AAS Ultra Analog VA-2

[sin night]

About presets: given that every control of VA-1 has a corrispective on VA-2 (it seems so, I haven't checked carefully; except maybe the oscillators volume which is handled a bit differently differently, but this is not a big issue) and that it's possible to establish a mapping between the controls of VA-1 and 2 (I'm not sure, since it seems to me that some controls have a different response curve, but I need to check this out better), then I think it's not that difficult to create a tool to convert from VA-1 banks (those in aasbank format, sold by AAS for their AAS player) and VA-2 banks, since they are both plain-text files. The problem is that I'm not so sure about the pre-requisites...

The user created patches and banks are another matter, since they seems to be in a binary format... I saw that VA-1 sends a vst automation message for every control everytime you load a new patch, but I have no idea on how to store/convert those values in order to use them with VA-2.
I suspect that AAS has a software routine to convert from axf (VA-1 proprietary patch format) to aasbank (AAS Player bank format) in order to sell their expansion presets, but I doubt they would release such tool if it exists.

[Arrested Developer]

...hmm
I checked out the demo of v2.
I don't know.
29$ isn't that much, but i think that buying an additional Zebra Soundbank for that money probably is a greater value...

[Branis]

There are some old presets in VA-2 and compared to the ones in VA-1 they sound identical, to my ears at least.

OTOH it's difficult to recreate the same sound from scratch on both because the controls behave in a different way, there is a limiter on the VA-2 output (love it) and effect names are not the same which complicates things.

I didn't try, but I guess that automation would also affect both synths differently because of the difference in control behavior.

[olepro]

This update sounds great, but the plugin window is irritatingly small.

Was it developed on the 13" laptop?! There is no need for it to be so small ... grr.

Peace,
Andy.

I never used VA-1 because of the too small gui, so i am soo disappointed to hear they continue down that line... damn !... i was really looking forward to the update hoping for a nice BIG window with buttons i can hit without using crosshairs on my cursor

[Ghostwave]

I sold mine and still got the email giving me the offer.

Same here. For $29, I bought it.

[cyberheater]

I sold mine and still got the email giving me the offer.

Same here. For $29, I bought it.

Bargain of the year.

[Photo_G]

…the new arpeggiator is worth the upgrade price alone…

Is there any MIDI out from the arp? That could be useful, for instance, to double sounds in a DAW?

/Joachim

I don't see any MIDI output at all.

G

[electro]

Waiting to see if Tassman and String Studio will get the same treatment.

Tassman 5 will not be backwards compatible with Tassman 4. String Studio 2 will not be backwards compatible with String Studio.

[Arglebargle]

Meh. I can't tell if the presets are all old, or some new, but they don't appeal to me. The signature bank was pretty uninspiring. Don't really like the GUI. Not worth it to me even for $29. Pass.

[coincidental]

Sounds like this is similar in many ways to the upgrade from Lounge Lizard EP-3 to EP-4.

I reworked an entire soundbank from EP-3 in EP-4 manually. I don't know that AAS have a 100% functioning converter themselves, as I know they had to do a lot of similar work with the LL factory bank, and I guess the same may be true of VA-2. Sounds like they might have done the donkey work with the AAS patchbanks though - we'll get clarification soon, I'm sure.

Yes, the patches are very similar, but they're not 100% identical, even when you leave the effects out of the equation (which are different - very different in some cases). I've just had a little A-B compare of VA-1 and VA-2 and you can get a very similar sound (though you might want to keep VA-1 on hand for a mission-critical patch in an existing project).

However, there are some slight differences in the basic engine. I reckon it's the same as with LL - the modelling is more complex (and has a slightly higher CPU hit, though still acceptable for the most part). Try changing the Quality setting on the Chromaphone resonator models and you'll have an idea what effect this can have (anything from subtle to massive). I can hear and see slight differences in the basic oscillators and I dare say that the same is true for the filters and envelopes too. It'll probably be more pronounced at extreme settings, and so I guess there may be some more complex sounds to be wrung out of VA-2 compared with VA-1.

It's still a really capable VA, but the new GUI may take some getting used to.

My main thought is that I'm going to have to invest in some reading glasses before I can use it!

[masterhiggins]

Some of the belly aching seems pre-mature or based on semantics { i.e would be happy with a paid 1.5 upgrade, instead of a paid 2.0 upgrade ? with the same feature set ? }.

I think the reason some people are saying that is because it sets a precedence for what constitutes as a "major" update (i.e. 1 > 2). If a revamped GUI and 2 additional FX is considered major update after 9 years, it suggests that we can expect very little for future updates. If past updates are any indication, then we're in for a major snore-fest:

Ultra Analog VA-1 v1.1.0
Dec. 22, 2006
Added in this update
-Intel-based Mac systems support—Universal Binary;
-New RTAS plug-ins for both Windows and Mac OS X;
-New total recall of 128-program bank in any host sequencer;
-Full MIDI Program Change support;
-MIDI Pitch Bend and Channel Pressure (mono aftertouch) messages support in MIDI Links;
-Redesigned Edit MIDI Links dialog;
-Omni MIDI channel;
-Restore factory preset library command;
-Chord mode in arpeggiator;
-Improved Latch mode in arpeggiator.
-Fixed in this update
-Fixed dropped notes on certain situation;
-Fixed arpeggiator range;
-Fixed arpeggiator synchronisation;
-Fixed Digital Performer crash;
-Fixed occasional Audio Unit validation failure in Logic Pro.
-Instructions
-Run the Ultra Analog v1.1.0 installer.

Ultra Analog VA-1 v1.1.1
March 20, 2008
Added in this update
-Mac OS X Leopard (10.5) support.

Ultra Analog VA-1 v1.1.5—LATEST
Feb. 1, 2012
Added in this update
-OS X Lion 10.7 compatibility.

This is the age of entitlement!

I don't think I'm entitled to a new, better product. I just think it's sad. It's sad because even though software synths are a niche market in the grand scheme of things, it's still a competitive market. I do like AAS, but I don't know how much longer AAS can play the "Hey it's a low-CPU synth" card as average CPU power/architecture keeps increasing. On top of that, most DAWs are shipping with comparable synths built-in. And on top of that, if people are already invested in an array of soft synths, they would actually be better off actually just buying a soundset. The Dark Space soundset for Alchemy is much more exciting and it's about the same price.

-Sam

[V0RT3X]

As much as I figure i won't ever buy an AAS product i am tempted by what Tassman offers..



Also something about the VA-2 sounds very organic and reminds me of some of the characteristics of synthsquad strobe

[kelvyn]

Just gave it a quick run through and compared it to VA-1.

Bit too much reverb on a lot of presets when compared to the VA-1.
Sounds more refined to my ears not quite as analogue as the VA-1... Still sounds good though just a bit different.
The GUI is (I hate to say it) kind of a disaster and much too small.
64bit is great:)
The price is amazing!
Enjoying the synth despite some niggles.

I like the AAS stuff and can't wait for Tassmann to be updated... hopefully with a better GUI size than the VA-2.

[cyberheater]

It's now on the front page of Synthtopia

[cryophonik]

GUI is too small? You need double glass eyes!

Agree it is a tiny winy bit too small. Usable nonetheless and nice sounding. For that upgrade price its a steal!

With the rising cost of pixels these days, I imagine it must have to be a tough compromise for a small company like AAS. Do you keep the pixel count low and offer the buyer a cheap upgrade path, or do you increase the pixel count and either take a hit on your profit margin or pass the additional pixel costs on to the consumer? Either way, it's a tough choice and some people are going to be disappointed. Unfortunately, the days of large GUIs at an affordable price are gone.