Dave Smith Instruments SYNTHESIZERS

I read the specs and heard the demos of the poly evolver meanwhile I 
own a Waldorf Microwave XT....to be honest, considering that the 
sigla path of the poli evolver if half analog and hal digital....why 
then should I spend 1400$ for it while the waldorf can do much more 
interesting sounds and is 10 vouice poliphonic? On top of this thw 
microwave xt has the Multi features where I can stack 8 different 
patches together each one with his own arpeggiator.....so 8-note 
poliphony with 8 different sounds......and it's just 500$ second 
hand..............

I have a microwave II and a polyevolver chained with an evolver.  The poly
has a very strong in your face sound, more so than any other synth I've
played with before.

	You can argue stats all you like but it really comes down to sound, at that
point stats are really meaningless.

	BTW, the poly demo's really stink compared to what it can do in reality.

	Personally I like them both.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arkamaxx [mailto:arkamaxx@...]
> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 4:10 PM
> To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Evolver] Poly Evolver VS Waldorf Microwave XT
>
>
> I read the specs and heard the demos of the poly evolver meanwhile I
> own a Waldorf Microwave XT....to be honest, considering that the
> sigla path of the poli evolver if half analog and hal digital....why
> then should I spend 1400$ for it while the waldorf can do much more
> interesting sounds and is 10 vouice poliphonic? On top of this thw
> microwave xt has the Multi features where I can stack 8 different
> patches together each one with his own arpeggiator.....so 8-note
> poliphony with 8 different sounds......and it's just 500$ second
> hand..............
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Tired of hearing the same songs over and over?
> Listen to Internet Radio! Skip songs. Click to listen to LAUNCHcast!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Ykrq7C/HARHAA/n1hLAA/QnLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I own the XT and Evolver.

They don't sound the same (but they can)
and compliment each other very well.
Can't see the day i won't use these
two in my small studio.

I want a Poly but
really don't have the $.
It'll have to wait a year or two :(

I have no need for other synths since
these two have met.

Good luck with your choices,

Simon



on 23/05/04 6:56 PM, DodgingRain at Chris@... wrote:

> I have a microwave II and a polyevolver chained with an evolver.  The poly
> has a very strong in your face sound, more so than any other synth I've
> played with before.
> 
> You can argue stats all you like but it really comes down to sound, at that
> point stats are really meaningless.
> 
> BTW, the poly demo's really stink compared to what it can do in reality.
> 
> Personally I like them both.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arkamaxx [mailto:arkamaxx@...]
>> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 4:10 PM
>> To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [Evolver] Poly Evolver VS Waldorf Microwave XT
>> 
>> 
>> I read the specs and heard the demos of the poly evolver meanwhile I
>> own a Waldorf Microwave XT....to be honest, considering that the
>> sigla path of the poli evolver if half analog and hal digital....why
>> then should I spend 1400$ for it while the waldorf can do much more
>> interesting sounds and is 10 vouice poliphonic? On top of this thw
>> microwave xt has the Multi features where I can stack 8 different
>> patches together each one with his own arpeggiator.....so 8-note
>> poliphony with 8 different sounds......and it's just 500$ second
>> hand..............
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>> ---------------------~-->
>> Tired of hearing the same songs over and over?
>> Listen to Internet Radio! Skip songs. Click to listen to LAUNCHcast!
>> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Ykrq7C/HARHAA/n1hLAA/QnLolB/TM
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------~->
>> 
>> 
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Well, I'm glad that somebody has both instruments to test so is able 
to testify the good sound of it. My point is on the "analog" 
signature of this instrument: aint analog.....is hybryd full stop. 
For that price tag I think Dave Smith should have done something 
like Alesis did in the Andromeda: make the all chain analog, non 
AD/DA converters anywhere just a side-chain with AD/DA converters if 
you want to use the onboard effects which, as most cases, arent 
always top-nothc. I do not think that AD/DA converters included in 
the poly-evolver are the best on the market....normally they are 
included in top quality sound cards....and the cost a fortune!!! 
(motu, rme....). So you get 4 voice polyphony for 1400$ and is 
hybryd...The A6 Andromeda id 16 voice polyphonic, 4 time more 
powerful, and is both analog & hybryd, has No.1 keyboard, full of 
knobs.......and is not even twice as much expesive (check 
www.novamusik.com it lists for 2.699$).
IMHO the poly evolver should cost HALF....and it would be largely 
enough....1400$ is way too much TODAY: 4 curtis chips.....and 1 DSP 
for 1400$? Too Much. My opinion.

