Sendy wrote:Rayblaster is one of my favourite synths and I can tell you categorically there's nothing new in it and no "modelling", everything is done in the time domain with repitching, looping, windowing (AM) and clever timing/mixing (to get, EG, the different PWM types). I've been banging on about "windowed sync" for years now since it's one of my favourite synth tricks, and RB is like that kind of thing only it lets you load samples.
For me, the fact that everything happens geometrically makes it even more clever. No fancy buzzwords required!
Tone2's synths are top quality, but their blurb men are literally compulsive liars. If it helps them sell more stuff, good luck to them, but don't expect me to swallow it.
They do NOT lie when they claim that you could reproduce the sound of certain filters. As already mentioned they did not mention the limits which maybe i would also not do in a text for marketing. BTW this was not even the intention when they built the synth. It was found during beta testing that it could work quite nicely in several cases.
One of the first synths i used for this was my Moog Slim Phatty on which also some of the factory waveforms and several factory presets are based.
The full set of Phatty waveforms/filter responses for use in Ryblaster (+ several more) are avvailable here:http://www.tone2.org/forum/index.php?topic=1336.0
I had also mad e a huge amount of new waveforms from scratch using e.g. DNR WaveDesigner. A part of those is included with the factory content, the Futuron soundset and many of my own patches for Rayblaster (in my 200+ patches i made with it yet i almost exclusively used waveforms i had created myself, mostly from scratch.
The most important thing to get close to a proper reproduction of a filter response is to create the waveform in proper way. This includes recording the original synth at a Cutoff much below the maximum (like done with "usual" samples). Like mentioned multiple times the optimal value is around 30-40% of the Cutoff kbob (when 50% is the moddle possition) or at around 1000 Hz in a spectrum analyzer.
In best case you get a range of 10000 Hz or more where the filter response behaves close to the original synth.
It s not possible to have a resonance knob so you must have a resonant waveform or mukltiple resonant waveforms at different resonance amounts. As you could mix two waveorms it is also possible to mix a non-resonant and a resonant waveform (or two waveforms with filter responses from different synths...).
In the marketing text they also speak about "modeling of the sound", not about proper DSP modeling of a filter.
While the results are maybe not perfect the result you could get from it could be quite amazing. I had certain cases where the result in Rabylaster souded better to me than the original synth.
Of course this does not fully replace proper emulations of certain synths but it could very useful for certain sounds, especially when mixed and/or layered with other sounds that are not emulations of certain synths. With mixing and layering you use use up to 4 of those waveforms for a single patch
With some of the advanced shaping options you could get those waveforms sound ing beyond what is possible in the original synth.
As mentioned multiple times this gets really funny with more complex waveforms that could produce really intersting results while changing the "Cutoff" (or here: Formant) knob (also with addintional modulation).
Speaking anout "psychoacoustic synths" it seems to be difficult to find examples beyond FXs. Rayblaster seems to be one f the few synths built on principles of psychoacoustics while most other Tone2 synth involve "pschoacoustic processing" which is not really identical (and could be switched off).
you could call me a Tone2 "fanboy" but i don't really care, because it is TRUE...