, "Sorry".
-
I wouldn't, if I were you. We've registered this hope many times with DSI staff, only to be told each time, "Sorry".
Honestly they've said "no" to a few things before that ended up coming to fruition. VCOs, revisions of older instruments, so who knows.
-
That's been my attitude, too. I'm just saying that they've been especially clear and consistently negative with our PEK Mk II request, which has been brought up so many times and for so long.
-
That's been my attitude, too. I'm just saying that they've been especially clear and consistently negative with our PEK Mk II request, which has been brought up so many times and for so long.
Given the initially articulated resistance towards producing VCO-based synths or something like the Rev2, revisiting the Evolver engine does seem likelier than ever. ;D
-
I've been hopeful in the past, but you guys helped to turn me around. And now you've turned around?
-
There was a recent video of Dave giving a tour of his studio and he was showing off the Evolver. He said “A lot of people didn’t even know about this thing when it was out and now a lot of people are asking about it. You can get into the VS and PPG stuff...it’s really neat.”
So perhaps we should hold off until next Namm (I am) but I have a feeling we will see the return of a Evolver style synth with improvements.
I just hope it’s blue. Lol
-
You're not giving up on this, are you? Well, I'm not going to suffer the disappointment, so I won't even think about it.
An Evolver that was any color other than blue wouldn't sound like an Evolver. ;D
-
You're not giving up on this, are you? Well, I'm not going to suffer the disappointment, so I won't even think about it.
An Evolver that was any color other than blue wouldn't sound like an Evolver. ;D
We shall see at Namm.
-
Did I not read somewhere here on the forum about someone saying that Dave had said something in the likes of "We're moving back a bit now" or something like that? ... if that is a clue to what he's up to, it COULD very well be an Evolver REV2... especially if many want it now, and people here on the forums have been drooling for one for a long time...
We'll see at NAMM... I doubt it too, but I would not totally loose hope... the REV2 was a bit of a surprise, and if the P08, then why not the Evolver? ... I'd sure be putting a new Evolver REV2 keyboard on my list... that is for sure...
-
Did I not read somewhere here on the forum about someone saying that Dave had said something in the likes of "We're moving back a bit now" or something like that? ... if that is a clue to what he's up to, it COULD very well be an Evolver REV2... especially if many want it now, and people here on the forums have been drooling for one for a long time...
We'll see at NAMM... I doubt it too, but I would not totally loose hope... the REV2 was a bit of a surprise, and if the P08, then why not the Evolver? ... I'd sure be putting a new Evolver REV2 keyboard on my list... that is for sure...
For sure, if he released an updated Evolver especially with on board effects from the P6/OB6 I'd snap it up in a second for the VS waves alone! It go right above my Kurzweil.
Now if he included sampling on one of the digital oscillators...then all hell would break loose.
-
I know DSI said there’s not going to be an Evolver Rev2. But can we pretend what it could be?
Evolver Rev2 aka REVolver: (REV2 capitalized with “olver” overlaid on top of the 2. To spell both REV2 EVolver and REVolver)
- 6 stereo voices
- OLED screen like Prophet-12/Pro-2/Tempest
- Each voice:
- 2 VCOs (Pro-6/OB-6 style with slop) (subs on each or too much?)
- 2 Digital oscillators capable of
- playing single cycle VS waveforms
- wavetables from Prophet-12/Pro-2
- FM? lin/exp?
- Play a mono sample
- mono lets you have two panned and layered samples
- but you can combine them in stereo mode if you must (but only single sample layer)
- samples stored on SD card?
- samples can be velocity/round robin/random switched with 4 layers
- Character section. VCO can be routed through or around the character section
- maybe tweak the decimation algo for vintage sampler vibes?
- 24db and 12db state variable filters of the Pro-2 per voice (with variable series/parallel routing).
- In stereo (cause that’s like what the Evolver is about man)
- that’s 4 filters per voice. Yikes! (but so awesome?) 24 filters. That’s huge in size if you look at board of the Pro-2!
- split options for VCO vs digital osc across these two filters on each side.
- tuned feedback
- multi-feedback paths of the original Evolver.
- stereo analog distortion
- 2 effects setup of the Prophet-6/OB-6/REV2
- 4 envelopes? VCA, Filt1, Filt2, Aux, (5 for an aux2?)
- 4 LFOs
- 1 digital delay (separate from FX) for tuned feedback (get your dBBD in the stereo FX)
- 6 independent voices like the Polyevolver?
- Sequencers like the REV2 Prophet 08
- Stereo input (that can be routed so you can do sequenced stereo effects), but can also be used for sampling.
- I’ve noticed the Elektron Rhythm has separate sampling inputs - 2 sets of inputs.
- Mod Matrix. The Prophet REV2 increased the modulation destinations. Seems easier to do with ICs than with discrete?
- Gun metal blue and screen printed finish, but pick a color other than blue for LEDs so people don’t freak. White?
- 5 octave TP9 Fatar keybed
- Lighted mod wheels
- 2 sliders or a mixing joystick (depending on what you want to do with those digital oscillators
- Stereo outs. Stereo Outputs per voice? (dumb?)
What do you think? Can this even be built? is this the Homer Simpson car?
Could it go head to head with the Quantum at the same price? $3500? $4000? $4500. That’s a crap load of filters.
Is this a dream synth or is this a “do everything, sounds like crap and bankrupts DSI” synth? This sounds like a “DSI Greatest Hits” synth which probably means it’ll never get built and this is a dumb thread. Seems like I wind up here mentally once year stuck on the Evolver REV2.
-
I would like the patch buttons that were on the P6 and OB6...but in blue of course ;)
I'd actually like to see a programmable arpeggiator (like on the Prophet 12) instead of a sequencer just to make it different.
A joystick included for sure.
If there is a screen I'd like it over to the right hand side of the synth and small and basic.
For the effects I'd like to have something unique to the synth as well. You have your distortion, chorus, phaser, reverb and delay but I'd also like to see some more exotic effects like harmonizer and reverse or perhaps a reverse function like on the Tempest where it reverses the envelope.
I'd just like to see it differentiate itself totally from the other DSI synths.
-
IF... an Evolver REV2 ever sees the day of light, I really hope that it will be possible to switch the routing so that you can choose between stereo and mono routing... many times when I had the Poly Evolver Rack, I would have loved to switch it into a routing where one analog and one digital oscillator worked as a single voice, panned in the middle... that would have allowed for 8 voices of polyphony on presets with that configuration.
but with that said, I really do not think there is much sense in doing a stereo synth like the Evolver again... mainly because Dave is now making all his synths dual layered... you can easily create a stereo routing by simply panning each layer to each their own side in the stereo field... in fact this way gives you much more flexibility, as you can control every single parameter for each side... with evolver the parameters are the same for each side except for the Filter Split parameter and a few others... and with 16 voices which seems to be "the new thing", you'd have a full 8 voice program.
