UltraAnalog seems underrated

VST, AU, AAX, etc. plug-in Virtual Instruments discussion
User avatar
wagtunes
KVRAF
13265 posts since 8 Oct, 2014

Post Fri May 18, 2018 2:25 am

Examigan wrote:
wagtunes wrote:
Examigan wrote:
wagtunes wrote:As much as I like the sound there is a very big problem with the synth.

Modulation. It doesn't save with the patch.

Assign mod wheel to cutoff. Close up the VST and DAW and reload. The mod assignment doesn't stick. You have to reassign the mod wheel to the cutoff to get it to work upon reload.

You can imagine what a nightmare this is if you've got a session with 15 instances of UA 2 and have to go back into each one and reassign everything. I even had to post a warning on my library page that mod settings don't save. And yet, sales were very good. So I guess sound won out. But still, HUGE oversight and poor implementation.
Wow that’s crazy... But what about the presets that it ships with? Don’t they all have modulation settings that are different for each of them?
As I make my own sounds, I have no idea. I don't use the presets. All I know is I assign mod wheel to filter and the next time I pull it up, the assignment is gone. You have to reassign.

Ridiculous.
I downloaded the 15-day trial version, changed one of the presets around to what I wanted, mapped the mod wheel on my controller to filter cutoff, saved the project, closed it, reopened it, and it still works for me. The mod wheel is mapped to the cutoff just like I had it before. Then I rebooted to see if that might change anything, tried it again and it still works.

Maybe they updated it since the last time you used it?
I actually got mine recently. Ir was during the last charity thing we run here. I won it. So if that's the case, then this must be a UA 2/Cubase 7 bug. It's quite possible. But there is no question that on my system I have to reassign the mod wheel when I pull the project back up.

ghettosynth
KVRAF
11097 posts since 13 Oct, 2009

Re: UltraAnalog seems underrated

Post Fri May 18, 2018 2:26 am

VariKusBrainZ wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:
VariKusBrainZ wrote:
VA tech that sounds old
This comment amuses me for its absurdity
blah
Sorry, dont even need to read your post.

New vst synths are released regularly that sound similar or worse to old AAS stuff and people love them. They can also be called old tech if the dev is using stock Synthedit or doesnt have current programming chops or libraries.
That new synths use old technology is not an argument that old synths don't use old technology. That is pure logical fallacy there. Yes, many new synths suck because they use old technology, where did you read that I said otherwise? ALL old synths, however, use old technology, we do not have time machines. So, yes, all old synths, even beloved ones, e.g. the Nord Modular, suffer from the limitations of what was practical and known at the time. This isn't my opinion, this is a factual statement about the arrow of time and progress. If you want to take it personally, that's on you.
Your comments are irrelevant.
No, they're completely relevant and the entire reason why UltraAnalog gets more laughter than love. Denial isn't going to change the reality that it is an old synth with filters that out suck a hoover.
Dont blame the tools
For what? What am I blaming the tools for? You actually SHOULD read my post and try to understand what I'm saying, because you certainly don't get it now. The question here is "why isn't some old synth that was written more than a decade ago given more love", and the answer is, "because it is a virtual synth that was written more than a decade ago that hasn't seen any real updates to the underlying technology." There's nothing more complicated than that. If you like it, bully for you, there are always exceptions, but a few KVR holdouts do not a population make, i.e., this is implicitly a statistical argument. If UltraAnalog were actually UltraAnything, then people would be talking about it like they do talk about those synths that actually ARE ultra, e.g., Uhe synths, Reaktor blocks.

User avatar
wagtunes
KVRAF
13265 posts since 8 Oct, 2014

Re: UltraAnalog seems underrated

Post Fri May 18, 2018 2:28 am

@Ghetto

You're wasting your breath. The fanbois don't understand facts or logic.

Stefken
KVRian
553 posts since 9 Nov, 2016

Re: UltraAnalog seems underrated

Post Fri May 18, 2018 2:33 am

Michael L wrote:
Stefken wrote:There is e.g. also the CMM model, that evaluates the maturity of software development in a company.
Google sez:
"The Capability Maturity Model describes five stages based on how well a company follows repeatable processes to get work done. The low end describes companies without repeatable processes, where much of the work is chaotic and ad-hoc. The highest end describes companies that use defined and repeatable processes."
So a synth and a company are both like people! Analog is immature because it's a bit unpredictable and adolescent, while digital is mature because it's predictable but set in its old ways. Hmmm, not sure which one I like more.....
What i am saying is quite the opposite.
Analog hardware implementations have had their time to grow and become mature while software VA emulations are just getting mature (e.g. Repro is one of the first I consider mature).

