The Official Sequential/Oberheim Forum
SEQUENTIAL/DSI => Pro 2 => Topic started by: Paul Dither on October 21, 2015, 09:52:12 AM
-
Just curious what's the status of the current Pro 2 Main OS. Will we see any significant updates after the official launch of the Prophet-6 module, i.e. the coming winter?
-
Paul, I guess this forum is still a work in progress. Perhaps the guys still haven't worked it into their daily routines, so the responses are still very slow. Personally, I'm still addressing any important questions I have directly to DSI information by email. It seems best to take that route for now and then report the information back here, rather than get frustrated waiting for a response.
-
Paul, I guess this forum is still a work in progress. Perhaps the guys still haven't worked following it into their daily routines, so the responses are still very slow. Personally, I'm still addressing any important questions I have directly to DSI information email. It seems best to take that route for now and then report the information back here, rather than get frustrated waiting for a response.
I figured that. I also just wanted to create a thread for the current OS, though. I dunno if some of the information posted on the old "inofficial" forum should be transferred over here, like a summary of bugs found by the beta testers.
-
I dunno if some of the information posted on the old "inofficial" forum should be transferred over here, like a summary of bugs found by the beta testers.
I think that would be a good idea. We should take responsibility to build up this forum ourselves. The guys at DSI probably have their hands full, especially with NAMM getting near.
-
Okay, I will take a look into it later and then compile everything over here.
-
From what I understand the current beta will make it into release and then in the future they are looking at a more significant update, I guess sorting the sequencer functionality out and maybe changes from the P12 moving to the P2, like the linear FM.
Hopefully for the "imminent" release they will fix the Midi clock over DIN issue and the sequencer low priority problem which I think were introduced with the latest beta.
Who knows though!
-
After taking another look at the OS thread in the old forum, this is what I can come up with:
Known issues and bugs:
- Key priority issues when track 1 is set to “notes off” and the sequencer play source is set to “sequencer” (temporary solution: use “Keyboard” as the play source, since the key priority tracks correctly when the note track is off)
- The screen top row / patch name flickers when values are changed (not yet confirmed by DSI)
- The shortcut for assigning a mod destination to a sequencer track (hold “Track Select” + turn a knob on the control panel) does not work for the parameters “Feedback Tuning,” “Distortion,” and “Sub Osc Level” (in all three potentiometer modes).
Enhanced features taken into consideration by DSI:
- Paraphonic sequencer recording
- Alternate tunings (was already added to the menu at one point, but didn't work yet)
- Linear FM
In the latest OS versions, the mod destinations “Osc All Shape Mod” and “Delay All Time” have been added. Coming from a Prophet ’08, I would suggest adding the following multiple mod destinations as well (in case it doesn’t turn out to be a hassle):
Osc All Level, LFO All Freq, LFO All Amt, All Env Amt, Delay All Amt, Delay All Feedback.
-
Thanks for compiling this list!
I added something to the enhanced features taken into consideration by DSI List. I posted this at the other forum and contacted DSI about this with the response that they will add it to the list.
Known issues and bugs:
- Key priority issues when track 1 is set to “notes off” and the sequencer play source is set to “sequencer” (temporary solution: use “Keyboard” as the play source, since the key priority tracks correctly when the note track is off)
- The screen top row / patch name flickers when values are changed (not yet confirmed by DSI)
- The shortcut for assigning a mod destination to a sequencer track (hold “Track Select” + turn a knob on the control panel) does not work for the parameters “Feedback Tuning,” “Distortion,” and “Sub Osc Level” (in all three potentiometer modes).
Enhanced features taken into consideration by DSI:
- Paraphonic sequencer recording
- Alternate tunings (was already added to the menu at one point, but didn't work yet)
- Linear FM
- Modulating clock synced LFO speed "frequency"
"modulating clock synced LFO speed" with e.g. the step sequencer would be great. It could give us some great Rhythmik opportunities switching the synced LFO from 1/8 to 1/4 to 1/1 etc.
Greetings Markus
-
Hopefully for the "imminent" release they will fix the Midi clock over DIN issue
I was about to post a new thread asking a question related to the midi clock pass thru.
I was trying to send the external midi clock from Ableton Live via USB to the PRO 2 and pass it via MIDI Din to a Korg Volca Bass. I did not manage to get this working. Is this what you are referring to? Otherwise i could open a new thread with this topic.
-
Hopefully for the "imminent" release they will fix the Midi clock over DIN issue
I was about to post a new thread asking a question related to the midi clock pass thru.
I was trying to send the external midi clock from Ableton Live via USB to the PRO 2 and pass it via MIDI Din to a Korg Volca Bass. I did not manage to get this working. Is this what you are referring to? Otherwise i could open a new thread with this topic.
Nope, that is different I guess.
-
Hello,
is the version OS 1.1.15 (beta) stable (no known other problems) or when a final version will be released?
Best regards.
-
There are the problems mentioned in this thread.
For me using it over USB it works fine.
You can always install it and if you have problems put the old version back on.
Cheers
Andy
-
There are the problems mentioned in this thread.
For me using it over USB it works fine.
You can always install it and if you have problems put the old version back on.
Cheers
Andy
Thanks!
-
Just to keep this thread accurate:
1.1.15 can cause hung notes via din midi. With my Octatrack it happens instantly. With my Tempest it happens within the first minute. DSI support was able to recreate this bug when connected to a Tempest and it's on the "to be fixed" list. After going back to 1.0 everything works as it should.
