What is KVR Audio? | Submit News | Advertise | Developer Account

Options (Affects News & Product results only):

OS:
Format:
Include:
Quick Search KVR

"Quick Search" KVR Audio's Product Database, News Items, Developer Listings, Forum Topics and videos here. For advanced Product Database searching please use the full product search. For the forum you can use the phpBB forum search.

To utilize the power of Google you can use the integrated Google Site Search.

Products 0

Developers 0

News 0

Forum 0

Videos 0

Search  

Hypersynth Xenophone Analog Monosynth

Anything about hardware musical instruments.

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

david.beholder
KVRist
 
299 posts since 12 Sep, 2007

Postby david.beholder; Sat Mar 15, 2014 1:14 am Re: Hypersynth Xenophone Analog Monosynth

ghettosynth wrote:
Kriminal wrote:That chart is wrong, at least 2 of those have DCO's.


I don't know if you're being funny, but, four have DCOs. The Bass Station II, the Pulse 2, the Xenophone, and the Mopho are all DCO based synths. Only the Moog and the MFB are VCO based synths.

Pulse 2 is VCO based
Image Sincerely yours, Wyatt Fokkilokk
User avatar
WOK
KVRAF
 
1896 posts since 24 Feb, 2004, from Germany

Postby WOK; Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:14 am Re: Hypersynth Xenophone Analog Monosynth

ghettosynth wrote:Certainly, however, they like DSI, are trying to be coy with the "all analog signal path" and they aren't talking about DCOs. This is really a shame because they have, AFAIK, implemented a fairly decent DCO. No, it's still not a VCO, but it sounds pretty good and they have made an effort to overcome, somewhat, some of the limitations of DCOS.
But, they don't want to put that in the table because then they don't look as good as Moog and MFB. These tables are a marketing device and the goal is to put in the features that makes your product sound like the best choice. So, in that sense, I agree with you, the table is rather pointless. They're less so from a feature comparison point of view where the details are less important. But with a synth, it's not that much unlike digital filter technology, the details matter. When a hardware vendor is afraid to talk about the details because they're trying to hide the fact that it isn't all analog, they aren't going to be able to articulate why their digital is better than someone else's digital.


DCO's are analog oscillators that are digitally controlled ("tuned").
These are not "digital oscillators" (like wavetables).
Korg Poly 800, Roland JX8P, SC Prophet, all had DCOs, and noone would say they did not sound "analog" - because the sound generation WAS analog.
ImageImage
Ashe37
KVRian
 
568 posts since 6 Jun, 2009

Postby Ashe37; Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:39 am Re: Hypersynth Xenophone Analog Monosynth

WOK wrote:DCO's are analog oscillators that are digitally controlled ("tuned").
These are not "digital oscillators" (like wavetables).
Korg Poly 800, Roland JX8P, SC Prophet, all had DCOs, and noone would say they did not sound "analog" - because the sound generation WAS analog.


The Prophet 5 didn't have DCOs, neither did the prophet 600.
User avatar
WOK
KVRAF
 
1896 posts since 24 Feb, 2004, from Germany

Postby WOK; Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:34 am Re: Hypersynth Xenophone Analog Monosynth

Ashe37 wrote:
WOK wrote:DCO's are analog oscillators that are digitally controlled ("tuned").
These are not "digital oscillators" (like wavetables).
Korg Poly 800, Roland JX8P, SC Prophet, all had DCOs, and noone would say they did not sound "analog" - because the sound generation WAS analog.


The Prophet 5 didn't have DCOs, neither did the prophet 600.

OK, but the 08 has, Alesis' Andromeda had, theres nothing bad about it, and sure it's not "digital"
ImageImage
ghettosynth
KVRAF
 
3969 posts since 13 Oct, 2009

Postby ghettosynth; Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:35 am Re: Hypersynth Xenophone Analog Monosynth

david.beholder wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:
Kriminal wrote:That chart is wrong, at least 2 of those have DCO's.


I don't know if you're being funny, but, four have DCOs. The Bass Station II, the Pulse 2, the Xenophone, and the Mopho are all DCO based synths. Only the Moog and the MFB are VCO based synths.

