I wouldn't have any idea about those.

Only similar feature i see is that you could morph between two waveforms like with the Wave 1/2 mix in Rayblaster.
I don't think the start phase parameter could be compared to that in Rayblaster, especially if bigger waveforms or "wavetables" (up to 60000+ samples in length) are loaded into Rayblaster.

Besides that the basic principles seem to be totally different and sound quality is a matter of taste.


Ingo

i think most samplers can do what you ask.the only feature exclusive to rayblaster is the supposed filter emulation, which to my ears isnt that impressive for emulating actual filters (didnt come close to emulating anything i put into it in any meaningful fashion) but does occassionally produce ok results from "fantasy filters" but nothing overly exciting in the long run.

As i already explained at the original Rayblaster thread those waveforms with the filter responses have to be created in a certain way to be useful.
If you just create a single cycle based on the full Cutoff of the original filter the possible range in Rayblaster is very narrow.
The best values i found so far is around 25%-40% of the Cutoff (related to the knob position, not the frequency). A basic rule is that the Cutoff point of a Lowpass filter should be around 1000 Hz (measured with a signal analyzer) for the waveform/sample you create.

Several examples could be found e.g. in the factory library, the factory sounds or here: http://www.tone2.org/forum/index.php?topic=1336.0

As already mentioned this kind of "emulation" got it's limits. One of them is that for a resonant filter you also need a resonant waveform/filter response.
The harmonic value and the starting phase got an important impact too. Besides that like in the original synth the filter is influenced by e.g. the Formant value (similar to Cutoff), Filter envelope, filter envelope amount and filter keytrack amount.

I guess i already explained that to you in the other thread but you never replied.

The question is also not how accurate those filters are emulated but basd on my experience you get get some very nice results, especially with the resonant waveforms. The filter responses created from different synths usually also sound quite different in Rayblaster. IMO the most interesting results are obtained when you layer an "analog" waveforms with one of a more "digital" approach (by using both oscillators). Also mixing those two waveforms in a single oscillator could be interesting.
There are lots of options if you really use some time to try it.



Ingo
Last edited by Ingonator on Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:31 pm; edited 1 time in total

yeah, i tried the methods you suggested, i still didnt find it worked in any useful manner for any of the filters i tried. was ok at basic hi pass/low pass, but getting any actual character from any of my filters didnt prooduce any meaningful results.


sorry i didnt reply, i didnt see any need to as i didnt see rayblaster as anything useful to me.
Last edited by vurt on Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:04 pm; edited 1 time in total

OK that audio in the OP's post is just mad !

bugger

Cool

So you never tried the resynthesis in Harmor.
I find it very impressive. You can do basically the same as in the example and the result - to my ears - is smoother.
I experiment a lot with human voice so this is an area of special interest to me.
Harmor is currently my go-to device for such things.

BTW:
What is the problem with you rayblaster evangelists? Why do you feel it necessary to iterate five million times how great it is and how unrivalled? I'm sure it's cool but why that overprotectionism? Some people like it, others don't and the op actually asked if other synths/samplers can do something similar to the posted example.
And the answer is simply "Yes, many".

Just cool down a bit, won't you?
Breathe.

It's really getting annoying.

Cheers,

Tom
Last edited by ThomasHelzle on Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:30 pm; edited 1 time in total

Ensoniq samplers?

Nice sounds, although it's kinda hard to hear what RayBlaster is doing there due to all the reverb (i.e. whether it's an FFT or granular thing). Wicked transformations anyway!

You can get somewhere close with vanilla granular synthesis. Here's a kinda similar voice twist I did a few years ago with a basic granulator. http://soundcloud.com/chqtestsubjects/cecilia-singin-in-the- fog

Having said this, I'm sure RayBlaster's power lies in how expressively the synthesis can be controlled. I'm not really aware of anything else that would let you create a sound like the OP's in one take.

Harmor has no Mac version... otherwise i would buy it in a heartbeat... I agree it is very impressive!

haha, very entertaining. Very similar too.

The the single male voices it's much easier to hear RB in my demos. all the effects are internal anyway.

Useful maybe, but it never actually emulates even a basic LPF... it can sound kinda like a LPF over a short range but that is it... It is a different thing altogether and (imo) should be appreciated for what it is, not presented as something it isn't

There was a thread were George from discoDSP showcased resynthesis of three synths, his, Harmor and I think one of the Virsyn synths. His was clearly the smoothest and that's probably why he did the comparison.