The Official Sequential/Oberheim Forum
OTHER DISCUSSIONS => General Synthesis => Other Hardware/Software => Topic started by: Paul Dither on April 25, 2019, 04:37:32 AM
-
A new hybrid synth that will be presented at Superbooth designed by Axel Hartmann and a developer who allegedly had been involved in the development of the Modal Electronics 008. Not much info yet. Looks kind of Roland-ish.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Go1N-QiIrnI/XMB07CGvhAI/AAAAAAAMVec/WTh3mxFKBGo7BoOlUCp9acUaigLZTI0pwCLcBGAs/s1600/unnamed.jpg)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Y8fbQmxLyI0/XMB07A3B5II/AAAAAAAMVeY/aI87dXoZIIY3uF6F6Le4RjNoiDLCZ6s9ACLcBGAs/s1600/unnamed-3.jpg)
-
Like Roland and Arturia had a baby who was obsessed with Devo.
The "binaural" aspect intrigues me.
-
Excuse my ignorance, but what is Binaural Synthesis? I've search for an answer but with no satisfactory explanation. I understand it may refer to some form of 3D sound, but that's all I've found.
-
Excuse my ignorance, but what is Binaural Synthesis? I've search for an answer but with no satisfactory explanation. I understand it may refer to some form of 3D sound, but that's all I've found.
I assume in this context it will probably mean that when you play a note, different voices will be triggered on the left and the right channel, for example a regularly tuned saw wave patch on the left channel and a slightly detuned saw wave patch on the right channel. It's something one would usually achieve with multitracking: recording the same track twice with the same sound, but slightly differently tuned, and then hardpanning it to the left and the right. That might also explain the numbers 6 and 12. So maybe you're left with 6 voices in binaural mode while you get 12 voices in normal mode.
If you look closely at the upper photo, you can see a section called "Voice Assign" and below there are two buttons, one with a sort of stereo field icon above it.
-
Excuse my ignorance, but what is Binaural Synthesis? I've search for an answer but with no satisfactory explanation. I understand it may refer to some form of 3D sound, but that's all I've found.
I assume in this context it will probably mean that when you play a note, different voices will be triggered on the left and the right channel, for example a regularly tuned saw wave patch on the left channel and a slightly detuned saw wave patch on the right channel. It's something one would usually achieve with multitracking: recording the same track twice with the same sound, but slightly differently tuned, and then hardpanning it to the left and the right. That might also explain the numbers 6 and 12. So maybe you're left with 6 voices in binaural mode while you get 12 voices in normal mode.
If you look closely at the upper photo, you can see a section called "Voice Assign" and below there are two buttons, one with a sort of stereo field icon above it.
Ah yes I understand, thank you. The icon above that right-hand button does look a lot like an old cinema poster symbol for "in STEREO!"
I have a module titled "Nearness" which has seems to be tailored towards that sort of use (combined with a sequential switch I can route audio signals to a different position in the stereo field with the note trigger).
The styling of the synth and the photos supplied do tend to make this look very much like a Roland Juno-esque machine. The two chorus buttons on the far end seem very much like a nod to the Juno's.
-
Wonder how many octaves.
-
Wonder how many octaves.
Can't find any images of the announced synth, but here's a link to their Instagram for maybe some insight into it all in the near future: https://www.instagram.com/udo_audio/ (https://www.instagram.com/udo_audio/)
-
Excuse my ignorance, but what is Binaural Synthesis? I've search for an answer but with no satisfactory explanation. I understand it may refer to some form of 3D sound, but that's all I've found.
I assume in this context it will probably mean that when you play a note, different voices will be triggered on the left and the right channel, for example a regularly tuned saw wave patch on the left channel and a slightly detuned saw wave patch on the right channel. It's something one would usually achieve with multitracking: recording the same track twice with the same sound, but slightly differently tuned, and then hardpanning it to the left and the right. That might also explain the numbers 6 and 12. So maybe you're left with 6 voices in binaural mode while you get 12 voices in normal mode.
If you look closely at the upper photo, you can see a section called "Voice Assign" and below there are two buttons, one with a sort of stereo field icon above it.
This wouldn't be too terribly different than the Modal stuff in double mode (four 008 / four or six 002 / one 001), or the Evolver (four Poly / one Mono).
-
I assume in this context it will probably mean that when you play a note, different voices will be triggered on the left and the right channel, for example a regularly tuned saw wave patch on the left channel and a slightly detuned saw wave patch on the right channel. It's something one would usually achieve with multitracking: recording the same track twice with the same sound, but slightly differently tuned, and then hardpanning it to the left and the right. That might also explain the numbers 6 and 12. So maybe you're left with 6 voices in binaural mode while you get 12 voices in normal mode.
If you look closely at the upper photo, you can see a section called "Voice Assign" and below there are two buttons, one with a sort of stereo field icon above it.
This wouldn't be too terribly different than the Modal stuff in double mode (four 008 / four or six 002 / one 001), or the Evolver (four Poly / one Mono).
If it is this then it's exactly the same as can be done on a Modal 00#. Set the mode to Stack, the Size to 2 and adjust the Spread to detune the voices.
This is how I've used my 002 from the start. It gives a really nice stereo effect and dodges the hard panning of the individual voices - at the expense of becoming 6 rather than 12 note polyphonic.
-
A new hybrid synth that will be presented at Superbooth designed by Axel Hartmann and a developer who allegedly had been involved in the development of the Modal Electronics 008.
I think you're referring to George Hearn. ;) He designed the analog architecture of the 008's voices and is the founder of UDO.
-
A new hybrid synth that will be presented at Superbooth designed by Axel Hartmann and a developer who allegedly had been involved in the development of the Modal Electronics 008.
I think you're referring to George Hearn. ;) He designed the analog architecture of the 008's voices and is the founder of UDO.
Indeed. Thanks for filling in the name!
