Only one amplitude envelope??

Official support for: rs-met.com
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

Is it true that you're not planning on having additional envelope generators ( other than the pitch one I read about in another thread ) ??

I like your synth ; but 4 oscillators ( especially powerfull ones like these ) only able to be modulated with one amplitude envelope seems like a bit of a waste. Why not add one more ??



Just my $.02 cents.....

Post

you mean like having (potentially) one envelope generator for each oscillator? like 4? mmhh....first, i think that would really lead to a lot of GUI-clutter (i'm actually not really happy with the 3 envelope editors in one plot because that already looks very busy). and then: amplitude envelopes are usually applied after the filter which takes the sum of the oscillators as input anyway. having the amp-envelope(s) before the filter would not really be a good idea because then there would be nothing that would stop a self-oscillating filter from ringing indefinitely.
My website: rs-met.com, My presences on: YouTube, GitHub, Facebook

Post

Actually one more ( making it an envelope per oscillator pair)) would expand the capabilities quite a bit, don't you think ??
I understand you're wanting to keep it all on one page , and I go for bigger gui's myself anyways , ..... I hate how LCD's and there native resolutions (1600 or more !) have made some interfaces to small... I would'nt mind if straightliner were even bigger myself , but then others might complain ( make it variable ??)
It's just that there are so many "VA" synths , and you're synth is not at all mono , so you're not really going the VA path in that respect . I just think if you are going to have 4 oscillators , why limit them all doing the same amplitude envelope ??


I'm not anyones Idea of a " sound designer" really ; just some thoughts .I know you can't please all the people all the time now can you !! :lol:

Cheers


:D

Post

Robin from www.rs-met.com wrote:and then: amplitude envelopes are usually applied after the filter which takes the sum of the oscillators as input anyway. having the amp-envelope(s) before the filter would not really be a good idea because then there would be nothing that would stop a self-oscillating filter from ringing indefinitely.


I see your point here although I'm not sure why there could'nt be something like fabfilter implements where "runaway " self-oscillation gets nipped in the bud after a set intreval .

One of the first synths I ever programmed in earnest was the synapse poly850. I never ran into a problem like you've describrd here.... ( Filter could'nt self-oscillate ??...don't remember.)

I liked having two amplitude envelopes on the poly because I could use different attacks and even releases to thicken sounds up and increase the depth a bit . It added nicely to the palette of sounds you could get out of the instrument. :D

Post

contrary wrote:Actually one more ( making it an envelope per oscillator pair)) would expand the capabilities quite a bit, don't you think ??
yes maybe, but what about the requirement of having an amp-env after the filter then? in this case, it would actually be 2 additional amp envelopes. and then: why stop there and not going all the way of having one amp env per osc? actually - my idea with straightliner is to have the classic vco-vcf-vca architechture but with extended flexibility within each of the modules. but with my old aggressor synth (on the [LINK REMOVED] website), i did something in the direction: there, each of the 3 oscs had its own ramp-envelope for amplitude and pitch. ...but that synth was less flexible in various other respects. maybe i pick it up again one day and marry it with some stuff from straightliner.
I understand you're wanting to keep it all on one page , and I go for bigger gui's myself anyways , ..... I hate how LCD's and there native resolutions (1600 or more !) have made some interfaces to small... I would'nt mind if straightliner were even bigger myself , but then others might complain
oh yes. some already do with the current size.
It's just that there are so many "VA" synths , and you're synth is not at all mono , so you're not really going the VA path in that respect . I just think if you are going to have 4 oscillators , why limit them all doing the same amplitude envelope ??
well, somewhere one has to draw the line. and straightliner - nomen est omen - should be straightforward in its architechture.
My website: rs-met.com, My presences on: YouTube, GitHub, Facebook

Post

contrary wrote:I see your point here although I'm not sure why there could'nt be something like fabfilter implements where "runaway " self-oscillation gets nipped in the bud after a set intreval .
"nipped in the bud"? please help a non-native english speaker - what does that mean?
One of the first synths I ever programmed in earnest was the synapse poly850. I never ran into a problem like you've describrd here.... ( Filter could'nt self-oscillate ??...don't remember.)
could be. nonetheless - even without self oscillation, it would sound different when the amplitude envelopes are before the filter because you would always hear the full decay of the filter's impulse response (which can be long at high resonance). the amp env after the filter may cut that off.
My website: rs-met.com, My presences on: YouTube, GitHub, Facebook

Post

I understand both the desire of having more modulations in Straightliner and also the concept of keeping it simple. A thought I had though was to add a 4th modulator that could freely assignable to either the amplitude, filter or pitch.

The idea being that the amplitude envelope (or pitch or filter) can be used to shape the overall level and the 4th modulator can then be used as a LFO to modulate the overall level.

I think that having this 4th freely assignable modulator would quite increase the modulation potential without increasing too much the complexity of Straightliner.

Post

Robin from www.rs-met.com wrote: "nipped in the bud"? please help a non-native english speaker - what does that mean?.
Sorry , it's means to prevent something whilst it is only just getting started ... trimmimng the flower before it can bloom .. whilst still a bud.




could you put this statement differently...
when the amplitude envelopes are before the filter because you would always hear the full decay of the filter's impulse response (which can be long at high resonance). the amp env after the filter may cut that off.
do you mean there will still be signal coming through the filter output even after the amplitude envelope has shut the level into the filter off ? Is'nt that like a delay unit .. how long would that be ?? just at high resonances ?


