IK MUltimedia UNO Synth

[Ryan_IK]

Basically, PreSonus support blamed IK, IK support blamed PreSonus and that was the end of it.

In the end I just hooked up both USB and MIDI cables, so I can use the standalone editor even with the DAW running. I'm now living a much less stressful life, just pretending the UNO never had a VST editor in the first place... It responds perfectly to MIDI program change messages, and the timing also seems tighter when controlling it directly instead of via the VST editor, so it's a win-win as far as I'm concerned

Glad to hear you found a way to get back to making music despite your troubles with set up. If you could PM your ticket number, I'd like to look into your case to see what happened exactly.

[warcat]

there is a chance to win Uno Synth+Uno Drum+iLoud+Keys+IK Total Bundle here

[yellowmix]

Can you stop spamming your viral referral link? It's scammy as all get out.

Edit: While I'm here, I'd like to report IK replaced my Uno under warranty and shipped it quickly. Still recommending it as a very portable, one of the most convenient analog, and great sounding monosynths for the buck.

[warcat]

Can you stop spamming your viral referral link? It's scammy as all get out.

Edit: While I'm here, I'd like to report IK replaced my Uno under warranty and shipped it quickly. Still recommending it as a very portable, one of the most convenient analog, and great sounding monosynths for the buck.

no problem, but why it's scammy?

[BONES]

Someone suggested we should start a separate thread to talk about how good Uno is, as I had mentioned it a few dozen times on the Crave thread, but I figured it was a better idea to just resurrect this one. So the question is, why on Earth would anyone buy Crave when they can have Uno for the same price? It doesn't make sense.

[AnX]

so you're start the same pointless argument here?

[yellowmix]

Well, you know I have an Uno and really like it. Like I said before, it's portable, sounds great, and is convenient. I'd even record with it after some noise reduction.

Before I go further, I don't think they can really be compared/replace each other since they're meant to serve different roles. But since you're asking, then I'll talk about what it could add.

Crave has 8 banks of 8 sequences, each one 32 steps, and can be transposed live. The Uno's sequencer is really cool but 16 steps isn't a lot. I can't compose an entire song with it. With the Crave I could. And honestly while it's really cool, the sequenced parameter changes in the Uno sequencer isn't how I work. I'm perfectly fine with a vanilla note sequence happening and I'll twiddle the knobs spontaneously. But since Uno is economical with the knobs it's kind of forced to make it a sequencer feature. Uno isn't trying to be a sequencer though since it's all internal. For me the sequencer is kind of a reference/usage guide when you're translating it for another sequencer or controlling it from another keyboard.

Crave is really useful as a sequencer especially since I think it can spit it out as CV or MIDI. You can't get too many sequencers for that kind of money so it's already paid for itself. So you get a Prophet-style oscillator, Moog-style ladder filter, modulators, and semi-modular inputs and outputs on top of the sequencer, and you have a MIDI-to-CV/gate converter as well! So if you plan on operating with other gear, you get a lot for your money. Look up Eurorack module prices, one single module is often more expensive than the Crave in its entirety.

If you've got an interface with DC-coupled outputs and Expert Sleepers audio-to-CV plugin, you can save a ton of money if you're interested in modular by using VCV Rack and integrating it with the Crave. You get real analog sound with digital Eurorack modulation and processing for less than the cost of a powered Eurorack case. Add a Neutron and it'll complement the Crave.

If you don't care about that kind of interoperability then yeah, the Crave probably isn't for you.

The Uno architecture is fixed, it's a self-contained universe, it's got its own delay, but it's not looking to commingle since it's not a semi-modular. If you need a bass or a monolead, especially for performing, it's a great choice. Not sure I'd take a Neutron or Crave out on stage. If you're looking to get a taste of modular than the Crave is a perfectly inexpensive way of dipping your toes and will prove itself useful if you go further. I have no idea what it really sounds like since it's not out yet, and half the fun is patching a semi-modular to do things a fixed arch synth simply can't. Stuff like modulating the oscillator with itself, FMing the filter with the oscillator, standard in the modular world, has to be engineered specifically in a fixed arch synth.

Apples and oranges. The only commonality is they all punch above their weight for certain purposes and for less than the price of some virtual instruments. Can't we celebrate that instead of tearing the other down?