Pulse 2 is VCO based


No, AFAIK, it is DCO based like the Pulse 1. Here, I'll give you a link to a "professional magazine", not that there opinion is really any more informed than mine.

http://www.keyboardmag.com/article/wald ... wed/154074

I'd love to be wrong, but I don't think that I am. I know the pulse 1 was DCO based and I've read descriptions of the circuitry from Waldorf that makes it clear that the pulse 2 is also DCO based.
ghettosynth
KVRAF
 
3969 posts since 13 Oct, 2009

Postby ghettosynth; Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:41 am Re: Hypersynth Xenophone Analog Monosynth

WOK wrote:
Ashe37 wrote:
WOK wrote:DCO's are analog oscillators that are digitally controlled ("tuned").
These are not "digital oscillators" (like wavetables).
Korg Poly 800, Roland JX8P, SC Prophet, all had DCOs, and noone would say they did not sound "analog" - because the sound generation WAS analog.


The Prophet 5 didn't have DCOs, neither did the prophet 600.

OK, but the 08 has, Alesis' Andromeda had, theres nothing bad about it, and sure it's not "digital"


Gak! So much misinformation in these threads. The Andromeda does not have DCOs in the sense that most people understand them. It had digitally controlled VCOs. Or full time tuned VCOs. It's a very different idea. But they are VCOs, and true analog oscillators. It is the expensive way to deal with the tuning issue.
User avatar
V0RT3X
KVRAF
 
4042 posts since 3 Jul, 2012

Postby V0RT3X; Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:12 am Re: Hypersynth Xenophone Analog Monosynth

Well after enough analog synth musing and audio demoing I think I will probably go for Moog or Elektron in the future.

Seems like a real bargain to get the Elektron Analog keys so I will probably get that one to start.
User avatar
vurt
addled muppet weed
 
33535 posts since 25 Jan, 2003, from through the looking glass

Postby vurt; Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:22 am Re: Hypersynth Xenophone Analog Monosynth

V0RT3X wrote:Well after enough analog synth musing and audio demoing I think I will probably go for Moog or Elektron in the future.

Seems like a real bargain to get the Elektron Analog keys so I will probably get that one to start.


go modular!
youll never look back :)
User avatar
V0RT3X
KVRAF
 
4042 posts since 3 Jul, 2012

Postby V0RT3X; Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:36 am Re: Hypersynth Xenophone Analog Monosynth

vurt wrote:
V0RT3X wrote:Well after enough analog synth musing and audio demoing I think I will probably go for Moog or Elektron in the future.

Seems like a real bargain to get the Elektron Analog keys so I will probably get that one to start.


go modular!
youll never look back :)


I have thought about modular a lot! I actually built myself a shit load of concept systems using some online eurorack rack designer and was in love with the possibilities. I guess that for synthesis abilities eurorack modulars are the way to go and I do love sound design.

My ideal setup is this.

I basically want to have a bunch of analog synthesizers hooked up to a mixer that is hooked up to my interface. I am really interested in connecting a bunch of the USB based analog synths up because of the VST interfacing that lets me control all the parameters via my DAW which is Ableton Live. The ones that I have researched that have VSTs and full daw automation and total recall are Moog, Elektron and this Xenophone so far. I imagine there are more but i haven't looked. I imagine if i get a powered USB hub i will be able to hook up many synthesizers to my laptop and sequence them all through their respective VST integration systems.

It might be laziness on my part but I kind of like the idea of using an analog synthesizer like a virtual instrument.

Of course eventually I know i will buy a semi-modular with silent way stuff to create the wierd and wonderful modular stuff. Modular is in the works but for the start I want to focus on the USB based analogs with dedicated VST interfaces that let you control all the functions within your DAW.
User avatar
Ingonator
KVRAF
 
7903 posts since 21 Mar, 2008, from Hannover, Germany

Postby Ingonator; Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:36 am Re: Hypersynth Xenophone Analog Monosynth

ghettosynth wrote:
david.beholder wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:
Kriminal wrote:That chart is wrong, at least 2 of those have DCO's.


I don't know if you're being funny, but, four have DCOs. The Bass Station II, the Pulse 2, the Xenophone, and the Mopho are all DCO based synths. Only the Moog and the MFB are VCO based synths.

