Am I confused about wavetable

[himalaya]

i think we ought to be fair and call it like it is:

a wavetable is a table containing a wave.

period.

Sure, a wavetable is exactly that, but Wavetable Synthesis has long been associated with moving through those waves. Now, Rapture hasn't just popped out of the blue, with no historical context, therefore the inclusion of words like Wavetable Synthesis in Rapture description is wholly misleading without the wave scanning feature. It's even more bemusing and confusing that here at KVR Rapture is described as the "Ultimate Wavetable" synth, which it clearly isn't. That is the issue, as it leads to people getting caught out by this (politely saying, over-enthusiastic promo lingo).

[EvilDragon]

A wavetable is a list with up to 64 or 128 waves, among which
you can move at will.

Doesn't have to be 64 or 128, the number can be completely arbitrary.

[aciddose]

i think we ought to be fair and call it like it is:

a wavetable is a table containing a wave.

period.

Sure, a wavetable is exactly that, but Wavetable Synthesis has long been associated with moving through those waves. Now, Rapture hasn't just popped out of the blue, with no historical context, therefore the inclusion of words like Wavetable Synthesis in Rapture description is wholly misleading without the wave scanning feature.

you mean like how terms such as "moog filter" and "virtual analog" and ... wait, should i go on?

the reason we have this problem is because these terms are wholly bullshit made-up terms with no specific definition in the first place. don't use them!

now if it'd been called a "wavetable scanning synthesizer" i'd be just as enraged as you!

...but hell. xhip is technically a wave-table scanning synthesizer because it has wavetables and scans them.

it gets tough when you use terms that have no specific definition.

[himalaya]

"moog filter" - implies a 24db/octave resonant low pass filter. So if I see a soft synth with "moog filter" description, I'd expect exactly that (an emulation, not a bunch of electric components, ok?)

"virtual analog" - implies an emulation of an analog subtractive synth with at least an osc+filter+amp, so a VA better have that.

but

if a synth is described as having Wavetable Synthesis, more over, is then described as the "Ultimate Wavetable" synth, it better have wave scanning. It's really simple to understand.

i'd be just as enraged as you!

Steady on there sir! You have no idea about my mood/emotions, which were, and are as far from what you tried to imply as can be.

edit:typos

[Sendy]

I'm fairly sure that historically, wavetables a la scanning-thru-an-array-of-harmonically-related-waves came first. Then the term "wavetable" was misused, mostly by computer soundcard manufacturers, to mean sample playback (since there was a table... and... it... had waves in it I suppose). To add to the confusion, "wavetable" can also refer to the antialias measure of having several octaves of e.g. a square waves pre-rendered in a bank, with less harmonics for the higher notes.

But, from a *musical* and advertising point of view, wavetable synthesis will always mean sweeping through a table of single-cycle waves or similar. *Technically*, "wavetable" has a number of uses and could refer to any of these things mentioned, and were I reading a technical document relating to some kind of synthesis application, I wouldn't balk at all at these uses of the term.

[aciddose]

"moog filter" - implies a 24db/octave resonant low pass filter. So if I see a soft synth with "moog filter" description, I'd expect exactly that (an emulation, not a bunch of electric components, ok?)

"virtual analog" - implies an emulation of an analog subtractive synth with at least an osc+filter+amp, so a VA better have that.

both of these are not only subjective, but definitely incorrect even if you take them as subjective.

"moog filter" would mean some soft of filter made by moog. it doesn't imply a 4-pole lowpass, although "moog ladder filter" usually does. the problem is that "moog ladder" or "ladder" implies one with a particular behavior you'd expect from the specific circuit referred to. i think it's safe to assume you might mean the filter in a minimoog, but not one of the many modular moog filters. in that case we can limit our definition to 4-pole lowpass, but what of the defining characteristics of that particular filter?

"virtual analog" implies that you have in some way mimicked the behavior of an analog circuit. it doesn't refer specifically to "subtractive synthesizers" as you imply it does, even if that is the way it's perceived now after two decades of re-enforcing this idiotic definition.

subtractive synthesizers themselves have only one definition - you start with some rich harmonic content and subtract parts of it to get your result. this doesn't require the usual "oscillator -> filter" although it's certainly the most common format. it definitely does not require that you have a particular type of filter, whether it includes a gain modification or timbre modification stage or otherwise. it only requires that you have a source, and a filter which modifies that source.

so based upon this "filtered rich harmonic" definition, an oscillator into a gain stage would not be a subtractive synthesizer. a self-oscillating filter into a gain stage would not be a subtractive synthesizer by some views either - although in my opinion since you are filtering the feedback it would be.

then we get into the really complicated stuff like if our oscillator includes a system of filtered feedback, does that make it subtractive? in my opinion yes, although this would qualify the basic "FM" synthesizers (a DX7 for example) as subtractive.

so you just have to realize that these definitions are so ridiculously subjective as to be nearly useless. the master of wave-table synthesis? it would be fair to say the korg M-1 or roland MT/CM-32 fit this description as well. if you'd like to judge the definition based upon it's most common use these would be the only ones coming close to qualification for this title. which definition are we going to use? which group will we select when we allow the masses to think for us?

i understand that you're upset a synthesizer said something about itself that you didn't understand. it's a shame any synthesizer would include subjective terms in it's description. of could you could also look into the details of it's function and find rather quickly that it isn't "that" kind of wave-table synthesizer.

it's all semantics.

[himalaya]

"moog filter" would mean some soft of filter made by moog. it doesn't imply a 4-pole lowpass, although "moog ladder filter" usually does.

Yes it does imply the 4 pole LP. A moog 4-pole LP = a moog ladder filter = the Minimoog. Majority of the synth loving and using populous will know a Moog filter by its incarnation in the Minimoog, likewise, the same bunch of synth loving users will know that Wavetable Synthesis = wavescannig, since the synth that made it all possible for all and became famous had that ability, therefore (oh this is so tiring) Rapture should have accounted for that fact by stating what exactly its implementation of Wavetable Synthesis incorporates and what it omits.

This is not semantics, but simple acknowledgment that things do not exist in a vacuum, they do not exist separate to what has gone before, but Rapture makers had forgotten that, to the bewilderment of prospective and current users. Still not seeing that? Can't help it after all this.

[jens]

Yeah, modulating the wavetable index position is where wavetable synthesis does its magic. It's completely different from anything else out there.

Actually you could very well argue that it's quite similar to FM/PM, waveshaping and even advanced additive - all these synthesis techniques have in common that it's possible to change the oscillators waveform/timbre via modulation (and thus over time).

[EvilDragon]

It's only similar in the sense that SOMETHING is getting modulated with SOMETHING. The methods of modulation are completely different between those syntheses.

[aciddose]

"moog filter" would mean some soft of filter made by moog. it doesn't imply a 4-pole lowpass, although "moog ladder filter" usually does.

Yes it does imply the 4 pole LP. A moog 4-pole LP = a moog ladder filter = the Minimoog. Majority of the synth loving and using populous will know a Moog filter by its incarnation in the Minimoog, likewise, the same bunch of synth loving users will know that Wavetable Synthesis = wavescannig, since the synth that made it all possible for all and became famous had that ability, therefore (oh this is so tiring) Rapture should have accounted for that fact by stating what exactly its implementation of Wavetable Synthesis incorporates and what it omits.

This is not semantics, but simple acknowledgment that things do not exist in a vacuum, they do not exist separate to what has gone before, but Rapture makers had forgotten that, to the bewilderment of prospective and current users. Still not seeing that? Can't help it after all this.

you've just defined semantics.

i already give you the obvious, literal definition. a "moog filter" is a filter made by moog. that's exactly what it says.

when you make an assumption based upon context such as "moog filter" meaning "the filter in the minimoog" and then draw that all the way to "any 24db lowpass" that is semantics.

it's also curious that "24db lowpass" is the same length as "moog filter". why didn't they just say "24db lowpass" or "24db filter" ? it's because they wanted to leech from the name's recognition. it's cowardly to define it as "any 24db filter" and continue to use the term "moog filter". all you're doing is stealing the trademark and applying it to your own filter without any justification for doing so.

"wavetable" is a different matter. it isn't a trademark. it also never meant "wavetable scanning". "wavetable scanning" means that. you keep adding "scanning" when you define it, why?

yamaha created the DX-7 which was the first famous "FM" synthesizer. yet it does not do even the smallest amount of frequency modulation. instead it does wavetable phase modulation by summing scaled indices. does that make it phase modulation? wait, another synthesizer does that, yet it isn't modulation either as it's merely wavetable index shaping.

[himalaya]

Still not seeing that? Can't help it after all this.

[aciddose]

so you're saying that "moog" no longer means a guy, or a company, or a particular filter.

you're saying like "spam" it refers in general to "a filter" now?

...and you're saying this isn't an issue of semantics?

i say that if you're going to use spam-terms like "moog" or "wavetable" it's only fair that everyone else can spam-define them themselves as well. spam.

[clif321]

Can't argue with Monty Python.

But returning to the original question, Rapture's User Manual defines what Cakewalk/Roland mean by "wavetable synthesis" as follows:

"this type of synthesis is an efficient method of creating sustained sounds by looping a minimal amount of audio data. In Rapture, the wavetable is defined by a single-cycle audio file. During the wave loading procedure, Rapture creates all the sample images required for the Oscillator to play the single-cycle across the whole keyboard range without any aliasing distortion."

Obviously this use of the term "wavetable synthesis" is not the same as PPG-style wavetable scanning, even though I agree that the latter is probably how most persons with specialized knowledge of synthesis (as opposed to the general public) would today define that term. But it does not surprise me that Cakewalk/Roland would use the terminology the way they did in the Rapture manual, given that Roland was one of first developers of sample-playback PC sound cards that were mass marketed as "wavetable"-based alternatives to cheap-sounding FM-based cards. At least the manual makes clear what they mean.

Also, and maybe ironically, I should amend what I said in my previous post and note for the record that it is in fact possible to incorporate wave sequencing into Rapture patches by loading sfz files set up to step or crossfade through whatever grouping of single-cycle wave files the user may choose to define. But this is obviously a more time consuming and probably less flexible way to go about it than using synths like Kubik which have graphical interfaces specifically designed for that method of sound creation. If the OP wants to explore PPG-style wavetable scanning, I would recommend demoing not Rapture but something like Kubik or the Waldorf Wave emulation.

[Shabdahbriah]

It is glaringly obvious that these "terms" have been at best "used loosely" by any number of manufacturers/developers, and at worst "misrepresented" and/or convoluted ~ whether by 'them' or their "users", to imply something which they are not (by comparison), which leads to confusion and further misrepresentation and misunderstanding, particularly amongst the more "casual user", or 'general populace' (if you will).

Seriously... PITA that it may be - most of "us" have been around long enough to KNOW this happens, and is going to continue to happen.

The upside IS, that it inspires questions and clarification from those who have not, which at some point or another included "us"... so even if that 'appears' to go nowhere, at least there is dialogue, and maybe some good can come of it. Doubtless, someone has learned something new/useful, from this thread.

[OT moment] I'm having a (somewhat) similar experience with the *term* "3D" as it applies to software and its use/function, when telling friends/family what I'm "into" and WAY thrilled about, right now.

With the exception of those people who were 'there' at the inception of my enthusiasm with having discovered MODO, Rhino-3d, ZBrush (et al), and therefore know I am refering to 3D/CGI and Architechtural/Industrial-design/CAD stuff which has become "ME FRIENDLY" and given my former "hands-on" back-ground a new 'lease-on-life', everyone-else assumes I am talking about some kind of software that makes "3D movies", which I have absolutely ZERO interest in, at present.

At least these two "types" of 3D applications have something in common. They both (for all intents and purposes) create an illusion.

[2c]

[jens]

It's only similar in the sense that SOMETHING is getting modulated with SOMETHING. The methods of modulation are completely different between those syntheses.

What I meant is that theoretically you can get similar transitions between various waveforms with any of them.... so while the synthesis-techniques are totally different, the results are not neccessarily.