SynthMaster 2.1 Feature Requests

[deraudrl]

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.

Fair enough, I've only watched this thread since the demo came out.

I've just seen too many projects where "creeping featuritis" totally chewed the crotch out of the end-stage schedule.

[fmr]

Another thing I just realized today, and that may be the cause of my previous remark regarding the quality of the sound SM IS OUT OF TUNE. I don't know what happens, bit I tried a simple saw wave to compare between SM 1.0.5 and 2.0 and I wasn't able to tune the second. I then launched Zebra, again with a simple saw, and SM 1.0.5 id in tune, and 2.0 is horribly out of tune, as if it was working in a different sample rate.

[fmr]

Never mind

[fmr]

I just looked at the waves of SM 1 and SM 2, and there is a clear difference between the saws, which may explain why v2 sounds more "digital" (meaning more "thin").
The saw produced by SM 2 is a perfect saw, while the saw produced by SM one is more "analog" looking, with a slightly curved ramp. I may send the pictures to you, if you want. They were captured digitally with VST Host, and is just a plain saw playing, nothing else (amp envelope neutral, filter off, etc.).

[fmr]

OK, I uninstantiated SM and instantiated it again, and it IS out of tune. There's something wrong with the sample rate of SM 2, at least on my machine.

[fmr]

It is playing 2 semitones above. This is definitely one of the reasons why it was sounding so bad to me. My fault for not having paid enough attention before (even when I was A/Being it with SM 1.0.5) but this is a serious bug, IMO. I tested it hosted in VST Host, together with other synths, so it must be something internal.
Anyways the difference in the saws between version 1 and version 2 remains, and IMO, the version 1 saw sounds better.

[rectus_dominus]

I just looked at the waves of SM 1 and SM 2, and there is a clear difference between the saws, which may explain why v2 sounds more "digital" (meaning more "thin").
The saw produced by SM 2 is a perfect saw, while the saw produced by SM one is more "analog" looking, with a slightly curved ramp. I may send the pictures to you, if you want. They were captured digitally with VST Host, and is just a plain saw playing, nothing else (amp envelope neutral, filter off, etc.).

For an analog sounding wave try using some of the muz3um waves included. Dunno if it is possible to make a knob what drifts and faults the oscillator to sound more analog. I didn't want to clearly request that, as I'm the biggest asking machine here.
I'll take a look into the wave editor to make reasonable suggestions on improving it though.

[rectus_dominus]

So, the waves section really needs to be improved. I haven't found a single pair of sounds what can be morphed. I don't understand the function "New Waveform - type xy"
Also, I could make Live crash with trying to morph different waves (unsuccesfully) then switching back to OSC1 and tried to change phase and wave index

[kv331]

I just looked at the waves of SM 1 and SM 2, and there is a clear difference between the saws, which may explain why v2 sounds more "digital" (meaning more "thin").
The saw produced by SM 2 is a perfect saw, while the saw produced by SM one is more "analog" looking, with a slightly curved ramp. I may send the pictures to you, if you want. They were captured digitally with VST Host, and is just a plain saw playing, nothing else (amp envelope neutral, filter off, etc.).

Yeah, the Saw in SM2 is almost a perfect saw. In SM1 I remember I tweaked the saw a bit. No big deal, I can change that. Or we can use more analog Saw waveforms (wavetable osc I mean)

[rectus_dominus]

Yeah, sounds good. It just needs to be in an easy access place

[Shabdahbriah]

Hello, I'm enjoying this synth a lot!

v.1.9.9.14 is running well (so far) in my tests with LIVE 7 (latest).

I know this is 'personal', but I'm having "preset" making issues however, at least in the "comfortably expedient" and more specifically "familiar" (methodology) sense... as it doesn't do "fxp/fxb", so (sadly) that will considerably slow down any 'bank' making on my part, unless there is some built-in "juggle-them-around" in the order, and with only the ones I want (MINE), and save-it-as/or 'build' a new bank.

Is there a blank bank to import/generate presets into, or is THAT what the "test author" (preset) thing is for???

... I can't find where to "limit" (and LOCK) the number of voices, regardless of what preset is chosen (it reverts to "64" with any preset). Is that (limiting/locking) possible?

Also, should I un-install this version, to install the latest???

Great work so far. Thank you.

[kv331]

We'll address bank import/export in v2.1 hopefuly, or if I can find time it might take 1-2 days to implement and test thoroughly.

As for the number of voices it is saved per preset, should we make it global?
I think a similar question was asked for Engine Quality.

So apparently we need global Quality and global Voices parameters. If the global parameter's value is "preset" then the preset value should be overwritten. Is that a good implementation?

If the global parameters are easy to do than I can add that in a day.

[Shabdahbriah]

Cool thanks

As to this:

...As for the number of voices it is saved per preset, should we make it global?

I think a similar question was asked for Engine Quality.

So apparently we need global Quality and global Voices parameters. If the global parameter's value is "preset" then the preset value should be overwritten. Is that a good implementation?

The ability to do so, for what-ever-reason one might desire, would be an asset, yes.

~S~

[kv331]

For an analog sounding wave try using some of the muz3um waves included. Dunno if it is possible to make a knob what drifts and faults the oscillator to sound more analog. I didn't want to clearly request that, as I'm the biggest asking machine here.

"analog" oscillator shape are not perfect, they're somewhat curved. So I am going to modify the "default" shapes that basic/additive oscillators use and make them similar to SynthMaster v1.0

Bulent

[kv331]

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.

For morphs line segments are better. You'll see why when I post some videos on morphs

As for editing spectra, you can do that, but with line segments again.

For a while I allowed editing the waveform/spectrum directly. Will to that again this week, just wait and see!

Bulent