Dave Smith Instruments SYNTHESIZERS

Any idea of the price tag ? Will it B around 4 evolvers ?

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "ski_ex5tech" <ex5tech@...>
To: <DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 10:18 PM
Subject: [Evolver] The New DSI Polyphonic Synth


> The New DSI Polyphonic Synth
>
> OK, with his permission, here's the scoop from Dave on the poly synth.
>
> The bottom line:  The new synth will essentially be four Evolvers
> packed into a 1U rack with a 16x2 LCD screen.
>
>
> Dave's Notes (between dashed lines):
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
> The poly is basically 4 Evolvers in a 1U rack. The voices are
> identical to Evolver, for obvious connection reasons. Lots of jacks
> on the back - stereo mix outs, individual stereo voice outs, a stereo
> mix inputs, and stereo ext ins. An Evolver can be used as a
> controller, and the Evolver out can be put into the mix in,
> essentially giving you a 5 voice Evolver. There will be a dinky 16x2
> LCD, but as usual programming on a 1U rack is pretty silly. Of
> course, this is one of the reasons for a 16 character program name in
> Evolver - it fits nicely on the bottom line of the LCD on the poly.
>
> Beyond that, it's fairly straight-forward, since it is just multiple
> Evolvers. That's why it's been quick so far getting it running - just
> today I started playing it polyphonically already. The voicing will
> have to be much different in a polyphonic environment. The sequencers
> will still be there, separate in each voice, so quad synced
> sequencing should be fun to play with. Or, one voice sequencing while
> the other 3 are played from the keyboard. No overall sequencer, tho.
> Another trick is that the ext in can be routed to any or all of the
> voices, for possible quad processing. Or, take the individual voice
> out from one voice and put it in the ext in, and route it to another
> voice for additional processing.
>
> Anyway, that's the basic overview.
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Very cool possibilities, no?
>
> Regarding Dave's reference above to the "16 character program name in
> Evolver"... that's a new feature in the upcoming OS update.
>
>
> Ski
> www.ex5tech.com
> EX5Tech Evolver forum:
> http://www.ex5tech.com/ex5ubb_cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=23
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

sorry Ski , guess I've been watching too many David Cronenberg movies

Richard

----- Original Message -----

From: "ski_ex5tech" <ex5tech@...>
To: <DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 7:06 PM
Subject: [Evolver] Re: The New DSI Polyphonic Synth - programmer interface


> TOO MUCH INFORMATION!!!  :D
>
>
> Ski
> www.ex5tech.com
> EX5Tech Evolver forum:
> http://www.ex5tech.com/ex5ubb_cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=23
>
>
> --- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <richard@c...> wrote:
> > I personally just hate using generic controllers - its one reason I
> can't
> > stand softsynths. I like the feel of individual synths and I like
> to get to
> > know them and where the important bits are located as I would a
> lovers'
> > body. If they are all controlled from the same nuetral surface its
> just
> > shagging isn't it?
> >
> > wow... I suppose I'm saying my lovers need to have multiple knobs
> >
> > :)
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Riccardo Coen" <zinoff@y...>
> > To: <DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 12:38 AM
> > Subject: [Evolver] Re: The New DSI Polyphonic Synth - programmer
> interface
> >
> >
> > > --- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, blip <bleep@w...> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, ski_ex5tech wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > All valid points regarding the interface.  Perhaps a separate
> > > > > dedicated "programmer/controller" would be something Dave
> would
> > > > > consider building in the future, if enough people were
> interested.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't get the point of the thread, there are hundreds of generic
> > > control surfaces out there.... what's the point of building a new
> one?
> > >
> > > I can control most, if not all the parameters of the evolver,
> from my
> > > drehbank, and of most of my synths in the studio. I already have
> no
> > > space left on my desktop (uWave XT, Pod, evolver, drum machine
> > > drehbank)
> > >
> > > I say, let's have Dave focus on great synth engines.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > /R
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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/
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

