KVR :: Instruments » Am I confused about wavetable [View Original Topic]
There are 158 posts in this topic. Page: 1 2

---

Ap0C552 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:51 am

---

I am trying out rapture synth. I read that it was a wavetable synth, and this is why I want to try it out.

But it seems to me like it is nothing more than a bunch of separate waves that are layered together with no relation or interaction with one another.

I was under the impression that wavetable synth had progressively different waveforms that you cycled though to get a changing unique sound. Am I missing something here?

---

GeorgK - Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:02 am

---

Wavetable: Lookup tables for digitally generated waveforms (e.g. Rapture)
Wavescanning: Scanning/cycling through different digital waveforms (e.g. Massive)

However, there is constant confusion about those terms, and I would not rely on any of them when reading the description of a synth.


Georg

---

Ap0C552 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:11 am

---

So I was confusing wavescanning with wavetable? So what actually defines what wavetable synth is?

---

EvilDragon - Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:17 am

---

Using samples of single-cycle waveforms as oscillators, basically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavetable#Confusion_with_sample-based_synthesis

---

aquar - Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:03 pm

---

Rapture does do wavetable.
For example it has 6 elements each of which can have a different single cycle wave.
You'd have to employ the amp modulator (step generator) and setup some values to cycle through the waves.
Its not a very intuitive method but it does work by essentially modulating the volume for each wave through the step generator.
I think its limited to six waves though.

---

EvilDragon - Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:05 pm

---

It's completely unintuitive method for wavescanning... And limited to six waves. That's why there are dedicated wavetable/wavescanning synths out there. Rapture is not one of them.

---

zerocrossing - Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:17 pm

---

You should probably start at the beginning.

http://www.korg.com/LegacyWAVESTATION

---

xoxos - Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:18 pm

---

what is being called "wavescanning" in this thread has had several names, eg. "transwaves" in ensoniq products. it has frequently been called "wavetable synthesis" in the past and given the diverse origins and practices of synthesis methods, i don't think wikipedia or anyone can authoritatively indicate what the "correct" name for a method is, only the convention, insofar as one exists.

if there is a decisive convention today, it hasn't existed for more than a decade.

---

Lotuzia - Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:41 pm

---

Simple +1 : My SQ-80 has transwaves

---

V-GER - Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:30 pm

---

As far as I know the term "wavetable" was first used to describe what goes on in the digital oscillators of the PPG "The Wave" which hit the market in 1980. Calling Korgs Wavestation from 1990 the beginning thus makes no sense - they didn't even call it wavetable. The Wavestation was all about "wave sequencing" which though it seems highly inspired by wavetable synthesis is a bit of a different beast with it's own strengths and weaknesses. I haven't actually touched any of these synths, I've only read about them and had a look at the software versions so sorry if I should be regurgitating any misinformation though I've tried to make sure not to. Anyway, I'd say it's at the very least a bit misleading to call what Rapture does "wavetable", I for one feel ripped off (even though it was just a bonus in the Black Friday triple package for me).

Perhaps one of the Vaz synths (available as a full blown modular or a simpler semi-modular one or an even simpler one if you prefer for very reasonable prices @ http://www.vaz-synths.com, the demos are fully functional for 20 minutes after which you will be offered to save the patch upon exiting for later use should you ever decide to make a purchase)
or
Surge from Vember Audio (http://vemberaudio.se/surge.php, manual @ http://vemberaudio.se/download/surge.pdf) could be something to consider?

"A wavetable in SURGE consists of up to 1024 single-cycle waveforms" (from the manual) and I know at least the same goes for the Vaz synths even though I seldom use more than 64 primitive ones "homemade" with assorted free software.

---

Ap0C552 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:56 pm

---

A. Does anyone know of a tutorial on doing this? The provided documentation stinks.

B. Are there any better dedicated wavetable synths out there?

---

Sendy - Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:00 pm

---

Zebra2 and Helix. And these actually morph waveforms rather than crossfading.

There's also the old classic ConcreteFX Kubik!

---

Ap0C552 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:10 pm

---

Are you referring to Zebralette? Or does Zebra2 also morph waveforms?

---

Bronto Scorpio - Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:12 pm

---

Zebralette is a single oscillator + some other stuff from Zebra. It's basically a small version of Zebra.

Cheers
Dennis

---

EvilDragon - Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:53 pm

---

There's also Waldorf PPG Wave V.2 and V.3, Largo, Massive...

---

Ap0C552 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:11 pm

---

Ok now the question I should have asked in the beginning. What is wavetable good at doing? Does it create any unique sounds? I know all about additive, subtractive, and FM synthesis, but nothing about wavetable. That is why I set out on this endeavor.

---

nix808 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:21 pm

---

You can do subtractive and FM synthesis w/-wavetables.
Hmm,
maybe the coolest thing about wavetables is cutting your own ones.
You are never really sure how they will sound until you load them up and filter them.
Perhaps one thing that defines wavetable from sampling is that wavetables are usually band-limited so there r no artifacts in the treble.

---

Ap0C552 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:56 pm

---

See now I don't even know what you mean with this.

---

nix808 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:06 pm

---

it's very similar to sampling.
You cut a very short sample from a piece of audio in an audio editor, say 2048 samples long, which is 1/21 of a second.
This sample is then repeated when you press note-on on ur controller.
So they are just pitch adjusted samples(apart from band-limiting).
There are many different curves you can create with 2048 samples.
It's kind of granular, if u consider your sample a grain or particle.
This plays end on end for as long as you play your note.
So you can create ur own sounds with it, quite easily, by editing a piece of audio- a loop,hit or track

---

Teksonik - Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:07 pm

---

Don't you mean your VFX has Transwaves?