If you just use the newer synths frontpanel for editing, there are ways to edit both layers at the same time so that it resembles an Evolver in editing as well... all needed is to set the panning separately beforehand.
So I do not miss the Evolvers stereo routing on the P12 at all... what I do miss is the single cycle waveshape slots, and the Sequencers in particular... other than these two things, there really is nothing special about the Evolver... maybe except for the raw sound it produces because of the analog oscillators and gritty dirty digital oscillators.
-
IF... an Evolver REV2 ever sees the day of light, I really hope that it will be possible to switch the routing so that you can choose between stereo and mono routing...
Exactly why I think a far superior solution to fixed stereo panning would be a stereo panning stack mode where both sounds are configured from layer A with a few fixed differences between the two voices.
Its all about value for money and expressiveness for a given set of hardware resources.
-
The two arrangements produce different results, different overall sounds. Having stereo oscillators within an otherwise mono sound is quite different in effect to two different layers or units, even if these two are identical. I've many times compared the effect of the Poly Evolver Keyboard's stereo oscillators with a paired Prophet '08 Keyboard and Module. The two are definitely not the same, so I would still prefer the PEK's set up.
-
The two arrangements produce different results, different overall sounds. Having stereo oscillators within an otherwise mono sound is quite different in effect to two different layers or units, even if these two are identical. I've many times compared the effect of the Poly Evolver Keyboard's stereo oscillators with a paired Prophet '08 Keyboard and Module. The two are definitely not the same, so I would still prefer the PEK's set up.
Seen from a technical point of view, the Desktop Evolver is a two-voice synth... the engine just run them as a "single voice" ... it's two voices with each an analog and digital oscillator..... with the added ability to pan them..... seen from this technical point of view, there should be absolutely no difference to a P12 which has two voices panned left/right using the same parameter setup.
It's a bit hard to conclude it by comparing it to a P08, as this machine is different in a lot of ways, so it WILL sound different... one major difference is that the Evolver has digital oscillators, and several other digital parts in the signal chain which may lead to a different sound...
If we imagine that the Evolver instead of the stereo configuration it has, had been made like the P12, where each voice is only monaural (1analog, 1 digital oscillator), and had each their own set of parameters, and the ability to use two layers with panning, then I'm 100 certain, it would sound exactly like an Evolver with a hardwired stereo configuration.
In theory, what gives this stereo config it's special sound is the fact that the oscillators are free running, and out of phase with each other... the same is true in the Layer A/B approach... I really do not see any other advantage to hooking two synths up together for L/R than that you have double the polyphony (which could definitely be a great advantage)...
If you use only one output from a P08 for the Left channel, and one for the Right, you might get some difference though, if you use the one output that sums to mono... could this be why you hear something different? ... if the two P08's stereo outputs are summed to mono, and the preset in use use both layers with panning for a stereo effect, then I'll admit that it will sound VERY much different... but in that case you are not using only two voices, but rather four.... two summed to mono on the left, and two summed to mono on the right.
-
Yes, I'm aware that the sound of the Poly Evolver Keyboard differs from that of the Prophet '08. I wasn't referring to that, but only to the nature of the stereo. The PEK's simply sounds more effective, that's all. Explain it however you wish.
Why use two P'08 units? Because I would rather multiply, rather than divide. It obviously gives you twice the power and flexibility, rather than half, plus multi-timbrality and stereo. It's also easier to design a program on the Module that differs from that on the Keyboard, rather than go back and forth between layers on the Keyboard, which is a pain and is prone to error.
-
It's also easier to design a program on the Module that differs from that on the Keyboard, rather than go back and forth between layers on the Keyboard, which is a pain and is prone to error.
Exactly why a new type of stack mode configuring both voices from layer A would do the job. Each of the two voices would have a few minor differences done automatically.
-
What I meant was, when making changes to one layer - say, a slightly different cut off frequency or LFO rate - it's easy to forget to save the changes each time you make them. After all, you might be going back and forth between layers dozens of times before you've finished designing the sound. I actually find it more convenient to make and save the changes on an entirely different instrument - that is, on a module. This is especially true regarding volume differences. For a few patches, I've set one layer to a much lower amplitude than the other. Again, I prefer to do this on a separate module and then adjust the volume at the mixer. This also allows for turning up or down that layer's volume while playing.
The whole keyboard-module configuration is preferable in so many ways to layering on a single unit that I could go on and on about it. Plus, you get twice as many red lights, which make you pleasantly feel and look like the mad synthesist. ;D
-
Oh I do get what you are saying. Anyone wanting to design a stereo panning stack mode would have to understand how you are working with stereo panned sounds and use that to design the feature so that it functions well in practice.
-
I don't think there's a simple generic solution here that suits everyone. One man's combination is another man's overkill.
-
Well... I guess it also depends on how you actually edit your synth(s)... I use an editor, where I have both layers vissible at the same time... all parameters, so editing the two layers is a piece of cake really... and with the REV2 having 16 voices, it will more or less be the same as two P08's configured for L/R ...
But if you use the front editing, I'd agree, that it will be a pain in the neck compared to having two physical control sets... also, you will still have the option of mixing two layers on each side for added texture depth... this is not possible with a REV2 standalone.
One more difference is the P08's weird way of panning things... it cannot use fixed pan modulation, controlled with the "DC" source for hard panning... that is one of the really nice things about the new REV2... it has the ability to actually switch the Pan modulation between alternating and fixed, and you can use the DC modulation source to hardpan... this is crucial for these "true stereo" configurations of the layers :)
-
Honestly I think for a bi timbral synth the idea of something like two P6 modules or OB6 modules side by side is the perfect design. Everything is right there without the need for menu diving and setting parameters. It’s just all there. Sadly I don’t think we will see DSI do more of these no menu based synths again.
-
Honestly I think for a bi timbral synth the idea of something like two P6 modules or OB6 modules side by side is the perfect design. Everything is right there without the need for menu diving and setting parameters. It’s just all there. Sadly I don’t think we will see DSI do more of these no menu based synths again.
Yeah... but the only thing NOT THERE for a lot of people, are the money needed to buy two P6s :D ... another aspect of doing it all "in the box" is that you can actually program the presets as you want it... if you do not want a stereo spread, just use a single layer, if you do want a stereo layer, just set the two layers up for it... flexibility wise, I'd take the "all in a box" anytime... but again... it depends on how you use your instruments... if you use them with their interface, it's a pain in the neck since as soon as you flip to another layer, then all the knobs positions do not relate to the current layer anymore... Id go insane if I had to work that way... but when you have an editor, with both layers visible at all times, and all controls present, then I really do not see the problem ... but it of course demands that you use an editor, and have a computer at your side to do it... I'm used to it... so much I have a hard time getting used to even the REV2 interface, even though it's almost a one knob per function design... for live tweaking an already made sound, the interface is ace... but if I want to create a new program from scratch, I simply HAVE TO HAVE an editor at hand.
