Cameleon 5000 vs. Doppelmangler

[frnewman]

Glen -
The technical explanation is clear to me, and along the lines that I already thought that the work flow followed. Obviously, the bastardized choice of words in the product pages and reviews led me (and, likely others) to be confused, especially with terminology to be used.
To summarize (let's see if I have any inkling of understanding, here), up to 64 wave files (in 4 voice slots) that comprise much of the desired pitch range (and 2 velocity settings) are used to make one spectral analysis. (A bitmap can substitute for the use of wave files). From this spectral analysis, modifications (morphing, spectral manipulation and/or FX) can be done to produce a new sound that is saved as a new Preset. The program comes with many Presets, too. Then, you can take up to 4 Presets and morph them using the XY pad by inserting and connecting points to create a path (and apply FX). This, so to speak, is the final product of Cameleon.
If this is close to being the case, then when this 'final product' is Saved, I presume that it can only be Played by Cameleon because of the 'unique' settings involved. What is the file extension?
My advise would be to "tell it like it is" and not use "mixed metaphors" in the product information. If people don't (partially) understand what you are saying, then they probably should not be using that product.

Glen and k-bird -
It's not that I don't like trying demo versions. It's more like I have a poor record of success with demo's, and that is not fair to the evaluation of the demo. You make a lot of mistakes in the beginning, and this may lead to a bad impression about the instrument you are trying to work with. ("Instrument" is a better word to describe a synth, than to be used to describe a sound file).

k-bird -
Anymore, the distinction between "music" and "sound" is VERY blurred. If the idea of rhythm (at accustomed tempos) is applied to these words, then what I ultimately will be doing is more toward the "sound" end of the spectrum - very slowly evolving sounds. Now, I may use musical elements to give 'body' to those slowly evolving sounds. Does that make it "music", or does it remain in the realm of "sound"?

And, hence, my current dilemna - which Instrument will likely suit my needs better? I think that the answer may come from some knowledgeable user of both synths who makes some comment, unknowingly. And that is why I am here. k-bird, the statement about music and sound is such an idea. I do understand what you meant. But you may want to expand on that thought (for me).

Thanx for the inputs. Keep 'em comin'.

Frank

[WhiteNoise]

Hey Frnewman,

1. Depends on how complex you want your morphing to be - I find I don't really even use morphing most of the time.
2. It's important for spectrally dense or bright sounds (for recreating drum loops for instance - chameleon can't really do that).
3. No.
4. already answered
5. already answered
6. No, Doppelmangler doesn't do multisamples.

Other questions - Chameleon can't do any kind of vocoding like Doppelmangler can. Doppelmangler can do some great stuff on voice samples. Doppelmangler is also great at slowly evolving soundscapes. Try loading a .BMP image and playing it back slowly.

Other recommendations - Absynth maybe?

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

[frnewman]

David -
Glad to see a techie from WNA join the fray.
I looked back through the comments and I don't see an answer to #5. One commentor started to answer, but got side-tracked by tring to explain "source", which I already understand, but, as you see, we are having terminology difficulties here.
#2-Yah, that makes sense. I'm not into drum loops, and I think that what I will be doing will be more "brooding" and "dark", than "bright". EXCELLENT COMMENT, even though it is not necessarily in your favor.
#6-(or what is termed "multi-samples")-see Glen's last comment.

At this point, it looks to me that Cam and Dop have about the same capabilities in morphing along a time line (creating slowly evolving sounds). Any objection to this opinion?

Vocoding (and UltraVocoding) looks to be a plus in the Dop column.

I will ask you the same question that I did of Glen. When the 'final product' is created on Dop, I am assuming that it can only be Played through Dop, and that when Saved, it has Dop's file extension, right? (what is the extension?)

Absynth is not in the same price range (although if you compare it to $800+ synths, it comes closer - but no cigar).

I had thought that I may be able to create a sound and, maybe, a morphing soundscape, then apply that as the modulator to a 'formal' Vocoder. But that is probably not possible because the morphing soundscape file cannot be used by the other Vocoder (mismatched file extensions), right?

