SynthMaster Filter Improvements: Share Your Thoughts!

[kv331]

Hi folks,

Since I've been trying to improve our "analog" filter models, it's time for some listening tests.

A friend of mine sent me filter sweep samples from his Moog Voyager, and I tried to create the same sweep with SynthMaster2's improved filters.

There are 3 filter sweep samples below at max resonance (self oscillation), for a single sawtooth played at C1, C3 and C5. For the stereo outputs, one channel is SynthMaster2, the other Moog Voyager. Guess which is which? And dont hesitate to comment on the differences!

Sawtooth played at C1 filter sweep

Sawtooth played at C3 filter sweep

Sawtooth played at C5 filter sweep

PS: The filter envelope for SynthMaster2 has 7 bit output so that its output is stepped.

[antto]

i think right channel = moog

[bobbybland]

oops,read it wrong..left side sounds thinner - i'll say moog is on the right channel.If the right channel is synthmaster 2 then that's very cool..

[djsubject]

right sounds analog to me

[Cyforce]

right=moog... at c1 much more balls^^

[bobbybland]

results?

[keel]

right=moog... at c1 much more balls^^

+1

[kv331]

Looks like we have to work more on it

Yes, the left channel was SynthMaster2.

Is it so obvious to hear the difference by the way? At what point (or which note?) did you figured out?

Thanks everyone!

Bulent

[Cyforce]

The biggest differnce for my taste is at the lower notes, where the synths must show if he was balls and character^^

and at the c1 example you can defintiv hear, theat moog has there a little bit more "round" pressure

also at c3 example the sweep of sm2 runs not round, a little bit stepy

[keel]

C1; From the beging to the end. It just has more balls. More low end and low mid's. Maybe you could try to build in eq and boost more low and low mid's, or something.

C3; High's pop out kinda much. Kinda digital sounds. Too much high's. More resonance?

C5; Again, too much high end. And there is some kinda weird "string" sounds. Mainly in left. Dunno.

Reduce high ends little bit, boost more low end / low mids. After that, post new previews

Or something..I dont know, I am just a noob

ps. i really admire your passion about your work. When people complain something, you try to do it better. You listen your customers and you are excited all the time. Keep it up.

[kv331]

I think I need some ear cleaning

So maybe the sound source (oscillators) affected your decisions, that's what I understood from your comments. If that is the case, I shouldnt use any inputs for the filters when comparing..

[Acid Mitch]

Why don't you copy someone else's filter design ?
The Moog filter must be one of the most copied ever. It would be nice to have a bit more variety.

[kv331]

Why don't you copy someone else's filter design ?
The Moog filter must be one of the most copied ever. It would be nice to have a bit more variety.

The Moog model is kind of "standard" actually and that's what I believe I implemented.

[keel]

I wouldn't say that there is nothing wrong with filters. If the orginal sound is dull, filter ain't going to save anything.

SM needs to reduce high's little bit and add more low end, low mid's and maybe mids. Then try again that your filter sweep. Let us hear the results.

[kv331]

I wouldn't say that there is nothing wrong with filters. If the orginal sound is dull, filter ain't going to save anything.

SM needs to reduce high's little bit and add more low end, low mid's and maybe mids. Then try again that your filter sweep. Let us hear the results.

Makes a lot of sense. In that case, I should first compare the filters at zero resonance. I already have Voyager samples at zero resonance so that'd be a good starting point.