galanter2 wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:17 am
If they had to use a digital reverb, how about a DSP running a convolution reverb using impulses with the original 2600 spring reverb, and a push button to cycle through some other spring reverbs, and a few classic plate reverbs while they were at it?
Yes. This was exactly my point. That Behringer should have used their considerable in-house existing products and teams to find or create a more reasonable equivalent to the tsnk they'd removed. In the bigger picture, this is -for me, and I'd bet quite a few others too- one of the more frustrating things about Behringer's entry into the synth market. They are better positioned and capable to make something really good to replace that missing tank, but they're instead seemingly choosing not to do so.
It's like a top-level programmer choosing to re-use crap code somebody else wrote instead of doing the kind of work she or he can do. We know the talent, means and resources are available to Uli to do this part right.
But just as we see in the re-use of effects and sequencer section across several of the smaller modules -all of which therefore work with the Synthtool app- Uli's choice to leverage the same unit gives way to what's possible and desirable.
thermisonic wrote: ↑
Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:29 am
Sounds costly to develop, at least in Behringer terms
Right. Why bother when you're going to sell as many as you make without doing the work?
And the answer is: Because Uli told us this was his passion project. Uli Behringer, i'm asking you to take your passion for classic synths and make this reverb more like the one it replaces. The 2600 legacy you've chosen to inherit deserves no less.