John Bowen Synth Design

tfiala wrote:John:

...The "tunable feedback" idea was taken from the DSI polyevolver. It sounds like you are already working on it...

I haven't actually spent any time with the Evolver, so I'm not sure what exactly is going on there. I'll take a look at the manual, or try to find one around here to check it out.

As for grouping of patches, it would be great if there were a "search" function. (As in show me all patches with "piano" in the name.)

Yes, there will be something like this.

Pity about the polyphonic AT. BTW, who made the keybed for the Prophet T-8? Do they still make something like that? Which FATAR keybed(s) are you considering?

The T-8 keyboard was made by Pratt Reed, who as far as I know are no longer in business. (An interesting side note - we were approached at Sequential by Synclavier to make an arrangement to sell them the T-8 keybed, which we did. This was, as I recall, towards the end of production of the T-8.)

The Fatar keybed we are using is, coincidentially enough, the TP/8!

cheers,
john b.

I think polyphonic aftertouch is a lost cause... The only cheap way to do this was patented by ensoniq, and they were bought out my creative. It was a really crappy feeling and unreliable way of doing it too...

EDIT: Are we going to be able to make/load custom single cycle waves into the prophet VS osc model? Or would we be stuck using PCM or User Wavetables for that?

John Bowen wrote:

NuSkoolTone wrote:Going on the Multi-timbre theme. Assuming there is adequate polyphony (Which I hope for a $3k+ Synth) will we be able to layer? Will there be "Combis"?

I'm not planning on providing "combis" at first, since you can get fairly sophisticated layering just by using the 4 mixer/filter sections, each which has its own VCA as well (although all the VCAs share the same ADSR control, at least for now.) If you were able to check the Scope version, you would hear that there's a lot of layering possible without going to a Combi-type structure.

regards,
john b.

I see. Perhaps there could be a COPY function so say you could copy osc 1&2 of one patch and apply it to osc 3&4 of the current patch?

Here's one vote for Combis though, for the sake of ease of use in layering/splits.

"I see. Perhaps there could be a COPY function so say you could copy osc 1&2 of one patch and apply it to osc 3&4 of the current patch?"

My personal recommendation would be to add the copy and paste functions for various sections in the software editor... Not on the hardware itself.

Multitimbrality would be pretty sweet though... Even if just bitrimbrality for simple splits to help us live players out...

Sounds like its going to be great, John!
Very full set of specs so far - I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on this thing! Hope I won't have to hold my breath until October

BTW - as per the other thread, I like the darker color scheme but how about a pair of nice dark cherry sidepieces to go with it... ^_^

mitchk1989 wrote:"...Perhaps there could be a COPY function so say you could copy osc 1&2 of one patch and apply it to osc 3&4 of the current patch?"

My personal recommendation would be to add the copy and paste functions for various sections in the software editor... Not on the hardware itself.

There is a copy function for each section on the synth - Oscs, LFOs, Mixers, Filters, Envelopes - but these are within a patch. Copying from one patch to another could probably be arranged as an extension of the current function. I'll have to see what can be done in time for the first release.

regards,
john b.

I can see that the live features will be important, so I think it's essential that it can layer and split.

As this is a huge power duplication, perhaps elements within a patch could be note zoned (key mapped) and in that way, elements of each patch could be split or layered.

Maybe it does that already?

I think it would be fairly easy to manage these zoned elements using an external editor, if an on-board one isn't in version 1.

But also as presumably it won't hold one sound while you patch change to another (as afaik this necessitates a duplicate buffer), I really think the split layer thing is essential!

If some buttons can be hard roted to mute/solo these zones, then I think that would do.

Of course people could just buy 2 or 3 of them - that would look cool live

JMTCW.

awsome specs john! simply awsome....

i for one would gladly trade multitimberal/polyphony for more dsp features within the voice.

i am looking at this from a sound creation standpoint... so from my point of view things like multitimberal, polyphony, polyaftertouch, mackie control and all that is secondary.

i want as much john bowen / scope stuff as possible.

most important for me in order of importance:
- sound quality
- software editor quality
- hw build quality (knobs/screens etc)
- array of osc/filter/shaper choices as big and varied as possible
- sampling in a limited form at least

and i donno if this can be done but......
- some sort of integration with adern...

this is a winner anyway, but if this will load flexor osc/filters/shapers then... well lets say i will truley be speechless.

Personally, I'd prefer that it gets a rock solid joystick. I dislike the idea of a touchpad from the perspective of wear & tear/lifespan & ease of replacement with alternative parts way in the future.

best regards,
Shroomz

I can honestly say I haven't been this excited by a synthesizer since I first started getting into them as teenager . It has just about everything I've wanted to see in synth, period. Still, a lack of multitimbral operation would be a potential deal breaker for me. Honestly, it'd be heart breaking. I feel like I've been waiting for this synth to come out for years (I wasn't that familiar with computer dependent Creamware version of Solaris) and it'd be a real kick in the shins for me if it wasn't multitimbral. Four part would be sufficient, but any more would be welcome. I'll end it here before I start pleading.

