The Official Sequential/Oberheim Forum
SEQUENTIAL/DSI => Prophet => Prophet Rev2 => Topic started by: Djinn on May 22, 2021, 06:42:42 AM
-
Is it just me?? I'm getting fairly frustrated that the rev2 hasn't had a major update/upgrade for ages!! can it be right to expect customers who have spent a substantial amount to be running a beta firmware for over a year??
There are plenty of great ideas in the wishlist I would like to see implemented?! SEQUENTIAL/DAVE SMITH I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU CALL YOURSELF... LISTEN TO YOUR USER BASE AND FINISH WHAT YOU STARTED. FIX YOUR BUGS/ADD MORE FEATURES NO MORE EXCUSES... GET IT DONE
-
the natives are getting restless...
-
can it be right to expect customers who have spent a substantial amount to be running a beta firmware for over a year??
Yes, it can and it is. They don't owe you a single upgrade. The device is sold as having the features it has; it's not sold as having anything promised in the future. Those are bonuses offered as they can. Maybe don't be so rude when others don't "meet" your own unrealistic expectations, and life will seem a bit more enjoyable, if only for those around you.
Relax, the Rev2 is still a great, enjoyable, playable synth, even if it isn't your dream machine. Don't worry, just have fun making music!
-
It's likely an OS update will appear this summer.
-
I think at this point in the life cycle, it's probably unlikely we'll see more feature additions (though I'd love to be proven wrong). Rev2 is about five years old now, and they have said that there's not really more program space for more upgrades.
With the bugs, I agree, it would be really nice to have an update that irons those out. The bug with layered gated sequencers not advancing through steps properly is my biggest hope... (Ticket #48090) It would allow for creating some amazing layered sequences with arp/seq stepping, and improve voice modeling capabilities.
Crossing my fingers, and hoping for a summer update that fixes it. :)
-
I personally don’t care about new features, but like creative spiral, I’d super appreciate addressing some of the bugs. <3
-
can it be right to expect customers who have spent a substantial amount to be running a beta firmware for over a year??
Yes, it can and it is. They don't owe you a single upgrade. The device is sold as having the features it has; it's not sold as having anything promised in the future. Those are bonuses offered as they can. Maybe don't be so rude when others don't "meet" your own unrealistic expectations, and life will seem a bit more enjoyable, if only for those around you.
Relax, the Rev2 is still a great, enjoyable, playable synth, even if it isn't your dream machine. Don't worry, just have fun making music!
I disagree on a certain point.
"The device is sold as having the features it has..." Actually, in this case it's more like "sold as SUPPOSEDLY having features it's SUPPOSED to have, but does not yet have". The fact that I STILL, after 5 years, can't do what I was able to with the Prophet '08, is somewhat disturbing and quite annoying... I guess I could call it the Rev½ in that regard, compared to the P´08. Specifically, the bug mentioned by creativespiral. Though that's not the only bug still present.
In response to double-u "the natives are getting restless...", nah we got restless a long, long time ago ;)
We're approaching the 2½ year (!!!) mark since the latest BETA release. With such major bugs still present, I don't think that's OK at all. It was SUPPOSED to be able to do what the P´08 can do, but it still can NOT.
If it was my product, I'd be ashamed.
So to answer OP Djinn, no it's not just you.
-
Thanks maxter,
You put it a lot more eloquently than me and I agree with everything you said thanks again
-
Rev2 has the potential to be one of the greatest synths ever made if they’d just show it some love and fix the issues that keep it from doing what the prophet 08 could do. It is truly disappointing :(
-
Rev2 has the potential to be one of the greatest synths ever made if they’d just show it some love and fix the issues that keep it from doing what the prophet 08 could do. It is truly disappointing :(
Indeed... and considering that it was released just at the beginning of the "real" boom of new analog polyphonic synthesizers, it's like they missed the mark a bit, unfortunately. Had they gone through with it in time, by finishing the OS early on, it would've gained a lot more hype, and sold a lot more. There was quite a demand for just such an affordable, while highly versatile, analog-poly, evidently by all competitors that have arrived since, and they could've OWNED that market spot...
Seems like they "abandoned ship" far too early with this one, to focus on later releases instead of finishing up first. It could've been THE poly-DCO to rule them all (even against VCOs), imo, but as of now the "damage is done" somewhat reputation-wise for the Rev2 I think, and NOW, 5 years later, there are SO many other contenders in that category to compete for customers.
Even if it's "too late" in that regard, I just hope the end result won't be "too little". Ie that they eventually WILL work out the OS bugs, and hopefully add one or two of the most important missing features, such as an osc fine tune mod slot, which should be possible and is likely a minor task to implement. Don't know if the "vintage mode" would be possible to implement, I certainly hope so, but otherwise the osc fine tune mod destination would work fine in tandem with the gated sequencers as an alternative.
The Rev2 is just about all I would ever ask for in an analog-poly, if it would just get completed and working as it should.
-
Sequential (Focusrite) should make the firmware open source so that we can fix it.
-
Sequential (Focusrite) should make the firmware open source so that we can fix it.
I like your thoughts :) This could lead to a whole new eco-system and create a unique value in the synth (but, as it goes, unfortunately it might also lead to increased questions to tech support from people who bricked their unit or are confused about some third-party version's bug?). For some reason I do not associate "Focusrite" to "opensource-friendly" but maybe that is just my prejudice.
-
Had Sequential finished the Prophet Rev2, I would certainly have bought the Pro3...
https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,4994.msg49705.html#msg49705
-
Yeh sorry to repeat a thread but it really does feel unfinished and I don't think it would take much to sort it out...
Decent control of fine tune osc...
Slew controls
Finishing the step sequencer
Mayb new vintage/slop if poss
Etc
Etc..
-
can it be right to expect customers who have spent a substantial amount to be running a beta firmware for over a year??
Yes, it can and it is. They don't owe you a single upgrade. The device is sold as having the features it has; it's not sold as having anything promised in the future. Those are bonuses offered as they can. Maybe don't be so rude when others don't "meet" your own unrealistic expectations, and life will seem a bit more enjoyable, if only for those around you.
Relax, the Rev2 is still a great, enjoyable, playable synth, even if it isn't your dream machine. Don't worry, just have fun making music!
they might not "owe" anyone a upgrade to the original synth that was sold but the original synth had more than a few flaws in its functionality, the expectation from people who bought was this would be addressed over time and it hasn't happened.
between the OS flaws,
having to spend hundreds of dollars for encoder replacements if you want to not deal with annoying knob skipping,
having a synth that designs its user banks/layer splits to make the 8 voice versions of the synth have a truly awkward workflow
the voice chip issues highlighted in this starsky carr video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34lvST3I8rY
and of course the filter bleed (and in particular how it was marketed as a design choice by DSI so that it meant if you didn't like their filter that doesn't actually close, it's YOUR fault)
this is probably one of my biggest regret purchases synthwise and has kind of ruined DSI's reputation as a synth builder to me.
-
I just received this email from sequential...
As the Rev2 codebase is at its maximum per the onboard processor, there are currently no plans to update the Rev2 OS or add new features.
I hope this helps.
Best,
Brian
Sequential LLC
Very disappointing
-
Djinn, I read your post several times with disbelief, hoping that I was misunderstanding something. The new features are one thing. But as for the OS update, that would be contrary to what I've been told directly and repeatedly by Sequential for the past two years. And I've been waiting for five. This would be very bad news.
-
I can't hold my breath for much longer... a month, maybe two, if nothing then I'm getting rid of the Rev2 asap, and never looking in the direction of SCI again. Even the "B" update their shit, and fix (or at the very least try) the bugs and flaws...
Man, all this time just waiting around for the next OS to address the bugs and issues... (and a miniscule hope of having a feature or two added...) for nothing?
If they can't even fix the bugs anymore, or add ANYTHING to it, why not lock the "requests"-thread and TELL us... 2½ YEARS ago!!! and NOW they tell us?
>:(
I hope this helps.
Tragicomic :'(
After about 10 min of contemplation, I doubt I'll hold out even a week... goodbye Rev2, hello Hydra!
-
I sent Sequential an email. I'm not doubting Djinn; I just can't believe it yet.
For me, the Prophet '08 has been the closest thing to a perfect synthesizer, and it's looking even more appealing right now. I only turned to the Rev2 for the purpose of having a brand new P'08. But the original suited me just fine.
-
I'm gutted as well I had hope and it's fading fast
-
I really don't want to dislike SCI, but they're making it awfully hard for me not to... It's not that I couldn't have use for the Rev2 as is, or that it's not already a decent instrument, it's just that this whole episode has left such a sour taste in my mouth. Because of this, just eyeing the Rev2 doesn't give me the inspiration that the P08 did, quite the contrary...
Anyhow, I realize it's too much for me to take at this point, even if they would eventually release a new OS. Had I known 2-3 years ago, maybe I could've accepted it for what it was (and still is). But NOT telling their customers upfront that it won't ever get completed (to keep sales going?) is pretty shitty. IMO.
In a way I actually suspected this outcome eventually, quite some time ago, because of the history of OS updates, where updates fixing some bugs would introduce other new bugs, perhaps digging the hole deeper...? I got the impression that the OS really wasn't properly done to begin with, considering the amount of bugs, and that the "quick fixes" didn't really deal with the real, deep down issues, which were probably ignored, and they hoped the quick fixes would do it. And that, because of this, actually fixing it in the end would turn out to be too "cumbersome" and time consuming for SCI to even bother.
I think it's possible (despite what they say), and could be done... but that it would take such a thorough reworking that it'd be too costly (and/or embarrassing?)...
I don't deny that the "B" have made morally flawed actions in the past, but at least they LISTEN to their consumers... "Sorry" to those who may get offended by that, but that's how I feel about SCI atm.
On the bright side, it made me stick around on this forum for lots of interesting posts and discussions, so my thanks go to the forum members here! You all made it worthwhile in a way.
-
Really hope we'll see at least a bug fix update!!! -- And an official "final release version" of the OS, rather than a "beta 1.1.5.9 designation".... that's no versioning scheme to leave an instrument with ;) (ie: we need 2.0 final release version)
I'm not expecting any new features at this point, but leaving the confirmed bugs unaddressed on this otherwise amazing synth would be very disappointing. The sequencer doesn't work properly when stacking layers and using key stepping. This is obviously broken / unintended behavior, and makes is so you can't really use all the functionality in of this bitimbral synth. I really want to be able to do layered voice modeling, and dual layered arpeggios with key stepping... you could create amazing procedural melodic lines if the key stepping worked properly, but as-is, it's broken... the key stepping logic doesn't properly advance the steps as soon as you press the stack button on. (It's probably a really easy fix too... probably just a variable that is listening to the wrong input source / or not paying attention to the 1/2 voice allocation when in stack mode) (Ticket #48090 has the details for debugging)
Please, Seq, just do one more pass, to address the confirmed bugs, and give us an official final release version of the OS. The Rev2 is such an amazing analog flagship... it just needs a few minor bugs sorted out, before abandoning it.
-
Yes, if only they would fix the bugs, we could live with it. I'm still hoping the situation is somehow different from the way it appears.
-
I’m sure I remember dear old Razmo voicing concerns that it could be left in an unfinished state and I also think I remember him mentioning another synth that had been left with bugs and unfinished.
-
Sorry for my bad english i'm french ;D
it's a shame if they stop updating,
the prophet 6 was released before rev 2 and the updates continue ...
Thanks anyway to creative spiral for the great job of the VCM, it's my INIT PATCH now.
to come back to the rev 2 SEQUENTIAL made the same mistake as for the waldorf PULSE 2 which had a stable OS but which could have gone a little further.
Pity ... :'(
-
I’m sure I remember dear old Razmo voicing concerns that it could be left in an unfinished state and I also think I remember him mentioning another synth that had been left with bugs and unfinished.
Yes, the magnificent Poly Evolver.
This is the price we often pay for requesting feature-rich synthesizers; the complexity goes beyond the capacity of the designers. I'm sure this is responsible, in part, for the old school reissue revival. It certainly is in my case. I bought my Korg ARP Odyssey Modules because I was weary from the long Rev2 wait, since I'm willing to buy one only after it's been completed and Sequential can install the updates for me. But the Odysseys' sound and simplicity are the main attraction, and these they wonderfully fulfill. But I would never have bought them used. That's the dilemma we face, though. On one hand, buying used vintage instruments guarantees high repair/maintenance costs, but on the other, buying brand new sophisticated instruments often leaves one waiting years for them to reach maturity. And there is the possibility that they never will.
I don't know if I would ever run into the bugs remaining in the Rev2. But I do know that it would always bug me to know they're there. Plus, they reduce the value of the instrument when you want to sell it.
The only reason I wanted a Rev2 was to have the next best thing to a brand new Prophet '08. That's it. A few improvements would have been nice, but they aren't worth the grief. The big question is whether or not the Rev2 in its present state is actually better than a Prophet '08 in excellent condition? I love the sound of my P'08; it's perfect for my musical purposes. I feel no need to improve that fundamental character, and I'm not sure that the substantially more complex Rev2 does improve it. I've never come across a video that struck me as demonstrating some fabulous sound or feature that placed the Rev2 on a higher musical plateau. Not at all. More technological versatility is not what I need, but only long-term stability. And the present state of affairs certainly casts a shadow over that hope.
-
I've never come across a video that struck me as demonstrating some fabulous sound or feature that placed the Rev2 on a higher musical plateau.
Me neither... as you haven't made that video yet. ;)
-
I've never come across a video that struck me as demonstrating some fabulous sound or feature that placed the Rev2 on a higher musical plateau.
Me neither... as you haven't made that video yet. ;)
A very clever response, inducing me to take the step. You still think I should try the Rev2, in spite of all?
-
I've never come across a video that struck me as demonstrating some fabulous sound or feature that placed the Rev2 on a higher musical plateau.
Me neither... as you haven't made that video yet. ;)
A very clever response, inducing me to take the step. You still think I should try the Rev2, in spite of all?
Even if the question was not directed to me, as a fan of your music and Rev2 owner I can not hold back my opinion on this ;-)
If I'm right, most of the bugs are related to more complex MIDI stuff... I believe with your style of doing things and making music you will never ever run into any of the bugs.
The only things I'm doing per MIDI myself is sending Program Changes when playing live... otherwise I'm also playing and programming everything by hand and I never ran into any problems. The Rev2 is a really great "player's" synth, even if it stays in this unfinished state (what I do not hope, too...). I think you would be really happy with it, too.
Even the few times when I sequenced it from Ableton or some hardware sequencer, it did what I expected it would do. But my setups were pretty basic, so I never ran in the documented bugs.
I thought about selling it help me save up for a P~10... but I couldn't until today. I'm pretty sure, I would absolutely miss all the well known oppurtunities discovered by the many good people around here (especially CreativeSpiral and Razmo), which make this synth an absolute dream. Since I'm doing a lot of live cover music, it is the best analog synth to complement my Kronos, because you can simulate basically every other synth with it (at least in a way that nobody would hear a difference in a live setup with big loud PAs and such...).
I'm also waiting for you to do some videos with it ;-)
-
Thanks for those kind comments, Jok3r. They're helpful.
You're right that the remaining Rev 2 bugs may not be a problem for me. I've managed to get along just fine with my quite buggy Poly Evolvers. But I still don't like the idea of buying brand new instruments with known problems. It goes against one's gut instincts. The idea will take some getting used to, after having high hopes literally for years.
-
I have to agree with Jok3r here, I don't think the bugs would be a problem in your case. Some users seem to have no problem, and don't even encounter the bugs at all, apparently...
The biggest con is probably the sequencer bug either way, as you can't use creativespirals VCM technique on both layers. (Personally, that bug affects me in many other ways too, unfortunately.) With the added sub-oscillator and the waveshaping of each wave, I don't think you'd use both layers that often anyhow, in your case.
The added mod-slots are also nice, if SCI would just add the vco fine tune as a mod destination, the VCM technique would occupy half as many... and I just don't believe that it wouldn't be possible, as with fixing the sequencer bug, or they would've said so LONG ago. I call BS on that excuse.
I think they've simply "clogged up" the OS, and that it would take thorough reworking (ie going "back" to fix it, bottom up), but that's just been my impression of this machines OS all along... and I don't trust SCI, at all, anymore.
-
That was one heck of an advertisement for the Rev2, Maxter, especially at the end! ??? I'm more with you on this one than you might think.
As for the sequencer, I generally use it only for modulation purposes, especially of the filter. I would consider that an important capability, though. Do the bugs affect this?
-
That was one heck of an advertisement for the Rev2, Maxter, especially at the end! ??? I'm more with you on this one than you might think.
Well, I'm just being honest, but see no point in holding back anymore either, at this point in time SCI definitely deserve some flack...
As for the sequencer, I generally use it only for modulation purposes, especially of the filter. I would consider that an important capability, though. Do the bugs affect this?
I don't know... I mainly used the P08 sequencers with "key step" mode, which the VCM method also relies on. That's the mode that I KNOW is not working as it should on Layer 2 of Rev2. As I've been quite "hands-off" awaiting the OS update fixing the sequencer, I haven't used the sequencers for a couple of years... I'd bet creativespiral knows though, if this bug only affects the "key step" mode or the other modes as well.
-
I sent Sequential an email. I'm not doubting Djinn; I just can't believe it yet.
As someone who recently got a Rev 2 and believed an update would be coming, I'm hoping you will get an email to the contrary or at least a more clear explanation of why you were told of a coming update.
This synth is so close to being the perfect synth for me, but the gated sequencer layer bug and a couple of other minor things keep it from being as good as it could be. I was hoping for the vintage mode knob or something else as well, but at least bug fixes would go a long way to fulfilling its potential.
-
I sent Sequential an email. I'm not doubting Djinn; I just can't believe it yet.
As someone who recently got a Rev 2 and believed an update would be coming, I'm hoping you will get an email to the contrary or at least a more clear explanation of why you were told of a coming update.
This synth is so close to being the perfect synth for me, but the gated sequencer layer bug and a couple of other minor things keep it from being as good as it could be. I was hoping for the vintage mode knob or something else as well, but at least bug fixes would go a long way to fulfilling its potential.
I totally agree and still have an increment of hope but that was the message I received
-
I'm not questioning you, Djinn. But I need an explanation for this unexpected change. I've been waiting five years on this. For the last two years, my set up has been insufficient to provide for my own compositions, and has had an annoying empty space reserved for a Rev2. But as a result, I've let possibly two completed pieces be forgotten, because I lacked the third keyboard necessary to record them. All this while, I could have bought a Rev2, a used Prophet '08 in mint condition, or some other synthesizer. But instead, I sold one Prophet '08 and one Poly Evolver, and held onto the money for the the great day when the Rev2 would reach its full maturity, all based on the promises I was given.
So, believe me, guys, I am ripped over this, to the point that I'm questioning that it could actually have happened. DSI/Sequential has been "my" company for eleven years now, and to this day I still want to believe that all is well here.
If the company would fix the main bugs and offer nothing more, I'd be content. That's all I'm hoping for. Who knows - maybe this heated discussion will persuade them to reconsider?
-
I can not believe that they would tell Sacred Synthesis one thing, and Djinn another. I'm still hoping for a mistake, too.
But if it's really the case that they changed their opinion on that case, then I would be really interested in the reasons.
-
Jok3r, how many times did I encourage people here to believe this update was coming? I did so on multiple threads to keep the spirits high. And you often enough challenged me with, "You still sure about that?" You even asked me once to clarify my use of the word "soon." And who looks like the fool now? :-[
-
I was going to buy a pro 3, but after my experience with dsi/sequential giving up on the rev2 I’m reconsidering.
Wish they would communicate like fractal audio with their customers and make things abundantly clear. Really disappointed…
-
@double-u - yeah, Fractal Audio is really the gold standard of Musical Instrument companies... such dedication to existing products... continual improvements on a monthly basis and transparency with customers. And if there's a bug that is confirmed, they are on it sooo fast... often fixing bugs in a week or less. They are really killin it, and reaping the rewards!
I wish more MI companies would take that type of approach. It results in such an enthusiastic and loyal customer base, and creates continuous buzz for products, with strong sales for existing products.
If I were calling shots at Sequential / Focusrite, I would strongly look into dedicating more programming resources to support existing products and continue to evolve and improve them... even if it means releasing one fewer new product every couple years.
If you can continually improve products you sell, you'll see the continuous buzz on the internet / publications / forums for your products... and it will lead to strong sales for years on existing designs... you don't have to go through the whole electrical design phase as often and parts sourcing and mechanical considerations. Just devote more resources to existing instruments and firmware programming! Leave no bug un-squashed and bring new features and innovations to products on a more regular basis.
I understand they've said that with the Rev2, there's no more "space" for fw improvements... which seems sort of odd considering how cheap memory is... but if that's the case, so be it. Just fixing up remaining bugs would be sufficient to make community happy though. For all future products, I would hope that the few extra bucks would be spent to ensure "running out of firmware space" is never an issue.
Sequential makes amazing products (my fav synth company), but it does often feel like they could be better with ongoing support and some firmware updates. Release one fewer product every two or three years and devote more human resources to continued development of existing products... I think it would make a lot of people really happy, and be a great business decision resulting in stronger continued sales and more loyalty.
-
I was going to buy a pro 3, but after my experience with dsi/sequential giving up on the rev2 I’m reconsidering.
Wish they would communicate like fractal audio with their customers and make things abundantly clear. Really disappointed…
I don't blame you, Double-u, but don't let this situation spoil the rest for you. Sequential does make fantastic instruments, and the Pro 3 is right up there with the best. Don't miss out on it just because of this discussion about one instrument.
-
Jok3r, how many times did I encourage people here to believe this update was coming? And you often enough challenged me with, "You still sure about that?" You even asked me once to clarify my use of the word "soon." And who looks like the fool now? :-[
It's crazy to me how they would have you give hope for an update if there really is nothing coming. It somewhat makes me feel like a fool as well based on the fact that, whether I should have or not (really should not), I partially got a Rev 2 hoping that update would come and make it an even better instrument. If an update does materialize and actually fixes or even adds things, I was planning on getting the 16v upgrade.
I was going to buy a pro 3, but after my experience with dsi/sequential giving up on the rev2 I’m reconsidering.
I am in the same boat here. The Pro 3 looks great but I can't help but feel like a different mono/para synth might be a better experience based on all this. Plus I would be spending more than I did on my Rev 2 risking another something like this...
-
My best guess is that recently there was a change. I don't believe I was hoodwinked or lied to. I think a decision was made that put an end to the expected update. It probably has no relation, but it's hard not to wonder about the Focusrite acquisition. I'm holding our for a reasonable explanation. I'm still willing to give Sequential the benefit of the doubt. Maybe someone's on vacation or is out sick, but the silence is deafening.
The mystery is that the Prophet '08 is the classic DSI instrument that was taken up anew by Sequential. The Evolvers aside, it was the instrument that earned Dave Smith his new name and reputation. Its final revision should be the company's pride and joy, the favorite child that gets all the love and attention. Instead, it's left hanging in this unfinished state. Honestly, it's bloody sad. And considering how we musicians feel towards our instruments, it's hard not to take this personally.
-
My best guess is that recently there was a change. I don't believe I was hoodwinked or lied to. I think a decision was made that put an end to the expected update. I'm holding our for a reasonable explanation.
I tend to agree. After all, staff member Pym at some point found some extra room to make a version of the OS with improved support for alternative tunings (see thread https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,3503.0.html ). If absolutely no spare room were available, how would he have done that? (or did he throw out other features?). Maybe it's more a matter of "new bosses, new laws". Maybe focusrite has decided to concentrate on other things. We all feel a bit betrayed by the lack of bug fixing in an expensive instrument (and I imagine some of the sequential staff might be bothered by it as well, but perhaps they no longer have much to say about it?). This is all pure speculation of course, I have no insight whatsoever in the daily operations or mid-term motives of sequential or focusrite.
-
If absolutely no spare room were available, how would he have done that? (or did he throw out other features?).
No features were thrown out on that OS... And I call BS-deluxe on the excuse of "no room for updates". Whatever else can be explained, that one's just... ::)
Maybe it's more a matter of "new bosses, new laws". Maybe focusrite has decided to concentrate on other things. We all feel a bit betrayed by the lack of bug fixing in an expensive instrument (and I imagine some of the sequential staff might be bothered by it as well, but perhaps they no longer have much to say about it?). This is all pure speculation of course, I have no insight whatsoever in the daily operations or mid-term motives of sequential or focusrite.
Good point! Even so, it wasn't about 2½ years ago that Focusrite acquired SCI...
LoboLives also made a good point on another thread:
"What I am saying is if there will be no more features or updates added perhaps it's best to just make a post addressing it as such like was done on the Tempest. That way it'll provide closure and not have you get bombarded with the same questions. That's all." 2017-11-08
https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,2032.msg22240.html#msg22240
And I think the instrument Razmo mentioned being abandoned by DSI/SCI was the Tempest, not the Evolver.
https://gearspace.com/board/electronic-music-instruments-and-electronic-music-production/1251642-buying-dsi-tempest-2019-a.html
I do find some similarities in the comments on that thread, from about post #22 onwards... with the Rev2. Such as "I sold mine in frustration at the promises of OS updates that never arrived."
-
My best guess is that recently there was a change. I don't believe I was hoodwinked or lied to. I think a decision was made that put an end to the expected update. It probably has no relation, but it's hard not to wonder about the Focusrite acquisition. I'm holding our for a reasonable explanation. I'm still willing to give Sequential the benefit of the doubt. Maybe someone's on vacation or is out sick, but the silence is deafening.
The mystery is that the Prophet '08 is the classic DSI instrument that was taken up anew by Sequential. The Evolvers aside, it was the instrument that earned Dave Smith his new name and reputation. It should be the company's pride and joy, the favorite child that gets all the love and attention. Instead, it's left hanging in this unfinished state. Honestly, it's bloody sad.
Any way you can contact and confirm or refute the response djinn received?
-
My best guess is that recently there was a change. I don't believe I was hoodwinked or lied to. I think a decision was made that put an end to the expected update. It probably has no relation, but it's hard not to wonder about the Focusrite acquisition. I'm holding our for a reasonable explanation. I'm still willing to give Sequential the benefit of the doubt. Maybe someone's on vacation or is out sick, but the silence is deafening.
The mystery is that the Prophet '08 is the classic DSI instrument that was taken up anew by Sequential. The Evolvers aside, it was the instrument that earned Dave Smith his new name and reputation. It should be the company's pride and joy, the favorite child that gets all the love and attention. Instead, it's left hanging in this unfinished state. Honestly, it's bloody sad.
Any way you can contact and confirm or refute the response djinn received?
I've already done so and am still waiting for a response. I'm holding out until I get the final word on this. Yes, I'm making excuses based on the slightest splinter of hope - hoping against hope.
-
Jok3r, how many times did I encourage people here to believe this update was coming? I did so on multiple threads to keep the spirits high. And you often enough challenged me with, "You still sure about that?" You even asked me once to clarify my use of the word "soon." And who looks like the fool now? :-[
I don't think you look like a fool in this one. They told you the one thing, and did the other... or at least it seems like that by now.
I've already done so and am still waiting for a response. I'm holding out until I get the final word on this. Yes, I'm making excuses based on the slightest splinter of hope - hoping against hope.
I'm still hoping, too. And I hope you will get a response very soon.
As others said: basically what annoys me the most is the kind of communication SEQ is doing. If there will be no more updates then please tell us! And don't let potential customers buy a buggy synth with a promised and never coming update any longer. The marketing ethics behind this behaviour are very questionable, too.
I call out for a bug-fixing update, or at least an official statement that the product will stay in this state forever.
-
When we design things we try and use the cheapest/smallest things we can so we can make things affordable. Finding a balance between that and knowing that we may want to add things down the line is difficult. Sometimes we have a lot of memory or processing power left (usually monosynths), sometimes we push RIGHT up to the edge (Tempest, Rev2). It's very difficult to tell the future accurately.
Right now we have no time/space available in the DSP. It isn't that we can't do these things, it's that the lack of space means we would have to go back through and optimize a TON of stuff just to make sure we don't cause any problems. Coding is always finding a balance between processor time, how much space the code takes, and the processor cost. Even simple fixes at this point take up a lot of our time. It's one thing to fix a bug or add a feature if you don't need to worry about code space, it's completely different if you have to add to that an optimization pass that may or may not be enough. The chip shortage issues from the pandemic made us scramble to handle all sorts of other things just to keep things moving and as Sequential we don't have dedicated departments, people switch roles as important things come up, so in a lot of ways it's just bad timing.
Not trying to say any of the bugs aren't important, just giving some perspectives from the things we're dealing with. I try very hard not to mislead you guys and will try and chime in periodically here but you probably would rather I keep fixing bugs and adding features =)
My best guess is that recently there was a change. I don't believe I was hoodwinked or lied to. I think a decision was made that put an end to the expected update. I'm holding our for a reasonable explanation.
I tend to agree. After all, staff member Pym at some point found some extra room to make a version of the OS with improved support for alternative tunings (see thread https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,3503.0.html ). If absolutely no spare room were available, how would he have done that? (or did he throw out other features?). Maybe it's more a matter of "new bosses, new laws". Maybe focusrite has decided to concentrate on other things. We all feel a bit betrayed by the lack of bug fixing in an expensive instrument (and I imagine some of the sequential staff might be bothered by it as well, but perhaps they no longer have much to say about it?). This is all pure speculation of course, I have no insight whatsoever in the daily operations or mid-term motives of sequential or focusrite.
-
(https://www.PresetPatch.com/images/saying-theres-a-chance.jpg)
Hah... @pym, thanks for chiming in. Dude, if you could just look into that one bug with layered gated sequencer stepping issue (Ticket #48090), it would be sooo appreciated!! If it's a major deal to fix it, then so be it.... but if it could be easily patched up and release a final version 2.0 Version, it would make me so happy (and many others). Plus leaving Rev2 on a 2.0 release fw rather than 1.1.5.9 beta would look better from an optics standpoint.
Bonus: I will personally send a bottle of your favorite fancy Tequila or other celebration drink to the offices, and sing your praises like a bard from the Witcher. ;) Plus I'll make some videos showing off the capabilities of layered arp step sequencing with musical mod intervals and layered voice modeling with Rev2. If this one item works as intended, you'll be able to do some really cool new stuff with the Rev2.
-
When we design things we try and use the cheapest/smallest things we can so we can make things affordable. Finding a balance between that and knowing that we may want to add things down the line is difficult. Sometimes we have a lot of memory or processing power left (usually monosynths), sometimes we push RIGHT up to the edge (Tempest, Rev2). It's very difficult to tell the future accurately.
Thanks Pym, it means a lot to have someone from SCI chime in, to let us know what's up.
Right now we have no time/space available in the DSP. It isn't that we can't do these things, it's that the lack of space means we would have to go back through and optimize a TON of stuff just to make sure we don't cause any problems. Coding is always finding a balance between processor time, how much space the code takes, and the processor cost. Even simple fixes at this point take up a lot of our time. It's one thing to fix a bug or add a feature if you don't need to worry about code space, it's completely different if you have to add to that an optimization pass that may or may not be enough. The chip shortage issues from the pandemic made us scramble to handle all sorts of other things just to keep things moving and as Sequential we don't have dedicated departments, people switch roles as important things come up, so in a lot of ways it's just bad timing.
Just as I suspected... but I really appreciate you telling us straight up, so we don't have to speculate further.
Not trying to say any of the bugs aren't important, just giving some perspectives from the things we're dealing with. I try very hard not to mislead you guys and will try and chime in periodically here but you probably would rather I keep fixing bugs and adding features =)
Yes, PLEASE do... fix bugs and add features! ;D I'm certain that I speak for everyone, when saying we're all in favor of that.
I totally agree with creativespiral, the sequencer bug HAS to go...
I would very much like to know the answer to the question Lloyd posed in the picture... is there any future chance, or have you abandoned it? Because I'm actually just about to sell my Rev2... so it would be highly appreciated.
Thanks again Pym!
-
My response to all of this would be the same as always - contrary, I realize, to what everyone else here wants. If I could have it my way, I would prefer simpler instruments, fewer features, not pushing things to the brink, and with an emphasis on maintenance. Make instruments that are strong in the fundamentals of synthesis, purged of known flaws, rock-solidly reliable, and kept in production for longer periods of time.
I know, I know....
-
My response to all of this would be the same as always - contrary, I realize, to what everyone else here wants. If I could have it my way, I would prefer simpler instruments, fewer features, not pushing things to the brink, and with an emphasis on maintenance. Make instruments that are strong in the fundamentals of synthesis, purged of known flaws, rock-solidly reliable, and kept in production for longer periods of time.
I know, I know....
Hey buddy, wanna buy a Prophet 5? I know a guy who knows a guy...
-
Not trying to say any of the bugs aren't important, just giving some perspectives from the things we're dealing with. I try very hard not to mislead you guys and will try and chime in periodically here but you probably would rather I keep fixing bugs and adding features =)
So your perspective is that it's okay to waste time adding "vintage" modes to the perfectly operational OB~6 and P6, but not spend time fixing Rev.2 BUGS?
Personally I'm completely happy with the features the Rev.2 originally shipped with, but it's completely lame that it still has bugs today. That is completely unprofessional.
Remember, I am the customer. You at DSI/Sequential are a provider. I am paying your bills and sending your kids to school.
I hope Focusrite make some long overdue staff changes and find people who can make bug fixes, not excuses.
-
I understand it is frustrating. I have the same reaction with every single synth I have ever owned (and there have been lots) and not a single one of them is bug free. Every single piece of software I’ve ever used has bugs. Even when we reach bug free states we find new one because our users push the boundaries of what is possible on the instrument and in new combinations. It’s the only constant i know of in product development… there will always be another bug to fix, another improvement to be made
So when is the right time to retire a product? If you have to spend 20 hours to fix a bug only 2 people out of thousands have mentioned it, is it worth it? How about 25 hours and 1 person? What if you spend 10 hours and realize it will take more and may not fix it? Where do you draw the line? How do you balance that when you need to make new things to survive as a company? I ask myself those questions every single day. I hate disappointing people and I hate leaving bugs I know frustrate our users, even just a single person, but sometimes we have to make difficult choices.
We do learn from our choices and we are adding resources rapidly to do better in the future but, as I said, this was a profoundly difficult year for us, our customers, our suppliers and everybody we know.
I can’t make any promises right now because so much is up in the air. What I can say is we do not take this lightly and the amount of chaos and extra work due to the rippling effects of the pandemic has hit us hard. Balancing work and life and trying not to burnout isn’t easy, as I’m sure many people on here can understand right now. I’m even here posting publicly not because it is in my job description, but because I believe in what we do and open myself up to exactly that sort of criticism because I know how it feels and I want to do better than what I experienced with other companies.
Not trying to say any of the bugs aren't important, just giving some perspectives from the things we're dealing with. I try very hard not to mislead you guys and will try and chime in periodically here but you probably would rather I keep fixing bugs and adding features =)
So your perspective is that it's okay to waste time adding "vintage" modes to the perfectly operational OB~6 and P6, but not spend time fixing Rev.2 BUGS?
Personally I'm completely happy with the features the Rev.2 originally shipped with, but it's completely lame that it still has bugs today. That is completely unprofessional.
Remember, I am the customer. You at DSI/Sequential are a provider. I am paying your bills and sending your kids to school.
I hope Focusrite make some long overdue staff changes and find people who can make bug fixes, not excuses.
-
As someone who owned a P6, sold it because of its limitations and considered buying a Rev2 but instead bought a Novation Summit I can say (hand on heart) Focusrite don’t know how to run Novation properly and since the sad passing of Chris Huggett things have ground to a halt many very basic bugs exist on the Summit and nothing has been done.
So the grass is definitely not greener nor is Focusrite a harbinger of positive change.
In fact as an experienced real-time software engineer with many years of embedded firmware development under my belt although I can understand the shoe-string existence that most of these products endure , I find it hard to accept that there has been no learning done. The same mistakes in development approach are generally repeated or engrained. It’s like Dave has been on Groundhog Day since the late 70’s. And we've been encouraging him!
Really what should have happened a SCI or indeed Novation, is the code should have been modularised and optimised based on the previous experiences. This would have made and could make building new designs like grabbing Lego blocks. ( blocks just like a synth has envelope shapers, oscillators, LFOs, voice allocation, a mod matrix, arpeggiators, midi processing, a sequencer etc, etc) Yes this may not be as tight as hand coding each product but the cost savings in development time and product debugging would have out stripped the slight increases in processor performance and flash rom needed to support it - and I definitely don’t mean Microsoft bloatware!!. By taking the tested module approach you are basically developing assets of value for the future not like at present where each machine is like a little adventure.
But I’m sure that is exactly how Dave’s engineering culture likes it to be.
Will there be any changes to this pattern in the future? I doubt it. Basically because we're all human and we all like to reinvent the wheel.
-
I understand it is frustrating. I have the same reaction with every single synth I have ever owned (and there have been lots) and not a single one of them is bug free. Every single piece of software I’ve ever used has bugs. Even when we reach bug free states we find new one because our users push the boundaries of what is possible on the instrument and in new combinations. It’s the only constant i know of in product development… there will always be another bug to fix, another improvement to be made.
So when is the right time to retire a product? If you have to spend 20 hours to fix a bug only 2 people out of thousands have mentioned it, is it worth it? How about 25 hours and 1 person? What if you spend 10 hours and realize it will take more and may not fix it? Where do you draw the line? How do you balance that when you need to make new things to survive as a company? I ask myself those questions every single day. I hate disappointing people and I hate leaving bugs I know frustrate our users, even just a single person, but sometimes we have to make difficult choices.
As a Rev 2 owner and computer science major, I do appreciate and understand both of your updates Pym, so thank you. I'm glad to know a bit more about what's going on and can sympathize with the struggle.
Regarding the P6 and OB-6 talk in this thread, from my perspective, I imagine a lot of people who saw the update to those probably assumed that something similar would be coming to the Rev 2 next since it came out after the other two. I know they are completely different platforms but that was just my initial assumption. I didn't know about how long it had been since an update had been made to the Rev 2 at that point.
Also from the outside perspective, I feel like if some bugs have been fixed without side effects/stability issues, another small update would have been at least a sign something has been happening, and the last beta only fixed one bug so this doesn't seem crazy.
Hah... @pym, thanks for chiming in. Dude, if you could just look into that one bug with layered gated sequencer stepping issue (Ticket #48090), it would be sooo appreciated!! If it's a major deal to fix it, then so be it.... but if it could be easily patched up and release a final version 2.0 Version, it would make me so happy (and many others). Plus leaving Rev2 on a 2.0 release fw rather than 1.1.5.9 beta would look better from an optics standpoint.
Also put a couple more votes on fixing that layer gated sequencer bug, both for me who bought the Rev 2 after seeing Creative Spiral's videos on VCM, as well as the many other people who have watched the videos on the topic, and might want to use it on two layers.
-
If it seems as though the sequencer bug fix is only supported by a small number, please count me in as a (previously silent) vote for the bug fix(es) too...
I'd dreamt of MPE implementation and the "vintage mode" addition, but the known bug fixes seem a v. high priority for leaving the Rev2 in a polished state, whereas the additions are just hopes/wishes.
-
Yes, if the sequencer bug fix seems like a minority desire, please count me in as a (previously silent) vote for the bug fix(es) too...
I'd hoped for MPE implementation and the "vintage mode" addition, but the known bug fixes seem a v. high priority for leaving the Rev2 in a polished state, whereas the additions are just hopes/wishes.
Thank you for adding to our voice :) and I too would love those additions if possible but I wouldn't want to push it either. Maybe a bugfix update first and then a feature update if it seems possible after that?
-
So when is the right time to retire a product? If you have to spend 20 hours to fix a bug only 2 people out of thousands have mentioned it, is it worth it? How about 25 hours and 1 person? What if you spend 10 hours and realize it will take more and may not fix it? Where do you draw the line? How do you balance that when you need to make new things to survive as a company? I ask myself those questions every single day. I hate disappointing people and I hate leaving bugs I know frustrate our users, even just a single person, but sometimes we have to make difficult choices.
I realize that ugly practical realities beyond your control influence when an instrument will be retired. On the other hand, it's so exasperating to go through these predictable update issues, to wait literally for years, only to see an instrument reach its relative maturity and then be retired a few years later. It wouldn't be as frustrating if there wasn't this long period of waiting for something to be completed. And those years, during which some of us are waiting to buy the instrument, consume a large amount of its life span.
I know what's going to happen, and it's happened to me before. We'll wait and plead and wait and beg, you'll finally release a bug fix, and then the Rev2 will be retired two years later. All that waiting and hoping; we finally get what we've asked for, and then, "Bang," it's gone from the Sequential shelves. During those two years, I'll be selling my Prophet '08 keyboards and modules, intending to replace them with Rev2s. And before I get there, a note on your Facebook page will calmly announce that production has ended for the Rev2. Ugh!
For those of us with little disposable income, selling and buying a substantial amount of expensive music equipment can take years. During and after the pandemic, it's nearly impossible to get people to come to your home and buy a used instrument. Everybody still has the virus jitters. That's the reason for my personal frustration over this, Chris, and it's why I've been emailing you guys every few months for two or three years. I wanted a heads-up on this. I would have been happier to have been told three years ago that there would be no further work done on the Rev2.
The announcement from Brian in Djinn's email ("As the Rev2 codebase is at its maximum per the onboard processor, there are currently no plans to update the Rev2 OS or add new features.") hit me like a kick in the pants. I mean, for how long have you guys known this?! Thank God Djinn copied and posted it here, or we'd still be completely in the dark about this. That crucial bit of information should have been announced here directly by the company to its forum members. My first reaction was, "That's it; I'm done with these people. I'm switching over to Korg. No, wait - Behringer!"
Chris, I know it's been a difficult year for you and for everyone else at Sequential. But, pretty pretty please with a cherry on top, could you guys communicate with us a little more on the most important issues, especially on updates? Your work designing instruments is very important to you, but our work making music with your instruments is equally important to us. And it needn't be this frustrating.
-
I keep detailed records of every event where an employee tells me something similar to your response (Continuous performance monitoring). I always tell them that it's my fault for employing them, and so my solution to the problem is to replace them. But, if they can find a better solution then they're welcome to stay. They get two warnings. And if anyone ever mentioned "retiring a product" because it was too difficult to rectify, they would get booted out the door immediately. We don't take the cowards way out. If it was a problem that was impossible to rectify then a product recall is policy. And we have never had to do that because we have something that may be foreign to you, which is called "Quality Control" and "Quality Assurance".
It sounds like you have been working under very relaxed management. And don't play the virus card, because we're all in the same boat, and the Rev2 bugs stretch back way before 2020.
I understand it is frustrating. I have the same reaction with every single synth I have ever owned (and there have been lots) and not a single one of them is bug free. Every single piece of software I’ve ever used has bugs. Even when we reach bug free states we find new one because our users push the boundaries of what is possible on the instrument and in new combinations. It’s the only constant i know of in product development… there will always be another bug to fix, another improvement to be made
So when is the right time to retire a product? If you have to spend 20 hours to fix a bug only 2 people out of thousands have mentioned it, is it worth it? How about 25 hours and 1 person? What if you spend 10 hours and realize it will take more and may not fix it? Where do you draw the line? How do you balance that when you need to make new things to survive as a company? I ask myself those questions every single day. I hate disappointing people and I hate leaving bugs I know frustrate our users, even just a single person, but sometimes we have to make difficult choices.
We do learn from our choices and we are adding resources rapidly to do better in the future but, as I said, this was a profoundly difficult year for us, our customers, our suppliers and everybody we know.
I can’t make any promises right now because so much is up in the air. What I can say is we do not take this lightly and the amount of chaos and extra work due to the rippling effects of the pandemic has hit us hard. Balancing work and life and trying not to burnout isn’t easy, as I’m sure many people on here can understand right now. I’m even here posting publicly not because it is in my job description, but because I believe in what we do and open myself up to exactly that sort of criticism because I know how it feels and I want to do better than what I experienced with other companies.
Not trying to say any of the bugs aren't important, just giving some perspectives from the things we're dealing with. I try very hard not to mislead you guys and will try and chime in periodically here but you probably would rather I keep fixing bugs and adding features =)
So your perspective is that it's okay to waste time adding "vintage" modes to the perfectly operational OB~6 and P6, but not spend time fixing Rev.2 BUGS?
Personally I'm completely happy with the features the Rev.2 originally shipped with, but it's completely lame that it still has bugs today. That is completely unprofessional.
Remember, I am the customer. You at DSI/Sequential are a provider. I am paying your bills and sending your kids to school.
I hope Focusrite make some long overdue staff changes and find people who can make bug fixes, not excuses.
-
To be clear, I was referring to the retirement of the Poly Evolver Keyboard, when I was trying to add another unit to my set up. The retirement of the Prophet '08 caused a similar a panic. The Rev2, being now five years old and still possibly on the bench for an update, will be retired perhaps only three or four years after its completion. That's where the problem is. This period of waiting for the update has consumed at least half of its life span.
What I'm suggesting is that we be given fair warning about the discontinuation of a product. I would prefer at least six months, if that's reasonable.
-
You aren't alone in that; the forum is a microcosm of specific types of people with specific usages of our instruments, so you see a lot of sentiments and issues echoed here that we barely hear when talking to people face to face. It's difficult to determine what is the most important thing to look into due to that. If you look at our YouTube comments, Facebook, other forums, every single place will have their issues that are absolutely make or break for them. We do our best to address them but, like every company, we have to prioritize as best we can.
One of the big issues here is we are in an industry where innovation and creative improvements is essential to continue to compete, and those types of things are dramatically more difficult and risky than evolutionary improvements. We try and do both at the same time, incrementally: innovate through simplicity and cutting back, then by adding and pushing ourselves in other ways.
For every person who prefers simple instruments (like yourself) there are a dozen more who prefer other ways of interacting with an instrument. That's the beauty and the curse. We could easily make a DOZEN different instruments with exactly the same code and voices, just changing the way the interface is presented, and a dozen groups of different people would be very happy, but we'd go out of business trying to maintain them all: different parts, different boards, different code bases... it takes a lot of investment to get there and by the time you do, everything has changed.
Even since I've been here the instruments have gotten dramatically more stable and solid, even though they have gotten quite a bit more complex. I remember the Poly Evolver and the P'08 and how many things we'd find. Way more bugs, but way less visible because we sold far less AND because our users weren't pushing the boundaries of what the instruments could do quite as often, to a large degree we learn along with our users what is fun and exciting and important. To me this all just feels like normal growing pains. Every time a musician or company gets past certain points, you have trouble scaling to meet the expectations and desires of your fan base. You have to keep enough of the past, you have to push into the future.
I'm here trying to communicate. I'm not here officially, which is why I'm not giving you any promises I can't personally keep. I'm here because I actually do care about you guys being able to make music and I know when I get wrapped up in anger or resentment to my gear, I just stop. I hate that feeling.
I will look over the Rev2 bugs soon and hopefully be able to give you a better idea of if and when certain things will be fixed, but I can't give you any hard dates right now and I can't give you any promises beyond that.
My response to all of this would be the same as always - contrary, I realize, to what everyone else here wants. If I could have it my way, I would prefer simpler instruments, fewer features, not pushing things to the brink, and with an emphasis on maintenance. Make instruments that are strong in the fundamentals of synthesis, purged of known flaws, rock-solidly reliable, and kept in production for longer periods of time.
I know, I know....
-
I will look over the Rev2 bugs soon and hopefully be able to give you a better idea of if and when certain things will be fixed, but I can't give you any hard dates right now and I can't give you any promises beyond that.
Thank you, Chris. If all the week's heat and anger has convinced you to reconsider the update, then it has been worthwhile. But if the final answer is "No update," then please tell us outright, rather then risk someone's personal email seeping into the forum with the long-awaited answer. That's largely what caused the sudden outrage.
-
I will look over the Rev2 bugs soon and hopefully be able to give you a better idea of if and when certain things will be fixed, but I can't give you any hard dates right now and I can't give you any promises beyond that.
Thank you, Chris. If all the week's heat and anger has convinced you to reconsider the update, then it has been worthwhile. But if the final answer is "No update," please tell us outright, rather then risk someone's personal email seeping into the forum with the long-awaited answer. That's largely what caused the sudden outrage.
