Wonderful...pdxindy wrote:Agreed... Very nice sound...FrantzM wrote:Nice.MaxSynths wrote: CS-80 Soft Pad MxS
Based on an impulse sampled from a real CS-80.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Wonderful...pdxindy wrote:Agreed... Very nice sound...FrantzM wrote:Nice.MaxSynths wrote: CS-80 Soft Pad MxS
Based on an impulse sampled from a real CS-80.
OuaaahhhKrakatau wrote:Wonderful...pdxindy wrote:Agreed... Very nice sound...FrantzM wrote:Nice.MaxSynths wrote: CS-80 Soft Pad MxS
Based on an impulse sampled from a real CS-80.
You're welcome.FrantzM wrote:Thanks to Ingo and MaxSynths for posting those waveforms!
+1+1+!FrantzM wrote:Thanks to Ingo and MaxSynths for posting those waveforms!
Where does reverse engineering and stealing come into this?Gribs wrote: I am not planning to attempt to reverse engineer the synth
...
like me loath the idea stealing.
I tried at one time to ask Tone2 about the details of Gladiator when it was released (after I purchased a license) and was met with an answer that went something like "if you are interested in licensing our technology then we will tell you". I took that as an indication that they were worried about someone reverse-engineering or otherwise stealing their ideas. Meh - I just wanted to know something about what the synth was doing (I can't remember what at the time) because a significant factor in my enjoyment of making musical sounds is understanding how the sound is generated and hearing the result - basically hearing mathematics if you will. In that case it didn't take me long to figure out how Gladiator works in sufficient detail to make me happy - is is not really all that complicated. I like Gladiator enough that I payed for an upgraded license to Gladiator 2. This is not about dissing on Tone2 but rather on trying to convince the guys to be a little more open.highkoo wrote: Where does reverse engineering and stealing come into this?
Maybe try the demo?
Am I reading your post all wrong?
I am starting to agree that Tone2 is cursed though.
On one side, people demand that the marketing hype be validated word for word, and apparently cant understand the fundamentals of either the hype, or the synth.
Forget about it. No need to reinvent the wheel, buy Cytomic The Drop instead.Gribs wrote:Your response suggests that you know how the "filter" response is generated by RayBlaster. Would you care to elaborate? The best suggestion I heard is that a wavelet transform is used and not some sort of deconvolution. As you must be aware, the wavelet bases are over-complete bases for e.g. Hilbert spaces of square integrable functions localized in time and frequency. The central position of the "formant" would represent using all the coefficients in the wavelet transform, decreasing the formant would cut off coefficients of the wavelets associated with higher frequency content and increasing the formant would cut off coefficients of the wavelets associated with lower frequency components and the "damping" parameter would control the slope of whatever filter function is applied to cut off the coefficients. The shape of the function that cuts off the wavelet coefficients would have to be some sort of parametric function. So the "filter" is based in part upon the frequency content of the input signal and some internal parametric function. If this method is used, the "filter" is not generated entirely by the input signal; the input signal is massaged by an internal parametric function. In my opinion this is perfectly fine. I use convenient parametric functions in my own algorithms all the time. I just don't understand why this sort of explanation is not available (if it is even close to the way the synth works).
I see. I was just misreading you.Gribs wrote:a significant factor in my enjoyment of making musical sounds is understanding how the sound is generated and hearing the result - basically hearing mathematics if you will.
Not at all!Gribs wrote: Your response suggests that you know how the "filter" response is generated by RayBlaster.
Agreed. Tone2 seems to be more worried than others, but I have had no issue with Gladiator or Gladiator 2, and Bastian sent me some extra presents when I bought Gladiator 2 which was a very nice gesture. I also received a copy of BiFilter in a CM magazine and think that is a really fun plugin. I would like to support these guys; I think they do good work.contrary wrote:T2 has always been worried sick about piracy , and I can't blame them !!!!
The present lack of respect and/or out and out ignorance about the system of intellectual property and how and why it was adopted should give any innovator pause.