-
The description sounds almost like a Rev 2 of the 002, though I could be completely off. I know George wasn't involved in the 002, but I'm guessing he got familiar with it when he adapted his design to its OS. I'm guessing since Paula isn't with Modal anymore, we won't be seeing any more in the flagship line, so he won't be stepping on any toes there.
-
The description sounds almost like a Rev 2 of the 002, though I could be completely off. I know George wasn't involved in the 002, but I'm guessing he got familiar with it when he adapted his design to its OS. I'm guessing since Paula isn't with Modal anymore, we won't be seeing any more in the flagship line, so he won't be stepping on any toes there.
I guess it depends on what "super-wave technology" is supposed to mean. By the end of next week we'll know a bit more.
As for Paula: Her latest oscillator designs (the WTF and the Waveplane oscillators) would certainly make for an interesting digital front end of a new type of hybrid synth.
-
As for Paula: Her latest oscillator designs (the WTF and the Waveplane oscillators) would certainly make for an interesting digital front end of a new type of hybrid synth.
Yessssss. I'd love to see her do another version of the 002 with some of those oscillators and more modulation capabilities.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yi3HiXWjVI&t=246s
After watching the SonicState video, I'm kinda digging this. FPGA OSCs into a stereo Analogue Signal path, stereo filters, 8x8 modulation matrix, wavetables... definitely something worth keeping an eye on.
-
This video did the opposite for me personally. I like Nick, though not the best showing from him either. He failed to ask about how wavetables are going to be practical on a synth with no screen, despite cutting off George repeatedly.
-
This video did the opposite for me personally. I like Nick, though not the best showing from him either. He failed to ask about how wavetables are going to be practical on a synth with no screen, despite cutting off George repeatedly.
It’s definitely missing some details... and that’s to be expected on a prototype, but on the quality of some of the timbres I heard, I like it. Of course, that’s a totally subjective thing, and I’m normally in the minority among my peers from that perspective.
:)
-
Ugh...I hate to be "that guy" but honestly...I think I'd like this more if it was VCO based. Digital oscillators are nice...but the layout and UI just feels like it should be 100% analog...almost feels like Arturia should have made it and called it the PolyBrute.
-
Ugh...I hate to be "that guy" but honestly...I think I'd like this more if it was VCO based. Digital oscillators are nice...but the layout and UI just feels like it should be 100% analog...almost feels like Arturia should have made it and called it the PolyBrute.
At 24 MHz, your ears can’t tell the difference between FPGA digital and Analogue — no one can.
And FPGA OSCs are far more versatile. I love my analogue synths, but I like to see innovation like this.
I’d love to see Dave do an FPGA synth. He has the knowledge (and ears) to do it well.
Though, again, I expect to be in the minority.
-
Ah, so binaural refers to stereo signal path rather like the Evolver's signal path but a bit more advanced panning/phase control (from what he alluded to).
Here's another demo:
https://youtu.be/gX_j76J3r6k
-
At 24 MHz, your ears can’t tell the difference between FPGA digital and Analogue — no one can.
And FPGA OSCs are far more versatile. I love my analogue synths, but I like to see innovation like this.
I’d love to see Dave do an FPGA synth. He has the knowledge (and ears) to do it well.
Maybe not, especially in a mix, but I can tell the difference between my VCO and DCO synths by the way they react to my playing. Both are analog, yet there's certainly natural drift in one case that's lacking in the other, which I find more satisfying as a players instrument. As far as DCO vs FPGA, I'd have to agree with you on that one. Even if there were some digital artifacts, the pros far outweigh the cons imo.
-
At 24 MHz, your ears can’t tell the difference between FPGA digital and Analogue — no one can.
And FPGA OSCs are far more versatile. I love my analogue synths, but I like to see innovation like this.
I’d love to see Dave do an FPGA synth. He has the knowledge (and ears) to do it well.
Maybe not, especially in a mix, but I can tell the difference between my VCO and DCO synths by the way they react to my playing. Both are analog, yet there's certainly natural drift in one case that's lacking in the other, which I find more satisfying as a players instrument. As far as DCO vs FPGA, I'd have to agree with you on that one. Even if there were some digital artifacts, the pros far outweigh the cons imo.
I think that FPGAs offer the power and speed to create Oscillators than computationally mimic the natural drift of analogue — AKA Dave’s Slop parameter.
-
The slop parameter is not an adequate substitution, nor do I find it all that useful beyond very subtle amounts. This brings up the question why you would spend such a large amount for a Deckard's Dream for example. I suppose you might say because nothing can exactly emulate a hardware CS-80 & that's the closest it gets.
Either way I question the design choice regarding this particular synth's lack of a screen.
-
Ugh...I hate to be "that guy" but honestly...I think I'd like this more if it was VCO based. Digital oscillators are nice...but the layout and UI just feels like it should be 100% analog...almost feels like Arturia should have made it and called it the PolyBrute.
At 24 MHz, your ears can’t tell the difference between FPGA digital and Analogue — no one can.
And FPGA OSCs are far more versatile. I love my analogue synths, but I like to see innovation like this.
I’d love to see Dave do an FPGA synth. He has the knowledge (and ears) to do it well.
Though, again, I expect to be in the minority.
I guess it’s more of a mental thing for me rather than an audible one.
-
The slop parameter is not an adequate substitution, nor do I find it all that useful beyond very subtle amounts. This brings up the question why you would spend such a large amount for a Deckard's Dream for example. I suppose you might say because nothing sounds exactly like it.
Either way I question the design choice of this particular synth's lack of a screen.
Sorry... I sometimes fail to completely express a viewpoint for the sake of brevity. And I think we agree more than disagree.
I love my analogues. The OB-6 is an awesome tool — lovely sounding instrument. The Deckard’s Dream (arriving tomorrow! Come on UPS!), I expect it to evoke the same sentiment.
I hope and expect analogue synths to always be designed and made — at least in my lifetime.
Digital synthesis is, however, the evolution of synthesis. It has been since the 80s. And it provides us with new and exciting synthesis techniques and timbres.
I like them both; I suspect 90% of us on this forum agree with that statement.
The slop parameter (Prophet 12, Pro 2) doesn’t turn a digital synth analogue. It is limited by the processing power of the instrument. So no, Slop ain’t it. It is, however, a great step down that road. But an FPGA powered synth has the computational power to be programmed to do this. When you create minute variations in pitch, amplitude, phase, and wave shape calculated at 24MHz, that would be indistinguishable to any human ear (or feelings, or vibe) from analogue (if the algorithms were well written... and I think Dave & Co. could do it).
We haven’t seen it yet, but it’s around the corner. And coming fast.
In short, long live analogue! Digital innovation? yes to that too!
-
Ugh...I hate to be "that guy" but honestly...I think I'd like this more if it was VCO based. Digital oscillators are nice...but the layout and UI just feels like it should be 100% analog...almost feels like Arturia should have made it and called it the PolyBrute.
At 24 MHz, your ears can’t tell the difference between FPGA digital and Analogue — no one can.
And FPGA OSCs are far more versatile. I love my analogue synths, but I like to see innovation like this.
I’d love to see Dave do an FPGA synth. He has the knowledge (and ears) to do it well.
Though, again, I expect to be in the minority.
I guess it’s more of a mental thing for me rather than an audible one.
Very well could be.
I have the same mental bias toward Sequential and PRS guitars. :)
I’ve already told my Sweetwater guy to put me in line for the next Sequential/DSI synth as soon as it’s announced. That’s how confident I am that DAve makes stuff that I like.
-
Unless the synth is designed by and working with the computational power of Laplace's demon, I don't see why it would differ all that much from the other drifting algorithms I've thus far experienced. At a certain point I'm hoping digital will be completely indiscernible from analog in all aspects to our puny human senses anyhow. Perhaps on the smallest scale the world is discrete and we're actually living in the Matrix, man. ;)
I'm waiting for this next wave of digital synths before I make my next purchase.
-
I'm waiting for this next wave of digital synths before I make my next purchase.
Those, my friend, are among the wisest words ever uttered amongst our group of enablers! ;D
-
I like the sound of this a lot... to me it feels like sort of a "hands on guys" SUMMIT... I'm not sure how much extra you would get from having both this and a SUMMIT ... the binaural approach can easily be done on SUMMIT in multi mode, panning each part L/R, and then you would still have two voices more than the SUPER 6.
The only thing I can see that makes them differ a bit are the analog filters which are different... still this sounds really really good... I think this synth is more geared towards the performing hands-on kind of users, where SUMMIT is more a sound designer's synth... if i had to choose, I'd certainly go for the SUMMIT instead of this, but for people who like a one knob per function, SUPER 6 might actually be the better buy.
-
Besides, I'm beginning to get this feeling, that FPGA is going to be the norm in digital synthesis in hardware from now on... we have seen a lot of these synths beginning to pop up, and I'm on the verge of beginning to make that a criteria for any digital synth I'm going to get in the future... it simply just sound better to my ears.... either FPGA digital, or real analog VCO/DCO... thus I still like my REV2, it just sounds so clear in the upper registers, and PEAK as well... I see no reason anymore, to waste money on a Prophet 12 which introduce digital artifacts in the tone rather easy.... some may like that rough sound, but I tend to lean towards a cleaner and more precise tone.... I still like dirty analog, but that's not the same as dirty digital... I do not like the later.
-
IIRC the oscillators in the Modal 002 are also FPGA and they're very satisfying. The main disappointment I have is that they're not used for any audio rate modulation or wavetable interpolation. But otherwise they produce some of the best "analog" sounds of any of my gear, largely due to the combination of the oscillators through those filters. The only thing in its realm is the OB-6.
I'm going to wait until I hear the wavetables on this thing. So far what I hear is a very nice analog synth, but not one that isn't pretty well covered by existing gear.
I'm excited by the future of FPGAs, though. The Kyra will be interesting to hear in final form, though I think there are much more interesting things that can be done than giving us essentially a Virus clone.
-
This PDF brochure was sent out yesterday:
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/6e38185e068c21088d422e3fd/files/55a1e750-64ba-4592-8f26-966bedac38d7/UDO_Super6_Introduction.pdf
-
Wonder if you can import your own wave forms, and if so, how easily done? Looking forward to seeing an in-depth video on this.
-
Nice, but 12 voices with only a four-octave keyboard? A left-handed arpeggio can easily exceed that.
-
Wonder if you can import your own wave forms, and if so, how easily done? Looking forward to seeing an in-depth video on this.
Yes, you'll be able to import them via USB.
-
Nice, but 12 voices with only a four-octave keyboard? A left-handed arpeggio can easily exceed that.
The goal was to keep it compact so you can carry it around under one arm or throw it into the car.
-
Nice, but 12 voices with only a four-octave keyboard? A left-handed arpeggio can easily exceed that.
The goal was to keep it compact so you can carry it around under one arm or throw it into the car.
I guess I don't go hiking with my synthesizers as much as I used to. ;D
-
I guess I don't go hiking with my synthesizers as much as I used to. ;D
;D
Nah, but it's supposed to be for gigging. Hence the size and the WYSIWYG control panel. In a way, this is like a hybrid synth version of the Prophet-6 or the OB-6 with the filters of the Prophet X.
-
In a way, this is like a hybrid synth version of the Prophet-6 or the OB-6 with the filters of the Prophet X.
Sold!
UDO should hire you as their hype man!
-
In a way, this is like a hybrid synth version of the Prophet-6 or the OB-6 with the filters of the Prophet X.
Sold!
UDO should hire you as their hype man!
Haha!
-
I really like the looks of this offering from UDO. Unlimited waveforms abilities and the MPE compatible will jive with the Linn controller I have.
Paul Dither, more specifically what I meant to ask was...for example on PEK, you can draw your own waveform or import a waveform you might record from an instrument you sample. There's an computer app for that described in the PEK section of this forum. So, I wonder if UDO will have something similar to that in whatever computer app they have? I realize that I could go out and accumulate waveforms from the internet to upload into the instrument, but my goal is to record my own and be able to get them to an instrument w/o much trouble.
-
Paul Dither, more specifically what I meant to ask was...for example on PEK, you can draw your own waveform or import a waveform you might record from an instrument you sample. There's an computer app for that described in the PEK section of this forum. So, I wonder if UDO will have something similar to that in whatever computer app they have? I realize that I could go out and accumulate waveforms from the internet to upload into the instrument, but my goal is to record my own and be able to get them to an instrument w/o much trouble.
I only know that it's going to be possible to import user waves via USB. At Superbooth there was no talk about a dedicated app whatsoever. Nevertheless, George Hearn talked about possible "software accompaniments" in a recent interview with MusicTech: https://www.musictech.net/features/interviews/udo-inside-binaural-super-6/
-
I really appreciate the no menu, four octave approach but I think I’d like to hear more FM/Wavetable based sounds. As much as I had hoped for a Prophet 12/Poly Evolver successor from Sequential next...I don’t think that’s what we are going to get and truth be told I’ve been looking into the Roland System 8 to go next to my Prophet 6 to compliment it for its FM and digital based tones. Four octaves, unique sound etc just seems to compliment each other sonically and visually...but after looking at the Super 6 more and more, I find its starting to become really appealing to me...especially in that blue and grey finish. Once more polished demos come out showing off its FM, Wavetable sounds as well as its chorus and sequencer features, I’ll be ready to pull the trigger on the System 8 or Super 6.
-
I really appreciate the no menu, four octave approach but I think I’d like to hear more FM/Wavetable based sounds. As much as I had hoped for a Prophet 12/Poly Evolver successor from Sequential next...I don’t think that’s what we are going to get and truth be told I’ve been looking into the Roland System 8 to go next to my Prophet 6 to compliment it for its FM and digital based tones. Four octaves, unique sound etc just seems to compliment each other sonically and visually...but after looking at the Super 6 more and more, I find its starting to become really appealing to me...especially in that blue and grey finish. Once more polished demos come out showing off its FM, Wavetable sounds as well as its chorus and sequencer features, I’ll be ready to pull the trigger on the System 8 or Super 6.
But you are assuming DSI won't make something like this next and maybe you are right.....but who really knows... That was exactly my point in the "next New Instrument" thread yesterday: If Sequential actually said they were doing something along the lines of the Super 6 or Roland system 8, then you, and I, would might patiently await its development, verses going to a "competitor". Anyway...to your point on FM/wavetables, yes I'm eager to hear what the Super 6 does there.
-
I really appreciate the no menu, four octave approach but I think I’d like to hear more FM/Wavetable based sounds. As much as I had hoped for a Prophet 12/Poly Evolver successor from Sequential next...I don’t think that’s what we are going to get and truth be told I’ve been looking into the Roland System 8 to go next to my Prophet 6 to compliment it for its FM and digital based tones. Four octaves, unique sound etc just seems to compliment each other sonically and visually...but after looking at the Super 6 more and more, I find its starting to become really appealing to me...especially in that blue and grey finish. Once more polished demos come out showing off its FM, Wavetable sounds as well as its chorus and sequencer features, I’ll be ready to pull the trigger on the System 8 or Super 6.
But you are assuming DSI won't make something like this next and maybe you are right.....but who really knows... That was exactly my point in the "next New Instrument" thread yesterday: If Sequential actually said they were doing something along the lines of the Super 6 or Roland system 8, then you, and I, would might patiently await its development, verses going to a "competitor". Anyway...to your point on FM/wavetables, yes I'm eager to hear what the Super 6 does there.
At this point I think we can all be thankful there’s more than one game in town. Even if Sequential comes out with something that interests neither of us..we have options.
-
Sonicstate has a new ‘First Look’ video of this synth on their YouTube channel:)
-
https://youtu.be/ahPuoA-NeeQ
-
Sonicstate has a new ‘First Look’ video of this synth on their YouTube channel:)
https://youtu.be/u_L4rOwoUho
-
I'm a bit tired of manufacturers that do not know the difference between extra waveforms and actual wavetables... the UDO do NOT have wavetables, it is clearly stated in the Sonic State video above... it is just extra digital waveforms (static) that you can choose as an oscillator shape... I've seen this with other "wavetable" synths, and it confuses people... a REAL wavetable has the abillity to sweep the waveforms in realtime by controls or LFOs/Envelopes.
-
Owning the Quantum for a short amount of time made me realize how little I actually care for the sound of wavetable scanning.
From what I've heard, the Super 6 is the best sounding hybrid synth on the market (or about to be), but again, I can't get past the lack of any kind of display.
-
I'm a bit tired of manufacturers that do not know the difference between extra waveforms and actual wavetables... the UDO do NOT have wavetables, it is clearly stated in the Sonic State video above... it is just extra digital waveforms (static) that you can choose as an oscillator shape... I've seen this with other "wavetable" synths, and it confuses people... a REAL wavetable has the abillity to sweep the waveforms in realtime by controls or LFOs/Envelopes.
I hear your pain. But then this goes all the way back to Creative an their 'wavetable' synth on the old Sound Blaster cards in the early 90's. I've fallen for the misnomer once, though. I won't mention any names (starts with an E and ends in volver ;) ) but it made up for the lack of proper PPG-esque wavetable in other ways, such as the extra waves being great for basic FM and a sequencer to step through the table of waveforms.
