UVI Falcon - v4 = 2026 released - rumors, ads, praise, kindergarden, auto-sampling and off-topic inside!

[basslinemaster]

I'm using Cubase 7.07. I haven't upgraded to 8 or even to 7.5 because of all the problems users were reporting at the time and I had projects that I had to finish. And since my Cubase was very stable as long as I didn't use 32 bit plugs (I'm on Windows 7 64 bit) there was no point in upgrading and I won't until I absolutely have to.

To answer your other question, you can believe whatever you want. I installed AIR Loom, which I really loved the sound of not to mention how versatile it was, and after making some edit to a patch I received an error message the kind I'd never seen in Cubase. It was a big white box and something about critical error. I don't remember it exactly.

I then shut down Cubase and when I went to restart it, the thing it does upon starting, verifying VSTS, started verifying DLLs that were not VSTs and the system just went completely nuts. I could not get Cubase to start up clean after that so I had to reinstall. It was a total nightmare. I never want to go through that again.

So believe whatever you want. I really don't care.

It sounds like a Cubase problem then... " I haven't upgraded to 8 or even to 7.5 because of all the problems users were reporting at the time." No VST can cause a DAW to do what you described... How exactly do you think Loom managed to make Cubase start looking for dlls that weren't VSTs, and where was it looking? And as for BBFG, you are another moaner and of course you would claim the same as Wagtunes.
Which commercial VSTs are causing DAWs to crash, and are never fixed?
Your problems were caused by Cubase having bugs in it, and what has Loom got to do with Falcon? Why are you even writing such nonsense on this thread? So there's no demo, and you don't like it, and then you want to spread FUD about Falcon (and Loom). Ridiculous.

[kgdrum]

I know I'm probably going to get this but I'm trying to get over my annoyance at their dodgy practice of just giving it a new name to pretend it is not Mach Five v 4 and getting out of offering an upgrade path. At the very least I think they owe us an explanation instead of ignoring MacFive users completely as if we don't exist.

Especially considering development of MachFive is dead. I've sent them a polite email inquiring about this situation. I'd suggest other MachFive owners do the same.

I tried emailing 2 times via their "contact us" last night via yahoo and it got kicked back both times as undeliverable.

[wagtunes]

I'm not saying it's not stable. It may very well be the best piece of music making software ever created.

Not the point.

There is no 100% guarantee that a piece of software will run on a person's particular system. That is a fact.

I've got about fifteen commercial VSTs, and have installed scores of free ones, and NEVER had one not work on Renoise (which I used to use) or FL Studio. You're just talking nonsense and spreading FUD all over this thread, seriously. If it doesn't run on your "particular" system, you contact support and they fix it. But since that is almost never likely to happen (that it won't run), you have nothing to worry about. What DAW do you use?

I'm using Cubase 7.07. I haven't upgraded to 8 or even to 7.5 because of all the problems users were reporting at the time and I had projects that I had to finish. And since my Cubase was very stable as long as I didn't use 32 bit plugs (I'm on Windows 7 64 bit) there was no point in upgrading and I won't until I absolutely have to.

To answer your other question, you can believe whatever you want. I installed AIR Loom, which I really loved the sound of not to mention how versatile it was, and after making some edit to a patch I received an error message the kind I'd never seen in Cubase. It was a big white box and something about critical error. I don't remember it exactly.

I then shut down Cubase and when I went to restart it, the thing it does upon starting, verifying VSTS, started verifying DLLs that were not VSTs and the system just went completely nuts. I could not get Cubase to start up clean after that so I had to reinstall. It was a total nightmare. I never want to go through that again.

So believe whatever you want. I really don't care.

It sounds like a Cubase problem then... " I haven't upgraded to 8 or even to 7.5 because of all the problems users were reporting at the time." No VST can cause a DAW to do what you described... How exactly do you think Loom managed to make Cubase start looking for dlls that weren't VSTs, and where was it looking? And as for BBFG, you are another moaner and of course you would claim the same as Wagtunes.
Which commercial VSTs are causing DAWs to crash, and are never fixed?

My friend, you are not worth anymore of my time. I know what happened. I can't say with 100% certainty that it was Loom that caused the problem. It just seemed rather coincidental that it was right after I installed it and tested it that I had a crash the likes I'd never had before.

And for the record, the version of Loom I was testing was the new one. They didn't have a demo of the last "stable" version so I had to test the one that was available. It was brand new. When things are brand new, stuff happens.

Guess what? Falcon is brand new. Stuff happens.

Will it? Probably not. But I don't have $229 to take even a minute gamble on that.

And with that, you and I are done.

Believe what you want.

[rustman]

Very useful potstir basslinemaster. I recall you jumping on a thread to condescend to me once too. You too are part of the problem. Let's get on to complaining about iLoks now. I love mine, and I never thought I would.

Regarding Falcon- I think they should have named it Hayabusa. That's a falcon that I know a lot about. Maybe I should ask for my money back.

[bharris22]

I know I'm probably going to get this but I'm trying to get over my annoyance at their dodgy practice of just giving it a new name to pretend it is not Mach Five v 4 and getting out of offering an upgrade path. At the very least I think they owe us an explanation instead of ignoring MacFive users completely as if we don't exist.

