# The bird has landed!



## Pier (Nov 11, 2021)

I was going to wait until BF for the 30% discount (so aprox $240) but found a good deal on Knobcloud for $150. Since I don't have much interest in the $100 voucher I went with it.

I just installed it some 30 mins ago and have been listening to the factory presets. And yeah, the factory presets are pretty underwhelming. I'm sure there are some hidden gems in there, but everything I've heard (which is not much) seems pretty outdated and unconvincing. It feels as if I was listening to stuff from 20 years ago.

The UI seems pretty clear once you understand the tree structure. Got the hang of it in pretty quickly. I wish the UI performance was better though. At 4K it's definitely not running at 60fps. It's incredible that Vital, a free synth developed by a single person, has better UI performance than almost all commercial products out there.

Super excited to spend some time with it this weekend!


----------



## doctoremmet (Nov 11, 2021)

Have fun Pier.


----------



## Pier (Nov 11, 2021)

Sounds great!


----------



## Bee_Abney (Nov 11, 2021)

Pier said:


> I was going to wait until BF for the 30% discount (so aprox $240) but found a good deal on Knobcloud for $150. Since I don't have much interest in the $100 voucher I went with it.
> 
> I just installed it some 30 mins ago and have been listening to the factory presets. And yeah, the factory presets are pretty underwhelming. I'm sure there are some hidden gems in there, but everything I've heard (which is not much) seems pretty outdated and unconvincing. It feels as if I was listening to stuff from 20 years ago.
> 
> ...


You'd like them better, perhaps, if they sounded as if they were from forty years ago...

I haven't been playing with synths for such a long time, so they are all good for me to learn from; and easily altered to taste for those who prefer to start with the heavy lifting already done. I think the 2.5 ones are pretty good. Just enter '2.5' in the search window to focus on those. Either way, all that really matters is that you can make what you like with the synth.


----------



## Pier (Nov 11, 2021)

Bee_Abney said:


> Either way, all that really matters is that you can make what you like with the synth.


Exactly!


----------



## Pier (Nov 14, 2021)

liquidlino said:


> So, Pier, how are you getting on with Falcon? First thoughts in comparison to Zebra?



*TL;DR:* I'm having a love hate relationship with it. The sonic character and sound design capabilities are mind blowing but I just hate using it.

Here's my long review/rant if anyone is interested...

I won't comment on the included presets. In general I find them very meh but, to be fair, I've only skimmed very few presets superficially.

*The good*
The sound reminds me a lot of Vital. Very clean and precise even when adding distortion, saturation, etc. This isn't a criticism. Each synth has its own sound, but if one is looking for analog mojo it's not there or, at least, very hard to find.

My favorite part of Falcon are definitely the effects. Not only in the quality but also the huge variety. For example, having a convolution processor right inside Falcon opens up so many sonic possibilities. I think PhasePlant is the only other synth that comes close to this.

The DSP performance has been excellent on my desktop PC with a Ryzen 3700X. Also it opens up super fast which is very impressive.

*The bad*
The sound design potential is really mind blowing for a single instrument, or rather an environment. But this is the thing, as an environment for experimentation, the usability of Falcon is really bad.

If you have a clear and precise idea of what you want to accomplish, it's not horrible. But, once you want to start tweaking all this system of layers/effects/etc you've created, everything takes just too many steps. Even after you've understood the weird UX patterns UVI has in place, it's so clunky and inefficient. I feel like UVI wants to waste my time on purpose.

I could point to dozens of examples but here's just one: you're doing your thing on some layer and now you want to reorder the effects of some other layer. The obvious solution would be to just reorder the effects in the tree view, but that doesn't work. So, you double click on the effect in the tree view, navigate to a different section, maybe scroll, click drag to reorder the effects... and then you have to go back to where you were which, again, takes a number of clicks and scrolling. Something trivial that could be solved with a single click and drag becomes a tedious ordeal that takes a dozen clicks.

Then there are UI widgets which are just bad. The MSEGs for example are the worst I've ever used, in any audio product. Or just incomprehensible stuff like why doesn't the analog oscillator have a semitones setting?

Other than usability issues, I've found many UI bugs when using it on a 4K monitor. Plenty of stuff not rendering at the proper scale. Here's just one:







Also, the performance of the UI when running it at hiDPI in 4K is very poor. Some knobs take almost 1 second to update after moving them quickly... yeah that bad. This doesn't affect the sound in any way though.

*Falcon's sweet spot*

First, Falcon is also the only platform in the market that gives you access to the IRCAM algos. So if you want to experiment with that, just go with Falcon.

I think Falcon really shines as a platform for distributing hybrid content (samples + synth). The only other worthwhile competitor is Omnisphere, but Spectrasonics hasn't opened up multisamples to its users (yet).

As a pure synth my opinion is that there are better options out there. Zebra, Dune, PhasePlant, Rapid, or Omnisphere are extremely capable and will cover most (not all) of what Falcon does. If Falcon is worth it for the extra say 10-20% is very subjective. For me, personally, it's not worth it. I'd rather have a more limited product that I actually enjoy using.