Actually, I think your intellectual curiousity is admirable; and in a lot of ways similiar to my own. I just don't know as much about computer-based synthesis as you.Gribs wrote: Agreed. Tone2 seems to be more worried than others, but I have had no issue with Gladiator or Gladiator 2, and Bastian sent me some extra presents when I bought Gladiator 2 which was a very nice gesture. I also received a copy of BiFilter in a CM magazine and think that is a really fun plugin. I would like to support these guys; I think they do good work.
I am fully aware of issues regarding copyright and patents for software, algorithms, methods, articles, etc. I have over ten patents myself and work with many people whose patents number in the 30 to over 100 range. My dad, who is retired from a different company, has 48 patents. Many of mine to date were purchased from my company by another, so IP I have made is owned by more than one company now.
I am pretty sure that giving us a cursory overview of the Structure of RayBlaster will not give sufficient information to reverse engineer the software. Presenting a block diagram of a subtractive synthesizer or explaining how wave table sequencing works does not give sufficient information to reverse engineer the specific algorithms inside. Another example would be that we know Diva an Cypher are subtractive synthesizers that use analog modeling, and that is enough to tell us how the synths works at a high level but tells us nothing about how the analog modeling is implemented in each case.
I was part and beta testing and factory sounds and do not really know it too.Gribs wrote:
Your response suggests that you know how the "filter" response is generated by RayBlaster. Would you care to elaborate? The best suggestion I heard is that a wavelet transform is used and not some sort of deconvolution.
I would comment on that in more detail but i promised to myself to keep as calm as possible.SODDI wrote:
Furthermore, a company that would get tetchy about an honest enthusiastic intellectual question like that from a customer who has purchased software from them previously is a company that I do not think I would like to do business with. Caution is one thing; paranoia is another.
Bye bye Tone 2.
wow why would they remove it? just yesterday it was available for purchase... weird..re_mute wrote:TheoM wrote:hey that's great to see. did you try to see if the tone 2 works with sugar bytes? Good to see other devs not resting on their laurels with adaptersre_mute wrote:TheoM wrote:you are kidding right? The vst rtas adapter is what needs an overhaul.re_mute wrote:Yay, yet another piece of Tone2 software that doesn't work with the VST-RTAS wrapper.
How many frelling years is that now of asking them to please, please make a simple fix to their GUIs so I can give them some money?
In fact it doesn't even officially support vst 2.4 plugins.
Oh, don't get me wrong, FXpansion are too busy blaming everyone else for their software's shitness and milking DCAM for all it's worth to bother updating the wrapper for, what, 6 years now.
But if Tone2 would at least have a dialogue with them then they could, like QuikQuak, have at least tried to get some basic functionality in there; but they wouldn't.
Looks like Sugar Bytes have beaten them to it anyway - http://www.sugar-bytes.de/content/products/TransVST/
THey've taken it off of the website but I did email them asking if there was going to be a demo so we could see if stuff like Tone2's synth would work properly at last.
There's more info here:
http://www.440audio.com/en/software/v69 ... -TransVST/
VST to AAX wrapper
TransVST is a plugin wrapper, which transforms VST plugins into AAX Plugins.
With TransVST, you can use VST Plugins in Pro Tools 10 and higher.
TransVST runs as a standalone program which offers a luxurious plugin management and integrates any VST plugin in Pro Tools, so that it can be used as a normal AAX plugin. TransVST is already 64bit compatible and so it's ready for future Pro Tools versions. Furthermore, TransVST supports creative plugin functions like Midi Out, Sidechaining and Multi Outputs.
Features at a glance:
- Multi Output for Effects and Instruments
- Multi Input for Effects (Sidechaining)
- Midi Output
- AudioSuite support
- FXB/FXP Preset Import
- Stereo to Mono
- VST Shell support
- 64bit ready
© KVR Audio, Inc. 2000-2024
Submit: News, Plugins, Hosts & Apps | Advertise @ KVR | Developer Account | About KVR / Contact Us | Privacy Statement