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

[machinesworking]

Falcon started it's life as MachFive in collaboration with MOTU, it eventually started adding on granular synthesis etc. the collaboration ended and UVI used that tech for Falcon, which is a fantastic sampler with a ridiculously good sounding granular engine, dozens of components and effects to create totally unique patches if you want, or to add to existing UVI libraries.

Spectrasonics used tech from UVI to produce the first version of their plugins. Probably that tech ended up as Falcon.

STEAM is important to Spectrasonics future because it completes the technology transition from earlier performance virtual instruments that were based on the licensed UVI Engine.

https://www.spectrasonics.net/news/news ... .php?id=51

Yeah, that's interesting, but that's not the transition that happened. MOTU and UVI collaborated on Machfive versions 1 2 and 3, then the exact moment MOTU and UVI stopped working on Machfive, Falcon was born. They look very very similar, the same structure almost, Falcon could easily be Machfive 5.5. This isn't true at all of the way Spectrasonics levied UVI tech, and there's little similar layout to Omnisphere and Falcon.

To clinch it, Machfive patches open up perfectly in Falcon, and to this day if you're an owner of Machfive, UVI will give you a substantial "upgrade price" discount on Falcon, that's how I ended up buying it.

[flori89]

I bought Falcon in the sale and have been digging deeper and deeper recently. Yesterday I did a deeper dive into the sequencers etc. Holy shit, this thing really does everything.

I don't know, somehow Falcon really speaks to me, pure perfection for me.

[spoontechnique]

Your overall point completely misses the point. Falcon is a workstation sampler with synth capabilities, it's geared towards people who want to make their own sounds, not a specific type of sound. I've never once opened Falcon and thought "I'm going to do physical modeling today", I've opened it and thought, "What if I take the pluck of physical modeling and toss it on an FM bass?" The whole point is not being tied to one approach, one sound engine etc.

I got into Falcon from primarily a synthesis perspective and I'm talking mostly about the synth capabilities. You don't have to be tied to one sound engine to want more from individual sound engines.

It's not for you, that's really all there is to it. Personally it's in my top five, and realistically my desert island synth. So when you egotistically declare that it's got a "dated structure" (whatever that fugging means? Are we really convinced that every new approach is better these days??), you come across as your typical unintentional internet troll, venting all over a thread on a VI obviously a lot of people really love, for what reasons? Do you think it's helpfuL? Sell it and get on with your life.

I use Falcon often and I do like it, but that doesn't mean I don't have issues with it. I wouldn't say every new approach is better, but there is a collective experimentation and refinement that's happened since earlier soft synths. Falcon's routing and workflow are clunky in a way I associate with older soft synths, is all I mean. Not sure how that's egotistical. Other people have chimed in agreeing that the workflow is a weak point of Falcon.

I don't think I'm trolling or venting. I've been thinking about and using Falcon for a while, I saw a post, and I added my thoughts. I like discussing this stuff, and maybe it could be useful for some people who are considering buying Falcon. At the end of the day, it's a commercial product. I don't have a serious emotional attachment to software so if I don't see what's wrong if my opinion comes across as harsh or critical.

[digitallysane]

Other people have chimed in agreeing that the workflow is a weak point of Falcon.

Other people have chimed in agreeing the exact opposite.

[Roman76]

I've been thinking about whether I should buy a Falcon license and I did. I really like the intuitive operation when it comes to sound design. Great package.

[Double Tap]

Your overall point completely misses the point. Falcon is a workstation sampler with synth capabilities, it's geared towards people who want to make their own sounds, not a specific type of sound. I've never once opened Falcon and thought "I'm going to do physical modeling today", I've opened it and thought, "What if I take the pluck of physical modeling and toss it on an FM bass?" The whole point is not being tied to one approach, one sound engine etc.

I got into Falcon from primarily a synthesis perspective and I'm talking mostly about the synth capabilities. You don't have to be tied to one sound engine to want more from individual sound engines.

It's not for you, that's really all there is to it. Personally it's in my top five, and realistically my desert island synth. So when you egotistically declare that it's got a "dated structure" (whatever that fugging means? Are we really convinced that every new approach is better these days??), you come across as your typical unintentional internet troll, venting all over a thread on a VI obviously a lot of people really love, for what reasons? Do you think it's helpfuL? Sell it and get on with your life.

I use Falcon often and I do like it, but that doesn't mean I don't have issues with it. I wouldn't say every new approach is better, but there is a collective experimentation and refinement that's happened since earlier soft synths. Falcon's routing and workflow are clunky in a way I associate with older soft synths, is all I mean. Not sure how that's egotistical. Other people have chimed in agreeing that the workflow is a weak point of Falcon.