I agree with what Sacred Synthesis has said, and I too appreciate the posts you have been making and communicating with us. Thank you
And yeah I may still be hoping for a feature or two as well as fixes, but the fixes are more important, and in general I try to be optimistic so we will see.
-
UPDATE: Guys and gals, it's not over yet! Sequential has expressed renewed interest in fixing the Rev2 OS bugs, and they've asked me for a master list of them. Note that this is not about new features, but only bugs.
I think the best way to handle this is for all of you to Private Message (PM) me with the bugs you've found. This is our last chance, so list them all, even if we've discussed them many times before, and describe them accurately so Sequential can find them. I'll then continue to update the list and post it here or on another thread.
There are no promises or time estimates, but this is our last real chance to advance a superb instrument towards a condition far more acceptable to its users. We've bitterly complained, and Sequential has listened to us and responded. Now it's time for us to be good sports and do our part to help the company.
-
i think this sounds like music in someone's ears ;)
while i am fully satisfied with the rev2 for my needs, it's nice to see that there is something going on referring to this topic.
-
For me, the one thing I want out of an update is the fine tune as an internal modulation destination. I don't understand why its possible to assign it from an extrernal source, but you can't mod from an lfo and or through the mod matrix.
-
For me, the one thing I want out of an update is the fine tune as an internal modulation destination. I don't understand why its possible to assign it from an extrernal source, but you can't mod from an lfo and or through the mod matrix.
I am hoping they consider feature updates as well, and not just bugfixes, and this seems like a good and useful candidate for being added, but I don't know if it truly is easy or not. It certainly seems easier and like it would take up less space than say... vintage mode or something.
I don't mean to sound ungrateful for the bugfix part of all of this though
-
This is not about added features, but only bug fixes.
-
This is great news! Thanks @pym for committing to at least take a look, and @sacredsynthesis for helping to expedite.
I honesty don't think there are even that many confirmed/repeatable bugs left... Hopefully one more quick pass over the firmware could squash whatever is left, and leave us with a very stable final release. I imagine the Seq support ticket system probably has the best accounting of any existing, confirmed bugs with step-by-step actions... but yeah, everyone, speak up now if you've got a repeatable bug, and let @sacredsynthesis know!
The Gated Sequencer Stepping Issue with stacked patches is the one big issue that I know of that significantly hampers sound design / capabilities. (Ticket #48090 describes it in detail, with an example patch setup) It's easily repeatable from an init patch... and things get really jumbled up when you start changing the Seq Reset step too... the sequencer skips many steps and repeats others... but I think it's probably all just related to how key/voice steps are counted when in stacked mode)
The 1.1.5.9 Bug Report Thread is a mixed bag... it actually pre-dates the 1.1.5.9 release (Released Feb 4, 2019), so you can skip forward to around page eight to see anything reported after that.
https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,2805.140.html
There have, of course, been many requests for fine tune mod destination, a global/mono LFO switch, and other misc items, however those items would be considered new feature requests / improvements... so it's understandable if they are off the table.
But, yeah -- I would be thrilled to just have the modulation sequencer fixed... that alone would justify a final release for me, and allow a lot of sound design options that the Rev2 should be capable of based on its design.
-
The Gated Sequencer Stepping Issue with stacked patches is the one big issue that I know of that significantly hampers sound design / capabilities. (Ticket #48090 describes it in detail, with an example patch setup) It's easily repeatable from an init patch... and things get really jumbled up when you start changing the Seq Reset step too... the sequencer skips many steps and repeats others... but I think it's probably all just related to how key/voice steps are counted when in stacked mode)
The 1.1.5.9 Bug Report Thread is a mixed bag... it actually pre-dates the 1.1.5.9 release (Released Feb 4, 2019), so you can skip forward to around page eight to see anything reported after that.
https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,2805.140.html
Thank you for providing more info to report for the layer gated sequencer issue.
Also, I appreciate the heads up about the bug report thread. I was planning on going through that thread and repeating/testing the bugs before sending them on to Sacred Synthesis in the next few days.
-
Thanks, guys. You know I don't have a Rev2, so I'm entirely dependent on you for the information. I'm just the middleman.
-
For some reason my rev2 only has every voice on in unison mode my other dsi instruments don't have this bug. :p
-
For some reason my rev2 only has every voice on in unison mode my other dsi instruments don't have this bug. :p
I meant to say poly unison /me rolls eyes at self
-
I have been testing some of the bugs, and can't reproduce this bug in ableton but multiple users seem to have this issue. If anyone has the daws mentioned (or any daw for that matter) in this bug report and can test it, please let either me or Sacred Synthesis know if it is still an issue. I want to confirm it is a bug and is still present in the current firmware. Thanks
I just tested this in Logic. The Rev2 sequencer does not send note off midi commands. Therefore all recorded notes are stretched to the end of the region. It seems to be a bug. The only workaround I see is to manually shorten the recorded notes in the DAW. Logic has a nifty tool called Midi Transformer.
Hello
Apologies if this is the incorrect place to post, I've looked everywhere and I can only see one other mention of my issue very early on in this thread and could not see a fix.
The below user seems to have suffered the same issue where basically the notes played out the sequencer just hold and do not end. It happens when recording in Cubase, leaving one long note and also when just triggering other devices. I'm on 1.1.5.9 USB connected but have tried MIDI and have tried every setting one at a time but cant seem to figure this out?
Has anyone else come across this as I can't find a workaround. Thanks.
-
For some reason my rev2 only has every voice on in unison mode my other dsi instruments don't have this bug. :p
I meant to say poly unison /me rolls eyes at self
I'm not sure I understand what you mean exactly. If you mean that poly unison does not work, that is because it is not a feature of this instrument. It only has mono unison per layer.
-
You can set the amount of voices used in unison mode, from one voice to max voices on your Rev.
Also, you can copy Layer A and use a Bi-timbral Stack to emulate Poly-2 type of behavior with eight voices (on a 16v Rev)... I do this often... with some hard panning to layers it sounds huge.
It would be nice if there was a dedicated Poly-2 and Poly-4 mode where you could play polyphonically per layer with set unison voices per key, but that would definitely be in the realm of feature requests, and is probably unlikely for this instrument.
------------------------
Distortion Effect Pop When Loading or Navigating Through Patches
When navigating through patches, if you pass through a patch with Distortion enabled, you will hear a POP sound through speakers. If the gain is set medium-high, the pop can be fairly loud. This is more of a mild inconvenience type of bug, as it only happens while navigating to (or through) a patch with distortion enabled.
-
Modulation Sequencer Key Stepping Bug when Stacked
I uploaded a short vid that documents the issue with the Sequencer Key Stepping. The ticket submitted (#48090) to Support has all the vital info and example patch, but figured a video would make the issue more clear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdoGSE6qUTQ
It seems like it might just need to not count voices on the other layer as key steps when stack is enabled. Perhaps just a simple Divide/2 in the math might do it when stack is enabled, or maybe there's a more holistic way... but I'm guessing its probably a fairly easy fix. I'm happy to do additional alpha/beta testing as well...
-
That describes it very good, Creative Spiral. Just out of interest: what happens to the sequencer of layer B? Is it mocked up, too, or does it work fine, when running simultaneosly? What about Split mode? Is the bug there, too?
-
That describes it very good, Creative Spiral. Just out of interest: what happens to the sequencer of layer B? Is it mocked up, too, or does it work fine, when running simultaneosly? What about Split mode? Is the bug there, too?
Good questions.
1. Yes, Layer B is mucked up as well when they are stacked like this. Skips a bunch of steps.
2. Just tested and in Split mode it works as intended.
It definitely seems that the issue is just that in Stack Mode, the "Key Steps" need to be calculated on a per layer basis. (I just was playing around with different settings, and interestingly, when unison is enabled on a layer and the voice never advanced on the layer, then it doesn't mess up the other layer... which, I suppose makes sense for my interpretation of this bug logic... so I'm guessing the fix logic needs to be either:
a. Only count voice advancement on the current layer as a key step for that layer
OR
b. If the above holistic fix is hard to accomplish (ie: per layer voice counting), create some basic IF/THEN logic that says
IF Stacked = True
AND Layer-A-Unison = Off
AND Layer-B-Unison = Off
THEN
Divide/2 for Voice Advancement Key Stepping
-
I don‘t have my Rev2 here, because it‘s sitting in a rehearsal room right now, so I can‘t try it myself. I have another question:
What about „Reset“ steps… are they skipped, too, and would that mean, that the sequence is running through all 16, or in this case 8 steps everytime?
-
I don‘t have my Rev2 here, because it‘s sitting in a rehearsal room right now, so I can‘t try it myself. I have another question:
What about „Reset“ steps… are they skipped, too, and would that mean, that the sequence is running through all 16, or in this case 8 steps everytime?
The Reset Steps are obeyed, but key stepping still skips steps as outlined in the video... it actually becomes very difficult to keep track of when the reset results in an odd number of steps being left playing. I think the one fix that I outlined will make Key Stepping work great though... and it seems like its probably pretty straightforward to patch... at least from an outsider perspective.
There is a separate issue with the NO RESET and NO HOLD/RST modes of the mod sequencer... (Getting either Out of Phase issues / partial note abrupt changes, or Inconsistent Results when played along with DAW or drum machine) Razmo originally documented them a couple years back in the FW 1.1.5.9 bug thread... I have run into the issues several times over the years... but have never spent enough time to fully dissect what's going on.
I'm going to spend a bit of time in the next day or two and try to document the other Gated Seq issue as well as possible. Will upload a video or write up some detailed info soon.
-
Creative Spiral's bug is #1 on my list.
But man if they could make the arpeggiator clock/work like every other arpeggiator I know I'd be so happy. Probably an added feature. Kinda in the gray area though.
Anybody see the new Digitakt firmware update? That's how you do firmware updates, even after a co says the hardware is maxed out.
-
Creative Spiral's bug is #1 on my list.
But man if they could make the arpeggiator clock/work like every other arpeggiator I know I'd be so happy. Probably an added feature. Kinda in the gray area though.
Anybody see the new Digitakt firmware update? That's how you do firmware updates, even after a co says the hardware is maxed out.
Elektron might have its flaws (particularly in regards to overbridge) but the stability of the synths/their interest in keeping those existing models running awesomely are a gold standard to me.
On the plus side I'll be selling my prophet Rev 2 sometime this weekend. Definetly the last time I bother buying anything from Sequential/DSI.
-
Creative Spiral's bug is #1 on my list.
But man if they could make the arpeggiator clock/work like every other arpeggiator I know I'd be so happy. Probably an added feature. Kinda in the gray area though.
Anybody see the new Digitakt firmware update? That's how you do firmware updates, even after a co says the hardware is maxed out.
@rhullings - can you elaborate a bit further on the specific Arpeggiator behavior you are referring to? I am doing some testing on the gated sequencer, and there is definitely an issue with the "no reset" modes in regards to clock timing and being able to work with either a DAW or Drum Machine... I'm wondering if that is the same issue you are referring to? Using arp with the gated sequencer in a "no reset" or "no hold/rst" mode?
Or are you referring to a separate issue with the Arp / clock? If so, please document the circumstances / steps to reproduce... or at least describe the general issue and what behavior you are expecting vs what is output by synth, and I'll do some testing to see if I can confirm it and lock down the source.
@redgroup - I don't think there are that many bugs left in Rev2 .. hopefully if they do one more FW update then the remaining bugs can be ironed out. Do you have any specific bugs you can report here? If we can just get everything documented well, that will make it more straightforward to patch any existing issues.
-
It's great that customers' needs seem to be noticed through this forum. I really hope Sequential will release a final version of the firmware!
Not sure if it has already been described, however:
- mod matrix still has the problem that the modwheel can not be assigned immediately via the source shortcut. you have to assign a different source first before the modwheel will get recognized.
- BBD-Delay with clock sync on: modulation of parameter 1 (time) is not working.
- Maybe not a bug, but unexpected behaviour:
according to the manual you have to chose between gated seq and poly seq – BUT: when you're in stacked mode, you can use gated sequencer on layer B AND start poly seq on this layer. (e.g. you're able to sequence creativespirals VCM-patches)
For me, it's a quiet useful feature :)
-
We'll add it to the list. Thank you.
-
Sorry to drop off - I really only infrequently pop in here anymore to see if there's a new version of the firmware.
As for my arp note, I am indeed talking about how the arp and more generally the clock works when slaved to a DAW or sequencer. I've talked to Sequential support about this and they've confirmed that the clock will only lock to the beat of an incoming midi signal when it receives a "MIDI START" message. Any other message and it'll run at the correct tempo, but not in sync with the beat. Ultimately this makes the arp and LFOs useless when controlling the rev2 from an external source that doesn't send MIDI START messages on playback, especially if you not only want beat sync to work but also if you want repeatable performances. Like punching into a track in Pro Tools for example.
-
We'll add it to the list. Thank you.
I appreciate, admire and commend the collective effort by forum members to make sure all the important bugs have been listed.
At the same time, there is evidently something quite surrealistic to it, especially at such a late stage in the history of the product.
If it is not evident to Sequential itself, it must certainly be to prospective customers who are considering buying ANY product from Sequential - not to speak of a Prophet Rev2 - and read this thread or learn about its main thrust on social media.
-
I appreciate, admire and commend the collective effort by forum members to make sure all the important bugs have been listed.
At the same time, there is evidently something quite surrealistic to it, especially at such a late stage in the history of the product.
If it is not evident to Sequential itself, it must certainly be to prospective customers who are considering buying ANY product from Sequential - not to speak of a Prophet Rev2 - and read this thread or learn about its main thrust on social media.
I agree, I'm really thankful for the efforts made by other forum members here. creativespiral is pretty much working without pay for SCI... Not to mention his thorough work with VCM, analyzing what makes synths sound "vintage", which SCI then casually implemented on other synths, replacing slop, and calling it "vintage" mode... :-X
"At the same time, there is evidently something quite surrealistic to it, especially at such a late stage in the history of the product." I feel that too... not getting my hopes up this time, I still fear it'll end in a crazy-Greta quote "You have stolen my dreams... with your empty words." ;D I hope not, but considering how many times the update has been "coming soon" previously (which turned out to be empty words indeed), my impression is that it could be just empty words to ease the minds of forum members, and consequently lessen the critique of the Rev2 (for now), damage controlling the bad rep... until they've sold out the Rev2's left in stock, then comes a lame excuse like "we tried, but it was just impossible to fix..." ::)
I'm quite concerned that this may be the case, that they've already decided on it, and simply feed us "empty words"... Which would be even more waste of Rev2-owners time, putting in time to document the bugs and so, and in creativespirals case, even doing much of the work for them... At this stage, I wouldn't be surprised at all, if it's just "for show", to "keep face". I'm generally not pessimistic by nature, but when it comes to this, I'm sorry to say I have little, if any, hope in SCI. I predict the update will never come. Please prove me wrong, SCI!
"If it is not evident to Sequential itself, it must certainly be to prospective customers who are considering buying ANY product from Sequential - not to speak of a Prophet Rev2 - and read this thread or learn about its main thrust on social media."
Yep, that's what I'm afraid they're just trying to tone down, until they've sold the remaining Rev2s... and that THIS is the purpose of getting vocal on the forum, hinting an update may come (again), to calm us down 'til then. "Please list the bugs" to bring us hope... (as if the bugs weren't already on the bug thread, that they apparently don't read...?) ??? I sincerely hope not, but most of my impressions about this whole thing throughout the years have turned out to be right, unfortunately... I appreciate Pym chiming in here, but my impression was that he said a WHOLE LOT, excuses and all, without saying anything concrete AT ALL... I got an odd, eerie vibe from that.
Again, not trying to be pessimistic, I REALLY want to believe that they're even trying, but it's the total opposite of what my gut is telling me.
Again, SCI, PLEASE prove me wrong!
-
Not my intention to be a party pooper... there's just too much "strange" going on with this, for me to believe the excuses and "explanations". I assume the covid excuse was more convenient than true. But prior to that one, we were supposed to think that they've been working on an update for years... "just wait a little longer, it'll be here soon" repeatedly, would imply they were actually working on it, wouldn't it...? then all of a sudden "oops, we just realized there was no space left for updates"... to "ok, we'll have a look at it... oh, btw, what bugs were we supposed to have been trying to fix, all this time, again?" I mean, if they didn't even keep a log of the bugs, wth were they trying to fix these previous years?
The impression I get from this, and the rest of it, is that SCI are not genuine in their communications with their customers... I don't want to accuse them of straight out LYING, but it's getting pretty hard to explain away now, isn't it?
Shitty behaviour, or making mistakes, is one thing. But not owning up to it, pretending stuff, lying, is something else...
Some forum members here have asked to be told what's going on, straight up... like, either way, just TELL US! (preferably years ago)... why? Because SCI have been anything but transparent on this one, pretending to be working on an update, and up until lately, hardly even communicating directly with their Rev2 customers on this issue on here.
Sorry for blasting SCI, I really wish the situation was different, but I had to get this off my chest.
-
There's an article on the BBC News site today saying that 'Customers are fed up with Covid excuse for bad service' and it's what I'm hearing from a lot of people.
I was very disappointed to see that when the Prophet-5 was released, there was a problem with the manufacturing process initially and it was deemed acceptable that customers fix the issue themselves by opening up their new and expensive synths. You shouldn't expect to have to do that for any purchase in my opinion. This combined with the already long wait for the next firmware release made me think that it would never happen.
-
I don't know, speaking personally I can put up with the odd glitch in the process considering this is a small company with innovation and enthusiasm at it's heart. It's never going to be perfect and run like a huge organisation like Yamaha or some other entity which has gotten so big its lost its humanity along with its human error in the transition to the well oiled mega business, and if Sequential ever did go that way you'd probably be nostalgic for the current era!
Of course these are premium instruments and as a customer you have shelled out a lot of money, but I dunno I think considering its a small firm creating instruments out of enthusiasm first and foremost, I would cut Sequential some slack. Or at least, more slack than you would cut bloody Deutsche Bank or something 😄
-
Not my intention to be a party pooper... there's just too much "strange" going on with this, for me to believe the excuses and "explanations". I assume the covid excuse was more convenient than true. But prior to that one, we were supposed to think that they've been working on an update for years... "just wait a little longer, it'll be here soon" repeatedly, would imply they were actually working on it, wouldn't it...? then all of a sudden "oops, we just realized there was no space left for updates"... to "ok, we'll have a look at it... oh, btw, what bugs were we supposed to have been trying to fix, all this time, again?" I mean, if they didn't even keep a log of the bugs, wth were they trying to fix these previous years?
The impression I get from this, and the rest of it, is that SCI are not genuine in their communications with their customers... I don't want to accuse them of straight out LYING, but it's getting pretty hard to explain away now, isn't it?
Shitty behaviour, or making mistakes, is one thing. But not owning up to it, pretending stuff, lying, is something else...
Some forum members here have asked to be told what's going on, straight up... like, either way, just TELL US! (preferably years ago)... why? Because SCI have been anything but transparent on this one, pretending to be working on an update, and up until lately, hardly even communicating directly with their Rev2 customers on this issue on here.
Sorry for blasting SCI, I really wish the situation was different, but I had to get this off my chest.
I don’t think it is a communication issue, I think it is amateurism.
And this makes me feel very sad cuz I was extremely proud to buy a “Prophet” as my first hardware synth I felt in communion with electronic music history. Really… Now I take the measure off how badly the brand image has deteriorated. Maybe the idiot was me and my beliefs, no need to blame DSI, yes my rev2 is a DSI. Interestingly it became Sequential soon after, like DS is taking his distances, and huh btw, we’re talking about Focusrite now, aren’t we? Sounds like the end, beautiful friends.
-
Not my intention to be a party pooper... there's just too much "strange" going on with this, for me to believe the excuses and "explanations". I assume the covid excuse was more convenient than true. But prior to that one, we were supposed to think that they've been working on an update for years... "just wait a little longer, it'll be here soon" repeatedly, would imply they were actually working on it, wouldn't it...? then all of a sudden "oops, we just realized there was no space left for updates"... to "ok, we'll have a look at it... oh, btw, what bugs were we supposed to have been trying to fix, all this time, again?" I mean, if they didn't even keep a log of the bugs, wth were they trying to fix these previous years?
The impression I get from this, and the rest of it, is that SCI are not genuine in their communications with their customers... I don't want to accuse them of straight out LYING, but it's getting pretty hard to explain away now, isn't it?
Shitty behaviour, or making mistakes, is one thing. But not owning up to it, pretending stuff, lying, is something else...
Some forum members here have asked to be told what's going on, straight up... like, either way, just TELL US! (preferably years ago)... why? Because SCI have been anything but transparent on this one, pretending to be working on an update, and up until lately, hardly even communicating directly with their Rev2 customers on this issue on here.
Sorry for blasting SCI, I really wish the situation was different, but I had to get this off my chest.
I don’t think it is a communication issue, I think it is amateurism.
And this makes me feel very sad cuz I was extremely proud to buy a “Prophet” as my first hardware synth I felt in communion with electronic music history. Really… Now I take the measure off how badly the brand image has deteriorated. Maybe the idiot was me and my beliefs, no need to blame DSI, yes my rev2 is a DSI. Interestingly it became Sequential soon after, like DS is taking his distances, and huh btw, we’re talking about Focusrite now, aren’t we? Sounds like the end, beautiful friends.
Well if you are worried about the brand image deteriorating you probably weren't there in 1978 when you might have bought an overheating Prophet 10 or Prophet 5 Rev 1 or in 1980 a double manual Prophet 10 with memory problems or in 1983 a Prophet 600 with a slow to respond CPU. All absolutely amazing and innovative instruments, but the road was a little rocky along the way! Thems the breaks if you go with a small, innovative, and enthusiastic company, as opposed to a massive corporation that makes bland but otherwise perfectly faultless stuff.
-
" or in 1983 a Prophet 600 with a slow to respond CPU. All absolutely amazing and innovative instruments, but the road was a little rocky along the way! Thems the breaks if you go with a small, innovative, and enthusiastic company"
Sorry I don't buy this point... If ur suggesting we should wait for gligli type modification for our 4year old synths.. From a company that can't even decide on a name... This is 2021 not 1983
-
" or in 1983 a Prophet 600 with a slow to respond CPU. All absolutely amazing and innovative instruments, but the road was a little rocky along the way! Thems the breaks if you go with a small, innovative, and enthusiastic company"
Sorry I don't buy this point... If ur suggesting we should wait for gligli type modification for our 4year old synths.. From a company that can't even decide on a name... This is 2021 not 1983
Easy Djinn, it's only been 40 years or so, the learning curve is steep... ;D they just need more time, maybe in another 40 or so they'll pick up, please come again in the 60's...
Kind of makes you wonder how some of the brand new "small, innovative, and enthusiastic company"s pull it off without such shortcomings these days, some at first try even...? Weeeeell, with the exception of software bugs. Which are fixed with OS updates, you know? :P
-
I'm not aware of the "massive corporations" that are now producing "perfectly flawless stuff." I come across complaints about everyone's instruments. Nor is a company's small size an excuse for designing instruments that are beyond its capacity to complete or maintain free of major flaws. It should stay within its range of ability. I don't think anything unreasonable is being requested here.
As for the old days of analog instruments - I was there and I remember them well. Yes, there were all sorts of problems with synthesizers, but they were due to the primitive state of the technology. In 2021, that excuse is no longer acceptable. A synthesizer company - large or small - should stay within it proper range of ability. If it has an inspiring vision of magnificent instruments, but lacks the resources to produce them, then it should adjust its vision a little closer to reality.
Speaking of those old "analog days," I would quite prefer them to the present times. If you were prudent in your choices of instruments, you could avoid much of the trouble. I once owned a brand new Roland Juno 60 that never offered me a speck of trouble. Is it unreasonable to expect the same of brand new instruments all these years later? No, it's entirely fair and reasonable. The problem is that we demand such advanced and sophisticated instruments, which pushes the designers to try to deliver, but which often results in all sorts of troubles because...well...those designers ultimately can't deliver. They can produce something impressive, alright, but still filled with headaches for users.
Again, I may be alone in this view, but I would much prefer simpler synthesizers, so as to be spared the headaches. I wish companies would stay within their range of ability in both design and maintenance. This whole code and OS dilemma is just repulsive. I don't want to be an involuntary Beta tester, not do I care to own an instrument that seems to be stuck in a state of development. Just give me a finished product free of major problems. And if you can't...please tell me!
