Ultranova - Got one! Here are my thoughts..

[namnibor]

Nipples and knobs!

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!

[MBTC]

Originally Posted by namnibor

Nipples and knobs!

Is that "seeming like it's bred for the PC" nature of the UN both with and without use of Automap?

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.

[TweakHead]

Originally Posted by MBTC

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

[feedingear]

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.

[namnibor]

@MBTC

Thought to let you know Novation released a second free sound pack of sounds from Supernova for Ultranova/Mininova and there will be a third free one later this year.
Here's the link and info about it: http://en.audiofanzine.com/synthesiz...ust+10%2C+2013

Conversely, can just go direct to Novation's website and download the 64 sounds.

[MBTC]

Thanks for the heads up!

You can listen to some of the sounds (both from the Supernova I and II packs, and some other novation stuff) here:

https://soundcloud.com/novationmusic

Good to see Novation making good on their promise of additional sounds, this synth has a lot of potential and the stock presets and early sound pack releases were not doing it justice.

[namnibor]

Thanks for that link. I currently do not have my Supernova 1 rack within a midi chain set-up but can tell you from listening to those demos, it comes pretty close, particularly at 3:44 with that lushly warm pad/string sound and again at 4:26 with the arp sound. I just received a no-computer required midi router to add to my set-up that may be 'old school' but it's simplicity makes it very utilitarian (Kawai MAV-, and this way without having to make unnecessary midi thru's or be unhooking/patching cables with a mirror and flashlight on rack, just move the slider to desired synth and only plugging of labeled cables have to do are the audio outs into the Scarlett 18i20.
Choose to keep the original Supernova 1 rack not only because of IMO the awesome sounds, but one heck of a poly arp that is not far from being a sequencer and love the very knobby interface.

[MBTC]

One thing I haven't actually heard is an A/B of the Supernova patch sets played on the Ultra versus the original. I've seen one guy (subjectively) state that his Supernova sounds warmer, but he said that based on the original patch banks of the Ultranova (which are horrible) and unscientific tests (the Supernova banks had not been released yet). I'd love to hear a valid (and properly conducted) test of same patches on both. So far I'm inclined to believe it's another case of "placebo effect" induced by all the lovely knobs on the Supernova

I see (or I should say hear) that a lot in the battle of hardware vs. software synths. A perception of warmth that perhaps exists when listening to the raw signal but gets lost by the time it's placed in a digital audio file and listened to on an MP3 player, over soundcloud etc. Seems a little like getting caught up on a requirement of "pure analog", then ultimately putting the music into a digital format Ironic to say the least.

I can believe the SN is capable of sounding better overall because it was 8-part multi-timbral I believe? (Thus could get some layered patch sounds that the UN could not) But what I'd be interested in is how it sounds in a direct comparison on same single patch. Supposedly these SN patch banks for the UN are direct ports, so it should be easy enough to do for those that have both synths -- hopefully a youtube video or similar will surface soon.

[TweakHead]

Originally Posted by MBTC

One thing I haven't actually heard is an A/B of the Supernova patch sets played on the Ultra versus the original. I've seen one guy (subjectively) state that his Supernova sounds warmer, but he said that based on the original patch banks of the Ultranova (which are horrible) and unscientific tests (the Supernova banks had not been released yet). I'd love to hear a valid (and properly conducted) test of same patches on both. So far I'm inclined to believe it's another case of "placebo effect" induced by all the lovely knobs on the Supernova

I see (or I should say hear) that a lot in the battle of hardware vs. software synths. A perception of warmth that perhaps exists when listening to the raw signal but gets lost by the time it's placed in a digital audio file and listened to on an MP3 player, over soundcloud etc. Seems a little like getting caught up on a requirement of "pure analog", then ultimately putting the music into a digital format Ironic to say the least.

I can believe the SN is capable of sounding better overall because it was 8-part multi-timbral I believe? (Thus could get some layered patch sounds that the UN could not) But what I'd be interested in is how it sounds in a direct comparison on same single patch. Supposedly these SN patch banks for the UN are direct ports, so it should be easy enough to do for those that have both synths -- hopefully a youtube video or similar will surface soon.

I agree with you. But using external instruments you always add a stage into the mix, the pre amps on the soundcards are responsible - I think - for the extra warmth people claim to exist on hardware, even when we're talking VA tech. If you pay attention to what happens on the hip hop side of music, there's a similar controversy concerning the Akai MPC. No wonder you also have MPC analogue modeling on some famous samplers like Kontakt and Battery and stuff like that. If you look at the tech specs on those old machines, you usually had 10 bits (in depth) or something similar, and a lot of people claim the old sounds warmer and punchier. Same with the Nord Lead 1 vs 2, or the Virus C vs Ti. It's probably as simple as the later having better converters, more clean sound and definition while people have grown used to a more lo fi sound that they feel is edgier and more warm sounding, all a matter of habit.

[MBTC]

Originally Posted by TweakHead

I agree with you. But using external instruments you always add a stage into the mix, the pre amps on the soundcards are responsible - I think - for the extra warmth people claim to exist on hardware, even when we're talking VA tech. If you pay attention to what happens on the hip hop side of music, there's a similar controversy concerning the Akai MPC. No wonder you also have MPC analogue modeling on some famous samplers like Kontakt and Battery and stuff like that. If you look at the tech specs on those old machines, you usually had 10 bits (in depth) or something similar, and a lot of people claim the old sounds warmer and punchier. Same with the Nord Lead 1 vs 2, or the Virus C vs Ti. It's probably as simple as the later having better converters, more clean sound and definition while people have grown used to a more lo fi sound that they feel is edgier and more warm sounding, all a matter of habit.

Sure, I don't doubt whether certain aspects of a given piece of hardware (pre amps alone can make a difference, as you pointed out). I was just saying that it's probably not going to matter much at the end of the day once it's in an MP3 on someone's iPod or whatever, thus its not really worthwhile to get too caught up on "pure analog warmth" or whatever, as it's only an inspirational effect on the ear that won't make it to the final track anyway.