KV331 Audio

rectus_dominus · Post by **rectus_dominus** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:49 pm

When using at least 4x unison, oscillators do not sound that 'free'... No matter how hard I bash my keys. That's why I think those general unison settings would enhance the workflow and sound

kv331 · Post by **kv331** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:54 pm

rectus_dominus wrote:When using at least 4x unison, oscillators do not sound that 'free'... No matter how hard I bash my keys. That's why I think those general unison settings would enhance the workflow and sound

As I said, I'll double check my "free" implementation.

rectus_dominus · Post by **rectus_dominus** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:03 pm

Ah, ok didn't fully understood. And yeah, I double checked, and this oscillator reset thing makes phasing sounds, at least I know it for sure.

Other synths such as Komplexer and Largo has a high chance of getting these artifacts, maybe the creater didn't pay too much attention to it, or they use a different detune method
I tested Zebra and it produces the same sound when using a minimal amount of unison detune and resetting oscillators. Of course it took 5 secs to get a supersaw from an init

Baah I'll always haunt you with those two knobs

rectus_dominus · Post by **rectus_dominus** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:48 pm

I can make this with Zebra
using 4x4 oscillators without filters
http://www.speedyshare.com/861532627.html

I can't make a sound even close to this with Synthmaster, yet. And of course I don't think Zebra contains fairy magic. People of DogsOnAcid and GlobalHardstyle appreciate synths capable of nasty detuned sounds. Maybe I'm irritatingly overhyping this but this is also a step for a synth, In my opinion

deraudrl · Post by **deraudrl** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 3:36 am

Ok, try not to take this the wrong way (note that I've already bought SM1 and am eagerly awaiting the "real" SM2), but...

Does "beta" mean something entirely different in this particular corner of the software world? Usually when software enters beta testing, its feature list and major architectural details are assumed to be pretty stable.

I could understand if this thread were titled "Feature requests for later versions (2.1+)", but it sounds like the things talked about here are seriously being considered as candidates for inclusion in the release version of 2.0. That's supposedly somewhere between two to six weeks away, which at this point means they will get rather minimal testing.

Anywhere outside of Microsoft, that's considered a Very Bad Thing.

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:09 am

I was messing today with the new Beta, and I noticed two things regarding wavetables:
1 - I can't see the first wave in the wave display, just from 2 to 16. What am I missing?
2 - There is no option for interpolating a wavetable by defining just a few waves (like just the first and the last). Microwaves had this option. Are there any plans to implement this?
Just another thing. I would love that the wave display was taller. And ths waves amplitude just go through half, Why is that?

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:33 am

OK, I found AN interpolation in the wave editing. It's not the right place for it, IMO, but it's there. Problem is, when I ry to interpolate something, ti keeps saying it's not possible, for some reason, like segments, spectra, etc. Aren't all waves equal? If not, the interpolation will become useless (and it is in the wrong place - that's for waveforms, not wavetables).
Another thing - why can't we just draw waves, like we do in Zebra, for example?
And why can't we edit the phase and amplitude, instead if designing the wave?
I think this part is badly implemented, and that segment thing just makes waveform creation basically impossible to achieve in a predictable mode.
For what I saw, seems like SM doesn't compute all waveforms in the same manner, and it should, if it wants to be a wavetable synth.
And if we want to interpolate from a given wave to another given wave, we shouldn't receive error messages about the "segments", since all waves should have the same number of segments (meaning samples).

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:37 am

deraudrl wrote:Ok, try not to take this the wrong way (note that I've already bought SM1 and am eagerly awaiting the "real" SM2), but...

Does "beta" mean something entirely different in this particular corner of the software world? Usually when software enters beta testing, its feature list and major architectural details are assumed to be pretty stable.

I could understand if this thread were titled "Feature requests for later versions (2.1+)", but it sounds like the things talked about here are seriously being considered as candidates for inclusion in the release version of 2.0. That's supposedly somewhere between two to six weeks away, which at this point means they will get rather minimal testing.

Anywhere outside of Microsoft, that's considered a Very Bad Thing.

I would be really surprised if the synth would be ready for launch in September. It's the first synth I see where the new version sounds worse than the previous version. There seems to be some serious issues that need to be sorted out before.
Like you, I am a longtime user of SM1 and I had some great expectations about this version.

kv331 · Post by **kv331** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:21 pm

deraudrl wrote:Ok, try not to take this the wrong way (note that I've already bought SM1 and am eagerly awaiting the "real" SM2), but...

Does "beta" mean something entirely different in this particular corner of the software world? Usually when software enters beta testing, its feature list and major architectural details are assumed to be pretty stable.

I could understand if this thread were titled "Feature requests for later versions (2.1+)", but it sounds like the things talked about here are seriously being considered as candidates for inclusion in the release version of 2.0. That's supposedly somewhere between two to six weeks away, which at this point means they will get rather minimal testing.

Anywhere outside of Microsoft, that's considered a Very Bad Thing.

Hey, this thread started on March 2007! And since then I haven't changed the title. Time to change it since we're beta for 2.0 now! Thanks for your criticism.

Yes, beta means you have completed features, have bugs or minor things to add, but not major. We believe we have reached that point and that's why we declared "beta" status! Don't worry I know what "beta" means, I worked at companies like Digidesign.

kv331 · Post by **kv331** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:30 pm

fmr wrote:I was messing today with the new Beta, and I noticed two things regarding wavetables:
1 - I can't see the first wave in the wave display, just from 2 to 16. What am I missing?
2 - There is no option for interpolating a wavetable by defining just a few waves (like just the first and the last). Microwaves had this option. Are there any plans to implement this?
Just another thing. I would love that the wave display was taller. And ths waves amplitude just go through half, Why is that?

I think you havent read the manual yet, I believe I explained the wavetable oscillators sufficiently on page 21:

1. You have up to 16 waveforms to generate a "wavesequence"
2. "Waveforms" parameter determines the number of waveforms in you "wavesequence"
3. "Wave Index" parameter is used to set the index of the waveform in your sequence. If you are in between waveforms, interpolation is used. Play with the "Wave Index" parameter and you'll see the waveform changing on the display. Better yet, click on the "Waveform" text on the waveform display and you'll start seeing the spectrum of the waveform instead of the waveform itself.

We can increase the size of the wave display, but why? It's range is between +2/-2 instead if +1/-1 that's why you see waveforms smaller/half on the display.

kv331 · Post by **kv331** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:34 pm

fmr wrote:It's the first synth I see where the new version sounds worse than the previous version. There seems to be some serious issues that need to be sorted out before.
Like you, I am a longtime user of SM1 and I had some great expectations about this version.

I really would appreciate if you could try to tell which part of SynthMaster 2.0 sounds worse compared to v1.0 ? You havent even heard the presets generated by our sound designers yet?

If there's something we broke let's fix it. If you can find it please post on the bugs thread, not feature requests

kv331 · Post by **kv331** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:36 pm

fmr wrote:OK, I found AN interpolation in the wave editing. It's not the right place for it, IMO, but it's there. Problem is, when I ry to interpolate something, ti keeps saying it's not possible, for some reason, like segments, spectra, etc. Aren't all waves equal? If not, the interpolation will become useless (and it is in the wrong place - that's for waveforms, not wavetables).
Another thing - why can't we just draw waves, like we do in Zebra, for example?
And why can't we edit the phase and amplitude, instead if designing the wave?
I think this part is badly implemented, and that segment thing just makes waveform creation basically impossible to achieve in a predictable mode.
For what I saw, seems like SM doesn't compute all waveforms in the same manner, and it should, if it wants to be a wavetable synth.
And if we want to interpolate from a given wave to another given wave, we shouldn't receive error messages about the "segments", since all waves should have the same number of segments (meaning samples).

You're talking abour creating morphs. I'll give detailed explanations on that next week. All I can say right now is morphing is not merely interpolation, it's more than that. That's why we use waveforms defined by line segments.

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:23 pm

kv331 wrote: We can increase the size of the wave display, but why? It's range is between +2/-2 instead if +1/-1 that's why you see waveforms smaller/half on the display.

What's the point of having a display between -2 and +2 if the waveforms will be between -1 and +1 ?
And the point of having this is to clearly see what's happening to the waveforms. If it's not important, then we wouldn't need a waveform display AT ALL.

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:31 pm

kv331 wrote: I think you havent read the manual yet, I believe I explained the wavetable oscillators sufficiently on page 21:
1. You have up to 16 waveforms to generate a "wavesequence"
2. "Waveforms" parameter determines the number of waveforms in you "wavesequence"
3. "Wave Index" parameter is used to set the index of the waveform in your sequence. If you are in between waveforms, interpolation is used. Play with the "Wave Index" parameter and you'll see the waveform changing on the display. Better yet, click on the "Waveform" text on the waveform display and you'll start seeing the spectrum of the waveform instead of the waveform itself.

It seems you missed my point complerely. I already know that I have UP to 16 waves on the wavetable (what you call "wavesequence", using a wrong term IMO, but let's not digress).
What I wanted was the possibility to define a wave in location one NONE in the locations 2 to 16, and another one in location 16, and have SM to creat a new wavetable by INTERPOLATIN locations 2 to 15.
That's what we had in Microwaves, and that's what we have in Zebra. If SM can't do, fine, but the Wave Indez has nothing to do with it. It is a parameter to just "read" through the wavetable, and that can be modulated by means of envelope, LFO, etc.
And I don't need to see the spectrum on the wavetable display. I want the spectrum on the wave creation. Again, you are missing the point and mixing things.

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:39 pm

kv331 wrote:
fmr wrote:OK, I found AN interpolation in the wave editing. It's not the right place for it, IMO, but it's there. Problem is, when I ry to interpolate something, ti keeps saying it's not possible, for some reason, like segments, spectra, etc. Aren't all waves equal? If not, the interpolation will become useless (and it is in the wrong place - that's for waveforms, not wavetables).
Another thing - why can't we just draw waves, like we do in Zebra, for example?
And why can't we edit the phase and amplitude, instead if designing the wave?
I think this part is badly implemented, and that segment thing just makes waveform creation basically impossible to achieve in a predictable mode.
For what I saw, seems like SM doesn't compute all waveforms in the same manner, and it should, if it wants to be a wavetable synth.
And if we want to interpolate from a given wave to another given wave, we shouldn't receive error messages about the "segments", since all waves should have the same number of segments (meaning samples).
You're talking about creating morphs. I'll give detailed explanations on that next week. All I can say right now is morphing is not merely interpolation, it's more than that. That's why we use waveforms defined by line segments.

OK, you may call that "morphs", if you want. Anyway, I still think this belongs to the wavetable window, NOT the wave window. And I'm not seeing how you will solve the problem of "different segments".
And I still don't think that line segments is a good way of defining waves - and that prevents us of drawing anything. It's OK - drawing usually is not very good for creating waves. But defining spectra, OTOH, is much better for creating waves, that's why you should allow to edit waves in spectral view.

KV331 Audio

KVR Audio

SynthMaster 2.1 Feature Requests