-
What I would like is to be able to easily add rests when programming the sequencer, perhaps a similar way as on the Prophet~6. Another thing would be the possibility to transpose the sequences when triggering the sequencer from a gate signal into CV in, Like on the pro~one :)
-
Hi there! Any News about a new OS?
-
Hi there! Any News about a new OS?
this ?
-
Hi there! Any News about a new OS?
this ?
Nope. No new OS/just talking about a new one is not what i call "News"...
Anyway... I asked that question last Sunday. Two days ago i bought a new Pro 2. OS 1.2.0.2 is installed. So... Everything's fine now. For me. Maybe someone else could ask now for any News about a new OS. :)
-
OS 1.2.0.2?? Why don't existing users have access to this yet? Does the BPM change constantly when slaved to an external source? This is the only bug that really hampers my use of the Pro 2.
-
I posted a picture of the included changelog (printed on paper) here:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206858580077870&l=bad49f51b8
-
I posted a picture of the included changelog (printed on paper) here:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206858580077870&l=bad49f51b8
The link doesn't seem to work - at least not for everybody. Facebook says, "The link you followed may have expired, or the page may only be visible to an audience you're not in."
Could you maybe attach the photo in a post?
-
Maybe you have to be member in the DSI Pro 2-Group:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/719776201445367/
I could photograph it in a couple of minutes again.
-
Maybe you have to be member in the DSI Pro 2-Group:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/719776201445367/
I could photograph it in a couple of minutes again.
Ah, I see. I've just sent a request. Thanks.
-
...
-
Thanks a lot, Stefan!
-
I still don't understand how production OSes are getting quietly released and not mentioned.
1.1.15 is still sending MIDI control messages from the ribbon sliders when set to OFF in the global menu.
-
I still don't understand how production OSes are getting quietly released and not mentioned.
Agreed. Surely if something is ready enough to go into production synths then it's ready for download.
Maybe DSI could comment on this as from an end-user perspective it's quite a confusing situation?
-
I have 1.2.0.2 installed on mine, having bought it from the UK a few months ago.
While it seems to have a few new features, it also has quite a few bugs, includnig some that cause the Pro2 to crash :( >:( ::)
It would indeed be good to get clarification, and even better, an idea of when we might expect a new release OS 8)
I still don't understand how production OSes are getting quietly released and not mentioned.
Agreed. Surely if something is ready enough to go into production synths then it's ready for download.
Maybe DSI could comment on this as from an end-user perspective it's quite a confusing situation?
-
What a colossal disappointment DSI has made out of this potentially great instrument.
Plenty of time to release new synths and modules, but years later still can't be bothered to finish the Pro2 OS. >:(
-
Plenty of time to release new synths and modules, but years later still can't be bothered to finish the Pro2 OS. >:(
I don't get it. I took 9 months to get the first round of bug fixes. That beta is over 6 months old. I would suspect a v1.2 might just be a production version of the beta they released 6 months ago, but a 1.2.0.2 suggests other bug fixes (unless they're merged from the beta branch?).
But they're not even updating the PDF on their site.... they print them... on paper... but can't update a link on the site?
Strange behavior. And I'm not suggesting any conspiracy, it's just I haven't seen other companies do this.
Owners shouldn't have to ask for screen shoots of printed manuals.
-
They now have addendum PDF for 1.2.0.2 on their website.
My disappointment was the lack of linear FM capability for all the oscillators, they implemented that on prophet 12 but not on Pro2 again. Linear FM can be great even on a mono-synth, or a paraphonic synth powerful as Pro2.
-
The 1.2.0.2 OS is very similar to the 1.1.15 OS, it's just the production version so not much you haven't already seen. We intend to revisit the Pro 2 OS in the coming months, though.
-
They now have addendum PDF for 1.2.0.2 on their website.
My disappointment was the lack of linear FM capability for all the oscillators, they implemented that on prophet 12 but not on Pro2 again. Linear FM can be great even on a mono-synth, or a paraphonic synth powerful as Pro2.
Well, there are a couple of features that have been taken into consideration. Amongst them were linear FM, paraphonic sequencer mode, and alternative tunings. The latter had once been implemented, but didn't fully work yet, so it had been erased from consecutive OS versions. If I'm correct, there had been no news or comments about a paraphoic sequencer mode in ages. And the last statement on linear FM was that it's not certain whether the processor power will be sufficient.
-
I have received the same standard response from DSI about when to expect an update for the Pro2, that it will be in the coming months, but that was 2 months ago. I do hope it's coming. I do hope they don't take another few months.
I own a tempest (and a p6), and the tempest has been ignored for a long, long time. Check out the other DSI forum to see how bad that has been. Fingers crossed that the team are allowed time to spend on the Pro2 development and that it doesn't befall the same fate as the wonderful Tempest.
-
I have received the same standard response from DSI about when to expect an update for the Pro2, that it will be in the coming months, but that was 2 months ago. I do hope it's coming. I do hope they don't take another few months.
I own a tempest (and a p6), and the tempest has been ignored for a long, long time. Check out the other DSI forum to see how bad that has been. Fingers crossed that the team are allowed time to spend on the Pro2 development and that it doesn't befall the same fate as the wonderful Tempest.
It's like walking a tightrope. ;)
Seriously though: I haven't had the time yet to fully check the latest OS. There were a couple of remaining bugs to be fixed. (As there is no current change log documented on here, I always find the details hard to remember after a while.) Most of the other stuff goes back to additional feature requests, which makes a difference, since those are to be regarded as a bonus somehow. I think for the ease of use, most heavy sequencer users might regard the paraphonic sequencer mode as being the most urgent option if one can classify an additional feature this way. All I'm aware of is that the options I named above have been considered, but that alone is no guarantee yet. This has been especially addressed with regard to the linear FM option.
