Dave Smith Instruments SYNTHESIZERS

i see two schools of thought here:
1.-- the DSI synth is perfect as is ,and we should be grateful for its existance 
and be quiet
2.-- the DSI synth is an evolving product and  should be constantly tweaked and 
improved to do more
.      and as users/consumers we can ask the maker for  changes  as they also 
have an interest in making 

a better product.



________________________________
From: Rory <rozz3r@...>
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, October 15, 2010 6:18:10 AM
Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?

  
Your Evolver is not a sequencer with missing functionality. It's a synthesizer 
with extra functionality :P 



On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:43 PM, 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
>>
>>
>
>