Dave Smith Instruments SYNTHESIZERS

a bit OT and just out of interest Afro, but why isn't the G2 engine working 
out for ya? Sound? complexity? interface?

Richard

--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, "Richard BT" <richardscott@b...>
wrote:
> a bit OT and just out of interest Afro, but why isn't the G2 engine
working 
> out for ya? Sound? complexity? interface?
> 
> Richard

Oh, it's alright, but it's just too clean, thin and sterile. If I
wanted super clean "professional" sounds, then I would be very happy.
But I'm more into the big dirty sounds the Evolver does effortlessly.
I've tried programming similar sounds for the G2, but it's just so
much effort to dirty it up, to make it do subtle weird things to the
sound. And it's not much fun to play around with. Even with a
Behringer BCR controller it's still like playing a soft synth, but
with 0 latency. I really like to see what I'm doing, and the Evolver's
nice because it's all right there in front of you. I'm sure I'd
probably like the G2 alot more if I had the keyboard version with the
excellent interface, but that's 2 grand more and I can't afford it...

But yeah, every now and then I get a nice sound out of it, or a track
might require a nice clean pad or some controlled sub bass or
something and it's really good at those sorts of "typical" sounds.
It's good as an effect processor too. But it's very uninspiring
despite being a modular synth. It's got absolutely 0 character. You
can program that character into it, but it's still got that G2
undertone. I've played a Lead 2, and also stuffed around with a Nord
Micro, and this is like the boring, super clean cut, 9-5 office job,
needs to get out more older brother.

There are probably a handful of patches I've made, and a few from the
mailing list/forum that I really like, and then a ton of patches that
are frustrated attempts at getting it to sound the way I want it to.
And then I go to the Evolver and spend 5 minutes programming it and
get a really crazy sound that I've never heard before.

What attracted me was the whole powerful modular thing - like Reaktor
but more intuitive and a piece of hardware as opposed to software that
may crash at any moment. What I wasn't counting on was the complete
lack of any character and warmth.

If that's what you're after Richard, then this is the ultimate. It can
do anything, and everything it does is clean and polished - no matter
how much you distort and bit crush it, it still sounds "clean"... well
not quite, but you get the idea ;). It would be good if you have to
compose some tracks for a TV show or a movie or something and they
just want something that works and sounds nice. For more experimental
electronic music, I hate to say it, but this will probably disappoint you.

Sorry for the rant, I hope I didn't offend anyone. I'm not trying to
offend people who are looking for that kind of sound (and if you are,
why do you own an Evolver? ;)) but just that it doesn't work for me.

Richard - if you're really keen on trying out the G2, get the software
demo from www.clavia.se . The engine is basically that x 4 and
polyphonic. It sounds very similar to the real engine too, although it
runs at 44.1k/16-bit instead of the engine's 96k/24-bit.

Afro88

thanks for the detailed reply Afro. I do have a G2 engine (u repled to my 
post on the forum today) and yeah basically its no funto programme, though 
an IBK 10 control is making it a lot funner. In many ways the evolver gives 
more immediate hands on results and I often find that by tweaking about I 
come up with beautiful things that are more or less whole tracks in their 
own right... of course lacking CC# limits the evolver as a performance tool 
too

But I'm struggling with G2, as i am more of a composer than a programmer, I 
do love the G2 as a drum machine (I prefer it the machinedrum sonically)... 
and its nice to have at least one do it all digi synth amidst my analogue 
machines. But maybe I'll come to the same conclusions as you in the long 
run... in the end stuff like the evolver, matrix 1000 and the Andromeda are 
inspiring because they sound alive... in comparison I see the nord more like 
a massive computer with almost infinite possibilties

Richard


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

From: "afro_88" <afro88@...>
To: <DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 9:27 AM
Subject: [Evolver] Re: I think I have a problem...