WIKI: The VFX employed 3 types of synthesis: Transwave Wavetable Synthesis, Sample playback and Subtractive Synthesis. The Transwaves gave the VFX a unique sound as the only other instruments (at the time) using wavetable synthesis were the PPG Wave machines.

---

ZenPunkHippy - Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:17 pm

---

A wave table contains multiple waves. Each individual wave in the wave table is like a single oscillator. If the position within the wavetable remains static (still) the timbre will be constant as if using a regular oscillator such as as square, saw or triangle.

The magic happens when the position within the wavetable is modulated by an LFO or envelope while notes are played.

Instead of a constant timbre from a single "oscillator" (wave), the timbre evolves as the wavetable position is updated. 2 or more oscillators sweeping through the same (or different!) wavetables at different rates opens up a new world of sound that is not really possible with a regular oscillator.

Peace,
Andy.

---

EvilDragon - Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:31 pm

---

Yeah, modulating the wavetable index position is where wavetable synthesis does its magic. It's completely different from anything else out there.

---

Ap0C552 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:21 pm

---

This is exactly what I want to try out and play with. Can you recommend synth for someone wanting to do just that? I tried out zebralette which has this feature. Are there any other good ones. I read about one called Kubik.

---

ZenPunkHippy - Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:38 pm

---

Sorry, I don't know much about free software wavetable synths. I'm sure someone else can help.

For commercial synths, PPG v3 from Waldorf is excellent ... really does a great job of capturing the vibe of the original hardware. NI Massive is another popular choice.

For more info about wavetable synthesis check out this SOS article about the Waldorf Microwave series ... plenty of useful info:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Jan03/articles/microwavetips.asp

Peace,
Andy.

---

rj0 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:24 pm

---

Agreed. That pretty much is the conclusion I've come to ("Each individual wave in the wave table is like a single oscillator."), the wavetable is indexed, with each index position pointing to a full oscillator wave, and that index can be modulated.

Which would pretty much seem to exclude Rapture. Sample-based waves, yes. Wave sequencing maybe, but not wavetable.

Differentiating wavetable from 'wave scanning' is where I struggle. I get the impression that wave scanning synths are not indexed at the "single oscillator" level, but rather at the 16/24bit PCM sample level (more like a pointer that can move forwards or backwards through a sampled wave, like the locator in your audio editor, rather than any kind of wave index through a table of waves).

Thoughts?

---

pdxindy - Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:19 pm

---

Here is an example using Zebra. This is a held note and using a step LFO to step through different waves in a single oscillator.

http://draigathar.org/sounds/Zebra6.mp3

Here is another Zebra example. 1 held note, 1 osc, a triangle lfo scanning through the waveforms

http://draigathar.org/sounds/Zebra4.mp3

---

Shabdahbriah - Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:56 pm

---

I'd been UP for a couple of days when I groggily did this, but it's the "basics"...

Click THIS: making wavetables 4 VAZ

Go down page about 1/3.

[2c]

---

ENV1 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:38 am

---

EDIT: Tip removed.

Seems like it is practically impossible to get anymore.

Too bad.

---

Shabdahbriah - Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:49 pm

---

I was going to ask, but got distracted LOOKING for it.



It is "too bad", for sure.

---

Anonymous - Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:02 pm

---

DELETED

---

himalaya - Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:38 pm

---

and that's predominantly why Wavetable synthesis has gained such reputation (for cool new sounds). Anyone who grew up with hardware synths in the 80s + 90s knew that wavetable = wavescanning = those shifting, moving sounds. Then come the new comers like Rapture which, technically a wavetable synth, omits the wave scanning bit, and creates so much confusion for people, as evidenced by this thread. It's a bit naughty of Rapture creators not to have acknowledged ( on the official product page) that Wavetable synthesis (as it was known throughout the 80s and 90s) was more than just those wavetables on their own, but rather, the wave scanning feature.

---

EvilDragon - Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:55 pm

---

I agree with that sentiment, himalaya.

---

Shabdahbriah - Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:02 pm

---

+1

---

himalaya - Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:04 pm

---

Thanks, friends, I was expecting to get shot down for that, as happened the last time this wavetable topic was discussed.

---

pdxindy - Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:20 pm

---

what is the point of a wavetable if you cannot scan through it???

---

aciddose - Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:25 pm

---

i think we ought to be fair and call it like it is:

a wavetable is a table containing a wave.

period.

you can add a whole slew on top of that but then you're adding on top of it!

interpolation through tables, morphing, blending, scanning all this stuff is in addition.

that's the issue.

now if you said "i'm confused about scanning multi-axis wavetables with interpolation" that would be something else.

here is a wave-table:

wave[2] =
{
0,
1,
};

---

Shabdahbriah - Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:54 pm

---

I loaded that formula into 'notepad' and couldn't get any sound out of it.

I took a screen-grab of it, and drag-n-dropped it into IL's Harmor, and WOWSERs!!!

It WORKS!!! We has noises...

---

aciddose - Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:31 pm

---

i typed it in my "notepad" and got this: http://soundcloud.com/aciddose/palynological-mutants

---

Shabdahbriah - Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:50 pm

---

WOW U ROCK!!!

---

risome - Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:44 pm

---

If you use Ableton LIVE you can get our Look Up Table Synth Live Pack with over 2000 analogue waveforms.

