What's the best synth for Supersaw? [note: ancient thread]

[MaliceX]

It's got a great sound, but other than the reverb it sounds like it lacks stereo spread.

[musikmachine]

Gonna sound like a broken record but z3ta has 6 oscillators each with a multi mode which gives you a total of something like 48(?)oscillators.Supersaw heaven

[fac]

VAZ Modular

[jeffb01]

I made one on the virus ti for your enjoyment. I'm not saying it's the best or anything, just thought it should be included. I'm no supersaw expert, I just made 2 hypersaw oscs with one an octave higher, each detuned about 97. Added unison to 8 with stereo spread all the way up, then added a little reverb and delay.

let me know if I should be setting it any different for the purpose of this test...


http://www.suicidemission.com/virus_hypersaw.aif

[tranceemerson]

My own study on this reveals that 1 saw is cool, 2 saws is cooler, 3 saws is great, 4 saws is fantastic, 5 saws is extreme 6 saws is holy crap!, 7 saws is omg! and 8 saws is terrific, and 9 saws is yeah uber terrific, 10 saws is terrific, 11 saws is extreme, 12 saws is fantastic, 13 saws is "is there a whitenoise osc running?" 14 saws is "it sounds like the last one." 15 saws is "hmmm..."

The reason for this is because many VSTi modules have oscillators that are too perfect. The oscillator reads in a digital wave form and begins playing it from the start of the wave. Now because of this, each time the wave "cycles" it is exactly the same every time. which means that when you stack them and detune them, all the overtones are exactly alike and produce a somewhat digital hiss in the upper frequency range.

Now if you're smart you'll have picked a virtual analog VSTi where there is a simulation of an acual oscillator, the wave form will not be exactly the same each time. This is not the same as a random addition or subtraction from the slope in the oscillator's algorithm. Real hardware oscillators are imperfect because of the "disinhibitions" in the hardware, that because the signal is usually running through real copper wire, and various components that have strange physical properties that can't always be predicted, but follow a rational pattern that can be imitated, but not simulated precisely.

A computer has no components so far that can be utilized to produce a real analog signal, so the virtual analog VSTi is the substitute.

Now your sound buffer on your soundcard can as of late take floating point values, which is a huge leap in sound quality. But that does nothing for people in the time domain. The biggest reason that the sounds end up sounding noisy is because running your audio at 44.1 or 48 khz still isn't enough to facilitate a broadband saw wave because the saw wave is a mixture of sine waves using a successive logarithmic mix of all harmonics. the problem is when the harmonics go past 11 khz. There just aren't enough samples per second at 44.1/48khz to form a true sine wave at frequencies above 12 khz. I suggest to anyone who wants to experience a supersaw in the best possible way, to run your audio buffer at 32*f/192khz this will allow anyone to form a precise sine wave at frequencies all the way up to 22khz.

I have tested this, and I have found that the sound comes out to be a lot more clean, and less dirty from aliasing. if your VSTi doesn't support those high modes, then I guess you'll need to get yourself something better.

I believe that 64-bit audio will also make it possible to give digital signals the same subtle dynamics that an analog signal possesses. No more gritty chalky sound yay!

For the future in sound, I want to have one of those Intel i7 processors, and a 64-bit OS and 8 TB of onboard RAM I'll be unstoppable xD

[LeVzi]

I didnt read through it all, cos I cant read, but did anyone mention Alchemy ? Thats capable of some mint sounding nasty saw's

Plus all its modulation stuffs, I <3 it

[Urs]

Real hardware oscillators are imperfect because of the "disinhibitions" in the hardware

They still work continuous (as opposed to discrete, which is true for all digital oscillators). So they are perfect down to a couple of nanoseconds. Which is way beyond anything a digital oscillator can ever do

I think the whole argument about "analogue is imperfect" is, uhm, overrated. The main "imperfections" in analogue gear are slighty drifting parameter settings (such as tuning) due to temperature changes. This is a very slow process, and it's more likely that you accidentally touch a knob somewhere which may ruin your intonation in an instant

Other than these slow motions, no matter how often stated otherwise, good analogue oscillators work way, way more precise than digital ones. Unlike freely tunable digital oscillators (needed for supersaw sounds), analogue oscillators produce the exact same cycle again and again with an analogue noisefloor below the noise form digital interpolation artifacts. Which usually doesn't matter because most time (in quality gear) that difference is inaudible. However you can easily prove that by sticking an oscilloscope behind a sync sound (which is one major area where analogue still beats digital big time, for one thing due to much higher precision of the continuous signal).

But you're 100% right, a supersaw beyond 11 makes no sense. Eleven is the best

Cheers,

Urs

[sys2074]

What's the deal with supersaws anyway? I don't even know how they sound. Can anyone explain why everybody is so excited about supersaws?

[states]

try one saw oscilator on Alchemy and turn up the unison to up to 600 voices. that's more than super-saw, tis almost white noise!!!

[tranceemerson]

So they are perfect down to a couple of nanoseconds. Which is way beyond anything a digital oscillator can ever do

I think the whole argument about "analogue is imperfect" is, uhm, overrated.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the latency of digital is a big problem. or were you talking about the phasing? not sure.

The main "imperfections" in analogue gear are slighty drifting parameter settings (such as tuning) due to temperature changes.

These were the imperfections that I was referring to and to be quite frank, these subtle imperfections are desirable

Other than these slow motions, no matter how often stated otherwise, good analogue oscillators work way, way more precise than digital ones.

My short essay was founded on the basis that digital artifacts were undesirable.

But you're 100% right, a supersaw beyond 11 makes no sense. Eleven is the best

Exactly, and with digital oscillators, it makes even less sense to go beyond 10, because of the unusual chalky texture that digital audio produces. And furthermore, even Analog synths such as the Virus T1 only uses 9.

[tranceemerson]

try one saw oscilator on Alchemy and turn up the unison to up to 600 voices. that's more than super-saw, tis almost white noise!!!

my ears...
ow.

[Urs]

And furthermore, even Analog synths such as the Virus T1 only uses 9.

Hmmm, last time I checked my TI it was quite digital.

[tranceemerson]

What's the deal with supersaws anyway? I don't even know how they sound. Can anyone explain why everybody is so excited about supersaws?

Well, A supersaw came about with the Roland JP-8000. They decided that they would make an oscillator that could duplicate its self in the output signal, and the tuning of each one could be spread apart symmetrically 'pitch wise' within the range of one whole tone. This produces the effect that you have a whole symphony of saw waves. This can be extremely desirable in music like Trance, and Drum and Bass, and Hardcore.

If you're not into that, then that's your business, and it is much respected.

[Howard]

...with digital oscillators, it makes even less sense to go beyond 10...

Personally, I would set the sensible limit at one more. Eleven

[whyterabbyt]

I'll be unstoppable xD

will you still be replying to two-year-dead threads?