Dave Smith Instruments Pro 2

[himalaya]

Are you sure there isn't? I could have sworn he played 4 note chords

I don't know, the spec does not mention how the sequencer can be arranged with the paraphonic mode. In any case, I'm referring to a true 2-voice design (which would further push the price up, I suppose...).

[SJ_Digriz]

Are you sure there isn't? I could have sworn he played 4 note chords

I don't know, the spec does not mention how the sequencer can be arranged with the paraphonic mode. In any case, I'm referring to a true 2-voice design (which would further push the price up, I suppose...).

Hmmm, that's a good question with how would you do it with a sequencer.

But, here is the statement right from the web site

Paraphonic Playability
True 4-voice paraphonic mode with individually-gated envelopes per oscillator

[tonkatodd]

I'm curious as to the paraphony in this. 4 voice Paraphony is 4 voices that share the same filter but in the digital oscillator domain the 4 voices don't necessarily work independently but can be summed or mathematically created depending on what the tone of the 4 voices would create. So I'm curious if the 4 voice paraphony is really 4 independent oscillators sharing the filter of just the synth guessing what the 4 voices would sound like. In the last case saying "True 4 voice paraphony" is like saying "True fake butter" or "Real artificial sweetener".

[SJ_Digriz]

I'm curious as to the paraphony in this. 4 voice Paraphony is 4 voices that share the same filter but in the digital oscillator domain the 4 voices don't necessarily work independently but can be summed or mathematically created depending on what the tone of the 4 voices would create. So I'm curious if the 4 voice paraphony is really 4 independent oscillators sharing the filter of just the synth guessing what the 4 voices would sound like. In the last case saying "True 4 voice paraphony" is like saying "True fake butter" or "Real artificial sweetener".

As far as I know Paraphonic simply means that all the voices go through a single VCF/VCA path. So, I guess it is "real" paraphony. Of course that doesn't mean shit really. The moog sub 37 is a brilliant synth, but paraphonic mode is really limited. Without the VCF/VCA EG triggers, the additional note is thin and lifeless. It is very difficult to set up the EGs to retain any presence for the additional notes. I can't imagine how hard that would be for 4 voices.

[samsam]

I'm curious as to the paraphony in this. 4 voice Paraphony is 4 voices that share the same filter but in the digital oscillator domain the 4 voices don't necessarily work independently but can be summed or mathematically created depending on what the tone of the 4 voices would create. So I'm curious if the 4 voice paraphony is really 4 independent oscillators sharing the filter of just the synth guessing what the 4 voices would sound like. In the last case saying "True 4 voice paraphony" is like saying "True fake butter" or "Real artificial sweetener".

As far as I know Paraphonic simply means that all the voices go through a single VCF/VCA path. So, I guess it is "real" paraphony. Of course that doesn't mean shit really. The moog sub 37 is a brilliant synth, but paraphonic mode is really limited. Without the VCF/VCA EG triggers, the additional note is thin and lifeless. It is very difficult to set up the EGs to retain any presence for the additional notes. I can't imagine how hard that would be for 4 voices.

Got no idea about the Moog or the DSI but my Waldorf Pulse 2's 8-voice paraphonic mode is far from thin and lifeless.

[himalaya]

But, here is the statement right from the web site

Paraphonic Playability
True 4-voice paraphonic mode with individually-gated envelopes per oscillator

Yes, I read that it's paraphonic, which is great. However, I'd love some way of splitting the synth engine to be able to have a sound triggered by the sequencer and at the same time have a split for a another sound, like a lead.

[JCJR]

The dave smith video, he said the sequencer is 16 track. He demonstrated stepping in a music line, then adding real time knob twisting, presumably recorded on additional tracks. He didn't demo stepping in a second melody line into one of those available tracks, but perhaps it is possible.

Some of the string machine pre-poly-synth gadgets were paraphonic, offering the ability to pump the organ technology chords into a single filter and eg. Much more limited than polyphonic, but useful for chord sweeps and incredibly lame synth brass stabs, in an era where that was the only way to do it, except taking the time to record multiple mono synth tracks to multitrack tape.

