Dave Smith Instruments SYNTHESIZERS

OK.. the one *major* issue with having CCs to control evolvers parameters,
as discussed before, is that the evolver has more than 128 parameters that
people might want to control... and there's only 120-ish available CCs per
MIDI channel. The reason your other modern synths can have CCs assigned to
parameters is simply because they don't have as many as evolver does....
also, the evolver has a couple of parameters with ranges greater than
0-127... which isn't so great seeing CCs only have that range of values.

So any kind of extended CC control would be a compromise...  which I guess
is fair enough, and better than nothing - but it's just something to keep in
mind. I think its safe to assume that CCs will never be a viable way to
fully program the synth, however there is definately a place to assign them
for realtime parameter modulation by sequencer...


For what you are all asking, there are two things to do.. globally assign
CCs to parameters for all patches, which would mean that your basic setup
would be compatible with a single generic set of controllers and whatever
you wanted to edit would work... but the downside is there will only be
about 120 CCs you can have assigned, which means some parameters will never
be controllable via CC. and chances are, somethig specific like a particular
brand of wind controller might have problems if it can't set different CCs
for the desired parameters...

The other option would be to have the CCs assignable per patch... but then
you get upto 120 CCs controlling 120 different parameters on each patch =
HELL for controlling your synth generally.  you would need to work out what
parameters you wanted to modulate in a patch, and then assign CCs to
parameters before you could use them.. On top of all this... if you are to
have a way to assign CCs to parameters, where would this functionality go on
the programming matrix? remember none of us get a new front panel with a new
OS update, so it's got to be something that fits around the way the existing
code works, as well as being intuative enough that you can use it without
any front panel notes, and just a 3 digit LED display...

We have a great developer for our synth here, and he does obviously care
about keeping us happy... that v2.0 update was excellent..... But if we're
going to go asking for these kind of changes, can we at least work out a way
to do it that won't make his beautiful synth a complete mess?  Also,
providing a path to a solution is a much more powerful way of asking for
somthing that you want, rather than just posing an open problem...

so everyone.. what exactly do you want (within these limits)? and thinking
about how it already works, how exactly do you want this new functionality
to work?

Maybe start with a list of what parameters everyone actually cares about
having realtime sequencable CC power over?



julian

On May 10, 2004, at 10:13 PM, mr julian wrote:
>  Maybe start with a list of what parameters everyone actually cares 
> about
>  having realtime sequencable CC power over?

great post, man. but I think it would be easy to chuck out 7 different 
parameters
(therefore leaving you with the 120 possible on the MIDI channel) that
*more-than-likely* nobody will want to tweak in realtime. for example, 
pretty
much all of the destination parameters can be thrown out - I'm 
*guessing* that most
people don't change their routing options in realtime.  and if they do, 
then leave
the ones that are likely to be changed in realtime - like OSC and LFO 
maybe - and
eliminate some of the others. you should be able to find seven of them 
pretty easily.

am I wrong? am I missing something? I understand that you shouldn't 
alienate
anyone by leaving out parameters they may find useful. but surely the 
leftover
and less often used parameters can be assigned via Sysex then (instead 
of
everything via Sysex as it is now).

Joe

>OK.. the one *major* issue with having CCs to control evolvers parameters,
>as discussed before, is that the evolver has more than 128 parameters that
>people might want to control... and there's only 120-ish available CCs per
>MIDI channel. The reason your other modern synths can have CCs assigned to
>parameters is simply because they don't have as many as evolver does....
>also, the evolver has a couple of parameters with ranges greater than
>0-127... which isn't so great seeing CCs only have that range of values.
>So any kind of extended CC control would be a compromise...


Yes, the evolver has more than 128 parameters.  But the point is you don't
need 120+ CC controllers at once!  The CC's on these modern synths, like the
Virus (which by the way does have more than 128 parameters to edit....) are
FREELY ASSIGNABLE to any parameter we want.  You are allowed to have CC's
and SYSEX going on at the same time.  You don't need to compromise between
the two.

