Rev2 breakup

[MKDVB]

To add to what Razmo said, which I wholeheartedly agree with, the Rev2 really should be looked at as its own thing and appreciated in that light.

Personally, my "one synth to rule them all" desert island synth would be a Nord Lead. I have an A1 and it does the bulk of synth duties in my studio - since it's four part true multitimbral and has 26(!) voices with 'free' unison it's an incredibly useful sound tool. It also has a very acceptable FX section per slot. I wouldn't part with my Nord Stage Compact either, but that's mostly used as a piano/organ with a synth back, rather than as a main synth on it's own.

But, the Rev2 has a clear place - first off, it's got a very nice 5 octave keyboard, which I enjoy just for that alone (I can see why Razmo uses it for his main controller) and it leaves my 6-octave Nord Stage compact for more piano-like duties. Second, since each layer is 2 oscillators AND a sub AND a noise generator, that leaves each layer quite a bit more complex than the Nord - I'd have to use 2 slots on the Nord to get the same oscillator configuration. And even compared to something as complex as a Nord Lead 3, the modulation options on the Rev2 are second to none - tons of routing possibilities, that extra envelope, the sequencer... seriously useful stuff there for performance or studio work. It has nearly the same level of control as my Moog subsequent 37! (Excepting the filter drive and independent OSC mix, of course, but of those, only the filter drive is really missed and that's just part of the Rev2's unique sound, really.)

And it's got a sound that's right in the sweet spot between classic Prophet and modern numeric oscillators. I think people unfairly criticize it by listening to it, and it alone, when it's so easy to fit into a mix beautifully.

So, I'm with Razmo - is it a perfect synth, no, none are! Could it be a "desert island" synth? Definitely, though that really depends on what you're looking for. It's certainly deep enough and has enough potential. For me, it offers a very different yet compatible sound to what I get from my Nords. Another voice in the choir, so to speak, with its own timbre and suited for its own parts. Still, the tremendous polyphony, the richness of the oscillators and the very useful slop and other modulatable parameters, combined with the utility of the onboard FX to bring out another side to the sound, make it a compelling synth, especially at it's current price range. I can't see any justification for letting it go, and I seem to continue to find good reasons to keep it.

Other synths that I find incredibly useful: Elektron Digitone, Moog Minitaur. The Rev2 is a very nice complement to these as well, and they both punch well above their price. Heck, the three together could be had for a song and you'd have an immense palette of sound design at your fingertips.

Do you think it's fair to say that the Rev2's "own thing" is that it is an incredibly versatile synth that can fit in many places without ever truly taking your breath away?  To me, that's its greatest strength but also weakness. It can fit in so well but never stands out. It just sounds like a nice synth. That said, there are some patches I've made that I can't recreate satisfactorily on other synths, digital or analog, which is a large reason it's still here (& I've tried!).

And to be honest, I used to love the Rev2's sound until my friend brought his Buchla over & I was floored at how just the raw oscillators of that thing made my heavily modulate Rev2 sound so .... small.

Seems like a desert island synth would have to be digital, which in my case would be a Montage, even though I don't currently own one. But as far as analog, I can't think of any modern ones that offer as much as Rev2.

[Razmo]

Refering to the last post above:

Well... that is exactly what you should NOT be doing with a synth... trying to make it sound like another synth because you will almost always be disappointed... more with some synths than others of course... I did not get to like my REV2 by playing the factory presets, nor trying to emulate something else... i came to like it by being creative, and doing unique sounds on the REV2 that it do best... And I can assure you, that if I try to replicate any of these sounds I've done on something else, I'll be disappointed as well.... If you want Juno... get Juno! ... if you want MOOG, get MOOG!... I cannot say it any other way really.

If I had to choose ONE synth right now only, I'd probably take the PEAK... It is flexible, has a very nice tone to it, and will be much more complex than any analog polysynth... but with that said, I've got sounds I've made for the REV2 that I would miss if I only had the PEAK... that is why I tend to get more than one synth... synths that have a uniqueness to them, and that complement each other. But it is a hard choice because almost all synths will have something unique in one way or the other.

Currently I've got the REV2... it gives me the most voices in any synth I've got, and it's the only one that has layering capabilities, greatly expanding it's sonic territory... coupled with it's FX engine i can get the most beautiful pads, strings and choral sounds out of it, and also plucked and bowed sounds when tamed right... it's down to the polyphony and FX engine paired with the dual timbrality that no other synths of mine has... I learned that I cannot live without it.

I also have the PEAK... it's really clear in it's tone, really good for tight and bright tones... gorgeous wavetable tones and FM sounds, and has the best god damned reverb built into any synth I've heard.. it's basses is booming, but tight, but it can still sound old and dusty... it's just a really good and very flexible synth... I learned that I cannot live without it.

Then there is my TEMPEST... it has a tone remnicent of the REV2, but still it's different... more raw, has more presence, and it's sequencer is in a league of it's own... it has several flaws, but it's a love/hate relationship... I use it mainly for creating six sequenced tracks that I use as backing (Berlin School type of sequences), or as a drummachine... it is essential for me as a "metronome" when running and playing other synth lines along with it live.

And today i received the DeepMind12D ... I've not used it much, but I believe it will also be "it's own"... it has the most advanced FX engine of them all, which means it will probably be used for other types of sounds focusing more on FX...

