Is there anything ground breaking on the horizon?

[moroe]

real liquid audio without loss of soundquality would be groundbreaking

i dont need more synths,those that already released can do any sound you can wish

but there is no vsti which can stretch short samples (not loops) +500% of the original length without loss of quality

[Urs]

[quote="Urs quoth And it comes with an extensive library of examples, i.e. physical models of diodes, capacitors and resistors etc. - that should serve for a nice playground, and I'm indeed considering to prototype some algorithms in Reaktor 5.

Really? Its has component-level modelling as well as low-level DSP stuff?

Yeah, looks like it. Stephan Schmitt himself demonstrated it to me a couple of days ago. It has hundreds of parts, built upon equations and i.e. a Z-1 operator. It basically is a visual programming environment, but you can build hierarchies. Each so called "cell" can act as a part in another, higher level cell. I've seen a lot of relations to physical parts, but I can't say for sure how accurate these models are and my observation is. We only had roughly two hours, so it was a pretty brief overview...

http://www.nativeinstruments.de/index.p ... hnology_us

Needless to say, it was jaw dropping.

On the drawback side, there's no concept of loops. At least, not yet... but I guess it's possible to workaround this with the array modules and stuff...

Cheers,

Urs

[Z3R0T0N1N]

http://www.kvraudio.com/get.php?mode=re ... 19&start=0
130 vst effects, many of which have no equivilent in the non-synthedit side. how many of these would fall into the subtractive synthesis format?
there are also close to a hundred NON subtractive instruments made with synthedit. The ratio of good to bad is probably not as good as what you might see hand coded, because visual environments like se sm etc open up instrumetn making to non- programmers too. BUt there are so many wonderful and unique instrumentns that would never get made any other way.
Acousmodules is just one little example; and also brings me back to the original point of the thread, which is I htink that the direction that things are going to go is less about new types of synthesis, and more to do with processing, ie; surround mixing, multi speaker stuff, as well as sample processing; the vocaloid thing was a bit of a dissappointment, it's true, but i feel we have really only seen the very begginning of what is going to end up being one of the next big paths of development: better and more powerful manipulation of sound itself, rather than the synthesis area. I have to agree with bones that what we already have has not begun to run out of possibilities. there is so much flexibility already there, it wil be just improved algorithms as far as that goes.

ps: look here: http://acousmodules.free.fr/

wow, you must be right, nothing useful ever comes out of synthedit.
fools.

[SJ_Digriz]

SJ_Digriz,

I think the fundamental problem in understanding stefancrs is, in Synthmaker you can actually create new objects on source code level and they'll be compiled to native code with its built-in compiler.

The reason why I posted Reaktor 5 as a ground breaking thing on the horizon is just that. It has a nifty environment that lets you create new blocks on a pretty low level, and compiles it. And it comes with an extensive library of examples, i.e. physical models of diodes, capacitors and resistors etc. - that should serve for a nice playground, and I'm indeed considering to prototype some algorithms in Reaktor 5.

Nonetheless, to me "ground breaking" has that certain flavour of "complexity". So I would guess that it works inverse proprotional to the strengths of visual environments. I've seen MAX/Msp cracks working on simple FM synthesizers for weeks, just to get the idea of different 4-operator algorithms working. Sure, it's possible, but you won't save any time over hand knitted software when you've got to deal with hundreds of wires... so, here I'm with you

Cheers,

Urs

heh, like I said I haven't used SM. And that feature of Reactor 5 alone makes it sound worth getting. But to me by the time you get to that level of coding why not just err.... code it. Kind of taking the scenic route if you ask me.

[Z3R0T0N1N]

it depends how you think, and how you work. let's say you are totally left brained: chances are you aren't going to be dreaming up any groundbreking or interesting stuff anyway, so yeah - just code it. You know what you wnat, you know how to get there. No experimentation needed.
However, if you are an imaginitive, right-brained sort of person, who is interested in experimentation, and dreaming up very cool things, messing around with signal path and subverting the normal, 'accepted' way of doing things; why not? think of it like a sketch book, or a black-board, and it will make a lot more sense I think.
It is also an excellent way for people who already program to get into dsp programming. I can't think of a better way.

[SJ_Digriz]

all the stuff in reply to SJs post...

ok ok, you are taking the code abstraction to a far extreme just to prove a point. And yes, I missed the irony..sorry about that.

[tetraplan]

WHOA!! Look who's back!

Well, sorta kinda.

Groet, Erik

[SJ_Digriz]

hmm...I dang near bought Komplete Care but didn't think I wanted Reactor 5...I could have been mistaken. Component modeling would rock. I'd go from rarely getting anything done to never getting anything done.

[whyterabbyt]

Urs quoth


Yeah, looks like it. Stephan Schmitt himself demonstrated it to me a couple of days ago. It has hundreds of parts, built upon equations and i.e. a Z-1 operator.

The contribution of one Dr Sync, methinks DEfinitely on a par with Sync Modular's low-level stuff, anyways...

It basically is a visual programming environment, but you can build hierarchies. Each so called "cell" can act as a part in another, higher level cell.

Yeah, thats what it looked like; they had added another level below Reaktor's existing 'modules'

I've seen a lot of relations to physical parts, but I can't say for sure how accurate these models are and my observation is. We only had roughly two hours, so it was a pretty brief overview...

Interesting...

[Lawnmower Of The Damned]

Hmmmmmmmmmm
urs i guess you didn't even bother to read the post before spouting, Nobody bashed anybody for coding, We are trying to stop the SE bashers, Why so defensive eh ?, And what special powers aexactly do you possess to know outright that non of these people defending SE have any coding skills ? , You make some very valid points but totally disregard what has already been posted, You have shown just one more time that programmers will disregard SE straight out of the bag, Really it just shows your stupidity, Perhaps you should have a rest from all the numbers and actually do something musical, Too much logic doesn't make jack a nice boy.
Its a shame really because theres no way i would ever buy anything off such a snob, Luckily for me i suppose you dont make anything i want but some of the SE coders do.

All I have to say to this is, "Are you frigging nuts?"

Have you heard Filterscape yet? Go listen to it if you haven't, as I believe it does qualify as being groundbreaking.

The fact that's it's a filter doesn't make it groundbreaking, it's the quality of the damn thing. I've heard tons of virtual filters, but Filterscape is the best non-analog filter I've heard yet.

Perhaps that's the real problem with VST today, we have so much variety and much of it is lacking quality. Filterscape is one of those wonderful plugins that you understand within moments of loading it, and it sounds great on just about anything.

I'm not taking sides in the SE/SM debate. I have a background in programming, and I've used SE. I don't care what it's made with, it's the sound I care about. And Filterscape is hands down, the best non-analog filter I have heard yet.

I used to say that VST wasn't capable of doing smooth filters, now I know it's just the majority of programmers who aren't capable.

I don't care if URS writes music or not. In fact, I hope he doesn't because he needs all the time he can get to make the best native EQ and compressor I've ever heard. *Hint* *Hint*

[Urs]

The contribution of one Dr Sync, methinks DEfinitely on a par with Sync Modular's low-level stuff, anyways...

Yes. As you certainly know, Dr Sync has worked for NI for two years or so. It's definately his hand writing.

It looks like it's really getting interesting. I havn't explored this yet, but it seems like this low level stuff accompanied with the OSC interface could make a good substitute for MAX/Msp... and a good looking, that is, besides kinda crossplatform support...

Cheers,

Urs

[danielmm]

Wow, I walk away from the computer for a day and we are already on page 8 of my thread.

Let me make this clear... If it sounds good, it is good. It doesn't matter what code you use. But that's not what this thread is about anyway. There's nothing wrong with current synthesis methods and how they are compiled and coded. I simply suggested that if there is something new coming, I am curious to here about it.

Come on guys, this is simply an argument nobody will win...

dano

[BONES]

This is where you are dead wrong. The idea that a filter is a filter is a filter is a filter is totally wrong. The same when it comes to sound generation. The same for modulation etc. There is so much a good programmer can do with those functions that aren't available to the SE drag-n-drop mentality it boggles the mind.

If you'd really used SE you would know that there is no drag 'n' drop. If you'd looked at the SDK you would realise that anythign that doesn't ship with SE can be made.

And, I have yet to hear an SE synth that didn't sound exactly like all the rest. I've downloaded dozens of them and created a few myself. It is a waste of time from my point of view.

Pig's arse! For a start there are 3rd party oscillators that have a completely different sound from the standard ones. Then there's all the stuff you can do with filters to make them sound how you want them to. Two excellent examples would be EVM's Ultrsonique and ugo's Texture. Compare either of those to GODkILLER III and tell me they all sound the same.

[shamann]

Here's a few things on the horizon I listed in a thread a few months back that I think look innovative:

The full TinyFX Suite by Tiny God
Tunafish from Bram Bos
Effectscape from Exponent
Drum9 from Fxpansion
Zebra 2 by u-he

Add to the list anything big xoxos makes. Although he's been a little more agitated of late (he has his reasons, not questioning, just observing), so maybe everything is on hold for now. But his big projects are always nothing short of inventive. Just look at Steam, Atomic Traveller and Talent.

I haven't heard much in the way of synths that really have me interested. Strange how this devolved into a "how it's all made" thread. I mean really, as a musician, who gives a toss? All I want is to make music, if something is coming that allows me to do it differently than I have, then I am interested in seeing it developed.

Guru was on my list, and I'll check it out as it does look to have some interesting stuff. But I'm so tired of having to deal exclusively with a 4/4 grid for drums. I mean drum innovation now, shouldn't that also include a way to program drumlines differently?

[BONES]

Come on guys, this is simply an argument nobody will win...

That's what makes it fun!