SuperBooth 2017 News: U-he REPRO-5 & Zebra 2.8 Update

[egbert101]

<delete>

[Numanoid]

A chance to have a better look at the GUI of rP5:

https://www.facebook.com/uheplugins/pho ... =3&theater

[Amram]

I hope Urs is considering coming up with more vintage polyphonic synths in future. I'm thinking Oberheim OB-8, Elka Synthex and Moog Memorymoog.

Oh , Oh
Now we r talking
I would like to see Moog Memorymoog.

[Orbit-50]

I would have been able to enjoy the videos had they not been speaking in Mandarin.

[egbert101]

<delete>

[egbert101]

<delete>

[BBFG#]

I would like to see Moog Memorymoog.

Yeah, well, a future u-he Minimoog/Memorymoog would make sense as a combination. It could happen.

I've always felt the Memorymoog timbre is closer to the Voyager than the model D. (I've owned the Memory and D, but not the Voyager). But TBH, I haven't missed either really since adding DIVA to my arsenal and have had to get honest with myself that wanting these Moogs are purely out of personal nostalgia.
I'd much rather see these added to DIVA if indeed we really need them.

[egbert101]

<delete>

[spektralisk]

I postponed Zebra so many times. I think it's time to finally get it soon. Since you already started voting for another emulation I would like to see them model Поливокс

[spunkmuffin]

michaelbrac, egbert101 & BBFG# you have all misquoted me. Please correct your posts, thanks.

[Urs]

What's so wrong with mentioning by name the synths that inspired a product? We're talking about a synth that first came out nearly 40 years ago and isn't being made today. Is it because the prophet name is being used again? Is it bad form?

If we don't say anything, "thank you" whatsoever, it looks like we don't acknowledge the pioneering work of the people involved in creating the synth that inspired our product. If we do mention it, we use someone else's trademark to advertise for our own product. Both suck, but not mentioning it is the safer way.

[Numanoid]

Has u-he the company approached DSI about an official endorsement?

Both u-he and DSI are well renowned by more or less everybody as far as I know.

So it would be a win/win situation for both parties IMO to join hands, it would also mean a lot of free publicity in the process.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

What's so wrong with mentioning by name the synths that inspired a product? We're talking about a synth that first came out nearly 40 years ago and isn't being made today. Is it because the prophet name is being used again? Is it bad form?

If we don't say anything, "thank you" whatsoever, it looks like we don't acknowledge the pioneering work of the people involved in creating the synth that inspired our product. If we do mention it, we use someone else's trademark to advertise for our own product. Both suck, but not mentioning it is the safer way.

Maybe just try to say, "...based on a great vintage instrument designed by Dave Smith and his team." Gives the credit, without using someone else's trademark to advertise your own product.

[beely]

Really looking forward to the Z2.8 update, it's going to really make me want to get back to using it again (I just hate the way it looks so don't tend to be inspired to use it much any more).

As for the P5 - I was never hugely into the Prophet 5's character so much, but I *love* u-he's approach to the emulation - sounds authentic, looks great but has enough visual cues from the original, has a resizable interface and modern affordances because of it's software nature - without throwing too much new stuff in to remove it too far from the original in character).

It's a vintage polysynth done right, and it would be so good to have other synths like this (not saying they will go in this direction) but a "certain silver-edged orange with multi-coloured buttons Japanese classic polysynth" done like this, and perhaps a Synthex, and some others would be great. "Emulations Done Right" (TM)...

Roland's JP8 sounds pretty good (yay!), but the interface is *awful* in just about every way (boo!)...

[XpanderDude]

What's so wrong with mentioning by name the synths that inspired a product? We're talking about a synth that first came out nearly 40 years ago and isn't being made today. Is it because the prophet name is being used again? Is it bad form?

If we don't say anything, "thank you" whatsoever, it looks like we don't acknowledge the pioneering work of the people involved in creating the synth that inspired our product. If we do mention it, we use someone else's trademark to advertise for our own product. Both suck, but not mentioning it is the safer way.

Totally makes sense. I suppose it's easier to approach it that way. Keep on doing your thing!