Dave Smith Instruments SYNTHESIZERS

Hi there evolver list,

I'm an almost evolver user (end of the month, Dave says...) and I'm very 
much looking forward to that day!!

>From: "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@...>

>So the question: Is the Pulse punchier? If so, why? What is it
>about the
>Waldorf?
>
Its pretty widely written that "punch" in an envelope comes from having a 
slight delay between attack and decay part of the envelope.

There is also the attack time (I find that the pulse doesn't have a 
particularly fast attack time, my sh101 beats it) that will make an 
impression on how punchy it seems, but I'm pretty sure that its the slight 
delay between attack and decay that makes the biggest difference.

Try experimenting with a basic "gate" vca signal on the synth, and a 
compresser. Medium level, high compression ratio. Use the attack time on the 
compresser to play with the amount of punch in the amplitude envelope. not 
quite the same, but something thats easy enough to set up.

>Or is it something else, like the filter in the Pulse being
>more overdriven or something?
>
Perhaps... try running the pulse oscillators at lower volume. Thats one of 
the pulse's "tricks" - that its really easy to overdrive the filter, even 
with one osc up high, for that "moog" kind of filter sound.

>If anyone here has both, I would be interested in your detailed 
>observations on this topic--

give me a couple of weeks!
:-P

>the hope being that we can isolate
>the magic dust and have that added to the Evolver . . .
>
hmm maybe, though I like the idea of the evolver being something thats very 
different from what already exists.




julian


"Give a man a stick of gum and he will chew for a day. Teach him how to 
scrape gum off stuff and he will chew for a lifetime"


_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

--- In DSI_Evolver@y..., "mr julian" <jujulilianan@h...> wrote:
> 
> >the hope being that we can isolate
> >the magic dust and have that added to the Evolver . . .
> >
> hmm maybe, though I like the idea of the evolver being something 
thats very 
> different from what already exists.
> 
>> julian

I think there is no worry that the Evolver is different! 

I believe the punchy nature of the Pulse is one of its more 
noteworthy features, and as features go, punchiness is pretty 
important for a monosynth. I have and will start hearing things 
like "the Evolver is great but isn't as punchy as the Pulse can be." 
Perhaps it is not fair to compare two very different synths, but on 
a few basic levels, the pulse and the evolver are alike too.

I guess we are into talking about the essenses of synths and what 
makes them unique and noteworthy, which makes the topic hard.  I 
have a minimoog as well, and of course it does not sound the same as 
the Pulse, yet it is also "punchy." I want that much punch in the 
Evolver too. The question, is how to get it? I like to tell people 
who ask about the minimoog, that you have to work hard to make it 
sound bad and there are other synths that you have to work hard to 
make them sound good--that is what makes a synth great. Well I could 
say about the Pulse that you have to work hard to make it less 
punchy! The Evolver? It isn't hard to make it sound good, that's for 
sure. In fact, I would say it is hard to not make it sound spacey 
and complex--it exudes quality and depth.

I think Punchiness is something good that can be in many synths 
without them sounding or being similar to each other.

So I want to address the comparison, because I think we all can be 
sure that this will be addressed in the probably all reviews we 
read, and the question is, what will be the fair verdict?.

On the other hand, I would like anyone's opinions on how the Evolver 
compares to other noteable monosynths or synths in the regard 
to "punchiness." Clearly the Evolver is no slouch! And I my 
instincts tell me it is a "Great" synth. And neither my Moog, Pulse 
or Evolver are substitues for each other.

I must say, however, that I was hopeful that the Evolver would just 
trounce the Pulse on all levels (except of course the arpeggiator), 
not because I have any special animosity towards the Pulse or 
special love of the Evolver, but just because it is so exciting to 
behold something that just rewrites the rules. Like Muhummed Ali 
breaking all the records, etc, etc.

Anyway, perhaps the DCO nature of the pulse makes it a bit harder. 
The Evolver with its Oscillators on separate channels, and the fact 
that there is a filter per analog oscillator rather than one filter 
with more signal going into it, as in the Pulse, makes some 
difference. Or the way that the two channels interact with each 
other, whether fed out stereo, less stereo, or mono. 

The statement about the delay between the attack and decay portions 
of the VCA envelope are interesting, but such seems to be erased in 
any event if the sustain is up full. 

Anyway, here's to hopefully the beginning of a fun and illuminating 
thread.

Ravi

I just wanted to make clear that I understand that I am really 
splitting hairs here with this topic. I don't hear "non-punchy" when 
I play the Evolver at all. I just know the bulldog nature of the 
Pulse too.


