It's time for the Sequential Poly Evolver REV2

[Old Kid]

Yes it's time. I mean we've seen the REV2 for the Prophet '08. We've seen REV2, REV3 and REV4 for the Prophet 5.
And now when you look at the current playfield and what synths are sold today, so many are so much closer to the Poly Evolver as back then when it was released. Back then nothing came close, it was wat ahead in it's time. But that time is now.

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

[timboréale]

This is a perfect time and place for me to ask a question that's been bugging me for a while, and I ask it in total seriousness, not ever having gotten my mitts on a PEK:

What's so special about the Poly Evolver, today?

What does it do or do differently that other synths don't?
What's the secret awesome that people rave about?
How is it meaningfully different from, say, a Hydrasynth or a Nord Wave 2?
Would a multitimbral Pro3 with a second digital oscillator be the same thing?
Given that the Prophet 12 has shown that all digital oscillators do a fantastic job of "being analogue" when they care to be (and yes, I'm aware that there are other digital virtual analogue oscillator algos that other people might prefer - but the point remains that digital oscs are in all meaningful senses as good as analogue) - what's the difference between a P12 and a PEK2, for that matter, other than more / different wavetables?

You can tell by these questions that the spec sheet doesn't really convey to me whatever's magic about this machine, and that I'm not trying to stir up a pot of hornets here. I just do honestly want to comprehend what's the meaningful special bits about this, so that I can understand the fun everybody else seems to be having.

[Soundquest]

 timboréale,

I'm sure you'll get a bunch of answers of what makes it great.   The point I think I'd like to emphasize is that the PEK always stays a favorite of mine, and that's among the stiff competition, some of which you mentioned.  In short,  I just think its the most different sounding than the rest.  I recognized that sound difference in the early videos I watched on YouTube before I owned one.  But having it on hand and compared to the others- that difference becomes really apparent.  Some of that sound is perhaps hard to describe, and subtle.  If you allow an analogy... I have my favorite National  Forest that I go to in West Virginia, but there's one particular section that is just superb.  Without being there oneself,  it might be hard for me to describe that particular spot it to someone without it sounding the same as any other part of the area. Even pictures might not convey exactly why.  But I can list a few things I think most differentiate PEK from the other trees in the forest:

Stereo field: native, simple wide, or adjustable to narrow.  Nothing else spreads in my headphones like this.  Summit set to wide diverge, UDO in binural mode both sound cool as hell, but this really takes the cake.
Filter spread- as I call it-  between two filters I find good for mod option in pads.
The digital wave shapes picked for this offer just about anything I really need. They're quite good actually.  In comparison, I rarely make it thru the first 1/3 of the Hydrasynths wave shapes. I love the Hydra, but maybe too many wave shape options to be useful.   And P12 morphing digitals shapes  was nice, but really too few shapes. 
Sequencer:  I use the editor for the sequencer.  I'm not a software sequencer guy so I don't know how this compares to that realm,  but this sequencer blows my other hardware (inboard & outboard) sequencers away.
Looks:  Come on, I had to put this in there   Coolest looking keyboard ever.

 

[chysn]

The only Evolver I ever owned was the original blue box. I never cared for the matrix interface, and that's why I parted with it. But it was a cool instrument with a great sound. The stereo analog filters really gave it a unique voice, and (other than Prophet X) that's a rare trait.

I personally don't think it's worth "REV2-ing," but a redesigned Evolver reboot would be welcome. Pro 3's analog oscillators and digital oscillator are better than anything the Evolver had, with a deeper modulation matrix and more versatile filters. The Pro 3 sequencer is more usable, of course.

Evolver's waveform format was flat; a single waveform was stretched across the entire key range. Pro 3's format divides waveforms into four key zones to allow better resolution at extreme ends of the range.

Basically everything about the Pro 3 is better than the Evolver, meaning that the addition of a truly stereo (filter per channel with independent modulation) signal path and a second one of those kick-ass wavetable oscillators would really be worthy of the Evolver: The Next Generation tradition.

Incidentally, Pro 3 owners who want to use Evolver waveforms may download custom wavetables of all of them:

• www.wav2pro3.com/?9309880ca7248b61b11caa42bf31f93c (1-16)
• www.wav2pro3.com/?1415de6642da3752732583f2507e43a0 (17-32)
• www.wav2pro3.com/?272d8fa789de53820ad61a012faeb3d2 (33-48)
• www.wav2pro3.com/?5ce5c82c5e362d624b6ff401ec183cfe (49-64)
• www.wav2pro3.com/?5c78b7dda2ef91fb008bc229a7d29e80 (65-80)
• www.wav2pro3.com/?c9f626ca54ae5f5c89e783c6a7ffc587 (81-94)

[Sacred Synthesis]

I'll second Soundquest's comments.  What I find distinctive and appealing in the Evolver (in my case, a Poly Evolver Keyboard-Poly Evolver Rack pair) is the stereo oscillators and filters and the particular digital wave shapes taken from the old Prophet VS.  To 2023 ears, I suppose the latter sound crude, but this crudeness has its own charm.  I generally prefer analog synthesis, but I find that the Evolver's imperfect digital wave shapes have a certain sparkle to them that is not common today.  They're flawed, that is, by modern standards, so that their upper range often has quite a bit of digital aliasing.  But I've had musical moments when that unplanned aliasing provided a beautiful effect that complimented the piece in ways I couldn't have arranged.  It's especially nice when a lot of reverb is being used.

