The Official Sequential/DSI Forum

REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)

eXode

  • ***
  • 251
Re: REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)
« Reply #120 on: January 21, 2017, 12:29:35 PM »
Carson Day just confirmed on gearslutz that the slop on the REV2 is the same as on the Prophet 6! :D
« Last Edit: January 21, 2017, 12:31:27 PM by eXode »

Re: REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)
« Reply #121 on: January 21, 2017, 02:49:48 PM »
It looks like a good update.  The sound seems a little bit fuller which is good and there's some useful additions for creating new sounds.

This is just spectacular news.  I'm so pleased to see the return of the DCO.  As far as I'm concerned, the Rev2 is the new Andromeda A6.  I will definitely be heading in this direction.

I still think the Andromeda still has the edge in functionality but the rev2 is close.

One of the big things the Andromeda can do is an amazing ensemble sound that I've never heard from anything else.  Interestingly, it's because of the 16 voices. 

You put the Andy into Unison and set it to 3 notes, use unison detune to spread them out, and you get this incredibly rich ensemble sound. I've never heard anything like it from anything else.  The Rev2 might be able to do something similar so I'm very curious to see how it sounds.


Re: REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)
« Reply #122 on: January 21, 2017, 03:29:48 PM »
Replying again, as I've seen similar comments regarding the name.

Using "Rev2" as the only text pigeonholes the P08 as the only revisable synth, and the P08 as the flagship of DSI. Basically, that DSI is a synth name unto itself.

Is DSI looking to leave from the Prophet umbrella going forward?

The Ob is on the side with the Tempest and will stick around forever probably (Ob at least), so that's excluded.

While I'll get the Rev2 regardless, I think the ambiguous naming is tacky and looks like a cheap digi synth.

I'm hoping they aren't locked-in on production screening already and can add Prophet in there somehow or at least bump up the DSI to be prominent.

Re: REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)
« Reply #123 on: January 21, 2017, 03:33:41 PM »
Replying again, as I've seen similar comments regarding the name.

Using "Rev2" as the only text pigeonholes the P08 as the only revisable synth, and the P08 as the flagship of DSI. Basically, that DSI is a synth name unto itself.

Is DSI looking to leave from the Prophet umbrella going forward?

The Ob is on the side with the Tempest and will stick around forever probably (Ob at least), so that's excluded.

While I'll get the Rev2 regardless, I think the ambiguous naming is tacky and looks like a cheap digi synth.

I'm hoping they aren't locked-in on production screening already and can add Prophet in there somehow or at least bump up the DSI to be prominent.

Maybe the Name REV 2 is a genius marketing stunt? I mean:

"Did you get the new REV 2?"
"REV of what?"
"You know, the Prophet '08!"
"Oh! So that's the new REV 2 everyone is talking about!"

 :P

Re: REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)
« Reply #124 on: January 21, 2017, 04:14:03 PM »
Replying again, as I've seen similar comments regarding the name.

Using "Rev2" as the only text pigeonholes the P08 as the only revisable synth, and the P08 as the flagship of DSI. Basically, that DSI is a synth name unto itself.

Is DSI looking to leave from the Prophet umbrella going forward?

The Ob is on the side with the Tempest and will stick around forever probably (Ob at least), so that's excluded.

While I'll get the Rev2 regardless, I think the ambiguous naming is tacky and looks like a cheap digi synth.

I'm hoping they aren't locked-in on production screening already and can add Prophet in there somehow or at least bump up the DSI to be prominent.

Maybe the Name REV 2 is a genius marketing stunt? I mean:

"Did you get the new REV 2?"
"REV of what?"
"You know, the Prophet '08!"
"Oh! So that's the new REV 2 everyone is talking about!"

 :P

Yeah, that's a though too. I'm hoping DSI didn't get a little overzealous for ambiguity's sake with the name for marketing reasons. It might be clever marketing for a year, but it'll be very pathetic after years go by and it's a mainstay of studios and musicians.

DSI: at least put an optional badge for the unit. Rev2 is cool for Roland and Korg that churn out too many models each year, but not for "premium" equipment that stick around.

