Early Super 6 adopter, but new in this forum I’ve got this challenge:
Starting with early S6 and FW 0.21, I made therein some very nice custom patches with love and effort. Some are heavily using the loop function in the envelope section (Decay: loop frequency, which was updated in FW 0.21, I think). Unfortunately the complete synth sounds massively harsher and “less warm” and the “loop” frequency is totally different after dating up from fw 0.21 to 0.26 or 0.27. The UDO has now a complete different character after updating.
Did someone made similar observations?
If so, what happened?
Is there a workaround to “re-modify/recreate/transform” patches on fw 0.27 so that they sound like the “origin” from earlier fw 0.21?
Details to setup: I compared it on two udo’s, side by side; directly, to explore if this could be a hardware variation issues. Both synths sound the same, if they are running same firmwares. Meaning, these symptomes can be reproduced on each S6, its not a hardware issue.
I know, that the Loop/decay section has changed, with ability to go into much higher rates (which has some advantages, but makes it a bit fiddly to get accurate, “slower” loop speeds/frequencies located).
Love the synth and George Hearns passion!
It would be perfect, if the warm sound of 0.21 would match with the features in 0.27.
At some point they decided to have both envelopes respond to the key tracking setting, I know that messed up quite a few of my patches, and the support basically responded with “sorry, we prefer it this way”.
I made some really smooth string sounds, that sounded very different in version 0.27. Similar roughness seems to have been added to most patches that employ osc2 filter modulation, but could be other things. Tried recalibrating and adjusting that parameter, but the sweet spot is gone…
Lastly, the way voices are assigned changed with the latest version, which messed up my patches that were using the arpeggiator with glide in poly mode, where subtle glide was audible between the arpeggiated notes. Now the glide is only there when you switch out the notes completely…
Example, the sound 6min30sek in -
Here I play with the portamento, but in 0.27 the portamento is not there no matter the slider setting. A real blunder if you ask me, and again with very little understanding from the support.
Started off as an UDO mega fan, but I’m now rather frustrated about the recent firmware updates. They got a lot right, like the filter smoothing, but then also introduced changes that in my opinion broke stuff that were already good. Ultimately, I now feel quite discouraged to make new patches until UDO has settled on how they want the thing to work.
I decided to hold back and wait for user’s opinions. I’m not a computer programmer, but think Super6 may be a different beast to Roland, which saves patches as a parameter list. I’m imagining UDO have some kind of object programming going on. If I’m correct, it would explain the delightfully quirky things that happen, which are inconsistent and even annoying, but in the end anything but bland!
Don’t get me wrong, I like quirkyness, but changing voice allocation method that then renders previous functionality either useless or removes it completely is not the right approach imo.
To me, changing voice allocation and the way envelopes work truly do change the expressivity of the synth, and as such, any implementation of an alternative method should be user selectable. Like in this case, it completely changes the way Poly1 mode worked, which to me makes zero sense and sounds bad to the point of almost being useless and unmusical.
A few key issues with 0.27:
Retrigger of same voice = no way to do voice stacking when repeating the same note, instead reacting as a mono synth - why? Isn’t this why Poly 2 is there? Why not have standard voice rotation in Poly 1?
Portamento is not repeatable/predictable when playing the keyboard, and there’s no way to apply to ARP, only when changing the chord - to me this makes no sense.
Slides in SEQ with Poly 1 modee are not applied at all, regardless of porta slider setting.
Not really sure who’d prefer this over the way it worked in 0.26. They could have focused their energy on fixing some of the real reported issues like;
LFO1 square being wobbly on breakpoints (test on low frequencies)
LFO1 retrig not working (esp with random), where you expect a new random value on each key trig.
LFO2 having an “attack” time despite delay being at 0
etc etc …
UDO can ofc do what they want, but I invest time into learning the instrument, it’s quirks and sweetspots, incorporating these into my workflow. If a developer changes core functionality of an instrument, that to me equals time and work lost…
It must be me being undemanding. In the end, the Japanese may have got it right by avoiding lots of software revisions and not responding to customers’ input and suggestions. In other words, “here’s the product and that’s it”. I tend to use another synth if the one I’m on isn’t doing it for me at the time. They usually sound miles better in a mix than heard solo anyway.
To be honest: I don’t see any contradiction in having a perfect sounding synth and an actualized firmware – it should fit both. Having a functional top synth (USB support, sequencing, sync, stability etc) as well as a well sounding instrument, which sounds quality is conistent. But if it was an either/or question: The reason I decided to own a Super 6 was not the future firmware features, but the nice mindblowing sound at that time (and lateron) I still do not regret buying it. And I think George and his team does care about it (this is my personal experience til now).
But the origin question was: if there is a workaround to transfer the origin sounds 0.21 into a new firmware. If there is one: then – perfect
That’s fair, I see where you are coming from. I agree that it would be nice to be able to take your old patches and transfer them over to the newer firmware. It’s possible that they won’t sound 100% identical, but I’m sure you could get extremely close.
I totally agree - new firmware updates should NEVER change the sound of one’s patches. I find this incredibly important. I’ve also had patches change going from 0.26 to 0.30. Constructing patches is such a meticulous process, where you finally settle on the small sweet spots that give you just the right feel. Any changes to presets due to firmware updates are unacceptable, especially with such an expensive synth. Changes should always be introduced as new features/options where you can continue to use the old option if you like. The worst part is not knowing exactly what changes a new FW update will bring to your patches, especially when updating multiple FWs at once, forcing you to record samples of them before updating to A/B test. And it might still be difficult to identify how to bring back the old sound (if at all possible).
I think it’s acceptable if you went in knowing you were buying a synth with the firmware still in beta. I agree it’s not ideal though. A few of the patches I posted 18 months ago now sound wrong with the latest couple of firmware updates.
How can a firmware still be in beta with a physical synth release? My impression is that a product is out of beta once it has been released. To my knowledge, it isn’t advertised as being a “pre-release” or having beta firmware. Not trying to be rude at all, neither towards you or UDO. If it was advertised as a pre-release, I’d agree with your argument! :-)
One could be, to have some kind of editor, which can load in old fw patches and „autoconvert“them into newer firmware.
I learned most of the fader/knobs have been updated with a broader range. Having some kind of visual reference (metrics) for comparison would make it easier to transfer or migrate old/new fw related patches.