UVI Falcon - hybrid instrument - version 3.01 released - rumors, ads, praise, mud wrestling and off-topic inside!

[collider]

Omnisphere is like a Tarantino. Quick, fast & fun and instantly rewarding.

Falcon is more like a Tarkovsky. Much more deeper, takes time to digest and process. Immensely rewarding but in long-term for the patient ones.

I'm not very patient. But I can't justify getting Omnisphere.... at least now

[collider]

Is there a JV-1080/2080 soundbank somewhere in the UVI universe?

[Zoopy]

Can you not rename Parts anymore? I'm having a brain fart.

[Neon Breath]

Can you not rename Parts anymore? I'm having a brain fart.

Strangely, I'm having it too!

I can rename at will Layers, Keygroups but cannot rename Parts (nor Programs). Weird... Any idea how anyone?

[EvilDragon]

Parts are named according to the patch you load into them IIRC.

[functionform]

Omnisphere is like a Tarantino. Quick, fast & fun and instantly rewarding.

Falcon is more like a Tarkovsky. Much more deeper, takes time to digest and process. Immensely rewarding but in long-term for the patient ones.

Man do I love that comparison. I don't even Omnisphere but I get the sense its about instant satisfaction. Falcon really requires you to invest some time. You don't always get what you wanted when you start it, but you usually end up with something that makes you sit back and go, wow I don't even need a complete song around this sound.

I do with they did something more with the IRCAM oscillators. Their CPU usage pretty unfriendly even for my i9 at 64 gigs mem. I find the sweet spot currently for Falcon is the modulation of the synth and sample oscillators with against filters etc. Even loop slicing I prefer in other tools (check out Speedrum it's great!)

Still hoping for layer/program modulation in response to midi events. Christmas?

[spoontechnique]

I don't think the analogy works. Falcon's oscillators are actually all fairly shallow. FM is a 4 operator DX-7, a joke compared to FM8 or Phase Plant; Additive is much shallower than Razor or a modal synth like Prism; Pluck is mostly sample-driven; Wavetable has only one (sine) FM and one limited modulation type, again compared to Serum or Phase Plant; comparing Drum to something like Kick 2 is a joke; even the analog mode is limited compared to an actual analog oscillator (only hard sync, no AM/FM, not waveform mixing). The only really powerful oscillators are the IRCAM granular ones, and those feel like they were designed by technicians...difficult to intuit which parameters are sonically relevant and lacking basic ones like stereo controls. Compared granular modules like Clouds, Beads, Mimeophone, etc., they feel sterile and unresponsive.

The real power in Falcon comes from the sequencing (especially the 2.5 ones) and effects, but even there I have serious problems. Each sequencer is a half-baked trigger/pitch (and sometimes harmonic) sequencer. I should be able to program rhythm in one sequencer, melody in another, and a harmony on top, but that simple patch is difficult. You're locked in to whatever sequencer seems to be most dominant. By comparison, using something like VCV rack, it's easy to control triggers vs. pitch in a harmonious way because the modular framework is clearer once you get past a small learning curve. With Falcon, the results are slightly more immediate at the cost of a significant loss in control and functionality.

As for the effects, there are some great ones, but there's some serious gaps, and they've stopped adding the good ones! Thorus, Rotary, and Sparkverb were all added to Falcon, but now Relayer, Shade, and Plate are not. Which is frustrating, because the built-in delays and EQ feel insufficient. And even with the existing effects, it's not immediate to route them (such as doing parallel routings or chains) unless you use the mixer section, which doesn't interact well with the general tree system.

Overall, I feel like Falcon is more of a "preset synth" like Omnisphere than a serious sound design tool. Everything is there, but they aren't deep enough and don't offer enough control; or, when they do, it's done in an engineer's way rather than a sound designer's way. I don't think it's going to get better, either, because the overall architecture and routing ability of Falcon locks what can be done. That's why they keep adding stopgaps to get around that the synth needs a total rework. A rework that can never be done because it would break all the presets that they're selling. It's a shame, really. Falcon has so much potential but I don't think it will ever really live up to it. Compare this to a synth like Phase Plant, which has a fraction of the content and effects, but because the modulation, architecture, and routing are better thought out, I can create deeper sounds a quarter of the time.

The investment of time in Falcon feels more like having to understand its stupid, jury-rigged layout cobbled together from a dozen poor systems, rather than actually learning the sound design. Adding more and more content doesn't make up for the problems.

[flori89]

I mean nobody is forcing you to stick around. Sure, Falcon isn’t perfect, but some of your information seems like you don’t fully understand Falcon and it’s capabilities.

For example you aren’t limited to 4 Operators, just 4 Operators in a row. In total you can have as much as you want, the only limit is how much CPU power you have.

Maybe it’s just not for you.

