The Official Sequential/Oberheim Forum
SEQUENTIAL/DSI => Prophet => Prophet Rev2 => Topic started by: roberth909 on January 05, 2019, 06:04:15 PM
-
You know, I tried to like you, I even tried to love you, I guess, but it just isn’t working out. I feel like we need to go our separate ways. It’s not you, it’s me. No, actually it is you. You are too cold, artificial, cheap, plastic, I need someone with more warmth, heart, and emotion. I’m considering your cousin Prophet 6, I think he might have more of what I need. So I hope you find someone who cares for you, I tried, I really did, I just couldn’t make it work out. :-\
-
I sympathise with you. My REV2 is on borrowed time too. As soon as something better comes along (the P6 with only 6 voices ain't enough for me), I'll be getting a divorce also... ;-)
It might very well be Behringer's upcoming UB-Xa.
Good luck with your Prophet 6.
-
I tried too, I really did, but after the honeymoon phase I found out she isn't what I need in this relationship.
All I wanted was an analog bi-timbral controller with aftertouch to play well with my Kronos live.
She looked good from a distance, specs and all, but she just doesn't play well with others. Her MIDI etiquette is off, her filters too honky in a group, and bugs me constantly with little surprises that suck hours away troubleshooting.
Baby, you gots to go!
-
I'm on the fence on this one... I'll give it a little more time, maybe a couple more OS updates to see if the quirks get fixed, but I'm leaning over the fence towards parting ways right now. Trust is very important in a relationship.
-
It might very well be Behringer's upcoming UB-Xa.
The UB-Xa is definitely on my watch list, but it could be mid 2020 yet before it actually drops.
Questions for you regarding your Matrix 6 keyboard:
- How does it allocate the voices for the split? Can you have 2 voices for the left and 4 for the right?
- Can the left be on channel 2 and the right on channel 3?
- When you call up a bi-timbral patch, can the keyboard itself be on (global) channel 1 to receive the program change commands, but the actual timbres be on channel 2 and 3 as in the above example? Thx.
-
Since I use my Oberheim Matrix-6 solely as a MIDI keyboard controller for my OB6 Module (in order to get a 5 octaves keyboard), I wouldn't know about that. And since I don't have the user manual handy, I don't remember how the split mode works. Sorry.
All I remember is that it's a real pain in the ass to program, even to simply change a single parameter on it ! I really, really hate it. That's why it's relegated to serve only as a MIDI controller.
-
Since I use my Oberheim Matrix-6 solely as a MIDI keyboard controller for my OB6 Module (in order to get a 5 octaves keyboard), I wouldn't know about that. And since I don't have the user manual handy, I don't remember how the split mode works. Sorry.
All I remember is that it's a real pain in the ass to program, even to simply change a single parameter on it ! I really, really hate it. That's why it's relegated to serve only as a MIDI controller.
If you've got an iPad, there's a controller template for the Matrix1000 for TBMS, which should work with Matrix6 as well. Apparently the matrix routing doesn't work with M6, but other than that it should work. I used this back when I had the Matrix1000, which made it into an actual programmable synth instead of just a preset-machine.
http://www.thiburce.com/TBStuff/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=278&p=1075&hilit=matrix1000&sid=bbf3f124e1d4b7418885ddd944b23159#p1075
-
I tried, I really did, I just couldn’t make it work out. :-\
I hear ya man, I really do. I think the Rev2 has its own sound which isn't nearly as vintage as something like a Prophet 6. If your looking for the instant warm and fuzzies a p6 should get you there without trouble.
I happen to love the Rev2 and P08 sound as its own thing. It can be cold, chalky, shrill or any number of other terms people use to describe it but one thing I will say is that its pretty true to its sound in demos. This sound is what drew me to it in the first place as it just had something in the mids that I loved in every example I heard. It takes a deeper amount of fine tuning and sculpting to get to its sweet spots while the p6 which should churn out greatness with ease.
There are other fish in the sea ma dude, sucks you gave it a shot but had to come to this realization in the end but its for the best.
I just feel like sharing my appreciation for what rev2/p08 specifically have to offer sound wise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46FWEOEGHMo&
- This entire album. Mmm. I'm sure Mark could slay on a p6 but I wouldn't change a thing in the sound design of any of these tracks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbWrEL07vUI
- Another exceptional example of what I consider the "Modern" prophet sound. I think that modern prophet character is what makes this track with its almost sterile and steady detuning. Its not an organic VCO drift, but something unique to itself.
And I have just another example of some random patching I was doing showing an almost hollow digital side that can be coaxed from the Rev2 that I don't think gets showcased all that much. - https://clyp.it/sjnxrglh - just random patching and playing like I said, but hopefully it shows some potential for an area of sound design to explore that isn't immediately obvious.
-
I was in it for the envelopes.
YOU KNEW WHAT THIS WAS.
Nah but seriously, the drop off on the 4 pole filter cutoff and resonance and the lack of beefy low end or a per voice gain boost makes this a tricky synth for some folks to gel with.
-
Nah but seriously, the drop off on the 4 pole filter cutoff and resonance and the lack of beefy low end or a per voice gain boost makes this a tricky synth for some folks to gel with.
This! And I'm not a fan of the attack and decay curves either.
You can at least steer away from the Curtis character by using 2 pole mode, FX distortion set high with low tone, slight filter FM, and using waveshaping with osc mix set fully to OSC1. A bass sound will get its own split and be in unison, but there goes any 80s left hand action for octaves.
Ironically for a DSI instrument, the lackluster MIDI implementation was the straw that broke the camel's back.
-
I'm by no means an expert with the rev2 but I know u can effect the envelope from linear to exponential with modulation settings and the 3rd envelope
I personally think the rev 2 has a lot going for it and its a synth with a lot of bang for the bucks you just have to dig in with ur patch creation tricks
Saying that I would like certain items added with a new os
For instance slew rate for lfos etc check feature requests
-
Yep, the midi implementation is the deal breaker for me too. Kept thinking "it'll be just fine once they fix it". I didn't think it would take very long, but now I wonder if it'll ever get there. It's a shame for a synth with so much potential to be handicapped by poor MIDI implementation. Sorry to sound like a broken record here, but I will keep whining about this.
-
What is it about the midi implementation that's bothering you? Just so I know I haven't ran into that problem yet
-
The envelope curves you can rather easily change to have other curves (exponential upward/downward)... just route an envelope to it's own decay parameter... positive modulation like this makes the curve more snappy, negative modulation makes it the other way around.
One reason you do not get "beefy" may be because the VCA envelope lowers the output too much... the REV2 is more than capable of doing beefy and loud basses (unless of course you measure all bass to the character of a MOOG)... I often use negative modulation feedback to the VCA envelope because this allow for more of the transient in the bass sound, and also the body of it, to keep it's volume high... in short, the feedback makes the volume stay high longer, and then gradually but quicker and quicker fall down to zero... it actually works pretty nice.
It's true that you have to work a little more to get at some timbres, in contrast to an OB6 or P6 or the like... if one want quick and instant gratification then the P6 and OB6 is probably the better buy... but if you want the flexibility and depth of the REV2, you just have to accept that you will need to learn how to tweak your synth to get those sounds.
I'm sure everyone can agree, that the Curtis chips are a bit limited... no doubt... everything is "on chip" making little possibility to put something "in between" in it's signal path... thus; no independent OSC levels, no pre filter drive etc. etc... but instead you get a much cheaper synth because it's not as costly to manufacture.
During my soundbank creation process over the last 7 months, I certainly bumped into it's disadvantages, it's shortcomings etc... even it's "character" began to bore me a bit because i can hear it in every patch I did... but that's how it is with all synths... they have a certain character, and that's just the way it is... if I had been working on a MOOG ONE for seven months, I'm sure I would have felt the same way too.
REV2 is by no means a bad synth... it has just as many advantages as non-advantages as any other synth out there... just because it's more "thin" does not make it bad... it actually make it suit other purposes better... it may blend well with other more bass heavy machines for example. In my opinion, the REV2 is very well suited to making sound FX, pads and bell sounds, all which do not start to alias in the highs as many digital synths often do.. I'd probably turn to something else for stuff like basses when it needs to get REALLY low and vintage sounding.
If you only wanted ONE synth, i can understand why you would look at something else... but if you collect several synthesizers, and want machines that compliment each other, then I think REV2 is a fantastic bet at a 16 voice analog DCO synth with a hell of a lot of deep features you will not find in anything else... and if you cannot get a nice sound out of it, it's either because you specifically do not like the REV2 character, or because you might want to dig deeper with the synthesis engine and learn it's secrets... and if that takes too long time... get a P6 instead :)
-
The Rev2 is great on features, and it's core sound can compliment a synth arsenal for those who collect synths. I'm not a collector, and am in the process of streamlining my rig.
However, I'm a gigging musician, not so much into recording. I got a Rev2 for more keyboard real estate for my main driver which is a Kronos. The 2nd tier keyboard needs to have a beefiness and color to make up for the Kronos virtual analog engines, which are no slackers. The 2nd tier also needs to be a 61 key controller for 2 MIDI channels, preferably with aftertouch, and respond to program changes for each song. This rules out any other Sequential board except perhaps the X, which I entertained upgrading to until experiencing underwhelming MIDI capabilities on the Rev2.
It's a shame, really, because I really want to use it live, but it only fills 75% of my needs. I've got a Mio4 on the way as a hopeful workaround for the MIDI issues, but I'll probably have to downgrade to a previous firmware version, because I can't have layer B muted upon receiving an external program change command.
Too bad the Moog One is too big to gig regularly, but it's not fully implemented in the MIDI department either.
I'm hoping the UB-Xa will check all the boxes and be my #2 for my Kronos.
-
I agree with you Razmo that the REV2 is certainly not a bad synth. Far from it. It's just a synth with the later-Curtis-chips overcast, as you wrote.
To be truthful, if my Behringer DeepMind 12 would have been a real 2 oscillators per voice synth with 12 voices available, I would probably never have bought a REV2. Because the DM12 offers pretty much everything that I'm looking for in a polysynth, including such things as programmable envelopes curves without having to sacrifice a mod slot in the mod matrix, and a unified LFO mode, as well as an independent per voice mode like on the REV2. And it does sound really great.
(yeah I know I can get 2 osc per voice on a DM12, but it cuts the polyphony in half, making it a 6 voice synth. I already got a superb 6 voice synth: the OB6).
The announced Behringer UB-Xa (OB-Xa clone) should be around in late 2019 (the main PCB design is already done). So Sequential should already be working on something to counter that, because if it's as good as the DM12 sound wise, it should sell like hotcakes.
-
The Rev2 is great on features, and it's core sound can compliment a synth arsenal for those who collect synths. I'm not a collector, and am in the process of streamlining my rig.
However, I'm a gigging musician, not so much into recording. I got a Rev2 for more keyboard real estate for my main driver which is a Kronos. The 2nd tier keyboard needs to have a beefiness and color to make up for the Kronos virtual analog engines, which are no slackers. The 2nd tier also needs to be a 61 key controller for 2 MIDI channels, preferably with aftertouch, and respond to program changes for each song. This rules out any other Sequential board except perhaps the X, which I entertained upgrading to until experiencing underwhelming MIDI capabilities on the Rev2.
It's a shame, really, because I really want to use it live, but it only fills 75% of my needs. I've got a Mio4 on the way as a hopeful workaround for the MIDI issues, but I'll probably have to downgrade to a previous firmware version, because I can't have layer B muted upon receiving an external program change command.
Too bad the Moog One is too big to gig regularly, but it's not fully implemented in the MIDI department either.
I'm hoping the UB-Xa will check all the boxes and be my #2 for my Kronos.
Have you send a support ticket about the B layer stopping on receiving a program change? If that is a bug, they need to put it on their bug list... They always say that you should contact support... It is not enough just writing in here about it...
-
What is it about the midi implementation that's bothering you? Just so I know I haven't ran into that problem yet
Mostly just the occurring bugs etc, and with each new OS where one is fixed, another is introduced. I'm exaggerating, but I suppose I've got tired of updating to a new OS, just to run into a newer bug I can't live with, downgrading back, trying the next OS, downgrading back... One update (1.1.4.4?) caused every NRPN to be off by a 100-something parameter numbers, never quite understood it, but I was not able to edit it with my iPad then. 1.1.4.5 sorted that one at least, so I'm staying on that until the rest gets fixed or I part with it.
I'll probably have to mention limited parameter control range as well, not a huge drawback except for when it comes to the FILTER, which really should've been 14-bit, imo. I just don't understand why not? If someone would like to automate the filter directly, of live tweaking via midi controller, and have really smooth, minute changes, it would be useful. Or if you'd like to record the midi of your performance in the studio, with live tweaks of the filter parameter, then it wouldn't be as smooth on playback as it was when you recorded it, as it apparently has a higher internal bitrate than the midi. Of course there is the alternate path going via the mod matrix, but then you're limited in range, not being able to control the whole range of the filter, if you want it real smooth. And you'd have the extra hassle of the setup, occupying a mod slot and having to use an external midi controller or something else to sweep the filter. Why not just add a second parameter number for the other 7 bits, or why not 14-bit to begin with? The filter is just so important. I only know one possible drawback with this, that Razmo would mention if I don't ;) and that is patch saving. It wouldn't save/recall the full 14 bits of the parameter value, but that really doesn't matter to me. And there could be a switch, disable 14-bit, for those who absolutely wouldn't want greater, smoother midi control of the filter.
So you're limited to setting up something which is not as "hands-on", and is more limited in use, and requires external equipment. Than if the filter was just 14-bit midi compatible, and you could record the live tweaks and then play it back with the same result as when you played it.
-
Yes maxter your comments are fair enuff I 2would love 14bit control of the filter
-
Regarding bugs... at least Sequential is listening in on the reports. I do not think there are any bug free software in any synthesizer, and those that are found should of course be fixed. This i where Sequential sometimes lack proper dedication in my opinion, especially when a device is reaching it's end of development... that is why it's crucial, that if you find any bugs, write about them to support, and notice if they are put on the bug list... if they do, they usually fix them...
