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

[TwoToneshuzz]

Hej @sampleconstruct Simon what technique for extracting the envelope from the audio, is it accomplished in Falcon?

Regards

Wade

Yes, it's a new feature in version 1.4, just watch the videos I posted on the previous pages.

Thanks simon. It's a great new feature..

[Caine123]

just a heads up, Etherfield is an awesome XP!

grab the XPs on sale too guys, playing around atm with them, great clean quality!
i grabbed Ether Fields, Cinematic and Atmospheric.

[SJ_Digriz]

don't know what Cubase does for instance, except it gives a list of 'Parameter 1 through... 256' maybe.

Yes, although shortened to Param 1 through x
All I've been saying is that host automation is fully functional within a DAW context. Nothing hidden etc..

I think the confusion seems to be the word "macro". For my own benefit, lets see if I can say how I think it works and if I'm missing something. Simon knows 100000 x more than me about this for obvious reasons, but I do use Falcon if not daily then weekly. I think some folks don't really understand Falcon created content vs a sample library instrument. They are very different things. Falcon just allows both.

Also two discussions were interweaved ... Host automation and controller automation. I think we were cross talking a bit between these two functions as well. I'll stick to Controller automation.

IMPORTANT: Pretty much every parameter that can be adjusted on an effect, sound generator, mod source or event can be exposed for automation ... both host and controller. It is easy to create patches that have hundreds and hundreds of automation points entirely unique from patch to patch. This is the main difference between Falcon content and sample library content.

IMO these two types of content have led to a bit of confusion or misunderstanding in the discussion.

1st, for Falcon content the Macro page provides a simple way to show a "most likely" set of controls for a single patch. It is NOT an "instrument page" in the normal synth sense. (discussed 2nd). Every patch can have different Macros. It also allows the creation of complex automation combinations not easily visualized in the Edit or other views ON A PER PATCH BASIS. It makes ZERO sense to have default Macros for patches created from the Falcon architecture. There's just no saying from a patch to patch basis which parameters are central to the feel of the patch. Keep in mind that because of the types of synthesis available, a huge portion of patches are NOT necessarily filter-centric. I've created plenty of patches with the wavetable, pluck and organ that don't have any filter at all. So what sense would it make to default filter cutoff to the macro page?

All I was suggesting for "default mapping" is a set of Macros buckets or something that you could default CC to so that every patch starts with some level of control ... again, similar to QC in Halion. I'm not sure how to do it, maybe number the exposed macros as 1 thru x and allow semi-permanent CC to be assigned to them. But, this is different than the "default mapping to the macro page" aMUSEd and company were talking about. I'm not suggesting the filter cutoff macro always gets CC75 or something. I'm suggesting Macro 1 (which can have any parameter assigned) always has a controller assigned.

2nd, I think most folks are used to something like Digital Synsations that IS an instrument on the Macro page. The control parameters are static from patch to patch. I agree that for these instruments it would be nice if there was a way to globally assign performance controllers to the exposed parameters on a per instrument basis. Actually it would be awesome. Maybe it's possible and I don't know.

Anyhow, I'm possibly/likely wrong on some of these points. But it seems like we had multiple cross talking topics referencing each other incorrectly.

[Sampleconstruct]

Back in the days when designing Alchemy patches for Camel Audio, they had a nomenklatura for Macro assignments which had to be complied with by the sound designer. So e.g. filter cutoff was always Macro 3, time-based modulations on Macro 7 and so forth. But Alchemy wasn't/isn't a modular environment, it has a rather fixed architecture concerning the amount of oscillators, filters and a maximum amount of 8 Macros and 2x X/Y-pads.

Concerning Falcon this would mean, that each sound designer would have to follow certain rules when creating patches and assigning Macro controls but that would eliminate much of the total freedom we have when creating patches in Falcon and it wouldn't solve the problem, that Macros assigned to automation IDs would not be saved within a patch.

Falcon's predecessor MachFive was limited to 8 Macros and they were always numbered 1-8, just like in HALion 1-5 (although each layer provided another 8 Macros/Quick Controls for controlling the content of each layer) . With HALion 6 one can now add/create interfaces with as many Macros as desired.

[SJ_Digriz]

To summarize: Falcon is awesome

[otristan]

@otristan hey, I've been playing with the new envelope and I'm getting a consistent crash on some MIDI snippets. For example I have a Blues Drums library that has a variations on shuffle folder. Some of the files cause a crash every time I drop them in. Others from the same set have no problem. I can't see a difference. Is there some limitation you know about?

EDIT: This is just stand alone .. haven't tried it in a host yet.

Please send those to our support team. I'll check this when I get back from my 4 days in Prague.

Thanks !

