Tone2 Rayblaster: OUT NOW! (demo version available)

[Ingonator]

This seems like a cross between granular synthesis and pulsar/pulse train synthesis. I'm liking that the "pitch noise modulation" and low cut filters from Saurus have carried over. Those two features go a LONG way.

So is it sort of related to Hamburg Audio's Nuklear which is based on advanced granular pulse train synthesis

That would be my guess, though there are somethings Nuklear can't do that RB can and vice versa. For example, Nuklear lets you microsequence the pulse train by turning off certain pulses, which creates suboctaves and stuff. RB doesn't have this, but it does have lots more waveform options, loadable impulses, etc. RB can do resynthesis and mangle music/drum loops as well, so it seems more interesting to me.

Also, this is pure assumption based on the GUI and blurb (which I take with a massive dose of salt and a few chuckles here and there... you gotta love t2's marketing division ). I suspect Rayblaster will offer a lot more value for money when compared to Nuklear, which I felt was a tad overpriced.

Hi,

I have done Beta testing and factory sounds for both Nuklear and Rayblaster and don't think they are very much similar. I agree that with the Resynthesis feature there could be some comparable results but the Impulse modelling synthesis is not comparable to the Pulsar Train Synthesis IMO. Anyway both are great synths in their own respect.

I have already told lot about what is possible with Rayblaster during the last pages but i think it's better to wait until it's allowed to post audio demos (which will take some time...) before i tell more.


Ingo

[Kriminal]

Why is IMS so close to what happens within our brain?

Hilarious

[Ingonator]

Why is IMS so close to what happens within our brain?

Hilarious

This is a quote from the website:

"Why is IMS so close to what happens within our brain?

Most conventional synthesizers like additives or substractives assume that our brain perceive music as a sum of sine frequencies, similar to what you can see in a spectrum analyzer. However this is only a rough approximation of what our ear can hear.
Recent scientific research has proven that our brain does not only perceive the power of frequencies, it also compares the timing of the impulses which are created by the nerves. This does mean that we can also hear the phase of partials if a sound is played at low base frequency. This fact is neglected by conventional synthesizers, not well understood by audio engineers and lead to the development of many 'voodoo phase enhancement tools'.
The advantage of RayBlaster in sound quality compared to conventional synthesizers is most audible with sounds which have a very low base frequency and a dense spectrum.
RayBlaster's IMS models the short-time energy distribution of the signal in an extremely detailed way. As a result the nerves in our inner ear do get excited with an exactly defined timing. That's why RayBlaster unveils access to a completely new sonic dimension, sounds more present and cuts through the mix.
The conventional synthesizers do not provide any control about the timing of the short-time energy distribution at low frequencies. That's why they suffer from a smeared, muffled and muddy sound or lack with details.

The following audio example proofs that our ear can also hear the phase of signals and is very sensitive to the short-time energy distribution. All 3 sounds have the same spectrum which is identical to a sawtooth, but they sound different."


Another quote from the beginning of the page:

"Warning! This article contains a lot of scientific tech-talk. If you don't care about it skip it and go back to the main page"

the link for the page:
http://www.tone2.com/html/impulse_model ... is__i.html


This might be some "tech-talk" indeed but based on my experience there is some truth in that article...


Ingo

[pdxindy]

So I assume Tone2 will no longer be selling their other synths since they have a smeared, muffled and muddy sound... Now that they have this new synthesis, why would they continue to offer such inferior products?

[Echoes in the Attic]

So I assume Tone2 will no longer be selling their other synths since they have a smeared, muffled and muddy sound... Now that they have this new synthesis, why would they continue to offer such inferior products?

haha. zing!

I don't understand why to show off this awesome new synth they would pick the most annoying sound possible and let it play for a little too long in the demo. I almost had to stop the vid.

Ingo, here's a question: This thing is supposed to be able to replicate filters from other synths, but how can it analyze something that has a range of sound? How does it do resonance? How does it get the sweep range of the filter?

[Ingonator]

So I assume Tone2 will no longer be selling their other synths since they have a smeared, muffled and muddy sound... Now that they have this new synthesis, why would they continue to offer such inferior products?

haha. zing!

I don't understand why to show off this awesome new synth they would pick the most annoying sound possible and let it play for a little too long in the demo. I almost had to stop the vid.

Ingo, here's a question: This thing is supposed to be able to replicate filters from other synths, but how can it analyze something that has a range of sound? How does it do resonance? How does it get the sweep range of the filter?

It does not totally emulate a filter but by loading a single cycle wave you get the "impulse response" of a filter. For doing resonance you either have to use a waveform that uses resonance or add one of the "Osc windows" like "Sinc BP3) which could emulate this.
Like i already mentioned if you use a waveform with resonance this will behave quite similar to the original synth. This means that the Resonance behabior responds to the setting of the Formant knob (= Cutoff in this case), the harmonic setting, to the envelope amount and to the filkter keytracking amount.
You could load a non-resonant and a resonant waveforms to Wave1 and Wave2 and mix/morph them with the "Wave 1/2 mix" parameter.

If you use a complex waveform you will also get a complex (and totally new) filter response.

If the original waveform was a Sawtooth then with the "PW sequences" like e.g "Square<PW>Peek" you could create a Square that could morph to a Pulse from it, based on the same filter response.


BTW a few pages ago i posted pictures of two Resonant waveforms that could be used for Rayblaster (both created by myself based on samples):

1.) Here is an example of a resonant waveform that could be used for Rayblaster. This is based on a sample taken from D-16 Phoscyon which is a TB-303 emulation:



2.) This one is from the Saurus 24dB LPF:



I'll try to create some screenshots of a Signal Analyzer with using different "Osc windows" and "PW sequences". At the moment i am working on some more presets using "wavetables" (= a long waveform that includes different single waves with some crossfading).


