UDO Super Synth?

[Arpangel]

Binaural......? HHMMmmmm? Can't say it sounds like anything new, but who knows....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yi3HiXWjVI

[The Elf]

Looks interesting, and sounds pretty good, at least as far as a video demo can take it. I'm dubious of the value of a true stereo path through the synth.

I think they may regret that '6' in the name...

[Arpangel]

I was wondering, quite childishly I suppose, that if it had binaural or surround capabilities built in, then if you were a film composer it may be quite useful!

[The Elf]

I think they're making 'creative' use of the word 'binaural'...

[Arpangel]

I must admit, I haven't had a good dig around yet, but from what I've seen it's architecture is conventional, but I may be wrong, things lurking under the bonnet maybe,

[Dave B]

Maybe it's just the general 'meh-ness' talking, but I'm finding it hard to get excited about this one. Obviously I wish the chaps every success, but I can't see anything that screams "You need this in your life". I was excited by the Prophet XL (but put off by semi-weighted keybed - grrr) and the Walforf Quantum and can see me splurging in the future. I was even piqued by the Novation Summit as I found myself quite liking the Peak. But I'm just a bit over the whole 'boutique synth that costs an arm and a leg and doesn't really give me anything special'. I blame the Moog One personally ....

[Arpangel]

Maybe it's just the general 'meh-ness' talking, but I'm finding it hard to get excited about this one. Obviously I wish the chaps every success, but I can't see anything that screams "You need this in your life". I was excited by the Prophet XL (but put off by semi-weighted keybed - grrr) and the Walforf Quantum and can see me splurging in the future. I was even piqued by the Novation Summit as I found myself quite liking the Peak. But I'm just a bit over the whole 'boutique synth that costs an arm and a leg and doesn't really give me anything special'. I blame the Moog One personally ....

Yes, you'd think that if a new synth was capable of previously unheard of sonic wonders then you would try and mkae that apparent in the demo's and presets. W all have different ideas aout this, but honestly, there have been lots of instruments previously that have grabbed me in this way.......Uh Oh! I'm having trouble thinking of any! Buchla still defies definition though, has in the past, and still does IMO.
I think we are going to have to put up with all the Moog Bass, synth string and House Stabbs, though, it's just a question of "does it have potential" and you can only find out by digging around in it.

[Martin Walker]

Yes, you'd think that if a new synth was capable of previously unheard of sonic wonders then you would try and mkae that apparent in the demo's and presets...
I think we are going to have to put up with all the Moog Bass, synth string and House Stabbs, though, it's just a question of "does it have potential" and you can only find out by digging around in it.

My feelings exactly Arpangel!

When I bought my Prophet12 a few years ago I spent the first week or so wondering if I'd made a mistake - yes, there were lots of interesting sounds in the factory demos, but very few that were truly inspiring.

I really didn't know whether or not to send it back during the 'cooling off' period, but I'm now glad I didn't. And the turning point? I starting creating a few of my own sounds from scratch, and suddenly the P12 came to life!!

I now get the impression that factory presets are often limited by one of the first samples being sent round a team of sound designers who each get several days with it before it gets passed on to the next one. I can understand why this happens, but it doesn't half limit the factory presets!

Martin

[Arpangel]

Yes, you'd think that if a new synth was capable of previously unheard of sonic wonders then you would try and mkae that apparent in the demo's and presets...
I think we are going to have to put up with all the Moog Bass, synth string and House Stabbs, though, it's just a question of "does it have potential" and you can only find out by digging around in it.

My feelings exactly Arpangel!

When I bought my Prophet12 a few years ago I spent the first week or so wondering if I'd made a mistake - yes, there were lots of interesting sounds in the factory demos, but very few that were truly inspiring.

I really didn't know whether or not to send it back during the 'cooling off' period, but I'm now glad I didn't. And the turning point? I starting creating a few of my own sounds from scratch, and suddenly the P12 came to life!!

I now get the impression that factory presets are often limited by one of the first samples being sent round a team of sound designers who each get several days with it before it gets passed on to the next one. I can understand why this happens, but it doesn't half limit the factory presets!