-
I'm not aware of the "massive corporations" that are now producing "perfectly flawless stuff." I come across complaints about everyone's instruments. Nor is a company's small size an excuse for designing instruments that are beyond its capacity to complete or maintain free of major flaws. It should stay within its range of ability. I don't think anything unreasonable is being requested here.
As for the old days of analog instruments - I was there and I remember them well. Yes, there were all sorts of problems with synthesizers, but they were due to the primitive state of the technology. In 2021, that excuse is no longer acceptable. A synthesizer company - large or small - should stay within it proper range of ability. If it has an inspiring vision of magnificent instruments, but lacks the resources to produce them, then it should adjust its vision a little closer to reality.
Speaking of those old "analog days," I would quite prefer them to the present times. If you were prudent in your choices of instruments, you could avoid much of the trouble. I once owned a brand new Roland Juno 60 that never offered me a speck of trouble. Is it unreasonable to expect the same of brand new instruments all these years later? No, it's entirely fair and reasonable. The problem is that we demand such advanced and sophisticated instruments, which pushes the designers to try to deliver, but which often results in all sorts of troubles because...well...those designers ultimately can't deliver. They can produce something impressive, alright, but still filled with headaches for users.
Again, I may be alone in this view, but I would much prefer simpler synthesizers, so as to be spared the headaches. I wish companies would stay within their range of ability in both design and maintenance. This whole code and OS dilemma is just repulsive. I don't want to be an involuntary Beta tester, not do I care to own an instrument that seems to be stuck in a state of development. Just give me a finished product free of major problems. And if you can't...please tell me!
Fair point! And I certainly don’t want to end up arguing the corner for companies to be lax and produce keyboards with major problems; my point was somewhere in the middle- yes it’s annoying but it was always thus (in one way or another) and perhaps it’s a downside of the kind of spirit that otherwise exists to produce great things. A downside nonetheless!
I mean, I’ve had a Juno 60 for the last 3 decades and my opinion was always that it’s maybe a little bit boring 😄
-
I'm not here in a totally "official" capacity, I do this on my own time (it's nearly midnight right now) because I actually do believe in what we do and really hate it when you guys get frustrated to a point where it interferes with the joy you get from the instruments we make. If you have read my posts over the years I think you'd have less reason to doubt me and I hope others will speak to my willingness to be upfront and honest about tough issues; but it is what it is.
What I hope you can understand is I'm not trying to make "excuses". I'm just trying to give you information to help you manage expectations of what we will be able to do and in what timeframe as I see things in this moment. I know it's impossible to tell the difference through text and especially given the current extreme hand we've been dealt over the past year, but we are doing our best.
If we can agree that I'm not trying to lie or mislead you I am willing to try and communicate more, but if I'm going to be fighting against that baseless narrative constantly I'm just going to stop posting. It's just exhausting for me and it caused a serious burnout last time.
Not my intention to be a party pooper... there's just too much "strange" going on with this, for me to believe the excuses and "explanations". I assume the covid excuse was more convenient than true. But prior to that one, we were supposed to think that they've been working on an update for years... "just wait a little longer, it'll be here soon" repeatedly, would imply they were actually working on it, wouldn't it...? then all of a sudden "oops, we just realized there was no space left for updates"... to "ok, we'll have a look at it... oh, btw, what bugs were we supposed to have been trying to fix, all this time, again?" I mean, if they didn't even keep a log of the bugs, wth were they trying to fix these previous years?
The impression I get from this, and the rest of it, is that SCI are not genuine in their communications with their customers... I don't want to accuse them of straight out LYING, but it's getting pretty hard to explain away now, isn't it?
Shitty behaviour, or making mistakes, is one thing. But not owning up to it, pretending stuff, lying, is something else...
Some forum members here have asked to be told what's going on, straight up... like, either way, just TELL US! (preferably years ago)... why? Because SCI have been anything but transparent on this one, pretending to be working on an update, and up until lately, hardly even communicating directly with their Rev2 customers on this issue on here.
Sorry for blasting SCI, I really wish the situation was different, but I had to get this off my chest.
-
I don't know why this thread heated up that much again?
I thought Sacred Synthesis is going to collect the major bugs, and Sequential will eventually fix it (or not, if not possible or no time... ). Can't we just wait what will happen now?
Most of you are repeating yourself over and over again, instead of testing and testing your Rev2s for reproducible bugs, that are not described yet.
It is perfectly ok to give vent to one's anger, but after there is at least a kind of roadmap (collecting bugs and then we will see), this has to end and go in a more constructive direction. Otherwise I can perfectly understand why Pym and other don't communicate more in this forum. The sound makes the music... as we say here... ;-)
-
Don't take it personally, Pym! I'm just airing my concerns and impressions (aka "ranting") of SCI customer communication relating to the Rev2. I'm sorry you're "caught in the middle". I'd put the blame for that on SCI though, as I don't think WE, the customers, are to blame. We've been quietly and patiently waiting for YEARS, given the "silent treatment", years when I have barely even touched the Rev2, as I've been awaiting an update fixing the bug(s) that'll let me continue my work I was doing on the P'08 all those years ago... yeah, that's a LITTLE frustrating, and then comes the message that "ooops, there's no space left for updates..." ??? on which I called BS, and then it changed to "takes time to optimize the OS" (which I was suspecting, vocally, all along). Well, time is long overdue, WHY haven't SCI been working on this in the first place, when we've repeatedly been told "it's coming soon", for years? That's my criticism of the COMPANY that is SCI. Rhetoric questions if you will, not asked to get a definitive answer.
Please excuse me for blasting SCI, I have nothing personal against you. It's just that the information given throughout the years has turned out to be INCONSISTENT, inconsequential... a good word in case SCI is thinking of a name change. I'll use it from now on.
I'm not here in a totally "official" capacity
Well, I think someone SHOULD be communicating in an official capacity with us on this. That's obviously NOT your fault, but inconSequentials again...
I do this on my own time (it's nearly midnight right now) because I actually do believe in what we do and really hate it when you guys get frustrated to a point where it interferes with the joy you get from the instruments we make. If you have read my posts over the years I think you'd have less reason to doubt me and I hope others will speak to my willingness to be upfront and honest about tough issues; but it is what it is.
Well, that sucks... again NOT your nor OUR fault, but inconSequentials once again.
"...really hate it when you guys get frustrated to a point where it interferes with the joy you get from the instruments we make"
That's mildly put in my case. And yes, I hate it too... a lot.
If we can agree that I'm not trying to lie or mislead you I am willing to try and communicate more, but if I'm going to be fighting against that baseless narrative constantly I'm just going to stop posting. It's just exhausting for me and it caused a serious burnout last time.
I'll agree with that, I really don't think you're to blame for this mess at all. I'm honestly sorry that you're the one who gets to clean it up, as I think/assume it's not "your" mess to begin with. Not a fun spot to be. I was just trying to point out that the information given by inconSequential through the years has been inconsistent, it just doesn't add up, and there's no explaining that. SOMEONE, in "official capacity" I don't know, has apparently dealt us misleading or false information (coming soon, coming soon, coming soon?). I'm sure you can understand the shock, disbelief and distrust after then being told it's not coming, after these years... A feeling of being deceived and then insulted on top. But I'm sorry that it is you who gets to deal with the flack against inconSequential for this crap. It's just that you're the only representative of inconSequential here, but it wasn't my intention to accuse you of anything personally, I apologize if I did, or if that's how I came across... But please do forward the message to those who made the mess!!! -A lot of us Rev2 owners are not happy...
Sorry jok3r for repeating myself, and for not being very constructive, but I've had it up to here... and quietly, patiently waiting obviously didn't work, so I suppose I have some trouble with "just waiting" these days... This is the steam from years of boiling, but I meant no offense to anyone personally, but to the COMPANY I refer to as inconSequential. If customers don't complain, nothing will happen, as we've seen. We probably should've been this vocal a long time ago...
I applaud and thank Pym and the other forum members here for still working on it, personally I just get so frustrated even by just looking at the Rev2. I think I hate it. My apologies if I've been rude or improper, too blunt or whatever, no personal offense was meant.
-
I should add, that Pym having to step up and make these efforts on his own spare time, does anything but change my impressions of inconSequential...
-
Sorry jok3r for repeating myself, and for not being very constructive, but I've had it up to here... and quietly, patiently waiting obviously didn't work, so I suppose I have some trouble with "just waiting" these days... This is the steam from years of boiling, but I meant no offense to anyone personally, but to the COMPANY I refer to as inconSequential. If customers don't complain, nothing will happen, as we've seen. We probably should've been this vocal a long time ago...
Maxter, I can perfectly understand your feelings and I think most users here are feeling at least 80% the same. I just wanted to point out that at a certain point in a discussion everything is said. At least that's what I believe. Until that point everything said can be understood as "customers speak out loud" for something... but after this point is reached, if everything is running in circles, it would be just annoying to me, if I was a Sequential employee. And I don't think that will lead to anything...
So please, let's all just calm down a bit and wait and see what Pym can or cannot do for us... of course, a regular update on this case would be nice and not asked too much.
-
You're still doing it and it's getting more disrespectful
The OS is full on the DSP. There is nothing more we can do for a large category of bugs, period. We (myself included) spent a long time trying to optimize it for size constraints and we reached a wall. While it may not feel like we've spent any time on it, we definitely have. Have you written assembly code where you are literally down to 16 bits of space left and have to add more without losing functionality? This isn't a trivial problem where you just spend a few extra hours and it's magically fixed. If you feel like I'm lying about that then the conversation has ended, regardless of what I say, because we aren't communicating. We aren't moving this dialog forward. I'm not going to start offering more information when it will just be dismissed if it doesn't fit your narrative.
I have gone out of my way to solve bugs for people who has asked me politely, discussed the issue and have been patient when I couldn't prioritize it immediately. All I ask for is some civility and respect not just for me, but for everyone who works at Sequential. I don't want this turning into a situation where the louder and more emotionally charged the dialog becomes we are suddenly forced into fixing things and reprioritize based on some fear of being cancelled.
I get that you are upset and I am sorry the communication hasn't felt consistent. I will try and give more details if my explanations don't make enough sense or feel like an excuse as long as people ask questions and don't accuse me of misleading them. We both want the same things here
Don't take it personally, Pym! I'm just airing my concerns and impressions (aka "ranting") of SCI customer communication relating to the Rev2. I'm sorry you're "caught in the middle". I'd put the blame for that on SCI though, as I don't think WE, the customers, are to blame. We've been quietly and patiently waiting for YEARS, given the "silent treatment", years when I have barely even touched the Rev2, as I've been awaiting an update fixing the bug(s) that'll let me continue my work I was doing on the P'08 all those years ago... yeah, that's a LITTLE frustrating, and then comes the message that "ooops, there's no space left for updates..." ??? on which I called BS, and then it changed to "takes time to optimize the OS" (which I was suspecting, vocally, all along). Well, time is long overdue, WHY haven't SCI been working on this in the first place, when we've repeatedly been told "it's coming soon", for years? That's my criticism of the COMPANY that is SCI. Rhetoric questions if you will, not asked to get a definitive answer.
Please excuse me for blasting SCI, I have nothing personal against you. It's just that the information given throughout the years has turned out to be INCONSISTENT, inconsequential... a good word in case SCI is thinking of a name change. I'll use it from now on.
I'm not here in a totally "official" capacity
Well, I think someone SHOULD be communicating in an official capacity with us on this. That's obviously NOT your fault, but inconSequentials again...
I do this on my own time (it's nearly midnight right now) because I actually do believe in what we do and really hate it when you guys get frustrated to a point where it interferes with the joy you get from the instruments we make. If you have read my posts over the years I think you'd have less reason to doubt me and I hope others will speak to my willingness to be upfront and honest about tough issues; but it is what it is.
Well, that sucks... again NOT your nor OUR fault, but inconSequentials once again.
"...really hate it when you guys get frustrated to a point where it interferes with the joy you get from the instruments we make"
That's mildly put in my case. And yes, I hate it too... a lot.
If we can agree that I'm not trying to lie or mislead you I am willing to try and communicate more, but if I'm going to be fighting against that baseless narrative constantly I'm just going to stop posting. It's just exhausting for me and it caused a serious burnout last time.
I'll agree with that, I really don't think you're to blame for this mess at all. I'm honestly sorry that you're the one who gets to clean it up, as I think/assume it's not "your" mess to begin with. Not a fun spot to be. I was just trying to point out that the information given by inconSequential through the years has been inconsistent, it just doesn't add up, and there's no explaining that. SOMEONE, in "official capacity" I don't know, has apparently dealt us misleading or false information (coming soon, coming soon, coming soon?). I'm sure you can understand the shock, disbelief and distrust after then being told it's not coming, after these years... A feeling of being deceived and then insulted on top. But I'm sorry that it is you who gets to deal with the flack against inconSequential for this crap. It's just that you're the only representative of inconSequential here, but it wasn't my intention to accuse you of anything personally, I apologize if I did, or if that's how I came across... But please do forward the message to those who made the mess!!! -A lot of us Rev2 owners are not happy...
Sorry jok3r for repeating myself, and for not being very constructive, but I've had it up to here... and quietly, patiently waiting obviously didn't work, so I suppose I have some trouble with "just waiting" these days... This is the steam from years of boiling, but I meant no offense to anyone personally, but to the COMPANY I refer to as inconSequential. If customers don't complain, nothing will happen, as we've seen. We probably should've been this vocal a long time ago...
I applaud and thank Pym and the other forum members here for still working on it, personally I just get so frustrated even by just looking at the Rev2. I think I hate it. My apologies if I've been rude or improper, too blunt or whatever, no personal offense was meant.
-
I thought Sacred Synthesis is going to collect the major bugs, and Sequential will eventually fix it (or not, if not possible or no time... ). Can't we just wait what will happen now?
That's seems to have ended in no time. I thought I would be receiving tons of information from members, but it came in as a trickle and quickly ended. So the bugs amount to only several, but they are apparently substantial from users' perspectives.
I think the fury of this issue will cool only when Sequential announces that the Rev2 is altogether "finished," with or without the debated bug fixes. Thinking back on my own efforts to get the final update, emailing the company and posting here to encourage people, perhaps that wasn't prudent after all. Because now we're all back in a state of limbo, waiting and hoping all over again, and with no promises.
Pym obviously doesn't run Sequential, so he can't give us a final decision about the update. He's voluntarily served as the company's apologist in this mess, so I don't envy him. Nor is he the cause of the problem; he's just been the spokesman, so that in asking for the update we're asking the impossible from him. Meaning, he's obviously not the decision-maker, but can only try to persuade the boss. And here on the forum, he can only offer explanations, like them or not.
Personally, I'm still confused as to what exactly happened, when it happened, who's to blame, and how things actually degenerated to this point. What I do know is that something changed, and it caught us by surprise, to put it lightly. We might have our own theories about this - the purchase by Focusrite probably stands at the top of the list, and the pandemic lock-up at the bottom - but I don't expect ever to know the details. It's a big mystery to me still.
However, in the interest of not morphing into the dreaded Gearsluts amatuer boxing site, let's back off a tad. Both sides of the issue have staked their claims, and there's little more to add to them. If all the important bugs have been reported, then it's time to forget about it for a while and revisit the discussion only when Sequential has made a decision. I only ask the company to be blunt and clear when that point arrives, and to avoid the problems before they begin again. Perhaps Dave himself could make that announcement here, as he did, I believe, in ending the "tempest" over the Tempest. This argument has not only been about OS updates; it's equally been about poor communication. May we all live and learn.
-
@pym - I do know what you're going through believe me.... I'm a software developer so understand what it's like. As I'm now 60, I only work 16 hours a week and I'm working on our legacy product. There's only me in the whole company working on this product so i feel the weight of every single reported bug personally. In my case, nobody in the management team cares about the product I work on (unless there are customer complaints!!) so I always feel very isolated.
I do appreciate the work you do and appreciate even more you commenting on the forums. It shows that you care in my opinion.
-
@pym - I do know what you're going through believe me.... I'm a software developer so understand what it's like. As I'm now 60, I only work 16 hours a week and I'm working on our legacy product. There's only me in the whole company working on this product so i feel the weight of every single reported bug personally. In my case, nobody in the management team cares about the product I work on (unless there are customer complaints!!) so I always feel very isolated.
I do appreciate the work you do and appreciate even more you commenting on the forums. It shows that you care in my opinion.
I'm always grateful that pym and other Sequential peeps take time to post on the forum. On top of that, I'm grateful for the work they do, period. Maybe I'm "lucky" to own Sequential gear - a P5 and a P6 - that I don't expect to be much upgraded or in need of considerable bug fixing, but my experience with the company has always been very positive. And while I think of Dave Smith as a rock star, by synth-geek standards anyway, I think of Sequential as an organic whole. There's always a good vibe coming from anyone at the company that I've had contact with or whose posts I've read on forums like this. While I don't deny that many here are frustrated - wishing either for upgrades, bug fixes or more immediate/direct communication from Sequential - I hope that the general tone of posted complaints doesn't continue to grow into a GS-style garden of ugliness.
-
pym, Sequential, creativespiral, Sacred Synthesis and everybody working towards closing out this Prophet Rev2 OS: thank you.
Perhaps a dedicated constructive, thread focused strictly on this goal would be the least energy drag on pym. ... And there could be a separate vent thread.
These two threads can be split to start the two. Typically I'm wary of excessive control of a forum. However, this OS close-out goal is important, and this is an excellent use of the up-sides of a forum. We currently have a positive two-way communication between forum and designer.
Sometimes the length of a long post itself communicates negative energy, intended or not.
Add my vote to creativespiral's agenda. It was quite useful to make an effective video detailing the issue.
-
You're still doing it and it's getting more disrespectful
Sorry, that wasn't my intention.
The OS is full on the DSP. There is nothing more we can do for a large category of bugs, period. We (myself included) spent a long time trying to optimize it for size constraints and we reached a wall. While it may not feel like we've spent any time on it, we definitely have.
Thank you for explaining, I appreciate it! We on the outside have not had a clue as to what's going on, or the reasons behind it, so we've been left to mere speculation... That's why this kind of information is very valuable to us (or to me at least), and highly appreciated when you do share! So we can at least have an idea of what's going on, and why. That goes a long way. Sometimes it's as simple as that, communicating.
Have you written assembly code where you are literally down to 16 bits of space left and have to add more without losing functionality?
No, I have not, I'm not a programmer, and I'm on the outside with very little info, so I obviously couldn't have a clue as to what's actually going on! But again, thanks for telling us! I appreciate it, and I think others do too. This is more like what I'd expect from a company representative!
This isn't a trivial problem where you just spend a few extra hours and it's magically fixed. If you feel like I'm lying about that then the conversation has ended, regardless of what I say, because we aren't communicating. We aren't moving this dialog forward.
OK, I had no idea of any of this, how could I have until just now? And I don't think you're lying about this, I tried to clarify that in my last post. Again, thank you for giving us some more information!
I'm not going to start offering more information when it will just be dismissed if it doesn't fit your narrative.
OK. I didn't mean to dismiss you. But you DID offer some more information this time, which I highly appreciate, and it didn't "fit my narrative", which is a very good thing. I don't think I totally understood what you meant there, as I obviously would prefer information that DOESN'T fit "my narrative", as you call it. So thanks again for this information, the information you gave in this post explained a lot more than you have told us before.
I get that you are upset and I am sorry the communication hasn't felt consistent. I will try and give more details if my explanations don't make enough sense or feel like an excuse as long as people ask questions and don't accuse me of misleading them. We both want the same things here
Thank you for your understanding! I wasn't accusing you of misleading, which I tried to clarify with my last post, but I really appreciate that you maybe get what I'm saying about the consistency of the communication, which has been the most upsetting part to me personally. What's done is done, but I really appreciated the first sentence above, as well as the information you provided, it makes a lot more sense. Again, the kind of communication I would expect from a company representative!
I honestly didn't mean anything personal towards anyone with my last post, which I tried to make clear. But as a company, a company must be prepared to take some criticism, at least in a case like this?! -without making it personal. I'm happy with the information you gave, that's what I was hoping for. I was trying NOT to make it personal, I encourage you to as well, or try to not take critique of the company you work for as personally against you. Remember, we the customers have had VERY little to go on. Thanks for understanding!
I apologize again if I was rude or whatever. It was not my intention.
Peace!
-
All good. Thank you for hearing me, really appreciate you listening! It's easy to create your own reasoning behind all this if you don't have accurate information. I'll keep trying to get better at explaining. It's tough to know how much technical detail to give you guys here... what is important vs. what is just noise and confuses people.
We're all passionate people. I mean come on, we make MUSIC. When something prevents you from doing what you love to do, this is totally expected.
I'll update you guys when I get on the Rev2 code, I plan to soon finalizing the Pro3 code right now for the release tomorrow and the Rev2 won't be too far off that.
You're still doing it and it's getting more disrespectful
Sorry, that wasn't my intention.
The OS is full on the DSP. There is nothing more we can do for a large category of bugs, period. We (myself included) spent a long time trying to optimize it for size constraints and we reached a wall. While it may not feel like we've spent any time on it, we definitely have.
Thank you for explaining, I appreciate it! We on the outside have not had a clue as to what's going on, or the reasons behind it, so we've been left to mere speculation... That's why this kind of information is very valuable to us (or to me at least), and highly appreciated when you do share! So we can at least have an idea of what's going on, and why. That goes a long way. Sometimes it's as simple as that, communicating.
Have you written assembly code where you are literally down to 16 bits of space left and have to add more without losing functionality?
No, I have not, I'm not a programmer, and I'm on the outside with very little info, so I obviously couldn't have a clue as to what's actually going on! But again, thanks for telling us! I appreciate it, and I think others do too. This is more like what I'd expect from a company representative!
This isn't a trivial problem where you just spend a few extra hours and it's magically fixed. If you feel like I'm lying about that then the conversation has ended, regardless of what I say, because we aren't communicating. We aren't moving this dialog forward.
OK, I had no idea of any of this, how could I have until just now? And I don't think you're lying about this, I tried to clarify that in my last post. Again, thank you for giving us some more information!
I'm not going to start offering more information when it will just be dismissed if it doesn't fit your narrative.
OK. I didn't mean to dismiss you. But you DID offer some more information this time, which I highly appreciate, and it didn't "fit my narrative", which is a very good thing. I don't think I totally understood what you meant there, as I obviously would prefer information that DOESN'T fit "my narrative", as you call it. So thanks again for this information, the information you gave in this post explained a lot more than you have told us before.
I get that you are upset and I am sorry the communication hasn't felt consistent. I will try and give more details if my explanations don't make enough sense or feel like an excuse as long as people ask questions and don't accuse me of misleading them. We both want the same things here
Thank you for your understanding! I wasn't accusing you of misleading, which I tried to clarify with my last post, but I really appreciate that you maybe get what I'm saying about the consistency of the communication, which has been the most upsetting part to me personally. What's done is done, but I really appreciated the first sentence above, as well as the information you provided, it makes a lot more sense. Again, the kind of communication I would expect from a company representative!
I honestly didn't mean anything personal towards anyone with my last post, which I tried to make clear. But as a company, a company must be prepared to take some criticism, at least in a case like this?! -without making it personal. I'm happy with the information you gave, that's what I was hoping for. I was trying NOT to make it personal, I encourage you to as well, or try to not take critique of the company you work for as personally against you. Remember, we the customers have had VERY little to go on. Thanks for understanding!
I apologize again if I was rude or whatever. It was not my intention.
Peace!
-
In regards to the other gated sequencer issue that was first reported by Razmo a couple years back, I did some more testing to try and narrow down the exact issue, and my interpretation of how it could be fixed. I have run into this a few times through the years, but never spent the time to really deconstruct what's happening.
I'm not sure if its appropriate to call this a "bug", or just an "issue that limits usefulness, based on its current design" .... but at any rate, if you're looking into fixing the Key Stepping Bug, maybe you can also take a look at this issue with the "No Reset" and "No Hold/Rst" modes as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjCa-TsLosE
This video explores the functionality of Rev2's Gated Sequencer, when in "NO RESET" or "NO HOLD/RST" modes. As of current 1.1.5.9 OS, there is an issue that when the Rev2 is slaved to a external drum machine or DAW, and using these seq modes, there is no repeatability between exact same sequences played, and sometimes the gated sequencer will be "out of phase" with the clock... the modulations will switch part way through, and it results in odd, glitchy behavior, and makes it hard to use the synth with a drum machine or DAW. This is also an issue when using the internal clock and ARP with the sequencer in no reset modes.
Potential Solution:
My interpretation is that the solution is just that the Rev2, when in a "no reset mode", still needs an initial reset/synchronization, when it first receives a MIDI Start Message, or when the Play Button is pressed on the Synth. After that initial synchronization, then it should operate in a sort of free running mode as it is currently, and as expected for No Reset modes. It just needs an initial sync event to prevent being out of phase, and give more repeatable performances.
-
I'm going to look into this stuff next week and poke around a bit, see if I can find an obvious solution. I'll update you guys when I know more
In regards to the other gated sequencer issue that was first reported by Razmo a couple years back, I did some more testing to try and narrow down the exact issue, and my interpretation of how it could be fixed. I have run into this a few times through the years, but never spent the time to really deconstruct what's happening.
I'm not sure if its appropriate to call this a "bug", or just an "issue that limits usefulness, based on its current design" .... but at any rate, if you're looking into fixing the Key Stepping Bug, maybe you can also take a look at this issue with the "No Reset" and "No Hold/Rst" modes as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjCa-TsLosE
This video explores the functionality of Rev2's Gated Sequencer, when in "NO RESET" or "NO HOLD/RST" modes. As of current 1.1.5.9 OS, there is an issue that when the Rev2 is slaved to a external drum machine or DAW, and using these seq modes, there is no repeatability between exact same sequences played, and sometimes the gated sequencer will be "out of phase" with the clock... the modulations will switch part way through, and it results in odd, glitchy behavior, and makes it hard to use the synth with a drum machine or DAW. This is also an issue when using the internal clock and ARP with the sequencer in no reset modes.
Potential Solution:
My interpretation is that the solution is just that the Rev2, when in a "no reset mode", still needs an initial reset/synchronization, when it first receives a MIDI Start Message, or when the Play Button is pressed on the Synth. After that initial synchronization, then it should operate in a sort of free running mode as it is currently, and as expected for No Reset modes. It just needs an initial sync event to prevent being out of phase, and give more repeatable performances.
-
Are you guys and gals finished reporting bugs? I've compiled the list but still have a lot of sorting out to do. Other than that, this should be the end of it for now. Going...going....
-
I've had issues with the poly sequencer in the past but hardly used it so it might be me using it wrong! I will have a play with it today to see what happens.
Edit - OK so with the Poly Sequencer, for example, I have a sequence on Track 1 of 12 steps. How do I change this to a sequence of 8 steps? I can't work out how I should do this. If I enter rests on steps 9 to 12 I get the rests which is not what I want. I don't think you can specify the length of the sequence either. I don't find the sequencer very intuitive to use to be honest.
-
Ah, it's all coming back to me now, like a déjà-vu...
Another important bug in my case, which I had only a vague memory of, is this second sequencer bug reported by creativespiral. This post may not bring very much constructive to the table, but one potential idea perhaps. Which is this:
Could it be worth taking a look at the P'08 OS in this case, to see how it handled that functionality? (Remember, I'm not a programmer, just an idea) Because I know for a fact, that neither of the sequencer bugs were present on the P'08, and it "just worked"... flawlessly. So perhaps the solution could lie within the P'08 OS?
Sidenote, going OT:
I remember now, how I used to use the P'08, first in KeyStep mode, slaved to an external midi arp/sequencer, triggering the voices at various rhythmic intervals with LFO-keysync on (some of the LFOs MIDI-synced to some rhytmic interval as well), then turning keysync off for that LFO (so the LFO phase was independent for each voice), so that LFO was free-running for each voice, while still rhythmically "coherent". Then the same method applied to the next LFO (with different rhythms/syncopations), and then the next, and the next, in succession...
After having done that, I stopped the external arp, and switched the gated sequencers to No Reset. Then I triggered the voices with the arp again (or did I, maybe they were already free running by then? ??? ), at different rhythmic intervals. (I don't remember if I set the clock to internal first, or when, or if at all, did I still slave it to midi clock...?) So then I had all these voices running independently, while in sync with eachother (but not in phase, rhythmically), with the weird quasi-generative rhythm patterns I had generated with the sequencers. So all note events (not MIDI note events) were ON the "beat" or on a syncopation of it, ie on a rhythmical interval. And it all just flowed seamlessly...
I did this in stacked mode, one layer at a time, and one LFO at a time... so it took some time, not only the patch programming, but also just setting it up to play/run. With the No Reset mode, I could transpose the voices however I liked, without having to worry about timing issues, as the sequencers just kept running at the point they were in at that moment.
So ie BOTH of these sequencer bugs are what killed my work, when I switched over to the Rev2.
Edit - OK so with the Poly Sequencer, for example, I have a sequence on Track 1 of 12 steps. How do I change this to a sequence of 8 steps? I can't work out how I should do this. If I enter rests on steps 9 to 12 I get the rests which is not what I want. I don't think you can specify the length of the sequence either. I don't find the sequencer very intuitive to use to be honest.
Yes, I remember that as well. If you accidentally put in one note too many, you have to start over. Not an important thing for me personally, as I probably won't be using it, I think I only tried using the Poly Sequencer when I couldn't work with the gated ones, but quickly abandoned that. I found it very hard to work with.
I'm guessing this Poly Sequencer eats up a whole lot of code...? Again, I'm not a programmer, but looking at all the NRPN's for the Poly-S... from #192-1043, whereas the rest of the parameters are #0-187 (including the gated sequencers) and that's for EACH layer.
There are plenty of similar software, and some hardware, sequencers, and many use a DAW for the purpose. It's probably the ONLY added feature (compared to P'08) on the Rev2 that I saw no real need for upon its release. I still don't. The gated sequencers were something else though, really special and just marvellous. They REALLY set the P'08 apart from anything else. Which is why it's such a HUGE loss to me, personally.
-
The Poly sequencer does not always clear down for me when starting from scratch again. I can’t work out the exact steps to recreate the issue but it wasn’t clearing at all for me at first, then I noticed that it did start from scratch properly if I’d just turned on the synth. It also seems that it will clear down and start from scratch when you write the patch.
I’ve had many occasions though where all it did was to overwrite the steps that I played but left the extra ones in the sequence still.
EDIT - just realised it’s probably me being an idiot! I think what I was doing was hitting record, then scrolling through the steps on track 1 to see how many had been entered, then put it back on step 1 and then started playing. I’m now thinking that when you do that, you are in ‘edit mode’?
-
Just a thought... perhaps a dumb idea (I'm not a programmer), but anyhow:
If it's possible to fix the sequencer bugs at the cost of possibly losing some other functionality, I'd be all for it! For instance, I wouldn't mind losing the Poly-Sequencer (if that could free up some space for everything else)... I know this is not the "preferred" route, but IF it could in some way ease the work for Pym, I'd be all for it! Like if it's too hard to squash ALL the remaining bugs with a SINGLE OS update, to cram EVERYTHING into one, or if it's in any way easier to focus on squashing the sequencer bugs with one OS, and the others with a different OS. Not very concisely put I know, but I hope you get the idea... Depending on the way you use it, you could even use one OS in some instances, and another OS in others.
I remember for instance the Ensoniq ASR-10 having different bugs with different OSs. I believe some later OSs which added some functionality, also introduced some bug(s). So, if not using that functionality, you could go with the older OS. Depending on how and for what you use the machine, you could pick a different OS... When I sold an ASR-10 some years back, the buyer quickly asked about a bug he instantly encountered that I hadn't come across the way I used it (I believe it was a sequencer bug), so I encouraged him to try with a different OS, which sorted the issue he was having.
Quotes on the Ensoniqs:
"For common everyday use, we suggest using 1.61 (yes, the older one!). However, you will have to use 2.0 for Audio-Tracks, and 3.53 for Audio-Tracks and/or Akai/Roland translations."
"Ensoniq did recommend at the time of the ASR 2.01 release that using 1.61 would be a good idea to those who did not desire the audio-track features."
"one for the 16-Plus OS 1.3
Fix the amount of bars registered to a Song after translating a Original EPS Song; they list 0. Workaround: use OS 1.1."
I just remembered that the M-Audio Venom also was similar in this regard, if I remember correctly on an older OS you could switch sequencer/arp patterns seamlessly on the fly, but that OS had some MIDI clock sync timing issues. An OS update fixed the timing issues, but lost the mentioned functionality. So depending on how you'd use it...
-
But then you have two O.S.'s to keep track of and maintain resulting in even more work for Pym and the Sequentialnauts. I don't remember the details of Ensoniq's demise but decisions like that couldn't have helped. I know this is supposed to be a last pass on the Rev2 OS revisions but famous last words and all. Something else will come up and then you have twice the troubleshooting...Twice the everything. Probably near the top of the list when it comes to a coder's worst nightmares.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for improvements/fixes when possible but it sounds like the box is full.
"A pint cannot hold a quart, Mr. Pizer. If it holds the pint it is doing the best it can."
Thanks for everything Pym! Still loving my Rev2!
-
Something else will come up and then you have twice the troubleshooting...Twice the everything. Probably near the top of the list when it comes to a coder's worst nightmares.
Not only this, but the moment anyone with any Sequential product hears that alternate OS versions are available for one instrument in the product line up, they will want alternate OSes that cater to their specific wishlist for the OB-6, Prophet 12, Tempest, etc.. So add a random multiplier variable to twice the everything...
I learned a long time ago that software development of any kind is one of the most thankless jobs on the face of the planet. Everything that's done right gets taken for granted, while simultaneously every flaw (a flaw being anything that doesn't please everyone) is brought to the surface and magnified.
I suppose I will be long dead and gone before the politically correct movement catches up and declares a national holiday called "programmers admiration day" or something, to help pacify all the angry coders that have torn down statues of anything resembling a perfectionistic customer :)
-
Yes, definitely not the "preferred" route like I said, I'm fully aware... I'm just saying as long as the gated sequencer bugs can get squashed, I don't mind sacrificing other functionality.
If it should, in the end, boil down to having to do something like this (ie to sacrifice some functions while prioritizing others), OR not getting an update AT ALL because of difficulties fitting EVERY bug fix in there... I'd go with the former rather than latter.
Sometimes you have to make sacrifices, and if this should be the case here, I'm all for it instead of "abandoning ship" altogether because everything can't be crammed in there.
In my personal opinion, I think the focus (priorities) should lie first with making the Rev2 capable of what the P'08 is, so it could indeed fulfill the claim of being a "Rev2". I'd consider the rest "extra", and if we can't get EVERYTHING, so be it. I just want the P'08 with a little extra (the extra modslots and waveshapes is enough for me), and I'm happy.
I'm not saying that 2 OSs is a good idea, don't get me wrong, I know it's a bad idea, but that wasn't really my point. I'm just saying if it CAN'T be done the "preferred" perfect way, that I can live with sacrifices... and I think some others could too, and would agree. If this makes the OS update more plausible, possible, easier on Pym, or anything like that, I'm just saying "don't reach for the stars, and let's settle for what we possibly COULD get, realistically".
I guess I'm TRYING to not live in dreamland anymore, expecting a perfect OS in the end. I don't think that's a reasonable expectation due to the circumstances described by Pym. So... a dual OS solution is a really bad one, which I hinted at initially in my previous post, but I could live with worse solutions, as long as the Rev2 gets P'08 functionality... that's my point, NOT that we should have 2 OSs. That was just a bad example of a "solution".
I get your points as well and agree fully of course! Just wanted to get my point across. That anything is better than the current state. WHATEVER the solution and sacrifices, and the solution being far from perfect, IF that's the only way it could happen AT ALL in the end, then GO for it instead of giving it up fully! I'm assuming there may not be an optimal or perfect solution in this case.
-
Something else will come up and then you have twice the troubleshooting...Twice the everything. Probably near the top of the list when it comes to a coder's worst nightmares.
Not only this, but the moment anyone with any Sequential product hears that alternate OS versions are available for one instrument in the product line up, they will want alternate OSes that cater to their specific wishlist for the OB-6, Prophet 12, Tempest, etc.. So add a random multiplier variable to twice the everything...
I learned a long time ago that software development of any kind is one of the most thankless jobs on the face of the planet. Everything that's done right gets taken for granted, while simultaneously every flaw (a flaw being anything that doesn't please everyone) is brought to the surface and magnified.
I suppose I will be long dead and gone before the politically correct movement catches up and declares a national holiday called "programmers admiration day" or something, to help pacify all the angry coders that have torn down statues of anything resembling a perfectionistic customer :)
Indeed.
I have a tiny bit of experience, from another life, writing "music" code for the Gameboy and Gameboy Advanced. It was funny to me, at the time, that my tiny text files (songs) could push things into the red zone. Music and effects were always the last to be fully implemented and that's when you start hitting walls and weird interdependencies.
-
Actually, I just realized there already ARE at least 2 OSs. There's an older official, and the newer Beta. AND there's the 1.9.x too, right? I don't know if there have been a lot of requests for dual OSs for other synths due to the existence of the last mentioned, but I wouldn't think so...
It wouldn't have to be as bad as the examples, with requests to do multiple OSs for every synth. Just call it "Beta" version or whatever, as long as we can get the P'08 functionality in some form or another.
I could live with sacrificing a pinky-toe for the cause, if you need one in the process. :D
-
Actually, I just realized there already ARE at least 2 OSs. There's an older official, and the newer Beta. AND there's the 1.9.x too, right? I don't know if there have been a lot of requests for dual OSs for other synths due to the existence of the last mentioned, but I wouldn't think so...
It wouldn't have to be as bad as the examples, with requests to do multiple OSs for every synth. Just call it "Beta" version or whatever, as long as we can get the P'08 functionality in some form or another.
I could live with sacrificing a pinky-toe for the cause, if you need one in the process. :D
The beta and official versions are 2 very different things even though the code is nearly identical. A beta is usually archived when the official becomes official. No need to go back to the beta ever again in a near perfect world. This would still be adding another version that would have to be wrangled if an issue presents itself.
I don't know Pym at all besides what I've read on these forums. Who knows? He might be up for that...
-
Just saying the 1.9.x has been around for some time... is it called a Beta version? I don’t know, nor care.
All I know is this:
ANY solution > NO solution
-
The OS is full on the DSP. There is nothing more we can do for a large category of bugs, period. We (myself included) spent a long time trying to optimize it for size constraints and we reached a wall. While it may not feel like we've spent any time on it, we definitely have. Have you written assembly code where you are literally down to 16 bits of space left and have to add more without losing functionality?
The one thing that could (and probably ought to) be done is learning for the future. Either the synth suffers from serious feature creep or it is vastly underspecced. Working in assembly with 16bits of space left is not really of this time and age anymore.
-
I've admired Dave Smith and the Sequential brand ever since the classic BBC Rockschool "Digital Age Hardware" episode in 1987, and have been considering a Rev2 as part of my system. (You can listen to my tracks here: http://soundcloud.com/douglas-1 (http://soundcloud.com/douglas-1))
I'd be using the Rev2 (most likely) along with three other hardware pieces (OB-6, Peak, and Roland MC-707) along with some Elektron gear (Analog Four/Rytm, Digitone, Heat) but these discussions about serious unfixed bugs make me feel less confident in the product. (I'm also thinking of a Prophet-6 along with the OB-6, but the price/performance ratio of the Rev2 is very attractive especially in the 16-voice model.)
Would you still buy a Rev2 today even with the issues it has?
-
This isn't entirely true. It's a matter of different users expecting/wanting different things.
Some users need it to be under a certain price point
Some users value stability and simplicity over all else
Some users value innovations and want to grow with us as we experiment with new features and ways of making music and designing sounds
There are many other perspectives
So some users will say "too much feature creep, just make it work!" and some users will say "I want new features to inspire me!"
Balancing all that isn't just difficult, in some cases it is mutually exclusive. But we continue to push forth new features, new designs, etc, to try and find the right point between everything. And, of course, literally the MOMENT the product is out the door the goalposts change. Hindsight always teaches us lessons and I've learned a lot from the Rev2. Just like I learned a lot from everything else we've done. You can see from the products coming after the Rev2 we did indeed scale back the feature set and the complexity in many ways. In the next round maybe we'll go more complex, maybe we'll go even more simple, it's really hard to tell before you make the final design decisions.
The OS is full on the DSP. There is nothing more we can do for a large category of bugs, period. We (myself included) spent a long time trying to optimize it for size constraints and we reached a wall. While it may not feel like we've spent any time on it, we definitely have. Have you written assembly code where you are literally down to 16 bits of space left and have to add more without losing functionality?
The one thing that could (and probably ought to) be done is learning for the future. Either the synth suffers from serious feature creep or it is vastly underspecced. Working in assembly with 16bits of space left is not really of this time and age anymore.
-
Would you still buy a Rev2 today even with the issues it has?
In spite of the problems mentioned in this thread, I would still consider buying a Rev2.
The Prophet '08 is my favorite synthesizer, and the Rev2 is the closest thing one can find to a brand new P'08. The extra features of the newer instrument are only of moderate interest to me. The improved keybed quality is of foremost value, together with the greater number of voices. The other features are a matter of personal indifference. And although bugs remain, I would still be interested to put a Rev2 through the paces, compare it with my P'08, and then make a decision.
I understand the frustration that certain hopes and expectations were not fulfilled with the Rev2. But the instrument, as it stands, offers more than enough for my purposes, although I would still prefer a new Prophet '08.
-
Would you still buy a Rev2 today even with the issues it has?
Disregarding the issues, no I wouldn't. Firstly, I'd try to get the Low Frequency Expanders for my OB~6 and P6, which would give them greater capability.
-
So some users will say "too much feature creep, just make it work!" and some users will say "I want new features to inspire me!"
Balancing all that isn't just difficult, in some cases it is mutually exclusive.
If one buys a Toyota Corolla, they humbly expect it to function as advertised. Maybe fix a deadly airbag, or tweak the ECU. If anyone asked them to make it perform like a Ferrari, the answer would be,"Go buy a Ferrari".
-
Would you still buy a Rev2 today even with the issues it has?
Well, personally, I wouldn't, I'd go with a used P'08 instead.
I understand that different users want different things, and it may not have been the best idea to cram everything they tried to do into the Rev2.
Personally, I only wanted a fully working Prophet '08 with the "extensions" but not the "extra" functions. I mean the extended wave-shaping, and the extended mod-matrix. (The extended/upgraded slop mode is also nice of course.)
The extras, such as arpeggiator and polysequencer (both of which aren't working good enough to be very usable, imo, compared to all others I've personally used) I wouldn't mind losing. I still wonder how much code the polysequencer eats up, I'm guessing a LOT... I also wonder how many users, if any, actually USE the quirky polysequencer... A lot better arpeggiators and sequencers are so readily available on DAWs, apps and hardware, and wasn't part of the original P'08.
The effects however, I think was a smart decision to add, not because I absolutely love or actually need them, but I can see how it makes the Rev2 a lot more convenient "road-worthy" live instrument (good for sales), as you don't have to patch up external effects, and so on, for a little delay or reverb. Also, some FX work nicely as sound-shaping tools, like the added HPF was a good idea...
Don't get me wrong, NEW added features is (almost) always nice (except if they clog the wheels as in this case), but when calling something Rev2, at least make sure it's able to do what Rev1 is capable of, first and foremost... or name it something else, completely different. Calling it Rev2 and promising the functionality of the P'08 makes people expect to get just that. The rest, extras and additions, could be argued about...
-
Would you still buy a Rev2 today even with the issues it has?
Personally, I only wanted a fully working Prophet '08 with the "extensions" but not the "extra" functions. I mean the extended wave-shaping, and the extended mod-matrix. (The extended/upgraded slop mode is also nice of course.)
The extras, such as arpeggiator and polysequencer (both of which aren't working good enough to be very usable, imo, compared to all others I've personally used) I wouldn't mind losing. I still wonder how much code the polysequencer eats up, I'm guessing a LOT... I also wonder how many users, if any, actually USE the quirky polysequencer... A lot better arpeggiators and sequencers are so readily available on DAWs, apps and hardware, and wasn't part of the original P'08.
Don't get me wrong, NEW added features is (almost) always nice (except if they clog the wheels as in this case), but when calling something Rev2, at least make sure it's able to do what Rev1 is capable of, first and foremost... or name it something else, completely different. Calling it Rev2 and promising the functionality of the P'08 makes people expect to get just that. The rest, extras and additions, could be argued about...
I agree 100%. I'm not a Rev2 owner (yet) but after dealing with the same "overpromising, under delivering" in countless products in the IT industry, I'd rather have basic functions that work than a cornucopia of functions that don't always work.
-
I agree 100%. I'm not a Rev2 owner (yet) but after dealing with the same "overpromising, under delivering" in countless products in the IT industry, I'd rather have basic functions that work than a cornucopia of functions that don't always work.
Exactly. I would have preferred to have had the Prophet '08 kept in production just as it was. My interest in the Rev2 has only to do with the fact that there is no other means of finding a brand new Prophet '08. If you were to put a new P'08 and a new Rev2 in front of me, I'd probably choose the former. However, I do intend to try a Rev2, in the hopes that my opinion could be changed.
My main two complaints across the board about synthesizers are that, first, they are kept in production for far too short a period of time, in an effort to constantly feed the consumerist monster with new products; and second, that simple meat-and-potatoes poly synths are hard to find. The P'08 is the classic example. And the P5/10 Rev4s are way out of my price range. Otherwise, I'd go in that direction. I'm firmly in the category of those who believe that less is often more.
-
Long time lurker on this board, if there is one update left I want to see this prioritized. I think this is the single biggest tonal issue on the Rev2 and, since it is a matter of calibrating range, it is not a high bandwidth improvement. I hope you will adopt this since the workaround eats up another mod matrix lane.
Problem: One of the most common complaints about the Rev2 is the filter. This may in part be about the cutoff knob range. It is set up in an odd way so that the peak of the curve is at 20 KHz when the knob is around 12 o'clock.* Most of the usable range is in only half of the knob range. Further, the knob bottoms out just below 200 Hz!. This leaves an octave of filter range out. This is most noticeable in 12dB mode. See attached screenshots of filter with noise and resonance up to show cutoff point.
Current workaround
I used DC offsetting in the mod matrix to lower the range and it improved the filter so much. I suspect many people would say the synth is "warmer" and has "more bass" if the cutoff is implemented properly. At a -60% DC mod matrix routing to cutoff, the filter peak starts to descend at 5 o'clock on the knob and arrives in the 20 Hz range or lower. This vastly improves the filter range and to my ears creates a tonal variation and improvement (esp. in the 12 db mode).
For update/bug fix:
Option 1: Re-calibrate the knob range to reflect the above.
Option 2: Add a filter range option for an alternate knob calibration or scaling of the knob range (i.e. moves more range in the middle of the frequency/knob range).
*After a fresh calibration.
-
Thanks, Invisible Homes. That's considered a feature, though, rather than a bug.
-
Would you still buy a Rev2 today even with the issues it has?
Yes, unequivocally yes! You get so much BANG for the BUCK and it sounds pretty damn nice as well.
-
Thanks, Invisible Homes. That's considered a feature, though, rather than a bug.
Yes, of course you are right. That's the correct term. It's not a "bug" exactly. Since, however, this addresses a nagging and widely-held criticism of the REV2, it is hard to just call it a "feature request." Nomenclature aside, I hope that this is something that can be addressed in the last update.
I'm actually surprised that this issue and fix hasn't come up earlier in all the REV2 chatter. I've read so many threads on all the pages, but perhaps I missed something? I find it strange that the knob bottoms out at 200 Hz and that so much of its range is dedicated to 15 KHz+. As noted, that leaves a whole octave of range unaddressed on the low end and limits the resolution of the middle range where so much of the interesting stuff happens. From a sound design perspective I can actually understand the value in certain contexts (i.e. for less muddy pads etc), but it also limits filter response range in a way that isn't reflected on any of the other synths/filters I have. For bass oriented sounds, that range is essential and it warms up filter "wubs" considerably when using a slower attack and decay. I think it also makes the 12 dB filter so much more useful (and I already liked it).
The DC offset I used was -60, but YMMV. I suspect somewhere in the -50s is the sweet spot for the maximum range. [Edit/update: this seems to be the case for the balance with negative envelopes]. I'm curious to hear others experience and perspective on this.
