Sequential REV-3 ? (User Mockup)

[creativespiral]

I've been drooling over the Moog One, then started thinking about possibilities for next Sequential Analog Poly Flagship, as I'm a DSI/Seq superfan (PEK/P12/REV2 user).  Here's my thoughts for some upgrades to the Rev architecture.  Attached is a rough JPG mockup.  High res link at bottom of post.



Start with the Rev2 as a basis...  same chassis, keybed, and majority of osc/voice architecture and R&D work already done  ~$2000 retail.

1. Upgrade the main screen to something significantly larger / higher resolution, like the Moog One screen.   Adopt some interface design cues from Moog One...  ie: the hardware button/pot layout around the screen is very logical and works well for quickly adjusting parameters.    From a firmware standpoint, integrate preset catalog/categorization of presets, and have more visual feedback for all editing, sequencing and performance options.   Basically, spend some time just working on firmware upgrades to the UI.   Note: the screen does not need to be color if cost is significantly more... could just be backlit, single color.  But higher res like Moog One, with similar control layout.    +$400 retail?

2. For filter section, implement a Curtis Filter section, plus add a Moog Style Ladder Filter that can be routed in series or parallel (like in Moog One or Arturia MatrixBrute)...  Having a Ladder Filter would fill some gaps and really round out the synth... for those Moog style bass and lead sounds.   Dave Smith + Ladder Filter needs to happen!.. I think it will really bring in a new audience to DSI, who love Moog style bass/lead sounds.. the Ladder is really key.     Possibly a State Variable Filter like the OB-6 for the #1 filter section instead of the current Rev2 Curtis.  +$400

3. Expand the internal effects selection and routing/editing/mod destinations.   It doesn't have to be Eventide quality, but I would love expanded control over effects and everything to be accessible from mod destinations.   More reverb options, shimmer, more complex delay options, ring mod, choruses, phaser, flanger, rotary, bit crusher, more overdrive/saturation/feedback possibilities, and just generally more ability to modulate the deeper parameters of effects.   +$200 retail?

4. Add some more controls for the Sequencer section (more like the Pro 2).   +200 retail?

5. Add a ribbon for a little extra live performance control (like the P12).   +$100 retail?

6. Add some more mod matrix slots... sixteen instead of eight.  Also add an option for mod transforms like the Moog One.. seems like that is an awesome feature that is a fairly easy firmware task.   +$200 retail?



Come in around $3500 for a new 16 Voice Analog Poly Flagship to compete with the Moog One, but at a much better price point.  Maybe $2500 for 8-voice?  I would buy this in a second, and probably a lot of others as well.   The integration of dual filters in serial/parallel is really key to me, as I want to be able to capture a larger sonic palette in a single instrument.  Also, a modern UI with easy drill down of advanced features is a must.

[j3rk]

The SSI2044 is a ladder filter.  (used in the Prophet X)

So that part's not too much of a stretch.  Personally, I think I'd prefer a state variable filter, but either would be pretty cool.

If they really wanted to go full Moog One flagship though, I bet it would be more likely to use the P-12 as a base though, and go from there. 

I like your interface mockup btw.  I bet people would want the mod wheels on the left side of the keyboard though. 

[Sleep of Reason]

Yep, I'd personally rather see a P12 rev 2 using the SSI2044.

[creativespiral]

Hmm.. I didn't realize the Prophet X filter was a ladder.  Although I appreciate the PX as a beast of a board, its just not of interest to me personally, as I already have vast sampling capabilities with Native KK... and I want analog osc. 

The thing I really want in an Analog Poly Flagship is a dual filter section (like the Moog One or Arturia Matrixbrute), where the filters can be mixed and routed serial or parallel... that approach gives the widest range of options, plus combining two filters can lead to some awesome sound design.   My ultimate combo would be a State Variable or Multimode (like OB-6 or Steiner Parker), combined with a Moog Style Ladder.   Seems that combo would give a vast palette of sonic options.   

Yeah, I prefer Pitch/Mod/Ribbon/XY/Glide/Octave controls to the left as well... was just using Rev2 as a starting point to try and see what could be filled into the same chassis, and probably require less R&D / development to upgrade the platform. 

The SSI2044 is a ladder filter.  (used in the Prophet X)

So that part's not too much of a stretch.  Personally, I think I'd prefer a state variable filter, but either would be pretty cool.

If they really wanted to go full Moog One flagship though, I bet it would be more likely to use the P-12 as a base though, and go from there. 

