Rev 2 firmware is it just me?

[LPF83]

Something else will come up and then you have twice the troubleshooting...Twice the everything. Probably near the top of the list when it comes to a coder's worst nightmares.

Not only this, but the moment anyone with any Sequential product hears that alternate OS versions are available for one instrument in the product line up, they will want alternate OSes that cater to their specific wishlist for the OB-6, Prophet 12, Tempest, etc..  So add a random multiplier variable to twice the everything...

I learned a long time ago that software development of any kind is one of the most thankless jobs on the face of the planet.  Everything that's done right gets taken for granted, while simultaneously every flaw (a flaw being anything that doesn't please everyone) is brought to the surface and magnified.

I suppose I will be long dead and gone before the politically correct movement catches up and declares a national holiday called "programmers admiration day" or something, to help pacify all the angry coders that have torn down statues of anything resembling a perfectionistic customer

[maxter]

Yes, definitely not the "preferred" route like I said, I'm fully aware... I'm just saying as long as the gated sequencer bugs can get squashed, I don't mind sacrificing other functionality.

If it should, in the end, boil down to having to do something like this (ie to sacrifice some functions while prioritizing others), OR not getting an update AT ALL because of difficulties fitting EVERY bug fix in there... I'd go with the former rather than latter.

Sometimes you have to make sacrifices, and if this should be the case here, I'm all for it instead of "abandoning ship" altogether because everything can't be crammed in there.

In my personal opinion, I think the focus (priorities) should lie first with making the Rev2 capable of what the P'08 is, so it could indeed fulfill the claim of being a "Rev2". I'd consider the rest "extra", and if we can't get EVERYTHING, so be it. I just want the P'08 with a little extra (the extra modslots and waveshapes is enough for me), and I'm happy.

I'm not saying that 2 OSs is a good idea, don't get me wrong, I know it's a bad idea, but that wasn't really my point. I'm just saying if it CAN'T be done the "preferred" perfect way, that I can live with sacrifices... and I think some others could too, and would agree. If this makes the OS update more plausible, possible, easier on Pym, or anything like that, I'm just saying "don't reach for the stars, and let's settle for what we possibly COULD get, realistically".

I guess I'm TRYING to not live in dreamland anymore, expecting a perfect OS in the end. I don't think that's a reasonable expectation due to the circumstances described by Pym. So... a dual OS solution is a really bad one, which I hinted at initially in my previous post, but I could live with worse solutions, as long as the Rev2 gets P'08 functionality... that's my point, NOT that we should have 2 OSs. That was just a bad example of a "solution".

I get your points as well and agree fully of course! Just wanted to get my point across. That anything is better than the current state. WHATEVER the solution and sacrifices, and the solution being far from perfect, IF that's the only way it could happen AT ALL in the end, then GO for it instead of giving it up fully! I'm assuming there may not be an optimal or perfect solution in this case.

[RobustAmerican]

Something else will come up and then you have twice the troubleshooting...Twice the everything. Probably near the top of the list when it comes to a coder's worst nightmares.

Not only this, but the moment anyone with any Sequential product hears that alternate OS versions are available for one instrument in the product line up, they will want alternate OSes that cater to their specific wishlist for the OB-6, Prophet 12, Tempest, etc..  So add a random multiplier variable to twice the everything...

I learned a long time ago that software development of any kind is one of the most thankless jobs on the face of the planet.  Everything that's done right gets taken for granted, while simultaneously every flaw (a flaw being anything that doesn't please everyone) is brought to the surface and magnified.

I suppose I will be long dead and gone before the politically correct movement catches up and declares a national holiday called "programmers admiration day" or something, to help pacify all the angry coders that have torn down statues of anything resembling a perfectionistic customer

Indeed.

I have a tiny bit of experience, from another life, writing "music" code for the Gameboy and Gameboy Advanced. It was funny to me, at the time, that my tiny text files (songs) could push things into the red zone. Music and effects were always the last to be fully implemented and that's when you start hitting walls and weird interdependencies.

