MUTOOLS

sl23 · Post by **sl23** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 4:15 pm

I was just wondering about the extent of the possibilities of the Mux.

I've had a few hardware synths, namely Roland XP60/SP-808,MC-303,MC-909, Korg EA1/ER1, Novation Nova. Roland synths have a pristine clean sound, even when you add dirt to it it still has that certain something that gives their synths that distinctively clean sound.

Novation, also have a distinct, albeit dirty, sound, as do the Electribes. The effects units built into each synth also have distinct characters of their own. The distortion on the Nova has a far different sound, far better too imho, than the Roland synths which sounded too clinical and digital. The SP-808 had the best set of effects I personally have heard. Obviously not the best quality, but they affect the sound the best way.

I understand Mux is a versatile environment for creating different Synths and FX, but they all still have that same character, like above. No matter how many different sounding reverbs, chorus or synth you make, they have the same character as they are based, ultimately on the same components.

Is there any way the Mux can be expanded, perhaps it just needs more of the same. For example, Uhe's Diva has various different Osc's, Amp's, Filters, etc that can be combined to produce unique synths, to an extent. Mux is basically a major expansion of that. But I think it would be good if there were different kinds of Filter, with different characters. The same for Reverb's, Delay's, Chorus, etc.

Andreas helped me greatly make an emulation of a Korg ER1. I love it, it's great for creating your own drum sounds. But... it still has the essential character of the Mux. I asked if were possible to emulate the sound of the original, not precisely but something similar would have done. I explained that the samplerate used was lower in the hardware. So Andreas said to use a filter to remove high frequencies.

The trouble is, it still sounds like a Mux synth. It's hard to explain, but the 'dirt' of the hardware seems to be an elusive factor.

Another thing I can't seem to emulate is the original effect from the SP-808 for Lo-Fi. For some reason manufacturers seem to think Lo-Fi refers purely to the digital realm. The SP-808 had a perfect, again imho, Lo-Fi effect which degraded the signal in an 'analogue' way. It had NOTHING to do with bitrate or samplerate, though it had those settings, even without them it reduced the quality. I don't know how it worked but anyone who has heard it's effect will understand.

Remember the days of Hi-Fi? High-Fidelity sound as opposed to Low-fidelity sound, or Lo-Fi. When a music centre only had low quality components and therefore reproduced low-quality sound. Is there any chance of adding a module capable of doing this?

BlackWinny · Post by **BlackWinny** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:06 pm

I agree, the character that we is got is too much homogeneous. Whatever the modules we use we are always as if we were using a unique and same big modular hardware synth called Mux instead of a wide range of potential versatility.

Here are some suggestions (some of them can be put in practice from now on but others are things which can be thought to implement in future releases of Mux):

for each module which is not a initial source of the signal have the ability to apply an amount of the input dry signal directly to the output, in parallel to the wet signal resulting of the treatment of the module.
for each module (even the sources) have the ability to simulate the tolerance (from 0% to 20% by a knob) of the resistors, capacitors and inductors of a hardware equivalent of this module.
for each module have the total ability to place it wherever we want in the chain of treatments from the sources (oscillators, samples...) to the extreme output of the creation (create sub-chains with parallel paths, place B before A instead of A before B in a serial path, etc)
have a new module which simulate a warm-up of hardware and even better... which simulate a non perfect warm-up! (simply by affecting a random and hidden drift from 0% to 5% for example on the filters, the choruses, and some well chosen elements)
Maybe some other ideas...

A mix of all that, with some parameters tunable by knobs and some others available in the settings of Mux to emulate a personalization of the global drift (for example) could be tried or simple discussed to find with Mutools a solution (or several solutions) to get rid of this too permanent homogeneity.

AndreasD · Post by **AndreasD** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:32 pm

@BlackWinny: I propose to just do it. It's all there.
E.g. a Vintage/Vimo3 patch sounds a bit different to a same standard Musynth patch. Just implement these things you mention.