I like your interface mockup btw.  I bet people would want the mod wheels on the left side of the keyboard though. 

[creativespiral]

For me personally, I love Dave's DCOs... they've still got that analog goodness, and the way Dave and his team have implemented them is fantastic... plus you can always add some OSC SLOP (or modulate it) if you want that unstable oscillator drift sound.

Also, when I was mocking up ideas, the goal was to be in the $3000 to $3500 theoretical price range.   Starting with the 16-Voice DCO REV2 architecture as a basis (~$2000), it seems more feasible to do these upgrades.   If you're starting with a $2600 Prophet 6 VCO architecture and trying to make a 16-Voice Analog Poly, with all the advanced flagship options, I think you're more likely to end up in the Moog One price range, which is not of interest to me.  The $3k range is much more accessible.     

EDIT:  Whoops, just realized you were saying P12, not P6.   In that case, I still want DCOs (analog osc section), so to me, the Rev2 is a better architecture to use as basis.   I've got the digital realm covered, and it seems there is more interest in Analog Poly Boards anyways... people are turning to VSTs more-and-more to fill digital synth needs, and with Avenger and Serum and Omnisphere, its harder and harder for external boards to compete with a laptop and well integrated controller, like the KK S61 mk2. 

Yep, I'd personally rather see a P12 rev 2 using the SSI2044.

[Sleep of Reason]

The thing is, people are going to complain if it's DCOs at that price. If they're VCOs it would be priced around the One (as you said) and also wouldn't be that unique. Then there's the Prologue, which has rudimentary modulation capabilities, yet covers hybrid territory and has VCOs for around $1,700 or so. This leaves the digital osc/analog filter market pretty wide open aside from the 002, which is more expensive and not well distributed. There's the Peak, which wouldn't be direct competition as it's in a lower league. A P12 rev 2 with more voices, more waveforms, expanded effects, hardware integration for the linear FM, & with SSI2044 filters would be in a league of its own. If they can come in at or around the same price as the P12 (as they did with the REV2), then it should be a big hit. Most of the complaints about the P12 are aimed towards the Curtis filters. Plus the REV2 was just released last year and the P12 could use an update at the five year mark going on six.

[creativespiral]

Well, people will always complain about something......... but DCOs are legit analog oscillators, with just a digitally controlled clock, which allows them to be more versatile.   People who bash DCOs need to be better educated on the subject... at least that's my feeling.

With a proper implementation (like Dave and team), and addition of OSC Slop and Fine Tuning, you can adjust the OSC clock and amount of instability, or modulate it to create mildly animated slew or even exaggerated osc drift effects... but the key thing is: you get to control it!!, rather than having the age of the instrument, part deterioration, and humidity/temperature be a controlling factor in oscillators "acting up and going out of tune".   You can make a good case that DCOs *with a good implementation* are more versatile and can cover all the analog palette that VCOs provide.  If you want the sound of a 30 year old VCO synth operating in high humidity at 110 degrees, with "lots of character" (ie: tuning stability problems), you can dial that character in with slop and modulation... but then you can flip to another preset a second later an have perfectly tuned analog oscillators.  To me, that's a win-win.

I can understand when DCOs first hit the scene, and implementation was more rudimentary, without OSC Slop / and fine tune modulation maybe they were "too perfect" for some... but now they are awesome.   I don't mind VCOs, but a well designed DCO architecture checks all the boxes for me when it comes to having an Analog Oscillator Section.

DCO synths do have a well respected history and have been used on countless recordings:

Roland Juno Series
Roland JX Series
Korg Poly-61
Oberheim Matrix 6 and 1000
DSI Evolver Series
DSI Prophet 08
DSI Rev2
Novation Bass Station Series

In regards to building a new Digital Poly Synth Flagship vs Analog Poly...  I mentioned previously - I think from a market standpoint, there's just more interest in Analog Poly Synths.   People are more-and-more turning to VSTs to fulfill their digital synth needs...  It would be very hard / cost-prohibitive to build another hardware digital synth that could really go head to head with Omnisphere, Avenger, Serum and other "in the box" digital synths.   The VSTs are so feature laden and deep now... the only separator is the MIDI controller / tactile interface, but even there, there's great controllers coming out with deep integration possibilities.   I guess my general feeling is that I'm not gonna be buying any more digital synths...  but I am still interested in Analog Poly territory.   I love my PEK and Rev2!!

