The Official DSI/Sequential Forum

OTHER DISCUSSIONS => General Synthesis => Other Hardware/Software => Topic started by: Sacred Synthesis on October 10, 2017, 02:09:15 PM

Title: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Sacred Synthesis on October 10, 2017, 02:09:15 PM
I bought my first Prophet '08 synthesizer in 2008.  Since then, I've owned four keyboard units and two module units (not to mention a Mopho Desktop and a Tetr4).  I presently have two of each.  Having worked for so long and so much with the instrument, I naturally developed a short list of improvements I wanted to see in the future, and I often posted about it here and elsewhere.  This list included:

- First and foremost, four DCO's, rather than only two
- Hardwired stereo oscillators, adjustable by degrees between stereo and mono
- A high pass filter with a dedicated parameter; resonant or non-resonant
- Substantially longer envelope times (attack, decay, and release)
- Onboard delay assignable to each program
- A greater refinement in parameter steps (perhaps a fine tuning knob for the LFO Amount)
- The ability to synchronize an LFO across all the voices
- An option for the more traditional type of polyphonic glide/portamento
- Keypad entry for programs, rather than scrolling
- The ability to determine the number of voices in each layer
- A greater total number of voices
- An improved keybed
- A more refined aftertouch

The last thing I was expecting was a revision of the Prophet '08.  I had been hoping for an all-new synthesizer, but one related to the Prophet '08.  Dave had repeatedly said he no longer did revisions of older instruments as he had with the Prophet 5, so I presumed that was the end of that.  Then the Rev2 appeared, out of the blue. 

Obviously, the Rev2 incorporated some of these improvements, but not others.  I'm fine with that, because what the Rev2 does is maintain into the future the classic Prophet '08 sound, but in a substantially improved and expanded form.  In my opinion, this is ideal, and it's much better than going out, as I had intended, and buying two brand new Prophet '08 Keyboards, in the expectation that they would last longer than my somewhat aging units.  But the instrument I had imagined was not a revised Prophet '08; it was a different instrument altogether.  This means that my old list is still relevant. 

I don't know if DSI will ever produce another DCO instrument.  They said they wouldn't, but then the Rev2 showed up.  Regardless, I would love to see more freedom taken in developing another all-analog synthesizer, yet one that clearly stands in the Prophet '08 tradition - something bigger than the Rev2 and obviously having many more additions than I've mentioned above.  There are enough features that folks have discussed here, such as polyphonic aftertouch and a keybed that could respond to it, as well as tri-timbrality.  These could help to distinguish the instrument from the other synthesizers in the DSI line.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: LoboLives on October 11, 2017, 03:14:50 AM
The whole idea that DSI said they wouldn't do another DCO product or a revision of an older instrument and then suddenly they end up doing both of those things in one unit...sort of gives me hope we'll see another Analog/Digital synth from DSI. I'm not sure what else they can do in the analog world except for multitimbrality and there seems to be a lot of scoffing at that idea on this forum from members and no huge interest from DSI themselves in regards to that.

Honestly I think it would be as simple as to take the concept of the Tempest's synth engine (Two analog oscillators, two digital oscillators) and put it in a keyboard version except instead of the drum samples it has Prophet 2000 samples. Make it blue and black like the VS and also have the joystick like the VS. Seems fairly straightforward.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Paul Dither on October 11, 2017, 04:44:25 AM
I bought my first Prophet '08 synthesizer in 2008.  Since then, I've owned four keyboard units and two module units (not to mention a Mopho Desktop and a Tetr4).  I presently have two of each.  Having worked for so long and so much with the instrument, I naturally developed a short list of improvements I wanted to see in the future, and I often posted about it here and elsewhere.  This list included:

- First and foremost, four DCO's, rather than only two
- Hardwired stereo oscillators, adjustable by degrees between stereo and mono
- A high pass filter with a dedicated parameter; resonant or non-resonant
- Substantially longer envelope times (attack, decay, and release)
- Onboard delay assignable to each program
- A greater refinement in parameter steps (perhaps a fine tuning knob for the LFO Amount)
- The ability to synchronize an LFO across all the voices
- An option for the more traditional type of polyphonic glide/portamento
- Keypad entry for programs, rather than scrolling
- The ability to determine the number of voices in each layer
- A greater total number of voices
- An improved keybed
- A more refined aftertouch

That would basically be a sort of feature mix of the Poly Evolver (hardwired oscillators and stereo-mono adjustment), the Prophet 12 (keypad entry for programs, analog high pass filter, and delays), the Prophet-6 and OB-6 (global LFO for all voices), and the Rev2 (improved keyboard, greater number of voices, and delays in the effect section), plus further features. Substantially new would be longer envelope times, a greater resolution of parameter steps, a different portamento mode, the ability to determine the number of voices for each layer, and optionally polyphonic aftertouch and enhanced multi-timbrality.

It is my understanding that the latter two are pretty much off the table. The rest would be a neat reconfiguration of already existing functions for a super flagship analog poly synth and then some. I still don't quite understand what you mean by a more traditional type of polyphonic glide as opposed to the glide function that exists in the current line of DSI instruments.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Paul Dither on October 11, 2017, 04:52:26 AM
The whole idea that DSI said they wouldn't do another DCO product or a revision of an older instrument and then suddenly they end up doing both of those things in one unit...sort of gives me hope we'll see another Analog/Digital synth from DSI. I'm not sure what else they can do in the analog world except for multitimbrality and there seems to be a lot of scoffing at that idea on this forum from members and no huge interest from DSI themselves in regards to that.