-
Honestly I think for a bi timbral synth the idea of something like two P6 modules or OB6 modules side by side is the perfect design. Everything is right there without the need for menu diving and setting parameters. It’s just all there. Sadly I don’t think we will see DSI do more of these no menu based synths again.
Yeah... but the only thing NOT THERE for a lot of people, are the money needed to buy two P6s :D ... another aspect of doing it all "in the box" is that you can actually program the presets as you want it... if you do not want a stereo spread, just use a single layer, if you do want a stereo layer, just set the two layers up for it... flexibility wise, I'd take the "all in a box" anytime... but again... it depends on how you use your instruments... if you use them with their interface, it's a pain in the neck since as soon as you flip to another layer, then all the knobs positions do not relate to the current layer anymore... Id go insane if I had to work that way... but when you have an editor, with both layers visible at all times, and all controls present, then I really do not see the problem ... but it of course demands that you use an editor, and have a computer at your side to do it... I'm used to it... so much I have a hard time getting used to even the REV2 interface, even though it's almost a one knob per function design... for live tweaking an already made sound, the interface is ace... but if I want to create a new program from scratch, I simply HAVE TO HAVE an editor at hand.
Oh I just mean the idea of having to engines on the front at the same time and separate from each other. Not just a P6 or OB6 module specifically. Just the concept of it with a few tweaks. :)
-
Honestly I think for a bi timbral synth the idea of something like two P6 modules or OB6 modules side by side is the perfect design. Everything is right there without the need for menu diving and setting parameters. It’s just all there. Sadly I don’t think we will see DSI do more of these no menu based synths again.
Yeah... but the only thing NOT THERE for a lot of people, are the money needed to buy two P6s.
It all depends on your priorities. In my case, the set up is all about keyboard instruments. I have virtually nothing else except the synthesizers and a couple of effects. So, I'm able to buy keyboard-module pairs because I don't spend thousands of dollars on drum machines, sequencers, computers, editors, software, and whatever other gadgets are popular today. In the end, my set up is quite modest and sparse, compared to the many I see online, and I seldom spend a dime on it, other than on the initial instruments. It's basically three keyboards, one pedalboard, and three modules - that's it. Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity.
-
Honestly I think for a bi timbral synth the idea of something like two P6 modules or OB6 modules side by side is the perfect design. Everything is right there without the need for menu diving and setting parameters. It’s just all there. Sadly I don’t think we will see DSI do more of these no menu based synths again.
I totally agree. It's easy, convenient, and sharp looking, with no need for a computer or an editor.
-
For a follow up to the PEK it would make sense to drop the DSP oscillators and use FPGA like the Peak uses. These produce alias free oscillators with massively fast modulation capabilities.
I don't think DSI would ever make an extremely high end synthesizer again, nothing beyond what the P12 and PEK cost. There's a sales curve and the higher the price the lower the sales. To accommodate the lower sales you have to make the cost even higher than it could be.
Lets not forget that Sequential went out of business and many lessons have been learned from those days :)
-
For a follow up to the PEK it would make sense to drop the DSP oscillators and use FPGA like the Peak uses. These produce alias free oscillators with massively fast modulation capabilities.
I don't think DSI would ever make an extremely high end synthesizer again, nothing beyond what the P12 and PEK cost. There's a sales curve and the higher the price the lower the sales. To accommodate the lower sales you have to make the cost even higher than it could be.
Lets not forget that Sequential went out of business and many lessons have been learned from those days :)
As long as there’s is a way to dial in how much aliasing you want...much like the stop dial.
-
An Evolver without digital aliasing just wouldn't be an Evolver. Jeepers, it would be like having a line green panel.
-
As long as there’s is a way to dial in how much aliasing you want...much like the stop dial.
Variable bit rate/sample rate. It's been done elsewhere (Modal 002).
But DSP based synths have been done to death now.
-
As long as there’s is a way to dial in how much aliasing you want...much like the stop dial.
Variable bit rate/sample rate. It's been done elsewhere (Modal 002).
But DSP based synths have been done to death now.
So have mono synths yet people are still drooling over them.
-
So have mono synths yet people are still drooling over them.
Only if they say Moog on them. The Behringer clone shows that it's about more than the sound and people want to join a little club and have an ornament on their desk to admire.
-
So have mono synths yet people are still drooling over them.
Only if they say Moog on them. The Behringer clone shows that it's about more than the sound and people want to join a little club and have an ornament on their desk to admire.
There are plenty of inexpensive (under $500 US) monosynths, Moog (new Minitaur, Mother-32, Werkstatt, used MG-1) or otherwise (used DSI Evolver desktop, Pioneer Toraiz AS-1, Arturia Mini- or MicroBrute, Korg Mini- or Monologue, Roland SE-02, used Dreadbox stuff).
Their existence is a gateway drug, of sorts, and their monophonic nature lends itself to simpler, sequenced musical styles which easily expose changes in timbre. Though I'm a polysynth kind of guy, I have to admit that they are rather enticing options....
-
Be nice if the new Evolver could somehow incorporate sampling.
-
I'm glad I am able to record samples at all and import into the Evolver. But yes, a built in sampler would be easier. Was just messing around the other day importing a sound/waveform from my wife's new sultry. (It's a stringed instrument played with a bow- from middle ages era). I placed the waveform on both osc 3 and 4, with slight detuning and other mods. I couldn't get it perfect, but I did end up with a good violin.
-
Was just listening to a lot of Poly Evolver demos and honestly...if the next DSI instrument isn't a hybrid I'll likely grab a Poly Evolver on the second hand market.
-
They're certainly not hard to find. They generally run $2,000-$2,400. Make sure you get a PE, rather than the original version.
-
They're certainly not hard to find. They generally run $2,000-$2,400. Make sure you get a PE, rather than the original version.
What's the difference?
-
They're certainly not hard to find. They generally run $2,000-$2,400. Make sure you get a PE, rather than the original version.
What's the difference?
The PE (Potentiometer Edition) is much more usable IMHO, and its pre-installation implies that you won't need to spend the money to upgrade the panel board.
-
Ugh...I really do hope they come out with a new Evolver. I'd honestly be pretty depressed if they didn't.
-
They're certainly not hard to find. They generally run $2,000-$2,400. Make sure you get a PE, rather than the original version.
What's the difference?