The thing is, people are going to complain if it's DCOs at that price. If they're VCOs it would be priced around the One (as you said) and also wouldn't be that unique. Then there's the Prologue, which has rudimentary modulation capabilities, yet covers hybrid territory and has VCOs for around $1,700 or so. This leaves the digital osc/analog filter market pretty wide open aside from the 002, which is more expensive and not well distributed. There's the Peak, which wouldn't be direct competition as it's in a lower league. A P12 rev 2 with more voices, more waveforms, expanded effects, hardware integration for the linear FM, & with SSI2044 filters would be in a league of its own. If they can come in at or around the same price as the P12 (as they did with the REV2), then it should be a big hit. Most of the complaints about the P12 are aimed towards the Curtis filters. Plus the REV2 was just released last year and the P12 could use an update at the five year mark going on six.

[AlainHubert]

As much as I enjoy some DSI/Sequential products, the company would have to add a lot more stuff to a REV3 to compete with a Moog One. And I mean a LOT ! Starting with a bug-free firmware and proper LFOs.

Have you had a look at the One ? I mean a serious, in depth look ? The possibilities are really incredible on that thing. Just have check out the LFO section, with its variable waveforms, selectable bipolarity or not, precise frequency control, selectable starting point, etc etc.

Luckily, the REV2 costs 4 times less than a Moog One so that musicians can actually get one without taking a second mortgage on the house. 

[creativespiral]

Totally agree with you Alain... I've watched all of the Moog One videos the past few days.. some of them multiple times.   That thing is a beast!!... they really thought of everything and have taken significant strides forward for the Analog Poly realm.   Like you said, that LFO section is amazing!

My mockup and thoughts were focused on what could Seq do to upgrade their Analog Poly Flagship (the Rev2) and offer a board that has capabilities *similar to* the Moog One, while being less than half its price (maybe ~$2500 for 8-voice, ~$3500 for 16-voice)... something that could sell a lot more units.   Most of the focus I laid out is on the hardware upgrades (UI/High Res Screen, Dual Filter Section, Better Sequencer Controls, etc..)  That's the stuff that has to be factored in cost of production as hard COGS (cost of goods sold) and really determines a basis for the retail price of the synth... and then there is firmware/programming work that is amortized into COGS.   

I think there are some things that Moog has done (like Mod Matrix Transforms) that are quick firmware changes (ie: a day or two of development).  Some other items are significantly more involved.. like expanding LFO capabilities more like the One.   A lot of the advancements on the One are focused on the firmware/UI realm... adding additional logic to improve control over the hardware... and if you have a large UI/Screen and great control interface, that stuff becomes more possible / less of a constraint... There are DSP and memory constraints that would need to be considered and factored in to provide possibility for some of the upgrades, but that's beyond what I'm mocking up as I don't know the capabilities and growth room of current Rev2 DSP architecture.   

I do feel like DSI/Seq has been doing a good job lately in pushing their firmware development (even on older boards).. yes, there's still some items in my PEK and Rev2 that I would love upgraded, but the DSI/Seq team has made a ton of changes and improvements, and been listening to user feedback.. I applaud them for that.  Dave has a 40+ year history of delivering great synth products and pushing the field forward.  As they move on to their next generation of products, I'm sure they'll be taking some inspiration back from Moog One, and the entire synth community will benefit.     

It's an exciting time for synthesizers!  I'm looking forward to what comes next from Sequential.

As much as I enjoy some DSI/Sequential products, the company would have to add a lot more stuff to a REV3 to compete with a Moog One. And I mean a LOT ! Starting with a bug-free firmware and proper LFOs.

Have you had a look at the One ? I mean a serious, in depth look ? The possibilities are really incredible on that thing. Just have check out the LFO section, with its variable waveforms, selectable bipolarity or not, precise frequency control, selectable starting point, etc etc.

Luckily, the REV2 costs 4 times less than a Moog One so that musicians can actually get one without taking a second mortgage on the house.

[creativespiral]

Hmm.. after writing this post about DCOs,  I was thinking about another possible control like the OSC SLOP that could potentially be added...  VOICE SLOP (either applied via a semi-random spread across all voices, or assigned to specific voices through a UI interface)..   Difference would be that it would affect the slop/drift on a PER VOICE BASIS, rather than PER OSC BASIS.  It would basically replicate the effect of an old synth where only specific voices were out of tune...  IE: in a 16-voice synth, maybe voice #5 is flat by a few cents, voice #7 is sharp by a few, and voice #12 is flat by a bunch...  then every time those voices are activated, they would be detuned, but the other voices would be in tune... it would give an effect where when you hit a three note chord multiple times, it might be perfectly in tune some times (where the perfect tuned voices were activated), but then other times hitting the same chord, you'd have a slight drift.   This might be one area of detune/osc drift territory where current DCO implementation could be expanded to further cover territory of old VCOs. 