As a sampler/rompler Falcon is definitely more powerful than Kontakt. But Kontakt is so much more popular. Honestly, I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I feel if someone had to decide on which platform to invest (as a user or sound designer) Kontakt would be a better option.

As a sound design experimentation playground I would recommend Bitwig rather than Falcon. Not only it does provide all the capabilities Falcon has (with the exception of the IRCAM stuff) but it's lightyears ahead in terms of usability and modern user experience. Even just using Bitwig's vanilla devices. Of course, since Bitwig is a full blown DAW, you can use any third party plugin. Eg: layer a Spitfire cello with Zebra, process that with FabFilter Saturn, and save that as a preset. The issue with Bitwig is really distribution. It would probably make more sense to just render everything to samples and distribute in Kontakt, EXS24, Hise, Sforzando, etc.

*Conclusion*
I would love to love Falcon, but you've probably guessed by now Falcon is not for me.

The most astonishing thing, to me at least, is how blind UVI seems to be to their own product.

Falcon is not an abandoned product from 20 years ago. UVI keeps investing dev effort by adding more features. But Falcon already has more features than Zebra, Kontakt, and Omnisphere *combined*. I'm 100% certain the fundamental usability issues are the reason it's not more popular. Not the lack of features.

Of course one could argue that I have extremely low tolerance for bad usability, which is absolutely true, but the problems I've described here are objective.


----------



## Bee_Abney (Nov 14, 2021)

I'm sorry it hasn't worked out for you. Which things cause such frustration vary so much between people. 

As a novice with such tools, I find it extremely easy to use, intuitive too, even though I too have noticed some of the issues you've mentioned. Of course, I haven't learned other ways of doing things that I prefer. And I'm still a beginner with Falcon, so I may yet reach a stage where I need it to do something that it can't, or can't do easily, just due to bad design. The modulation envelopes may be an issue, although I do prefer to control such things by one hand whilst playing with the other as it is such an expressive part of the performance or composition. Assigning control to CCs is very easy in Falcon. (But lots of software can do that.) That's probably just naievity on my part, trying to play complex effects as if they the varied ways of manipulating notes on a guitar. The best effects rack on a guitar is practice, and the best modulation is practice repaid. But I'm gibbering senselessly, sorry. 

I was pleased to hear more about Bitwig, although I didn't see a huge amount of advantage in the points you've mentioned over what I can do in my own DAW, Studio One. I'm sure I need to learn more about just how good BitWig is. 

It's a shame that IRCAM tempted you into buying Falcon after all you already knew about it. I imagine that you wanted to create patches with IRCAM, not just use it for processing samples for use elsewhere. My recent experiments have confirmed that even IRCAM stretch works fine if you know how to use it. (Four to six differently pitched samples works wonders for the CPU performance. And you can even use it to create the extra samples.) 

So, is it too early to start a thread so you can get talked into buying MSoundFactory? 

It's half price, you know; and it can do anything (except IRCAM) and it is (everyone says so) so intuitive to use. And you can choose from a list of different appearances (that are all the same with slightly different colours).


----------



## Alchemedia (Nov 14, 2021)

@Pier I knew you were going to dislike Falcon and tried to warn you! 

I been using Bitwig for years as my secondary DAW after ST1 and I wouldn't say it's better for typical sound design than Falcon. Falcon is much more focused. Bitwig's grid, like modular, is an infinite rabbit hole and excels at modulation FX. I get far more accomplished more quickly in Falcon and Falcon's sound quality is infinitely better. 4x oversampling in Bitwig is only available in the grid and even then, Falcon sounds much better. Bitwig's sampler can't compete with Falcon. Falcon's effects are far better also. I wouldn't even consider Bitwig for typical composing, arranging or mixing. I use Studio One. Even Reaper is far better than Bitwig in that respect.


----------



## Pier (Nov 14, 2021)

Bee_Abney said:


> I'm sorry it hasn't worked out for you.


No worries!

I did my research and had to try it for myself. It's a shame there's no demo though which would have made this very evident. Also I only paid $150 lol.



Bee_Abney said:


> I do prefer to control such things by one hand whilst playing with the other as it is such an expressive part of the performance or composition


Same for me. And this reminded of another weird decision by UVI. You can't reset knobs/settings by double clicking and are forced to use the keyboard. Either by pressing ALT + click or double clicking and typing the value you want.

I found this annoying. When working on synth patches, I have one hand on the midi keyboard and another on the mouse and this forces me to stop playing with the midi keyboard.



Bee_Abney said:


> I was pleased to hear more about Bitwig, although I didn't see a huge amount of advantage in the points you've mentioned over what I can do in my own DAW, Studio One. I'm sure I need to learn more about just how good BitWig is.


So in S1 you can create complex routes with effects using the track designer (I think it's called). You can also create a multi instrument.

This is of course fantastic, but one of the Bitwig's features are the modulators which are available for any device.




Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if S1 introduced modulators soon.

Bitwig also has The Grid which is a modular environment for creating synths and effects. Here's Cameron from Venus Theory creating a reverb from scratch:


----------



## Bee_Abney (Nov 14, 2021)

Oh, Alt+Click is a total pain, that’s for sure. I don’t know what the reasoning is behind that.

