SOLARIS EXPANDER / EXPANSION - WISH :)

[HUROLURA]

Apart from the power switch and maybe the compact flash header (in case it is not on the main board), I wouldn't modify the design too much to share the same hardware, not only to save on design cost, but also to keep the embedded software common to both design.

A desktop model would also make sense but this would probably require more redesign and should be kept for later on the roadmap. Any other enhancement should also be looked cautiously to prevent design cost impact.

The pricetag I gave was the minimal level I guess, but keep in mind the choices made for keyboard and user interface was directed with high quality in mind, so all those smart components already cost à bunch of money.

Just remember the 3500 € MSRP price of Nord Modular G2x, compared to the G2 engine 1400 € MSRP in its time. And to get the same DSP power in the G2 engine as in the G2x, one needed to add 450€ for the DSP expansion board.

[Hein Eken]

Apart from the power switch and maybe the compact flash header (in case it is not on the main board), I wouldn't modify the design too much to share the same hardware, not only to save on design cost, but also to keep the embedded software common to both design.

Well, as we all know a AES/EBU digital connection is nothing else than SPDIF via a balanced connector and at a higher level (-10dB vs +4dB),- it wouldn´t change the design much.
XLR connectors aren´t urgently necessary for a rack module, so these could be also balanced TRS connectors.
In fact, it could be SPDIF and AES/EBU alternately and user selectable by choosing balanced or unbalanced cables and/or a -10/+4dB (software-) switch.
Requires a line-level-shifter chip or possibly different resistors only, the signal path electronically balanced or a small transformer.
If you plug in a TS plug, it´s unbalanced SPDIF and if you plug in a TRS, it´s balanced AES/EBU. Simple.

As far as the MIDI stuff goes,- there are the USB and the MIDI trio and MIDI is implemented anyway.
Now try leaving a cutout in the rear of the rack enclosure which fits Alyseum AleX dimensions and you´re done.
http://www.alyseum.com/product_ALeX.php ... 62d7c53bc7
The AleX itself could be a optional purchase for the ones who want it.

No big deal IMO.

A desktop model would also make sense but this would probably require more redesign and should be kept for later on the roadmap. Any other enhancement should also be looked cautiously to prevent design cost impact.

A desktop model incl. all the haptics of the keyboard Solaris makes the device nearly as expensive as the Solaris keyboard itself.
It would be a somewhat smaller case without the keyboard, wheels and ribbon controller,- I assume the joystick would be part of the desktop model.
I doubt that saves enough money.

Any different design w/ less knobs and displays requires a different OS incl. more menue diving for the user which is also not a option because it´s against the philosophy of the Solaris keyboard design which is direct control of parameters and LESS menue diving.
Changing OS/UI costs time and money.

The pricetag I gave was the minimal level I guess, but keep in mind the choices made for keyboard and user interface was directed with high quality in mind, so all those smart components already cost à bunch of money.

Yep, that´s true. All the pots, knobs, displays, ribbon, wheels, joystick and the keyboard have a value as well as the larger case of the keyboard instrument has,- but I think/assume, the total amount of savings won´t affect the end consumer by 100%.
Economy wise, it must be a win-win situation for J.B. Synth Design and the end consumer as well as for the distributors,- so don´t expect too much.

If you compare p.ex. Access Virus TI2 desktop vs. keyboard model, the streetprice difference is under 30%.
Not the very best comparison because were talking about a rack version here,- so it could be a bit more, depending on features.
There are also cases, manufacturers improve rack versions over keyboard models feature wise to justify the price for a rack and features can be easily realized in firmware/software.

Just remember the 3500 € MSRP price of Nord Modular G2x, compared to the G2 engine 1400 € MSRP in its time. And to get the same DSP power in the G2 engine as in the G2x, one needed to add 450€ for the DSP expansion board.

It´s a bit hard to comment on this at the moment because we don´t know if the motherboard of the Solaris needs a formfactor re-design for a 1HU rack module even offering exactly the same functionality of the keyboard instrument.
I think it´s best talking about features and functionality 1st.