From what I've heard, the Super 6 is the best sounding hybrid synth on the market (or about to be), but again, I can't get past the lack of any kind of display.
It has a display, it's covered in sliders and dials! 😘
-
Owning the Quantum for a short amount of time made me realize how little I actually care for the sound of wavetable scanning.
From what I've heard, the Super 6 is the best sounding hybrid synth on the market (or about to be), but again, I can't get past the lack of any kind of display.
Well.. .people are different... I certainly like wavetable sweeps, they allow for so much movement in the sound done in an easy way... but many who use wavetables just end up with tinny harsh and hard sounding presets that only hurt the ears, so you would need to know how to tame a wavetable to make it sound good... most of the time it's because the single waveforms have so many complex higher harmonics in them, then aliasing is impossible to get around... people forget that the waves themselves sound better when NOT so complex, and the weight is laid on the actual waves you sweep in combination.
I'll admit though, that the Super 6 is one darn fine sounding synth... no question about that.
-
I'm a bit tired of manufacturers that do not know the difference between extra waveforms and actual wavetables... the UDO do NOT have wavetables, it is clearly stated in the Sonic State video above... it is just extra digital waveforms (static) that you can choose as an oscillator shape... I've seen this with other "wavetable" synths, and it confuses people... a REAL wavetable has the abillity to sweep the waveforms in realtime by controls or LFOs/Envelopes.
I’m not sure when and how the wavetable terminology was introduced in the context of the Super 6, but George usually emphasizes the term “waveforms,” not “wavetables.”
The additional waveforms just as the standard waveforms of the 1st oscillator behave in a similar manner as the super waves on the Pro 2 with two of the differences being that you can spread the detuned oscillator cores in the stereo field and adjust phase shifting between the left and right channels.
-
I'm a bit tired of manufacturers that do not know the difference between extra waveforms and actual wavetables... the UDO do NOT have wavetables, it is clearly stated in the Sonic State video above... it is just extra digital waveforms (static) that you can choose as an oscillator shape... I've seen this with other "wavetable" synths, and it confuses people... a REAL wavetable has the abillity to sweep the waveforms in realtime by controls or LFOs/Envelopes.
I’m not sure when and how the wavetable terminology was introduced in the context of the Super 6, but George usually emphasizes the term “waveforms,” not “wavetables.”
The additional waveforms just as the standard waveforms of the 1st oscillator behave in a similar manner as the super waves on the Pro 2 with two of the differences being that you can spread the detuned oscillator cores in the stereo field and adjust phase shifting between the left and right channels.
Both he, and Nick uses the term "Wavetable" several times in the video :)
-
I'm a bit tired of manufacturers that do not know the difference between extra waveforms and actual wavetables... the UDO do NOT have wavetables, it is clearly stated in the Sonic State video above... it is just extra digital waveforms (static) that you can choose as an oscillator shape... I've seen this with other "wavetable" synths, and it confuses people... a REAL wavetable has the abillity to sweep the waveforms in realtime by controls or LFOs/Envelopes.
I’m not sure when and how the wavetable terminology was introduced in the context of the Super 6, but George usually emphasizes the term “waveforms,” not “wavetables.”
The additional waveforms just as the standard waveforms of the 1st oscillator behave in a similar manner as the super waves on the Pro 2 with two of the differences being that you can spread the detuned oscillator cores in the stereo field and adjust phase shifting between the left and right channels.
Both he, and Nick uses the term "Wavetable" several times in the video :)
I know, it was a rhetorical question. I'd categorize it under slip of the tongue.
At one point George mentions that the additional waveforms are what they are for now (= static waveforms). So maybe there are plans to integrate actual wavetables at a later point.
-
From a Q&A thread on Gearslutz:
Hiya!
Yes, we are using about 60% of the FPGA for the Super 6. That means there is massive scope for refinement. We are also only using about 30% CPU for housekeeping.
One thing we are really considering is to have dynamic waveforms, akin to wavetables that are non-static/modulatable in multiple dimensions. I don't want to promise too much now until we've sounded it out but in answer to your questions there is lots of unfulfilled potential, probably more so than in most commercial instruments.
This is largely by accident as we just tipped over the designed FPGA threshold and had to go to a bigger device with twice the resources. Cost us a packet but does allow for future stuff, and not just trivial stuff.
-
So potentially there would be modulatable wavetables, yet there would be no dedicated knob to manual scan through them? That's a bit odd.
-
So potentially there would be modulatable wavetables, yet there would be no dedicated knob to manual scan through them? That's a bit odd.
No. Since a wavetable would then replace a super wave, you could, for example, use the super wave modulation fader (now responsible for the amount of detuning) for scanning through the wavetable. If they could make this work in conjunction with the dephasing parameter that would actually be very cool if that would allow you to scan through a wavetable with an offset between the left and right audio channels.
-
Ah, now I see the super section. Either way, to me any ability for user waveforms is much more useful. It would be cool to do a more deluxe edition with an extra octave as well as a screen. If Sequential uses your Wave design, starts using FPGA technology, and has the option for a stereo filter path, it would be much better as it would use the exact same filter. The SSI2144 is currently used in the PX and is based off the SSM2044 used in the PPG 2.2/2.3 & Emulator-I.
-
https://youtu.be/MrAZyhjWJt8
-
Ugh...I hate to be "that guy" but honestly...I think I'd like this more if it was VCO based. Digital oscillators are nice...but the layout and UI just feels like it should be 100% analog...almost feels like Arturia should have made it and called it the PolyBrute.
At 24 MHz, your ears can’t tell the difference between FPGA digital and Analogue — no one can.
And FPGA OSCs are far more versatile. I love my analogue synths, but I like to see innovation like this.
I’d love to see Dave do an FPGA synth. He has the knowledge (and ears) to do it well.
Though, again, I expect to be in the minority.