1U is great - a 4 part 16 oscillator 1U dirtbox! But I don't quite get it -
is it essentially intended as an expander utilising the existing evolver
hardware or other midi controller interface? That could be pretty cheap to
produce eh?? Or is it seen more as a standalone synth?

will it have 8 knobs - or maybe fewer?

is there anyway of optimising one of the voices for drum sounds?? I'm not
even sure what I mean by that... but it would be nice to be able to use the
evololer rack as a drum machine... I'm thinking drum machine patch, two
sequencers and live line might be fun too... there's a lot of possibilties -
I'm more excited by it than I am about the nord G2 actually....

but c'mon Dave gimme my 16 leds... it'll change the world I tell ya!

Richard


----- Original Message -----

From: "ski_ex5tech" <ex5tech@...>
To: <DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 9:18 PM
Subject: [Evolver] The New DSI Polyphonic Synth


> The New DSI Polyphonic Synth
>
> OK, with his permission, here's the scoop from Dave on the poly synth.
>
> The bottom line:  The new synth will essentially be four Evolvers
> packed into a 1U rack with a 16x2 LCD screen.
>
>
> Dave's Notes (between dashed lines):
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
> The poly is basically 4 Evolvers in a 1U rack. The voices are
> identical to Evolver, for obvious connection reasons. Lots of jacks
> on the back - stereo mix outs, individual stereo voice outs, a stereo
> mix inputs, and stereo ext ins. An Evolver can be used as a
> controller, and the Evolver out can be put into the mix in,
> essentially giving you a 5 voice Evolver. There will be a dinky 16x2
> LCD, but as usual programming on a 1U rack is pretty silly. Of
> course, this is one of the reasons for a 16 character program name in
> Evolver - it fits nicely on the bottom line of the LCD on the poly.
>
> Beyond that, it's fairly straight-forward, since it is just multiple
> Evolvers. That's why it's been quick so far getting it running - just
> today I started playing it polyphonically already. The voicing will
> have to be much different in a polyphonic environment. The sequencers
> will still be there, separate in each voice, so quad synced
> sequencing should be fun to play with. Or, one voice sequencing while
> the other 3 are played from the keyboard. No overall sequencer, tho.
> Another trick is that the ext in can be routed to any or all of the
> voices, for possible quad processing. Or, take the individual voice
> out from one voice and put it in the ext in, and route it to another
> voice for additional processing.
>
> Anyway, that's the basic overview.
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Very cool possibilities, no?
>
> Regarding Dave's reference above to the "16 character program name in
> Evolver"... that's a new feature in the upcoming OS update.
>
>
> Ski
> www.ex5tech.com
> EX5Tech Evolver forum:
> http://www.ex5tech.com/ex5ubb_cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=23
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Richard wrote:

> 1U is great - a 4 part 16 oscillator 1U dirtbox! But I don't quite get it -
> is it essentially intended as an expander utilising the existing evolver
> hardware or other midi controller interface? That could be pretty cheap to
> produce eh?? Or is it seen more as a standalone synth?

yeah, i don't get it either... it seems like the only reasonable way to
use a 1RU synth as complicated as four evolvers is to use a computer for
the interface... i was kinda hoping for a 777-style tabletop form factor.
dedicated sequencer controls (especially since there are now SIXTEEN
sequences!) and so forth. oh well. guess this will be good for the guys
with keyboard controllers and drehbanks. without this stuff, i don't think
this poly evolver will be very good for live performance, not
improvisational stuff anyway, which the regular evolver is great for... i
guess i'm kind of disappointed. but i'm sure others will be happy...

bleep.
out.