I have more synths on on my mind for the future... Prophet 12 module, OB-6 module, P6 module, Evolver Desktop, Hypersynth Xenophone, Waldorf Pulse 2... etc. etc...

the point is; I do not want to part with my synths anymore just because they do not do everything because I've tried so many times selling my synths, only to miss them and buying them again... sometimes multiple times... it's not worth it... yes, you will become tired of them after a while, just like kids get tired of their toys, but if you put them away for a while, the toys always gets interesting again at some point.... so that is my advice... unless you need the money selling a synth, then don't... store it away, and get whatever it is that you want and play with it... at some point in time you will want to swap them again... suddenly you see something on the net, discussing one of your older synths, and you want to mess around with it again...

And about REV2 multimode: I do not see it as two synths even if it's built halfway like that... i see it as ONE because that is the way a preset is built... if it was to be true dual timbral, it would have had two edit buffers, one for each synth, and a program would only have had ONE layer in it... I see the halfway multimode as sort of a "bonus feature" ... just the way you have to change presets if you use it as two synths make me cringe my toes... very unintuitive... and thus, i only use it as a single synth. So again; if you want true dual timbral, GET true dual timbral somewhere else where it works the way you want it to... In my opinion, Sequential could throw out the multimode on their dual timbral synths, it's useless to me to be honest, when it's not properly done.

Besides... the dual timbrality and multimode is just an additional gimmick... i do believe that the main reason for Sequential to make their synths dual timbral has nothing to do with multitimbrality, it was made for two purposes: 1. Stacked Mode and 2. Split mode... multimode is just a "broken add-on". But do not get me wrong, I LOVE the dual timbrality for the first two reasons... it's a VERY powerful feature for sound design... I often use one layer for building a transient, and the other for the tone itself... very very handy for a lot of sounds actually.

No offense, I find your posts very informative & helpful but I'll use my synths the way I want to. 

For instance, when writing, I like to work with all my gear in real-time vs multi-tracking over audio so if the intro is some Juno lead but I want to switch the Juno over to bass, another synth now needs to carry the intro until I start tracking & I'll often switch over to the Rev2 in cases like this because it's interface is the best I have for making patches. And oftentimes, it will actually win out over whoever it's standing in for when it comes time to record.

Then it also boils down to not all of us can afford to get all the synths we want so choices & compromises have to be made. I couldn't afford to keep both the Rev2 & OB6 (personally, I'm not sure I'd want to even if I could for personal reasons) so trying to port over some of the patches seems logical. You're right of course ... you can never get all the way there & there's bound to be unsatisfaction so choices have to be made. 

Like you, I miss every synth I've ever owned, including that Casio XW-G1 even if that thing frustrated me to no end.

As for not seeing Rev2 as 2 synths in a box, you said that! I just repeated it. And again, I'll use it as I choose to. Not sure why you keep telling me how to use it .... different people have different needs. Multimode works fine for me ... in fact, it's probably the feature I use most. Splits are nice when I'm just playing on the keys. Stacks sound great when I'm just sitting there tinkling but in a full mix, I often wind up leaving a layer out as it's too dense in a mix. I'll have to explore your suggestion of using both layers to build one sound vs the common layering of 2 different sounds. Works for me as I find it weird to approach sound design in terms of 2 completely different layers.

Hmm... I did not intent to sound like I wanted you to use your synth like I do... just trying to explain why I find it to be in vain to try and make a synth be something it's not going to be... If you need more synths to replicate each other then of course you'd have to choose synths that can end up in the same character area...

If you use all your gear simultaneously I can also understand your approach... i do not work this way, I record Audio in a DAW in layers, one by one, so if I need to have more tracks sounding like a REV2, I simply record my REV2 more than once...

I once worked like you do as well... I used a huge mixer, and had every synth connected via MIDI to my MIDI DAW, and thus had the same problems with not being able to reuse any synth in a given project... but even then i never used any of them in multimode simply because of the frustrating case of FX always being global or polyphony running out... it had it's charm, but I eventually learned to accept the tradeoffs of doing Audio recording instead... though sometimes I miss that way of working... that is also why I wrote what I did about REV2 multimode because it would irritate me if I had to work with it like that. If you like working like that, by all means do that

And about editing a stacked program with two layers... yes... it will be cumbersome if you edit it from REV2's frontpanel controls because the knobs won't show their values once you change layer... personally I'd not even want to try and create a dual layer combined program with the UI on REV2... that is why I made myself an editor that show all parameters on screen at the same time on my computer... that makes designing dual layer programs a lot easier... and the sounds can get quite a bit more complex... With bell sounds I usually create the striking noise with one layer, and the tone on the other layer... with other sounds I use layer B for adding more FX, and for creating longer more modulated reverbs (the stock reverb in REV2 is not that good) by setting the FX MIX to 100%, and then copying Layer A to B, and giving layer B a longer release time... it creates a fake long ambient reverb this way... there are a lot of good uses for Layer B in stacked mode than simply layering programs together.

[Sleep of Reason]

Do you think the UB-XA can stand in for the OB6? I did love that sound & if I could get it at a fraction of the cost .

Again, they're two different filters. The OB-6 filters are based off the classic 12dB state-variable SEM and are discrete. The UB-XA filters are based off the CEM3320 with 12dB & 24dB modes that come on a chip. Everything on the UB-Xa has been stuck on a single board and it's pretty safe to assume that other cost cutting measures were taken as well. Each voice of the OB-6 has its own board and is built like a tank overall.

If you're asking me, it'd be a poor substitute. 

[Razmo]

To add to what Razmo said, which I wholeheartedly agree with, the Rev2 really should be looked at as its own thing and appreciated in that light.