Pulse 2 is VCO based


No, AFAIK, it is DCO based like the Pulse 1. Here, I'll give you a link to a "professional magazine", not that there opinion is really any more informed than mine.

http://www.keyboardmag.com/article/wald ... wed/154074

I'd love to be wrong, but I don't think that I am. I know the pulse 1 was DCO based and I've read descriptions of the circuitry from Waldorf that makes it clear that the pulse 2 is also DCO based.


Pulse 2 has analog circuits to create waveforms that are controlled by the CPU via an built-in D/A converter. There is no further D/A or A/D conversion between oscillators, filter, VCA, Drive FXs and the output.
LFOs and envelopes are created by the CPU but the signals are sent trough the built-in D/A converter as control voltages.

All analog circuits are done from usual analog components like more complex ICs (e.g. OP-Amps) and simple components like single resistors, capacitors, transistors and diodes. No prebuilt chips like e.g. the Curtis ones.

The Pulse 2 does not have an auto-tune switch for the oscillators but one for the filter (in the Utility menu). The 4 modes of the multimode filter (LP24, LP12, BP12, HP12) are all resonant until self-oscillation and with a properly tuned filter you could play proper notes/pitch when filter keytrack is at 100% (maximum is 200% and negative is also possible).
Since a few versions filter auto-tune is also done automatically when installing a new firmware. During auto-tune you see a display with expected frequencies and actual ones. In a few cases using the feature more than one time could be necessary.
Once the filter is tuned it will stay in tune for quite a long time. This feature is not a permanent one, it is only used when you update firmware or use it from the menu.

At the end i don't even really care how the Pulse 2 works exactly but i know that it sounds great (at least for me and AFIk also fr others...). while some people maybe prefer fully lnobbed synths the Pulse 2 is perfectly usuable as it is, also without an editor. In fact i got two editors at the moment (and just found another one) but rarely use them for programming sounds on the Pulse 2.


Ingo
Waldorf Beta Forum Manager
"Atmospheric Transients" for PPG Wave 3.V
"Analog vs Digital" for Blofeld
Win 7 64-bit / Live 9 / Reaper / Studio One 2.6 / Blofeld / Pulse 2 /Waldorf + Tone 2 plugins + others
eXode
KVRian
 
529 posts since 2 Jun, 2004, from Tellus

Postby eXode; Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:12 pm Re: Hypersynth Xenophone Analog Monosynth

The Pulse1/2 oscillators are DCO's in that their tuning is controlled from a digital clock, much like i.e. Oberheim Matrix 1000, DSI products (except for Prophet 12 which has DSP generated oscilators) etc.
ghettosynth
KVRAF
 
3969 posts since 13 Oct, 2009

Postby ghettosynth; Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:46 pm Re: Hypersynth Xenophone Analog Monosynth

eXode wrote:The Pulse1/2 oscillators are DCO's in that their tuning is controlled from a digital clock, much like i.e. Oberheim Matrix 1000, DSI products (except for Prophet 12 which has DSP generated oscilators) etc.


Yes, that's what it means to be a DCO. I've elaborated on this, ad-nausiem, in posts. The essence of these posts is found in two "articles" on my blog.
ghettosynth
KVRAF
 
3969 posts since 13 Oct, 2009

Postby ghettosynth; Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:50 pm Re: Hypersynth Xenophone Analog Monosynth

Ingonator wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:
david.beholder wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:
Kriminal wrote:That chart is wrong, at least 2 of those have DCO's.


I don't know if you're being funny, but, four have DCOs. The Bass Station II, the Pulse 2, the Xenophone, and the Mopho are all DCO based synths. Only the Moog and the MFB are VCO based synths.

Pulse 2 is VCO based


No, AFAIK, it is DCO based like the Pulse 1. Here, I'll give you a link to a "professional magazine", not that there opinion is really any more informed than mine.

http://www.keyboardmag.com/article/wald ... wed/154074

I'd love to be wrong, but I don't think that I am. I know the pulse 1 was DCO based and I've read descriptions of the circuitry from Waldorf that makes it clear that the pulse 2 is also DCO based.


Pulse 2 has analog circuits to create waveforms that are controlled by the CPU via an built-in D/A converter. There is no further D/A or A/D conversion between oscillators, filter, VCA, Drive FXs and the output.
LFOs and envelopes are created by the CPU but the signals are sent trough the built-in D/A converter as control voltages.