[maxter]

Actually, I just realized there already ARE at least 2 OSs. There's an older official, and the newer Beta. AND there's the 1.9.x too, right? I don't know if there have been a lot of requests for dual OSs for other synths due to the existence of the last mentioned, but I wouldn't think so...

It wouldn't have to be as bad as the examples, with requests to do multiple OSs for every synth. Just call it "Beta" version or whatever, as long as we can get the P'08 functionality in some form or another.

I could live with sacrificing a pinky-toe for the cause, if you need one in the process.   

[RobustAmerican]

Actually, I just realized there already ARE at least 2 OSs. There's an older official, and the newer Beta. AND there's the 1.9.x too, right? I don't know if there have been a lot of requests for dual OSs for other synths due to the existence of the last mentioned, but I wouldn't think so...

It wouldn't have to be as bad as the examples, with requests to do multiple OSs for every synth. Just call it "Beta" version or whatever, as long as we can get the P'08 functionality in some form or another.

I could live with sacrificing a pinky-toe for the cause, if you need one in the process.   

The beta and official versions are 2 very different things even though the code is nearly identical. A beta is usually archived when the official becomes official. No need to go back to the beta ever again in a near perfect world. This would still be adding another version that would have to be wrangled if an issue presents itself.

I don't know Pym at all besides what I've read on these forums. Who knows? He might be up for that...

[maxter]

Just saying the 1.9.x has been around for some time... is it called a Beta version? I don’t know, nor care.

All I know is this:

ANY solution > NO solution

[shiihs]

The OS is full on the DSP. There is nothing more we can do for a large category of bugs, period. We (myself included) spent a long time trying to optimize it for size constraints and we reached a wall. While it may not feel like we've spent any time on it, we definitely have. Have you written assembly code where you are literally down to 16 bits of space left and have to add more without losing functionality?

The one thing that could (and probably ought to) be done is learning for the future.  Either the synth suffers from serious feature creep or it is vastly underspecced. Working in assembly with 16bits of space left is not really of this time and age anymore.

[dcarmich]

I've admired Dave Smith and the Sequential brand ever since the classic BBC Rockschool "Digital Age Hardware" episode in 1987, and have been considering a Rev2 as part of my system. (You can listen to my tracks here: http://soundcloud.com/douglas-1)

I'd be using the Rev2 (most likely) along with three other hardware pieces (OB-6, Peak, and Roland MC-707) along with some Elektron gear (Analog Four/Rytm, Digitone, Heat) but these discussions about serious unfixed bugs make me feel less confident in the product. (I'm also thinking of a Prophet-6 along with the OB-6, but the price/performance ratio of the Rev2 is very attractive especially in the 16-voice model.)

Would you still buy a Rev2 today even with the issues it has?

[Pym]

This isn't entirely true. It's a matter of different users expecting/wanting different things.

Some users need it to be under a certain price point

Some users value stability and simplicity over all else

Some users value innovations and want to grow with us as we experiment with new features and ways of making music and designing sounds

There are many other perspectives

So some users will say "too much feature creep, just make it work!" and some users will say "I want new features to inspire me!"

Balancing all that isn't just difficult, in some cases it is mutually exclusive. But we continue to push forth new features, new designs, etc, to try and find the right point between everything. And, of course, literally the MOMENT the product is out the door the goalposts change. Hindsight always teaches us lessons and I've learned a lot from the Rev2. Just like I learned a lot from everything else we've done. You can see from the products coming after the Rev2 we did indeed scale back the feature set and the complexity in many ways. In the next round maybe we'll go more complex, maybe we'll go even more simple, it's really hard to tell before you make the final design decisions.

The OS is full on the DSP. There is nothing more we can do for a large category of bugs, period. We (myself included) spent a long time trying to optimize it for size constraints and we reached a wall. While it may not feel like we've spent any time on it, we definitely have. Have you written assembly code where you are literally down to 16 bits of space left and have to add more without losing functionality?

The one thing that could (and probably ought to) be done is learning for the future.  Either the synth suffers from serious feature creep or it is vastly underspecced. Working in assembly with 16bits of space left is not really of this time and age anymore.

[Sacred Synthesis]

Would you still buy a Rev2 today even with the issues it has?

In spite of the problems mentioned in this thread, I would still consider buying a Rev2. 