I’ll definitely be looking into Bitwig more. If sound quality isn’t an issue - and I mean that as a matter of taste rather than objective factors - then it could be something I should look to expand into.

And, yes, Studio One users have been requesting improved modulation options for a while. I doubt it’s going to catch up with Bitwig anytime soon, but anything would be nice. Which reminds me that I need to look into Cableguys’ Midishaper some more.

I suddenly want to build my own reverb.


----------



## Pier (Nov 14, 2021)

Alchemedia said:


> I been using Bitwig for years as my secondary DAW after ST1 and I wouldn't say it's better for typical sound design than Falcon. Falcon is much more focused.


Honestly, IMO Falcon is anything but focused. Kinda of a mess... but this is very subjective of course.



Alchemedia said:


> I get far more accomplished more quickly in Falcon


Compared to the Grid? Yeah of course. But Bitwig is much more than that, as you know.

Objectively I think Bitwig is way faster. Eg: you're working on a chain of devices and all devices are just a flick of the scroll wheel away, maybe an extra click. In Falcon moving between layers and panels is extremely tedious in comparison.



> 4x oversampling in Bitwig is only available in the grid


AFAIK oversampling in Falcon is only available in certain modules.

Other than the Grid, Bitwig has oversampling by default in some of its modules. I know for sure EQ+ but there are probably others.

And if you need more control over that, you can use third party devices like FabFilter Saturn, Vital, etc.



Alchemedia said:


> Bitwig's sampler can't compete with Falcon.


Other than the IRCAM stuff you mean? Could you provide an example?



Alchemedia said:


> Falcon's effects are far better also.


Far better to your subjective ears you mean? 

I prefer Bitwig's effects, but I wouldn't say they are better or worse in terms of sound.

In terms of control, many of Bitwig's effects provide more options than the ones in Falcon though.



Alchemedia said:


> I wouldn't even consider Bitwig for typical composing, arranging or mixing. I use Studio One. Even Reaper is far better than Bitwig in that respect.


That I agree with and it's something I've complained many times here on VIC. I think it's fine for mixing, but composing and arranging... yeah they really need to improve this.

This is completely unrelated to our discussion about Falcon though.


----------



## Alchemedia (Nov 14, 2021)

Pier said:


> Honestly, IMO Falcon is anything but focused. Kinda of a mess... but this is very subjective of course.


Don't even look at HALion in that case!  It's all subjective as you say, but I like working with both and don't find Falcon tedious at all, although I must admit I did initially.


Pier said:


> AFAIK oversampling in Falcon is only available in certain modules.


Falcon's oscillators sound *much* better than Bitwig's regardless IMO. No contest really and talk about lackluster presets. 


Pier said:


> In terms of control, many of Bitwig's effects provide more options than the ones in Falcon though.


I agree control-wise, far more than most people would ever think to use or need. I wish they would resolve some of the glaringly obvious usability glitches. Don't get me wrong, I like Bitwig and wish it could replace Falcon, but I don't see that happening. Bitwig is a playground, Falcon is a workhorse. Often I'll begin a project in Bitwig only to realize after getting lost in the weeds, that I would have been much more productive with Studio One + Falcon, especially if I'm working on a deadline.


----------



## Alchemedia (Nov 14, 2021)

liquidlino said:


> Blasphemy. Reaper is better in every aspect, as the king of DAWs. But lets not let this degrade into a discussion about DAWs


I love Reaper and have been using it since ver. 1.0!


----------



## Alchemedia (Nov 14, 2021)

Pier said:


> Here's Cameron from Venus Theory creating a reverb from scratch:


This wouldn't be necessary if there was a decent reverb on the market.


----------



## AllanH (Nov 14, 2021)

Pier said:


> *TL;DR:* I'm having a love hate relationship with it. The sonic character and sound design capabilities are mind blowing but I just hate using it.
> 
> Here's my long review/rant if anyone is interested...


That was an interesting review - thank you for taking the time to write it out. I've had falcon for several years now and initially I found it somewhat overwhelming. For me there was a decent learning curve but I think the instrument has returned the favor at this point.

Sonically, the core oscillators are rather sterile (not surprising, I would say, as they are not attempting to emulations of e.g. a VCO). The wave-table oscs. are excellent and many good ones are included. The pluck osc is also excellent as is the granular synth osc. It just took substantial time figuring it out. I've gotten so used to the sound generated by some of the u-he synths, that I primarily use falcon with the various sound banks.

I do think the UI could need some help. But given the complexity of information it's presenting, I'm not sure I have any meaningful suggestions.

Finally, Falcon is an extraordinary playback engine, especially in view of all the FX.


----------



## Pier (Nov 14, 2021)

AllanH said:


> I do think the UI could need some help. But given the complexity of information it's presenting, I'm not sure I have any meaning suggestions.


Although I think the information could be visually better presented, my main gripe is about usability, not so much with visual design.


----------



## Pier (Nov 16, 2021)

liquidlino said:


> I don't see why UVI don't allow it really, they should put a warning or something, but allow it.


I guess the thinking is that envelopes mostly make sense per note/voice.

Maybe you can use an MSEG instead of a regular envelope?

