PG8X (inspired by the JX8P): new beta version uploaded

[AdmiralQuality]

This is the thing. There's no need for splits or doubles in plug-in land, because you can just launch another instance (and another, and another...). Yes, splits take a bit of fiddling to filter the key range going to each instance, but it's do-able with most hosts.

But if you put a split into a single instance, then people are going to need separate outputs. So if each 8P has a stereo chorus, that's two stereo out channels needed. Then you open up that whole can of worms. Certainly do-able, and absolutely necessary on something like a drum machine, but a bunch of complexity that's best to avoid if you can. And in a single-timbral instrument, you can.

[wwjd]

I know. Thus my words:
"I know this plug IS NOT emulating a JP8, but that is not my point."
when compared to my buddies REAL JP8 examples

What sort of sounds are you talking about? I can imagine that there are some sounds which are easy to reproduce on basically any synth with similar architecture, others which highlight the special features of a synth.


Cheers,
Martin[/quote]

Right out of the gate the SOUNDTRACK and SYNC LEAD patches remind me of Jupiter 8 and my JP8-V plugin. Not making a 100% comparison, but just baser listening to the files my buddy sent (and other web examples), the PG8X sounds beefier, fully, bassier than the examples he sent. I KNOW hardware can usually edge out software (I own an A6), but I have heard enough great softs in the last two years to realize they are just as good - just different - then their hardware bretheren. In the end, it is just my personal perspective and opinion. But that is why I am helping test: I believe in your sound

Far as doing sounds the same on any synth, I feel these Rolands have this "rubbery" sound that is also warm. And I can't USUALLY get the Roland Rubber out of a Moog or my A6. It is just different. Being in the same family I feel the JX8P has the rubbery sound as does this plugin, as does the Jupiter8.

[luckie]

Martin,
I haven't had any troubles loading previous versions, but 0.991 is broken for me.
I'm in 32bit Reaper on 64bit Win7. When I scanned for new VST's I got the error:
Can't load SE Plugin: A dynamic link library (DLL) initialization routine failed.
.File: C:\ ..... VST\pg8x-0.991\DH_TEXTIO.SEM

[martin_l]

Martin,
I haven't had any troubles loading previous versions, but 0.991 is broken for me.
I'm in 32bit Reaper on 64bit Win7. When I scanned for new VST's I got the error:
Can't load SE Plugin: A dynamic link library (DLL) initialization routine failed.
.File: C:\ ..... VST\pg8x-0.991\DH_TEXTIO.SEM

Did Version 0.99 work for you? (that was the one causing trouble for other reaper users...) Version 0.99 was the first where I used the DH_TEXTIO module. If 0.99 works and 0.991 does not, I am very puzzled, because I did not change anything in this part of the plugin...

Can you check whether this file has the right permissions (or exist at all)?

Cheers,
Martin

[martin_l]

As a guy who used to work on his own equipment (I can't even tell you how many times I was inside of my old ARP Axxe dealing with the sh*tty Pratt & Read keyboard), it was always fascinating to be inside of it thinking about replacing chips with other 'electrically equivalent but different' parts; at one time I really wanted to add a 2nd VCO to it, but just didn't have the resources at the time to do that, besides I played the poor beat-up beast all the time.....

I don't necessarily need a squeaky-clean version of the original; believe it or not, sometimes the more interesting equipment is the stuff that's f*cked-up and/or f*cked-with; I personally would like to see more virtual synths that have been creatively hacked, so that they can do stuff that the guys that originally built them maybe only thought about, and then decided (or it was decided for them) that to add such features would be:

1.) Not cost effective; or:

2.) screwing with production time scheduling.

Bottom line: Keyboard Instruments now exist in a virtual world; let's do the stuff that we've always wanted to do to them and with them!


EDIT: I'm talking about fundamental additional 'signal path' choices, not just features. The Arturia line is a good example of virtual models with some really cool additional features, but what about stuff like control-able in-circuit feed-back loops? Virtual VCO/VCF/VCA chip substitutes (from a pull-down menu? Is that possible?) 'Breaking' the fundamental design. rjh

Well, even in the virtual world, there are restrictions. In my example, most of the sound generation happens in one routine, which is written in assembler. Adding a signal path somewhere -- such as adding a feedback or similar -- is not just adding a connection in SE, but means a redesign of the algorithm, and probably more clock cycles, making the synth (even more) expensive.

Trying to optimize that again, would mean adding a complete new synth-engine routine. By the way, already now the different XMOD settings map onto different subprocess functions in the module in order to avoid costly branches in the inner loop.

Since most of the development time went into writing the synth engine, I am not planning to add features which would require a completely new engine. Rather adding features which can be achieved with the same engine or with only minor changes, such as adding PW or adding more routing options.

Regardless of my stupid lecture: I think that you've achieved something with this EMU, Martin, and that the idea of a pseudo-Matrix 12 using Roland DCO's is a really good one! rjh

Please don't be mislead by mentioning the name 'Matrix'. The idea is simply to add a control matrix. I have no intention to try to emulate any of the Oberheim Matrix-XX features.

This is the thing. There's no need for splits or doubles in plug-in land, because you can just launch another instance (and another, and another...). Yes, splits take a bit of fiddling to filter the key range going to each instance, but it's do-able with most hosts.

But if you put a split into a single instance, then people are going to need separate outputs. So if each 8P has a stereo chorus, that's two stereo out channels needed. Then you open up that whole can of worms. Certainly do-able, and absolutely necessary on something like a drum machine, but a bunch of complexity that's best to avoid if you can. And in a single-timbral instrument, you can.

Regarding the MKS70, I first have to have a closer look at the manuals to see which features would be important to emulate. I agree that many -- if not all -- of the features could be done through the host. If this is the case, then there is no real need for an extra plugin.

If it is worthwhile taking the effort due to things which definitely can't be done with the host, I will give it a try, but won't promise anything at the moment.

Cheers,
Martin

[martin_l]

Far as doing sounds the same on any synth, I feel these Rolands have this "rubbery" sound that is also warm. And I can't USUALLY get the Roland Rubber out of a Moog or my A6. It is just different. Being in the same family I feel the JX8P has the rubbery sound as does this plugin, as does the Jupiter8.

I have to say, that I myself am really surprised that the pg8x can capture this "rubbery" sound, because there is nothing special going on.

The oscillators (at least for saw and square) are mathematically clean waves, just oversampled to avoid aliasing; the low pass filter is a standard 2xSVF without any nonlinearities; ADSR are (quantised) exponential (RC-based) envelopes. The only 'non-standard' thing is the bass boost when Highpass is set to zero and a slight detune of the two filter stages.

So, it nearly seems like the "rubberyness" of the sound comes from the absence of any nonlinearities...


Cheers,
Martin

[fmr]

Please don't be mislead by mentioning the name 'Matrix'. The idea is simply to add a control matrix. I have no intention to try to emulate any of the Oberheim Matrix-XX features.

This is something that really pisses me off. I never had a Matrix-12, but had the fortune to work with one for quite some time, and it is one of the most sought after synths I ever touched.
However, nobody seems interested in doing an emulation of this. I was expecting the guy that did the OP-X Pro (a fantastic emulation) would go that step further, but seems like even him will not do it.
I am more than certain there will be a market for such emulation, hoever, no developer seems to care about it.

[martin_l]

Please don't be mislead by mentioning the name 'Matrix'. The idea is simply to add a control matrix. I have no intention to try to emulate any of the Oberheim Matrix-XX features.

This is something that really pisses me off. I never had a Matrix-12, but had the fortune to work with one for quite some time, and it is one of the most sought after synths I ever touched.
However, nobody seems interested in doing an emulation of this. I was expecting the guy that did the OP-X Pro (a fantastic emulation) would go that step further, but seems like even him will not do it.
I am more than certain there will be a market for such emulation, hoever, no developer seems to care about it.

Well, sorry. I also would love to see one, and even would be interested in doing one, but without having the hardware, there is simply no chance of getting anywhere close. Listening and comparing the sound is the most important part of making a decent emu, and there is no way even attempting if you don't know what you are trying to do...


Martin

[fmr]

Regarding the MKS70, I first have to have a closer look at the manuals to see which features would be important to emulate. I agree that many -- if not all -- of the features could be done through the host. If this is the case, then there is no real need for an extra plugin.

If it is worthwhile taking the effort due to things which definitely can't be done with the host, I will give it a try, but won't promise anything at the moment.

Cheers,
Martin

This:
- Layered "Tones". You could layer two sounds to achieve a kind of "combi" patch. This is one of the coolest features of the JX-10/MKS-70, since you could really create powerful sounds with this feature. And you still had 6-voice polyphony (in The Jupiter-8/MKS-80 the polyphony is reduced to 4-voice).

[fmr]

Please don't be mislead by mentioning the name 'Matrix'. The idea is simply to add a control matrix. I have no intention to try to emulate any of the Oberheim Matrix-XX features.

This is something that really pisses me off. I never had a Matrix-12, but had the fortune to work with one for quite some time, and it is one of the most sought after synths I ever touched.
However, nobody seems interested in doing an emulation of this. I was expecting the guy that did the OP-X Pro (a fantastic emulation) would go that step further, but seems like even him will not do it.
I am more than certain there will be a market for such emulation, hoever, no developer seems to care about it.

Well, sorry. I also would love to see one, and even would be interested in doing one, but without having the hardware, there is simply no chance of getting anywhere close. Listening and comparing the sound is the most important part of making a decent emu, and there is no way even attempting if you don't know what you are trying to do...


Martin

That's fair. But if you live in Germany, and are interested, I'm sure you could make some kind of arrangement with someone that have one. You seem to have the skills, and it's a pity nobody cares to do it, as I said.

[s_t]

0.991 loaded fine on my system (w7 x64, reaper x32). But more testing is required as this time 0.99 worked too (usually it doesn't).

cheers

ps: I just love the soundtrack preset..

[PeWe]

This is the thing. There's no need for splits or doubles in plug-in land, because you can just launch another instance (and another, and another...). Yes, splits take a bit of fiddling to filter the key range going to each instance, but it's do-able with most hosts.

You're right, thinking about usage in a DAW and for composing/arranging/recording.
But if you want to use the plugin live and in realtime,- the option, doing detuned layers, selecting the same preset (tone) for each layer or selecting 2 different presets (tones A + B), using only ONE MIDI channel for MIDI transmission from your controller keyboard and sending only ONE MIDI prg.-change to switch PATCHES instead switching presets over MIDI for each single "tone",- that's the advantage.

A split is not much different in a DAW or live/realtime, because a split is related to 2 different MIDI channels in most cases,- so this is easy be done w/ 2 instances.
Well, it could be realized the other way around too,- splits on ONE MIDI channel,- but then separate key ranges for tones A + B would be necessary.

But if you put a split into a single instance,...

or layer !

... then people are going to need separate outputs.

not urgent

So if each 8P has a stereo chorus, that's two stereo out channels needed.

Yep, but these can exist inside the plugin, featuring a stereo-balance control for each chorus's stereo-out only and being summed into the main stereo out of the plugin.

In a hardware MKS70,- the separate hardware stereo outs are a option to use.
You cann use the synth w/ stereo outs and don't lose the double stereo chorus feature,- you even can use the synth in mono.

What you do, if using MKS70 w/ 2 stereo outs (one for each tone)is,- you patch these to a hardware mixer and pan these stereo outs to your desire,- then run everything out of the stereo out of the mixer.

This is a process which could be moved into a plugin, but doesn't exist in the hardware MKS80 because at that time, all worked w/ analog consoles.

Then you open up that whole can of worms. Certainly do-able, and absolutely necessary on something like a drum machine, but a bunch of complexity that's best to avoid if you can. And in a single-timbral instrument, you can.

The single timbral instrument pg8x already exists, but if you think about some new features and according to MKS70s functionality,- it would be a dual timbral instrument,- isn't it ?

PeWe

[Tale]

I have just tested pg8x v0.991 in REAPER x86 v3.75 on Windows 7 x64, and as soon as I add pg8x to a track the entire system slips into "zombie mode" (i.e. the system becomes unresponsive, I have to do a hard reset). After trying a couple of times I have found a solution: If one runs pg8x as a seperate or dedicated process it works just fine.

pg8x v0.991 works fine in REAPER x86 on Windows XP x86, and it also works fine in REAPER x64 on Windows 7 x64 (where it is bridged, so I think it already runs as a seperate process).

[s_t]

Tale,

Have you tried what happens if you wait a bit longer before hard resetting?
Do you get a visual c++ error message? Or do you mean you lose control of your whole pc?

[goldenanalog]

Martin:

You're doing all the work, and I'm posting on a thread.

Martin said:

Please don't be mislead by mentioning the name 'Matrix'. The idea is simply to add a control matrix. I have no intention to try to emulate any of the Oberheim Matrix-XX features.

Sorry.rjh