I'm also not quite sure what else could come in the analog poly synth domain, except for the points that have already been made. At this year's Moogfest, Dave only teased the audience with the statement that DSI would be working on a "Prophet something," whereby the brand "Prophet" was only used for the lack of a different name, which he said he'd prefer. So given that Dave would like to avoid the "Prophet" name for the next product, I would expect something that differs from the past offerings, which would make sense after three different nods to the past (Prophet-6, OB-6, Rev2).
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: LoboLives on October 11, 2017, 05:22:35 AM
The whole idea that DSI said they wouldn't do another DCO product or a revision of an older instrument and then suddenly they end up doing both of those things in one unit...sort of gives me hope we'll see another Analog/Digital synth from DSI. I'm not sure what else they can do in the analog world except for multitimbrality and there seems to be a lot of scoffing at that idea on this forum from members and no huge interest from DSI themselves in regards to that.

I'm also not quite sure what else could come in the analog poly synth domain, except for the points that have already been made. At this year's Moogfest, Dave only teased the audience with the statement that DSI would be working on a "Prophet something," whereby the brand "Prophet" was only used for the lack of a different name, which he said he'd prefer. So given that Dave would like to avoid the "Prophet" name for the next product, I would expect something that differs from the past offerings, which would make sense after three different nods to the past (Prophet-6, OB-6, Rev2).

You know what does have Prophet in the name? Evolver ;)

Honestly though Prophet has a legacy to it. And even before DSI started Sequential had a bunch of different Prophets that all did different things. I think the issue is the current line of Prophets aren't drastically different from each other compared to a Prophet 5 (Analog), Prophet 10 (Dual keyboard), Prophet VS (Pure digital) and Prophet 2000 (Sampler).

The Prophet 6, REV2 and 12 are essentially designed to get a similar result even if each of it's methods are different.

I think a Multitimbral four voice Pro would be nice. Four individual VCO based mono synths under one hood. Each with it's own sequencer and effects...sort of like 4 AS-1s together.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Sacred Synthesis on October 11, 2017, 06:30:18 AM
That would basically be a sort of feature mix of the Poly Evolver (hardwired oscillators and stereo-mono adjustment), the Prophet 12 (keypad entry for programs, analog high pass filter, and delays), the Prophet-6 and OB-6 (global LFO for all voices), and the Rev2 (improved keyboard, greater number of voices, and delays in the effect section), plus further features. Substantially new would be longer envelope times, a greater resolution of parameter steps, a different portamento mode, the ability to determine the number of voices for each layer, and optionally polyphonic aftertouch and enhanced multi-timbrality.

It is my understanding that the latter two are pretty much off the table. The rest would be a neat reconfiguration of already existing functions for a super flagship analog poly synth and then some. I still don't quite understand what you mean by a more traditional type of polyphonic glide as opposed to the glide function that exists in the current line of DSI instruments.

Such a "feature mix" of an instrument sounds good to me, since it would be a sort of best of the best configuration; and that, if done tastefully, could still produce and instrument with a distinct personality. 

The longer envelope times is an Evolver strength.  It's envelopes are much longer than those of the Prophet '08/Rev2.  I had early on asked DSI about this - if the Rev2 had longer envelope times - and they said they're the same as those on the Prophet '08, the reason being that they wanted the cross-compatibility between those two instruments.  Oh well.

Some will suggest that the instrument should go all the way and have analog oscillators.  That would be great, but it would immensely add to the price.  I'm actually happy with DCO's.  I think they sound decent, and I appreciate their stability.  Plus, they would keep the instrument in a more reasonable price range.

As for the polyphonic glide/portamento idea - I know, Paul, that you've played many synthesizers with the "other" type of glide.  I'm not aware of technical terms for each; they wouldn't be linear or exponential, or normal or keyed.  It doesn't have to do with the curve or rate of the glide, but with the uniformity of a cluster of notes.  Anyways, the classic example would be the type the old Rolands had.  You play a chord down low, and then a chord up high, and the gradual sweep of notes from low to high is smooth and together.  DSI uses an altogether different type of glide.  It's much more unpredictable and awkward to use, although even that tends to make it at times useful and pleasingly unique.  The individual notes of a chord seem to react differently to it, and it even responds differently to legato or staccato playing.  My suggestion is that, with this imagined instrument, there be the ability to select between the two types of glide.  Both types are useful.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Paul Dither on October 11, 2017, 07:26:10 AM
As for the polyphonic glide/portamento - I know, Paul, that you've played many synthesizers with the "other" type of glide.  I'm not aware of technical terms for each; they wouldn't be linear or non-linear, or normal or keyed.  Anyways, the classic example would be the type the old Rolands had.  You play a chord down low, and then a chord up high, and the gradual sweep of notes from low to high is smooth and together.  DSI uses an altogether different type of glide.  It's much more unpredictable and awkward to use, although even that tends to make it at times useful and pleasingly unique.  My suggestion is that, with this imagined instrument, there be the ability to select between the two types of glide.  I find both types useful.

Ah, so you mean a glide option that behaves exponentially instead of linear? - I'm not too sure about me having played many synths with another type of glide. Honestly, the only synth I can currently think of is the Sub 37, which offers an exponential glide option on top of the fixed time and fixed rate settings. In that case the glide rate follows an exponential curve that begins with a fast rate and slows down as it approaches the target note.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Sacred Synthesis on October 11, 2017, 07:32:32 AM
I'm not sure if "exponential" and "linear" are the correct terms.  Perhaps Robot Heart could solve the mystery for us. 