Especially considering development of MachFive is dead. I've sent them a polite email inquiring about this situation. I'd suggest other MachFive owners do the same.

I tried emailing 2 times via their "contact us" last night via yahoo and it got kicked back both times as undeliverable.

What are the main improvements/differences between Falcon and MachFive 3? In other words, is it worth picking up MF3 if I could get it for a bargain price at this point, or am I better off saving for Falcon? Is there enough of a difference to warrant the (presumably) higher price of Falcon at this point?

[Sampleconstruct]

Oh f**k it, I'm out of here for now, KVR so sucks sometimes, it's sickening.

[woodsdenis]

I have just downloaded it and here are my initial thoughts before I go testing things

1. Sounds wonderful and hats off to all the sound designers.
2. Pretty well laid out for a very potentially complex instrument.
3. Can eat CPU with some of the big patches (all modern synths Serum Omni etc will do this ) I would suggest a draft mode for the Wavetable osc (like Serum)
4. As it stands this is NOT a Kontakt like sampler product. With the included Factory sounds it is not in the Rompler territory. The included factory sounds are primarily focusing on sample manipulation and synth engines.
5. Internal fx are very good.
6. I am more than happy with the purchase but I do think there should be a demo, as I said before as a standalone product this is not a replacement for Mach5 because it doesn't have the content. If that doesn't matter to you (like me) then all is good. I use Kontakt for the highly scripted sample libraries and I real don't think that is going to change.
7. The potential for this if devs get behind it is huge.

Hats off to Simon and EvilDragon for their invaluable input.

[aMUSEd]

The things that interest me are primarily the improved granular engine and the physical modelling osc - there are also a few interesting fx but a lot also looks similar or identical (eg the drawbar organ and analog oscs) to what is already in MachFive. It's enough to justify an upgrade price for sure but a completely new instrument it is not.

[Daags]

It's enough to justify an upgrade price for sure but a completely new instrument it is not.

or a crossgrade price. maybe they can weasle out of 'upgrade' obligations with a rebrand... but crossgrade, not so easy.

ethically at least.

but my impression of UVI is that they're pretty arrogant and un-responsive to reasonable requests.

all I'm asking for right now though, is an official statement one way or the other on this topic.

the longer they go without making a statement, the more sales they make, and then they use excuses like it wouldn't be fair to offer a crossgrade price considering some elligible people already paid full/intro price.

[zerocrossing]

The things that interest me are primarily the improved granular engine and the physical modelling osc - there are also a few interesting fx but a lot also looks similar or identical (eg the drawbar organ and analog oscs) to what is already in MachFive. It's enough to justify an upgrade price for sure but a completely new instrument it is not.

It sounds to me (and I could be completely wrong) that UVI and MOTU had a falling out... or at least a disagreement about this "update." Maybe MOTU just didn't want to pay for the development... maybe UVI wanted a bigger cut now that they're more of a name. Regardless, I agree that at the very least UVI should do a cross grade special for Mach 5 owners. It would generate good will toward their brand and probably even encourage a few people to buy some more of their libraries.

[Dasheesh]

Looks a WHOLE lot like halion 5 as someone mentioned earlier and halion doesn't require ilok. I have never played around with a super sample manipulation synth like this so I am interested in trying it out...but halon might be a better option for me. I love the looks of this though...falcon just looks the part and I bet it's an absolute blast to play. I'm sure I would have to upgrade my ram on my macs though to use it properly. so theres another consideration....... dwelling on this hard. trying to talk myself out of it every way possible.

[EvilDragon]

I know I'm probably going to get this but I'm trying to get over my annoyance at their dodgy practice of just giving it a new name to pretend it is not Mach Five v 4 and getting out of offering an upgrade path. At the very least I think they owe us an explanation instead of ignoring MacFive users completely as if we don't exist.

MachFive is a MOTU trademark, UVI couldn't use it.

[Numanoid]

MOTU is based in Cambridge, Mass

UVI is based in Paris (looks like one of the programmers is taking a well deserved break )

So they are quite far apart

[db3]

Ircam is also in Paris.

Difficult though it may be, these need to be thought of as products from different companies. I expect all MachFive software development has been undertaken by UVI and licensed to MOTU. Perhaps the agreement has expired. Perhaps UVI want to release their own instrument first before letting MOTU upgrade Mach5. MOTU just need to let people know what's going on.

[woodsdenis]

Falcon is similar to Halion 5 (granular/synth/organ etc) except you don't get the content, so really Mach 5 v3 is the most like Halion.
If I had Mach 3 I would look on Falcon as Mach5 v4 and buy it and use it only if I needed the extra osc and fx, other wise it would be pointless.

If you look at it that way the "upgrade" from Mach 5v3 to Falcon is not that steep bearing in mind an upgrade from Mach 5 v2 to 3 is $175.

If you want loads of sample content bundled with the granular stuff get Halion5, if not get Falcon. If you just want sampled content and not all the osc etc get Kontakt which still reigns supreme as regards content and libraries.

They all have their uses.