The Official Sequential/DSI Forum

Future of X

Re: Future of X
« Reply #20 on: October 11, 2018, 01:22:54 PM »
Just an example of how a "user wave editor" and more advanced sample editing tools could be used in X.

For instance, we can draw a long ADSR-like wave with many segments in the editor on the computer, upload it into X and use this oscillator to modulate something (with such a matrix we already have inside, it's easy... ). As a result, we get minutes long modulation source which could form the whole music composition. Stretch it, modulate it, use it as a source for the wavetable-like oscillator (wavetables also could be created in the editor and uploaded to X, then we can scan thru them ).

Do you feel what I'm talking about? This sounds more like a synthesis to me comparing to "dark clarinet thru the LP filter".

Isn't it obvious what such a functionality is something different, but still it's nothing impossible here, just need some software tweaks and will to implement it.

Re: Future of X
« Reply #21 on: October 11, 2018, 02:07:56 PM »
As an amateur in all kinds of crazy shit, I would like to hear more exciting audio engine performance from Prophet X. Here is just an example of old Russian synthesizer ANS.
http://www.warmplace.ru/soft/ans/

Sleep of Reason

Re: Future of X
« Reply #22 on: October 11, 2018, 04:43:30 PM »
I see lots of claims that features were promised, but whenever I dig into them all I can find is generic responses along the lines of well consider it.  If you have a more definitive statement from DSI reps at the time, Id welcome seeing it, but I couldnt find any.  It looks much more like a case of people who read non-committal, friendly responses as a promise and wind up placing the blame on someone else for their own unrealistic expectations.

I should have been more clear that was strictly hearsay.

First and foremost there's hardware limitations that need to be considered & anyone who doesn't take that into account is being extremely unrealistic. I do however think it's legitimate for customers to have certain standard expectations depending on the product range. Now I've come to the realization that Sequential is simply not going to be competing with the heavy hitters when it comes to UI, which is something I take into account when looking at the PX. Dave was upfront about his aim with the instrument, albeit consumers would've had to watch his interview with Paul to find out as much.

Razmo

  • ***
  • 2168
  • I am shadow...
    • Kaleidoscopic Artworks
Re: Future of X
« Reply #23 on: October 11, 2018, 07:20:30 PM »
The problem with all these feature requests, that was not even part of the design philosophy for the Prophet X on launch is that the UI is more or less tailored to the engine... if you were to implement all these extra features, many parameters would be burried in complex screen menus and completely drain the otherwise logical layout of the synth... also many requests simply defeat with the design philosophy being contradictory to things already there, or worse; destroying backward compatibility... many people who ask for features have no clue to what it takes programming wise to implement them, a lot think it's just a "simple matter of changing a bit of code" when it is often even a hardware restraint... just look at how many times people on the REV2 feature request list is asking for "seperate volume control of the two oscillators" when that is a hardware restraint... the Curtis chip has a hardwired oscillator mix CV input, and no way to change it at all...

This is why I'm saying; FORGET IT! ... all that sample-engine talk that are in this thread, even if it would be heavenly cool to implement, might not even be possible for several reasons both hardware and software... on top of that, so huge features would require extra time and effort to make, and on top of this it may not even follow design philosophy and further complicate the UI with added parameters...

It would be cool if SCI did it... but given my past many years of experience with SCI bug fixing and feature implementation I can say straight away, that it will not happen... it would be easier making a stone cry ;)

besides... if they really DID implement a sample engine feature that someone has you'd have 10 users wanting more after that, and several of the things they'd want would probably even contradict each other in many ways... it would simply go on and on and on forever.

Another thing you should think about is, that the more features implemented, the more potential for more bugs being present... there are probably plenty already still needing a fix, and I for one would rather see the current bugs being fixed to 100%, than a continuous stream of feature additions supplying us with more bugs.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 07:29:02 PM by Razmo »
If you need me, follow the shadows...

Re: Future of X
« Reply #24 on: October 11, 2018, 07:43:34 PM »
The problem with all these feature requests, that was not even part of the design philosophy for the Prophet X on launch is that the UI is more or less tailored to the engine... if you were to implement all these extra features, many parameters would be burried in complex screen menus and completely drain the otherwise logical layout of the synth... also many requests simply defeat with the design philosophy being contradictory to things already there, or worse; destroying backward compatibility... many people who ask for features have no clue to what it takes programming wise to implement them, a lot think it's just a "simple matter of changing a bit of code" when it is often even a hardware restraint... just look at how many times people on the REV2 feature request list is asking for "seperate volume control of the two oscillators" when that is a hardware restraint... the Curtis chip has a hardwired oscillator mix CV input, and no way to change it at all...

This is why I'm saying; FORGET IT! ... all that sample-engine talk that are in this thread, even if it would be heavenly cool to implement, might not even be possible for several reasons both hardware and software... on top of that, so huge features would require extra time and effort to make, and on top of this it may not even follow design philosophy and further complicate the UI with added parameters...

It would be cool if SCI did it... but given my past many years of experience with SCI bug fixing and feature implementation I can say straight away, that it will not happen... it would be easier making a stone cry ;)

besides... if they really DID implement a sample engine feature that someone has you'd have 10 users wanting more after that, and several of the things they'd want would probably even contradict each other in many ways... it would simply go on and on and on forever.

