Login / Register  0 items | $0.00 New#KVRDeals

WaveToZebra & Choir sounds in Zebra2

User avatar
jupiter8
KVRAF
 
9368 posts since 17 Sep, 2002, from Gothenburg Sweden

Postby jupiter8; Sat May 22, 2010 3:02 pm

PietW. wrote:Hi,

i have a question to wave2zebra.
What is the different between the Funktion "export dft and export raw!

Cheers

Piet

The DFT makes a Fourier transform and then rebuilds it via an inverse Fourier transform. IIRC it's a Direct Fourier Transform. It ignores phase so the reconstruction can be quite different from the original. I had an idea that it would prevent cycles from looping properly (which it does).If you do it like that the resulting waveform will always loop correctly as it will always start and end on zero. It was also included simply because i wanted to experiment with Fourier Transforms. Mostly that probably.

The RAW export simply resamples the wave to 128 samples and exports that to Z2 so depending on the original it should be as close as you can get.

I was thinking about removing the DFT conversion because now i fell it's kind of stupid but left it in there anyways. Why not?
User avatar
PietW.
KVRian
 
727 posts since 6 May, 2010, from Munich, Germany

Postby PietW.; Sun May 23, 2010 4:08 pm

Thanks a lot. :wink:
Shabdahbriah
KVRAF
 
4816 posts since 19 Jun, 2008, from Seattle

Postby Shabdahbriah; Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:02 pm

jupiter8 wrote:In the new version you can have raw export as well (or both at the same time).
The FFTd version can differ quite a bit from the original but the raw one is just interpolated to a different length so it should be almost identical if it's a short waveform.


Hey man... I tried out the non-java version (very cool, btw) but there is only the .h2p export. Wasn't there an option for ".RAW" export as well?

If so, can I please get it? I want to experiment with some stuff.

Thanks...

~S~
User avatar
jupiter8
KVRAF
 
9368 posts since 17 Sep, 2002, from Gothenburg Sweden

Postby jupiter8; Fri Jun 25, 2010 12:32 am

Shabdahbriah wrote:
jupiter8 wrote:In the new version you can have raw export as well (or both at the same time).
The FFTd version can differ quite a bit from the original but the raw one is just interpolated to a different length so it should be almost identical if it's a short waveform.


Hey man... I tried out the non-java version (very cool, btw) but there is only the .h2p export. Wasn't there an option for ".RAW" export as well?

No not in the old version. I added that in the Java version. If you want it you need the Java version. BTW anything wrong with the Java version ? To me it's superiour in pretty much everything.
Shabdahbriah
KVRAF
 
4816 posts since 19 Jun, 2008, from Seattle

Postby Shabdahbriah; Fri Jun 25, 2010 1:31 am

jupiter8 wrote:
Shabdahbriah wrote:
jupiter8 wrote:In the new version you can have raw export as well (or both at the same time).
The FFTd version can differ quite a bit from the original but the raw one is just interpolated to a different length so it should be almost identical if it's a short waveform.


Hey man... I tried out the non-java version (very cool, btw) but there is only the .h2p export. Wasn't there an option for ".RAW" export as well?

No not in the old version. I added that in the Java version. If you want it you need the Java version. BTW anything wrong with the Java version ? To me it's superiour in pretty much everything.

O.k., that's cool.

I haven't used the java one yet, but I'll try it now, thanks.

8)
Shabdahbriah
KVRAF
 
4816 posts since 19 Jun, 2008, from Seattle

Postby Shabdahbriah; Sat Jun 26, 2010 5:42 am

jupiter8 wrote:... If you want it ["raw export"] you need the Java version. BTW anything wrong with the Java version ? To me it's superiour in pretty much everything.

Hey man, little update:

I tried the Java version and no joy. It looks great, and I set-up the export folder and everything, and used :open" and "double-clicking" wav files, which both worked, but it converts only to .h2p no matter what I had 'ticked' as an "export".

Interesting app, liked the interface, and really quick.

~S~
User avatar
jupiter8
KVRAF
 
9368 posts since 17 Sep, 2002, from Gothenburg Sweden

Postby jupiter8; Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:02 am

Shabdahbriah wrote:
jupiter8 wrote:... If you want it ["raw export"] you need the Java version. BTW anything wrong with the Java version ? To me it's superiour in pretty much everything.

Hey man, little update:

I tried the Java version and no joy. It looks great, and I set-up the export folder and everything, and used :open" and "double-clicking" wav files, which both worked, but it converts only to .h2p no matter what I had 'ticked' as an "export".
It's supposed to export .h2p files so i don't see the problem.
You can choose if you want raw or FFT or both. I believe i used to have a RAW suffix but removed it,maybe that's why you don't think it works ?
Shabdahbriah
KVRAF
 
4816 posts since 19 Jun, 2008, from Seattle

Postby Shabdahbriah; Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:08 am

jupiter8 wrote:
Shabdahbriah wrote:
jupiter8 wrote:... If you want it ["raw export"] you need the Java version. BTW anything wrong with the Java version ? To me it's superiour in pretty much everything.

Hey man, little update:

I tried the Java version and no joy. It looks great, and I set-up the export folder and everything, and used :open" and "double-clicking" wav files, which both worked, but it converts only to .h2p no matter what I had 'ticked' as an "export".
It's supposed to export .h2p files so i don't see the problem.
You can choose if you want raw or FFT or both. I believe i used to have a RAW suffix but removed it,maybe that's why you don't think it works ?

Yes, I want the "raw" suffix. I misunderstood thinking that it could export "raw" format samples, as I am doing some (ummm) "experiments".

:)

sorry.
User avatar
jupiter8
KVRAF
 
9368 posts since 17 Sep, 2002, from Gothenburg Sweden

Postby jupiter8; Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:27 am

Shabdahbriah wrote:
jupiter8 wrote:
Shabdahbriah wrote:
jupiter8 wrote:... If you want it ["raw export"] you need the Java version. BTW anything wrong with the Java version ? To me it's superiour in pretty much everything.

Hey man, little update:

I tried the Java version and no joy. It looks great, and I set-up the export folder and everything, and used :open" and "double-clicking" wav files, which both worked, but it converts only to .h2p no matter what I had 'ticked' as an "export".
It's supposed to export .h2p files so i don't see the problem.
You can choose if you want raw or FFT or both. I believe i used to have a RAW suffix but removed it,maybe that's why you don't think it works ?

Yes, I want the "raw" suffix. I misunderstood thinking that it could export "raw" format samples, as I am doing some (ummm) "experiments".

:)

sorry.

Nah,then you misunderstood. It is the choice between a synthesized version or just exporting the wave as it is. Funny you should mention it,there's a program brewing in the lab that exports raw waveforms though i seem to have eaten a bog bowl of stupid lately so we'll see if it ever emerges.
User avatar
jobromedia
KVRAF
 
4918 posts since 10 Feb, 2006, from Stockholm, Sweden

Postby jobromedia; Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:21 pm

Thanks for the wave converters. Have so far only tested the exe version, will test the java version though. But what I really would love to have is a feature to open up a h2p so you can continue working on it afterwards. Right now you have to convert all waveforms in one go. No problem for me, but it would be handy.

I was also thinking regarding waveform edit-abilities. Why not code a simple additive synthesizer to let the users compose new waveforms through additive synthesis.

Other functions that would be cool is if one could reverse / invert the waveforms...

I also have some problems in the java version with 32bit wav files claiming them not to be audio files.

Anyways a good tool indeed.
Best regards from Johan Brodd.
JoBroMedia since 1996.
Howard
KVRAF
 
3445 posts since 23 May, 2004, from Bad Vilbel, Germany

Postby Howard; Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:28 pm

jobromedia wrote:I was also thinking regarding waveform edit-abilities. Why not code a simple additive synthesizer to let the users compose new waveforms through additive synthesis.
That's what Zebra2's "SpectroBlend" oscillator mode does.
AnalogGuy1
KVRian
 
544 posts since 5 Mar, 2005, from USA

Postby AnalogGuy1; Wed Apr 13, 2011 9:37 am

Howard wrote:
jobromedia wrote:I was also thinking regarding waveform edit-abilities. Why not code a simple additive synthesizer to let the users compose new waveforms through additive synthesis.
That's what Zebra2's "SpectroBlend" oscillator mode does.

Yeah, but for me anyway its really tricky to edit those first couple of harmonics in isolation. I'm trying now to nail a sound that has only a very small amount of fundamental and second harmonic, but lots of 3-6 harmonics (it's pretty cool...it tricks the ear into thinking the power of the waveform is lower than it is). Not saying it's impossible in SpectroBlend, but it requires plenty of painful pixel-accurate pointer placements.
User avatar
Sendy
KVRAF
 
5233 posts since 20 Jul, 2010

Postby Sendy; Tue May 03, 2011 1:33 am

AnalogGuy1 wrote:
Howard wrote:
jobromedia wrote:I was also thinking regarding waveform edit-abilities. Why not code a simple additive synthesizer to let the users compose new waveforms through additive synthesis.
That's what Zebra2's "SpectroBlend" oscillator mode does.

Yeah, but for me anyway its really tricky to edit those first couple of harmonics in isolation. I'm trying now to nail a sound that has only a very small amount of fundamental and second harmonic, but lots of 3-6 harmonics (it's pretty cool...it tricks the ear into thinking the power of the waveform is lower than it is). Not saying it's impossible in SpectroBlend, but it requires plenty of painful pixel-accurate pointer placements.


Indeed... And making a wavetable with a discernable evolution and pattern in spectroblend? Painful pixel-accurate pointer placements cubed. Not really a fault with the interface as it works perfectly, and you can always resize to make clicking easier, but I think an external program for creating spectroblend wavetables would be a godsend - especially if it allowed you to create evolving tables easier.

Suppose I wanted to make a table where the first wave was a saw, the second wave had all odd harmonics, the third one had every third harmonic, etc. This is the sort of sequence spectroblend is ideal for, but it would take an age to draw without some kind of program that allowed you to 'paint' harmonically using tools designed for the job. (i.e, place every nth harmonic - harmonic loudness tool for click-dragging to set levels of harmonics without creating new ones, etc).
http://sendy.bandcamp.com/releases < My new album at Bandcamp! Now pay what you like!
Howard
KVRAF
 
3445 posts since 23 May, 2004, from Bad Vilbel, Germany

Postby Howard; Tue May 03, 2011 1:54 am

Sendy wrote:...but I think an external program for creating spectroblend wavetables would be a godsend...Suppose I wanted to make a table where the first wave was a saw, the second wave had all odd harmonics, the third one had every third harmonic, etc. This is the sort of sequence spectroblend is ideal for, but it would take an age to draw without some kind of program that allowed you to 'paint' harmonically using tools designed for the job. (i.e, place every nth harmonic - harmonic loudness tool for click-dragging to set levels of harmonics without creating new ones, etc).
I agree with all that except maybe the word "external" ;)
User avatar
hakey
KVRAF
 
5126 posts since 25 Feb, 2008, from Babylon an ting

Postby hakey; Tue May 03, 2011 2:11 am

Sendy wrote:Indeed... And making a wavetable with a discernable evolution and pattern in spectroblend?[snip]Suppose I wanted to make a table where the first wave was a saw, the second wave had all odd harmonics, the third one had every third harmonic, etc. This is the sort of sequence spectroblend is ideal for, but it would take an age to draw without some kind of program that allowed you to 'paint' harmonically using tools designed for the job.

Couldn't agree more. At the moment editing in spectroblend is pretty much hit and miss. Editing with any accuracy is fairly tedious and mitigates against any experimentation requiring mathematical precision.

Drawing mathematically precise waves in Geomorph could be easier too.

For example, I had this idea to reproduce a perfect fifth interval by blending between a double sawtooth and a triple sawtooth - but accurately placing the handles in the correct positions (ie finding points at a third, half, and two thirds) was far more difficult than it need be.
PreviousNext

Moderator: u-he Mods

Return to u-he