From: "arkamaxx" <arkamaxx@...>

> For that price tag
<snip>
>.and the cost a fortune!!!
<snip>
> polyphony for 1400$ and is
> hybryd...The A6 Andromeda i
<snip>
> 2.699$
> IMHO the poly evolver should cost HALF....and it would be largely
> enough....1400$ is way too much TODAY: 4 curtis chips.....and 1 DSP
> for 1400$? Too Much. My opinion.
>
good grief.  are you a musician or a fucking accountant?
...........or are you a troll??

I also own an evolver (just the standard one though) and an XTk.
they're totally different things.....
The XTk is a great synth to have, but, well, it's no evolver.... and the
evolver is no XTk... oh, and evolver is nothing like an A6 either.

As for saying the evolver has no analogue signature (FFS, it says
"analog/digital synth" right there in big letters on the front!!), well
maybe you should actually listen to one in person before deciding that....
rather than just making up some ridiculous complaint about the evolver's
architecture (its the digital parts in it that make it what it is as much as
the analogue parts.... "sidechaining" the feedback loop and 2 of the
oscillators per voice would make no sense at all...)

What next? are you going to complain the evolver doesn't have firewire like
a MOTU 828 does? or maybe that it doesn't load any samples like an MPC4000
does? or are you going to complain it doesn't have a set of built in default
drum sounds like the MC303? ....or it doesn't make coffee like an espresso
machine, while pressing your suits and getting 20 miles per gallon on the
freeway?

buy one. listen to it. Maybe you will be able to post a sensible comment
then... and hey, if you don't like it, isn't there a money back guarantee?
from DSI website: "All sales are 100% guaranteed; if you don't like your
synth (though I can't imagine that happening!) you can return it within 2
weeks for a full refund as long as it is still in new condition."



julian

(calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean)

On 23 mai 2004, at 23:09, arkamaxx wrote:

> I read the specs and heard the demos of the poly evolver meanwhile I
> own a Waldorf Microwave XT....to be honest, considering that the
> sigla path of the poli evolver if half analog and hal digital....why
> then should I spend 1400$ for it while the waldorf can do much more
> interesting sounds and is 10 vouice poliphonic? On top of this thw
> microwave xt has the Multi features where I can stack 8 different
> patches together each one with his own arpeggiator.....so 8-note
> poliphony with 8 different sounds......and it's just 500$ second
> hand..............

Well, I have mQ and mono Evolver here, and I can say that I am using 
Evolver much more just because it sits better in the mix.  With 
Waldorf, you can do some serious sound designing, but I don't feel that 
the sound that comes out of mQ is as strong as what I hear from 
Evolver.  YMMV.

I paid $750 US for the mQ, and $600 or so for Evolver.  How small the 
price difference is for these 25 voice poly instrument & monophonic 
machine doesn't really make me feel bad...

I think you should try it for yourself, and decide if you can justify 
the cost.  For some the price makes sense, and for others it doesn't.   
I don't think you can judge an instrument without hearing one.

Good luck,


-Yutaka

Let's put opinions and flames aside for a moment, and calmly review a 
few facts...

1) It costs a lot more to build an analog machine than it does to 
build a comparable digital machine.  Believe it or not, this 
statement holds true even if you like the sound and/or features of a 
given digital machine better than a given analog machine.

Conclusion - If you like the sound and/or features of a given digital 
machine better than a given analog machine, just go buy the digital 
machine.  You'll feel much better, and save a lot of time.


2) Buying a used instrument, whether it's analog or digital, will in 
most cases cost less than buying a comparable new instrument.  Of 
course, this doesn't always hold true for certain rare and sought 
after classic synths.

Conclusion - Don't expect the manufacturer of a new instrument to 
price the gear to be competitive with used sales.  If you find a 
great used instrument that you like, for a price you like, buy it.


3) Buying a "new" instrument from a bankrupt manufacturer, whether 
it's analog or digital, will always cost less than buying a 
comparable new instrument from a non-bankrupt manufacturer.

Conclusion - Much the same conclusion as the previous item.  If you 
find a great instrument that you like, for a price you like, and 
you're not worried about support issues from the bankrupt 
manufacturer, buy it.


4) The "economies of scale" are not nearly as great for analog 
machines as for digital machines.

Conclusion - Digital machine #1, with twice the features/power of 
digital machine #2, will usually cost significantly less than twice 
the price of digital machine #2.  The same can't be expected of 
analog machines.  Having twice the analog features/power will usually 
cost nearly twice as much.

- - - - -

The simple act of complaining that an "all analog" or "mostly analog" 
machine should cost the same as a comparable digital machine, or a 
comparable analog machine from a bankrupt manufacturer, doesn't 
change the economics of the situation for the manufacturer of an "all 
analog" or "mostly analog" machine.

