Plogue Chipspeech

[Sendy]

DavidV, a bit off-topic, but in the next update of Chipsounds, could we have an update that lets you create and sweep through your own hand-drawn wavetables on things like the Gameboy wave channel? FAMItracker has this functionality and it's so much fun creating 4-bit wavetables that approximate different synthesis functions, or just drawing weird transitions and seeing how they sound. 8-16 waves per table is enough, I guess the steppyness is all part of the chip aesthetic.

Hum, you can draw the waveform of the Gameboy's Wave Channel since chipsounds 1.0

DMG.jpg

Surely you mean something else?

Like that, but imagine you have a list of 8 or 16 of those drawable waves, and a parameter which you can control with CC, or an envelope/LFO, which dictates which one plays (and you can change this mid-note at any time).

At the moment we have the wave modifiers, which perform a similar role, only via preset algorythms and on the fly. Being able to draw your own 4-bit wavetables and move around them makes some really cool sounds.

[Chad@PA]

I'll leave this here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SkiekH5oRk

Excellent!


chipsounds, chipcrusher, & chipspeech the Deathly Hallows for your DAW.

[fabi]

DavidV, a bit off-topic, but in the next update of Chipsounds, could we have an update that lets you create and sweep through your own hand-drawn wavetables on things like the Gameboy wave channel? FAMItracker has this functionality and it's so much fun creating 4-bit wavetables that approximate different synthesis functions, or just drawing weird transitions and seeing how they sound. 8-16 waves per table is enough, I guess the steppyness is all part of the chip aesthetic.

Hum, you can draw the waveform of the Gameboy's Wave Channel since chipsounds 1.0

DMG.jpg

Surely you mean something else?

Like that, but imagine you have a list of 8 or 16 of those drawable waves, and a parameter which you can control with CC, or an envelope/LFO, which dictates which one plays (and you can change this mid-note at any time).

At the moment we have the wave modifiers, which perform a similar role, only via preset algorythms and on the fly. Being able to draw your own 4-bit wavetables and move around them makes some really cool sounds.

it would probably be easy to achieve this by simply duplicating the WAVE KS of the gameboy several times in chipsounds, right? though that would mean more keys/note range gone from the dmg... hm. don't know how one would solve this after all.

[davidv@plogue]

Well we could have made the drop down automatable, so you could create sequences, or DAW-level selections/series whatever.

chipsounds 2.0 will be much more... everything

[Sendy]

Yeah, I guess this is prolly a feature for Chipsounds 2.0. Automatable drop-down would be interesting, certainly. Perhaps not worth it though, considering we can transform the waves with vertical wrapping, PWM and fake sync, truncate, etc, which gives a sort of wavetable effect.

[fabi]

btw, can anyone tell me why it says in the chipcrusher manual (the pdf is actually called chipsounds manual, but never mind that) to disable the DAC portion if one wishes to use it after chipsounds?

is it because chipsounds is already sufficiently lo-fi itself and thus does not need the DAC portion, or would it somehow make things worse, or what is it?

[davidv@plogue]

btw, can anyone tell me why it says in the chipcrusher manual (the pdf is actually called chipsounds manual, but never mind that) to disable the DAC portion if one wishes to use it after chipsounds?

Oh in the title inside the document? yeah bad cut&paste from the original manual

is it because chipsounds is already sufficiently lo-fi itself and thus does not need the DAC portion, or would it somehow make things worse, or what is it?

Of course you should turn the DAC portion OFF (and you can) if you plan on using chipsounds as source.

Speaking of which chipcrusher 1.8 will be out and chipsounds 1.8 will be out as well, since they share the same engine.

chipcrusher 1.8 has a bunch of new "Talking Devices" impulses... I wonder why....

[fabi]

btw, can anyone tell me why it says in the chipcrusher manual (the pdf is actually called chipsounds manual, but never mind that) to disable the DAC portion if one wishes to use it after chipsounds?

Oh in the title inside the document? yeah bad cut&paste from the original manual

is it because chipsounds is already sufficiently lo-fi itself and thus does not need the DAC portion, or would it somehow make things worse, or what is it?

Of course you should turn the DAC portion OFF (and you can) if you plan on using chipsounds as source.

Speaking of which chipcrusher 1.8 will be out and chipsounds 1.8 will be out as well, since they share the same engine.

chipcrusher 1.8 has a bunch of new "Talking Devices" impulses... I wonder why....

but WHY turn the DAC part OFF if I plan on using chipsounds as a source? sorry if my question wasn't clear enough and for being so persistent about it.

[Sendy]

I'm guessing it's because that wasn't typically part of the signal path of a soundchip. And you can't really crush/encode/lofi pulse waves (which is a good portion of chip voices). The sound would come out of the chip, meet a bunch of noise, and then get played on a speaker. Hence no need for the DAC (though there's nothing to stop you experimenting with it!).

What the DAC section IS good for, is making normal sounds sound like they're being reproduced via programming tricks via a soundchip. Hence why it's usually off when your source is a chip already.

Hopefully that sorta makes sense

Here's hoping Chipsounds update comes with new toys

[Naenyn]

chipsounds 2.0 will be much more... everything

Will chipsounds 2.0 be a paid upgrade for existing customers?

I haven't yet purchased and was thinking about picking it up when I grab chipspeech but if 2.0 is on the horizon and will require buying again, I might consider waiting..

[davidv@plogue]

I'm guessing it's because that wasn't typically part of the signal path of a soundchip. And you can't really crush/encode/lofi pulse waves (which is a good portion of chip voices). The sound would come out of the chip, meet a bunch of noise, and then get played on a speaker. Hence no need for the DAC (though there's nothing to stop you experimenting with it!).

What the DAC section IS good for, is making normal sounds sound like they're being reproduced via programming tricks via a soundchip. Hence why it's usually off when your source is a chip already.

One thing that I realized a while ago, Sendy knows the stuff!

The DAC section should be use to "fake" that your perfectly normal audio is coming through an old samplers or early DAC system.

Typical 8bit chips generate sounds with a DAC already, so it doesn't make sense to pass it twice... Though for sound design, you can use what you want. Hey if it sounds good....

[davidv@plogue]

Will chipsounds 2.0 be a paid upgrade for existing customers?
I haven't yet purchased and was thinking about picking it up when I grab chipspeech but if 2.0 is on the horizon and will require buying again, I might consider waiting..

chipsounds 2.0 is still far far off, lots of work has been done, but my plans are quite big for it. Its a major rewrite....

[Naenyn]

chipsounds 2.0 is still far far off, lots of work has been done, but my plans are quite big for it. Its a major rewrite....

Sounds like it deserves to be a paid upgrade then!

Looking forward to seeing what you come up with! Thanks for the info.

[xx JPRacer xx]

One thing that I realized a while ago, Sendy knows the stuff!

I realized that as well. Her posts are very informative, very funny or even both!

[deastman]

One thing that I realized a while ago, Sendy knows the stuff!

I realized that as well. Her posts are very informative, very funny or even both!

I can't tell you how many times I've started to respond to a topic, but then just ended up writing "I agree with what Sendy said!"