All I'm asking is for MORE!  I don't need 128!  I'd never be editing 128
parameters at once.  10 Would be nice, 20 even better.  I only need to
assign the CC's I want to be editing for that particular patch.  So you see,
the limitation of 128 cc's vs the more than 128 parameters available is not
the issue here.  I can use my LFO's to modulate what I want, and the 10 or
more CC's to other parameters I happen to want to edit as well.

I like having fine control over as many parameters as possible.  I have used
10+ parameter changes at the same time going on.  CC's can be easily drawn
and edited in a DAW (as in my case, Cubase SX).  SYSEX cannot.  It takes me
minutes to do with CC what it would take for me 5 times as long to finely
edit SYSEX.


?. On top of all this... if you are to
>have a way to assign CCs to parameters, where would this functionality go
>on
>the programming matrix? remember none of us get a new front panel with a
>new
>OS update, so it's got to be something that fits around the way the
>existing
>code works, as well as being intuative enough that you can use it without
>any front panel notes, and just a 3 digit LED display...

>We have a great developer for our synth here, and he does obviously care
>about keeping us happy... that v2.0 update was excellent..... But if we're
>going to go asking for these kind of changes, can we at least work out a
>way
>to do it that won't make his beautiful synth a complete mess?  Also,
>providing a path to a solution is a much more powerful way of asking for
>somthing that you want, rather than just posing an open problem...

Adding Wave forms is not on the matrix, yet the capability is there.  An
editor update would be simple enough.  Adding CC's as modulation sources
would work quite easily with the current matrix setup.

I really don't understand how you think the Evolver's current functions
would be compromised.  Those who don't require the CC's need not be
concerned at all about them.  The same goes for people who don't use midi at
all, and just use the internal sequencing to program their synth.  These
people are note concerned with the midi parameters and therefore have no
need to read or know about them, how it functions, or how to access them.

>Maybe start with a list of what parameters everyone actually cares about
>having realtime sequencable CC power over?


Why hardcode CC's to specific parameters?  Make them freely assignable.
CC's 60 - 80 to whatever parameter of the Evolver you want. 

Now let me clarify that asking for this kind of an update is by no means
saying that I am unhappy with this synth.  I love it dearly.  But this in my
mind is a major limitation for how I work.

Can I work around it????  Yes... doesn't mean that I like it or don't wish
for an easier and better way.  

Robert

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.677 / Virus Database: 439 - Release Date: 5/4/2004

> Why hardcode CC's to specific parameters?  Make them freely 
assignable.
> CC's 60 - 80 to whatever parameter of the Evolver you want. 

Yes, great idea.  But why not have them all freely assignable? 
This is the way the Nord Modular works. It's so handy. Of course 
you don't need to control every single parameter in every patch 
but in each patch there will be different ones you will want to be 
able to control.



> Now let me clarify that asking for this kind of an update is by no 
means
> saying that I am unhappy with this synth.  I love it dearly.  But 
this in my
> mind is a major limitation for how I work.
> 
> Can I work around it????  Yes... doesn't mean that I like it or 
don't wish
> for an easier and better way.  

Yes, I have to say, I concur. This was the only thing I was 
surprised this synth didn't have. It just means I have to find a way 
to work around it.

steve

On May 10, 2004, at 11:08 PM, Robert Krueger wrote:

> Yes, the evolver has more than 128 parameters.  But the point is you 
> don't
> need 120+ CC controllers at once!  The CC's on these modern synths, 
> like the
> Virus (which by the way does have more than 128 parameters to 
> edit....) are
> FREELY ASSIGNABLE to any parameter we want.  You are allowed to have 
> CC's
> and SYSEX going on at the same time.  You don't need to compromise 
> between
> the two.

right, but I was addressing the issue of non-freely assignable CC's in 
combination
with a few Sysex-controllable parameters. it's more general - you 
wouldn''t
need a new controller bank in your MIDI controller for every program in 
the
Evo; a single one would do it in most cases (unless you require the 
sysex
functionality).  I would prefer this method, though I understand your 
desire for
the freely-assignable variety of control as well.