Andreas

mutools · Post by **mutools** » Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:07 pm

Yes i agree with Andreas, i have a feeling you should experiment more. Just a wild thought i had for some "analog feel" experiment: Make some sound, then route it thri the new Pos/Neg Splitter and hookup a TanH distortion on each out, thus 2 TanH modules, set them up slightly differently and also use 2 separate Wobble Generators to (slowly) modulate these TanH modules. Then mix the differentiated pos and neg part back together. That will result in a constantly varying slightly grunched sound. Just an idea. Anyway also apply Wobbles to pitches, filters, ... to almost anything you can modulate, it will all help in making the result more alive and "analog".

Michael L · Post by **Michael L** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 9:09 am

+1
I have an analog synth (Evolver) with four oscillators and the usual functions. After reading sl23's post, I built a four-oscillator synth quickly in MuLab with similar functions, and got similar tones.

sl23 · Post by **sl23** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 9:40 am

I find it odd that people with far more experience than me can't see that they have the same underlying character!

Vimo3 is a completely different sound than the default MuSynth, yet it still has the same character because it's built from the same synth.

If you take a Saw wave from a Roland MC-909 and a Nova, they are both Saw waves but sound vastly different. As is the same waveform on the EA1. You can dial in several variations of Saw on an MC-909 but, as different as they may sound, they still have that underlying character to the sound that says 'This sound is made by Roland.' It doesn't matter how many Mux patches you listen to they all have that same character that say's this is a Mux patch. They are all, like Roland synths, very clinically clean, no matter how much dirt you try to add, using Mux modules only, they will always be the same.

Something needs to be added, I can't say what, I have no idea. But surely you can see what I mean?

It's a bit like royalty with all their heirs and graces attempting to act like a 'commoner.' You can see through the act. Or, in certain films, American actors try, very poorly, to be English, but to an American it probably sounds authentic. To me as a Brit, it's badly executed and easy to see it's someone trying to be something they are not.

The same applies with the Mux and Roland alike, they are so ggod at giving the perfectly clean sound, good for orchestral sounds, but not so good at the dirt and grime used in many raw dance tracks.

I hope that gives a better insight to what I'm trying, maybe poorly, to explain

Michael L · Post by **Michael L** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:55 am

I am very new (1 month) to MuLab. In that short time, I have found the choice of waveform is important, and mixing different but complementary ones for each oscillator, and having enough oscillators to interact and make complex sounds. MUX lets me can quickly try many different waveforms (some are quite dirty) -- including different saws-- and even draw or import my own. Sound designers spend a lot of time getting their trademark sound, we might as well make our own!

AndreasD · Post by **AndreasD** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 9:35 pm

Check HERE.
Which one is Korg M1.
I copy pasted the MUX osc wave from the M1.

This not to say that current MUX modules can replicate anything, but you can get quite far if you put in some effort. As a rule of thumb, i would say you have to see that you degrade the MUX output in the right quarters to get closer to most target sounds.

And i do agree that the 2 filters in MUX do sound different, which proves that other peoples filters would sound different to MUX filters.

Andreas

BlackWinny · Post by **BlackWinny** » Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:24 pm

AndreasD wrote:Check HERE.
Which one is Korg M1.
I copy pasted the MUX osc wave from the M1.

This not to say that current MUX modules can replicate anything, but you can get quite far if you put in some effort. As a rule of thumb, i would say you have to see that you degrade the MUX output in the right quarters to get closer to most target sounds.

And i do agree that the 2 filters in MUX do sound different, which proves that other peoples filters would sound different to MUX filters.

Andreas

Hello AndreasD

Can't hear the sound of the file... because the target of the link is unreachable. Could you verify and repost a link?

EDIT: Don't mention it, it was a bug in my Firefox plug-in player. Fixed now.

AndreasD · Post by **AndreasD** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:20 pm

Just to clarify, 1st sequence is played by MUX, 2nd by M1.

And i forgot to put the unmodified original MUX, which is here

sl23 · Post by **sl23** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:05 pm

The only problem is I don't know what an M1 sounds like!!!

Ok, from what's been said, I assume that you're saying Mux IS capable of a certain level of emulation, though you need to know what you're doing to get there.

If that IS the case then why aren't there more presets that show the more dirty analogue side of Mux? Everything I've heard is 'clean' attempting to be 'dirty.' For example, Andreas, I've messed with that EA1 emulation you helped with, which I told you the original EA1 used a lower sampling rate.

Your solution was to use a filter to remove the high frequencies. But this doesn't give the character of the original. Though I'm not after a perfect imitation, just something that is more analogue. I'm not even sure I'm using the right terminology, sorry if that's the case, it is a hard thing to explain.

Look at it this way, why are there so many synths? Whether VST or hardware? Because each has it's own unique sound. Is the Mux capable of being a 'different' synth from what it is now? That's why I used the word 'emulation.' Though maybe not the best word to use, it gives the idea I want to copy a specific synth. Not the case at all.

If I could get a hardware synth that combined the core waves and circuitry of all the synths I mentioned above that would give a vastly better instrument than any that existed before it. Imagine a hardware synth that has not just various filter types, but has various filter models. Perhaps that's the word I'm looking for - modelling. Can the Mux model another synth not to recreate it but just to change the basic characteristic of the sound?

Many people release new and improved versions of the Moog filter. Why? because it has a certain character that no other synth has ever had. So too for pretty much every synth made, to a degree. I would like to model a Novation Nova filter, not perfectly but something similar would be good. But the character isn't there. It doesn't seem possible from the many presets that are available. As I said they all have that same character.

Forgive me for going on, I just think it would be a good thing for Mux to be able to do this, if I it's possible. Diva is probably one of the closest in terms of practical efforts to try and achieve this goal but it simply can't match Mux in terms of flexibility.

Fact is, if you try to emulate or model a synth's filter using the one and only filter you have, then no matter what you do you are going to get the same sound character with extras added on.

How does the filter in Mux work? I mean, what does it comprise of? Is it of such a basic, clean, composition that it allows colouration to be moulded however you see fit?

Amp modelling is a common thing for guitarists and the like, due to not having the ability to resynthesise their guitars characteristic sound, they use FX such as these.

mutools · Post by **mutools** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:30 pm

Most of the time different algorithms sound different, no doubt about that. So if you're asking for more modules (=algorithms) so to get an even more rich MUX sound palette i can only say yes i want that too. But if you're asking that MUX will replace all other synths out there, then that's unrealistic. Conclusion: 1) Experiment more and be as creative as possible with the existing modules. Always feel free to ask for specific how tos. 2) Keep checking out the new versions of MuLab and MUX as it's indeed the intention to further increase MUX's sonic richness.

Use the MUX for all what it can do, not for what it not (yet) can do.

Push the limits, MUX's and yours!

sl23 · Post by **sl23** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 8:03 am

Thanks for your time Jo. Yes, the idea is to expand the Mux, I don't expect to replace every other synth out there. My idea is to expand Mux's potential so as to offer not just a wider palette of sounds but to be able to easier(?) to try and model synths and be easier to use, maybe.

mutools · Post by **mutools** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:05 am

Huh? You were first talking about a wider sonic palette, and now you say you want MUX even easier to experiment with. I don't see the connection.

sl23 · Post by **sl23** » Fri Mar 07, 2014 7:59 am

Well, the idea is that if there are various types of certain modules, filter, amp, etc, then it would make the Mux more accessible for the less tech oriented people. Rather than going the route of create your own filter from scratch as something like Synthmaker would do. You want MuLab/Mux to kept easy to use yes? So, though I didn't mention it, that was what I had in mind.

MUTOOLS

KVR Audio

Emulation