Personally I feel that by each new beta, the REV2 gets a little bit more stable... yes, a bug or two (new) creeps in sometimes, but if people write support about them, they usually fix them in the next OS... you need to have patience enough to let a product mature, and if you find any bugs, REPORT THEM! ... otherwise they might just slip over into the final OS at some point.
Therefore I cannot stress enough: WRITE SUPPORT!!! ... writing in the forum is not enough, and DSI has said it countless of times.... it's cool that it's written in here so that others can check to see if they also can reproduce the bug, and also because it makes Sequential more aware the more people report the same bug.
When it starts to get annoying is when Sequential start their "less visibility bug" statements and "Expected behavior"... these things usually happen in the end times of OS development (at least that is my experience)... so bombard them with bug reports while the product is still young, if you want it to mature to be bug-free (as much as possible... there will always be bugs... my problem is when they KNOW of bugs, but do not fix them).
Sound character and design issues cannot be fixed, but software issues can... and should be fixed.
Regarding REV2 on this matter I must say that I have not run into anything critical yet (and I've written an editor for it, so I've been thru most of the MIDI specs)... MIDI seems to work fine for what I use it for, and I am normaly rather demanding when it comes to the MIDI protocol...
-
...you need to have patience enough to let a product mature...
That's a totally new approach for me, which is probably the reason for my whining. I'm not really used to that. Dang, how did synthesizer companies manage back when? :o
I just feel like I've been waiting for the synth I thought I bought for some time now. It was kind of a WTF moment when I got it, of course my unit hadn't been updated at all by then, but anyway. Like wow, how did they release it like this? I imagine quite a few potential customers turning it down after trying it out in the store. It was quite a turn-off for me, and I haven't touched it for some time now. But yeah, I'm still holding on for now, hoping it'll materialize in the near future.
-
...you need to have patience enough to let a product mature...
That's a totally new approach for me, which is probably the reason for my whining. I'm not really used to that. Dang, how did synthesizer companies manage back when? :o
I just feel like I've been waiting for the synth I thought I bought for some time now. It was kind of a WTF moment when I got it, of course my unit hadn't been updated at all by then, but anyway. Like wow, how did they release it like this? I imagine quite a few potential customers turning it down after trying it out in the store. It was quite a turn-off for me, and I haven't touched it for some time now. But yeah, I'm still holding on for now, hoping it'll materialize in the near future.
It's a bit ambivalent for me as well... but with synths this complex in software, it would take a lot of testing before release, which may be the problem so many bugs are found to begin with...
So I'm not saying what I am to make you feel that "this is right"... probably rather "that is how it is ... with Sequential products" ;) ... there will almost always be bug fixes starting right after a release... I've seen it countless times by now...
The ideal situation would be that they test it a lot more before release, but I'm not sure how possible that is with a small company like Sequential... it's probably cheaper to handle the bugs when the complaints start raining in ;)... But I can imagine that the code is cumbersome, and that all cases cannot possibly be found before a release... people get more and more demanding wanting deep engines and loads of features... it makes them more complicated to make, and thus more bugs will thrive...
I personally do not mind bugs... but I mind if they do not fix the ones they KNOW about... that's my oldest grudge with Sequential dating all the way back to the infamous Evolver MIDI bugs...
-
To Razmo who wrote: « I do not believe that there is a bug-free synthesizer out there... »
The Ensoniq SQ-80, which offers a pretty sophisticated software, is 100% bug free. The Korg DW8000, which is not as powerful, also has a bug free software. And probably many other synths from that era.
Mostly because back in those days, programmers had no choice to do their job right the first time before commiting to mask ROM.
And it’s pretty ironic that the REV2 would have MIDI bugs, from the company of the founder of MIDI...
-
It might very well be Behringer's upcoming UB-Xa.
Why? I mean, putting their questionable business practices aside, their products have a low quality feel that matches their price tag. Nor is any CEM era OB considered by most connoisseurs as the pinnacle Oberheim sound.
P.S. I still don't get what's so special to you about the DM12 sound. It's supposedly a Juno 60 knockoff, but so what...
-
Have you send a support ticket about the B layer stopping on receiving a program change? If that is a bug, they need to put it on their bug list... They always say that you should contact support... It is not enough just writing in here about it...
Yeppers, support was contacted and a ticket opened, then closed without real acknowledgment of the issue or desire to fix it. This was the same kind or response I got a few months ago when I opened a ticket concerning no aftertouch on layer B. After providing MIDI-OX data to prove it wasn't just misconfiguration on my end, they then closed the ticket stating the Rev2 is "working as intended."
psionic11
Jan 12, 2019, 3:01 PM (3 days ago)
to Sequential
Argghh!!
Rev2 not playing well with MIDI. It will receive program changes from the Kronos only if the Kronos is on the same MIDI channel as the Rev2. But there is no separate global or control channel on the Rev2 as in other synths...
<edited for brevity>
The Rev2 will play its own two timbres, as well as trigger the corresponding MIDI channels on the Kronos, which has bass timbres on ch2 and leads on ch3. But when the split program is selected via external program change, layer B's volume is set to 0.....!
Mark Kono (Sequential Technical Support) via zendesk.com
Jan 14, 2019, 9:58 PM (22 hours ago)
Your request (#46706) has been deemed solved. To reopen, reply to this email or follow the link below:
http://support.sequential.com/hc/requests/46706
Mark Kono, Jan 14, 18:58 PST:
Hi Andrew-
As the Rev2 stands, it is a complete instrument unto itself. To use it as a dedicated MIDI controller would lack aspects most people need since it's architecture is not malleable in terms of changing MIDI data. You can check the MIDI implementation at the end of the manual for all information regarding this. I do not have any personal suggestions for an instrument that can not only play all the sounds you are looking for as well as act as a complete MIDI controller. I hope you find the instrument you are looking for that covers all this territory but still continue to use the Rev2.
-
It might very well be Behringer's upcoming UB-Xa.
Why? I mean, putting their questionable business practices aside, their products have a low quality feel that matches their price tag. Nor is any CEM era OB considered by most connoisseurs as the pinnacle Oberheim sound.
P.S. I still don't get what's so special to you about the DM12 sound. It's supposedly a Juno 60 knockoff, but so what...
Behringer has a range of products with quality ranging from cheapo to excellent. The FCB, BCR, and BCF are excellent deals and highly used and sought after products for a great price. They have MIDI implementation that far surpasses many manufacturer's products, present company included.
-- multiple, assignable MIDI DIN ports with selectable MIDI/USB merge/thru
-- 7 and 14-bit MIDI (absolute and relative), CC, NRPN, SYSEX, note, clock, MMC
-- on the FCB, up to 4 distinct commands can be sent on multiple channels
-- assignable channel and polyphonic aftertouch per MIDI channel and/or note (BCR/BCF)
Not bad for under $200 each.
And the M32 range, the XR series, the Boog D, and the DeepMind have great reputations and deliver much functionality and quality for the price. More telling is that the first community sample pack available for the Prophet X is the Behringer Neutron pack. No need to hate on Behringer when plenty Sequential users love some of their products. Personally, I'm expecting the UB-Xa to deliver in spades, complete with aftertouch, bi-timbrality, and decent MIDI implementation.
-
PS. Who said the OB-Xa is the pinnacle of the OB sound, and why even bring that up? And why are you denigrating what someone else finds appealing in a synth?
No one did as it's a CEM era OB, which is why I'm asking what the excitement is all about, especially since I've seen Alan denounce plenty of CEM products. Obviously it depends on what CEM filter is in question, but the usual gist is that aside from stability, synths sounded better prior to their implementation. E.G. Prophet 5 rev1&2, SEM Oberheims, etc.
I've found that 99% of the time you get what you pay for. People want cheap products instead of saving their pennies for quality over quantity. Besides, it's not easy to condone what B are up to and you might want to look up their actions towards Dave, so why should they get sympathy here?
People are certainly allowed to like what they like. That said, this entire thread is "denigrating", thus who cares if I ask what the fuss is about a cheap knock off (the DM12) of a cheap synth from yesteryear? It just happens to be one of their less egregious recent efforts.
-
PS. Who said the OB-Xa is the pinnacle of the OB sound, and why even bring that up? And why are you denigrating what someone else finds appealing in a synth?
No one did as it's a CEM era OB, which is why I'm asking what the excitement is all about, especially since I've seen Alan denounce plenty of CEM products. Obviously it depends on what CEM filter is in question, but the usual gist is that aside from stability, synths sounded better prior to their implementation. E.G. Prophet 5 rev1&2, SEM Oberheims, etc.
I've found that 99% of the time you get what you pay for. People want cheap products instead of saving their pennies for quality over quantity. Besides, it's not easy to condone what B are up to and you might want to look up their actions towards Dave, so why should they get sympathy here?
People are allowed to like what they like, but this entire thread is "denigrating", thus who cares if I ask what the fuss is about a cheap knock off of a cheap synth from yesteryear?
I've got a Boog D for less than $350 which sounds awesome, pretty much identical to the $3500(!) Moog Model D. On the other hand, my $8000 Moog One is not fully blossomed yet, and while it thrills in some areas, it leaves much to be desired in others. In some ways, the $350 Boog D is more immediately satisfying than the $8k One; it's simple, direct, small, and great sounding, serving as a reference point when programming on the One. So I don't think it's a fair or even generally correct assumption to always assume price equals quality, in the synth world or beyond. Generally, quality comes with a price, but there are definitely bargains to be found, and expensive shams to avoid.
Further, I don't condone what Uli did when he tried to legally claim defamation merely on the opinions of some posters here at DSI. I find it distasteful and of poor judgment. But I don't really care that much for politics anyway. Bottomline is if a product sounds good, it sounds good, no matter the sins of the father.
Lastly, this thread is not denigrating the Rev2. Complaining and a bit demanding, perhaps, but certainly not hostile. I personally like most of the Rev2, as I'm sure many of the other divorcees in this thread did at one point. It's certain features that we're complaining about, not the whole synth.
-
You're questioning my opinion and I'm questioning Alan's. No harm in either.
-
To Razmo who wrote: « I do not believe that there is a bug-free synthesizer out there... »
The Ensoniq SQ-80, which offers a pretty sophisticated software, is 100% bug free. The Korg DW8000, which is not as powerful, also has a bug free software. And probably many other synths from that era.
Mostly because back in those days, programmers had no choice to do their job right the first time before commiting to mask ROM.
And it’s pretty ironic that the REV2 would have MIDI bugs, from the company of the founder of MIDI...
Yes... but these old synths are also a lot less complex softwarewise... you have to consider that todays synths are VERY deep, and the more complicated and deep, the greater the chance for bugs... and also the time needed to test the synth... even if Dave is the inventor of MIDI, he cannot be perfect... he'll make bugs as everyone else does.
Sure they can test it more, and eliminate more bugs... but to cover ALL combinations of uses of such an imense and deep unit is just impossible... personaly I'm ok with that... as long as they do swift fixes, and fix ALL the bugs they know of... i can't stand their "Low Visibility Bug" comments people are given... the way they chose between the bugs to fix on Tempest made me seriously angry really... they left in some serious MIDI DIN bugs on Tempest that they knew very well about, but decided not to fix them... also minor screen bugs got neglected... I think that's a shame... such fine synths and drummachine, and then they do not polish their gems... but I feel they have gotten better at fixing bugs lately... it's been a while since I've seen such coments as "low visibility bug" or "expected behavior" as answers to problems they do not want to fix.
-
Funny... today I received a message from someone who wonders why my new soundbank has layer B button lit up, but no sound seems to come from that layer.... all my programs with layer B on, has an essential sound in them, so it seems that there must be a bug with Layer B still... in fact when I recall back, Layer B seems to often be the problem in bug reports, and have been for a long time... I advised the guy to make sure he was not changing programs using MIDI, and to write me back about what he finds... we need to inform Sequential about this B problem... have anyone here sent a bug report to support about this problem, and had it confirmed and put on the bug list?
-
no independent OSC levels,...
Small off topic question: in the manual I see "osc 1 level" as a modulation destination (contrary to the P08 and its descendants), can't you use that one as a workaround to give you independant osc levels?
On topic: if all goes well, this year, I will probably add one mono and one poly to my (very small) synth collection. And although I love my mopho-tetra, and I would certainly appreciate it with a higher voice count, I have serious doubts about upgrading to rev2. It is a very capable synth, but as stated here before, it has a very specific sound, and although you can program around some of that, doing this takes up time I do not always have. It would be very nice to have something were I can dial up my basic patch, and think "this sounds great, 5 minutes of tweaking and I'm there". Still, the combination of 5-oct keyboard, 16-voice, bitimbral, modulation capabilities and the price tag always put it back on the list...
-
no independent OSC levels,...
Small off topic question: in the manual I see "osc 1 level" as a modulation destination (contrary to the P08 and its descendants), can't you use that one as a workaround to give you independant osc levels?
On topic: if all goes well, this year, I will probably add one mono and one poly to my (very small) synth collection. And although I love my mopho-tetra, and I would certainly appreciate it with a higher voice count, I have serious doubts about upgrading to rev2. It is a very capable synth, but as stated here before, it has a very specific sound, and although you can program around some of that, doing this takes up time I do not always have. It would be very nice to have something were I can dial up my basic patch, and think "this sounds great, 5 minutes of tweaking and I'm there". Still, the combination of 5-oct keyboard, 16-voice, bitimbral, modulation capabilities and the price tag always put it back on the list...
Yes you could... but that particular part in the manual is an error... it's not available as a modulation destination unfortunately :)
The reason is the way the Curtis chip is made... if you look at it's datasheet, you will see that it has a CV input that is named "OSC Balance"... it's hardwired like that inside the chip... there is no way to have independant control of the oscillator levels....
