Hello,

I have been demoing some of the few additive synth out there like discodsp and virsyn.

My feelings are that most sounds it makes is very distinctive and redundant at times.

I you want decent sound, you need to spend a great deal of time building it maybe more than FM syhths.

The spectral windows makes it very hard to understand what you are doing. Is it a sine or saw or whatever wave thats there ?

Of course, if it sounds good, then youre all set but the sounds are almost impossible to replicate if you ver lose your patches or change synths...

Is there a way of seeing this in a good way ?

Yan

yul wrote:

Hello, I have been demoing some of the few additive synth out there like discodsp and virsyn.

Additive soft synths include: discodsp Vertigo, Virsyn Cube, ConcreteFX Adder, Camel Audio
Cameleon 5000, White Noise Additive. All have demos, check them out.

Quote:

My feelings are that most sounds it makes is very distinctive and redundant at times.

Please explain and restate, your point is rather unclear. If something is distinctive it is to some extent unique. Something that's redundant is repeated and there fore not unique. So how can something be distinctive AND redundant at the same time?

Quote:

I you want decent sound, you need to spend a great deal of time building it maybe more than FM syhths.

Have you tried Cameleon 5000? The user interface is
perhaps the best layed out of all the additives.

Quote:

The spectral windows makes it very hard to understand what you are doing. Is it a sine or saw or whatever wave thats there ?

That's only one way of doing additive synthesis. According to Cameleon5000's manual, there are three ways to approach additive synthesis :

-Preset Morphing

-Sample resynthesis

-Additive or 'spectral modelling' synthesis(what you mentioned)

-Many additives also let you import a .bmp picture and use that as a source for sounds.

Cameleon 5000's demo comes with the manual which goes into detail as to what each method does.

Quote:

Of course, if it sounds good, then youre all set but the sounds are almost impossible to replicate if you ever lose your patches or change synths...

You seem to have picked up some misconceptions. If you save your work, then everything can easily be
replicated. As easy as any other synth. You do make secure backups of your computer data, don't you?

Additive synths probably seem more complicated than they really are because you aren't familiar with them.

db, you are awful nice to people.

Yul, if you know next to nothing about a type of synthesis you shouldn't say things that make you look foolish.

Of the four additive synths I beta tested and was astonished with, I agree with db that Cameleon has a fairly easy learning curve. I prefer CUBE just because you can make something out of literally nothing by trial and error. It is outrageous to read someone talk about possibly the most complex form of synthesis (that's FM, Yul) and compare it to the additive synths, I have no idea about Vertigo, discoDSP weren't interested in being part of a additive synth round up. However, the rest of the developers were. The one most impressive thing to me regarding additive synthesis is how it can be implemented in a synth. It's modern VSTi history goes back to Big Tick who was using both FM and AM (a precursor to additive) in his Rainbow 2 synth. That was a difficult to grasp synth but mostly because of it's FM herritage. Big Tick struck back again with a mixture of FM, AM and interpolated single cycle sampled waveforms in Rhino. This synth gets a bad rap for being complex. I think because it actually says it uses FM that some people get mindfucked by it. A lot of people won't go near FM as implemented by Yamaha and perfectly modeled in Native Instrument's FM7. It is difficult to program and much less capable of organic sounds. But compared to Rhino which uses FM with several other synthesis types including waveshaping, something no one ever mentions for some reason, and a superb set of filters, FM-7 is much less capable which is a shame as it used to be a leader in virtual synthesis.
Additive makes a bigger appearence in Rhino with the use of single cycle waveforms derived from samples, something all the additive synths use, also known as resysnthesis, the world's simplest way of creating new sounds from a sample and a mixture of subtractive and sample manipulation tools. Have a look at WhiteNoise's DoppleManger for resynthesis used as a synth engine. Again, astonishingly musical and easy to learn.
By perception and fear of Yamaha style FM Rhino gets an unfair reputation. However, it is easy to learn if you read the manual or have any kind of willingness to explore. Somewhere in the middle Gol from Image Line walked between the lines of Rhino and FM-7 and came up with Sytrus. Popular because of a layer of very easy to program features that sound more analog than digital with a much more complex second layer that's really, truly FM based Sytrus appears to be simple, and within the first layer of the interface it is but when you get to the FM part, well, it is not simple, fun to program except by a few, nor anything close to intuitive. Again, somehow Sytrus skates, most likely because almost everyone uses the simple front layer and maybe fiddles occasionally with the FM segment.
But, ask around and see how many people equate the word friendly with FM synthesis. I can look anyone in the eye and say in particular that CUBE and Cameleon are very user friendly, that is, unless you don't enjoy graphical 64 part envelopes for modulation, pitch, amplitude, filters and LFO.
Here's a quick experiment in CUBE. Download the demo and fuck the presets. Additive synths are made to be programmed.
Ok. use a initialized patch. It should sound like a saw wave. Leave it that way and switch to the filter. Randomly draw some envelopes. Be wild, try things. Then, give it a play, you should have a saw wave doing some interesting sweeps or jumps depending on the way you made the envelope. You can do typical things like triangle, saw, sine, et. al. with CUBE's filters but then you are being a bit like the kid who won't move six inches away from the pool's side. Try some stuff. Now, go to the actual oscillator and remove all information. You'll lose your sound but that's ok, we'll have it back in a second. Starting at the left side of the additive osc start adding partials at the 20hz to 500 hz area. Leave the rest of the waveform empty. Now listen to the partials and your filter. It should sound like a bass that changes a bit because of the filter envelope. Next, slowly add a few more partials, the partials, so we are clear, are those lines that get thicker as the frequency rises. That's because higher frequencies are small waves and don't have as big a timbral difference as the longer 20hz to 1200 or so khz partials. Now, go to to the envelope. Right click and use rhythmic envelope and CUBE will create one for you. Try playing it, the rhythmic nature will immediately sound good, but you can change some rhythmic values such as removing or lowering the envelope sections much like a mute on a step sequencer. In fact, hink of envelopes like you were using a step synth except here you can change the timing of the steps, gaps between sound and even sweeps in volume. When you are done with the envelope and have a nice rhythmic sound that is unique to you, go back to the oscillator and do a bit more tweaking to get a timbre that suits you. You've done about 10% of what CUBE is capable of. You can also add samples that will be interpolated. You'll be able to tell as the oscillators will form a pattern with certain poles being higher than others. Again, take a few risks and move some of these poles. You may hear a timbral shade that sounds wrong. That's ok though, you can always put the partial back to how it was. The idea here is you can change the fundemental sound of a sample that has been converted to a bunch of sine waves at various frequency ranges. Now think about it for a minute. If a sample plays in one oscillator and it sounds ok then why can't you put some time into figuring out how to design your own sounds? And remember, CUBE has four oscillators which can morph between each other. You don't have to have all four doing fancy things, one might have a bell like ring while another might be a bassy saw style sound with a filter sweep, just go to the filter for the oscillator you chose and make sure you lower the waves fairly early in the frequencies where all the major action is. You will produce a upward filter sweep. You can do the opposite and sweep down. You can even spend a small amount of time and use a few harmonics near the right end to emulate a self oscillating filter. And again, you have the filter envelope so you can literally copy the filter from the osc and paste it to the filter or any other envelope if you desire.