Potentiometers, rather than endless encoders. The encoders were the pesky type with a will of their own, so that they often skipped around or wouldn't turn to the digit you wanted, making sound design a headache. You could always do an update if you bought an older PEK. But in the end, DSI released a PEK with the pots, as with the Prophet '08.
-
Only DSI would have a sense of it, but I wonder how many people are actually asking for a new Evolver. There are two or three requests on DSI's Facebook page under you-know-who's video. I often see others when I poke around the synth sites. But what is the total number? Are we only fifteen or twenty? Are we enough to move Dave Smith, or is it all pointless?
-
Only DSI would have a sense of it, but I wonder how many people are actually asking for a new Evolver. There are two or three requests on DSI's Facebook page under you-know-who's video. I often see others when I poke around the synth sites. But what is the total number? Are we only fifteen or twenty? Are we enough to move Dave Smith, or is it all pointless?
There's still a fair amount of people who like the Evolvers. Currently, there's a thread on Muff Wiggler about the MEK and the desktop version, in which most participants are really enthusiastic about it. The German online music tech magazine amazona.de, for which I occasionally write as well, released an article about all Evolvers in 2016 again, calling the Poly Evolver Keyboard PE Dave's best synth. There's even consensus about it having been underrated at first. And many people also point out the sonic differences between the Prophet 12, the Pro 2, and the Evolvers. So from that I'd say that its unique sound and hybrid architecture are still appreciated today.
However likely that would be or not, though, I would like to see a few improvements on a revisited Evolver. No internal effects for me, as that just takes away space, but rather an analog high-pass filter (even if that would probably lead to getting rid of the pre/post routing option) and an analog distortion, preferably even a drive parameter in the filter section that could rather be used to thicken the sound in a warm manner instead of making it scream. Other than that, streamlined parameter values as well as mod assignment methods, and an OLED screen would be nice. Those would at least be my basic suggestions for an upgraded/revisited version.
-
Fascinating. Would you care to pass along a quick summary of the some of the comments or articles you've read?
-
Fascinating. Would you care to pass along a quick summary of the some of the comments or articles you've read?
Well, here's the MEK thread from the Muff Wiggler forum: https://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=193739
The amazone.de article from 2016 was of course written in German, but I can try to submit an impromptu translation of at least the first page that served as the introduction to a bundled re-release of the original reviews about each model.
-
I didn't mean to give you homework, Paul. I just meant off the top of your head. I'd be interested to hear what other people are saying about the Evolver.
-
I'm a bit surprised by this, since a new Evolver video is the rarest thing. I realize YouTube is not the measure of all things, but I would expect such enthusiasm for the instrument to produce many more new Evolver videos. I seem to be just about the only person still regularly producing them, together with Hitoshi Koizumi and a couple others.
-
So here's an impromptu translation of said article's introduction (https://www.amazona.de/report-dave-smith-poly-evolver-analogsynthesizer/):
Dave Smith's best synthesizer
08.13.2016
When he introduced the Prophet-5 in 1978, synthesizer veteran Dave Smith provided the cornerstone for analog poly synths. Subsequently, his company Sequential belonged to the "big five" in this branch for roughly 10 years, until the economic pressure caused by flourishing Japanese competitors grew so strong that Sequential eventually had to close its doors for good and the company's name was passed on to Yamaha.
Yet, Dave Smith returned, albeit no one expected this to happen. And roughly two years ago, Yamaha even returned the ownership of his former company's name to him. It almost sounds like a fairytale, since "Dave Smith Instruments" is at the top of the synthesizer industry again these days with products like the Prophet-6 or the OB-6.
People easily forget, though, that the sensational comeback began with a little blue box in 2002: the Evolver. The monophonic half-pint combined the best of both worlds: digital and analog. And it did so in a very consistent manner. For quite a long time, the Evolver was underestimated until Dave Smith came up with a 4-voice polyphonic keyboard that featured the Evolver's technology in 2005—the Poly Evolver was born.
The following report includes Mic Irmer's original review of the Poly Evolver from 2005. The Poly Evolver earned perfect scores, although there were a couple of reservations. The biggest critique was caused by the limited 4-voice polyphony that came at a hefty price tag of more than 2000 Euros. Today, 11 years later, things look a tad different, as the Poly Evolver only costs half of its original price on the second-hand market [note: as of today, that's not correct] and can easily be combined with any other version of the Evolver.
I personally own a 5-voice system based on a small monophonic Mono Evolver Keyboard and a 4-voice Poly Evolver Rack. Thanks to the keyboard's "poly chain out" option, the keyboard behaves like a complete 5-voice system without making it necessary to touch the expander module.
In our "Vintage Hybrid Polyphonic" charts, the Poly Evolver shares the top position along with the Waldorf Wave. The Waldorf Wave is of course traded for much higher prices these days. Yet, one may ask why the sleek blue synthesizer is still sold for way less.
To point it out right away: Its sound and its features are none of the reasons (more about that later), but rather the bad build quality of most models. Back in the day, Dave Smith obviously tried to do anything to achieve a competitive going price for his "big" polyphonic synthesizer. As a result, the quality of the encoders and knobs had to suffer the most. Only with the PE versions—and that was the same case with the Prophet '08—models were eventually released (much too late) whose encoders didn't cause immediate parameter jumps at the slightest touch of a hand. Our 'Doc Analog' did actually optimize a Mono Evolver Keyboard in this regard years ago.
But let's talk about the sound: The sound engine of all Evolvers, of which there are four versions (monophonic desktop, monophonic keyboard with three octaves, polyphonic 4-voice keyboard with five octaves, polyphonic 4-voice rack), is identical. Hence, my statements can be taken at face value with regard to all four models.
The Evolver sound covers exactly the sonic bandwidth you'd expect from a hybrid synthesizer. The Evolver does it a lot better, though, than the Waldorf Q+ for example, which also came along with an analog filter. But a Waldorf Q+ still sounds fully digital, even if you utilize its analog filter. The Poly Evolver behaves quite different.
Each voice of the Poly Evolver consists of four oscillators, two digital ones and two analog ones. Accordingly, pure analog sounds are being made with both analog oscillators. Take the test and you will be amazed by how warm and punchy the Poly Evolver sounds and how it can easily beat his current competitors from the same company (Prophet-6 and OB-6). Like I said, this is my personal opinion, but I'm not alone in this judgement.
The highlight though: With all four oscillators and the manifold options to modulate these (especially with the help of the powerful step sequencer), the Poly Evolver can cover a huge range of sounds that could otherwise only be achieved with really sophisticated plug-ins. And yes, of course it also replaces the Prophet VS with ease, but more about that in the following review.
Enjoy the read and the audio examples,
Peter Grandl, August 2016
-
A+. Thanks, Paul.
-
Haha, you're welcome.
