Next New Sequential Instrument

[Razmo]

I already thought about presets, but I don't think that would be an insurmountable obstacle. For one, even the independently created OB6/P6 Expander has a way around this by allowing separate synth banks, which granted, there's enough memory to do so & you'd need many more for all the configurations. Perhaps have an SD card slot or whatnot. Supposedly the Moog One has such a vast amount of preset slots that the total is unkown, so memory shouldn't be too much of an issue these days. If not you could always have the option of SysEx dumps when changing things out. Some type of smart formatting would be required considering the vast amounts of possible configurations eventually, but seemingly possible with a closed ecosystem & also the ability to update. I don't think anyone at Sequential is up to this task, so more adept programmers would need to be brought on board probably.

One real obstacle I see is getting consumers on board with a limited amount of modules at launch. It would probably take cannibalizing several sections of their prior tech put into module form like DSI has done in the past. In other words, a ton of work for the entire enterprise, yet it would be revolutionary I think. Dave could do for the world of modular what he did for the world of polysynths.

But still making presets would only be interesting for the person who is actually making the presets... anyone interested in sharing their presets, or selling them would run into a huge problem because most setups would most likely be different as users would have different modules... this means that anyone buying this synth would have to make all presets themselves, from the ground up... for a dedicated sound designer nerd, this might be a lot of fun, but what about everyone else? ... also i assume that you want modules that also incorporate analog components like filters, VCA's etc.? ... otherwise the whole thing would be nothing more than a Nord Modular with physical modules.

[OceanMachine]

The whole buying a synth and not making your own patches deal is odd to me. Honestly I'm not sure what portion of the market that makes up...

Yes, both analog and digital options ofc. The technical engineering issue regarding the possibility of using analog components not hardwired and not using cables is the real obstacle that I question. I know CC works for modulation purposes, but some kind of more advanced connector that works across the modules would be the real technical feat hardware-wise I suppose...

[Razmo]

What I could see as a possible and interesting synth is something like the Prologue, but with Dave's deep engine... I'm very interested in the open source digital oscillator/FX of the Prologue, but I have hesitated because of a few irritating things: 1. there is only a 4 voice module and 2. The engine is not deep enough.

I'd like to see an open source, FPGA oscillator section (front end) that allow 3rd party developers to create oscillator algorithms... at least 3 digital FPGA oscillators... This followed by an analog VCF/VCA, and then another open source FPGA effect section... 8-16 voices.

Basically an open source SUMMIT ... I think that what many want now are new innovative digital oscillators to work with for creating new and interesting timbres, and instead of constantly build new synths for every new type of digital oscillator technology, it would be much smarter to simply create an open source FPGA front end. If the analog part could then be changed into other filter types by inserting a filter module physically, you could choose your own flavour of filters.

Normally a straight forward synth is comprised of four modules:

1. Oscillator
2. Filter
3. VCA
4. FX

If the first and the last module was open source FPGA, and the filter module was physically changeable into other filter types (a bit like with the Muteable Instruments old synth SHRUTI/AMBIKA) in an easy way (without opening the synth), then the company could sell different filter modules and still profit from this, even if 3rd party developers create FPGA code for the oscillator and FX section and profit from these themselves.

[Razmo]

The whole buying a synth and not making your own patches deal is odd to me. Honestly I'm not sure what portion of the market that makes up...

Yes, both analog and digital options ofc. The technical engineering issue regarding the possibility of using analog components not hardwired and not using cables is the real obstacle that I question. I know CC works for modulation purposes, but some kind of more advanced connector that works across the modules would be the real technical feat hardware-wise I suppose...

Well... a lot of sound designers sell their presets... a lot of users do not want to, or do not have the skills to create their own, so they buy sounds.... this is a potential customer group that would have to be included into designing a synth I'd say, otherwise your only target group would be those that want to create their sounds themselves... the customer base would certainly be lower in this case... especially the more advanced the sound design process would be, and in this case, with a modular concept, it would probably be quite complicated to design your own sounds.