[BONES]

I've never understood why anyone cares about on-board sequencers. I don't see the point when I have the power of Cubase's sequencer at my disposal. Even in my hardware days, I used the big, powerful sequencer in my M1, 01/W and Trinity for all my sequencing and before those a series of standalone sequencers. Trying to use individual instrument's sequencers would have made everything far too complex, requiring sync signals to keep it all in time. It's just making work for yourself for zero benefit.

That said, the beauty of patch memory is that you can save the same sound with as many variations on the 16 step sequence as you like, up to 80 and including transposes, and recall them whenever you want/need them. Store them in the right order and you could sequence a whole set easily. It's way, way more powerful than anything Crave offers, it just requires a different approach.

That, right there, is the essential difference, I think - Uno is a modern synth for modern workflows, Crave is a step back in time for people who enjoy the torture of doing things the way we were all forced to do it 40 years ago. It takes me back to the days when it took 90 minutes to set up for a 30 minute set, then another hour to tear it all down and get everything back into the car. The technology has come so far since then, it seems like utter madness to want to go back to that.

You talk about all the flexibility of a modular architecture but it's no different to any modern synth with a mod matrix, and Uno is the only one of my hardware synths that doesn't have a one. Even CraftSynth 2.0 has one and it's cheaper than Crave or Uno. In fact, if you start comparing either Uno or Crave to CraftSynth, you really see the superiority of digital over analogue. For a low cost synth it is simply unbeatable and it sounds amazing. Go up to MicroMonsta, which is only a few bucks more than Uno, and the gap gets wider and wider. I need to go and resurrect CraftSynth 2.0 and MicroMonsta threads, get them back in front of people again to remind them that analogue is really quite lame.

[yellowmix]

Clutter.

[BONES]

Internal sequencing is desirable when you're not near a computer and don't want to bring a keyboard. I don't think that's hard to understand?

I dunno, when are any of us really "not near a computer"? We're mostly surrounded by 'em and even our phones can run usable sequencer apps. I am about 10 times more likely to take one of my PCs with me than any of my hardware synths and it would never occur to me to take a hardware synth if I hadn't already decided to take one of the PCs.* So, yeah, that point is a bit hard to understand.

Yeah, I could record into a portable recorder as well but that's another thing to carry. Self-contained is a feature!

Again, phone. The problem with an on-board sequencer is it is only good for one thing - rhythms. They aren't very handy if you want to record a nice string chord progression, for example, or even a vocal melody.

Sync is a lot better these days. Something like Crave's internal sequencer could slave to a master clock, whether it's a drum machine or DAW. These days you can MIDI sync some guitar pedals! It really is no extra work other than setting one to master and the rest as slaves.

It kind of is because you have to make sure they are all connected up. That's not something I have bothered with in the past, although now that I have an Overhub I can interconnect most of my set-up pretty easily. But it still involves way more cables and connections than I'd be comfortable with on stage. It's something I am yet to work out but my plan at the moment is that all the little hardware synths will be firmly attached to a board and all wired up semi-permanently. And make no mistake, that is a lot of effort and a lot of time will have to go into making sure it's reliable. I may well end up deciding it's way too much effort and just use one or two of them live, not attached to the computer at all, as we've been doing for the last 20 years or so.

It's the same way you would record these synths into your DAW

That's not something I'm likely to do, VSTi are so much easier when it's time to get serious.

Record them without a clock and you can't necessarily align them in post since their individual timing may drift/jitter.

That's exactly what I mean - lots of potential points of failure. When it's all in Cubase it's immune to all those problems.

(Semi-)Modular doesn't have convenient patch memory, true. Smaller semimodulars like Neutron, Crave, 0-Coast, Grandmother, etc., you can record patch sheets.

Yes, that's how I worked in the first half of the 1980s, like a caveman. Things have moved on considerably since then.

HW modular patching is fundamentally ephemeral, like Tibetan sand paintings. The joy is in creation

Not if you have to do it like that, it isn't. I'd rather have a truck run over my foot than have to go back to working like that.

If this doesn't appeal to you or scares you then maybe it's not for you.

I dunno, 10+ years of building things in SynthEdit has given me plenty of insight into such things. But SE has the all-important Patch Memory module so that your work isn't wasted.

