Next U-HE Plugin...

[Urs]

Thanks, but I'm more asking about would there be mono synth similar to Diva but based on pro-project?

Ah, gotcha. That's an interesting thought, but then those mono synths are geared towards people for whom Diva is too complex already, or too far off from being an emulation of a particular synth. Or, simply, too expensive.

The mix-and-match approach dictates quite some alterations to the original module designs, such as parameter ranges and signal gains. Hence I'm not sure if it is very desirable, even if we could keep the cost low.

The mono synths we chose for emulation each have defining traits that Diva isn't designed for (or any other synth's architecture), which is why they beg to be done as a separate product. What I mean is, an Arp filter in Repro-1 doesn't make Repro sound like an Odyssey and vice versa. I'd much rather keep adding modules to Diva than to set up a monophonic twin.

But as I said, it all depends on how Repro-1 is received. I can't imagine it to disappoint, but still... releasing a mono synth hasn't commonly been met with love.

[david.beholder]

Ah, gotcha. That's an interesting thought, but then those mono synths are geared towards people for whom Diva is too complex already, or too far off from being an emulation of a particular synth. Or, simply, too expensive.

Too complex? Diva? They you should keep playing their guitars direct to tape and never touch computer again
And I want 3rd lfo still.

The mono synths we chose for emulation each have defining traits that Diva isn't designed for (or any other synth's architecture), which is why they beg to be done as a separate product. What I mean is, an Arp filter in Repro-1 doesn't make Repro sound like an Odyssey and vice versa. I'd much rather keep adding modules to Diva than to set up a monophonic twin.

Yeah, but as I recall today Diva lacks true monophonic mode and is being kept in sweet spot.

But as I said, it all depends on how Repro-1 is received. I can't imagine it to disappoint, but still... releasing a mono synth hasn't commonly been met with love.

Well there were some precedents. Remember how it was with Monark? Yes, people have immediately started to complain about lack of polyphonic mode and usual GSBS. Altho now it has quite a good fanbase/following. But considering hype and media coverage repro is doing better already.

[pdxindy]

Ah, gotcha. That's an interesting thought, but then those mono synths are geared towards people for whom Diva is too complex already, or too far off from being an emulation of a particular synth. Or, simply, too expensive.

Too complex? Diva? They you should keep playing their guitars direct to tape and never touch computer again

Yeah, for example, Diva is too complex to easily map to a hardware controller...

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Agree with pdxindy:

1. The Re-Pro1 alpha is a lot more fun to play with because it maps easily enough due to controllers due to the limited number of parameters. I can pretty much map every knob and button, no fuss.

2. The limitations, and the ability to get more of a 1:1 model of a synth, are just fun. I'm not looking for U-he to make a standalone Minimoog (though I wouldn't complain if they do) but when I need a Minimoog sound, I start with Monark. Compared to Diva, Monark feels like owning a Minimoog and really shines with basses in a way that I feel Diva doesn't. I don't know if that has anything to do with the compromises Urs has said he had to make to build the Minimoog components into Diva, but I suspect it plays a part. So if Urs wants to build a RePro-DG next I'd be thrilled, and if we get a 1:1 Mini some day, I'd probably get it too.

[david.beholder]

Yeah, for example, Diva is too complex to easily map to a hardware controller...

Except difference in different OSCs, Diva First Tab + Mods - Fx is in the same order of knobs/sliders and switches with Pro 1.
May be I don't see something significant?

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Yeah, for example, Diva is too complex to easily map to a hardware controller...

Except difference in different OSCs, Diva First Tab + Mods - Fx is in the same order of knobs/sliders and switches with Pro 1.
May be I don't see something significant?

I made a TouchOsc template for Diva that covers some of the most common controls on a single page. So all the Oscs (+ tuning, sync), Mixer/HPF, Filter. Filter+Amp Envs, Glide, master volume, pan-mod...that took 70+ parameters and doesn't even touch LFO1/2 controls, the FX, trimmers, or any of that other fun stuff.

Take every single button and knob in a hardware Pro One and you have a more manageable 55 parameters, and that's every last thing! A Minimoog? About 40. A Moog Prodigy? About 26. These smaller type synths just map very well to hardware due to their limited parameter sets, so if you're looking to recreate the feel of using an analog synth and program one knob/button/fader on your controller to an onscreen parameter, any of these smaller synths will trump Diva in that regard.

[pdxindy]

Yeah, for example, Diva is too complex to easily map to a hardware controller...

Except difference in different OSCs, Diva First Tab + Mods - Fx is in the same order of knobs/sliders and switches with Pro 1.
May be I don't see something significant?