Personally, my "one synth to rule them all" desert island synth would be a Nord Lead. I have an A1 and it does the bulk of synth duties in my studio - since it's four part true multitimbral and has 26(!) voices with 'free' unison it's an incredibly useful sound tool. It also has a very acceptable FX section per slot. I wouldn't part with my Nord Stage Compact either, but that's mostly used as a piano/organ with a synth back, rather than as a main synth on it's own.

But, the Rev2 has a clear place - first off, it's got a very nice 5 octave keyboard, which I enjoy just for that alone (I can see why Razmo uses it for his main controller) and it leaves my 6-octave Nord Stage compact for more piano-like duties. Second, since each layer is 2 oscillators AND a sub AND a noise generator, that leaves each layer quite a bit more complex than the Nord - I'd have to use 2 slots on the Nord to get the same oscillator configuration. And even compared to something as complex as a Nord Lead 3, the modulation options on the Rev2 are second to none - tons of routing possibilities, that extra envelope, the sequencer... seriously useful stuff there for performance or studio work. It has nearly the same level of control as my Moog subsequent 37! (Excepting the filter drive and independent OSC mix, of course, but of those, only the filter drive is really missed and that's just part of the Rev2's unique sound, really.)

And it's got a sound that's right in the sweet spot between classic Prophet and modern numeric oscillators. I think people unfairly criticize it by listening to it, and it alone, when it's so easy to fit into a mix beautifully.

So, I'm with Razmo - is it a perfect synth, no, none are! Could it be a "desert island" synth? Definitely, though that really depends on what you're looking for. It's certainly deep enough and has enough potential. For me, it offers a very different yet compatible sound to what I get from my Nords. Another voice in the choir, so to speak, with its own timbre and suited for its own parts. Still, the tremendous polyphony, the richness of the oscillators and the very useful slop and other modulatable parameters, combined with the utility of the onboard FX to bring out another side to the sound, make it a compelling synth, especially at it's current price range. I can't see any justification for letting it go, and I seem to continue to find good reasons to keep it.

Other synths that I find incredibly useful: Elektron Digitone, Moog Minitaur. The Rev2 is a very nice complement to these as well, and they both punch well above their price. Heck, the three together could be had for a song and you'd have an immense palette of sound design at your fingertips.

Do you think it's fair to say that the Rev2's "own thing" is that it is an incredibly versatile synth that can fit in many places without ever truly taking your breath away?  To me, that's its greatest strength but also weakness. It can fit in so well but never stands out. It just sounds like a nice synth. That said, there are some patches I've made that I can't recreate satisfactorily on other synths, digital or analog, which is a large reason it's still here (& I've tried!).

And to be honest, I used to love the Rev2's sound until my friend brought his Buchla over & I was floored at how just the raw oscillators of that thing made my heavily modulate Rev2 sound so .... small.

Seems like a desert island synth would have to be digital, which in my case would be a Montage, even though I don't currently own one. But as far as analog, I can't think of any modern ones that offer as much as Rev2.

Comparing to a Buchla is not really an option in my opinion... yes, you might find the raw oscillators much beefier, but honestly, you can create things with a REV2 you would not even be able to on a Buchla... if you're just comparing raw oscillator sounds, then yes, then the REV2 might sound sterile, but when you add all those 16 voices, the depth of the engine, and top it with the FX, you can create a lot of things on a REV2 you would not be able to on a Buchla... this is why it to me is not comparable... also it depends on what people like when it comes to sound... some sounds are better when they are cold and sterile, others need to be raw and fat... I for one would definitely not use the REV2 for bass duties, as I like a more dusty, boomy bass sound of VCO's (think MOOG), but if i wanted pristine bell'ish sounds I'd definitely choose a PEAK over the REV2 or a MOOG (digital oscillators that is)... but if I want long dense pads or atmospheres with lots of motion in them, I'd go for the REV2 simply because it delivers the polyphony and the engine to do this.

I will not categorize the REV2 as a "modest synth" in any way... a sound is a sound, and REV2 will do sounds no other synth can do, sounds that may just need that little bit more coldness, sterileness whatever... it may be modest to you, but not for others. I see synths as a tool... and I'm not looking for a universal tool that can do everything... if you do not have the ability to get different tools, then I understand why you would call the REV2 "modest" because then you would want it to be able to do a lot broader sonic palette of sounds than it's probably capable of...maybe this is why some see it that way?

in other words; a synths worth is the sum of all it's parts... and the users preference.

[creativespiral]

And about editing a stacked program with two layers... yes... it will be cumbersome if you edit it from REV2's frontpanel controls because the knobs won't show their values once you change layer... personally I'd not even want to try and create a dual layer combined program with the UI on REV2... that is why I made myself an editor that show all parameters on screen at the same time on my computer... that makes designing dual layer programs a lot easier... and the sounds can get quite a bit more complex... With bell sounds I usually create the striking noise with one layer, and the tone on the other layer... with other sounds I use layer B for adding more FX, and for creating longer more modulated reverbs (the stock reverb in REV2 is not that good) by setting the FX MIX to 100%, and then copying Layer A to B, and giving layer B a longer release time... it creates a fake long ambient reverb this way... there are a lot of good uses for Layer B in stacked mode than simply layering programs together.

Having an editor program is key if you want to take advantage of the depth of the Rev2.   Since Soundtower has updated the Rev2 editor, it is an amazing tool now... I highly recommend it.

