Bazille 1.1.1 and The Bazille Cookbook

Official support for: u-he.com
User avatar
KVRAF
21405 posts since 7 Jan, 2009 from Croatia

Post Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:53 am

Left knob scales the signals in left hand inputs, right knob scales the signal in right hand inputs, then signal larger than "0V" in Mod socket crossfades between left hand and right hand inputs. Really no other way to explain it :D

KVRian
749 posts since 15 Nov, 2005 from sweden

Post Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:28 am

Howard wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:17 am
Hi snigelx. Quoting that bit: 'A positive “voltage” at the mod socket will fade
And then...
EvilDragon wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:53 am
Left knob scales the signals in left hand inputs, right knob scales the signal in right hand inputs, then signal larger than "0V" in Mod socket crossfades between left hand and right hand inputs. Really no other way to explain it :D
OK, thanks guys. I get the wording but I suppose I am seeking a way to illustrate this for nyself with a simple patch. How would you recommend? For some reason I am not hearing or seeing this x-fade behavior when I try using pitch or amp mod. Don't worry, I'm always the "last car" on the train of "getting it" :dog:

KVRian
749 posts since 15 Nov, 2005 from sweden

Post Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:10 am

snigelx wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:28 am
Howard wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:17 am
Hi snigelx. Quoting that bit: 'A positive “voltage” at the mod socket will fade
And then...
EvilDragon wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:53 am
Left knob scales the signals in left hand inputs, right knob scales the signal in right hand inputs, then signal larger than "0V" in Mod socket crossfades between left hand and right hand inputs. Really no other way to explain it :D
OK, thanks guys. I get the wording but I suppose I am seeking a way to illustrate this for nyself with a simple patch. How would you recommend? For some reason I am not hearing or seeing this x-fade behavior when I try using pitch or amp mod. Don't worry, I'm always the "last car" on the train of "getting it" :dog:
FINALLY. I see that patching Env2, for example to mod has inverse effect on input signal (OSC output, for example) depending upon if i use left or right inputs (if Knobs are at 100%). Never noticed that before. I was using an lfo before and so it wasn't clear what was happening. Def see the effect when using a purely positive mod source like an Env. :dog: :tu: I'm so happy I have graduated to page 6!! ;)

KVRian
749 posts since 15 Nov, 2005 from sweden

Post Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:08 am

:o complex "lfo" tip geez louise. game-changing potential. i was not using the clocked osc Mode this way before. man these are great eye-openers, Scarr. best thing about this is that i can apply these tips across some of my hardware.

User avatar
KVRAF
4034 posts since 23 May, 2004 from Bad Vilbel, Germany

Post Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:26 am

snigelx wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:10 am
:dog: :tu: I'm so happy I have graduated to page 6!! ;)
:hihi:

KVRian
749 posts since 15 Nov, 2005 from sweden

Post Sat Jan 30, 2021 3:13 am

Me again. You lost me on Discrete Glissando again ;) Easily accomplished, I must add. First, I do not understand the first statement about why the OSC is at 160Hz versus the expected 80Hz, what causes the doubling of the freq After Multiplying? Secondly, why the peculiar routing from Map1? the multiplex has the knob at 63,63 and the cable from the ramp is daisy-chained to the inputs. Why? When reverse engineer this by removing one of the inputs I hear it falls in pitch. Is the ramp only generating half the voltage required to achieve the same amount of glide as OSC2 (half the Key Follow required)? Hmm. Thanks for any unravelling of my cables. :help:

Edit: with regards to the fist question: I see the 50 semi of modulation to the 10Hz OSC gives 4+ oct of pitch. Is the daisy-chaining doubling this modulation, plus the Multiply value of 8? Is that how you get to 160Hz? The right multiplex inputs value "fine tunes" the total pitch?

KVRian
749 posts since 15 Nov, 2005 from sweden

Post Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:40 pm

When it rains it pours...Questions ;) Is the DCW of the Bazille PD engine the Cosine wave? or is the PD knob controlling the DCW behind the scenes? I never really understood that. I get that the 8 basicwaveforms affect the phase of the wave in the "lower" selector,..but is that what Casio always referred to as the DCW? Also, I notice that contrary to CZ PD, one CAN use a pair of resonant waves to phase distort the basic waveshape. Interesting. Bazille's PD engine is like a CZ on steroids. Appreciate any clarification from any of you CZ enthusiasts (or Howard the MAN-ual Scarr) :pray:
Last edited by snigelx on Sat Jan 30, 2021 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Urs
u-he

Topic Starter

25465 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin

Post Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:57 pm

snigelx wrote:
Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:40 pm
I notice that contrary to CZ PD, one CAN use a pair of resonant waves to phase modulate the basic waveshape.
If you read the original patent, the original CZ thing is digital, but not a von Neumann architecture. Like E-mu filters, the result is computed by multiplexing gates and stuff with memory. The algorithm was burnt into the hardware - it wasn't a software program that's executed. IIRC they simply hadn't had enough space to do two resonant waveforms at once. Not a problem in software though.

