KVR Audio

BBFG# · Post by **BBFG#** » Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:18 pm

Yes, I simply wanted to know which ones use the term and hoped it wouldn't turn into yet another KVR sprawl of what it is and is not.
We seem to get enough of that from the developers that do use it and where in the synth's flow they implement it.

The question simply is
Which synths use it?

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:27 pm

google 'psychoacoustic VST' and you'll get a more complete list, faster than anyone here can reply.

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:45 pm

Ingonator wrote:
ghettosynth wrote: Since "inpulse modeling synthesis" is itself a buzzword, it's not really clear to me what they're doing. I think that some of the sounds were interesting. If anyone has some insight as to what's actually going on, I'm all ears, heh!
From the Rayblaster manual:

What is Impulse Modeling Synthesis (IMS)

Where's my filter?
IMS works in a way that does not need a separate filter section, its oscillators can
authentically mimic the filter sound of other synthesizers, using one of the factory impulse presets or by simply importing one of your own impulses.
Not only is RayBlaster capable of modeling the sound of existing filters –

Ingo

This is a dubious claim... it works okay for a static reproduction of a filter at specific settings, but as soon as you are modulating, it does not hold up.

These days using the term 'modeling' implies some level of authenticity to that which is being modeled. And it isn't.

Rayblaster could use a real filter...

Ingonator · Post by **Ingonator** » Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:57 pm

pdxindy wrote:
Ingonator wrote:
ghettosynth wrote: Since "inpulse modeling synthesis" is itself a buzzword, it's not really clear to me what they're doing. I think that some of the sounds were interesting. If anyone has some insight as to what's actually going on, I'm all ears, heh!
From the Rayblaster manual:

What is Impulse Modeling Synthesis (IMS)

Where's my filter?
IMS works in a way that does not need a separate filter section, its oscillators can
authentically mimic the filter sound of other synthesizers, using one of the factory impulse presets or by simply importing one of your own impulses.
Not only is RayBlaster capable of modeling the sound of existing filters –

Ingo
This is a dubious claim... it works okay for a static reproduction of a filter at specific settings, but as soon as you are modulating, it does not hold up.

These days using the term 'modeling' implies some level of authenticity to that which is being modeled. And it isn't.

Rayblaster could use a real filter...

I had explained many times how it works in practical use, including my previous post here. While it is not capable to fully emulate a certain filter the way it works is as least close withiin certain limits (as laready mentioned) and quite unique to Rayblaster. You are also able to get some very nice resonant sweeps with it when using a resonant single cycle waveform. In that way it is impossible with a usual sampler, except if you use another filter to do it which is then fixed to that single filter and not really related to the synth that was sampled.

Anyway as this happens with any waveform (independent of the source) the really interesting stuff happens with more complex waveforms that produce results way beyond existing synths. Also the use of the additional shaping features is what really makes it special. See my explanaition at the previous page (or check the manual).

Ingo

Ingonator · Post by **Ingonator** » Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:58 pm

whyterabbyt wrote:google 'psychoacoustic VST' and you'll get a more complete list, faster than anyone here can reply.

I did and mostly found FXs with that...

Ingonator · Post by **Ingonator** » Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:01 pm

BBFG# wrote:Yes, I simply wanted to know which ones use the term and hoped it wouldn't turn into yet another KVR sprawl of what it is and is not.
We seem to get enough of that from the developers that do use it and where in the synth's flow they implement it.

The question simply is
Which synths use it?

Maybe it would be helpful to know why exactly you want to know this. Simply posting something like i just want to know for which synth this word was used in the description is maybe not a great starting point for a discussion.

You have to know that when Tone2 synths are discussed the usual Tone2 haters will be involved sooner or later.

Personally i am not really interested in "buzzwords" and "marketing bla bla" but i know how to use most of the Tone2 synths quite well, including e.g. Rayblaster.

Ingo

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:23 pm

Ingonator wrote:Anyway as this happens with any waveform (independent of the source) the really interesting stuff happens with more complex waveforms that produce results way beyond existing synths. Also the use of the additional shaping features is what really makes it special. See my explanaition at the previous page (or check the manual).

Ingo

It is exactly for this reason that dubious claims about modeling existing filters hurts the synth. It creates expectations that it cannot live up to... meanwhile there are lots of unique possibilities to explore and be excited about.

Ingonator · Post by **Ingonator** » Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:27 pm

pdxindy wrote:
Ingonator wrote:Anyway as this happens with any waveform (independent of the source) the really interesting stuff happens with more complex waveforms that produce results way beyond existing synths. Also the use of the additional shaping features is what really makes it special. See my explanaition at the previous page (or check the manual).

Ingo
It is exactly for this reason that dubious claims about modeling existing filters hurts the synth. It creates expectations that it cannot live up to... meanwhile there are lots of unique possibilities to explore and be excited about.

It's not like those claims are totally wrong. They just forgot to mention the limitations which are e.g. proper behavior within a certain Cutoff range and having resonance only with a resonant waveform.
Modulation with an envelope or LFO is possible, Again within limits. Your claim that this is only possible with a static approach is also wrong.
even if a resonant sweep mabye sounds differently from the original synth the fact that this is done based on a simple single cycle wavefom without an actual filter implemented (as ther is not really one) is great enough for me.

