Dave Smith Instruments SYNTHESIZERS

Practical? Hmmmm.... maybe from a lazy programmer's perspective. They could 
probably write less than 100 lines of code to disable sequencer's control of the 
gates, or anything for that matter, if midi control is turned on while still 
allowing the sequencer to send midi out. Remember, the evolver is probably 90% 
digital with the sequencer & midi section being 100% digital. If enough people 
complain about broken functionality, missing functionality, or irregular 
functionality then it might be worth looking into fixing and/or changing.

I for one agree with David. I have a PEK and I can't stand that when I use the 
sequencer in a patch to control external equipment then I basically lose that 
voice in the polyphony rotation. i.e. if I send midi from the PEK's sequencer 
out to a midi/cv converter to control my modular synth, my 4 voice PEK patch 
turns into a 3 voice PEK patch. That sucks donkey balls. That should not happen 
on a $2000+ synth which is mainly software & digital hardware. That can easily 
be fixed/changed. It's not like that change would require a new circuit.

I call an omission like that shortsightedness. If I worked for DSI and I heard 
customers complaining about that (if I hadn't discovered it myself) then I would 
push to have that changed. I call the refusal to change the sequencer's behavior 
obstinance. I will not purchase another DSI instrument because of their refusal 
to fix/change the laundry list of items that has been compiled from an active, 
and enthusiastic, user base and sent to them. People, myself included, have even 
said they would pay ($25-$30) for an OS upgrade to have that crap 
fixed/changed.... Why would I continue to do business with a company who refuses 
to listen to their customers? I was insanely excited about their new 
'BookChick'/'LinnDrum2' thingy that they were designing, not anymore. I'm sure 
that thing will be full of deficiencies that will never be addressed after the 
obvious bugs are worked out.

Screw 'em

-Jim





________________________________
From: Rory <rozz3r@...>
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 6:24:22 AM
Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?

  
As far as I can see the reason for this is practical, not a bug. The Evolver is 
monophonic. Therefor you can't have two sequencers controlling the amplifier 
gate.

- Rory


On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:53 AM, James Elliott <johans121@...> wrote:

  
>Sad to say but there are lots of 'bugs'/irregularities with the evolvers that 
>will never be fixed. There is a whole list of stuff that has been sent to DSI 
>many times since I've been on this list (which has been a number of years now). 
>DSI has officially responded once that the evolver is a finished/complete 
>product, or something like that - i.e. no updates.
>
>Sorry,
>Jim
>
>
>
>
________________________________
 From: locatemodule <locatemodule@earthlink.net>
>To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 7:56:26 PM
>Subject: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
>
>
>  
>Hi all,
>
>I use my desktop evolver to sequence other gear and it sucks that sequencer 2 is 
>not capable of producing rests. Is there a reason this has not been added to an 
>update of the OS? Doesn't seem like it couldn't be added. Anyone know the reason 
>for this? It would rule if this could be fixed, as of right now it's pretty 
>limiting as far as sequencing other outboard gear.
>
>Thanks!
>
>David Farrell
>
>