Dave Smith Instruments SYNTHESIZERS

The response from Dave (and from most users of the synth) did not make me confident that this would be fixed, at least in the foreseeable future. I therefore am exchanging mine for an Andromeda.

I ran into another issue that I found a bit disorienting. There are now quite a few midi controllers dedicated to specific programming parameters, which is good. the problem is that if you are actually using them from a sequencer, every time the synth receives one of these controllers, the focus on the display changes to the parameter that's being sent. So, it is not easy (to say the least) to see what you're doing if you're trying to edit another parameter as the sequence is playing.

In any case - it's a fine synth - but not for the way that I wanted to use it.

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "barzindaragahi" <barzind@...>
> I just bought one of thess keyboards, so haven't gotten that deep.  
> This problem sounds rather limiting.  We should request Dave to fix 
> it. 
> 
> --- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, "rgmccaig" <rgmccaig@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Gene,
> > 
> > I will chime in to say that as a fellow evolverist I can understand
> > and relate to your position on this. 
> > 
> > I own only an original mono evolver. But from my standpoint, a big
> > attraction of upgrading to poly-something would be tweaking 4 
> parallel
> > sequences with different timbres and inflections, working in 
> harmony.
> > It sounds like the limitation you mention makes this rather tricky.
> > 
> > Anyway, I am very happy with my evolver... but I hope you are not
> > feeling like a voice in the wilderness :).
> > 
> > cheers
> > Graeme
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, Gene Schwartz <implode7@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gene Schwartz <implode7@> writes:
> > > >> I really like this instrument. I have room for one keyboard in
> > this apt -
> > > >> had I known about this limitation, would I have chosen the 
> Andromeda
> > > >> instead? Yes. 
> > > > 
> > > > If a super-well-implemented multi-timbral mode is more important
> > to you
> > > > than the sound, you may be better off with a VA synth or 
> rompler.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I didn't mean to suggest anything close to that. Obviously I'm
> > interested in
> > > the sound because I went out of my way to chose an instrument that
> > is partly
> > > analog and has much analog flavor. I don't think I can get that 
> in a va.
> > > 
> > > We're not talking about a well implemented multitimbral mode - 
> we're
> > > essential talking about it having one or not having one. If I had 
> to
> > chose
> > > between the polyevolver and a va (that I know of), I'd chose the
> > > polyevolver. 
> > > 
> > > It always seems that on these lists, if you say that there is one
> > feature
> > > whose deficiency really impacts your use of an instrument, people
> > are always
> > > ready to suggest that maybe you should get another type of 
> instrument
> > > altogether, or maybe take up juggling.
> > > 
> > > I also made the point that given the implementation, the 
> monoevolver
> > seems
> > > like a much better deal.
> > > 
> > > In any case - if you don't think that this is an issue, that's 
> perfectly
> > > cool. It is for me. I like the sound. I don't want a va. Anything
> > > contradictory there?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Something like the NL3 for instance, has a _far_ slicker, better
> > thought
> > > > out, and more solid multi-timbral mode than the poly-evolver, 
> not to
> > > > mention more polyphony and a lot less weight.  The only problem 
> is ...
> > > > it doesn't sound like an Evolver (though it has a rather nice 
> sound of
> > > > its own).
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I can't stand the nord sound. I don't want a Virus. Sorry. I don't
> > want to
> > > have to argue this point.
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>