Have you ever played a Roland Juno or Jupiter?  That's the type of glide to which I'm referring.  It's very different from the type DSI uses.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: chysn on October 11, 2017, 07:56:35 AM
I think the ideal glide is like this. This song contains one of my favorite keyboard solos, played by Bobby Sparks on a (pre-reissue) Minimoog:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gD-jD5f84w

I've always found the glide on my Little Phatty to be extremely musical, whereas I hardly ever used it on my Mopho. I always felt that the timbre of the sound had a lot to do with it, maybe even more than the taper or speed of the glide itself.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Sacred Synthesis on October 11, 2017, 08:04:15 AM
If you take a typical polyphonic string patch on the Prophet '08, play a chord in the lower octaves, turn up the glide to 127, and then play a chord in the upper octaves, you'll get the classic glide effect.  But if you then begin to repeat individual notes from that upper chord while sustaining the other notes, or if you play a melody in addition to the chord, the behavior of the glide can only be called erratic.  Based probably on the number of voices you have available, new notes that are played glide from directions that seem to make no sense, such as from a higher register in which you've not played any notes.  Why do they glide down from a pitch that has not been triggered?  For this reason, I would suggest another capability in my imagined new instrument:

- The ability to control the glide depth of all voices simultaneously through the use of the modulation wheel

This way, you could cause one chord to smoothly glide to another, immediately turn off the glide for normal playing, and then instantly turn it on again when you need it at another point.  Or else, you could adjust the depth, and therefore, the speed of the glide, even while a note or chord is in the process of gliding. 

Personally, I really like the glide effect and would use it much more if it could be more easily controlled.  As bizarre as it can sound at times, I think it can also be tastefully applied to a musical passage, but you need to ability to control the amount across the entire instrument.  I'm not aware if the Prophet 12 has this ability, but I think its time has come.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Sacred Synthesis on October 11, 2017, 08:15:22 AM
I think the ideal glide is like this. This song contains one of my favorite keyboard solos, played by Bobby Sparks on a (pre-reissue) Minimoog:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gD-jD5f84w

I've always found the glide on my Little Phatty to be extremely musical, whereas I hardly ever used it on my Mopho. I always felt that the timbre of the sound had a lot to do with it, maybe even more than the taper or speed of the glide itself.

Yes, the Minimoog uses a type of glide which I've always liked, too.  But since it's a monophonic instrument, it's a different case.  It's the behavior of glide with multiple voices that concerns me here.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Paul Dither on October 11, 2017, 08:54:31 AM
Have you ever played a Roland Juno or Jupiter?  That's the type of glide to which I'm referring.  It's very different from the type DSI uses.

I only played a Juno-60 once as a live synth surrogate for a gig in Scotland to which I couldn't bring my Wavestation (which was my main synth at the time) and I rated it by the latter's standards, which obviously didn't end up in favor of the Juno-60. So apart from this quick rather pragmatic encounter, I've never used any Junos or Jupiters.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Sacred Synthesis on October 11, 2017, 09:45:58 AM
And I've never played a Sequential, but I'm supposing that Dave Smith has always used this unique type of glide.  It would be an interesting forum poll to ask how many DSI owners use a lot of glide on polyphonic patches and are satisfied with its behavior.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Paul Dither on October 11, 2017, 10:09:35 AM
And I've never played a Sequential, but I'm supposing that Dave Smith has always used this unique type of glide.  It would be an interesting forum poll to ask how many DSI owners use a lot of glide on polyphonic patches and are satisfied with its behavior.

What would be cool as part of a universal solution is if one could assign the glide function as a modulation destination, so you could have its time and rate behaviour modulated by an envelope for example.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Sacred Synthesis on October 11, 2017, 11:11:21 AM
Yes, that was my general thought.  Put the glide into the general mix and allow it to be controlled and modulated by the usual means.  Honestly, I was quite surprised, way back, when I first realized the glide depth could be controlled only one oscillator at a time, and without the help of a wheel.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Soundquest on October 11, 2017, 11:33:57 AM
On the glide topic.    I've never been able to decipher the glide on my PEK quite honestly.  Always seemed erratic, and for years I just assumed it was perhaps broken.  Just recently I happened to play around with it a bit, and still, it seems to be either on or off, with no incremental changes while adjusting the numerical adjustment.  I just don't use it on this instrument because of that.  The other DSI's I own the glide is certainly better, and closer to a traditional I'd say.   I guess the PO8's glide does have a somewhat different behavior than lets say a Nord Lead 4 for example- which seems linear or predictable.  Is it a fault or is it just different as planned?  The OB6 glide works wonderfully as I could wish for and is very easy to trigger on and off. 
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Sacred Synthesis on October 11, 2017, 11:47:19 AM
The OB6 glide works wonderfully as I could wish for and is very easy to trigger on and off.

Ah, I didn't know that.  Is the glide on both the OB-6 and the P-6 different from that on the P'08, PEK, and P12?

Here's an example of the so-called erratic nature of the glide on the Prophet 12.  You can hear the different notes of a chord receive different amounts of glide:

https://youtu.be/-_HhpoZW838?t=1m48s
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Synthmaniac on October 11, 2017, 01:09:04 PM
The glide on the Prophet 08 works separately for each voice. So a perfect glide between two cords is only possible if you play an 8 note chord followed by another 8 note chord (or 4 note chords when in stack/split mode). I'd also like a more musical glide on the Prophet 08. All my other polyphonic synths do it nicely (albeit digital).
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Sacred Synthesis on October 11, 2017, 01:34:22 PM
That sounds like a rational explanation.  The difficulty is that the glide behaves differently from note to note and chord to chord because you're always at a different point in your voice count, in the number of voices you've used and the number you have remaining.  Then there's the effect of the envelope release on past notes that are still ringing.  It all gets very complicated, so that you can't control it or predict very well how it will react.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Razmo on October 12, 2017, 02:29:13 AM
To understand why DSI poly synths have this "chaotic glide" you need to see them not as true polysynths, but rather like several monosynths, connected together in a polychain manner.

None of the voices (which is in essence a single monosynth, with it's own processor) know what the other voices is doing, or what state they are in (this goes for the pitch too)... they work independently and on their own.

To make a useful glide, you must know the last note you played, so that you can glide from that, into the new note... this is easy with a monophonic synth, since the voice knows it's last played pitch... in fact it usually knows exactly what pitch it is at, so a monophonic glide is easy to make.