Another thing you should think about is, that the more features implemented, the more potential for more bugs being present... there are probably plenty already still needing a fix, and I for one would rather see the current bugs being fixed to 100%, than a continuous stream of feature additions supplying us with more bugs.

Exactly what Dave said in the interview with Paul Dither "The problem with samplers is it's endless, the feature requests go on and on and it just becomes more and more cumbersome."
Prophet 6, Prophet X, Moog Sub 37, Tempest Drum Computer, Roland V Piano, Fender American Stratocaster, Roger Linn Adrenalinn iii, Origin Effects Cali76 and SlideRig compressor, ASUS Zenbook Pro Computer, Soundcraft MTK 22 Mixer, Mark Of The Unicorn Digital Performer 10 Software.

Re: Future of X
« Reply #25 on: October 19, 2018, 12:13:05 PM »
For me...Ive scored 4 films this year with two more in the works and they all had the PX on them. So Im fine if 8Dio takes their time.

This is exactly what I wanted to hear.  Do you have any examples of the stuff you've been doing with it?

I've heard some people describe it as Kontakt in a DSI body for way too much money, and conceptually... I'm having a hard time disputing that.  But the sounds I've heard so far are very sexy.

Do you have any experience with Falcon?  I wonder how you would compare it to that?  (other than the obvious sound quality difference)

Re: Future of X
« Reply #26 on: October 19, 2018, 03:22:30 PM »
For me...Ive scored 4 films this year with two more in the works and they all had the PX on them. So Im fine if 8Dio takes their time.

This is exactly what I wanted to hear.  Do you have any examples of the stuff you've been doing with it?

I've heard some people describe it as Kontakt in a DSI body for way too much money, and conceptually... I'm having a hard time disputing that.  But the sounds I've heard so far are very sexy.

Do you have any experience with Falcon?  I wonder how you would compare it to that?  (other than the obvious sound quality difference)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_UbIdDXhkk
Prophet 6, Prophet X, Moog Sub 37, Tempest Drum Computer, Roland V Piano, Fender American Stratocaster, Roger Linn Adrenalinn iii, Origin Effects Cali76 and SlideRig compressor, ASUS Zenbook Pro Computer, Soundcraft MTK 22 Mixer, Mark Of The Unicorn Digital Performer 10 Software.

Re: Future of X
« Reply #27 on: October 24, 2018, 03:47:33 AM »

Re: Future of X
« Reply #28 on: October 24, 2018, 08:02:52 AM »
in the "feature requests" thread, my 2 requests were almost the same as the one you have under 1) and 2).
so it seems that i  am not the only one.

while the tme stretching would be nice to have, the improvement of the whole looping/crossfading thing is a must i would say.

Re: Future of X
« Reply #29 on: October 24, 2018, 11:52:52 AM »
music is not the number of notes played, but what is the soul. where is cool audio synthesis?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMGDg9zj3o4


Re: Future of X
« Reply #30 on: October 24, 2018, 12:01:50 PM »
We need a new synthesis, rather than the concentration camp of the pseudo conservatory of tradition.

dslsynth

  • ***
  • 1036
Re: Future of X
« Reply #31 on: October 24, 2018, 03:06:32 PM »
We need a new synthesis, rather than the concentration camp of the pseudo conservatory of tradition.

After Prophet Rev2 and Prophet X/XL it definitely feels like its about time for more adventurous voice architecture designs.
#!/bin/sh
cp -f $0 $HOME/.signature

Re: Future of X
« Reply #32 on: October 24, 2018, 08:25:49 PM »
We need a new synthesis, rather than the concentration camp of the pseudo conservatory of tradition.

After Prophet Rev2 and Prophet X/XL it definitely feels like its about time for more adventurous voice architecture designs.

4 Part multitimbrality. Each part with it's own effects, sequence, arpeggiator, patch etc.

A return to the Poly Evolver analog oscillator/digital oscillator type approach.
2 Analog oscillators with Sine, Triangle, Square, Saw and SuperSaw waves.
2 Digital oscillators with VS waves, FM, wavetables from the P12.

Dual effects with the standard reverbs, chorus, delays, phaser, flanger, ring mod and more exotic ones like reverse delay, harmonizer and possibly vocoder.

10 voices with a 10 voice expansion option to 20 voices.
Prophet 6, Prophet X, Moog Sub 37, Tempest Drum Computer, Roland V Piano, Fender American Stratocaster, Roger Linn Adrenalinn iii, Origin Effects Cali76 and SlideRig compressor, ASUS Zenbook Pro Computer, Soundcraft MTK 22 Mixer, Mark Of The Unicorn Digital Performer 10 Software.

dslsynth

  • ***
  • 1036
Re: Future of X
« Reply #33 on: October 25, 2018, 11:14:19 AM »
A return to the Poly Evolver analog oscillator/digital oscillator type approach.

