Tone2 Rayblaster: OUT NOW! (demo version available)

[Ingonator]

I think it's inevitable to try to emulate some classic synths using Rayblaster.
Thanks God Rayblaster can do this and a lot of other funny things, so the attention will be not focused only on classic synths emulation (to be honest until now there have been few attempts).

Totally agree. First started with some analog emulations (but no 1:1 comparisons...) then moved over creating and using my own waveforms, then discovering wavetable scanning etc. and now back at analog emulations.

As already mentioned this was a first attempt for a 1:1 comparison and of course this example does not prove that everything of the original synth could be emulated. It just proves that we could come close to that specific sound.

Seriously i am also not interested doing tons of 1:1 comparisons. If i reprogram more presets it would be because i like them and for reprogramming Diva sounds i'll most likely use my own ones like it was the case with this first example.


Ingo

[MaxSynths]

[Kriminal]

The point is that Rayblaster does not need a full sample, a simple single cycle wave is enough. Using the same waveform in usual samplers would be pointless.

Worth a try. Put up some samples and we can drop them in a sampler of our choice and see if we can match your RB sound....

The answer is simple. In another synth/sampler without IMS you will need another filter to shape the sound butit wil not correspond to the filter of the original synth.
This is even worse for the resonant waveforms. In Rayblaster you could create a resonance sweep without an additional filter but in a sampler when no Resonance is added from a filter there you will most likely either cut off the resonance or get a totally different result as the waveform is not interpreted in a corrcet way. I hav tried that in PPG Wave 3.V. In that case you just cut off parts of the resonant waveform which still sounds like resonance but totally different with lower Cutoff frequency. Anyway in most cases except maximum cutoff it will not sound like in the original synth.

Simple explanation: in a usual sampler the waveform will be static, in Rayblaster not.


Ingo

But all you are doing is creating a static snapshot of another synth. You are not emulating that synth in any way apart from that ine moment in time, the sample.

[Ingonator]

But all you are doing is creating a static snapshot of another synth. You are not emulating that synth in any way apart from that ine moment in time, the sample.

I am not talking about what you could see in the waveform and how it works usually but how it is used in Rayblaster.

In Rayblaster the filter response and the waveshape extracted from taht static waveform seem to be handled differently. A normal sampler will need a more or less fixed filter (depending on how many models it includes) to shape the waveforms but in Rayblaster the filter response is based on the waveform.

This could be found especially with Resonant waveforms. I alraedy posted this PDF file with screenshots of using a resonant Saurus waveform:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/53230726/Raybl ... es%201.pdf

Another special thing in Rayblaster is that when the Formant value is at 0 (middle position) and above the filter response will slowly morph into a Bandpass filter. The usual range for emúlations is between -200 and 0.

Of course this has it's limits so with a single waveform you could not have a non-resonant and a resonant filter response at once. For adding just slight amounts of resonance you either need a waveform with small amounts or you mix a non-resonant waveform with a second resonant waveform and use "Wave 1/2 mix" for adjusting the amount of both.

When used in e.g. PPG Wave 3.V the "resonant peak" will be there only at full Cutoff. As soon as you move the Cutoff down the waveform will be changed. It will still sound like resonance but the "resonant peak" in the Signal analyzer will be lost quite soon or more look like something like a Comb filter. This is due to the fact that a usual sampler does not make a difference between filter response and waveshape.


Ingo

[palle2]

The point is that Rayblaster does not need a full sample, a simple single cycle wave is enough. Using the same waveform in usual samplers would be pointless.

Worth a try. Put up some samples and we can drop them in a sampler of our choice and see if we can match your RB sound....

The answer is simple. In another synth/sampler without IMS you will need another filter to shape the sound butit wil not correspond to the filter of the original synth.
This is even worse for the resonant waveforms. In Rayblaster you could create a resonance sweep without an additional filter but in a sampler when no Resonance is added from a filter there you will most likely either cut off the resonance or get a totally different result as the waveform is not interpreted in a corrcet way. I hav tried that in PPG Wave 3.V. In that case you just cut off parts of the resonant waveform which still sounds like resonance but totally different with lower Cutoff frequency. Anyway in most cases except maximum cutoff it will not sound like in the original synth.

Simple explanation: in a usual sampler the waveform will be static, in Rayblaster not.


Ingo

But all you are doing is creating a static snapshot of another synth. You are not emulating that synth in any way apart from that ine moment in time, the sample.

The marketing blurb sounds like Rayblaster is doing something like this:

[hakey]

in Rayblaster the filter response is based on the waveform.

But the source waveform from which Rayblaster magically extracts the filter response can't itself display all of the behaviour of the source synth's filter.