---
http://leichenfeld.iuma.com

--- blip <bleep@...> wrote: 
---------------------------------
yeah, i don't get it either... it seems like the only
reasonable way to
use a 1RU synth as complicated as four evolvers is to
use a computer for
the interface... i was kinda hoping for a 777-style
tabletop form factor.
dedicated sequencer controls (especially since there
are now SIXTEEN
sequences!) and so forth. oh well. guess this will be
good for the guys
with keyboard controllers and drehbanks. without this
stuff, i don't think
this poly evolver will be very good for live
performance, not
improvisational stuff anyway, which the regular
evolver is great for... i
guess i'm kind of disappointed. but i'm sure others
will be happy...
---------------------------------------

not to worry... let me preface this next statement
with a disclaimer that I do NOT have any inside info,
but I'm sure if there's enough of a demand for a
table-top version of the Evolver, Dave will bow
graciously to meet it... or at least I'd like to hope
he would :)

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 02:43:10PM -0500, blip wrote:
> oh well. guess this will be good for the guys with keyboard controllers and
> drehbanks. without this stuff, i don't think this poly evolver will be very
> good for live performance, not improvisational stuff anyway, which the
> regular evolver is great for... i guess i'm kind of disappointed. but i'm
> sure others will be happy...

One thing to remember is that often controls == money.

I am curious though; for polyphonic use, using a mono evolver as a
`controller' seems fairly natural, but I wonder if there's a good way to use
it to control multiple patches / independently running sequences on the
expander -- the problem being that even if you add new controls on the
expander (e.g., `select current voice'), the controller-evolver probably
can't see them.

I wonder if Dave will release a new OS for the mono evolver that adds
enhancements for controlling an expander (which would probably be no-ops
unless an expander was attached)...

[But I'd probably buy one as a cheapish way to play chords, anyway. :-]

-miles
-- 
`The suburb is an obsolete and contradictory form of human settlement'

blip/bleep - Regarding a rack's lack of controls... maybe you missed 
the fact that you can use the tabletop Evo as a "programmer".  
Personally, I couldn't see owning the rack without the current 
tabletop.


Ski
www.ex5tech.com
EX5Tech Evolver forum:
http://www.ex5tech.com/ex5ubb_cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=23


--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, blip <bleep@w...> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Richard wrote:
> 
> > 1U is great - a 4 part 16 oscillator 1U dirtbox! But I don't 
quite get it -
> > is it essentially intended as an expander utilising the existing 
evolver
> > hardware or other midi controller interface? That could be pretty 
cheap to
> > produce eh?? Or is it seen more as a standalone synth?
> 
> yeah, i don't get it either... it seems like the only reasonable 
way to
> use a 1RU synth as complicated as four evolvers is to use a 
computer for
> the interface... i was kinda hoping for a 777-style tabletop form 
factor.
> dedicated sequencer controls (especially since there are now SIXTEEN
> sequences!) and so forth. oh well. guess this will be good for the 
guys
> with keyboard controllers and drehbanks. without this stuff, i 
don't think
> this poly evolver will be very good for live performance, not
> improvisational stuff anyway, which the regular evolver is great 
for... i

> guess i'm kind of disappointed. but i'm sure others will be happy...
> 
> bleep.
> out.
> 
> ---
> http://leichenfeld.iuma.com

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, ski_ex5tech wrote:

> blip/bleep - Regarding a rack's lack of controls... maybe you missed
> the fact that you can use the tabletop Evo as a "programmer".
> Personally, I couldn't see owning the rack without the current
> tabletop.

i got that part. but for me, the amount of functionality in the existing
evolver is already pushing the capacity of the interface to give feedback
about what's going on in a patch. multiply that by four and, for me at
least, it would be very difficult to tell what's going on where.

as far as knobs equalling money, i agree... but i think it's worth it.
imagine a saxophone without keys (just the holes)... someone on this list
mentioned how they liked the fact that the sequencer was an integral part
of the evolver, not just something tacked on like in many other synths
these days. i feel like five evolvers controlled by one evolver interface
is like playing a saxophone without all its keys... the bits that make the
musician able to make music aren't there.

i do have an idea though... dave, or some third-party company, could
always make a dedicated polyvolver (heh, dig the name?) midi controller.
that way, knob-freaks like me could shell out extra for the knobs, and
those who don't want the knobs would only have to pay for the sound
module.

thoughts?

bleep.
out.