Any comment about using Soup as a multi-input spectral morpher, then use Cam or Dop for further processing (Dop if vocoding is involved)? Glen, or anyone else, too.

Based upon this and the previous 2 replies of mine (which you may not have seen), do you have any other thoughts?

Thanx for some 'meaningful' ideas - not that others are not 'meaningful', but yours helped clear a couple of questions up.

Frank

[McLilith]

To summarize (let's see if I have any inkling of understanding, here), up to 64 wave files (in 4 voice slots) that comprise much of the desired pitch range (and 2 velocity settings) are used to make one spectral analysis.

Hi Frank,

Actually, it's more like this, assuming you want to start with wave files instead of bitmaps or manual synth programming:

Up to 64 wave files can be analyzed, to create 64 spectral profiles. The spectral profiles are comprised of a harmonic profile (.c5h files) and a noise profile (.c5n files).

8 sets of noise and harmonic profiles can be spread across your MIDI keyboard, according to user-definable pitch zones.

8 more sets of noise and harmonic profiles can be assigned to a second, user-defined velocity layer, if desired.

At this point, we have just finished building one Cameleon voice (.c5v file).

Four voices can be used together, along with morphing techniques, envelopes, filters, LFOs, distortion, reverb, delays, chorus, and other effects--to create a Cameleon instrument (.c5i file).

In addition to the file formats just mentioned, there are also other files which might be used with Cameleon. For example, the evolution of the morphing process can be stored in a morph preset (.c5m) file. Cameleon also has a formant filter, and the programming of the formant filter can be stored in a formant filter preset (.c5f) file. Additionally, Cameleon supports microtuning, via TUN (.tun) files. The data in TUN files, specifies all the invervals of the musical scale in exact detail--you aren't limited to simple equal temperament. Cameleon can both read and write to bitmap (.bmp) files, for the purpose of extracting or storing spectral profiles. Cameleon can analyze WAV files for the purpose of creating spectral profiles, but Cameleon cannot directly write WAV files. The host program that you use to operate Cameleon with, would have the resposibility of turning your Cameleon performance into a WAV, AIFF, MP3, whatever. (That's just like any other VSTi plugin would depend on a host program to perform these duties.)

Trust me, it's far harder to accurately and completely describe the technical workings in a short amount of space, without confusing a beginner, than it is to actually use the program.

Actually using Cameleon is quite fun, and not every technical detail needs to be understood, to get a lot of use from the program.

I don't understand all the technical details about my car, but can I drive just fine and I enjoy driving. It's kind of like that, in a sense. You don't have to understand all the tech details before you can start to enjoy the program.


take care,
Glen
Camel Audio Tech Support

[McLilith]

For mangling and merging wav files, have you tried convolution processing? You don't have to use it for creating reverb. It can also be used to warp two different wav files into a composite third file.

Have you tried ring modulation? Here, I mean using a "real" ring modulator, which would have two inputs--not what many people here consider a ring modulator, with only one input and an internal oscillator replacing the second input. With the traditional ring modulator, you would feed two wav files into the ring modulator's two inputs. The output would be a third wav file with characteristics of both input files.

Of course, you could work with live audio streams instead of wav files, if you want. I've been speaking of wav files in this post, which implies offline processing, but live streams could also be manipulated in the same ways. It all depends on the software you are working with, and your personal preferences.


take care,
Glen

[Ben [Camel Audio]]

If people don't (partially) understand what you are saying, then they probably should not be using that product.

I disagree. You don't have to understand every intricacy of a product to be able to use it perfectly well. For example, do you understand every aspect of the host you use? (I don't )

You can use Cameleon perfectly well as a kind of highly expressive rompler. This is a perfectly valid way of using it - it comes with loads of great presets, and has a unique sound. If you wish, you can get into greater detail (messing around with morph timlines, the 'easy' page, effects and so on). If you really want to get into the fine detail, you can build your own voices, and this is where these questions come into play. We've provided a really well written, really thorough manual that takes you through all these details and does a great job of explaining them. We've also provided tutorials on the Community page of the website.

My advise would be to "tell it like it is" and not use "mixed metaphors" in the product information.

Well Cameleon is entering into a new area here, and whenever you do something new, its hard to come up with terminology that people will understand. Usually the best way is to make reference to existing technology in explanations - and this is what we did. I honestly feel that if you read the manual (bundled with the demo) then things will become clear.

Absynth is not in the same price range (although if you compare it to $800+ synths, it comes closer - but no cigar).

Absynth doesn't do resynthesis. All the synthesizers we're talking about - Cameleon, Absynth, Doppelmangler - are all different, and each has its own strengths. I feel that Cameleon compares very famourably with Absynth. I don't like to make unsubstantiated claims, but the fact that its won a Keyboard Key Buy Award, Future Music Platinum Award, Computer Music Innovation Award and that you'll find it in the studios of pro musicians from Paul Hartnoll (Orbital), Hans Zimmer (top hollywood film track composer) to BT (trance pioneer/film composer) suggests that I might have a point

At this point, it looks to me that Cam and Dop have about the same capabilities in morphing along a time line (creating slowly evolving sounds). Any objection to this opinion?

Yup Cameleon allows you to morph between four (rather than two) different sounds. Cameleon also has more detailed editing of the morph timelines. (Disclaimer: I'm not too familiar with DoppelMangler, Dave - please correct me if I'm wrong).

To summarize (let's see if I have any inkling of understanding, here), up to 64 wave files (in 4 voice slots) that comprise much of the desired pitch range (and 2 velocity settings) are used to make one spectral analysis.

Cameleon has 4 voices. Each voice has 8 different layers for different pitches (akin to multisamples - but this isn't actually multisampling), and each of these has two velocity layers. Therefore, to build a single Cameleon voice, you can import up to 8x2 = 16 waveforms. Therefore, in a single 'instrument' preset, you could import up to 16x4=64 waveforms.

I looked back through the comments and I don't see an answer to #5.

Cameleon will analyse up to 12 second long samples. This is because its designed to analyse single note, single sample waveforms. I found this to be the most musically useful way of integrating resynthesis within a synth.

When the 'final product' is created on Dop, I am assuming that it can only be Played through Dop, and that when Saved, it has Dop's file extension, right? (what is the extension?)

Cameleon presets are saved as .c5i and .c5v files. These files can only be read by Cameleon.

I had thought that I may be able to create a sound and, maybe, a morphing soundscape, then apply that as the modulator to a 'formal' Vocoder.

You could do that with Cameleon, but you'd have to use an external Vocoder - which might be the best way to do things anyway. You'd simply write the synth part using Cameleon, and then route that to a vocoder. I like the freeware MDA vocoder (also check out the talkbox) - which you could use for this purpose. There's also various more powerful/expensive ones like NIs etc.

Thanks
Ben

[frnewman]

Glen -
The more you write, the clearer my understanding of the process! EXCELLENT descriptions.
For microtuning, are .tun files the only ones that can be used. I have dabbled a little with Scala (.scl). I definately want to try to use my own altered temperments. I am not familiar with Tun (except for the name), but I suppose I can make my own .tun files (if .scl cannot be used) without buying an expensive program?

The "performance" (what I refer to as the "end product") can be saved as (say) a .wav file if the exact copy of that sound (or evolving sounds) is to be used with anything else other than Cam, right? If it is to be used by Cam, again, I presume that it is Saved as an umbrella file comprising (or pointing to) all of the other Cam files made in the process of the Performance, right? Is this a .c5_ file or the host (default) file?

I realize that there are multiple start points for Cam - wave files, bitmap, from scratch, maybe others. I am using wave as my example because that is where some of the terminology problems come in (that I would like clarified).