I've honestly looked around, and have yet to find a better bargain 
for a new analog synth (from a non-bankrupt manufacturer) with the 
feature set of the Evolver.  I'm sure I may have missed one or two, 
though, so if you know of one, please let us know!  :)


Regarding the *sound* of the Evolver versus other synths... well, 
that takes us squarely back into "Subjective Land"!  Everyone has 
their own likes and dislikes, and there's no right or wrong.  I 
highly recommend buying something that has a sound you like.  :)


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

Fantastic....  That's just whats I was thinking but was unable to express
like you did.

It definitely sounds like he wants the Microwave XT.  I own a Virus C,
JP8080, and formerly a micro-modular...

I sold my micro to help pay for the Evolver b/c I think it sounds fantastic.
It has become the focus of my time and I'm neglecting my other
full-featured, swiss army digital synths...

Why?  b/c the sound of the Evolver goes from punchy analog fatness, to
trashy digital crunchiness

So what do you want more for your $$,  that's the question you need to
answer. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ski_ex5tech [mailto:ztja05@...] 
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 8:22 PM
> To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Evolver] Re: Poly Evolver VS Waldorf Microwave XT
> 
> Let's put opinions and flames aside for a moment, and calmly 
> review a few facts...
> 
> 1) It costs a lot more to build an analog machine than it 
> does to build a comparable digital machine.  Believe it or 
> not, this statement holds true even if you like the sound 
> and/or features of a given digital machine better than a 
> given analog machine.
> 
> Conclusion - If you like the sound and/or features of a given 
> digital machine better than a given analog machine, just go 
> buy the digital machine.  You'll feel much better, and save a 
> lot of time.
> 
> 
> 2) Buying a used instrument, whether it's analog or digital, 
> will in most cases cost less than buying a comparable new 
> instrument.  Of course, this doesn't always hold true for 
> certain rare and sought after classic synths.
> 
> Conclusion - Don't expect the manufacturer of a new 
> instrument to price the gear to be competitive with used 
> sales.  If you find a great used instrument that you like, 
> for a price you like, buy it.
> 
> 
> 3) Buying a "new" instrument from a bankrupt manufacturer, 
> whether it's analog or digital, will always cost less than 
> buying a comparable new instrument from a non-bankrupt manufacturer.
> 
> Conclusion - Much the same conclusion as the previous item.  
> If you find a great instrument that you like, for a price you 
> like, and you're not worried about support issues from the 
> bankrupt manufacturer, buy it.
> 
> 
> 4) The "economies of scale" are not nearly as great for 
> analog machines as for digital machines.
> 
> Conclusion - Digital machine #1, with twice the 
> features/power of digital machine #2, will usually cost 
> significantly less than twice the price of digital machine 
> #2.  The same can't be expected of analog machines.  Having 
> twice the analog features/power will usually cost nearly 
> twice as much.
> 
> - - - - -
> 
> The simple act of complaining that an "all analog" or "mostly analog" 
> machine should cost the same as a comparable digital machine, 
> or a comparable analog machine from a bankrupt manufacturer, 
> doesn't change the economics of the situation for the 
> manufacturer of an "all analog" or "mostly analog" machine.
> 
> I've honestly looked around, and have yet to find a better 
> bargain for a new analog synth (from a non-bankrupt 
> manufacturer) with the feature set of the Evolver.  I'm sure 
> I may have missed one or two, though, so if you know of one, 
> please let us know!  :)
> 
> 
> Regarding the *sound* of the Evolver versus other synths... 
> well, that takes us squarely back into "Subjective Land"!  
> Everyone has their own likes and dislikes, and there's no 
> right or wrong.  I highly recommend buying something that has 
> a sound you like.  :)
> 
> 
> Ski
> www.ex5tech.com
> EX5Tech Evolver forum:
> http://www.ex5tech.com/ex5ubb_cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=23
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> ---------------------~--> Over 1 billion served! The most 
> music videos on the web.
> Click to Watch now!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Xkrq7C/IARHAA/n1hLAA/QnLolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------~->
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
>