Yes, but you would still require, that the perfect algorithm for mimicking analog oscillators completely, existed... Which to my knowledge, it does not... I for one can easily hear that PEAK do not have analog oscillators... Yes, it is without aliasing and all, but it does not sound 100% analog to me... But maybe that was intentional, I do not know.
With that said, I still would prefer the UDO exactly as it is... It sounds amazing, even if the oscillators do not trick me...in fact, this "bineural" thing is basically what the Evolvers were as well, so there is not much new in it, except that so few synths actually use it.
I actually could see myself getting this, but not solely because of the FPGA, but also because having a poly with SSI analog filters are high on my list... At least until Dave does an SSI poly with much deeper engine than the UDO because that which is its advantage is also its weakness: hands on, no menus equals a shallow engine.
-
At least until Dave does an SSI poly with much deeper engine than the UDO because that which is its advantage is also its weakness: hands on, no menus equals a shallow engine.
Well technically it already exists. (https://www.synthtopia.com/content/2018/06/09/dsi-prophet-x-features-new-version-of-the-classic-ssm-filter/) ;)
P.S. I already know what you're going to say next. It doesn't have FPGA oscillators, etc.
-
At least until Dave does an SSI poly with much deeper engine than the UDO because that which is its advantage is also its weakness: hands on, no menus equals a shallow engine.
Well technically it already exists. (https://www.synthtopia.com/content/2018/06/09/dsi-prophet-x-features-new-version-of-the-classic-ssm-filter/) ;)
P.S. I already know what you're going to say next. It doesn't have FPGA oscillators, etc.
Analog vcos please! ;D... Or at least a mixture... I could easily see a Poly Evolver type binaural synth with these filters...
But yes... If nothing else comes, then PX would cover it, though I am not in the market for another deep sampler.
-
Btw... There already is kind of a Sequential SSI polysynth with analog vcos, it is called Prophet 6... Its filters are modelled on the SSM filters which is basically what the SSI is cloning.
Thus it should be a logical step to make a chip version of the P6, with more voices and deeper engine comparable to a REV2/P12 in complexity. Give me such a device with 16 voices, and the PX way of handling the voices in 8 stereo or 16 mono modes (let each oscillator be pan'able in stereo mode so you choose yoursekf if you want a bineural setup) . Dual timbral with two FX per layer. That would be a synth hard to get around for me... Throw in an extra two wavetable oscillators (two analog and two digital in total) and I am sold.
-
http://soundsemiconductor.com/downloads/ssi2140datasheet.pdf
-
With that said, I still would prefer the UDO exactly as it is... It sounds amazing, even if the oscillators do not trick me...in fact, this "bineural" thing is basically what the Evolvers were as well, so there is not much new in it, except that so few synths actually use it.
The Evolvers can't really do what the Super 6 does, though. Binaural means more than just a stereo signal path. You can't de-phase or modulate the phasing between the left and right channels on an Evolver. You can, of course, offset the filter's response to the filter envelope between the left and right channels. That would be the closest feature of the Evolvers in this regard.
Btw... There already is kind of a Sequential SSI polysynth with analog vcos, it is called Prophet 6... Its filters are modelled on the SSM filters which is basically what the SSI is cloning.
There are two types of SSM style filters around in Sequential synths right now: One being modelled after the SSM2040 (Pro 2, Prophet-6, Pro 3 - not identical circuits in all cases), which was used in the Prophet-5 Rev 1&2 and the Kobol Expander; and the other one being modelled after the SSM2044, which was used in various E-MU products (SP 1200, Emulator I, etc.), the Korg Mono/Poly and Polysix, the PPG Wave 2.2, and the Simmons SDS5 drum modules. The latter one is used in the Prophet X and the Super 6.
-
Dave says (https://youtu.be/nrCEmncGz-o?t=374) it's "loosely" based off the SSM (2040), which was in the P5 rev 1&2. As we all know it's a discrete design instead, but I'm wondering if there are perhaps other differences he's alluding to... My previous post shows the datasheet for the SSI chip version, which is closer to the original. Here's (http://soundsemiconductor.com/downloads/ssi2144datasheet.pdf) their 2044 based chip datasheet. Clearly a different topology and amount of pins.
-
Well, the tone of the Polysix filter I loved very very much when I had a Polysix... it sounds really vintage to my ears, but ofcourse the oscillators also play an important role in the end character... a 16 voice analog with REV2 depth would certainly catch my attention... but only with the right vintage vibe to it.
-
Excuse my ignorance, but what is Binaural Synthesis? I've search for an answer but with no satisfactory explanation. I understand it may refer to some form of 3D sound, but that's all I've found.
I assume in this context it will probably mean that when you play a note, different voices will be triggered on the left and the right channel, for example a regularly tuned saw wave patch on the left channel and a slightly detuned saw wave patch on the right channel. It's something one would usually achieve with multitracking: recording the same track twice with the same sound, but slightly differently tuned, and then hardpanning it to the left and the right. That might also explain the numbers 6 and 12. So maybe you're left with 6 voices in binaural mode while you get 12 voices in normal mode.
If you look closely at the upper photo, you can see a section called "Voice Assign" and below there are two buttons, one with a sort of stereo field icon above it.
Yeah, I can understand if by binaural here they mean a frequency differential between left and right, although I think that's an odd term to use since in other contexts it carries some psychoacoustic trickery implications - either recreating sounds more accurately in the sound field by capturing the differences your head makes in perceiving a sound, or by offsetting the frequencies between each each to induce various brain states ala relaxation, daydreaming, alertness etc.
If we could get a synth that did the latter without the need for headphones... we might have to include heavy machinery warnings at our live shows.
-
After hearing a few more demos...I'm not really overly impressed to be honest. Also the lack of splits/layers is really odd for a digital/analog hybrid....I feel the same way about the HydraSynth.
