Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2010-10-13 by locatemodule
Hi all, I use my desktop evolver to sequence other gear and it sucks that sequencer 2 is not capable of producing rests. Is there a reason this has not been added to an update of the OS? Doesn't seem like it couldn't be added. Anyone know the reason for this? It would rule if this could be fixed, as of right now it's pretty limiting as far as sequencing other outboard gear. Thanks! David Farrell
2010-10-14 by James Elliott
Sad to say but there are lots of 'bugs'/irregularities with the evolvers that will never be fixed. There is a whole list of stuff that has been sent to DSI many times since I've been on this list (which has been a number of years now). DSI has officially responded once that the evolver is a finished/complete product, or something like that - i.e. no updates. Sorry, Jim ________________________________
From: locatemodule <locatemodule@earthlink.net> To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 7:56:26 PM Subject: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? Hi all, I use my desktop evolver to sequence other gear and it sucks that sequencer 2 is not capable of producing rests. Is there a reason this has not been added to an update of the OS? Doesn't seem like it couldn't be added. Anyone know the reason for this? It would rule if this could be fixed, as of right now it's pretty limiting as far as sequencing other outboard gear. Thanks! David Farrell
2010-10-14 by Rory
Sad to say but there are lots of 'bugs'/irregularities with the evolvers that will never be fixed. There is a whole list of stuff that has been sent to DSI many times since I've been on this list (which has been a number of years now). DSI has officially responded once that the evolver is a finished/complete product, or something like that - i.e. no updates.
Sorry,
Jim
From: locatemodule <locatemodule@...>
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 7:56:26 PM
Subject: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
Hi all,
I use my desktop evolver to sequence other gear and it sucks that sequencer 2 is not capable of producing rests. Is there a reason this has not been added to an update of the OS? Doesn't seem like it couldn't be added. Anyone know the reason for this? It would rule if this could be fixed, as of right now it's pretty limiting as far as sequencing other outboard gear.
Thanks!
David Farrell
2010-10-14 by Tom Wiltshire
I'm inclined to agree with Rory and DSI on this. Whilst there are many more features that "would be nice if", and *could* be added, at some point you have to say that the product is finished and send it out of the door. The alternative is bankruptcy, which has always been a very real possibility for synth companies. Even the big names in the industry like Bob Moog, Alan Pearlman, and Dave Smith himself have all gone out of business. So it could be done, but there's no way I'm expecting to see it happen. Instead of asking "What's the reason why they haven't done this?" you need to ask "Why would they do this?" T.
On 14 Oct 2010, at 11:24, Rory wrote: > > > As far as I can see the reason for this is practical, not a bug. The Evolver is monophonic. Therefor you can't have two sequencers controlling the amplifier gate. > > - Rory > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:53 AM, James Elliott <johans121@...> wrote: > > > Sad to say but there are lots of 'bugs'/irregularities with the evolvers that will never be fixed. There is a whole list of stuff that has been sent to DSI many times since I've been on this list (which has been a number of years now). DSI has officially responded once that the evolver is a finished/complete product, or something like that - i.e. no updates. > > Sorry, > Jim > > From: locatemodule <locatemodule@...> > To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 7:56:26 PM > Subject: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? > > > Hi all, > > I use my desktop evolver to sequence other gear and it sucks that sequencer 2 is not capable of producing rests. Is there a reason this has not been added to an update of the OS? Doesn't seem like it couldn't be added. Anyone know the reason for this? It would rule if this could be fixed, as of right now it's pretty limiting as far as sequencing other outboard gear. > > Thanks! > > David Farrell > > > > > > >
2010-10-14 by James Elliott
Practical? Hmmmm.... maybe from a lazy programmer's perspective. They could probably write less than 100 lines of code to disable sequencer's control of the gates, or anything for that matter, if midi control is turned on while still allowing the sequencer to send midi out. Remember, the evolver is probably 90% digital with the sequencer & midi section being 100% digital. If enough people complain about broken functionality, missing functionality, or irregular functionality then it might be worth looking into fixing and/or changing. I for one agree with David. I have a PEK and I can't stand that when I use the sequencer in a patch to control external equipment then I basically lose that voice in the polyphony rotation. i.e. if I send midi from the PEK's sequencer out to a midi/cv converter to control my modular synth, my 4 voice PEK patch turns into a 3 voice PEK patch. That sucks donkey balls. That should not happen on a $2000+ synth which is mainly software & digital hardware. That can easily be fixed/changed. It's not like that change would require a new circuit. I call an omission like that shortsightedness. If I worked for DSI and I heard customers complaining about that (if I hadn't discovered it myself) then I would push to have that changed. I call the refusal to change the sequencer's behavior obstinance. I will not purchase another DSI instrument because of their refusal to fix/change the laundry list of items that has been compiled from an active, and enthusiastic, user base and sent to them. People, myself included, have even said they would pay ($25-$30) for an OS upgrade to have that crap fixed/changed.... Why would I continue to do business with a company who refuses to listen to their customers? I was insanely excited about their new 'BookChick'/'LinnDrum2' thingy that they were designing, not anymore. I'm sure that thing will be full of deficiencies that will never be addressed after the obvious bugs are worked out. Screw 'em -Jim ________________________________ From: Rory <rozz3r@...> To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 6:24:22 AM Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? As far as I can see the reason for this is practical, not a bug. The Evolver is monophonic. Therefor you can't have two sequencers controlling the amplifier gate. - Rory On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:53 AM, James Elliott <johans121@...> wrote: >Sad to say but there are lots of 'bugs'/irregularities with the evolvers that >will never be fixed. There is a whole list of stuff that has been sent to DSI >many times since I've been on this list (which has been a number of years now). >DSI has officially responded once that the evolver is a finished/complete >product, or something like that - i.e. no updates. > >Sorry, >Jim > > > > ________________________________
From: locatemodule <locatemodule@earthlink.net> >To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 7:56:26 PM >Subject: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? > > > >Hi all, > >I use my desktop evolver to sequence other gear and it sucks that sequencer 2 is >not capable of producing rests. Is there a reason this has not been added to an >update of the OS? Doesn't seem like it couldn't be added. Anyone know the reason >for this? It would rule if this could be fixed, as of right now it's pretty >limiting as far as sequencing other outboard gear. > >Thanks! > >David Farrell > >
2010-10-14 by Scott Lawlor
Hi Jim. What gear would you use if not the dsi stuff/ I've heard that the nord wave is a good synth but I've also heard from some that they wouldn't use it as their main produceion board. Do you know much about the nord wave? Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: James Elliott
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
Practical? Hmmmm.... maybe from a lazy programmer's perspective. They could probably write less than 100 lines of code to disable sequencer's control of the gates, or anything for that matter, if midi control is turned on while still allowing the sequencer to send midi out. Remember, the evolver is probably 90% digital with the sequencer & midi section being 100% digital. If enough people complain about broken functionality, missing functionality, or irregular functionality then it might be worth looking into fixing and/or changing.
I for one agree with David. I have a PEK and I can't stand that when I use the sequencer in a patch to control external equipment then I basically lose that voice in the polyphony rotation. i.e. if I send midi from the PEK's sequencer out to a midi/cv converter to control my modular synth, my 4 voice PEK patch turns into a 3 voice PEK patch. That sucks donkey balls. That should not happen on a $2000+ synth which is mainly software & digital hardware. That can easily be fixed/changed. It's not like that change would require a new circuit.