In most synths you can use envelopes with the effects (which are stereo and not per voice) and the envelopes simply re-trigger on every new note. I've used this for ducking delays and reverbs.


----------



## R. Naroth (Nov 17, 2021)

Anyone hitting CPU limits with Falcon? Even with pure synthesis and no samples, I tend to reach the limits.. Maybe because I am still on my old Mac Pro 5,1. :(


----------



## Pier (Nov 17, 2021)

R. Naroth said:


> Anyone hitting CPU limits with Falcon? Even with pure synthesis and no samples, I tend to reach the limits.. Maybe because I am still on my old Mac Pro 5,1. :(


Your issue is definitely your Mac Pro.

What CPU do you have?

The quad core Xeon W3530 has a score of 497 single core on Geekbench which is very low. Falcon only uses a single core, unfortunately.


----------



## Pier (Nov 17, 2021)

liquidlino said:


> not for pure synthesis, no cpu issues at all even when playing live with tons of unison etc. I can happily have 300+ voices with no audio breakup - AMD Ryzen 3600, so one of their cheaper processors, but single core performance is really good. Once disarmed in reaper (so no live playing) CPU for pure synthesis is sub 1%, it's amazing in that way. Different story entirely for IRCAM scrub or stretch


I'm using it on a 3700X and the DSP performance is really good.


----------



## R. Naroth (Nov 17, 2021)

Yeah, definitely my computer. I have the dual 6 core 2.4GHz Xeon processors. Never hit any issues with the DAW because of the abundant cores but even a Zebra patch that use the Diva filters takes me to the limit sometimes. Need to live with this for a bit. Maybe when the new Mac Mini with M1 pro max comes around, I’ll upgrade.


----------



## cmillar (Nov 18, 2021)

R. Naroth said:


> Yeah, definitely my computer. I have the dual 6 core 2.4GHz Xeon processors. Never hit any issues with the DAW because of the abundant cores but even a Zebra patch that use the Diva filters takes me to the limit sometimes. Need to live with this for a bit. Maybe when the new Mac Mini with M1 pro max comes around, I’ll upgrade.


I have very similar computer, and what I do is to load Falcon as a plugin in VEP7, on the same machine.

Whatever it's 'doing', it works for me even when loading in IRCAM intensive sounds.

No audio crackling and much, much lower hit on the CPU.

VEP7 is pretty handy for a lot of reasons.


----------



## R. Naroth (Nov 18, 2021)

cmillar said:


> I have very similar computer, and what I do is to load Falcon as a plugin in VEP7, on the same machine.
> 
> Whatever it's 'doing', it works for me even when loading in IRCAM intensive sounds.
> 
> ...


Thanks, VEP seems to be a good option to consider..


----------



## Pier (Nov 18, 2021)

R. Naroth said:


> Yeah, definitely my computer. I have the dual 6 core 2.4GHz Xeon processors. Never hit any issues with the DAW because of the abundant cores but even a Zebra patch that use the Diva filters takes me to the limit sometimes. Need to live with this for a bit. Maybe when the new Mac Mini with M1 pro max comes around, I’ll upgrade.


Do you really need the M1 Pro or Max or more than 16GB of RAM?

If you're only doing audio, the CPU improvements will not be very significant. The big performance kick comes from more GPU cores.


----------



## R. Naroth (Nov 18, 2021)

Pier said:


> Do you really need the M1 Pro or Max or more than 16GB of RAM?
> 
> If you're only doing audio, the CPU improvements will not be very significant. The big performance kick comes from more GPU cores.


I also dabble a bit in short films 🤪and it would be great to have one that can run Davinci Resolve smoothly for a few years to come.


----------



## Pier (Nov 18, 2021)

R. Naroth said:


> I also dabble a bit in short films 🤪and it would be great to have one that can run Davinci Resolve smoothly for a few years to come.


Yeah the M1 Mini definitely can run Resolve.

I saw a video of a Final Cut Youtuber who switched from a 2019 Tower Mac Pro to the M1 iMac. Says the editing is more fluid in the M1 and he doesn't mind the longer render times as he isn't constantly rendering. I can look it up for you if you'd like.


----------



## R. Naroth (Nov 18, 2021)

Pier said:


> Yeah the M1 Mini definitely can run Resolve.
> 
> I saw a video of a Final Cut Youtuber who switched from a 2019 Tower Mac Pro to the M1 iMac. Says the editing is more fluid in the M1 and he doesn't mind the longer render times as he isn't constantly rendering. I can look it up for you if you'd like.


@Pier Will definitely do. I am at a point now where CPU usage is affecting my productivity. Thanks for the pointers.


liquidlino said:


> I always say, spend as much on CPU/RAM as you can afford each time you refresh a computer, as they are usually expensive / un-upgradable. Storage can be expanded internally or externally almost infinitely, and GPU's can be replaced over time if required (most audio/video apps don't really use the GPU much). But try to buy a CPU/RAM/MOBO combo that will last for six to eight years - a good trick is to leave half the RAM slots unfilled, so you can double RAM about 4 years into the hardware cycle. In todays world, I think that means buying 8 cores, 32Gb RAM as a bare minimum for any new desktop (and frankly given how affordable AMD processors and Motherboards are, 12 to 16 core isn't unaffordable), for general purpose creator work (video, audio, 3D). And if you know you need more (huge sample libraries) then factor that in (128GB RAM for instance).


That is real sound advice @liquidlino.


----------



## Pier (Nov 18, 2021)

R. Naroth said:


> @Pier Will definitely do. I am at a point now where CPU usage is affecting my productivity. Thanks for the pointers.


This is the video I was talking about.


----------



## Wes Mayhall (Nov 25, 2021)

Pier said:


> why doesn't the analog oscillator have a semitones setting?


It does. It's the 'Coarse Tune' knob, unless I'm missing what you're saying. The control bar for 'Oscillators' is far from intuitive. I looked everywhere for a mixer - turns out you turn off the "chain" icon, and control the Gain of each oscillator individually, but to 'mix' them you have to click each osc's tab and adjust its Gain. Coming from Pigments and Vital, I was tripping all over that interface. I'm hoping it gets better with use.


----------



## Pier (Nov 25, 2021)

liquidlino said:


> I think pier meant the solo oscillator. I always go straight to stack too, as then you get all the controls, panning, volume, phase, etc. Wish there was even more controls per oscillator, wavefolding, FM, etc.


Exactly. I meant the solo one with voice controls.


----------



## Wes Mayhall (Nov 25, 2021)

liquidlino said:


> I think pier meant the solo oscillator. I always go straight to stack too, as then you get all the controls, panning, volume, phase, etc. Wish there was even more controls per oscillator, wavefolding, FM, etc.


I'm not referring to the Stack. The bar above the individual oscillator tabs has a chain icon on the left end. Turn that off and you have all the controls in that bar individually for each oscillator: Pitch, Coarse Tune, Fine Tune, Gain, etc. "Coarse Tune" is the semitone control, and it can be set differently for each oscillator. Yeah, very non-intuitive.


----------



## Pier (Nov 25, 2021)

Wes Mayhall said:


> I'm not referring to the Stack. The bar above the individual oscillator tabs has a chain icon on the left end. Turn that off and you have all the controls in that bar individually for each oscillator: Pitch, Coarse Tune, Fine Tune, Gain, etc. "Coarse Tune" is the semitone control, and it can be set differently for each oscillator. Yeah, very non-intuitive.


Wouldn't that affect all the oscillators in that "oscillator layer"?


----------



## Wes Mayhall (Nov 25, 2021)

Pier said:


> Wouldn't that affect all the oscillators in that "oscillator layer"?


No. When the 'chain' (actually just two links of a chain) is blue, all the oscillators are linked. Click the chain icon and it turns grey, then all the oscillators are un-linked.

How have you guys been mixing oscillator levels without this feature? I ask because I was going nuts trying to find a mixer function when I stumbled upon this little icon. Un-linking the oscillators is the only way I've found to be able to adjust their levels ("Gain") individually. And yeah, it's a very clunky operation; once you have them un-linked you have to click on each oscillator's tab to adjust its level.


----------



## Wes Mayhall (Nov 25, 2021)

liquidlino said:


> I've been editing the valume level in the tree parameter editor, underneath the tree. Shamefully slow way of doing it!


Wow, I didn't even know that was possible! You're a patient person!

PS: I'm now demoing Phase Plant lol. Not giving up on Falcon, just uh, taking a break.


----------



## Pier (Nov 27, 2021)

Wes Mayhall said:


> No. When the 'chain' (actually just two links of a chain) is blue, all the oscillators are linked. Click the chain icon and it turns grey, then all the oscillators are un-linked.
> 
> How have you guys been mixing oscillator levels without this feature? I ask because I was going nuts trying to find a mixer function when I stumbled upon this little icon. Un-linking the oscillators is the only way I've found to be able to adjust their levels ("Gain") individually. And yeah, it's a very clunky operation; once you have them un-linked you have to click on each oscillator's tab to adjust its level.


Just tried that and it works. Thanks for sharing the tip!

Very weird that this isn't the default option.

I also learned that you can enable the OpenGL rendering which solves all the UI performance issues I had. It's also weird this isn't the default setting IMO, at least on Windows.


----------



## digitallysane (Nov 30, 2021)

Pier said:


> Wouldn't that affect all the oscillators in that "oscillator layer"?





liquidlino said:


> Oh really?! I will have to check that out. Sometimes I wonder about our good friends at uvi, what were they smoking some days...


That is one (and not the single one) feature of Falcon that's really not "intuitive" (that is, you can't "guess" it), but it results in a fast and easy workflow once you learn it.

Speaking of which, this and a lot of other things that one might see presented as great "tips" on forums are actually very clearly explained in the manual ( https://s3.amazonaws.com/uvi/UVIFC/falcon_manual.pdf ) ...
Reading it is an effective way to actually learn to use the software, most of the stuff is clearly explained and there are also a bunch of tutorials included. 






Pier said:


> I also learned that you can enable the OpenGL rendering which solves all the UI performance issues I had. It's also weird this isn't the default setting IMO, at least on Windows.