KVRian
749 posts since 15 Nov, 2005 from sweden

Post Sat Jan 30, 2021 3:18 pm

Urs wrote:
Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:57 pm
snigelx wrote:
Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:40 pm
I notice that contrary to CZ PD, one CAN use a pair of resonant waves to phase modulate the basic waveshape.
If you read the original patent, the original CZ thing is digital, but ...[Urs waxes way over snigelx's head]... IIRC they simply hadn't had enough space to do two resonant waveforms at once. Not a problem in software though.
OK, I see. A HW limitation. I can understand that. These arrived in the 80's. I suppose is same reason why the waveform to be Phase distorted (DCW?) was not only static but limited to the Co(sine)? Edit: of course the Co(sine) yields the most "usable" results from being PD'd (esp for that time/music era)

User avatar
Urs
u-he

Topic Starter

25465 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin

Post Sun Jan 31, 2021 1:05 am

snigelx wrote:
Sat Jan 30, 2021 3:18 pm
Urs wrote:
Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:57 pm
snigelx wrote:
Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:40 pm
I notice that contrary to CZ PD, one CAN use a pair of resonant waves to phase modulate the basic waveshape.
If you read the original patent, the original CZ thing is digital, but ...[Urs waxes way over snigelx's head]... IIRC they simply hadn't had enough space to do two resonant waveforms at once. Not a problem in software though.
OK, I see. A HW limitation. I can understand that. These arrived in the 80's. I suppose is same reason why the waveform to be Phase distorted (DCW?) was not only static but limited to the Co(sine)? Edit: of course the Co(sine) yields the most "usable" results from being PD'd (esp for that time/music era)
It's actually not a Cosine either as it is unipolar, think 0 to +1 instead of -1 to +1

The reason it is used in the context of Phase Distortion is because it has a slope of 0 at the two extremes, which are at a phase of 0 and exactly 50%. These are also the points where the derivative of phase gets broken up in discontinuities (corners). But because the slope is 0, the inventors stated that stretching those points out would yield less aliasing than doing it anywhere else. Hence the choice was not just a technical limitation - a triangle would have been easier, surely - but it was the only choice that made sense for this kind of synthesis.

KVRian
749 posts since 15 Nov, 2005 from sweden

Post Sun Jan 31, 2021 3:08 am

Urs wrote:
Sun Jan 31, 2021 1:05 am
snigelx wrote:
Sat Jan 30, 2021 3:18 pm
Urs wrote:
Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:57 pm
snigelx wrote:
Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:40 pm
I notice that contrary to CZ PD, one CAN use a pair of resonant waves to phase modulate the basic waveshape.
If you read the original patent, the original CZ thing is digital, but ...[Urs waxes way over snigelx's head]... IIRC they simply hadn't had enough space to do two resonant waveforms at once. Not a problem in software though.
<snip>...suppose is same reason why the waveform to be Phase distorted (DCW?) was not only static but limited to the Co(sine)? Edit: of course the Co(sine) yields the most "usable" results from being PD'd (esp for that time/music era)
It's actually not a Cosine either as it is unipolar, think 0 to +1 instead of -1 to +1
The reason it is used in the context of Phase Distortion is because it has a slope of 0 at the two extremes, which are at a phase of 0 and exactly 50%. These are also the points where the derivative of phase gets broken up in discontinuities (corners). But because the slope is 0, the inventors stated that stretching those points out would yield less aliasing than doing it anywhere else. Hence the choice was not just a technical limitation - a triangle would have been easier, surely - but it was the only choice that made sense for this kind of synthesis.
According to the CZ-1 manual, that (what They refer to as cosine) DCW is graphed w values +1 to -1 (bipolar) and the basic waves distort the phase of this one. Do you mean Bazilles MGen'd cosine is 0 to 1 (unipolar)? Actually, I see that is not the case because of how other modulation works from the MGen. What I kinda grasp after some experimentation (I believe this is what you mean by 0 slope at the extremes) is that any sinus like wave (even additive/spectralized MGen waves) yield much less Phase distorted result...i.e. smoother output/ less or no subtractive type waveform. Or am I off entirely? I appreciate the schooling btw. A part of me really likes(prefers) the sound of some of these fake VCF's for some uses ;)

Edit: OK, now I the slope you were referring to, what in the manual is phase angle. But accd to it the cosine (sine) is bipolar. Which admittedly is odd because the basic waves of course are unipolar and the PD would need to affect the entire sine wave (it would seem)
Image

User avatar
KVRist
91 posts since 4 Jan, 2007

Post Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:52 am

The patch "HS flux granules" in 03 Effects isn't doing anything. Is it broken?

Edit: and now it works. I switched my DAW to 44.1 kHz: sound.
Back to 96 kHz: no sound, back to 44.1 KHz: working (...did I found a bug?....).
Happens in both VST2 and VST3, everything 64 bits

(win10, Reaper 6.23, focusrite Clarett 4Pre USB, i7 8700K, 32 Gb mem)

User avatar
KVRist
285 posts since 19 Nov, 2017 from Los Angeles

Post Tue Feb 16, 2021 2:21 pm

I think I am still on page 6. :harp:
Howard wrote:
Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:26 am
snigelx wrote:
Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:10 am
:dog: :tu: I'm so happy I have graduated to page 6!! ;)
:hihi:

KVRer
3 posts since 12 Jun, 2011

Post Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:24 am

With the Full Sequencer patch on page 11, could you explain what is going on with the daisy-chained cable going into the right hand side of the multiplier. I can hear it changes the sound when I remove it, but I don't understand why doubling up the signal changes the timbre, I thought it would simply increase the amplitude.

User avatar
KVRAF
4034 posts since 23 May, 2004 from Bad Vilbel, Germany

Post Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:05 pm

It doesn't affect the timbre, but pitches. The multiplex doubles the amount of pitch modulation so that the values set in Tap2 translate directly to semitones. Makes it easier to edit those pitches, which is the point of this patch! I quote:
"Use this as a template whenever you need a 16-step sequencer"

Return to “u-he”