Login / Register 0 items | $0.00 New @ KVR
This forum is sponsored by
T-RackS Group Buy! Up to 5 free mixing and mastering processors!

T-RackS Group Buy - EXTENDED!

Up to 10 for the price of 1 possible.

Mixing and mastering processors, including Lurssen Mastering Console.

Read more at www.ikmultimedia.com
User avatar
ZenPunkHippy
KVRAF
 
5990 posts since 18 Jun, 2008, from Melbourne, Australia

Postby ZenPunkHippy; Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:47 am

Harry_HH wrote:
ZenPunkHippy wrote:
Harry_HH wrote:One of your argument above: "they're not happy with it and thus wont put it out". <...>

Would you put out a song or some other "thing" you'd worked on if you were not happy with it?

Obvious answer is ... obvious.

Peace,
Andy.


With your logic, if the companies wouldn't launch a product before every single engineer and the back room r&d guy were 100 % satisfied, most of the products saw never the sun. H.

Sweet jesus dude, you're making this more difficult than it needs to be.

There is a distinct different between:

happy to release this to the public for sale

and

100% satisfied with the results

Also - as my sarcasm hinted at earlier - Camel Audio (and specifically Ben) have been working on morphing plugins for many, many years. However, you seem to ignore that and slag it off as "not up to standard".

Really, could it be any more obvious why developers don't always participate in these threads? Because if there's one thing we love it's being told our products are rubbish and we must try harder.

[/sarcasm-metre-explodes]

Peace,
Andy.
... space is the place ...
User avatar
EvilDragon
KVRAF
 
16765 posts since 6 Jan, 2009, from Croatia

Postby EvilDragon; Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:54 am

Neon Breath wrote:
manvanmars wrote:I think the best solution is to use a synthesizer that can morph presets, and then become very good at programming it :P


Hmmm no I'm afraid a simple preset morph would only volume-cross fade between the two presets, and not truly and harmonically morph by interpolation into each other.


Not quite true. Yamaha AN1x and Waldorf Q can actually morph parameter values between two scenes.
User avatar
whyterabbyt
Beware the Quoth
 
26057 posts since 3 Sep, 2001, from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair

Postby whyterabbyt; Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:56 am

Harry_HH wrote: I suggest that you re-read the whole thread. Consider it a learning experience.


from the guy who brought you "stop posting stuff about the technology of why this is actually difficult and just go do it, right now"
"The bearer of this signature is a genuine and authorised pope."
User avatar
vurt
addled muppet weed
 
36671 posts since 25 Jan, 2003, from through the looking glass

Postby vurt; Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:00 am

EvilDragon wrote:
Neon Breath wrote:
manvanmars wrote:I think the best solution is to use a synthesizer that can morph presets, and then become very good at programming it :P


Hmmm no I'm afraid a simple preset morph would only volume-cross fade between the two presets, and not truly and harmonically morph by interpolation into each other.


Not quite true. Yamaha AN1x and Waldorf Q can actually morph parameter values between two scenes.


as does reaktor.
User avatar
whyterabbyt
Beware the Quoth
 
26057 posts since 3 Sep, 2001, from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair

Postby whyterabbyt; Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:02 am

ZenPunkHippy wrote:Camel Audio (and specifically Ben) have been working on morphing plugins for many, many years.


Yup; In fact I can remember the first time I met Ben. He and Hunter and I were on a train to Manchester. And Ben was doing research for the followup to Chameleon. Lots of heavy duty research on all the stuff we're talking about, on top of a solid product in the area we're talking about. That was 2004.
Alchemy came out in 2008.

Trivial problem space, eh?
"The bearer of this signature is a genuine and authorised pope."
trimph1
KVRAF
 
16990 posts since 23 Jun, 2010, from north of London ON

Postby trimph1; Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:30 am

:bang: :dog: I've yet to get Alchemy.....
Barry
If a billion people believe a stupid thing it is still a stupid thing
User avatar
vurt
addled muppet weed
 
36671 posts since 25 Jan, 2003, from through the looking glass

Postby vurt; Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:38 am

trimph1 wrote::bang: :dog: I've yet to get Alchemy.....
me too!
and a lot of that "stuff" was discussed in my garden!

jeebus, 9 years, so much has changed but it still only feels like it was quite recent???
Amberience
KVRAF
 
7018 posts since 7 Mar, 2003, from Climbing the walls inside my mind

Postby Amberience; Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:42 am

ZenPunkHippy wrote:could it be any more obvious why developers don't always participate in these threads? Because if there's one thing we love it's being told our products are rubbish and we must try harder.


This basically.
User avatar
EvilDragon
KVRAF
 
16765 posts since 6 Jan, 2009, from Croatia

Postby EvilDragon; Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:45 am

I'm so glad I got Alchemy this year. Plenty to explore now!
User avatar
aMUSEd
KVRAF
 
29539 posts since 14 Sep, 2002, from In teh net

Postby aMUSEd; Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:25 am

EvilDragon wrote:
Neon Breath wrote:
manvanmars wrote:I think the best solution is to use a synthesizer that can morph presets, and then become very good at programming it :P


Hmmm no I'm afraid a simple preset morph would only volume-cross fade between the two presets, and not truly and harmonically morph by interpolation into each other.


Not quite true. Yamaha AN1x and Waldorf Q can actually morph parameter values between two scenes.


As does the late lamented (but still much used) NI Kore 2
Neon Breath
KVRAF
 
2858 posts since 15 Sep, 2010

Postby Neon Breath; Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:27 am

deastman wrote:
And yes, Alchemy also has warp markers. I've never been particularly satisfied with any morph I've attempted with it. If anyone has some good examples, I'd love to hear them.


I posted few Alchemy audio morph examples, Open in new tab to download them here: http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 49&start=0
__________________________________________________
http://redfog-drone.bandcamp.com
http://soundcloud.com/sleeping-on-lotus-ashes
__________________________________________________
tweiss2000
KVRist
 
138 posts since 31 Mar, 2004, from Nuremberg

Postby tweiss2000; Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:49 am

I think, there is still room and desire for morphing audio files, in the way, photos are morphed and warped.

So I went this way:
1. converting two audio files into a "spectral photo", tool: photosounder demo (http://photosounder.com/)
2. Identify "hot spots" in both files and morph these from the source to the destination audio file, tool WinMorph (http://www.debugmode.com/)
3. convert photos into audio files, tool SonicPhoto free (http://www.debugmode.com/)

I ended up with a lot of snapshots of the morphing process, poor sounding quality,mainly caused by the used tools.

But I think the direction is right:
+ having a source and a destination audio file
+ user determines the hot areas in a spectral view (maybe further views)
+ user assigns start and end areas and specifies the options for morphing
+ app renders the morph
monas
KVRist
 
163 posts since 26 Sep, 2012, from bavaria

Postby monas; Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:09 am

yep, exactly this can be done in metasynth as well, all in the same application. you can analyse an audio file and turn it into an image which is resynthesized in an additive way. you can do this with a second audiofile and then just blend the images together the way you like, using all the copy/paste functionality and painting functionality that metasynth offers.

alternatively you can turn a sound file into a filter mask and resynthesize it by sending white noise through the filter mask. then you can do the same procedure with a second sound file and blend the two filter masks together.

all this can even be done in the demo version of metasynth. it doesn't support rendering though, so you'd have to use an external program for recording the results.
tweiss2000
KVRist
 
138 posts since 31 Mar, 2004, from Nuremberg

Postby tweiss2000; Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:27 am

monas wrote:yep, exactly this can be done in metasynth as well, all in the same application. you can analyse an audio file and turn it into an image which is resynthesized in an additive way. you can do this with a second audiofile and then just blend the images together the way you like, using all the copy/paste functionality and painting functionality that metasynth offers.

Are you sure Metasynth supports this way of morphing?
You are speaking about "blend", that's different to "morph" and "warp".

You had to select one area (freehand selection) and another target area (2nd picture, different place, size and shape), than you had to define a time frame to morph from the first shape to the second different shape and render this as your output.
Have you tried WinMorph? There are also some basic tuts included that show the process.
btw, I can't test Metasynth, I'm on Windows.
User avatar
valhallasound
KVRAF
 
3426 posts since 14 Nov, 2006, from Pacific NW

Postby valhallasound; Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:55 am

Harry_HH wrote:We are living in the market economicy: companies everywhere globally in different branches use huge amount money to find out the end-users preferencies via market research. We in this forum are giving that information free of charge. You should welcome this channel, not just complain and list why it's not possible.


Companies WILL use forums as market research. Part of this is looking at the number of participants in the thread. It doesn't matter how long the thread is, if most of the posts are from the same few people. There are a few threads about the inadequacy of current morphing plugins here at KVR, but a fair percentage of the posts in these threads are generated by *you*, which is different than a groundswell of demand from a larger number of users.

Companies also use *the market* as market research. To be honest, if there was a big demand for morphing in the 21st century, we'd see more specific morphing plugins out there. The fact that the Prosoniq plugin is currently AU only is useful information for a developer.

One of your argument above: "they're not happy with it and thus wont put it out". What if they also listen what the end-users want, not just satisfy themselfs (and that's what they are doing, I think, just your comment was not from this world). H.


So, your argument is that developers should do what YOU want them to do, regardless of what the developers feel like they should be working on themselves. Is this a correct summary of your argument?

I've said this before in this thread, and others have said this to you, but I need to restate it: Your method of getting developers to do your bidding doesn't work.

Sean Costello
PreviousNext

Moderator: KVR Moderators (Main)

Return to Effects