Would require an array with a value for each voice.. ie: {0,-31, 8, -3, 12, 3, 0, 1, 19, 3, -1, 4, -5, 1, -6, 8}  Then a Pot/Knob would control how that array was scaled up to maximum values from 0s (perfect tuning).   So if you scaled down the VOICE SLOP CONTROL to 5%, the values would be provide just a little voice drift, and at maximum, you'd get the full values from the array.   (In CENTS tuning offset)    I think you would probably get that sort of THX DEEP NOTE sound by sweeping a VOICE SLOP CONTROL from 100% down to 0%... or some interesting possibilities by assigning it as a destination in mod matrix.   

I'm not sure if I'm correctly interpreting how OSC SLOP is currently implemented, but would this be another potential option to further the DCO architecture?   VOICE SLOP via a per voice array?    Chris?  Carson?   

Well, people will always complain about something......... but DCOs are legit analog oscillators, with just a digitally controlled clock, which allows them to be more versatile.   People who bash DCOs need to be better educated on the subject... at least that's my feeling.

With a proper implementation (like Dave and team), and addition of OSC Slop and Fine Tuning, you can adjust the OSC clock and amount of instability, or modulate it to create mildly animated slew or even exaggerated osc drift effects... but the key thing is: you get to control it!!, rather than having the age of the instrument, part deterioration, and humidity/temperature be a controlling factor in oscillators "acting up and going out of tune".   You can make a good case that DCOs *with a good implementation* are more versatile and can cover all the analog palette that VCOs provide.  If you want the sound of a 30 year old VCO synth operating in high humidity at 110 degrees, with "lots of character" (ie: tuning stability problems), you can dial that character in with slop and modulation... but then you can flip to another preset a second later an have perfectly tuned analog oscillators.  To me, that's a win-win.

I can understand when DCOs first hit the scene, and implementation was more rudimentary, without OSC Slop / and fine tune modulation maybe they were "too perfect" for some... but now they are awesome.   I don't mind VCOs, but a well designed DCO architecture checks all the boxes for me when it comes to having an Analog Oscillator Section.

DCO synths do have a well respected history and have been used on countless recordings:

Roland Juno Series
Roland JX Series
Korg Poly-61
Oberheim Matrix 6 and 1000
DSI Evolver Series
DSI Prophet 08
DSI Rev2
Novation Bass Station Series

In regards to building a new Digital Poly Synth Flagship vs Analog Poly...  I mentioned previously - I think from a market standpoint, there's just more interest in Analog Poly Synths.   People are more-and-more turning to VSTs to fulfill their digital synth needs...  It would be very hard / cost-prohibitive to build another hardware digital synth that could really go head to head with Omnisphere, Avenger, Serum and other "in the box" digital synths.   The VSTs are so feature laden and deep now... the only separator is the MIDI controller / tactile interface, but even there, there's great controllers coming out with deep integration possibilities.   I guess my general feeling is that I'm not gonna be buying any more digital synths...  but I am still interested in Analog Poly territory.   I love my PEK and Rev2!!

The thing is, people are going to complain if it's DCOs at that price. If they're VCOs it would be priced around the One (as you said) and also wouldn't be that unique. Then there's the Prologue, which has rudimentary modulation capabilities, yet covers hybrid territory and has VCOs for around $1,700 or so. This leaves the digital osc/analog filter market pretty wide open aside from the 002, which is more expensive and not well distributed. There's the Peak, which wouldn't be direct competition as it's in a lower league. A P12 rev 2 with more voices, more waveforms, expanded effects, hardware integration for the linear FM, & with SSI2044 filters would be in a league of its own. If they can come in at or around the same price as the P12 (as they did with the REV2), then it should be a big hit. Most of the complaints about the P12 are aimed towards the Curtis filters. Plus the REV2 was just released last year and the P12 could use an update at the five year mark going on six.

[Sleep of Reason]

I've got nothing against DCOs, I'm just stating what public perception will be. Furthermore, it would seem like a desperate attempt while still falling well short. Nor do I think Sequential has the means necessary to match the One's UI. Due to the price, the REV2 still has its own comfortable place in the market. As for digital osc, that would open up different possibilities for sounds. There's a considerable amount of consumers that still don't want to mess with computer software and want to run everything through nice analog filters. The SSI2044 is based off a highly regarded filter on a chip. If you want dual discrete filters, that would substantially up the cost. They could use the P12 as the basis for an update while coming in at a competitive price and seems like the right time for a boost.