----------



## Pier (Nov 30, 2021)

digitallysane said:


> That is one (and not the single one) feature of Falcon that's really not "intuitive" (that is, you can't "guess" it), but it results in a fast and easy workflow once you learn it.
> 
> Speaking of which, this and a lot of other things that one might see presented as great "tips" on forums are actually very clearly explained in the manual ( https://s3.amazonaws.com/uvi/UVIFC/falcon_manual.pdf ) ...
> Reading it is an effective way to actually learn to use the software, most of the stuff is clearly explained and there are also a bunch of tutorials included.


In the UI industry we have saying:

"UI is like a joke. If you have to explain it, it doesn't work"

If reading the manual is necessary to operate a UI, then the UI has failed as an interface between the human user and the software.

I used Zebra for years before consulting the manual and it wasn't to understand how the UI works, but rather obscure stuff like the oscillator effects. I don't think I've ever read (back to back) the manual of any software.


----------



## digitallysane (Nov 30, 2021)

Pier said:


> "UI is like a joke. If you have to explain it, it doesn't work"


I doubt you do. I don't think this "saying" applies to anything more than the UI for a webstore.
There are lots of UI conventions across various fields, and quite a bit of them require doc reading to be understood.
Users can be left confused even by basic windowing controls when they switch from Windows to Mac for example.


Pier said:


> If reading the manual is necessary to operate a UI, then the UI has failed as an interface between the human user and the software.


Not sure where you pull these "sayings" from, but there is no truth in them at all.
I haven't yet met a piece of specialized software -- from Photoshop to Houdini, Maya, Blender, Unreal Engine, DaVinci Resolve, Scratch, Lightworks (in the CG world) to Nuendo, Falcon, Reaktor, Architect, MODX (in the audio/music world) and even stuff like VS Code or Excel -- that didn't have particular gizmos, GUI conventions, order of steps to do things and so on.
Any user of any of those would benefit greatly from reading the docs, because none of those GUI specifics are "intuitive" in any way, but make for very fast and easy operation once they are learned.


----------



## Pier (Nov 30, 2021)

digitallysane said:


> I doubt you do. I don't think this "saying" applies to anything more than the UI for a webstore.
> There are lots of UI conventions across various fields, and quite a bit of them require doc reading to be understood.
> Users can be left confused even by basic windowing controls when they switch from Windows to Mac for example.
> 
> ...


This is a very in depth discussion and we could spend weeks going over all its nuances, but I will say this:

1) Obviously there are conventions. Not sure what you're arguing there but that's completely unrelated to how good an interface is at communicating with the user. Seems like a strawman fallacy.

2) My personal anecdotal experience is I've used most of the software you listed (some of it like PS for decades) and I've never needed to read a manual. In rare occasions I've consulted manuals to understand more in depth functionality but never to understand the UI. The exception is Blender which I did find really obtuse, and I agree going through a basic tutorial is very worthwhile.

3) Photoshop or Falcon are nowhere near the complexity of Blender or Maya. Arguing that because someone will probably need to spend time studying Blender does not mean the same is valid for Falcon. I'd dare say this is actually another logical fallacy.

4) Again, just because software like Blender can be very efficient once you learn it, doesn't mean it's true for any other software. This is definitely not the case with Falcon.

5) I think you might be confusing knowledge about one area (eg: photo retouching) versus UI usability and general user experience. Eg: Reaktor or The Grid (in Bitwig) are fairly simple to use. I don't think anyone with knowledge of modular synthesis and digital audio would have a hard time with any of those regarding the UI.

BTW this is a video showcasing the interactive help feature in Bitwig which is available for all Bitwig devices:




You haven't seen anything like that in Falcon, huh?


----------



## digitallysane (Nov 30, 2021)

Pier said:


> 2) My personal anecdotal experience is I've used most of the software you listed (some of it like PS for decades) and I've never needed to read a manual.


I have to say that I simply don't believe you.

For the other points, the bottom line is pretty simple: all the elaborate theories in the world and links to fallacy theories (you're missing the point, and I'm pretty sure it's on purpose) are not an excuse for not reading the manual (even truer if the software feels "particular" or even "obtuse").

You could spend time on multiple web forums complaining that Falcon doesn't do this or that and militating against the reading of manuals, or you can read the manual and actually use it.
That is, if using it is the actual purpose.

As I said, I totally agree that the chainlink icon for multiple oscillators is not _intuitive_. I did get caught by it just like you and others in this thread. I read the manual and moved on, and now that I'm familiar with it I think it's a nice, compact UI gizmo that offers quite a bit of functionality in a compact space.

Would I like it if they find a UI that does the same while being more intuitive? Certainly!
Would I like it if they find a UI that's more intuitive but requires more space and scrolling, just to be sure it's useable for people who are against reading manuals? Certainly not!


----------



## Wes Mayhall (Nov 30, 2021)

Pier said:


> In the UI industry we have saying:
> 
> "UI is like a joke. If you have to explain it, it doesn't work"
> 
> ...


Could not agree more. Reminds me of my last job, where IT had to create a Wiki just to explain how to use our "productivity" suite (Agile), the use of which was not optional.

I'm hoping the ultimate explanation will come down to the sheer flexibility requiring such an opaque interface.

Here's a thought: what Falcon needs is a 'wrapper'. Nah. I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## digitallysane (Nov 30, 2021)

Wes Mayhall said:


> I'm hoping the ultimate explanation will come down to the sheer flexibility requiring such an opaque interface.


I have a hard time understanding the meaning of "opaque" when it comes to Falcon's GUI, but it's clear to me that in this thread we do have very different opinions on "GUIs that get complex stuff done with reasonable speed and clarity".

Why are you people using Falcon if you don't need/want the complexity?
That's the whole point of Falcon, to be a synth workstation.

The VSTi world sees a huge inflation. It's not like you don't have TONS of options, from Retrologue to Pigments to Zebra to Bazille to some other 10000 VSTis...


----------



## doctoremmet (Nov 30, 2021)

I am afraid I am on team @digitallysane on this one. The blind faith in “UI” sounds a bit silly to me. I bet I can’t fly an airplane without proper training. So sometimes one has to train oneself. Manuals are an excellent help


----------



## digitallysane (Nov 30, 2021)

doctoremmet said:


> I am afraid I am in team @digitallysane on this one.


----------



## Wes Mayhall (Nov 30, 2021)

digitallysane said:


> I have a hard time understanding the meaning of "opaque" when it comes to Falcon's GUI, but it's clear to me that in this thread we do have very different opinions on "GUIs that get complex stuff done with reasonable speed and clarity".
> 
> Why are you people using Falcon if you don't need/want the complexity?
> That's the whole point of Falcon, to be a synth workstation.
> ...


"opaque ... not able to be seen through; not transparent." says Google.

Why am I using Falcon? Well, Venus Theory and a few others raved about it and I had to see what it was all about, and I was enticed with a $244 special offer. With all those VST options you listed, how else does one learn without trying them? That's what I'm doing.

I have Zebra 2 and HZ and Pigments, and I use their manuals, Zebra's particularly. I use the manual when I get stuck. Perhaps my problem is judging Falcon's interface against theirs, and others.

So, what do you think of my wrapper idea?


----------



## digitallysane (Nov 30, 2021)

Wes Mayhall said:


> So, what do you think of my wrapper idea?


Adding another layer of complexity in order to apparently simplify things on a piece of software whose purpose is to do complex things?
No, thanks.
If one doesn't need the stuff that Falcon can do, IMO one should just not use it.

Or, this:


liquidlino said:


> Like Hans said, it's about getting to know a workhorse that suits you, that you can reach for to accomplish everything you need to do.


----------



## Pier (Dec 1, 2021)

digitallysane said:


> I have to say that I simply don't believe you.


Denial is your choice, of course. Nothing I can do about that.


----------



## Pier (Dec 1, 2021)

Wes Mayhall said:


> Could not agree more. Reminds me of my last job, where IT had to create a Wiki just to explain how to use our "productivity" suite (Agile), the use of which was not optional.


Exactly. I've been through that countless of times since I started my career in software in the late 90s.


----------



## Pier (Dec 1, 2021)

doctoremmet said:


> I am afraid I am on team @digitallysane on this one. The blind faith in “UI” sounds a bit silly to me. I bet I can’t fly an airplane without proper training. So sometimes one has to train oneself. Manuals are an excellent help


With all due respect Doctor, you're mixing two very different matters. I actually pointed this out in a previous comment.

Using your plane analogy, obviously the dials and buttons won't teach you how to fly a plane. Neither will Falcon or Reaktor teach you synthesis. Which is very different from having a UI that assists you in doing the work as easy and efficiently as possible.

Edit:

Thinking a bit more about this. Falcon usability problems is like if the pilot had to get up from his seat, and walk to some other room in the plane to check the altitude.


----------



## Pier (Dec 1, 2021)

liquidlino said:


> an almost identical lists is on the kvr thread for falcon that uvi Devs definitely are on and respond to


Exactly.

And Oliver Tristan from UVI (I think he is the dev chief) told me personally he will be looking into implementing a suggestion of mine.


----------



## Wes Mayhall (Dec 1, 2021)

liquidlino said:


> an almost identical lists is on the kvr thread for falcon that uvi Devs definitely are on and respond to


Could you provide a link to that thread please? I found one that's 445 pages long (phew!). Is that it?

Thanks!


----------



## Pier (Dec 1, 2021)

Wes Mayhall said:


> Could you provide a link to that thread please? I found one that's 445 pages long (phew!). Is that it?
> 
> Thanks!


This is the one!

Although you might want to check the last dozen pages instead of the 445... or maybe not LOL


----------



## Wes Mayhall (Dec 1, 2021)

Pier said:


> This is the one!
> 
> Although you might want to check the last dozen pages instead of the 445... or maybe not LOL


Thanks Pier! Slight tangent, probably has been brought up in that 445 pages lol: why doesn't KVR have a UVI section? Anything that could spawn a 445 page thread surely could use its own page, right? Just a thought.


----------



## Pier (Dec 1, 2021)

Wes Mayhall said:


> Thanks Pier! Slight tangent, probably has been brought up in that 445 pages lol: why doesn't KVR have a UVI section? Anything that could spawn a 445 page thread surely could use its own page, right? Just a thought.


