UVI Intros Energy Synthesizer, Inspired By Rare Digital Keyboards Synergy

UVI has introduced Energy – a new virtual instrument, inspired by the rare Digital Keyboards Synergy keyboard.

Here’s what they have to say about it:

UVI ENERGY delivers the rare and complex sounds of the 32-oscillator Digital Keyboards Synergy.

With commercial production ceasing 30 years ago and a total run of less than a thousand units, this wildly obscure synthesizer delivered futuristic sounds far ahead of its time and helped to shape the iconic timbres of the original TRON.

Features:

  • ‘Thorough and authentic sampling’ of the DK Synergy’s output
  • Programmable with performance optimized engine
  • Now with an expanded preset library

Energy is priced at US $49, with an introductory price of $29. See the UVI site for details.

28 thoughts on “UVI Intros Energy Synthesizer, Inspired By Rare Digital Keyboards Synergy

  1. Now that you can sidestep the $#@! iLok, I’ll be a lot more interested. I’ve been taken by several things they offered, but totally dismissed them over the iLok. This looks like a great resource for small cash. I got to play a Synergy once. As I recall, it had a unique clarity and odd creaminess going at the same time, as opposed to being FM-brittle. It seems to have a lot of variations within the presets and that will capture the bulk of its merits just fine.

  2. This sort of additive / spectral synthesis is very easy to manipulate and create new sounds with – so I hope they’ve done a good job of creating an easily tweakable & rich sonic platform!

    1. Kawai K5000, Kawai K5, Technics SX-WSA1, Casio FZ-1, Korg DSS-1, Technos Acxel, and I think the Kurzweil K250 has some also. K150 is pure additive but no keyboard model. Also any organ you can care to name from parlor organs to giant cathedral organs are all additive synthesizers by nature, arguably the first synthesizers.

  3. UVI Intros Energy Synthesizer

    They Missed out one word in the first line

    Software

    UVI Intros Energy Synthesizer Software

  4. Sad to see that this is another sample library and not an actual recreation of the Synergy. Would love to have the Synergy II+ in a modern soft synth.

    1. Mack, sitting and piling up sine waves makes FM synthesis look like kazoo playing. I had a Kawai K5 and it was a nightmare to program. Additive is definitely a job for a software plug. Most of what you’d want it for is well-served by synths such as Razor, which groups many of the more useful harmonics and tops them with analog-type controls. Pure additive is so labor-intensive as to be the realm of academia, mental malady or BOTH. I personally like it. The pads and evolving events are unique and the more pointed lead-like patches offer welcome clarity when mixed in low with a more muted sound. I’ve had my hand in it, so I can testify that the software versions give you virtually all of the imagined “good” and far little of the unsane programming demands. Exactly *how* great Energy is remains to be seen, especially since it models an early additive instrument, but if that bothers you, you’d probably change your mind after tweaking sine waves all weekend, trying to create a popping bass, only to wind up with a pilot whale fart. Waste time now, ask me how. 😛

        1. A soft synth running on a computer is hardware and is no different than a DSP chip snuggled in a keyboard or drum machine shaped box.

          1. Woah, dude!!! You just blew our minds!!!!

            (But seriously, to say it is no different is really a simplification- I bet you’ve used both hardware VA’s and VST’s- you really think there are no significant differences in usage and performance? )

            1. If you don’t like softsynths, that’s cool, but don’t kid yourself that a dedicated computer designed to look like a keyboard or drum box is intrinsically better. The Access Virus TI, for example, is an impressive hardware synth with powerful DSP and high quality D-A converters. But equally impressive are soft synths like Waldorf’s PPG 3.V and GForce Software’s ImpOSCar playing through similar D-A converters. Just because the hardware and architecture of a general purpose computer is not optimized to a specific task – digital signal processing – does not make the computer any less suitable to that task and, provided the code is good, the result is the same or better.