-
There's still a fair amount of people who like the Evolvers. Currently, there's a thread on Muff Wiggler about the MEK and the desktop version, in which most participants are really enthusiastic about it. The German online music tech magazine amazona.de, for which I occasionally write as well, released an article about all Evolvers in 2016 again, calling the Poly Evolver Keyboard PE Dave's best synth. There's even consensus about it having been underrated at first. And many people also point out the sonic differences between the Prophet 12, the Pro 2, and the Evolvers. So from that I'd say that its unique sound and hybrid architecture are still appreciated today.
That's my thread. :D
Well, today I bought a rack poly (not the one that's been sitting at $2000) to add to the MEK and 2 desktops. I also have a hold on another desktop, but that was before the PER happened, so I'll probably either sell one and have 6 voices, or keep them all for a while and have 7 voices.
I like the pro2 (just got that last weekend), but wish it had more of the digital side of the evolver, at least the wavetables and ability to upload my own.
But a new Evolver Rev2 with 4 voices in the MEK size and 16 in the full size, updated sequencer, yadda yadda..., would be awesome. I'm pretty sure it's just a pipe dream, but it's a nice dream.
I've got enough new DSI stuff lately (a Rev2 a month ago and a Tempest on the way) to keep me occupied until the day Dave announces a EvolvedRev2 flagship mono and poly synths.
I thought I would have a Moog one day, but the desire is waning. I'm ending up mainly DSI, Buchla, and some Elektron.
Still want a new Evolver one day...so count me in as #21 of the people on the planet Earth who are wise enough to want a new Evolver. :D
-
...so count me in as #21 of the people on the planet Earth who are wise enough to want a new Evolver. :D
I'm going to take up a collection for this cause from you twenty-one Evolverites and forward the money to San Francisco (well, most of it). I'm just about ready to resort to bribery if I have to.
-
I think it goes without saying that if Dave were to ever bring a new Poly Evolver out it would definitely have more features, more voices and generally be upgraded or improved.
But it has to be Blue.
-
I really do hope they add samples on the digital oscillators as well. Especially if they use Prophet 2000 samples as on board samples. Imagine that...analog, FM, VS, Wavetable and samples in one synth....perhaps that's why it won't be done?
-
I really do hope they add samples on the digital oscillators as well. Especially if they use Prophet 2000 samples as on board samples. Imagine that...analog, FM, VS, Wavetable and samples in one synth....perhaps that's why it won't be done?
Most of the times it's better to have dedicated tools instead of one that tries to do it all, particularly in hardware. Not only for reasons of potentially overwhelming prospective users, but because it allows you to stay focused. And the Evolvers can already do a lot, just like the Prophet 12 or the Pro 2.
The Yamaha Montage on the other side is a good example for a synth that does too much, although it only provides two engines. But those two engines are ones that seem to be mutually exclusive when it comes to the associated user groups. One half–the by now traditional(ist) Yamaha clientele–is mostly interested in the AWM2 aspect and FM-X only if it provides nice presets. The other half that is more interested in synthesis options, couldn't care less about wedding band purposes and the AWM2 part. They would have been happy with a pure FM-X synth in the first place.
Other than that, the synth you're asking for would partially end up being a concealed Intel–or whatever–based computer with some hybrid engine add-ons. Its development would also entail a huge coding challenge, an almost as huge interface design and signal routing challenge, and a rather high sales price, which would in turn limit the amount of prospective buyers, who are not already put off by too much complexity. To keep things manageable in the relatively small format of a 61 keys synth chassis, you would also most likely end up sitting in front of a big touch screen anyway, which naturally diminishes the difference to working with an iPad or a laptop. I also don't get what's so special about the Prophet 2000 samples in 2018. I mean I wouldn't even get it if they had been as iconic as the Fairlight or Emulator samples.
-
I really do hope they add samples on the digital oscillators as well. Especially if they use Prophet 2000 samples as on board samples. Imagine that...analog, FM, VS, Wavetable and samples in one synth....perhaps that's why it won't be done?
Most of the times it's better to have dedicated tools instead of one that tries to do it all, particularly in hardware. Not only for reasons of potentially overwhelming prospective users, but because it allows you to stay focused. And the Evolvers can already do a lot, just like the Prophet 12 or the Pro 2.
The Yamaha Montage on the other side is a good example for a synth that does too much, although it only provides two engines. But those two engines are ones that seem to be mutually exclusive when it comes to the associated user groups. One half–the by now traditional(ist) Yamaha clientele–is mostly interested in the AWM2 aspect and FM-X only if it provides nice presets. The other half that is more interested in synthesis options, couldn't care less about wedding band purposes and the AWM2 part. They would have been happy with a pure FM-X synth in the first place.
Other than that, the synth you're asking for would partially end up being a concealed Intel–or whatever–based computer with some hybrid engine add-ons. Its development would also entail a huge coding challenge, an almost as huge interface design and signal routing challenge, and a rather high sales price, which would in turn limit the amount of prospective buyers, who are not already put off by too much complexity. To keep things manageable in the relatively small format of a 61 keys synth chassis, you would also most likely end up sitting in front of a big touch screen anyway, which naturally diminishes the difference to working with an iPad or a laptop. I also don't get what's so special about the Prophet 2000 samples in 2018. I mean I wouldn't even get it if they had been as iconic as the Fairlight or Emulator samples.
Well look at something like the Tempest. Take that concept and turn it into a synthesizer. Except instead of drum samples, use samples of pianos, choirs, strings, bass, guitar etc.
The Prophet 2000 samples add a nice bit of low fi nostalgia but it would also have the ability to upload your own samples and run them through the filters (similar to the Nord Wave.) It might not be your thing personally but a lot of people still love old sampler sounds so...why not? Can't hurt.
-
Well look at something like the Tempest. Take that concept and turn it into a synthesizer. Except instead of drum samples, use samples of pianos, choirs, strings, bass, guitar etc.
The Prophet 2000 samples add a nice bit of low fi nostalgia but it would also have the ability to upload your own samples and run them through the filters (similar to the Nord Wave.) It might not be your thing personally but a lot of people still love old sampler sounds so...why not? Can't hurt.
That could be cool to mangle or resynthesize those sounds, almost like a Kyma system morphing sounds, but Kyma and Kontakt already sample, HUGE samples, and do it well because of how massive the average desktops are now in comparison to something like a S5000 (I loved mine until Kontakt) hardware wise.
I feel like an Evolver2 playing back a piano sample set to sound like a piano, wouldn't be an Evolver. But that's just me. one with more memory, where the user could do whatever they want would be cool, but if you give a user 1meg, they'll want 4 megs. Give them 256megs of ram, and they'll want a couple gigs of ram.
-
I really do hope they add samples on the digital oscillators as well. Especially if they use Prophet 2000 samples as on board samples. Imagine that...analog, FM, VS, Wavetable and samples in one synth....perhaps that's why it won't be done?
