FW v1.0

I notice we are “only” going from FW version 0.26 to 0.27, but the update itself is very significant. What is the thinking behind only jumping up a tenth of a percent in this case? Even though the update is easily worthy of a 1.0 at a bare minimum. On other manufacturers this could be a 1.5 or a 2.0 even.

So will we ever even see a version 1.0? Is that to be the final update or something? I also wonder if the FW never goes high up at a glance people can think it is underdeveloped. Sub 1.0 is beta territory after all. I think we are well beyond that now, and people look forward to “2.0” updates - sort of a midlife refresh.

Yes it’s only a number but just would love to hear if there is any rationale behind all this, it seems interesting to me since it seems fully developed already but the FW version isn’t really representative of that.

I’m not sure the actual number really makes any meaningful difference. It is what it is. Just my opinion.

Maybe you didn’t read the post.

I did. What difference does the number make, really? I’m genuinely fascinated to know.

Hello, 0,27 numbers looks like beta firmware, 1.0.0 would be more understanding, but effectively it will not change the sound^^

1 Like

Nowhere in my post did I said the FW number affected the synth in any way in fact I already said “yes it’s only a number” so I don’t know why you felt the need to point this out again.

My post is about optics and implications, particularly to an outside crowd. It’s all there in the OP no real need to reiterate anything.

I would expect:
Version 1.0 is appropriate as soon as all promised and documented features are implemented and a beta test phase for the fully featured version is finished without major concerns.
This is currently not the case and as far as i understood this will not be the case for the upcoming version.

So 0.xx is at least fair minded and does not raise hopes that are not fullfilled.

The commercial and legal aspect of this is another thing… :face_with_symbols_over_mouth:

While the upcoming firmware is a big step forward, we don’t know exactly how stable it will be until we all have it in our own studios. I’m now hearing talk of an added reverb effect somewhere down the line too - not sure if that’s something that they want in 1.0 or not. Plus there’s still MPE - which has a button on the front panel that currently does nothing. And now with the desktop module I imagine poly-chaining is going to be part of the 1.0 feature set. So as good as the instrument already is, there’s still a lot of promises to fulfill - which is fine since I think a version 0.27 firmware reflects that.

1 Like

What are the many promised features that are still missing? MPE but that’s an advanced thing for sure and it’s hardly a dedicated MPE button it’s just a legend below a sequencer button.

Reverb I hope isn’t coming tbh, it will no doubt be crummy and how are they going to implement it without the physical controls? I wouldn’t really want lots of hidden/shared shift functions creeping in as this was supposed to be a simple knob per function synth with the lack of screen. We are going to need a cheat sheet and I hope an editors appears.

I would think surely it is stable now on 0.27, I never had any real problems with it before, it was more quirks that needed ironed out than actually instability.

I would be surprised if this coming FW wasn’t “1.0” worthy.

1 Like

I think that is also something I’d like to see as part of a 1.0 feature set.

1 Like

Hi guys - 0,27 as you all rightly point out is just a number. 1.0 as someone also rightly states is reserved for when all documented features are in place and major concerns resolved. 0,27 is very close to this, but managing expectations there are still some areas in progress. We hopefully won’t release anything “unstable” generally, we’ll leave that for our BETA testers to deal with and catch things before it gets out. 0,27 is more stable than 0,26 objectively speaking. Expect more engagement from me personally and more frequent updates over the coming months. Worth noting is that we have also added many improvements that were not documented or promised on release, in response to feedback and also my feelings about what the instrument needs, so when we get to “1.0” it’s hopefully a better spec than we had originally planned.


Thanks for the input. I know it is low priority but about a possible editor… I have the Argon8 and Cobalt8 modules and Modal’s editor is very helpful. Can you not get any help from them? This is exactly what the Super 6 needs, especially with the no screen.

1 Like

@Acidizer FYI, I made an editor but like all of us I’m waiting for more info about the Midi implementation (especially on the sysex side to know if I can build a librarian and if I can do send/receive of programs from my panel).
I will now adapt the code to support the new documented info from the v3.0 manual. There will be a switch to change from low res (CC) to high-res (NRPN).


Awesome! As well as being able to see names, would be great for shuffling patches around into various banks.

1 Like

@Yan Yep, I hope so but it really depends on what UDO will provide as sysex implementation (request a program, request buffer, detailed program dump specs…)
I have already done full editors and librarian for the Korg Prologue and Minilogue XD but they have a full Midi documentation available.
For example, you can look at the Minilogue XD manual here: https://www.sunnysynths.com/korg-minilogue-xd


Too technical for me, I’m afraid - I’m just a musician :slight_smile: Lots of manufacturers are providing software with their hardware. Are UDO not forthcoming with the inof? Doesn’t make sense if they are…

I would love an editor or just a patch Liberian for my desktop when it arrives.