Taking into account what has been released most recently and the fact that the DSI crew is also working on a desktop version of the OB-6 and something completely new for the end of this year or the beginning of the next year, it's probably realistic to estimate a time frame from the coming summer to the next Winter NAMM.
-
I do appreciate the pressures that continual new product development and release can bring to a small team. On the other hand, I would expect DSI to spare a moments thought for those who have buggy, unfinished products (the proceeds of which are funding DSI's new products) and try to balance their resources a bit better.
To me, standing all the way over here, I would have thought hiring an additional programmer to assist Chris with the various firmwares would cover all bases. It would keep current customers happy and reduce the not-insignificant bad word of mouth that is popping up in all the usual internetsy places.
It is a testament to their synths that I have continued to buy their products (most recently a P6) despite a snail's pace of bug fixes / OS upgrades, so I really wish they would spend a few dollars on bulking up their programming resources. I find it hard to believe the funds are not there to do this. So it must come down to Dave's (or a financial advisor) strategy / business ideology, to squeeze every last breath out of the current resources available.
Also, getting back to the point at hand (!), there are quite a few mod destinations visible, but greyed out, in my OS. Surely these are promised features that are committed to be part of the product - so where are they, years after release? The more I think about it, the more parallels I see with the Tempest fiasco. Anyway, I'm going in circles now ;)
TLDR: DSI, fix the Pro2 for summer please. Don't go down the Tempest rabbithole. Reinvest some of your profit into hiring an additional programmer, and then, keep making fantastic synths.
-
Concerning the greyed out seq destinations, they do actually work. No idea why they are greyed out.
-
Concerning the greyed out seq destinations, they do actually work. No idea why they are greyed out.
In OS 1.2.0.2? I will most definitely give that a go tonight then. I'm quite sure that I was informed in a support email from DSI that they didn't, and that it was to be implemented in a later OS.
-
I'm pretty sure they do as I have used them to sequence external midi devices.
-
I'm pretty sure they do as I have used them to sequence external midi devices.
Well that sounds promising :)
Thanks Bob. 1 big bone for you.
Will defo give that a spin this evening
-
To me, standing all the way over here, I would have thought hiring an additional programmer to assist Chris with the various firmwares would cover all bases. It would keep current customers happy and reduce the not-insignificant bad word of mouth that is popping up in all the usual internetsy places.
Trust me, some of us have been asking for this beefing up of the DSI software developer team for years without much if anything happening. They do have a second programmer now but my impression is that its their DSP programmer mostly handling voice and effects parts of the OS.
At the end of the day fixing bugs is not much of a competition parameter when competing only with yourself. Plus its an attitude towards existing customers kind of challenge. Some of us do see the irony of having a great and friendly support team but not really having the resources needed to make existing products work properly. Talk doesn't do it alone.
All we can hope for is DSI choosing to grow their software team so that they get more development muscle that once the new employees know the code base will result in more bug fixing muscle if the internal priorities are right. Also, hiring a person for bug fixing alone would not work due to the amount of knowledge required to do the job properly. Of cause the SF job market for software developers don't make things any easier.
It all boils down to what the people running the company think is important.
-
I'm pretty sure they do as I have used them to sequence external midi devices.
I tested it and it does not work for me, the greyed out destinations in the mod matrix. I can certainly send midi out using the sequencer midi external tracks out, but not from the matrix.
OS 1.2.0.2
-
The respons of the display is more sluggish with the newer firmware, it should be fixed. I don't really want to go back to earlier firmware, because a few bugs has been fixed. But the OS needs as DSI have said an overhaul of the sequencer code,
Carson from DSI said this on dsiforum.com aug 20 last year: "We will be returning to the Pro 2 OS very soon and will be overhauling the sequencer code. The latest OS was meant to fix some small bugs and add a couple cool features before revamping the sequencer. As it stands, the current sequencer code needs to be refactored before we pursue fixing all the various edge case operations."
That was over 7 months ago, and now Robot Heart say "The 1.2.0.2 OS is very similar to the 1.1.15 OS, it's just the production version so not much you haven't already seen. We intend to revisit the Pro 2 OS in the coming months, though."
So it means that "very soon" is about 1 year or more to return to the OS, and how long will the coding take? That's a long time, I really hope they will do it someday. The OS in pro 2 is a big part of the synth.
-
I'm pretty sure they do as I have used them to sequence external midi devices.
I tested it and it does not work for me, the greyed out destinations in the mod matrix. I can certainly send midi out using the sequencer midi external tracks out, but not from the matrix.
OS 1.2.0.2
mmm, I'll have a look today. I'm sure I had it working, but I have been known to be wrong before :)
-
The respons of the display is more sluggish with the newer firmware, it should be fixed. I don't really want to go back to earlier firmware, because a few bugs has been fixed. But the OS needs as DSI have said an overhaul of the sequencer code,
Carson from DSI said this on dsiforum.com aug 20 last year: "We will be returning to the Pro 2 OS very soon and will be overhauling the sequencer code. The latest OS was meant to fix some small bugs and add a couple cool features before revamping the sequencer. As it stands, the current sequencer code needs to be refactored before we pursue fixing all the various edge case operations."
That was over 7 months ago, and now Robot Heart say "The 1.2.0.2 OS is very similar to the 1.1.15 OS, it's just the production version so not much you haven't already seen. We intend to revisit the Pro 2 OS in the coming months, though."
So it means that "very soon" is about 1 year or more to return to the OS, and how long will the coding take? That's a long time, I really hope they will do it someday. The OS in pro 2 is a big part of the synth.
