The Official Sequential/DSI Forum

multis / combos / ch-per-note / MPE

multis / combos / ch-per-note / MPE
« on: February 14, 2017, 12:42:48 PM »
While people with MPE/ch-per-note controllers are rare, I would assume people that would buy an 8 or 16 voice synth might also expect it to be more than 2Xtimbral.

The SCI Six-Trak is 6Xtimbral
The DSI Prophet 08 is 2Xtimbral
The DSI Tetra is 4xtimbral.
The DSI Prophet Rev2 is, most likely, also only 2Xtimbral.

Of course, building patches and then assigning the same voice to a different MIDI channel to make a ch-per-voice multi is a PITA, but it *works*. Editing the multi after its created requires editing each individual voice identically, but once a multi is built, performance works pretty great, in my opinion.

Hypothesizing here, but if 8-16Xtimbrality was possible hardware-wise, it might just be a software improvement to make easier MPE patch building/editing. Specifically, while in multi/combo/ch-per-voice/MPE mode making an edit to the voice would make the edits to ALL voices in the multi/combo. Currently with a multi, if you edit a patch at all, it only changes the copy of the patch that was put into one of the voice slots. This exposes the need for two different types of combo/multi modes. I'm sure when DSI multi-mode/combos were developed, the idea was that each voice in a combo could be intentionally different so each voice could be used for different sounds.

If there was a second combo/multi mode specifically for MPE/ch-per-note, a user could assign a patch to ALL of a combo, rather than cloning patches to each slot of a combo then an edit of that patch would be respected by all consumers of that patch.

It seems that new-comer Futuresonus is taking MPE/ch-per-note seriously with their Parva synth module. I would rather have a DSI synth, but may go with the Parva instead.


  • ***
  • 386
Re: multis / combos / ch-per-note / MPE
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2017, 08:48:26 PM »

My guesses:

1. There's a certain ease of use/complexity ratio that Dave wants to maintain. This does not bode well for the deep-needs user. It does for the performer. In discussing the P rev2, Dave highlights the performer. He has discussed purposefully pursuing ease of use. Ease of use is often at odds with depth. Think Kurzweil V.A.S.T., Andromeda, Model D.

2. The P rev 2 went from zero to NAMM in about 7 months. This one isn't a designed-from the ground up, new approach/new concepts synth. Not an innovator board; but a culminator. Both valuable. As such, more than bi-timbral was harder than was possible... assuming it passed his "wanted" test.

3. All that said, I'm certain DSI can make a 4-part timbral synth that's sufficiently easy to use. Can it be as easy as 2-part? Perhaps. But, that wasn't in the cards for this one. This one had a purpose. It's swiftness is powerful. And we benefit. It would be neat if 4-part could be added. My hunch figures that it would not be an easy if even feasible post-release addition.

4. I am one who is ecstatic about 16, and fully satisfied with 2-part. So not all who go for 16 consider limited to 2-part an issue.
5. I would fully utilize a 4-part; and I would happily take the added UI complexity.

Re: multis / combos / ch-per-note / MPE
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2017, 12:14:30 PM »
MPE would be a really good start. I am sure that function would sell units though maybe not thousands!