I call an omission like that shortsightedness. If I worked for DSI and I heard customers complaining about that (if I hadn't discovered it myself) then I would push to have that changed. I call the refusal to change the sequencer's behavior obstinance. I will not purchase another DSI instrument because of their refusal to fix/change the laundry list of items that has been compiled from an active, and enthusiastic, user base and sent to them. People, myself included, have even said they would pay ($25-$30) for an OS upgrade to have that crap fixed/changed.... Why would I continue to do business with a company who refuses to listen to their customers? I was insanely excited about their new 'BookChick'/'LinnDrum2' thingy that they were designing, not anymore. I'm sure that thing will be full of deficiencies that will never be addressed after the obvious bugs are worked out.
Screw 'em
-Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rory <rozz3r@...>
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 6:24:22 AM
Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
As far as I can see the reason for this is practical, not a bug. The Evolver is monophonic. Therefor you can't have two sequencers controlling the amplifier gate.
- Rory
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:53 AM, James Elliott <johans121@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sad to say but there are lots of 'bugs'/irregularities with the evolvers that will never be fixed. There is a whole list of stuff that has been sent to DSI many times since I've been on this list (which has been a number of years now). DSI has officially responded once that the evolver is a finished/complete product, or something like that - i.e. no updates.
Sorry,
Jim
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: locatemodule <locatemodule@...>
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 7:56:26 PM
Subject: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
Hi all,
I use my desktop evolver to sequence other gear and it sucks that sequencer 2 is not capable of producing rests. Is there a reason this has not been added to an update of the OS? Doesn't seem like it couldn't be added. Anyone know the reason for this? It would rule if this could be fixed, as of right now it's pretty limiting as far as sequencing other outboard gear.
Thanks!
David Farrell2010-10-14 by Ravi Ivan Sharma
As far as I can see the reason for this is practical, not a bug. The Evolver is monophonic. Therefor you can't have two sequencers controlling the amplifier gate.
- RoryOn Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:53 AM, James Elliott <johans121@...> wrote:Sad to say but there are lots of 'bugs'/irregularities with the evolvers that will never be fixed. There is a whole list of stuff that has been sent to DSI many times since I've been on this list (which has been a number of years now). DSI has officially responded once that the evolver is a finished/complete product, or something like that - i.e. no updates.
Sorry,
Jim
From: locatemodule <locatemodule@...>
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 7:56:26 PM
Subject: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
Hi all,
I use my desktop evolver to sequence other gear and it sucks that sequencer 2 is not capable of producing rests. Is there a reason this has not been added to an update of the OS? Doesn't seem like it couldn't be added. Anyone know the reason for this? It would rule if this could be fixed, as of right now it's pretty limiting as far as sequencing other outboard gear.
Thanks!
David Farrell
2010-10-14 by Ravi Ivan Sharma
Practical? Hmmmm.... maybe from a lazy programmer's perspective. They could probably write less than 100 lines of code to disable sequencer's control of the gates, or anything for that matter, if midi control is turned on while still allowing the sequencer to send midi out. Remember, the evolver is probably 90% digital with the sequencer & midi section being 100% digital. If enough people complain about broken functionality, missing functionality, or irregular functionality then it might be worth looking into fixing and/or changing.
I for one agree with David. I have a PEK and I can't stand that when I use the sequencer in a patch to control external equipment then I basically lose that voice in the polyphony rotation. i.e. if I send midi from the PEK's sequencer out to a midi/cv converter to control my modular synth, my 4 voice PEK patch turns into a 3 voice PEK patch. That sucks donkey balls. That should not happen on a $2000+ synth which is mainly software & digital hardware. That can easily be fixed/changed. It's not like that change would require a new circuit.
I call an omission like that shortsightedness. If I worked for DSI and I heard customers complaining about that (if I hadn't discovered it myself) then I would push to have that changed. I call the refusal to change the sequencer's behavior obstinance. I will not purchase another DSI instrument because of their refusal to fix/change the laundry list of items that has been compiled from an active, and enthusiastic, user base and sent to them. People, myself included, have even said they would pay ($25-$30) for an OS upgrade to have that crap fixed/changed.... Why would I continue to do business with a company who refuses to listen to their customers? I was insanely excited about their new 'BookChick'/'LinnDrum2' thingy that they were designing, not anymore. I'm sure that thing will be full of deficiencies that will never be addressed after the obvious bugs are worked out.
Screw 'em
-Jim
From: Rory <rozz3r@...>
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 6:24:22 AM
Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
As far as I can see the reason for this is practical, not a bug. The Evolver is monophonic. Therefor you can't have two sequencers controlling the amplifier gate.
- RoryOn Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:53 AM, James Elliott <johans121@...> wrote:Sad to say but there are lots of 'bugs'/irregularities with the evolvers that will never be fixed. There is a whole list of stuff that has been sent to DSI many times since I've been on this list (which has been a number of years now). DSI has officially responded once that the evolver is a finished/complete product, or something like that - i.e. no updates.
Sorry,
JimFrom: locatemodule <locatemodule@...>
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 7:56:26 PM
Subject: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
Hi all,
I use my desktop evolver to sequence other gear and it sucks that sequencer 2 is not capable of producing rests. Is there a reason this has not been added to an update of the OS? Doesn't seem like it couldn't be added. Anyone know the reason for this? It would rule if this could be fixed, as of right now it's pretty limiting as far as sequencing other outboard gear.
Thanks!
David Farrell
2010-10-14 by bug.out
use a real sequencer maybe? one that was designed for such uses? instead of ranting against a small boutique? that would be my suggestion. -- bug
On Oct 14, 2010, at 9:43 AM, James Elliott <johans121@...> wrote: > > > Practical? Hmmmm.... maybe from a lazy programmer's perspective. > They could probably write less than 100 lines of code to disable > sequencer's control of the gates, or anything for that matter, if > midi control is turned on while still allowing the sequencer to send > midi out. Remember, the evolver is probably 90% digital with the > sequencer & midi section being 100% digital. If enough people > complain about broken functionality, missing functionality, or > irregular functionality then it might be worth looking into fixing > and/or changing. > > I for one agree with David. I have a PEK and I can't stand that when > I use the sequencer in a patch to control external equipment then I > basically lose that voice in the polyphony rotation. i.e. if I send > midi from the PEK's sequencer out to a midi/cv converter to control > my modular synth, my 4 voice PEK patch turns into a 3 voice PEK > patch. That sucks donkey balls. That should not happen on a $2000+ > synth which is mainly software & digital hardware. That can easily > be fixed/changed. It's not like that change would require a new > circuit. > > I call an omission like that shortsightedness. If I worked for DSI > and I heard customers complaining about that (if I hadn't discovered > it myself) then I would push to have that changed. I call the > refusal to change the sequencer's behavior obstinance. I will not > purchase another DSI instrument because of their refusal to fix/ > change the laundry list of items that has been compiled from an > active, and enthusiastic, user base and sent to them. People, myself > included, have even said they would pay ($25-$30) for an OS upgrade > to have that crap fixed/changed.... Why would I continue to do > business with a company who refuses to listen to their customers? I > was insanely excited about their new 'BookChick'/'LinnDrum2' thingy > that they were designing, not anymore. I'm sure that thing will be > full of deficiencies that will never be addressed after the obvious > bugs are worked out. > > Screw 'em > > -Jim > > > From: Rory <rozz3r@...> > To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 6:24:22 AM > Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? > > As far as I can see the reason for this is practical, not a bug. The > Evolver is monophonic. Therefor you can't have two sequencers > controlling the amplifier gate. > > > - Rory > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:53 AM, James Elliott <johans121@...> > wrote: > > Sad to say but there are lots of 'bugs'/irregularities with the > evolvers that will never be fixed. There is a whole list of stuff > that has been sent to DSI many times since I've been on this list > (which has been a number of years now). DSI has officially responded > once that the evolver is a finished/complete product, or something > like that - i.e. no updates. > > Sorry, > Jim > > From: locatemodule <locatemodule@...> > To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 7:56:26 PM > Subject: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? > > > Hi all, > > I use my desktop evolver to sequence other gear and it sucks that > sequencer 2 is not capable of producing rests. Is there a reason > this has not been added to an update of the OS? Doesn't seem like it > couldn't be added. Anyone know the reason for this? It would rule if > this could be fixed, as of right now it's pretty limiting as far as > sequencing other outboard gear. > > Thanks! > > David Farrell > > > > > >
2010-10-15 by locatemodule
-----Original Message-----
From: "bug.out"
Sent: Oct 14, 2010 2:50 PM
To: "DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com"
Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
�use a real sequencer maybe? one that was designed for such uses? instead of ranting against a small boutique? that would be my suggestion.
