Dave Smith Instruments SYNTHESIZERS

Hey all,

I got evolver no. 63 about a week ago, and have only just surfaced!

I have a pulse and have had a microwave XT and the evolver fills the gap 
that I was attempting to fill with those units.  I found the XT quite 
dissapointing, I think becuase of its totally digital nature (I hated 
the filters): which brings me to the point:

There is an A-D D-A stage almost at the end of the evolver signal chain 
, after the filter and after the VCA.  This, to my ears, is discernable, 
sounding the same way that a sampled sound differs from the sound itself 
(some how cleaner?).  This might be an insuperable problem for pure 
'punch', asides from the speed of the envelopes.  I guess the test would 
also need to be mono with no efx to avoid any phasing problems.

The evolver is, of course, a much more useful and interesting 
instrument: I'm amazed at the breadth of the sounds, and the way it sits 
in a mix, sweet.

The amount of thought and care that has gone into this keeps amazing me, 
from the design to the sound to the presets.  Awesome.

a.

Ravi Ivan Sharma wrote:
> I just wanted to make clear that I understand that I am really 
> splitting hairs here with this topic. I don't hear "non-punchy" when 
> I play the Evolver at all. I just know the bulldog nature of the 
> Pulse too.
> 
> 
> --- In DSI_Evolver@y..., "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> wrote:
> 
>>--- In DSI_Evolver@y..., "mr julian" <jujulilianan@h...> wrote:
>>
>>>>the hope being that we can isolate
>>>>the magic dust and have that added to the Evolver . . .
>>>>
>>>
>>>hmm maybe, though I like the idea of the evolver being something 
>>
>>thats very 
>>
>>>different from what already exists.
>>>
>>>
>>>>julian
>>>
>>I think there is no worry that the Evolver is different! 
>>
>>I believe the punchy nature of the Pulse is one of its more 
>>noteworthy features, and as features go, punchiness is pretty 
>>important for a monosynth. I have and will start hearing things 
>>like "the Evolver is great but isn't as punchy as the Pulse can 
> 
> be." 
> 
>>Perhaps it is not fair to compare two very different synths, but 
> 
> on 
> 
>>a few basic levels, the pulse and the evolver are alike too.
>>
>>I guess we are into talking about the essenses of synths and what 
>>makes them unique and noteworthy, which makes the topic hard.  I 
>>have a minimoog as well, and of course it does not sound the same 
> 
> as 
> 
>>the Pulse, yet it is also "punchy." I want that much punch in the 
>>Evolver too. The question, is how to get it? I like to tell people 
>>who ask about the minimoog, that you have to work hard to make it 
>>sound bad and there are other synths that you have to work hard to 
>>make them sound good--that is what makes a synth great. Well I 
> 
> could 
> 
>>say about the Pulse that you have to work hard to make it less 
>>punchy! The Evolver? It isn't hard to make it sound good, that's 
> 
> for 
> 
>>sure. In fact, I would say it is hard to not make it sound spacey 
>>and complex--it exudes quality and depth.
>>
>>I think Punchiness is something good that can be in many synths 
>>without them sounding or being similar to each other.
>>
>>So I want to address the comparison, because I think we all can be 
>>sure that this will be addressed in the probably all reviews we 
>>read, and the question is, what will be the fair verdict?.
>>
>>On the other hand, I would like anyone's opinions on how the 
> 
> Evolver 
> 
>>compares to other noteable monosynths or synths in the regard 
>>to "punchiness." Clearly the Evolver is no slouch! And I my 
>>instincts tell me it is a "Great" synth. And neither my Moog, 
> 
> Pulse 
> 
>>or Evolver are substitues for each other.
>>
>>I must say, however, that I was hopeful that the Evolver would 
> 
> just 
> 
>>trounce the Pulse on all levels (except of course the 
> 
> arpeggiator), 
> 
>>not because I have any special animosity towards the Pulse or 
>>special love of the Evolver, but just because it is so exciting to 
>>behold something that just rewrites the rules. Like Muhummed Ali 
>>breaking all the records, etc, etc.
>>
>>Anyway, perhaps the DCO nature of the pulse makes it a bit harder. 
>>The Evolver with its Oscillators on separate channels, and the 
> 
> fact 
> 
>>that there is a filter per analog oscillator rather than one 
> 
> filter 
> 
>>with more signal going into it, as in the Pulse, makes some 
>>difference. Or the way that the two channels interact with each 
>>other, whether fed out stereo, less stereo, or mono. 
>>
>>The statement about the delay between the attack and decay 
> 
> portions 
> 
>>of the VCA envelope are interesting, but such seems to be erased 
> 
> in 
> 
>>any event if the sustain is up full. 
>>
>>Anyway, here's to hopefully the beginning of a fun and 
> 
> illuminating 
> 
>>thread.
>>
>>Ravi
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DSI_Evolver-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
> .
> 


-- 
-------------------------------------

http://www.badsneakers.com

Understanding FM synthesis:
Think of it as one person singing and another person grabbing the throat 
of the first and shaking him in a rhythmic manner; the singer being the 
Carrier and the throttler being the Modulator.