Joe

exactly - a handful of perameters would be enough, but they should be
user-assignible. That means another layer in the synth, to determine which
of the evolver midi controllers, say 1 to 8, is assigned to which of 128
incoming CCs. the Alesis Andromeda works that way and its fine for most
practical purposes.... of course morph groups like the Nord Modulars
assigning multiple CCs to a evolver controllers would be even better, but
lets be realistic...

If this extra layer in the synth acted as a default layer for all patches
that would be great, like the Andromeda, but if they could then be edited on
a patch by patch basis, like the Nord, that would be super-great and would
create huge flexibilty

Richard


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Krueger" <rkr1@...>
To: <DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 5:08 AM
Subject: RE: evo CC editing........ Re: [Evolver] Re: Setting up Edirol
PCR-30 for use with evolver?


> >OK.. the one *major* issue with having CCs to control evolvers
parameters,
> >as discussed before, is that the evolver has more than 128 parameters
that
> >people might want to control... and there's only 120-ish available CCs
per
> >MIDI channel. The reason your other modern synths can have CCs assigned
to
> >parameters is simply because they don't have as many as evolver does....
> >also, the evolver has a couple of parameters with ranges greater than
> >0-127... which isn't so great seeing CCs only have that range of values.
> >So any kind of extended CC control would be a compromise...
>
>
> Yes, the evolver has more than 128 parameters.  But the point is you don't
> need 120+ CC controllers at once!  The CC's on these modern synths, like
the
> Virus (which by the way does have more than 128 parameters to edit....)
are
> FREELY ASSIGNABLE to any parameter we want.  You are allowed to have CC's
> and SYSEX going on at the same time.  You don't need to compromise between
> the two.
>
> All I'm asking is for MORE!  I don't need 128!  I'd never be editing 128
> parameters at once.  10 Would be nice, 20 even better.  I only need to
> assign the CC's I want to be editing for that particular patch.  So you
see,
> the limitation of 128 cc's vs the more than 128 parameters available is
not
> the issue here.  I can use my LFO's to modulate what I want, and the 10 or
> more CC's to other parameters I happen to want to edit as well.
>
> I like having fine control over as many parameters as possible.  I have
used
> 10+ parameter changes at the same time going on.  CC's can be easily drawn
> and edited in a DAW (as in my case, Cubase SX).  SYSEX cannot.  It takes
me
> minutes to do with CC what it would take for me 5 times as long to finely
> edit SYSEX.
>
>
> ?. On top of all this... if you are to
> >have a way to assign CCs to parameters, where would this functionality go
> >on
> >the programming matrix? remember none of us get a new front panel with a
> >new
> >OS update, so it's got to be something that fits around the way the
> >existing
> >code works, as well as being intuative enough that you can use it without
> >any front panel notes, and just a 3 digit LED display...
>
> >We have a great developer for our synth here, and he does obviously care
> >about keeping us happy... that v2.0 update was excellent..... But if
we're
> >going to go asking for these kind of changes, can we at least work out a
> >way
> >to do it that won't make his beautiful synth a complete mess?  Also,
> >providing a path to a solution is a much more powerful way of asking for
> >somthing that you want, rather than just posing an open problem...
>
> Adding Wave forms is not on the matrix, yet the capability is there.  An
> editor update would be simple enough.  Adding CC's as modulation sources
> would work quite easily with the current matrix setup.
>
> I really don't understand how you think the Evolver's current functions
> would be compromised.  Those who don't require the CC's need not be
> concerned at all about them.  The same goes for people who don't use midi
at
> all, and just use the internal sequencing to program their synth.  These
> people are note concerned with the midi parameters and therefore have no
> need to read or know about them, how it functions, or how to access them.
>
> >Maybe start with a list of what parameters everyone actually cares about
> >having realtime sequencable CC power over?
>
>
> Why hardcode CC's to specific parameters?  Make them freely assignable.
> CC's 60 - 80 to whatever parameter of the Evolver you want.
>
> Now let me clarify that asking for this kind of an update is by no means
> saying that I am unhappy with this synth.  I love it dearly.  But this in
my