LoboLives

Re: REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)
« Reply #125 on: January 21, 2017, 05:40:34 PM »
I hope they don't forget about the Sequential name. What a waste that would be. Even DSI P08:Rev 2 is a better name.

LoboLives

Re: REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)
« Reply #126 on: January 21, 2017, 05:43:36 PM »
It looks like a good update.  The sound seems a little bit fuller which is good and there's some useful additions for creating new sounds.

This is just spectacular news.  I'm so pleased to see the return of the DCO.  As far as I'm concerned, the Rev2 is the new Andromeda A6.  I will definitely be heading in this direction.

I still think the Andromeda still has the edge in functionality but the rev2 is close.

One of the big things the Andromeda can do is an amazing ensemble sound that I've never heard from anything else.  Interestingly, it's because of the 16 voices. 

You put the Andy into Unison and set it to 3 notes, use unison detune to spread them out, and you get this incredibly rich ensemble sound. I've never heard anything like it from anything else.  The Rev2 might be able to do something similar so I'm very curious to see how it sounds.

The Rev2 is Duotimbral and Andromeda is Multitimbral. Like I said, the Andromeda utilizes the 16 voices in a more constructive way. What's the point in having 16 voices if you can the same functionality and features as eight?

Re: REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)
« Reply #127 on: January 21, 2017, 06:24:49 PM »
It looks like a good update.  The sound seems a little bit fuller which is good and there's some useful additions for creating new sounds.

This is just spectacular news.  I'm so pleased to see the return of the DCO.  As far as I'm concerned, the Rev2 is the new Andromeda A6.  I will definitely be heading in this direction.

I still think the Andromeda still has the edge in functionality but the rev2 is close.

One of the big things the Andromeda can do is an amazing ensemble sound that I've never heard from anything else.  Interestingly, it's because of the 16 voices. 

You put the Andy into Unison and set it to 3 notes, use unison detune to spread them out, and you get this incredibly rich ensemble sound. I've never heard anything like it from anything else.  The Rev2 might be able to do something similar so I'm very curious to see how it sounds.

The Rev2 is Duotimbral and Andromeda is Multitimbral. Like I said, the Andromeda utilizes the 16 voices in a more constructive way. What's the point in having 16 voices if you can the same functionality and features as eight?

Because it's not DSI, duh!

I'm actually considering Andromeda too. Wish the Rev2 was out for a side-by-side video review.

LoboLives

Re: REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)
« Reply #128 on: January 21, 2017, 06:34:07 PM »
It looks like a good update.  The sound seems a little bit fuller which is good and there's some useful additions for creating new sounds.

This is just spectacular news.  I'm so pleased to see the return of the DCO.  As far as I'm concerned, the Rev2 is the new Andromeda A6.  I will definitely be heading in this direction.

I still think the Andromeda still has the edge in functionality but the rev2 is close.

One of the big things the Andromeda can do is an amazing ensemble sound that I've never heard from anything else.  Interestingly, it's because of the 16 voices. 

You put the Andy into Unison and set it to 3 notes, use unison detune to spread them out, and you get this incredibly rich ensemble sound. I've never heard anything like it from anything else.  The Rev2 might be able to do something similar so I'm very curious to see how it sounds.

The Rev2 is Duotimbral and Andromeda is Multitimbral. Like I said, the Andromeda utilizes the 16 voices in a more constructive way. What's the point in having 16 voices if you can the same functionality and features as eight?

Because it's not DSI, duh!

I'm actually considering Andromeda too. Wish the Rev2 was out for a side-by-side video review.

With the Andromeda I'm in the market as well but they are a bit clunky and extremely difficult to repair so if you find one in good condition make sure it's well taken care of. There's a lot going on under that hood and I can tell from the current Rev2 demos, the Andromeda has it's own sound that's really hard to pin point. I honestly would put it towards a cross between a Jupiter 8 and CS-80 but a bit more harsh (which can be cleaned up thanks to some oscillator drift)

dsetto

  • ***
  • 387
Re: REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)
« Reply #129 on: January 21, 2017, 07:18:51 PM »
The point of 16 voices- mono or bi-timbral- is for using it as a performance keyboard instrument. And, that's not limited to performance in front of an audience.