--bugPractical? Hmmmm.... maybe from a lazy programmer's perspective. They could probably write less than 100 lines of code to disable sequencer's control of the gates, or anything for that matter, if midi control is turned on while still allowing the sequencer to send midi out. Remember, the evolver is probably 90% digital with the sequencer & midi section being 100% digital. If enough people complain about broken functionality, missing functionality, or irregular functionality then it might be worth looking into fixing and/or changing.
I for one agree with David. I have a PEK and I can't stand that when I use the sequencer in a patch to control external equipment then I basically lose that voice in the polyphony rotation. i.e. if I send midi from the PEK's sequencer out to a midi/cv converter to control my modular synth, my 4 voice PEK patch turns into a 3 voice PEK patch. That sucks donkey balls. That should not happen on a $2000+ synth which is mainly software & digital hardware. That can easily be fixed/changed. It's not like that change would require a new circuit.
I call an omission like that shortsightedness. If I worked for DSI and I heard customers complaining about that (if I hadn't discovered it myself) then I would push to have that changed. I call the refusal to change the sequencer's behavior obstinance. I will not purchase another DSI instrument because of their refusal to fix/change the laundry list of items that has been compiled from an active, and enthusiastic, user base and sent to them. People, myself included, have even said they would pay ($25-$30) for an OS upgrade to have that crap fixed/changed.... Why would I continue to do business with a company who refuses to listen to their customers? I was insanely excited about their new 'BookChick'/'LinnDrum2' thingy that they were designing, not anymore. I'm sure that thing will be full of deficiencies that will never be addressed after the obvious bugs are worked out.
Screw 'em
-JimFrom: Rory <rozz3r@gmail.com>
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 6:24:22 AM
Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
�As far as I can see the reason for this is�practical, not a bug. The Evolver is monophonic. Therefor you can't have two sequencers controlling the amplifier gate.
- RoryOn Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:53 AM, James Elliott <johans121@...> wrote:�Sad to say but there are lots of 'bugs'/irregularities with the evolvers that will never be fixed. There is a whole list of stuff that has been sent to DSI many times since I've been on this list (which has been a number of years now). DSI has officially responded once that the evolver is a finished/complete product, or something like that - i.e. no updates.
Sorry,
JimFrom: locatemodule <locatemodule@...>
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 7:56:26 PM
Subject: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
�Hi all,
I use my desktop evolver to sequence other gear and it sucks that sequencer 2 is not capable of producing rests. Is there a reason this has not been added to an update of the OS? Doesn't seem like it couldn't be added. Anyone know the reason for this? It would rule if this could be fixed, as of right now it's pretty limiting as far as sequencing other outboard gear.
Thanks!
David Farrell
2010-10-15 by James Elliott
Thanks for the useful tips Bug. Big help. Maybe DSI shouldn't have allowed the evolver's sequencer to send out midi notes if it weren't meant to be used as a 'real sequencer' which sequences external equipment. I guess that was something an overzealous programmer included to extend its use, something he/she did without consulting the boss.... You can crawl back in your hole now. -Jim ________________________________ From: bug.out <bug.out@...> To: "DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com" <DSI_Evolver@...m> Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 2:50:51 PM Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? use a real sequencer maybe? one that was designed for such uses? instead of ranting against a small boutique? that would be my suggestion. -- bug On Oct 14, 2010, at 9:43 AM, James Elliott <johans121@...> wrote: Practical? Hmmmm.... maybe from a lazy programmer's perspective. They could probably write less than 100 lines of code to disable sequencer's control of the gates, or anything for that matter, if midi control is turned on while still allowing the sequencer to send midi out. Remember, the evolver is probably 90% digital with the sequencer & midi section being 100% digital. If enough people complain about broken functionality, missing functionality, or irregular functionality then it might be worth looking into fixing and/or changing. > >I for one agree with David. I have a PEK and I can't stand that when I use the >sequencer in a patch to control external equipment then I basically lose that >voice in the polyphony rotation. i.e. if I send midi from the PEK's sequencer >out to a midi/cv converter to control my modular synth, my 4 voice PEK patch >turns into a 3 voice PEK patch. That sucks donkey balls. That should not happen >on a $2000+ synth which is mainly software & digital hardware. That can easily >be fixed/changed. It's not like that change would require a new circuit. > >I call an omission like that shortsightedness. If I worked for DSI and I heard >customers complaining about that (if I hadn't discovered it myself) then I would >push to have that changed. I call the refusal to change the sequencer's behavior >obstinance. I will not purchase another DSI instrument because of their refusal >to fix/change the laundry list of items that has been compiled from an active, >and enthusiastic, user base and sent to them. People, myself included, have even >said they would pay ($25-$30) for an OS upgrade to have that crap >fixed/changed.... Why would I continue to do business with a company who refuses >to listen to their customers? I was insanely excited about their new >'BookChick'/'LinnDrum2' thingy that they were designing, not anymore. I'm sure >that thing will be full of deficiencies that will never be addressed after the >obvious bugs are worked out. > >Screw 'em > >-Jim > > > > > > ________________________________ From: Rory <rozz3r@...> >To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 6:24:22 AM >Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? > > >As far as I can see the reason for this is practical, not a bug. The Evolver is >monophonic. Therefor you can't have two sequencers controlling the amplifier >gate. > > >- Rory > > >On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:53 AM, James Elliott <johans121@...> wrote: > > >>Sad to say but there are lots of 'bugs'/irregularities with the evolvers that >>will never be fixed. There is a whole list of stuff that has been sent to DSI >>many times since I've been on this list (which has been a number of years now). >>DSI has officially responded once that the evolver is a finished/complete >>product, or something like that - i.e. no updates. >> >>Sorry, >>Jim >> >> >> >> ________________________________
From: locatemodule <locatemodule@...> >>To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com >>Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 7:56:26 PM >>Subject: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? >> >> >> >>Hi all, >> >>I use my desktop evolver to sequence other gear and it sucks that sequencer 2 is >>not capable of producing rests. Is there a reason this has not been added to an >>update of the OS? Doesn't seem like it couldn't be added. Anyone know the reason >>for this? It would rule if this could be fixed, as of right now it's pretty >>limiting as far as sequencing other outboard gear. >> >>Thanks! >> >>David Farrell >> >> > >
2010-10-15 by Ancient Eyeball Recipe
Use a real sequencer? Heh.
Sequencer 2 has been built with a feature that enables it to sequence external gear, so a rest would be useful. If enough people would like that update, we should submit it to DSI. I've owned my evo desktop since mid 02, right after I bought it I talked to Dave about the sequencer not finishing its sequence before you switch it up to the next seq and he fixed it very shortly thereafter. Seems like pretty good results from a synth company to me. The guy rules and I know he can't make a perfect synth, but if seq 2 has an intended use for ext gear, a rest is not too much to ask for. Aside from being able to assign midi chanels to each osc, making it poly, or some kind of key assign like the 6 trak to make it poly, I can't really complain much about the evolver (although the rotary encoders on my MEK SUCK, but we already know that). Rests on Seq 2 would make me extremely happy. Anybody know how to hack the OS to make this work???