---

aciddose - Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:05 pm

---

oh wait. i think there was a typo... i managed to enter a load of random keys instead of 0 and 1 in some places.

otherwise though the whole thing was really represented by 0,1 at some point

---

clif321 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:15 pm

---

Evolution of terminology is always interesting. I suspect that historically the term "wavetable synthesis" has meant different things in the lexecon of computer sound versus the lexecon of hardware synths, which of course now have merged with sometimes confusing results. As one who came to the world of electronic music via computers rather than hardware synths, what comes to my mind hearing the term "wavetable synthesis" is the transition from computer sound cards with poor-sounding imitation instruments derived from FM sound chips to sound cards with more realistic-sounding instruments derived from ROM-stored samples. The "wavetable" in these improved sound cards was the collection of ROM-based samples representing the library of playable intruments (eventually standardized as GM in Windows soundcards and outboard units like the Roland SoundCanvas). This is of course different from the usage of the term "wavetable synthesis" in hardware synths like the PPG Wave, where the "wavetable" was a collection of waveforms that the synth could dynamically scan in creating a single sound. As I recall, Korg's early sample-based hardware synths (my first synth was an M3R) used sampled waveforms in both senses, though without using the term "wavetable." The M1 and the M3R had static ROM-based samples that Korg called "multisounds" to signify that some of them included samples across an instrumnt's range. The Wavestation allowed dynamic sequencing of samples that Korg called "wave sequences" (another term that might mean different things to different people in other contexts), and as I recall it also allowed cross-fading between multiple wave sequences, which Korg called "vector synthesis" (yet another marketing buzzword). In the world of software synthesizers, Rapture is a "wavetable" synthesizer only in the sample-based sound card sense. It uses sampled single-cycle waveforms as the basis for sound creation, though it sounds infinitely better than sample-based sound cards due to an exceptionally good software sound engine, and it obviously has much more flexibility in terms of filtering, modulation, effects, layering of multiple processed waveforms, etc. IMO with good programming it is easily one of the best sounding software synths out there. But it does not do wavetable synthesis in the PPG sense (except maybe as another poster mentioned by the brute force technique of step sequencing the six available waveform layers). If you want wavetable synthesis in the PPG Wave sense, you will want to look elsewhere. Fortunately there are many excellent choices. For classic PPG-style wave scanning I like both the PPG Wave 3V emulation and the cheaper ConcreteFX Kubik. I'm sure there are other equally good alternatives (someone mentioned Largo) that I haven't tried. And of course there are also superb sounding powerhouse software synths like Massive and Zebra that enable waveform morphing, to varying degrees, among their many other programming options.

---

EvilDragon - Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:38 am

---

Holy shit that post needs paragraphs so desperately.

---

Kriminal - Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:44 am

---

Here ya go then...

---

PietW. - Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:31 am

---

A wavetable is a list with up to 64 or 128 waves, among which
you can move at will.

---

himalaya - Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:43 am

---

Sure, a wavetable is exactly that, but Wavetable Synthesis has long been associated with moving through those waves. Now, Rapture hasn't just popped out of the blue, with no historical context, therefore the inclusion of words like Wavetable Synthesis in Rapture description is wholly misleading without the wave scanning feature. It's even more bemusing and confusing that here at KVR Rapture is described as the "Ultimate Wavetable" synth, which it clearly isn't. That is the issue, as it leads to people getting caught out by this (politely saying, over-enthusiastic promo lingo).

---

EvilDragon - Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:37 am

---

Doesn't have to be 64 or 128, the number can be completely arbitrary.

---

aciddose - Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:24 am

---

you mean like how terms such as "moog filter" and "virtual analog" and ... wait, should i go on?

the reason we have this problem is because these terms are wholly bullshit made-up terms with no specific definition in the first place. don't use them!

now if it'd been called a "wavetable scanning synthesizer" i'd be just as enraged as you!

...but hell. xhip is technically a wave-table scanning synthesizer because it has wavetables and scans them.

it gets tough when you use terms that have no specific definition.

---

himalaya - Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:58 pm

---

"moog filter" - implies a 24db/octave resonant low pass filter. So if I see a soft synth with "moog filter" description, I'd expect exactly that (an emulation, not a bunch of electric components, ok?)

"virtual analog" - implies an emulation of an analog subtractive synth with at least an osc+filter+amp, so a VA better have that.

but

if a synth is described as having Wavetable Synthesis, more over, is then described as the "Ultimate Wavetable" synth, it better have wave scanning. It's really simple to understand.



Steady on there sir! You have no idea about my mood/emotions, which were, and are as far from what you tried to imply as can be.

edit:typos

---

Sendy - Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:22 pm

---

I'm fairly sure that historically, wavetables a la scanning-thru-an-array-of-harmonically-related-waves came first. Then the term "wavetable" was misused, mostly by computer soundcard manufacturers, to mean sample playback (since there was a table... and... it... had waves in it I suppose). To add to the confusion, "wavetable" can also refer to the antialias measure of having several octaves of e.g. a square waves pre-rendered in a bank, with less harmonics for the higher notes.

But, from a *musical* and advertising point of view, wavetable synthesis will always mean sweeping through a table of single-cycle waves or similar. *Technically*, "wavetable" has a number of uses and could refer to any of these things mentioned, and were I reading a technical document relating to some kind of synthesis application, I wouldn't balk at all at these uses of the term.

---

aciddose - Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:59 pm

---

both of these are not only subjective, but definitely incorrect even if you take them as subjective.

"moog filter" would mean some soft of filter made by moog. it doesn't imply a 4-pole lowpass, although "moog ladder filter" usually does. the problem is that "moog ladder" or "ladder" implies one with a particular behavior you'd expect from the specific circuit referred to. i think it's safe to assume you might mean the filter in a minimoog, but not one of the many modular moog filters. in that case we can limit our definition to 4-pole lowpass, but what of the defining characteristics of that particular filter?

"virtual analog" implies that you have in some way mimicked the behavior of an analog circuit. it doesn't refer specifically to "subtractive synthesizers" as you imply it does, even if that is the way it's perceived now after two decades of re-enforcing this idiotic definition.

subtractive synthesizers themselves have only one definition - you start with some rich harmonic content and subtract parts of it to get your result. this doesn't require the usual "oscillator -> filter" although it's certainly the most common format. it definitely does not require that you have a particular type of filter, whether it includes a gain modification or timbre modification stage or otherwise. it only requires that you have a source, and a filter which modifies that source.

so based upon this "filtered rich harmonic" definition, an oscillator into a gain stage would not be a subtractive synthesizer. a self-oscillating filter into a gain stage would not be a subtractive synthesizer by some views either - although in my opinion since you are filtering the feedback it would be.

then we get into the really complicated stuff like if our oscillator includes a system of filtered feedback, does that make it subtractive? in my opinion yes, although this would qualify the basic "FM" synthesizers (a DX7 for example) as subtractive.

so you just have to realize that these definitions are so ridiculously subjective as to be nearly useless. the master of wave-table synthesis? it would be fair to say the korg M-1 or roland MT/CM-32 fit this description as well. if you'd like to judge the definition based upon it's most common use these would be the only ones coming close to qualification for this title. which definition are we going to use? which group will we select when we allow the masses to think for us?

i understand that you're upset a synthesizer said something about itself that you didn't understand. it's a shame any synthesizer would include subjective terms in it's description. of could you could also look into the details of it's function and find rather quickly that it isn't "that" kind of wave-table synthesizer.

it's all semantics.

---

himalaya - Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:24 pm

---

Yes it does imply the 4 pole LP. A moog 4-pole LP = a moog ladder filter = the Minimoog. Majority of the synth loving and using populous will know a Moog filter by its incarnation in the Minimoog, likewise, the same bunch of synth loving users will know that Wavetable Synthesis = wavescannig, since the synth that made it all possible for all and became famous had that ability, therefore (oh this is so tiring) Rapture should have accounted for that fact by stating what exactly its implementation of Wavetable Synthesis incorporates and what it omits.

This is not semantics, but simple acknowledgment that things do not exist in a vacuum, they do not exist separate to what has gone before, but Rapture makers had forgotten that, to the bewilderment of prospective and current users. Still not seeing that? Can't help it after all this.

---

jens - Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:30 pm

---

Actually you could very well argue that it's quite similar to FM/PM, waveshaping and even advanced additive - all these synthesis techniques have in common that it's possible to change the oscillators waveform/timbre via modulation (and thus over time).

---

EvilDragon - Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:42 pm

---

It's only similar in the sense that SOMETHING is getting modulated with SOMETHING. The methods of modulation are completely different between those syntheses.

---

aciddose - Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:45 pm

---

you've just defined semantics.

i already give you the obvious, literal definition. a "moog filter" is a filter made by moog. that's exactly what it says.

when you make an assumption based upon context such as "moog filter" meaning "the filter in the minimoog" and then draw that all the way to "any 24db lowpass" that is semantics.

it's also curious that "24db lowpass" is the same length as "moog filter". why didn't they just say "24db lowpass" or "24db filter" ? it's because they wanted to leech from the name's recognition. it's cowardly to define it as "any 24db filter" and continue to use the term "moog filter". all you're doing is stealing the trademark and applying it to your own filter without any justification for doing so.

"wavetable" is a different matter. it isn't a trademark. it also never meant "wavetable scanning". "wavetable scanning" means that. you keep adding "scanning" when you define it, why?

yamaha created the DX-7 which was the first famous "FM" synthesizer. yet it does not do even the smallest amount of frequency modulation. instead it does wavetable phase modulation by summing scaled indices. does that make it phase modulation? wait, another synthesizer does that, yet it isn't modulation either as it's merely wavetable index shaping.

---

himalaya - Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:49 pm

---

---

aciddose - Sun Feb 19, 2012 3:54 pm

---

so you're saying that "moog" no longer means a guy, or a company, or a particular filter.

you're saying like "spam" it refers in general to "a filter" now?

...and you're saying this isn't an issue of semantics?

i say that if you're going to use spam-terms like "moog" or "wavetable" it's only fair that everyone else can spam-define them themselves as well. spam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

---

clif321 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:18 pm

---

Can't argue with Monty Python.

But returning to the original question, Rapture's User Manual defines what Cakewalk/Roland mean by "wavetable synthesis" as follows:

"this type of synthesis is an efficient method of creating sustained sounds by looping a minimal amount of audio data. In Rapture, the wavetable is defined by a single-cycle audio file. During the wave loading procedure, Rapture creates all the sample images required for the Oscillator to play the single-cycle across the whole keyboard range without any aliasing distortion."

Obviously this use of the term "wavetable synthesis" is not the same as PPG-style wavetable scanning, even though I agree that the latter is probably how most persons with specialized knowledge of synthesis (as opposed to the general public) would today define that term. But it does not surprise me that Cakewalk/Roland would use the terminology the way they did in the Rapture manual, given that Roland was one of first developers of sample-playback PC sound cards that were mass marketed as "wavetable"-based alternatives to cheap-sounding FM-based cards. At least the manual makes clear what they mean.