If you look at the utter fiasco regarding the unaddressed Tempest bugs over on the other DSI forum you might interpret DSI's meaning of coming months to actually mean years and years - no joke.
-
I'm pretty sure they do as I have used them to sequence external midi devices.
I tested it and it does not work for me, the greyed out destinations in the mod matrix. I can certainly send midi out using the sequencer midi external tracks out, but not from the matrix.
OS 1.2.0.2
mmm, I'll have a look today. I'm sure I had it working, but I have been known to be wrong before :)
I know that feeling :) Maybe we're both wrong :o
-
Tempest # 2 :'(
overhaul sequencer ? which means a total screw up initially, which means development rate = years
Adios DSI
-
The Pro 2 and Tempest are not similar in terms of complexity or length of development, nor were they released in similar states regarding the initial OS. Your comments are both non-constructive and misinformed. A number of regular contributors are able to voice their opinion without being rude and combative. This is by far the best way to get us to engage because nobody likes to have to defend themselves right from the start. Please keep your comments constructive. You did get the development rate correct, though. We have long product cycles compared to most consumer businesses, and it is years of OS development for our instruments as I will explain below.
First, as a fellow synth-enthusiast and musician I'd like to say that like you, it is also difficult for me personally to wait for bug fixes. Why? because *my* bug is always the most important, of course. Ha. This can make it hard to watch other bugs getting fixed or other instruments getting updated.
Second, we love using our gear too! After all, we work for a fantastic synth company that makes amazing instruments and we're all musicians on some level. We're not just trying to turn out a "product" for "consumers". We love what we do, and we put tremendous effort into everything we design. This is because we want to make interesting music gear that people will love as much as we do, not because we're only concerned with the bottom line. If that were the case we'd manufacture overseas, buy the cheapest components possible, put everything in plastic enclosures, and spend more money on advertising than product development.
With that understanding, I would like to share Dave's strategy on OS development with you. This post isn't meant to act as the be-all, end-all post in this thread. I just thought if you guys had some insight on how we operate in terms of OS updates it might give you a better awareness of why things happen the way they do, and perhaps keep things more conversational instead of repeatedly voicing your dislike for the current state of XXX instrument's OS. Negativity on top of negativity is a downward spiral and it's easy to get stuck in that loop.
As we've mentioned previously, no amount of ragging on a particular issue or instrument is going to get it fixed any faster. I'm saying it again because this statement is absolutely true and often overlooked. This isn't because we turn a blind eye towards bugs and we don't listen to our customers. It's because there's a system in place for how the company operates, and Dave vigilantly adheres to this system regardless of any external input.
We take bugs very seriously. When they are reported, if we can recreate them they go on a bug list which is constantly maintained.
So, onto the OS update timeline. How does this work? Dave's approach is the same for every instrument's OS development cycle so this applies across the board, no instrument gets preferential treatment. This isn't part of a documented business plan or anything, it's just my observation of what happens after being involved in more than 15 product development cycles over my years with Dave at this point.
In the beginning, we design and develop the instrument. We extensively test the OS both internally, and externally with synth-experts outside the company. We fix everything we find before we start selling the instrument. Then, we release it with version 1.0 software. Let's call this stage one.
Believe it or not, for most users the 1.0 OS is sufficient. The instrument works and sounds good. I can't tell you how many support requests and repairs we get everyday where the synth is still on the 1.0 OS or whichever OS version their instrument shipped with even if there have been numerous updates. Most instruments we see for repair also don't have a single custom program on them, they're still loaded with the factory programs. This is true for the vast majority of customers we interact with, and by a landslide.
Back to the bugs. Inevitably, no matter what amount of thorough testing we've done before an initial product release, customers will find more bugs because it's hundreds and thousands more eyes and ears using the machine. Everyone uses the instrument differently so it's impossible to test for every use case before we ship. So, we always follow the initial release with one to two quick updates. We fix the new bugs that have been discovered and usually incorporate some easy to implement customer feature requests. At this stage in the very early lifecycle of the instrument, 95% percent of all bugs that have been found have generally been fixed. If a 1.0 OS customer updates to this newer OS version, they're usually completely satisfied. We'll call this is stage two.
We have a lot of concurrent instrument development and ongoing instrument maintenance happening, so it becomes a balancing act. Once we pass the initial release and subsequent update stages, the instrument is stable and reasonably mature. In this third stage, the instrument enters the "established" part of its lifecycle.
This means we continue to gather verified bug reports and new feature requests, but because we're in a stable part of the lifecycle this instrument will not see another OS update for around another 6-12 months. This is what allows us to design new instruments. So, no updates every month or two unless an unless a critical bug is found. A critical bug would be both high-visibility and high-severity, meaning it's easy to find and it does something like causes the instrument to crash.
Also the bug reports and feature requests slow down here. No matter how important any individual considers a bug to their personal workflow, once an instrument reaches this third stage there won't be another fix for quite some time. However, I can say with much certainty that does not mean it's the end of the line for OS development of an instrument.
From my perspective it's this third stage that is most frustrating for users because it's the part where you start thinking "it's so close, if only it had this, this, and that!" and then it's another 6-12 months before you see another update. This is also where users can start confusing "feature request" with "bug", because it's easy to justify something that doesn't work exactly as you expect as a bug. We are very deliberate in our design decisions, and we will gladly describe what the intended operation is. This also means no matter how much someone thinks "my way is much easier/better/the best way of operation for sure", that's a workflow debate and it's not a bug. Of course I'm not saying bugs don't exist, but this is a debate that happens often and people don't like being told we're not doing it their way even if they think it's better.