I understand multitimbral is useful for sequencing. And I understand more then bitimbral can be employed in a performance, non-sequencing application.

As a single-person, two-handed, performance instrument, bitimbrality hits the core of the need. An extra timbre or two can be useful but requires more setup thought. And perhaps a more complex user-interface.

I think "ease" of user interface may be an influencing factor.

Re: REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)
« Reply #130 on: January 21, 2017, 08:03:51 PM »
The point of 16 voices- mono or bi-timbral- is for using it as a performance keyboard instrument. And, that's not limited to performance in front of an audience.

I understand multitimbral is useful for sequencing. And I understand more then bitimbral can be employed in a performance, non-sequencing application.

As a single-person, two-handed, performance instrument, bitimbrality hits the core of the need. An extra timbre or two can be useful but requires more setup thought. And perhaps a more complex user-interface.

I think "ease" of user interface may be an influencing factor.

I think as multi timbral needs rise, which probably isn't often anymore with live setups, a couple Rev2s could be polychained (even if old school midi). Going deep with timbre count, it is probably best to look into a workstation, IMO.

I don't have problems sequencing out midi runs with various patches (as layers) via DAWs...plus you can more control over parameters.

LoboLives

Re: REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)
« Reply #131 on: January 21, 2017, 08:47:35 PM »
The point of 16 voices- mono or bi-timbral- is for using it as a performance keyboard instrument. And, that's not limited to performance in front of an audience.

I understand multitimbral is useful for sequencing. And I understand more then bitimbral can be employed in a performance, non-sequencing application.

As a single-person, two-handed, performance instrument, bitimbrality hits the core of the need. An extra timbre or two can be useful but requires more setup thought. And perhaps a more complex user-interface.

I think "ease" of user interface may be an influencing factor.

Well as a two handed person also, I'm never going to be able to play all 16 voices at once anyway. All I'm saying is bitimbrality should be used for the lower cost eight voice and multitibrality should be used for the sixteen voice otherwise that much polyphony isn't required. Say you split the keyboard in two patches, the most you'll be able to play is five notes on each hand. In layered mode, the most you'll be able to play is ten. Even when a patch is being sequenced, how many notes are really going to be played at a single time? What's the point of that many voices when you have no way of utilizing them all.

Re: REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)
« Reply #132 on: January 21, 2017, 09:16:00 PM »
The point of 16 voices- mono or bi-timbral- is for using it as a performance keyboard instrument. And, that's not limited to performance in front of an audience.

I understand multitimbral is useful for sequencing. And I understand more then bitimbral can be employed in a performance, non-sequencing application.

As a single-person, two-handed, performance instrument, bitimbrality hits the core of the need. An extra timbre or two can be useful but requires more setup thought. And perhaps a more complex user-interface.

I think "ease" of user interface may be an influencing factor.

Well as a two handed person also, I'm never going to be able to play all 16 voices at once anyway. All I'm saying is bitimbrality should be used for the lower cost eight voice and multitibrality should be used for the sixteen voice otherwise that much polyphony isn't required. Say you split the keyboard in two patches, the most you'll be able to play is five notes on each hand. In layered mode, the most you'll be able to play is ten. Even when a patch is being sequenced, how many notes are really going to be played at a single time? What's the point of that many voices when you have no way of utilizing them all.

That is a good point. Even with 6 notes held, bi-timbraly, it's only 12. Maybe some people just have near infinite note voice decay  :o

Re: REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)
« Reply #133 on: January 21, 2017, 11:19:48 PM »
Well as a two handed person also, I'm never going to be able to play all 16 voices at once anyway. All I'm saying is bitimbrality should be used for the lower cost eight voice and multitibrality should be used for the sixteen voice otherwise that much polyphony isn't required. Say you split the keyboard in two patches, the most you'll be able to play is five notes on each hand. In layered mode, the most you'll be able to play is ten. Even when a patch is being sequenced, how many notes are really going to be played at a single time? What's the point of that many voices when you have no way of utilizing them all.