I agree with the approach to Layer B.   In my custom patches, there is almost no program I've developed where I use just Layer A.   They are all using layer B in some fashion or another.   Of course the most common perception of using layer B is to have a true bi-timbral layered sound where each layer has significantly different tone.  But that's just one use.

Using layer B as an effect wet layer like Razmo describes is one great way to use it (with modulation sources controlling amp env amount to dynamically bring in the mix).  I do this often, using foot pedal, breath control, or key velocity to bring in effects.

The other way to look at Layer B is just an extension of layer A, where both layers have virtually identical oscillator, filter and envelope settings, but instead of having just two oscillators with a sub, you now have 4 fully controllable oscillators and two subs to work with. 

I've found that I often want a sub oscillator, but don't want it to be a square wave (sub is square by default), and I don't want it tied to Oscillator 1 in terms of frequency.   So I'll instead use layer B just to extend the oscillator palette, and set one of the Layer B oscillators one octave down, and then control wave type (I use triangle often, saw, or tri/saw)  Also, I like my sub oscillator to be more stable, while my other oscillators have some more movement / detuning.  Flubby bass can quickly ruin a patch...  By using this method, you can keep your sub stable and shape it as you like, and still have control over three more oscillators.   If you're making bass patches, I feel like this is an absolute must.  By using a sawtooth for sub, you can get huge, rippling bass tone, but still have clarity/stability.   And then just use detuning/motion on the upper oscillators.   

For patches where I don't intend a multi-timbral layered sound, my patch creation method usually consists of blocking out sound quickly on layer A, then copying it to layer B, and turning on stack... then proceeding to build out the patch, with a full palette of six oscillators.

Also, setting pan mode to fixed and DC offsetting "extended patches" like this to -32 left and +32 right results in an absolutely huge stereo image, where you have two oscillators and a sub running on each L/R channel...  This gives you a stereo architecture that is similar to the Poly Evolver (my other favorite board)... though not exactly the same. 

[maxter]

This is one of the more interesting threads around here, as it goes down many rabbit trails!  I don't mean that in a bad way, if I did I'd be as guilty as anyone or more.

To each his own, but I'll agree that the multi-mode isn't the Rev2s biggest strength, which doesn't bother me though, and don't think it's intended to be. Neither do I use both layers that often anyway, I find using 2-3 OSCs more than enough in most cases. And I only have the 8-voice version, so I'd really be compromising long release times otherwise. I actually haven't found a big enough reason to upgrade to 16 yet. Which is also great about the Rev2, for those on a budget, and still having the possibility of upgrading later on. But I think it's great that the multi-mode possibility is there, should the need arrive, and making for more ways for different folks to use it whichever way they want.

I, too, like to have as much as I can plugged in and played live simultaneously, thus being able to tweak sounds on each synth as a piece evolves, not having to go back and record that part all over if I find I'd like to change something just a tad. Keeping as many possibilities open as possible. Multi-mode isn't always that bad or compromising, sometimes to the contrary, it depends on the synth, but I suppose it's mainly digital ones and samplers that have a better implementation of it. Not all have shared global effects, and many have a lot of extra outputs, for routing through external effects as well. I have a Roland JV-2080 and an ASR-10R, both being somewhat versatile in this area. It saves a lot of space, which I don't have a lot of, and even though I don't use the extra outputs that often (the same being true for the Rev2), I love not being restricted to one pair of outputs or one patch per synth, should I need it at some point.

Sure, in a way I'd love to own lots of other synths too, but then again I really don't see the need to, even if I had the space. I've let a few good ones go not because of limited space or budget, but because they can only do so much, and I find it hard to justify keeping a synth or musical equipment just for that "one" sound or area at which they excel. I find myself wanting less and less rather than more actually, as I think I'm/we're in a way spoiled and/or distracted by too many possibilities and too much equipment. Limitations often fuel creativity, while at the same time I want each piece of equipment being as versatile and capable as possible. I think of it as being "economic" in ways other than monetarily. That's where the Rev2 comes in, for me, and then getting the most bang for the buck at the same time doesn't hurt. I know it cannot exactly "replicate" the character of some other synths, but it can probably get close enough for me in most cases, imo. I understand why some would want a P6 and an OB6 to compliment the Rev2, but personally I couldn't justify getting either. The Rev2 has so much more potential in sound design, that I don't see the point. I'm not saying those who do are splitting hairs, but if I were to get one I'd sure feel like I was doing just that. It might not be as "immediate" as those, but for those of us who actually LIKE programming sounds, well...

Though I, at times, have been on the fence about parting ways with the Rev2, I probably never will. I just don't see anything around that could replace it atm, as I'd prefer to have just ONE analog poly-synth.

[Razmo]

The debate on having many synths I think boils down to what you actually use synthesizers for... some people are practical, and want them solely as tools being able to get the job done... they get a few different ones that compliment each other, and do not see any use in getting more synths, simply because those few synths cover what they need.

Hell... i could make the music I like with just the REV2 if I wanted to... the reason i get more synths is because it's not only creating music that has me interested... I am curious as to what you can obtain be squeezing a synth's potential... i like to design sounds, and i want to have as many options as i can get hold of... and unfortunately that usually means A LOT!

And when you get a lot of synthesizers, you do not have any reason to have a synth being able to cover a lot of ground... in fact you want them to cover just that particular thing they do that is unique, and do it better than any other synth will be able to... sometimes I even like the restrictions... trying to get around limitations, making a synth sound like you would not believe it would be able to... it's just a simple fascination of synths and synthesis in general i suppose. Synthesis nerdism...