Hopefully you're getting some ideas. Next, look at the morph window. There are a bunch of lines there. Move them around while playing the synth and you will hear the changes. Then look at your oscillator and filter envelopes and see the morphing take place as you move or automate the lines. btw, this is a great way of tweaking if you hate using the envelopes. Great, now you've used about 15% of CUBE's capabilities. You can create huge sounds or simple sounds that can do the little things that make "real", convincing timbres. Now, use the other partials to create hitting, blowing and plucking sounds. Think you can't get damn near close to physical modeling of instruments? Why not? You have the ability to model individual sounds that work dynamically or with a mod wheel or other controller.
You have to put time into learning a small amount of information but in the few instructions I gave you you should be able to make thousands of very different, unique sounding presets. And don't forget, CUBE is eight channel multitimbral so you can really go enormous which I've yet to need to do, or have a nice synth to provide a massive variety of sounds for live use or sequencing. And I do mean a massive amount of sounds...

All of the additives (again, I can't vouch for Vertigo but can for the others) use additive differently. CUBE is able to resynthesize samples but it started as a pure additive and for me is dead easy to get exactly what I want. I prefer working that way and don't use samples much in it although they sound great.
In Cameleon you load samples to be interpolated in up to four oscillators. As db mentioned the interface is less dense than in CUBE and pretty easy to use. Cameleon uses wave data to make additive oscillators as well and like CUBE has multi segment envelopes for all operations. Try simple things first. Load a few samples, you won't get as many in the demo but there's an excellent library by Sonic Reality that comes with the full version. You can also add your own sample data for interpolation.
Now, use the window to morph between sounds, or think in pairs, one pair of samples used to create a unique sound with another two making yet another unique sound.
Program some morphing changes with the envelopes and you'll see a series of lines that represent functions you can visually manipulate. These series of lines also change the envelopes as in CUBE and create a very pleasant morphing effect, one of Cameleon's strengths.
I could continue with each remaining synth but by now you should get the picture, except Additive and Adder have different ways of working with additive sound, Adder's synth analysis breaks it into 32 partials and treats each partial as a oscillator. Adder's ability to step sequence eight different timbres is in effect taking the building blocks of sound and allowing you to reassemble, pull apart and do almost anything you like using a subtractive method of manipulating additive synthesis. And regarding Additive, WhiteNoise really did some novel thinking by creating two oscillators and two formant capable filters that are controlled by images you can import or draw yourself with the included tools. Similarly, you can draw in the filters with the same tools plus you can import samples as well. Again, the later stages of the synth are actually similar to subtractive synths, so really, it shouldn't be hard getting a large number of sounds, assuming you are familiar with synthesis in general.

The key to all of additive is thinking in a different way. And as for FM vs additive. FM can't come close to additive's capabilities no matter the signal chain that follows it.