The fourth stage of the OS lifecycle happens at roughly 3 years after release. As an example, the Prophet 12 is entering this stage now. We've taken the time to, and managed to include some powerful new features even though the product is mature, along with fixing most every bug customers have reported. The P12 does what it does, and it does it well. It's stable, and feature-rich. We'll continue to sell this synth for a long time.
This instrument is now to the point where unless a critical bug arises, we probably won't see any more updates. There may be some very minor bugs that are uncovered along the way, but there's also a chance those may not ever get fixed, especially if there's a workaround or it's purely cosmetic. The amount of development resources required to properly test a new OS version for release are significant, even for a small change. For example, something like an incorrect character display on the fourth page of the oscillator section that doesn't affect operation is not going to warrant a new OS at this stage. That would be low severity and low visibility. Although we strive for it, there's no software that is 100% bug-free. If anyone has software development experience they will verify this.
Wrapping this back around to the Pro 2, this is my favorite instrument we make. It is not yet two years old; we started shipping it in August of 2014. That means it's gotten some initial updates and it works very well. It's in the third OS stage based on the definitions above. Is it complete? No. I'll be the first person to admit that, at least not in my mind. It has so much potential! Does it satisfy everyone? Of course not, but which instrument does? There are a lot of features and bugs I'd love to see implemented or fixed, respectively.
Does the Pro 2 satisfy the majority of users? Most definitely, and that's important to recognize. Because while there are a handful of users cursing the current state of the OS, there are many, many other people enjoying the synth and making music. Again, this is not a justification for "never fixing anything", nor is it a remark that nobody on the forums actually makes music because I know that's not true. It's just a point of reference which is easy for me to see because I can publicly see who says what online and I can also see all of our support requests. I'll add this goes for all instruments, not just the Pro 2.
Fortunately for us (myself and you guys), we're still due a couple OS updates based on the OS timeline. If the last OS update you guys are citing was "over 7 months ago" then we're right on schedule. It *is* on our radar, and we do intend to update this instrument again. And yes, it will be in the coming months.
Again, I can't compare this instrument or any other instrument of ours to the Tempest. If you look at the history of our products, nothing else has had a similar development cycle, nor was it released in a similar state. For those of you following the Tempest, it will also be seeing an update in the coming months, as it's still in need of some work and it's about time to dive back into that one as well. I think the last update for that was a little over a year ago, which means its due, purely based on the timelines I spoke of above. I can unconditionally assure you it has nothing to do with any online community uproar.
I'm jumping around a little here, but I want to return to the balancing act of concurrent development and maintenance. This is the part where I've often heard suggestions of "open-source the code" or "hire more developers". That simply isn't going to happen. Large parts of our OS are built on the same codebase for every instrument. We're not going to give away that intellectual property. Why don't we higher more developers then? Well, though we're very visible in the synth world we're an intentionally small company. There are only 12 of us including Dave, and that's more than double the number of employees from when I started.
We have a small office, and this is a private business owned and operated by Dave Smith. He has a lot of fun doing what he does, and the business is run the way he wants. We run at high efficiency and high agility. The more people we hire, the less agile we become, the more oversight and management is needed, the more overhead we have, and the more instruments we need to sell to meet our operating expenses. Dave isn't interested in managing a large company nor ramping up advertising to sell more products, he's most interested in building innovative music machines and would rather put his energy into that aspect of the business. In short, he's comfortable with where things are at.
What does that mean for the user? Essentially, it means it's best to appreciate the instrument for what it is now, rather than what it can become, knowing that based on my outline we haven't ceased development. If and when that happens, we'll be upfront about it and make a public announcement.
The large majority of feedback we receive on our instruments is overwhelmingly positive. There are a small number of power users that are continually frustrated by the pace of the OS development for any given instrument, myself included. But, entirely based on statistics, we really are in the minority.
The best advice I can give is to be patient, and prolifically share any beta OS we post so it reaches as many users as possible, which in turn assures the most possible bugs found during the active development stage. I say be patient because if you've taken the time to report a bug and you've figured out how to reliably reproduce it but it's been a couple months, we haven't forgotten. But, now you know our timeline and it's best to count months rather than days or weeks. If you're ever curious where we're at, feel free to ask. The best way to get an immediate response to any question is to email our dedicated Technical Support channel.
If there's anything else I can answer for you that I haven't covered here, let me know. All I ask is that you keep it constructive, polite, and on-topic.
-
Thank you for taking the time to write that!
-
Thank you for taking the time to write that!
Agreed! Much appreciated.
-
As per the others really appreciate the full on explanation. It takes an explanation like that to take in the full picture. I bought the Pro 2 for what it could do for me and to that end it does the job superbly and inspires me. Any future feature or other bug fixes are just an extra bonus as far as I am concerned. I do fully realise that some may have problems which really affect them, but I run a simple MIDI synced system with CV outs to effects or other synth modules and Pro 2 behaves perfectly within that system. As all I can find things I would like (i.e. putting rests into sequences in real time) but suffer no big issues.
Just knowing you have this policy re the OS helps a lot - I think people may have got wound up because they expect an answer at least if not a solution. There - you gave an answer - kudos!
-
Very well explained, thank you very much! DSI makes beautiful instruments, so is the Pro-2. I love the synth, a pure power horse. My No. 1 synth, and I own and use a couple. Understanding how DSI is looking at the product live cycle helps.
The sequencer on the Pro-2 is a high sophisticated one, a reference in the DSI synth line. To put over the top effort in that will pay out not only for the current Pro-2 but for other upcoming DSI instruments? So maybe good investment on quality time for the developer team here.