> --- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, "Richard BT" <richardscott@b...>
> wrote:
>> a bit OT and just out of interest Afro, but why isn't the G2 engine
> working
>> out for ya? Sound? complexity? interface?
>>
>> Richard
>
> Oh, it's alright, but it's just too clean, thin and sterile. If I
> wanted super clean "professional" sounds, then I would be very happy.
> But I'm more into the big dirty sounds the Evolver does effortlessly.
> I've tried programming similar sounds for the G2, but it's just so
> much effort to dirty it up, to make it do subtle weird things to the
> sound. And it's not much fun to play around with. Even with a
> Behringer BCR controller it's still like playing a soft synth, but
> with 0 latency. I really like to see what I'm doing, and the Evolver's
> nice because it's all right there in front of you. I'm sure I'd
> probably like the G2 alot more if I had the keyboard version with the
> excellent interface, but that's 2 grand more and I can't afford it...
>
> But yeah, every now and then I get a nice sound out of it, or a track
> might require a nice clean pad or some controlled sub bass or
> something and it's really good at those sorts of "typical" sounds.
> It's good as an effect processor too. But it's very uninspiring
> despite being a modular synth. It's got absolutely 0 character. You
> can program that character into it, but it's still got that G2
> undertone. I've played a Lead 2, and also stuffed around with a Nord
> Micro, and this is like the boring, super clean cut, 9-5 office job,
> needs to get out more older brother.
>
> There are probably a handful of patches I've made, and a few from the
> mailing list/forum that I really like, and then a ton of patches that
> are frustrated attempts at getting it to sound the way I want it to.
> And then I go to the Evolver and spend 5 minutes programming it and
> get a really crazy sound that I've never heard before.
>
> What attracted me was the whole powerful modular thing - like Reaktor
> but more intuitive and a piece of hardware as opposed to software that
> may crash at any moment. What I wasn't counting on was the complete
> lack of any character and warmth.
>
> If that's what you're after Richard, then this is the ultimate. It can
> do anything, and everything it does is clean and polished - no matter
> how much you distort and bit crush it, it still sounds "clean"... well
> not quite, but you get the idea ;). It would be good if you have to
> compose some tracks for a TV show or a movie or something and they
> just want something that works and sounds nice. For more experimental
> electronic music, I hate to say it, but this will probably disappoint you.
>
> Sorry for the rant, I hope I didn't offend anyone. I'm not trying to
> offend people who are looking for that kind of sound (and if you are,
> why do you own an Evolver? ;)) but just that it doesn't work for me.
>
> Richard - if you're really keen on trying out the G2, get the software
> demo from www.clavia.se . The engine is basically that x 4 and
> polyphonic. It sounds very similar to the real engine too, although it
> runs at 44.1k/16-bit instead of the engine's 96k/24-bit.
>
> Afro88
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ah, sorry Richard, there are a few of you on the mailing list and
forums. You're the ibk-10 guy, cool :) I agree that if the Evolver had
cc's it would be much better for live work. It would also enable you
to tweak more than one parameter at once. That's about the only thing
I would like to change about the Evolver - everything else is great!

I know I ragged on the G2 alot in that post, but you can get some
fantastic sounds from it. It's just such an effort to get away from
that "G2 sound". Maybe once I get a bit more analogue gear to do the
sort of stuff I want I'll start embracing the "G2 sound" much more
than I do now. Sounds like you have the gear to make the sounds the G2
struggles with, and the G2 does all the stuff the analogue gear can't
do and more. Interesting what you say about the machindrum though... I
actually heard of a guy that sold his Nord Modular when he got a
machinedrum and a monomachine, hehehe

Afro88

--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, "Richard BT" <richardscott@b...>
wrote:
> thanks for the detailed reply Afro. I do have a G2 engine (u repled
to my 
> post on the forum today) and yeah basically its no funto programme,
though 
> an IBK 10 control is making it a lot funner. In many ways the
evolver gives 
> more immediate hands on results and I often find that by tweaking
about I 
> come up with beautiful things that are more or less whole tracks in
their 
> own right... of course lacking CC# limits the evolver as a
performance tool 
> too
> 
> But I'm struggling with G2, as i am more of a composer than a
programmer, I 
> do love the G2 as a drum machine (I prefer it the machinedrum
sonically)... 
> and its nice to have at least one do it all digi synth amidst my
analogue 
> machines. But maybe I'll come to the same conclusions as you in the
long 
> run... in the end stuff like the evolver, matrix 1000 and the
Andromeda are 
> inspiring because they sound alive... in comparison I see the nord
more like 

> a massive computer with almost infinite possibilties
> 
> Richard

afro_88 wrote:

> I agree that if the Evolver had
>cc's it would be much better for live work. It would also enable you
>to tweak more than one parameter at once. That's about the only thing
>I would like to change about the Evolver - everything else is great!
>  
>
AAAARGH! GET A REAL CONTROLLER AND YOU CAN DO THIS!