The XTDM bus mentioned would be the most esoteric feature and I threw it in because John and S|C work together anyway and discuss possibilities.
Eventually it might not make sense in the end.

But I don´t think network-MIDI is esoteric,- it´s the future w/ higher resolution, less jitter and latency than USB and allows access of the device/machine by everything being in the network, be it masterkeyboards, several computers, other controllers or all.
It´s an improvement and Alyseum AleX doesn´t need Copperlan running on Solaris,- it´s just only a cheap piece of hardware connected to internal MIDI.

The controller for the rack module:

You opted for iPad and I did for SCOPE device.
I think it doesn´t matter what it is once SCOPE 6 is re-written in JUCE supporting OSC control surfaces of all kind.
For the iPad it´s just only a matter of the app then and for SCOPE such an "app" could also exist as a new SCOPE 6 or "open SCOPE" device.
It´s all MIDI in the end and not a task for John,- any C++ coder could make such a SCOPE device then.
Eventually SCOPE users themselves could, depending on what open SCOPE offers and/or it could be a device being offered in the S|C shop for SCOPE (XITE) users.

Hein

[scope4live]

First Rule Of Government spending...........
Why buy one, when you can have 2 at twice the price.

[HUROLURA]

I supposed the Solaris mainboard fits into one 19' rack. Maybe John could just confirm this.
Then, the Solaris rack design would be "limited" to mechanical hardware and a bit of software to not look for internal control elements with no electronic hardware redesign.

I also assume the IO elements are soldered on this DSP board.
The current width of the IO elements could fit in a 19' unit but there wouldn't be place enough to add anything.

Then, if there are expansion port on the mainboard, one could think about daughter boards like Alyseum stuff but MIDI should be sufficient.

A small software update to the Solaris keyboard to allow full remote control of external unit from the keyboard UI (already 95% done thanks to MIDI parameter control), to allow remote patch storing messages from additionnal MIDI message would do the trick, and anything related to Solaris multitimbral mode should be designed with external unit in mind (i.e. Masterkeyboard mode to layer different sound on different keyboard zone with different Midi channel).

[Hein Eken]

I also assume the IO elements are soldered on this DSP board.
The current width of the IO elements could fit in a 19' unit but there wouldn't be place enough to add anything.

Yep, that´s true, but only for your mockup of the rear panel of a Solaris rack module.

The 8 balanced analog outputs occupie the most space.
If you change these from separate balanced TRS jacks to a Tascam standard wired Sub-D25, using standard Tascam wired multicore snake (SUB-d25 > 8x TRS or XLR),- there will be enough space on the rear for additional breakouts and changed connectors.
I assume a standard SUB-D25 connector to be a money saver vs. using single TRS outs too.

The 4 balanced analog inputs should still remain as these are.

Then, if there are expansion port on the mainboard, one could think about daughter boards like Alyseum stuff but MIDI should be sufficient.

The Alyseum AleX module should not replace the standard MIDI trio and/or USB,- it should be an addition.
Because you can install Alyseum AleX in ANY keyboard offering MIDI, also keyboards, MIDI modules and any device from the past,- I don´t see any complications w/ this and a Solaris Keyboard or Solaris rack,- except you´d have to mod the case of your already existing Solaris keyboard,- but not the rack if the rear panel slot is already there.

No keyboard exsisting has a dedicated expansion port for Alyseum Alex on it´s mainboard,- so it won´t be necessary for Solaris rack too.
I think it´s a simple wireing job which can be done by the user or an authorized service center.

A small software update to the Solaris keyboard to allow full remote control of external unit from the keyboard UI (already 95% done thanks to MIDI parameter control), to allow remote patch storing messages from additionnal MIDI message would do the trick,...

Yes, that´s cool for Solaris owners buying a/the rack as a expansion unit.

and anything related to Solaris multitimbral mode should be designed with external unit in mind (i.e. Masterkeyboard mode to layer different sound on different keyboard zone with different Midi channel).

I think we see Solaris 4-part MIDI multi mode anyway next future,- and if it is available for the keyboard it will be for the rack too.
Same rules for masterkeyboard functionality (if that is needed at all).

So me personally, if I need masterkeyboard functionality, I have other solutions since decades.

If there would be a Solaris rack available in 1HU formfactor, with 8 single-outs on D-SUB25, AES/EBU or SPDIF switchable, a free slot for Alyseum AleX, 4-part MIDI multi mode and remotely controllable,- I´d buy it today and in a heartbeat.
Count me in.

Hein

[HUROLURA]

I wouldn't save on TRS I/O as they are pretty much standard direct connection. The SubD stuff is cheaper (but you also need to choose a high quality one as it has to transport audio, not data, so not as cheap as computer stuff, a the cable would also need to be a good one and maybe less easy to find).
This would look like the Scope PCI cards with their connection cables. I do prefer the way it is done on the Xite with connection available directly on the rack.
The snake cable could also be a problem as soon as it could be sometime difficult to split the different connectors to different external units.

In case expansions would be possible without much impact on price or availability, a 2U case would probably be a better idea to offer room for new connections like Copperlan or AES/EBU XLR. Besides, in would also provide more room for power dissipation.
Then such features could be seen as a mezzanine board and could be offered as a "+" option.

Regarding the Alex integration, the way it is usually inserted is to insert it in the MIDI in way, then physical MIDI in DIN is routed to the ALEX and fed back to the hardware with or without additional messages processed inside the Alex board. You have to cut the normal wire to achieve that but it may be possible to have this done without to much hardware modification. I still do not understand from their diagram what happens when both the original hardware and the Alex are trying to send out MIDI data to the the DIN out connector which could be a problem. I feel it would be better to use either Copperlan or MIDI Din while the USB MIDI would still be there.

Regarding external control for such a blind unit, I guess everything is already available through standard MIDI messages. The only missing things I guess are MIDI channel selection and patch storing message including preset number and name. Maybe a small MIDI remote controller could be provided for such thing, but in case of remote controlling the Expander from the Keyboard, the "Enable Part" button could be used (together with the shift key for example) for such purpose to automatically select wether the control panel is linked to the internal engine or one out of 3 external expander units.

What I called master keyboard function was more or less a way to map different sounds on the keyboard, not really meant to replace existing dedicated master keyboards.

[Hein Eken]

I wouldn't save on TRS I/O as they are pretty much standard direct connection. The SubD stuff is cheaper (but you also need to choose a high quality one as it has to transport audio, not data, so not as cheap as computer stuff, a the cable would also need to be a good one and maybe less easy to find).

Sorry, I cannot confirm this because the Tascam standard is industry standard since decades.
You find these D-Sub25 balanced audio connections in lots of professional gear like RME, NEVE etc..
My Nuendo/RME converter is using these and in addition to it´s TRS and I use both the SUB-D25 for inputs and outputs from and to my analog console.
There is never a problem.

Quality cables are essential anyway and independent from usage of single balanced cables or a balanced 8-way multicore.
You find hi-end balanced 8-way multicore everywhere,- @Thomann, Musicstore etc. in germany p.ex..

This would look like the Scope PCI cards with their connection cables. I do prefer the way it is done on the Xite with connection available directly on the rack.

How to do w/ XITE-1 ?
I´m XITE-1 owner and there´s a stereo analog input only.
You´d need a ADAT out for Solaris to realize w/ XITE-1 alone.

I´m thinking of a quality line mixer or AD/DA converter in the rack and together w/ XITE, so the single outputs of Solaris rack would run into the line mixer´s or converter´s inputs,- the line mixer to the stereo analog in of XITE or the AD/DA´s ADAT out into XITE ADAT in,- all w/ short cables.
Using the Sub-D25 w/ a snake for that purpose is more reliable than using single cables.

The snake cable could also be a problem as soon as it could be sometime difficult to split the different connectors to different external units.

No, depends on the snake.
Use XLR on 1 end of the snake and you´re done for THAT purpose.
You can easily attach XLR cables of different length to another XLR connector.

In case expansions would be possible without much impact on price or availability, a 2U case would probably be a better idea to offer room for new connections like Copperlan or AES/EBU XLR. Besides, in would also provide more room for power dissipation.
Then such features could be seen as a mezzanine board and could be offered as a "+" option.

That´s correct and for me it wouldn´t be a deal breaker if Solaris rack is 2HU,- but your mockup is 1HU and that´s what we´re discussing.
A 2HU unit relativates most of this discussion but will make the unit probably more expensive too.

But I understand, w/ 6 33MHz SHARCs inside producing heat,- a 2HU unit might be better anyway.

I´m waiting for John jumping into our discussion because it seems WE want a rack and HE thinks about a poll,- we´ll see ...

Regarding the Alex integration, the way it is usually inserted is to insert it in the MIDI in way, then physical MIDI in DIN is routed to the ALEX and fed back to the hardware with or without additional messages processed inside the Alex board. You have to cut the normal wire to achieve that but it may be possible to have this done without to much hardware modification. I still do not understand from their diagram what happens when both the original hardware and the Alex are trying to send out MIDI data to the the DIN out connector which could be a problem. I feel it would be better to use either Copperlan or MIDI Din while the USB MIDI would still be there.

I assume, once AleX is built into a standard MIDI unit offering MIDI trio and USB, which both (in keyboards/modules) is normally 1 port/ 16 MIDI channels,- the standard MIDI, USB and AleX simply mirror the MIDI, while only the Alyseum/Copperlan MIDI stream is processed by Copperlan Manager´s features like MIDI routing, filtering, re-channelizing and such.

In fact, Alyseum/Copperlan MIDI adds (basic) masterkeyboard functionality to any MIDI device connected, but being controlled by Copperlan Manager running on laptop/dektop.
But laptop/desktop machine is what you´d need anyway w/ XITE, any Creamware PCI card system or any native VST/AU sytem.

Regarding external control for such a blind unit, I guess everything is already available through standard MIDI messages.

Yes, most (or a lot) is.

The only missing things I guess are MIDI channel selection and patch storing message including preset number and name.

See above,- Copperlan Manager can do a lot already now and will do more in future.
It´s imaginable you could do some kind of setlist like in a Korg Kronos or in Mainstage w/ it, storing combinations of preset patches and more, all recallable by a single MIDI program change command and patch change commands, controller offsets etc. being sent out over MIDI to extermal hardware devices too.
MIDI note key ranges for splits and layers thinkable too because it´s all a matter of MIDI data stream.
I do that w/ my trusty Miditemp PMM88E since decades and it doesn´t matter which keyboard and/or module is connected and how dumb it is MIDI wise.

Maybe a small MIDI remote controller could be provided for such thing, but in case of remote controlling the Expander from the Keyboard, the "Enable Part" button could be used (together with the shift key for example) for such purpose to automatically select wether the control panel is linked to the internal engine or one out of 3 external expander units.

That becomes more and more demands and hardware units, small or not and it is much too specialized.

In opposite I´d like the idea to have a Solaris rack black box w/ most excellent RX MIDI implementation which can be used w/ any controller out there.
I´d be able to control it w/ a Kurzweil PC3 p.ex. and additional stuff I own like Cooper Masterfader or similar devices,- or an iPad/ Mac IOS or a tablet PC/touch screen on Android basis or whatever exists.

What I called master keyboard function was more or less a way to map different sounds on the keyboard, not really meant to replace existing dedicated master keyboards.

On which keyboard ?
The Solaris keyboard synth ?
Or any other keyboard ?
Both are tasks for these keyboards and are not urgently necessary for the rack IMO.

Hein

[HUROLURA]

Regarding the Tascam SubD, I agree, it is more or less an efficient high end gear standard solution especially for mixing or audio cards.
My point is mainly to avoid such addition because I do not see the gain for everybody on that point.
And as already told I would prefer John to keep most of the hardware unchanged to avoid extra DESIGN cost and time rather than redesigning the all stuff.

