So what's next for U-He?

[Cepheus]

I am wondering what's happen to U-He because there are no Updates since an half year ?

Corona and stuff. Weird times, full reset, changed priorities, slowly catching up with goals.

The bright side is that I'm finally catching up with all the updates...

[claudedefaren]

...

[the.new.me]

Diva 2 isn't even announced or we know it's it's in development and you want diva 3, where's the rush

Diva 1 sounds analog, and repro doesn't sound more analog , you may just prefer the sound of it more

[claudedefaren]

...

[the.new.me]

LOL oh God I'm getting my u-he's mixed up haha, I meant Diva 2

I know it's super up to scrutiny and subjective listening but in all the experimentation I've done, I just hear a more convincing analog sound out of Repro's than Diva. I've seen other people mention this but not before I came to that conclusion myself, so it wasn't influencing my perception of the synths before I experimented. It would make sense to me as Repro came later and u-he surely improved their craft, but it could totally just be perception and confirmation bias and I may indeed just prefer the sound of Repro more, but to be honest, I do believe I prefer the sound of Diva more even though I find it less convincingly "analog" sounding.

Well to start with Repro is suppose to be accurate emulation of Prophet which kinda is and Prophet itself has a beefy sound.

In comparison with diva, repro does sound a little bit cleaner and brighter.

Diva is a mix of various modules, moog, jupiter, juno, ms20, jp8080. Now to continue, from my expierience with Diva, what you have to do to make it sound more "analogue" is to load template or manualy move voice tune trimmers so they would be slightly out of tune, it gives less precission. I have digital and analog hardware synths (virus ti and ik uno) laying here and Diva does sounds just as good, just has a different tone. But that "analog"depth is there. Actually first time i heard Diva 8 years ago, my initial thought was that it has the depth my virus ti has and doesnt sound like any other vst synth

[Urs]

We don't know yet if any possible Diva 2 will be fully backwards compatible. We do have a few new tricks available to us, and I do not like keeping too much legacy stuff around. However, there is a middle path: Diva 2 could load presets from Diva 1 with sound differences in the vicinity of loading a preset on a freshly refurbished synth.

[Ploki]

middle path sound amazing.

backward compatibility is for the weak.

i love it when new versions REPLACE old versions. i absolutely hate it when im in the middle of a project and decide to get the newest version of something i need to manually replace it everywhere. horrible

[mabian]

middle path sound amazing.

backward compatibility is for the weak.

i love it when new versions REPLACE old versions. i absolutely hate it when im in the middle of a project and decide to get the newest version of something i need to manually replace it everywhere. horrible

If it sounds different with previous version sounds it should definitely be a different plugin...

I'm weak so I need backward compatibility.

I find it quite strange that the Diva concept as is now could not be expanded to higher lands without breaking compatibility, after all its modular structure was never exploited properly by adding new components.

- Mario

[the.new.me]

So Diva 2 is in development?

p.s. Urs, if you are working on new zebra 2/hz updates can i make a request to add global setting for patches that used 2.3 to automaticly be always using 2.5 "engine" ?

[Urs]

middle path sound amazing.

backward compatibility is for the weak.

i love it when new versions REPLACE old versions. i absolutely hate it when im in the middle of a project and decide to get the newest version of something i need to manually replace it everywhere. horrible

If it sounds different with previous version sounds it should definitely be a different plugin...

I'm weak so I need backward compatibility.

I find it quite strange that the Diva concept as is now could not be expanded to higher lands without breaking compatibility, after all its modular structure was never exploited properly by adding new components.

- Mario

We wouldn't just add new modules, but we would improve the models we have. I can't really say yet how different those would sound, but I'm reluctant to add some kind of "Diva 1 compatibility mode" like we have in Zebra. It adds complexity and makes the software less easy to maintain.

The middle way would definitely mean a separate plug-in, but one which loads the presets from the other (which would certainly be possible for Diva 1 -> 2, but it doesn't work for Zebra 2 -> 3).

[Urs]

So Diva 2 is in development?

Nope, not a single line of code written. Just talks/speculation in forums.

p.s. Urs, if you are working on new zebra 2/hz updates can i make a request to add global setting for patches that used 2.3 to automaticly be always using 2.5 "engine" ?

Maybe someone can whip up a shell/bat script to do this? - our preset format is text based, and it's a simple search/replace action to do this.

[mabian]

middle path sound amazing.

backward compatibility is for the weak.

i love it when new versions REPLACE old versions. i absolutely hate it when im in the middle of a project and decide to get the newest version of something i need to manually replace it everywhere. horrible

If it sounds different with previous version sounds it should definitely be a different plugin...

I'm weak so I need backward compatibility.

I find it quite strange that the Diva concept as is now could not be expanded to higher lands without breaking compatibility, after all its modular structure was never exploited properly by adding new components.

- Mario

We wouldn't just add new modules, but we would improve the models we have. I can't really say yet how different those would sound, but I'm reluctant to add some kind of "Diva 1 compatibility mode" like we have in Zebra. It adds complexity and makes the software less easy to maintain.

The middle way would definitely mean a separate plug-in, but one which loads the presets from the other (which would certainly be possible for Diva 1 -> 2, but it doesn't work for Zebra 2 -> 3).

Totally fine for me, as long as it has a brand new plugin ID to avoid replacing Diva 1.

- Mario

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

My general preference: ignoring whether it'd Diva 2, Zebra 3, Hive 4 (see what I did there) is: if the fundamental sound can be improved and the plugin will offer significant changes, then just do a second plugin/dll. Same as Z3. Why bother putting limited development resources into trying to open old presets in a new plugin knowing they won't sound the same anyway? I could just as easily try to recreate any killer presets in the new product manually and adjust by ear. Just my two cents.

[Urs]

Well, if a new / upgraded plug-in can start out with 10,000 presets available on the net... that is an advantage, no matter what.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Well, if a new / upgraded plug-in can start out with 10,000 presets available on the net... that is an advantage, no matter what.

It's definitely great for preset designers and people who rely on presets, and yeah, I'm sure that help drives sales. But it's not without downsides outside of development effort. I imagine all "thee presets in the new version just don't sound as good as the old one" type of comments comparisons. YouTube videos with titles like "Diva 2 Sounds WORSE!?!" and it's just someone comparing the same preset in both versions with no additional tweaking, and honing in on minor differences (filter a little softer, or envelope slightly different) and presenting a personal opinion on the differences as fact.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.