---
http://leichenfeld.iuma.com

okay so its strictly an expander/module thingy, that would suit me fine as
it will make it is cheap as possible!! - I'm not joking, its an important
issue. I guess some pc/ mac programmer will be necessary too though I would
never use it myself: I think a 16 knob/16 led evolver2 would ultimately be a
MUCH better proposition and I'd happily pay the extra $100 or whatever for
the extra knobs... dunno about the rest of the world.

to be honest I'm so impressed with the evolver I'd probably buy a multi
version whatever it was, as long as I can carry it to a gig with my bad
back!

I wonder if a DSI digi/analogue drum machine has been
considered??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????? machinedrum is just too expensive for us
mere humans -  reckon DS could do a good job
Richard



----- Original Message -----

From: "ski_ex5tech" <ex5tech@...>
To: <DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Evolver] The New DSI Polyphonic Synth


> blip/bleep - Regarding a rack's lack of controls... maybe you missed
> the fact that you can use the tabletop Evo as a "programmer".
> Personally, I couldn't see owning the rack without the current
> tabletop.
>
>
> Ski
> www.ex5tech.com
> EX5Tech Evolver forum:
> http://www.ex5tech.com/ex5ubb_cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=23
>
>
> --- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, blip <bleep@w...> wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Richard wrote:
> >
> > > 1U is great - a 4 part 16 oscillator 1U dirtbox! But I don't
> quite get it -
> > > is it essentially intended as an expander utilising the existing
> evolver
> > > hardware or other midi controller interface? That could be pretty
> cheap to
> > > produce eh?? Or is it seen more as a standalone synth?
> >
> > yeah, i don't get it either... it seems like the only reasonable
> way to
> > use a 1RU synth as complicated as four evolvers is to use a
> computer for
> > the interface... i was kinda hoping for a 777-style tabletop form
> factor.
> > dedicated sequencer controls (especially since there are now SIXTEEN
> > sequences!) and so forth. oh well. guess this will be good for the
> guys
> > with keyboard controllers and drehbanks. without this stuff, i
> don't think
> > this poly evolver will be very good for live performance, not
> > improvisational stuff anyway, which the regular evolver is great
> for... i
> > guess i'm kind of disappointed. but i'm sure others will be happy...
> >
> > bleep.
> > out.
> >
> > ---
> > http://leichenfeld.iuma.com
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

a dedicated controller would be nice - I wonder if they'd sell enough to be
able to make it affordable though

Richard

----- Original Message -----

From: "blip" <bleep@...>
To: <DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Evolver] The New DSI Polyphonic Synth


> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, ski_ex5tech wrote:
>
> > blip/bleep - Regarding a rack's lack of controls... maybe you missed
> > the fact that you can use the tabletop Evo as a "programmer".
> > Personally, I couldn't see owning the rack without the current
> > tabletop.
>
> i got that part. but for me, the amount of functionality in the existing
> evolver is already pushing the capacity of the interface to give feedback
> about what's going on in a patch. multiply that by four and, for me at
> least, it would be very difficult to tell what's going on where.
>
> as far as knobs equalling money, i agree... but i think it's worth it.
> imagine a saxophone without keys (just the holes)... someone on this list
> mentioned how they liked the fact that the sequencer was an integral part
> of the evolver, not just something tacked on like in many other synths
> these days. i feel like five evolvers controlled by one evolver interface
> is like playing a saxophone without all its keys... the bits that make the
> musician able to make music aren't there.
>
> i do have an idea though... dave, or some third-party company, could
> always make a dedicated polyvolver (heh, dig the name?) midi controller.
> that way, knob-freaks like me could shell out extra for the knobs, and
> those who don't want the knobs would only have to pay for the sound
> module.
>
> thoughts?
>
> bleep.
> out.
>
> ---
> http://leichenfeld.iuma.com
>
>
> 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/
>
>

On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 05:55:22PM +0100, Richard wrote:
>    machinedrum is just too expensive for
>    us
>    mere humans -  reckon DS could do a good job

I'll bet he could too;  but the Machinedrum is worth every dime and then
some! (and I'm a mere human, BTW; I just had to pay it off like one!)