Of course Sequential may have something entirely different up their sleeve. We'll just have to wait and see... 

[creativespiral]

Yeah, understand what you're saying about public perception of DCOs... that just needs to be addressed by some specific video/audio demonstrations..   For next Sequential DCO instrument, they should create a five to ten minute video going into depth why DCOs are actually preferable to VCOs...  set up a bunch of patches first with names like "1977 Sloppy Unison Bass" "1984 Dirty Poly Monster", "1989 Swampy Detune Lead"  etc... and show capabilties of "sloppy DCO tunings" to capture that territory..  go through a demonstration of SLOP controls and using modulation with fine tuning.    Basically make a specific video to deeply educate public on the subject, with a bunch of "old VCO sound" examples... then show off some things that an old VCO synth that has drift issues would never be able to accomplish, where a DCO with perfectly tuned voices can.  Or if there was voice slop, stuff like THX deep note sounds.   Then every time people bitch about VCOs over DCOs, they can be linked to a video that addresses it in detail, with high quality sound examples.

I know Sequential is perfectly capable of doing something just as impressive as the Moog One, but even if it doesn't have all the features and capabilities, the Rev2 is a great analog poly board that could be upgraded and expanded to get maybe 90% there in terms of Moog One functionality, at maybe half the price. 

I've got nothing against DCOs, I'm just stating what public perception will be. Furthermore, it would seem like a desperate attempt while still falling well short. Nor do I think Sequential has the means necessary to match the One's UI. Due to the price, the REV2 still has its own comfortable place in the market. As for digital osc, that would open up different possibilities for sounds. There's a considerable amount of consumers that still don't want to mess with computer software and want to run everything through nice analog filters. The SSI2044 is based off a highly regarded filter on a chip. If you want dual discrete filters, that would substantially up the cost. They could use the P12 as the basis for an update while coming in at a competitive price and seems like the right time for a boost.

Of course Sequential may have something entirely different up their sleeve. We'll just have to wait and see...

[eXode]

The most sensible thing would be to do a poly based on the the Pro-2 voicing, possibly with added DCOs or VCOs (perhaps 2 analog + 2 digital).

[maxter]

Hmm.. after writing this post about DCOs,  I was thinking about another possible control like the OSC SLOP that could potentially be added...  VOICE SLOP (either applied via a semi-random spread across all voices, or assigned to specific voices through a UI interface)..   Difference would be that it would affect the slop/drift on a PER VOICE BASIS, rather than PER OSC BASIS.  It would basically replicate the effect of an old synth where only specific voices were out of tune...  IE: in a 16-voice synth, maybe voice #5 is flat by a few cents, voice #7 is sharp by a few, and voice #12 is flat by a bunch...  then every time those voices are activated, they would be detuned, but the other voices would be in tune... it would give an effect where when you hit a three note chord multiple times, it might be perfectly in tune some times (where the perfect tuned voices were activated), but then other times hitting the same chord, you'd have a slight drift.   This might be one area of detune/osc drift territory where current DCO implementation could be expanded to further cover territory of old VCOs. 

Would require an array with a value for each voice.. ie: {0,-31, 8, -3, 12, 3, 0, 1, 19, 3, -1, 4, -5, 1, -6, 8}  Then a Pot/Knob would control how that array was scaled up to maximum values from 0s (perfect tuning).   So if you scaled down the VOICE SLOP CONTROL to 5%, the values would be provide just a little voice drift, and at maximum, you'd get the full values from the array.   (In CENTS tuning offset)    I think you would probably get that sort of THX DEEP NOTE sound by sweeping a VOICE SLOP CONTROL from 100% down to 0%... or some interesting possibilities by assigning it as a destination in mod matrix.   

I'm not sure if I'm correctly interpreting how OSC SLOP is currently implemented, but would this be another potential option to further the DCO architecture?   VOICE SLOP via a per voice array?    Chris?  Carson?   

Actually, this seems to be the way it works at the moment, without the possibility to edit the voice offsets yourself though. So I suspect this feature could be added, if SCI would like to do so.

Turn the osc slop fully clockwise, then play a key repetitively, or use the sequencer to do it, you will notice that each voice actually has it's own offset. Whatever the offsets are, you will get a repeating pattern of 8 or 16 different offsets, never changing.