You can simulate it though for one of theoscillators, by switching the other to "off", and then use the OSC Mix parameter as a volume control, but that really do not make much sense as you could always do the leveling in the Amp section instead then... there is a bit of difference to it though; it's pre filter volume control if you did this... but still... what would the use be...
and about your upgrade; then do not get a REV2... get something like a P6 or OB6 instead maybe, it's more "instant gratification" ... REV2 is a deep synth, and you need to spend time with it... when I do a program from scratch, i usually sit with a program for between one to three hours... now I'm a perfectionist though, and are not creating the more straight forward synth programs, so it could probably be done faster on a REV2... but you have to work longer to obtain what you want with the REV2
In many cases i think the problem is that those who want this "instant gratification" want it because they want the REV2 to sound like a vintage synthesizer... they want it to play another character than it inherits ... that WILL require you to spend more time on the sound... if people simply tried to FORGET about making it sound like something else, and started to just make sounds that fall natural to the REV2, then maybe that is the difference between those who like the REV2, and those who do not... I have NO intention of my REV2 to sound like a MOOG or a VINTAGE synth... I just use the options at hand, and tweak until i get a sound that is not something I've heard on another synth, but something I just like... I'm not comparing this sound to another instrument because then I will constantly feel irritated it does not sound it... you could reverse the comparison could you not? ... I do a program sound that i really much like on the REV2, and then try to make another ynth sound like it, constantly being irritated it will NOT sound like my REV2... just a thought :)
Sure... some people just do not cope with certain types of character in a synth... I bet there are people who do not like MOOGs character as well (I recall Jarre said he much prefered the sound of the ARP filter for example)... people have different taste in synth character, and that is fine with me :) ... i like them all, and want them all to have as much variety as possible... others want only a certain small amount that fit their taste...
-
To Razmo who wrote: « I do not believe that there is a bug-free synthesizer out there... »
The Ensoniq SQ-80, which offers a pretty sophisticated software, is 100% bug free. The Korg DW8000, which is not as powerful, also has a bug free software. And probably many other synths from that era.
Mostly because back in those days, programmers had no choice to do their job right the first time before commiting to mask ROM.
And it’s pretty ironic that the REV2 would have MIDI bugs, from the company of the founder of MIDI...
Yes... but these old synths are also a lot less complex softwarewise... you have to consider that todays synths are VERY deep, and the more complicated and deep, the greater the chance for bugs... and also the time needed to test the synth... even if Dave is the inventor of MIDI, he cannot be perfect... he'll make bugs as everyone else does.
Sure they can test it more, and eliminate more bugs... but to cover ALL combinations of uses of such an imense and deep unit is just impossible... personaly I'm ok with that... as long as they do swift fixes, and fix ALL the bugs they know of... i can't stand their "Low Visibility Bug" comments people are given... the way they chose between the bugs to fix on Tempest made me seriously angry really... they left in some serious MIDI DIN bugs on Tempest that they knew very well about, but decided not to fix them... also minor screen bugs got neglected... I think that's a shame... such fine synths and drummachine, and then they do not polish their gems... but I feel they have gotten better at fixing bugs lately... it's been a while since I've seen such coments as "low visibility bug" or "expected behavior" as answers to problems they do not want to fix.
I agree that more complexity makes for a harder process to create correct software. However, a lot of the basic functions of MIDI have not really changed over the years. These basic functions should be well understood by every synth manufacturer and be implemented without any problems. MIDI is one of the few widely used protocols out there still on version 1.0 (although there have been enhancements, of course).
The complexity kicks in with things like our Rev2 Layer B. Is a Rev 2 two synthesizers in one physical package? If so, what is a stacked program exactly? I can imagine this has lead to some of the issues some people currently have with the Rev2.
As for testing: yes, a full test is always best. It is also expensive and time consuming. Covering all possible combinations is next to impossible, given the sheer amount of settings. This can be mitigated by carving up the entire implementation in independent units that can be tested separately. A single unit can be tested well, and if the interaction between the software units is well understood, a full system can be relatively bug free.
-
To Razmo who wrote: « I do not believe that there is a bug-free synthesizer out there... »
The Ensoniq SQ-80, which offers a pretty sophisticated software, is 100% bug free. The Korg DW8000, which is not as powerful, also has a bug free software. And probably many other synths from that era.
Mostly because back in those days, programmers had no choice to do their job right the first time before commiting to mask ROM.
And it’s pretty ironic that the REV2 would have MIDI bugs, from the company of the founder of MIDI...
Yes... but these old synths are also a lot less complex softwarewise... you have to consider that todays synths are VERY deep, and the more complicated and deep, the greater the chance for bugs... and also the time needed to test the synth... even if Dave is the inventor of MIDI, he cannot be perfect... he'll make bugs as everyone else does.
Sure they can test it more, and eliminate more bugs... but to cover ALL combinations of uses of such an imense and deep unit is just impossible... personaly I'm ok with that... as long as they do swift fixes, and fix ALL the bugs they know of... i can't stand their "Low Visibility Bug" comments people are given... the way they chose between the bugs to fix on Tempest made me seriously angry really... they left in some serious MIDI DIN bugs on Tempest that they knew very well about, but decided not to fix them... also minor screen bugs got neglected... I think that's a shame... such fine synths and drummachine, and then they do not polish their gems... but I feel they have gotten better at fixing bugs lately... it's been a while since I've seen such coments as "low visibility bug" or "expected behavior" as answers to problems they do not want to fix.
I agree that more complexity makes for a harder process to create correct software. However, a lot of the basic functions of MIDI have not really changed over the years. These basic functions should be well understood by every synth manufacturer and be implemented without any problems. MIDI is one of the few widely used protocols out there still on version 1.0 (although there have been enhancements, of course).
The complexity kicks in with things like our Rev2 Layer B. Is a Rev 2 two synthesizers in one physical package? If so, what is a stacked program exactly? I can imagine this has lead to some of the issues some people currently have with the Rev2.
As for testing: yes, a full test is always best. It is also expensive and time consuming. Covering all possible combinations is next to impossible, given the sheer amount of settings. This can be mitigated by carving up the entire implementation in independent units that can be tested separately. A single unit can be tested well, and if the interaction between the software units is well understood, a full system can be relatively bug free.
Yes... it is essentially two hardwired synths in one box, which is probably why it complicates matter... I personaly feel that there should never had been a Multi Mode on these dual-timbral synths that Dave keep on designing... the way that you handle multimode is in a compromising fashion that may very well lead to bugs... a program is essentially "two programs" bundled up in one program, so as soon as you start to use it in multimode, things become compromised... just browsing separate single layers is fiddly... i personally never use my synths in this Multimode because of this.
I have also contacted support on numerous times about bugs that seem to be related to layer B... I do not know why they have so many problems with the B layer, since it's basically identical to Layer A which seem to work fine... but I believe it has to do with the fact that without stack/split mode on, it is layer A that basically govern anything with both synths... without layer B on, it's voices is generally added as a "slave module" to layer A for achieving the illusion of more polyphony... I bet some of the problem is related to bugs with switching between these two modes of operation. But it's guesswork of course...
-
I must say the Rev2 generally seems a little "rushed", for whatever reason. But I suppose the price in a way makes up for it. I mean, if it had been more thoroughly tested and developed for x amount of man-hours, that would of course have affected the price. As someone said you get what you pay for, and so I do have that in mind, but I still think this is THE prophet for me. I loved the Prophet '08 but in some ways I felt a bit limited. The Rev2 addressed just about all of those limitations and added an FX engine, and somehow managed to produce all this at a lower cost than the P'08 originally was.
I'm just eager, more than anything, and/or lacking "patience for it to mature". I'm not sure. It's a different relationship compared to other synths I've fallen in love with, where you soon knew what you got. You knew the limitations and the possibilities, and could love it for what it is. That's why I'm kind of "on hold" to get fully into the Rev2. Will I get as excited when the "final" OS drops, as I would've got if it had been onboard when I first bought it? Will I be able to trust it then? I appreciate CSI updating it, but are there mixed signals coming through? Will they put the effort needed in to make it realize its full potential?
-
OT concerning Behringers adventures, with all the moral concerns aside... What's interesting for me is their original products, like Deepmind and Neutron, although they're not my "type", they're still building off of a concept rather than just copying. And they seem to have hit their own spot that no other synths currently occupy.
The copies are what they are, though with some added functionality, and it's hard to complain about a Model D being 300€ or an Odyssey 400€ (with apparently even a metal chassis). The "bad quality" rep will be hard to get rid of, but they really seem to have been on top of it in the productions of the last few years. Today, I actually wouldn't think twice about a new Behringer product quality.
But back to the point, what is interesting to me is what their original productions will be like in a couple of years... When they've copied all the classics, learned a LOT from it, and can implement whatever they want from wherever into whatever concept of their liking. They seem to have made good choices on what features to add to the classics for starters, without making it something else, so this does seem very promising to me. I'd rather sport one of their own creations, rather than a copy. Especially if it's beyond the copies and still cheap.
-
I was watching a video review of the new Minilogue XD (https://youtu.be/hrWE--vk0DE?t=388) and they happened to bring up the DeepMind. It seems that others find the build quality to be chintzy as well. The DM12 I tried had a big gap between B and middle C. The overall build made perfect sense why it's priced the way it is. The sound from what I remember was decent, but nothing to write home about. Again, I find it less egregious than the other clones as at least some effort was put into making it its own thing. As for the UB-Xa, it's hard to imagine them bringing it in at a price to appease the masses as well as having a high build quality.
As for synths released around the time of the REV2, the Peak is actually the one that has turned me around the most. The recent update is a prime example of how to maintain a product post-launch. Kudos to Novation.
-
There's not a single complex synth running on software that people aren't complaining about online because of limitations or issues. Check the Arturia forum for complaints about Matrixbrute bugs, check Elektronauts for complaints about Overbridge, check Moog forums for complaints about Moog One MIDI issues, etc. Something like a OB6 likely has fewer issues but is also much simpler. If I wanted a simple synth to play huge thick chords on I'd go for an OB6. But few analog synths can touch the Rev2's modulation capabilities. Hell, most digital ones don't. And that's what draws me to it. And I like the way it leaves room for thicker-sounding instruments in the mix.
-
I miss the good old days when you bought a polysynth and it was working as expected right from the start.
-
There's not a single complex synth running on software that people aren't complaining about online because of limitations or issues. Check the Arturia forum for complaints about Matrixbrute bugs, check Elektronauts for complaints about Overbridge, check Moog forums for complaints about Moog One MIDI issues, etc. Something like a OB6 likely has fewer issues but is also much simpler. If I wanted a simple synth to play huge thick chords on I'd go for an OB6. But few analog synths can touch the Rev2's modulation capabilities. Hell, most digital ones don't. And that's what draws me to it. And I like the way it leaves room for thicker-sounding instruments in the mix.
You've basically summed up what I was going to say :)
Yes it's annoying to go through the process of installing the latest OS only to find it's caused another problem but that's the way software is these days. I've worked as a software developer for 30 or so years now and the software I work on suffers just the same because everything is so much more complex now than it was 30 years ago. It's the same with synths in my opinion.
We are all probably a bit guilty of looking back to the good old days of the classic vintage synths through rose tinted glasses and we tend to just remember the good experiences and any problems or faults with these old machines are now seen as 'character' by a lot of people ;D
-
I feel a bit sad to see people leaving this machine but I guess you have expectations that are not fulfilled by the rev2. While there are definitely issues with the REV2 I still like its sound and there is no match for modulation capabilities on the market. Now a nylon guitare doesn’t have the same sound and usage as a folk guitare. Metal and nylon sound very different which doesn’t mean one is better than the other. The REV2 has its sound and is a nice instrument with a lot of features. Having tried the Novation peak I can swear the rev sounds analog, may be the modern way as some said. For example the peak which relies on digital oscillators (and analog filter) had some noise (?!) while the rev has none. This I think qualifies one aspect of what modern analog is. Of course you may still play the rev with a guitar amplifier and a spring reverb and record with a mic if you think it is more authentic this way :D
This being said there are a lot of issues which hopefully will be fixed and may be sometime we can even use it remotely on Ableton which is very hard at the moment. Sometime I wish the rev firmware became opensource...
-
I'm pretty satisfied with my Prophet Rev2, sometimes I just initialize a patch and play it like this without touching anything but his keyboard... Love his sound ;D
-
I'll apologize for being harsh on the Rev2 (again). I know my criticisms may come across as hard, but they're honest without any sugar coating. I'll take any synth with its quirks for what it is, I've just become a bit restless with it I suppose. I know I'm picky, I just don't want to dive in too deep and start relying on it too much yet, in case of something unexpected suddenly clogging the wheels, so to speak. Not that I think it would, but there's this uncertainty. But more than anything I'm "afraid" (for lack of a better word) it won't reach its true (not full) potential in the end. I really hope it does, because it is THE analog polysynth for me. There's not even a competitor to it in my case and opinion.
Actually I haven't had the Layer B bank problem yet. I had problems early on with sysex transfers and updating OS, but I soon tried an older computer with an older cheap midi interface (really slow). It may be good to have an old computer around for this purpose, in case one should acquire an older synth/sampler, as I've noted that they can't handle the speed of midi sysex transfers on newer computers and/or interfaces. Some even require sending "junk midi" between each sysex msg.
-
But more than anything I'm "afraid" (for lack of a better word) it won't reach its true (not full) potential in the end. I really hope it does, because it is THE analog polysynth for me. There's not even a competitor to it in my case and opinion.
DSI has a habit (c.f. Tempest) of not doing this consistently. I have a strong feeling the Rev2 will get the same sort of attention. Maybe if there's a resurgence in popularity they'll give it a v.2 like they did with the Tempest, fix a bunch of problems, add a few features, leave many ancient bugs untouched to the frustration of many, and then call it a day, but still sell it.
It may be good to have an old computer around for this purpose, in case one should acquire an older synth/sampler, as I've noted that they can't handle the speed of midi sysex transfers on newer computers and/or interfaces.
On the mac, Sysex Librarian and Elektron C6 both allow you to adjust the send speed of SysEx over USB to remote devices. Both of these work a treat on older gear and fussy systems like the Rev2, no need to keep an older system around. I keep the SysEx speed to my Rev2 over USB at 50% and have zero problems with reliability in this fashion, so long as nothing is trying to send clock, midi, or bank changes on the same interface while I'm doing the transfer.
-
I'll apologize for being harsh on the Rev2 (again). I know my criticisms may come across as hard, but they're honest without any sugar coating. I'll take any synth with its quirks for what it is, I've just become a bit restless with it I suppose. I know I'm picky, I just don't want to dive in too deep and start relying on it too much yet, in case of something unexpected suddenly clogging the wheels, so to speak. Not that I think it would, but there's this uncertainty. But more than anything I'm "afraid" (for lack of a better word) it won't reach its true (not full) potential in the end. I really hope it does, because it is THE analog polysynth for me. There's not even a competitor to it in my case and opinion.