Ingo

[cryophonik]

I don't understand why to show off this awesome new synth they would pick the most annoying sound possible and let it play for a little too long in the demo. I almost had to stop the vid.

Yeah, the video is very lame and the demo sounds they chose don't make the best first impression. Still, I have no doubt that this synth will be very unique and I'm excited to check it out.

[pdxindy]

It does not totally emulate a filter but by loading a single cycle wave you get the "impulse response" of a filter.

Ingo

That makes no sense at all. You cannot possibly determine what a filter does unless you analyze 2 waveforms, one pre filter and one post filter to determine how a filter affected the original waveform.

[dalor]

Lets see how many posts before another KVR thread bites to dust.

[Spitfire31]

This is a quote from the website:

"Why is IMS so close to what happens within our brain?

Most conventional synthesizers like additives or substractives [sic!]…"
Ingo

In two places the T2 writer mentions 'substractive'. The word, of course, is 'subtractive' (from Latin sub, under and traho, pull).

Didn't any real tech proofread the blurbs?

Also, I wonder why it is that established companies run by people whose native language isn't English persist in writing marketing texts themselves. The T2 RB texts are full of Germanic typos and hilarious grammar bloopers. (For another amusing example, read the Frenglish on the Xils website!)

Why not hire a native English speaking editor to proof read and correct?

Inadequate language affects credibility.

/Joachim

[Ingonator]

It does not totally emulate a filter but by loading a single cycle wave you get the "impulse response" of a filter.

Ingo

That makes no sense at all. You cannot possibly determine what a filter does unless you analyze 2 waveforms, one pre filter and one post filter to determine how a filter affected the original waveform.

If that is the case why could i create a quite convincing recreation of a Synth Brass based on the waveform of e.g. an analog emulation or real analog synth?

Also tell me how it is possible that it could recreate the Resonance behavior of a synth based on a resonant waveform which changes by moving the Formant knob (= Cutoff), the envelope settings and filter keytracking.

How is it possible that you could recreate the behavior of them Comb- filter in Largo just based on a single waveform.

Those are no hallucination, it works...

Even if it would not be a 1:1 copy of the original synth the result is still amazing.

Anyway the real fun starts when you use complex waveforms that are not based on any specific synth. In that case you could get some crazy results while turning the Formant knob which don't correspond to a known filter.
Rayblaster tries to "extract" a filter response from any waveform, no matter if it "makes sense" or not...

To shape the sound more you got the "Osc windows" and the "PW sequences". With those you could emulate e.g. different filter types like a Comb filter or change a Sawtooth into a Square wave or Pulse.

With the mod matrix you could modulate lots of stuff like e.g the Formant (= Cutoff), waveform 1/2 mix, the PW (based on the current "PW sequence", the start phase (could be use for wavescanning in combination with a low "harmonic" setting), the harmonic etc.
A lower harmonic "zooms" into the waveform while a higher one could lead to multiples of the waveform. With adjusting the start phase of e.g. a analog waveform (or any other) you could also improve the low end in some cases.


Ingo

[Frantz]

Why is IMS so close to what happens within our brain?

This is your brain:



This is your brain on drugs:



This is your brain on IMS:



(There were famous anti-drug TV commercials in the US with a "This is your brain on drugs" theme. I am not sure if there is a European equivalent.)

[goldenanalog]

It does not totally emulate a filter but by loading a single cycle wave you get the "impulse response" of a filter.

Ingo

That makes no sense at all. You cannot possibly determine what a filter does unless you analyze 2 waveforms, one pre filter and one post filter to determine how a filter affected the original waveform.

If you were to make assumptions about the waveform that you were analysing, you could manufacture a filter based on assumed changes in the waveforms' spectra *post* filter. You're absolutely right, of course: the previous statement implies that probability is used like using Calculus to calculate the slope value at discrete points of an assumed *known* function.

My guess is that Tone2 looked at enough filter data to build filter models into a table that are recalled and fitted to the waveform being analyzed. What might be funner (If I've read it right) is have the filter response continously change over time as DSP is used to examine each zero-crossing periodic sample (as an example) and update the filter response to that sample.

[Ingonator]

It does not totally emulate a filter but by loading a single cycle wave you get the "impulse response" of a filter.

Ingo

That makes no sense at all. You cannot possibly determine what a filter does unless you analyze 2 waveforms, one pre filter and one post filter to determine how a filter affected the original waveform.

If you were to make assumptions about the waveform that you were analysing, you could manufacture a filter based on assumed changes in the waveforms' spectra *post* filter. You're absolutely right, of course: the previous statement implies that probability is used like using Calculus to calculate the slope value at discrete points of an assumed *known* function.

My guess is that Tone2 looked at enough filter data to build filter models into a table that are recalled and fitted to the waveform being analyzed. What might be funner (If I've read it right) is have the filter response continously change over time as DSP is used to examine each zero-crossing periodic sample (as an example) and update the filter response to that sample.

I don't think there is any "table" involved. First the responses used from waveforms of different synth also sound different and second this is not limited to "analog" waveforms. If you use a complex waveform you'll also receive a complex filter. Anyway if the waveform contains a part that corresponds to a resonant waveform the result could be that you receive some kind of resonant sound too.
If you mix two waveforms within one oscillator you also get a kind of mixed filter.


Ingo

[Sampleconstruct]

I certainly never use the "psychoacoustic" mode in ElectraX because it sounds smeared and muffled.