Am I confused about wavetable

[jens]

Why should it really matter what you call it? This whole discussion is imo 99% moot. I pity every fool who doesn't realize that language always is inherently inaccurate, has to be. It's just a tool. Sometimes it does an okay job, often it doesn't. Language attempts to describe certain elements of reality in regards to certain subjective perspectives, language is not reality.

This thread is in an 'internet'-(or 'world wide web')'forum' dealing with 'musical instruments'. This thread is about a certain 'synthesis technique' - whatever you might call this technique (and related techniques). This thread could contain an interesting on-topic discussion using *gasp* language. Instead it contains a discussion using language to discuss the usage of language. Why sacrificing the thread to vainless, useless and untimately senseless attempts at proofing others how wrong they are?

[Albert.VST]

In fact the only basic form that had the proper name right from the beginning seems to be good old Sine...

Fourier was here......

[himalaya]

And both of those state that wavetable synthesis involves mowing through the waves/wavetables!

yes, except the latter explicitly states that the wavetable is single-cycle.

and so it is, no argument there (have you actually been following this thread???), it's about wavetable synthesis, a process, which that PDF then goes on to explain, quote:

"Second, a mechanism exists for dynamically
changing the waveshape as the musical note evolve..."

Pasting selective quotes, with trimmed text to suit your point of view, is childish. The text you quoted even says that the spec is "extended by at least two ways". You trim the paragraph to show the first aspect, which is not part of the argument, it's the second part which deals with the issue which is being discussed. Hence, it can be concluded, since it is written in both papers, that the spec of wavetable syntheis involves a method (or several) of moving/scanning/sweeping (whatever) through the wavetable, which rapture can not do. How difficult is this to understand? Like I said previously, if you can't see it, for whatever reason, nothing will show it to you now, not those papers, not historical context of synths which have established what is involved in wavetable synthesis...etc.

So much for 'semantics' and trying to ridicule, but I suppose some will never see it.

ironic. i suppose you never saw the first paragraph, then.

You shouldn't be pointing the finger at me, since it is you who never saw the rest of the text, which is the gist of the matter.

Seriously, is this a wind up?

[himalaya]

Why should it really matter what you call it? This whole discussion is imo 99% moot.

But it isn't, since this thread proves that people are taken by the incomplete description of synthesis methods in Rapture. And it's not their fault. That is the whole point.

[jens]

The whole point is that there's no way for you to force Cakewalk to apply the term 'wavetable' according to your own definition, how accurate this defnition might ever be in your opinion and also regardless of how comon it may or may not be.

More signal and less noise please.

[whyterabbyt]

Pasting selective quotes, with trimmed text to suit your point of view, is childish.

Its lucky that that's not why I trimmed the text, then, isnt it?

The point of trimming the text was to highlight that one specific fact was established... that a wavetable was being defined as a single cycle, and not a series of cycles. You'll admit that that's the case wont you?

However, if you want me to quote the next part, I will. I notice you didnt, I wonder why?

Second, a mechanism exists for dynamically
changing the waveshape as the musical note evolves, thus generating a quasi-periodic function
in time.
This mechanism can take on a few different forms

Are we clear on that? A wavetable consists of a single cycle worth of data, not multiple cycles worth of data, and that the synthesis system depends on utilising wavetables.

Sorry if you think its 'childish' that I didnt reinforce the obvious bit, that 'wavetable synthesis' depends on 'a mechanism using wavetables'.

But since its been argued that 'wavetable synthesis' precludes single-cycle wavetables, or specifically entails multi-cycle tables, Im wondering why you would object to me focussing on clarifying that. Misdirection?

Of course you're making your assertions without quoting anything from the paper. I guess by your standards that's even more childish since you've trimmed everything, then?

Lets just remember that it says 'a mechanism' not 'this specific mechanism'. It doesnt define the mechanism, it presents an obviously-incomplete selection of possible mechanisms.