Come on....I'm comparig MARKET price of the gear...I personally do 
not give a damn about each company's balance sheets and costs....and 
on to of that who is able to tell me that Dave might follow the 
other companies into bankrupcy? I think after he developed the 
Prophet VS the company had some problems isn't it? So regardless for 
the company's financial situation what I see today is a new born 
poly synth with (I do believe what other say here) a punchy and 
beautiful sound with a price which I do not think will boost teh 
sales because half of it includes development costs. I work in real 
estate development and, believe me, development cost are spread all 
over the product you make, not only on the first 30% of purchasers! 
All copmanied that went bankrupcy did the same Dave is doing: high 
price in the beginning....reaching of the break even point and 
then.....????? lack of support and evetually no more sales unless a 
new synth is released....I think it would me much better spread the 
development cost on a wider time-basis...therefore the price would 
be reduced (thus Dave's profit) but the company might benefit from 
bigger sales....then bigger sales equial to lower cost of priduction 
due to the larger volume of raw material acquired...and do forth...
Well I'm not an economist but what I see is always the same story: 
new synth....fucking high price!!! Come on....1400$ is too much!
Bye 


--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, "ski_ex5tech" <ztja05@o...> 
wrote:
> Let's put opinions and flames aside for a moment, and calmly 
review a 
> few facts...
> 
> 1) It costs a lot more to build an analog machine than it does to 
> build a comparable digital machine.  Believe it or not, this 
> statement holds true even if you like the sound and/or features of 
a 
> given digital machine better than a given analog machine.
> 
> Conclusion - If you like the sound and/or features of a given 
digital 
> machine better than a given analog machine, just go buy the 
digital 
> machine.  You'll feel much better, and save a lot of time.
> 
> 
> 2) Buying a used instrument, whether it's analog or digital, will 
in 
> most cases cost less than buying a comparable new instrument.  Of 
> course, this doesn't always hold true for certain rare and sought 
> after classic synths.
> 
> Conclusion - Don't expect the manufacturer of a new instrument to 
> price the gear to be competitive with used sales.  If you find a 
> great used instrument that you like, for a price you like, buy it.
> 
> 
> 3) Buying a "new" instrument from a bankrupt manufacturer, whether 
> it's analog or digital, will always cost less than buying a 
> comparable new instrument from a non-bankrupt manufacturer.
> 
> Conclusion - Much the same conclusion as the previous item.  If 
you 
> find a great instrument that you like, for a price you like, and 
> you're not worried about support issues from the bankrupt 
> manufacturer, buy it.
> 
> 
> 4) The "economies of scale" are not nearly as great for analog 
> machines as for digital machines.
> 
> Conclusion - Digital machine #1, with twice the features/power of 
> digital machine #2, will usually cost significantly less than 
twice 
> the price of digital machine #2.  The same can't be expected of 
> analog machines.  Having twice the analog features/power will 
usually 
> cost nearly twice as much.
> 
> - - - - -
> 
> The simple act of complaining that an "all analog" or "mostly 
analog" 
> machine should cost the same as a comparable digital machine, or a 
> comparable analog machine from a bankrupt manufacturer, doesn't 
> change the economics of the situation for the manufacturer of 
an "all 
> analog" or "mostly analog" machine.
> 
> I've honestly looked around, and have yet to find a better bargain 
> for a new analog synth (from a non-bankrupt manufacturer) with the 
> feature set of the Evolver.  I'm sure I may have missed one or 
two, 

> though, so if you know of one, please let us know!  :)
> 
> 
> Regarding the *sound* of the Evolver versus other synths... well, 
> that takes us squarely back into "Subjective Land"!  Everyone has 
> their own likes and dislikes, and there's no right or wrong.  I 
> highly recommend buying something that has a sound you like.  :)
> 
> 
> Ski
> www.ex5tech.com
> EX5Tech Evolver forum:
> http://www.ex5tech.com/ex5ubb_cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=23

on 25-05-2004 12:30, arkamaxx at arkamaxx@... wrote:

reaching of the break even point and
> then.....????? lack of support and evetually no more sales unless a
> new synth is released....

Dave Smith and a lack of support? He'd rather die!

Boele

From: "arkamaxx" <arkamaxx@...>

> sales because half of it includes development costs. I work in real
> estate development and, believe me, development cost are spread all
> over the product you make, not only on the first 30% of purchasers!

>
AHA!! I got it!!. You're not a musician or an accountant, you're a real
estate agent.  It all makes sense now.....

Maybe if you took out a 35 year loan to buy the polyevolver, hedged against
currency fluctuations and the devaluation of hardware synths vs softsynths
over the next 35 years,  and then set up a company for each track you wanted
to write, with yourself as the contractor, and then as the contractor you
also leased out the polyevolver to your tracks on a per-voice per-minute
basis, then your music could pay for the cost of the evolver rather than
you, and everybody can just make profit on top of profit in a fantasy
fairytale world of unbounded economic growth? That would sure be swell.

or.... perhaps you could just stop whining about prices and stop dribbling
on about how to improve the cost structure of things you obviously don't
understand?