Thanks for the useful replys!
David-----Original Message-----
From: "bug.out"
Sent: Oct 14, 2010 2:50 PM
To: "DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com"
Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
use a real sequencer maybe? one that was designed for such uses? instead of ranting against a small boutique? that would be my suggestion.
--bugPractical? Hmmmm.... maybe from a lazy programmer's perspective. They could probably write less than 100 lines of code to disable sequencer's control of the gates, or anything for that matter, if midi control is turned on while still allowing the sequencer to send midi out. Remember, the evolver is probably 90% digital with the sequencer & midi section being 100% digital. If enough people complain about broken functionality, missing functionality, or irregular functionality then it might be worth looking into fixing and/or changing.
I for one agree with David. I have a PEK and I can't stand that when I use the sequencer in a patch to control external equipment then I basically lose that voice in the polyphony rotation. i.e. if I send midi from the PEK's sequencer out to a midi/cv converter to control my modular synth, my 4 voice PEK patch turns into a 3 voice PEK patch. That sucks donkey balls. That should not happen on a $2000+ synth which is mainly software & digital hardware. That can easily be fixed/changed. It's not like that change would require a new circuit.
I call an omission like that shortsightedness. If I worked for DSI and I heard customers complaining about that (if I hadn't discovered it myself) then I would push to have that changed. I call the refusal to change the sequencer's behavior obstinance. I will not purchase another DSI instrument because of their refusal to fix/change the laundry list of items that has been compiled from an active, and enthusiastic, user base and sent to them. People, myself included, have even said they would pay ($25-$30) for an OS upgrade to have that crap fixed/changed.... Why would I continue to do business with a company who refuses to listen to their customers? I was insanely excited about their new 'BookChick'/'LinnDrum2' thingy that they were designing, not anymore. I'm sure that thing will be full of deficiencies that will never be addressed after the obvious bugs are worked out.
Screw 'em
-JimFrom: Rory <rozz3r@...>
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 6:24:22 AM
Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
As far as I can see the reason for this is practical, not a bug. The Evolver is monophonic. Therefor you can't have two sequencers controlling the amplifier gate.
- RoryOn Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:53 AM, James Elliott <johans121@...>; wrote:Sad to say but there are lots of 'bugs'/irregularities with the evolvers that will never be fixed. There is a whole list of stuff that has been sent to DSI many times since I've been on this list (which has been a number of years now). DSI has officially responded once that the evolver is a finished/complete product, or something like that - i.e. no updates.
Sorry,
JimFrom: locatemodule <locatemodule@earthlink.net>
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 7:56:26 PM
Subject: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
Hi all,
I use my desktop evolver to sequence other gear and it sucks that sequencer 2 is not capable of producing rests. Is there a reason this has not been added to an update of the OS? Doesn't seem like it couldn't be added. Anyone know the reason for this? It would rule if this could be fixed, as of right now it's pretty limiting as far as sequencing other outboard gear.
Thanks!
David Farrell
2010-10-15 by bug.out
my point being, I see the midi out from the evo seq as a bonus. you see it as a flaw. if your wishes are to be granted, why stop there? why not add cc messages? nrpn? etc? again, this isn't anything they needed to offer in the first place. the fact that they didn't take it as far as you wish is not a flaw. your request is valid, but I don't see the masses joining the cause on this. DSI is known for lovely analog synths, not sequencers. I will return to my hole and you return to your soapbox. as the saying goes, proper tool for the job. -- bug
On Oct 14, 2010, at 6:49 PM, James Elliott <johans121@...> wrote: > > > Thanks for the useful tips Bug. Big help. Maybe DSI shouldn't have > allowed the evolver's sequencer to send out midi notes if it weren't > meant to be used as a 'real sequencer' which sequences external > equipment. I guess that was something an overzealous programmer > included to extend its use, something he/she did without consulting > the boss.... > > You can crawl back in your hole now. > > -Jim > > From: bug.out <bug.out@...> > To: "DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com" <DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 2:50:51 PM > Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? > > use a real sequencer maybe? one that was designed for such uses? > instead of ranting against a small boutique? that would be my > suggestion. > -- > bug > > On Oct 14, 2010, at 9:43 AM, James Elliott <johans121@...> > wrote: > >> Practical? Hmmmm.... maybe from a lazy programmer's perspective. >> They could probably write less than 100 lines of code to disable >> sequencer's control of the gates, or anything for that matter, if >> midi control is turned on while still allowing the sequencer to >> send midi out. Remember, the evolver is probably 90% digital with >> the sequencer & midi section being 100% digital. If enough people >> complain about broken functionality, missing functionality, or >> irregular functionality then it might be worth looking into fixing >> and/or changing. >> >> I for one agree with David. I have a PEK and I can't stand that >> when I use the sequencer in a patch to control external equipment >> then I basically lose that voice in the polyphony rotation. i.e. if >> I send midi from the PEK's sequencer out to a midi/cv converter to >> control my modular synth, my 4 voice PEK patch turns into a 3 voice >> PEK patch. That sucks donkey balls. That should not happen on a >> $2000+ synth which is mainly software & digital hardware. That can >> easily be fixed/changed. It's not like that change would require a >> new circuit. >> >> I call an omission like that shortsightedness. If I worked for DSI >> and I heard customers complaining about that (if I hadn't >> discovered it myself) then I would push to have that changed. I >> call the refusal to change the sequencer's behavior obstinance. I >> will not purchase another DSI instrument because of their refusal >> to fix/change the laundry list of items that has been compiled from >> an active, and enthusiastic, user base and sent to them. People, >> myself included, have even said they would pay ($25-$30) for an OS >> upgrade to have that crap fixed/changed.... Why would I continue to >> do business with a company who refuses to listen to their >> customers? I was insanely excited about their new >> 'BookChick'/'LinnDrum2' thingy that they were designing, not >> anymore. I'm sure that thing will be full of deficiencies that will >> never be addressed after the obvious bugs are worked out. >> >> Screw 'em >> >> -Jim >> >> >> From: Rory <rozz3r@...> >> To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com >> Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 6:24:22 AM >> Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? >> >> >> As far as I can see the reason for this is practical, not a bug. >> The Evolver is monophonic. Therefor you can't have two sequencers >> controlling the amplifier gate. >> >> >> - Rory >> >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:53 AM, James Elliott >> <johans121@...> wrote: >> >> Sad to say but there are lots of 'bugs'/irregularities with the >> evolvers that will never be fixed. There is a whole list of stuff >> that has been sent to DSI many times since I've been on this list >> (which has been a number of years now). DSI has officially >> responded once that the evolver is a finished/complete product, or >> something like that - i.e. no updates. >> >> Sorry, >> Jim >> >> From: locatemodule <locatemodule@...> >> To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com >> Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 7:56:26 PM >> Subject: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> I use my desktop evolver to sequence other gear and it sucks that >> sequencer 2 is not capable of producing rests. Is there a reason >> this has not been added to an update of the OS? Doesn't seem like >> it couldn't be added. Anyone know the reason for this? It would >> rule if this could be fixed, as of right now it's pretty limiting >> as far as sequencing other outboard gear. >> >> Thanks! >> >> David Farrell >> >> >> > > > >
2010-10-15 by Rory
Practical? Hmmmm.... maybe from a lazy programmer's perspective. They could probably write less than 100 lines of code to disable sequencer's control of the gates, or anything for that matter, if midi control is turned on while still allowing the sequencer to send midi out. Remember, the evolver is probably 90% digital with the sequencer & midi section being 100% digital. If enough people complain about broken functionality, missing functionality, or irregular functionality then it might be worth looking into fixing and/or changing.