Actually I haven't had the Layer B bank problem yet. I had problems early on with sysex transfers and updating OS, but I soon tried an older computer with an older cheap midi interface (really slow). It may be good to have an old computer around for this purpose, in case one should acquire an older synth/sampler, as I've noted that they can't handle the speed of midi sysex transfers on newer computers and/or interfaces. Some even require sending "junk midi" between each sysex msg.
There's no need to apologise for expressing opinions :) It's only natural to have strong feelings when we buy something that we really want to be great and certain things spoil the experience for you.
-
For posting bugs on this forum there is little change you get attention or resolved. WRITE TO SUPPORT. Over time post on the forum gets so scrambled by off topic comments that the the key point gets lost. It's much more effective to track by a support ticket. All the bugs I reported were fixed. (sooner or very later). Many of those were very easy to find, some harder. Some major, some minor issue. If more users could try to reproduce an issue and confirm that would certainly help to make a case.
What I really would wish for was a list from Sequential that shows open bugs + feature requests and their status, confirmed, analyzing, will be fixed, will not be fixed, won't be implemented, cannot fix etc... A shared google drive excel file would certainly do and put in link in a sticky. But like other companies bug-list are not y public. Every product has bugs. Intel processor have thousands of issues even used in production. The MIDI implementation in the manual is absolutely not reflecting the actual implementation and that has been getting worse from model to model in the past years.
Please write to support for any issue before the REV2 goes out of focus for fixing bugs, hopefully, there is still time...
You definitely will feel better about being heard.
P.S: What 8/16 voice poly with such excellent keyboard (though I own a module, due to space limits, but may buy the keys sometime) can you get for a similar price ? A copy of 70/80's analog circuits without any improvements for stability, quality and features, no patch storage, no open Sysex midi implementation/patch send/receive, no full CC/NRPN, no open MIDI implementation, not multi-timbral ?
P.S: Interested in knowing what MIDI bugs you are experiencing ?
-
As a relatively-new Rev2 owner, I find this thread really interesting as it saves me the time of encountering the instrument's shortcomings in real-time. Seeing workarounds for some of them is also helpful (e.g. Razmo's tip on envelope self-modulation).
So far, the thread hasn't made me regret the purchase. I bought it based on the features list and the sounds I heard in YouTube demonstrations. Those were all true to what comes out if it IRL.
FWIW, I will be using it exclusively in recording (though probably not often with MIDI beyond beat clock to get the Arpeggiator synched), and hardly ever in combination with other synths. The only only other hardware synths we own are a D-50 and a Monotron.
Patch editing on the Rev2 is definitely fussier than I had hoped, but still way easier than the D-50 ever was.
I think it helps for me that since music is a sideline at this point in my life, I'm happy starting with a sound and building a composition around it, where working musicians more often need to be more goal-oriented.
As I'm now 49, for the sake of my eyes I do wish the LCD display were bigger (like the one on the D-50 which I bought when I was 22).
-
As a relatively-new Rev2 owner, I find this thread really interesting as it saves me the time of encountering the instrument's shortcomings in real-time. Seeing workarounds for some of them is also helpful (e.g. Razmo's tip on envelope self-modulation).
So far, the thread hasn't made me regret the purchase. I bought it based on the features list and the sounds I heard in YouTube demonstrations. Those were all true to what comes out if it IRL.
FWIW, I will be using it exclusively in recording (though probably not often with MIDI beyond beat clock to get the Arpeggiator synched), and hardly ever in combination with other synths. The only only other hardware synths we own are a D-50 and a Monotron.
Patch editing on the Rev2 is definitely fussier than I had hoped, but still way easier than the D-50 ever was.
I think it helps for me that since music is a sideline at this point in my life, I'm happy starting with a sound and building a composition around it, where working musicians more often need to be more goal-oriented.
As I'm now 49, for the sake of my eyes I do wish the LCD display were bigger (like the one on the D-50 which I bought when I was 22).
:) I'm 57 and totally agree about the screen - I'd like one the same size as the one on my MOXF but I know that won't happen ;D
-
As a relatively-new Rev2 owner, I find this thread really interesting as it saves me the time of encountering the instrument's shortcomings in real-time. Seeing workarounds for some of them is also helpful (e.g. Razmo's tip on envelope self-modulation).
So far, the thread hasn't made me regret the purchase. I bought it based on the features list and the sounds I heard in YouTube demonstrations. Those were all true to what comes out if it IRL.
FWIW, I will be using it exclusively in recording (though probably not often with MIDI beyond beat clock to get the Arpeggiator synched), and hardly ever in combination with other synths. The only only other hardware synths we own are a D-50 and a Monotron.
Patch editing on the Rev2 is definitely fussier than I had hoped, but still way easier than the D-50 ever was.
I think it helps for me that since music is a sideline at this point in my life, I'm happy starting with a sound and building a composition around it, where working musicians more often need to be more goal-oriented.
As I'm now 49, for the sake of my eyes I do wish the LCD display were bigger (like the one on the D-50 which I bought when I was 22).
:) I'm 57 and totally agree about the screen - I'd like one the same size as the one on my MOXF but I know that won't happen ;D
I meant to say MODX and not MOXF :)
-
I really like the Rev2, very versatile and fullfeatured, yet easy to use. But there have been a bit more bug issues that I hoped for. Actually, I went from VSTs to hardware synths partly because I believed bugs barely existed in hardware synths. But I believe most issues are sorted out now.
I recently bought a P6 and it seems like I spend less time to make a patch on this than the Rev2. P6 has less features and everything can be tweaked directly on the front panel. I am unfortunately a victim of Hick's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hick%27s_law) so in many cases I prefer some limitations. Otherwise I sometimes end up thinking "What if I could make this patch even better by doing some more modulation or adding a second layer..". Having a sample pack of thousands of drum samples is my worst nightmare :D
-
I really like the Rev2, very versatile and fullfeatured, yet easy to use. But there have been a bit more bug issues that I hoped for. Actually, I went from VSTs to hardware synths partly because I believed bugs barely existed in hardware synths. But I believe most issues are sorted out now.
I recently bought a P6 and it seems like I spend less time to make a patch on this than the Rev2. P6 has less features and everything can be tweaked directly on the front panel. I am unfortunately a victim of Hick's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hick%27s_law) so in many cases I prefer some limitations. Otherwise I sometimes end up thinking "What if I could make this patch even better by doing some more modulation or adding a second layer..". Having a sample pack of thousands of drum samples is my worst nightmare :D
I hadn’t heard of Hick’s Law until now, but I’m totally suffering from it too. I’m fact, just contemplating which poly to buy has already consumed so much time!
-
You know, I tried to like you, I even tried to love you, I guess, but it just isn’t working out. I feel like we need to go our separate ways. It’s not you, it’s me. No, actually it is you. You are too cold, artificial, cheap, plastic, I need someone with more warmth, heart, and emotion. I’m considering your cousin Prophet 6, I think he might have more of what I need. So I hope you find someone who cares for you, I tried, I really did, I just couldn’t make it work out. :-\
Oh, that’s how this thread started. ::)
Anyway, as for programming patches, I resigned ages ago to working with the existing patches. C’mon, there’s like 5,000 of them. Made by boffins who live for this kind of masochism. I’ve also bought Analog Audio 1’s sound banks. Sheesh, Just ad a tweak here and there and declare yourself a genius. ;)
If it still sounds too (whatever he said?) just copy and layer A+B with some slop, or get BIGGER MONITORS.
I’ve been using my 16 voice with the OB-6 for almost a year and neither does what the other can as well as the other does it. And I just ordered the P6 after weeks on trial, not to replace the Rev2, but for the same reason the OB-6 compliments the Rev2.
(Oh, and because yeh, controlling layer B with midi while playing the A layer by hand is just...midi issues)
Anyway, get the P6 and keep the Rev2. Get all three. When the Rev2 vexes your mood, go get touchy twiddly with the P6. Touch them both at the same time :-[
-
I like this cat ^^^
-
Interesting thread, I've wanted to break up with my Rev2 many times & if the resale value hadn't dropped so hard, it'd probably already be gone but inevitably, I'm always glad it stayed. Part of it is that it's my most expensive synth ever so I want to crush hard on the sound. But it just doesn't touch me the same way that my 106 or Monomachine does.
I also demand a lot of multi-functionality from my gear. Only the Juno is allowed to do just one thing. The Rev2 serves as my main controller as well as being basically 2 analog synths but as DSI point out, it's not meant to be a controller & is pretty limited in that regard.
That said, it's so incredibly useful in my studio. It's like I wanted the romance of my life & this thing is basically my mom: annoys me at times but I'd miss her terribly when she's gone! I've had the OB6, Pro2 & Tempest come through here in hopes of moving her on but Rev2 is the only one that's stayed.
During my soundbank creation process over the last 7 months, I certainly bumped into it's disadvantages, it's shortcomings etc... even it's "character" began to bore me a bit because i can hear it in every patch I did... but that's how it is with all synths... they have a certain character, and that's just the way it is... if I had been working on a MOOG ONE for seven months, I'm sure I would have felt the same way too.
If you only wanted ONE synth, i can understand why you would look at something else... but if you collect several synthesizers, and want machines that compliment each other, then I think REV2 is a fantastic bet at a 16 voice analog DCO synth with a hell of a lot of deep features you will not find in anything else... and if you cannot get a nice sound out of it, it's either because you specifically do not like the REV2 character, or because you might want to dig deeper with the synthesis engine and learn it's secrets... and if that takes too long time... get a P6 instead :)
Which other analog synth would you recommend over the Rev2 if one could only have ONE synth? Obviously a digital synty or workstation could take care of a lot of needs but as far as analog?
Interesting that you say it has a certain character all its own ... it's one I have a hard time discerning. One of its charms is that when I need it to emulate another synth's patch, ranging from Juno 106 to OB6 to Casio XW-G1, it usually gets about 80-90% of the way there. Mind, that 20% is a huge difference but I tried to recreate my favorite Rev2 patch on the OB6 & couldn't even come close ... of the two, the OB6 sounded better & could "touch" me but it's 2019 & I for one don't always want a warm vintage tone on everything.
To be truthful, if my Behringer DeepMind 12 would have been a real 2 oscillators per voice synth with 12 voices available, I would probably never have bought a REV2. Because the DM12 offers pretty much everything that I'm looking for in a polysynth, including such things as programmable envelopes curves without having to sacrifice a mod slot in the mod matrix, and a unified LFO mode, as well as an independent per voice mode like on the REV2. And it does sound really great.
The announced Behringer UB-Xa (OB-Xa clone) should be around in late 2019 (the main PCB design is already done). So Sequential should already be working on something to counter that, because if it's as good as the DM12 sound wise, it should sell like hotcakes.
I had the DM12 & sold it to get the Rev2. I liked it a lot ... still the best unison sound I've heard & loved how the mod matrix is laid out all at once. I got rid in part because I was worried its resale value would plummet (it did) but one thing I noticed is how much the FX really goosed the sound. That's fine, FX are great but why oh why does it NOT HAVE EXT INS?!?!?!?!? I'd pick up the module in a flash if it did.
When I bought my rev2, the guy demo'd the sounds & I'd constantly ask him to take off the FX & there'd hardly be any difference!
Do you think the UB-XA can stand in for the OB6? I did love that sound & if I could get it at a fraction of the cost ...
Yes... it is essentially two hardwired synths in one box, which is probably why it complicates matter... I personaly feel that there should never had been a Multi Mode on these dual-timbral synths that Dave keep on designing... the way that you handle multimode is in a compromising fashion that may very well lead to bugs... a program is essentially "two programs" bundled up in one program, so as soon as you start to use it in multimode, things become compromised... just browsing separate single layers is fiddly... i personally never use my synths in this Multimode because of this.
Multi mode is one of my favorite things about the Rev2, though its implementation is a bit wonky & there's a bug that makes the fx go all ringmod-y at times. I'll often sequence 2 A & B layers, turn off local control & use Rev2 as controller for another box. As you say, it's essentially 2 synths in a box so it's nice to have access to them as such. Could have been implemented a lot better though ... a split with each side on its own midi channel would have been nice & a better patch UI. DSI seem to be trying to fit square pegs into round holes with its current way of organizing. Dave needs to maybe pay more attention to user interface, I think. Knobs are nice but as machines get more powerful, users need similarly capable methods of harnessing that power & organizing their work & I think DSI are stuck in a 20th century paradigm.
Have to say, I haven't had that many problems with MIDI but I do have a hard time getting it to work together smoothly with the Monomachine & with the Deluge, sometimes Program Change will trigger & sometimes not but not sure if that's the Rev2 or Deluge (also new, with bugs). I don't do anything too complicated though
-
Refering to the last post above:
Well... that is exactly what you should NOT be doing with a synth... trying to make it sound like another synth because you will almost always be disappointed... more with some synths than others of course... I did not get to like my REV2 by playing the factory presets, nor trying to emulate something else... i came to like it by being creative, and doing unique sounds on the REV2 that it do best... And I can assure you, that if I try to replicate any of these sounds I've done on something else, I'll be disappointed as well.... If you want Juno... get Juno! ... if you want MOOG, get MOOG!... I cannot say it any other way really.
If I had to choose ONE synth right now only, I'd probably take the PEAK... It is flexible, has a very nice tone to it, and will be much more complex than any analog polysynth... but with that said, I've got sounds I've made for the REV2 that I would miss if I only had the PEAK... that is why I tend to get more than one synth... synths that have a uniqueness to them, and that complement each other. But it is a hard choice because almost all synths will have something unique in one way or the other.
Currently I've got the REV2... it gives me the most voices in any synth I've got, and it's the only one that has layering capabilities, greatly expanding it's sonic territory... coupled with it's FX engine i can get the most beautiful pads, strings and choral sounds out of it, and also plucked and bowed sounds when tamed right... it's down to the polyphony and FX engine paired with the dual timbrality that no other synths of mine has... I learned that I cannot live without it.
I also have the PEAK... it's really clear in it's tone, really good for tight and bright tones... gorgeous wavetable tones and FM sounds, and has the best god damned reverb built into any synth I've heard.. it's basses is booming, but tight, but it can still sound old and dusty... it's just a really good and very flexible synth... I learned that I cannot live without it.
Then there is my TEMPEST... it has a tone remnicent of the REV2, but still it's different... more raw, has more presence, and it's sequencer is in a league of it's own... it has several flaws, but it's a love/hate relationship... I use it mainly for creating six sequenced tracks that I use as backing (Berlin School type of sequences), or as a drummachine... it is essential for me as a "metronome" when running and playing other synth lines along with it live.
And today i received the DeepMind12D ... I've not used it much, but I believe it will also be "it's own"... it has the most advanced FX engine of them all, which means it will probably be used for other types of sounds focusing more on FX...
I have more synths on on my mind for the future... Prophet 12 module, OB-6 module, P6 module, Evolver Desktop, Hypersynth Xenophone, Waldorf Pulse 2... etc. etc...
the point is; I do not want to part with my synths anymore just because they do not do everything because I've tried so many times selling my synths, only to miss them and buying them again... sometimes multiple times... it's not worth it... yes, you will become tired of them after a while, just like kids get tired of their toys, but if you put them away for a while, the toys always gets interesting again at some point.... so that is my advice... unless you need the money selling a synth, then don't... store it away, and get whatever it is that you want and play with it... at some point in time you will want to swap them again... suddenly you see something on the net, discussing one of your older synths, and you want to mess around with it again...
And about REV2 multimode: I do not see it as two synths even if it's built halfway like that... i see it as ONE because that is the way a preset is built... if it was to be true dual timbral, it would have had two edit buffers, one for each synth, and a program would only have had ONE layer in it... I see the halfway multimode as sort of a "bonus feature" ... just the way you have to change presets if you use it as two synths make me cringe my toes... very unintuitive... and thus, i only use it as a single synth. So again; if you want true dual timbral, GET true dual timbral somewhere else where it works the way you want it to... In my opinion, Sequential could throw out the multimode on their dual timbral synths, it's useless to me to be honest, when it's not properly done.
Besides... the dual timbrality and multimode is just an additional gimmick... i do believe that the main reason for Sequential to make their synths dual timbral has nothing to do with multitimbrality, it was made for two purposes: 1. Stacked Mode and 2. Split mode... multimode is just a "broken add-on". But do not get me wrong, I LOVE the dual timbrality for the first two reasons... it's a VERY powerful feature for sound design... I often use one layer for building a transient, and the other for the tone itself... very very handy for a lot of sounds actually.
-
To add to what Razmo said, which I wholeheartedly agree with, the Rev2 really should be looked at as its own thing and appreciated in that light.
Personally, my "one synth to rule them all" desert island synth would be a Nord Lead. I have an A1 and it does the bulk of synth duties in my studio - since it's four part true multitimbral and has 26(!) voices with 'free' unison it's an incredibly useful sound tool. It also has a very acceptable FX section per slot. I wouldn't part with my Nord Stage Compact either, but that's mostly used as a piano/organ with a synth back, rather than as a main synth on it's own.
But, the Rev2 has a clear place - first off, it's got a very nice 5 octave keyboard, which I enjoy just for that alone (I can see why Razmo uses it for his main controller) and it leaves my 6-octave Nord Stage compact for more piano-like duties. Second, since each layer is 2 oscillators AND a sub AND a noise generator, that leaves each layer quite a bit more complex than the Nord - I'd have to use 2 slots on the Nord to get the same oscillator configuration. And even compared to something as complex as a Nord Lead 3, the modulation options on the Rev2 are second to none - tons of routing possibilities, that extra envelope, the sequencer... seriously useful stuff there for performance or studio work. It has nearly the same level of control as my Moog subsequent 37! (Excepting the filter drive and independent OSC mix, of course, but of those, only the filter drive is really missed and that's just part of the Rev2's unique sound, really.)
And it's got a sound that's right in the sweet spot between classic Prophet and modern numeric oscillators. I think people unfairly criticize it by listening to it, and it alone, when it's so easy to fit into a mix beautifully.
So, I'm with Razmo - is it a perfect synth, no, none are! Could it be a "desert island" synth? Definitely, though that really depends on what you're looking for. It's certainly deep enough and has enough potential. For me, it offers a very different yet compatible sound to what I get from my Nords. Another voice in the choir, so to speak, with its own timbre and suited for its own parts. Still, the tremendous polyphony, the richness of the oscillators and the very useful slop and other modulatable parameters, combined with the utility of the onboard FX to bring out another side to the sound, make it a compelling synth, especially at it's current price range. I can't see any justification for letting it go, and I seem to continue to find good reasons to keep it.
Other synths that I find incredibly useful: Elektron Digitone, Moog Minitaur. The Rev2 is a very nice complement to these as well, and they both punch well above their price. Heck, the three together could be had for a song and you'd have an immense palette of sound design at your fingertips.
-
I'd just like to say... don't break up with the Rev2!! She'll just move on to a better man, and you'll regret breaking up with her... you'll get stuck with a more expensive broad (I mean board) who has fewer skills. Also, after the breakup she'll find herself and get all fit... and her personality will shine... just making you realize you were holding her back all along.
Seriously though, check out this video I uploaded on VCO harmonic jitter (and replicating with Rev2 modulation). This method reduces the pristine quality of upper harmonics to replicate the same sort of high register frequency wash as VCOs. This is one small step to reduce coldness/harshness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Amhl07TVdNM
(more discussion about this in the thread: Question about Fine Tune Modulation, DCOs - https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,3412.0.html (https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,3412.0.html))
And in a few more days, I'm gonna have some more news to share that may make you realize the Rev2 is the one you want to marry.
-
Anyway, as for programming patches, I resigned ages ago to working with the existing patches. C’mon, there’s like 5,000 of them. Made by boffins who live for this kind of masochism. I’ve also bought Analog Audio 1’s sound banks. Sheesh, Just ad a tweak here and there and declare yourself a genius. ;)
I've only had the Rev2 for a couple months and I almost immediately set to making new patches. If I weren't a patch-building boffin, I probably would have become bored with the machine pretty quickly.
To be sure, some of the 512 factory presets are usable, but many seem to be designed only to impress prospective buyers on a sales floor (yes, I know this is the case with other synths too). Other programs seem to be just to show the maximal capabilities of the modulation matrix, and sequencer. Many of the musical presets are so aggressive and thick, there's no room for anything else. Others are just not suited to the kind of music that I make.
Anyway, I started out building some wacky patches to find my way around the parameters. Now, I'm more focused on creating musically-useful ones, that will cooperate with my other instruments and voice.
-
Refering to the last post above:
Well... that is exactly what you should NOT be doing with a synth... trying to make it sound like another synth because you will almost always be disappointed... more with some synths than others of course... I did not get to like my REV2 by playing the factory presets, nor trying to emulate something else... i came to like it by being creative, and doing unique sounds on the REV2 that it do best... And I can assure you, that if I try to replicate any of these sounds I've done on something else, I'll be disappointed as well.... If you want Juno... get Juno! ... if you want MOOG, get MOOG!... I cannot say it any other way really.
If I had to choose ONE synth right now only, I'd probably take the PEAK... It is flexible, has a very nice tone to it, and will be much more complex than any analog polysynth... but with that said, I've got sounds I've made for the REV2 that I would miss if I only had the PEAK... that is why I tend to get more than one synth... synths that have a uniqueness to them, and that complement each other. But it is a hard choice because almost all synths will have something unique in one way or the other.
Currently I've got the REV2... it gives me the most voices in any synth I've got, and it's the only one that has layering capabilities, greatly expanding it's sonic territory... coupled with it's FX engine i can get the most beautiful pads, strings and choral sounds out of it, and also plucked and bowed sounds when tamed right... it's down to the polyphony and FX engine paired with the dual timbrality that no other synths of mine has... I learned that I cannot live without it.
I also have the PEAK... it's really clear in it's tone, really good for tight and bright tones... gorgeous wavetable tones and FM sounds, and has the best god damned reverb built into any synth I've heard.. it's basses is booming, but tight, but it can still sound old and dusty... it's just a really good and very flexible synth... I learned that I cannot live without it.
Then there is my TEMPEST... it has a tone remnicent of the REV2, but still it's different... more raw, has more presence, and it's sequencer is in a league of it's own... it has several flaws, but it's a love/hate relationship... I use it mainly for creating six sequenced tracks that I use as backing (Berlin School type of sequences), or as a drummachine... it is essential for me as a "metronome" when running and playing other synth lines along with it live.
And today i received the DeepMind12D ... I've not used it much, but I believe it will also be "it's own"... it has the most advanced FX engine of them all, which means it will probably be used for other types of sounds focusing more on FX...
I have more synths on on my mind for the future... Prophet 12 module, OB-6 module, P6 module, Evolver Desktop, Hypersynth Xenophone, Waldorf Pulse 2... etc. etc...
the point is; I do not want to part with my synths anymore just because they do not do everything because I've tried so many times selling my synths, only to miss them and buying them again... sometimes multiple times... it's not worth it... yes, you will become tired of them after a while, just like kids get tired of their toys, but if you put them away for a while, the toys always gets interesting again at some point.... so that is my advice... unless you need the money selling a synth, then don't... store it away, and get whatever it is that you want and play with it... at some point in time you will want to swap them again... suddenly you see something on the net, discussing one of your older synths, and you want to mess around with it again...
And about REV2 multimode: I do not see it as two synths even if it's built halfway like that... i see it as ONE because that is the way a preset is built... if it was to be true dual timbral, it would have had two edit buffers, one for each synth, and a program would only have had ONE layer in it... I see the halfway multimode as sort of a "bonus feature" ... just the way you have to change presets if you use it as two synths make me cringe my toes... very unintuitive... and thus, i only use it as a single synth. So again; if you want true dual timbral, GET true dual timbral somewhere else where it works the way you want it to... In my opinion, Sequential could throw out the multimode on their dual timbral synths, it's useless to me to be honest, when it's not properly done.
Besides... the dual timbrality and multimode is just an additional gimmick... i do believe that the main reason for Sequential to make their synths dual timbral has nothing to do with multitimbrality, it was made for two purposes: 1. Stacked Mode and 2. Split mode... multimode is just a "broken add-on". But do not get me wrong, I LOVE the dual timbrality for the first two reasons... it's a VERY powerful feature for sound design... I often use one layer for building a transient, and the other for the tone itself... very very handy for a lot of sounds actually.
No offense, I find your posts very informative & helpful but I'll use my synths the way I want to. :P
For instance, when writing, I like to work with all my gear in real-time vs multi-tracking over audio so if the intro is some Juno lead but I want to switch the Juno over to bass, another synth now needs to carry the intro until I start tracking & I'll often switch over to the Rev2 in cases like this because it's interface is the best I have for making patches. And oftentimes, it will actually win out over whoever it's standing in for when it comes time to record.
Then it also boils down to not all of us can afford to get all the synths we want so choices & compromises have to be made. I couldn't afford to keep both the Rev2 & OB6 (personally, I'm not sure I'd want to even if I could for personal reasons) so trying to port over some of the patches seems logical. You're right of course ... you can never get all the way there & there's bound to be unsatisfaction so choices have to be made.
Like you, I miss every synth I've ever owned, including that Casio XW-G1 even if that thing frustrated me to no end.
As for not seeing Rev2 as 2 synths in a box, you said that! I just repeated it. And again, I'll use it as I choose to. Not sure why you keep telling me how to use it .... different people have different needs. Multimode works fine for me ... in fact, it's probably the feature I use most. Splits are nice when I'm just playing on the keys. Stacks sound great when I'm just sitting there tinkling but in a full mix, I often wind up leaving a layer out as it's too dense in a mix. I'll have to explore your suggestion of using both layers to build one sound vs the common layering of 2 different sounds. Works for me as I find it weird to approach sound design in terms of 2 completely different layers.
-
To add to what Razmo said, which I wholeheartedly agree with, the Rev2 really should be looked at as its own thing and appreciated in that light.
Personally, my "one synth to rule them all" desert island synth would be a Nord Lead. I have an A1 and it does the bulk of synth duties in my studio - since it's four part true multitimbral and has 26(!) voices with 'free' unison it's an incredibly useful sound tool. It also has a very acceptable FX section per slot. I wouldn't part with my Nord Stage Compact either, but that's mostly used as a piano/organ with a synth back, rather than as a main synth on it's own.
But, the Rev2 has a clear place - first off, it's got a very nice 5 octave keyboard, which I enjoy just for that alone (I can see why Razmo uses it for his main controller) and it leaves my 6-octave Nord Stage compact for more piano-like duties. Second, since each layer is 2 oscillators AND a sub AND a noise generator, that leaves each layer quite a bit more complex than the Nord - I'd have to use 2 slots on the Nord to get the same oscillator configuration. And even compared to something as complex as a Nord Lead 3, the modulation options on the Rev2 are second to none - tons of routing possibilities, that extra envelope, the sequencer... seriously useful stuff there for performance or studio work. It has nearly the same level of control as my Moog subsequent 37! (Excepting the filter drive and independent OSC mix, of course, but of those, only the filter drive is really missed and that's just part of the Rev2's unique sound, really.)
And it's got a sound that's right in the sweet spot between classic Prophet and modern numeric oscillators. I think people unfairly criticize it by listening to it, and it alone, when it's so easy to fit into a mix beautifully.
So, I'm with Razmo - is it a perfect synth, no, none are! Could it be a "desert island" synth? Definitely, though that really depends on what you're looking for. It's certainly deep enough and has enough potential. For me, it offers a very different yet compatible sound to what I get from my Nords. Another voice in the choir, so to speak, with its own timbre and suited for its own parts. Still, the tremendous polyphony, the richness of the oscillators and the very useful slop and other modulatable parameters, combined with the utility of the onboard FX to bring out another side to the sound, make it a compelling synth, especially at it's current price range. I can't see any justification for letting it go, and I seem to continue to find good reasons to keep it.
Other synths that I find incredibly useful: Elektron Digitone, Moog Minitaur. The Rev2 is a very nice complement to these as well, and they both punch well above their price. Heck, the three together could be had for a song and you'd have an immense palette of sound design at your fingertips.