Wish you all the best at the DSI team, received top notch tech service on my Pro-2 by Carson. So I can't complain. Keep on!
Greetings from Germany
-
Thanks a lot for the time and power for the extensive informative reply!! This is fully understandable, and also truly interesting as well to know how a manufacturer develops their products, especially about my fave synth the PRO2. Now I'm even more confident about the DSI being the coolest synth maker in the world, and the coolest dozen people being involved in the synth industry.
Again thanks so much!!
-
Thanks for the answer, now it's more clear that the Pro 2 is on the radar and will get more updates and hopefully make this instrument as good as it can be. I may have expressed myself a little harsh, but when I hear someone say "very soon" it's easy to think that you will get back to coding in about 1 to 2 months. And when that's not the case I get the feeling that it's not a priority.
Again thanks for taking the time, and to hear that you also like to see the Pro 2 unleash the potential it has got!
-
Why don't we higher more developers then? Well, though we're very visible in the synth world we're an intentionally small company. [...]
We have a small office, and this is a private business owned and operated by Dave Smith. He has a lot of fun doing what he does, and the business is run the way he wants. We run at high efficiency and high agility. The more people we hire, the less agile we become, the more oversight and management is needed, the more overhead we have, and the more instruments we need to sell to meet our operating expenses.
First of all thanks for a great response. If a company wants to give a detailed response to the customers critique then that is the way to do it. Very sober and honest. Good communication job!
Now onto the semantics.
I can certainly understand that with your current team there are only two modes of operation for the company: develop or maintain. There are however other effects of the current software developer team size:
- First of all software development is probably the most complex and knowledge intensive part of the production being done at DSI and it takes a long time to get a new developer up to speed. Which can have undesirable company wide consequences in case of rapid team reconfiguration events such as people deciding to leave, sudden unplanned bus/plane/earthquake/gun artifacts or employee illness/burnout.
- Secondly it means that you have to more or less stop fixing bugs on older instruments after some time. Which means that if a latecomer to an instruments hits a bug wall (such as Evolver MIDI bugs) then that wall is quite likely to stand there forever. Software needs continued maintenance to be of high quality.
- Third it leaves the impression that DSI almost insist on having bugs in their instruments and that DSI feels that its perfectly okay for things to be so. Which is not quite as charming an experience seen from the customer side as it could seem from the company side. Especially if said bugs actually affects your use of the instrument.
Let me say that I am very happy that the DSI team have such a great work experience, that Dave can have things the way he wants them to be and that the results DSI produce are so greatly received throughout the synthesizer world. However, being the lone king on the hill do have the disadvantage that no one really challenges ones position which means that one can do more or less what one wants to do. It is in this light that I see the comments about Dave running the company the way he wants and just enjoy designing synthesizers. I really wish there was more focus on the long term software quality sides of the game and more taking responsibility of being the leading polysynth manufacturer than the currently observed behavior. After all the support is great, the repair services are great, the products are great and Dave is doing a very fine job of representing DSI. There is just this bug wall challenge.
All in all I must say that as much as I am a huge DSI fan the long term software quality focus makes me sad. Very sad indeed.
Hope this clarifies the customer side of the discussion just a little bit.
-
Thanks for your insightful thoughts, dslsynth. I'm happy to hear you're pleased with almost all of our practices. It is understandable (and expected) that not everyone would like what I had to say, I did imagine this outcome before I wrote my explanation.
The message is not that Dave Smith is ok with bugs, it's that we're small and the company is run a particular way. Certainly there are always options for improving practices and procedures for any given business, I can't deny that. What I eventually decided was that it was better for you guys to be informed of how some things work behind the curtain rather than be continually wondering if and when we'd ever get around to another OS update for any of our instruments.
-
The message is not that Dave Smith is ok with bugs, it's that we're small and the company is run a particular way.
I totally understand that viewpoint and actually I would be very happy if Dave really don't like software bugs in DSI's products. However the current observed company behavior is that bugs are perfectly okay and that there are no plans to change that. As much as I like DSI and your team I personally find that position disturbing seen from a customers viewpoint. Which is the root cause for writing my above post.
Not that I expect my posts to change anything at all. But its important for me that DSI understand the implications completely given that the position will likely not be robust to qualified competition and that the time taking to do anything to resolve the problem is measured in years. So consider being smart and start out soon!
-
I understand that no bugs are best, I want that too. Realistically though, low visibility and low severity bugs don't always get fixed. Dave is not alone in this behavior. All it takes is a quick look around the industry to confirm this. There really aren't any complex products with 100% bug-free operation. I understand your position and you understand Dave's, so all I can do is reiterate your point is taken.
-
so Robot Heart, since we know a major overhaul on the sequencer (which is practically the whole OS)is in order due to initial mistakes and obviously new features and fixes can't be placed on top of this.. where on the scale of importance is this placed within DSI , and what does Dave think about this ? and how long are we expected to wait ?
-
Yes, it would be helpful to know if it's going to happen this year, as I understand this update will be the most important, as it is in the third OS state, It would be great if you could use the 4 osc on separate tracks or a combination in an easy way. And will there be any changes with the MIDI 2 out, for now you can use track 1 out to Seq Out 2 Ch 16 and for some reason it is grayed out.
Regards
klay
-
I don't have any further information other than what I've already said. If you read my original post, I said we'd be revisiting the OS soon, in the coming months. I can say it will happen this year and I am happy to update you when I have new information.