Let's say that you give Rayblaster a sample of a saw wave through a Moog filter at 50% resonance with cutoff swept slowly through the full range. At best Rayblaster will only be able to extract and resynthesise the filter's behaviour at 50% res and for the given oscillator gain. Unless there's something very clever indeed going on, it can't recreate the filter response at other resonance settings, or when fed a hotter signal, or when modulated at audio rates... etc.

In other words, it's capturing a snapshot for a given set of parameters and with one degree of freedom (the filter swep), not the full filter response.

Btw, let's hear some Rayblaster versions of your Slim Phatty overdriven and at high res. A much more interesting challenge than emulating an emulation, imo.

[Ingonator]

*edited*

[Ingonator]

Here are all waveforms with filter responses which i have done from the Moog Slim Phatty:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/53230726/IW_Sl ... es%201.zip

A few are already included with the factory waveforms or with some presets as the waveforms are saved with the preset files.
Those include different filter poles (1 to 4) and different waveshapes.
Rayblaster could emulate different waveshapes with the PW sequences so those are usually not necessary.

I want to add a few more waveforms of the Phatty soon. For example with more variations for the Cutoff amount.


I have also added this here:
http://www.tone2.org/forum/index.php?to ... 13#msg6113

In the original post of that thread (where i also added a copy of the link) there are explanations about how to use the waveforms and i have also added more tips from the manual in that thread (+ some Wave Designer waveforms/screenshots).


Ingo

[vurt]

I want to add a few more waveforms of the Phatty soon. For example with more variations for the Cutoff amount.

if rayblaster "mimics" the filter, why do you need to do this? surely if rayblaster did mimic the filter, one sample should cover all filter cutoff amounts, no?

[Ingonator]

I want to add a few more waveforms of the Phatty soon. For example with more variations for the Cutoff amount.

if rayblaster "mimics" the filter, why do you need to do this? surely if rayblaster did mimic the filter, one sample should cover all filter cutoff amounts, no?

Usually you are right but the waveforms have to follow a few conditions to first be usable as a filter response and second create a bigger frequency range. The frequency range that a single waveform could cover is not endless. For very harsh sounds i added also waveforms with full Cutoff which only in a small range mimic the original filter.
For a bigger range you need waveforms that use around 25-40% of the Cutoff (based on knob position, not the absolute frequency...)
a basic rule is that the Cutoff of that waveform in a Signal Analyzer should be maxiumum 1000 Hz.
The waveform used for my Jupiter demo used 30% Cutoff (based on knob/slider) position.

The absolute perfect conditions are something i search for and i will post them when i found them. With a new approach like this it is unlikely that we already know everything after such short time.

The most interesting results still are with complex/custom waveforms that produce crazy "fantasy filter" resposnses with several different timbres while change the Formant value.


Ingo

[Kriminal]

The frequency range that a single waveform could cover is not endless. For very harsh sounds i added also waveforms with full Cutoff which only in a small range mimic the original filter.
For a bigger range you need waveforms that use around 25-40% of the Cutoff (based on knob position, not the absolute frequency...)
a basic rule is that the Cutoff of that waveform in a Signal Analyzer should be maxiumum 1000 Hz.
The waveform used for my Jupiter demo used 30% Cutoff (based on knob/slider) position.

If the Filter Freq is fully open, you should get the raw osc sound, no filtering at all.

Basically you are sampling a saw waveform (for example) that has been filtered. You then cut out a single cycle of this sample. RB then magically manges to extract a filter from that?

BTW, what about pitch, how is RB handling this? what pitch are you sampling at?

[hakey]

Basically you are sampling a saw waveform (for example) that has been filtered. You then cut out a single cycle of this sample.

Is that all that's going on? I presumed it was extracting the info from a (multi-cycle) sample of a filter sweep, similar to how reverb IR's are used.

Filter behaviour from a single cycle sample? Would have to be truly magical to do that.

[Kriminal]

Basically you are sampling a saw waveform (for example) that has been filtered. You then cut out a single cycle of this sample.

Is that all that's going on? I presumed it was extracting the info from a (multi-cycle) sample of a filter sweep, similar to how reverb IR's are used.

Filter behaviour from a single cycle sample? Would have to be truly magical to do that.

Apprently...im not cinvinced.

[pdxindy]

I agree that it's a single example which does not really show how good Rayblaster really is in doing emulations but for that specific example i am quite happy.

I have seen no evidence that Rayblaster is good at emulations... And your example is not far from playing a saw wave and declaring RB can emulate the filter behavior from Diva (or any other synth which characterful filters)

It is a complete impossibility that you can discern the complex filter response of a good filter from a single cycle waveform

[pdxindy]

Also, I think that this sort of talk of emulation does Rayblaster a disservice. It is a different synthesis method and should be appreciated for what potential it has. Claiming it can emulate any analog synth or quality VA is like claiming a granular synth or an FM can do so. It just can't.

One can hear the different synthesis method. Listen to sharp transients in RB and they are kinda smeared.