--- In DSI_Evolver@y..., "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:
> --- In DSI_Evolver@y..., "mr julian" <jujulilianan@h...> wrote:
> > 
> > >the hope being that we can isolate
> > >the magic dust and have that added to the Evolver . . .
> > >
> > hmm maybe, though I like the idea of the evolver being something 
> thats very 
> > different from what already exists.
> > 
> >> julian
> 
> I think there is no worry that the Evolver is different! 
> 
> I believe the punchy nature of the Pulse is one of its more 
> noteworthy features, and as features go, punchiness is pretty 
> important for a monosynth. I have and will start hearing things 
> like "the Evolver is great but isn't as punchy as the Pulse can 
be." 
> Perhaps it is not fair to compare two very different synths, but 
on 
> a few basic levels, the pulse and the evolver are alike too.
> 
> I guess we are into talking about the essenses of synths and what 
> makes them unique and noteworthy, which makes the topic hard.  I 
> have a minimoog as well, and of course it does not sound the same 
as 
> the Pulse, yet it is also "punchy." I want that much punch in the 
> Evolver too. The question, is how to get it? I like to tell people 
> who ask about the minimoog, that you have to work hard to make it 
> sound bad and there are other synths that you have to work hard to 
> make them sound good--that is what makes a synth great. Well I 
could 
> say about the Pulse that you have to work hard to make it less 
> punchy! The Evolver? It isn't hard to make it sound good, that's 
for 
> sure. In fact, I would say it is hard to not make it sound spacey 
> and complex--it exudes quality and depth.
> 
> I think Punchiness is something good that can be in many synths 
> without them sounding or being similar to each other.
> 
> So I want to address the comparison, because I think we all can be 
> sure that this will be addressed in the probably all reviews we 
> read, and the question is, what will be the fair verdict?.
> 
> On the other hand, I would like anyone's opinions on how the 
Evolver 
> compares to other noteable monosynths or synths in the regard 
> to "punchiness." Clearly the Evolver is no slouch! And I my 
> instincts tell me it is a "Great" synth. And neither my Moog, 
Pulse 
> or Evolver are substitues for each other.
> 
> I must say, however, that I was hopeful that the Evolver would 
just 
> trounce the Pulse on all levels (except of course the 
arpeggiator), 
> not because I have any special animosity towards the Pulse or 
> special love of the Evolver, but just because it is so exciting to 
> behold something that just rewrites the rules. Like Muhummed Ali 
> breaking all the records, etc, etc.
> 
> Anyway, perhaps the DCO nature of the pulse makes it a bit harder. 
> The Evolver with its Oscillators on separate channels, and the 
fact 
> that there is a filter per analog oscillator rather than one 
filter 
> with more signal going into it, as in the Pulse, makes some 
> difference. Or the way that the two channels interact with each 
> other, whether fed out stereo, less stereo, or mono. 
> 
> The statement about the delay between the attack and decay 
portions 
> of the VCA envelope are interesting, but such seems to be erased 
in 
> any event if the sustain is up full. 
> 
> Anyway, here's to hopefully the beginning of a fun and 
illuminating 

> thread.
> 
> Ravi

> I must say, however, that I was hopeful that the Evolver would 
> just trounce the Pulse on all levels


For me at least, it does. I owned a Pulse+ for a while...got rid of 
it earlier this year. If I could only choose one of them I'd pick the 
Evolver every single time. It's just a matter of opinion though...no 
one can say "this is better than that", but I can at least say I like 
the sonic capabilities of the Evolver better than the Pulse.

I read that guy's comments over at the-gas-station, talking about the 
Envelopes being slow. I probably would never have come to that 
conclusion on my own, without reading other people's opinions on the 
matter...but maybe that's just me or my music -  I'm not making 
aggressive techno music.

I remember people complaining about the Alesis Andromeda 
having "horribly slow envelopes", but again, that's not the first 
quality that jumps out at me when I audition a synth.

Hey all,

I got evolver no. 63 about a week ago, and have only just surfaced!

I have a pulse and have had a microwave XT and the evolver fills the gap 
that I was attempting to fill with those units.  I found the XT quite 
dissapointing, I think becuase of its totally digital nature (I hated 
the filters): which brings me to the point:

There is an A-D D-A stage almost at the end of the evolver signal chain 
, after the filter and after the VCA.  This, to my ears, is discernable, 
sounding the same way that a sampled sound differs from the sound itself 
(some how cleaner?).  This might be an insuperable problem for pure 
'punch', asides from the speed of the envelopes.  I guess the test would 
also need to be mono with no efx to avoid any phasing problems.