I'm not sure which solution is best, which one's good for you?



julian

(yeah, ok.... I know.. this thread really has gone past any point of useful
communication now, this is my last post on it)

--
http://bleepin.com

Ok Julian..I have to admit...you're very funny! Anyway...It has been 
nice to exchange views on the polievolver even though I thought that 
some of the replies could have been more technical than sarcastic 
but....still...funny. Thanks everyone...and Mr. Julian..I 
swear..I'll never contraddict you again!!! Peace. 

Ciao

--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, "mr julian" <jujulilianan@w...> 
wrote:
> From: "arkamaxx" <arkamaxx@y...>
> 
> > sales because half of it includes development costs. I work in 
real
> > estate development and, believe me, development cost are spread 
all
> > over the product you make, not only on the first 30% of 
purchasers!
> 
> >
> AHA!! I got it!!. You're not a musician or an accountant, you're a 
real
> estate agent.  It all makes sense now.....
> 
> Maybe if you took out a 35 year loan to buy the polyevolver, 
hedged against
> currency fluctuations and the devaluation of hardware synths vs 
softsynths
> over the next 35 years,  and then set up a company for each track 
you wanted
> to write, with yourself as the contractor, and then as the 
contractor you
> also leased out the polyevolver to your tracks on a per-voice per-
minute
> basis, then your music could pay for the cost of the evolver 
rather than
> you, and everybody can just make profit on top of profit in a 
fantasy
> fairytale world of unbounded economic growth? That would sure be 
swell.
> 
> or.... perhaps you could just stop whining about prices and stop 
dribbling
> on about how to improve the cost structure of things you obviously 
don't
> understand?
> 
> I'm not sure which solution is best, which one's good for you?
> 
> 
> 
> julian
> 
> (yeah, ok.... I know.. this thread really has gone past any point 
of useful

> communication now, this is my last post on it)
> 
> --
> http://bleepin.com

On May 25, 2004, at 6:51 AM, mr julian wrote:

>  or.... perhaps you could just stop whining about prices and stop 
> dribbling
>  on about how to improve the cost structure of things you obviously 
> don't
>  understand?

wow. I'm not sure that I'm going to stay on this list if this is what 
it's turned
into. someone criticizes one aspect of a synth you like and you resort 
to
name calling - that's not what this community's about, is it?

Joe

On May 25, 2004, at 11:34 AM, Ravi Ivan Sharma wrote:

> Last warning to ALL of you on this thread, including all who complain 
> about complainers. Next step will be that your posts will be moderated 
> by yours truly and they simply won't get through. I have no patience 
> and this is not a democracy.

thanks, Ravi. now I know that this is indeed NOT a community discussion 
board since discussion and criticism are squelched by the moderator.

after a year of membership and love for this forum, I will be 
unsubscribing.

Joe

I too, am unsubscribing.  Dave, the guy running your yahoo thread is a 
tyrant.

I understand suppressing conversation that gets completely rude and 
degrades to name calling, but telling folks that they can't voice 
discontent with behavior here is socially oppressive and works 
*against* the community.

Goodbye, Evolver group. (thanks to Ravi)

-- Damon (Poly Evolver Factory Patcher, Owner, Evolver #57)

On May 25, 2004, at 9:12 AM, Joe Melnyk wrote:

> On May 25, 2004, at 11:34 AM, Ravi Ivan Sharma wrote:
>
>  > Last warning to ALL of you on this thread, including all who 
> complain
>  > about complainers. Next step will be that your posts will be 
> moderated
>  > by yours truly and they simply won't get through. I have no patience
>  > and this is not a democracy.
>
>  thanks, Ravi. now I know that this is indeed NOT a community 
> discussion
>  board since discussion and criticism are squelched by the moderator.
>
>  after a year of membership and love for this forum, I will be
>  unsubscribing.
>
>  Joe
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <122603_LREC_bkup_BR_Ashanti.jpg>
> <image.tiff>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> 	• 	To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DSI_Evolver/
>  
> 	• 	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DSI_Evolver-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  
> 	• 	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
> Service.
>
>

--- implode7@... wrote:
> What about those who complain about those who
> complain about complainers?
> 
so what? are you complaning?


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/

Not me, boss.

Worse than complaining about people complaining about complainers is
questioning questioners regarding complainers of complainants. Not to
mention commentators of such.

:)

--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, peter sedin <midihooker@y...> wrote:

> --- implode7@c... wrote:
> > What about those who complain about those who
> > complain about complainers?
> > 
> so what? are you complaning?
> 
> 
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com/