Dave Smith Instruments SYNTHESIZERS

>OK.. the one *major* issue with having CCs to control evolvers parameters,
>as discussed before, is that the evolver has more than 128 parameters that
>people might want to control... and there's only 120-ish available CCs per
>MIDI channel. The reason your other modern synths can have CCs assigned to
>parameters is simply because they don't have as many as evolver does....
>also, the evolver has a couple of parameters with ranges greater than
>0-127... which isn't so great seeing CCs only have that range of values.
>So any kind of extended CC control would be a compromise...


Yes, the evolver has more than 128 parameters.  But the point is you don't
need 120+ CC controllers at once!  The CC's on these modern synths, like the
Virus (which by the way does have more than 128 parameters to edit....) are
FREELY ASSIGNABLE to any parameter we want.  You are allowed to have CC's
and SYSEX going on at the same time.  You don't need to compromise between
the two.

All I'm asking is for MORE!  I don't need 128!  I'd never be editing 128
parameters at once.  10 Would be nice, 20 even better.  I only need to
assign the CC's I want to be editing for that particular patch.  So you see,
the limitation of 128 cc's vs the more than 128 parameters available is not
the issue here.  I can use my LFO's to modulate what I want, and the 10 or
more CC's to other parameters I happen to want to edit as well.

I like having fine control over as many parameters as possible.  I have used
10+ parameter changes at the same time going on.  CC's can be easily drawn
and edited in a DAW (as in my case, Cubase SX).  SYSEX cannot.  It takes me
minutes to do with CC what it would take for me 5 times as long to finely
edit SYSEX.


?. On top of all this... if you are to
>have a way to assign CCs to parameters, where would this functionality go
>on
>the programming matrix? remember none of us get a new front panel with a
>new
>OS update, so it's got to be something that fits around the way the
>existing
>code works, as well as being intuative enough that you can use it without
>any front panel notes, and just a 3 digit LED display...

>We have a great developer for our synth here, and he does obviously care
>about keeping us happy... that v2.0 update was excellent..... But if we're
>going to go asking for these kind of changes, can we at least work out a
>way
>to do it that won't make his beautiful synth a complete mess?  Also,
>providing a path to a solution is a much more powerful way of asking for
>somthing that you want, rather than just posing an open problem...

Adding Wave forms is not on the matrix, yet the capability is there.  An
editor update would be simple enough.  Adding CC's as modulation sources
would work quite easily with the current matrix setup.

I really don't understand how you think the Evolver's current functions
would be compromised.  Those who don't require the CC's need not be
concerned at all about them.  The same goes for people who don't use midi at
all, and just use the internal sequencing to program their synth.  These
people are note concerned with the midi parameters and therefore have no
need to read or know about them, how it functions, or how to access them.

>Maybe start with a list of what parameters everyone actually cares about
>having realtime sequencable CC power over?


Why hardcode CC's to specific parameters?  Make them freely assignable.
CC's 60 - 80 to whatever parameter of the Evolver you want. 

Now let me clarify that asking for this kind of an update is by no means
saying that I am unhappy with this synth.  I love it dearly.  But this in my
mind is a major limitation for how I work.

Can I work around it????  Yes... doesn't mean that I like it or don't wish
for an easier and better way.  

Robert

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.677 / Virus Database: 439 - Release Date: 5/4/2004