Dave Smith Instruments SYNTHESIZERS

Well, i don´t care about total CC control that much. I am happy with
the evolver. It would be enough for me when dsi could add just a few
new "modulators" like those already excist ( Modwheel:depth
Dest:unknown, breath etc..) 

And those new "modulators" should implemented in two ways:

a: 
as CC´s ( to control with your sequencer software and external controler )=


b: (and more important for me)
as new Modulator slots at the Evolvers User Interface !
( i was already talking about that and how it can be implementated. I
see no Problem there ! .. ) 

But note that dave has already ansered our wishes 2 weeks ago! And he
said that it MAY be happen ! Also he said that he has to do Updates
then for both - evo and poly. I guess that means hard work to do.
Personally i like the idea of individual OS versions. One for standart
users and one for crazy scientists... hehe.. ( that will never happen
anyway)

-phono




--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, "mr julian" <jujulilianan@w...> wrote:
> 
> 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...  which I
guess
> is fair enough, and better than nothing - but it's just something to
keep in
> mind. I think its safe to assume that CCs will never be a viable way to
> fully program the synth, however there is definately a place to
assign them
> for realtime parameter modulation by sequencer...
> 
> 
> For what you are all asking, there are two things to do.. globally
assign
> CCs to parameters for all patches, which would mean that your basic
setup
> would be compatible with a single generic set of controllers and
whatever
> you wanted to edit would work... but the downside is there will only be
> about 120 CCs you can have assigned, which means some parameters
will never
> be controllable via CC. and chances are, somethig specific like a
particular
> brand of wind controller might have problems if it can't set
different CCs
> for the desired parameters...
> 
> The other option would be to have the CCs assignable per patch...
but then
> you get upto 120 CCs controlling 120 different parameters on each
patch =
> HELL for controlling your synth generally.  you would need to work
out what
> parameters you wanted to modulate in a patch, and then assign CCs to
> parameters before you could use them.. 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...
> 
> so everyone.. what exactly do you want (within these limits)? and
thinking
> about how it already works, how exactly do you want this new
functionality
> to work?
> 
> Maybe start with a list of what parameters everyone actually cares about
> having realtime sequencable CC power over?
> 
> 
> 
> julian