Dave Smith Instruments SYNTHESIZERS

Ever since I've heard the news and seen the pictures of the scheduled 
monophonic Evolver Keyboard, I've been researching the engine behind 
Dave Smith's synths as a prospective buyer of the MEK. I understand 
that each oscillator and each filter is hardwired to either the left 
or the right channel. Is there any way to override this? I'd assume 
there'd be a monoraul output that I could route through an amp and 
then record from that if need be, but I've learned that spending large 
amounts of money on assumptions can be a bad idea, hehe. I'm really 
excited about the two analog and the two digital oscillators, and it'd 
be a shame if I had to 'waste' half of the oscillators and the filters 
to just get the same sound on each channel.

Again, sorry for the stupid question, but I hope you can understand.

-- Dustin

hey dustin,

the evolver has 2 discrete channels, as you discovered.

analogue osc 1 and digital osc 3 both go thrugh lpf 1 and vca 1.
analogue osc 2 and digital osc 4 both go through lpf 2 and vca 2.

But, it has a "pan" parameter that lets you mix both channels to either
separate L+R outs or varying degrees of mixed.

so, yeah, when you set the pan parameter to mix channels evenly, you can
get all 4 oscs on each output. 
but can't have all 4 oscillators through 1 filter.

does that make sense? go and check out the evo signal flow diagram in
the manual.



julian


On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 05:25:16 -0000, "Dustin" <gooooyaffa@...>
said:
> Ever since I've heard the news and seen the pictures of the scheduled 
> monophonic Evolver Keyboard, I've been researching the engine behind 
> Dave Smith's synths as a prospective buyer of the MEK. I understand 
> that each oscillator and each filter is hardwired to either the left 
> or the right channel. Is there any way to override this? I'd assume 
> there'd be a monoraul output that I could route through an amp and 
> then record from that if need be, but I've learned that spending large 
> amounts of money on assumptions can be a bad idea, hehe. I'm really 
> excited about the two analog and the two digital oscillators, and it'd 
> be a shame if I had to 'waste' half of the oscillators and the filters 
> to just get the same sound on each channel.
> 
> Again, sorry for the stupid question, but I hope you can understand.
> 
> -- Dustin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
-- 
http://bleepin.com

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different

Oh, I understand now. I was under the impression that the left channel
would end up being panned to the left and that the right channel would
end up being panned to the right. Thanks for your help. Although it's
too bad you can't put all four oscillators through one filter, it's
still an amazing system that I'm thinking I'll have to end up buying.

Thanks for your help!
-- Dustin

On 1/23/06, Julian <jujulilianan@warpmail.net> wrote:
> hey dustin,
>
> the evolver has 2 discrete channels, as you discovered.
>
> analogue osc 1 and digital osc 3 both go thrugh lpf 1 and vca 1.
> analogue osc 2 and digital osc 4 both go through lpf 2 and vca 2.
>
> But, it has a "pan" parameter that lets you mix both channels to either
> separate L+R outs or varying degrees of mixed.
>
> so, yeah, when you set the pan parameter to mix channels evenly, you can
> get all 4 oscs on each output.
> but can't have all 4 oscillators through 1 filter.
>
> does that make sense? go and check out the evo signal flow diagram in
> the manual.
>
>
>
> julian
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 05:25:16 -0000, "Dustin" <gooooyaffa@gmail.com>
> said:
> > Ever since I've heard the news and seen the pictures of the scheduled
> > monophonic Evolver Keyboard, I've been researching the engine behind
> > Dave Smith's synths as a prospective buyer of the MEK. I understand
> > that each oscillator and each filter is hardwired to either the left
> > or the right channel. Is there any way to override this? I'd assume
> > there'd be a monoraul output that I could route through an amp and
> > then record from that if need be, but I've learned that spending large
> > amounts of money on assumptions can be a bad idea, hehe. I'm really
> > excited about the two analog and the two digital oscillators, and it'd
> > be a shame if I had to 'waste' half of the oscillators and the filters
> > to just get the same sound on each channel.
> >
> > Again, sorry for the stupid question, but I hope you can understand.
> >
> > -- Dustin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> http://bleepin.com
>
> --
> http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different…
>
>
> ________________________________
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>  Visit your group "DSI_Evolver" on the web.
>
>  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.
>  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.
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> ________________________________
>

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:44:03 +0900, "Miles Bader" <miles@...> said:

> Given a simplistic model of what filters and mixers do, it would seem
> that the results would be identical; in real life, of course there are
> issues like saturating the mixer, etc., that might make a difference.
> 
yep. all the difference happens in the nonlinear area of the circuit's
performance.

Saturation of the filter produces sum and difference frequencies for the
oscillator waveforms going into it. So having 4 signals going into 1
nonlinear system is different to having 2 pairs of 2 signals going into
separate nonlinear systems.

having the evolver as it is makes for some very good things, like stereo
filtering effects, especially for external processing, but I can't help
but wonder what it'd be like to be able to stack all four oscs just into
one filter channel. My dream evolver would allow serial and parallel
analogue filter arrangements (and the choice of HP, LP, BP, BR filter
types for each filter) but I guess it'd be quite a pain for DS to make
happen. It certianly wouldn't be just a firmware upgrade! :-)

-- 
http://bleepin.com

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... Fastmail...

"Julian" <jujulilianan@...> writes:
> My dream evolver would allow serial and parallel
> analogue filter arrangements (and the choice of HP, LP, BP, BR filter
> types for each filter) but I guess it'd be quite a pain for DS to make
> happen. It certianly wouldn't be just a firmware upgrade! :-)

Even for just LP, I think the osc->filter signal path is internal to
each voice chip...

-Miles
-- 
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're
just making him madder and madder." -- Homer Simpson

Dustin Alfonso Chacón <gooooyaffa@...> writes:
> Although it's too bad you can't put all four oscillators through one
> filter

One thing I've always wondered (even pre-evolver, I think it was the
CS-15 that first brought this to mind) is: does it make a difference?

I mean, is there a sonicly perceivable difference between
(1) mixing two oscs then feeding the mixer into a single filter, and
(2) feeding the two oscs into two identical filters, and then mixing
the filter outputs?

Given a simplistic model of what filters and mixers do, it would seem
that the results would be identical; in real life, of course there are
issues like saturating the mixer, etc., that might make a difference.

-miles
-- 
/\ /\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute kitty virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread.