Feature Requests

dslsynth

  • ***
  • 1040
Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #100 on: January 18, 2018, 02:42:40 PM »
Documentation feature request: Fully document sysex format including program vector layout, CC/NRPN controllers and the location, current values and semantics of sysex format version numbers.
#!/bin/sh
cp -f $0 $HOME/.signature

Sleep of Reason

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #101 on: January 18, 2018, 08:20:13 PM »
your assumptions about ease of implementation do not automatically mean you are correct.
Thus the "seemigly" part. Now I could go on an entire esoteric rant about how categories have been systematically crucial since Plato, but then I would admittedly be derailing the thread.

Speaking to your specific request, it is possible to organize your programs yourself via the onboard copy/move/save functions
Excuse my ignorance, I was under the impression that factory banks are not editable since that's what the manual states right off the bat, which I took for unmovable. It's much more palpable knowing that those 512 factory presets (not to be confused with my 512 user presets) can also be ordered as well. Thanks for the kind & helpful info.

kris

  • **
  • 135
Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #102 on: January 20, 2018, 03:33:50 PM »
Documentation feature request: Fully document sysex format including program vector layout, CC/NRPN controllers and the location, current values and semantics of sysex format version numbers.

Agree on that, the documentation could be better. Note that support hands out on request a document called "Prophet Rev2 Packed Parameter Data Assignments.pdf" which gives you the layout of the sysex, helped me fill the gaps I had missed.
Check out the free Sysex Librarian for Sequential and more https://github.com/christofmuc/KnobKraft-orm

kris

  • **
  • 135
Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #103 on: January 20, 2018, 03:40:15 PM »
Not sure if this was asked before, I couldn't find it reading through the previous posts in the feature request thread:

+ Single-shot LFO mode

Like the Access Virus, where you can set each LFO to not loop. Sort of the opposite of "loop Env3". I find the two Ramp generators of the Oberheim Matrix 1000 to be of great use, and the Rev2 could basically provide the same with the sawtooth/inverse saw and a non-looping LFO on slow speed?
Check out the free Sysex Librarian for Sequential and more https://github.com/christofmuc/KnobKraft-orm

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #104 on: January 20, 2018, 06:15:33 PM »
Quote from: kris on January 20, 2018, 06:40:15 PM:

"Not sure if this was asked before, I couldn't find it reading through the previous posts in the feature request thread:

+ Single-shot LFO mode

Like the Access Virus, where you can set each LFO to not loop. Sort of the opposite of "loop Env3". I find the two Ramp generators of the Oberheim Matrix 1000 to be of great use, and the Rev2 could basically provide the same with the sawtooth/inverse saw and a non-looping LFO on slow speed?"

-------

Hi kris.

Even though what you suggest could be interesting, I'll simply quote what extempo of DSI wrote, earlier in this thread, about following in other companies footsteps:"...it's never been our prerogative to shape the functionality of our instruments based on what our competitors do."

 ;)








« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 07:42:45 AM by Sacred Synthesis »
Oberheim OB-X8, Minimoog D (vintage), OB6 (Desktop), Oberheim Matrix-6 (MIDI Controller for OB6), VC340

LoboLives

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #105 on: January 20, 2018, 09:11:25 PM »
I miss an option to turn of the OLED screen completely so that even midi does not trigger it on.
I use my module and remote control it, so I can't see anything on the screen anyway :-)



I just hate screens on analog synths all together. I appreciate the fact the REV2 menu is shallow but I’d much rather not have to use it at all. It’s weird I thought I’d be frustrated with the P6 and OB6 lack of screens but I’ve actually fallen in love with it and would rather not have them. Probably in the minority here.

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #106 on: January 21, 2018, 03:48:05 PM »
Would it be possible to calm down a bit?—I'm not asking this to shut people down, but I can sense a growing passive aggressive tone that I believe isn't very fruitful for the future climate of this forum.

As for those rather provocative meant comments about feature requests and how some perceive the operation of other companies, I would like to point out that it doesn't make sense to measure a comparably tiny company like DSI against manufacturers like Korg for example, as they simply don't share the same resources, neither in terms of employee numbers nor—which is related to that—in terms of exclusive firmware maintenance time. There is no large division for past products and one for future developments. In a small company like DSI, most people have to take care of many different tasks simultaneously.

The latter simply means that it sometimes takes a bit of patience while you're waiting for OS updates or bug fixes. Yes, that can be frustrating at times, which has also already been acknowledged on behalf of DSI on a number of occasions. But there's certainly not an evil masterplan behind all that, like a willful strategy for letting down customers. Quite the opposite is the case: The tech support is very responsive and will usually get back to you within 24 hours. These people also make sure that in those cases where parts have to be swapped, things will be handled as straightforward as possible both in terms of repairs and shipping.

