Which Synth has the Highest Quality Oscillators

[mystran]

OP seems to have a history of "great ideas". viewtopic.php?f=33&t=479007&p=6699751#p6699751 I was actually hoping for a dev to chime in, and put an end to this esoteric nonsense. Oh well, maybe in the OP's newly created thread, which is actually the same bla bla bla without any factual base.

Ok, I'll do it: additive synthesis will give you "perfect" results as long as (1) you don't truncate the harmonic series too early (ie. you synthesise enough to reach Nyquist frequency) and (2) your sine-wave calculating is numerically accurate. The main restriction is that you need to be able to calculate (either analytically or by FFT of a reference waveform, or something) the amplitudes and phases of the harmonics individually, which can be (highly!) inconvenient when it comes to "creative modulation."

Practical implementations usually don't produce "perfect" results because it's actually better to fade out the high harmonics gradually before Nyquist frequency just to avoid clicks with pitch modulation and to put some upper limit on the number of harmonics generated, so you don't run out CPU if the user decides he wants a 0.0001Hz waveform. Such a practical implementations are essentially "better than perfect."

Either way, if you think you can generate better waveforms than what you get from additive synthesis (when done correctly, duh), you need to stop eating mushrooms.

PS. If you think you can get similar quality for less CPU or less inconvenience for certain types of creative effects, then sure.. that's useful.. but please don't try to pretend you can beat the "perfect" in terms of quality, that's just non-sense.

[Cinebient]

Like i said....Kaleidoscope (you could call it a synth too).
But this thread also will just end in "what is my favorite OSC" maybe.
I can judge just by my ears and even if it´s not my favorite synth, if i have to judge the pure tone of OSC (and filters) without FX i choose Dagger (which might also be hard because it always introduce a bit saturation and whatever into it and a lot of the magic happens with the envelopes).

[foosnark]

If the thread turns into a list of favorite oscillators, I'm going to include some that are very definitely not "quality" in a mathematical sense.

Like this bad monkey right here. Jitter, crosstalk, broadband noise of unknown origin, low-res wavetables, aliasing... it's got it all. Even tuning problems. And it's full of chraracter and texture and sounds far more interesting than listening to pure sine waves.

[wagtunes]

If the thread turns into a list of favorite oscillators, I'm going to include some that are very definitely not "quality" in a mathematical sense.

Like this bad monkey right here. Jitter, crosstalk, broadband noise of unknown origin, low-res wavetables, aliasing... it's got it all. Even tuning problems. And it's full of chraracter and texture and sounds far more interesting than listening to pure sine waves.

Is that an actual hardware module?

[Distorted Horizon]

Is that an actual hardware module?

https://www.modulargrid.net/e/the-harvestman-kermit

[Dasheesh]

It says harvestman right on the front wagtunes. And he's right. Noise is musical, and perfection is sterile.

[Auplant]

Look at newer synths. Dune 2 delivers excellent sound and unison stereo width.

[wagtunes]

It says harvestman right on the front wagtunes. And he's right. Noise is musical, and perfection is sterile.

I always preferred the grittier sounding stuff.

[layzer]

the truth of the matter is arguing over the quality of an oscillator is much the same as arguing about the
quality of the ink used in a comic strip, 99% of people don't give a FK as long as they can read it.
which means, its not so much the quality of the oscillator, but more the quality of it's use.... get it?

[lnikj]

the truth of the matter is arguing over the quality of an oscillator is much the same as arguing about the
quality of the ink used in a comic strip, 99% of people don't give a FK as long as they can read it.
which means, its not so much the quality of the oscillator, but more the quality of it's use.... get it?

Where's the fun in that though? This is KVR. On a Friday afternoon.

[Teksonik]

I'm going to propose "Ben's Law": Any "Best Of" thread at KVR given enough time will eventually include every Instrument known to man and will devolve into a circular argument both for and against the salient points.

In the end there is no "Best", only "My Favorite".

[foosnark]

the truth of the matter is arguing over the quality of an oscillator is much the same as arguing about the quality of the ink used in a comic strip

I like that analogy


There are minimum standards you want an oscillator to meet, but those are pretty easy standards to meet today. I'm not going to choose one synth over another because it can produce 19kHz sine waves that are .05% closer to mathematical perfection.

[justin3am]

My butt makes some pretty detailed, non-geometrical oscillations.

[justin3am]

It says harvestman right on the front wagtunes. And he's right. Noise is musical, and perfection is sterile.

I always preferred the grittier sounding stuff.

Then you would LOVE Harvestman/IME stuff. The Hertz Donut, Piston Honda and Tyme Sefari are all about lo-fi digital artifacts and grtty/aggressive sound. They can also sound quite beautiful and delicate when filtered but with their own unique character. Some of the older models responded strangely to control signals outside of the expected range, so they would become unpredictable; which is part of the charm, IMO.

As much as the OP is trying to define quality of a signal generator with objective terms, high resolution doesn't always result in something that everyone can appreciate. I'm definitely turned off by sounds that come across as too pristine. And it's not always easier to grunge up a clean sound than it is to start with something that is imperfect to begin with. It's all a matter of taste, though.

[Vertion]

There are minimum standards you want an oscillator to meet, but those are pretty easy standards to meet today. I'm not going to choose one synth over another because it can produce 19kHz sine waves that are .05% closer to mathematical perfection.

Once again, non geometric shapes. Non-sinusoidal, non-linear. The only error there typically is the number of decimals used (rounding errors). Formulated sine waves and lerps (lines) are already perfect in their shape (-minus rounding errors), but they are not the only shapes around. If I asked you to 3d rendering of a scene from the upcoming movie 'Cars 3', and I gave you mspaint, would the output quality matter to the audience? Would anyone notice? Surely you can tell a 3d movie that was made today over one made a decade ago. There are some very amazing artists who have used mspaint to create amazing pictures, but a full scale farm-rendered movie that takes an incredible number of flops given the current state of technology. Additionally, 3d scene are vectorized (foundationally), whereas mspaint is completely raster from start to finish.

Some people are more visual than auditory, I am such a person, this is why I can see this easily from this domain, where it might pose a challenge of imagination for the auditory thinker due to internal language difference...ie. i see what you are saying vs i hear what you are saying. If you are all content with MsPaint because you like the feel, then I am overjoyed for your amazing patience..virtuous choice. However, I think there is a reason artists turn to more sophisticated and detailed software than mspaint, but don't get me wrong.. everyone loves mspaint.

Now reapply to the quality of oscillators and convolutions in the soft-audio world.

mspaintjedi.jpg