Did you intend the msg for Berni or me? (I don't believe he has an Ultranova)

But thanks for the headsup... I did see the update a couple of weeks back. I haven't gotten around to installing the new vocoder patches that go with the 1.3 update, though.

Yes, seems to be a good product getting even better with updates. Main difference to the Virus is probably that it doesn't support Multi. Could also be the reason they manage to work flawlessly, no? If only they added FM capabilities to it, like the former SuperNova's used to, would make it an even more interesting product. I think it probably compensates for that with the new performer features, no? You're able to assign multiple parameters to a single knob with this thing, right? And change stuff with just touching a button (at least on the mini I saw a video with that), that must surely open some wild possibilities...

Yes, so sorry~!:confused: My brain has been somewhat melted from an all night Evolver session and took me a while to find my way back into this dimension!:p
Yes, it seems Novation is doing a lot to support newly added features and even soundsets, as the former original sound sets for it based upon original Supernova.

I don't hear it mentioned often, and its not true FM synthesis with operators etc, but the Ultranova does let you load FM wavetables (not custom ones, you can't import, but a large selection of them nonetheless) as the oscillator source, and because of the ways you can combine and modulate, the total timbre possibilities are WAY beyond just saw/square/tri/sine etc. Many folks though have asked for FM in a future update, and really there's no reason they couldn't do it except maybe to open the door for a future instrument that's a FM purist synth (i.e. real FM, not subtractive with an FM modulation possibility). Or maybe they figured it would just complicate the hardware, require more buttons/knobs and complicate the UI of the VST, making the Ultranova cost a lot more. Did you ever program a DX7 or TX81Z from the synth (soft synths that make things easy like FM8 don't count :)? If so you can imagine what I mean... the Ultranova would cost $2000+ with all the extra knobs/buttons or interface considerations at least )...

About the knobs -- as far as whether you can map multiple modulations to same knob for touch purposes, yes. But if you mean for purposes of turning the knob? I'm not sure about that one but personally I don't think its useful, because you'd be restricted to sending the same amount increment to different parameters. Yes you could get some interesting FX I guess but it seems very limiting. It may be possible but I think you'd have to use Automap in the DAW rather that achieve that with the synth away from a computer. Oddly enough, even though the Ultranova is very tightly integrated with Automap (to the point that many of the buttons on it don't work without it!), I only use automap with pure softsynths. With the Ultranova I can just manipulate everything on the physical keyboard so I have not bothered with Automap on that board.

What you could do, however, and I think its more useful... you can do things like say Env6 modulates Env3 and Env5 modulates Env2, where Env3 = filter amt and Env2 - resonance amount, then you could say modwheel increments Env6 by one amount and Env4 by a different amount. Yes you could also map the modwheel directly to cutoff and resonance at the same type (notice I said modwheel and not THE TURN of one of the knobs), but my point with the above example is you can do other things with those Envs that have nothing to do with mod wheel but rather velocity (or maybe you just want to control it all with mod wheel).

Now, back to the knobs. The knobs are "ok" for turning but they aren't pots, they are endless clicky things, which is okay on a synth of this price point. But where they are great is the TOUCH of the knob, and in that case yes you can map same knob to multiple targets, so if you touch knob 1 it triggers both Env6 and Env5 or just animates cutoff and res to whatever amount specified.

But, the knobs themselves are sort of like perky cheerleader nipples begging you to fondle them :) In practice, you'd find yourself using that feature of the Ultranova a lot... even though its just an on-off toggle of a modulation (you still have aftertouch, velocity, expression pedals if desired etc as options if you need more), the toggling on-off of various modulations turns out to be tremendously creative when you are using four fingers at once in various combinations (just depends on what you set them up to do).

One of the things I think the Ultranova shines at is providing a slight amount of feedback, distortion, sync-madness etc (or something more easily described like gating or delay) when fondling those nipples. Just like the expressiveness of being able to physically put a guitar closer to an amp to get a touch of feedback, it brings something visceral to the actual act of playing the Ultranova for those who choose to use it. Really adds character and inspiration to real-time playing.

I'd love to be able to use the touch knobs on my MKII to control the Ultranova touch knob modulations (just because its my primary and the keyboard is bigger), but I'm not sure if its possible, so normally when I want sound out of the UN I just play it directly.