Joe

All valid points regarding the interface.  Perhaps a separate 
dedicated "programmer/controller" would be something Dave would 
consider building in the future, if enough people were interested.

BTW, you're at least the third person to come up with the 
name "Polyvolver"!  Dave said it is an obvious choice, but that it 
sounds "polywogg-ish".  I told him to silkscreen four tadpoles on the 
front panel and go for bizarre/outrageous.  ;)


Ski
www.ex5tech.com
EX5Tech Evolver forum:
http://www.ex5tech.com/ex5ubb_cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=23


--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, blip <bleep@w...> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, ski_ex5tech wrote:
> 
> > blip/bleep - Regarding a rack's lack of controls... maybe you 
missed
> > the fact that you can use the tabletop Evo as a "programmer".
> > Personally, I couldn't see owning the rack without the current
> > tabletop.
> 
> i got that part. but for me, the amount of functionality in the 
existing
> evolver is already pushing the capacity of the interface to give 
feedback
> about what's going on in a patch. multiply that by four and, for me 
at
> least, it would be very difficult to tell what's going on where.
> 
> as far as knobs equalling money, i agree... but i think it's worth 
it.
> imagine a saxophone without keys (just the holes)... someone on 
this list
> mentioned how they liked the fact that the sequencer was an 
integral part
> of the evolver, not just something tacked on like in many other 
synths
> these days. i feel like five evolvers controlled by one evolver 
interface
> is like playing a saxophone without all its keys... the bits that 
make the
> musician able to make music aren't there.
> 
> i do have an idea though... dave, or some third-party company, could
> always make a dedicated polyvolver (heh, dig the name?) midi 
controller.
> that way, knob-freaks like me could shell out extra for the knobs, 
and

> those who don't want the knobs would only have to pay for the sound
> module.
> 
> thoughts?
> 
> bleep.
> out.
> 
> ---
> http://leichenfeld.iuma.com

On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 05:55:22PM +0100, Richard wrote:
> I think a 16 knob/16 led evolver2 would ultimately be a
> MUCH better proposition and I'd happily pay the extra $100 or whatever for
> the extra knobs...

Yeah, but remember, in the real world, things are _always_ more expensive
than you think they should be (even, I think, if DS is making it :-), and the
user price never just reflects the additional cost of parts -- by the time
that extra $100 worth of knobs/bigger case/&c reaches the user, it will be an
extra $500 or something.  Still sound worth it?

-Miles
-- 
A zen-buddhist walked into a pizza shop and
said, "Make me one with everything."

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, ski_ex5tech wrote:

> All valid points regarding the interface.  Perhaps a separate
> dedicated "programmer/controller" would be something Dave would
> consider building in the future, if enough people were interested.

i think in order to be financially feasible it would have to be somewhat
programmable, so the softsynth crowd could use it for their stuff.

> BTW, you're at least the third person to come up with the
> name "Polyvolver"!  Dave said it is an obvious choice, but that it
> sounds "polywogg-ish".  I told him to silkscreen four tadpoles on the
> front panel and go for bizarre/outrageous.  ;)

hah hah, figures. i'm good at coming up with the obvious. :) he should
hold a contest to name the thing...

bleep.
out.

---
http://leichenfeld.iuma.com

> but I'm sure if there's enough of a demand for a
> table-top version of the Evolver, Dave will bow


Hopefully not!

I'd have to buy a new desk.

/R

--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, blip <bleep@w...> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, ski_ex5tech wrote:
> 
> > All valid points regarding the interface.  Perhaps a separate
> > dedicated "programmer/controller" would be something Dave would
> > consider building in the future, if enough people were interested.
> 

I don't get the point of the thread, there are hundreds of generic 
control surfaces out there.... what's the point of building a new one?