Having a range option would be so nice and it would probably quiet some of the lingering criticism of the low end on the synth. It is a great compliment to Creative Spiral's amazing VCM work.
-
I'm just saying it won't be "fixed." There's only a slim possibility of bugs being resolved, but it's certain no features will be added.
-
Thanks, Invisible Homes. That's considered a feature, though, rather than a bug.
-
It’s tuned so you can do karplus strong and other things. Some presets will use more of the range, some won’t. This happens on lots of knobs depending on the preset. Can’t please everybody all the time.
Thanks, Invisible Homes. That's considered a feature, though, rather than a bug.
Yes, of course you are right. That's the correct term. It's not a "bug" exactly. Since, however, this addresses a nagging and widely-held criticism of the REV2, it is hard to just call it a "feature request." Nomenclature aside, I hope that this is something that can be addressed in the last update.
I'm actually surprised that this issue and fix hasn't come up earlier in all the REV2 chatter. I've read so many threads on all the pages, but perhaps I missed something? I find it strange that the knob bottoms out at 200 Hz and that so much of its range is dedicated to 15 KHz+. As noted, that leaves a whole octave of range unaddressed on the low end and limits the resolution of the middle range where so much of the interesting stuff happens. From a sound design perspective I can actually understand the value in certain contexts (i.e. for less muddy pads etc), but it also limits filter response range in a way that isn't reflected on any of the other synths/filters I have. For bass oriented sounds, that range is essential and it warms up filter "wubs" considerably when using a slower attack and decay. I think it also makes the 12 dB filter so much more useful (and I already liked it).
The DC offset I used was -60, but YMMV. I suspect somewhere in the -50s is the sweet spot for the maximum range. [Edit/update: this seems to be the case for the balance with negative envelopes]. I'm curious to hear others experience and perspective on this.
Having a range option would be so nice and it would probably quiet some of the lingering criticism of the low end on the synth. It is a great compliment to Creative Spiral's amazing VCM work.
-
Problem: One of the most common complaints about the Rev2 is the filter. This may in part be about the cutoff knob range. It is set up in an odd way so that the peak of the curve is at 20 KHz when the knob is around 12 o'clock.* Most of the usable range is in only half of the knob range. Further, the knob bottoms out just below 200 Hz!. This leaves an octave of filter range out.
Not sure if I'm doing something wrong, but I don't seem to be experiencing this on my Rev2.
At 12 o'clock, the peak is just above 200 Hz. Fully closed, there's no signal at all coming through.
With the filter opened so the screen reads "50", the peak is around 35 Hz.
It's the same in 12 dB mode, but the resonant peak is of course much less pronounced since the Rev2 12dB filter is barely resonant at all.
This is from a blank patch with just Noise, no modulation, no keyboard tracking, no envelope or velocity amount.
I've attached a shot of my spectrum analyzer with the filter at Noon and with the screen reading 50 (about 10 o'clock). No point in showing what it looks like at 0, since it's just silence. I've also attached an audio file of the resonant filter sweep (watch your ears!).
-
It’s tuned so you can do karplus strong and other things. Some presets will use more of the range, some won’t. This happens on lots of knobs depending on the preset. Can’t please everybody all the time.
...
I'm glad to be catching a discussion like this because it gets me more familiar with my Rev2. Invisible Homes, the subject you're raising sheds better light on something I've observed, but never considered. Moreso, I’m glad to learn there’s a way to adjust the frequency range to get greater throw in the lower and mid range. Pym, I’m glad to learn the intention and uses behind the design. … Out of curioisity, is another usefulness of the frequency’s higher resolution in the high range for tonal tuning and playing of the sine waves arising from high filter resonance?
-
Thanks, Pym, AdvanceFollower, SacredSynthesis, and Dsetto for responses and thoughts.
I get that one might want to have a higher filter range for certain uses, but it is unusual (if it isn't an error). This is not the case with my Prodigy, MS20, Electrix filters and (on the digital side) not how the U-He Diva emulates the P5's range. I'm getting some sense from AdvancedFollower's post and a parallel Reddit discussion that the filter ranges vary and/or that my unit may simply have a problem that calibration isn't addressing.
Edit/Update:
I've actually figured out the issue. This is not by design. My experience seems to be a result of the Global>24. CV footpedal setting. When it is set to "LPF Half" it bottoms out at 200 Hz and the results will stay in place even when the pedal is not plugged in, i.e. it alters the knob's subsequent behavior (even after shut down and restart). I'm not sure if that half range setting was by default.
I suspect that I received the unit with this setting on, since I have always found the knob range to be odd (esp. in the 12 dB mode). If it is, or if it is set that way on some units but not others, this might explain why some users experiences of the filter are variable.
This does start to lead to something more like a bug issue. There is no "off" option for the footpedal in the global menu. Given the above, that would be sensible.
-
That's a useful discovery. At least it explains a strange behavior.
-
I suspect that I received the unit with this setting on, since I have always found the knob range to be odd (esp. in the 12 dB mode). If it is, or if it is set that way on some units but not others, this might explain why some users experiences of the filter are variable.
That's very interesting. I wonder if certain batches were sent out with this setting at "LPF Half" by default. It's of course also possible some users accidentally changed this setting without being aware of what it does. That would explain why some complain about their Rev2's being overly bright, and also why some users report oscillator "bleed" with the filter fully closed (because the filter wouldn't actually be fully closed but rather at ~200 Hz, letting some of the signal through).
Given that even Sequential reps in this thread seem to be unaware of this setting and its effect on the filter cutoff range, instead saying the filter response is "by design", I could see how someone with their synth set to "LPF Half" (either from the factory or unintentionally by the user) would dismiss their Rev2 as extremely bright and harsh sounding. I know I certainly wouldn't have figured out that I needed to change the Foot Pedal setting, had my Rev2 arrived with this setting active, and writing to Sequential support, I would likely have been told the bright filter is "by design".
-
I suspect that I received the unit with this setting on, since I have always found the knob range to be odd (esp. in the 12 dB mode). If it is, or if it is set that way on some units but not others, this might explain why some users experiences of the filter are variable.
That's very interesting. I wonder if certain batches were sent out with this setting at "LPF Half" by default. It's of course also possible some users accidentally changed this setting without being aware of what it does. That would explain why some complain about their Rev2's being overly bright, and also why some users report oscillator "bleed" with the filter fully closed (because the filter wouldn't actually be fully closed but rather at ~200 Hz, letting some of the signal through).
Given that even Sequential reps in this thread seem to be unaware of this setting and its effect on the filter cutoff range, instead saying the filter response is "by design", I could see how someone with their synth set to "LPF Half" (either from the factory or unintentionally by the user) would dismiss their Rev2 as extremely bright and harsh sounding. I know I certainly wouldn't have figured out that I needed to change the Foot Pedal setting, had my Rev2 arrived with this setting active, and writing to Sequential support, I would likely have been told the bright filter is "by design".
Even if you don't use a foot pedal or CV input, would this setting affect the filter cutoff range? (What should it be set to to mitigate the "bright/harsh sound?"
-
In Globals, set Foot Pedal to either:
a. Breath CC2
b. Foot CC4
c. Expression CC11
Those three are essentially "Off" unless you specifically map them per-patch in the mod matrix. I usually keep my pedal mapped to CC11, and then if I want it to map to cutoff in a given patch, I'll just use the dedicated Matrix Slot for it with an appropriate amount. Using the Full LPF / Half LPF is sort of a blunt force method to make your Exp Pedal always do something... but it rarely produces results you would want in a real world performance scenario... and of course, if you forget about it and the pedal is in a forward position, it will offset the filter cutoff.
I just tested on my Rev2 keyboard to see whether that setting (Full LPF or Half LPF) changes the cutoff when a pedal is not connected... it doesn't seem to make any difference when you don't have a pedal connected... that would potentially be a bug if it was the case, but I was unable to reproduce it. When you tested it, did you power on with a foot pedal attached, and then remove the pedal after power was on?
As far as I can tell, this is not a bug... operating as expected.
-
I just tested on my Rev2 keyboard to see whether that setting (Full LPF or Half LPF) changes the cutoff when a pedal is not connected... it doesn't seem to make any difference when you don't have a pedal connected... that would potentially be a bug if it was the case, but I was unable to reproduce it. When you tested it, did you power on with a foot pedal attached, and then remove the pedal after power was on?
As far as I can tell, this is not a bug... operating as expected.
I did some investigation and reflection. Follow me, if you will:
1) The previous setting issue was persistent (i.e. almost 1.5 years of regular use).
2) The cutoff knob behavior was clear, i.e. I hadn't heard the 12 dB filter close all the way until this discovery.
3) When I tried to reproduce the issue (as per Creative Spiral), it was not persistent in the same way. That being said, when I unplugged the pedal while powered on, I encountered a situation where the cutoff knob didn't work at all and the filter stayed 100% open. This persisted across power up/down and the only way to make it go away is by changing Global settings to something other than the LPF Full or Half settings and power cycling.
Given anecdotal evidence re: filter tone and bleed through complaints, I still could not shake the suspicion that I'm not the only one to experience this issue.
...So, I tried to imagine what could possibly cause the Synth to think that there was a pedal plugged in. It occurred to me to check the difference in behavior with balanced TRS vs unbalanced TS cables. To experiment I plugged in an unbalanced TS 1/4 cable, set the global to LPF Half, and voila! If I unplugged the TS cable the setting persisted exactly as before with the cutoff falling at just below 200 Hz. This is reproducible and persists across power cycles. I can't even get it to go away until I plug in a pedal on a TRS cable, set Global 24 to LPF Full, and the pedal to reset the range.
To reproduce/test:
1. Power on.
2. Create a default Basic Program.
3. Change Global 24 to LPF Half
4. Plug and unplug TS 1/4" cable in Pedal/CV jack.
5. Test frequency range of filter cutoff. [I get just below 200 Hz]
6. Power cycle and test knob on other settings.
I can reproduce this every time. The key is the TS 1/4" cable or...a balanced TRS that is either not plugged in all the way or slowly unplugged. This last bit leads me to go out on a limb with a big guess.
Hypothesis:
All REV2s were duly tested and shipped. The global was set to LPF Half on all or some units(?). During the testing on some REV2s either the expression pedal was not plugged in all the way or it was slowly unplugged in a manner that caused this error. This would be fairly easy to overlook even with diligent testing, and since (as above) it persists across power cycles it would seem to be a "feature." It would not be readily noticeable quickly checking most presets. This could plausible produce a situation in which some units shipped with this limited bandwidth in place and others shipped working normally.
The result: wildly varied opinions on the tone of the synth and the reports of bleed through. I think we may have solved a mystery. What say you ladies and gentlemen of the jury?
-
Glad you figured it out!
Sometimes it’s really difficult to know what’s going on through text. Sending a quick video to support is worth a thousand words
Sorry we couldn’t get that figured out sooner, I can only imagine how frustrating that has been!!
I just tested on my Rev2 keyboard to see whether that setting (Full LPF or Half LPF) changes the cutoff when a pedal is not connected... it doesn't seem to make any difference when you don't have a pedal connected... that would potentially be a bug if it was the case, but I was unable to reproduce it. When you tested it, did you power on with a foot pedal attached, and then remove the pedal after power was on?
As far as I can tell, this is not a bug... operating as expected.
I did some investigation and reflection. Follow me, if you will:
1) The previous setting issue was persistent (i.e. almost 1.5 years of regular use).
2) The cutoff knob behavior was clear, i.e. I hadn't heard the 12 dB filter close all the way until this discovery.
3) When I tried to reproduce the issue (as per Creative Spiral), it was not persistent in the same way. That being said, when I unplugged the pedal while powered on, I encountered a situation where the cutoff knob didn't work at all and the filter stayed 100% open. This persisted across power up/down and the only way to make it go away is by changing Global settings to something other than the LPF Full or Half settings and power cycling.
Given anecdotal evidence re: filter tone and bleed through complaints, I still could not shake the suspicion that I'm not the only one to experience this issue.
...So, I tried to imagine what could possibly cause the Synth to think that there was a pedal plugged in. It occurred to me to check the difference in behavior with balanced TRS vs unbalanced TS cables. To experiment I plugged in an unbalanced TS 1/4 cable, set the global to LPF Half, and voila! If I unplugged the TS cable the setting persisted exactly as before with the cutoff falling at just below 200 Hz. This is reproducible and persists across power cycles. I can't even get it to go away until I plug in a pedal on a TRS cable, set Global 24 to LPF Full, and the pedal to reset the range.
To reproduce/test:
1. Power on.
2. Create a default Basic Program.
3. Change Global 24 to LPF Half
4. Plug and unplug TS 1/4" cable in Pedal/CV jack.
5. Test frequency range of filter cutoff. [I get just below 200 Hz]
6. Power cycle and test knob on other settings.
I can reproduce this every time. The key is the TS 1/4" cable or...a balanced TRS that is either not plugged in all the way or slowly unplugged. This last bit leads me to go out on a limb with a big guess.
Hypothesis:
All REV2s were duly tested and shipped. The global was set to LPF Half on all or some units(?). During the testing on some REV2s either the expression pedal was not plugged in all the way or it was slowly unplugged in a manner that caused this error. This would be fairly easy to overlook even with diligent testing, and since (as above) it persists across power cycles it would seem to be a "feature." It would not be readily noticeable quickly checking most presets. This could plausible produce a situation in which some units shipped with this limited bandwidth in place and others shipped working normally.
The result: wildly varied opinions on the tone of the synth and the reports of bleed through. I think we may have solved a mystery. What say you ladies and gentlemen of the jury?
-
Glad you figured it out!...
Sorry we couldn’t get that figured out sooner, I can only imagine how frustrating that has been!!
No worries and thanks for your work. I love the REV2. As my previous post suggests, this is an odd discovery and one that has a certain element of chaos/unpredictability to it (a certain physical interaction with a certain software setting under the right conditions).
Again, I would not be surprised if this has affected perceptions of the filter on this platform and potentially other Sequential/DSI's using the Curtis PA397. I hope this insight helps in the future with other users and/or customer support. I imagine it might also prevent some returns on the retail end, if (and I grant that this could be still be a discrete case) it is the cause of other user issues.
-
To reproduce/test:
1. Power on.
2. Create a default Basic Program.
3. Change Global 24 to LPF Half
4. Plug and unplug TS 1/4" cable in Pedal/CV jack.
5. Test frequency range of filter cutoff. [I get just below 200 Hz]
6. Power cycle and test knob on other settings.
I can reproduce this every time. The key is the TS 1/4" cable or...a balanced TRS that is either not plugged in all the way or slowly unplugged. This last bit leads me to go out on a limb with a big guess.
Hypothesis:
All REV2s were duly tested and shipped. The global was set to LPF Half on all or some units(?). During the testing on some REV2s either the expression pedal was not plugged in all the way or it was slowly unplugged in a manner that caused this error. This would be fairly easy to overlook even with diligent testing, and since (as above) it persists across power cycles it would seem to be a "feature." It would not be readily noticeable quickly checking most presets. This could plausible produce a situation in which some units shipped with this limited bandwidth in place and others shipped working normally.
The result: wildly varied opinions on the tone of the synth and the reports of bleed through. I think we may have solved a mystery. What say you ladies and gentlemen of the jury?
This is some good sleuth work, Detective @Homes. I was able to exactly reproduce this.
@Pym - This should maybe be looked into... I can see how this may cause issues for a small handful of people - producing confusing behavior / making patches sound incorrect -- Either if the QC hypothesis is correct, or in the random case where someone unplugs their expression pedal while the unit is powered on... which causes the Exp Pedal value to max out and saves that value across subsequent power cycles.
The solution: In firmware, upon startup/init routine, always reset Exp Pedal source value to 0 (then sample the current position if the pedal is present) As is, it seems to remember the last stored expression value... even across power cycles, and even if the Exp Pedal is not present.
-
Creativespiral and Invisible Homes, I have to say that you've both done exceptional detective work for the Rev2 and for all Rev2 owners. There is invaluable information on this thread from the two of you. Great job, and thank you very much!
-
Is anyone aware of a Rev2 ring rodulation bug? Razmo had described it in this way:
"I just discovered that the "ringmod" bug is still present...just made a preset that introduce it...again a problem with layer B...this time, after loading this bugged preset, I also experienced strange behavior when switching to a preset that only used layer A after having loaded that buggy preset...at one time it started to ping pong the sound from left to right for eight keystrokes, then the sound changed to center for the next eight keystrokes...another time it played for eight keystrokes, and then went silent for another 8 keystrokes....
It seems that the bug changes character as I switch the Layer B effect on/off...."
Sequential needs a more detailed description in order to reproduce it. Or perhaps it's been resolved in an update?
-
This is some good sleuth work, Detective @Homes. I was able to exactly reproduce this.
@Pym - This should maybe be looked into... I can see how this may cause issues for a small handful of people - producing confusing behavior / making patches sound incorrect -- Either if the QC hypothesis is correct, or in the random case where someone unplugs their expression pedal while the unit is powered on... which causes the Exp Pedal value to max out and saves that value across subsequent power cycles.
The solution: In firmware, upon startup/init routine, always reset Exp Pedal source value to 0 (then sample the current position if the pedal is present) As is, it seems to remember the last stored expression value... even across power cycles, and even if the Exp Pedal is not present.
Actually, I just had another thought about this, and tested this further... its more of an issue... it even happens if you remove the expression pedal when the unit is powered down.
If you happen to end a session with expression pedal in foot forward position (which is not that uncommon) - then power down the synth and remove the expression pedal to transfer it to another instrument or for some other reason (planning to play a gig, but not bringing the exp pedal), the Rev2 remembers that last stored exp pedal value when you power on next time... and if you were in Half LPF or Full LPF mode it will add an invisible/unchangeable offset to filter cutoff to all your patches. And even changing the Foot Pedal mode at this point won't fix it, which is strange - it doesn't immediately detach itself from the cutoff offset... you have to change it in globals, then power cycle again to remove the invisible cutoff offset. I can definitely see how this may have confounded users, and should probably be addressed.
Fortunately, it seems like it would be a simple fix ... as mentioned, just add a Reset to 0 for Exp Pedal Source amount during Init/Startup, and that should do it.
-
Is anyone aware of a Rev2 ring rodulation bug? Razmo had described it in this way:
"I just discovered that the "ringmod" bug is still present...just made a preset that introduce it...again a problem with layer B...this time, after loading this bugged preset, I also experienced strange behavior when switching to a preset that only used layer A after having loaded that buggy preset...at one time it started to ping pong the sound from left to right for eight keystrokes, then the sound changed to center for the next eight keystrokes...another time it played for eight keystrokes, and then went silent for another 8 keystrokes....
It seems that the bug changes character as I switch the Layer B effect on/off...."
Sequential needs a more detailed description in order to reproduce it. Anybody?
I did try and research this purported bug a few weeks ago, but could not find enough info, or any steps to reproduce... And I personally have never run into it... also, I think after Razmo first reported it there was an OS update to 1.1.5.9, so perhaps that fixed whatever the issue was? I did see this msg: https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,3263.msg35676.html#msg35676
But yeah, if anyone else has run into this since 1.1.5.9, please chime in...
-
I have posted this before a while ago but worth mentioning again because there are more people viewing this thread and able to test on theirs...
This is regarding F1 P24
Using this patch, the octave from middle C seems to play differently to all the other keys. They seem quieter for want of a better description. Does anyone else notice this? so just play single keys from below middle C and through the middle C octave and beyond, it's just the one octave on mine that sounds different.
I haven't noticed this on any other patches but it happens every time on F1 P24. I could try and record a video with my camera if required (I don't record stuff or play on my computer)
-
Further to my post above (it won’t let me edit my own post for some reason) if I change Octave using Octave +/- then the issue moves along the keyboard so this issue is nothing to do with the keys.
-
Fortunately, it seems like it would be a simple fix ... as mentioned, just add a Reset to 0 for Exp Pedal Source amount during Init/Startup, and that should do it.
I'd be concerned that perhaps the filter amount as adjusted by the pedal may not be sourced from the pedal but cached separately, that would need to be zeroed as well (for instance, set pedal to LPF Half/Full, put a value on that, unplug it, change the pedal to CC #11 or something, plug it back in and change it again -> does the persisted LPF offset get reset to 0?).
However, my understanding is that the synth has no memory that is updated frequently during operation that persists across boots - you need to enter and exit globals to trigger a persistence of settings - so the fact that this is getting stored at all is a little surprising... but it may be that that's in a static allocation and they may skip zeroing that memory segment on boot... SRAM can persist values between power cycles.
-
Yes, Timboréale question is interesting and thanks Creative Spiral for confirming that a TRS can also reproduce this LPF Half issue.
This leads to another question. Is this same issue reproducible on the Prophet '08, Poly Evolver, and/or any other models? The former both have "LPF Half" settings and pedal inputs. Since, for posterity's sake, I'm actually really curious if this has affected perceptions of the Curtis chip and PA397 based DSIs, I would love to see this, and thus my hypothesis, tested out.
Can anyone with a Prophet '08 or Evolver series keyboard try this?
1. Set Pedal to LPF Half
2. Insert TR and/or TRS cable and then remove while powered up.
3. Test frequency range of filter.
4. Power cycle unit.--> Is the bandwidth still limited?
-
Fortunately, it seems like it would be a simple fix ... as mentioned, just add a Reset to 0 for Exp Pedal Source amount during Init/Startup, and that should do it.
I'd be concerned that perhaps the filter amount as adjusted by the pedal may not be sourced from the pedal but cached separately, that would need to be zeroed as well (for instance, set pedal to LPF Half/Full, put a value on that, unplug it, change the pedal to CC #11 or something, plug it back in and change it again -> does the persisted LPF offset get reset to 0?).
However, my understanding is that the synth has no memory that is updated frequently during operation that persists across boots - you need to enter and exit globals to trigger a persistence of settings - so the fact that this is getting stored at all is a little surprising... but it may be that that's in a static allocation and they may skip zeroing that memory segment on boot... SRAM can persist values between power cycles.
This is a good consideration. Pedal LPF Half and LPF Full may be separate cached source variables, in addition to the Exp Pedal source variable (or in lieu of it). (that may be the case for all the 5-6 Foot Pedal int variables in globals)
Yeah, I was definitely surprised to see the exp pedal values carry over in between power cycles, even without a pedal attached. Any/all of the foot pedal variables should definitely be zeroed upon init/startup routine to avoid issues... and then, right after zeroing the values out, the exp pedal current variable can be sampled (if present)... but if an exp pedal doesn't exist, those variables should never be left above 0 between power cycles... since there's no way a user can turn those offsets off if they don't have exp pedal connected.
-
Yes, Timboréale question is interesting and thanks Creative Spiral for confirming that a TRS can also reproduce this LPF Half issue.
This leads to another question. Is this same issue reproducible on the Prophet '08, Poly Evolver, and/or any other models? The former both have "LPF Half" settings and pedal inputs. Since, for posterity's sake, I'm actually really curious if this has affected perceptions of the Curtis chip and PA397 based DSIs, I would love to see this, and thus my hypothesis, tested out.
Can anyone with a Prophet '08 or Evolver series keyboard try this?
1. Set Pedal to LPF Half
2. Insert TR and/or TRS cable and then remove while powered up.
3. Test frequency range of filter.
4. Power cycle unit.--> Is the bandwidth still limited?
Just tested this on Pro 3 and PEK :
Pro 3: Not an issue... if you remove the Exp Pedal with it on, it immediately zeroes out the value. Also, if you leave foot pedal forward and shut down, then remove the Exp Pedal while its off (more likely scenario) - when you power back on it zeroes out the values, when no Exp Pedal is present. So - behaves good. There is one minor peculiarity on Pro3 in that if you have the pedal set to Full LPF or Half LPF, with pedal forward, and then switch to a different Pedal destination in globals, it doesn't immediately zero out the cutoff offsets... though it does upon power cycle always, so not a big deal.
PEK: Works well - removing Exp Pedal while powered on immediately zeroes out the values. Also, if you have pedal forward, power down and remove the pedal, and then power back up without a pedal, it has the values zeroed out as it should.
So, yeah, just seems to be an issue with Rev2... at least out of these three. (it may well exist on P08 too, since the Rev2 OS was probably built off P08 foundation)
-
Yes, Timboréale question is interesting and thanks Creative Spiral for confirming that a TRS can also reproduce this LPF Half issue.