I had thought that as well, Lobo. In fact, I had the opportunity today to "stay the course" on my new P08 that I bought from GC less than 30 days ago - or return it, and get the REV2 when it comes out. For a variety of reasons, I chose to keep my new P08 instead - but in perusing excellent patches made by others in this group, I realized that there are 'problems' with voice-rob when patch release times even get near 70-90, in my discoveries. So, I don't think that even a Tetra (if I can get one) will work. But with the discount I got after discussion with GC, I think that a P08 module will be in my future. I won't air all my concerns on a new product. But I have a few. For me, I just don't want to be an early-adopter just yet. However, I think the extra note capability matters for any kind of extended-release pad at all (although my own preference is for shorter more percussive types of things).

Re: REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)
« Reply #134 on: January 21, 2017, 11:23:35 PM »
I'd say that 80% of the sounds I use have long decay/release times so polyphony is important beyond how many notes I can hold down at once. 8 voices is probably my optimum number from experience. With the addition of the sub-oscillator it's less likely that I would need to use the B layer so often, so as much as the 16 voice option appeals as a step up I'm more likely to stick with 8.

dsetto

  • ***
  • 387
Re: REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)
« Reply #135 on: January 22, 2017, 12:27:31 AM »
I'm not opposed to multi-timbrality. My intention is merely to offer a different perspective. I know the several ways I will use the 16 voices within the Rev 2 platform.

If release times were 0, I agree that 10 voices are the max I'd use. Also, I'm not suggesting 8 voices are inadequate.

I'm simply trying to express gratitude for the specific things I like in the instrument Dave Smith Instruments has announced this week. I was deeply intrigued by the compelling tone, design approach, improved keybed, & disparate timbres of the Prophet 6/OB-6 instruments. However, with those came a new paradigm of keyspan for me, and the loss of bitimbrality & reduction of programmability. 


Re: REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)
« Reply #136 on: January 22, 2017, 06:17:05 AM »
Removing the name Prophet is a marketing suicide... Of course it has nothing to do with people who knows Dave Smith's Instruments and with the quality of the instruments...But here we're talking about an instrument that became one of a kind. Many artists such as Thom Yorke with Radiohead , James Blake, Sufjan Stevens etc. use it as a main synthesizer even in live performance, almost like others use Fender Rhodes. There's a lot of people out there that use to buy only "cool" stuffs (moog, oberheim ecc), and Prophet 08 is one of them. Now I really don't see the reason not to name it Prophet Rev 2, exactly like Rhodes Mark I, Mark II ecc...
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 06:37:52 AM by vassalvio »

Yavn

Re: REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)
« Reply #137 on: January 22, 2017, 09:46:30 AM »
I got a chance to play with the REV 2 yesterday at the DSI booth and it looks and sounds great.  I'm hoping for a desktop version at some point.

The feature Iím most excited about is setting a modulation destination by selecting it directly.  Turn the resonance while holding one of the LFO buttons and then that LFO will be assigned to resonance.   Super easy to set up modulations.  The traditional method of selecting a source and destination still works, but grabbing the destination is really nice.

dsetto

  • ***
  • 387
Re: REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)
« Reply #138 on: January 22, 2017, 11:54:19 AM »
I didn't even imagine multi-timbrality as it didn't exist. Having thought of it, yeah, it could be incredibly useful. ... I don't know what the give/take equations of having multi-timbrality are. Of utmost importance to me is that it have absolute minimal latency. It seems that often, features and latency are directly proportional.

dsetto

  • ***
  • 387
Re: REV2 (16-Voice Polyphonic Analog Synthesizer)
« Reply #139 on: January 22, 2017, 11:55:35 AM »
Yavn, I'm all ears to hear every detail, :). Including more on establishing modulations. (Is it like OB-6/P6; if so, I could read up on those.)