If multiple melodies can be stepped into the seq, then the paraphonic might be actually kewl sounding with sequenced knob twisting overlaid the chords. That application would turn the paraphonic "weakness" into a strength for certain applications.

[tonkatodd]

I think the 16 tracks is note data and modulation data so you can have one track for cutoff and one track for pitch etc for 32 steps and it's the same available modulations as the mod matrix.

[JCJR]

I think the 16 tracks is note data and modulation data so you can have one track for cutoff and one track for pitch etc for 32 steps and it's the same available modulations as the mod matrix.

Yep, that seems to be it. So the only question would be whether the sequencer is capable of holding more than one track of monophonic notes.

Or who knows, maybe if you play a three note chord and hit the step button, it would record (and play paraphonically) the single track containing three notes in that step?

[tonkatodd]

That's a good point. I guess we will have to wait and see.

[JCJR]

Agreed. I'm not in the market for another hardware synth so it is just idle curiosity.

He stressed that it is an audio rate sequencer, meaning I suppose that it will record a real time filter sweep, rather than only changing the filter at step boundaries.

Though most folks (I suppose) expect a step seq to only change notes at step boundaries, maybe this seq is not so limited? If he allows controls to change at fine increments between steps, then notes could just as easily change at fine increments between steps, as well. As in an ordinary midi seq. If written to record and play continuous time control changes, it would need to be specifically written to forbid note changes between steps. If he wanted to forbid note changes anywhere except step boundaries.

Kinda like writing new powerful technology in such a way as to emulate ancient lame technology.

[Shy]

OK, another bad-sounding synth from DSI, this time with exceptionally crappy oscillators and a mediocre at best "inspired-by" filter. The best mono-synth ever... Yeah, "sounds good to me", "that's your opinion", "it's about the features, it's about the hands-on, it's about the <insert something much less important than sound quality>", etc. I guess I shouldn't bother commenting on stuff like this. But I will, anyway.

[SJ_Digriz]

OK, another bad-sounding synth from DSI, this time with exceptionally crappy oscillators and a mediocre at best "inspired-by" filter. The best mono-synth ever... Yeah, "sounds good to me", "that's your opinion", "it's about the features, it's about the hands-on, it's about the <insert something much less important than sound quality>", etc. I guess I shouldn't bother commenting on stuff like this. But I will, anyway.

Well it's interesting, my intent wasn't to beat on DSI. In fact everything about what they are doing (other than editor support), is an excellent forward looking approach to an old architecture. And, just because I'm not a fan of the sonic quality of a particular synth, doesn't mean many won't love it. For those people these last few synths are incredibly powerful.

On top of that, I hold out hope that my perceived limitations to the sonic pallet can be attributed to my lack of understanding of how to implement the audio path in a way that gets me what I want. So, I'm no hater.

[JCJR]

[Double post dangit]

[JCJR]

I've been wondering whether the analog synth is on its way toward being a rather standardized "classical" instrument with a well defined set of expectable features, or if it is just a tech phase to be integrated into or supplanted by, something else.

Fiddles went thru some variation hundreds of years ago, then settled down to something fairly standard. Even instruments such as hurdy-gurdies are "fairly standard" though body shape and scrollwork may vary. Even electric geetar seems to have evolved into a fairly stable feature and tone palette.

I got my first subtractive synth in 1974. Was already getting tapped out and tired of the subtractive palette by 1984. Even to this day I can occasionally enjoy the atavistic pleasure of twisting knobs, and the sight of wood panels and lots of knobs still raises the blood pressure. But if I never again hear another filter sweep, it would be no loss and perhaps a blessing.

It is puzzling that people still use filter sweeps so much even today. Are they completely incapable of getting tired of a sound?

On the other hand, people never seem to get tired of sawing on fiddles or wanking electric geetar whammy bars, regardless how many fiddles were sawed in the past, or how many whammy bars have already been wanked in the past.

Which is why was wondering if maybe analog synth is well on its way to "standard instrument" status? Perhaps skilled craftsmen might still be hand crafting mono analog synths in dusty workshops hundreds of years hence. With future critics passing judgement on how faithfully the craftsman has managed to duplicate the most revered stradivarius synths of the past, such as eml 101 or Octave Cat!!!