But with a polyphonic glide, this is different... here you want to know what the last played voice's pitch is, and reset the pitch of a NEW voice to the same before you start any glide on the new voice... the pitch of this new voice could be ANYTHING if not reset, since it was last used from 1 to 8 keypresses ago (if it is an 8 voice synth).

So in a DSI polysynth, say a PEK, you have in essence, 4 completely standalone monophonic evolvers, being controlled by a Main CPU, telling them what to play... but none of the four synths know about each others pitch states, so they have no way of initializing the pitch correctly... so they just work as a standalone monophonic synth, using their own last used pitch setting when doing glides... this result in glides that start from whatever the voice was at (in pitch) the last time it was triggered, and that will vary from 1 to 4 keypresses old.... that is why the polyglide sound like it fires in all different directions.

You would get the exact same effect with any other monophonic synth that has polychain capability... it's that simple... DSI synths are simply internally "polychained" monophonic synths.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Sacred Synthesis on October 12, 2017, 05:58:58 AM
They just work as a standalone monophonic synth, using their own last used pitch setting when doing glides... this result in glides that start from whatever the voice was at (in pitch) the last time it was triggered, and that will vary from 1 to 4 keypresses old.... that is why the polyglide sound like it fires in all different directions.

You would get the exact same effect with any other monophonic synth that has polychain capability... it's that simple... DSI synths are simply internally "polychained" monophonic synths.

This is close to an accurate description of DSI glide, but it isn't quite perfect.  It does describe how notes glide independently from all directions, but it doesn't explain why notes are glided to from pitches that have not been triggered.  In other words, I can hold a chord, play notes above that chord, and those additional notes will glide down from higher pitches that had not yet been struck, from a range that had not been used. 

A monophonic glide always comes from the previous note; that's easy and obvious.  But the behavior of DSI glide is more than simply the sum of the number of voices used; it's more complicated than so many monophonic instruments working at the same time.  There is a behavior in DSI polyphonic glide that hasn't been explained and that seemingly makes no sense.  It can to a degree be anticipated, but it seems to escape the understanding.

This is getting to sound a lot like a bunch of guys trying to describe love.  ???
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Paul Dither on October 12, 2017, 09:12:49 AM
They just work as a standalone monophonic synth, using their own last used pitch setting when doing glides... this result in glides that start from whatever the voice was at (in pitch) the last time it was triggered, and that will vary from 1 to 4 keypresses old.... that is why the polyglide sound like it fires in all different directions.

You would get the exact same effect with any other monophonic synth that has polychain capability... it's that simple... DSI synths are simply internally "polychained" monophonic synths.

This is close to an accurate description of DSI glide, but it isn't quite perfect.  It does describe how notes glide independently from all directions, but it doesn't explain why notes are glided to from pitches that have not been triggered.  In other words, I can hold a chord, play notes above that chord, and those additional notes will glide down from higher pitches that had not yet been struck, from a range that had not been used. 

A monophonic glide always comes from the previous note; that's easy and obvious.  But the behavior of DSI glide is more than simply the sum of the number of voices used; it's more complicated than so many monophonic instruments working at the same time.  There is a behavior in DSI polyphonic glide that hasn't been explained and that seemingly makes no sense.  It can to a degree be anticipated, but it seems to escape the understanding.

This doesn't quite contradict Razmo's point though. I think even when you switch to a new preset, each voice still 'remembers' by which key it was triggered last. That's at least how it seems to work on the Prophet-6. If I turn the unit off and on again and activate glide, each newly triggered note rises from the lowest possible one, which would be the default. So in case of the Prophet-6, the not yet triggered note would be C0. And if you switch a preset after you already played all voices there is no not yet triggered voice anymore. Per voice it'll be the last key/note you pressed in order to trigger that voice.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Sacred Synthesis on October 12, 2017, 09:48:46 AM
Yes, I understand that.  But explain the erratic gliding down from notes that were never triggered.  I don't believe there's a default setting from above, or a note priority setting, that could cause such a behavior.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Paul Dither on October 12, 2017, 10:05:25 AM
Yes, I understand that.  But explain the erratic gliding down from notes that were never triggered.  I don't believe there's a default setting from above, or a note priority setting, that could cause such a behavior.

I can't test the behaviour on a PEK or a Prophet '08 right now. But you could just turn on your PEK or Prophet '08, switch on glide and then play a key to figure out from what note the glide is actually starting. Start by hitting the same key per voice (like middle C) and if the glide effect sounds the same in all cases, there's no randomness, but indeed something like a default pitch. To make things quick and easy, you might just check a unit that's not in polychain mode.

Other than that, I have no idea. Maybe someone from DSI can chime in on this topic.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Sacred Synthesis on October 12, 2017, 10:09:26 AM
I can't test the behaviour on a PEK or a Prophet '08 right now. But you could just turn on your PEK or Prophet '08, switch on glide and then play a key to figure out from what note the glide is actually starting. Start by hitting the same key per voice (like middle C) and if the glide effect sounds the same in all cases, there's no randomness, but indeed something like a default pitch. To make things quick and easy, you might just check a unit that's not in polychain mode.

You can be sure I did all that before I started this discussion.  And I never use polychain.

It does sound wonderfully dramatic at the right moments, but I'd like to tame it better so as to be able to use it more.

Anyways, we've discussed the glide enough.  I was hoping this thread might have a bit more of a "next new DSI synthesizer" theme, starting from my list of suggestions.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Paul Dither on October 12, 2017, 10:51:38 AM
You can be sure I did all that before I started this discussion.  And I never use polychain.

It does sound wonderfully dramatic at the right moments, but I'd like to tame it better so as to be able to use it more.

Anyways, we've discussed the glide enough.  I was hoping this thread might have a bit more of a "next new DSI synthesizer" theme, starting from my list of suggestions.