I don't think I'm trolling or venting. I've been thinking about and using Falcon for a while, I saw a post, and I added my thoughts. I like discussing this stuff, and maybe it could be useful for some people who are considering buying Falcon. At the end of the day, it's a commercial product. I don't have a serious emotional attachment to software so if I don't see what's wrong if my opinion comes across as harsh or critical.

Your opinion doesn't come across as harsh to me. I've barely started using Falcon, and I like what I see so far, and I don't know yet if your criticisms are fair or not, but you've put them very reasonably and haven't aimed any unwarranted personal attacks at people.

[machinesworking]

I use Falcon often and I do like it, but that doesn't mean I don't have issues with it.

.

Why on earth couldn't you lead your gripes with this? Why did it take me and others basically calling you a troll, telling you to sell your copy and be happy etc. to get this basic information out of you? This is what I meant by unintentional troll, no one can read your mind, we have no idea until you tell us whether you're just completely lost with Falcon and mad you don't understand it (which is how you read), or you're like a million other people incapable of nuance so you dive all in on tearing down something when you have thoughts about it.

I still don't agree with you, no rational person expects a $300 workstation like Falcon to have all the features of a dozen $200 synths, it doesn't add up time in and out, and certainly would be crippling for any track it rested it's head on, but at least I know now it doesn't come from a total lack of interest in the product and internet machismo.

In terms of organization, there is no "good" way to organize the insane amount of modularity offered in Falcon. it's going to be complex, that's all there is to it.

[enCiphered]

Your opinion doesn't come across as harsh to me. I've barely started using Falcon, and I like what I see so far, and I don't know yet if your criticisms are fair or not, but you've put them very reasonably and haven't aimed any unwarranted personal attacks at people.

+1
Agreed

Some people just aren´t able to accept constructive criticism and different views and opinions. Unfortunately this won't ever change it's just our nature.

I have been using Falcon for years with tons of projects and I love it, but there are many things that could be improved as well.

[chagzuki]

When I first got Falcon I was disappointed and frustrated with some of the UI aspects, the lack of basic drag and drop reordering of layers and keygroups, plus the need to move between tabs unnecessarily etc.. I'd still like to see those things brought up to standard, but at the same time the frustration subsided significantly after I got other synths and stopped trying to use Falcon for everything. I tend to reach for it when I want specific types of programming that it excels at, typically pads and percussive sounds. It almost never gets used for bass as it lacks the necessary modulation options, and Phaseplant handles that perfectly.

[Biome_Digital]

When I first got Falcon I was disappointed and frustrated with some of the UI aspects, the lack of basic drag and drop reordering of layers and keygroups, plus the need to move between tabs unnecessarily etc.. I'd still like to see those things brought up to standard, but at the same time the frustration subsided significantly after I got other synths and stopped trying to use Falcon for everything. I tend to reach for it when I want specific types of programming that it excels at, typically pads and percussive sounds. It almost never gets used for bass as it lacks the necessary modulation options, and Phaseplant handles that perfectly.

What does it lack for basses?

[chagzuki]

What does it lack for basses?

As others have mentioned, FM other than sine, plus other audio rate modulation options. Every time I was trying to get a bass patch right, after a lot of experimenting it was always the Phaseplant versions that made the grade, and the Falcon patches sounded too basic. Falcon would be fine for more analog-ish basses, but I tend to go for more aggressive sounds.

I've found Falcon very good for setting up pads or bell-like patches that have variation, or interesting randomness, by both randomising attributes at the keygroup level, and by layer cycling. It also allows for quite sophisticated control of panning.

[sircuit]

Other people have chimed in agreeing that the workflow is a weak point of Falcon.

Other people have chimed in agreeing the exact opposite.

There are 2 kinds of people: those who adapt their workflow to the tool at hand (and rarely have issues in using any tool) and those who have the same workflow no matter the tool (and kind of stall any form of tool development because they won’t adapt).

I think is a good idea to ask ourselves, when a tool seems clunky to use, is it the tool or is our approach?

[chagzuki]

I think is a good idea to ask ourselves, when a tool seems clunky to use, is it the tool or is our approach?

I would argue that it's beyond question that the Falcon UI demands additional steps to do things, particularly with regards to having to jump between the tree and list view. The list view commands could be accessible in the tree view via a right-click menu. Well, some of them are, and others not. I also still don't understand whether it's something to do with the deeper script language that makes changing the order of layers impossible, and instead requires duplicating layers in order to have them move to the bottom of the list. If using Falcon for drum kits this is a real PITA. Not the end of the world, but by no means optimal.

[zvenx]

What has become evident to me is different people love/appreciate completely different workflows.
Took me a few days to fully grasp Falcon's workflow, and once I did it made sense, then I didn't use Falcon for a few months and I completely forgot how to navigate around its workflow
rsp

[chagzuki]

Purely for the more subtle programmability, I've actually found myself auto-sampling patches from other synths and then taking them into Falcon via the sampler. I doubt I could replace it.