Also, and maybe ironically, I should amend what I said in my previous post and note for the record that it is in fact possible to incorporate wave sequencing into Rapture patches by loading sfz files set up to step or crossfade through whatever grouping of single-cycle wave files the user may choose to define. But this is obviously a more time consuming and probably less flexible way to go about it than using synths like Kubik which have graphical interfaces specifically designed for that method of sound creation. If the OP wants to explore PPG-style wavetable scanning, I would recommend demoing not Rapture but something like Kubik or the Waldorf Wave emulation.

---

Shabdahbriah - Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:46 pm

---

It is glaringly obvious that these "terms" have been at best "used loosely" by any number of manufacturers/developers, and at worst "misrepresented" and/or convoluted ~ whether by 'them' or their "users", to imply something which they are not (by comparison), which leads to confusion and further misrepresentation and misunderstanding, particularly amongst the more "casual user", or 'general populace' (if you will).

Seriously... PITA that it may be - most of "us" have been around long enough to KNOW this happens, and is going to continue to happen.

The upside IS, that it inspires questions and clarification from those who have not, which at some point or another included "us"... so even if that 'appears' to go nowhere, at least there is dialogue, and maybe some good can come of it. Doubtless, someone has learned something new/useful, from this thread.

[OT moment] I'm having a (somewhat) similar experience with the *term* "3D" as it applies to software and its use/function, when telling friends/family what I'm "into" and WAY thrilled about, right now.

With the exception of those people who were 'there' at the inception of my enthusiasm with having discovered MODO, Rhino-3d, ZBrush (et al), and therefore know I am refering to 3D/CGI and Architechtural/Industrial-design/CAD stuff which has become "ME FRIENDLY" and given my former "hands-on" back-ground a new 'lease-on-life', everyone-else assumes I am talking about some kind of software that makes "3D movies", which I have absolutely ZERO interest in, at present.

At least these two "types" of 3D applications have something in common. They both (for all intents and purposes) create an illusion.

[2c]

---

jens - Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:19 pm

---

What I meant is that theoretically you can get similar transitions between various waveforms with any of them.... so while the synthesis-techniques are totally different, the results are not neccessarily.

---

optofonik - Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:37 pm

---

I thought this thread would have ended with that.

---

whyterabbyt - Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:58 am

---

To my mind, 'scanned wavetable synthesis' should be used consistently to refer to PPG-style scanning-through-a-multi-cycle-wavetable systems, as it needs a commonly-understood term which explicitly differentiates it from single-cycle-wavetable systems. There isnt a substitute term for the latter which is nearly as commonly understood as 'scanned wavetable synthesis' is.

Using an expanded term which indicates that one is an expanded version of the other would help clear up these kinds of issues.

<car analogy> no-one calls expects all 'cars' to be 'sports cars' just because people commonly refer to their 'sports car' as a 'car'. By qualifying 'car' with 'sports' we impart properly differentiated, and hence more accurate, information, and remove the possibility of confusion. </car analogy>

---

Teksonik - Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:34 am

---

A single wave is a Waveform. A series of Waveforms is a Wavetable.......How's that?

---

Shabdahbriah - Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:50 am

---

Only contextually... Otherwise, it's called an "album" (CD).

---

Teksonik - Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:21 am

---

Really? You are such a Geek......

---

whyterabbyt - Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:38 am

---

Technically, it seems incomplete, and erroneous.

Most obviously, there seems to be a conflation of 'a single wave' with 'a single cycle of a wave,' which would be misleading.

There is also an existing meaning wfor 'Waveform' which isn't limited to single cycles, so you're reinforcing a point of confusion of useage of 'wavetable' into a point of confusion over 'waveform'.

Also, properly, a series (when meaning a sequence) can legitimately contain only one item. Hence a proper distinction should still be made between single-cycle wavetables and multi-cycle wavetables, as per my earlier point.

---

Teksonik - Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:58 am

---

Oh for God's sake you must be kidding. I never said a wave has to be a single cycle. It can be anything from a single cycle to a whole song as Shab so anally pointed out..... Yes technically a Sequence can contain a single note but is that really what people think of as a Sequence?

Seriously you geeks have nothing better to do than argue semantics? Have fun.......

---

whyterabbyt - Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:10 am

---

Then what were you actually contributing? Because throwing in the word 'waveform' as though that helped explain somethig, pretty much didnt.



Or to put it another way "Yes technically a wavetable can contain a single cycle but is that really what people think of as a wavetable?"

Answer : yes, and that's the fecking problem being discussed; how to make a clear differentiation.



wow, you have nothing better to do than point out that a thread about the semantics of something involves arguing about the semantics of that thing.

What's the word for that? It isnt geek'. I think its 'troll'.

---

Teksonik - Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:19 am

---

You know Whyte I haven't been able to figure out over the years if pointless arguing is a hobby for you, a sport, or an obsession bordering on OCD....one tends to favor the latter.......

Anyway A single wave is a waveform (Saw,Square etc), a series of waveforms is a Wavetable. That explains it nicely for me and has for the 30 years I've been in synthesis...I'm sorry if the concept is beyond your comprehension.....

At any rate please do carry on.....I'm sure the OCD mandates it.........

---

whyterabbyt - Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:54 am

---

How unexpected; a lame and pathetic attempt at an ad hominem attack. Maybe if you could actually make your point in some sort of well-supported manner you wouldn't have to resort to that level of childishness, but I guess supporting any sort of reasonable argument is beyond you.