All analog circuits are done from usual analog components like more complex ICs (e.g. OP-Amps) and simple components like single resistors, capacitors, transistors and diodes. No prebuilt chips like e.g. the Curtis ones.


None of that makes a lick of difference. Seriously, I get very tired of debating this. Whether it's all in one, or discrete, makes virtually no difference in terms of sound. DCOs sound like they do because of very precise timing.

If you like it, good for you, I like certain DCO based synths as well. But, DCOs are not VCOs and this impacts both how you use a synth, and how the synths sounds, in several ways.

My blog has the articles if you're interested in details.
User avatar
Ingonator
KVRAF
 
7903 posts since 21 Mar, 2008, from Hannover, Germany

Postby Ingonator; Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:07 am Re: Hypersynth Xenophone Analog Monosynth

ghettosynth wrote:
None of that makes a lick of difference. Seriously, I get very tired of debating this. Whether it's all in one, or discrete, makes virtually no difference in terms of sound. DCOs sound like they do because of very precise timing.

If you like it, good for you, I like certain DCO based synths as well. But, DCOs are not VCOs and this impacts both how you use a synth, and how the synths sounds, in several ways.

My blog has the articles if you're interested in details.


To quote yourself from your blog:

But, why does it matter?
:wink:

You are discussing tons of technical and theoretical aspects at your blog but without giving practical examples which means audio examples.

At the end the sound is what matters and could be even good on a fully DSP based synth lik e.g. Diva.

When i tried to compare my Moog Slim Phatty (which got VCOs) to my Pulse 2 i never got an impression that the Pulse 2 sounded "crappy" in comparison. In seeveral ways the Pulse 2 is even superior which alos includes the fact that i do not need to let the Pulse 2 warm up before it has a stable tuning.If i want to use the Slim Phatty without warm up time i have to enable the auto-tune all the time which then would be closer to a DCO.

The fact that the Pulse 2 uses discrete components is in some way important. Waldorf does not use pre-built filter chips and they got their own circuit designs which means that a Pulse 2 sounds like a Pulse 2 and not like another synth. The circuit design is even different from the Pulse 1 while they tried to keep the resulting sound as compatible as possible and you could even import Pulse 1 Sysex bank files.

A fully analog Pulse 2 with VCOs, anaölog LFOs and analog envelopes would be a lot more expensive, bigger in size, more unstable in tuning and could not do some of his special features including e.g. the XOR Osc modes or paraphonic sounds.
Also not sure if the Unison modes for both monophonic and paraphonic modes could be implemented in the same way.
While the oscillators are mostly based on analog circuits (and there are also dedicated circuits for the Noise) some of controls and interactions for those which are possible in the Pulse 2 would be difficult or even impossible without any control via a CPU and D/A converter combination.
AFAIK for the Sawtooth waveform of the Pulse only a minimum of digital control is necessary (mostly tuning stability).

Overall the design of the Pulse 2 seems to be a nive one and it is not easy to find another analog synth with the same features and sound for that price.
In terms of interface the matrix editor is maybe even better usuable than some fully knobbed designs that i have seen/checked.

Some features like e.g. the APW modes (including monophonic, paraphonic and Unison modes) were not included with the very first OS versions of the Pulse 2. This is an advantage of a digitylly controlled analog synth vs a fully analog one which has atotally fixed architecture and routings. Also the filter calibration and the envelopes were optimized which is difficult with a fully analog synth where this would lead to physical changes in the synth that would make it difficult to do beta testing as it would involve multiple shipping of the hardware.

BTW i just found the full statement of Wolfram Franke concerning the Pulse 1 (at the "A Word from Waldorf" paragraph):
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1996_ar ... pulse.html



FWIW going back on topic that Xenophone synth looks interesting indeed with many similar features compared to the Pulse 2. Anyway for me it seems to be too similar to have it besides the Pulse 2 and some of the Pulse 2 features seem to be missing but for others it could be an interesting choice.
What confused me about the Xenophone is that it is mentioned to have 3 Oscs but the third Osc has almost no controls at the interface besides one knob and an edit button.

This kind of combination of dedicated controls and menus (with multiple pages) in terms of workflow is maybe not the best solution. In the Pulse 2 there are menus for the mod matrix and the advanced Arp setting (but for both all settings on one page o the display) while all main features have a dedicated place in the editing matrix which makes it quite simple to use.
The nvelopees in the Xenophone use 4 knobs and a selector button nd those knobs are also used for other functions omn combination with the display. That part of the interface is closer to how the editing matrix of the Pulse 2 works.