Regarding the Solaris to Xite connection: I do not have a Solaris (yet, still sparing for it, but convince by my ears during last Musikmesse), but I just discovered from GaryB explanations that it should be possible to use one of the ADAT input on the Xite-1 as an optical SPDIF input, just by configuring such thing under Scope. Never tried it as apart from Scope PCI board connected using one ADAT port, the other gear I connect to the other ADAT in is the NOAH Ex.

My mockup was just a quick picture. The Xite-1 is 1U, the G2 engine is 1U, so I thought a 1U unit could be enough, especially if you stack 3 of them !!! Regarding the DSP inside the Solaris, I think these are the ADSP21369 @ 350 MHz model also use in the Xite-1. Xite-1 has 12 of them and still is a 1U unit. But you'd better let the space above it empty to let the power cool down ...

Regarding the Alex, I just checked the manual and I was wondering how you would avoid data collision on the Midi Out but that's a different story. Anyway, If you integrate the Alex in a device, I guess you do not use the MIDI trio anymore but rely on Copperlan for MIDI data transmission.

Regrading the huge NRPN message list available for the Solaris, it is already samrt as it allows to control any parameter of a patch. Missing stuff would be more what is acually done by using the control element while designing a preset:
- OSC, ROTORS, MIXERS, FILTERS, INSERT FX, FILTER, VCA activation and type selection
- storing the preset
- naming the preset

Copperlan wouldn't help much as it is "only" an alternate way to transport MIDI data. So anything not available in the MIDI message list wouldn't be there.

And what I meant about masterkeyboard functions was for the Solaris keyboard to allow it to remote control the expander units. Then you would be able to switch on forget the expander(s), and use the Solaris as if it had more DSP power.

[Hein Eken]

Regarding the Tascam SubD, I agree, it is more or less an efficient high end gear standard solution especially for mixing or audio cards.
My point is mainly to avoid such addition because I do not see the gain for everybody on that point.

Well, only IF the Solaris rack would become a 1HU solution, the gain of the Tascam standard D-Sub connector would be the space you win for options on the rear panel of the rack module.
If the rack becomes a 2HU module, the solution becomes obsolete IMO, except using a D-Sub is cheaper than using 8 separate TRS connectors.

And as already told I would prefer John to keep most of the hardware unchanged to avoid extra DESIGN cost and time rather than redesigning the all stuff.

When using a D-Sub, the balanced wireing keeps the same as with single TRS jacks.
In production, you simply don´t solder the TRS jacks to the mainboard and use wires to the D-Sub instead.
There will be pre-wired D-Subs available in quantity, then simply solder the other ends of the cable to the soldering points (originally for the TRS) to the mainboard,- that´s all.

it should be possible to use one of the ADAT input on the Xite-1 as an optical SPDIF input, just by configuring such thing under Scope.

Yes,- but but it´s crap IMO.
Using optical SPDIF in XITE steals a ADAT port, so you get 2 channels where you should get 8 when connecting a AD/DA,- and when the AD/DA is a Ferrofish A16mkII,- you NEED both ADAT ports on XITE.
XITE has AES/EBU I/O, so why not using it for stereo channels ?

If AES/EBU doesn´t make it to Solaris rack,- the other option is using a ext. converter box, converting optical SPDIF to electrical AES/EBU,- but that´s 1 small piece of gear more flying around.

My mockup was just a quick picture. The Xite-1 is 1U, the G2 engine is 1U, so I thought a 1U unit could be enough, especially if you stack 3 of them !!!

Who will ?
How many Solaris keyboards are been sold and how many who buyed Solaris keyboard buy the rack in addition ?
How many of these guys buy more than only 1 rack in addition ?
How many out there have the money and do spend it for Solaris,- rack or keyboard.

OTOH,- I´d love it to be a 1HU unit,- no question.

