Cameleon 5000 vs. Doppelmangler

[frnewman]

I have read creators' literature and some reviews for the 2, but I have some questions for those who have used both:
1. How important is having 4 source inputs vs. 2?
2. How important is having 256 partials per voice vs. 64?
3. Does Cameleon have stuff like the 20 ManglerFX?
4. How many Presets come with Dop (or are readily available)?
5. What is the max. source file size (or time) for Cam?
6. Can Dop "multi-sample", like Cam? If so, what are the limits?

How about "user friendliness"?

I am particularly interested in Vocoding. How does Cam compare to Dop?
I also want to create slow-evolving soundscapes.

Any other significant differences?

Any other synth in the same price range that "must" be considered?

Thanx for your input.

Frank Newman

[pummel]

Of the two, the C5K is far more refined. However, the demos of both were disappointing.

They are great at burning CPU and making weird and/or noisy signal (although there are a ton of more CPU friendly methods for that). Otherwise, they merely immitate other sounds.

A potential value-added use might be speading a sound bite over the entire keyboard. Better (and easier) than a sampler could, but very CPU intensive. For that purpose C5K is probably better (meaning more accurate immitation).

[projectdan]

I own Doppelmangler, it comes with about 150 presets (dont know how many more are available on the web). I would agree (after using the demo) Chameleon seems more refined and having 4 sounds to morph from all at once is a plus in its favour. Doppelmangler does have the mangling effects though, which puts it ahead at screwing your sounds up IMO. The extra partials are also a bonus, Doppelmangler has 2 vocoder modes and a range of FFT anlysis options.

They both seem easy to use for me not much to choose between them in that repect. Both have their own advantages and you really need to just test them as much as you can to see which suits you best for what you want, as there isnt one clear winner.

[ew]

I own both, and I find them to be quite different.
As said, Cameleon tends to be more refined. You can actually use it as an additive synth if you want, and even with all the morphing options and all, it's still fairly tame.

Doppelmangler doesn't make any attempt at recreating something in its resynthesis approach; it's a mangler plain and simple. Put vocal samples or drum loops into it and stand back Even at its most tame, DM's still more outre than Cameleon.

I really couldn't choose one over the other because they're so different in their approaches. Try the demos and see which one works for you.

ew

[Alex@ProgressAudio]

Hi Frank,

You might like to also consider Soup, which has similar sorts of features to these 2 synths.

-It does morphing between as many sounds as you like (as many as you like and your CPU can handle).
-You can load in files of any length really, I've tried loading 4 complete 4-minute tracks and morphing between them even!
-You can use the Element Editor feature to mess about with your sounds and mangle them up.
-It comes with 300 presets.

You can find out all the details and download the free demo at http://www.progressaudio.co.uk/Soup/SoupMain.htm

Thanks,
Alex

[scuzzphut]

It goes without saying that these 2 synths can produce a whole swathe of sounds , so comparing the sound becomes almost moot. So waht else can you compare ? The libraries of preset, the layout and ease of use etc.

I am a fan of Cameleon. There is a huge library available of excellent presets and a few Pro libraries at a decent price , too. I also love the simple layout , the morph timeline, the seperate FX page .... a really cool synth

[McLilith]

1. How important is having 4 source inputs vs. 2?
2. How important is having 256 partials per voice vs. 64?
3. Does Cameleon have stuff like the 20 ManglerFX?
4. How many Presets come with Dop (or are readily available)?
5. What is the max. source file size (or time) for Cam?
6. Can Dop "multi-sample", like Cam? If so, what are the limits?

Unfortunately, your questions don't have simple answers, and a lot of personal preference is involved. A lot also depends on how you intend to use the synth. Here are my answers for your numbered questions:

1. Having 4 sources allows you to achive much more complexity in your morphing pattern, and is less likely to sound repetitive in a simplistic way.

2. Depending on the sound you want to synthesize, it might be helpful to have 256 partials, but the CPU usage will be much greater. Also, many sounds will see no benefit from the higher number of partials.

3. Cameleon could probably do most of those effects, but it doesn't have such effects built in as presets. You would instead have to manipulate the preset manually. This gives you more control, but admittedly takes more time.

4. I don't know... (Probably not as many as Cameleon.)

5. You use the word "source file" as if there were a single way to input data into Cameleon, but there are multiple ways. You can analyze a WAV sample, interpret a bitmap image, or you can adjust all the partials manually if you like. You can also read Cameleon presets (these are not samples) and modify them to suit your needs. In the case of analyzing a sample, you can analyze practically any single note you need to, but you can't analyze huge recordings such as complete tracks, or lengthy loop files.

6. The last time I checked, I think Cameleon was the only additive with "multisampled" presets. Keep in mind, there are actually no samples being used during playback, so it might be best to think of these as "multizoned" presets instead.