Still incomplete and erroneous,



Oh look, an appeal to your own authority, you must be desperate. Im so glad your simplistic and incomplete grasp of the technology explains it sufficiently for you. Maybe you should take that as your lead and just bow out of discussions like this involving anything technically accurate in case it hurts your little head.



Not quite sure Im understanding that. Your technical knowledge is woefully inadequate so you think mine must be too?
Sorry to burst your sad little bubble, but I reckon my bookshelf on the subject is a little bit more extensive than yours. And some of the books on it were bought, new, 25-plus years ago. So, no, my comprehension of the concept is pretty extensively covered, thanks. More so than the naive 'its a series of waveform, nyuck nyuck nyuck' anyway.




As if I needed your permission.



I'm glad you find often-debilitating mental conditions so amusing that you bandy them around as insults so freely. Knowing that there are at least a few regulars around here with genuine OCD problems, Im sure they'll appreciate you making fun of their condition as a cheap dig. Its not something I suffer from myself, but I do know its a rather nasty and insidious condition. Nasty and insidious, how apt.

Maybe you'll want to behave like decent human being and delete that shit before a moderator takes you to task for it, though, or is that really the level of snide desparation you're happy to continue with, over something as banal as terminology.

---

jens - Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:14 am

---

I must be getting old, but... could you guys please stop fighting and attacking each other? You are both right in a way and wrong in another. One argues conventions, the other argues scientific definitions. In any case there's neither a need nor a use in getting personal over different ways of describing certain concepts.

---

optofonik - Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:00 am

---

Stop yelling and RTFM.

http://seib.synth.net/documents/w22omeng.pdf

Nuff said.




PS: Ap0C552, it's academic at this point (literally) but I hope this helps.

---

aciddose - Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:15 am

---

sorry to bring an end to your 30-year lasting joy, but what is it called when you put a square followed by a saw followed by a triangle followed by a pulse of noise? is that a wave, or a wave-table? (proper name: a waveform)

what about when you have a single "wave" such as a triangle, but this is described by a table of points (vectors)? is that just a wave, or a wave-table? (proper name: table of vectors)

in fact if we had a table containing multiple waves, i don't think it would be correct to call that a wave-table as it isn't a table that makes up a wave. (proper name: table of waveforms)



proper name: wave table.

go on, tell me to call it a table d'onde.

---

Sendy - Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:26 am

---

Win. End thread.

---

whyterabbyt - Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:48 am

---

ftfy.

---

fateamenabletochange - Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:12 am

---

Pass the sugar please

One lump or two

---

whyterabbyt - Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:17 am

---

Camel Audio subliminal advertising.

---

himalaya - Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:53 am

---

And both of those state that wavetable synthesis involves mowing through the waves/wavetables! So much for 'semantics' and trying to ridicule, but I suppose some will never see it.

---

whyterabbyt - Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:25 am

---

yes, except the latter explicitly states that the wavetable is single-cycle.






ironic. i suppose you never saw the first paragraph, then.

---

hakey - Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:26 am

---

I am trying out Rhincodon typus. I read that it was a whale shark, and this is why I want to try it out.

But it seems to me like it is nothing more than a very large fish with neither a blow hole nor rows of sharp, backwards pointing teeth.

I was under the impression that commonly used terms always give an accurate, objective and unambiguous description of that to which they refer. Am I missing something here?

---

Albert.VST - Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:47 am

---

Again, I would say, a song (but a very short one).

Semantics and (music)synthesis don't seem to match well, I'm sure you can find a lot of examples from both old hardware to new software.

I would say that in 1982 a company named PPG for the first time made a form of music synthesis generally available to the public that used "nearly twothousand different waveforms in 30 wavetables (each has 64 waveforms)" with the possibility to "run through up to 64 waveforms within the length of one played note". From that point in time this type of music synthesis is commonly known to a part of the world population, namely users of electronic music synthesizers (semantically correct description of this small part of the world population?), as wavetable synthesis.
Just like a few years later a company called Yamaha released another form of music synthesis to the public commonly known in this same part of world population as FM synthesis (although technically and semantically it isn't).

So every company releasing products for this specific group of users in a later stage could, and I think should, be aware of this legacy and to avoid confusion describe their product, although semantically maybe not necessary, with respect to these commonly understood conventions in this group of users. Although these conventions may be wrong in some aspects.

---

jens - Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:55 am

---

I now had the time to prepare two quick examples in order to illustrate what I mean:



http://www.prinziphoffnung.com/mp3/SineToSaw1.mp3

http://www.prinziphoffnung.com/mp3/SineToSaw1.mp3


One of these files uses wavetable-synthesis (or whatever you want to call it) to morph from a sinewave to a sawwave, the other one FM (PM) - and albeit I guess it won't be too hard to figure out which is which, you'll surely admit that both synthesizers do something similar here.

---

whyterabbyt - Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:55 am

---

which is a bit like saying 'most people think the Internet is the same thing as the World Wide Web, so Internet Service Providers and other such companies should call themselves something different so as not to confuse people by using accurate terminology'

---

Shabdahbriah - Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:25 am

---

---

Albert.VST - Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:46 am

---

Yeah, basically you're right. But again this is the semantic trouble when one company starts with giving something a name which technically is wrong, but due to some circumstances like popularity, it becomes more of a standard to descibe something in general. It's proven very hard to correct this. And also people's expectations become build on the common use of such a description, even if uncorrect. Not on what the true meaning of such a description is.

