KVR Audio

2DaT · Post by **2DaT** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:01 pm

@Breeze:

However the spread/detune issue might be fixed if the spread algorithm and the random pitch selection were revisited and prevented the oscillators from being too close in tune to each other as the spread is increased. This was guaranteed by the "excessive" sharpening of OSC2 in the older version, but there could be other factors; I don't really know.

You can get exactly the same sound using osc2detune.

@2DaT: is this the only difference between the two versions posted at the top of this thread?

Fixed velocity legato bug and cpu spikes with some hosts.

Breeze · Post by **Breeze** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:50 pm

2DaT wrote:You can get exactly the same sound using osc2detune.

Thanks 2DaT. I'll check it out some more. It seems it's not just OSC2 Detune though because if I find an OSC2 offset that works with one patch it doesn't necessarily work with another. However with the proper adjustments of OSC2 Detune AND Spread I think they CAN be practically identical. The random detune of the voices makes it hard to pin down exact differences; it could be a statistical anomaly that lead me to my previous conclusion...

Kriminal · Post by **Kriminal** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:54 pm

vurt wrote:
Ingonator wrote: This would mean that amost all existing patches would no longer work

Ingo

it probably would have been wiser for people to wait on a finished version before finalising any patch work.

Ingonator · Post by **Ingonator** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:28 pm

Kriminal wrote:
vurt wrote:
Ingonator wrote: This would mean that amost all existing patches would no longer work

Ingo

it probably would have been wiser for people to wait on a finished version before finalising any patch work.

Think what you want but 390 patches from 8 sound designers show that people did not want to wait any longer (and many of them are great IMO)...

It''s also not like this project started just a few days ago and at some point only doing sound design offers the opportunity to find new bugs. This was a general rule for almost any betatest where i participated.

For me when the latest GUI was done there was the immediate need to create patches with this. It was like a starting signal. It looks like others had the same idea around the same time...

Ingo

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:33 pm

by finished version i meant once the developer had said "rights that all im adding no more major changes" not a final release version.

i also said before finalising. now its got to a point where you would all moan if the he adds a feature that breaks your patches.
so youre making it seem like the sound design is more important than the synth development.
who cares of the patches need reworking if the synth is better with the new feature?

Ingonator · Post by **Ingonator** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:40 pm

vurt wrote:by finished version i meant once the developer had said "rights that all im adding no more major changes" not a final release version.

i also said before finalising. now its got to a point where you would all moan if the he adds a feature that breaks your patches.
so youre making it seem like the sound design is more important than the synth development.
who cares of the patches need reworking if the synth is better with the new feature?

It was one member that asked for the new feature (in this case changing the enveloeps) so far. Personally it would be no peoblem for me as long as this would be imolemented by adding a switch for both options.
Most people that had done patches seem to be mostly happy with how the synth works at the moment.
Once the synth is at a certain stage it is impossible to prevent that people finally want to use it for doing patches. In this case this seemed to be at the point when the current GUI was added.
If 2DAT would have decided to not let the development be influenced my members here he would not have done the developmnet in the public.

If i understand correctly the current version is already beyond what was expected at the beginning.

Ingo

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:42 pm

well as long as the sound designers are happy with it...

Kriminal · Post by **Kriminal** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:42 pm

Ingonator wrote:
Kriminal wrote:
vurt wrote:
Ingonator wrote: This would mean that amost all existing patches would no longer work

Ingo

it probably would have been wiser for people to wait on a finished version before finalising any patch work.

Think what you want but 390 patches from 8 sound designers show that people did not want to wait any longer

patience is a virtue...

Ingonator · Post by **Ingonator** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:45 pm

Kriminal wrote:
patience is a virtue...

Public development (with the very first test version) started around 6 months ago so i guess we were quite patient...

Ingo

Breeze · Post by **Breeze** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:47 pm

vurt wrote:...who cares of the patches need reworking if the synth is better with the new feature?

Totally with you on this. The last issue I raised was more of a concern about losing an essential positive characteristic of a former build. "Better", I have no problem with; "not as good", I do! But I think that turned out to be a false alarm. Adjusting patches to new features, well as mentioned, that's par for the course with any instrument in beta; how else can the strengths and weaknesses of a machine be tested than by using it?

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:51 pm

Breeze wrote:
vurt wrote:...who cares of the patches need reworking if the synth is better with the new feature?
Totally with you on this. The last issue I raised was more of a concern about losing an essential positive characteristic of a former build. "Better", I have no problem with; "not as good", I do! But I think that turned out to be a false alarm. Adjusting patches to new features, well as mentioned, that's par for the course with any instrument in beta; how else can the strengths and weaknesses of a machine be tested than by using it?

oh yeah im definitely not saying dont do patches. my point was dont moan that new features would ruin the patches as ingo said it would. just dont put the patches above the synth in importance is my point.

Ingonator · Post by **Ingonator** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:57 pm

vurt wrote: oh yeah im definitely not saying dont do patches. my point was dont moan that new features would ruin the patches as ingo said it would. just dont put the patches above the synth in importance is my point.

My point was not about not doing any changes at all but changing the envelopes is one of the most serious changes you could do. I have some experience with that in the past and getting existing patches to sound the same was a PITA. Having done patches myself and having played with patches of others i also don't feel a real need to change the envelopes.

I already mentioned (including my first post about that topic) that adding this feature with a switch would be OK for me. Such switch AFAIK was also added with the latest version 2 of OP-X Pro.

Last but not least there was no comment of 2DaT concerning that specific request yet. At the end it is his decison what is done and what not.

Ingo

fluffy_little_something · Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:09 pm

Didn't he say weeks ago that he wanted to finish this thing off asap? He probably has more important things to do, especially since it is just freeware, anyway.

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:21 pm

fluffy_little_something wrote:Didn't he say weeks ago that he wanted to finish this thing off asap? He probably has more important things to do, especially since it is just freeware, anyway.

I think in 2Dat's mind this synth is basically finished featurewise. He is just polishing things, removing bugs, optimizing the code, etc., but, considering his silence on the suggesions being made, I don't believe he is into including any new feature. So, key follow will stay as it is, envelopes too, etc.
If he doesn't abandon this project, we will certainly have an OB-Xd II in the future with lots af bew features (whishful thinking

)

Frantz · Post by **Frantz** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:23 pm

I was in the "wait until it's done" camp since the patch incompatibility issue was predictable. Note we still haven't received a green light from 2DAT on creating patches.

2DaT wrote:You can get exactly the same sound using osc2detune.

If someone can work out a general algorithm for converting the patches, it may be possible to convert an entire bank (.fxb) at once with a couple hours of work. It appears that other than a binary header, the OBXD .fxb files are all text and the parameters values can be edited directly in the file.

A fast way to do it would be to open the text portion of .fxb file in Excel and use the Text to Columns function with quote as the delimiter. With some work, each patch would appear on a separate row and the osc2detune parameter for every patch would be in the same column. Then you could apply formulas to adjust detune and spread for all patches by a percentage or amount.

You would then take the Excel-edited text and reformat it so it appears as it originally was using regular expression search and replaces. Finally, the text would be pasted back into the .fxb file. The big assumption is that the binary info doesn't need to change as well. If the binary info needs to change, then the entire exercise would be a waste of time.

Obxd synthesizer