[creativespiral]

The differences between filter types is always going to be present if trying to emulate other synthesizers... ie: a 24db Moog Ladder has a specific sound and character that is unique.  This is one of the reasons why I like the design of the MatrixBrute and Moog One (along with some other recent synths) that have included several filter types that can be routed in serial or parallel.  This was one of the main features I was hoping for in the "Rev3 Mockup" thread:
https://forum.sequential.com/index.php/topic,3015.msg32644.html

If we had the same basic architecture of the Rev2, but with multiple (2-3) filter options (Moog Ladder Style, OB Style State Variable, Current Curtis Filter), along with some other minor improvements, it would potentially allow "one board to rule them all".

[Sleep of Reason]

(Moog Ladder Style, OB Style State Variable, Current Curtis Filter)

Thing is, the Pro2 filter structure is already more desirable than that. It's not like Sequential is unaware that an eight-sixteen voice 2 VCO/2 wavetable beast with both SEM and SSM-based filters, a deep mod matrix, and multiple layers would rule Mordor. We can talk about this till we're blue in the face, the problem is the pricing and what the market is currently looking like.

[creativespiral]

(Moog Ladder Style, OB Style State Variable, Current Curtis Filter)

Thing is, the Pro2 filter structure is already more desirable than that. It's not like Sequential is unaware that an eight-sixteen voice 2 VCO/2 wavetable beast with both SEM and SSM-based filters, a deep mod matrix, and multiple layers would rule Mordor. We can talk about this till we're blue in the face, the problem is the pricing and what the market is currently looking like.

A little blue face never hurts... besides, if we're governed by idioms, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, right?

I think there's a good pocket in the $2800-$3500 range for a new flagship analog poly synth that borrows some inspiration from new Moog One advancements and improves upon Sequential's existing Rev2 platform... (ie: multiple filters, UI improvements, mod matrix and sequencer improvements, etc).   Still would be less than half the price of a One.   And DSI/Seq have a long history of successful synths in that ~$3k range.   

[psionic11]

I know I said I would be getting rid of my Rev2, but I haven't yet.  My main use is for its analog nature and cover band songs.  I have a Kronos for most of the variety of sounds, but for those songs where I wanted beef, I decided to get a polyphonic analog.  It needed to be bi-timbral, with aftertouch, and portable.  The Rev2 is perfect in filling those needs.

I've overcome its multimode shortcomings by getting a Mio4 MIDI router.

But like the previous post where the Rev2 OSCs were wimpy and sterile compared to the Buchla, I'm in a similar case where I can hear the Rev2 falling short in both OSC and filter territory compared to my One, Minitaur, and Boog D.  I've even gotten my Kronos much beefier now with more time tweaking.

Early synthesizers were attempting to emulate acoustic instruments, as well as explore totally new sonic creations.  For me, my poly analog needs to emulate sounds of the recent past, while still being creative enough to satisfy the synthesist in me.  The Rev2 is 85-90% there.... it's just my main use scenarios make bare the harsher Curtis sound.  Still, I'm inching closer as I program her more.

And +100 on a polyphonic Pro2.  Five octaves, bi-timbral, and aftertouch.... take my $$$$

[Razmo]

I know I said I would be getting rid of my Rev2, but I haven't yet.  My main use is for its analog nature and cover band songs.  I have a Kronos for most of the variety of sounds, but for those songs where I wanted beef, I decided to get a polyphonic analog.  It needed to be bi-timbral, with aftertouch, and portable.  The Rev2 is perfect in filling those needs.

I've overcome its multimode shortcomings by getting a Mio4 MIDI router.

But like the previous post where the Rev2 OSCs were wimpy and sterile compared to the Buchla, I'm in a similar case where I can hear the Rev2 falling short in both OSC and filter territory compared to my One, Minitaur, and Boog D.  I've even gotten my Kronos much beefier now with more time tweaking.

Early synthesizers were attempting to emulate acoustic instruments, as well as explore totally new sonic creations.  For me, my poly analog needs to emulate sounds of the recent past, while still being creative enough to satisfy the synthesist in me.  The Rev2 is 85-90% there.... it's just my main use scenarios make bare the harsher Curtis sound.  Still, I'm inching closer as I program her more.

And +100 on a polyphonic Pro2.  Five octaves, bi-timbral, and aftertouch.... take my $$$$

But as I said earlier... If people get a REV2, in the hopes of making it sound like a MOOG, then you will never be fully satisfied with a REV2, because it never will sound like that... But it will sound like a lot of other things a MOOG never will... And that is what you have to love it for... If you do not, then perhaps the REV2 is not the right choice.

Anyway, if all synths had to sound like a MOOG, then why would there even be that many synthesizers to choose from... We could then do with just a few on the market, all having that same MOOG character... It would be one boring synth world then (though a much cheaper hobby I admit).

At least I am glad I do not constantly compare my synths to other synths, and just create sounds with them based on timbres I think sound good, instead of mimicking other synths. I would get frustrated because I would want to reach 100% in comparison... I recently thought about getting rid of the REV2, because I wanted a simpler setup, and thought I would be happy with just a Quantum and PEAK... But ivquickly realized that even if these two are superb, they could not near the sounds I made for the REV2, and I know that no other synth out there will... REV2, can do a lot, but not all... I just have to get other synths to do those tasks... REV2 is not weak or mediocre, it's just a REV2 doing what it does best.