Anyways, congratulations on what looks like a very beautiful and innovative instrument, and thanks for hearing all of us out.

i forgot to mention another thing that is very important to me and rhat is the fm capabilites..... hoping for great routing and fm sound. not looking for dx type stuff... more of the scifi/grunge fm of subtractive synths, like possible (though limited) on the nord, rob papen blue vst, flexor oscs fm etc.

I'll second The Severalist's concerns. I might be able to live without multitimbrality, but would prefer not to. 4 Part or better is good for me, too

JMTCW.

Obviously we need to hear from Mr Bowen about what is possible, but multitimberality is a massive dsp power leap!

AFAIK you are talking about duplicating the entire engine by X parts! (or at least sub dividing the dsp dynamically).

And the Creamware card Solaris version already has more oscillator and filter types "simultaneously" than anything else on the planet imho, and the keyboard will have even MORE!

I don't see much use for the cz101 style 1 midi channel per note, either

From my simplistic view, one of the things that makes the Solaris exciting and different is that you can mix and match and blend and merge from several different classes of synthesis, all within the same box. i.e. what happens if you put a prophet oscillator through a moog filter...

(Oversimplifying and being inaccurate just for clarity,) it's like layering keyboards from different brands, all from within one single box.

I'm also confused why you need multitimberality. AFAIK this isn't meant to be a workstation with drums or piano or rompler? There are several of those on the market.

For studio use, surely you can track (record) the parts?

For live use, I see it needing "zoning" more than multitimberality. i.e. 4 zones (i.e. 2 splits with 2 layers each, or 4 splits, etc.). You only have two hands right ?

Obviously it isn't! But for comparison if you look at the power inside an Creamware ASB or Klang box (ie a single prophet 5 - also not multitimberal either btw, with 12 note poly, probably effectively a 4 chip dsp?
The Noah, I believe a 6 dsp device, could have different instruments loaded, but how many simultaneously? What was its polyphony? How multitimberal was it?

Now we have a device that takes up 6 dsps for 3~4 notes of a single dsp card! Erm... multitimberal and with what polyphony?

I don't see it as being multitimberal out of cost practicality. I doubt this will be a huge production run and AFAIK there's no large corporate to cover the production costs as it is.

What I'm keen to see though, is a practical zoning solution and I feel this needs to go in from day 1, as tacking it on afterwards would be a mare.

So the question is what you guys "need"?

AYK there are several types of oscillator in the Solaris.
What I see as useful and practical and easy (ish) to implement in v1 is a way to zone each of those oscillator types.

Naturally there is whatever sharing of the post oscillator circuits (envelopes, filters, effects, outputs, etc.) but at least with zoning, we can play a bass sound with a left hand split, layer two tones in the middle and have a lead sound on the right split.

For sequencing, effectively you have several textures available within the 1 patch. Certainly enough to compose, and then go to a dedicated mode for full patch power per phrase!?

AYPK making hardware these days is getting pretty risky. When an "independent" developer does it, (albeit with the help of a small manufacturing company) you should appreciate what's going on here.

In commercial/business terms, it's pretty amazing AFAIC

I hope what we're all agreed on is quality not quantity and also the uniqueness of the John Bowen architecture.
I pray for zoning, but I think multitimberality is pushing the boat too far.

So I'm keen that the "zoning" is built-in if that works for you guys too?
So the only point of my post, how would you like to see the zoning work (if even that is possible)?

JMTCW.

Zoning just the osc section would be a poor compromise IMO... Multitimbrality isn't even really needed... Just the ability to make half the keyboard do one sound (say, a nice portamento wavetable lead) and the other half do another sound (say, a nice ripping rotor bass)

Sure!

Bi-Timberal (Dual tone - split/layer) would be great

(if possible)


I guess the other question might be;

if it's $3000~$3500 now, would you pay $3500~4500 for a (4~8 part??) multitimberal version ?

$3000 is already out of my league, so I'd be well happy with zoned oscillators or bi-timberal if either of those were pheasible.

The other thing is if there was a Klang box type multitimberal expansion ?
As these would be knobless, presumably they could be a fair bit cheaper.
I presume you'd edit it from the keyboard (or a computer).
I'm not sure what other integration (other than patch changing) would need to be included in any link between them ?

The reasons I like this idea are;
1) it wouldn't hold up the keyboard version and keep its price same.
2) as knobless and cheaper, cheapskates like me could edit it from a computer (like a dedicated scope card I guess) or a knob box (i.e. behringer bcr).

WDYT?

Is a keyboard and rack of klang boxes unmanageable for live ?

Still means the keyboard (actual mother key part) would need to be able to split/layer and zone key ranges to send out on the correct channels to the klangs...

WDYT?