Mod matrices don't usually let you reroute audio 100% arbitrarily (I can't think of any that does). For example, in Zebra2 you can shuffle filter/distortion/comb filter in any order. But can you use the audio signal coming out of that to modulate the filter frequency? Also to the oscillator pitch? Maybe try out VCVRack, you can do this, and it can save patches.

Those are all simple design choices, mostly made to avoid feedback loops. Modulating an oscillator pitch with an audio source is what's called FM and it is very common in both hardware and software synths.

If you want to do it on the cheap there is no better competition. Look up Eurorack prices for an cv/gate, oscillator, filter, envelope, LFO, VCA, the bare minimum for a standard subtractive architecture. Easily 6x the price at a minimum.

But there's always the Volca Modular, which has way more features than Crave. In fact, it's not far behind Neutron when it comes to features.

Crave as babby's first semi-modular can't be beat in price.

See above, re Volca Modular. Prices are similar enough that you wouldn't choose one over the other on price.

There's no point comparing it to non-modulars, they're fundamentally different

That's a dumb-arse way of looking at it. I can use either for exactly the same thing. They are about as fundamentally different as a Golf is from a Corolla (DSG v CVT).

There is competition like the Microfreak and Minilogue, but they're a bit larger (and a bit more expensive), but they all sound different anyway.

You do realise that Microfreak is digital, right? It competes more with things like MicroMonsta and Skulpt. But it does remind me that Microbrute is also semi-modular, as is the venerable MS-20 that Korg are selling again.

If you want a portable digital synth, the Craft is a great option if you want wavetables.

Why do you need to think about synths in that way? I didn't buy Craft Synth because I wanted a digital synth or a wavetable synth. I bought it because it sounds great and has tons of useful features. I didn't buy Uno because it's analogue, I bought it because it sounds great and is a heap of fun to play with. Similarly, I don't dislike Crave specifically because it's semi-modular, it's because it has bugger-all features and doesn't sound very good. It will only sell to people who think "I must have a semi-modular and I only have $220 to spend".

Volca's 2/3 the price, but it's FM.

Craft Synth 2.0 is the same price as a Volca FM on Thomann, which makes it a no-brainer.

If you've got personal biases and preferences other people don't necessarily share them, so it's rather nice that we have so many options now.

The thing is that I reckon Crave will only sell because of those biases. It actually feels like it has been made specifically to cash in on those biases. If you assess it on its merits, there is literally nothing to recommend it.

[yellowmix]

Clutter.

[BONES]

Yeah, we clearly have different workflows. I'm mostly DAW-centric but occasionally I like taking my instrument somewhere else, jam on it, make some sequences, and bring it back to reassemble.

Yeah, that's what I am likely to do with my PCs, which is why I have three of them with screen sizes of 8", 10.5" and 17.3". The middle one, a Surface Pro 2, is the pick of them because it can handle most things the big one can, where the 8" jobbie is an Atom powered tablet so it's only good for one way traffic - from it to the big one. Sometimes, though, the tablet is invaluable because I can stick it in my pocket and don't need to carry a bag. It is rare enough that I use the Uno without a computer that after a full year I have only had to change the batteries once.

I'd be concerned these tiny synths would walk.

I never worry about stuff like that. If something does go missing, it's usually because I lost it or left it behind.

I'd be more likely to recreate the patches in a more conventional synth if possible

That's mostly what I do, although it's the other way around - we use the hardware so that our live shows don't sound exactly like our records.

But then you have people like Suzanne Ciani: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_q3dnrQus4

That is just about the worst live performance I have ever seen. She keeps herself busy, with her back to the audience, but the audience would be bored to snores after a few minutes. Even the visuals don't change. She got some nice sounds out of the Buchla but she didn't do anything interesting with them.

Recording synths into a DAW is pretty easy these days, some can transmit audio over USB. A USB cable to the Uno, and an instrument cable from the Uno to the interface is all the Uno needs.

That's good if you can get it right first time but unless you buy new cables every few months, you are bound to run into noise issues. It's just not worth the hassle.

I am looking to build some kind of tiered angled shelving, they're all flat on a table right now.

I bought a laptop riser and added a shelf to it. It works really well and will translate to my keyboard stand on stage easily. It's one of these - https://www.amazon.com/Hercules-DG400BB ... ref=sr_1_4

If you're equating Eurorack with Synthedit I don't think I've been able to explain why it's a different ballgame. Yes, that is fundamentally FM, but arbitrary FM doesn't exist outside of modular unless the synth designer expressly routed it (which makes it non-arbitrary, right?).

