Why not increase the memory on a Pyramid?

It seems strange to me that with the capabilities of the Pyramid that Squarp didn’t increase the memory on the mk3 version, or even explore the possibility of doing so, perhaps even offering the service of upgrading the memory in the mk2 to allow for more sequences, and a bit more functionality. It’s not like RAM is expensive, or that midi information requires a lot of storage. We keep asking questions about adding more sequences or tracks or both, and just getting the “There’s not enough memory onboard to accommodate this.”, so hy not just physically increase the onboard emory by adding another chip of RAM? Seems like no-brainer to me. Am I crazy for imagining such a thing?

1 Like

if they do a true version 2 of the Pyramid, i’m sure this will be a priority. until then if they start differentiating the software within what’s essentially the same hardware, they’ll run into issues of compatibility and possibly doubling their testing for updates and so forth. (this is all speculation, i’m not a programmer or any such)

I don’t know that it would be that difficult to put something into the code that looks at the memory size at the time of boot or load and if the amount of sequences in the project exceeds 32, it only loads the first 32 if the RAM block is only whatever it currently is, but if it sees there is more, it loads the full project. Likewise, if you create a new project, it will only allow you to have 64 sequences if the system sees the bigger RAM block. I’m not much of a coder either, but I have friends who are and this doesn’t seem daunting to any of them. *shrugs.

every time i see this argument lobbed at a synth or sequencer or whatever, there’s one thing that comes in my head and really it’s the only thing worth saying: if it’s so easy, do it yourself.

and it’s not my being snarky (at least not entirely… :wink: ), it’s an honestly offered thought: if it truly isn’t that hard, if your coder friends think it’s so easy, then do it yourself or pay one of them to do it. people mod and DIY musical instruments all the time in any way they can. sometimes they get some really interesting and unique results that can spark new things. go for it. wasting time on forums saying ‘well why don’t they do this thing that surely they’ve considered but didn’t implement for a reason’ gets no one anywhere… but maybe by trying to dig in you’ll learn something or find a new perspective or who knows what.

that said, threads like this are really silly and should probably be nixed.

1 Like

the problem is that by doing that, one invalidates their warranty and compromises their relationship with a cottage industry, and a group of people who are actually interested in product improvement. I, for one, would much rather work WITH Squarp than against them, and I think your suggestion just kind of disregards that as any sort of priority or possibility. It is snarky, and it’s not really productive.

That said, it is responses like yours that are unhelpful, and add nothing to the evolution of what is a good product, only inches away from being great. I think the question is a very valid one, I answered your hypothetical conundrum with a rather practical solution, and your response is “Well if you’re so smart, bla bla bla…” Go make some music or add something productive to the discussion. So far, you have done neither.

These things are not designed like PCs, it’s likely the main pcb would need changes to add additional memory - so it’s not a trivial ‘upgrade’

If squarp wanted to release a next gen pyramid today, they’d probably redesign Pcb to also use the H7 as used in the Hermod.

Being a small company they have to make choices, perhaps they believe ( at the moment) they get more sales from a ‘new’ product ( like Rample) than an update of an existing product ( which frankly is still pretty unique)


I understand the board not being like a PC, and it is something would would in all likelihood need to be soldered in, hence the idea of sending it back to the factory for said procedure. However, I find the idea of an entire redesign of the PCB unlikely. We’re not talking about a massive chunk of RAM or some ungodly increase in power requirements. We’re talking about midi information, which is not a lot of digits. We’re not talking about some graphics upgrade, or

I take it the H7 is the CPU?

Your assuming there is a compatible drop in replacement chip with same number of pins and layout, that has more memory - that’s not usually the case ( this is engineered for general purpose computers) eg consider that more addressable memory necessitates more address lines ( = pins)

these things have different design goals,
After all if they were made general purpose you end up just building a general purpose computer.

This is of course a valid approach too , hence we are seeing things built on the rPI CM3 - but this brings it’s own issues.

H7 is an upgraded mcu

Note; I don’t claim to know specifics of the pyramid, I’ve not studied the pcb, and there are no published schematics.


you’d void your warranty, sure, but what relationships are you worried about destroying if you wreck a Pyramid? you’d be wasting your money and time but other than that, why would anyone care?

i remember reading on here that this forum used to include a suggestions of updates section, but they were getting so many questions/suggestions/complaints like yours that they had to shut it down. they’re still taking requests and suggestions via email (i’ve just recently emailed them and received a response the next day, in fact) so if you were truly ‘wanting to work with them’ why wouldn’t you email them? that’s why i’m basically disregarding the premise of this, yeah.

there’s dozens of things i’d rather different on the Pyramid, but i bought it knowing those things. it’s great for what it is, not great in a way that’s perfect for me or you or likely any one person, but that’s just life. i’m not trying to be helpful, that’s not my job lol.

my hypothetical conundrum? i don’t think i posited any such thing.

um actually you’re wrong, i was writing some music last night with my Squarp in fact.

message me if you have some actual issue with me and i’ll be glad to chat there my grumpy friend :slight_smile: but it looks like technobear is explaining with great detail why this isn’t an easy thing and unlikely at best.

You are assuming I haven’t already. The point of this is that one email making a request is rarely sufficient, but if Squarp receive numerous ones with a similar request, they’re more inclined to give the idea credence.


/\ Hypothetical conundrum./\

[quote=“ecthroi, post:9, topic:3829”]
technobear is explaining with great detail why this isn’t an easy thing
[/quote] You have absolutely no idea of the likelihood of such an occurrence. You’re not a programmer, and this is all speculation.


I’m not sure of that being the case here, as we’re not talking about needing more simultaneous access requirements. The Pyramid only plays one sequence at a time. Not knowing the board or its componentry, I cannot assert that something will or will not work/need modification/redesign/etc.

Precisely, this is why your assertion that’s it’s a no-brainer is incorrect - you are basing it on assumptions that are incorrect.

Think about this another way, which may be more familiar to you - a PC motherboard has a maximum amount of memory that can be used on it. If the manufacture pre-populates that - then there is no upgrade path.
When designing a non-generic product like the pyramid you design it for the memory you put on board - not for some ‘upgrade’ that is not going to be offered :wink:


Not knowing the board, or the code, yourself, it seems a bit strange that you would be able to gauge the degree of error in my assertion.

Why would someone in this day and age ever design something, especially a “mk2/mk3/etc.”, with no capacity for improvement or expansion? That just doesn’t make sense from either an engineering or business standpoint. It was built to receive software upgrades, so why would one not include further hardware expandability in the board design or other components? That’s just begging for obsolescence. It’s generally considered an antiquated business and manufacturing model, non-generic or not. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I would have thought that the Squarp design team has a bit more foresight than that. Future-proofing is actually a thing these days.

right. and it’s obvious you don’t either, wildly speculating even more so than i. but i’ll quit feeding it now, i’m out. :v:

you are forgetting people outside of squarp probably don’t have access to the FW source code

i didn’t forget that at all.