The base onboard samples used on the Prophet 2000 (i.e., built into ROM) are very short, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were similar to Prophet VS or Prophet-12/Pro-2 waves.
The sound of the Prophet 2000 comes from the variable sample rate playback, rather than stuff-and-dump playback at a fixed sample rate, so I wouldn't expect that to be a feature on a modern sampler due to its (electronic) complexity–but it's not impossible.
There is no aliasing, and I'd consider that to be a necessary artifact (if not the glorious sound) of the Evolver.
-
I really do hope they add samples on the digital oscillators as well. Especially if they use Prophet 2000 samples as on board samples. Imagine that...analog, FM, VS, Wavetable and samples in one synth....perhaps that's why it won't be done?
The base onboard samples used on the Prophet 2000 (i.e., built into ROM) are very short, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were similar to Prophet VS or Prophet-12/Pro-2 waves.
The sound of the Prophet 2000 comes from the variable sample rate playback, rather than stuff-and-dump playback at a fixed sample rate, so I wouldn't expect that to be a feature on a modern sampler due to its (electronic) complexity–but it's not impossible.
There is no aliasing, and I'd consider that to be a necessary artifact (if not the glorious sound) of the Evolver.
Ahh but how about an aliasing dial much like the slop dial where you can dial in how much aliasing you want?
-
Well look at something like the Tempest. Take that concept and turn it into a synthesizer. Except instead of drum samples, use samples of pianos, choirs, strings, bass, guitar etc.
The Prophet 2000 samples add a nice bit of low fi nostalgia but it would also have the ability to upload your own samples and run them through the filters (similar to the Nord Wave.) It might not be your thing personally but a lot of people still love old sampler sounds so...why not? Can't hurt.
That could be cool to mangle or resynthesize those sounds, almost like a Kyma system morphing sounds, but Kyma and Kontakt already sample, HUGE samples, and do it well because of how massive the average desktops are now in comparison to something like a S5000 (I loved mine until Kontakt) hardware wise.
I feel like an Evolver2 playing back a piano sample set to sound like a piano, wouldn't be an Evolver. But that's just me. one with more memory, where the user could do whatever they want would be cool, but if you give a user 1meg, they'll want 4 megs. Give them 256megs of ram, and they'll want a couple gigs of ram.
It's not meant to only sound like a piano sample (Although it could) it's meant to take a piano sound and synthesize it and manipulate it so it sounds odd. To add another timber to the pallet.
-
A Poly Evolver with piano samples would a cry out for a piano-type keyboard. I realize many workstations use typical synthesizer/organ-type keyboards, but it's an awkward combination.
The primary new features I'd like to see on a Poly Evolver Rev2 would be the ability to adjust the amount of digital aliasing -say, from 0-10, a resonance on the high pass filter, a more gradual increase of LFO Amount (especially in the third envelope), an arpeggiator, and a keyboard quality to match that of the Rev2.
-
A Poly Evolver with piano samples would a cry out for a piano-type keyboard. I realize many workstations use typical synthesizer/organ-type keyboards, but it's an awkward combination.
It's only awkward when you intend to play it like a piano rather than utilize a piano sound as a total pallet. Turn off your mind.
On Dave Rossum's new Assimil8r you can adjust how much aliasing you want in a sample. Should be able to do that on a synth too.
-
A Poly Evolver with piano samples would a cry out for a piano-type keyboard. I realize many workstations use typical synthesizer/organ-type keyboards, but it's an awkward combination.
You can get used to it. I mean, it's not the same, but you can play a piano tone on a synth without too much cognitive (and/or musical) dissonance.
Korg realized that the lack of a piano sound was dampening sales of the original Wavestation, which was the sort of sample-based synth that seemed like it should have a piano sound. So they quickly released the Wavestation EX, which added piano (and drums and Prophet VS waves) in response to people's expectations. The lesson here is that anything with sample ROM should probably have piano samples, even though pianos are ridiculously hard to sample.
-
A Poly Evolver with piano samples would a cry out for a piano-type keyboard. I realize many workstations use typical synthesizer/organ-type keyboards, but it's an awkward combination.
You can get used to it. I mean, it's not the same, but you can play a piano tone on a synth without too much cognitive (and/or musical) dissonance.
Korg realized that the lack of a piano sound was dampening sales of the original Wavestation, which was the sort of sample-based synth that seemed like it should have a piano sound. So they quickly released the Wavestation EX, which added piano (and drums and Prophet VS waves) in response to people's expectations. The lesson here is that anything with sample ROM should probably have piano samples, even though pianos are ridiculously hard to sample.
The way I see it is you can take natural sounds like piano, vocals, guitars, strings, and run them through the synthesis engine and filters. Run them with arpeggiators, etc You aren’t limited to a piano sound, you are limited to what your imagination can do for said piano sound.
-
Sort of like this...
https://youtu.be/SnwQUGTJ6iM
-
The more I look around and consider my next new synthesizer, the more I appreciate that the Poly Evolver Keyboard is an exceptionally unique instrument and that probably nothing currently in production could substitute for it. It has a unique PPG-Wavestation-VS old school digital character that's not easily replaced. In one moment I'm thinking of selling a PEK to finance another synthesizer, and in the next I'm recoiling in horror at the thought and considering instead expanding my eight-voice PEK with another PER! Yes, a twelve-voice PEK would be wonderful, especially for wide-ranging arpeggios.
I do hope DSI hears us and responds at the designing desk.
-
The more I look around and consider my next new synthesizer, the more I appreciate that the Poly Evolver Keyboard is an exceptionally unique instrument and that probably nothing currently in production could replace it. It has a unique PPG-Wavestation-VS old school digital character that's not easily replaced. In one moment I'm thinking of selling a PEK to finance another synthesizer, and in the next I'm recoiling in horror at the thought and considering instead expanding my eight-voice PEK with another PER! Yes, a twelve-voice PEK would be wonderful, especially for wide-ranging arpeggios.
I do hope DSI hears us and responds at the designing desk.
I hope so too.
-
It has a unique PPG-Wavestation-VS old school digital character that's not easily replaced.
I would be sad if DSI makes an updated exact copy of the Evolver with digital highpass filter and delays in mono.
Rather keep the elements that make it sound so unique such as the way the digital waveshapes are rendered as analog signals, the combination of analog/digital oscillators complete with sequencer, tuned feedback and delays. Better synthesizer ingredients exists these days for filters and analog oscillators so why not head in that direction? And maybe consider using more than one rendering of digital oscillators?
That is of cause not going to happen. But the strength that makes the Evolver so hard to beat is exactly the digital diversity on a solid analog foundation.
-
It has a unique PPG-Wavestation-VS old school digital character that's not easily replaced.