Do you think it's fair to say that the Rev2's "own thing" is that it is an incredibly versatile synth that can fit in many places without ever truly taking your breath away? To me, that's its greatest strength but also weakness. It can fit in so well but never stands out. It just sounds like a nice synth. That said, there are some patches I've made that I can't recreate satisfactorily on other synths, digital or analog, which is a large reason it's still here (& I've tried!).
And to be honest, I used to love the Rev2's sound until my friend brought his Buchla over & I was floored at how just the raw oscillators of that thing made my heavily modulate Rev2 sound so .... small.
Seems like a desert island synth would have to be digital, which in my case would be a Montage, even though I don't currently own one. But as far as analog, I can't think of any modern ones that offer as much as Rev2.
-
Refering to the last post above:
Well... that is exactly what you should NOT be doing with a synth... trying to make it sound like another synth because you will almost always be disappointed... more with some synths than others of course... I did not get to like my REV2 by playing the factory presets, nor trying to emulate something else... i came to like it by being creative, and doing unique sounds on the REV2 that it do best... And I can assure you, that if I try to replicate any of these sounds I've done on something else, I'll be disappointed as well.... If you want Juno... get Juno! ... if you want MOOG, get MOOG!... I cannot say it any other way really.
If I had to choose ONE synth right now only, I'd probably take the PEAK... It is flexible, has a very nice tone to it, and will be much more complex than any analog polysynth... but with that said, I've got sounds I've made for the REV2 that I would miss if I only had the PEAK... that is why I tend to get more than one synth... synths that have a uniqueness to them, and that complement each other. But it is a hard choice because almost all synths will have something unique in one way or the other.
Currently I've got the REV2... it gives me the most voices in any synth I've got, and it's the only one that has layering capabilities, greatly expanding it's sonic territory... coupled with it's FX engine i can get the most beautiful pads, strings and choral sounds out of it, and also plucked and bowed sounds when tamed right... it's down to the polyphony and FX engine paired with the dual timbrality that no other synths of mine has... I learned that I cannot live without it.
I also have the PEAK... it's really clear in it's tone, really good for tight and bright tones... gorgeous wavetable tones and FM sounds, and has the best god damned reverb built into any synth I've heard.. it's basses is booming, but tight, but it can still sound old and dusty... it's just a really good and very flexible synth... I learned that I cannot live without it.
Then there is my TEMPEST... it has a tone remnicent of the REV2, but still it's different... more raw, has more presence, and it's sequencer is in a league of it's own... it has several flaws, but it's a love/hate relationship... I use it mainly for creating six sequenced tracks that I use as backing (Berlin School type of sequences), or as a drummachine... it is essential for me as a "metronome" when running and playing other synth lines along with it live.
And today i received the DeepMind12D ... I've not used it much, but I believe it will also be "it's own"... it has the most advanced FX engine of them all, which means it will probably be used for other types of sounds focusing more on FX...
I have more synths on on my mind for the future... Prophet 12 module, OB-6 module, P6 module, Evolver Desktop, Hypersynth Xenophone, Waldorf Pulse 2... etc. etc...
the point is; I do not want to part with my synths anymore just because they do not do everything because I've tried so many times selling my synths, only to miss them and buying them again... sometimes multiple times... it's not worth it... yes, you will become tired of them after a while, just like kids get tired of their toys, but if you put them away for a while, the toys always gets interesting again at some point.... so that is my advice... unless you need the money selling a synth, then don't... store it away, and get whatever it is that you want and play with it... at some point in time you will want to swap them again... suddenly you see something on the net, discussing one of your older synths, and you want to mess around with it again...
And about REV2 multimode: I do not see it as two synths even if it's built halfway like that... i see it as ONE because that is the way a preset is built... if it was to be true dual timbral, it would have had two edit buffers, one for each synth, and a program would only have had ONE layer in it... I see the halfway multimode as sort of a "bonus feature" ... just the way you have to change presets if you use it as two synths make me cringe my toes... very unintuitive... and thus, i only use it as a single synth. So again; if you want true dual timbral, GET true dual timbral somewhere else where it works the way you want it to... In my opinion, Sequential could throw out the multimode on their dual timbral synths, it's useless to me to be honest, when it's not properly done.
Besides... the dual timbrality and multimode is just an additional gimmick... i do believe that the main reason for Sequential to make their synths dual timbral has nothing to do with multitimbrality, it was made for two purposes: 1. Stacked Mode and 2. Split mode... multimode is just a "broken add-on". But do not get me wrong, I LOVE the dual timbrality for the first two reasons... it's a VERY powerful feature for sound design... I often use one layer for building a transient, and the other for the tone itself... very very handy for a lot of sounds actually.
No offense, I find your posts very informative & helpful but I'll use my synths the way I want to. :P
For instance, when writing, I like to work with all my gear in real-time vs multi-tracking over audio so if the intro is some Juno lead but I want to switch the Juno over to bass, another synth now needs to carry the intro until I start tracking & I'll often switch over to the Rev2 in cases like this because it's interface is the best I have for making patches. And oftentimes, it will actually win out over whoever it's standing in for when it comes time to record.
Then it also boils down to not all of us can afford to get all the synths we want so choices & compromises have to be made. I couldn't afford to keep both the Rev2 & OB6 (personally, I'm not sure I'd want to even if I could for personal reasons) so trying to port over some of the patches seems logical. You're right of course ... you can never get all the way there & there's bound to be unsatisfaction so choices have to be made.
Like you, I miss every synth I've ever owned, including that Casio XW-G1 even if that thing frustrated me to no end.
As for not seeing Rev2 as 2 synths in a box, you said that! I just repeated it. And again, I'll use it as I choose to. Not sure why you keep telling me how to use it .... different people have different needs. Multimode works fine for me ... in fact, it's probably the feature I use most. Splits are nice when I'm just playing on the keys. Stacks sound great when I'm just sitting there tinkling but in a full mix, I often wind up leaving a layer out as it's too dense in a mix. I'll have to explore your suggestion of using both layers to build one sound vs the common layering of 2 different sounds. Works for me as I find it weird to approach sound design in terms of 2 completely different layers.
Hmm... I did not intent to sound like I wanted you to use your synth like I do... just trying to explain why I find it to be in vain to try and make a synth be something it's not going to be... If you need more synths to replicate each other then of course you'd have to choose synths that can end up in the same character area...
If you use all your gear simultaneously I can also understand your approach... i do not work this way, I record Audio in a DAW in layers, one by one, so if I need to have more tracks sounding like a REV2, I simply record my REV2 more than once...
I once worked like you do as well... I used a huge mixer, and had every synth connected via MIDI to my MIDI DAW, and thus had the same problems with not being able to reuse any synth in a given project... but even then i never used any of them in multimode simply because of the frustrating case of FX always being global or polyphony running out... it had it's charm, but I eventually learned to accept the tradeoffs of doing Audio recording instead... though sometimes I miss that way of working... that is also why I wrote what I did about REV2 multimode because it would irritate me if I had to work with it like that. If you like working like that, by all means do that :)
And about editing a stacked program with two layers... yes... it will be cumbersome if you edit it from REV2's frontpanel controls because the knobs won't show their values once you change layer... personally I'd not even want to try and create a dual layer combined program with the UI on REV2... that is why I made myself an editor that show all parameters on screen at the same time on my computer... that makes designing dual layer programs a lot easier... and the sounds can get quite a bit more complex... With bell sounds I usually create the striking noise with one layer, and the tone on the other layer... with other sounds I use layer B for adding more FX, and for creating longer more modulated reverbs (the stock reverb in REV2 is not that good) by setting the FX MIX to 100%, and then copying Layer A to B, and giving layer B a longer release time... it creates a fake long ambient reverb this way... there are a lot of good uses for Layer B in stacked mode than simply layering programs together.
-
Do you think the UB-XA can stand in for the OB6? I did love that sound & if I could get it at a fraction of the cost .
Again, they're two different filters. The OB-6 filters are based off the classic 12dB state-variable SEM and are discrete. The UB-XA filters are based off the CEM3320 with 12dB & 24dB modes that come on a chip. Everything on the UB-Xa has been stuck on a single board and it's pretty safe to assume that other cost cutting measures were taken as well. Each voice of the OB-6 has its own board and is built like a tank overall.
If you're asking me, it'd be a poor substitute.
-
To add to what Razmo said, which I wholeheartedly agree with, the Rev2 really should be looked at as its own thing and appreciated in that light.
Personally, my "one synth to rule them all" desert island synth would be a Nord Lead. I have an A1 and it does the bulk of synth duties in my studio - since it's four part true multitimbral and has 26(!) voices with 'free' unison it's an incredibly useful sound tool. It also has a very acceptable FX section per slot. I wouldn't part with my Nord Stage Compact either, but that's mostly used as a piano/organ with a synth back, rather than as a main synth on it's own.
But, the Rev2 has a clear place - first off, it's got a very nice 5 octave keyboard, which I enjoy just for that alone (I can see why Razmo uses it for his main controller) and it leaves my 6-octave Nord Stage compact for more piano-like duties. Second, since each layer is 2 oscillators AND a sub AND a noise generator, that leaves each layer quite a bit more complex than the Nord - I'd have to use 2 slots on the Nord to get the same oscillator configuration. And even compared to something as complex as a Nord Lead 3, the modulation options on the Rev2 are second to none - tons of routing possibilities, that extra envelope, the sequencer... seriously useful stuff there for performance or studio work. It has nearly the same level of control as my Moog subsequent 37! (Excepting the filter drive and independent OSC mix, of course, but of those, only the filter drive is really missed and that's just part of the Rev2's unique sound, really.)
And it's got a sound that's right in the sweet spot between classic Prophet and modern numeric oscillators. I think people unfairly criticize it by listening to it, and it alone, when it's so easy to fit into a mix beautifully.
So, I'm with Razmo - is it a perfect synth, no, none are! Could it be a "desert island" synth? Definitely, though that really depends on what you're looking for. It's certainly deep enough and has enough potential. For me, it offers a very different yet compatible sound to what I get from my Nords. Another voice in the choir, so to speak, with its own timbre and suited for its own parts. Still, the tremendous polyphony, the richness of the oscillators and the very useful slop and other modulatable parameters, combined with the utility of the onboard FX to bring out another side to the sound, make it a compelling synth, especially at it's current price range. I can't see any justification for letting it go, and I seem to continue to find good reasons to keep it.
Other synths that I find incredibly useful: Elektron Digitone, Moog Minitaur. The Rev2 is a very nice complement to these as well, and they both punch well above their price. Heck, the three together could be had for a song and you'd have an immense palette of sound design at your fingertips.
Do you think it's fair to say that the Rev2's "own thing" is that it is an incredibly versatile synth that can fit in many places without ever truly taking your breath away? To me, that's its greatest strength but also weakness. It can fit in so well but never stands out. It just sounds like a nice synth. That said, there are some patches I've made that I can't recreate satisfactorily on other synths, digital or analog, which is a large reason it's still here (& I've tried!).
And to be honest, I used to love the Rev2's sound until my friend brought his Buchla over & I was floored at how just the raw oscillators of that thing made my heavily modulate Rev2 sound so .... small.
Seems like a desert island synth would have to be digital, which in my case would be a Montage, even though I don't currently own one. But as far as analog, I can't think of any modern ones that offer as much as Rev2.
Comparing to a Buchla is not really an option in my opinion... yes, you might find the raw oscillators much beefier, but honestly, you can create things with a REV2 you would not even be able to on a Buchla... if you're just comparing raw oscillator sounds, then yes, then the REV2 might sound sterile, but when you add all those 16 voices, the depth of the engine, and top it with the FX, you can create a lot of things on a REV2 you would not be able to on a Buchla... this is why it to me is not comparable... also it depends on what people like when it comes to sound... some sounds are better when they are cold and sterile, others need to be raw and fat... I for one would definitely not use the REV2 for bass duties, as I like a more dusty, boomy bass sound of VCO's (think MOOG), but if i wanted pristine bell'ish sounds I'd definitely choose a PEAK over the REV2 or a MOOG (digital oscillators that is)... but if I want long dense pads or atmospheres with lots of motion in them, I'd go for the REV2 simply because it delivers the polyphony and the engine to do this.
I will not categorize the REV2 as a "modest synth" in any way... a sound is a sound, and REV2 will do sounds no other synth can do, sounds that may just need that little bit more coldness, sterileness whatever... it may be modest to you, but not for others. I see synths as a tool... and I'm not looking for a universal tool that can do everything... if you do not have the ability to get different tools, then I understand why you would call the REV2 "modest" because then you would want it to be able to do a lot broader sonic palette of sounds than it's probably capable of...maybe this is why some see it that way?
in other words; a synths worth is the sum of all it's parts... and the users preference. :)
-
And about editing a stacked program with two layers... yes... it will be cumbersome if you edit it from REV2's frontpanel controls because the knobs won't show their values once you change layer... personally I'd not even want to try and create a dual layer combined program with the UI on REV2... that is why I made myself an editor that show all parameters on screen at the same time on my computer... that makes designing dual layer programs a lot easier... and the sounds can get quite a bit more complex... With bell sounds I usually create the striking noise with one layer, and the tone on the other layer... with other sounds I use layer B for adding more FX, and for creating longer more modulated reverbs (the stock reverb in REV2 is not that good) by setting the FX MIX to 100%, and then copying Layer A to B, and giving layer B a longer release time... it creates a fake long ambient reverb this way... there are a lot of good uses for Layer B in stacked mode than simply layering programs together.
Having an editor program is key if you want to take advantage of the depth of the Rev2. Since Soundtower has updated the Rev2 editor, it is an amazing tool now... I highly recommend it.
I agree with the approach to Layer B. In my custom patches, there is almost no program I've developed where I use just Layer A. They are all using layer B in some fashion or another. Of course the most common perception of using layer B is to have a true bi-timbral layered sound where each layer has significantly different tone. But that's just one use.
Using layer B as an effect wet layer like Razmo describes is one great way to use it (with modulation sources controlling amp env amount to dynamically bring in the mix). I do this often, using foot pedal, breath control, or key velocity to bring in effects.
The other way to look at Layer B is just an extension of layer A, where both layers have virtually identical oscillator, filter and envelope settings, but instead of having just two oscillators with a sub, you now have 4 fully controllable oscillators and two subs to work with.