To call an overhaul on the sequencer is practically the entire OS is completely untrue. The sequencer is one of the larger components of the OS, but it is by no means the majority of it. Plenty of features and fixes can be placed on top of the existing sequencer. I think you're misinterpreting "a complete overhaul" as "we made a mistake", which is not the case. What we mean is we're going to be adding some good additional functionality and fixing bugs surrounding sequencer operation.
Because we haven't reviewed our list yet, I can't speak to any specifics regarding potential future operation of the synth. I'd estimate we'll be reviewing the list within a month, if that changes I'll let you know.
-
I don't have any further information other than what I've already said. If you read my original post, I said we'd be revisiting the OS soon, in the coming months. I can say it will happen this year and I am happy to update you when I have new information.
To call an overhaul on the sequencer is practically the entire OS is completely untrue. The sequencer is one of the larger components of the OS, but it is by no means the majority of it. Plenty of features and fixes can be placed on top of the existing sequencer. I think you're misinterpreting "a complete overhaul" as "we made a mistake", which is not the case. What we mean is we're going to be adding some good additional functionality and fixing bugs surrounding sequencer operation.
Because we haven't reviewed our list yet, I can't speak to any specifics regarding potential future operation of the synth. I'd estimate we'll be reviewing the list within a month, if that changes I'll let you know.
Thanks for the updates man! Linear FM and we will all love you personally forever :P
-
I don't have any further information other than what I've already said. If you read my original post, I said we'd be revisiting the OS soon, in the coming months. I can say it will happen this year and I am happy to update you when I have new information.
To call an overhaul on the sequencer is practically the entire OS is completely untrue. The sequencer is one of the larger components of the OS, but it is by no means the majority of it. Plenty of features and fixes can be placed on top of the existing sequencer. I think you're misinterpreting "a complete overhaul" as "we made a mistake", which is not the case. What we mean is we're going to be adding some good additional functionality and fixing bugs surrounding sequencer operation.
Because we haven't reviewed our list yet, I can't speak to any specifics regarding potential future operation of the synth. I'd estimate we'll be reviewing the list within a month, if that changes I'll let you know.
Thanks a lot for the explanation.
This is understandable, as in software programming there is always some unexpected things happen, that sometimes end up requiring extra work, extra time, and thus schedule delay etc. There is no guarantee but only estimation of the time span in this world. Although I long for the linear FM, I know that we users have to be patient about this, and be aware that in the end it might never realize due to the limit of DSP processing capacity. We don't know yet. We'll just play the current version and wait for the outcome from DSI. At least it's good to know that the current R&D schedule is set to have the Pro2 to be updated again within this year.
Hope to hear the good news soon.
-
when the sequencer is a larger part of the OS, and the OS is highly inter-dependent with the sequencer as the case here, to me that is practically the whole OS, i dont care specifics . as far as mistakes , im sure it wasn't intentional more likely inexperience. developers dont simply decide one morning afternoon to "overhaul" a larger part of an OS which takes a considerable amount of time and poses new difficulties to code fragility "unless it hampers progress ", you can call it adding good additional functions and bug fix's or whatever, the cats out of the bag. Frankly i dont care and i believe most dont, sh#t happens, what i do care about is that users like myself are not pulled by their nose's endlessly and used as cash cows to front your new endeavors while being given snooty attitudes as "well get to it when we get to it, maybe a month, maybe 3, maybe a year or just buzz off". August last year this news came to being, what is today ? and what has been done ? one puny update that didn't change much if anything and was sneaked into production units first ?. Pro 2 requires accountability with prompt attention, now. I know my money doesnt own your company to be barking orders but dont forget your customers that forked $2k of their hard earned money, some on loans or credit , came forward first and "trusted" you with it and your abilities, there were no missing pieces in our dollar bills. get my drift ?
@nemosynth, if you went through what i went through with the Tempest which is 5yrs on still incomplete , then swallowing my pride, staying optimistic and giving DSI another 2K hoping for the best and after 1.5 yrs witnessing a similar debacle unfold , your patience starts to wear thin, its not only anger at myself anymore.
-
there was a time i was patient with companies. But as some can probably attest with even Robot Heart referring us to take a look at the industry and how it handles things, one thing is very clear. most customers became so complacent (including myself) like "oh , thanks for your update, nicely written, yeah, give them space and room, be polite (my favorite) blah, blah, blah", that companies have taken advantage of this by thinking, fools, theres little need to finish a product or beta test it properly before selling, 60-70% is good enough, it turns on, makes a drop sound great, enough! and why not.. when you light up peoples bulbs with possibilities especially dreamer types like musicians, make them hand over money, then, simply get them unwillingly recruited as beta-monkeys, you've scored big. thats reality and not only DSI but the industry as a whole right ? Robot Heart, nothing personal brotha. so think twice where and how your money is spent and how polite you should be sometimes when confronted with this behavior . i mean , they think most of us still rely only on factory presets, lol
-
No offense taken over here, I've been on the consumer side plenty of times so I can certainly relate. I feel as if there's been a shift in expectations with the advent of social media and user forums, too. Because people can publicly converse directly with manufacturers there's an expectation that things should move forward more quickly, according to a timeline based purely on opinion.
Say what you will and think what you want, and feel free to ignore the explanations and timelines I've set forth. One thing I will not do though, is repeatedly give the same information when people ask the same question over and over about when things are going to happen, because I've covered that twice now.
Please refer to my two previous posts, and refer others to those posts as well if anyone needs to know when they can expect an update. Rest assured, I will keep my word and let you guys know when we go over the list because at that point I will have new information.
