Dave Smith Instruments SYNTHESIZERS

Thanks for the useful tips Bug. Big help. Maybe DSI shouldn't have allowed the 
evolver's sequencer to send out midi notes if it weren't meant to be used as a 
'real sequencer' which sequences external equipment. I guess that was something 
an overzealous programmer included to extend its use, something he/she did 
without consulting the boss....

You can crawl back in your hole now.

-Jim




________________________________
From: bug.out <bug.out@...>
To: "DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com" <DSI_Evolver@...m>
Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 2:50:51 PM
Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?

  
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
>>
>>
>
>