-
I've purchased a UDO Super 6. Theoretically it's arriving in a few weeks, but they're backlogged and who can tell if one can trust predictions re: when next shipments arrive.
I'm in a band that makes indie, alternative, and synth rock/pop. I've owned the following: Prophet 6, Prophet Rev2, OB6, Juno 60, Juno 106, Alpha Juno 2, Nord Lead 2x, Nord Stage 3, Microkorg, Model D, Poly D. Of those I kept the Ob6, Juno 106, Model D and Stage 3.
I also own many of the big VST's (Omnisphere, Arturia V, Tal, Serum, etc.).
I simultaneously love the OB6 and Juno 106 sounds yet wish I could have those sounds and a synth capable of more/other types of sounds. I sometimes question if I should've sold my P6, I bought it toward the beginning of this synth journey I've been on the past several years and after getting to know the OB6, I might get a lot more out of the P6 than I did at the time. In a mix my VSTs would probably be all I ever need, but the heart wants what it wants, and there's something to the workflow and joy of playing real synths and that something extra in their sound.
I went to Perfect Circuit a couple months ago for several hours and played with the Prophet 10 rev4, Roland System 8, Hydrasynth, Moog One, Novation Summit, Prophet 6, OB6, Nord Wave 2, and the Super 6. The Super 6 was the one that blew me away sonically and in terms of interface/workflow. As you can probably tell, classic Roland synths and tones speak to me, and the Super 6 felt like a Jupiter 8/6 on steroids. I wish it had 61 keys and a simple screen (not for menu diving, but for patch names/bpm, etc.). But the binaural feature isn't just a gimmick. And even without it it's a 12 voice FPGA synth with 2.5 oscillators (one of the LFO's can be put into audible range, and the two main oscillators are different and capable of many tricks in their respective rights). One moment it sounded like a Jupiter, the next it could go into FM and wavetable territory, or it could be dialed into a one osc + sub setup and pull off great Juno-like tones, albeit with the binaural feature bringing pads to life.
As you can tell, I was a big fan. This is all super subjective, and if it's not others' liking that's great. It is a wonderful time for poly synths. What made me happy about the Super 6 is that it felt like something both new, and something that could pull off/harken back to my favorite classic Roland synths. I suspect Sequential is going to do a new rev of the OB-X next, and I'll check that out. But I'm most excited to see if Dave has any more new designs in him, and I really do think he should take a long look at the Super 6 for inspiration. A Sequential synth with an FPGA osc, an analog osc, analog filters, etc. could be a new direction, as I feel with the P6 and P10rev4 it feels a bit like another pure analog poly would be a re-tread unless it had some new fundamental feature to distinguish itself.
Who knows, I'm out of my depth. I love these things, but I'm not engineer or master. I'll just say that the FPGA oscillators stand toe-to-toe with analog. Whereas playing that System 8 etc. you can hear the difference. I didn't miss my 'analog warmth' at all when playing the Super 6.
Anyway, enough of a ramble. Hopefully it arrives soon and I can report back with the pros and cons. Likely cons are just how small of an outfit UDO is and it seems they're still ironing out bugs.
-
Interesting summary, thanks for that. I feel obliged, however, to point out as a DSP engineer that there's no difference whatsoever between an FPGA oscillator and any other traditional DSP oscillators in the end result. People make a big deal about them, but there's just no justification for it. One of the supposed "differences" is that "FPGAs run faster" which is total bull. FPGAs might have a higher core clock speed than ye olde DSP chips of yore like the SHARCs and 56k series, but you can get ARM cores that run circles round most of the non-military-grade FPGAs out there. And in the end, digital math is digital math, no matter what silicon you compute it on. If you do the math right, and you do it fast enough, you end up with the same results going into the DAC one way or the other.
So, I'm sure you like the sound of your UDO, but it's not because it's got FPGA oscs that give it that sound. It's just that the designers of that synth were better able to execute their programming vision on that hardware than on something else. But the math underlying it can be crunched on any chip with the guts to do it using the same principles identified by Fourier, Nyquist, etc. all the way forward. Whether any future Sequential products use FPGAs or not* for their hybrid oscillator section will have absolutely zero bearing on their ability to produce beautiful sounds.
*And the ones they currently have that don't use FPGAs have no faults due to their particular DSP implementation either - though some people may not like the particular algorithms they're running, since it's the algorithm that creates the waveform, ultimately. Running faster and oversampling is only one way to solve problems of aliasing, etc. More complex maths can also do this at lower sample rates (and those chips run at hundreds of MHz so internally they can be oversampling even if the DAC isn't running at double or quad rates), and it's always a tradeoff of development and mathematical complexity versus cost versus available hardware in the end. FPGAs have some serious limitations too, that no doubt we'll be seeing more of as we see more of them in synths.
Anyways, enjoy your UDO and it'll likely be a fine addition to your already prolific arsenal. Just don't think it's because they're FPGAs. :)
-
Whether any future Sequential products use FPGAs or not* for their hybrid oscillator section will have absolutely zero bearing on their ability to produce beautiful sounds.
A lot of people still think the ESQ-1 is one of the most amazing sounding synths, and I'm pretty sure it ran on potato chips. It's also loved for it's crunchy sound, so FPGAs would be entirely lost on it I would imagine.
There was even Atari software that would let you not just randomize patches for the ESQ-1, but control the amount of randomization, way back in the 80s! I just saw a video of Cevin Key doing that recently.
-
Interesting summary, thanks for that. I feel obliged, however, to point out as a DSP engineer that there's no difference whatsoever between an FPGA oscillator and any other traditional DSP oscillators in the end result. People make a big deal about them, but there's just no justification for it. One of the supposed "differences" is that "FPGAs run faster" which is total bull. FPGAs might have a higher core clock speed than ye olde DSP chips of yore like the SHARCs and 56k series, but you can get ARM cores that run circles round most of the non-military-grade FPGAs out there. And in the end, digital math is digital math, no matter what silicon you compute it on. If you do the math right, and you do it fast enough, you end up with the same results going into the DAC one way or the other.