And we here are not better than the rest of the world, so to us old synth geeks Wavetable systhesis is inextricably connected with the synthesis method introduced by PPG in 1982.

---

hakey - Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:47 am

---

Hmm... I don't think he was arguing that anything should be changed, rather that where a term gains currency there's not much point in arguing that it is ambiguous, technically incorrect, illogical, historically inaccurate or plain contradictory - the definition of a term is derived from its common usage.

---

whyterabbyt - Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:11 am

---

in common useage yes. however 'common useage' definitions don't actually negate technical definitions.

in this case, we have proponents of the 'common useage' insisting that useage of the technical definition is incorrect. furthermore, its not enough to insist that one's own useage should prevail; the confusion already exists.

if the common useage term for X overlaps with the technical definition for Y, then you need to do one of two things to remove the confusion you create; find a better common useage term for X, or find a common usage term for Y. insisting that Y should be called X, and ignoring the fact that one still needs to refer to X somehow is not helping that confusion.

---

hakey - Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:27 am

---

Which would entail persuading all those presently using the ambiguous term/s to agree upon and adopt a new usage. Unfortunately, except in special cases (eg taxonomy), that's not how the English language develops.


+1

---

whyterabbyt - Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:39 am

---

yes, if they want to prevent the confusion they're complaining about.
in plenty of previous threads here on this topic (almost all of them featuring some the same 'complainees' as in this, funnily enough) its been pointed out, by other equally-old synth geeks, that terms like 'PPG-style wavetables' or 'scanned wavetables' are equally-well- understood, and used, and less ambiguous. no new useage is actually needed, we have viable, equally-longstanding, alternate old useages.

either that or they can just stop complaining when the technical definition of the term gets used correctly.

---

ENV1 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:46 am

---

The problem goes much deeper.

It starts with the fact that there is no such thing as a square wave.

(Much like there is no such thing as a linear curve, thats an oxymoron.)



IMO the whole terminology is flawed. Over the past 50 years many terms have become standard even though it doesnt really make sense. (Or at least not as much as it could make with different terms.) And now it is too late to do something about it anymore. For instance:

A Saw is called Saw, but there are 2 possible directions. Since both directions have the shape of a ramp, the forms should have been called 'Ramp Up' (RU) and 'Ramp Down' (RD) exclusively so that noone could ever confuse them.

A Triangle is called Triangle, even though the actual form doesnt have 3 angles. This is the one that should have been called Saw, although for the sake of consistency 'Ramp Up & Down' (RUD) and/or 'Ramp Down & Up' (RDU) would have been even better.

A Square is called Square, but what it really describes is a series of equal-length linear pulses. The proper term for Square therefore would have been 'Symmetric Linear Pulse' (SLP).

PWM, given the fact that the 'P' is already for 'Pulse', leaves no room for complaints. However, PWM merely describes the modulation-type, not the resulting form. Hence, in order to follow the naming convention, forms derived from modulating the width of a linear pulse should have been called 'Asymmetric Linear Pulse' (ALP).

Non-Linear Pulses (as in pulses with curved flanks) are just that and should have been called just that as well. (NLP)

Trapeze doesnt seem all wrong, although for consistency sake it could have been called 'Ramp-Pulse' (RP) and/or 'Pulse-Ramp' (PR) as well.

In fact the only basic form that had the proper name right from the beginning seems to be good old Sine...

---

jens - Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:59 am

---

Why should it really matter what you call it? This whole discussion is imo 99% moot. I pity every fool who doesn't realize that language always is inherently inaccurate, has to be. It's just a tool. Sometimes it does an okay job, often it doesn't. Language attempts to describe certain elements of reality in regards to certain subjective perspectives, language is not reality.

This thread is in an 'internet'-(or 'world wide web')'forum' dealing with 'musical instruments'. This thread is about a certain 'synthesis technique' - whatever you might call this technique (and related techniques). This thread could contain an interesting on-topic discussion using *gasp* language. Instead it contains a discussion using language to discuss the usage of language. Why sacrificing the thread to vainless, useless and untimately senseless attempts at proofing others how wrong they are?

---

Albert.VST - Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:05 am

---

Fourier was here......

---

himalaya - Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:13 am

---

and so it is, no argument there (have you actually been following this thread???), it's about wavetable synthesis, a process, which that PDF then goes on to explain, quote:

"Second, a mechanism exists for dynamically
changing the waveshape as the musical note evolve..."

Pasting selective quotes, with trimmed text to suit your point of view, is childish. The text you quoted even says that the spec is "extended by at least two ways". You trim the paragraph to show the first aspect, which is not part of the argument, it's the second part which deals with the issue which is being discussed. Hence, it can be concluded, since it is written in both papers, that the spec of wavetable syntheis involves a method (or several) of moving/scanning/sweeping (whatever) through the wavetable, which rapture can not do. How difficult is this to understand? Like I said previously, if you can't see it, for whatever reason, nothing will show it to you now, not those papers, not historical context of synths which have established what is involved in wavetable synthesis...etc.




You shouldn't be pointing the finger at me, since it is you who never saw the rest of the text, which is the gist of the matter.

Seriously, is this a wind up?

---

himalaya - Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:16 am

---

But it isn't, since this thread proves that people are taken by the incomplete description of synthesis methods in Rapture. And it's not their fault. That is the whole point.

---

jens - Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:46 am

---

The whole point is that there's no way for you to force Cakewalk to apply the term 'wavetable' according to your own definition, how accurate this defnition might ever be in your opinion and also regardless of how comon it may or may not be.