Forgot to address this part. I can only offer a guess here, but my hunch is that the single timbrality of the Ultranova versus multi-timbrality of the Virus is not the source of the integration issues with the Virus. I only say that because if it were the case, it seems that trying to integrate the virus with a single patch would work solid as biscuits, but then when you went multitimbral you'd see things start to wig out and behave badly. That was not what I saw with my short stint with the Ti2... latency was present even with a single simple patch from what I can remember?

Multi-timbralism seems like would only affect integration with regard to flexibility to audio outs over a given data bus. In other words, if you want one patch to go through stereo channels at a given bit rate that's one thing. If you want multiple patches combined into the same data channel (or think of data channels as just basic audio outs but with the caveat they are converted to digital bits and sent through something that has a capacity limit) that's another thing entirely. Or if you're happy to just have all things crammed into a single mono audio out, things get much simpler :) of course that's not the flexibility most would clamor for at the $3k price point of the virus I guess?

Not sure if that makes sense, but I'm saying I think the Virus is trying to allow potential to push more data through USB2, while not properly implementing USB2. The Ultranova may or may not be properly implementing USB2, but it doesn't matter because it's not allowing as many stereo signals through? I will re-highlight my note above that my experience with the Virus Ti2 was quite lame with regard to latency on a single patch, so I would say either this theory is not the answer, or Novation simply understands how to implement USB data transmission and Access doesn't?

The Virus I tried before seemed to hate my PC with a vengeance and refuse to talk to it effectively. The Ultranova seems to have been born and bred with the PC in mind, communicating openly.

Nipples and knobs! :p

Is that "seeming like it's bred for the PC" nature of the UN both with and without use of Automap? Like you, I have the Novation Remote SL61Mkii or variation of thereof keys, and although I really like *most things* about this controller, I do not like the fact that just because I choose to use "Advanced" rather than Automap, that then I am left with some buttons and such that are obviously only hardwired to Automap rather than ALL being freely assignable as I would love whilst making my own template.
A note of caution about Automap: although this did not happen to me, it did recently happen to a grand old fart on the Waldorf List that had his hardware Microwave 1 rack unit hooked-up via midi to a Novation Remote Controller, which was of course hooked-up to his PC via USB (Microwave 1 does not have USB to be clear), so rather than what he SHOULD have done, is made a midi chain via his audio interface's midi in/out and Novation Remote Kbd Controller, and the Microwave 1, rather than having the USB of the Remote connected at all.
What happened after a lot of sorting was that this guy had sound sets he paid a lot for in files on his PC rather than just using the 256K memory card and it's obvious space limitations, but that's what the Microwave 1 utilized for external saving/loading sounds. He also mistakenly had the Automap button pushed rather than Advanced, (controller was new to this person), and what ended-up causing his hardware rack unit's internals to "drool like an old pope" was when he attempted to load some of those internal sound sets through whatever DAW he was using, Automap had added "wrappers" to those very sound sets and was like giving a synth a "Mickey"!
From what I gather, most people seem to use a lot of software/vst's rather than hardware other than the Virus, of course here; but wanted to just give a heads-up that "Automap" can do odd unexpected things and this was sorted with help of Novation and another long time Waldorfian and now all is well and advice was for him to have those very sound sets stored on a totally separate drive and when using advanced mode to leave USB out of equation and use aforementioned midi configuration instead.
This was really odd behavior and have no doubt that Novation are constantly making Automap better in each update. However, this ALSO illuminated the other gripe I have about the user manual pdf for the SLmkii, in that it goes to great length to explain Automap function but as far as "Advanced", it's still rather vague. Have played the keys on their Impulse line of Controllers in a store and have to say they are CRAP-tastic keys when compared to the Remote SL Mkii's and so now, coming around to being on-topic, since you are able to use Automap very well with your other softsynths, are ANY of those vst's multi-timbre capable and does it work successfully (Automap) whilst using the UN or SL Mkii as your controller?