Emulations like UltraAnalog were made in a time when things were 'just getting started'. If you look at the early Arturia emulations you clearly hear the difference in the 'quality' of the emulation and the sound as opposited to latest ones.
Of course things move fast in software. We have come a long way in 5 years but that also means that some emulations of 5 year old sound dated. Dated in the sense that their quality of emulation is a lot less, then recent ones. With Repro you can hardly hear the difference between hard-and software.
Pretty sure in 5 years time all software emulations will be on that level.

That doesn't mean you can't make music with older emulations. It just means that as far as the emulation goes, it's potential of exhibiting the same characteristics of the hardware is less.

For example Legend is regarded as a better emulation of the Minimoog than Monark, but Monark is certainly a very nice instrument in its own right. The CS-80 emulation of Arturia is also not spot on, but again is a very nice instrument in its own right.

Stefken
KVRian
553 posts since 9 Nov, 2016

Re: UltraAnalog seems underrated

Post Fri May 18, 2018 2:37 am

ghettosynth wrote:
VariKusBrainZ wrote:
VA tech that sounds old
This comment amuses me for its absurdity
VA technology improves over time as do most areas where we are trying to model the real world in software. It may amuse you but it means something rather specific and has nothing to do with aging of mature technologies, e.g., actual analog synths.

There also may be fetishism for older technology, e.g., 8 bit and 12 bit samplers, but that doesn't mean that models aren't improving with respect to their fundamental goal of sounding closer to the thing that they are trying to model. Even if one prefers an eight bit sample for its character, with respect to the goal of trying to sound as close as possible to the source sound that it is a sample of, there can be no argument to reasonably counter that higher bit rates and higher sampling speeds yield a more realistic reproduction.

The same is true for analog models, i.e., VA technology. Even if one has a fetish for older models, as many do with, e.g., the Virus, or Sylenth, it does not negate the fact that we can identify specific technology improvements, that are, wait for it, newer, that improve the accuracy of the model with respect to the thing that it is modeling, actual analog circuits.

So, I fail to see what you find absurd about "old VA technology", it is what it is. If it was made in 2006 it is very unlikely to have the characteristics associated with newer methods. In part because, even though they weren't completely new, they weren't well known among audio devs, but also, because computers simply weren't able to handle the technology at that time. In 2006 the Intel Core 2 architecture was being shipped in new macbook pros. Try to run Diva on a Core 2 and come back and tell me how that works for you.

IMNSHO, Ultra Analog is VASTLY overrated on KVR. It's pretty comparable to stock Reaktor primary modules or any number of synthedit plugins from that era that have the same basic features. There's nothing really "ultra" about it. It's bog standard VA algorithms from that time frame that are capable of running reasonably well on computers that are a decade or more old.
+1

Stefken
KVRian
553 posts since 9 Nov, 2016

Re: UltraAnalog seems underrated

Post Fri May 18, 2018 2:40 am

VariKusBrainZ wrote:
New vst synths are released regularly that sound similar or worse to old AAS stuff and people love them. They can also be called old tech if the dev is using stock Synthedit or doesnt have current programming chops or libraries.
That is true also off course.
If it is based on an old framework, then it is old tech, even if it is released today.

ghettosynth
KVRAF
11097 posts since 13 Oct, 2009

Re: UltraAnalog seems underrated

Post Fri May 18, 2018 2:44 am

S0lo wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:That's because Plonk uses resonators, that is what AAS's claim to fame was all about. I'm not dissing all their work, I just don't think that they've innovated for a long time and VA stuff has come a long way in the last ten years or so. They've been left behind because of their unwillingness to innovate.
To me a musical instrument never ages. Be it software or hardware. For the same reason that a guitar, violin or an analog vintage synth never ages. When a manufacturer "inovates" and brings a new guitar, Thats not usually a better guitar. It's a different flavor with a different sound of a guitar.

If I like a sound now for a certain context, I don't see a reason why I should hate the same sound 10 years latter for the same context. Otherwise I would be just following whats fashionable today. Which is usually driven by who and what wins the market.
You shouldn't, but if you felt the sound a compromise, as many felt about 8 bit and then 12 bit samples, you would embrace changes and improvements and choose to use newer synths that implemented better models with respect to your goals. Again, this is not about fetishism over a particular character. Clearly, people use 8 bit samples to recapture the vibe of 8 bit samples, but they are not going to sound as close to the source as higher bit rate/sample rate variants.