[AlainHubert]

Small update on the status of my REV2.
I know that I also wrote that I would eventually get rid of my Prophet REV2. But it's still here, in my setup, along with the OB6, DM12, and Minimoog D.
It's a love-hate relationship. It's not my favorite synth (it lacks some features that are important to me, and some other things on it really annoy me) but, as Razmo is pointing out, it can also do things the others can't. So, for now, it survives.

[Quatschmacher]

+100 on a polyphonic Pro2.  Five octaves, bi-timbral, and aftertouch.... take my $$$$

I’m with you all the way and my cash is ready.

[psionic11]

I know I said I would be getting rid of my Rev2, but I haven't yet.  My main use is for its analog nature and cover band songs.  I have a Kronos for most of the variety of sounds, but for those songs where I wanted beef, I decided to get a polyphonic analog.  It needed to be bi-timbral, with aftertouch, and portable.  The Rev2 is perfect in filling those needs.

I've overcome its multimode shortcomings by getting a Mio4 MIDI router.

But like the previous post where the Rev2 OSCs were wimpy and sterile compared to the Buchla, I'm in a similar case where I can hear the Rev2 falling short in both OSC and filter territory compared to my One, Minitaur, and Boog D.  I've even gotten my Kronos much beefier now with more time tweaking.

Early synthesizers were attempting to emulate acoustic instruments, as well as explore totally new sonic creations.  For me, my poly analog needs to emulate sounds of the recent past, while still being creative enough to satisfy the synthesist in me.  The Rev2 is 85-90% there.... it's just my main use scenarios make bare the harsher Curtis sound.  Still, I'm inching closer as I program her more.

And +100 on a polyphonic Pro2.  Five octaves, bi-timbral, and aftertouch.... take my $$$$

But as I said earlier... If people get a REV2, in the hopes of making it sound like a MOOG, then you will never be fully satisfied with a REV2, because it never will sound like that... But it will sound like a lot of other things a MOOG never will... And that is what you have to love it for... If you do not, then perhaps the REV2 is not the right choice.

Anyway, if all synths had to sound like a MOOG, then why would there even be that many synthesizers to choose from... We could then do with just a few on the market, all having that same MOOG character... It would be one boring synth world then (though a much cheaper hobby I admit).

At least I am glad I do not constantly compare my synths to other synths, and just create sounds with them based on timbres I think sound good, instead of mimicking other synths. I would get frustrated because I would want to reach 100% in comparison... I recently thought about getting rid of the REV2, because I wanted a simpler setup, and thought I would be happy with just a Quantum and PEAK... But ivquickly realized that even if these two are superb, they could not near the sounds I made for the REV2, and I know that no other synth out there will... REV2, can do a lot, but not all... I just have to get other synths to do those tasks... REV2 is not weak or mediocre, it's just a REV2 doing what it does best.

I didn't get a Rev2 to cop the Moog sound... that's what my Minitaur and Slim Phatty is for.  Besides, the Kronos and even Integra does a fair enough Moog lead saw sound.  Lead squares are easy and interchangeable on all platforms imo.

The Rev2 is for my polyphonic analog sound re-creations, specifically for the later Oberheims.  My biggest disappointment was the lack of low end and the fuller warmth in the mid range. 

The more annoying (or shall I more diplomatically say, the "Curtis filter character") didn't immediately put me off, but it's grown over time.  I'm learning methods to downplay that character (FX distortion, 2 pole mode, ENV3 => LFP ENV AMT), and I also have been researching stereo filters to apply to the whole mix (to fatten/thicken/sweeten the Kronos and Integra as well as the Rev2).

I do like the Curtis implementation or character in the Rev2 for certain uses.  It has strengths in more "fruity" brassy and stereo soundscapes.  I manually play all my sounds and hardly every sequence or multi-track, though I hope to do much more of that non-live recording eventually.

Hopefully Creativespiral's exciting new VCO emulation discoveries will go a long way toward warmth.

[MKDVB]

But as I said earlier... If people get a REV2, in the hopes of making it sound like a MOOG, then you will never be fully satisfied with a REV2, because it never will sound like that... But it will sound like a lot of other things a MOOG never will... And that is what you have to love it for... If you do not, then perhaps the REV2 is not the right choice.

Anyway, if all synths had to sound like a MOOG, then why would there even be that many synthesizers to choose from... We could then do with just a few on the market, all having that same MOOG character... It would be one boring synth world then (though a much cheaper hobby I admit).

At least I am glad I do not constantly compare my synths to other synths, and just create sounds with them based on timbres I think sound good, instead of mimicking other synths. I would get frustrated because I would want to reach 100% in comparison... I recently thought about getting rid of the REV2, because I wanted a simpler setup, and thought I would be happy with just a Quantum and PEAK... But ivquickly realized that even if these two are superb, they could not near the sounds I made for the REV2, and I know that no other synth out there will... REV2, can do a lot, but not all... I just have to get other synths to do those tasks... REV2 is not weak or mediocre, it's just a REV2 doing what it does best.

Perhaps there's a little misunderstanding ... personally, I don't want the Rev2 to sound exactly like a Buchla or a Moog (personally not a huge fan of Moog sound) -- I want it to have that magic spot that my Juno or Monomachine has or the OB6, etc. For me, it just doesn't seem to have it. I don't want a Buchla but when it was here, I didn't compare oscillators ... with no real patching it sounded alive whereas the Rev2 I ran through patch after patch, modulations galore & it still never sounded as "alive" as the Buchla. It's all very personal of course. But if you're a football/soccer fan, I liken it to James Milner, so versatile & can play so many different positions but of course, he's no CRonaldo or Busquets or Van Djik or De Gea who are magical at what they do.