Martin

And, if the presets do turn out yo be astounding, would I want to use someone else's sounds? The answer to that is yes, I've no qualms about that. It's how you use it that matters.
But it is quite amusing when a new instrument comes along and it has what they think are the best imitations of a Moog or an Oberheim etc etc, when in fact they aern't, and it's highly likely that soneone buying and expensive new synth is going to be aware of all this and have the originals anyway if it means that much too them.
Why doesn't someone make a synth that is just what it is, and not pretend to be all sorts of things it's not particularly good at. Also, stop chasing your tails, Moog are tye worst offenders, copy after slightly different copies of what went before.
Sound designers? phew? David Sylvian was/is good, Steve Barbieri, Joe Zawinul, Eno of course, and lots of others to name but a few, all influenced me, but they were true individuals, and maybe a synth wouldn't sell too well if it had no presets, but then again, maybe that's why modular has become so popular!

[Arpangel]

Yes, you'd think that if a new synth was capable of previously unheard of sonic wonders then you would try and mkae that apparent in the demo's and presets...
I think we are going to have to put up with all the Moog Bass, synth string and House Stabbs, though, it's just a question of "does it have potential" and you can only find out by digging around in it.

My feelings exactly Arpangel!

When I bought my Prophet12 a few years ago I spent the first week or so wondering if I'd made a mistake - yes, there were lots of interesting sounds in the factory demos, but very few that were truly inspiring.

I really didn't know whether or not to send it back during the 'cooling off' period, but I'm now glad I didn't. And the turning point? I starting creating a few of my own sounds from scratch, and suddenly the P12 came to life!!

I now get the impression that factory presets are often limited by one of the first samples being sent round a team of sound designers who each get several days with it before it gets passed on to the next one. I can understand why this happens, but it doesn't half limit the factory presets!

Martin

And, if the presets do turn out to be astounding, would I want to use someone else's sounds? The answer to that is yes, I've no qualms about that. It's how you use it that matters.
But it is quite amusing when a new instrument comes along and it has what they think are the best imitations of a Moog or an Oberheim etc etc, when in fact they aren't, and it's highly likely that soneone buying and expensive new synth is going to be aware of all this and have the originals anyway if it means that much too them.
Why doesn't someone make a synth that is just what it is, and not pretend to be all sorts of things it's not particularly good at. Also, stop chasing your tails, Moog are tye worst offenders, copy after slightly different copies of what went before.
Sound designers? phew? David Sylvian was/is good, Steve Barbieri, Joe Zawinul, Eno of course, and lots of others to name but a few, all influenced me, but they were true individuals, and maybe a synth wouldn't sell too well if it had no presets, but then again, maybe that's why modular has become so popular!

[Arpangel]

Yes, you'd think that if a new synth was capable of previously unheard of sonic wonders then you would try and mkae that apparent in the demo's and presets...
I think we are going to have to put up with all the Moog Bass, synth string and House Stabbs, though, it's just a question of "does it have potential" and you can only find out by digging around in it.

My feelings exactly Arpangel!

When I bought my Prophet12 a few years ago I spent the first week or so wondering if I'd made a mistake - yes, there were lots of interesting sounds in the factory demos, but very few that were truly inspiring.

I really didn't know whether or not to send it back during the 'cooling off' period, but I'm now glad I didn't. And the turning point? I starting creating a few of my own sounds from scratch, and suddenly the P12 came to life!!

I now get the impression that factory presets are often limited by one of the first samples being sent round a team of sound designers who each get several days with it before it gets passed on to the next one. I can understand why this happens, but it doesn't half limit the factory presets!

Martin

And, if the presets do turn out to be astounding, would I want to use someone else's sounds? The answer to that is yes, I've no qualms about that. It's how you use it that matters.
But it is quite amusing when a new instrument comes along and it has what they think are the best imitations of a Moog or an Oberheim etc etc, when in fact they aren't, and it's highly likely that soneone buying and expensive new synth is going to be aware of all this and have the originals anyway if it means that much too them.
Why doesn't someone make a synth that is just what it is, and not pretend to be all sorts of things it's not particularly good at. Also, stop chasing your tails, Moog are the worst offenders, copy after slightly different copies of what went before.
Sound designers? phew? David Sylvian was/is good, Steve Barbieri, Joe Zawinul, Eno of course, and lots of others to name but a few, all influenced me, but they were true individuals, and maybe a synth wouldn't sell too well if it had no presets, but then again, maybe that's why modular has become so popular!

[johnny h]

Disagree with you guys here. I think in stereo, without effects, it sounds great! Much bigger than the recent Dave Smith stuff, which I personally find quite samey and underwhelming.