I've spent a bit of time giving anyone interested a way of starting to work with a additive synth, and while my tastes run more towards Cameleon and CUBE I still love how Adder and Additive sound. ConcreteFX has a package of Adder, Digital, Unison and Micron bundled.
Digital is a multiple 4 operator FM synth which is vastly simpler to program than 6 operator FM. It's not the easiest synth to program but for FM it is pretty intuitive and the capabilities are truly amazing. Unison and Micron are similar to old synths like the Kawai K1 with six oscillaors able to use many small waveforms to create a substantial sound. While the K1 had no filters Unison/Micron do and Micron uses single cycle waveforms that emulate the Virus synth. If I remember right, these four synths are on sale for $60.
If you can't find a depth of timbral changes between the four you just don't want to learn. Some people don't, they're happy with what they have.
If you are one of these people that's fine as long as you don't say things that are far from correct nor serve no use to others.

yul wrote:

My feelings are that most sounds it makes is very distinctive and redundant at times.

they do tend to be rather distinctive...but thats the point. addtive synths are, for the most part, not intended to be like general purpose romplers. though they can emulate some real world and familiar sounds (especially true of this latest breed of resynthesizers), i find addtives to be more fun when using them to create evolving pads and atmospheres and experimental stuff. (including morphing between familiar sounds.)

as far as all addtive synth sounds being redundant...thats like saying all analog synth sounds are the same, or all guitars sounds the same. it can be difficult sometimes to see the variety in something thats very different from what we are use to. so the more familiar you become with the sounds and the tools, the more possiblity you can see in them.

Quote:

I you want decent sound, you need to spend a great deal of time building it maybe more than FM syhths.

yes, depending on the synth, and how you approach it, addtive can certainly take a hell of a lot of time to program. using resynthesis as a starting point tremendously speeds up the process. just import a sample thats in the direction of the sound you want to make and a good deal of the hard work has already been done for you.

but if you prefer to work from the ground up...sine wave by sine wave...yes, it can take a lot of time to program. back when i was programming my kawai K5000 all the time (which is more tedious to program than any of the current addtive softsynths), i would typically leave myself several hours for programming a single patch. i enjoyed it though...i liked immersing myself in it.

Quote:

The spectral windows makes it very hard to understand what you are doing. Is it a sine or saw or whatever wave thats there ?

spectral editing in additive synths is quite literally a different way of looking at sound than most of us are use to. again, this is another place where these synths are great for people who enjoy working with experimental sounds and atypical synthesis methods.

unless you are only interested in rebuilding the sounds of other synths, i feel its best not to try to think in terms of basic analog waveforms when working with addtive synths, and especially not when working with spectral edit views. this is one of those times where trying to stick to previous synthesis methods will just create more hurdles and make it harder for you to get use to this.

imho, the best way to get use to working with addtive synthesis is to just accept it for what it is (a larger sound built from lots of tiny componants of sound) and let yourself freely experiment with the partials and the controls. learn how they function and react to one another. the same goes for the spectral view. just experiment with it and you'll eventually become more comfortable with this approach to synthesis. once you are comfortable with how these things work, you'll find it much easier to recreate the sounds you are looking for.

the complexity and detail in addtive synths can give you a whole new palette of sounds to work with. and although you can use it for recreating/aproximating known sounds, i feel that to do so...and just stop there...is to ignore the synths greatest abilities.

for example, you can aproximate a 303 on an addtive...but why bother? you can get a hell of a lot closer to the sound you want by using a VA or specialized 303 clone, and you'll get there in a fraction of the time. so whats the point of using additive synthesis?

the point is that with additive, you can go beyond that sound. for example, once you build that 303 aproximation on an addive, you the have the ability to start pulling on all those little pieces that make up the sound and warp it into something completey different. this is particularly cool when applied to modulation. so you'll start with a familiar sound, then use the modulation to take you someplace new and bring you back again.

also the latest breed of addtives allow you to experiment with morphing. with this you can mutate from one complete sound to another one. this isnt just cross fadeing. this is the real time change of all parameters and all addtive partials from one sound to those of another. the sounds that you find in between the two can be wild...from subtle mixes of the two, to insane digital screams that bare no resemblance to either.

Quote:

but the sounds are almost impossible to replicate if you ver lose your patches or change synths...

yes, it would be extremely difficult for me to try to recreate some of the sounds i've made on addtives. they can be so complex that remembering all those pieces would be a nightmare. particularly with sounds i made years ago...i've only a vague memory of how i made them. if i lost all my patches, i guess i would just have to think of it has a sign for me to start over again an create something new rather than recreate the old.

as far as replicating the sounds when you change synths...the solution there is to not change synths. each one has its own strengths, weaknesses, character and feel...and the more complex the synths, the more things to be different about them.

however, that said, with resynthesis getting better and becoming more common...you can get quite a jump start on getting your old sound back by resynthesizing a sample of it.

Quote:

Is there a way of seeing this in a good way ?

well, perhaps another way to look at additive synthesis is that its providing you with the basic genetic material for sound. and with that genetic material you have the power to aproximate things you know...then mutate them...or create something totally new from scratch.

-ugo

x_bruce wrote:

The key to all of additive is thinking in a different way.

Thanks for clarifing the subject, I was lost and had thrown away the towel too...

Can someone give me a summary of ugo and x_bruce's posts?

x_bruce wrote:

db, you are awful nice to people.

Not to get too philosphical, but what goes around comes around, ya know?

safeaim wrote:

Can someone give me a summary of ugo and x_bruce's posts?