[maximoog]

Hello, I can' t use my Falcon Content since yesterday suddenly no longer offline. I get the message that the sound banks are not activated even though they are activated. Falcon itself works without problems only I can' t use the Content. As soon as I activate my network card, everything works fine. I have nothing changed on my computer. What could this be? My operating system is Windows 10.

Thanks in advance

[fmr]

Hello, I can' t use my Falcon Content since yesterday suddenly no longer offline. I get the message that the sound banks are not activated even though they are activated. Falcon itself works without problems only I can' t use the Content. As soon as I activate my network card, everything works fine. I have nothing changed on my computer. What could this be? My operating system is Windows 10.

Thanks in advance

Did you use soft iLOK to activate your sound expansions?

[maximoog]

Hello, I can' t use my Falcon Content since yesterday suddenly no longer offline. I get the message that the sound banks are not activated even though they are activated. Falcon itself works without problems only I can' t use the Content. As soon as I activate my network card, everything works fine. I have nothing changed on my computer. What could this be? My operating system is Windows 10.

Thanks in advance

Did you use soft iLOK to activate your sound expansions?

Yes, soft iLOK.

[mcbpete]

I seem to remember network adapters being one of the things soft iLok uses as its reference to what machine it's in. I created and joined my work VPN a while ago and noticed a similar thing happening with my plugins until I disconnected from the VPN. Though you're working offline is there a reason while you're also deactivating the network card too ?

[fmr]

I seem to remember network adapters being one of the things soft iLok uses as its reference to what machine it's in. I created and joined my work VPN a while ago and noticed a similar thing happening with my plugins until I disconnected from the VPN. Though you're working offline is there a reason while you're also deactivating the network card too ?

Yes, that's it, most probably. If you really need to deactivate the network, best option is to buy an iLOK key, and store all your licenses in it.

[maximoog]

@fmr

The strange thing is until Saturday, everything worked. And since yesterday I have the problems out of serenity.

@mcbpete

Because I have on my audio PC no virus scanner and no firewall because of better performance. I also do not want unmailed data to be sent.

[mcbpete]

Because I have on my audio PC no virus scanner and no firewall because of better performance. I also do not want unmailed data to be sent.

You should be able to disconnect from any network without disabling the adapter itself - Usually just in the system tray there's an icon of the network you're connected to, and you just click to bring up the menu to connect/disconnect

[acYm]

Back in the days when designing Alchemy patches for Camel Audio, they had a nomenklatura for Macro assignments which had to be complied with by the sound designer. So e.g. filter cutoff was always Macro 3, time-based modulations on Macro 7 and so forth. But Alchemy wasn't/isn't a modular environment, it has a rather fixed architecture concerning the amount of oscillators, filters and a maximum amount of 8 Macros and 2x X/Y-pads.

Concerning Falcon this would mean, that each sound designer would have to follow certain rules when creating patches and assigning Macro controls but that would eliminate much of the total freedom we have when creating patches in Falcon and it wouldn't solve the problem, that Macros assigned to automation IDs would not be saved within a patch.

Falcon's predecessor MachFive was limited to 8 Macros and they were always numbered 1-8, just like in HALion 1-5 (although each layer provided another 8 Macros/Quick Controls for controlling the content of each layer) . With HALion 6 one can now add/create interfaces with as many Macros as desired.

well, what about having a standard 8 knob macro section with fixed automation, to be used with the industry standard control surfaces, and it would update the param name for the controller's display when scrolling presets, right, and then, on top of that, you could put any number of additional macros on the gui? that would have been a fair compromise I think.

surely you understand that as someone who is used to tweaking the easy access pages of the likes of alchemy, massive or synthmaster, falcon feels like it would leave me and my controller out in the cold. to me it's an odd design decision to make such a mouse-centric and contrived macro section in this day and age.

[SJ_Digriz]

surely you understand that as someone who is used to tweaking the easy access pages of the likes of alchemy, massive or synthmaster, falcon feels like it would leave me and my controller out in the cold. to me it's an odd design decision to make such a mouse-centric and contrived macro section in this day and age.

Surely you still don’t comprehend how the system works. The idea of having default controls is not viable period. Halion doesn’t have them, Kontakt doesn’t have them etc... There is a reason.. However you can map your controller to exposed macros and automation. It’s just YOU have to do it and save it per patch.

The one thing that I do think is a good idea is to add some way to have something like the Halion QC that the patch creator could use to choose which controls to expose to static CC assignment. It’s not as easy/clear as you think. Your brain is still stuck on fixed synth interfaces. Falcon has no fixed synth controls. NONE. Why would you default filter cutoff and Rez on an Organ patch? You wouldn’t.