The text you quoted even says that the spec is "extended by at least two ways". You trim the paragraph to show the first aspect, which is not part of the argument, it's the second part which deals with the issue which is being discussed.

Well, actually no; the second part specifies that there's a mechanism, but it doesnt specify what that mechanism is.

The subsequent paragraph does though, to an extent; it specifies a few. You'd know that if you read all the text. The first method it specifies is "linear crossfading from one wavetable to the next sequentially".

Note... one wavetable to the next. Wavetable still being a single-cycle.

More methods are specified, by the way, but one singular thing that the paper underlines is that 'wavetable synthesis' is not solely 'linear sequential scanning through a multi-cycle table'.

Hence, it can be concluded, since it is written in both papers, that the spec of wavetable syntheis involves a method (or several) of moving/scanning/sweeping (whatever) through the wavetable

Well, not quite. Firstly the wavetable is defined as being only single-cycle. And reading through a wavetable is pretty much intrinsic to using it.

So it depends on what you mean by 'moving/scanning/sweeping.' The paper doesnt refer to an intrinsic moving/scanning/sweeping sequentially through a set of wavetables, though, although it does offer it as 'a' possible method. It does explicitly refer to mixing of multiple singe-cycle wavetables, as an alternative possible method, though. There's a big picture and everything.

What it doesn't say, however, is that wavetable syntheis involves a method (or several) of moving/scanning/sweeping (whatever) through multiple wavetables sequentially.

So what do you say it explicitly excludes from being wavetable synthesis?

, which rapture can not do.

And that's the thing. Surely Rapture does do at least one of the methods described in the paper. Its mixing waveforms, isnt it?

But that's just my view. Why dont you tell me exactly what it is that's described in the paper that Rapture fails to do.

How difficult is this to understand?

Its not. I understand the paper. And I reckon I understand where you don't understand that Rapture fits what the paper describes.

So much for 'semantics' and trying to ridicule, but I suppose some will never see it.

ironic. i suppose you never saw the first paragraph, then.

You shouldn't be pointing the finger at me, since it is you who never saw the rest of the text, which is the gist of the matter.

Make your mind up. Did I selectively not quote it , or did I not read it? I guess its not the 'gist of the matter' that you say you read more than me, but have missed some obvious stuff, and not quoted anything to back you up at all.

Either way, mindreading isnt your strong point, so try not telling me what I did or didnt do, and why. You just look, well, erm childish.

[himalaya]

Jens,
True, I can't force Cakewalk to apply the term 'wavetable' according to my own definition and that is not my intention, and it's not what I'm doing. It's the description of Rapture's wavetable synthesis which I'm discussing and pointing to, as that description is misleading, or perhaps incomplete, which catches people unawares.

And it's not about "my own" definition but that which has been shown in all synths which used Wavetable Synthesis through out the last 20 or so years, as well as written specifics about this synthesis process. Nothing to do with my opinions.

[whyterabbyt]

And it's not about "my own" definition but that which has been shown in all synths which used Wavetable Synthesis through out the last 20 or so years, as well as written specifics about this synthesis process. Nothing to do with my opinions.

Then explain exactly what is it that Rapture's synthesis system does not do which is described as being 'wavetable synthesis' in that paper.

[himalaya]

edit. can't be bothered.

[Chad@PA]

Rapture does do wavetable.
For example it has 6 elements each of which can have a different single cycle wave.
You'd have to employ the amp modulator (step generator) and setup some values to cycle through the waves.
Its not a very intuitive method but it does work by essentially modulating the volume for each wave through the step generator.
I think its limited to six waves though.

A. Does anyone know of a tutorial on doing this? The provided documentation stinks.

Hey,

Download these wavetable scanning examples

- unzip the file
- place all of the .sfz files into your Rapture/Multisamples folder

First I want to say there are a number of different ways to emulate and achieve 'wave-scanning' (or whatever you guys want to call it) in Rapture.

- Use the AMP STEPGEN to cycle through 6 different oscillators. Load up the "Basic 6 Elements.prog" included in that zip. Use the Mod Wheel to smooth the STEPGEN. This is just one example. You could also do this via Rapture's AMP LFOs.

- There are a number of different ways you can also achieve this with sfz opcodes and techniques. This won't limit you to 6 oscillator shapes, since you can load as many waves as you want within an sfz file, and this sfz will only use up 1 of Rapture's elements.

- Crossfade on MIDICC. Load the "xfade on cc1 - 3 square wavetables.sfz" as an example.
- Use 'delay_beats' 'stop_beats' opcodes to have the different waves cycle synced to tempo. "sequence 10beats 1.sfz" example.
- Use the 'LFOX_step' opcode to cycle waves synced to an LFO's position. Very cool and fun to experiment with since you can sync the LFO to higher audio rate speeds via MIDI CCs. See "MegaSeq 32-01.sfz" and all of the "VariSeq" examples included. These were just a few of the larger collection created by b rock, Tom Brockway. The full set can be downloaded here.

You could also create a .wav file that contains all of the waveshapes you'd like to scan through and trigger those different portions of that .wav file with the use of sfz's performance parameters and sample offset opcodes. I guess it depends on the results you want to achieve.

I hope this gives you some ideas to unlock some hidden potential in Rapture.

Cheers,
Chad

edit: I forgot to mention if you do use the sfz examples make sure you turn up the polyphony on Rapture's element page.

[Sendy]

A Square is called Square, but what it really describes is a series of equal-length linear pulses. The proper term for Square therefore would have been 'Symmetric Linear Pulse'

Not that it matters, but both Triangle and Square are the closest you can get to being a triangle and a square in one dimension (plus time). But then under that definition, the Saw is also a Triangular wave (which makes sense, a saw is a triangle with 0% duty cycle).

[Albert.VST]

Re-reading the last page it seems it's not about semantics, but about expectations.

Example? Say I would track down a Mr. Moog (not related to...) and he designed a filter in the 30/40/50's that when musically used really sounds horrible.
I use that design in a new VSTi and advertise it with "filter design by Moog".
I bet 99.9% or more who would listen to a demo would blame me that the horrible sound of this VSTi is not what they expected from the statement "filter design by Moog" , even though the statement is 100% correct. This filter would indeed have been designed by a person called Moog (not related to...). But they will all claim they expected something modeled after the design by one Robert Moog, creator of the famous Minimoog, Moog Modular etc. Because it is the common understanding of what is a "filter design by Moog".

But hey, it didn't advertise it with "filter design by Robert Moog, creator of the Minimoog...." so why did you expect it to be this......
Like I said, expectations.

[codehead]

A Square is called Square, but what it really describes is a series of equal-length linear pulses. The proper term for Square therefore would have been 'Symmetric Linear Pulse' (SLP).

LOL—I think more people get the right idea when you say "square wave" than if you said "Symmetric Linear Pulse" (or worse—yet another TLA—"SLP"). I realize that you may be joking, but if not...ever hear the word "pedantic"?

[Chad@PA]

Also wanted to mention there seems to be inaccurate info and speculation on how Rapture actually synthesizes/loads the .wav files that are loaded and treated as wavetables oscillators.

See this reply from René

It's not just looping a single cycle file. There is a lot more magic going on under the hood that utilizes bandlimiting and re-synthesis to prevent aliasing. These techniques are most easily described and labelled as 'wavetable' synthesis. Anyways, I thought you guys beat this topic to death 20x before? Just search "Rapture Wavetable" and see all the threads that come up...

Maybe when referring to Rapture we can call it "RGC-Table" synthesis.

[jens]

Thanks for that link, Chad!


From the same thread:

Most wavetable synths I've tried sound very digital, so (as with anything) you like that or you don't.

This is absolute opposing my own experience. I think a 'wavetable'-oscillator is able to produce a lot more vivid and organic results than your bog-standard VA.