UDO Super 6 Binaural Synthesizer In-Depth Demo

At Superbooth 2019, we talked with UDO founder and designer George Hearn, who gave us a demo of his new Super 6 Binaural Synthesizer.

The Super 6 is a 12-voice synthesizer that’s designed so that it also can be used as a 6-voice binaural synthesizer, with each note having two independent synthesis paths.

The Super 6 is still in development, but is expected to be available later this year.

Check out the video and let us know what you think of the Super 6!

12 thoughts on “UDO Super 6 Binaural Synthesizer In-Depth Demo

    1. This isn’t his first rodeo. George Hearn was involved with the design of the Modal Instruments flagship synths.

  1. Been watching some other Super 6 demos this week, very cool.

    ‘We hope it sounds good…’
    IMHO, it sounds awesome.

  2. OK. This one has a sound… Lot of new synths look interesting on paper, but have an unremarkable sound if their demos are any indication. Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, the interesting-sounding ones tend to cost more. Waldorf Quantum sounds amazing. This UDO synth sounds really cool. I and I think most people will find it hard to justify those price-points, though. Novation peak has been in kind of a sweet spot of great sound and attractive price. Summit looks interesting.

    1. I would not say that the peak is in the sweet spot. The sweet spot is maximum 999 Euros inc VAT/999 dollars.
      But with this passing even the 2000 line, will of course make the situation even worse.

      Things have changed in recent year.
      Although we don’t have a lot of cheap polyphonic synthesizers with good (or even decent) parameter rich interfaces, the expectations have changed. Especially when it comes to digital or partly digital synths.
      5 years ago, or slightly more, a synth of this caliber would have made a real splash, and the price would not have been seen as much of an issue, even though a lot of people wouldn’t have been able to afford (some would plan to save up for it).

      Today this is a quite expensive instrument that will soon be superseded by something even better, or more cost effective, making it an instrument for those that have the cash to burn. It isn’t an investment, and it isn’t the product to save up to.
      The real Unique Selling Point for this instrument is the super-waveform-stereo-sound. And something similar isn’t hard to achieve in coding a digital synth (hardware or software). And some stereo FX processors come close, even with algorithms already out there, depending on what it is fed.
      If the sound catches on, it will not stay unique.

      I do like the sound, and I do like the interface, so I fully understand people hyping and GAS’ing over it.

      Stereo seem to be the new Buzz-word in the synth world, though. Matriarch, and a lot of new modular also offer stereo-paths, before the FX. (Some software as well). (Not that it is anything new, the Dave Smith Evolver did stereo back in 2002, and there have probably been synths before that as well).

      1. You seem to think that any synth that isn’t a cheap knockoff is ‘premium’ or expensive.

        Synths of all types are cheaper than ever and you get more for your money than ever. That’s true for just about all synth companies.

        Moog sells multiple great synths for under $1,000. Sequential’s synths are amazing for the money at the midrange, and the market is supporting more high end synths than anytime in history.

        The availability of cheap soft synths and iPad synths is what’s driving this. Hardware dealers have to offer a compelling piece of gear or people won’t bother.

        1. I’m not sure you read a single word of what I wrote.

          In most consumer businesses a product over 1000 Euros/Dollars is considered expensive. There was a time when that wasn’t true for synthesizers, but that is no longer the case.

          And this isn’t just over 1000, it is even over 2000.

          With every step up the price ladder, the potential amount of customers decreases. There are some price points where the number of potential customers in relation to the difference in price, is disproportional. This is very true for every time the price pass the factor of ten. So 9 to 10, 10 to 100, 100 to 1000. But it also happens every time the first digit goes up (1 to 2, 2 to 3 and so on).

          This is something that Behringer understood, therefor they released the DeepMind 12 in the USA first, because they could price it below 1000. And if sales were successful, they would be able to get the European price below 1000 including VAT.
          That is something Futuresonus understood, an priced the Parva accordingly.
          And MFP with their new Synth-8. (Although that is their target price, what turns out in the end is a different matter).

          Price is not the only factor; the value for money is also a factor.
          With the loss of potential customers, one has to increase the margins, to make up for the loss in terms of volume. That makes this a even harder issue to tackle.

          It isn’t as simple as saying that there are more expensive synths out there that has managed to sell, so there should not be any problem for this product.
          Does the product have a unique selling point that will make it feel like a must have, making people willing to pay for it.

          An issue for partly digital based synths, is that the digital part will become cheaper over time, or there will be new products at the same price offering a lot more processing power.
          At least with analog, the maker can calculate that few other makers would be able to make the same part cheaper.
          The SSI filters of this is also in mass production, meaning that there is potential for their prices to go down. And Behringer would certainly be able to produce similar filters at a very low price.
          All in all, meaning that the actual electronics part of this product, will be possible to re-produce at a lower cost, if not today, then at least not long from now.
          Looking at the price of the peak and the summit, suggests that it could be possible to make a very similar sounding product, right now, at below 2000.
          Anyhow, the problem will falling prices is that their customer base right now, are those that can buy it off the shelf, the save-up people, might have other offerings to choose from.
          That would be fine, if it was a Be-all synth, but there are other synths for less and several in the same price bracket, that offer other unique features. Making it a product for those that can collect them all, or put it in a situation where it has to win over some of the competitors.

          When it comes to winning over customers, the issue is that the sound, while really nice, is somewhat emulate’able with the right set-up. And who knows what alternatives will the out there, when this is released.

          I really like the product.
          But I do think that the price will be an issue for it, when it comes to success. The big question then is, if it will do well enough to cover the costs, or at least get the company the attention they need for producing future products that will cover the costs so that they don’t go under.
          As a business plan, it could also be possible to sell this product to Roland, get them to cover the costs move on to the next thing, and let Roland take the risks. The developer behind the Waldorf Kyra, had that in mind, all the time, but probably no specific company to sell it to. And although UDO hasn’t suggested any such strategy, there is a lot of Roland feels to this product. And Roland could perhaps be able to reduce the cost, by using their production methods and using their brand and marketing strategists to ramp up sales volumes.

          I don’t believe in the idea of support a small company just because it is a small company. But if a small company offers something that is unique, it can be worth paying a bit more for it, as they might not be willing to produce the product any cheaper.
          Dreadbox mono synths, is a great example. And the modular world is full of such examples.
          But this product is in a completely different price-range.

          When it comes to future competition, it is well worth knowing that Behringer was looking for people with knowledge of FGPA programming. If that is intended for synhts, or as effects (built-in and separate products), hasn’t been made public as far as I know.

  3. Isn’t a long release envelope just an imitation of reverb that doesn’t work quite so brilliantly with limited (6) polyphony?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *