UVI Falcon - hybrid instrument - version 3.01 released - rumors, ads, praise, mud wrestling and off-topic inside!

[UmFuFu]

Two questions about using Falcon in surround:

1) Moving the panner gets really bad clicks and zipper noise. Is there a way to stop this or is it a bug?

2) I don't quite get how you're supposed to use both surround and stereo versions at the same time. The preference "Default VST Audio Config" seems to only apply for the next time the plugin is open. This is inconvenient, but okay. But this preference seems to apply to ALL instantiations of the plugin and doesn't remember how many tracks you wanted to use. This is a pretty big problem no? Even if I open other sessions the output configuration isn't saved and changes all of them based upon this preference.

I just started experimenting with Falcon in surround so forgive me if I'm doing something wrong.

Thanks,
B

[otristan]

1) Will check this. Still being a non surround panner, honestly I would do the panning in your surround DAW

2) that' s a limitation of the VST format for instruments so you cannot use both.
Surround VST is really not the best.
even with VST3, I have never found a way to tell the host which surround variant you will instantiate.
Is that possible ?


Surround Falcon is mostly there to play as is 5.1 samples and that's what our surround users use it for.
Doing sound design in surround is usually using a mono/stereo instrument and then use the DAW surround panner.

[ThomasHelzle]

"HD SURROUND CAPABLE
Native support for channel configurations from Mono to 10.2 and sample rates to 192 kHz and beyond. Whatever project requirements you encounter, rest assured Falcon can handle it."

Well, not really.

I personally have given up on Falcon Surround. It's missing pretty much all features that would make it interesting for that area:

- Being able to spread individual Grains over the surround spectrum or make them follow certain paths (like all of them moving from front to back over their lifetime but on variably random trajectories (Think bullets or a locust swarm)).
- The same for each voice or layer or whatever (surround position as modulation goal).
- A _real_ surround panner and not only on the highest level.
- With the advent of the new surround standards, ambisonics would be a great feature.
- A user configurable output scheme that does not rely on the inflexible "VST standard" stuff but let's me use the multiouts as I see fit - per instance/preset.
- The whole output section is too rigid for creative surround use. Redux for instance allows you to move the sound around in it's FX chain however you see fit. Still not per voice, but at least the signal _can_ be modulated at that level.

What I do sometimes is duplicating a part and sending both to two different outs, the first to the front, the second to the rear. Then I have for instance a not-too-wide random pan on both but one has fast attack and then fades out quickly while the other has slow attack and stays longer - a poor mans per-voice random trajectory from front to rear...

UVI has a rather limited view of what surround is about from what it's representatives told me.
Too bad, Falcon would have the potential to really shine and lead in surround sound design.

Cheers,

Tom

[UmFuFu]

Thanks All.

I agree that Falcon could be a very powerful surround tool. I was excited to explore it as such.

2) that' s a limitation of the VST format for instruments so you cannot use both.
Surround VST is really not the best.
even with VST3, I have never found a way to tell the host which surround variant you will instantiate.
Is that possible ?

You could always do as Absynth does and have two versions of the plugin: stereo and surround. In Absynth surround you simply specify how many channels you're using in the plug-in interface and then let your DAW do the rest in terms of assigning it to outputs with a similar configuration.

Could this be a solution for you Olivier? I figure there must be a way to get Falcon rocking with surround.

Thanks,
B

[otristan]

I would prefer to have a VST version working out of the box even if this means doing a VST3 version.
Still it do not seems VST3 host offer this while RTAS, AAX and AU have offered this since ages....

[EvilDragon]

Don't think it's necessary to do VST3... Absynth is a good example of how both stereo and surround can be done... albeit with a separate "stub" DLL for each output config...

[UmFuFu]

Not sure, but the way it is now is pretty unusable imho.

[ThomasHelzle]

Not sure, but the way it is now is pretty unusable imho.

Yep.

I find it interesting that UVI is somehow so un-experimental. Everything is high quality, looks great to stunning, works very well, but there is a certain "free spirit" missing. A bit of going overboard, a bit of getting out of the box, being quirky. I guess that's why I'm hardly attracted to the existing libraries. Mainly sampling old proven synth instruments always struck me as somehow "too safe".
And it's especially funny with an instrument like Falcon, where in theory you could get pretty wild and in reality patches are mostly rather tame and beaten-track-like.
I feel the same about Relayer - awesome GUI, awesome options but the sound is very "tame" somehow and the presets don't really get you into "special territory".

With surround, UVI again is very concerned about the "standards", no matter how limiting they are. All of the more experimental DAWs can't use Falcons Surround (as far as it goes) since they don't send the right signals, so Usine, Bidule etc. are out. My use of Bitwig for surround may be silly, but it works just fine with all other VSTs I have, non of them insist on the "standard", so I can just configure my outputs as I see fit.

So, I'd recommend a happy dose of courage and playfullness, of exporation and dare.

...and I will now once again shut up about it happily until next time

Cheers,

Tom

[padillac]

Maybe they just haven't encountered this use case until now? They've said that they have lots of people using it for surround sound with no problems. Just because they haven't forseen your specific use case doesn't mean they're "un-experimental", "too safe", "tame", etc etc.

If you've been paying attention to this thread, you'll see that UVI is very quick to make changes when they understand the needs of their users. I wouldn't be surprised if they come up with something that works for you – because that's their track record.

They've done an amazing job so far. But I don't fault them for not predicting every single use case out there. And that's the nature of this sort of tool – people will push the boundaries, and come up with new use cases, and UVI will adapt.

[UmFuFu]

Yeah, I wound't agree with the assessment that they're un-experimental either really. Surround is a small part of the market/use-case I'm sure. I do feel like if UVI feels like pushing it in the surround arena then Flacon could become an incredibly powerful tool in the field.

B

[ATS]

I don't want weird experimental sounds

[UmFuFu]

Hey UVI.

I hear a quick 'pop' of an attack when using the MPE script on z-2 and Linear modes. It's as if the gain from the MPE controller/data isn't being activated until a few milliseconds after the attack, as after the sharp attack my controller takes over with the control that I would expect. The behavior seems to be reduced or removed in the 20dB Gain Map mode.

I attached the screenshot of my settings. Any idea what this pop could be?

Thanks,
B

[otristan]

I recently found a regression in the MPE script.

Could you please try with this one ?
https://we.tl/ENfVOlxmbf

Thanks !

[UmFuFu]

I recently found a regression in the MPE script.

Could you please try with this one ?
https://we.tl/ENfVOlxmbf

Thanks !

That fixed it!
Thanks so much!!

B

[Sampleconstruct]

It's time for some Falcon Hang music...

https://soundcloud.com/sampleconstruct/ ... ngles-hang