I'm not saying it would not be profitable... and interesting... but you would certainly have to take these things into acount when creating such a complex synth

[OceanMachine]

Well you're not factoring in the modular market, which I would assume is larger than the number of folks who buy synths solely for other people's patches. I think such a design would be welcome by quite a few of the former. Someone was saying Richard Devine, for example, was paring down his live modular setup because it was getting way too out of hand. Also for people like me who want customizable module options, but require the convince of a system with presets. This would be the perfect reasonable solution. Plus you can get out a number of modules yearly without worry about a full-scale synth constantly.

An open source FPGA or a proper full-scale MicoFreak (which offers the Mutable Instruments open source engines) type synth is also interesting. Either way, more open ended customization options does seem like the future.

[megamarkd]

It's on their product page and being offered for sale at one of the stores I use. I actually saw it the other day on the shop's site and it didn't click it was a new product for some reason.

[blewis]

....maybe something like Paul Dither’s Prophet 8 design which is an extension of the Prophet 6 design ....

Can someone share a pointer to that mock-up?

[Quatschmacher]

Holy crap! Did not expect the Prophet 12, Pro 2 And the DSI Modular stuff to be discontinued all one after another in the same year. Hmm wonder if they read my post about the Pro 4 idea like they read my Prophet X post.

Imagine a 5-octave, FPGA poly version of the Pro 2. I’d buy it in a heartbeat.

Nah. I see zero logic in a five octave mono synth. Paraphonic or otherwise.

Hence why I said a “poly version” in my post - as in fully polyphonic.

[Quatschmacher]

Here's another idea that no one has ever done:


A module keyboard platform like the KB Waldorf except one that works within a digitally controlled ecosystem. Meaning it would have savable patches and digitally controlled mod matrix section, so say goodbye to silly patch cables. The keyboard/digital control section remain the same while modules could be swapped at whim. You could possibly even open things up to where other companies could license (free or otherwise) the ability to integrate into said ecosystem. I'm no engineer and it might be impractical to do something of this nature, but it seems possible.

If you wanted exchangeable modules, yes... then that would actually be a fun thing... but it would be troublesome to do I think... saveable patches then only means anything when you have a STEADY setup of modules, otherwise presets would not work when modules are exchanged... if this should give any meaning presetwise, then it has already been done and is called Nord Modular

Something along the lines of the way that the Source Audio Neuro Hub works with their pedals might be interesting. There you can hook up up to five pedals and save a “scene” which is a preset comprised of all the pedals’ current settings. You can swap out pedals and save different scenes.

[LoboLives]

Holy crap! Did not expect the Prophet 12, Pro 2 And the DSI Modular stuff to be discontinued all one after another in the same year. Hmm wonder if they read my post about the Pro 4 idea like they read my Prophet X post.

Imagine a 5-octave, FPGA poly version of the Pro 2. I’d buy it in a heartbeat.

Nah. I see zero logic in a five octave mono synth. Paraphonic or otherwise.

Hence why I said a “poly version” in my post - as in fully polyphonic.

Wouldn’t that just be a Prophet 12 with a sequencer?

[LoboLives]

....maybe something like Paul Dither’s Prophet 8 design which is an extension of the Prophet 6 design ....

Can someone share a pointer to that mock-up?

https://forum.sequential.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=125.0;attach=1969;image

[OceanMachine]

Wouldn’t that just be a Prophet 12 with a sequencer?

No, P12 uses the same Curtis filter as the 08, whereas the Pro 2 has dual SSM-based and SEM-based filters featured in the P6 and OB-6 respectively.

[Quatschmacher]

Wouldn’t that just be a Prophet 12 with a sequencer?

No, P12 uses the same Curtis filter as the 08, whereas the Pro 2 has dual SSM-based and SEM-based filters featured in the P6 and OB-6 respectively.

Exactly!

[LoboLives]

Wouldn’t that just be a Prophet 12 with a sequencer?

No, P12 uses the same Curtis filter as the 08, whereas the Pro 2 has dual SSM-based and SEM-based filters featured in the P6 and OB-6 respectively.

Hmm it would be interesting to see that combination in a poly. For some reason I keep thinking that combo would work well with an analog oscillator/digital oscillator combo like the Poly Evolver.

[LoboLives]

The reason no one does multitimbrality anymore is that people making music is getting used to recording audio with their synths... they like to be able to record as many tracks as they want with audio from the same synth, thus needing less physical synths... i bet this is why multitimbrality is phasing out with many companies.

The main reason for some being dual or even a third layer is that performing musicians need stacks/splits and thus more than 3 would be more or less useless. multimode in many of these synths is a simple bonus where you can control the layers independently via their own MIDI channel, and code wise it's pretty easy to include when you've already got stack/split functionality.

A third reason may be that any synth with analog parts in the signal chain is always limited to about 8-16 voices ... if you had 4 parts on a REV2 16-voice you'd be down to 4 voices per part... we're reaching a polyphony that's becoming insufficient for anything but leads, basses and other short release sounds now, and when you use multitimbral you all know that the first question will be "does it have separate outs!?" which further increase the cost of the synth, and complicates any built in FX that will usually be routed to only one output, otherwise the FX engine have to be duplicated for each output as well, further increasing cost.

There's another reason, related to the user experience. Multitimbrality always requires additional menu diving, or it's at least another feature dependent on display use. Particularly for those synth designers who aim to create an easy to use hands-on instrument that's a no-go. Also because the panel settings quickly don't correspond to the sound you're currently working on in case you work on multiple layers. If you only have 2 layers there's less confusion. And of course multitimbrality has become less popular because we have moved on from the typical MIDI bedroom studios of the 1980s and 1990s, which you indicated in your first point.

 

Oh I don’t know about that. Would it really be that hard to add Edit Layer C and Edit Layer D buttons?

[Razmo]

The reason no one does multitimbrality anymore is that people making music is getting used to recording audio with their synths... they like to be able to record as many tracks as they want with audio from the same synth, thus needing less physical synths... i bet this is why multitimbrality is phasing out with many companies.

The main reason for some being dual or even a third layer is that performing musicians need stacks/splits and thus more than 3 would be more or less useless. multimode in many of these synths is a simple bonus where you can control the layers independently via their own MIDI channel, and code wise it's pretty easy to include when you've already got stack/split functionality.

A third reason may be that any synth with analog parts in the signal chain is always limited to about 8-16 voices ... if you had 4 parts on a REV2 16-voice you'd be down to 4 voices per part... we're reaching a polyphony that's becoming insufficient for anything but leads, basses and other short release sounds now, and when you use multitimbral you all know that the first question will be "does it have separate outs!?" which further increase the cost of the synth, and complicates any built in FX that will usually be routed to only one output, otherwise the FX engine have to be duplicated for each output as well, further increasing cost.

There's another reason, related to the user experience. Multitimbrality always requires additional menu diving, or it's at least another feature dependent on display use. Particularly for those synth designers who aim to create an easy to use hands-on instrument that's a no-go. Also because the panel settings quickly don't correspond to the sound you're currently working on in case you work on multiple layers. If you only have 2 layers there's less confusion. And of course multitimbrality has become less popular because we have moved on from the typical MIDI bedroom studios of the 1980s and 1990s, which you indicated in your first point.

 

Oh I don’t know about that. Would it really be that hard to add Edit Layer C and Edit Layer D buttons?

No... but still... as soon as you have layers, the knobs on the interface no longer reflect the new layer switched to, which is extremely confusing when designing sounds, especially the deeper the engine is... so in theory it would not get more complicated adding extra layers... the confusion is present even with two layers...

This is actually why encoders are better for this kind of multi-layer engine, since they never reflect any value, they just add or subtract to whatever was there in the first place... but people seem to want real oldschool pots, not encoders which totaly kills this advantage of the encoder... also, if you use encoders, the value need to be reflected somewhere on a display, and that's a lot of values to display if all parameters for one layer is to be visible on a screen at the same time, otherwise you enter the dreaded mode of multi-menu diving which also complicates matters even more...