I for one agree with David. I have a PEK and I can't stand that when I use the sequencer in a patch to control external equipment then I basically lose that voice in the polyphony rotation. i.e. if I send midi from the PEK's sequencer out to a midi/cv converter to control my modular synth, my 4 voice PEK patch turns into a 3 voice PEK patch. That sucks donkey balls. That should not happen on a $2000+ synth which is mainly software & digital hardware. That can easily be fixed/changed. It's not like that change would require a new circuit.
I call an omission like that shortsightedness. If I worked for DSI and I heard customers complaining about that (if I hadn't discovered it myself) then I would push to have that changed. I call the refusal to change the sequencer's behavior obstinance. I will not purchase another DSI instrument because of their refusal to fix/change the laundry list of items that has been compiled from an active, and enthusiastic, user base and sent to them. People, myself included, have even said they would pay ($25-$30) for an OS upgrade to have that crap fixed/changed.... Why would I continue to do business with a company who refuses to listen to their customers? I was insanely excited about their new 'BookChick'/'LinnDrum2' thingy that they were designing, not anymore. I'm sure that thing will be full of deficiencies that will never be addressed after the obvious bugs are worked out.
Screw 'em
-Jim
From: Rory <rozz3r@...>Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 6:24:22 AM
Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
As far as I can see the reason for this is practical, not a bug. The Evolver is monophonic. Therefor you can't have two sequencers controlling the amplifier gate.
- RoryOn Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:53 AM, James Elliott <johans121@...> wrote:Sad to say but there are lots of 9;bugs'/irregularities with the evolvers that will never be fixed. There is a whole list of stuff that has been sent to DSI many times since I';ve been on this list (which has been a number of years now). DSI has officially responded once that the evolver is a finished/complete product, or something like that - i.e. no updates.
Sorry,
JimFrom: locatemodule <locatemodule@...>
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 7:56:26 PM
Subject: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
Hi all,
I use my desktop evolver to sequence other gear and it sucks that sequencer 2 is not capable of producing rests. Is there a reason this has not been added to an update of the OS? Doesn't seem like it couldn't be added. Anyone know the reason for this? It would rule if this could be fixed, as of right now it's pretty limiting as far as sequencing other outboard gear.
Thanks!
David Farrell
2010-10-15 by steven pistrich
i see two schools of thought here: 1.-- the DSI synth is perfect as is ,and we should be grateful for its existance and be quiet 2.-- the DSI synth is an evolving product and should be constantly tweaked and improved to do more . and as users/consumers we can ask the maker for changes as they also have an interest in making a better product. ________________________________ From: Rory <rozz3r@...> To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, October 15, 2010 6:18:10 AM Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? Your Evolver is not a sequencer with missing functionality. It's a synthesizer with extra functionality :P On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:43 PM, James Elliott <johans121@...> wrote: >Practical? Hmmmm.... maybe from a lazy programmer's perspective. They could >probably write less than 100 lines of code to disable sequencer's control of the >gates, or anything for that matter, if midi control is turned on while still >allowing the sequencer to send midi out. Remember, the evolver is probably 90% >digital with the sequencer & midi section being 100% digital. If enough people >complain about broken functionality, missing functionality, or irregular >functionality then it might be worth looking into fixing and/or changing. > >I for one agree with David. I have a PEK and I can't stand that when I use the >sequencer in a patch to control external equipment then I basically lose that >voice in the polyphony rotation. i.e. if I send midi from the PEK's sequencer >out to a midi/cv converter to control my modular synth, my 4 voice PEK patch >turns into a 3 voice PEK patch. That sucks donkey balls. That should not happen >on a $2000+ synth which is mainly software & digital hardware. That can easily >be fixed/changed. It's not like that change would require a new circuit. > >I call an omission like that shortsightedness. If I worked for DSI and I heard >customers complaining about that (if I hadn't discovered it myself) then I would >push to have that changed. I call the refusal to change the sequencer's behavior >obstinance. I will not purchase another DSI instrument because of their refusal >to fix/change the laundry list of items that has been compiled from an active, >and enthusiastic, user base and sent to them. People, myself included, have even >said they would pay ($25-$30) for an OS upgrade to have that crap >fixed/changed.... Why would I continue to do business with a company who refuses >to listen to their customers? I was insanely excited about their new >'BookChick'/'LinnDrum2' thingy that they were designing, not anymore. I'm sure >that thing will be full of deficiencies that will never be addressed after the >obvious bugs are worked out. > >Screw 'em > >-Jim > > > > > > ________________________________ From: Rory <rozz3r@...> > >To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 6:24:22 AM >Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? > > > >As far as I can see the reason for this is practical, not a bug. The Evolver is >monophonic. Therefor you can't have two sequencers controlling the amplifier >gate. > > >- Rory > > >On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:53 AM, James Elliott <johans121@...> wrote: > > >>Sad to say but there are lots of 'bugs'/irregularities with the evolvers that >>will never be fixed. There is a whole list of stuff that has been sent to DSI >>many times since I've been on this list (which has been a number of years now). >>DSI has officially responded once that the evolver is a finished/complete >>product, or something like that - i.e. no updates. >> >>Sorry, >>Jim >> >> >> >> ________________________________
From: locatemodule <locatemodule@...> >>To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com >>Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 7:56:26 PM >>Subject: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? >> >> >> >>Hi all, >> >>I use my desktop evolver to sequence other gear and it sucks that sequencer 2 is >>not capable of producing rests. Is there a reason this has not been added to an >>update of the OS? Doesn't seem like it couldn't be added. Anyone know the reason >>for this? It would rule if this could be fixed, as of right now it's pretty >>limiting as far as sequencing other outboard gear. >> >>Thanks! >> >>David Farrell >> >> > >
2010-10-15 by Scott Lawlor
Hi. Why are the encoders on the evolver such a pain? As a blind person who's interested in getting one of these because there aren't very many menus from what I understand, and not being able to actually try one out before I buy because there are no distributors in my area, I'd like to get a bit of practical information before making this purchase if I can. I remember someone recommending the pot edition which was supposed to be released recently but I'm curious who some feel the encoders are a problem just so I know what to expect should I purchase this board. Thanks for the info. Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: steven pistrich
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
i see two schools of thought here:
1.-- the DSI synth is perfect as is ,and we should be grateful for its existance and be quiet
2.-- the DSI synth is an evolving product and should be constantly tweaked and improved to do more
. and as users/consumers we can ask the maker for changes as they also have an interest in making
a better product.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rory <rozz3r@...>
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, October 15, 2010 6:18:10 AM
Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
Your Evolver is not a sequencer with missing functionality. It's a synthesizer with extra functionality :P
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:43 PM, James Elliott <johans121@...> wrote:
Practical? Hmmmm.... maybe from a lazy programmer's perspective. They could probably write less than 100 lines of code to disable sequencer's control of the gates, or anything for that matter, if midi control is turned on while still allowing the sequencer to send midi out. Remember, the evolver is probably 90% digital with the sequencer & midi section being 100% digital. If enough people complain about broken functionality, missing functionality, or irregular functionality then it might be worth looking into fixing and/or changing.
I for one agree with David. I have a PEK and I can't stand that when I use the sequencer in a patch to control external equipment then I basically lose that voice in the polyphony rotation. i.e. if I send midi from the PEK's sequencer out to a midi/cv converter to control my modular synth, my 4 voice PEK patch turns into a 3 voice PEK patch. That sucks donkey balls. That should not happen on a $2000+ synth which is mainly software & digital hardware. That can easily be fixed/changed. It's not like that change would require a new circuit.
