KVR Audio

ARNK · Post by **ARNK** » Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:16 pm

The lack of VST scopes and/or resources outside of showing fun wave pattern shapes tells me that it's not...

Aloysius · Post by **Aloysius** » Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:21 pm

I would say no. Your golden ears are necessary. If however you don't have ears, then an oscilloscope could be just what the Doctor ordered.

Auplant · Post by **Auplant** » Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:37 am

If you have bad ears or cheap studio monitors then yes, otherwise no. In terms of mixing sounds though, it's always necessary.

BertKoor · Post by **BertKoor** » Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:49 am

Other than fulfilling your curiosity (what do the waveforms actually look like) I don't really see the need. Because you don't "hear" with your eyes but with your ears. I even find the plots that some EQs show distracting.

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:51 am

No. Not that i do any "serious sound design" though.

I highly doubt people who do have an oscilloscope on though.

Michael L · Post by **Michael L** » Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:01 am

Sometimes I do, when I need to filter a waveform so it has fewer harmonics or noise (or the opposite) or if I am blending waveforms, or reinforcing a sample with a waveform: a scope can help show me what to listen for. But my ears and eyes are wired together and YMMV!

himalaya · Post by **himalaya** » Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:03 pm

An oscilloscope? Can't remember using it lately. A spectrum analyser? Yes, mostly where my ears can not help (ie: checking infrasonic regions for issues in samples).

Aloysius · Post by **Aloysius** » Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:47 pm

If you sit on your speaker, you can check out all the infrasonics you want.

himalaya · Post by **himalaya** » Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:10 pm

Aloysius wrote:If you sit on your speaker, you can check out all the infrasonics you want.

Absolutely. And if you insert your ear buds into your nose, you can smell the divine fragrances of the full frequency spectrum.

Auplant · Post by **Auplant** » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:33 pm

BertKoor wrote:Because you don't "hear" with your eyes but with your ears.

this is an important point, I always think that what really matters in any case is what's coming out of the speakers. Nothing more than that.

Aloysius · Post by **Aloysius** » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:39 pm

himalaya wrote:
Aloysius wrote:If you sit on your speaker, you can check out all the infrasonics you want.
Absolutely. And if you insert your ear buds into your nose, you can smell the divine fragrances of the full frequency spectrum.

Gamma-UT · Post by **Gamma-UT** » Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:08 pm

BertKoor wrote:Other than fulfilling your curiosity (what do the waveforms actually look like) I don't really see the need. Because you don't "hear" with your eyes but with your ears. I even find the plots that some EQs show distracting.

If you're trying to reverse-engineer a sound, it can be handy to see what's going on.

I don't see what the OP's issue with existing plugins is though, other than perhaps only a few of them have a useful way of setting a timebase. There's very little you are going to see in an external instrument that doesn't appear in the software/computer domain.

himalaya · Post by **himalaya** » Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:37 pm

phace wrote:
BertKoor wrote:Because you don't "hear" with your eyes but with your ears.
this is an important point, I always think that what really matters in any case is what's coming out of the speakers. Nothing more than that.

Generally it's true but there are many reasons for using a spectrum analyser (more than an oscilloscope). You simply won't be able to solve any issues below and above the average human hearing, stuff which we don't hear but is still there, captured somehow during a recording (samples for example), and whereas we may not be able to hear at such extremes, it's a good professional habit to inspect samples and eliminate any issues. This is where such utilities are a must.

Auplant · Post by **Auplant** » Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:57 pm

himalaya wrote:
phace wrote:
BertKoor wrote:Because you don't "hear" with your eyes but with your ears.
this is an important point, I always think that what really matters in any case is what's coming out of the speakers. Nothing more than that.
Generally it's true but there are many reasons for using a spectrum analyser (more than an oscilloscope). You simply won't be able to solve any issues below and above the average human hearing, stuff which we don't hear but is still there, captured somehow during a recording (samples for example), and whereas we may not be able to hear at such extremes, it's a good professional habit to inspect samples and eliminate any issues. This is where such utilities are a must.

yes I agree, but in the creative process I don't bother much, when finalizing sounds I get more serious and start analyzing mud/resonance areas.

cron · Post by **cron** » Fri Aug 18, 2017 4:23 pm

Only to check for DC offset. I do a lot of processing which involves deliberately adding DC offset, processing as required, then removing it. I always check the result through an oscilloscope to see if I can get away without high-passing as a final step.

Other than that, I don't think it's particularly useful as a sound design tool. Not in the same way a frequency analyser can be. Artists like Cyclo and Jerobeam Fenderson have done some awesome stuff with oscilloscopes - well, lissajous phasescopes really - but other than such highly specialised creative use cases I'd say it's more of a technical tool.

Coincidentally, last month's One Synth Challenge used Spiral Generator which is designed to create patterns in a phasescope. Not sure how many entrants made a visual component though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XziuEdpVUe0

Is an oscilloscope a necessary tool for serious sound design?