Ya, try the Cameleon demo and read the manual. Good explanation of additive synthesis. Hell, even I understood it!

Hey guys,
thanks for your replies !

Also, what I would like to add is that many tinmes, my sounds end up either like a bell, metallic or breathy.

I someteimes end up saying to myself : why dont I just use a real bell sound ?

Anyways, its nice discussing about this, trying to find a good place for these synths.

x_bruce wrote:

It's modern VSTi history goes back to Big Tick who was using both FM and AM (a precursor to additive) in his Rainbow 2 synth. That was a difficult to grasp synth but mostly because of it's FM herritage. Big Tick struck back again with a mixture of FM, AM and interpolated single cycle sampled waveforms in Rhino.

Pardon me, but even a 1988 Synth like Casio VZ-1 mixed AM with FM (Phase Modulation). Nothing new here!

Considering additive is a breakdown of *ANY* sound around us, being segmented into individual sine waves, I have a hard time thinking that additive is redundant or 'samey', or whatever. It can be a single sound, or a symphony, if the engine is good enough (Kyma being one who does additive so well you can't distinguish it from an actual recording). It's all down to the engine though, and not necessarily a fault of additive in and of itself.

Additive is still growing and coming of age. Give it a bit more time, and more CPU horsepower, and heck, I'll wonder what'll happen to large sample libraries. It's certainly possible.

Devon

Summa wrote:

Pardon me, but even a 1988 Synth like Casio VZ-1 mixed AM with FM (Phase Modulation). Nothing new here!

bruce said "its modern VSTi history"...he was just talking about when it showed up in softsynths...not about its hardware origins.

-ugo

ugo wrote:

Summa wrote: Pardon me, but even a 1988 Synth like Casio VZ-1 mixed AM with FM (Phase Modulation). Nothing new here! bruce said "its modern VSTi history"...he was just talking about when it showed up in softsynths...not about its hardware origins. -ugo

Still, AM is not that hard to implement. IF A, B are the Input signals it's simply AxB+A. If the synth is a good one the programmer adds an envelope to A to fade between AM and Ringmod...

x_bruce wrote:

It's modern VSTi history goes back to Big Tick who was using both FM and AM (a precursor to additive)

And how exactly is AM (Amplitude Modulation) a precursor to additive sythesis? Care to elaborate? From here where I stand, two concepts aren't any more related than FM and additive -- both modulations add harmonics... and that's about it.

peejunk wrote:

x_bruce wrote: It's modern VSTi history goes back to Big Tick who was using both FM and AM (a precursor to additive) And how exactly is AM (Amplitude Modulation) a precursor to additive sythesis? Care to elaborate? From here where I stand, two concepts aren't any more related than FM and additive -- both modulations add harmonics... and that's about it.

I was wondering the same thing myself? AM and Ring Mod are very much related. Heck, half the time a synth says it does ring mode, it's AM anyway. AM and FM though? Someone thinking about radios or something?

Devon

Oh and by the way, thanks for your very good explanations !

Its very appreciated.

Hi,

Thanks very much to those of you who replied and thanks for the recommendations of Cameleon

Quote:

The spectral windows makes it very hard to understand what you are doing. Is it a sine or saw or whatever wave thats there ?

Programming sounds from scratch with an additive synthesizer can be more time consuming than programming sounds with an analogue synth. However, there are many ways to work with Cameleon, for example. You can resynthesize sounds and then edit them if you wish. You can paint your sounds as bitmap images. You can build sounds by choosing voices from the provided library, and then use the other features of the synth - on the morph page, easy page and effects page to shape the sound. These are all much more immediate, and perfectly valid ways of working with Cameleon. Many people who program great presets use just these methods. Cameleon is rather like a big application like Photoshop or Cubase - you don't have to use and understand every single feature of it, in order to use it and get great results.

Quote:

Is there a way of seeing this in a good way ?

Well, the good news in addition to what I've mentioned above, is that if you do want to edit each partial over time, then you have an unprecedented amount of sound designing control - and can design almost any sound.

Also, you mentioned being unsure about what a saw, triangle and square looked like. Download the Cameleon demo from:
http://www.camelaudio.com/products.php?pID=28
Then if you hit reset (at the top). Go to voice page A, and select from the drop down towards the top right of the page. You can select a preset sine, saw, square and so on, and see exactly what they look like. Looking at existing sounds is definitely educational. Also, if you do decide you want to get deep into additive synthesis, check out the turoials section at the bottom of the page at:
http://www.camelaudio.com/community.php
In particular, take a look at the links provided in the bottom article. These are great introductions to the world of additive synthesis.

Ben

greetings to all...second posting on K-v-R:

i'm not an additive expert, but i've run both the cameleon 5000 and cube demos...they both seem very strong in the area of sound production...and very close in functioning...so: (a) is there any justification for owning both (how would they complement each other), and if not (b) which has the edge in pad and scape design?

as always, thanks for any answers

Hi aaastronomer,

Quote:

is there any justification for owning both

There are some similarities between Cube and Cameleon, but there are also a lot of differences. Also, there's no reason to only have one additive synth - after all, many people have several subtractive synths, and the same argument applies for having multiple additive synthes.