Seems like you know the lyrics for this classic old song, LoboLives! I have a possibly better idea for a next generation Evolver/VS but it requires new technology to be developed.
#!/bin/sh
cp -f $0 $HOME/.signature

Re: Future of X
« Reply #34 on: October 25, 2018, 11:33:03 AM »
A return to the Poly Evolver analog oscillator/digital oscillator type approach.

Seems like you know the lyrics for this classic old song, LoboLives! I have a possibly better idea for a next generation Evolver/VS but it requires new technology to be developed.

Well I'm just thinking of something they could do that isn't currently in their catalog. They have digital oscillator synths and analog oscillator synths but not an actual hybrid.
Prophet 6, Prophet X, Moog Sub 37, Tempest Drum Computer, Roland V Piano, Fender American Stratocaster, Roger Linn Adrenalinn iii, Origin Effects Cali76 and SlideRig compressor, ASUS Zenbook Pro Computer, Soundcraft MTK 22 Mixer, Mark Of The Unicorn Digital Performer 10 Software.

dslsynth

  • ***
  • 1036
Re: Future of X
« Reply #35 on: October 25, 2018, 11:48:38 AM »
Well I'm just thinking of something they could do that isn't currently in their catalog. They have digital oscillator synths and analog oscillator synths but not an actual hybrid.

Its something that a lot of users would love to see. But its all up to the company to decide what they want to do next. Which in turn may be restricted to classes of designs that can pass The Dave Filter (TM).
#!/bin/sh
cp -f $0 $HOME/.signature

Re: Future of X
« Reply #36 on: October 25, 2018, 12:09:42 PM »
With all of the unexpected twists and turns that Sequential/DSI has taken over the years, it's hard not to believe that they will finally produce something Evolver-esque.  There have been so many online discussions wishing for such an instrument, and Sequential has so thoroughly covered their normal synthesizer territory, that it seems inevitable they'll sooner or later turn in this direction.  It would be intriguing to have an instrument that stands out from all their other designs, something miles away from a Prophet '08/Rev2/-6.  I'd even be in favor of an all-digital instrument in the Wavestation tradition - with more control and improved technology, of course.
The Musical Synthesizer YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChLGwGiRVs7rlZXnOG9_mUw

The Musical Synthesizer Blog: https://themusicalsynthesizer.wordpress.co

Razmo

  • ***
  • 2168
  • I am shadow...
    • Kaleidoscopic Artworks
Re: Future of X
« Reply #37 on: October 26, 2018, 02:09:36 AM »
Regarding a new Evolver like synth, I've been thinking about a way to obtain a more analog sounding digital oscillator that might work in such a synth... people keep talking about having mixed analog and digital oscillators, but why not try to create a hybrid oscillator instead that will allow any of them to be switched between analog and digital? one that maybe will help inducing some analog character into digital waveforms and better the aliasing?

in situations where you want to create tables of digitally stored single cycle waveforms like on the old Evolver, you usually play these by using an accumulator... a simple ramp waveform "oscillator" that designate where in the digitally stored waveform to take any given sample... What if that accumulator was in fact an analog ramp waveform that gets converted at say; 96Khz, and then used to "lookup" the waveform in a table of many available digitally stored waveforms?

The analog ramp would have it's analog character to it, so the waveform it looks up would allways contain the imperfections of the sampled analog ramp waveform... if you wanted the raw analog ramp waveform instead you could easilly bypass the lookup, and it would be just like it was with the old Evolver (it's analog oscillators were also converted to digital before being converted back to analog, and did NOT have any hearable digital artifacts like the digital oscillators had, even though it was in fact "digital" after the conversion).

If this analog ramp waveform could also be modulated via a Shape parameter, then you could get some serious waveshaping going on as well... also Sync and Ringmod between the analog ramp waveforms would open up further possibilities.

I could easily see a factory waveform bank of 256 waveforms, plus the capabillity to include one waveform for each oscillator inside the actual program structure, so that you could create your own, or copy the factory ones into, so that a program's used waveform becomes part of the instrument...

Four such oscillators would be cool i think... the rest of the specs could be anything to mangle the sound even further using digital DSP.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2018, 02:22:17 AM by Razmo »
If you need me, follow the shadows...

dslsynth

  • ***
  • 1036
Re: Future of X
« Reply #38 on: October 26, 2018, 07:13:41 AM »
people keep talking about having mixed analog and digital oscillators, but why not try to create a hybrid oscillator instead that will allow any of them to be switched between analog and digital?

There are definitely an interesting design space of hybrid oscillators. If you ask me I would say that that is the future of analog synthesis. Moog One heads a bit in that direction too though with different and simpler waveforms. But as simple as the idea sounds its likely to take a lot of time and experimentation to get it to sound great.
#!/bin/sh
cp -f $0 $HOME/.signature

dslsynth

  • ***
  • 1036
Re: Future of X
« Reply #39 on: October 26, 2018, 07:15:59 AM »
With all of the unexpected twists and turns that Sequential/DSI has taken over the years, it's hard not to believe that they will finally produce something Evolver-esque.

I think we are many wishing that to happen. My primary concern however is the product management side of things: how to avoid too much overlap in their product range.
#!/bin/sh
cp -f $0 $HOME/.signature