              1. Has your Virus ever gotten a virus? Do you ever have to tinker with buffer settings on your Virus to avoid crackling or reduce latency.

                I never said I don’t like soft synths, I said it’s an over simplification to insist that they are exactly the same as a hardware synth.

        2. No, more like describing a few of the pitfalls and pluses so people less familiar with it can make better choices. I’m one of those oddballs who likes to lessen the pain of newbies so they get to the music faster with less hair-pulling. This is all great fun, but it still demands underlying WORK if its gonna fly. You get to be the boss of you, but don’t let misplaced bias trip you up. I thought the FM/additive world smelled like ass until I learned where those sounds were useful. I don’t blame those who kinda hate softsynths for their lacks or pretensions, but I’ll shoulder the hassles gladly for the added power. I have two big Korgs I love playing, but the ensemble strings are way too muddy for me, so I use their high points and apply parts of two modest orchestral plugs for that semi-faked John Williams aroma. Go hybrid and use what works. Don’t totally dismiss any approach casually. It might become your new love child three years from now.

  5. There have been several amazing hardware additive synths over the years, but none has been successful, because they were extremely expensive and horrible to create new sounds for. The Synergy was no exception.

    Now that computing power is cheap, there are some fairly user-friendly desktop additive software synths. These are dramatically easier to use than any hardware additive synth.

    So the question now is – what would be the benefit of putting an additive software synth into a dedicated piece of hardware? To make a UI that was anywhere as usable as an app, the hardware would have to be extremely expensive – so there’d be a very limited audience for them.

    This is one place where I think iPads are really beginning to shine. There are some great additive, wavetable and physical modeling synths available, using for $10-20. Paired with a good MIDI controller, you’ve got an outstanding platform for exploring most of the main types of digital synthesis.

  6. I hate rap music, and these cheesy demos are not enticing at all. They’re better off on BET or something…

    1. Couldn’t agree more. Demo after demo for all of these (supposedly amazing) plug-in synths, and they all sound the exact SAME. Why can’t developers give us demos that demonstrate how UNIQUE their synth is instead of spitting out another carbon-copy ‘get the crowd pumped’ EDM track?

    2. I hate that same tripe they trot out for everyone of these demos as much as the rest of you but I wouldn’t call it “rap”. Rather it’s just the EDM staples of the day.

  7. Just bought it, and it’s awesome!! My world is modular/semi modular but, I also played with the system back yonder…this will work well in my studio!!!

  8. This Synergy demo will give you the flavor of it. It also had one of the better keyboard actions I’ve played, especially for string sounds. I’m curious as to how historically accurate the plug will be. Gimme those added cartridge sets, please. It has vintage drawbacks, but also vintage charm. Dig that ten-year battery life.

  9. Just to be clear, this has some samples of the Synergy, and is a sample set and is not a programmable additive resynthesizer.

  10. I owned a late-model Synergy II+ w/MIDI and a pretty extensive cartridge collection, I concur with all the positive remarks re the quality of the instrument, both build-and sound-wise. Had intentions of doing some development with the Kaypro, but never took things to the next level…time-consuming stuff. Had a K150 at the same time, thought it was a neat instrument too and that they were a nice complement to one another, not as redundant as you might expect…each was voiced very differently, I thought. If someone was going to do a software version tho, beyond basic sample-playback and simple tonal variation, I’d love to see them realize the GDS itself! Maybe draw on Wendy Carlos’ personal expertise, too…

  11. Ah! I remember this Synergy demo…it’s an intriguing paradox: the sounds are complex, the system is very expressive….but there is an unwashable cheesiness about it. Hard to explain, but it reminds me of later day Wendy Carlos (who, if I am not mistaken, eventually used the Synergy). The more she was getting close to “real” instruments timbres, the more phony the whole thing sounded. I would even dare say that these digital synths were a lot “phonier” than sample-based instruments in the hands of capable players.

Leave a Reply