You could do an easy test to see why this is amazing. Load a resonant single cycle waveform from Rayblaster into a sampler, set the resonance of the filter in that sampler to 0 and try to get a proper resonant sweep now by modulating the Cutoff. This will not be possible. During the biggest part of the Cutoff the sound will stay identical and at a certain point the resonant sound will start to dispappear.

Ingo

cron · Post by **cron** » Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:49 pm

ghettosynth wrote: The phrase psychoacoustic, as opposed to acoustic, as far as I understand it, refers to the perception of a sound that isn't present in the mechanical wave. Maxxbass, for example, isolates bass sounds and produces their harmonics. The presence of the harmonics makes us perceive greater bass (at the fundamental) than is actually present. That's a psychoacoustic phenomenon. The perception of continuous rising of Shepard tones is another example.

Since "inpulse modeling synthesis" is itself a buzzword, it's not really clear to me what they're doing. I think that some of the sounds were interesting. If anyone has some insight as to what's actually going on, I'm all ears, heh!

This is my understanding too. Anything that exploits quirks of the human hearing system can be called psychoacoustic to me. Maxbass is a great example, Haas delays another. I'm not sure where it comes into play with the IMS stuff. I suppose you could talk about forward masking at a push if we're discussing discrete impulses fusing into a tone, but I'd be more inclined to call it acoustic modelling using an idiosyncratic method. Not sure how it's different enough to your standard, well described impulse trains/pitch synchronous granular methods, although Tone2 can't be expected to give all their secrets about its workings away to be fair.

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:56 pm

Ingonator wrote:
pdxindy wrote:
Ingonator wrote:Anyway as this happens with any waveform (independent of the source) the really interesting stuff happens with more complex waveforms that produce results way beyond existing synths. Also the use of the additional shaping features is what really makes it special. See my explanaition at the previous page (or check the manual).

Ingo
It is exactly for this reason that dubious claims about modeling existing filters hurts the synth. It creates expectations that it cannot live up to... meanwhile there are lots of unique possibilities to explore and be excited about.
It's not like those claims are totally wrong. They just forgot to mention the limitations which are e.g. proper behavior within a certain Cutoff range and having resonance only with a resonant waveform.
Modulation with an envelope or LFO is possible, Again within limits. Your claim that this is only possible with a static approach is also wrong.
even if a resonant sweep mabye sounds differently from the original synth the fact that this is done based on a simple single cycle wavefom without an actual filter implemented (as ther is not really one) is great enough for me.

Ingo

"They just forgot to mention the limitations"

Ingonator · Post by **Ingonator** » Sat Apr 05, 2014 6:03 pm

pdxindy wrote:
"They just forgot to mention the limitations"

To cliam that it does not work at all is more "funny" to me than to claim that it works but within certain limits...

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Sat Apr 05, 2014 6:21 pm

Ingonator wrote:
pdxindy wrote:
"They just forgot to mention the limitations"
To cliam that it does not work at all is more "funny" to me than to claim that it works but within certain limits...

Yeah, if someone had claimed that it would be funny...

SODDI · Post by **SODDI** » Sat Apr 05, 2014 8:03 pm

Dasheesh wrote:The guy was just asking what synths used the term in their marketing. I was just thinking yesterday about how it was going to become the "hot" new catch phrase in synth marketing and you would probably start to see it everywhere. I know Nuklear used it because that is what made me try it out. I was like "what the hell does that mean"? So I went and tried it out. It's almost always used in association with some kind of granular effect or synthesis.

It really means something because psycho-acoustics is an actual field of study and has been for decades. And synthesizers have benefitted from this research. Everything from a complex synthesis using Chowning's 6-op digital FM to using simple pan position to simulate the position of a sound source in a stereo field uses psycho-acoustics.

In the grand sweep of everything, everyone involved in the endeavor of electronic music is a psychoacoustic experimenter. Which we should all be proud of.

Marketing bumf from a synth developer that claims some ownership of the term "psychoacoustic" is like a manufacturing firm touting its brand new toroidal tires - now 60% rounder!

Or: "Welcome to Carl's Jr. Would you like to try our EXTRA BIG ASS TACO? Now with more MOLECULES!" Idiocracy, 2006

BBFG# · Post by **BBFG#** » Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:29 pm

Ingonator wrote:
BBFG# wrote: The question simply is
Which synths use it?
Maybe it would be helpful to know why exactly you want to know this. Simply posting something like i just want to know for which synth this word was used in the description is maybe not a great starting point for a discussion.
Ingo

I simply wanted to know as a starting point to further my own research of them elsewhere. Maybe hoping that a direct question could result in direct answers on KVR is flawed from the start. It is the posters that make a discussion from it that was never asked for.
I know there are Tone2-haters as well as Omni-submissives on all emotional irrationalities, but sometimes it can prove productive. Haven't seen the haters yet and the submissives are in their 'horde-raid' phase all over the boards anyway.
Trying to side step all that as best I can, I simply asked a direct question.
Just want to know if anyone has run across others that use or make the claim of using it. Then I can check them out for myself.

ghettosynth · Post by **ghettosynth** » Sun Apr 06, 2014 12:29 am

Ingonator wrote:
ghettosynth wrote: Since "inpulse modeling synthesis" is itself a buzzword, it's not really clear to me what they're doing. I think that some of the sounds were interesting. If anyone has some insight as to what's actually going on, I'm all ears, heh!
From the Rayblaster manual:

No, I meant actual insight, I read what's on their web page. It's not informative.

Psychoacoustic Virtual Synths?