The Prophet '08 is my favorite synthesizer, and the Rev2 is the closest thing one can find to a brand new P'08.  The extra features of the newer instrument are only of moderate interest to me.  The improved keybed quality is of foremost value, together with the greater number of voices.  The other features are a matter of personal indifference.  And although bugs remain, I would still be interested to put a Rev2 through the paces, compare it with my P'08, and then make a decision. 

I understand the frustration that certain hopes and expectations were not fulfilled with the Rev2.  But the instrument, as it stands, offers more than enough for my purposes, although I would still prefer a new Prophet '08.

[MPM]

Would you still buy a Rev2 today even with the issues it has?

Disregarding the issues, no I wouldn't. Firstly, I'd try to get the Low Frequency Expanders for my OB~6 and P6, which would give them greater capability.

[MPM]

So some users will say "too much feature creep, just make it work!" and some users will say "I want new features to inspire me!"

Balancing all that isn't just difficult, in some cases it is mutually exclusive.

If one buys a Toyota Corolla, they humbly expect it to function as advertised. Maybe fix a deadly airbag, or tweak the ECU. If anyone asked them to make it perform like a Ferrari, the answer would be,"Go buy a Ferrari".

[maxter]

Would you still buy a Rev2 today even with the issues it has?

Well, personally, I wouldn't, I'd go with a used P'08 instead.

I understand that different users want different things, and it may not have been the best idea to cram everything they tried to do into the Rev2.

Personally, I only wanted a fully working Prophet '08 with the "extensions" but not the "extra" functions. I mean the extended wave-shaping, and the extended mod-matrix. (The extended/upgraded slop mode is also nice of course.)

The extras, such as arpeggiator and polysequencer (both of which aren't working good enough to be very usable, imo, compared to all others I've personally used) I wouldn't mind losing. I still wonder how much code the polysequencer eats up, I'm guessing a LOT... I also wonder how many users, if any, actually USE the quirky polysequencer... A lot better arpeggiators and sequencers are so readily available on DAWs, apps and hardware, and wasn't part of the original P'08.

The effects however, I think was a smart decision to add, not because I absolutely love or actually need them, but I can see how it makes the Rev2 a lot more convenient "road-worthy" live instrument (good for sales), as you don't have to patch up external effects, and so on, for a little delay or reverb. Also, some FX work nicely as sound-shaping tools, like the added HPF was a good idea...

Don't get me wrong, NEW added features is (almost) always nice (except if they clog the wheels as in this case), but when calling something Rev2, at least make sure it's able to do what Rev1 is capable of, first and foremost... or name it something else, completely different. Calling it Rev2 and promising the functionality of the P'08 makes people expect to get just that. The rest, extras and additions, could be argued about...

[dcarmich]

Would you still buy a Rev2 today even with the issues it has?

Personally, I only wanted a fully working Prophet '08 with the "extensions" but not the "extra" functions. I mean the extended wave-shaping, and the extended mod-matrix. (The extended/upgraded slop mode is also nice of course.)

The extras, such as arpeggiator and polysequencer (both of which aren't working good enough to be very usable, imo, compared to all others I've personally used) I wouldn't mind losing. I still wonder how much code the polysequencer eats up, I'm guessing a LOT... I also wonder how many users, if any, actually USE the quirky polysequencer... A lot better arpeggiators and sequencers are so readily available on DAWs, apps and hardware, and wasn't part of the original P'08.

Don't get me wrong, NEW added features is (almost) always nice (except if they clog the wheels as in this case), but when calling something Rev2, at least make sure it's able to do what Rev1 is capable of, first and foremost... or name it something else, completely different. Calling it Rev2 and promising the functionality of the P'08 makes people expect to get just that. The rest, extras and additions, could be argued about...

I agree 100%. I'm not a Rev2 owner (yet) but after dealing with the same "overpromising, under delivering" in countless products in the IT industry, I'd rather have basic functions that work than a cornucopia of functions that don't always work.

[Sacred Synthesis]

I agree 100%. I'm not a Rev2 owner (yet) but after dealing with the same "overpromising, under delivering" in countless products in the IT industry, I'd rather have basic functions that work than a cornucopia of functions that don't always work.