I can control most, if not all the parameters of the evolver, from my 
drehbank, and of most of my synths in the studio. I already have no 
space left on my desktop (uWave XT, Pod, evolver, drum machine 
drehbank)

I say, let's have Dave focus on great synth engines.

Cheers,
/R

On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 09:12:45PM -0000, Riccardo Coen wrote:
>    Hopefully not!
>    I'd have to buy a new desk.

I already do!

Joe

despite the proliferation of quality controller keyboards and knob 
boxes around, i'm still old-fashioned and like the standalone 
instrument concept. i've been through rack rigs and stuff and now i'm 
back to having a lot of keyboards around because then i only have to 
turn one thing on to play - and not worry about midi connections etc.

hence my preference would be for a keyboard with a shitload of knobs 
on it, and i think if someone were to market one it would outsell the 
rack version.

>I don't get the point of the thread, there are hundreds of generic
>control surfaces out there.... what's the point of building a new one?
>
>I can control most, if not all the parameters of the evolver, from my
>drehbank, and of most of my synths in the studio. I already have no
>space left on my desktop (uWave XT, Pod, evolver, drum machine
>drehbank)
>
>I say, let's have Dave focus on great synth engines.
>
>Cheers,
>/R
>
>
>
>
>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/

On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 11:38:22PM -0000, Riccardo Coen wrote:
>    I don't get the point of the thread, there are hundreds of generic
>    control surfaces out there.... what's the point of building a new one?
>    I can control most, if not all the parameters of the evolver, from my
>    drehbank, and of most of my synths in the studio. I already have no
>    space left on my desktop (uWave XT, Pod, evolver, drum machine
>    drehbank)
>    I say, let's have Dave focus on great synth engines.

you have a very valid point. however, keep in mind that not everybody has
a Drehbank.  and since they cost as much as a new Evolver, I doubt that
everyone will run out and get one just to operate the new polyphonic
synth.

besides, there's something to be said for synths with tightly-integrated
control surfaces. at least, in my opinion there is. and the Evolver's
control implementation does have one *major* feature that the Drehbank
does not: endless dials.  with the Eolver, there are no value jumps
when you change a parameter and you always get an immediate readout
of what the current/new value is.

Joe

From: "Joe" <jmelnyk@...>

> besides, there's something to be said for synths with tightly-integrated
> control surfaces. at least, in my opinion there is.

YES!!!!!! I mean it's all well and good to have a slider to wiggle and
change a parameter, but compare the user interface of (for instance) of a
nord lead3 and weep. or even something like the microwaveXT.

anyway - a rackmount poly evolver is obviously the best idea for dave's next
synth. it's cheap to make, and easy to design. Not so great as a player
synth, but I guess something like the new knob & keyboard controllers that
are everywhere could be put to use....

> and the Evolver's
> control implementation does have one *major* feature that the Drehbank
> does not: endless dials.  with the Eolver, there are no value jumps
> when you change a parameter and you always get an immediate readout
> of what the current/new value is.
>
mmmmm. yep!! actually that is something major that I really *do* appreciate
about the evolver as it is.

I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to suggest the evolver accepts
increment parameter and decrement parameter information as well as the
absolute value control it already takes via SysEx. - Are there any endless
rotary controller boxes out there that can be made to send inc/dec commands
as you turn the knobs?



julian

--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, "mr julian" <jujulilianan@f...> wrote:
> anyway - a rackmount poly evolver is obviously the best idea for 
> dave's next
> synth. it's cheap to make, and easy to design. Not so great as a 
> player
> synth, but I guess something like the new knob & keyboard 
> controllers that
> are everywhere could be put to use....

well, I don't have much money right now to get one either way. so I'll
probably just wait for the reviews to come in and see how it fares. I
would like to do chords with the Evolver; so I'm no completely opposed
to the idea. 


> mmmmm. yep!! actually that is something major that I really *do* 
> appreciate
> about the evolver as it is.


me too! it's a brilliantly simple way to solve the problem and I wish
some of my other synths had it.