A few of the things which Cameleon has that Cube doesn't are:
- ability to turn images into sound and visa versa, which opens up a whole realm of sound design options
- multisampling, which allows for much more detailed recreations of instruments, and much more interesting instruments over the whole keyboard
- separate morphing control over the harmonic aspects, noise aspects, and amplitude aspects. This opens up a whole new world of sound design posssibilities by combining different aspects of sounds. Its a fun and simple way to create new instruments, and cube has nothing like this. It basically does something similar to Plex.
- a large library of preset multisampled instruments. These are of high quality and licensed from Sonic Reality. There are a total of over 600 high quality presets (double what Cube has)
- realtime stretch control for increased expression
- preset morph timelines for more rapid creation of patches
- randomize can create any kind of patch - eg. select rythmics, and then hit randomize for a random rythmic patch
- more detailed editing of sounds - ie. ability to define the harmonic content of a sound at each point in time
- ... and lots more

My advice is to have a thorough look at both demos, and choose the one which you prefer. You can download the Cameleon demo at:
http://www.camelaudio.com/products.php?pID=28

Thanks
Ben

Spelling alert!

Did I just see someone stating that FM was phase modulation earlier on? As in Fase Modulation? errrr................someone's got their wires crossed methinks - there ain't much of a similarity between a Casio and a Yamaha.

Anyway.....useful thread - thanks for the verbosity Ugo and xB. Additive and especially resynthesis has never much piqued my interest, but every now and then I get an urge to see what all the fuss is about. This thread has made me decide to at least have a listen to Cameleon. It sounds like it's growing into mature synth?

kritikon wrote:

It sounds like it's growing into mature synth?

Vertigo was first, announced in April 2003. Camel guys released Cameleon in October offering the super mega dooper ultra patented trademarked amazing never seen blueprinted resynthesis technology.

If you are looking for the most mature additive resynthesis, go Vertigo.

age and maturity are two different things maybe?

vurt wrote:

age and maturity are two different things maybe?

And a horde of betatesters getting their free copy from real customers too.

not a beta tester mate,as you would know had you seen me around i do not know enough to beta test any products ive always been open and honest about this.
i was merely pointing out that age doesnt give maturity which you as an adult are helping prove,instead of doing what ben did and giving his synth a decent write up you would rather make a snide comment about your own

try thinkin before typing next time mate

vurt wrote:

not a beta tester mate,as you would know had you seen me around i do not know enough to beta test any products ive always been open and honest about this. i was merely pointing out that age doesnt give maturity which you as an adult are helping prove,instead of doing what ben did and giving his synth a decent write up you would rather make a snide comment about your own try thinkin before typing next time mate

Despite the personal attack, I was refering to situations and products without being harsh but kindof funny in the descriptions.

I don't have much more to comment from competition, since we were first into offering and announcing additive resynthesis technology.

ok,but this still doesnt give any indication of what your synth has become does it?
maybe a few specs or even a link to a demo would do it

you want customers you gotta push the product
see im only helpin in a roundabout and in yer face type way

Typing here as a potential customer..... I expressed a nascent interest in this type of VSTi which I don't have much experience in. I genuinely want to try it out and it seems there are 2 main contenders, maybe an odd one or two more. Of the 2 main contenders, one gives a full description of what his synth offers without reference to anything else. The other slags off the opposition and doesn't tell me what his synth can do.................................................................... ......................?

Errrrrmmm am I missing something, or does public image and marketing now no longer have any bearing on people actually selling their product any more?

I ain't made any decision yet - I haven't even tried a demo yet, but all I can say is that one party is certainly not doing itself any favours here

vurt wrote:

ok,but this still doesnt give any indication of what your synth has become does it? maybe a few specs or even a link to a demo would do it

Come on vurt, you can find everything you need to know about Vertigo at our site, just click discoDSP pic

Quote:

I ain't made any decision yet - I haven't even tried a demo yet, but all I can say is that one party is certainly not doing itself any favours here

Well I don't get the point of repeating the features ad nauseum on a forum, that's what the web site is for.

If you take a look at our support forum, your opinion may vary, though.

see post above yours george,i personally already know i want vertigo,but i was thinkin of others who may not have


i did try to help,and my fee is one bag of jelly beans,leave em in the phone box near the blue astra


just think in future is all im sayin
"advertise your own strengths rather than others failings "
was taught this in school,it makes sense


go in peace sell many synths just be prepared to type a spec list for peeps too lazy to visit your site

OK fair enough - I'll go take a look, ta.

vurt wrote:

"advertise your own strengths rather than others failings " was taught this in school,it makes sense

That's what I did in previous post. I was pointing Vertigo as the resynthesis beast and making a bit of parody about competition (in a sane way).

I don't think Camaleon has failed. See KvR promo and the ads everywhere?. The guys are scrathing every imaginable resource to market their product. That's kind of success in my opinion, or at least, it seems.

it was a quote, i didnt mean that anyone had actually failed or anything like that time will tell and as ive said i like both so im not biased either way

even tho i now realise you wee joking i still at first took it as if you were sniping at competition.for this i apologise now wheres my effin jelly babies

laters people and yes check out all the demos,each additivve synth however old or mature has something different to offer different users so check all the demos you can find

vurt wrote:

yes check out all the demos,each additivve synth however old or mature has something different to offer different users so check all the demos you can find

One of the reasons I don't really bother to post much at the main forums is people donwloading demos and trying them out makes most comments irrelevants. Wish it happened with hardware too

kritikon wrote:

Spelling alert! Did I just see someone stating that FM was phase modulation earlier on? As in Fase Modulation?

