You can also put a mixer in the chain to switch it to mono, but then you're putting the entire chain into mono. Not what you'd want i suspect :/

About Zebra-EQ, yes! I'm all for that! Or atleast have the option to expand it, like the MMAP module (when you click on the + sign).

Now that i think about it, that would not be such a bad idea for the MSEG and OSC waveform draw window either, a little + sign that expands the view. So you can draw a bit more precise.

Thanks for the interesting read everyone, learned a couple interesting things!

@hakey,
I'm tuning Zebra to individual timbres of RS-202 with its chorus 'on'.
I can get it close, but it's not there yet.

It's easy to get an ensemble sound as you describe, but the timbre may be very far removed from a real string synth whithout further processing with EQ. So far, it is easy to get a churning motion, the 'chorusing' effect but to get the actual timbre of the underlining oscillators is difficult, and it may be impossible, as you say. The EQ on its own is not doing it. There needs to be a mix of drive + exciter + lots of EQ bands. Not easy (at least when emulating this RS). I just need to find the right permutation of all these processes.

I'm focusing on the RS as it is very 'raw', and yet 'warm'. A lot of peaks in the frequency spectrum but nothing is sounding harsh. If I can get this sound all other string sounds will fall into place.

I don't feel 'at home' yet with Zebra. Needs more time....

Not necessarily. 'Mono' is pretty much what all string machines know (except Roland VP330 and perhaps the RS-505). So 'mono' is good.

Please take that time! Zebra can be a bit overwhelming at first, even if you are quite familiar with other synths (which you obviously are) but it keeps on giving, even after years
There are soooo many small tricks to discover! I'd really love to hear what you get out of it!

Cheers
Dennis

OK here's a template I have abandoned long time ago.... because I didn't knew where to start modeling the waveforms + didn't really understood what to model in terms of "template" while retaining some freedom for modulation...

https://www.box.com/s/fcf87350c655c8284cb2

If someone will organize some ideas (for example: what 16 waves will candidate for a string machine "template") and give me some original waves to model, I'll give it my best to model them (Didn't do this in a long time and I kinda feel like it... spending hours modeling waves and string machines is a good place to start. )

And modeling waveforms is really important IMO because it will free up the need for CPU consuming filters and other processing... + why not? ..the technology is there and it will help towards the goal..

and the whole divide down osc thing seems important indeed to the character so should be something to look into.

For example... what's missing in the patch I've posted in terms of basics of "faking" the DDO? ... the key here as I discovered is to dial in precise phase and volume values... and that's kinda it

Ow yeah, feel free to deactivate the VCFs and the Delay module .

Play with the OSCs volume to discover something interesting... (don't set it to minimum tho .. or apparently, it will turn off the osc and while bringing it up again you will notice that you'll have to re-trigger the note(s) to be back on phase... In this case it's something that will drastically alter the timbre. )

I'd have thought that getting close to the unchorused timbre shouldn't be too difficult - so long as it's a static waveform, you can get close just by drawing it by hand and comparing/fine-tuning the results in an oscilloscope.

Nailing the sound with the ensemble on top is a whole different kettle of fish - no amount of (static) EQing will give you the dynamic timbre produced by three separately modulated delay lines.

DDO architecture means that all voices are derived from one master oscillator and thus share the same phase relationship - hold C3 and then play C4 on top and the two voices will be in phase, with the crossover point for the waveform C3 exactly coinciding with every second crossover for the C4 wave.

There's just no way to fake this in Zebra.

My question is: is that SO important for a sound that lives mostly from a complex ensemble effect? Convince me

I can't.

It's only important in the same way that reproducing the behaviour of, say, a Sallen Key filter is. If authenticity is the goal, it's desirable.

And Brok's argument that the shared phase leads to a cleaner, less smeared timbre, even after the ensemble is applied, has something to it.

.. but I agree the ensemble is the sound, the rest is just icing.

This is what I've been saying earlier on in the thread, once the actual basic tone of the oscillator is right, and the chorus sounds right, the overall string sound will be good enough. This is especially evident once a strings patch like this is used within a mix with lots of other effects. Once you add a phaser, an effect very often used with these sounds, the divide-down phase thingamabobs get blown into smithereens.

Toady, with a fresh pair of ears and no wine in my blood, I got closer still.

I need to find a way to assign an EQ or some other spectral shaping module to key range. It would be nice to be have envelopes for the whole keyboard range for each EQ band. Something like the filter scaling envelope in Krakili's StringZ synth, or Newsofting's Modelonia (the tuning sliders).



Ah, but I wasn't using just a static (or not) EQ in my experiments.
Last edited by himalaya on Tue May 08, 2012 3:39 am; edited 1 time in total

Tried different octaves ... didn't expect to be out of phase
Well.. that's that for that but still worth looking for some of the other stuff

True. Another way I'd describe it, a string patch emulation (with independent phase per key) sounds more like a Poly Synth sound, than a String Synth sound, if that makes sense.

Yep, "the differences will be difficult to detect in a mix with effects on top" argument is valid - but from this argument one might then go on to conclude that Synth1 is adequate most, if not all of the time.