IK MUltimedia UNO Synth

[OneOfManyPauls]

No, but the IC they are using might allow for it as a fifth stage, which would be why the hardware designer might have accidentally called it a 5 stage envelope.You need to read comments in context.

Well, the context here is that this a serious hardware designer, who has a history of consistently calling what you describe a 4 stage envelope - and I believe nobody at this level would call an initial value (especially zero) an envelope "stage" (as it's just the start value of the attack stage).

I think he just made a mistake, but if it is 5 stage, I expect DADSR/HADSR or AHDSR as those are the "classic" five stage envelope types.

You know that on UNO's front panel you can only adjust decay and sustain? You have to make changes to Attack and Release remotely through the editor software, a bit like the way Waldorf have a few parameters on the Rocket you can only access via software? It could be a bit limiting but if you save a few "init" patches with different Attack and Release settings, it will probably be easy enough to deal with.

Yeah, that's a sensible idea for people using it on the move. I'll be using mine in a studio context as a sound module, so I'll mainly be controlling it via midi from DAWs and midi-controllers, but I do expect to use the built in multi-parameter sequencer. That seems ripe for making interesting loops for slicing and using elsewhere.

That reminds me of a feature request (if not there already): a randomize patch parameters option. If done well, that can be a fun way to get happy accidents out of a synth eg the sub 37.

A randomize parameters for a single sequencer step option would be cool too.

[MrWildBunnycat]

...
The envelopes do not use an "IC" in the sense that they are almost certainly not analog
...

You do understand that the CPU in your computer is an IC, right? It's something far more associated with digital technology than with analogue.
...

Dear lord the technical illiteracy in this thread...

IC stands for "Integrated Circuit"; any chip is an IC. It's not something inherently associated more with analogue or digital.

[BONES]

Well, it is, simply because most of them are digital. In fact, I'd imagine at this point in time there are probably hundreds of digital ICs in the world for every analogue one.

Well, the context here is that this a serious hardware designer, who has a history of consistently calling what you describe a 4 stage envelope - and I believe nobody at this level would call an initial value (especially zero) an envelope "stage" (as it's just the start value of the attack stage).

He said "5 stage envelope" and we all know it is only a 4 stage envelope, so clearly he got it wrong so who gives a flying fig what he does or doesn't know? If you haven't seen or used a synth that allows you to set the initial level of an envelope, then you clearly don't have a whole lot of experience to bring to the discussion.

I think he just made a mistake, but if it is 5 stage, I expect DADSR/HADSR or AHDSR as those are the "classic" five stage envelope types.

No, those are types of modular envelopes that normally need patching to work. A more "classic" 5-stage envelope for a standalone synth would be as I described.

I'll be using mine in a studio context as a sound module, so I'll mainly be controlling it via midi from DAWs and midi-controllers, but I do expect to use the built in multi-parameter sequencer. That seems ripe for making interesting loops for slicing and using elsewhere.

Does your DAW not have a sequencer in it? Why do you need one on the synth itself? On-board sequencers seem to me to be all about making exciting presets to show off the instrument, I can't imagine why you'd use them at all in the studio. I use them a bit on stage but that's just because I'm too lazy to practice enough to be able to play the sequence myself.

That reminds me of a feature request (if not there already): a randomize patch parameters option.

Again, can't you do that from your DAW?

[ghettosynth]

...
The envelopes do not use an "IC" in the sense that they are almost certainly not analog
...

You do understand that the CPU in your computer is an IC, right? It's something far more associated with digital technology than with analogue.
...

Dear lord the technical illiteracy in this thread...

IC stands for "Integrated Circuit"; any chip is an IC. It's not something inherently associated more with analogue or digital.

Thank you genius, there are no digital envelope ICs in mass production. The closest thing that could be called a digital envelope IC is Electric Druid's PIC based VC envelope. I can assure you they are not using anything like that. So, it is implied that if one thinks that there is an envelope IC, that it must be analogue.

That is entirely my point. There is no "envelope IC" which implies that there exists some IC devoted to the envelope. Which is EXACTLY why I qualified the sentence with the phrase "in the sense that it is analog", because, if any mass produced synth has envelope ICs, e.g., Behringer, then they will be analog ICs.

You guys are hilarious.

[OneOfManyPauls]

I think he just made a mistake, but if it is 5 stage, I expect DADSR/HADSR or AHDSR as those are the "classic" five stage envelope types.

No, those are types of modular envelopes that normally need patching to work. A more "classic" 5-stage envelope for a standalone synth would be as I described.

I've never seen a synth manufacturer count the initial value for the attack as a stage in its own right. Can you cite any examples of manufacturers using this term in that way?

I can cite Dave Smith as referring to their DADSR envelopes on their standalone synths as "five-stage envelopes" - see prophet 12, mopho x4, the new prophet x etc.

In case you were thinking of the cs-80 with its "initial level" control, this is from a source you relied on earlier, sound on sound magazine, regarding that envelope structure:

The filters' cutoff frequencies are modified by an unusual IL/AL/ADR contour generator rather than the ADSRs found on most other synths of the era (aside from CS-series polysynths, this unconventional envelope was also used on the flagship Yamaha GX1). Controlled by five sliders, this emulates the conventional ADSR plus its associated 'Amount' control, and generates an equivalent four-stage contour.

I'll be using mine in a studio context as a sound module, so I'll mainly be controlling it via midi from DAWs and midi-controllers, but I do expect to use the built in multi-parameter sequencer. That seems ripe for making interesting loops for slicing and using elsewhere.

Does your DAW not have a sequencer in it? Why do you need one on the synth itself? On-board sequencers seem to me to be all about making exciting presets to show off the instrument, I can't imagine why you'd use them at all in the studio. I use them a bit on stage but that's just because I'm too lazy to practice enough to be able to play the sequence myself.

That reminds me of a feature request (if not there already): a randomize patch parameters option.

Again, can't you do that from your DAW?

Sure I can do CCs in a DAW or via hardware sequencer, but this is about using the immediacy of the controls on the UNO without having to map them before hand. Not trying to crank out a complete track using the sequencer - just a 16 step, multi-parameter loop that can be chopped up and used elsewhere. I'm thinking more along the lines of percussion loops using the white noise, bp/hp filter modes, and various lfo shapes.

As for randomization, no - that's not something best suited to a DAW imo. When they're done well, there is a degree of intelligence about the randomization to skew towards usable sounds - not just randomize every parameter between min and max. The sub37 is an example where that is done well.

[MrWildBunnycat]

Well, it is, simply because most of them are digital. In fact, I'd imagine at this point in time there are probably hundreds of digital ICs in the world for every analogue one.
...

Citation needed.

If it's something you'd just imagine you shouldn't claim that as fact.

The world isn't all CPUs and microcontrollers and digital tosters. For every "digital" product there's numerous areas that incorporate analogue design - power management, regulators, amplifiers, etc.

In fact, I'll tell you more. There's also an area where both collide - mixed signal ICs. Those combine both analogue and digital camps - e.g. analogue parts with digital controls, CODECs, A/D converters, signal processors, etc. And this is where it stops being all black and white and you'll see it's all kind of colorful.

Also, a lot of analogue effects need to be taken into account when designing a digital part - crosstalk, current leakage, etc. all affect digital design. At the heart of every digital part are still transistors - your so called analogue components.

It's not just all hot air, I work in the electronics industry and am also an electronics hobbyist. I'm not saying this as a slap on the wrist, I just don't want misconception and myths to spread. It's really annoying when baseless claims are thrown around without even understanding what the hell you're talking about.

[MrWildBunnycat]

...
The envelopes do not use an "IC" in the sense that they are almost certainly not analog
...

You do understand that the CPU in your computer is an IC, right? It's something far more associated with digital technology than with analogue.
...

Dear lord the technical illiteracy in this thread...

IC stands for "Integrated Circuit"; any chip is an IC. It's not something inherently associated more with analogue or digital.

Thank you genius, there are no digital envelope ICs in mass production. The closest thing that could be called a digital envelope IC is Electric Druid's PIC based VC envelope. I can assure you they are not using anything like that. So, it is implied that if one thinks that there is an envelope IC, that it must be analogue.

That is entirely my point. There is no "envelope IC" which implies that there exists some IC devoted to the envelope. Which is EXACTLY why I qualified the sentence with the phrase "in the sense that it is analog", because, if any mass produced synth has envelope ICs, e.g., Behringer, then they will be analog ICs.

You guys are hilarious.

What is your point? Nowhere was I talking about envelopes. Was talking about your misuse of the term "IC". Replace "IC" with "chip" and it's the same sentence.

[ghettosynth]

...
The envelopes do not use an "IC" in the sense that they are almost certainly not analog
...