> mind is a major limitation for how I work.
>
> Can I work around it????  Yes... doesn't mean that I like it or don't wish
> for an easier and better way.
>
> Robert
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.677 / Virus Database: 439 - Release Date: 5/4/2004
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well, i don´t care about total CC control that much. I am happy with
the evolver. It would be enough for me when dsi could add just a few
new "modulators" like those already excist ( Modwheel:depth
Dest:unknown, breath etc..) 

And those new "modulators" should implemented in two ways:

a: 
as CC´s ( to control with your sequencer software and external controler )=


b: (and more important for me)
as new Modulator slots at the Evolvers User Interface !
( i was already talking about that and how it can be implementated. I
see no Problem there ! .. ) 

But note that dave has already ansered our wishes 2 weeks ago! And he
said that it MAY be happen ! Also he said that he has to do Updates
then for both - evo and poly. I guess that means hard work to do.
Personally i like the idea of individual OS versions. One for standart
users and one for crazy scientists... hehe.. ( that will never happen
anyway)

-phono




--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, "mr julian" <jujulilianan@w...> wrote:
> 
> OK.. the one *major* issue with having CCs to control evolvers
parameters,
> as discussed before, is that the evolver has more than 128
parameters that
> people might want to control... and there's only 120-ish available
CCs per
> MIDI channel. The reason your other modern synths can have CCs
assigned to
> parameters is simply because they don't have as many as evolver does....
> also, the evolver has a couple of parameters with ranges greater than
> 0-127... which isn't so great seeing CCs only have that range of values.
> 
> So any kind of extended CC control would be a compromise...  which I
guess
> is fair enough, and better than nothing - but it's just something to
keep in
> mind. I think its safe to assume that CCs will never be a viable way to
> fully program the synth, however there is definately a place to
assign them
> for realtime parameter modulation by sequencer...
> 
> 
> For what you are all asking, there are two things to do.. globally
assign
> CCs to parameters for all patches, which would mean that your basic
setup
> would be compatible with a single generic set of controllers and
whatever
> you wanted to edit would work... but the downside is there will only be
> about 120 CCs you can have assigned, which means some parameters
will never
> be controllable via CC. and chances are, somethig specific like a
particular
> brand of wind controller might have problems if it can't set
different CCs
> for the desired parameters...
> 
> The other option would be to have the CCs assignable per patch...
but then
> you get upto 120 CCs controlling 120 different parameters on each
patch =
> HELL for controlling your synth generally.  you would need to work
out what
> parameters you wanted to modulate in a patch, and then assign CCs to
> parameters before you could use them.. On top of all this... if you
are to
> have a way to assign CCs to parameters, where would this
functionality go on
> the programming matrix? remember none of us get a new front panel
with a new
> OS update, so it's got to be something that fits around the way the
existing
> code works, as well as being intuative enough that you can use it
without
> any front panel notes, and just a 3 digit LED display...
> 
> We have a great developer for our synth here, and he does obviously care
> about keeping us happy... that v2.0 update was excellent..... But if
we're
> going to go asking for these kind of changes, can we at least work
out a way
> to do it that won't make his beautiful synth a complete mess?  Also,
> providing a path to a solution is a much more powerful way of asking for
> somthing that you want, rather than just posing an open problem...
> 
> so everyone.. what exactly do you want (within these limits)? and
thinking
> about how it already works, how exactly do you want this new
functionality

> to work?
> 
> Maybe start with a list of what parameters everyone actually cares about
> having realtime sequencable CC power over?
> 
> 
> 
> julian