How about "user friendliness"?

I think Cameleon is definitely user friendly, considering the amount of complexity you have at your fingertips. I'm not as familiar with Dopplemangler, so I'll let someone else comment on its user friendliness.

I am particularly interested in Vocoding. How does Cam compare to Dop?

Cameleon isn't designed for vocoding. It has no live audio inputs.

I also want to create slow-evolving soundscapes.

You can definitely create intricate, slowly evolving sounds with Cameleon. This is one of the programs many strong points.

What might really help, is to tell everyone how you wanted to actually use the synths. Knowing what style of music you wanted to create might also help a bit, but knowing in a "work flow" sense how you want to use the synth might be the most helpful.


take care,
Glen
Camel Audio Tech Support

[McLilith]

They are great at burning CPU and making weird and/or noisy signal (although there are a ton of more CPU friendly methods for that). Otherwise, they merely immitate other sounds.

It occurs to me, that might be said of all synth plugins.

A potential value-added use might be speading a sound bite over the entire keyboard. Better (and easier) than a sampler could, but very CPU intensive. For that purpose C5K is probably better (meaning more accurate immitation).

You keep referring to Cameleon as if it has to devour your CPU. That's misleading. The amount of CPU usage is greatly dependent on the type of sounds you are generating. I've created presets which used 2% or 3% of my CPU, but I have to admit that is below average CPU usage, for a "typical" Cameleon preset. Yes, if you want to, you can use much more of your CPU on a very elaborate preset, but not all presets make large demands on your CPU.


take care,
Glen
Camel Audio Tech Support

[frnewman]

Thanx, all, for the replies, so far. (Need to hear from some more Doppelmangler folks). Also, thanx for the lead on Soup. It looks interesting - multi-inputs, then maybe use Doppelmangler for further FX. Glen, this doesn't mean that I prefer anything at this point, but you wouldn't be biased, would you?

909 sees pros and cons for both. That is my problem, too. And, hence, some of my simple questions that have complex answers. I hesitate to put too much reliance on demo versions because many of them have significant limitations and are not a 'true' test.

The bitmap analysis of both intrigues me. I think that both may have similar capabilities in this regard, so I didn't mention it. If I am wrong, please correct my impression.

I puposefully used the term "source file" because of the various kinds and ways of using inputs. Doppelmangler has a "30 sec." limit (how many KB=?) on wave file input size. Soup may be unlimited (Alex has entered a 4 minute file). Does Cameleon have any limitation as to input wave file size?
For what I am doing, I can break wave files into fairly small pieces, if need be (5-10 sec.).

For the vocoding, I can make the file(s) for that and use them as input files, but I appreciate the feedback, Glen, that Cameleon is not really designed to do that very well.

I figured that slowly evolving soundscapes would be a wash with the 2 programs, but I wanted to verify that with users.

About my usage - combining speech and sounds or music tops the list, right now. But, the "sounds" portion of that is important. That is where the slowly evolving soundscapes come in. I already have Orion Platinum and Crystal synth (although I am not proficient with them) and can see some of the possibilities of creating "different" sounds with them. Cameleon, Doppelmangler (and Soup) would add to my ability to create interesting sounds. "Slowly evolving" signifies that the end product of my works will be relatively long (maybe even 80 min., but, of course, that can be broken into many segments). I am just getting started with all of this and I am truly a neophyte, but I might as well try to get the best "equipment" for my needs from the 'get go'.

There. Is that a better explanation? I didn't want the initial post to be too long. I really appreciate the input. Keep 'em comin'.

Frank

[greendoor]

Why not get the demo's and hear for yourself?

[frnewman]

Greendoor -
Like I said above, many demo programs have significant limitations, and, if those limitations include the things that you are interested in, then it has done you no good. Also, there can be a very steep learning curve associated with some of these rather complicated programs. One may not get results or get disappointing results, and it may only be that things are not set up correctly.

That is the beauty of these Forums. You can get the opinions of people who have worked with these things for long enough to know what they can and can't do, or what their strong and weak points are - especially if they have both programs, like a couple of respondants have.

I guess if you want a real simplified look at something and want to spend your 'hard earned' money based on that cursory evaluation, then fine. I prefer to get informed opinions.

I recently tried 5 vocoder demo programs. 1 kept crashing. I couldn't get 3 to work. The one that worked (at all), I purchased, but it was probably the best one, anyway (except for, possibly, the one that kept crashing the host program). So, what do I really know about the other 4 programs - nothing. The developer of the one that kept crashing said that he had never heard of that before. I gave him the details, but I haven't heard back from him.

Frank

[McLilith]

Sorry, but Cameleon isn't designed to be a vocoder, neither in realtime, nor with prerecorded files. It also isn't designed to process drum loops, or analyze recordings containing more than one note, or more than one instrument.