Regarding the DSP inside the Solaris, I think these are the ADSP21369 @ 350 MHz model also use in the Xite-1. Xite-1 has 12 of them and still is a 1U unit.

Xite, especially XITE-1 can run hot depending on activity/load ...
The studio isn´t crucial,- the live usage in a rack is, together with other gear mounted in the rack and under large stage light rigs and/or direct sun and such.
If the air around the rack is hot already, there´s not much cooling to expect by airflow, you´d need fans.

But you'd better let the space above it empty to let the power cool down ...

That´s what I do here.

Regarding the Alex, I just checked the manual and I was wondering how you would avoid data collision on the Midi Out but that's a different story. Anyway, If you integrate the Alex in a device, I guess you do not use the MIDI trio anymore but rely on Copperlan for MIDI data transmission.

You´d probably use MIDI In of the rack w/ MIDI over LAN, but probably not the MIDI out at all w/ a blackbox synth.
What does it send if there are no controller haptics ?

Eventually and if MIDI Echo is implemented, MIDI Out on the rack might be usefull for cascading rack units IF Alyseum/Copperlan MIDI isn´t in the ballpark,- otherwise you cascade by MIDI Controller keyboard and Copperlan which remaps MIDI channels and re-channelizes.
With Copperlan/Alyseum, old MIDI routing like daisy chain and MIDI Echo is over and it´s here over since I work w/ PMM88E since the 90th.
In fact, the Solaris rack just only needs MIDI In in 99% of MIDI configurations.

Regrading the huge NRPN message list available for the Solaris, it is already samrt as it allows to control any parameter of a patch. Missing stuff would be more what is acually done by using the control element while designing a preset:
- OSC, ROTORS, MIXERS, FILTERS, INSERT FX, FILTER, VCA activation and type selection

Isn´t it sysex ?

- storing the preset
- naming the preset

Any librarian/editor app could do that w/ sysex,- so any control application/device can do it w/ sysex.
Copperlan MIDI supports sysex and SCOPE will support OSC, so I see no reason why a control device in SCOPE for Solaris is impossible.

Copperlan wouldn't help much as it is "only" an alternate way to transport MIDI data. So anything not available in the MIDI message list wouldn't be there.

Sysex is part of the MIDI protocol, so it depends on the implementation in the hardware devices.

Today, everyone thinks MIDI CC only, that´s stupid.

And what I meant about masterkeyboard functions was for the Solaris keyboard to allow it to remote control the expander units. Then you would be able to switch on forget the expander(s), and use the Solaris as if it had more DSP power.

That´s correct, but I´d wait for the next updates for Solaris keyboard and see if the voice count rises up to 16 or 18, then wonder whether I´d need a Solaris rack in addition or not.

Me personally, I´d prefer to buy a Solaris rack only and not the keyboard instrument.
I have too much keyboards anyway and want to minimize my rig.
I believe, there are many out there wanting Solaris engine and sounds but not the keyboard,- and if it works w/ a iPad app or something similar, it could be a winner.

Hein

[HUROLURA]

It could be sysex, but as I do not have any Solaris, I cannot check if there are any Sysex already. Only the NRPN are in the documentation...

[scope4live]

The Hosa Optical to AES/EBU ( XITE-1 ) works great and really makes the synth stand out in a mix of audiorate modulated Scope Modular pathces and Analog rackmounted SE-1Xs....
Unbelievable subtractive, digital wavetables, vector, etc,
And Modular can create anything you can envision so I have what i need, but a rack that's 1U....I;d buy it just for general purposes...

[John Bowen]

It's been fun to read the exchange between Hurolura & Hein, and I appreciate all of the input!
I wanted to comment on just a couple of things that have come up:

1) the main board of the Solaris was designed to fit in a 1u rack, just in case we ever decided to go that route
2) the next OS update will not change the voice count/polyphony. In fact, this may or may not ever happen, so I would not count on an increase in polyphony any time soon. (And if we were able, it would have to be a multiple of 5, so the best hope would be 15 voice polyphony.)
3) one of the main points of the Solaris is its user interface. With over 1200 parameters, any control device or software editor would need to be extremely well thought out, not to mention all of the special buttons on the front panel (plus the ribbon output is not available as a MIDI signal).