I would be sad if DSI makes an updated exact copy of the Evolver with digital highpass filter and delays in mono.
Rather keep the elements that make it sound so unique such as the way the digital waveshapes are rendered as analog signals, the combination of analog/digital oscillators complete with sequencer, tuned feedback and delays. Better synthesizer ingredients exists these days for filters and analog oscillators so why not head in that direction? And maybe consider using more than one rendering of digital oscillators?
That is of cause not going to happen. But the strength that makes the Evolver so hard to beat is exactly the digital diversity on a solid analog foundation.
Just take the concept of the Evolver and expand on it. More polyphony, more effects, etc.
Honestly, at this point if DSI do another analog Polyphonic or mono synth, it would have to be something absolutely mind blowing if it were to peak my interest. Poor Dave, he wanted to make digital synths, people demanded analog, he made five Polyphonic analog synths, now people want digital synths..must be frustrating for him.
-
Honestly, at this point if DSI do another analog Polyphonic or mono synth, it would have to be something absolutely mind blowing if it were to peak my interest. Poor Dave, he wanted to make digital synths, people demanded analog, he made five Polyphonic analog synths, now people want digital synths..must be frustrating for him.
Well, I am sure that an analog poly with rev2 style modulation/layers, prophet-6 style oscillators/filters and possibly a few extra analog features would be a hit. People would love it! Also, the Evolver is a hybrid analog/digital machine. Its not a digital machine and therein lies its strength.
Agree that the polysynth market seems a bit more challenging these days which gives less freedom for companies like DSI. But lets see what happens next. Crossing fingers for a more adventurous and interesting machine this time around.
-
I don't think anybody has to worry that DSI will ever produce a strict re-issue of the Poly Evolver. No one has asked for it, nor have I, even though I'd be happy with one. Look at the Rev2 in comparison with the Prophet '08. That's what we're talking about - a new and improved Evolver. But please, no four-octave keyboards!
-
The more I look around and consider my next new synthesizer, the more I appreciate that the Poly Evolver Keyboard is an exceptionally unique instrument and that probably nothing currently in production could substitute for it. It has a unique PPG-Wavestation-VS old school digital character that's not easily replaced. In one moment I'm thinking of selling a PEK to finance another synthesizer, and in the next I'm recoiling in horror at the thought and considering instead expanding my eight-voice PEK with another PER! Yes, a twelve-voice PEK would be wonderful, especially for wide-ranging arpeggios.
This is not meant to be particularly fastidious but the Wavestation doesn't quite share the charme of the PPG, VS, Microwave, or Evolver. It's much closer to the typical Korg ROMpler sound of the early 1990s and lacks the interaction with anything analog. Sonically, it's pretty much stuck in time if one doesn't work massively against it.
All the rest sounds like you're more and more gravitating towards the Evolver again.
-
An evolved Evolver sounds like a plan. This time around it may be better to have as much analog signal path as their current machines have. In other words no A/D + DSP + D/A step after the VCA except for the digital effects.
-
I can't help it, Paul; my ears place the PPG, Wavestation, VS, and Evolver in the same category. I realize this is not technologically correct, but I speak purely as a musician. Those four instruments could serve me equally well in the same ways.
And yes, you're right. I've become infatuated again with the Poly Evolver Keyboard. Nothing against the P'08/Rev2. I'm just constantly struck by the quality and flexibility of sound. There's absolutely nothing like a PEK...except, of course, a PPG, Wavestation, or VS. ;D
-
Poor Dave, he wanted to make digital synths, people demanded analog, he made five Polyphonic analog synths, now people want digital synths..must be frustrating for him.
That's historically not quite correct. Whenever Dave designed hardware instruments, the analog element was important to him. With the exception of the Korg Wavestation and the Reality softsynth, he was never involved in designing a purely digital synth.
-
I can't help it; my ears place the PPG, Wavestation, VS, and Evolver in the same category. I realize this is not technologically correct, but I speak purely as a musician. Those four instruments could serve me equally well in the same ways.
Yes, you're right, Paul. I've become infatuated again with the Poly Evolver Keyboard. Nothing against the P'08/Rev2. I'm just constantly struck by the quality of sound. There's absolutely nothing like a PEK...except, of course, a PPG, Wavestation, or VS. ;D
I can assure you that if you're used to the interaction with synths the DSI way, you wouldn't particularly enjoy programming the Wavestation. On top of that, it takes a lot of programming and menu diving to push it away from typical ROMpler-ish PCM-based sounds, which by now sound just as particularly dated as a Solina String Ensemble (just for a different decade). It is a good synth for pads, though, that's true. But I doubt it would give you anything in terms of sonic vividness you can't already achieve with the Evolver. I owned both and the only thing the Wavestation is better at is the so-called Vector Synthesis that the Evolver can't do at all. With regard to pure sound, however, the Evolver is far superior and more flexible on a much easier level.
-
Well, I am sure that an analog poly with rev2 style modulation/layers, prophet-6 style oscillators/filters and possibly a few extra analog features would be a hit. People would love it! Also, the Evolver is a hybrid analog/digital machine. Its not a digital machine and therein lies its strength.
Agreed on the strength of hybrids.
I immensely doubt, though, there's a place for the kind of analog poly you've suggested—at least not really below the price of two Prophet-6s. After all, there's the 16-voice Rev2 already and everyone is free to put together a Prophet-12 (2x6), an OB-12, or a Prophet-6/OB-6 hybrid these days. To take from these options for another iteration of an analog poly synth would only equal a massive cannibalization of all products that have been released since 2015. But as of now, the Rev2 is the highly competitive and most flexible analog poly synth around. It would make little sense to design a Rev3 with 16 VCOs and discreet filter circuits for twice the price.
-
The only other thing I can see them doing in the analog realm is multitimbrality but that likely won’t happen.
-
I immensely doubt, though, there's a place for the kind of analog poly you've suggested—at least not really below the price of two Prophet-6s.
My point is simply to state a design I would like to see and then let the company decide what it should cost if they one day decides to design such a machine.
-
Poor Dave, he wanted to make digital synths, people demanded analog, he made five Polyphonic analog synths, now people want digital synths..must be frustrating for him.
That's historically not quite correct. Whenever Dave designed hardware instruments, the analog element was important to him. With the exception of the Korg Wavestation and the Reality softsynth, he was never involved in designing a purely digital synth.
I mean analog oscillators not VCF or VCA. Prophet VS, Prophet 2000, Prophet 12. All digital oscilators.
-
The only other thing I can see them doing in the analog realm is multitimbrality but that likely won’t happen.
Multi-timbrality makes me wonder how complex the MIDI side of it really is to implement and what other implications for the firmware it will have. I can see a voice allocation and configuration challenge. But anything besides that?