You do understand that the CPU in your computer is an IC, right? It's something far more associated with digital technology than with analogue.
...

Dear lord the technical illiteracy in this thread...

IC stands for "Integrated Circuit"; any chip is an IC. It's not something inherently associated more with analogue or digital.

Thank you genius, there are no digital envelope ICs in mass production. The closest thing that could be called a digital envelope IC is Electric Druid's PIC based VC envelope. I can assure you they are not using anything like that. So, it is implied that if one thinks that there is an envelope IC, that it must be analogue.

That is entirely my point. There is no "envelope IC" which implies that there exists some IC devoted to the envelope. Which is EXACTLY why I qualified the sentence with the phrase "in the sense that it is analog", because, if any mass produced synth has envelope ICs, e.g., Behringer, then they will be analog ICs.

You guys are hilarious.

What is your point? Nowhere was I talking about envelopes. Was talking about your misuse of the term "IC". Replace "IC" with "chip" and it's the same sentence.

You're not getting it. You are quoting me and talking about technical illiteracy. Nobody in this thread, even Bones, needs to be told that an IC stands for integrated circuit or that they are both analog and digital. It's you that is misunderstanding what's being written.

I was talking about envelopes and that is the context in which my phrase made sense. Try to keep up.

[MrWildBunnycat]

Oh, OK, I get it - so I have to read between the lines to get the context of what you are saying. I have to ignore the words that you use, that you don't understand the meaning of, and try to understand what you were trying to say.

So when you replied to my post about ICs by talking about envelopes, you were actually talking about how slow I am.

Ooh wait, hold on, interesting claim: "Nobody in this thread <...> needs to be told about...". Hm, could use that against anyone and any topic just to seem smarter and diverge attention from my own mistake, I should try that sometime!



Facts and terms matter. If you want to discuss a topic don't throw in words and terms you don't fully understand hoping it will add to your point - you're likely to look silly.

[ghettosynth]

Oh, OK, I get it - so I have to read between the lines to get the context of what you are saying. I have to ignore the words that you use, that you don't understand the meaning of, and try to understand what you were trying to say.

So when you replied to my post about ICs by talking about envelopes, you were actually talking about how slow I am.

Ooh wait, hold on, interesting claim: "Nobody in this thread <...> needs to be told about...". Hm, could use that against anyone and any topic just to seem smarter and diverge attention from my own mistake, I should try that sometime!

STFU already. Nobody here is confused about what an IC is. Yes, you didn't understand what I wrote if that's what you got out of it.

Facts and terms matter. If you want to discuss a topic don't throw in words and terms you don't fully understand hoping it will add to your point - you're likely to look silly.

You owe me an irony meter.

[MrWildBunnycat]

Oh, personal attacks now?
I wasn't talking about ICs anymore. Try to keep up.

[ghettosynth]

Oh, personal attacks now?
I wasn't talking about ICs anymore. Try to keep up.

There's nothing in my reply that is a personal attack. You're not talking about anything on topic and you haven't added anything of substance to the conversation. Give it a rest.

[MrWildBunnycat]

I'd like to give it a rest, but you're the one who keeps dragging it out, I was simply responding to your fallacies. You were condescending and quick to hop on your high horse and argue all sorts of bullshit that wasn't on topic just so you can have the triumphant final word.

I stayed on topic in the beginning of the thread, but it just keeps getting derailed over petty bullshit; granted, I did contribute with a bad choice of words by using the "technical illiteracy" comment, but I did not attack anyone personally.

Look, man, if you really wanna have the final word so be it, but don't blame me for blowing a tiny comment out of proportions. I said 3 short sentences - you replied with 3 paragraphs and ended on a condescending "You guys are hilarious".

[ghettosynth]

I'd like to give it a rest, but you're the one who keeps dragging it out, I was simply responding to your fallacies.

There's no fallacy, you misunderstood the comment.

you replied with 3 paragraphs and ended on a condescending "You guys are hilarious".

You are, and you continue to be. You replied with a hilarious conclusion. Now get back on topic.

[Scotty]

Getting back on track it would be great to see the complete Midi spec. Peter any chance that this would be forthcoming? If IK have made most everything tweakable with simple CCs there are all kinds of simple ways to control it with a daw without a dedicated Uno vst... Using Thesys (sugarbytes) could be really interesting. It has a pretty extensive randomizers. Also IF (this is unknown) if we can select a pattern using CCs that would be really useful.