Depends.. Yamaha didn't use frequency modulation in the DX7 etc: it's actually phase modulation (and it sounds very different too).

Don't ask me why Yamaha called it FM not PM..

Rhino and it's precurser Rainbow 2 had Additive synthesis. It is primitive by todays standards but have a look at the Rainbow 2 info here. you can flip from additive or FM oscillators, not AM. MY bad for mentioning amplitude modulation.

However the oscillators that drive Rhino, and that are even more developed in Rhino 2 were small samples resynthesized and cut to single cycle. With Rhino 2 the development kit for creating resynthesized waves will be part of he program.

George, were you first to do additive with Vertigo? I'll take your word on it.

I wish I could have worked out getting Verigo 2 for review, especially as everyone else found the idea interesting. To this day I wish we could have worked it out, but as it wasn't on the list and there are dozens of synths besides additives that are on the review list now I never had a chance to check Vertigo out. Please note, it isn't because of anything rude on my part, simply making sure we do right by the people who've seen fit to work with us.

The key to how each synth implemented additive is for me the most interesting part.

CUBE by drawing partials and spectral data using up to 4 additive oscillators. Cameleon by sample analysis, aka resysnthesis. I'm probably alone and being very pendantic about it, but I always considered the analysis of samples as a means to making an oscillator that was ready for editing. Case in point, on the two demos I did for Cameleon on each one I did not use sample data of any sort but programmed using 64 partials per oscillator. As one of the demos will be at Camel Audio and musicFAQ.net soon, like this time next week, I'm fairly sure no one will be able to figure out which timbre was used without sample data. Moving along, Cameleon also featured the analysis of visual data which I always wanted to see. WhiteNoise Additive took the visual metaphor even further with drawing tools and some editing tools to draw their additive oscillators and filters. Additive also was capable of resynthesis. And Adder was by far the most unusual difference, using only 32 partials but doing their interpolation in such a way that you essentially had a 32 oscillator synth. It was a unique way of thinking and yields great results.
And when I say favorite, I mean preferred way of working with additive. All four have their own sound and creative handling of making an additive oscillator. For clairity's sake, CUBE has since added resynthesis and Cameleon added both graphical points on a x/y panel but also enhanced use of visual data applied to noise, a very nice enhancement.

x_bruce wrote:

George, were you first to do additive with Vertigo? I'll take your word on it.

Vertigo first at additive resynthesis? Yes. Unless I'm mistaken of course.

Quote:

I wish I could have worked out getting Verigo 2 for review, especially as everyone else found the idea interesting.

Sorry bruce, no NFR available yet, we will need to do the promotion by ourselves

Quote:

I never had a chance to check Vertigo out

If you can't find the demo download link at our site, let me know, I will PM the URL.

Hi everyone,

I'd just like to say I have a great deal of respect for the products which DiscoDSP, Virsyn, Whitenoise and Concrete FX make (apologies if I've missed someone). All the additives have different strengths and weaknesses. For example, one of the things which Cameleon is not designed to do is resynthesise entire musical phrases - and if this is what you want to do, you'd be better off with Vertigo, for example.

Its also worth reiterating the point that there is no reason why you should only own one additive synth. Many people own multiple subtractive synths in order to have a larger palette of sounds available, and the same applies to additive synths.

The way I judge success is by the reviews and awards Cameleon has received, and by musicians I respect choosing to buy it. I do post on KVR to answer peoples questions - and naturally I will point out where I think Cameleons strengths are, and of course I do try to bring Cameleon to the attention of people who might be interested in using it.

Thanks
Ben

vurt wrote:

check out all the demos,each additivve synth however old or mature has something different to offer different users so check all the demos you can find

i agree, it really is best to try out all the demos. they are all different. in some cases, dramatically different...even when the spec sheets read similarly. so which ones you will find the most fun and useful in your music is something you can only know from trying them.

-ugo

Ben [Camel Audio] wrote:

For example, one of the things which Cameleon is not designed to do is resynthesise entire musical phrases - and if this is what you want to do, you'd be better off with Vertigo, for example.

Vertigo is able to do top-notch non-musical phrases resynthesis as well. A sound comparison could be interesting but since everyone can download demos maybe it's not worth the efford.

Quote:

Its also worth reiterating the point that there is no reason why you should only own one additive synth. Many people own multiple subtractive synths in order to have a larger palette of sounds available, and the same applies to additive synths.

Money is a problem in this case. IIRC Vertigo is the most affordable of all by a price of 100 Euro right now. Our competition have set higher prices to their products. And keeping in mind the resynthesis capabilities, the palette of a single plugin could be enough in this case (or none if you prefer to use a sampler, or borrowing all of them with HighLife or freezing tools).

Quote:

The way I judge success is by the reviews and awards Cameleon has received, and by musicians I respect choosing to buy it.