The reason why it can take a bit longer now and then is simply a company with less than 20 employees, a not inconsiderable number of instruments to take care of—most of which have a flagship status—, and finally the fact that they're still developing new products each year to keep us gear nerds happy.

On top of that it has always been a good practice—as it has been pointed out several times already—to take an instrument for what it is, not for what it may be in the unpredictable future. People have always used synths like that because no single instrument is perfect in the sense that it comes with every feature you can possibly think of. In fact, the only type of instrument that was trying to cater to that notion was the workstation. And if you actually like and use a synth for what it was originally meant to be, you'll probably also find a way around some quirks or limitations that lie in the nature of every instrument's design. Above that, a bug is a bug and should of course be fixed in the long run. Every additional feature, though, that wasn't included in an otherwise fully working synth is a bonus instead.

The latter doesn't render this thread useless, since DSI have already implemented user suggested features in the past. But not each and every desired additional feature can be expected to be implemented on a mandatory basis, especially not if it was never promised nor specifically announced in the first place.

So, let's all take a deep breath and try to engage in a more constructive conversation, not least because there are human beings that like to be treated fairly on each side.

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #107 on: January 22, 2018, 08:06:55 AM »
Just to put it out there, it's never been our prerogative to shape the functionality of our instruments based on what our competitors do.

Pardon me, but I really, really, really like this approach.  Not to be so simplistic as to presume that "different" is always and necessarily better.  Not at all.  It can be much worse than average.  But I do like the fact that DSI is not a monkey-see-monkey-do affair.  Perhaps that's one advantage of being a small business.  You can still have an individual personality. 
« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 09:51:51 AM by Sacred Synthesis »

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #108 on: January 22, 2018, 10:15:13 AM »
That's perfectly fine. And it's good that a company like DSI would like to do things somewhat differently. I really appreciate the fact that they didn't follow the dreaded "mini-keys" fad, started by Korg, Yamaha and Roland, and stuck with full size keyboards.

But it should also reflect the needs of its customer base, in an attempt at offering even more satisfying products. Especially when some of those needs are shared by numerous customers, many of which are professional musicians, not just occasional players like myself.

And if some of those needs happen to also be fulfilled by competitors on their products, it shouldn't preclude DSI from offering them also, if that's what musicians expect.

Like a global LFO mode, a dot on the display when passing thru previously saved parameter value with a knob (which was also added later on to the Prophet 6 and OB6 I might point out), and the ability to see the patch name when comparing before saving, and finally some sort of confirmation request to change patch when accidentally touching the "Program" knob, preventing loss of hours of tweaking...
« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 10:26:36 AM by AlainHubert »
Oberheim OB-X8, Minimoog D (vintage), OB6 (Desktop), Oberheim Matrix-6 (MIDI Controller for OB6), VC340

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #109 on: January 22, 2018, 10:22:04 AM »
That's all fine.  I have no problem with your point.  I, too, want features.   As long as our "shoulds" don't turn into ugly "musts".

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #110 on: January 22, 2018, 10:33:12 AM »
That's all fine.  I have no problem with your point.  I, too, want features.   As long as our "shoulds" don't turn into ugly "musts".

I agree too. Also, let’s not go too far the other way though. It’s a user forum not a staff forum is it not?
They can’t have it both ways. Sometimes it’s “if you need official support, don’t do it here, contact us direct at the company” Then on the other, it’s being treated like they are here in an official capacity and everyone has to bite their lips and keep quiet.
As for only buying synths on the spec that is published and the way it behaves on release, I totally agree but that only works if the synth works correctly on release.

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #111 on: January 22, 2018, 10:57:26 AM »
Got another feature request. I would like to be able to advance through the gated sequencers with a trigger/gate like you can with the poly sequencer; like the key step mode but instead of midi notes, external triggers.

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #112 on: January 22, 2018, 07:34:42 PM »
Would love to see OSC 1 and/or OSC 2 as source options in the modulation matrix!