Sorry so long! My cat decided it was time to wake me up earlier than normal because went to sleep a few hours early due to negating sleep from deep Evolver synthesis night previously!:D

I have not used Automap in conjunction with the UN, I use it for everything else. Maybe one of these days I will try that, but so far I haven't really needed it. Automap comes in handy when using a single controller to control multiple disparate instruments, so I think if you're using the Ultranova in setup where it's the primary controller (most likely the mobile types who are using an UN or Mininova + laptop), then you could use it to easily control other VSTs, to the point (I believe) where their param values actually can even show up on the display of the UN (something useful in a combined HW/SW environment, I suppose). In other words while it may be capable of more, I think of the Automap mode of the UN as being redundant if you already have a primary MIDI controller with Automap. In terms of using Automap to control just the UN by itself, in my case I can't find a need since the UN direct hardware interface is there when I need it. Being able to touch knobs on the MKII and send them as touch modulations to the UN would be a plus if possible, but not sure if it is.

About multi-timbrality of soft-synths -- almost of them are "infinite timbrality" in a number of ways, at the most basic level because you can load as many instances as you want of them, limited only by CPU power (in the case of some synths on a powerful PC, this could mean having several dozen instances). You can layer those instances simply using the DAW software, effectively creating your own multi-timbral instrument by combining various others. For example if I wanted to beef up the UN a little I make a complex pad by layering the nova plugin with Zebra and Dune. I've now got a very unique sound, probably thicker than would come out of a single synth by itself, and in effect have just solved the problem of the UN (or any synth) being single-timbral. I usually don't have much of a need for splitting across the keyboard, but I'm pretty sure that can be done fully in the DAW as well, if I wanted the UN playing only on low octaves and Zebra playing on the high for example. Some VSTs support multi-timbrality more directly, for example letting you add layers within the VST or split across the keyboard and run them through the FX of the VST itself, all as one sound or in some cases independently. Omnisphere is one that comes to mind that seems to really encourage layering in the "mutli-mode" sense that many traditional hardware synths used to use.

When I first got into softsynths, one of the things that really blew me away is that there is really no more notion of a limitation on things like multi-timbrality or polyphony. By that I mean there is a limitation, but the limitation is simply how much can your computer CPU handle rather than an inherent limitation like "X number of voices" or layers supported. Need more? Just add more instances, sort of just like having multiple hardware instruments responding to the same MIDI channel input.

That's the thing about plug-ins. Another great advantage is that you can automate every single parameter on the fly, thus surpassing the modulations included on a modulation matrix, for example. Layering is key to have a good sound, like you say. Even using the same synth - this is valid for any kind, both hardware and software, saving two separate versions of the same phrase with little differences on them, panning one to left and another to the right, delaying one of them a few "ms", for example, opens wild avenues in sound design. One can extend this to very complex patches, like: having a sound on the centre with the highs filtered out, then two others panned to the extremes on tops, with lows filtered. That's a big sounding patch!

The ability to press some keys (ctrl+b) on Logic and instantly render the audio from midi in perfect sync and being able to edit the audio afterwards with fades, time-stretch, reverse parts, so forth and so on - surely is another big advantage. The Daw has become the laboratory for our imagination and the tools are so readily available that it would be insane not to make use of them.

But if you're like me: you don't want everything quantised, you want some organic textures and sounds with a human touch (and feel) on them. This is the part where hardware still wins, no matter what. And even the pre-amps on sound cards can add some warmth to the equation.

I think it still makes a lot of sense to have good hardware synths but the developers must look for better ways to integrate them with the software: perfect sync, the ability to easily save projects on disk or within the projects, and to edit the sounds on screen, and (most important of all) being able to write automation for our patches is something that I think hardware synth developers need to focus on. I'm pretty sure such efforts will be rewarded.

At the same time, I see a re-emergence of the euro rack taking place. I think it's more the sound design enthusiasts and geeks more then music makers that go down this avenues - but it's very very cool that this stuff is back for good. I've seen some setups on youtube that make me scratch my head, thus the old saying: once you go euro rack, you never look back. it's kind of a warning XD

Very cool and intelligently written. Thanks!

Agree Tweak.

Would kill for a modular setup. I follow Richard Devine on fb and he always has the most amazing rack units to toy with. There really is something magical about the tactile interaction with an instrument that lends itself to creativity and finding that elusive essence/spirit when writing imho.