I call an omission like that shortsightedness. If I worked for DSI and I heard customers complaining about that (if I hadn't discovered it myself) then I would push to have that changed. I call the refusal to change the sequencer's behavior obstinance. I will not purchase another DSI instrument because of their refusal to fix/change the laundry list of items that has been compiled from an active, and enthusiastic, user base and sent to them. People, myself included, have even said they would pay ($25-$30) for an OS upgrade to have that crap fixed/changed.... Why would I continue to do business with a company who refuses to listen to their customers? I was insanely excited about their new 'BookChick'/'LinnDrum2' thingy that they were designing, not anymore. I'm sure that thing will be full of deficiencies that will never be addressed after the obvious bugs are worked out.
Screw 'em
-Jim
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rory <rozz3r@...>
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 6:24:22 AM
Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
As far as I can see the reason for this is practical, not a bug. The Evolver is monophonic. Therefor you can't have two sequencers controlling the amplifier gate.
- Rory
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:53 AM, James Elliott <johans121@...> wrote:
Sad to say but there are lots of 'bugs'/irregularities with the evolvers that will never be fixed. There is a whole list of stuff that has been sent to DSI many times since I've been on this list (which has been a number of years now). DSI has officially responded once that the evolver is a finished/complete product, or something like that - i.e. no updates.
Sorry,
Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: locatemodule <locatemodule@...>
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 7:56:26 PM
Subject: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
Hi all,
I use my desktop evolver to sequence other gear and it sucks that sequencer 2 is not capable of producing rests. Is there a reason this has not been added to an update of the OS? Doesn't seem like it couldn't be added. Anyone know the reason for this? It would rule if this could be fixed, as of right now it's pretty limiting as far as sequencing other outboard gear.
Thanks!
David Farrell2010-10-15 by Ravi Ivan Sharma
No. Third school. It is a hardware synth with a set of functions and therefore some limitations. Some functions may be added, some may never be. Clearly not pleasing everyone in all instances. It is good to ask for more. But I'm not sure some of the bitter words here are deserved of a really cool really small nearly one-manned company. I was deeply involved in beta-testing the first evolver, and many of the shipping presets, like them or not, are mine. So you can lay your blame on me for not seeing this and bugging Dave to add it as I did with other things, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. But at that time and for many years after, it was a one man company. Seriously. And even now it is like under 5. So I understand the irritation with limitations if kept in perspective. And I also am hoping for more new cool things coming out of DSI.
On Oct 15, 2010, at 9:41 AM, steven pistrich <wasteking1@...> wrote: > i see two schools of thought here: > 1.-- the DSI synth is perfect as is ,and we should be grateful for its existance and be quiet > 2.-- the DSI synth is an evolving product and should be constantly tweaked and improved to do more > . and as users/consumers we can ask the maker for changes as they also have an interest in making > a better product. > > From: Rory <rozz3r@...> > To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Fri, October 15, 2010 6:18:10 AM > Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? > > > Your Evolver is not a sequencer with missing functionality. It's a synthesizer with extra functionality :P > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:43 PM, James Elliott <johans121@...m> wrote: > > Practical? Hmmmm.... maybe from a lazy programmer's perspective. They could probably write less than 100 lines of code to disable sequencer's control of the gates, or anything for that matter, if midi control is turned on while still allowing the sequencer to send midi out. Remember, the evolver is probably 90% digital with the sequencer & midi section being 100% digital. If enough people complain about broken functionality, missing functionality, or irregular functionality then it might be worth looking into fixing and/or changing. > > I for one agree with David. I have a PEK and I can't stand that when I use the sequencer in a patch to control external equipment then I basically lose that voice in the polyphony rotation. i.e. if I send midi from the PEK's sequencer out to a midi/cv converter to control my modular synth, my 4 voice PEK patch turns into a 3 voice PEK patch. That sucks donkey balls. That should not happen on a $2000+ synth which is mainly software & digital hardware. That can easily be fixed/changed. It's not like that change would require a new circuit. > > I call an omission like that shortsightedness. If I worked for DSI and I heard customers complaining about that (if I hadn't discovered it myself) then I would push to have that changed. I call the refusal to change the sequencer's behavior obstinance. I will not purchase another DSI instrument because of their refusal to fix/change the laundry list of items that has been compiled from an active, and enthusiastic, user base and sent to them. People, myself included, have even said they would pay ($25-$30) for an OS upgrade to have that crap fixed/changed.... Why would I continue to do business with a company who refuses to listen to their customers? I was insanely excited about their new 'BookChick'/'LinnDrum2' thingy that they were designing, not anymore. I'm sure that thing will be full of deficiencies that will never be addressed after the obvious bugs are worked out. > > Screw 'em > > -Jim > > > From: Rory <rozz3r@...> > > To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 6:24:22 AM > Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? > > > As far as I can see the reason for this is practical, not a bug. The Evolver is monophonic. Therefor you can't have two sequencers controlling the amplifier gate. > > > - Rory > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:53 AM, James Elliott <johans121@...> wrote: > > Sad to say but there are lots of 'bugs'/irregularities with the evolvers that will never be fixed. There is a whole list of stuff that has been sent to DSI many times since I've been on this list (which has been a number of years now). DSI has officially responded once that the evolver is a finished/complete product, or something like that - i.e. no updates. > > Sorry, > Jim > > From: locatemodule <locatemodule@...> > To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 7:56:26 PM > Subject: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? > > > Hi all, > > I use my desktop evolver to sequence other gear and it sucks that sequencer 2 is not capable of producing rests. Is there a reason this has not been added to an update of the OS? Doesn't seem like it couldn't be added. Anyone know the reason for this? It would rule if this could be fixed, as of right now it's pretty limiting as far as sequencing other outboard gear. > > Thanks! > > David Farrell > > > > > > >
2010-10-16 by Brain
You can't save individual patch when you are in combo mode with PEK ? Really ? This is crazy... The only synth i've seen doing well with patch and combo is Nord Modular G2. Clavia find the smartest solution : a combo store all the patch data in it's own memory. All the 4 patch in it's own memory ! Like that you can tweak all you want to tweak, everything is saved in this combo and you don't erase original patch. And you know what ? It's fucking cool. You don't have to think about "oh my go maybe i'm erasing a good patch". It's the way to go, but i never see that again in any modern synth. Weird. By the way, i like the idea to pay someone to have a new OS, it's fare for the both side. DSI take some times to work on it, and we pay for the work. Fare. 50 euros ? OK go ! I love this synth so mutch, it's not a problem.
2010-10-16 by Ravi Ivan Sharma
You can't save individual patch when you are in combo mode with PEK ?
Really ? This is crazy...
The only synth i've seen doing well with patch and combo is Nord Modular
G2. Clavia find the smartest solution : a combo store all the patch data
in it's own memory. All the 4 patch in it's own memory ! Like that you
can tweak all you want to tweak, everything is saved in this combo and
you don't erase original patch.
And you know what ? It's fucking cool. You don't have to think about "oh
my go maybe i'm erasing a good patch". It's the way to go, but i never
see that again in any modern synth. Weird.
By the way, i like the idea to pay someone to have a new OS, it's fare
for the both side. DSI take some times to work on it, and we pay for the
work. Fare. 50 euros ? OK go ! I love this synth so mutch, it's not a
problem.
2010-10-16 by Scott Lawlor
----- Original Message -----From: Ravi Ivan SharmaSent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 9:41 AMSubject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?the tetra allows this. I love it.
On Oct 16, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Brain wrote:
You can't save individual patch when you are in combo mode with PEK ?
Really ? This is crazy...
The only synth i've seen doing well with patch and combo is Nord Modular
G2. Clavia find the smartest solution : a combo store all the patch data
in it's own memory. All the 4 patch in it's own memory ! Like that you
can tweak all you want to tweak, everything is saved in this combo and
you don't erase original patch.
And you know what ? It's fucking cool. You don't have to think about "oh
my go maybe i'm erasing a good patch". It's the way to go, but i never
see that again in any modern synth. Weird.