That the Rev2 can reasonably emulate a Juno or OB6 is the reason it's still here. OB6, despite its magic, couldn't emulate the Rev2 even remotely so it got sold.

[MKDVB]

If you use all your gear simultaneously I can also understand your approach... i do not work this way, I record Audio in a DAW in layers, one by one, so if I need to have more tracks sounding like a REV2, I simply record my REV2 more than once...

I once worked like you do as well... I used a huge mixer, and had every synth connected via MIDI to my MIDI DAW, and thus had the same problems with not being able to reuse any synth in a given project... but even then i never used any of them in multimode simply because of the frustrating case of FX always being global or polyphony running out... it had it's charm, but I eventually learned to accept the tradeoffs of doing Audio recording instead... though sometimes I miss that way of working... that is also why I wrote what I did about REV2 multimode because it would irritate me if I had to work with it like that. If you like working like that, by all means do that

And about editing a stacked program with two layers... yes... it will be cumbersome if you edit it from REV2's frontpanel controls because the knobs won't show their values once you change layer... personally I'd not even want to try and .......
tone on the other layer... with other sounds I use layer B for adding more FX, and for creating longer more modulated reverbs (the stock reverb in REV2 is not that good) by setting the FX MIX to 100%, and then copying Layer A to B, and giving layer B a longer release time... it creates a fake long ambient reverb this way... there are a lot of good uses for Layer B in stacked mode than simply layering programs together.

I find that my brain hears music differently when I have my "engineer" hat on than my "musician" hat. My process is moving close to how you work once I'm actually "rolling tape". Before then, I stay out of the DAW during writing & pre-production so I need to use most of my gear simultaneously. Probably a throwback from being in a band, where I ask the guys to keep playing the same part so I can work out my part (without the rolled eyes!). Once the song is in a semi-stable place, I'll record a full scratch track from the MIDI & then I work as you do, overdubbing as necessary for sound or performance & inevitably revising & adding parts.

Thanks for the really great tips on more nuanced uses of the B layer. That fake ambient reverb tip sounds ace & I'm really excited to try it out once I get a little breathing room.

The other way to look at Layer B is just an extension of layer A, where both layers have virtually identical oscillator, filter and envelope settings, but instead of having just two oscillators with a sub, you now have 4 fully controllable oscillators and two subs to work with. 

I've found that I often want a sub oscillator, but don't want it to be a square wave (sub is square by default), and I don't want it tied to Oscillator 1 in terms of frequency.   So I'll instead use layer B just to extend the oscillator palette, and set one of the Layer B oscillators one octave down, and then control wave type (I use triangle often, saw, or tri/saw)  Also, I like my sub oscillator to be more stable, while my other oscillators have some more movement / detuning.  Flubby bass can quickly ruin a patch...  By using this method, you can keep your sub stable and shape it as you like, and still have control over three more oscillators.   If you're making bass patches, I feel like this is an absolute must.  By using a sawtooth for sub, you can get huge, rippling bass tone, but still have clarity/stability.   And then just use detuning/motion on the upper oscillators.   

For patches where I don't intend a multi-timbral layered sound, my patch creation method usually consists of blocking out sound quickly on layer A, then copying it to layer B, and turning on stack... then proceeding to build out the patch, with a full palette of six oscillators.

Also, setting pan mode to fixed and DC offsetting "extended patches" like this to -32 left and +32 right results in an absolutely huge stereo image, where you have two oscillators and a sub running on each L/R channel...  This gives you a stereo architecture that is similar to the Poly Evolver (my other favorite board)... though not exactly the same.

Wow, these are some really great tips here. Looking forward to playing around with this, though I will try my hand w/ the front panel at first ... I love "playing" music & my gear but computer feels like "work" & kills my vibe a little.

Over the weekend, I was researching Sacred Synthesis' dual layer stereo technique which is similar to yours. What does the DC offsetting accomplish? The patch sounded awesome once I did this but once I got it in the DAW, I muted one of the layers  & the both the patch & song sounded better in context of the mix. I think one of the biggest strengths of the Rev2 is how it can fit in the mix, at least for the softer types of music I like to make.

tad. Keeping as many possibilities open as possible. Multi-mode isn't always that bad or compromising, sometimes to the contrary, it depends on the synth, but I suppose it's mainly digital ones and samplers that have a better implementation of it. Not all have shared global effects, and many have a lot of extra outputs, for routing through external effects as well. I have a Roland JV-2080 and an ASR-10R, both being somewhat versatile in this area. It saves a lot of space, which I don't have a lot of, and even though I don't use the extra outputs that often (the same being true for the Rev2), I love not being restricted to one pair of outputs or one patch per synth, should I need it at some point.

Sure, in a way I'd love to own lots of other synths too, but then again I really don't see the need to, even if I had the space. I've let a few good ones go not because of limited space or budget, but because they can only do so much, and I find it hard to justify keeping a synth or musical equipment just for that "one" sound or area at which they excel. I find myself wanting less and less rather than more actually, as I think I'm/we're in a way spoiled and/or distracted by too many possibilities and too much equipment. Limitations often fuel creativity, while at the same time I want each piece of equipment being as versatile and capable as possible. I think of it as being "economic" in ways other than monetarily. That's where the Rev2 comes in, for me, and then getting the most bang for the buck at the same time doesn't hurt. I know it cannot exactly "replicate" the character of some other synths, but it can probably get close enough for me in most cases, imo. I understand why some would want a P6 and an OB6 to compliment the Rev2, but personally I couldn't justify getting either. The Rev2 has so much more potential in sound design, that I don't see the point. I'm not saying those who do are splitting hairs, but if I were to get one I'd sure feel like I was doing just that. It might not be as "immediate" as those, but for those of us who actually LIKE programming sounds, well...