By the way, I own a '67 Cobra replica, and, believe me, it is absolutely necessary to know as much about the 'nuts and bolts' of the car as possible. Otherwise, it would be at someone's garage for 100 hours for every hour it is driven. That is why I assembled most of it myself. (Different strokes for different folks, and, believe me, I'm DIFFERENT!). I understand your point, though.

Thanx for you patience, and the technical explanations.

Frank

[WhiteNoise]

David -
Glad to see a techie from WNA join the fray.
I looked back through the comments and I don't see an answer to #5. One commentor started to answer, but got side-tracked by tring to explain "source", which I already understand, but, as you see, we are having terminology difficulties here.

Ah my mistake. I'm not too sure about Cameleon's limits.

#2-Yah, that makes sense. I'm not into drum loops, and I think that what I will be doing will be more "brooding" and "dark", than "bright". EXCELLENT COMMENT, even though it is not necessarily in your favor.

Just to clarify, the extra partials means it's more capable of producing bright sounds, but it's just as capable (if not more so) of producing dark and brooding sounds as well.

At this point, it looks to me that Cam and Dop have about the same capabilities in morphing along a time line (creating slowly evolving sounds). Any objection to this opinion?

No objections here.

I will ask you the same question that I did of Glen. When the 'final product' is created on Dop, I am assuming that it can only be Played through Dop, and that when Saved, it has Dop's file extension, right? (what is the extension?)

Yes, the presets are saved in Doppelmangler's format and can't be read by other synths (but then, that's how every vsti is).

I had thought that I may be able to create a sound and, maybe, a morphing soundscape, then apply that as the modulator to a 'formal' Vocoder. But that is probably not possible because the morphing soundscape file cannot be used by the other Vocoder (mismatched file extensions), right?

If your morphing soundscape was a .wav loaded into source 2, then yes, you can (using the source vocoder mangleFX).

Any comment about using Soup as a multi-input spectral morpher, then use Cam or Dop for further processing (Dop if vocoding is involved)? Glen, or anyone else, too.

Haven't used Soup yet, so I can't comment on it. Using that many spectral plugins may leave you with audio 'soup' though.

[frnewman]

Glen and Ben -
Your 2 comments came in while I was writing my last reply.

Glen -
Good ideas. Thanx, but they don't seem to fit in the scheme of things, for me. I've never heard of "convolution processing", but I haven't heard of a lot of things!

Ben -
Disagreement is helpful, but I did put the word "partial" into the sentence, meaning (to me) that a full and perfect knowledge is not necessary. But (and I don't think that you will disagree with this), the more you know about something, the better you can utilize it. I know about 25% of the usage of my host (learning more every week because I am venturing into "uncharted waters"), and, I am sure, that the many mistakes I make are due to my lack of understanding.

Are you referring to your $20 downloadable manual? You mean that you give this manual away for free with the demo? (I've never had to buy the manufacturer's manual, before. I bought a 3rd party manual, once, but it was a total waste of money and my time using it).

The 4 voice vs. 2 voice processing is (I feel) THE major difference between Cam and Dop. More than 4 voice processing is a major difference between Soup and Cam (for the front end processing only).

Thanx for the sample length limit. I didn't feel it would be too long since references are made to "single note" files.

Excellent to see that I can use the Cam performance with an external vocoder. I hope that I am not getting mixed up, here, but the Cam performance can be
Saved as a wave file (through the host) that can be any (practical) length (because of time line morphing), right? I'm using (just in the last week) Vokko, which uses 2 mda Talkboxes for its stereo processing. (Vokko is cheap, but pretty powerful and has multiple input options, and, the most highly recommended one from my host's Forum).

Thanx for your patience, also, Ben.

Frank

[WhiteNoise]

Cameleon allows you to morph between four (rather than two) different sounds. Cameleon also has more detailed editing of the morph timelines. (Disclaimer: I'm not too familiar with DoppelMangler, Dave - please correct me if I'm wrong).

Np Ben - Doppelmangler's are just as detailed (256 breakpoints), just only in one dimension.

[frnewman]

I'm having a hard time catching up with you guys.

David -
I need a point a clarification. The 'final product' of Dop (what Ben calls a Performance), can that be Exported (through the host) as a wave file? See Ben's explanation of the way Cam can handle this, AND, how an external vocoder can be used. Can Dop's 'performance' be file mananged in the same (or similar) ways as Cam? Assuming that my vocoder (Vokko) has greater capabilities (being a standalone (VST)) than Dop's FX 'equivalents', can Dop's 'performance' be used with a separate vocoder? (That is, can my "morphing soundscape loaded into source 2" be a Dop 'performance'?

Yes, I have, at least, a rudimentary understanding of partials (or harmonics). For "brooding" or "dark" sounds, one may only need the first 64, or even 32 partials (and, maybe save a little CPU usage).

Awaiting the next "installments".

Frank

[McLilith]

For microtuning, are .tun files the only ones that can be used. I have dabbled a little with Scala (.scl). I definately want to try to use my own altered temperments. I am not familiar with Tun (except for the name), but I suppose I can make my own .tun files (if .scl cannot be used) without buying an expensive program?

The TUN files are the only type of temperament files that Cameleon can read, but we have a library of nearly 3000 TUN files:

http://www.camelaudio.com/community.php

Just look for the "TUN Library" link. Sorry, but I don't have a link handy for a program to convert Scala files to TUN format, but with nearly 3000 tunings in the library, you should be busy for awhile.

As for the Cameleon manual, one is included with the free demo version, in PDF format.

This is another reason to download the demos. Many of the questions you have asked are answered in the freely available Cameleon manual. I assume the case is the same for the Dopplemangler manual as well. (David would have to confirm that for you.)

Also, there is no such thing as a $20 downloadable Cameleon manual. What you saw, was an optional $20 printed manual, for those users who wanted an actual book, instead of a PDF file. Naturally, you can't download a book printed on paper, you have to order it via our online shop, and then it gets mailed to you.

You certainly don't have to get the optional printed manual, if you are comfortable reading the PDF version of the manual. They both contain the same information.


take care,
Glen

[Hunter]

Hi frnewman,

I've had a quick read of the thread and I really think you have to download the demo versions of each synth and listen for yourself - only you know what you want your music to sound like!

Download both demos, load up one of your songs in progess, stick both demo versions into your track, and just have a listen to how they sound.

Cameleon and Doppelmangler are really quite different tools, even though they share a similair working principle. I've heard amazing stuff from Cameleon and I've heard amazing stuff from Doppelmangler.

I don't think that they are two synths that you would really try to decide between in the same way that you might try and choose between two VA emulations, as they are very different beasts.

If I were you I'd buy both - Doppelmangler for mangling speech, drums, melodies etc to great effect, and Cameleon for more musical usage

[Hunter]

In addition check out the demo sounds at both synth's websites, you'll hear they are quite different beasts even from the mp3s.

[frnewman]

Sorry, Glen, my mistake on the manual. I just glanced at that paragraph from the website before making my comment, but I remember, now, the "printed" version being mentioned.

The TUN library looks to be as extensive as the Scala library, but I would bet money that they don't have my Hydrogen scale (based upon the Balmer (spectral) lines of elemental hydrogen). But the TUN website probably has the method to contruct your own temperment into a .tun file (like Scala does).

Yah, I'll eventually download the demos, but I have learned so much about the fine points of the programs, that I may have saved weeks of frustration in trying to deal with them by myself, even with well-written manuals.

Forgot to mention about David's Soup comment. He may be correct about overkill. 4 inputs may be a practical limit, but using a bitmap as the input seems to indicate that 1000s of inputs can be 'analyzed' into a spectral image of partials. If the bitmap input were of little use, neither of you would have included the feature in your programs.

Hunter - most excellent comments! (I didn't see your first Reply, at first). I really don't have anything suitable, at this point, to try with both programs. And I am very slow with the 'learning curve'. That is why I am trying to gather info from the Forum.

At 56k, my downloads are slow, but it is worth a try.

More to come?

Frank