This leads to another question. Is this same issue reproducible on the Prophet '08, Poly Evolver, and/or any other models? The former both have "LPF Half" settings and pedal inputs. Since, for posterity's sake, I'm actually really curious if this has affected perceptions of the Curtis chip and PA397 based DSIs, I would love to see this, and thus my hypothesis, tested out.
Can anyone with a Prophet '08 or Evolver series keyboard try this?
1. Set Pedal to LPF Half
2. Insert TR and/or TRS cable and then remove while powered up.
3. Test frequency range of filter.
4. Power cycle unit.--> Is the bandwidth still limited?
I can try this later on the Prophet '08, but I doubt it's a problem. I've used a pedal to open the filter a number of times, and it never resulted in the problem you described.
-
This cannot be controlled in software.
-
Has anyone tried F1 P24 to see if they get similar issues to me?
Thanks
-
I just gave it a try and everything seems normal here. (F1 P24: "Intellect Lead") It's a very simple patch that uses oscillator sync. Have you ran the calibration routines recently?
I have posted this before a while ago but worth mentioning again because there are more people viewing this thread and able to test on theirs...
This is regarding F1 P24
Using this patch, the octave from middle C seems to play differently to all the other keys. They seem quieter for want of a better description. Does anyone else notice this? so just play single keys from below middle C and through the middle C octave and beyond, it's just the one octave on mine that sounds different.
I haven't noticed this on any other patches but it happens every time on F1 P24. I could try and record a video with my camera if required (I don't record stuff or play on my computer)
-
I just gave it a try and everything seems normal here. (F1 P24: "Intellect Lead") It's a very simple patch that uses oscillator sync. Have you ran the calibration routines recently?
I have posted this before a while ago but worth mentioning again because there are more people viewing this thread and able to test on theirs...
This is regarding F1 P24
Using this patch, the octave from middle C seems to play differently to all the other keys. They seem quieter for want of a better description. Does anyone else notice this? so just play single keys from below middle C and through the middle C octave and beyond, it's just the one octave on mine that sounds different.
I haven't noticed this on any other patches but it happens every time on F1 P24. I could try and record a video with my camera if required (I don't record stuff or play on my computer)
I’ve run them a couple of times since first noticing this issue a year or so ago. I’ll give it another go and see if that sorts it.
-
Strange. I calibrated the wheels first and tried it again and it moved the affected area up a few keys on the keyboard so it was the octave from G that was different.
So then I calibrated the oscillators and filter and now the whole of the keyboard is like the octave that was different in the first place. So I don’t know actually what the patch should sound like! Was it only correct in the octave that I thought had an issue?
-
I played the sound for several minutes across the entire key range. No issues in any of the octaves.
-
It would be nice to know what it should sound like. Currently it’s playing the same sound across the whole keyboard but I don’t know if that’s what it should sound like because it’s a lot duller than it was before I calibrated…. Well a lot duller than the keys except the octave that sounded dull !!
Edit - what I’m trying to say is, I’m wondering now if the octave I thought was wrong was actually correct and the rest of the keys were wrong, because it now all sounds like that octave.
-
Just noticed that there’s a new firmware beta version just been posted - v1.1.5.9.6
-
Looks like a solid update. Thanks @pym and crew. Glad to hear you're working on a few of the other bugs too.
-
Indeed it does. I’m going to wait until the morning to do the update as I’ve had far too much to drink tonight ;D
-
Looks like many issues addressed, and possible there is a few more items being evaluated as well, based on the message in the FW update. Very exciting!!! Thank you Seq team for your continued dedication to this amazing instrument!
Looking forward to checking this out. The current file uploaded appears to be incomplete though... tried updating and it only gets to 55%... the file is only 649kb, whereas previous OS updates were 1172kb.
-
Looks like many issues addressed, and possible there is a few more items being evaluated as well, based on the message in the FW update. Very exciting!!! Thank you Seq team for your continued dedication to this amazing instrument!
Looking forward to checking this out. The current file uploaded appears to be incomplete though... tried updating and it only gets to 55%... the file is only 649kb, whereas previous OS updates were 1172kb.
i have the same problem
-
Looks like a solid update. Thanks @pym and crew. Glad to hear you're working on a few of the other bugs too.
Glad to see some movement on the Rev2 bugs. Just seeing this one update gives me more faith in the Rev2 as a product.
Would the LPF offset issue cause the reports of "bright" tone from the Rev2, or would that be a Curtis chip characteristic?
-
That are some really good news. I have to play a gig this evening and don't want to experiment before that. But I will try the new version as soon as possible.
-
My pc doesn't recognise the file type so I can't try it unfortunately I'm not going to force it.. Due to reports of an incomplete file but am happy with news of the posted firmware and hopefully more to come.. Thanks pym and all at sequential
-
tried different programs. no solution. stops at 55% 567. tried different programs buffer sizes, speeds and so on.
nothing helps!
i think the file has a problem!
any solution? :(
-
As others have noticed: I think this file only contains 55% of the whole file. It all loads, but it only contains 55%. Hopefully, we'll get the complete version soon enough.
-
The file has been removed temporarily, apologies for the confusion! We'll get another version up ASAP.
-
Thanks for this update Sequentialnauts! Even if it's only .5 of the file. :) And then going the extra miles on a Saturday even...You guys Rock the Casbah! Time for some beers!!!
-
New Rev2 1.1.5.9.7 OS is up! Apologies for the snafu on the previous version, this one is working properly. Grab it here:
https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,1531.0.html
-
Thank you for the firmware update! I will look forward to testing it out.
As the owner of a Prophet Rev2, and some other more recent Sequential products, these bug fixes are reassuring to say the least.
Bearing in mind the frustrations with firmware issues I have observed while reading this forum. I think something that would greatly improve customer relations with regard to all Sequential products would be:
1. The provision of a GitHub style issue tracker for reporting and processing of bugs and feature requests
2. A consistent and well understood firmware release strategy, e.g. how the firmware is versioned numerically, where beta versions can be downloaded, when stable versions are updated, until when will features be added to a firmware, until when will bug fixes be applied to a firmware, etc.
3. The dedication of more Human Resources to firmware development and community management
I say this because there seems to be constant pressure across all products with regard to firmware updates, and with that, a struggle to meet the expectations set by customers. If Sequential were to process bugs and features requests more effectively and openly, while at the same time better manage expectations, I am quite confident the level of frustrations would be far less, and the customer satisfaction overall much higher.
Just a few words of advice. Now I go back to making music. Thanks again for the update!
-
I don't use the sequencers nearly as often as others, and I certainly can't speak for anyone else.
Speaking only for myself, let me be among the first to say: Congratulations and Many, Many Thanks!! ...to Robot Heart, Pym, cbmd, CreativeSpiral, Sacred Synthesis, and all the others who have worked so hard to try to make this firmware successful!
This update has cured my Rev2's of the Gated Sequencer issue/s that were increasingly afflicting the patches that I was making using CreativeSpiral's brilliant templates which rely on the Gated Sequencer. Of course, this doesn't mean someone else is not going to discover something else... and it doesn't mean that I won't notice something later myself. But so far today I am very happy and appreciative of all of you!
Regards,
- Jason
-
Praise the good Lord for this update! Thanks, Jason, and thanks to all the staffers at Sequential for their hard work in getting us to this point. So far, so good.
I'm watching this thread carefully to see if there are any outstanding problems with the update, in the hopes that it will soon reach official status.
-
Thx@sequential and gus for the great support.
New Firmware works great
-
Yeah, this is a fantastic update!!!... I played around with it a bit last night. (note: you may want to perform calibration afterwards, and check oscillators/pwm... I had to do so, as I noticed that my pulse width mod was off on all voices... was going through zero at around 86 value, rather than ~97 value where it usually is / should be... after calibration all is good!)
Layered Vintage Voice Modeling is amazing! I urge anyone who has downloaded the VCM soundset to get this OS update and check out the layered VCM patches in it... they all have even more unique per voice character now -- And layered binaural acoustic ensembles (strings, brass, wind instruments) sound even more gigantic... previously, the layered VCM patches were getting per-voice offsets, giving the vintage/organic vibe, but it was just skipping several steps that were programmed in... now every step is properly accounted for, giving more resolution to the patch designs.
And the Layered Arp + Key Stepping I have wanted to play with is working now, and it's amazing!! I made a couple patches last night. You can create ridiculously cool melodic/rhythmic sequences by combining layered arps with key stepped sequences modulating pitch at strategic steps/intervals as well as other destinations.... I'm gonna create a video on this soon, outlining the process with ideas to get the most out of it.
There is one minor issue with the fix... Layer B key stepping is offset by one step to Layer A key stepping. ie: when Layer A is playing Step 2, Layer B will be on Step 1... like this for all steps. You can workaround this by purposely offsetting everything in Layer B by one step, but not ideal for workflow... makes it tedious to line things up between the two key stepped sequences. (Note: The key stepping resets when a patch loads or stack is toggled, which is good... a potential fix might be at that point... just make sure both layer A and B get reset to the same step 1 when that reset/sync occurs.) (also, did not check to see whether the other Reset bug/request was addressed.. but didn't see it mentioned in notes... ie: Reset/sync the seq on Clock Start Event when in "No Reset" or "No Hold/Rst" modes)
Thanks so much to @Pym and Sequential team! This is a really great update that will allow significant new sound design options and character to an already great synth. I'm sending a bottle of tequila to the offices for celebration ;)
-
Just wanted to highlight your greatly appreciated find, CreativeSpiral:
There is one minor issue with the fix... Layer B key stepping is offset by one step to Layer A key stepping. ie: when Layer A is playing Step 2, Layer B will be on Step 1... like this for all steps.
-
Praise the good Lord for this update! Thanks, Jason, and thanks to all the staffers at Sequential for their hard work in getting us to this point. So far, so good.
I'm watching this thread carefully to see if there are any outstanding problems with the update, in the hopes that it will soon reach official status.
And thanks to you too for helping to bring a little calm sanity about the whole thing :) Most of us where feeling somewhat left out of the update cycles and this has soothed things for us in my opinion.
-
This update is a dream come true, in my case! A dream from some years ago, when the Rev2 was first announced... I'm sure the dreams of many others are being fulfilled as well.
I'm more than content with this update. Thanks all involved at Sequential and on the forum who have contributed to this.
I haven't had too much time to mess around with the Arp and Gated Sequencers in Keystep mode, just a bit... but it's awesome! It essentially could save a gated sequencer... though it kind of forces the note-ons for notes even on the "rest" steps of the seqencer. Which brings somewhat of a "quirk" to the table... or maybe not, I haven't REALLY figured out what goes on.
But... it SEEMS that when a step is set to "rest", the Arp still triggers a voice on that step, but as there is no note value information available for that particular step (as it's set to "rest", ie "skip step", so no new note info) the Arp triggers the next voice in line, with whatever note that voice last played... like S&H for each voice that gets triggered by the Arp on a "rest" note of the Gated Sequencer #1, it holds the previous note when triggered on a "rest" step.
I'm NOT complaining about this, I can live with it personally, just as with creativespirals reported bug of the layers gated sequencers not "syncing", which I also could consider a "quirk", possible to work with/around. And also, the quirk I mentioned, could produce some interesting results if used creatively... And if one doesn't like it, then don't set "rest" steps for Sequencer #1 when using together with the Arp, you could just use a sequencer routed to VCA level instead for muting wanted steps (through mod matrix with a negative amount).
If this one is/was THE last update, I'm happy. If the bug reported by creativespiral is an easy fix, that's a priority imo. If the "quirk" I encountered is an easy fix as well, then sure why not? , but considering the lack of space for the OS etc etc, maybe not worth the risk/reward of possibly introducing other problems (I just speculate that it could be more complex than the other, more straightforward bug), now that it seems SO close to a proper final OS.
Thanks again to Sequential, Pym in particular, and everyone contributing on the Forum, to make this happen! You all know who you are! :)
-
Thanks for pointing this out, Maxter. Again, just to highlight this issue for Sequential:
But... it SEEMS that when a step is set to "rest", the Arp still triggers a voice on that step, but as there is no note value information available for that particular step (as it's set to "rest", ie "skip step", so no new note info) the Arp triggers the next voice in line, with whatever note that voice last played... like S&H for each voice that gets triggered by the Arp on a "rest" note of the Gated Sequencer #1, it holds the previous note when triggered on a "rest" step.
-
Been trying to work out what's going on more specifically...
It's quite confusing... I turned off the Arp, to troubleshoot. In Keystep mode, just using Layer A, some of the step values have no effect, strangely. WHICH steps vary from time to time... If running through the sequencer in "normal" mode, with all steps set, it seems to "sample" the steps, so when switching to "keystep" mode it plays nicely in sequence...
But changing the step values when in "keystep" mode is quite unpredictable...
When engaging the Arp, the results are even more peculiar... I set up a pattern of 48 (C) on all the steps, then changed only one step at a time to 38 (G), with all others remaining at 48. I reset whatever step I tested at 38 each time, to 48 before testing the next step. So I always had a pattern of 15 steps with a value of 48 each, and 1 step at 38, at any time. The results varied... what step works... and in what way... sometimes I got the predicted 1 out of 16 steps at 38, sometimes a pattern of 2 out of 8, or 3 out of 8 steps, or 2 out of 16 steps, and some 0 out of 16 (ie the step value had no effect), at a value of 38 (G). The rest 48(C).
But as long as the gated sequencers work correctly on both layers in Keystep mode (with the Arp turned off), even if it takes "running through" the sequencers for each voice in "normal" mode, to "set them up" for the keystep mode, I'm happy... as long as it works. I haven't got that far yet, but hopefully will soon. But as creativespiral has already reported that it works, I expect that it indeed will.
And hopefully someone can figure out what's going on, and if it's worth fixing, as I really can't get my head around it at this time...
-
Another issue that needs to be resolved is that pitch bend and aftertouch should work on both layers of a 16-voice split Rev2 when using MIDI. (As confirmed by Mark Kono of Sequential support in case #65088: "At present you cannot address each layer via MIDI for separate wheel movement on both the Rev2 module and keyboard.")
-
Just chiming in to say thanks for the update to everyone involved. Installed it last night and haven't gotten deep, but the gated sequencer fix is great. Much appreciated.
-
A big thanks from me to! The big issue for me is that the arp was unreliable before this update. Now its working perfectly for the first time. :)
-
I dont know if its my ears, the update or a recalibration but to me my rev 2 sounds a lot nicer since uploading the BETA. Everything sounds a touch nicer, punchier and smoother. Wondering if ironed out a few bugs that affected the sound slightly ?
-
Peculiar is a good word for all this.
It turns out the problem with the sequences not playing correctly was due to a compiler bug which is quite rare, the code was exactly the same as the Prophet '08. So trying to figure out why some of this stuff is happening means I have to completely throw my assumptions out the window and assume anything can be broken... that slows things down. Unfortunate but it happens sometimes.
I'm looking into the sync bug where it's one step off, I've almost fixed it but something is not behaving correctly and isn't obvious so still not entirely sure if I'll be able to track it down in a reasonable time frame. It may or may not be related to the arp problem.
I haven't given up on it yet, but I don't want to get your hopes up, just letting you know I'm still putting some effort in that direction
Been trying to work out what's going on more specifically...
It's quite confusing... I turned off the Arp, to troubleshoot. In Keystep mode, just using Layer A, some of the step values have no effect, strangely. WHICH steps vary from time to time... If running through the sequencer in "normal" mode, with all steps set, it seems to "sample" the steps, so when switching to "keystep" mode it plays nicely in sequence...
But changing the step values when in "keystep" mode is quite unpredictable...
When engaging the Arp, the results are even more peculiar... I set up a pattern of 48 (C) on all the steps, then changed only one step at a time to 38 (G), with all others remaining at 48. I reset whatever step I tested at 38 each time, to 48 before testing the next step. So I always had a pattern of 15 steps with a value of 48 each, and 1 step at 38, at any time. The results varied... what step works... and in what way... sometimes I got the predicted 1 out of 16 steps at 38, sometimes a pattern of 2 out of 8, or 3 out of 8 steps, or 2 out of 16 steps, and some 0 out of 16 (ie the step value had no effect), at a value of 38 (G). The rest 48(C).
But as long as the gated sequencers work correctly on both layers in Keystep mode (with the Arp turned off), even if it takes "running through" the sequencers for each voice in "normal" mode, to "set them up" for the keystep mode, I'm happy... as long as it works. I haven't got that far yet, but hopefully will soon. But as creativespiral has already reported that it works, I expect that it indeed will.
And hopefully someone can figure out what's going on, and if it's worth fixing, as I really can't get my head around it at this time...
-
Have you looked at what it would take to enable pitch bend and aftertouch on both layers of a 16-voice Rev2?
Peculiar is a good word for all this.
It turns out the problem with the sequences not playing correctly was due to a compiler bug which is quite rare, the code was exactly the same as the Prophet '08. So trying to figure out why some of this stuff is happening means I have to completely throw my assumptions out the window and assume anything can be broken... that slows things down. Unfortunate but it happens sometimes.
I'm looking into the sync bug where it's one step off, I've almost fixed it but something is not behaving correctly and isn't obvious so still not entirely sure if I'll be able to track it down in a reasonable time frame. It may or may not be related to the arp problem.
I haven't given up on it yet, but I don't want to get your hopes up, just letting you know I'm still putting some effort in that direction
Been trying to work out what's going on more specifically...
It's quite confusing... I turned off the Arp, to troubleshoot. In Keystep mode, just using Layer A, some of the step values have no effect, strangely. WHICH steps vary from time to time... If running through the sequencer in "normal" mode, with all steps set, it seems to "sample" the steps, so when switching to "keystep" mode it plays nicely in sequence...
But changing the step values when in "keystep" mode is quite unpredictable...
When engaging the Arp, the results are even more peculiar... I set up a pattern of 48 (C) on all the steps, then changed only one step at a time to 38 (G), with all others remaining at 48. I reset whatever step I tested at 38 each time, to 48 before testing the next step. So I always had a pattern of 15 steps with a value of 48 each, and 1 step at 38, at any time. The results varied... what step works... and in what way... sometimes I got the predicted 1 out of 16 steps at 38, sometimes a pattern of 2 out of 8, or 3 out of 8 steps, or 2 out of 16 steps, and some 0 out of 16 (ie the step value had no effect), at a value of 38 (G). The rest 48(C).
But as long as the gated sequencers work correctly on both layers in Keystep mode (with the Arp turned off), even if it takes "running through" the sequencers for each voice in "normal" mode, to "set them up" for the keystep mode, I'm happy... as long as it works. I haven't got that far yet, but hopefully will soon. But as creativespiral has already reported that it works, I expect that it indeed will.
And hopefully someone can figure out what's going on, and if it's worth fixing, as I really can't get my head around it at this time...
-
Yeah that actually would take too much space in the DSP, I did try to get it in. It was intended to happen but there isn't room to do it right because we hit the ceiling in the chip.
Have you looked at what it would take to enable pitch bend and aftertouch on both layers of a 16-voice Rev2?
Peculiar is a good word for all this.
It turns out the problem with the sequences not playing correctly was due to a compiler bug which is quite rare, the code was exactly the same as the Prophet '08. So trying to figure out why some of this stuff is happening means I have to completely throw my assumptions out the window and assume anything can be broken... that slows things down. Unfortunate but it happens sometimes.
I'm looking into the sync bug where it's one step off, I've almost fixed it but something is not behaving correctly and isn't obvious so still not entirely sure if I'll be able to track it down in a reasonable time frame. It may or may not be related to the arp problem.
I haven't given up on it yet, but I don't want to get your hopes up, just letting you know I'm still putting some effort in that direction
Been trying to work out what's going on more specifically...
It's quite confusing... I turned off the Arp, to troubleshoot. In Keystep mode, just using Layer A, some of the step values have no effect, strangely. WHICH steps vary from time to time... If running through the sequencer in "normal" mode, with all steps set, it seems to "sample" the steps, so when switching to "keystep" mode it plays nicely in sequence...
But changing the step values when in "keystep" mode is quite unpredictable...
When engaging the Arp, the results are even more peculiar... I set up a pattern of 48 (C) on all the steps, then changed only one step at a time to 38 (G), with all others remaining at 48. I reset whatever step I tested at 38 each time, to 48 before testing the next step. So I always had a pattern of 15 steps with a value of 48 each, and 1 step at 38, at any time. The results varied... what step works... and in what way... sometimes I got the predicted 1 out of 16 steps at 38, sometimes a pattern of 2 out of 8, or 3 out of 8 steps, or 2 out of 16 steps, and some 0 out of 16 (ie the step value had no effect), at a value of 38 (G). The rest 48(C).
But as long as the gated sequencers work correctly on both layers in Keystep mode (with the Arp turned off), even if it takes "running through" the sequencers for each voice in "normal" mode, to "set them up" for the keystep mode, I'm happy... as long as it works. I haven't got that far yet, but hopefully will soon. But as creativespiral has already reported that it works, I expect that it indeed will.
And hopefully someone can figure out what's going on, and if it's worth fixing, as I really can't get my head around it at this time...
-
Thanks Pym for keeping us updated! (and for your efforts with the OS as well, of course) We really appreciate it!
-
I'm looking into the sync bug where it's one step off, I've almost fixed it but something is not behaving correctly and isn't obvious so still not entirely sure if I'll be able to track it down in a reasonable time frame. It may or may not be related to the arp problem.
I haven't given up on it yet, but I don't want to get your hopes up, just letting you know I'm still putting some effort in that direction
Thanks for an update on this, Pym! The KEY STEP OFFSET between A and B does happen with the Arp on, but also happens with Arp OFF and just triggering via keys. Glad to know its being looked into... I started designing out new some new stacked melodic patches, but have temporarily stopped, as its a bit tedious to line things up between the sequencers with the offset. Keep us updated... If it can be fixed, it will make patch design much more streamlined and intuitive... but if not, let us know... and I'll just continue designing patches with manual offsets on B seq.
On a separate note: That other sequencer issue with out of phase / glitchy behavior in "NO RESET", or "NO HOLD/RST" modes could be remedied, I believe, by just adding an initial sync when a MIDI Start Msg is received. That would provide the only reset to those two modes, and sync with external DAW or drum machine, and ensure the sequencer is in phase with the clock. (https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,5362.msg53544.html#msg53544)
So happy you're doing what you can with the Rev2! Such a fantastic instrument. Cheers!
-
But... it SEEMS that when a step is set to "rest", the Arp still triggers a voice on that step, but as there is no note value information available for that particular step (as it's set to "rest", ie "skip step", so no new note info) the Arp triggers the next voice in line, with whatever note that voice last played... like S&H for each voice that gets triggered by the Arp on a "rest" note of the Gated Sequencer #1, it holds the previous note when triggered on a "rest" step.
@maxter - This might be applicable for the situation you have run into... when you adjust the Reset of a step in the gated sequencer, I highly recommend saving the patch right afterward... there is actually another minor bug (forgot to mention this earlier)... but if you set a reset, then undo the reset and set a different reset step, the gated sequencer sometimes doesn't play though the steps and reset at the correct point. BUT - the act of just saving the patch immediately fixes it. I don't move the reset steps around often, but when I do, I always save the patch right after. Not sure why this happens.. maybe something held in temp edit buffer is not in sync with the patch sysex?
-
Yeah that's what I thought too, and when I tried to do that it caused another bug. It's a feedback loop of frustration. One moment I think to myself "oh, that was smart, I did that well" and the next moment I think "man I was an idiot to do it that way" :P
Appreciate you guys being patient, I know it's important for you
I'm looking into the sync bug where it's one step off, I've almost fixed it but something is not behaving correctly and isn't obvious so still not entirely sure if I'll be able to track it down in a reasonable time frame. It may or may not be related to the arp problem.
I haven't given up on it yet, but I don't want to get your hopes up, just letting you know I'm still putting some effort in that direction
Thanks for an update on this, Pym! The KEY STEP OFFSET between A and B does happen with the Arp on, but also happens with Arp OFF and just triggering via keys. Glad to know its being looked into... I started designing out new some new stacked melodic patches, but have temporarily stopped, as its a bit tedious to line things up between the sequencers with the offset. Keep us updated... If it can be fixed, it will make patch design much more streamlined and intuitive... but if not, let us know... and I'll just continue designing patches with manual offsets on B seq.