There is ONE solution to all of this... COMPUTER EDITORS! ... that's why I always want them... they make everything much easier to deal with when you create sounds... all at one screen at the same time... people really do not understand what difference a computer editor makes for a deep engine like in a Sequential synth, and that's why I have wondered so many times, why Sequential do not make their own in-house editors...

[jok3r]

I don't know how expensive it would be, but I guess price is the reason why there are no synthesizers out there that have motorized faders and potis. Every mid-priced digital mixing console has this in the year 2019 A.D..

Besides layering, it would solve the whole jump-passthrough-relative thing... which annoyes me a little even when working with only one layer. Everytime I want to do a quick jump to a higher value live, I missed the passthrough point and nothing happens. But then the next song I absolutely need the passthrough mode, because I don't want anybody to hear a not-so-smooth transition... So what to do? Knob-mode per preset could be a solution (but that's worth another topic, because a lot of global params would be helpful if they were local parameters).

A Prophet-6-like instrument - which I already classify for myself as a unique premium product - could still be lifted up on a higher level if it had motorized controls.

Are there any negative points about this, that I don't get (Or why does a Moog One not have this at 8000$???)

[Razmo]

I don't know how expensive it would be, but I guess price is the reason why there are no synthesizers out there that have motorized faders and potis. Every mid-priced digital mixing console has this in the year 2019 A.D..

Besides layering, it would solve the whole jump-passthrough-relative thing... which annoyes me a little even when working with only one layer. Everytime I want to do a quick jump to a higher value live, I missed the passthrough point and nothing happens. But then the next song I absolutely need the passthrough mode, because I don't want anybody to hear a not-so-smooth transition... So what to do? Knob-mode per preset could be a solution (but that's worth another topic, because a lot of global params would be helpful if they were local parameters).

A Prophet-6-like instrument - which I already classify for myself as a unique premium product - could still be lifted up on a higher level if it had motorized controls.

Are there any negative points about this, that I don't get (Or why does a Moog One not have this at 8000$???)

Considdering most deep synthesizers have hundreds, and even thousands of parameters per preset, I think it's obvious why we do not see any motorised synths... they would be monstrous... otherwise they would have to be created with a set number of motorised faders, which means that you still have to switch between the faders functions, and also in that case have a display that will show what the fader controls... otherwise it would be just as confusing.

This is simply just the tradeoffs you have to make as a developer, if you want a very deep synthesis engine... otherwise you'd end up with less deep engines so that all controls have their own knob.

Personally I actually liked the approach of the P12 module... it did it the most logical way... a single button to enter the relevant display menu for each category of sound parameters, and then a few knobs that give you some live tweakability for the most important performance oriented/minded parameters like Cutoff and resonance.

That coupled with a really well made editor on a computer, and I'm good... it also makes the device less expensive...

With a more simple engine like the P6 or OB-6, I can see the idea of having a knob per function, as this machine is much less complex, and have no layers.

But like with the REV2, I really do not see the need to have all parameters on their own knob (almost, some are in menus still) unless you always use just one layer... as soon as you use Split or Stack the use of the knobs is screwed because they are not encoders, or motorized.

So for me it's simple... it's either one knob per function, or a fully fledged computer editor... anything in between simply will not cut it for me.

[OceanMachine]

LEDs around endless rotary encoders to show their current settings is where it's at. The setting is exactly where the lights are at, which change per patch/layer. This would add to the price of the synth no doubt, but not as much as motorized ones. Plus the more mechanisms, the more that could possibly go wrong. If many faders are mandatory like a mixing console for example, then motorization should be implemented. 

[Quatschmacher]

LEDs around endless rotary encoders to show their current settings is where it's at. The setting is exactly where the lights are at, which change per patch/layer. This would add to the price of the synth no doubt, but not as much as motorized ones. Plus the more mechanisms, the more that could possibly go wrong. If many faders are mandatory like a mixing console for example, then motorization should be implemented.

Yep, this is a cool implementation and one I’ve only seen on Nord Lead 3 and and Moog Little/Slim Phatty.