It's the same with modular, someone has to decide what parts of the module will be accessible. If there is no patch jack for something, you can't get at it. Ditto for SynthEdit - if there isn't a connection for a particular parameter, then you can't control it. A good example might be the wave morphing that you can do with Uno's oscillators. If a rack module doesn't have that feature, then you can't do it. An engineer has to decide if it's worth doing or not so you are still limited to what the engineer does. You may feel like you have a lot more freedom but you don't.

I'm not convinced on the Craft for me. Every demo I see someone with a tablet, I have no desire to do that, but glad it's working for you.

Craft Synth 2.0 is a cracker, possibly the best of the lot of 'em. It is about one-third the size of Uno and is way more capable. It literally fits in your pants pocket. (Are you pleased to see me or is that a Craft Synth 2.0 in your pocket?) It is also extremely easy to use. Like, ridiculously easy. I think they learned a lot from Skulpt and really nailed it with Craft 2.0. And the sound quality is just as ridiculously good.

Isn't having wavetable synthesis a useful feature?

Possibly but it's not why I bought it and I rarely do anything that really needs the features of a wavetable oscillator.

Interoperability is intended to be one of those merits.

Really? Someone should have told the marketing dept at Behringer because they barely mention anything about interoperability in all the online material available for Crave. Quite the opposite, they are flogging it as some kind of wundersynth.

It's partially meant to provide optional sequencing and a different filter for the Neutron, possibly some low-cost modules for people with Eurorack (not sure if it's holistically worth the space).

So it's a spare part, not a product in its own right? Like 20" alloy wheels or a tuning kit for a car. That's not at all how it is being marketed.

If you are biased against the concept then it's obviously not for you.

I'm not biased against anything, I just expect something that is being sold as a stand-alone product to be able to stand on its merits. Crave cannot.

[yellowmix]

Clutter.

[BONES]

??? How are audio cables getting worn out that quickly in a studio environment?

They aren't just used in the studio and these days I find it impossible to buy cables that last. The most common brand seems to be Hosa and they are rubbish. I buy cables from eBay but that's very hit and miss. I reckon I probably spend $50 a year on cables. It's annoying as hell.

Are they being run over by something? Being yanked? Bent really hard? Cold solder joints? Humid environment?

Mostly they just sit in a bag until I need them. Interestingly, I still have the audio cables that came with my brand new TB 303s, all the way back in 1984, and they still work perfectly. It's the stuff I've bought recently that lets me down all the time.

I think it encapsulates what modular is about:

Why would anyone care "what modular is about"? Surely it's about music, like every other musical instrument ever made? If it's not, it's of no use to me.

The freedom comes from choosing the module.

I have the same freedom in choosing a synth with the features I need/want. It's exactly the same thing.

Can't change the oscillator in the Uno.

No but just as you can use a different module, I can use a different synth if I want a different sound. Again, it's basically the same thing.

IK created the Uno for us, with (semi-)modular you are the creator. It's as simple as that.

But you're not, you're just the hoarder who puts it together. Yet again, it's the same as me putting together a bunch of different synths, except that I can take any single part of my set-up and get it to work without any of the rest and I can instantly recall a sound I created last week, last month or last year. Or you can look at MIcroMonsta, which has something like 9 different forms of synthesis on-board, plus 8 voice polyphony, for about 30 euros more than Crave.

Craft Synth 2.0 is a cracker, possibly the best of the lot of 'em. It is about one-third the size of Uno and is way more capable. It literally fits in your pants pocket.

The size is kinda irrelevant when I have to carry a tablet too.

Why would you have to carry a tablet with you? It has 12 knobs and 18 switches/buttons. It is a doddle to program from the front panel. I mostly use the app as a librarian, to save out a bank of patches so I can make some more. And I have to say, I think you're making up this BS to reinforce your position because when I search YT for Craft Synth videos, only a couple out of about 20 show a computer or tablet being used with the synth - https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... +synth+2.0

I use the Pocket Operators which are the definition of tiny and cramped and there are some combo button presses to remember but it's still straightforward and fun. So I kinda need to see a video where someone is designing Craft patches without a tablet and enjoying it.

There are plenty in the link above.

As it stands I'm fine carrying the Uno around, it's fun making patches everywhere, if Modal increased the size to prioritize the UI a bit more like adding a screen (consider the Pocket Operators have a screen), or something with the ease of the Micromonsta UI plus a keyboard/seq, then hell yes.

Modal have done clever things to make a screen unnecessary. e.g. When you turn any knob, it uses the LEDs on the keyboard to show you the approximate value. It's every bit as handy as MIcroMonsta's parameter value display or the screen on something like Minilogue/Monologue.

Maybe IK can make a portable sequenced morphing wavetable synth?

They already have, it's called Craft Synth 2.0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS4V9zNiZ3Y

The Uno is so tight and they did it with a 3-character segmented LED + blinkenlights! The industrial design is top notch. They provide an app for convenience/patch management but it isn't necessary to get the same patch design features onboard.

Actually, it is because it provides several functions you cannot access from the front panel, like PWM. OTOH, you can do absolutely everything in Craft from it's front panel, the app provides no extra parameters at all. It's a different paradigm, each knob has 2 or 3 different functions, but it's all right there and once you are used to it, it's very quick. I do prefer Uno's matrix but that's mostly because I've been using that style of interface for 20 years.

For wavetables, I don't expect wavetable editing in the synth, and I don't expect it in the app either. Best if it accepts/auto-converts de facto standard Serum-style 256-frame 2048-sample tables.

Why? Most of them do the same stuff and I think the selection in Craft is more than most people would need. This idea that just because something can be done it should be done is stupid. I trust Modal to make good choices. After all, the success of their product depends upon it.

Wavetables' breadth of timbres and ability to blend between them contributes significantly to a synth's sound. Imagine an Uno with wavetables.

I don't need to. It's ability to morph between wave shapes works like a wavetable already. And that's really the only use I have for wavetables - to put a bit of movement into timbres. Even with Craft, it's not the wavetables that excite me so much as the 16 different ways you can modulate them. I'd choose oscillator cross-mod over wavetables every time and it's the lack of that I think holds Uno back more than anything.

Okay, I haven't seen the marketing but I know marketing can be grating. It's a stand-alone product to me, it is a complete patchable synth with a very capable sequencer, it can do things the Uno can't (not that I expect the Uno to do so).

No it can't. Quite the opposite, Uno's sequencer can do many things Crave's cannot. You can basically have a completely different sound from note to note, like a kick and snare, all from the same patch. You can even write parameter automation without any notes, which basically gives you an extra 20 modulation sources on top of the two ADSR envelopes and the LFO. That's a crazy amount of power in a sub-$200 synth.

Shows a way to do a 303-style patch & sequencing.

Another mark against it.

It's a lot like the Mother 32 (and then some) for a lot less

You don't have to tel me what a complete waste of money a Mother 32 is, it's perfectly obvious.

Anyway, <URL url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU0PQTswBt8"><s></s>the loopop video<e></e></URL> explains the Crave very thoroughly, there are some patch ideas showing what semi-modular can do, a pros/cons section, and in that section loopop mentions other products including the Volca and Uno.

If you listen just after 40 seconds, you can hear how Dog-awful ladder filters sound. As the resonance increases, it creates a second, detached timbre above the main sound, instead of an integrated timbre with more harmonics. I assume thats because the bandwidth of the resonance is too narrow, possibly to combat the effect it has on the bottom end. Whatever the reason, it's a shithouse sound compared to what other types of filters can do. Anyway, that's as far as I got, I'd never listen to a 36 minute video review.

Mentioning options to consider is fine since people can research that on their own, but don't you think it's odd to have to talk in-depth about a semi-modular synth and modular systems in the Uno thread?

No, why would I? They are both synths and they cost about the same, people are bound to compare them. Someone had the shits about mentioning Uno in the Crave thread so what are you going to do?

I figured you'd implicitly understand the joy of doing things outside the box,

But you're not doing anything outside the box, you're doing stuff I was forced to do 35 years ago and people had been doing for 20 years before that. You're doing stuff that Don Buchla and Bob Moog spent most of their careers trying to get away from. I realised a very long time ago that everything that's worth doing has already been done and trying to reinvent the wheel is a complete waste of time. I embrace modern technology because it gives far greater creative freedom and way fewer arbitrary restrictions.

[AnX]

You do realise that Microfreak is digital, right?

hybrid, it has analogue filter