I made a TouchOsc template for Diva that covers some of the most common controls on a single page. So all the Oscs (+ tuning, sync), Mixer/HPF, Filter. Filter+Amp Envs, Glide, master volume, pan-mod...that took 70+ parameters and doesn't even touch LFO1/2 controls, the FX, trimmers, or any of that other fun stuff.

Take every single button and knob in a hardware Pro One and you have a more manageable 55 parameters, and that's every last thing! A Minimoog? About 40. A Moog Prodigy? About 26. These smaller type synths just map very well to hardware due to their limited parameter sets, so if you're looking to recreate the feel of using an analog synth and program one knob/button/fader on your controller to an onscreen parameter, any of these smaller synths will trump Diva in that regard.

Plus you have to switch between all the possible modules... and then remember which ones are active. Different modules have different features... so the layout of the Digital Osc is going to be very different than the Eco... And the Uhbie filter has controls none of the other filters have... Etc...

Btw, this not in any way a complaint about Diva... I just understand the appeal of a simpler synth

[david.beholder]

Well in my initial message I've mentioned "except oscillator section" but the rest of diva and pro-1 is very the same and 70 is the same amount as 55. And I don't accept minimoog as any kind of argument because one ping only has more modulation and controls and could provide way more different sounds.\

What is really hard to map is Zebra, but Diva is quite easy.

[abique]

With Zebra you have the performances controls

[david.beholder]

With Zebra you have the performances controls

Wich is helping only in case of already made patches and doesn't help in case of designing of sound.
For the same case ableton allows to map controllers thru daw - it doesn't work in sound design case either.

[Krakatau]

...out of curiosity what might be up as new features ?

No promises, but I have successfully transplanted a simplified Uhbik-G (granular pitch shifter) into the feedback fx section. Think, ahem, Echophon. It's a tad lofi - as granular things often are - but it does a few decent tricks. Furthermore I'm in the process of pairing it with a transient attenuator to smooth out the out-of-sync echoes that are inevitable with granular stuff. Nothing big, just a nice little bonus.

While I'm at it I might as well extend the filter selection, but I haven't even begun to think about this.

I could do a hundred of other things (oversampling, different delay interpolation method and what not), but I think the above features are a good start for an update.

I, for one, would have been interested in more flexibilities for the keyboard controlled comb filters part of MFM2..as Oli Larkin seemed to ditch the development of Dronebox3 it becomes a quite uncharted area as keyboard controlled polyphonically tuned effects, but likely MFM2 is a, so to say, too generic delay based effect for such a peculiar purpose ?

[Urs]

I, for one, would have been interested in more flexibilities for the keyboard controlled comb filters part of MFM2..as Oli Larkin seemed to ditch the development of Dronebox3 it becomes a quite uncharted area as keyboard controlled polyphonically tuned effects, but likely MFM2 is a, so to say, too generic delay based effect for such a peculiar purpose ?

Hmmm, interesting.

I've always wanted to add some kind of poly behaviour to some kind of creative effect. Not sure if MFM's architecture lends itself to that. I'll think about it, but I'm not sure I can code something like it just yet.

[Krakatau]

Hmmm, interesting.

I've always wanted to add some kind of poly behaviour to some kind of creative effect. Not sure if MFM's architecture lends itself to that. I'll think about it, but I'm not sure I can code something like it just yet.

thank for considering the case with such a quick answer, anyway...much appreciate !

[pdxindy]

Well in my initial message I've mentioned "except oscillator section" but the rest of diva and pro-1 is very the same and 70 is the same amount as 55. And I don't accept minimoog as any kind of argument because one ping only has more modulation and controls and could provide way more different sounds.\

What is really hard to map is Zebra, but Diva is quite easy.

Diva is way different than Re-Pro1. Diva has different envelopes, different filters, different hp options and different oscillators to switch between.

So no, mapping Diva is not easy... mapping is not just assigning controls, but being able to use them. Having to remember a bunch of different states, with often no visual reference, is not at all easy.

[david.beholder]

Diva is way different than Re-Pro1. Diva has different envelopes, different filters, different hp options and different oscillators to switch between.

What I mean: Diva has 2 ADSRs and P1 has 2 ADSRs etc and they both has 4 sliders per each etc.

[/quote]So no, mapping Diva is not easy... mapping is not just assigning controls, but being able to use them. Having to remember a bunch of different states, with often no visual reference, is not at all easy.[/quote]
I have different templates in Novation Automap for different OSC modes. Basically first page is different and the rest of the pages are very similar: filters have very little variation and envs/lfos are always the same. So it's very easy to remember and use quickly.