I've found that I often want a sub oscillator, but don't want it to be a square wave (sub is square by default), and I don't want it tied to Oscillator 1 in terms of frequency. So I'll instead use layer B just to extend the oscillator palette, and set one of the Layer B oscillators one octave down, and then control wave type (I use triangle often, saw, or tri/saw) Also, I like my sub oscillator to be more stable, while my other oscillators have some more movement / detuning. Flubby bass can quickly ruin a patch... By using this method, you can keep your sub stable and shape it as you like, and still have control over three more oscillators. If you're making bass patches, I feel like this is an absolute must. By using a sawtooth for sub, you can get huge, rippling bass tone, but still have clarity/stability. And then just use detuning/motion on the upper oscillators.
For patches where I don't intend a multi-timbral layered sound, my patch creation method usually consists of blocking out sound quickly on layer A, then copying it to layer B, and turning on stack... then proceeding to build out the patch, with a full palette of six oscillators.
Also, setting pan mode to fixed and DC offsetting "extended patches" like this to -32 left and +32 right results in an absolutely huge stereo image, where you have two oscillators and a sub running on each L/R channel... This gives you a stereo architecture that is similar to the Poly Evolver (my other favorite board)... though not exactly the same.
-
This is one of the more interesting threads around here, as it goes down many rabbit trails! ;) I don't mean that in a bad way, if I did I'd be as guilty as anyone or more.
To each his own, but I'll agree that the multi-mode isn't the Rev2s biggest strength, which doesn't bother me though, and don't think it's intended to be. Neither do I use both layers that often anyway, I find using 2-3 OSCs more than enough in most cases. And I only have the 8-voice version, so I'd really be compromising long release times otherwise. I actually haven't found a big enough reason to upgrade to 16 yet. Which is also great about the Rev2, for those on a budget, and still having the possibility of upgrading later on. But I think it's great that the multi-mode possibility is there, should the need arrive, and making for more ways for different folks to use it whichever way they want.
I, too, like to have as much as I can plugged in and played live simultaneously, thus being able to tweak sounds on each synth as a piece evolves, not having to go back and record that part all over if I find I'd like to change something just a tad. Keeping as many possibilities open as possible. Multi-mode isn't always that bad or compromising, sometimes to the contrary, it depends on the synth, but I suppose it's mainly digital ones and samplers that have a better implementation of it. Not all have shared global effects, and many have a lot of extra outputs, for routing through external effects as well. I have a Roland JV-2080 and an ASR-10R, both being somewhat versatile in this area. It saves a lot of space, which I don't have a lot of, and even though I don't use the extra outputs that often (the same being true for the Rev2), I love not being restricted to one pair of outputs or one patch per synth, should I need it at some point.
Sure, in a way I'd love to own lots of other synths too, but then again I really don't see the need to, even if I had the space. I've let a few good ones go not because of limited space or budget, but because they can only do so much, and I find it hard to justify keeping a synth or musical equipment just for that "one" sound or area at which they excel. I find myself wanting less and less rather than more actually, as I think I'm/we're in a way spoiled and/or distracted by too many possibilities and too much equipment. Limitations often fuel creativity, while at the same time I want each piece of equipment being as versatile and capable as possible. I think of it as being "economic" in ways other than monetarily. That's where the Rev2 comes in, for me, and then getting the most bang for the buck at the same time doesn't hurt. I know it cannot exactly "replicate" the character of some other synths, but it can probably get close enough for me in most cases, imo. I understand why some would want a P6 and an OB6 to compliment the Rev2, but personally I couldn't justify getting either. The Rev2 has so much more potential in sound design, that I don't see the point. I'm not saying those who do are splitting hairs, but if I were to get one I'd sure feel like I was doing just that. It might not be as "immediate" as those, but for those of us who actually LIKE programming sounds, well...
Though I, at times, have been on the fence about parting ways with the Rev2, I probably never will. I just don't see anything around that could replace it atm, as I'd prefer to have just ONE analog poly-synth.
-
The debate on having many synths I think boils down to what you actually use synthesizers for... some people are practical, and want them solely as tools being able to get the job done... they get a few different ones that compliment each other, and do not see any use in getting more synths, simply because those few synths cover what they need.
Hell... i could make the music I like with just the REV2 if I wanted to... the reason i get more synths is because it's not only creating music that has me interested... I am curious as to what you can obtain be squeezing a synth's potential... i like to design sounds, and i want to have as many options as i can get hold of... and unfortunately that usually means A LOT!
And when you get a lot of synthesizers, you do not have any reason to have a synth being able to cover a lot of ground... in fact you want them to cover just that particular thing they do that is unique, and do it better than any other synth will be able to... sometimes I even like the restrictions... trying to get around limitations, making a synth sound like you would not believe it would be able to... it's just a simple fascination of synths and synthesis in general i suppose. Synthesis nerdism...
-
The differences between filter types is always going to be present if trying to emulate other synthesizers... ie: a 24db Moog Ladder has a specific sound and character that is unique. This is one of the reasons why I like the design of the MatrixBrute and Moog One (along with some other recent synths) that have included several filter types that can be routed in serial or parallel. This was one of the main features I was hoping for in the "Rev3 Mockup" thread:
https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,3015.msg32644.html (https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,3015.msg32644.html)
If we had the same basic architecture of the Rev2, but with multiple (2-3) filter options (Moog Ladder Style, OB Style State Variable, Current Curtis Filter), along with some other minor improvements, it would potentially allow "one board to rule them all".
-
(Moog Ladder Style, OB Style State Variable, Current Curtis Filter)
Thing is, the Pro2 filter structure is already more desirable than that. It's not like Sequential is unaware that an eight-sixteen voice 2 VCO/2 wavetable beast with both SEM and SSM-based filters, a deep mod matrix, and multiple layers would rule Mordor. We can talk about this till we're blue in the face, the problem is the pricing and what the market is currently looking like.
-
(Moog Ladder Style, OB Style State Variable, Current Curtis Filter)
Thing is, the Pro2 filter structure is already more desirable than that. It's not like Sequential is unaware that an eight-sixteen voice 2 VCO/2 wavetable beast with both SEM and SSM-based filters, a deep mod matrix, and multiple layers would rule Mordor. We can talk about this till we're blue in the face, the problem is the pricing and what the market is currently looking like.
A little blue face never hurts... besides, if we're governed by idioms, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, right? ;)
I think there's a good pocket in the $2800-$3500 range for a new flagship analog poly synth that borrows some inspiration from new Moog One advancements and improves upon Sequential's existing Rev2 platform... (ie: multiple filters, UI improvements, mod matrix and sequencer improvements, etc). Still would be less than half the price of a One. And DSI/Seq have a long history of successful synths in that ~$3k range.
-
I know I said I would be getting rid of my Rev2, but I haven't yet. My main use is for its analog nature and cover band songs. I have a Kronos for most of the variety of sounds, but for those songs where I wanted beef, I decided to get a polyphonic analog. It needed to be bi-timbral, with aftertouch, and portable. The Rev2 is perfect in filling those needs.
I've overcome its multimode shortcomings by getting a Mio4 MIDI router.
But like the previous post where the Rev2 OSCs were wimpy and sterile compared to the Buchla, I'm in a similar case where I can hear the Rev2 falling short in both OSC and filter territory compared to my One, Minitaur, and Boog D. I've even gotten my Kronos much beefier now with more time tweaking.
Early synthesizers were attempting to emulate acoustic instruments, as well as explore totally new sonic creations. For me, my poly analog needs to emulate sounds of the recent past, while still being creative enough to satisfy the synthesist in me. The Rev2 is 85-90% there.... it's just my main use scenarios make bare the harsher Curtis sound. Still, I'm inching closer as I program her more.
And +100 on a polyphonic Pro2. Five octaves, bi-timbral, and aftertouch.... take my $$$$
-
I know I said I would be getting rid of my Rev2, but I haven't yet. My main use is for its analog nature and cover band songs. I have a Kronos for most of the variety of sounds, but for those songs where I wanted beef, I decided to get a polyphonic analog. It needed to be bi-timbral, with aftertouch, and portable. The Rev2 is perfect in filling those needs.
I've overcome its multimode shortcomings by getting a Mio4 MIDI router.
But like the previous post where the Rev2 OSCs were wimpy and sterile compared to the Buchla, I'm in a similar case where I can hear the Rev2 falling short in both OSC and filter territory compared to my One, Minitaur, and Boog D. I've even gotten my Kronos much beefier now with more time tweaking.
Early synthesizers were attempting to emulate acoustic instruments, as well as explore totally new sonic creations. For me, my poly analog needs to emulate sounds of the recent past, while still being creative enough to satisfy the synthesist in me. The Rev2 is 85-90% there.... it's just my main use scenarios make bare the harsher Curtis sound. Still, I'm inching closer as I program her more.
And +100 on a polyphonic Pro2. Five octaves, bi-timbral, and aftertouch.... take my $$$$
But as I said earlier... If people get a REV2, in the hopes of making it sound like a MOOG, then you will never be fully satisfied with a REV2, because it never will sound like that... But it will sound like a lot of other things a MOOG never will... And that is what you have to love it for... If you do not, then perhaps the REV2 is not the right choice.
Anyway, if all synths had to sound like a MOOG, then why would there even be that many synthesizers to choose from... We could then do with just a few on the market, all having that same MOOG character... It would be one boring synth world then (though a much cheaper hobby I admit).
At least I am glad I do not constantly compare my synths to other synths, and just create sounds with them based on timbres I think sound good, instead of mimicking other synths. I would get frustrated because I would want to reach 100% in comparison... I recently thought about getting rid of the REV2, because I wanted a simpler setup, and thought I would be happy with just a Quantum and PEAK... But ivquickly realized that even if these two are superb, they could not near the sounds I made for the REV2, and I know that no other synth out there will... REV2, can do a lot, but not all... I just have to get other synths to do those tasks... REV2 is not weak or mediocre, it's just a REV2 doing what it does best.
-
Small update on the status of my REV2.
I know that I also wrote that I would eventually get rid of my Prophet REV2. But it's still here, in my setup, along with the OB6, DM12, and Minimoog D.
It's a love-hate relationship. It's not my favorite synth (it lacks some features that are important to me, and some other things on it really annoy me) but, as Razmo is pointing out, it can also do things the others can't. So, for now, it survives.
-
+100 on a polyphonic Pro2. Five octaves, bi-timbral, and aftertouch.... take my $$$$
I’m with you all the way and my cash is ready.
-
I know I said I would be getting rid of my Rev2, but I haven't yet. My main use is for its analog nature and cover band songs. I have a Kronos for most of the variety of sounds, but for those songs where I wanted beef, I decided to get a polyphonic analog. It needed to be bi-timbral, with aftertouch, and portable. The Rev2 is perfect in filling those needs.
I've overcome its multimode shortcomings by getting a Mio4 MIDI router.
But like the previous post where the Rev2 OSCs were wimpy and sterile compared to the Buchla, I'm in a similar case where I can hear the Rev2 falling short in both OSC and filter territory compared to my One, Minitaur, and Boog D. I've even gotten my Kronos much beefier now with more time tweaking.
Early synthesizers were attempting to emulate acoustic instruments, as well as explore totally new sonic creations. For me, my poly analog needs to emulate sounds of the recent past, while still being creative enough to satisfy the synthesist in me. The Rev2 is 85-90% there.... it's just my main use scenarios make bare the harsher Curtis sound. Still, I'm inching closer as I program her more.
And +100 on a polyphonic Pro2. Five octaves, bi-timbral, and aftertouch.... take my $$$$
But as I said earlier... If people get a REV2, in the hopes of making it sound like a MOOG, then you will never be fully satisfied with a REV2, because it never will sound like that... But it will sound like a lot of other things a MOOG never will... And that is what you have to love it for... If you do not, then perhaps the REV2 is not the right choice.
Anyway, if all synths had to sound like a MOOG, then why would there even be that many synthesizers to choose from... We could then do with just a few on the market, all having that same MOOG character... It would be one boring synth world then (though a much cheaper hobby I admit).
At least I am glad I do not constantly compare my synths to other synths, and just create sounds with them based on timbres I think sound good, instead of mimicking other synths. I would get frustrated because I would want to reach 100% in comparison... I recently thought about getting rid of the REV2, because I wanted a simpler setup, and thought I would be happy with just a Quantum and PEAK... But ivquickly realized that even if these two are superb, they could not near the sounds I made for the REV2, and I know that no other synth out there will... REV2, can do a lot, but not all... I just have to get other synths to do those tasks... REV2 is not weak or mediocre, it's just a REV2 doing what it does best.
I didn't get a Rev2 to cop the Moog sound... that's what my Minitaur and Slim Phatty is for. Besides, the Kronos and even Integra does a fair enough Moog lead saw sound. Lead squares are easy and interchangeable on all platforms imo.
The Rev2 is for my polyphonic analog sound re-creations, specifically for the later Oberheims. My biggest disappointment was the lack of low end and the fuller warmth in the mid range.
The more annoying (or shall I more diplomatically say, the "Curtis filter character") didn't immediately put me off, but it's grown over time. I'm learning methods to downplay that character (FX distortion, 2 pole mode, ENV3 => LFP ENV AMT), and I also have been researching stereo filters to apply to the whole mix (to fatten/thicken/sweeten the Kronos and Integra as well as the Rev2).
I do like the Curtis implementation or character in the Rev2 for certain uses. It has strengths in more "fruity" brassy and stereo soundscapes. I manually play all my sounds and hardly every sequence or multi-track, though I hope to do much more of that non-live recording eventually.
Hopefully Creativespiral's exciting new VCO emulation discoveries will go a long way toward warmth.
-
But as I said earlier... If people get a REV2, in the hopes of making it sound like a MOOG, then you will never be fully satisfied with a REV2, because it never will sound like that... But it will sound like a lot of other things a MOOG never will... And that is what you have to love it for... If you do not, then perhaps the REV2 is not the right choice.
Anyway, if all synths had to sound like a MOOG, then why would there even be that many synthesizers to choose from... We could then do with just a few on the market, all having that same MOOG character... It would be one boring synth world then (though a much cheaper hobby I admit).