On a separate note: That other sequencer issue with out of phase / glitchy behavior in "NO RESET", or "NO HOLD/RST" modes could be remedied, I believe, by just adding an initial sync when a MIDI Start Msg is received. That would provide the only reset to those two modes, and sync with external DAW or drum machine, and ensure the sequencer is in phase with the clock. (https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,5362.msg53544.html#msg53544)
So happy you're doing what you can with the Rev2! Such a fantastic instrument. Cheers!
-
You can also just turn stack/split on/off and it should reset things to 0
But... it SEEMS that when a step is set to "rest", the Arp still triggers a voice on that step, but as there is no note value information available for that particular step (as it's set to "rest", ie "skip step", so no new note info) the Arp triggers the next voice in line, with whatever note that voice last played... like S&H for each voice that gets triggered by the Arp on a "rest" note of the Gated Sequencer #1, it holds the previous note when triggered on a "rest" step.
@maxter - This might be applicable for the situation you have run into... when you adjust the Reset of a step in the gated sequencer, I highly recommend saving the patch right afterward... there is actually another minor bug (forgot to mention this earlier)... but if you set a reset, then undo the reset and set a different reset step, the gated sequencer sometimes doesn't play though the steps and reset at the correct point. BUT - the act of just saving the patch immediately fixes it. I don't move the reset steps around often, but when I do, I always save the patch right after. Not sure why this happens.. maybe something held in temp edit buffer is not in sync with the patch sysex?
-
But... it SEEMS that when a step is set to "rest", the Arp still triggers a voice on that step, but as there is no note value information available for that particular step (as it's set to "rest", ie "skip step", so no new note info) the Arp triggers the next voice in line, with whatever note that voice last played... like S&H for each voice that gets triggered by the Arp on a "rest" note of the Gated Sequencer #1, it holds the previous note when triggered on a "rest" step.
@maxter - This might be applicable for the situation you have run into... when you adjust the Reset of a step in the gated sequencer, I highly recommend saving the patch right afterward... there is actually another minor bug (forgot to mention this earlier)... but if you set a reset, then undo the reset and set a different reset step, the gated sequencer sometimes doesn't play though the steps and reset at the correct point. BUT - the act of just saving the patch immediately fixes it. I don't move the reset steps around often, but when I do, I always save the patch right after. Not sure why this happens.. maybe something held in temp edit buffer is not in sync with the patch sysex?
Good idea! I was mostly messing around to try out the OS, and went between different sequencer modes, so it's not too surprising to see something act up, without saving the patch frequently.
Though my experience was with the "rest", not "reset". On "rest", a step should be skipped, ie not triggered. But it seems the arpeggiator overrides that, and triggers the "rest" steps too. With no actual pitch information available for that step, I suppose the last played note just triggers the voice, either with the pitch that voice is at, or the pitch that the step was last set to. I haven't really been on the Rev2 since then, so I haven't figured out which it is.
-
Good idea! I was mostly messing around to try out the OS, and went between different sequencer modes, so it's not too surprising to see something act up, without saving the patch frequently.
Though my experience was with the "rest", not "reset". On "rest", a step should be skipped, ie not triggered. But it seems the arpeggiator overrides that, and triggers the "rest" steps too. With no actual pitch information available for that step, I suppose the last played note just triggers the voice, either with the pitch that voice is at, or the pitch that the step was last set to. I haven't really been on the Rev2 since then, so I haven't figured out which it is.
Oh... sry, misread "rest" as "reset"... +1 It would be very cool if a Rest in Key Step mode would cause the voice gate to not be triggered (whether the gate is generated via regular key press or arp)... the Rest would suppress the gate/trigger event when its detected on that step with a rest. This is actually something that would be great to implement across all Seq instruments with Key Step / Seq Trigger modes... (Pro 3, Rev 2) It's a behavior that is very useful for creating interesting rhythms.
FYI: the approach I generally take currently is to modulate the Cutoff way down when I want to skip a step... It's definitely not as holistic a solution, and has some downsides, but it does achieve a skipped step type of sound. In that video I recorded a couple weeks back, that's how I got the gallop rhythm... dropping cutoff to be inaudible on step 6 and 14. (https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,5526.0.html)
-
Good idea! I was mostly messing around to try out the OS, and went between different sequencer modes, so it's not too surprising to see something act up, without saving the patch frequently.
Though my experience was with the "rest", not "reset". On "rest", a step should be skipped, ie not triggered. But it seems the arpeggiator overrides that, and triggers the "rest" steps too. With no actual pitch information available for that step, I suppose the last played note just triggers the voice, either with the pitch that voice is at, or the pitch that the step was last set to. I haven't really been on the Rev2 since then, so I haven't figured out which it is.
Oh... sry, misread "rest" as "reset"... +1 It would be very cool if a Rest in Key Step mode would cause the voice gate to not be triggered (whether the gate is generated via regular key press or arp)... the Rest would suppress the gate/trigger event when its detected on that step with a rest. This is actually something that would be great to implement across all Seq instruments with Key Step / Seq Trigger modes... (Pro 3, Rev 2) It's a behavior that is very useful for creating interesting rhythms.
FYI: the approach I generally take currently is to modulate the Cutoff way down when I want to skip a step... It's definitely not as holistic a solution, and has some downsides, but it does achieve a skipped step type of sound. In that video I recorded a couple weeks back, that's how I got the gallop rhythm... dropping cutoff to be inaudible on step 6 and 14. (https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,5526.0.html)
Yeah, I think it worked that way on the P'08, the rest steps were rests, when triggered. Though it had no arp, but when triggering by keys or external arp, the note didn't play, as intended. I'm pretty sure, as I had nothing weird triggered on those "rest" steps then, and oh yes, this can indeed produce some very interesting rhythms and syncopations, as well as melodies and timbral modulations...
As it's not currently like that on the Rev2, that's a way to do it like you mention, routing a sequencer either to Cutoff or VCA. With a negative amount in the mod matrix. This is more lively than the "rests", as it's not just ON/OFF, but can be any value from 0-125. Sacrificing one sequencer lane for using the arp is ok with me, as it "evens out", though a fix would be great of course... even more possibilities. If wanting a more "random" result, or not able to sacrifice a sequencer lane, a synced random LFO also works, to add (well, subtract in this case actually, because of "negative" mod amount) rhythm and dynamics, or accents. But less predictable.
That video of yours was interesting! I'm not a great pedagogue, and should probably make some illustrations for this, but anyhow I'll give it a shot... (this is without using the arp, if you use the arp you just exchange a sequencer for the arp with whatever notes you play)... you went with 4ths and 5ths (in a sense the same, just the respective inverted counterparts of eachother), which is smart. I thought I'd elaborate a bit on this, that if you start on, let's say a D, and go 2x above and below, using 5ths AND/OR 4ths, you get the same result of notes (at inverted octaves though)... the pentatonic scale. Which is, arguably, THE most generic, or most readily understood and recognized scale to the human mind.
Using 5ths, you get E - A - D - G - C
Using 4ths, you get C - G - D - A - E
Same notes, the pentatonic scale, just inverted order. Pull these together into the same octave and you get an A minor 7/11 (in this case, or whatever *** minor 7/11 chord you choose, with the key you strike)... ie the pentatonic scale. The D turns out to be the middle note in the chord as well as the 4th/5th thingy above.
So that's A - C - D - E - G, assuming you want the A as root when you press an A key, on the P'08/Rev2 sequencer values 0 - 6 - 10 - 14 - 20 (and 24 - 30 - 34 - 38 - 44 ... and 48 - 54 - ... and so on, etc...)
Now, if you constrict one sequencer to this set collection of notes/values only, then use another sequencer to transpose further... by a 4th and/or 5th up AND down, you get:
on 4th up/5th down - D - F - G - A - C
D minor pentatonic scale, or 7/11
only difference of notes being F instead of E
on 4th down/5th up - E - G - A - B - D
E minor pentatonic
only difference a B instead of C.
(Any sequencer could of course be offset by octaves here and there as well.)
By this we get the notes A - B - C - D - E - F - G
A minor/C major scale. With the least easy-to-grasp notes harmonically, B and F, generally occuring the least overall. These notes also form half a diminished chord, ie 6 semitones apart. (Which can also be used harmonically to modulate to different keys...)
OR one could use 3 sequencers each constrained to using only root, and first order 4ths and 5ths up and down (and any octaves of these), to control pitch, to get the same result of notes. At the cost of another sequencer though, so I use the above approach instead, just 2 sequencers at different lenghts (though using 3 could make the pattern less repetitive, you probably won't catch anything repeating anyhow, just using 2...). I'd say go easy though, use lots of root notes on each sequencer, and fewer of the other notes, to keep it comprehensive by the root note occuring dominantly, or most often. Otherwise one can slip towards cacophony, or seemingly random notes. One could instead use an arpeggiator in "random" mode, if random is what you want...
The fun part is with using rests, and/or VCA/Cutoff/Pan (etc) modulations to bring in accents, and setting each of the sequencers controlling the pitch to different lengths (different reset steps), creating what I'd call a "pseudo-generative" melody (and/or rhythm). Though it's anything but random...
Also using the matrix to "reuse" those same sequencers for controlling other stuff, makes it even more interesting...
Doing this intelligently on TWO layers with 4 sequencers each, makes it at least TWICE as interesting, and possibilities multiply even more... And routing stuff to offset just 1 of the 2 osc, modulating the osc mix, etc etc etc, can create some remarkable results. Synced LFO's at a rhytmic interval, routed to an osc pitch as well...
And if you use lots of rests, and notes sparsely, you can even trigger the different voices at various rhytmic intervals/syncopations with an external arp (preferably quite a bit apart, like a whole bar + an 1/8 or 1/16th, or resp triplet interval), then set them to free-run (no reset mode) and it gets even more interesting... I'm hoping to get into all this again and actually make something with it, soon enough, now that both layers sequencers work.
I didn't expect the post to be this long when I started out, and perhaps it should be moved to that other thread that you just linked to. As the larger part of this post may belong there, I suppose. If I knew the drift off-track would take this long I would've posted there. Oh well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne6tB2KiZuk
-
@maxter - Definitely follow your train here... Yeah, sky's the limit with this type of melodic sequencing via gated sequencer! You can really get into modular synth territory with procedural/evolving harmonies just repeating a single root note... like you are outlining. And now that it works on stacked layers too, you can control six oscillators (4+2subs), with four adjustable reset seq lanes on each layer and all the other modulation controls. With variance in reset points, you can definitely create some sequences that nearly never repeat, and progress through a variety of chord changes, and key modulations.
Post some sound demos if you pursue this further... would like to hear what you come up with! :)
I've found that the style of patch design I usually prefer -- I'm less into pre-defining complex procedural patterns, and more into the ability to play the keybed in a real-time setting, controlling song structure and key / harmony changes through the keybed, but just having the mod sequencer providing some dynamic chord inversions, and chord variants that are still mostly in key with what I'm playing... that is of course why the mod frequencies I've chosen are focused on +/- 4th, +/- 5th, +/- Octave, or stacking those variants.
You end up getting lots more complex harmonic content even just by playing octaves or power chords -- you get chords that are still highly harmonic, but have some flavor (Power chords, Sus 2, Sus 4, and Chord Inversions of everything by modulating octaves on select steps/oscillators). And when you play triads or more complex chords on the keybed, then things can get pretty interesting, and you'll start to get a variety of notes with extra dissonance... but even the out of key notes will still be in closely related key signatures, so it often just adds a bit of tension and interest.
-
Aa a new member with a 16 voice desktop waiting at the post office to pick up, finding and reading this post from the beginning was somewhat disturbing...
This whole saga brought flashbacks of my Virus TI experience. I preordered upon press leak, received the first unit in AUS, and essentially paid $3000 for the privilege to be a beta tester for the next couple of years.
My Prophet purchase was made with a confidence that goes hand in hand when dealing with a company with such high regard as Sequential - similarly with a product that is in the 5th year of production.
I’ve been in this game for 25 years. My expectation of a product is to be capable of all it says it can do on the box. I don’t expect - but most certainly, appreciate - added features in subsequent updates.
What I believe a consumer base should expect is clear communication - radio silence is unacceptable, for any period of time.
I am so appreciative of all on this forum for your persistence and effort. Some have been more informative and reasonable than others - it’s important to remember that no matter the size off the company that they are still run by humans.
And so it seems that I have indeed bought in at the right time... and am grateful to have mostly missed the beta circus this time round.
This forum is a great resource, thank you all for your contributions.
Pete
-
Aa a new member with a 16 voice desktop waiting at the post office to pick up, finding and reading this post from the beginning was somewhat disturbing...
This whole saga brought flashbacks of my Virus TI experience. I preordered upon press leak, received the first unit in AUS, and essentially paid $3000 for the privilege to be a beta tester for the next couple of years.
My Prophet purchase was made with a confidence that goes hand in hand when dealing with a company with such high regard as Sequential - similarly with a product that is in the 5th year of production.
I’ve been in this game for 25 years. My expectation of a product is to be capable of all it says it can do on the box. I don’t expect - but most certainly, appreciate - added features in subsequent updates.
What I believe a consumer base should expect is clear communication - radio silence is unacceptable, for any period of time.
I am so appreciative of all on this forum for your persistence and effort. Some have been more informative and reasonable than others - it’s important to remember that no matter the size off the company that they are still run by humans.
And so it seems that I have indeed bought in at the right time... and am grateful to have mostly missed the beta circus this time round.
This forum is a great resource, thank you all for your contributions.
Pete
For those of us who don't have the time to be uncompensated beta testers, several years after initial release is a great time to buy a synth (and I'm not limiting that comment to Sequential synths). I bought my Prophet 12 module a few months before they discontinued it... in fact, I bought it because I anticipated it being continued. Like the Rev2, it is a synth with a lot of modulation options (and more features usually means more things to potentially go wrong). Never having to load an OS update, or suffer through bugs and wondering if they will ever be fixed, has been a joy.
In general I wish all synth manufacturers should place a greater emphasis on perfecting existing functionality, and ensuring that functionality is not disrupted via extensive regression testing, rather than chasing new features. New features should be carefully vetted, and care taken to be sure that the new feature doesn't introduce new bugs to things that previously worked, or add new complications where there was a previous expectation of simplicity.
-
For those of us who don't have the time to be uncompensated beta testers, several years after initial release is a great time to buy a synth.
Yes, absolutely. I would never buy a synthesizer with a low serial number from any company. I give Sequential instruments a good year before I even consider buying something.
If you want an instrument with 001 as a SN, be prepared to pay for it in chaos.
-
I've found that the style of patch design I usually prefer -- I'm less into pre-defining complex procedural patterns, and more into the ability to play the keybed in a real-time setting, controlling song structure and key / harmony changes through the keybed, but just having the mod sequencer providing some dynamic chord inversions, and chord variants that are still mostly in key with what I'm playing... that is of course why the mod frequencies I've chosen are focused on +/- 4th, +/- 5th, +/- Octave, or stacking those variants.
You end up getting lots more complex harmonic content even just by playing octaves or power chords -- you get chords that are still highly harmonic, but have some flavor (Power chords, Sus 2, Sus 4, and Chord Inversions of everything by modulating octaves on select steps/oscillators). And when you play triads or more complex chords on the keybed, then things can get pretty interesting, and you'll start to get a variety of notes with extra dissonance... but even the out of key notes will still be in closely related key signatures, so it often just adds a bit of tension and interest.
I forgot to follow up on this comment. I agree that it is best to stick with the purest intervals. Just using 4ths and 5ths (and octaves of course, if they even count) leaves the most room for harmonic structuring and variation, you can basically play a minor OR major pentatonic scale, and remain in a single key. Doubling this with a second sequencer of the same intervals, makes for a pentatonic minor scale (just playing one note), or major/minor scale playing root+4th+´5th. Still quite flexible... With a third sequencer, same intervals, we get the basic major/minor melodic scale (playing one note). As the melodies created get more and more variation this way, the harmonic possibilities/freedoms are diminished.
"Sus 2, Sus 4, and Chord Inversions" Yep, a sus2 and sus4 could even be considered the "same" (not EXACTLY in musical terms, but you get the idea) by a simple chord inversion, at least in a case like this (where sequencers also transpose by octaves, making the 4ths and 5ths kind of ambiguous).
The one big no no, I'd say are any two notes separated by just a single semitone (or 11 semis, like a major 7). Not easy to get good results with.
A beauty of the minor pentatonic scale (to me) is that it's a symmetrical/mirrored scale, from the middle note (-5 -2 0 +2 +5). Ie it's well "balanced" structurally. The same middle note is a sort of superficial "root" in our case, as that's the note center for any equal amounts of 4ths/5ths up and down, either resulting in a minor pentatonic scale (2 degrees), or the melodic minor scale (3 degrees), of the actual root note. For instance, to get a C minor pentatonic scale, you start with F and go 2x 4ths or 5ths up and down, while 3x up and down from F gives the C minor melodic scale. Same here, F is a "mirror" centerpoint, -5 -3 -2 0 +2 +3 +5.
Mostly food for thought, when working with multiple sequencers, that the 4th up/5th down of the root, is the actual "center" in some ways, if wanting to leave options open, for example to use one sequencer with positive amount to one OSC, and the same sequencer also with a negative amount to another OSC, and other similar cases.
-
I've done a good amount of experimenting with this over the past few weeks. Am getting close to a new patch bank release with tons of new layered vintage voice modeling patches and complex sequencer patches. After chatting about this with you, I did push a few patches to the extremes of generative sequencing sound design (and named one of the patches "ARP Maxtronic" ;) Stuck with fifths, fourths, and octaves, but with different sequence lengths and patterns each oscillators, and on both layers... The result is pretty cool...
You can hold down roots/octaves/fifths, and it creates very interesting melodic/harmonic patterns... some para-sounding-chords and melodies all related to the keys you play. Once you add in some thirds or other intervals to the keybed, it gets really interesting --Shifts into some slight dissonance of related keys... lots of fun... and its the type of ARP/SEQ that I like... not just triggering a pre-defined sequence... instead it's highly playable in real time, and can adapt to any song.
-
Sounds like right up my alley... or whatever it is they say. I'm european, so please forgive me for probably butchering some idioms and stuff here and there. ;D
I haven't really got to it yet, since the last OS update, but utilizing the arp should take this to the next level (adding even an extra element), as I presume you already did. :)
The way I would/will use this eventually, is not really as a "driving" force of an idea, but rather as a neat "spice". It can add interest to simpler ideas and progressions.
There's something just SO compelling/interesting (to me) about these (to most) SEEMINGLY "random" patterns that really AREN'T. To me it's often like, I can't put my finger on it but, the brain somehow picks up on the structural elements of each sequence, even if they're quite complex and multilayered. You can tell they're not random even after a little while, yet you can't really predict them accurately either... The same thing that interests me about baroque music, Bach in particular of course. It should be quite predictable, but still surprises you.
My apologies to all and anyone who perceive my posts as nothing/little more than rambling/ranting a lot of the time. I'm certainly not a scholar or anything, lack layman terms etc etc etc. I just find this very fascinating, that's the reason I'm talking out of my a**. And sorry for driving the thread OT, but I suppose the actual topic itself is quite done by now.
-
I've done a good amount of experimenting with this over the past few weeks. Am getting close to a new patch bank release with tons of new layered vintage voice modeling patches and complex sequencer patches. After chatting about this with you, I did push a few patches to the extremes of generative sequencing sound design (and named one of the patches "ARP Maxtronic" ;) Stuck with fifths, fourths, and octaves, but with different sequence lengths and patterns each oscillators, and on both layers... The result is pretty cool...
You can hold down roots/octaves/fifths, and it creates very interesting melodic/harmonic patterns... some para-sounding-chords and melodies all related to the keys you play. Once you add in some thirds or other intervals to the keybed, it gets really interesting --Shifts into some slight dissonance of related keys... lots of fun... and its the type of ARP/SEQ that I like... not just triggering a pre-defined sequence... instead it's highly playable in real time, and can adapt to any song.
Sounds great. Looking forward to this :)
-
I've done a good amount of experimenting with this over the past few weeks. Am getting close to a new patch bank release with tons of new layered vintage voice modeling patches and complex sequencer patches. After chatting about this with you, I did push a few patches to the extremes of generative sequencing sound design (and named one of the patches "ARP Maxtronic" ;) Stuck with fifths, fourths, and octaves, but with different sequence lengths and patterns each oscillators, and on both layers... The result is pretty cool...
You can hold down roots/octaves/fifths, and it creates very interesting melodic/harmonic patterns... some para-sounding-chords and melodies all related to the keys you play. Once you add in some thirds or other intervals to the keybed, it gets really interesting --Shifts into some slight dissonance of related keys... lots of fun... and its the type of ARP/SEQ that I like... not just triggering a pre-defined sequence... instead it's highly playable in real time, and can adapt to any song.
Sounds great. Looking forward to this :)
I’m keen to hear this patch bank too. Your previous work has been amazing, thanks for all your sounds and your info.
-
Rev2: The Calibration is Frozen!!!!
All - I hope you can assist. I recently downloaded the latest OS for my DSI Prophet Rev2 (1.1.5.9), and calibrated the oscillators and filters per instructions. All seemed to move toward to completion without incident. The front panel controls returned to normal and I was able to use the synth. All the presets sounded great, but when I wanted to start a new patch from scratch (going into manual mode now - transpose up/down + Hold), the sounds were more distorted and gritty. I couldn't quite clean them up. I powered everything down and called it a night. now that I have time to dig in two days later, I turned on the synth and experienced the same thing (grittier sounds in manual mode). Confident that the synth had warmed up sufficiently by this point, I attempted the Calibration again. The Calibration is Frozen! It has been stuck at Voice 1 / OSC1...10 / OSC2...2 for over two (2) hours now! I don't want to turn off the synth because per instructions we are not supposed to turn off the synth during this process. Thought/help/suggestions welcomed! Thank you!
-
Rev2: The Calibration is Frozen!!!!
All - I hope you can assist. I recently downloaded the latest OS for my DSI Prophet Rev2 (1.1.5.9), and calibrated the oscillators and filters per instructions. All seemed to move toward to completion without incident. The front panel controls returned to normal and I was able to use the synth. All the presets sounded great, but when I wanted to start a new patch from scratch (going into manual mode now - transpose up/down + Hold), the sounds were more distorted and gritty. I couldn't quite clean them up. I powered everything down and called it a night. now that I have time to dig in two days later, I turned on the synth and experienced the same thing (grittier sounds in manual mode). Confident that the synth had warmed up sufficiently by this point, I attempted the Calibration again. The Calibration is Frozen! It has been stuck at Voice 1 / OSC1...10 / OSC2...2 for over two (2) hours now! I don't want to turn off the synth because per instructions we are not supposed to turn off the synth during this process. Thought/help/suggestions welcomed! Thank you!
I’ve been through similar issues. I resetted the global parameters and went through several calibration loops. In many occasions it froze but the global reset helped to pass this stage. Still multiple loops were necessary as the sound was super weird though calibration had been completed successfully.
-
Rev2: The Calibration is Frozen!!!!
All - I hope you can assist. I recently downloaded the latest OS for my DSI Prophet Rev2 (1.1.5.9), and calibrated the oscillators and filters per instructions. All seemed to move toward to completion without incident. The front panel controls returned to normal and I was able to use the synth. All the presets sounded great, but when I wanted to start a new patch from scratch (going into manual mode now - transpose up/down + Hold), the sounds were more distorted and gritty. I couldn't quite clean them up. I powered everything down and called it a night. now that I have time to dig in two days later, I turned on the synth and experienced the same thing (grittier sounds in manual mode). Confident that the synth had warmed up sufficiently by this point, I attempted the Calibration again. The Calibration is Frozen! It has been stuck at Voice 1 / OSC1...10 / OSC2...2 for over two (2) hours now! I don't want to turn off the synth because per instructions we are not supposed to turn off the synth during this process. Thought/help/suggestions welcomed! Thank you!
If you haven't tried Razmos calibration routine, please do! If I'm not mistaken, it's these steps:
1. Turn on, and "warm up" your Rev2 for 20-30 minutes, by leaving it on.
2. Power cycle it. This means turning the Rev2 off for about 20-30 seconds, and then turning it on again.
3. Run the calibrations.
This method has worked for many, myself included.
Good luck!