-
The only other thing I can see them doing in the analog realm is multitimbrality but that likely won’t happen.
Multi-timbrality makes me wonder how complex the MIDI side of it really is to implement and what other implications for the firmware it will have. I can see a voice allocation and configuration challenge. But anything besides that?
The risk of too much menu diving.
-
All the rest sounds like you're more and more gravitating towards the Evolver again.
I think the Korg Prologue renewed my appreciation for the quality sound of the Poly Evolver.
-
All the rest sounds like you're more and more gravitating towards the Evolver again.
I think the Korg Prologue renewed my appreciation for the quality sound of the Poly Evolver.
Hehe. Not to forget the appreciation for more than just one LFO.
-
Poor Dave, he wanted to make digital synths, people demanded analog, he made five Polyphonic analog synths, now people want digital synths..must be frustrating for him.
That's historically not quite correct. Whenever Dave designed hardware instruments, the analog element was important to him. With the exception of the Korg Wavestation and the Reality softsynth, he was never involved in designing a purely digital synth.
I mean analog oscillators not VCF or VCA. Prophet VS, Prophet 2000, Prophet 12. All digital oscilators.
Gotcha. Well, just as with most analog elements, the digital side most people are craving for is the one that contains flaws, which are now being regarded as highly desirable artifacts. That includes 8-12 bit resolution and aliasing. It's these flaws, and the interaction between a sometimes extremely harsh sounding digital front end* and soothing analog components that make the sound of particularly the PPG and the VS precious for many.
* Just as an illustration: This is what the digital front end of the PPG Wave 2.X's predecessor sounds like. The PPG 360 Wave Computer from 1978 is as pure of an impression as you can get, since it didn't feature an analog filter, i.e. no filter at all.
https://youtu.be/hyMR8DSLHSc?t=3m22s
-
Well, just as with most analog elements, the digital side most people are craving for is the one that contains flaws, which are now being regarded as highly desirable artifacts. That includes 8-12 bit resolution and aliasing. It's these flaws, and the interaction between a sometimes extremely harsh sounding digital front end* and soothing analog components that make the sound of particularly the PPG and the VS precious for many.
Yes, indeed. You can put me in that category of persons. But I'd add the qualifier that the flaws, artifacts, aliasing, and other seemingly caustic elements from the digital side can be tamed in individual cases, often by closing the filter or even avoiding a certain register on the keyboard. And at other times, you can open up the sonic door to let in just a sparkle of those elements - only as much as enhances the music. They're often quite controllable and don't result in that most unfortunate situation in which the synthesizer dictates to the synthesist. No, the caustic digital elements can be managed quite well.
We're talking about the tasteful and delicate use of nuances here, and it brings to the fore the beauty of serious synthesis.
-
Poor Dave, he wanted to make digital synths, people demanded analog, he made five Polyphonic analog synths, now people want digital synths..must be frustrating for him.
That's historically not quite correct. Whenever Dave designed hardware instruments, the analog element was important to him. With the exception of the Korg Wavestation and the Reality softsynth, he was never involved in designing a purely digital synth.
I mean analog oscillators not VCF or VCA. Prophet VS, Prophet 2000, Prophet 12. All digital oscilators.
Gotcha. Well, just as with most analog elements, the digital side most people are craving for is the one that contains flaws, which are now being regarded as highly desirable artifacts. That includes 8-12 bit resolution and aliasing. It's these flaws, and the interaction between a sometimes extremely harsh sounding digital front end* and soothing analog components that make the sound of particularly the PPG and the VS precious for many.
* Just as an illustration: This is what the digital front end of the PPG Wave 2.X's predecessor sounds like. The PPG 360 Wave Computer from 1978 is as pure of an impression as you can get, since it didn't feature an analog filter, i.e. no filter at all.
https://youtu.be/hyMR8DSLHSc?t=3m22s
All we need is an aliasing dial just like with have the slop dial. To control how much digital artifacts and aliasing we want.
-
It's these flaws, and the interaction between a sometimes extremely harsh sounding digital front end* and soothing analog components that make the sound of particularly the PPG and the VS precious for many.
Taming The Digital Monster (TM)
-
The risk of too much menu diving.
The UI side of an multi-timbral synthesizer will obviously be challenging. However, I was only considering the internals of multi-timbral operation which would make it an MIDI only implementation. Something that would be perfectly fine with me!
-
The risk of too much menu diving.
The UI side of an multi-timbral synthesizer will obviously be challenging. However, I was only considering the internals of multi-timbral operation which would make it an MIDI only implementation. Something that would be perfectly fine with me!
I think, even just four part multitimbrality would be better than nothing. It would at least bring something different to the current market. Even if it's only four voices and each engine is modeled after the AS-1.
-
The risk of too much menu diving.
The UI side of an multi-timbral synthesizer will obviously be challenging. However, I was only considering the internals of multi-timbral operation which would make it an MIDI only implementation. Something that would be perfectly fine with me!
I think, even just four part multitimbrality would be better than nothing. It would at least bring something different to the current market. Even if it's only four voices and each engine is modeled after the AS-1.
The more challenging exercise lies with crossbar routing for the various FX processors (do you add four engines? 1 mod + 1 delay per part a la the AS-1? 2 global reverbs?), and handling the inheritance of program or split-/layer-specific settings to four parts. That said: I think that the AS-1 could be a good model, using the Prophet-6 (or OB-6!) voice cards and a bit of trickery on the FX side of things.
Or a brand-new Evolver voice card :)
-
The risk of too much menu diving.
The UI side of an multi-timbral synthesizer will obviously be challenging. However, I was only considering the internals of multi-timbral operation which would make it an MIDI only implementation. Something that would be perfectly fine with me!
I think, even just four part multitimbrality would be better than nothing. It would at least bring something different to the current market. Even if it's only four voices and each engine is modeled after the AS-1.
The more challenging exercise lies with crossbar routing for the various FX processors (do you add four engines? 1 mod + 1 delay per part a la the AS-1? 2 global reverbs?), and handling the inheritance of program or split-/layer-specific settings to four parts. That said: I think that the AS-1 could be a good model, using the Prophet-6 (or OB-6!) voice cards and a bit of trickery on the FX side of things.
Or a brand-new Evolver voice card :)
I’d probably have one effect per separate engine in the “Pro-4” otherwise it would get messy.
-
I’d probably have one effect per separate engine in the “Pro-4” otherwise it would get messy.
Yeah, that's been a bit of a topic of debate for the Rev2: specifically, in the form of complaints that one can only use one effect per split/layer, etc.
Frankly, for many, the effects in the AS-1 are enough.
And, as a point of reference, the Korg Prologue allows one to route one or both parts to each effect (Mod or Delay/Reverb), or to turn off each effect globally.