At least I am glad I do not constantly compare my synths to other synths, and just create sounds with them based on timbres I think sound good, instead of mimicking other synths. I would get frustrated because I would want to reach 100% in comparison... I recently thought about getting rid of the REV2, because I wanted a simpler setup, and thought I would be happy with just a Quantum and PEAK... But ivquickly realized that even if these two are superb, they could not near the sounds I made for the REV2, and I know that no other synth out there will... REV2, can do a lot, but not all... I just have to get other synths to do those tasks... REV2 is not weak or mediocre, it's just a REV2 doing what it does best.
Perhaps there's a little misunderstanding ... personally, I don't want the Rev2 to sound exactly like a Buchla or a Moog (personally not a huge fan of Moog sound) -- I want it to have that magic spot that my Juno or Monomachine has or the OB6, etc. For me, it just doesn't seem to have it. I don't want a Buchla but when it was here, I didn't compare oscillators ... with no real patching it sounded alive whereas the Rev2 I ran through patch after patch, modulations galore & it still never sounded as "alive" as the Buchla. It's all very personal of course. But if you're a football/soccer fan, I liken it to James Milner, so versatile & can play so many different positions but of course, he's no CRonaldo or Busquets or Van Djik or De Gea who are magical at what they do.
That the Rev2 can reasonably emulate a Juno or OB6 is the reason it's still here. OB6, despite its magic, couldn't emulate the Rev2 even remotely so it got sold.
-
If you use all your gear simultaneously I can also understand your approach... i do not work this way, I record Audio in a DAW in layers, one by one, so if I need to have more tracks sounding like a REV2, I simply record my REV2 more than once...
I once worked like you do as well... I used a huge mixer, and had every synth connected via MIDI to my MIDI DAW, and thus had the same problems with not being able to reuse any synth in a given project... but even then i never used any of them in multimode simply because of the frustrating case of FX always being global or polyphony running out... it had it's charm, but I eventually learned to accept the tradeoffs of doing Audio recording instead... though sometimes I miss that way of working... that is also why I wrote what I did about REV2 multimode because it would irritate me if I had to work with it like that. If you like working like that, by all means do that :)
And about editing a stacked program with two layers... yes... it will be cumbersome if you edit it from REV2's frontpanel controls because the knobs won't show their values once you change layer... personally I'd not even want to try and .......
tone on the other layer... with other sounds I use layer B for adding more FX, and for creating longer more modulated reverbs (the stock reverb in REV2 is not that good) by setting the FX MIX to 100%, and then copying Layer A to B, and giving layer B a longer release time... it creates a fake long ambient reverb this way... there are a lot of good uses for Layer B in stacked mode than simply layering programs together.
I find that my brain hears music differently when I have my "engineer" hat on than my "musician" hat. My process is moving close to how you work once I'm actually "rolling tape". Before then, I stay out of the DAW during writing & pre-production so I need to use most of my gear simultaneously. Probably a throwback from being in a band, where I ask the guys to keep playing the same part so I can work out my part (without the rolled eyes!). Once the song is in a semi-stable place, I'll record a full scratch track from the MIDI & then I work as you do, overdubbing as necessary for sound or performance & inevitably revising & adding parts.
Thanks for the really great tips on more nuanced uses of the B layer. That fake ambient reverb tip sounds ace & I'm really excited to try it out once I get a little breathing room.
The other way to look at Layer B is just an extension of layer A, where both layers have virtually identical oscillator, filter and envelope settings, but instead of having just two oscillators with a sub, you now have 4 fully controllable oscillators and two subs to work with.
I've found that I often want a sub oscillator, but don't want it to be a square wave (sub is square by default), and I don't want it tied to Oscillator 1 in terms of frequency. So I'll instead use layer B just to extend the oscillator palette, and set one of the Layer B oscillators one octave down, and then control wave type (I use triangle often, saw, or tri/saw) Also, I like my sub oscillator to be more stable, while my other oscillators have some more movement / detuning. Flubby bass can quickly ruin a patch... By using this method, you can keep your sub stable and shape it as you like, and still have control over three more oscillators. If you're making bass patches, I feel like this is an absolute must. By using a sawtooth for sub, you can get huge, rippling bass tone, but still have clarity/stability. And then just use detuning/motion on the upper oscillators.
For patches where I don't intend a multi-timbral layered sound, my patch creation method usually consists of blocking out sound quickly on layer A, then copying it to layer B, and turning on stack... then proceeding to build out the patch, with a full palette of six oscillators.
Also, setting pan mode to fixed and DC offsetting "extended patches" like this to -32 left and +32 right results in an absolutely huge stereo image, where you have two oscillators and a sub running on each L/R channel... This gives you a stereo architecture that is similar to the Poly Evolver (my other favorite board)... though not exactly the same.
Wow, these are some really great tips here. Looking forward to playing around with this, though I will try my hand w/ the front panel at first ... I love "playing" music & my gear but computer feels like "work" & kills my vibe a little.
Over the weekend, I was researching Sacred Synthesis' dual layer stereo technique which is similar to yours. What does the DC offsetting accomplish? The patch sounded awesome once I did this but once I got it in the DAW, I muted one of the layers & the both the patch & song sounded better in context of the mix. I think one of the biggest strengths of the Rev2 is how it can fit in the mix, at least for the softer types of music I like to make.
tad. Keeping as many possibilities open as possible. Multi-mode isn't always that bad or compromising, sometimes to the contrary, it depends on the synth, but I suppose it's mainly digital ones and samplers that have a better implementation of it. Not all have shared global effects, and many have a lot of extra outputs, for routing through external effects as well. I have a Roland JV-2080 and an ASR-10R, both being somewhat versatile in this area. It saves a lot of space, which I don't have a lot of, and even though I don't use the extra outputs that often (the same being true for the Rev2), I love not being restricted to one pair of outputs or one patch per synth, should I need it at some point.
Sure, in a way I'd love to own lots of other synths too, but then again I really don't see the need to, even if I had the space. I've let a few good ones go not because of limited space or budget, but because they can only do so much, and I find it hard to justify keeping a synth or musical equipment just for that "one" sound or area at which they excel. I find myself wanting less and less rather than more actually, as I think I'm/we're in a way spoiled and/or distracted by too many possibilities and too much equipment. Limitations often fuel creativity, while at the same time I want each piece of equipment being as versatile and capable as possible. I think of it as being "economic" in ways other than monetarily. That's where the Rev2 comes in, for me, and then getting the most bang for the buck at the same time doesn't hurt. I know it cannot exactly "replicate" the character of some other synths, but it can probably get close enough for me in most cases, imo. I understand why some would want a P6 and an OB6 to compliment the Rev2, but personally I couldn't justify getting either. The Rev2 has so much more potential in sound design, that I don't see the point. I'm not saying those who do are splitting hairs, but if I were to get one I'd sure feel like I was doing just that. It might not be as "immediate" as those, but for those of us who actually LIKE programming sounds, well...
Though I, at times, have been on the fence about parting ways with the Rev2, I probably never will. I just don't see anything around that could replace it atm, as I'd prefer to have just ONE analog poly-synth.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't get the Rev2 thinking it'd be great as a multi-timbral instrument or controller. I didn't care about multi-mode but one day, needed another voice w/ my band & figured let's see if this works. And it worked just fine. I love it when my gear proves more useful than I even expected. It's also my main controller because I love the keybed but obviously it's quite limited compared to digital synths/workstations. If DSI implemented splits that could receive & output midi on split channels (receives already there w/ multimode), that would increase its attractiveness in the market.
I think we share similar philosophies on streamlined studio. Benefits & drawbacks to anything, really. Going deep with an instrument can yield new depths but playing a new instrument can also unleash new inspiration. But I had an OB6 here & I know exactly why someone would want both. It doesn't always work (probably won't more often than not) but when it does, it has that magic "it" quality. It's this "it" quality that I wish the Rev2 had. I copied my favorite OB6 pad into the Rev2 & got about 90% there. Eh, ok but not magical. I even sampled the pad & got 97% there ... still no magic. I wish I had kept the OB6 until after we finished this track but every day it stayed tempted me to keep it & I need to stay married more than I need this one magical sound that I'd only use once in a while. The other sounds were good too if you like that classic vintage buzzy analog synth sound (sorry not a real synth nerd) but I'm not drawn to those as much.
in me. The Rev2 is 85-90% there.... it's just my main use scenarios make bare the harsher Curtis sound. Still, I'm inching closer as I program her more.
And +100 on a polyphonic Pro2. Five octaves, bi-timbral, and aftertouch.... take my $$$$
That's how I feel about it .. the Rev2 is an 85%-90% of everything type of analog synth for me, except when it comes to modulations.
And a poly Pro2 would need a better keybed ... coming from the Rev2, I was astonished how cheap that Pro2 key felt. Sounded awesome though but one voice not enough!
-
If DSI implemented splits that could receive & output midi on split channels (receives already there w/ multimode), that would increase its attractiveness in the market.
The Rev2 can both receive and send on 2 separate, consecutive MIDI channels. I have mine set to base channel 2, Multimode on.
My Kronos keyboard plays on channel 1, triggering its own internal sounds as well as the Integra's sounds on channel 1.
The Rev2 plays the Kronos combis where I set my bass sounds to channel 2, and lead sounds on channel 3.
Likewise, the Rev2 plays the Integra's sounds on channels 2 and 3.
The Kronos is the master sending program changes to everyone else. With the Rev2 in Multimode, you have to send program changes explicitly on ch2 and ch3 in order for both layer A and layer B to play the desired programs.
There are 2 main glitches:
One is that the Rev2 display doesn't update the Bank/Program number on the display (leaves the former bank/program # on screen), showing only the name of the layer A program called via external MIDI PC.
The other is that aftertouch only gets transmitted on ch2, no way to turn that off and instead turn on ch3 aftertouch, like the way most other boards and controllers can. I don't need aftertouch on bass sounds, I need it on lead sounds. I finally gave in and got a Mio4 to rechannelize aftertouch to ch3. HTH
-
Holy smokeballs, thank you for setting me straight! Tested it out last night, works great for everything I need. It would be nice to have more zones but it's an analog synth so that seems a bit greedy. Love having all these knobs to map my Deluge engine or tweaking the Juno when playing it from Rev2.
That aftertouch bug is weird as seems all other ext MIDI & CC gets transmitted properly when switching between A/B layers. Seems an easy fix but famous last words in software!
I guess you've already solved your problem but if they implemented ability to assign midi channels to A/B layers, that would be great & would have solved your issue as well.
If DSI implemented splits that could receive & output midi on split channels (receives already there w/ multimode), that would increase its attractiveness in the market.
The Rev2 can both receive and send on 2 separate, consecutive MIDI channels. I have mine set to base channel 2, Multimode on.
My Kronos keyboard plays on channel 1, triggering its own internal sounds as well as the Integra's sounds on channel 1.
The Rev2 plays the Kronos combis where I set my bass sounds to channel 2, and lead sounds on channel 3.
Likewise, the Rev2 plays the Integra's sounds on channels 2 and 3.
The Kronos is the master sending program changes to everyone else. With the Rev2 in Multimode, you have to send program changes explicitly on ch2 and ch3 in order for both layer A and layer B to play the desired programs.
There are 2 main glitches:
One is that the Rev2 display doesn't update the Bank/Program number on the display (leaves the former bank/program # on screen), showing only the name of the layer A program called via external MIDI PC.
The other is that aftertouch only gets transmitted on ch2, no way to turn that off and instead turn on ch3 aftertouch, like the way most other boards and controllers can. I don't need aftertouch on bass sounds, I need it on lead sounds. I finally gave in and got a Mio4 to rechannelize aftertouch to ch3. HTH
-
And a poly Pro2 would need a better keybed ... coming from the Rev2, I was astonished how cheap that Pro2 key felt.
Never tried the Pro2, but the action is way too light on the REV2 for my taste.
-
Agreed about the keybed on the Pro 2. I’d presume that any future synth will have a keybed at least as good as the one on the Rev 2.
-
Well, I still love my Rev2 after almost 2 years with it in my life. It finds a home in practically every song I produce. I've been working with the Prologue for the last 6 months or so and getting back to the Rev2 full-time was soooo refreshing. It's great to have an idea for a sound and be able to pull it off without having to reinvent the wheel. The Rev2 simply follows your brain wherever it wants to go. And, it has the goods in spades when it's time to deliver. There will be no break up here. :)
-
No breakup here either, had our REV2 for a little over a year and it continues on to be a super inspiring synth. It can make every type of sound from bass up to effects, out of the 5 Hardware synths we have the REV2 gets used the most and many of our songs are made only with the REV2 except for drums. This synth can be anything from soft dreamy ambient to hard dark and aggressive and it doesn’t sound like another synth which is something we really appreciate about it. The 2 synths in our studio we won’t sell are the REV2 and the Subsequent 37. Well, in a year or so we will probably sell the REV2 to get the Prophet X.
-
I LOVE my 16 voice Rev2. Well I seem to be a Dave Smiths Instrument addict, I am already at #3 (OB-6, two prophet 12s and now the rev2) I can see the Prophet-6 coming soon :) Every DSI has its own sound and I use them for Film all the time, you would be surprised at how much DSI you might have heard. ;D ;D ;D ;D
The sounds are rich and in your face,it gives me flashbacks to sounds of the 1980s. We are so spoiled compared to back in the day where a Prophet 5 cost as much as a car, and editing meant cutting tape on the block. Now you cut on computer and a rack of outboards lives in your UAD apollo :)
-
I LOVE my 16 voice Rev2. Well I seem to be a Dave Smiths Instrument addict, I am already at #3 (OB-6, two prophet 12s and now the rev2) I can see the Prophet-6 coming soon :) Every DSI has its own sound and I use them for Film all the time, you would be surprised at how much DSI you might have heard. ;D ;D ;D ;D
The sounds are rich and in your face,it gives me flashbacks to sounds of the 1980s. We are so spoiled compared to back in the day where a Prophet 5 cost as much as a car, and editing meant cutting tape on the block. Now you cut on computer and a rack of outboards lives in your UAD apollo :)
Indulge me 🙂. What films?
Yes I’m with you on the sound and I was surprised with your comments on the Peak since I did breakup with the Peak for a Rev2 for that very reason.