[Arpangel]

Disagree with you guys here. I think in stereo, without effects, it sounds great! Much bigger than the recent Dave Smith stuff, which I personally find quite samey and underwhelming.

Is this "binaural" thing related to its good stereo? do you think?

[Sam Inglis]

We saw and heard this at Superbooth and I thought it was great! I'm not quite sure why they've used the term 'binaural' but the fully stereo signal path absolutely does make a difference. What you get out the other end is not just like adding stereo effects to a mono synth as most analogue/digital hybrids do.

[johnny h]

Disagree with you guys here. I think in stereo, without effects, it sounds great! Much bigger than the recent Dave Smith stuff, which I personally find quite samey and underwhelming.

Is this "binaural" thing related to it's good stereo? do you think?

I don’t really care how they choose to market it, I think the stereo oscillators and dual analogue filters sound very nice. It’s a better idea than relying on fake stereo tricks like a Juno 60 or similar.

[Arpangel]

Disagree with you guys here. I think in stereo, without effects, it sounds great! Much bigger than the recent Dave Smith stuff, which I personally find quite samey and underwhelming.

Is this "binaural" thing related to it's good stereo? do you think?

I don’t really care how they choose to market it, I think the stereo oscillators and dual analogue filters sound very nice. It’s a better idea than relying on fake stereo tricks like a Juno 60 or similar.

If the UDO sounds good, great, it doesn't matter how, as you say. The Juno stereo chorus is heavenly and it all works together to create a sound that has amazing character, it stands out from the crowd, recognisable. But is this true stereo thing enough these days to grab people? A lot of synths have oscillators that you can route to multiple outputs, and then there is modular, where the sky's the limit in this respect.
I'd like to hear the UDO, it looked interesting, I'm reserving judgment until I can actually have a go on one.

[Folderol]

Am I missing something here? I thought that most synths were now predominantly software, and know of soft synths that have had a full stereo path for over 15 years!

[Arpangel]

Am I missing something here? I thought that most synths were now predominantly software, and know of soft synths that have had a full stereo path for over 15 years!

That's what I'm thinking too, I am struggling to grab onto something here! Expectations you see, and that ever present need to have our minds blown....

[johnny h]

Disagree with you guys here. I think in stereo, without effects, it sounds great! Much bigger than the recent Dave Smith stuff, which I personally find quite samey and underwhelming.

Is this "binaural" thing related to it's good stereo? do you think?

I don’t really care how they choose to market it, I think the stereo oscillators and dual analogue filters sound very nice. It’s a better idea than relying on fake stereo tricks like a Juno 60 or similar.

If the UDO sounds good, great, it doesn't matter how, as you say. The Juno stereo chorus is heavenly and it all works together to create a sound that has amazing character, it stands out from the crowd, recognisable.

The Juno has pretty crappy DCOs, a great filter, decent analogue envelopes on the 6/60 and terribly slow digital envelopes on the 106. The chorus was installed to disguise the fairly thin, limited sound palette.

Part of the reason for the Juno's success was it was so easy to use. Price was another. UDO seem to have a good attitude on the interface but I'll reserve judgement until I see it for myself. Unfortunately I missed it at Superbooth. I like they are making this MPE compatible.

But is this true stereo thing enough these days to grab people? A lot of synths have oscillators that you can route to multiple outputs, and then there is modular, where the sky's the limit in this respect.

Modular setups are great for making bleeps and blips, not so inspiring as a musical instrument.

[Arpangel]

Modular setups are great for making bleeps and blips, not so inspiring as a musical instrument.

Keith? Wendy? Where are you when I need you!

At least this UDO synth has given me a reason to go to another music tech show, but I don't want to hear strings, brass, evolving pads, or Moog anything, even if they are in glorious "steeereophonic sound"
I'd rather listen to bleeps and blips.

[Adam Inglis]

It’s a better idea than relying on fake stereo tricks like a Juno 60 or similar.

"Fake" stereo??
Man, I LOVE "fake" stereo.
Dimension D, Boss Super Chorus, Eventide Instant Flanger... these are my go to's for "fake" stereo - it sounds bloody fabulous on a lot of material.
Even Bob Moog's old trick of sending a mono signal to a stereo graphic EQ, setting a "sawtooth" pattern with the sliders on the right channel, and inverting that pattern on the left channel, works on a lot of stuff.

Neuro-acoustic/philosophical question: Can stereo be "fake"?

/coat