In his latest loopop video, host Ziv Eliraz takes an in-depth look at the UDO Super Gemini synthesizer.
The Super Gemini is a 20-voice polyphonic, bi-timbral analog-hybrid flagship keyboard. UDO says that the keyboard gives you “immediate comprehensive control” over both timbral layers, along with polyphonic aftertouch, a ribbon controller and other expressive performance features.
Eliraz shares his thoughts on the pros and cons of the Super Gemini.
On the pros side, Eliraz praises the instrument’s sound and usability, saying that “it’s a treat to spend time with”, and “truly an instrument to go on journeys with, because of the way its hands-on controls invite you to play.” On the cons side, Eliraz notes that the Super Gemini isn’t cheap, and notes that some less expensive synths have more features.
Check out the video and share your thoughts on the UDO Super Gemini synth in the comments!
Inverted colors would be nice; switch white with the obsidian blue and vise versa.
I like the color palette similar to the TR909 but the white is too prominent. Blue would be more pleasing and literally cooler to the eye
Humm, looks like the link for the video is missing
Fixed!
We can talk about price and value and features, but at the end of the day, my question is whether the designer has created a great-sounding, inspiring instrument – an UDO is doing just that, making modern classics.
Still no screen, still no thanks!
What would be the use of the screen in this particular synth?
See @New Ignis brilliant post and then you will know precisely why.
Screen = Synth Design Fail
Every time you see a screen on a synth, it means that the manufacturer cheaped out and is using four buttons to do a hundred things, or that the synth would really just be better as a VST.
About the only company that gets screens right is Korg, on synths like the Minilogue and Prologue. You generally don’t need the screen on these synths, because there are knobs for everything. But the screen is there if you want to see an oscilloscope view of your sound, which is kind of fun, or if you’re somebody who trusts your eyes over your ears.
That is the… most obtuse and nonsensical explanation I have seen yet. Your reasoning and deduction is the fail here. The proper implementation of a screen to provide additional information, parameter value, envelope/waveform/filter cutoff shape, necessary midi information, patch management, and hidden features or functions that whilst rarely used, may be vital in certain situation and setups necessitate a screen! Your hang ups about screens and their implementation is bizarre. Yet you keep thinking that. I would rather have more information and better access than not.
Well, it seems you are both wrong. Trying to apply a single rule to something as complex as user interfaces doesn’t make sense. Some synths work better with a screen, and others don’t. In this case the designer intentionally created the UI to be based on hands-on control, without the need to constantly look at the screen. Complaining about the presence or absence of a screen without actually getting hands-on and understanding the design’s intent is pointless. You should get out more and experience the things you think you already know. You might realize that the things you’re complaining about won’t serve the design or the purpose of the instrument at all.
Thank you for clarifying what I need and don’t, through experience is it? Right.
I spent ample time with this in the studio and walked thinking (as I mentioned that it sounded interesting and had great potential) however the absence of a screen for an instrument of this complexity rendered useless for myself. And taking a snapshot with my phone is not my idea of advanced synthesis to recall parameter values.
i am sorry sir
It’s alright, I need to monitor my tea intake midday.
Yes. I agree. Screens are a cheap way out for manufacturers? Common man!
A synth or keyboard with a useful screen is always helpful but…….a cheesy little screen is usually novel but with technology today, why not do it RIGHT.
You know, the biggest cop out in screens is putting a cheaper screen on a nautilus than what’s on a Kronos. Manufacturers should simply put a dedicated IPAD or tablet out and a back ledge to hold it up behind it to show you every parameter available to act as one with your keyboard.
I prefer a screen too, but this one is akin to a Minimoog; its WYSIWYG. Its pricey, but if you’re in the market at this level, you already know what’s what. Its a matter of personal technique. Overall, I doubt newbies are dropping $4-5K! Its not a first synth; its one you grow into over time. Volcas first, flagships later.
If the Solaris can have a screen, 6 in fact at less than $3600, this should have 1 at the very least! And I concur that this sounds interesting.
Wha you see is where the controls currently are and not where they were set for the sound you programmed a while back
I have one. Missing a screen is a curious endeavour. Since you can’t possible memorize what is where and how you got there, this synth forces you to learn all of its ins and outs.
So I don’t play presets at all, but try to learn exactly what I achieve with any knob and knob combination. And that demands a lot of time, which I may have over the years, but not today.
For me it’s a keeper, but it’s gonna take a long long time to master it satisfactorily without a screen or editor.
i traded mine for a Yamaha tyros
It sounds lovely indeed, but the lack of a screen really does seem like it’s going to make patching a bit of a nightmare. Agree with Dave that the market here is experienced synthesists, but with no visual indicators even a skilled synth user is sometimes going to get mixed up between filter cutoff and filter envelope sustain, and once one starts modulating the modulators complexity inevitably ensues.
Also, I feel there could be a little more modulation. I first got into ‘real’ synth programming with an Oberheim Matrix 6r ($300! lolsob) which had 20 mod sources and 10 slots. That was not a fun machine to program because the front panel just had membrane switches and the MIDI implementation was a bit rough around the edges, but at least you could go through a patch and figure out all the assignments.
I like this synth a lot but the obscurity of the mod parameters and patch IDs would really eat at me after a while. It gives me flashbacks to frustrating times trying to figure out my first synth.
That’s a very interesting perspective and very different from the one I have.
When I look at the Super Gemini, I see a very hands-on interface that’s designed to give you immediate control over two independent synth engines. Like a CS-80, but without the $100k price tag.
Screens are generally a necessary evil for dealing with synth engines that need more knobs. You don’t need an envelope display if you’ve got dedicated sliders – you don’t even have to think about it, you just grab the control and tweak it.
When it comes to modulation, the Super Gemini has dedicated controls for common modulations, and lets you easily map to two dozen more destinations, with LED feedback.
The only place where I think I’d miss having a screen is where it comes to patch names. This synth is building on the CS-80’s interface design, and it’s not a problem there. But this supports a lot more patch memory than the CS-80.
I have synths with screens that show patch names and screens that only show patch position. Both have their downsides to me, because entering in patch names is almost always a pain in the butt on synths, but being limited to patch locations means you have to remember your patch locations.
That would be my only interface concern, though, based on what I’ve seen. I’d really like to get a chance to try the Gemini out. It seems pretty close to a dream synth to me.