1 Like
I think the rev2 is more than capable of creating evolving, complex pads. As for how it’s sitting in the mix, or course, it needs some post processing, like everything else.
2 Likes
I posted a couple of sketches into the Jamuary thread, today. The sounds are 100% Rev2, using the Octatrack for sampling, a little compression and delay.
I think the mid-range pad in the shorter one is rather nice. It was made in response to reading this thread. I originally aimed to make a patch similar to @orbax’s uploaded example, but gave up because the thing I had made interested me enough to record a loop.
That’s such a different plan from the aim you stated in the earlier posts. What happened?
The OB-6 seems really nice, too. I said upthread I am considering swapping the Rev2 for a P6. I’ve also thought about the OB-6. Everyone says it sounds delightful. I think I hear it (in YouTube demos) but it seems limited compared with the Rev 2. It certainly does pretty+fizzy really well, but can it do bells, and the complex evolving sounds the Rev2 can?
Heck yeah. I use an XP-60 for pads. It and the Super JV series are also brilliant for pads.
2 Likes
It (OB-6) definitely is, but man does it sound nice 
3 Likes
Just to avoid confusion, the Oscillators of the UDO Super 6 aren’t Analog.
From the manual :
The primary sound sources of the Super 6 are its two FPGA-based oscillators; DDS 1 and DDS 2. Although they are capable of generating superb analog tones, they utilize UDO’s Direct Digital Synthesis (DDS) method. For more information on what DDS means and how it works see page x at the beginning of this document.
Page x :
DDS Oscillators
Direct Digital Synthesis is the signal generation method employed by both oscillator cores of the Super 6. At its centre is a clock signal – three orders of magnitude higher than typical audio sample rates. The clock signal increments a counter through thousands of indices in your choice of waveform, selecting the appropriate sample to output every twenty- billionths of a second with interpolation filling in the gaps between samples at different oscillator frequencies. The samples produced by our numerically-controlled oscillators are then transformed to analog voltages by a DAC, one for each oscillator, which operates at the same clock rate before being filtered by a preliminary analog low-pass filtering stage.
The extremely high sample rate to output frequency ratio provides DDS oscillators with the advantage of superior phase precision and natural sounding frequency modulation. It also, importantly, precludes us from needing to deploy the severe band-limiting that is necessitated by aliasing constraints of typical lower frequency digital methods. Thus our oscillators are comfortably capable of generating frequency content far above the upper-frequency limits of the human auditory system as is the norm with analog oscillator synthesis.
1 Like
The Rev2 makes some of the best subtractive analog evolving pads. Just needs a bit of eq like any synth.
Some strengths are its two layers, 3rd envelope that has a delay and can loop. Of course the mod sequencer and ability to shape each oscillator. Lotta ways to make the sound evolve on this guy but it does have a more raw and rough sound than a lot of synths so it usually needs some extra post processing.
1 Like
hey, I like the second example from you best, because the chord or the pad sounds nice and “airy noisy” and yet somehow deep and warm, so I think the sound of the rev2 can achieve a lot. yesterday i also saw a video somewhere where very glassy sounds could be heard, which also sounded mega cool.
in principle, nothing has changed, the OB6 has always been a small dream of mine after the andromeda a6, because it is fully analog and the filters sound exceptionally good, but only six voices.
I will definitely leave my equipment like that and get the rev2 with all my might and then stay that way for the time being. Yesterday I even thought about driving digitally again and after selling everything, instead of buying the ob6, I would buy the iridium. the iridium really covers everything. but after hearing all sorts of things about the iridium, i just don’t like the sound 100%, it’s just not an “ah ha” effect where i can say: man, what kind of sound is that. it sounds like a VST instrument. I also believe that it is better not to have everything visually in front of you, because you are so much braver and more creative. It’s something completely different to grab an analog EQ and just turn it until the ear says that’s it. and that’s exactly how it is with the sound design. so i first have to lose myself in the sound and then at the very end the fine-tuning is done with visualization. ableton then only serves to remove nasty resonances and hellish lows or highs. where I am very skeptical about the low and high cut with the digital EQs.
Thanks. I made that one (specifically the pad) in response to this thread. Mission accomplished.
I thought that before xmas (after I bought something new 
). But now I’m GASsing again to swap the Rev2 for … something. As I said upthread, the “correct” thing for me to do now is to stop thinking about different gear, and instead to write more music using what I have. I also need to create and practice a single workflow regularly.
(off-topic workflow side-track)
I had a lot of success making some techno using only an AR last year. I could see the “less is more” approach working well for me. But I also love synths, and jamming around on them, so I need to develop a system that helps the latter feed the former.
This sounds a bit wild. You asked about the Rev2, then within a day you told us you were getting an OB-6. Then a day later you’re considering selling everything and getting Iridium. That’s a very high turnover. It makes me think something else is bothering you.
You reminded me of this song (which I sing about myself less often than I should ): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xG4oFny2Pk
Beliefs can work as good guides, but also function like traps. I too prefer exploratory knob-tweaking, but that doesn’t get tracks finished, on its own. You need willpower and some structure or a story for that. I also usually feel happier without “screens” (partly why I’m thinking to change the Rev2 for something)… but I get a lot from my AR so that’s not a hard rule either!
Exploring different instruments is fine. Finding the ones which fit you best is rather hard.
3 Likes
super cool that you responded with your sound on the thread, thanks again! Please don’t get it wrong, I’m looking for a polyphonic synth for my set, which is best analog, because as I said, I’m very much into analog. But the whole thing is of course very, very expensive and the Ob6 would come before the rev2 for me, but it also costs a lot more and to get it I would have to sell gear. so i don’t jump from one topic to the other;) the iridium was just an open question because it is also a possibility, which i then rejected again because, as i said, i simply like the analogue much better.
but if you are interested, i have now made up my mind. 
I tried again with the a4 to produce complex pads and lo and behold, I found something that is perfect for me and thus I save a lot of money until I can then afford something new.
the a4 has four multi-timbral voices. That means I can use eight voices without the voices cutting off by simply tricking the OSCs, because there are two OSCs per voice and I can simply mix their volume when changing chords - I hope I’ve explained that clearly can, but you surely know that anyway. all a bit cumbersome, but absolutely feasible.
1 Like
that video is chock-full of excellent pads imo.
2 Likes