I'm not quite following the linkage between the two envelopes .. ( filter and amplitude) ... I mean I know what they do , but is'nt up to the patch designer to decide how they work in connection and/or "concert" with each other ?? I guess I've never got down to thinking schematically , in the exact signal path as you are doing here . What is the "filter Impulse" that makes me think convolution or something like that :oops:






Thanks for your responses, I really like your synth , I'm just a bit pedantic sometimes!!! :P Just want to fully understand for myself .




Cheers



.




.





Here is the quote from the FAb filter help pages on the self oscillation prevention option that they have .



Auto-mute self-oscillation

It is possible to prevent the filters to self-oscillate if there is no incoming audio signal. This will make higher peak settings possible while the filters will not be howling continuously when you stop playback in your host.

Post

contrary wrote:Sorry , it's means to prevent something whilst it is only just getting started ... trimmimng the flower before it can bloom .. whilst still a bud.
aha - again learned something new. the german equivalent would then be something like 'im keim ersticken'

could you put this statement differently...
when the amplitude envelopes are before the filter because you would always hear the full decay of the filter's impulse response (which can be long at high resonance). the amp env after the filter may cut that off.
do you mean there will still be signal coming through the filter output even after the amplitude envelope has shut the level into the filter off ? Is'nt that like a delay unit .. how long would that be ?? just at high resonances ?
exactly. look at it that way: in self-oscillation, it would oscillate indefinitely - shortly before self-oscillation, it would oscillate for a finite duration (or more precisely: the oscillation would decay exponentially, so - strictly speaking - it would also be infinite (hence the term infinite impulse response (IIR) filter, btw.)) - but after some finite time the oscillation will be below the noise floor or (in the digital world) below numerical precision). how long that decay actually is depends on how close you are to the self oscillation. it could be anything between a few milliseconds to several seconds ....to....infinity.
What is the "filter Impulse" that makes me think convolution or something like that :oops:
the impulse response is the filters output signal when the input is an impulse. and - yes - the impulse response can be measured and be used for convolution. that way, one would emulate the filter. but the original filter does not have to implement convolution literally in order to have an impulse response

Auto-mute self-oscillation

It is possible to prevent the filters to self-oscillate if there is no incoming audio signal. This will make higher peak settings possible while the filters will not be howling continuously when you stop playback in your host.
O.K. remains the question how. but however, once you have your amp-env after the (possibly self-oscillating) filter, it's actually not necesarry (maybe not even desirable) to prevent the filter from self oscillation. does the twin have its amp-envs before the filter anyway? would seem like a somewhat non-standard architechtural decision then.
My website: rs-met.com, My presences on: YouTube, GitHub, Facebook

Post

zvon wrote:I understand both the desire of having more modulations in Straightliner and also the concept of keeping it simple. A thought I had though was to add a 4th modulator that could freely assignable to either the amplitude, filter or pitch.
mmhh - as it is now, you already have a dedicated envelope for all these 3 modulation targets. an additional assignable envelope generator would seem to me redundant then. and - where/how to represent it on the GUI? a fourth graph in the envelope-editor? i find already the 3 graphs a bit messy. no?

btw.: straightliner will (hopefully) not be my last synth. it's more meant to be the simplest/easiest/most straightforward in a line of upcoming more complex ones. ...if all goes well. so there will be room for things like assignable modulators in future rs-met products, but let's keep this one simple.
My website: rs-met.com, My presences on: YouTube, GitHub, Facebook

Post

Robin from www.rs-met.com wrote:



Auto-mute self-oscillation

It is possible to prevent the filters to self-oscillate if there is no incoming audio signal. This will make higher peak settings possible while the filters will not be howling continuously when you stop playback in your host.


O.K. remains the question how. but however, once you have your amp-env after the (possibly self-oscillating) filter, it's actually not necesarry (maybe not even desirable) to prevent the filter from self oscillation. does the twin have its amp-envs before the filter anyway? would seem like a somewhat non-standard architechtural decision then.



I double checked and that option is available in the timeless plugg , not the synth ; sorry my memory let me down a bit there . I would suppose it would be a limiter type of thing that just detects the levels going crazy high or something .



I also fired up the old polysynth again ( great little synth, nice chorus ) and the filter does'nt self oscillate... I can accomplish most of the sounds I got out of this plug( only quite improved in the stereo dimension !!) with two instances of straightliner and My hardware seems to have sufficient horsepower so I'm probably going to continue to experiment .


Keep up the good work!

I look foward to your on-going synth building creations :) ; Should be fun !!!!!!! 8)



:!:

Post

contrary wrote:I double checked and that option is available in the timeless plugg , not the synth ; sorry my memory let me down a bit there . I would suppose it would be a limiter type of thing that just detects the levels going crazy high or something .
saturation in the feedback loop is mandatory anyway to prevent the signal amplitude from being thrown to jupiter (but instead settle to a stable oscillation). but possibly they have some additional meachanism...like detecting the input volume and taking back the feedback amount when it's low...or something.
I also fired up the old polysynth again ( great little synth, nice chorus ) and the filter does'nt self oscillate... I can accomplish most of the sounds I got out of this plug( only quite improved in the stereo dimension !!) with two instances of straightliner
oh yes - be sure play around with the stereo-detune and phase-spectrum settings for making wide stereo sounds. and then use the M/S settings for fine-tuning a so created stereo-field (available per osc and global). but always check your patches for mono-compatibility.
I look foward to your on-going synth building creations :) ; Should be fun !!!!!!!
indeed. thx. see you.
My website: rs-met.com, My presences on: YouTube, GitHub, Facebook

Post Reply

Return to “rs-met”