Exactly.  I would have preferred to have had the Prophet '08 kept in production just as it was.  My interest in the Rev2 has only to do with the fact that there is no other means of finding a brand new Prophet '08.  If you were to put a new P'08 and a new Rev2 in front of me, I'd probably choose the former.  However, I do intend to try a Rev2, in the hopes that my opinion could be changed.

My main two complaints across the board about synthesizers are that, first, they are kept in production for far too short a period of time, in an effort to constantly feed the consumerist monster with new products; and second, that simple meat-and-potatoes poly synths are hard to find.  The P'08 is the classic example.  And the P5/10 Rev4s are way out of my price range.  Otherwise, I'd go in that direction.   I'm firmly in the category of those who believe that less is often more. 

[Invisible Homes]

Long time lurker on this board, if there is one update left I want to see this prioritized. I think this is the single biggest tonal issue on the Rev2 and, since it is a matter of calibrating range, it is not a high bandwidth improvement. I hope you will adopt this since the workaround eats up another mod matrix lane.

Problem: One of the most common complaints about the Rev2 is the filter. This may in part be about the cutoff knob range. It is set up in an odd way so that the peak of the curve is at 20 KHz when the knob is around 12 o'clock.* Most of the usable range is in only half of the knob range. Further, the knob bottoms out just below 200 Hz!. This leaves an octave of filter range out. This is most noticeable in 12dB mode. See attached screenshots of filter with noise and resonance up to show cutoff point.

Current workaround
I used DC offsetting in the mod matrix to lower the range and it improved the filter so much. I suspect many people would say the synth is "warmer" and has "more bass" if the cutoff is implemented properly. At a -60% DC mod matrix routing to cutoff, the filter peak starts to descend at 5 o'clock on the knob and arrives in the 20 Hz range or lower. This vastly improves the filter range and to my ears creates a tonal variation and improvement (esp. in the 12 db mode).

For update/bug fix:
Option 1: Re-calibrate the knob range to reflect the above.
Option 2: Add a filter range option for an alternate knob calibration or scaling of the knob range (i.e. moves more range in the middle of the frequency/knob range).


*After a fresh calibration.

[Sacred Synthesis]

Thanks, Invisible Homes.  That's considered a feature, though, rather than a bug.

[RobustAmerican]

Would you still buy a Rev2 today even with the issues it has?

Yes, unequivocally yes! You get so much BANG for the BUCK and it sounds pretty damn nice as well.

[Invisible Homes]

Thanks, Invisible Homes.  That's considered a feature, though, rather than a bug.

Yes, of course you are right. That's the correct term. It's not a "bug" exactly. Since, however, this addresses a nagging and widely-held criticism of the REV2, it is hard to just call it a "feature request." Nomenclature aside, I hope that this is something that can be addressed in the last update.

I'm actually surprised that this issue and fix hasn't come up earlier in all the REV2 chatter. I've read so many threads on all the pages, but perhaps I missed something? I find it strange that the knob bottoms out at 200 Hz and that so much of its range is dedicated to 15 KHz+. As noted, that leaves a whole octave of range unaddressed on the low end and limits the resolution of the middle range where so much of the interesting stuff happens. From a sound design perspective I can actually understand the value in certain contexts (i.e. for less muddy pads etc), but it also limits filter response range in a way that isn't reflected on any of the other synths/filters I have. For bass oriented sounds, that range is essential and it warms up filter "wubs" considerably when using a slower attack and decay. I think it also makes the 12 dB filter so much more useful (and I already liked it).

The DC offset I used was -60, but YMMV. I suspect somewhere in the -50s is the sweet spot for the maximum range. [Edit/update: this seems to be the case for the balance with negative envelopes]. I'm curious to hear others experience and perspective on this.

Having a range option would be so nice and it would probably quiet some of the lingering criticism of the low end on the synth. It is a great compliment to Creative Spiral's amazing VCM work.

[Sacred Synthesis]

I'm just saying it won't be "fixed."  There's only a slim possibility of bugs being resolved, but it's certain no features will be added.