The evolver is, of course, a much more useful and interesting 
instrument: I'm amazed at the breadth of the sounds, and the way it sits 
in a mix, sweet.

The amount of thought and care that has gone into this keeps amazing me, 
from the design to the sound to the presets.  Awesome.

a.

Ravi Ivan Sharma wrote:
> I just wanted to make clear that I understand that I am really 
> splitting hairs here with this topic. I don't hear "non-punchy" when 
> I play the Evolver at all. I just know the bulldog nature of the 
> Pulse too.
> 
> 
> --- In DSI_Evolver@y..., "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:
> 
>>--- In DSI_Evolver@y..., "mr julian" <jujulilianan@h...> wrote:
>>
>>>>the hope being that we can isolate
>>>>the magic dust and have that added to the Evolver . . .
>>>>
>>>
>>>hmm maybe, though I like the idea of the evolver being something 
>>
>>thats very 
>>
>>>different from what already exists.
>>>
>>>
>>>>julian
>>>
>>I think there is no worry that the Evolver is different! 
>>
>>I believe the punchy nature of the Pulse is one of its more 
>>noteworthy features, and as features go, punchiness is pretty 
>>important for a monosynth. I have and will start hearing things 
>>like "the Evolver is great but isn't as punchy as the Pulse can 
> 
> be." 
> 
>>Perhaps it is not fair to compare two very different synths, but 
> 
> on 
> 
>>a few basic levels, the pulse and the evolver are alike too.
>>
>>I guess we are into talking about the essenses of synths and what 
>>makes them unique and noteworthy, which makes the topic hard.  I 
>>have a minimoog as well, and of course it does not sound the same 
> 
> as 
> 
>>the Pulse, yet it is also "punchy." I want that much punch in the 
>>Evolver too. The question, is how to get it? I like to tell people 
>>who ask about the minimoog, that you have to work hard to make it 
>>sound bad and there are other synths that you have to work hard to 
>>make them sound good--that is what makes a synth great. Well I 
> 
> could 
> 
>>say about the Pulse that you have to work hard to make it less 
>>punchy! The Evolver? It isn't hard to make it sound good, that's 
> 
> for 
> 
>>sure. In fact, I would say it is hard to not make it sound spacey 
>>and complex--it exudes quality and depth.
>>
>>I think Punchiness is something good that can be in many synths 
>>without them sounding or being similar to each other.
>>
>>So I want to address the comparison, because I think we all can be 
>>sure that this will be addressed in the probably all reviews we 
>>read, and the question is, what will be the fair verdict?.
>>
>>On the other hand, I would like anyone's opinions on how the 
> 
> Evolver 
> 
>>compares to other noteable monosynths or synths in the regard 
>>to "punchiness." Clearly the Evolver is no slouch! And I my 
>>instincts tell me it is a "Great" synth. And neither my Moog, 
> 
> Pulse 
> 
>>or Evolver are substitues for each other.
>>
>>I must say, however, that I was hopeful that the Evolver would 
> 
> just 
> 
>>trounce the Pulse on all levels (except of course the 
> 
> arpeggiator), 
> 
>>not because I have any special animosity towards the Pulse or 
>>special love of the Evolver, but just because it is so exciting to 
>>behold something that just rewrites the rules. Like Muhummed Ali 
>>breaking all the records, etc, etc.
>>
>>Anyway, perhaps the DCO nature of the pulse makes it a bit harder. 
>>The Evolver with its Oscillators on separate channels, and the 
> 
> fact 
> 
>>that there is a filter per analog oscillator rather than one 
> 
> filter 
> 
>>with more signal going into it, as in the Pulse, makes some 
>>difference. Or the way that the two channels interact with each 
>>other, whether fed out stereo, less stereo, or mono. 
>>
>>The statement about the delay between the attack and decay 
> 
> portions 
> 
>>of the VCA envelope are interesting, but such seems to be erased 
> 
> in 
> 
>>any event if the sustain is up full. 
>>
>>Anyway, here's to hopefully the beginning of a fun and 
> 
> illuminating 
> 
>>thread.
>>
>>Ravi
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DSI_Evolver-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
> .
> 


-- 
-------------------------------------

http://www.badsneakers.com

Understanding FM synthesis:
Think of it as one person singing and another person grabbing the throat 
of the first and shaking him in a rhythmic manner; the singer being the 
Carrier and the throttler being the Modulator.