Because of point #1, I would say its extremely unlikely that any changes or additions to the I/O would happen, but it's very interesting to read the suggestions. The copperlan folks have been lobbying all of the synth companies for several years, but there's not been much momentum to add it.

Lastly - Hein proposes that "there are many out there wanting (a) Solaris engine and sounds but not the keyboard"...I've yet to see any data that supports this. I suspect it's a much smaller number than anyone thinks - rack sales overall have been a general disappointment in the industry.

[alexg]

A Solaris without keyboard & controls ? Non sense for me.
The Solaris is an instrument, not a box with sounds.
If the rack is just a second brain for the keyboard version, why not, but it's actual power and possibilities are already far enough for me.
I'm much more in pushing for improve the OS than doing a rack version with this OS...

[HUROLURA]

Regarding the board size I suspected this as Juergen is really good at clever electronic board design.
Just check how much features have been integrated on Xite, A16mk II or B4000+.

What about the power switch and CF card then, John ? Are they also on the same board ? Would you mind posting a picture of the main board ?

Regarding Copperlan, the AL22 could be used to do the trick and would probably cost less for end user than board re design cost.

As long as there is no multi mode, the polyphony should be enough for most use. 4 part multimode is more important for me and would push me forward to order the Solaris. I am already convinced by the sound, the smart UI layout, this may be the only feature I miss. Every additionnal feature including CZ osc from Modular IV would also be welcome but the multimode is the most important for me.

Regarding the Ribon made available as an external gear control signal, it could be a good idea to add it as an extra Midi message.

Regarding the interest for a blind 1U rack unit, I think the people who could be interested would be:
- Solaris keyboard user to have access to more voices especially if multimode is available.
- people owning a Solaris but in need for a compact way to take this one on the road while keeping the main keyboard for sound design in the studio or for bigger events
- people like me who wish they could afford a Solaris and would accept to compromise about the UI to be able to buy one, I only have the plug-in for the Xite so far and it is really hard to get more than a few voices.
- people wanting the Solaris sound but already having more than needed keyboards and having no space left for an extra keyboard (you should see how my small home studio is overcrowded)
- modular freaks who still wish a Modular G3 from Clavia which would probably never happen

Regarding external hardware or software control elements to provide a smart alternate solution, third party could offer some solutions, not as smart as Solaris layout , but maybe cheaper or more versatile as it could be used to control other gears.

[Hein Eken]

It's been fun to read the exchange between Hurolura & Hein, and I appreciate all of the input!
I wanted to comment on just a couple of things that have come up:

1) the main board of the Solaris was designed to fit in a 1u rack, just in case we ever decided to go that route

Hi John,- that´s perfect !!!

2) the next OS update will not change the voice count/polyphony. In fact, this may or may not ever happen, so I would not count on an increase in polyphony any time soon. (And if we were able, it would have to be a multiple of 5, so the best hope would be 15 voice polyphony.)

O.k., I´m reading this forum since it exits and because of my interest in Solaris since it´s release.
Now, after the idea for a rack came up and as you mentioned in post 854 on the 1st page of this thread, I had to sign in here.

IIRC, it was you talking about DSP assignment improvements, DSP offload and maxing out polyphony by any factor of X as well as the possibility of 4-part MIDI multi mode for the future of Solaris,- here in the forum as also over in the Musicplayer KC forum.

So, all this isn´t my or any demand, but I hoped for it.

Anyway ...

3) one of the main points of the Solaris is its user interface. With over 1200 parameters, any control device or software editor would need to be extremely well thought out, not to mention all of the special buttons on the front panel (plus the ribbon output is not available as a MIDI signal).

I highly appreciate the design concept of the Solaris keyboard instrument,- to me, it´s perfect,- last but no least because I´m a 1st owner of the Oberheim Xpander and also loved the Matrix-12.