It is first and foremost, an additive synth. True, it does morphing, but that morphing is between up to 4 synth presets, not between 4 different arbitrary wave files.

If you want a very interesting additive synth, with lots of powerful options, Cameleon is an excellent choice.

However, if you mainly want to manipulate wave files, then Cameleon might not be the most appropriate choice for you.

Do you want software to play as an instrument, or software to use for signal processing? That seems to be the primary question which hasn't been answered yet.

I would love for you to buy Cameleon, but only if it does what you need.


take care,
Glen
Camel Audio Tech Support

[frnewman]

Glen -
I'm sorry that I misunderstood your literature: "At its heart is the morph square which allows you to morph between four different instruments at once," and that its 'multi-sampling feature allowed one to use up to 16 files (max. of 8 pitches with 2 velocities)' for any voice - from the SOS review. Many other statements led me to believe that wave files were being manipulated, not Presets.

Yes, I understood from your previous reply that one of Cameleon's strengths was NOT vocoding.

Maybe I am not using the correct terminology. I really don't care if I am manipulating a wave file or Preset or whatever. Somehow one uses something to get to a point, then they can play with its characteristics, then play some more with FX and filters, etc., then they have some finished product. From what you have stated above, maybe Cameleon doesn't at all fit what I am looking for - maybe it does, but I don't know enough about what I am talking about to know the difference.

I agree with you, though, that I should only buy something if it truly fits my needs. I guess that is what I am trying to determine, but, I think, that terminology and, possibly, some conceptual ideas are getting in the way.

I have read the pages on the Camel Audio website several times (I printed them), and Sound On Sound's rather lengthy review, and I thought that I had a simple handle on it, but I may be seriously mistaken on that opinion.

Thanx for trying to clarify some things for me.

Frank

[McLilith]

Glen -
I'm sorry that I misunderstood your literature: "At its heart is the morph square which allows you to morph between four different instruments at once,"...

Just so you know, "instruments" in this case refers to "Cameleon instruments", which are preset files.

...and that its 'multi-sampling feature allowed one to use up to 16 files (max. of 8 pitches with 2 velocities)' for any voice - from the SOS review.

There has been a tendency by many people to describe the Cameleon "import" process as "sampling", but it's more accurately described as a process of spectral analysis, or spectral profiling. You can combine up to 16 spectral profiles into a single voice. The keyboard can be divided into a maximum of 8 "pitch zones", and two separate velocity layers can be set.

The spectral profiles can be derived from samples, if you like--but they are not themselves actually samples. For that matter, some of the spectral profiles could have came from bitmap analysis, or even been created from scratch manually. No matter the original source of the profiles, they can be mixed and matched, using up to 8 pitch zones, and up to two velocity layers, for a maximum total of 16 profiles contributing to a single voice.

Then, you can morph between 4 different voices, and actually be juggling up to 64 spectral profiles during a performance!

It's very similar to a sampler building an instrument from multisamples, but technically not the same. Many people didn't seem to understand the difference. It was also easier for some people to explain how to use the synth, if they said "multisamples", because most people know what those are. If you get technical and say that you have up to 16 time-variant spectral profiles, spread across 8 MIDI pitch zones, and two MIDI attack-velocity zones, most people would just look at you funny.

Many other statements led me to believe that wave files were being manipulated, not Presets.

It seems that perhaps most people have been using sample analysis to create their spectral profiles. Since they "fed" a sample into Cameleon, and Cameleon was then playing sounds which resembled their sample, most people assumed that Cameleon was playing samples. It doesn't. It plays combinations of sine waves which imitate your original sample (or interpret your original bitmap, or play the pitches you manually programmed into it.)

I hope this helps explain things for you. Those people who mention "multisampling" are using the word very loosely. Often, they don't understand themselves, that it's not the most accurate word for the process. They're just communicating the best way they know how, the fact that Cameleon has several different sounds spread across the keyboard, and those sounds can change with different note velocities.

*****

I hope I have made things a bit more clear, without making things seem too complicated.

You aren't going to like this next idea, but I really think you should download the demos for both Cameleon and Dopplemangler. Neither demo is terribly crippled, and playing with them both will help you understand things about both products which are very awkward to put into words. Asking questions on the forum is a fine idea, but actually trying both the demos is a fine way to augment the information you receive from the forum.


take care,
Glen
Camel Audio Tech Support

[k-bird]

You aren't going to like this next idea, but I really think you should download the demos for both Cameleon and Dopplemangler. Neither demo is terribly crippled...

I'll vouch for that too: both product demos gave me a good idea of what to expect from both programs and for sheer editability and the way it dealt with noise more gracefully i went with C5K in the end.

Put simply if you want to do sounds moreso than music, Doppelmangler's a good investment. Musical stuff is what Cameleon 5000 is geared towards.