Vaz Modular and a bunch of others read a single wav file with a loop that starts at the very beginning and where the relation of the length of the loop and the total length of the wav file defines the number of wavetables. For instance for 64 wavetables the loop needs to be excactly in 64th of the wav files length (needs to be set in samples and not milliseconds to be accurat enough if you're editing a wav in something like Wavosaur). Wavetablemakers/editors such as "Komplex - Term" (have a look at http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=334828&start=0  , "only" 33 wavetables or so though..) makes them with loop points defined like this all ready to go if you choose wav format. Some make wavfiles without loop points, one for Largo does this (EDIT: sorry, I meant one for Blofeld - Largo is considered by some to be the software equivalent but others beg to differ). Wavetable wavs with loop points seem the way to go for me as they'll be more compatible.

There's also a dedicated wavetable format, these files end with ".wt" - I have no experience with those and not sure if they contain any additional information that make them a better choice for synths that'll load them.

And finally some synths load a bunch of single-cycle wavs, seems a lot of hassle to me so never bothered with that option.. Probably a lot of flexibility on offer for those who do though...
Last edited by V-GER on Thu May 03, 2012 6:42 am; edited 1 time in total

interesting

I couldn't find any of such wavetables online, though. Are there popular places for that?

My tool can build them from scratch or by resynthesis.

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=334828&start=0

Although it was to support the Komplexer with it's 33 wavetable entries, you can render these tables to wav with loop at the very beginning (up to 1024 entries = 33 source entries + 991 interpolation slices for a smooth transition).

So which format would be the most widely used?
I'd rather pick one, even though both seem as simple (WT format looks extremely simple, and reading wav files is no problem either). Or is WT specific to Surge?

Also I assume that there's nothing particular (a signature or mark) in wav wavetables so that they can be autodetected as such?

I dont think there is any specialist ident to state the file is a wavetable, as you can load any wav into ElectraX as a WT and it will work.

yes but for me the way it'll be interpreted will depend on the content, especially if the data isn't continuous





nice look but weird in use btw (took me time to figure out how to save)

Well I just tested that in ElectraX and it said



So that's how it works. Pretty cool

I already have this kind of autodetection, to differenciate single-cycles from full samples, but in Harmor full samples work as well.

I noticed Komplex Term saves with a middle note at F5 and a fine tune of 76.5, maybe this would be a way to detect this, if it's any reliable.

What's silly is that both are handling it in the freq domain, only to export to time domain in-between

[quote="tony tony chopper"]

If I don't lose interest in music and programming there'll be a manual some day.

Don't be ridiculous. It loads SINGLE-CYCLE waveforms. Wavetable (in true PPG/Waldorf sense) are interpolating between a bunch of single-cycle waveforms on the fly.


There are a lot of discussions about this topic everywhere. I'm on the side which says that Rapture was mis-marketed as it's not a true wavetable synth.

Is this a good time to say

"I WANT TO BE ABLE TO IMPORT WAVETABLES INTO MASSIVE"

/outcry

Yes, and there - are - two sides. Academic/technical terminology and non-definitive casual usage. Some casual usage however also accepts more definitive usage eg 'scanned wave tables'

It's thoroughly incorrect to state that the technical term is -wrong- though. And it's easy to be be more definitive in casual usage.

As far as I know, PPG popularized the term "wavetable synthesis". It was not until Creative SoundBlaster that the term "wavetable" was refered to a single sample.

Wavetable (as "god", Wolfgang Palm created it) is one thing.
Table-lookup oscillator is another.
Sample-based synthesis is yet another.
And all three of those get mixed up interchangably.

For common parlance, maybe. In technical useage, ie the research papers by the folk who invent this stuff rather than implement it, the term is used differently. I gave references in the last thread about this, only a month or two ago, I don't need to do it again.

Scientific terminology is not made 'wrong' just because common useage uses one of those terms differently.

I wonder (genuinely so) was the first mention of the term "wavetable" as a single-cycle waveform used in scientific circles before PPG Wave (where it was used for a series of single-cycle waveforms being scanned through with a pointer) or after...