Nontheless, I find the idea of a "black box" rack version tempting by several reasons and w/ todays technical possibilities in regards controlling thousands of parameters using a mobile device like a iPAD and a dedicated app p.ex., I only see "disadvantages" like "real haptics" vs p.ex. "touch screen".

Now, there´s also the difference of the synth enthusiast and the keyboardplayer and/or the (home-) recording artist.
In fact, I´m all of these and as a synth enthusiast, I´d like to have the Solaris keyboard, as a keyboardplayer owning many keyboards already, using the most excellent MIDI masterkeyboard engine of the KURZ PC3 together w/ an existing 88-weighted keys board and w/ the interest of having the best of the best sonic quality at small footprint in my rig,- the Solaris rack is what I´d need to replace some bulky gear and together w/ the excellent XITE-1 machine.
It woud be the most compact and portable solution for me and for the mobility, I´d accept the disadvantage losing the haptics.

Because of point #1, I would say its extremely unlikely that any changes or additions to the I/O would happen, but it's very interesting to read the suggestions. The copperlan folks have been lobbying all of the synth companies for several years, but there's not been much momentum to add it.

Well, John,- you have been the pioneer always,- that´s why Solaris exists, as well as your excellent Zarg devices (I own 4) and not to forget to mention the Prophet 5 (I had 2) and the Wavestaton which I like and have up today (I own the SR).

The Copperlan stuff works and it already has been tested by SCOPE users and together w/ DAW apps across several computers using a ethernet switch,- it´s the future of MIDI in a star-type network and without using kohortes of MIDI matrix switchers, mergers, event processors and thru boxes.
Everyone who started working professional already in the late 70th knows what I mean and I´m able to demonstrate the nitemare in realtime here.

Since many years, MIDI was totally underrated by instrument manufacturers, we see that by studying MIDI implementation in most of todays keyboards and modules,- the power of MIDI for the composer/arranger has been forgotten since DAW apps allowed editing of audio clips and snippets to an excess.

For me, Copperlan and similar concepts like rtpMIDI http://www.tobias-erichsen.de/software/rtpmidi.html are a gift of god.
I´ll be able to recycle a ton of electronic accessory gear and cables very soon without losing all the features.

So, be a pioneer again and offer a network MIDI connection for the rack as the 1st one in the world please.

Lastly - Hein proposes that "there are many out there wanting (a) Solaris engine and sounds but not the keyboard"...I've yet to see any data that supports this. I suspect it's a much smaller number than anyone thinks - rack sales overall have been a general disappointment in the industry.

I think times change John.
Roland is now the 1st company coming up w/ a rack (Integra-7) again and I think Yamaha will be the next.
There are also many users out there who didn´t buy a Motif XF, kept their Motif ES rack instead but wait for a Motif XF rack.

The marketing concept of manufacturers during last years was "you only need our keyboard, nothing else".
The result was, we didn´t see any keyboard instrument w/ a flat top alowing stacking another one.
All the controls went to the top of every keyboard out there which makes ergonomic setup of a larger rig difficult.
The answer was "use VSTi on a laptop",- but there´s the lack of sonic quality and the latency.
So, the answer is DSP and that´s why I buyed XITE-1.

I´d buy a Solaris rack and I think others will do too.
I believe you´d sell racks also to these who cannot afford the Solaris keyboard, but already have the digital recording environment and controllers to use a "blackbox" rack in their studio or live.

You´re right there´s no data supporting/reporting many users will buy a rack, but we´ll see how well the Roland Integra-7 rack will sell.
I´d buy this rack too if I´d had to decide for the rack or the Jupiter 80 b.t.w..

The idea, I could travel/fly w/ a small rack incl. Solaris rack, XITE-1, ethernet switch, a power conditioner/stabilizer/UPS unit and a laptop to control it, having all my sounds & SCOPE projects w/ me and just only rent one of the industry standard (big 5) MIDI controller keyboards (KURZ prefered because I own the ribbon controller) available elsewhere is much too promising.

Hein