[Neon Breath]

Overall, I feel like Falcon is more of a "preset synth"

That's one of the strangest thing I've ever heard about Falcon.

[spoontechnique]

Obviously you can keep adding instances of the FM synth module, but you can only have 4 operators (as in carriers/modulators) within a single instance of FM. You can't have 5+ carriers/modulators operating on each other. The DX-7 had 7, FM8 has 8, Phase Plant can have 32. Falcon has 7ish algorithms, the DX-7 had 32, and FM-8 has 64 different points in its Matrix. UVI decided a reduced DX-7 was good enough for most users, which might be true, but you can't say it's a very deep synth if it has less depth than synths from 1983 and 2007 respectively. And yeah, you can add as many layers as you want, but you can also do that with any soft synth by duplicating instances.

Not sure what's strange about it. Falcon's core synthesis modules, which are the most important part of a synth, are much less shallower than competitors. Falcon is like a large puddle: it covers a lot of territory, but it's not that deep at any point. That's not saying it's a bad synth...you might find it very useful to cover a lot of territory in one synth. But that's also part of what makes it more appealing for presets.

[digitallysane]

And yeah, you can add as many layers as you want, but you can also do that with any soft synth by duplicating instances.

Not quite true, you can't replicate just by duplication what you can do in Falcon with modulators acting on multiple oscillators and effects at the same time.
Its power lies in having those multiple synth approaches in one coherent and modulable environment, together with tons of quality effects also modulable from the same sources.
Of course each module from a "synth workstation" won't be as powerful as a dedicated synth engine for each synthesis method.
But it's power doesn't come from having the best wavetable engine or the best FM engine, but from having the ability to have some powerful modulators act at the same time on the wavetable and FM oscillators (among other things).

[Neon Breath]

Falcon has so much more than FM. Its Ircam synthesis modules are mind-blowing & unique. It has a very deep and pristine granular engine & the Ircam Stretch is probably one of the best (if not the best) stretching algo around. I just think it's reductive and simplistic to quality Falcon as a 'preset synth'.

[spoontechnique]

Of course each module from a "synth workstation" won't be as powerful as a dedicated synth engine for each synthesis method.
But it's power doesn't come from having the best wavetable engine or the best FM engine, but from having the ability to have some powerful modulators act at the same time on the wavetable and FM oscillators (among other things).

"Synth workstation" better encapsulates what I was trying to say by "preset synth", although I didn't mean that derogatorily.

It doesn't even have to be the absolute best FM/Wt/whatever engine, but they just don't punch in the same weight class as other options. And why are the two mutually exclusive? Why can't you have powerful modulation and powerful synthesis engines? Phase Plant and others certainly do it.

Falcon has so much more than FM. Its Ircam synthesis modules are mind-blowing & unique. It has a very deep and pristine granular engine & the Ircam Stretch is probably one of the best (if not the best) stretching algo around. I just think it's reductive and simplistic to quality Falcon as a 'preset synth'.

I brought up the FM as the most straightforward example of Falcon's limitations. I think I did say that the IRCAM modules are the most powerful source modules in Falcon. And even then they're not always that satisfying to use. For example, it's quite finicky to set up and control stereo spread in the granular engines, and that's important for granular.

That said, if we're judging Falcon as a sampler rather than a synthesizer, I think it's pretty strong among the ones I've used. It probably is the most powerful sampler I have, although not necessarily the cleanest to use.

[drewfx]

Obviously you can keep adding instances of the FM synth module, but you can only have 4 operators (as in carriers/modulators) within a single instance of FM. You can't have 5+ carriers/modulators operating on each other. The DX-7 had 7, FM8 has 8, Phase Plant can have 32. Falcon has 7ish algorithms, the DX-7 had 32

The DX-7 had 6 operators. Almost all of its 32 algorithms contain an additive arrangement of operators with no more than 4 not in parallel chains at the output. The parallel arrangements can easily be replicated (and surpassed 100x over) by simply mixing 2 or more instances of Falcon's FM. If you actually go through your algorithms rather than just counting you will find Falcon can replicate (and far surpass) them quite easily just by adding instances.

OTOH there were indeed a couple of DX-7 algorithms that involve feeding back around multiple operators which I don't believe Falcon can do.

But Falcon is hardly crippled when it comes to FM.

[kobal]

spoontechnique the difference is that falcon sound unique, while i have 10 plugins sounding like the one you mention, thats the strenght of falcon, his distinctive lush sound, i won t say it s of higher quality but there is something unique in his sound, a sort of tick organic nature that can make other synth sound lofi in a mix so it s a bit tricky to use in a busy mix.. sometimes you have to use falcon again and again cause of this, something is missing if you stop using it in a mix , it can make some other synth sound bad/ lower quality. maybe you have a different experience could be possible