Alright. Then I have no idea why the first glides are coming from seemingly random notes on your synths.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Sacred Synthesis on October 12, 2017, 10:57:01 AM
I'll continue to study it more; this is the most I've ever analyzed the mysterious workings of DSI glide, so I probably have more to learn about it.  The challenge is that it responds differently to different situations, such as when you're using layers.  I don't remember ever before scratching my head over polyphonic glide.  It was always such a simple thing.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: chysn on October 12, 2017, 11:37:46 AM
I can't experiment with these instruments, but I can speculate as to why gliding might begin from unplayed notes. If each oscillator keeps track of its last note played, then that last note memory location could be left undefined when the instrument is started*. If this is the case, it could be anything, since "undefined" is basically "random value."

Doing this on a per-oscillator basis is questionable anyway. If you play a three-note C# minor chord, say G#, C#, E, and then go up an octave and turn that into C# major with F, G#, C#, I'd think you'd want the G# to glide to the higher G#, the C# to glide to the higher C#, and the E to glide to the F. It shouldn't matter which oscillators the new notes are played on. That turns it into a hardware implementation issue and not a musical issue. But of course the software needs to be a lot smarter.

* Or perhaps when a patch is changed?
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: dsetto on October 12, 2017, 12:31:00 PM
Lobo,

I wanted to write that I'm not scoffing about the idea of multi-timbrality in a synthesizer. In fact, I have a workstation because I appreciate multi-timbrality. ... Whenever I've responded to this topic, my perspective has been that of being happy with the Rev2 as it was announced and is. In other words, to me, the Rev2 (and '08) is enough for the main thing I want it to be. And, that I have use for 16 voices in both a mono-timbral and a bi-timbral instrument.

I fully support multi-timbrality in a future instrument. I also fully support the Rev2 as it is. I hope I was able to communicate the nuance of my positions.

with respect,
dsetto
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: dsetto on October 12, 2017, 12:49:26 PM
Like a mono-synth out of Razmo's intriguing "polychained monosynth" concept, I responded to the first 2 posts, and have been entirely out of sync with the thread thereafter.

--
Honestly, the glide stuff is currently beyond me. But, it seems that Sacred Synth's glide & LFO comments seem like they can  be explained by Razmo's proposed concept. But, it's currently all beyond me.
--
On the initial post:
As a past-time, I'll stay tuned to DSI's output. (Obviously!) Because I believe compelling instruments will continue to come for quite some time. Predictions, I don't have at the moment. I don't want to want. I am good.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: LoboLives on October 12, 2017, 05:05:33 PM
Lobo,

I wanted to write that I'm not scoffing about the idea of multi-timbrality in a synthesizer. In fact, I have a workstation because I appreciate multi-timbrality. ... Whenever I've responded to this topic, my perspective has been that of being happy with the Rev2 as it was announced and is. In other words, to me, the Rev2 (and '08) is enough for the main thing I want it to be. And, that I have use for 16 voices in both a mono-timbral and a bi-timbral instrument.

I fully support multi-timbrality in a future instrument. I also fully support the Rev2 as it is. I hope I was able to communicate the nuance of my positions.

with respect,
dsetto

Oh yeah man, no hard feelings at all. For me I appreciate the REV2 as well (probably going to pick up an 8 voice version after next NAMM in case DSI don’t release anything mind blowing) I just felt a bit let down when it was announced as I saw it as a step backwards or sort of too small a step forwards. I think for me it’s frustrating because it seemed everyone’s response when I mentioned multitimbrality or having a new sampler based synth is always “just get a workstation” or “just use midi”.

I am really interested with what DSI does next, I just hope it’s something completely fresh and not simply taking something in the current lineup and adding a few improvements to it (which was how I viewed the REV2).

I also hope they don’t waste the Sequential name by only having it for the Prophet 6.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: dsetto on October 16, 2017, 10:04:12 AM
Cool, lobo. ... By the way, I would appreciate both those things you want. ... I know exactly the various ways I would use a hypothetical synth that's exactly like a Rev2, but with 4-part multitimbrality. It would be amazing. Including for live-performance use as opposed to sequenced. ZERO doubt how. ... And don't get me started imagining a DSI sampler. Don't need it. Don't need to want it.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: dsetto on October 16, 2017, 10:24:02 AM
Sacred Synthesis,

I like the higher perspective from which you look at Dave Smith synthesizers. My understanding of how you're looking at them is to identify a few as significant pillar synths. And from that look, to guess at would/could be a new pillar synth.

If I've got that part right, what do you see as the pillar synths? (Choose a better term, of course.)
- Prophet 5 (obviously)
- Prophet VS
- Poly-Evolver Keyboard

Then, you're classifying the Prophet '08/Prophet Rev2 as distilled/distilled evolved iterations of the Poly-Evolver Keyboard.

By no means am I minimizing the value of non-pillar synths. ... And it doesn't matter whether or not this "pillar synth" concept is considered or valid. It's simply a fan's water-cooler topic.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: LoboLives on October 16, 2017, 10:36:53 AM
Cool, lobo. ... By the way, I would appreciate both those things you want. ... I know exactly the various ways I would use a hypothetical synth that's exactly like a Rev2, but with 4-part multitimbrality. It would be amazing. Including for live-performance use as opposed to sequenced. ZERO doubt how. ... And don't get me started imagining a DSI sampler. Don't need it. Don't need to want it.

I suggested DSI and Pioneer take the concept of the SP 16 but instead of more beats/drums it’s keyboard oriented. Would be nice to see a new Emulator lol. A sampler with DSI filters with a great keybed. Call it the Pioneer/DSI “Imitation”
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Razmo on October 16, 2017, 11:17:41 AM
Cool, lobo. ... By the way, I would appreciate both those things you want. ... I know exactly the various ways I would use a hypothetical synth that's exactly like a Rev2, but with 4-part multitimbrality. It would be amazing. Including for live-performance use as opposed to sequenced. ZERO doubt how. ... And don't get me started imagining a DSI sampler. Don't need it. Don't need to want it.