I definitely agree, it would be cool to be able to set/tune the voices slop yourself, if not in the mainmode perhaps in the bootmode, or whatever it's called.

[psionic11]

Having multiple filter types would be awesome.  A lot of VAs (Virus, Micron, KingKorg) have dozens of filter types included, ranging from TB303 squelchers to comb filters to bandpass and of course the OB 2 poles and the 4 pole ladder filters.

It was almost a year before I finally pulled the trigger and got my Rev2.  I figured the 2 pole mode would help get those OBesque sounds.  I'm so letdown that there is no bottom end, even in 2 pole mode, and even after trying to "emphasize" the low end using cutoff and resonance as you can on other filter types besides the Curtis filters.

Imagine a Rev3 borrowing the "girth" function from the P12.  In fact, imagine all of DSI's filter options in one synth:

4pole / 2pole Curtis filter
4pole LPF / HPF from the Prophet 6
the state variable filter from the OB6
the Pro 2's filter setup *
the new SSI 4pole in the Prophet X
3 OSC per voice

That, encased in creativespiral's mockup including the new display GUI, I would snatch up in a heartbeat, so long as it had bottom end.  Even if the oscillators were digital as in the P12, so long as you could get some type of wavetable action happening.  Make it so!

[psionic11]

Holy smokes, I just looked over the specs for the Pro 2 for the first time.  I thought it was a mono synth, so I dismissed it.  If the next generation Rev3 borrowed some of the Pro 2 DNA, that would be a killer machine, so long as it had 61 keys and was bi-timbral.

[Quatschmacher]

The most sensible thing would be to do a poly based on the the Pro-2 voicing, possibly with added DCOs or VCOs (perhaps 2 analog + 2 digital).

A poly version of the Pro 2 (with a nice 61-key Fatar TP-9S keybed) would be wonderful.

[creativespiral]

In the mockup I put together, I was borrowing from Pro2 dna...  notably, the Sequencer section with an interface much like Pro2..  also, the Pro2 has a dual filter section...  in the mockup, a similar filter setup is shown with some inspiration taken from Arturia MatrixBrute and Moog One.   I think having a Steiner-Parker + Ladder filter would be a great combo (Like MatrixBrute)... or a SVF like the OB-6 filter, along with a Ladder.  Those combos would give the synth a wide sonic palette.   Definitely want a Moog-style Ladder Filter though! 

I really think having Analog Oscillators (DCOs) is key.  The Pro2 and P12 have digital osc.  The market for Analog Polys just seems better.   I personally do not plan to buy any more Digital Osc synths (just don't see them competing with Omnisphere, Avenger, Serum, etc)... but I am definitely in market for Analog Poly Boards. 

I would be very open to another hybrid osc synth like the Poly Evolver though... the PEK is my favorite synth.  As long as there are two (or three / +sub) DCOs per voice, then adding a couple Digital/Wavetables per voice would be awesome sauce.   I would gladly pay more for that     And if they wanted to even use the same stereo architecture from the Evolver series, that would be sweet. 

Holy smokes, I just looked over the specs for the Pro 2 for the first time.  I thought it was a mono synth, so I dismissed it.  If the next generation Rev3 borrowed some of the Pro 2 DNA, that would be a killer machine, so long as it had 61 keys and was bi-timbral.

[jmnes]

I read the Moog One manual yesterday and it’s very impressive.

But my underlying opinion is still unchanged: I’d much rather have $8000 of existing DSI / Sequential synths than a Moog One.

Even more precisely, I’d rather have $7,200 of DSI/Synths and a Moog Sub Phatty.

[Razmo]

We can all guess about the next DSI synth... but at the time when I last hoped/guessed, I saw the need for something with samples, and I was right... next came the Prophet X... what you need to look at with Dave, it's his habit of always coming with something NEW that cover new ground, but also has overlaps with earlier technology that he has used... he usually come up with something new, and then the next one or two instruments are module versions and derivatives.

With the REV2 being a look back at a popular synth, and updating it, I bet that the next synth might be something of the likes of a new "Prophet 12" using a better keybed, a dedicated FX engine like on his newer synths, and most likely the new SSI filters... many have been talking a long time about wanting a rev2 Evolver, and even though I do not think Dave will do such a thing (The P12 was that thing), the P12 is getting a bit cobwebbed these days... i actually think that the next thing that will be out is something to replace the P12/Evolver... that would be the most logical in my opinion.

But I may be wrong... who knows... I hardly think a new Tempest will see the day of light...