Ingo
Waldorf Beta Forum Manager
"Atmospheric Transients" for PPG Wave 3.V
"Analog vs Digital" for Blofeld
Win 7 64-bit / Live 9 / Reaper / Studio One 2.6 / Blofeld / Pulse 2 /Waldorf + Tone 2 plugins + others
ghettosynth
KVRAF
 
3969 posts since 13 Oct, 2009

Postby ghettosynth; Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:35 am Re: Hypersynth Xenophone Analog Monosynth

Ingonator wrote:
ghettosynth wrote:
None of that makes a lick of difference. Seriously, I get very tired of debating this. Whether it's all in one, or discrete, makes virtually no difference in terms of sound. DCOs sound like they do because of very precise timing.

If you like it, good for you, I like certain DCO based synths as well. But, DCOs are not VCOs and this impacts both how you use a synth, and how the synths sounds, in several ways.

My blog has the articles if you're interested in details.


To quote yourself from your blog:

But, why does it matter?
:wink:

You are discussing tons of technical and theoretical aspects at your blog but without giving practical examples which means audio examples.


That's because that's my domain of, reasonable, expertise. I know what I'm talking about in terms of how the electronics works. What I get tired of debating is that technically, there IS a difference. Now, if you can't hear it, and you don't understand why it matters from a synthesis point of view, then it's of no concern to you.

At the end the sound is what matters and could be even good on a fully DSP based synth lik e.g. Diva.


Sound matters, yes, but so does how you get to a sound. DCO synths have limitations that VCOs do not have. Not all DCOs are equal, some go to greater length than others to overcome these differences. Some make no effort. The Juno 60, for example, is an awesome synth, but it has very simple DCOs that would not be as interesting in a monosynth as a VCO. That is the context of this thread and that is my point. When comparing monosynths, there is a substantial difference in flexibility with a VCO synth vs a DCO synth.

When i tried to compare my Moog Slim Phatty (which got VCOs) to my Pulse 2 i never got an impression that the Pulse 2 sounded "crappy" in comparison.


Neither did I. Both synths are excellent instruments. But when comparing value, and that's what the chart is doing, it simply costs more to build VCOs into a synth and that's why so many manufacturers go with DCOs.

In seeveral ways the Pulse 2 is even superior which alos includes the fact that i do not need to let the Pulse 2 warm up before it has a stable tuning.


Seriously, do you think that you're educating me here? That's not even the best advantage of a DCO. I'll let you think about that for a while.

The fact that the Pulse 2 uses discrete components is in some way important. Waldorf does not use pre-built filter chips and they got their own circuit designs which means that a Pulse 2 sounds like a Pulse 2 and not like another synth.


With all due respect, you don't understand enough about electronics to make such a claim. IIRC, the original pulse was essentially a moog filter based on the CA3046 transister array. We're not talking about the filter, however, we're talking about DCOs and the integrator in the pulse will sound pretty much the same as everybody else's integrator. Whether a circuit is on a "chip" or isn't has some effect on sound, sometimes, but it isn't always a win for the "discrete" circuit.

Overall the design of the Pulse 2 seems to be a nive one and it is not easy to find another analog synth with the same features and sound for that price.
In terms of interface the matrix editor is maybe even better usuable than some fully knobbed designs that i have seen/checked.


Dude, you sound like an ad. The waldorf is a fine DCO based synth. It is not, to me, a good value, I think that it's overpriced. If you like it, good for you. Stop wasting your time trying to convince me that it can replace whatever is under discussion.

BTW i just found the full statement of Wolfram Franke concerning the Pulse 1 (at the "A Word from Waldorf" paragraph):
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1996_ar ... pulse.html


Yes, I've read it. I've posted the quote that I'm talking about somewhere on KVR. I was (and am) simply too lazy to go look it up again. Wolfram is describing a DCO in a very abstruse manner. The cynical side of me thinks that it's intentional obfuscation. Nobody wants to talk about their DCOs because they have that ugly digital in their name.
PreviousNext

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

Return to Hardware (Instruments and Effects)