I suggested DSI and Pioneer take the concept of the SP 16 but instead of more beats/drums it’s keyboard oriented. Would be nice to see a new Emulator lol. A sampler with DSI filters with a great keybed. Call it the Pioneer/DSI “Imitation”

Sounds like the sampler I've been talking about for ages now I'd say... there still are no modern sampler with analog filters, except if you go for groovebox/drummachine types of devices... a true sampler, that allow you to deal with small looped sample snippets, and use sample-oscillators are not existent... the Waldorf Quantum will probably be the first to breach this void... unfortunately too expensive, and with a lot of other synthesis types in it...

I'd really like a sample-synth that is JUST THAT... in fact, just simply take the REV2 or P6, and exchange the oscillators with sample-oscillators, and I'd be happy... and a really well thought out storage medium and you're ready to go...

But please... both in keys and desktop versions...
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Sacred Synthesis on October 16, 2017, 11:33:11 AM
Sacred Synthesis,

I like the higher perspective from which you look at Dave Smith synthesizers. My understanding of how you're looking at them is to identify a few as significant pillar synths. And from that look, to guess at would/could be a new pillar synth.

If I've got that part right, what do you see as the pillar synths? (Choose a better term, of course.)
- Prophet 5 (obviously)
- Prophet VS
- Poly-Evolver Keyboard

Then, you're classifying the Prophet '08/Prophet Rev2 as distilled/distilled evolved iterations of the Poly-Evolver Keyboard.

By no means am I minimizing the value of non-pillar synths. ... And it doesn't matter whether or not this "pillar synth" concept is considered or valid. It's simply a fan's water-cooler topic.

If I were to follow your "pillar-synth" terminolgy regarding only DSI synthesizers, I would say there are two: first and foremost, the Poly Evolver Keyboard pillar, from which came everything up to the Prophet 12.  Hence, the other pillar is the P12, from which came the Pro 2.  The PEK obviously wasn't the first Evolver, but it embodies the fullness of Evolverdom.  And directly from it came the Prophet '08 (and, therefore, the Rev2 and anything that may come from it) and all those instruments derived from the P'08.  And of course, the PEK harps back to the VS, while the P-6 harps back to the P5.

This is not to imply that the P'08 and its derivatives sound just like the analog side of the PEK.  It's simply not the case.  But the instruments certainly share the same fundamental architecture.

By the way, it had been my intention, until DSI unexpectedly retired the Poly Evolver Keyboard, to have an all-Evolver set up.  I felt the instrument offered such a broad sonic range that it would suffice by itself.  Plus, I really like the concept of having several units of a single instrument.  It produces a smooth work flow, and it looks sharp.  This would have amounted to three Poly Evolver Keyboards, two Poly Evolver Racks, and one Evolver Desktop.  I still think this set up would have worked well.  And as for looks - have you ever seen even two PEKs in a dark room?  Just gorgeous!
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: LoboLives on October 16, 2017, 11:51:56 AM
Cool, lobo. ... By the way, I would appreciate both those things you want. ... I know exactly the various ways I would use a hypothetical synth that's exactly like a Rev2, but with 4-part multitimbrality. It would be amazing. Including for live-performance use as opposed to sequenced. ZERO doubt how. ... And don't get me started imagining a DSI sampler. Don't need it. Don't need to want it.

I suggested DSI and Pioneer take the concept of the SP 16 but instead of more beats/drums it’s keyboard oriented. Would be nice to see a new Emulator lol. A sampler with DSI filters with a great keybed. Call it the Pioneer/DSI “Imitation”

Sounds like the sampler I've been talking about for ages now I'd say... there still are no modern sampler with analog filters, except if you go for groovebox/drummachine types of devices... a true sampler, that allow you to deal with small looped sample snippets, and use sample-oscillators are not existent... the Waldorf Quantum will probably be the first to breach this void... unfortunately too expensive, and with a lot of other synthesis types in it...

I'd really like a sample-synth that is JUST THAT... in fact, just simply take the REV2 or P6, and exchange the oscillators with sample-oscillators, and I'd be happy... and a really well thought out storage medium and you're ready to go...

But please... both in keys and desktop versions...

We can only hope. The quickness of the Korg Microsampler, the sequencing and arpegiation of the SP-16, the analog VCF and VCAs from the Prophet 6 as well as the keyboard/mod wheels of the 6 as well.

The new Korg cross has apparently nice sampling abilities...except you can't map them across the keyboard...only on the pads. What an oversight! 
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: DavidDever on October 16, 2017, 12:48:26 PM
Sacred Synthesis,

I like the higher perspective from which you look at Dave Smith synthesizers. My understanding of how you're looking at them is to identify a few as significant pillar synths. And from that look, to guess at would/could be a new pillar synth.

If I've got that part right, what do you see as the pillar synths? (Choose a better term, of course.)
- Prophet 5 (obviously)
- Prophet VS
- Poly-Evolver Keyboard

Then, you're classifying the Prophet '08/Prophet Rev2 as distilled/distilled evolved iterations of the Poly-Evolver Keyboard.

By no means am I minimizing the value of non-pillar synths. ... And it doesn't matter whether or not this "pillar synth" concept is considered or valid. It's simply a fan's water-cooler topic.

On the Sequential side:

On the DSI side:
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: timbo74 on October 16, 2017, 06:43:23 PM
Cool, lobo. ... By the way, I would appreciate both those things you want. ... I know exactly the various ways I would use a hypothetical synth that's exactly like a Rev2, but with 4-part multitimbrality. It would be amazing. Including for live-performance use as opposed to sequenced. ZERO doubt how. ... And don't get me started imagining a DSI sampler. Don't need it. Don't need to want it.