I slighty disagree. Most relevant success is lead by sales. A product may have thousands of good reviews and awards but what's the point if zero sales are done after a intense marketing campaing?

x_bruce wrote:

Rhino and it's precurser Rainbow 2 had Additive synthesis. It is primitive by todays standards but have a look at the Rainbow 2 info here. you can flip from additive or FM oscillators, not AM. MY bad for mentioning amplitude modulation.

Hmmm... not sure what you mean with additive synthesis in Rainbow, I had a short look at the Synth some years ago and can't remember being able to create operator waveforms additively.
I know that Absynth was quite early with adding that feature...
Still a mixture of FM and additive synthesis, can be quite powerfull..

Quote:

George, were you first to do additive with Vertigo? I'll take your word on it.

I played with the Cube beta at the Frankfurt music fair march 2003, I think this was some month before the announcement of the Vertigo public beta testing...

...Summa

Summa wrote:

I played with the Cube beta at the Frankfurt music fair march 2003, I think this was some month before the announcement of the Vertigo public beta testing

Cube wasn't able to do additive resynthesis at that time. It was able after a recent update, though ("inspired" by Vertigo I bet).

We made Vertigo resynthesis demo available in April 2003 including screenshots (a BIG mistake because competition was listening carefully, althought it wasn't able to deliver anything as soon as we did...) We should have shut up and released it at the same time v1.0 were available, but other products were on the go as well.

George, actually I asked for Vertigo v1 NFR. I'd hold off on the additive article as everyone keeps improving versions anyway.

It would have been quite a definitive study. Even the article could be revised easily and more importantly, I could do a proper chart that includes all synths. I wouldn't do it otherwise as a courtesy to you guys.

For me, additive was the first serious hurtle to be jumpped. I knew it could be done in 1996 with some sampled partials, but Kawai had six available oscillators on the K5000. I beta tested 3 of the 4 reviewed synths which was helpful.

George, since Vertigo users probably weren't aware, there is a 300mb sample library of K5000 Ambiotronix and 3 volumes of Guitars From Hell, ambient guitar libraries which I've been letting users of additive and resynthesis synths d/l. If you are interested let me know and I will arrange for you users to get the url. I don't have the bandwidth to support a mass download.

x_bruce wrote:

George, actually I asked for Vertigo v1 NFR. I'd hold off on the additive article as everyone keeps improving versions anyway. It would have been quite a definitive study. Even the article could be revised easily and more importantly, I could do a proper chart that includes all synths. I wouldn't do it otherwise as a courtesy to you guys.

Are you telling me Vertigo hasn't been included in your article because we haven't sent you a NFR? For a moment I though you are writing in order to get NFRs instead being informative... nevermind that.

Well, if your site were ranked good at Alexa.com, or had some decent traffic, we may think about it, because then it will be relevant enough.

Quote:

George, since Vertigo users probably weren't aware, there is a 300mb sample library of K5000 Ambiotronix and 3 volumes of Guitars From Hell, ambient guitar libraries which I've been letting users of additive and resynthesis synths d/l.

Thanks for the offer but no. We have something planned on hold.

george wrote:

Summa wrote: I played with the Cube beta at the Frankfurt music fair march 2003, I think this was some month before the announcement of the Vertigo public beta testing Cube wasn't able to do additive resynthesis at that time. It was able after a recent update, though ("inspired" by Vertigo I bet). We made Vertigo resynthesis demo available in April 2003 including screenshots (a BIG mistake because competition was listening carefully, althought it wasn't able to deliver anything as soon as we did...) We should have shut up and released it at the same time v1.0 were available, but other products were on the go as well.

Nope, resynthesis was planed all the time, but Harry wanted to deliver the complete package with perfect morphing abilities. Four times morphing is a lot more complex than handling 2 sources only, especially when the partials aren't fixed to the harmonic spectre and thus shift over time.

The first version of Vertigo was imho a GUI Horror and far from ready, fortunately that changed over time...

...Summa

Perhaps I´m the only one that has noticed, but there are very few freeware additives (that sounds good) to be had.
I haven´t found any.
Any good uns?

Anyone?

Summa wrote:

Nope, resynthesis was planed all the time, but...

That sounds like BS to me. You can say whatever you want but let's get based in facts, REAL facts as in audio demos, screenshots. Vertigo was first.

Quote:

The first version of Vertigo was imho a GUI Horror and far from ready, fortunately that changed over time...

First version WAS ready. GUI was designed by Arguru, but after some negotiations I worked into a redesign for v1.5 and v2.x, which was quite hard due the original architecture. I'm not totally happy with the final GFX design result, maybe it was still too based in 1.0. Good thing is it won't be in your audio bounce

Did we not have an additive debate not that long ago – I am sure there is the additive – war – thread somewhere in K-v-R.

Frankly this tit for tat among ‘some’ additive developers is really quite childish and I am sure does no one any good in the long term. It’s embarrassing to read.

Forgive me for butting in – but for goodness sake guys.

Plus I don’t personally give two hoots about who was first – in actual fact non of the synths in this thread were first in the additive virtual instrument field.

So there!

Best regards,

Spe3d

Spe3D wrote:

Plus I don’t personally give two hoots about who was first – in actual fact non of the synths in this thread were first in the additive virtual instrument field.