More signal and less noise please.

---

whyterabbyt - Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:12 am

---

Its lucky that that's not why I trimmed the text, then, isnt it?

The point of trimming the text was to highlight that one specific fact was established... that a wavetable was being defined as a single cycle, and not a series of cycles. You'll admit that that's the case wont you?

However, if you want me to quote the next part, I will. I notice you didnt, I wonder why?



Are we clear on that? A wavetable consists of a single cycle worth of data, not multiple cycles worth of data, and that the synthesis system depends on utilising wavetables.

Sorry if you think its 'childish' that I didnt reinforce the obvious bit, that 'wavetable synthesis' depends on 'a mechanism using wavetables'.

But since its been argued that 'wavetable synthesis' precludes single-cycle wavetables, or specifically entails multi-cycle tables, Im wondering why you would object to me focussing on clarifying that. Misdirection?

Of course you're making your assertions without quoting anything from the paper. I guess by your standards that's even more childish since you've trimmed everything, then?

Lets just remember that it says 'a mechanism' not 'this specific mechanism'. It doesnt define the mechanism, it presents an obviously-incomplete selection of possible mechanisms.



Well, actually no; the second part specifies that there's a mechanism, but it doesnt specify what that mechanism is.

The subsequent paragraph does though, to an extent; it specifies a few. You'd know that if you read all the text. The first method it specifies is "linear crossfading from one wavetable to the next sequentially".

Note... one wavetable to the next. Wavetable still being a single-cycle.

More methods are specified, by the way, but one singular thing that the paper underlines is that 'wavetable synthesis' is not solely 'linear sequential scanning through a multi-cycle table'.




Well, not quite. Firstly the wavetable is defined as being only single-cycle. And reading through a wavetable is pretty much intrinsic to using it.

So it depends on what you mean by 'moving/scanning/sweeping.' The paper doesnt refer to an intrinsic moving/scanning/sweeping sequentially through a set of wavetables, though, although it does offer it as 'a' possible method. It does explicitly refer to mixing of multiple singe-cycle wavetables, as an alternative possible method, though. There's a big picture and everything.

What it doesn't say, however, is that wavetable syntheis involves a method (or several) of moving/scanning/sweeping (whatever) through multiple wavetables sequentially.

So what do you say it explicitly excludes from being wavetable synthesis?



And that's the thing. Surely Rapture does do at least one of the methods described in the paper. Its mixing waveforms, isnt it?

But that's just my view. Why dont you tell me exactly what it is that's described in the paper that Rapture fails to do.



Its not. I understand the paper. And I reckon I understand where you don't understand that Rapture fits what the paper describes.






Make your mind up. Did I selectively not quote it , or did I not read it? I guess its not the 'gist of the matter' that you say you read more than me, but have missed some obvious stuff, and not quoted anything to back you up at all.

Either way, mindreading isnt your strong point, so try not telling me what I did or didnt do, and why. You just look, well, erm childish.

---

himalaya - Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:18 am

---

Jens,
True, I can't force Cakewalk to apply the term 'wavetable' according to my own definition and that is not my intention, and it's not what I'm doing. It's the description of Rapture's wavetable synthesis which I'm discussing and pointing to, as that description is misleading, or perhaps incomplete, which catches people unawares.

And it's not about "my own" definition but that which has been shown in all synths which used Wavetable Synthesis through out the last 20 or so years, as well as written specifics about this synthesis process. Nothing to do with my opinions.

---

whyterabbyt - Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:30 am

---

Then explain exactly what is it that Rapture's synthesis system does not do which is described as being 'wavetable synthesis' in that paper.

---

himalaya - Tue Feb 21, 2012 7:43 am

---

edit. can't be bothered.

---

Chad@PA - Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:13 am

---

Hey,

Download these wavetable scanning examples

- unzip the file
- place all of the .sfz files into your Rapture/Multisamples folder

First I want to say there are a number of different ways to emulate and achieve 'wave-scanning' (or whatever you guys want to call it) in Rapture.

- Use the AMP STEPGEN to cycle through 6 different oscillators. Load up the "Basic 6 Elements.prog" included in that zip. Use the Mod Wheel to smooth the STEPGEN. This is just one example. You could also do this via Rapture's AMP LFOs.

- There are a number of different ways you can also achieve this with sfz opcodes and techniques. This won't limit you to 6 oscillator shapes, since you can load as many waves as you want within an sfz file, and this sfz will only use up 1 of Rapture's elements.

- Crossfade on MIDICC. Load the "xfade on cc1 - 3 square wavetables.sfz" as an example.
- Use 'delay_beats' 'stop_beats' opcodes to have the different waves cycle synced to tempo. "sequence 10beats 1.sfz" example.
- Use the 'LFOX_step' opcode to cycle waves synced to an LFO's position. Very cool and fun to experiment with since you can sync the LFO to higher audio rate speeds via MIDI CCs. See "MegaSeq 32-01.sfz" and all of the "VariSeq" examples included. These were just a few of the larger collection created by b rock, Tom Brockway. The full set can be downloaded here.

You could also create a .wav file that contains all of the waveshapes you'd like to scan through and trigger those different portions of that .wav file with the use of sfz's performance parameters and sample offset opcodes. I guess it depends on the results you want to achieve.

I hope this gives you some ideas to unlock some hidden potential in Rapture.

Cheers,
Chad

edit: I forgot to mention if you do use the sfz examples make sure you turn up the polyphony on Rapture's element page.

---

There are 158 posts in this topic.
Page: 1 2