AnalogKeys is, in a lot of different ways too
The reason there isn’t all that happening is that evolution is not endless, all things reach an optimum and then stay that way. None of which is to say the things you describe can’t happen, it’s more that it seems to me the majority of people are basically satisfied now so there’s no huge push for innovation.
Perhaps what you have in mind would be more a new kind of instrument altogether than an evolved poly synth.
Evolution is not endless? If we can manage to build a perfect defence system for our planet in the next 100 years and/or manage to inhabit other planets, I’d say this is not true.
Think outside the box. Obviously most synth companies don’t do that. 
I guess if you were able to see what synths are capable of in 100 years, you’d be stoked!
By the way… first step would be – in my eyes – to implement MIDI 2.0 with full feedback etc. like OSC. How old is MIDI? Why are we still using it?
I have so many things in my mind that HAVE to change … rather yesterday than next week. And the stuff is not complicated. But nobody does it.
No, it isn’t endless. The safety pin was invented in exactly the same form that was thought new in the 19th C.entury , but 4000 years before in Egypt. The boomerang has been invented by multiple ancient cultures, they are independent but nearly identical. Because it can’t go further.
Your own example illustrates it: a perfect defense system can’t evolve, now can it?
The point is evolution jumps to new previously unthought of areas, it does not endlessly rework the same things. Microorganism perfected DNA, since then, it’s been left alone more or less. Because it works.
The poly synth isn’t changing because it works.
You seem to talking about an anti gravity ufo synth that you play by magnetic air currents, or something. And hell yeah I want one, but that’s not a poly synth.
2 Likes
I’ll wait until my preordered Osmose arrives.
Until I get it and play with it, I won’t be able to moan and complain about everything that is wrong with it, where the areas of improvement are for future synth designs, etc.
1 Like
And who is deciding that our double helix is “perfect” and won’t evolve into a triple helix one day for even better, more accurate, faster repair / more letters, combinations etc. pp. - you say “well then it’s not DNA but sDNA” (s for super). We have only begun to understand it … there is much to improve and if we don’t do it …“evolution” is doing it but at a much slower pace.
You got me with using the wrong wording when saying perfect. I’d say: Nothing is perfect. You say the boomerang is perfect. I say boomerang evolved already. The main concept was maybe invented and still works that way (analogy ADSR). See… that’s what I meant with thinking outside the box.
Throughout the 90’s I was almost embarrassed every time I took my Polysix on stage. There were loads of shiny new digital things popping up all the time, which were REALLY shiny, and had midi!
Didn’t look like it could get any worse. But here we are again. Unfortunately synths aren’t guitars or drum sticks (and where are they going). But like guitars, it’d be nice to see a synth in the league of a Prophet~6 or Summit, which had the ability to easily swap hardware such as oscillators, filters, envelopes etc in the form of external cartridges.
Virtual reality studio plug ins on your playstation.
1 Like
I have great expectations on Osmose as well.
I remember saying to Emilie Gillet that she should make a keyboard, poly version of Elements+Rings.
Also, the general use of MPE should lead to great expressive synths.
Yes they can … examples from the past …
- Jupiter 8
- Matrix 12
- Prosynth
- some otheres as well
I would say … not enough demand in the market.
IMO the way of Oberheim (Matrix, Prosynth) is “only” to allow each voice to have its own patch and that voices can be combined to have polyphony. Maybe this isn’t even a big cost factor.
1 Like
This seems like the opinion of someone who doesn’t understand technical development, and has a degree of entitlement that doesn’t fit the circumstances they’re commenting on. I’ve seen you post all sorts of useful wisdom 'round this site so I’m surprised by your comment.
MIDI 2.0 was formally announced Jan 2020. I wasn’t clear if you were aware. You might be saying “we should have gear using it already”, which sounds reasonable.
We’re still using MIDI because it’s very good. Tech specifications don’t typically last 30 years unless they do their thing well. Personally I’m amazed it’s doing so well. Think of how smart the people who made it were that their work supported an two entire industries (music sales, and the gear used to make it) for 30 years. How much wonderful music has been created helped by MIDI 1.0? None? Some? More than you can listen to in your lifetime?
I’d say it was a successful specification.
3 Likes
Haha I think you’re the first thinking this.
MIDI was great. 2.0 is at least 20 years overdue. Think of it as USB 1.0. It was grear back then. But you wouldn’t want to transfer anything larger than a ZIP drive with it nowadays
2 Likes
Inventions follow needs.
You can probably “fake” the “evolving envelopes” idea already: take the sound you want to hear evolving over time; divide it into sections with four “slopes” each; set up two or three patches of the same sound, with slightly differing envelopes/behaviours to match the four slopes; trigger them in a sequencer.
If enough people make music this way, eventually manufacturers will make gear that simplifies it.
True. But USB 4.0 is shit for the user in every way apart from speed. Evolution can evolve you into a corner you don’t like being in.
No idea… I like USB 4.
The point is: Most manufacterer are not implementing MIDI “properly” (maybe because it’s annoying to do so?) - like why isn’t it a standard to habe two-way communication as default to be able to use MIDI controllers which always know the current state of the hardware it’s controlling etc. pp. Not to speak of the resolution… Might be enough for many … I think it’s outdated.
The 2.0 spec only came out last year. Then there was a pandemic. Most of the manufacturers had a pipeline of devices and manufacturing methods already lined up, but the world slowed down, so progress through the pipeline will have slowed. Now we have a chip shortage!
With the spec out, changes will happen, but it’s gonna be slower than headlines.
Personally, from reading the headlines, I fear MIDI 2.0’s gonna make things too complicated to be useful quickly. If my work in the web is anything to go by, unidirectional and cyclic control much is easier to work with (React) than two-way (Angular, Knockout, Ember, RxJS).
1 Like
I don’t know, I kind of agree with @sabana here - I’ve recently acquired a Prophet 5 and in many ways, it’s growing into becoming the best poly I’ve ever owned. It doesn’t do nearly as much as my Prophet 12 does, and I’ve known the 12 for some time and the 5 is a new experience, but I wouldn’t surprise myself if about a year from now, the 5 has taken the front position in my rig as the one go to synth I always use.
That’s like design from 1977 and if nothing had happened between then and now, I’d still be quite satisfied with that.
3 Likes
Yeah, this thread has further validated the MM2 for me… if all polys are the same*, might as well have a compact, affordable, solid sounding poly with 2 timbres, a flexible mod matrix, and decent FX. It’s a poly-GAS killer for me
*obv all polys are not the same
2 Likes
Even when you think virtual analog… the Access Virus is 16part Multi timbral, so is Waldorf Blofeld, but Modal synths are monotimral… on the other hand the new Waldorfs are really nice poly synths, Iridium or Quantum, Kyra. But quite pricey… I would like to see virtual polys that do more than just the typical and offer a bigger variety. Like why can’t the Modal do both Argon and whatever the other one is called 
And then offer upgrades .