Diva and Reaktor Blocks sound great, but I still turn to my analog synths sometimes and I "think" that I like them more. Keep in mind here, that I NEVER thought VA synth plugins sounded great in 2006. In 1998 I thought that the Nord Modular wasn't analog enough, but its versatility trumped its limitations and that was enough for me to pay too close to sticker price to get it almost as soon as it came out. I used it a lot, but I don't really use it today because it's pretty clear that newer models to a better job of the same basic sounds.

I think that lacking experience with actual analog, people fetishize certain VA sounds because that's where their experience lies. Nothing can be said about that, preference is just preference. If however, you view VA synths as a model for analog synths, then we can talk about accuracy in a concrete way and the models in 2006 were simply not comparable to models today.

User avatar
Michael L
KVRAF
2357 posts since 25 Jan, 2014 from the End of the World as we Knowit

Re: UltraAnalog seems underrated

Post Fri May 18, 2018 3:01 am

aMUSEd wrote:I've been getting into this more recently, even though I've had it for years I never really paid it as much attention as my other AAS synths, was more into Chromaphone and Tassman, but it's actually a really great sounding synth that can do a lot. Don't know why it doesn't seem to get much attention, it isn't just me it seems who has been ignoring it and letting it get over shadowed by other things. I guess it doesn't have any really unique standout features but in this case I think it's more whole is greater than the sum of its parts thing.
So, based on the above posts UA seems to not get much attention because it's immature, and its technology is not grown-up. Certainly as ghetto points out, UA is not an accurate model of an analog synth in a concrete way, and new tech > old tech. However, all these facts and logics are irrelevant when one actually likes the architecture and sounds of this "developmentally-delayed synth." If that means I am a fanboi in the early stages of dementia, I intend to enjoy playing UA until my technology becomes senile!

Lotuzia
KVRAF
9692 posts since 19 Feb, 2004 from Paris

Re: UltraAnalog seems underrated

Post Fri May 18, 2018 3:10 am

At the end of the day, the real sound matters me think. Sometimes I prefer to play an An1x rather than a Jupiter 6 or Juno 60. An1x is old, isn't state of the art analog emulation by any way, but it simply sounds very nice sometimes, and you just cant get the same sound with the real thing, or more accurate emulations :shrug:. Well, to each it's own.

Same for samplers like the S950. Put a loop into it, and see how it transforms into something else, more punchy. Yes, different, but differences are all that make life interesting. imho. It doesn't negate the need/use of samplers more accurately reproducing reality, or let's say more faithfull, like Kontakt. Just something else, that one might like/need. Or less.
http://www.lelotusbleu.fr Synth Presets

77 Exclusive Soundbanks for 23 synths, 8 Sound Designers, Hours of audio Demos. The Sound you miss might be there

Scotty
KVRAF
1657 posts since 23 Dec, 2002

Re: UltraAnalog seems underrated

Post Fri May 18, 2018 3:57 am

Some of the mid frequency (middle octave) arepeggios really sound gorgeous to my ear..."featherly" for want of a word. Horses for courses but there is a place for Ultra Analog on some of my material with no apologies offered.
Asusp9712Core,RayDats,OASYSPCI,Cubase9,KorgLeg,Avalon737s+2022,UA4710D,6176,DCS,LA610MK2s,Neve, ARC2, Soundtoys,UADOCTO,AdamA7X, SphereMics, BCF+R2000s, DrmBrut,MiniLog,Volcas,MoogSubPhat,EnsqDP4,VirusC,Scope,MinBrut,Plugiator,NIS61 Ultimate,ComposrsCld.

SLiC
KVRAF
2780 posts since 2 Dec, 2004 from North Wales

Re: UltraAnalog seems underrated

Post Fri May 18, 2018 4:43 am

I think generally the consensus either it is not the best sounding, the best looking or the easiest to use VST. Obviously still useable (and quite light on CPU), but perhaps not the obvious go-to synth for most of us most of the time.
Current Gear: i7 Win 10 + Surface, BWS, StudioOne 4, X32 Desk. Rubicon R8s, DM12, P8, Virus TI, System 1m, Korg ARP, P6, Eurorack, Elektron A4, RYTM, OT, MPC Live, OP-1, Mother 32, Dominion Club, Roland TD8 and HPD-20, Guitars, Basses and Amps

User avatar
Grizzellda
KVRist
489 posts since 21 Feb, 2015

Re: UltraAnalog seems underrated

Post Fri May 18, 2018 5:04 am

This is a beautiful synthesizer! Well, Ultra Analog is what the topic is, right? The fuss is absurd. :hihi: :D

Scotty
KVRAF
1657 posts since 23 Dec, 2002

Re: UltraAnalog seems underrated

Post Fri May 18, 2018 5:21 am

Yes... that is a good description. For those that invested any serious time with it it remains worthwhile keeping it in the plugin folder.