I suggested DSI and Pioneer take the concept of the SP 16 but instead of more beats/drums it’s keyboard oriented. Would be nice to see a new Emulator lol. A sampler with DSI filters with a great keybed. Call it the Pioneer/DSI “Imitation”

Sounds like the sampler I've been talking about for ages now I'd say... there still are no modern sampler with analog filters, except if you go for groovebox/drummachine types of devices... a true sampler, that allow you to deal with small looped sample snippets, and use sample-oscillators are not existent... the Waldorf Quantum will probably be the first to breach this void... unfortunately too expensive, and with a lot of other synthesis types in it...

I'd really like a sample-synth that is JUST THAT... in fact, just simply take the REV2 or P6, and exchange the oscillators with sample-oscillators, and I'd be happy... and a really well thought out storage medium and you're ready to go...

But please... both in keys and desktop versions...

We can only hope. The quickness of the Korg Microsampler, the sequencing and arpegiation of the SP-16, the analog VCF and VCAs from the Prophet 6 as well as the keyboard/mod wheels of the 6 as well.


Hi,

That would have the perfect elements of the sort of hardware sampler I would be interested in.

Currently using the Korg Microsampler running mono out into my Vermona filter lancet and that could easily be replaced in my setup by what you just described.

The Prophet 6 VCFs/VCAs sound like the perfect match to the sampling engine and a 61 note keybed with Mod and Pitch wheels would be great.

Not sure how the market would treat it but sounds brilliant from this end.

And the Korg Micro-samplers ease of use is definately a big plus if designing a DSI sampler! (Although some may demand more complexity)

Would fit snugly in between my Tempest and P08 also.

Cheers.


Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: timbo74 on October 16, 2017, 07:02:45 PM
I suppose to borrow the best bits from the Korg Microsampler, early Ensoniq samplers and DSI everything else and you have a very capable sampler!

Personally, I like the approach of not having to hook up an editor to get to guts of the sampling technology either.

So the balance between complexity and streamlined simplicity!

Hopefully something is in the pipeline in that regard.

That would be one sampler I would give very careful consideration to!


Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: LoboLives on October 16, 2017, 09:06:50 PM
I suppose to borrow the best bits from the Korg Microsampler, early Ensoniq samplers and DSI everything else and you have a very capable sampler!

Personally, I like the approach of not having to hook up an editor to get to guts of the sampling technology either.

So the balance between complexity and streamlined simplicity!

Hopefully something is in the pipeline in that regard.

That would be one sampler I would give very careful consideration to!

Agreed. I honestly think that how a lot of Nord stuff works or even the sampling into stuff like the Kronos or Kurzweil is almost too much work and takes far too long that not many people even bother with the feature. So I think the market would actually actually well towards it. Especially if the price was decent which is why I suggest Pioneer doing it to help keep costs down. Even a four octave synth would be fine for me.

Just take the idea of the Emulator ii but replace the floppy discs or CD Rom drives with a USB port that so as you put a USB stick in it it automatically loads the samples and then you can determine if they are lopped, mapped, one shot, gated etc just like the Microsampler. Add some on board effects and a 8 track sequencer and you are good to go.

Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: timbo74 on October 16, 2017, 10:23:17 PM
I suppose to borrow the best bits from the Korg Microsampler, early Ensoniq samplers and DSI everything else and you have a very capable sampler!

Personally, I like the approach of not having to hook up an editor to get to guts of the sampling technology either.

So the balance between complexity and streamlined simplicity!

Hopefully something is in the pipeline in that regard.

That would be one sampler I would give very careful consideration to!

Agreed. I honestly think that how a lot of Nord stuff works or even the sampling into stuff like the Kronos or Kurzweil is almost too much work and takes far too long that not many people even bother with the feature. So I think the market would actually actually well towards it. Especially if the price was decent which is why I suggest Pioneer doing it to help keep costs down. Even a four octave synth would be fine for me.

Just take the idea of the Emulator ii but replace the floppy discs or CD Rom drives with a USB port that so as you put a USB stick in it it automatically loads the samples and then you can determine if they are lopped, mapped, one shot, gated etc just like the Microsampler. Add some on board effects and a 8 track sequencer and you are good to go.



Good points.

Let's wait and see then.






Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Razmo on October 17, 2017, 12:05:57 AM
I suppose to borrow the best bits from the Korg Microsampler, early Ensoniq samplers and DSI everything else and you have a very capable sampler!

Personally, I like the approach of not having to hook up an editor to get to guts of the sampling technology either.

So the balance between complexity and streamlined simplicity!

Hopefully something is in the pipeline in that regard.

That would be one sampler I would give very careful consideration to!

Agree... the more hands-on it could be, the better... it will involve some menu diving I guess, but it could be held to a minimum... that is why I would probably prefer the P6 layout since it's more limited, but have all parameters out on knobs and buttons... I HATE two-function knobs and sliders... too much of that would put me off... it's basically a performance sampler I'm looking for, not a sound-designers sampler with myriads of functions... just the essentials.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: LoboLives on October 17, 2017, 11:04:34 PM
I suppose to borrow the best bits from the Korg Microsampler, early Ensoniq samplers and DSI everything else and you have a very capable sampler!

Personally, I like the approach of not having to hook up an editor to get to guts of the sampling technology either.

So the balance between complexity and streamlined simplicity!

Hopefully something is in the pipeline in that regard.

That would be one sampler I would give very careful consideration to!

Agree... the more hands-on it could be, the better... it will involve some menu diving I guess, but it could be held to a minimum... that is why I would probably prefer the P6 layout since it's more limited, but have all parameters out on knobs and buttons... I HATE two-function knobs and sliders... too much of that would put me off... it's basically a performance sampler I'm looking for, not a sound-designers sampler with myriads of functions... just the essentials.

For me it would have to have some type of multi track sequencing on it as well.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: Razmo on October 18, 2017, 02:22:03 AM
I suppose to borrow the best bits from the Korg Microsampler, early Ensoniq samplers and DSI everything else and you have a very capable sampler!