Long threads are very common in KVR and other forums. I don't like it either... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

AFAIK company subforums are maintained and moderated by the companies themselves. U-He for example is responsible of their own:









KVR Forum: u-he Forum


KVR Audio Forum - u-he Forum




www.kvraudio.com





I don't know why UVI does not have their forum. My guess is they don't want to spend resources moderating a forum or interacting with the community.

U-He is a very different company than UVI.


----------



## digitallysane (Dec 1, 2021)

Pier said:


> With all due respect Doctor, you're mixing two very different matters. I actually pointed this out in a previous comment.


Denial is your choice.


----------



## digitallysane (Dec 1, 2021)

Pier said:


> And Oliver Tristan from UVI (I think he is the dev chief) told me personally


You mean he replied to a post of yours in a forum?


----------



## doctoremmet (Dec 3, 2021)

Alchemedia said:


> Don't even look at HALion in that case!


I looked. Just bought it this afternoon (crossgrade price for Falcon user with 50% discount). I have to say I am apparently extremely “forgiving” when it comes to usability issues. Must be the fact I used to just sit behind a DX7 mk. 1 and a Kurzweil K2500 and their little LCD screens or something. Anyway - I digress.

Ah yes. Halion. I have to say -and I never knew this- this has got to be the best wavetable implementation ever!?


----------



## Pier (Dec 3, 2021)

doctoremmet said:


> I have to say I am apparently extremely “forgiving” when it comes to usability issues. Must be the fact I used to just sit behind a DX7 mk. 1 and a Kurzweil K2500 and their little LCD screens or something. Anyway - I digress.


It's probably a generational thing.

Some generations seem to be more sensitive to certain things than others. I see younger people than me on Youtube complaining a lot about aesthetics or animations in the UIs of synths which I don't care much about. I am very sensitive to usability, workflow, and UI performance.

Objectively, I agree these things are not as important as being able to do the thing you want to do. But we're not in the 80s or 90s anymore. The modern expectation is that software should not only do the thing its meant to do, but also be beautiful and as ergonomic as possible.


----------



## doctoremmet (Dec 3, 2021)

I happen to perceive all software as fugly. Lol.

A Fender Rhodes is beautiful. An OB-Xa too. And my new Karoryfer Orcophony t-shirt is brilliant. The rest is just tools. But you’re right, it’s a rather personal and ultimately trivial thing. Just use whatever works!


----------



## emptyvessel (Dec 3, 2021)

It's been interesting reading through this discussion. I have to say that as part of my job I'm presented with new plugins on a regular basis, usually without documentation at the stage I'm given them so judging a plugin's usability, appearance and how intuitive it is is something I give a lot of thought to.

Generally I feel that, with complex tools, the ideal obviously is that I don't need to refer to the manual. Our tools are often complex enough these days that I honestly don't believe this is achievable or at least is incredibly hard to achieve. If I can open a tool and navigate my way through a decent amount of the core tasks one would want to achieve with this tool, without the manual, then they have done a good job. If I then need to refer to the manual to work a few things out or to discover things I may not have stumbled upon - I'm ok with that.
I tried Falcon a few times when UVI initially gave me it and I found I was closing it again quite quickly and going to use something else. After a while I basically spent a few weeks using only Falcon with the manual open on my 2nd screen and after that I was fine with it.
I like that it's quite regimented and I find it suits my way of working in how structured the patches are. I find most tasks to be achieved in acceptable ways but there are definitely still things that I find illogical and frustrating even after using it extensively over the last few years. On balance, I find the positives of the sound and what can be achieved with the instrument outweigh the negatives. ymmv.
I totally agree that there are improvements that could be made and some workflow oddities that could be significantly streamlined.
OMG I want so much to be able to grab the tab at the top of an effect module and drag it to somewhere else in the structure from the Tree view and the main central patch structure pane!!  I also lost count of the number of times I'm scrolling the central patch structure pane and because it's stopped in just the right spot that the mouse pointer is now over a knob, the next scroll adjusts the knob setting instead of scrolling the view!! (on a mac with Magic mouse btw) If anyone knows a way to prevent this, I'm all ears. 

I really feel like UVI potentially have a massive hit on their hands with this instrument (I say this without any bias, I dont work with UVI, I just know some of the team). Falcon will continue to evolve and I genuinely don't think it's far from being the sound design nirvana it promises to be. I would continue to use other synths of course, Pigments & Phase Plant offer similar if different possibilities presented in more intuitive, fluid and fun ways and UA Lion although less broadly capable is a great sonic playground IMO, I'm concentrating mainly on commenting on Falcon because it's the subject of the thread. If I don't mention some of the other big-hitter uber synths it's only because I haven't used them, there's only so much time in the day and outside of work my preference for hobby time is to be outdoors, kayaking, rock climbing and hiking.

I'd encourage you to spend more time with it @Pier but I can totally relate to your desire to mark it down as a miss and look elsewhere. We're fortunate these days to have so many options to choose from for relatively small amounts of money it seems silly to persist with something you're finding frustrating. Will be interested if you do persist and feel like coming back to this thread in the future.


----------