So, I'm sure you like the sound of your UDO, but it's not because it's got FPGA oscs that give it that sound. It's just that the designers of that synth were better able to execute their programming vision on that hardware than on something else. But the math underlying it can be crunched on any chip with the guts to do it using the same principles identified by Fourier, Nyquist, etc. all the way forward. Whether any future Sequential products use FPGAs or not* for their hybrid oscillator section will have absolutely zero bearing on their ability to produce beautiful sounds.
*And the ones they currently have that don't use FPGAs have no faults due to their particular DSP implementation either - though some people may not like the particular algorithms they're running, since it's the algorithm that creates the waveform, ultimately. Running faster and oversampling is only one way to solve problems of aliasing, etc. More complex maths can also do this at lower sample rates (and those chips run at hundreds of MHz so internally they can be oversampling even if the DAC isn't running at double or quad rates), and it's always a tradeoff of development and mathematical complexity versus cost versus available hardware in the end. FPGAs have some serious limitations too, that no doubt we'll be seeing more of as we see more of them in synths.
Anyways, enjoy your UDO and it'll likely be a fine addition to your already prolific arsenal. Just don't think it's because they're FPGAs. :)
What an awesome response. I'm no engineer and ya I get it, math is math and computer power is computer power. I didn't mean to come off as some kind of FPGA evangelist. I don't know the tech at all. I've heard the creator of the Super 6 talk about why he prefers FPGA's to DSP in terms of higher sample rate and the way you have to build/code for it, but that's all lost on me. What I should really say is just, for whatever it's worth to others reading this thread, this is the first non-analog synth I've ever played where I didn't go 'oh that's nice it can do all the things, but where's the sound man?' I.e. I'm drawn to analog synths (and even then you're right, I didn't like some analogs - e.g. I didn't really like the way the Deepmind or Rev2 sounded') for the sound, hence why I've stuck with the Ob6 and Juno 106, they have very wide sweet spots and are very easy to make sound gorgeous. When I tried the System 8, the Hydra Synth, and the Summit, they each had their moments, but they didn't have that sound that makes you go 'Woooahhh!' I've had that reaction with a Juno, an Ob6, and now the Super 6.
Thanks for the interesting response. If you're curious here's one of the interviews where the guy talks about FPGA's. Whether it's marketing gobblegook or not, it seemed like he at least believed what he was saying re: the pros over DSPs.
Here's one where he talks about it in detail: https://youtu.be/4Rr4TaQCK90?t=3290
(Other vids of him talking about it)
https://youtu.be/u_L4rOwoUho?t=689
https://youtu.be/4Rr4TaQCK90?t=1285
Thanks!
-
Thanks for the interesting response. If you're curious here's one of the interviews where the guy talks about FPGA's. Whether it's marketing gobblegook or not, it seemed like he at least believed what he was saying re: the pros over DSPs.
Here's one where he talks about it in detail: https://youtu.be/4Rr4TaQCK90?t=3290
All I got from this is that he personally prefers the building block editors of FPGAs over actually having to write code, he even admits the math is the same and thus the end result.
His comments about parallelism are correct, when speaking about a single chip, but irrelevant and solvable by simply using a few more dsp chips, like Dave Smith did with the Prophet 12 > same end result, different means of accomplishing it, but as for high sample rates, there's no advantage to them for audio processing - it's the same snake oil as boutique audio cables, etc. People can't hear MHz frequencies or even 100's of KHz and anybody who says they can has in actual double blind tests been proven wrong, so I have no idea what he's going on about that. Not to mention that while all the pros of FPGAs are easily attainable by good DSPs and microprocessors, the cost of the DSP architecture is far lower AND the development of them is far easier, for a competent programmer. He even admits to this too. So he's taking a hard, expensive, route all to brag about some MHz sample rate that is ultimately completely pointless. The controls on a Roland don't even operate at audio rates - the little CPU in a Juno 106 for instance is a Z80 running at something like 1MHz and polling the interface (knobs, switches, etc) at likely far less than even 1KHz (I don't have the exact specs handy, but those are typical values for that era). And those are DCOs controlled by that tiny slow little thing, but nobody says they sound terrible... I digress.
After hearing this interview I feel even less like buying an UDO now that I know he's tossed 10% of the build costs into that FPGA... lol!
Still, if you like how it sounds, I wish you years of happy playing!
Edit: Oh, I almost forgot, if you want to know why it really sounds the way it does, look at the filter, not the oscillators. Oscillators contribute a much smaller fraction (for traditional subtractive waveforms, I am saying) of "the sound" than do the filters. Roland has a very distinctive filter architecture and that's a huge part of the sound.
-
I saw there is a desktop version coming soon. I like the sound of this synth, and must confess if the desktop is $1500 or less, I might be tempted to bite.
-
I saw there is a desktop version coming soon. I like the sound of this synth, and must confess if the desktop is $1500 or less, I might be tempted to bite.
It seems this year's Superbooth is really focused on simply offering different sizes for already existing instruments. Desktop Super 6, Deluxe Hydrasynth rather than bringing anything new to the table.
-
I saw there is a desktop version coming soon. I like the sound of this synth, and must confess if the desktop is $1500 or less, I might be tempted to bite.
$2,399 for the desktop here:
https://www.perfectcircuit.com/udo-super-6-desktop-white.html
Seems a little bit steep...
-
I saw there is a desktop version coming soon. I like the sound of this synth, and must confess if the desktop is $1500 or less, I might be tempted to bite.
$2,399 for the desktop here:
https://www.perfectcircuit.com/udo-super-6-desktop-white.html
Seems a little bit steep...
Yep. Guess I'll pass.