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #113 on: January 23, 2018, 05:00:25 AM »

We all become addicted to the update ... any type of update (computer, tv box, mobile phone, software, video game, etc ...)

the time we are losing to always updating something.   ;) :(

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #114 on: January 23, 2018, 08:56:44 AM »

We all become addicted to the update ... any type of update (computer, tv box, mobile phone, software, video game, etc ...)

the time we are losing to always updating something.   ;) :(

Yep. Back in the days of hardware ROMs, companies had to make sure that their products were as bug-free as possible before bringing them to market. But today, we have to compose with half baked software, and in some cases even serve as involuntary beta testers, because of the overuse of the ability to publish updates to correct poorly written code.
And that's not just DSI. All electronics companies do it. From Apple to Samsung, from Behringer to Moog. I wouldn't be surprised if one day soon we'll have to update the firmware on a bug filled toaster (software bug, that is. lol! )

The only positive point to all this, is the possibility of getting additional new features not part of the original design. IF there is enough room in memory. Most of the time, free of charge. Which is great. 

But to keep this thread on topic, I'd like to be able to change the root note of the sequencer without having to hold down the Record button (if that was already asked for, I'm sorry). BTW, if someone could perhaps compile a list of already requested features and publish them, that would be great !   
« Last Edit: January 23, 2018, 09:30:52 AM by AlainHubert »
Oberheim OB-X8, Minimoog D (vintage), OB6 (Desktop), Oberheim Matrix-6 (MIDI Controller for OB6), VC340

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #115 on: January 23, 2018, 10:56:46 AM »
But today, we have to compose with half baked software, and in some cases even serve as involuntary beta testers, because of the overuse of the ability to publish updates to correct poorly written code.

I posted a comment just like this years ago when I was just getting back into synthesizer.  It was quite annoying to me, since I had been raised on ARPs, Moogs, and Junos.  The answer I was given by others was that it's virtually impossible to write a perfect code.  So, if you want a complex instrument, that's the price you have to pay - corrective updates. 

I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of any company that has issued a modern instrument with a perfect code.  It seems to me that we have to take it all in stride if we're to demand so many features.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2018, 11:45:54 AM by Sacred Synthesis »

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #116 on: January 23, 2018, 02:50:04 PM »
Hi everyone,

This is my first post/comment on the forum ever so I apologise if this question has been asked already. I've had my Rev2 since the end of November and I've not had time to do much exploring as yet. I noticed today that the sustain for the envelopes is not assignable as a destination to modulate. If DSI updated the firmware or something would this be made possible or is this something that cannot be changed?

Cheers

Elliott
DSI Rev2 16 | Arturia MatrixBrute | Arturia DrumBrute | Roland System-1

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #117 on: January 23, 2018, 03:10:20 PM »
Hi everyone,

This is my first post/comment on the forum ever so I apologise if this question has been asked already. I've had my Rev2 since the end of November and I've not had time to do much exploring as yet. I noticed today that the sustain for the envelopes is not assignable as a destination to modulate. If DSI updated the firmware or something would this be made possible or is this something that cannot be changed?

Cheers

Elliott

The sustain stage has never been available as a modulation destination on any synth, or at least none I can currently think of. It's a level parameter, not a temporal parameter like Delay, Attack, Decay, and Release. You can implicitly modulate it by modulating the filter cutoff or the VCA level directly, depending on what level you'd like to modulate.

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #118 on: January 26, 2018, 11:27:34 AM »
Hi everyone,

This is my first post/comment on the forum ever so I apologise if this question has been asked already. I've had my Rev2 since the end of November and I've not had time to do much exploring as yet. I noticed today that the sustain for the envelopes is not assignable as a destination to modulate. If DSI updated the firmware or something would this be made possible or is this something that cannot be changed?




Cheers

Elliott

The sustain stage has never been available as a modulation destination on any synth, or at least none I can currently think of. It's a level parameter, not a temporal parameter like Delay, Attack, Decay, and Release. You can implicitly modulate it by modulating the filter cutoff or the VCA level directly, depending on what level you'd like to modulate.

I guess you could modulate the corresponding envelope amount too? (LP Filter Env Amount or Amp Env Amount)

I think it would be great if the forum could let us "like" or vote or somehow indicate our support for feature suggestions. That way DSI could get a better view of the relative popularity.

Anyway, if I could vote for only one it would be a beat syncing mode for the arpeggiator. I was quite surprised when I discovered the way it currently works...

   Mark

Re: Feature Requests
« Reply #119 on: January 26, 2018, 08:10:52 PM »
and finally some sort of confirmation request to change patch when accidentally touching the "Program" knob, preventing loss of hours of tweaking...

I like this idea, but it would absolutely have to be an option we can turn off. Reason being, I perform with the Rev2 live, and frequently tweak parameters during a song, and then have to make an immediate switch to another patch. If every time I try to switch to the next patch after moving the cutoff knob I have to confirm or deny the switch, it would literally make this instrument entirely useless to me. I'm sure I'm not the only one in that situation by a long shot.