Personally, I like the approach of not having to hook up an editor to get to guts of the sampling technology either.

So the balance between complexity and streamlined simplicity!

Hopefully something is in the pipeline in that regard.

That would be one sampler I would give very careful consideration to!

Agree... the more hands-on it could be, the better... it will involve some menu diving I guess, but it could be held to a minimum... that is why I would probably prefer the P6 layout since it's more limited, but have all parameters out on knobs and buttons... I HATE two-function knobs and sliders... too much of that would put me off... it's basically a performance sampler I'm looking for, not a sound-designers sampler with myriads of functions... just the essentials.

For me it would have to have some type of multi track sequencing on it as well.

I believe the P6 have just that? :)
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: timbo74 on October 18, 2017, 07:15:51 AM
The P6 would probably appear to be most suitable to merge into the next DSI keyboard sampler. 

Considering the P6 filter is used on the Toraiz then seems the natural choice for the full size keyboard version.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: moogmusic on October 18, 2017, 07:37:28 AM
Sounds like a great product - hopefully DSI are thinking in that direction as well...
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: LoboLives on October 18, 2017, 11:29:39 AM
I suppose to borrow the best bits from the Korg Microsampler, early Ensoniq samplers and DSI everything else and you have a very capable sampler!

Personally, I like the approach of not having to hook up an editor to get to guts of the sampling technology either.

So the balance between complexity and streamlined simplicity!

Hopefully something is in the pipeline in that regard.

That would be one sampler I would give very careful consideration to!

Agree... the more hands-on it could be, the better... it will involve some menu diving I guess, but it could be held to a minimum... that is why I would probably prefer the P6 layout since it's more limited, but have all parameters out on knobs and buttons... I HATE two-function knobs and sliders... too much of that would put me off... it's basically a performance sampler I'm looking for, not a sound-designers sampler with myriads of functions... just the essentials.

For me it would have to have some type of multi track sequencing on it as well.

I believe the P6 have just that? :)

No it's just a poly sequencer. I mean a multitimbral sequencer like on the SP-16
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: timbo74 on October 24, 2017, 05:52:54 AM
I hope DSI do pursue the keyboard performance sampler that a lot of us may be hoping for!

I am saving my pennies in anticipation of a Prophet 2000 keyboard version  V/2018 so to speak.

Until then, the Korg Microsampler does the sampling duties here and it has its obvious limits but is a great starting point for DSI techs/R&D.

If using the Microsampler as the benchmark may I suggest a dynamic use of memory as opposed to the set amount per bank!

Having the basic options of Loop points start/end/normalise/BPM tempo sync ect should be front panel set with encoders or pots.

I actually love the front panel XLR jack for the gooseneck mic on the Korg but would others think it's ok to lose some  front panel controls for the XLR input?

I think Razmo is on the money when he says a " Performance sampler" as opposed to the sound designers sampler but just my 2 cents worth.

Hope DSI has a sampler to fill the obvious hardware void in the not too distant future.

Tim




 

Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: timbo74 on October 24, 2017, 06:08:52 AM
The argument against hardware samplers on other threads within this forum and elsewhere is (with respect) that software can do a better job (and it can within the computer system) but the reality is that if that were the case synthesis could be done better also and the hardware market has not had the acorn drop from the sky yet!

Just a thought!

Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: DavidDever on October 24, 2017, 08:22:52 AM
The argument against hardware samplers on other threads within this forum and elsewhere is (with respect) that software can do a better job (and it can within the computer system) but the reality is that if that were the case synthesis could be done better also and the hardware market has not had the acorn drop from the sky yet!

Just a thought!

That's not entirely true - editing and sample management is definitely made easier with software in a computer environment, but that doesn't imply that a hardware sampler can't stream samples through, say, an analogue filter efficiently–certainly they can.

Nor does it imply that there aren't, for some sampling workflows, hardware approaches to editing that are intuitive, e.g., the Akai S612 loop-start / -end sliders.
Title: Re: The Instrument For Which I Had Hoped
Post by: megamarkd on October 26, 2017, 08:47:12 PM
My old e5kultra was both a performance sampler and a programmer's sampler.  Could be used as a dynamic semi-rompuler or a complete sample workstation.  The only thing I found a computer made easier was naming, but with a ps2 keyboard that was not even an issue.

Now, I know that the E4Kultra range is overkill for what y'all are throwing around, but it's a good example of high quality sampling within a hardware box.  The filters are incredible on those things also.

Nor does it imply that there aren't, for some sampling workflows, hardware approaches to editing that are intuitive, e.g., the Akai S612 loop-start / -end sliders.

Oh they were fun, especially when flipping the slider sides into reverse play.  So noisy, so dirty, so easy to use without a manual!  Too bad the disc format was pretty much abandon by the end of the 80's.
I really think that when using screens like that on a micoSampler or ES2, sliders for start/end points would give that immediate control that one wants for live sampling.  Even with samplers made for in-the-box editing, for all the joy a large screen that can display waveforms brings, trying to edit on-the-fly using my MV8000 is not really feasible.  The e5k was more usable in that way when left operating in sample edit mode but you couldn't quickly create a complete multi-assigned performance patch and was more like working with an Akai S612 (which I was quite happy with doing).

Oh yeah, I bought a Microgranny recently which has some very unique concepts for a hardware sampler (or granular synth as it's being sold as).  One function is to spread the "grains" of the sample across the keyboard, which essentially creates a multi-assign sampled instrument instantly, avoiding frequency stretch/compression that limits the usable keyboard range when assigning one sample to the entire 10 octaves.  The MG isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination; it's monophonic, the onboard mic is activated by a clicking button which slaps a thud into the attack of every sample it captures, it uses 1/8" jacks for everything bar MIDI, but it's an interesting take on the live hardware sampler which can be successfully run in a improvising situation.  Using such an engine as the basis for a more complete sampling instrument with analogue elements also in the flow would be wonderful.