They seem to forget that being first does not automatically make you the best.

Spe3D wrote:

Plus I don’t personally give two hoots about who was first – in actual fact non of the synths in this thread were first in the additive virtual instrument field.

Well, I do. I care for innovation at engineering but maybe it's not worth to stand for in this forum.

Quote:

Frankly this tit for tat among ‘some’ additive developers is really quite childish and I am sure does no one any good in the long term. It’s embarrassing to read.

Let me bet this forum thread will be forgotten in about er.. 1 day?

george wrote:

Summa wrote: Nope, resynthesis was planed all the time, but... That sounds like BS to me. You can say whatever you want but let's get based in facts, REAL facts as in audio demos, screenshots. Vertigo was first.

Well, I don't care how it sounds When I asked Harry to add simple waveform analysis support to the first Cube version he refused steadily. Some time later when he asked me to make sound for version 1.5 he told me that he knew all along that resynthesis would come and for that reason he refused to add that feature...

Quote:

Good thing is it won't be in your audio bounce

Can you explain that sentence...

...Summa

db wrote:

They seem to forget that being first does not automatically make you the best.

No. The point is being first AND the best

Double post.

Summa wrote:

When I asked Harry to add simple waveform analysis support to the first Cube version he refused steadily.

So it wasn't planned by CUBE staff after all. Vertigo is definitely not about simple analysis. You should bother to check the plugin.

Quote:

Can you explain that sentence...

I didn't know my english was so bad. It was about the GUI.

george wrote:

db wrote: They seem to forget that being first does not automatically make you the best. No. The point is being first AND the best

I own Cameleon 5k, Vertigo2, Adder and soon WN Additive. All have something to recommend them. It's like saying which subtractive synth is the only one that I would need? Reality check: users can easily need and use more than one and frequently do so.

If one synth were that much better for everyone, no one would use any other synth. Ya know?

george wrote:

Summa wrote: When I asked Harry to add simple waveform analysis support to the first Cube version he refused steadily. So it wasn't planned by CUBE staff after all. Vertigo is definitely not about simple analysis. You should bother to check the plugin.

Nope, since there's a slight difference between waveform and sample analysis/resynthesis, you don't necessarily have to implement one, when you already plan to do the other thing. Again, you forgot to paste the best part, shame on you!
I not only checked the plug-in I wrote a test about it...

Quote:

Quote: Can you explain that sentence... I didn't know my english was so bad. It was about the GUI.

Well, I guess my english isn't good enough, so before missunderstanding your statement, I rather ask than making wrong assumptions...

...Summa

I bought Vertigo because it sounded like nothing else I had heard before (I mean version 1). Now with version 2 it's still more powerful, takes less CPU load... but...


...But to tell the truth I can have only a very slight idea (and it translates for no idea) about what I'm doing while using it. Now and then I can get nice sounds, but it's only by chance . Beginner's luck ! Still have no idea about how to use it. Of course I know all that partials talk and bla bla. But does it help to make the exact sound I want? Not a chance I keep trying it anyway and maybe someday my grand children will teach me

The good news about it is that you can play a Mona Lisa (or a Picasso, or a Dali, or whatever, for that matter) patch :import a bitmap into Vertigo's resynthesizer and listen to what comes out

PS-Anyway, maybe if I want to know what I'm doing maybe I should stick to Plasticz!

I know fuck all really about synths (I admit it) but I own Cameleon5000 and I have tried Vertigo. Vertigo seems to be able to deliver a denser more complex sound but looks like a bugger to program - I think the greater complexity of sound is due to more partials (256 to CA5000 64) and diffrent sorts of effects.

Ben could easily acheive 'the Vertigo effect' by adding more partials - but I think Cameleon 5000 can do it now - the 1.301 update does sound better - ?prob due to better effect algorithms ???

strav100 wrote:

Ben could easily acheive 'the Vertigo effect' by adding more partials - but I think Cameleon 5000 can do it now - the 1.301 update does sound better - ?prob due to better effect algorithms ???

I'm done with this thread. Cya.

db wrote:

safeaim wrote: Can someone give me a summary of ugo and x_bruce's posts? Ya, try the Cameleon demo and read the manual. Good explanation of additive synthesis. Hell, even I understood it!

Yep! In short try all the demos and use and purchase the synth that you can actually use to create music – or if you desire – completely new sounds.

Each of the additives have their own strengths and weaknesses – I would love to say which are my favourites (i.e. more than one of them) – but I don’t want to set off another debate.

I also think the users should just promote their fab synths that they use outside of the company forums, and the developers stay inside the company forums unless they can behave to save embarrassing situations with regards to additive products

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

i use doppelmangler for all my additive/resynthesis needs. it has a zombie head on it.

strav100 wrote:

I know fuck all really about synths (I admit it) but I own Cameleon5000 and I have tried Vertigo. Vertigo seems to be able to deliver a denser more complex sound but looks like a bugger to program - I think the greater complexity of sound is due to more partials (256 to CA5000 64) and diffrent sorts of effects. Ben could easily acheive 'the Vertigo effect' by adding more partials - but I think Cameleon 5000 can do it now - the 1.301 update does sound better - ?prob due to better effect algorithms ???

Kyma proves it's not how many partials it has....

Devon