What Is the New Andromeda?

[LoboLives]

I don't know what else DSI can do in the analog realm that'll be mind blowing except for multitimbrality...I'd love to see Dave tackle that....not sure he would though. I just feel anything else is redundant at this point when it comes to analog. Probably why I didn't go for an OB6 or Deep Mind 12...it's just a mono timbral analog synth with very little difference to my Prophet 6. I'll probably go for a Rev2 at some point just cause it's different but even still...duo timbrality has been done decades ago...let's move on.

I used to think the same way about multi-timbrality, though it's tough to do well without a more elaborate MIDI master keyboard controller framework (like the Ensoniq stuff had, but that the DSI synths lack). I'd rather see split/layer done well than multitimbral done poorly. (I'd guess that the Tempest falls into the multitimbral category, but lacks the need for keyboard zone mapping.)

I understand that but I'd rather see something all under the hood. I just never understood how it's possible that vintage synths could have more features and capability than newer ones.

[DavidDever]

I don't know what else DSI can do in the analog realm that'll be mind blowing except for multitimbrality...I'd love to see Dave tackle that....not sure he would though. I just feel anything else is redundant at this point when it comes to analog. Probably why I didn't go for an OB6 or Deep Mind 12...it's just a mono timbral analog synth with very little difference to my Prophet 6. I'll probably go for a Rev2 at some point just cause it's different but even still...duo timbrality has been done decades ago...let's move on.

I used to think the same way about multi-timbrality, though it's tough to do well without a more elaborate MIDI master keyboard controller framework (like the Ensoniq stuff had, but that the DSI synths lack). I'd rather see split/layer done well than multitimbral done poorly. (I'd guess that the Tempest falls into the multitimbral category, but lacks the need for keyboard zone mapping.)

I understand that but I'd rather see something all under the hood. I just never understood how it's possible that vintage synths could have more features and capability than newer ones.

I don't think it's about features and capability, per se, but more about usability. The Poly Evolver is a perfect example of that which can go wrong with a multitimbral implementation; the Tempest, on the other hand, works quite well (in its guise as a drum machine).

I don't think we'll see another A6, largely because it was a failure outside of its niche (setting aside its sound-generation technology). And I'd say that the Waldorf Q was equally guilty of the same issues (even though it was a DSP-based, virtual-analogue instrument); both suffered from a lack of a well-designed polyphonic sketchpad sequencer, a feature that would appeal to musicians across a broader range of genres and styles than, say, arpeggiators / step sequencers of a particular opinionated bent.

Barring that sketchpad functionality, the additional parts would probably be underutilized by most players (or could easily be accommodated instead by using external sound sources, pointing back towards my remark about master controller functionality being a fundamental requirement).

[LoboLives]

I don't know what else DSI can do in the analog realm that'll be mind blowing except for multitimbrality...I'd love to see Dave tackle that....not sure he would though. I just feel anything else is redundant at this point when it comes to analog. Probably why I didn't go for an OB6 or Deep Mind 12...it's just a mono timbral analog synth with very little difference to my Prophet 6. I'll probably go for a Rev2 at some point just cause it's different but even still...duo timbrality has been done decades ago...let's move on.

I used to think the same way about multi-timbrality, though it's tough to do well without a more elaborate MIDI master keyboard controller framework (like the Ensoniq stuff had, but that the DSI synths lack). I'd rather see split/layer done well than multitimbral done poorly. (I'd guess that the Tempest falls into the multitimbral category, but lacks the need for keyboard zone mapping.)

I understand that but I'd rather see something all under the hood. I just never understood how it's possible that vintage synths could have more features and capability than newer ones.

I don't think it's about features and capability, per se, but more about usability. The Poly Evolver is a perfect example of that which can go wrong with a multitimbral implementation; the Tempest, on the other hand, works quite well (in its guise as a drum machine).

I don't think we'll see another A6, largely because it was a failure outside of its niche (setting aside its sound-generation technology). And I'd say that the Waldorf Q was equally guilty of the same issues (even though it was a DSP-based, virtual-analogue instrument); both suffered from a lack of a well-designed polyphonic sketchpad sequencer, a feature that would appeal to musicians across a broader range of genres and styles than, say, arpeggiators / step sequencers of a particular opinionated bent.

Barring that sketchpad functionality, the additional parts would probably be underutilized by most players (or could easily be accommodated instead by using external sound sources, pointing back towards my remark about master controller functionality being a fundamental requirement).