Though I, at times, have been on the fence about parting ways with the Rev2, I probably never will. I just don't see anything around that could replace it atm, as I'd prefer to have just ONE analog poly-synth.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't get the Rev2 thinking it'd be great as a multi-timbral instrument or controller.  I didn't care about multi-mode but one day, needed another voice w/ my band & figured let's see if this works. And it worked just fine. I love it when my gear proves more useful than I even expected. It's also my main controller because I love the keybed but obviously it's quite limited compared to digital synths/workstations. If DSI implemented splits that could receive & output midi on split channels (receives already there w/ multimode), that would increase its attractiveness in the market.

I think we share similar philosophies on streamlined studio. Benefits & drawbacks to anything, really. Going deep with an instrument can yield new depths but playing a new instrument can also unleash new inspiration. But I had an OB6 here & I know exactly why someone would want both.  It doesn't always work (probably won't more often than not) but when it does, it has that magic "it" quality.  It's this "it" quality that I wish the Rev2 had. I copied my favorite OB6 pad into the Rev2 & got about 90% there. Eh, ok but not magical. I even sampled the pad & got 97% there ... still no magic. I wish I had kept the OB6 until after we finished this track but every day it stayed tempted me to keep it & I need to stay married more than I need this one magical sound that I'd only use once in a while. The other sounds were good too if you like that classic vintage buzzy analog synth sound  (sorry not a real synth nerd) but I'm not drawn to those as much.

in me.  The Rev2 is 85-90% there.... it's just my main use scenarios make bare the harsher Curtis sound.  Still, I'm inching closer as I program her more.

And +100 on a polyphonic Pro2.  Five octaves, bi-timbral, and aftertouch.... take my $$$$

That's how I feel about it .. the Rev2 is an 85%-90% of everything type of analog synth for me, except when it comes to modulations.

And a poly Pro2 would need a better keybed ... coming from the Rev2, I was astonished how cheap that Pro2 key felt. Sounded awesome though but one voice not enough!

[psionic11]

If DSI implemented splits that could receive & output midi on split channels (receives already there w/ multimode), that would increase its attractiveness in the market.

The Rev2 can both receive and send on 2 separate, consecutive MIDI channels.  I have mine set to base channel 2, Multimode on. 

My Kronos keyboard plays on channel 1, triggering its own internal sounds as well as the Integra's sounds on channel 1.

The Rev2 plays the Kronos combis where I set my bass sounds to channel 2, and lead sounds on channel 3. 

Likewise, the Rev2 plays the Integra's sounds on channels 2 and 3.

The Kronos is the master sending program changes to everyone else.  With the Rev2 in Multimode, you have to send program changes explicitly on ch2 and ch3 in order for both layer A and layer B to play the desired programs.

There are 2 main glitches: 

One is that the Rev2 display doesn't update the Bank/Program number on the display (leaves the former bank/program # on screen), showing only the name of the layer A program called via external MIDI PC. 

The other is that aftertouch only gets transmitted on ch2, no way to turn that off and instead turn on ch3 aftertouch, like the way most other boards and controllers can.  I don't need aftertouch on bass sounds, I need it on lead sounds.  I finally gave in and got a Mio4 to rechannelize aftertouch to ch3.  HTH

[MKDVB]

Holy smokeballs, thank you for setting me straight! Tested it out last night, works great for everything I need. It would be nice to have more zones but it's an analog synth so that seems a bit greedy. Love having all these knobs to map my Deluge engine or tweaking the Juno when playing it from Rev2.

That aftertouch bug is weird as seems all other ext MIDI & CC gets transmitted properly when switching between A/B layers. Seems an easy fix but famous last words in software!

I guess you've already solved your problem but if they implemented ability to assign midi channels to A/B layers, that would be great & would have solved your issue as well.

If DSI implemented splits that could receive & output midi on split channels (receives already there w/ multimode), that would increase its attractiveness in the market.

The Rev2 can both receive and send on 2 separate, consecutive MIDI channels.  I have mine set to base channel 2, Multimode on. 

My Kronos keyboard plays on channel 1, triggering its own internal sounds as well as the Integra's sounds on channel 1.

The Rev2 plays the Kronos combis where I set my bass sounds to channel 2, and lead sounds on channel 3. 

Likewise, the Rev2 plays the Integra's sounds on channels 2 and 3.

The Kronos is the master sending program changes to everyone else.  With the Rev2 in Multimode, you have to send program changes explicitly on ch2 and ch3 in order for both layer A and layer B to play the desired programs.

There are 2 main glitches: 

One is that the Rev2 display doesn't update the Bank/Program number on the display (leaves the former bank/program # on screen), showing only the name of the layer A program called via external MIDI PC. 

The other is that aftertouch only gets transmitted on ch2, no way to turn that off and instead turn on ch3 aftertouch, like the way most other boards and controllers can.  I don't need aftertouch on bass sounds, I need it on lead sounds.  I finally gave in and got a Mio4 to rechannelize aftertouch to ch3.  HTH

[Sleep of Reason]

And a poly Pro2 would need a better keybed ... coming from the Rev2, I was astonished how cheap that Pro2 key felt.

Never tried the Pro2, but the action is way too light on the REV2 for my taste.