-
As much as I can understand your frustration, Pepe, I don't think that this kind of wording will lead anywhere. I've read many threads like this, especially on the old forum and with regard to the Tempest. While it's absolutely legitimate to be upset about a couple of outstanding bug fixes - Robot Heart even acknowledged this from a user's perspective -, to simply intensify the tone of voice while repeating the already addressed issues is not very productive.
You are still free to continue to use your Pro 2 as is and as you bought it, i.e. without the requested features that no one could have ever sold to you because they're simply not part of the instrument (yet) and were never advertised in advance. If you are of the opinion, though, that you simply can't work with the Pro 2 in its current shape and form, then you can either try to be patient until an update will be released eventually or you can also sell your Pro 2 in order to fund something you're initially satisfied with.
-
Maybe we need some background over Pepe's overuse of the work "Polite" in his last two posts.
After Robot Hearts lengthy post Pepe just requited is original post without adding anything new:
Tempest # 2 :'(
overhaul sequencer ? which means a total screw up initially, which means development rate = years
Adios DSI
I removed this post and sent him a PM asking him not to just requote his posts without adding anything extra. A also said that he was welcome to make another post and just asked him to keep it civil.
He sent me a PM asking what I meant by "Civil" and I thought a good translation might be "Polite", maybe I got this translation wrong!
Now it looks like he has taken offence at this so maybe I was overstepping the mark. I was just hoping to stop this thread descending into a scrap fest.
-
Trying to understand where we are...
The Pro2 passed stages 1 and 2 pretty soon after its release as there were some quick releases when I first got mine.
The first significant update, 1.1.15, took nearly 9 months and stayed in beta for a long time before it quietly rolled out as a production release. From what you've mentioned, the synth being not yet 2 years old, we're in stage 3?
Stage 4 is mentioned as being near the 3 year maturity level. You mentioned the Prophet-12 having recently entered this phase. The Prophet 12 got some MAJOR feature releases as it entered Stage 4. That's encouraging! I think we understand that's not a guarantee for future performance. :-)
What I think I'm having trouble understanding is it's been over 6 months since 1.1.15 was released and it took 9 months to get there. Yikes... I've lost track... it's been nearly 9 months since the beta release! (July 23 2015)
So we're 18 months in with one significant update, and the bug list is going to start getting reviewed in the coming months?
Just seems we're somewhere in the middle of Stage 3 with a window of nearly 18 months left until "final" updates for Stage 4.
I'm not trying to be an ass, and I hope I'm not making you regret spelling out the stages. I'm not trying to use them against you to be difficult.
I'm just trying to understand the timeline between "in the coming months" and 12-18 months from now when the synth reaches Stage 4.
Could be an even longer wait and the wait from 1.1.15 has been pretty darn long already.
And yes, I am suffering from "my pet peeve feature, that I waited 9 months to get fixed in 1.1.15 still doesn't work the way I expect 9 months after 1.1.15" -> I've given up on it working. That's okay and I only bring it up irregularly now. I'm growing. :-)
Maybe most of this is moot/rhetorical because I assume your answer would be "I've already said I'll let you know when the bug review happens". So I apologize if I'm asking you to repeat yourself.
-
@nemosynth, if you went through what i went through with the Tempest which is 5yrs on still incomplete , then swallowing my pride, staying optimistic and giving DSI another 2K hoping for the best and after 1.5 yrs witnessing a similar debacle unfold , your patience starts to wear thin, its not only anger at myself anymore.
Ok, thanks so much for letting me know, it's good to know people's background :)
Now from my side, if you are using such kind of words to DSI and me, then why are you Pepe still sticking with your DSI products, why don't you sell them for your own better investments? May be it's not the price that you paid anymore. May be you just want to keep your anger like a precious stone you found. Nothing productive.
I said comments from DSI are "understandable", didn't say "acceptable", hence I decided to wait a bit more. Once I waited so many years to have ensoniq fix the bugs on my VFX/SD all the way to version II.
Now it's Pro2's turn.
We'll see :)
-
I feel as if there's been a shift in expectations with the advent of social media and user forums, too.
True. So one could say that the customers should adapt to the fact that companies still operates at the same speed no matter the social media connectivity. Good point!
However, I really hope companies like DSI gets to the point where they realize that perhaps they have to adapt their policies too. Their customers do indeed communicate and having a negative reputation on longer term software quality can actually damage the business. And indeed product quality concerns can sometimes be heard even from the opposite side of the desk.
At which point we end up at my previous postings in this thread so no point in reiterating them. Remember, I am a huge DSI fan! Just please consider reconsidering and adapting your policies while you still have plenty of time to do it so the best possible solutions can be found. Especially now that you are in "mostly high end" mode where people rightfully can have higher expectations on said unmentionable product quality parameter.
Also, I am sure there will always be customers complaining about something not working for them. However there is always the tradeoff between that fact and considering how much one gives them to rightfully complain about.
Having customers are indeed a type of "extreme sports".
Take care! ;)
-
I don't think you overstepped the mark, BobTheDog. We have a standard on this forum, and it's to not fall to the low standard of the other forum. If the terms "civil" and "polite" are not understood by some one, then moderators have a reasonable responsibility to omit whatever is overly uncivil and impolite.
I briefly read Pepe's posts, and I had no problem with his basic complaints. But if they begin to sound like redundant rants with occasional expletives, then they need to be changed without altering their basic content - preferably by the poster himself, lastly by a moderator. Cleaned up a bit, they're only going to have more impact.
-
Cleaned up a bit, they're only going to have more impact.
Exactly! Tone down the language and make the message clear yet polite is the way to go.
Not that a clear message working well all the time though.