I tend to do a lot of synth layering so I don't evaluate a synth completely on how it sounds solo which may be why I continue to find value in it.
SLiC wrote:I think generally the consensus either it is not the best sounding, the best looking or the easiest to use VST. Obviously still useable (and quite light on CPU), but perhaps not the obvious go-to synth for most of us most of the time.
Asusp9712Core,RayDats,OASYSPCI,Cubase9,KorgLeg,Avalon737s+2022,UA4710D,6176,DCS,LA610MK2s,Neve, ARC2, Soundtoys,UADOCTO,AdamA7X, SphereMics, BCF+R2000s, DrmBrut,MiniLog,Volcas,MoogSubPhat,EnsqDP4,VirusC,Scope,MinBrut,Plugiator,NIS61 Ultimate,ComposrsCld.

User avatar
Teksonik
KVRAF
11480 posts since 16 Sep, 2001 from Las Vegas,USA

Re: UltraAnalog seems underrated

Post Fri May 18, 2018 5:45 am

Obviously the sound of UA hasn't changed since its last update but the sound of the competition has changed in that time. :wink:

UA 1 still sounds ok but I'm much more likely to reach for DIVA or luSH101 or The Legend or even Dune 2 for those type of sounds........ :shrug:
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

User avatar
S0lo
KVRian
614 posts since 31 Dec, 2008

Re: UltraAnalog seems underrated

Post Fri May 18, 2018 6:09 am

ghettosynth wrote:
S0lo wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:That's because Plonk uses resonators, that is what AAS's claim to fame was all about. I'm not dissing all their work, I just don't think that they've innovated for a long time and VA stuff has come a long way in the last ten years or so. They've been left behind because of their unwillingness to innovate.
To me a musical instrument never ages. Be it software or hardware. For the same reason that a guitar, violin or an analog vintage synth never ages. When a manufacturer "inovates" and brings a new guitar, Thats not usually a better guitar. It's a different flavor with a different sound of a guitar.

If I like a sound now for a certain context, I don't see a reason why I should hate the same sound 10 years latter for the same context. Otherwise I would be just following whats fashionable today. Which is usually driven by who and what wins the market.
You shouldn't, but if you felt the sound a compromise, as many felt about 8 bit and then 12 bit samples, you would embrace changes and improvements and choose to use newer synths that implemented better models with respect to your goals. Again, this is not about fetishism over a particular character. Clearly, people use 8 bit samples to recapture the vibe of 8 bit samples, but they are not going to sound as close to the source as higher bit rate/sample rate variants.

Diva and Reaktor Blocks sound great, but I still turn to my analog synths sometimes and I "think" that I like them more. Keep in mind here, that I NEVER thought VA synth plugins sounded great in 2006. In 1998 I thought that the Nord Modular wasn't analog enough, but its versatility trumped its limitations and that was enough for me to pay too close to sticker price to get it almost as soon as it came out. I used it a lot, but I don't really use it today because it's pretty clear that newer models to a better job of the same basic sounds.

I think that lacking experience with actual analog, people fetishize certain VA sounds because that's where their experience lies. Nothing can be said about that, preference is just preference. If however, you view VA synths as a model for analog synths, then we can talk about accuracy in a concrete way and the models in 2006 were simply not comparable to models today.
Yeah, in that case I mostly agree. If the subject was to emulate analog, then most of the recent synths would probably be better at it.

The thing is that I don't usually use a VA this way. i.e. as an accurate emulation. I have enough analog gear to cover 2 times my remaining life. Which by the way are usually less interesting to me than the recent VAs like Diva...etc. instead, I use a VA as an instrument, I listen to the sounds it can generate and try to fit those sounds to a certain genre or context. This way it will always be useful to me, it really never ages.

Any disadvantage in a certain context can be an advantage in a different context.

Return to “Instruments”