The end result is that the Evolver is also recognizable; its voice is distinctive, which adds a bit of personalism to the music.

And yes, the appearance.  Goodness gracious, the Poly Evolver Keyboard is the most gorgeous instrument I've ever seen.  My other synthesizers won't even talk to her.

[timboréale]

Thanks for that, both of you! It sounds like some of the secret sauce can be had in other synths, but not the gestalt of it, all together in one. Not having heard one in person (and YT does nothing justice), I'm still not quite sure what that sound _is_, but its certainly more understandable to me how it might be different from all of these now. A bit like the Nord Lead is different from the Virus and other VAs - less on the spec sheet and more on the whole thing as a cohesive instrument (and the specific algorithmic choices internally which affect the sound).

Interesting that you both point out stereo filters - in fact one thing I do quite frequently on the P12 is to use the stack, duplicate the program from A to B, set DC pan on A to hard left, on B to hard right, and then tweak the filter between the two sides to give a more subtle yet very noticeable stereo width and spaciousness. Any further differences in the programs only serve to increase that sense in controlled ways, especially when they are differences in modulation or timing of envelopes, etc.

I agree there aren't enough wave options in the P12, but it's nice to know that there's some of the evolver-"ish" in it.

Well, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to seeing a Pro3 style hybrid with stereo filters, some carefully chosen mix of vintage and modern wavetables (or user-customizable so you can load Evolver tables if you like) - and perhaps the option to "let it alias" if you want to (the horror! -- but I hear what you mean, Sacred Synthesis, about aliasing into reverb sometimes working out very nicely).

So is the "Evolv"ing part of the Evolver the morphing between wavetables? Or the modulation? What was new about it that made it so "evolve-y" at the time?

[Sacred Synthesis]

I had a Prophet 12 for a short while and found it to be nothing like the Poly Evolver.  I had been considering the possibility of replacing my PEK-PER pair with the P12, but found it was out of the question.  To my ears, the PEK was warmer in tone, in spite of many of its digital wave shapes.  If you combine two analog sawtooths with two digital sawtooths, you have a gorgeously rich patch.  Whereas, I thought the P12 sounded more sterile, so that you had to work at warming it up.

Pardon me, but:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-CSFEgC2tTzYa70uOirGHIWGu72Pui8l

[Soundquest]

I thinks its interesting that the ASM with their Hydrasynth made sure their latest update included bit rate reduction on the wave forms to give that older grainer sound.  Its a desirable effect, somewhat intrinsic on the  PEK on the upper registers.   Just as desirable (apparently) as is commonplace now for manufactures introduction of "wobble" on all facets coming out of the oscillators.

 The fringes of the Evolver waveshapes, flat as was stated earlier, nevertheless do have an appeal to my ears.  But  it takes some finessing to get there.   When I was working on making my own waveshapes for the PEK, I often found that a tandem  arrangement of two very similar shapes produced the best result.  I would sample acoustic guitars for example, and get a pretty nice string sound.   This edginess at the upper end of the keyboard forces me to filter a little differently on the upper end, but that's part of its character. 

I agree with Sacred Synthesis that I didn't really sense a parallelism of PEK with P12.  I like my P12 a lot, but its a different beast.

Pro 3 as chysn mentioned,  really interests me a lot, though I really wish they had gone to the 4 voices like the Pro2, as I would have upgraded from the pro2.  While I still don't quite hear "poly evolver" from it,  I could see how it could be breeded with the old PEK to make a Revision of the PEK.  In this way they could borrow from the best technology Sequential has on hand, but still wrap it in a blue casing, full keyboard and original waves (+ new ones).






 

[Indigo V.]

What's so special about the Poly Evolver, today?

You can tell by these questions that the spec sheet doesn't really convey to me whatever's magic about this machine,

That's true, Spec sheets never tell anything about the "magic" of synthesizers. If it was all about the spec sheets we would only need one synthesizer company that made one synthesizer with all features you could think off.

If for one like the Poly Evolver simply for it's base sound quality. Even without any digital features used it is different enough from the Prophet for me to justify a purchase. It's a nice blend between lofi and hifi, very detailed and rich. The Karplus synthesis is the best I know, I like it better than the one of the Prophet 12 and all software solution I'm aware of (I think I tried them all). I also like that the Poly Evolver is 4 times multitimbral with 4 outputs.

Tbh. I'm not to keen about a new PE because they will change the sound again and it was perfect to me. More voices and a better multimbral management system is what I would like. More features, sure, but the base sound should not be changed for me.

[Sacred Synthesis]

I agree: an all-new Poly Evolver might not be what we want.  Personally, I would prefer a re-issue of the exact same instrument, but with at least some of the bugs fixed (and perhaps the blue and red lights dimmed at bit - beautiful though they are). 

From another approach, the PEK-PER pair for me is often a large eight-voice analog synthesizer.  I most often use two digital sawtooth wave shapes combined with two analog sawtooths or pulse width modulation for gorgeous stereo patches.  The instrument's reputation is understandably based on its distinctive digital wave shapes, but this need not be the case in daily use.  And this is why it's such a superb instrument: its flexibility allows it to be used in either way.