Dave Smith Instruments SYNTHESIZERS

use a real sequencer maybe? one that was designed for such uses?  
instead of ranting against a small boutique? that would be my  
suggestion.
--
bug

On Oct 14, 2010, at 9:43 AM, James Elliott <johans121@...> wrote:

>
>
> 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@...>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>