KVR Audio

keel · Post by **keel** » Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:58 pm

Urs.. Where is you're sound demo on that out of the blue midi clip?

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:13 pm

keel wrote:Urs.. Where is you're sound demo on that out of the blue midi clip?

Sorry, hadn't had the time today.

I'm actually getting tired of having to prove anything. Either something sounds the same or not. No chords, arpeggios, melodies or anything will change that.

If at all, post a mp3/wav yourself, along with the MIDI. If it's *dry* (no reverb, no filters, no nothing, just plain oscillators) then I'll happily post the MIDI run through whatever I have at my disposal (software, digital hardware, analog hardware).

Otherwise you'll simply have to wait until it's finished

keel · Post by **keel** » Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:38 pm

Urs wrote:If at all, post a mp3/wav yourself, along with the MIDI. If it's *dry* (no reverb, no filters, no nothing, just plain oscillators) then I'll happily post the MIDI run through whatever I have at my disposal (software, digital hardware, analog hardware).

Here

http://www.sendspace.com/file/noxico

Rar file contains mp3 on fully dry sound. No filtering. There is also that midi file. Sylenth 1 with 3 osc.

A.M. Gold · Post by **A.M. Gold** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:02 am

What were we arguing about again?

zerocrossing · Post by **zerocrossing** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:18 am

A.M. Gold wrote:What were we arguing about again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_saw

mcnoone · Post by **mcnoone** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:33 am

I think the supersaw thing is great, in how it makes every song featuring it sound the same.

GeorgeZ · Post by **GeorgeZ** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:55 am

mcnoone wrote:I think the supersaw thing is great, in how it makes every song featuring it sound the same.

Seems a bit shallow coming from a great patch maker. Surely you would appreciate the subtle differences, you and me even more so than Mr Average bloke on the street?

VitaminD · Post by **VitaminD** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 1:38 am

bmrzycki wrote:
Kaine wrote:Build synth that takes it up to Eleven.

Here is what the current version 2.5, Eleven voice Oscillators sound like stacked and detuned.. non-JP simulation, just an 11 voice, 4 osc stack in Zebra just for reference.

I should point out this is 4 Oscillators, each set to 11 voices. Two of these oscillators are set to -12 semitones while the other two are set to 0 'default'. Two are detuned positively, two are detuned negatively. Slight Chorus, Slight Delay, slight Reverb.

A.M. Gold · Post by **A.M. Gold** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 1:42 am

zerocrossing wrote:
A.M. Gold wrote:What were we arguing about again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_saw

Ah, right, seven of those, heavily detuned, to be more specific.

Man, all you trance guys are so lucky!

olikana · Post by **olikana** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:10 am

long post need to fix it. brb

olikana · Post by **olikana** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:24 am

Urs wrote:Which ones would that be? I don't seem to remember any analogue Roland synth with 3 oscillators and 3-part unison.

the jx8p was 3 part unison with 2 oscillators....i'm not sure whether there was an analog with 3xunison with also 3 oscillators ...there was some evolutions of the jx8p in rack form which i didn't follow...wanted to be on the safe side with numbers but i might be wrong.

URS wrote:
olikana wrote:until roland's "supersaw " came along there was no catchy name or widely recognized term to describe those detuned saws. they were referred to in so many different ways....
It was widely known as unison sound.

a "unison sound" could have meant anything: a unison bell , a unison choir, a unison string, a unison organ , a unison lead (but how many textures can a lead sound have? countless)....too much of a generic term.
and that kind of sound of multiple detuned saws was often achieved even without unison....for example there was a synth heavily used in Italo Dance for that kinda sound called the Cheetah which had 12 oscillators and no unison.
detuneds saws ,unison sound, italo sound, euro sound, rave sound...it had shit loads of names....nothing though gave a better idea of the sound than "supersaw" did in 1 word and that's why it became widely adopted ,whether improperly or not, as it indicated better than anything else that mass of detuned saws.

brok wrote: there wasn't any supersaw before the one of roland. everything before was unison, something entirely different, technically and soundwise. true unison stacks complete voices, not only osc's. therefore, if unison is 2x, you end up with 2x osc count you used without unison, 2x filter, 2 times lfo's, 2x times env's, etc... it sounds completeley different if you stack osc's, then feed them into a filter (if the filter has any feedback saturation), than if you stack voices, where all the individual voices have their own seperate signal path.

before VAs arrived unison was limited to 3x at most...so the core of the sound was made with oscillators anyway (pwm+saw+saw)
the kind of sound the roland supersaw oscillator could produce was nothing new to my ears ..it was just more saws together than what i heard previously ...and an an easier way to achieve that sound (easier than doing it on the 12osc Cheetah for example).
the roland supersaw was a new oscillator...new technology...but a new sound ? very arguable.

and about unison vs supersaw oscillator
i know the technical differences between stacking voices containing saws and stacking saws only at oscillator level.....but how can u say it sounds completely different ? ....
http://www.infekted.org/virus/showthread.php?t=26647
are u telling me , during the years 1998-2003 when trance was popular global phenomenon , only sounds made with the jp8000 were referred to as supersaw? i don't recall any other synth of the time which had a supersaw like oscillator. improperly or not u will find even sounds made with then Virus and the WaldorfQ were being addressed as supersaws, yet all were made thanks to the 8x unison and 32 polyphony (maybe u wanna go to the vengeance website and listen to virus C and waldorfQ demos.. no supersaw sounds to be heard right ?)
i'd be curious if u could recognize in a song whether a supersaw sound is made through stacking voices containing saws (unison)...or stacking just saws at oscillator level (supersaw oscillator style).i seriously doubt it.

brok wrote:that's actually why most analog synths that featured unison were monophonic then

how can a synth having unison (therefore capable of stacking voices) be monophonic. *confused*
edit:ah ok u mean only available in monomode

longbongsilver · Post by **longbongsilver** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:37 am

olikana wrote: how can a synth having unison (therefore capable of stacking voices) be monophonic. *confused*

It means the synth's unison setting would make it monophonic. Basically, you could either have polyphony or unison, but not both at once.

jmh · Post by **jmh** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:41 am

Please stop your stupid argument already. You were wrong and still are and no-one agrees with you. Isn't that enough of a message for you?

How hard it is to understand the basic difference between "supersaw" and "unison"? Apparently too friggin' hard for some.

Stop polluting the thread already, it makes reading the actual content rather difficult. For everybody.

olikana · Post by **olikana** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:57 am

btw i read the most popular JP8000 supersaw sounds were made in dual performance mode...which allowed for 2 supersaw oscillators.
was that double voicing (= unison x2) or something else?

Orbit-50 · Post by **Orbit-50** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:03 am

A.M. Gold wrote:so I do think care and, dare I say, science should be applied when trying to design the most generally useful supersaw sound.

This is correct. That is why 30 haphazardly stacked detuned saws would sound like shit. I don't care what music you make. BTW, Roland probably used science to create their version of the Supersaw. See how hard it is to emulate exactly? Ingenious.

./-.

Supersaw!