PEAVEY PC-1600!!!
PEAVEY PC-1600X!!!

go on ebay. get one. and spend time automating evolver sounds, rather 
than going online and whining about not being able to.

It's not the evolver's fault that all the modern, cheaply made laptop 
accessory midi controllers available on the market have an abortion of a 
SysEx spec.

sorry to shout, but this continued ill-informed complaining about the 
evolver's design is plain retarded.
get gear that can do the job you want, or just get over it.


thanks.



julian

Hahaha, ok ok, fair enough. I didn't realise there were controllers
that allowed you to do that kind of thing. I'll stop whinging and get
back to my tracks ;)

Afro88

> AAAARGH! GET A REAL CONTROLLER AND YOU CAN DO THIS!
> 
> PEAVEY PC-1600!!!
> PEAVEY PC-1600X!!!
> 
> go on ebay. get one. and spend time automating evolver sounds, rather 
> than going online and whining about not being able to.
> 
> It's not the evolver's fault that all the modern, cheaply made laptop 
> accessory midi controllers available on the market have an abortion
of a 

> SysEx spec.
> 
> sorry to shout, but this continued ill-informed complaining about the 
> evolver's design is plain retarded.
> get gear that can do the job you want, or just get over it.
> 
> 
> thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> julian

bollocks Julian, had a bad day? Nobody's whining, we all love da Evo here
right? It has a major limitation in its CC# implementation that's all... 
anyway if you read the posts before deciding to shout you'd know I've got a 
real controller (IBK) but
sysex is by no means as convenient - especially for PERFORMANCE intruments 
like
windcontrollers and buchla lightning which don't tend to have sysex! Unless 
pressure is put to DSI and on forums like this for what users want then 
nothing will
ever happen right?

IMO the Evo is a near perfect synth, the inevitable limitations of its low
cost and UI could be overcome with more flexible CC# implementation... Dave 
suggested to me this may be possible in a future OS, but maybe that will 
never happen, if so then I'd quite like to know. That's all.

Try chamomile tea

Richard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "julian" <jujulilianan@...>
To: <DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Evolver] OT: G2's and the Evolver (was Re: I think I have a
problem...)

> afro_88 wrote:
>
>> I agree that if the Evolver had
>>cc's it would be much better for live work. It would also enable you
>>to tweak more than one parameter at once. That's about the only thing
>>I would like to change about the Evolver - everything else is great!
>>
>>
> AAAARGH! GET A REAL CONTROLLER AND YOU CAN DO THIS!
>
> PEAVEY PC-1600!!!
> PEAVEY PC-1600X!!!
>
> go on ebay. get one. and spend time automating evolver sounds, rather
> than going online and whining about not being able to.
>
> It's not the evolver's fault that all the modern, cheaply made laptop
> accessory midi controllers available on the market have an abortion of a
> SysEx spec.
>
> sorry to shout, but this continued ill-informed complaining about the
> evolver's design is plain retarded.
> get gear that can do the job you want, or just get over it.
>
>
> thanks.
>
>
>
> julian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Also, Don't forget that several controllers sending SYSEX at the same 
time will choke up a midi pipe very quick.  CC's use much less 
bandwidth. I asked for CC's too long ago, and Dave too said maybe.

Thing is, you only get a resolution of 128 steps, so something like the 
Filter which has greater resolution (164 I think,)  you may hear 
stepping.  But that's what the LFO's, sequencer, envelopes are for  :)

I still want CC's though....  we have a few



Richard BT wrote:

> bollocks Julian, had a bad day? Nobody's whining, we all love da Evo here
> right? It has a major limitation in its CC# implementation that's all... 
> anyway if you read the posts before deciding to shout you'd know I've got a 
> real controller (IBK) but
> sysex is by no means as convenient - especially for PERFORMANCE intruments 
> like
> windcontrollers and buchla lightning which don't tend to have sysex! Unless 
> pressure is put to DSI and on forums like this for what users want then 
> nothing will
> ever happen right?
> 
> IMO the Evo is a near perfect synth, the inevitable limitations of its low
> cost and UI could be overcome with more flexible CC# implementation... Dave 
> suggested to me this may be possible in a future OS, but maybe that will 
> never happen, if so then I'd quite like to know. That's all.
> 
> Try chamomile tea
> 
> Richard
>