I'd still like more than one split point though...even if it's only four patches at once...it's at least something fresh. This is why I'd love to see the idea of the PEK or Tempest synth engine in a new synth and expanded on. Two analog oscillators, two digital oscillators with FM capabilities, VS waves and sampling capabilities. Either samples from the old Prophet 2000 or the ability to import your own samples via an editor. Have the ability to have 4 zones or stack four layers, sequencer on each and call it the Prophet X. In reference to crossing over different types of synthesis.

[Shaw]

I've never read or heard this, but somehow I get the impression that Dave's answer to multi-timbrality is "get another synth".
In a way, that makes sense. Multi-timbrality with 1 synth engine duplicated 2, 3 or 4 times may not be as interesting as 2, 3 or 4 synth engines layered. 

[Sacred Synthesis]

And that's the course I've followed.  The more an instrument's multi-timbrality increases, the smaller it becomes.  That's why I'm content with bi-timbrality and much prefer to pair keyboard and module versions.  It's expensive, alright, but it's the best way to get an immense sound and yet maintain polyphony.

[DavidDever]

I'd still like more than one split point though...even if it's only four patches at once...it's at least something fresh. This is why I'd love to see the idea of the PEK or Tempest synth engine in a new synth and expanded on. Two analog oscillators, two digital oscillators with FM capabilities, VS waves and sampling capabilities. Either samples from the old Prophet 2000 or the ability to import your own samples via an editor. Have the ability to have 4 zones or stack four layers, sequencer on each and call it the Prophet X. In reference to crossing over different types of synthesis.

That's not a bad idea at all (said the guy with a Prophet 2000).

Consider the ARP Quadra in its time: bass mono, lead mono, strings and polyphony in one package; I think that four parts is just about right. If they're configurable to be spread over two internal + two external parts, with a Mix Input much like the Poly Evolver Rack, that'd be a nice setup (say, along the lines of a Prophet-12 + REV2 desktop).

That said–I suspect that once you add more parts, keyboard real estate starts to become a consideration. I'm not sure that DSI wants to get back into the large-format controller keyboard business* (in spite of the Prophet-T8's keybed), but there are 76-note A-C span synthesizer keybeds available through their existing supplier channels.

* - Without projecting my own history onto others, I can definitely relate to a dual-manual 61-key + pedalboard worldview, where timbres might split or layer themselves somewhere in the middle of the key range. But I doubt that we'd ever see something like the Prophet-10 again, perhaps for our own good.

[DavidDever]

I've never read or heard this, but somehow I get the impression that Dave's answer to multi-timbrality is "get another synth".
In a way, that makes sense. Multi-timbrality with 1 synth engine duplicated 2, 3 or 4 times may not be as interesting as 2, 3 or 4 synth engines layered.

Yep - guilty as charged. There's something to be said for layering multiple distinct sound sources across one keyboard surface (the MIDI kids!), provided that you don't end up with "00  Piano+strgz1"-style cliches.

[LoboLives]

I'd still like more than one split point though...even if it's only four patches at once...it's at least something fresh. This is why I'd love to see the idea of the PEK or Tempest synth engine in a new synth and expanded on. Two analog oscillators, two digital oscillators with FM capabilities, VS waves and sampling capabilities. Either samples from the old Prophet 2000 or the ability to import your own samples via an editor. Have the ability to have 4 zones or stack four layers, sequencer on each and call it the Prophet X. In reference to crossing over different types of synthesis.

That's not a bad idea at all (said the guy with a Prophet 2000).

Consider the ARP Quadra in its time: bass mono, lead mono, strings and polyphony in one package; I think that four parts is just about right. If they're configurable to be spread over two internal + two external parts, with a Mix Input much like the Poly Evolver Rack, that'd be a nice setup (say, along the lines of a Prophet-12 + REV2 desktop).

That said–I suspect that once you add more parts, keyboard real estate starts to become a consideration. I'm not sure that DSI wants to get back into the large-format controller keyboard business* (in spite of the Prophet-T8's keybed), but there are 76-note A-C span synthesizer keybeds available through their existing supplier channels.

* - Without projecting my own history onto others, I can definitely relate to a dual-manual 61-key + pedalboard worldview, where timbres might split or layer themselves somewhere in the middle of the key range. But I doubt that we'd ever see something like the Prophet-10 again, perhaps for our own good.

The design of the Quadra proves you don't need a massive amount of real estate....even just have four OLED Displays on each section. However, I would prefer they ditch doing that and just stick to the P6/OB6 layout with numbers and no menu. Everything on the front. In fact that's where I think the REV2 design lacked. Simply take two module size panels and place them side by side with some knobs and buttons in the middle for (Mix, Split, Layer, Assign, Destination). That way both parts can be accessed at once and you also have random patch access on each.

With a Quadra type synth...just do two rows of modules side by side. I'm not sure how much real estate it would take up but I don't think it would be ridiculously massive.