By the way, i like the idea to pay someone to have a new OS, it's fare
for the both side. DSI take some times to work on it, and we pay for the
work. Fare. 50 euros ? OK go ! I love this synth so mutch, it's not a
problem.
2010-10-16 by Ravi Ivan Sharma
what's pek and tetro?----- Original Message -----From: Ravi Ivan SharmaSent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 9:41 AMSubject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?the tetra allows this. I love it.
On Oct 16, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Brain wrote:
You can't save individual patch when you are in combo mode with PEK ?
Really ? This is crazy...
The only synth i've seen doing well with patch and combo is Nord Modular
G2. Clavia find the smartest solution : a combo store all the patch data
in it's own memory. All the 4 patch in it's own memory ! Like that you
can tweak all you want to tweak, everything is saved in this combo and
you don't erase original patch.
And you know what ? It's fucking cool. You don't have to think about "oh
my go maybe i'm erasing a good patch". It's the way to go, but i never
see that again in any modern synth. Weird.
By the way, i like the idea to pay someone to have a new OS, it's fare
for the both side. DSI take some times to work on it, and we pay for the
work. Fare. 50 euros ? OK go ! I love this synth so mutch, it's not a
problem.
2010-10-16 by James Elliott
AHAHAAHAHAH! ARE YOU F'ING SERIOUS!?! When people asked DSI to incorporate that in the PolyEvolvers he said flat out that he didn't want to incorporate anything like that in the the OS's because people may make mistakes, or get confused, when saving their changes. I think it is absolutely insane that he would flat out say that about a current product and then incorporate those changes in a new *different* product. ESPECIALLY when the code is probably more than likely mostly portable from one DSI synth to the next. Unbelievable. After hearing this, I will no longer purchase a new DSI product again. Seriously Ravi, thank you for bringing that to light. You drove in the final nail for me. Oh and btw I actually liked a number of patches on the evolver series. Good work! -Jim ________________________________ From: Ravi Ivan Sharma <noision1@...> To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, October 16, 2010 10:41:54 AM Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? the tetra allows this. I love it.
On Oct 16, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Brain wrote: >You can't save individual patch when you are in combo mode with PEK ? >Really ? This is crazy... > >The only synth i've seen doing well with patch and combo is Nord Modular >G2. Clavia find the smartest solution : a combo store all the patch data >in it's own memory. All the 4 patch in it's own memory ! Like that you >can tweak all you want to tweak, everything is saved in this combo and >you don't erase original patch. > >And you know what ? It's fucking cool. You don't have to think about "oh >my go maybe i'm erasing a good patch". It's the way to go, but i never >see that again in any modern synth. Weird. > >By the way, i like the idea to pay someone to have a new OS, it's fare >for the both side. DSI take some times to work on it, and we pay for the >work. Fare. 50 euros ? OK go ! I love this synth so mutch, it's not a >problem. >
2010-10-16 by Stefan Trippler
You know what you're talking about? While the Tetra has its own RAM for each Combo part, the PEK had not. Combos in the PEK contained only pointers to single programs, therefore saving a combo part would have overwritten the single program and simultaneously changed all other combos that used the same program. Physical RAM can't be created by an OS update ;) ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Elliott" <johans121@...> To: <DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? AHAHAAHAHAH! ARE YOU F'ING SERIOUS!?! When people asked DSI to incorporate that in the PolyEvolvers he said flat out that he didn't want to incorporate anything like that in the the OS's because people may make mistakes, or get confused, when saving their changes. I think it is absolutely insane that he would flat out say that about a current product and then incorporate those changes in a new *different* product. ESPECIALLY when the code is probably more than likely mostly portable from one DSI synth to the next. Unbelievable. After hearing this, I will no longer purchase a new DSI product again. Seriously Ravi, thank you for bringing that to light. You drove in the final nail for me. Oh and btw I actually liked a number of patches on the evolver series. Good work! -Jim ________________________________ From: Ravi Ivan Sharma <noision1@...> To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, October 16, 2010 10:41:54 AM Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? the tetra allows this. I love it.
On Oct 16, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Brain wrote: >You can't save individual patch when you are in combo mode with PEK ? >Really ? This is crazy... > >The only synth i've seen doing well with patch and combo is Nord Modular >G2. Clavia find the smartest solution : a combo store all the patch data >in it's own memory. All the 4 patch in it's own memory ! Like that you >can tweak all you want to tweak, everything is saved in this combo and >you don't erase original patch. > >And you know what ? It's fucking cool. You don't have to think about "oh >my go maybe i'm erasing a good patch". It's the way to go, but i never >see that again in any modern synth. Weird. > >By the way, i like the idea to pay someone to have a new OS, it's fare >for the both side. DSI take some times to work on it, and we pay for the >work. Fare. 50 euros ? OK go ! I love this synth so mutch, it's not a >problem. >
2010-10-16 by Markus Hof
AHAHAAHAHAH! ARE YOU F'ING SERIOUS!?!
When people asked DSI to incorporate that in the PolyEvolvers he said flat out that he didn't want to incorporate anything like that in the the OS's because people may make mistakes, or get confused, when saving their changes. I think it is absolutely insane that he would flat out say that about a current product and then incorporate those changes in a new *different* product. ESPECIALLY when the code is probably more than likely mostly portable from one DSI synth to the next. Unbelievable.
After hearing this, I will no longer purchase a new DSI product again. Seriously Ravi, thank you for bringing that to light. You drove in the final nail for me. Oh and btw I actually liked a number of patches on the evolver series. Good work!
-Jim
From: Ravi Ivan Sharma <noision1@...>
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, October 16, 2010 10:41:54 AM
Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
the tetra allows this. I love it.
On Oct 16, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Brain wrote:You can't save individual patch when you are in combo mode with PEK ?
Really ? This is crazy...
The only synth i've seen doing well with patch and combo is Nord Modular
G2. Clavia find the smartest solution : a combo store all the patch data
in it's own memory. All the 4 patch in it's own memory ! Like that you
can tweak all you want to tweak, everything is saved in this combo and
you don't erase original patch.
And you know what ? It's fucking cool. You don't have to think about "oh
my go maybe i'm erasing a good patch". It's the way to go, but i never
see that again in any modern synth. Weird.
By the way, i like the idea to pay someone to have a new OS, it's fare
for the both side. DSI take some times to work on it, and we pay for the
work. Fare. 50 euros ? OK go ! I love this synth so mutch, it's not a
problem.