 
> I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to suggest the evolver 
> accepts
> increment parameter and decrement parameter information as well as 
> the
> absolute value control it already takes via SysEx. - Are there any 
> endless
> rotary controller boxes out there that can be made to send inc/dec 
> commands
> as you turn the knobs?


yes! the Doepfer pocket dial fits this bill. however, it does have
quite a few limitations. you basically have to use it as a dedicated
control surface for a small set of synths, as there's no internal memory. 

by the way, how many synths out there actually accept this
increment/decrement message?  because I would consider using the
pocket dial (dedicated to my Nord Rack 2X) if I could be sure that it
would work.

Joe.

--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, Joe <jmelnyk@c...> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 09:12:45PM -0000, Riccardo Coen wrote:
> >    Hopefully not!
> >    I'd have to buy a new desk.
> 
> I already do!
> 
> Joe

To fit your MM not? ;-)

Ronald.

I personally just hate using generic controllers - its one reason I can't
stand softsynths. I like the feel of individual synths and I like to get to
know them and where the important bits are located as I would a lovers'
body. If they are all controlled from the same nuetral surface its just
shagging isn't it?

wow... I suppose I'm saying my lovers need to have multiple knobs

:)

Richard



----- Original Message -----

From: "Riccardo Coen" <zinoff@...>
To: <DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 12:38 AM
Subject: [Evolver] Re: The New DSI Polyphonic Synth - programmer interface


> --- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, blip <bleep@w...> wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, ski_ex5tech wrote:
> >
> > > All valid points regarding the interface.  Perhaps a separate
> > > dedicated "programmer/controller" would be something Dave would
> > > consider building in the future, if enough people were interested.
> >
>
> I don't get the point of the thread, there are hundreds of generic
> control surfaces out there.... what's the point of building a new one?
>
> I can control most, if not all the parameters of the evolver, from my
> drehbank, and of most of my synths in the studio. I already have no
> space left on my desktop (uWave XT, Pod, evolver, drum machine
> drehbank)
>
> I say, let's have Dave focus on great synth engines.
>
> Cheers,
> /R
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 10:09:59AM -0000, Roonan wrote:
>    To fit your MM not? ;-)

Yeah, the MM kind of took everything over. Which is fine :-)  But in
order to get anything else, I'll have to get a new desk I think.  Which
is fine, because it will be awhile before I'll be getting anything (and
there's not too much I really *need* right now).

Joe

TOO MUCH INFORMATION!!!  :D


Ski
www.ex5tech.com
EX5Tech Evolver forum:
http://www.ex5tech.com/ex5ubb_cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=23


--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <richard@c...> wrote:
> I personally just hate using generic controllers - its one reason I 
can't
> stand softsynths. I like the feel of individual synths and I like 
to get to
> know them and where the important bits are located as I would a 
lovers'
> body. If they are all controlled from the same nuetral surface its 
just
> shagging isn't it?
> 
> wow... I suppose I'm saying my lovers need to have multiple knobs
> 
> :)
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Riccardo Coen" <zinoff@y...>
> To: <DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 12:38 AM
> Subject: [Evolver] Re: The New DSI Polyphonic Synth - programmer 
interface
> 
> 
> > --- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, blip <bleep@w...> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, ski_ex5tech wrote:
> > >
> > > > All valid points regarding the interface.  Perhaps a separate
> > > > dedicated "programmer/controller" would be something Dave 
would
> > > > consider building in the future, if enough people were 
interested.
> > >
> >
> > I don't get the point of the thread, there are hundreds of generic
> > control surfaces out there.... what's the point of building a new 
one?
> >
> > I can control most, if not all the parameters of the evolver, 
from my
> > drehbank, and of most of my synths in the studio. I already have 
no
> > space left on my desktop (uWave XT, Pod, evolver, drum machine
> > drehbank)
> >
> > I say, let's have Dave focus on great synth engines.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > /R
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >