u-he

KBSoundSmith · Post by **KBSoundSmith** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:39 pm

Urs wrote:
bmrzycki wrote:
Urs wrote:You'll see, the concept is rather good, but maybe less "presety"
I have full confidence in you and Howard, to be sure. I just linked it in case you hadn't seen it before. It's funny how inspiration for new ideas can come from almost anywhere.
Our inspiration mostly stems from the idea of unifying OSC waveforms, MSEGs, ModMappers, custom LFO waves into the same single thing with curve/freehand modes, drag'n'drop support back and forth, sample conversion and a set of unified, useful editing tools.

#-- rhetorical pause --#

There, i said it

Oh, one last request, please let us use MSEGs as the Amp envelope in Z3.
But of course!

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:54 pm

That really is just half of it... not even

(and yes, we might need longer than 6 months from now)

hakey · Post by **hakey** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:24 pm

How does this affect the different oscillator modes, particularly spectroblend?

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:10 pm

hakey wrote:

How does this affect the different oscillator modes, particularly spectroblend?

The modes will still be there - they're not related to how the waveform/spectrum is created.

I'll try to sneak a "spectral energy: equal / natural" switch into it, to optionally preserve energy for higher harmonics.

trance_lucent · Post by **trance_lucent** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:42 pm

Urs wrote: I'll try to sneak a "spectral energy: equal / natural" switch into it, to optionally preserve energy for higher harmonics.

That is cool, but how about my proposal (somewheree in this forum) about OscFx modifying overall spectral slope (e.g. -6...+6 db/octave?
Although on a second thought this feature may be better for waveform/spectrum editor than for oscfx, because it is for changing colour of sound only, not for dynamic modulation. But it is good to have several slopes, not just two to made colour a little brighter or dimmier, and it would be cool to have this feature for geo modes too.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:47 pm

Will it have pure additive mode (where partials don't go 1/n in amplitude)?

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:50 pm

EvilDragon wrote:Will it have pure additive mode (where partials don't go 1/n in amplitude)?

1/1 = equal
1/n = natural

(or vice versa, matter of perspective)

We'll see how it's implemented... some decisions may be performance based.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:57 pm

Wooo!

You do know how to make people happy. Hopefully we'll be able to adjust the phase of each partial as well?

hakey · Post by **hakey** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:59 pm

Urs wrote:I'll try to sneak a "spectral energy: equal / natural" switch into it, to optionally preserve energy for higher harmonics.

I suspect I was the one who first mentioned that idea - having thought about it, I'm not sure it's really all that useful. The additive methods I've looked at since start at 1/n (natural) and attenuate from there. Of course, if you think it has merit...

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:01 pm

EvilDragon wrote:Wooo!

You do know how to make people happy. Hopefully we'll be able to adjust the phase of each partial as well?

Not sure about that one

- it's a degree of "complicated" that may not have all that much of an audible effect... (I'm open to convincing arguments/examples though, better now than too late)

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:05 pm

Well Alchemy has it...

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:05 pm

hakey wrote:
Urs wrote:I'll try to sneak a "spectral energy: equal / natural" switch into it, to optionally preserve energy for higher harmonics.
I suspect I was the one who first mentioned that idea - having thought about it, I'm not sure it's really all that useful. The additive methods I've looked at since start at 1/n (natural) and attenuate from there. Of course, if you think it has merit...

I have no idea who was first, but this request is nearly as old as the first proper manual or so. Hence I guess a switch won't hurt especially as it saves time (a neglectable amount, but still)

hakey · Post by **hakey** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:08 pm

Urs wrote:I have no idea who was first

Ah no... I wasn't trying to claim the idea! More saying don't do it on my say so (as if!).

hakey · Post by **hakey** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:09 pm

EvilDragon wrote:Well Alchemy has it...

Fair enough. It must have it's uses.

Bronto Scorpio · Post by **Bronto Scorpio** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:12 pm

trance_lucent wrote:
Urs wrote: I'll try to sneak a "spectral energy: equal / natural" switch into it, to optionally preserve energy for higher harmonics.
That is cool, but how about my proposal (somewheree in this forum) about OscFx modifying overall spectral slope (e.g. -6...+6 db/octave?
Although on a second thought this feature may be better for waveform/spectrum editor than for oscfx, because it is for changing colour of sound only, not for dynamic modulation. But it is good to have several slopes, not just two to made colour a little brighter or dimmier, and it would be cool to have this feature for geo modes too.

Stuff like that would be really nice

Also some kind of "Edit only even harmonics" edit modes and so on

Sorry for all the feature requests

You seem to have big plans! Exciting stuff again!

Cheers
Dennis

u-he

KVR Audio

mseg , and beyond ...