2010-10-16 by James Elliott
I think that it is kind of funny that people who don't care about features that they don't care about think that people who do care about them is ridiculous. I really hope you don't ever have a complaint about a product you use, ever. Am I asking that my PEK has a cup holder, cable tv display, or landing gear? No. There is a sequencer on the PEK. That sequencer serves 2 functions: 1) To sequence it's own internal parameters, digitally 2) To sequence parameters on an external device, digitally For those saying things along the lines of, "think of the sequencer's ability to sequence external equipment as a 'bonus'"... I will say to you: I think of a bonus on a product as a unintended feature that does something, with positive results for the user, which was unforeseen at the time of product design. Calling the evolver's sequencer's ability to control external equipment a 'bonus' is the same as calling the LFO's ability to sync to midi clock a bonus. I'm sorry, but neither are bonuses. Both features were deliberately designed that way, after all there are menu functions for them. The synth was designed that way and it was shipped with those features right out of the factory doors. I think when the sequencer disables a part of the internal synth when being used to sequence external equipment as a hindrance, not a bonus. Why should the sequencer steal a voice when it isn't triggering the voice? If trigger mode is set to 'keyboard only', why does the sequencer on a patch on my PEK prevent me from using a voice when I am only using it to transmit midi to control external equipment? That sounds like a bug to me. If people don't want to listen to reason, or you if disagree, that is your prerogative. But I would appreciate comments along the lines of "you're crazy" or "you're irrational" or "go buy something else" or "you're asking for things which do not apply" to be kept to yourselves. They are not productive. For those thinking I'm a troll. Well, if you search through historical postings on this list you will see that I have been a relatively active user (as far as activity on this list is concerned) for a number of years and I more often than not help people with programming issues or I try to give constructive advice to others with questions regarding these products. And Mr. Trippler, thank you for educating me on the fact that the Tetra has additional RAM specifically for it's combo parts whereas the Evolvers do not. I either did not know that or I forgot. Thanks, Jim ________________________________
From: Markus Hof <barely@...> To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, October 16, 2010 12:29:45 PM Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? Phew, Now that you're gone, there's more DSI synths left for me to buy :) Sorry, but this is getting a little ridiculous, really. Although I must say that I miss a cup holder, cable TV display and landing gear on my PEK ;) Am 16.10.2010 um 18:01 schrieb James Elliott: > > >AHAHAAHAHAH! ARE YOU F'ING SERIOUS!?! > >When people asked DSI to incorporate that in the PolyEvolvers he said flat out >that he didn't want to incorporate anything like that in the the OS's because >people may make mistakes, or get confused, when saving their changes. I think it >is absolutely insane that he would flat out say that about a current product and >then incorporate those changes in a new *different* product. ESPECIALLY when the >code is probably more than likely mostly portable from one DSI synth to the >next. Unbelievable. > >After hearing this, I will no longer purchase a new DSI product again. Seriously >Ravi, thank you for bringing that to light. You drove in the final nail for me. >Oh and btw I actually liked a number of patches on the evolver series. Good >work! > >-Jim > > > > > > ________________________________ From: Ravi Ivan Sharma <noision1@...> >To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Sat, October 16, 2010 10:41:54 AM >Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? > > >the tetra allows this. I love it. > > >On Oct 16, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Brain wrote: > > >>You can't save individual patch when you are in combo mode with PEK ? >>Really ? This is crazy... >> >>The only synth i've seen doing well with patch and combo is Nord Modular >>G2. Clavia find the smartest solution : a combo store all the patch data >>in it's own memory. All the 4 patch in it's own memory ! Like that you >>can tweak all you want to tweak, everything is saved in this combo and >>you don't erase original patch. >> >>And you know what ? It's fucking cool. You don't have to think about "oh >>my go maybe i'm erasing a good patch". It's the way to go, but i never >>see that again in any modern synth. Weird. >> >>By the way, i like the idea to pay someone to have a new OS, it's fare >>for the both side. DSI take some times to work on it, and we pay for the >>work. Fare. 50 euros ? OK go ! I love this synth so mutch, it's not a >>problem. >> > > > > ----------------- Markus Hof Hemauerstr. 19a 93047 Regensburg
2010-10-16 by Ancient Eyeball Recipe
You know what you're talking about?
While the Tetra has its own RAM for each Combo part, the PEK had not. Combos
in the PEK contained only pointers to single programs, therefore saving a
combo part would have overwritten the single program and simultaneously
changed all other combos that used the same program.
Physical RAM can't be created by an OS update ;)
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Elliott" <johans121@...>
To: <DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
AHAHAAHAHAH! ARE YOU F'ING SERIOUS!?!
When people asked DSI to incorporate that in the PolyEvolvers he said flat
out
that he didn't want to incorporate anything like that in the the OS's
because
people may make mistakes, or get confused, when saving their changes. I
think it
is absolutely insane that he would flat out say that about a current product
and
then incorporate those changes in a new *different* product. ESPECIALLY when
the
code is probably more than likely mostly portable from one DSI synth to the
next. Unbelievable.
After hearing this, I will no longer purchase a new DSI product again.
Seriously
Ravi, thank you for bringing that to light. You drove in the final nail for
me.
Oh and btw I actually liked a number of patches on the evolver series. Good
work!
-Jim
________________________________
From: Ravi Ivan Sharma <noision1@...>
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, October 16, 2010 10:41:54 AM
Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2?
the tetra allows this. I love it.
On Oct 16, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Brain wrote:
>You can't save individual patch when you are in combo mode with PEK ?
>Really ? This is crazy...
>
>The only synth i've seen doing well with patch and combo is Nord Modular
>G2. Clavia find the smartest solution : a combo store all the patch data
>;in it's own memory. All the 4 patch in it's own memory ! Like that you
>can tweak all you want to tweak, everything is saved in this combo and
>you don't erase original patch.
>
>And you know what ? It's fucking cool. You don't have to think about "oh
>my go maybe i'm erasing a good patch". It's the way to go, but i never
>see that again in any modern synth. Weird.
>
>By the way, i like the idea to pay someone to have a new OS, it's fare
>for the both side. DSI take some times to work on it, and we pay for the
>work. Fare. 50 euros ? OK go ! I love this synth so mutch, it's not a
>problem.
>
2010-10-19 by meatballfulton
--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote: > I, and certainly a number of other users, want to be able to work > that way, and have the manufacturer respect us enough that > he won't disable important functionality so that we won't get > confused. What if the shoe was on the other foot and you weren't a power user? There's plenty of synth users in the world who don't even understand that audio is not sent over MIDI. Trashing individual patches due to making edits in multimode has bugged users for years. I think it's a great Tetra feature for combos to have their own copies of the patches, but as DocT mentioned this requires RAM not present in the PEK. Before assuming a technical feature is "easily implemented" it's a good idea to review the schematics and source code. Anything else is just guessing.
2010-10-19 by Dale
----- Original Message -----From: meatballfultonThere's plenty of synth users in the world who don't even understand that audio is not sent over MIDI.
2010-10-19 by Ancient Eyeball Recipe
Well, for one, it was never claimed that it would be difficult to implement, and it was explicitly claimed that it was disabled so as not to confuse users. I find it curious that you think that people who don't understand the difference between audio and midi should be considered the prime users of a very powerful synth that is obviously not for beginners, or for preset users, etc. And also that there shouldn't be a setting which allowed these to be overwritten, but by default they could not. so, I don't think I'm just guessing - but you quite obviously are.
----- Original Message ----- From: "meatballfulton" <hubcapbrian@...> To: "DSI Evolver" <DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 9:25:39 AM Subject: Re: [DSI Synths] Why no rest on sequencer 2? --- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com , Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote: > I, and certainly a number of other users, want to be able to work > that way, and have the manufacturer respect us enough that > he won't disable important functionality so that we won't get > confused. What if the shoe was on the other foot and you weren't a power user? There's plenty of synth users in the world who don't even understand that audio is not sent over MIDI. Trashing individual patches due to making edits in multimode has bugged users for years. I think it's a great Tetra feature for combos to have their own copies of the patches, but as DocT mentioned this requires RAM not present in the PEK. Before assuming a technical feature is "easily implemented" it's a good idea to review the schematics and source code. Anything else is just guessing.
2010-10-19 by Dale
I think it would be very cool if we had a development kit to get into these synths and do a bit of altering (evolving) ourselves ... As for price, how many have you seen with many thousand(s) dollar guitar that could not even play "Stair Way To Heaven"... ;-) All kinds buy these things. Now actually use them, well that I think is more rare. Dale ----- Original Message ----- From: Ancient Eyeball Recipe Well, for one, it was never claimed that it would be difficult to implement, and it was explicitly claimed that it was disabled so as not to confuse users. I find it curious that you think that people who don't understand the difference between audio and midi should be considered the prime users of a very powerful synth that is obviously not for beginners, or for preset users, etc. And also that there shouldn't be a setting which allowed these to be overwritten, but by default they could not.