KVR Audio

sqigls · Post by **sqigls** » Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:58 am

I don't see why backwards compatibility should have ANY influence on building a more modern synth.
Screw backwards compatibility in my opinion. Why hold back on advancing technology just to be able to load old patches into a totally new synth, just use the original Pulse for god's sake.

Goldenage2012 · Post by **Goldenage2012** » Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:52 am

sqigls wrote:I don't see why backwards compatibility should have ANY influence on building a more modern synth.
Screw backwards compatibility in my opinion. Why hold back on advancing technology just to be able to load old patches into a totally new synth, just use the original Pulse for god's sake.

Completely agree with you,

Plus all the synths i have with 14 bit midi can also do 7 bit.
I wish i would see everyone pushing that way, this should not have to be like politics

We are the one who make this synth possible by buying it..but its almost like"dont ask, dont tell" lol

namnibor · Post by **namnibor** » Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:54 am

sqigls wrote:I don't see why backwards compatibility should have ANY influence on building a more modern synth.
Screw backwards compatibility in my opinion. Why hold back on advancing technology just to be able to load old patches into a totally new synth, just use the original Pulse for god's sake.

Well, I simply mentioned it because from the Pulse 2 announcement two NAMM's ago and Waldorf website spec's have always stated, "Fully backwards compatible with Classic Pulse", and the point is moot if any given machine is compatible with both 14/7 bit midi.

I for one find this "backwards compatibility" not only important but groundbreaking for the "new Waldorf team" because the Pulse 2 is THE first new synth to seek to make this nexus with previous synth from that prior time, and on a synth that perhaps many either quickly forget or too young to remember that the Classic Pulse bass lines were significant infusion to music scene of 90's when many were either tired of the Sh101/TB303 sound and many since emulations of same.
On tour and in studio, the Classic Pulse is still used by NIN and other progressive/industrial acts.

This 'backwards compatibility' would be just as significant if Waldorf were to either make a "Wave 2" or even combination hardware version of Waldorf Nave and Wave 2 or even a new analog/digital hybrid Q++, of which, speaking of technology, my new to me Waldorf Q Keyboard **still** runs many circles around both my Virus KB and KC as far as capabilities even a modular would have trouble doing today. (not to mention a mod matrix deeper than any past/current hardware and a lot of software)

So yes, that "heritage", if you like, is important and glad to see Waldorf making Pulse 2 backwards compatible and think it definitely blows the Bass Station 2 away in many ways...but then again, that can be highly dependent whether one takes time to learn programming matrix and finds it intuitive.

Razmo · Post by **Razmo** » Sun Nov 17, 2013 4:14 pm

Softknobs wrote:
sqigls wrote:i need MIDI patch dump to work via USB, as it did in v1.11 !!!

msepsis wrote: The lack of any Program Dump Request SysEx command is a big one too. the Implication is that without a dump request message you manually must send a prog dump after changing progs from any remote editor/software in order to send the current program's parameter values to the editor/sw.
I am surprised by these comments, since this appears to work. I have been dumping sounds remotely through USB with OS version 1.05, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12 and 1.13 with no problems...

Where exactly have you found the SysEx specs for Program Dump requests? ... the MIDI spec file on Waldorf's homepage is a "Condensed" version, that only gives you CC and Parameter Change SysEx options, there are absolutely no Request strings in there, nor any Dump strings.

I recently finished a full fledged editor for the Pulse 2, in the old Emagic SoundDiver program, and I had to manualy "guess" the correct SysEx strings to get the request macros... They were not that hard to find though.

I too think it's weird that they release half-finished MIDI specs, when the support is allready there... The only request I could not find myself by "reverse Engineering" the MIDI specs was that for requesting the Global Parameters... according to OS 1.13 that should be there... I email'ed Waldorf about it, but as usual I get no anwer what so ever in return.

So if anyone have that Global Parameter SysEx string that they would like to share with me, I'd be very grateful.

Waldorf was always full on SysEx specs in the past, but since the Blofeld, they've been scimping out on this which I find very bad... The Blofeld specs are not up to date, The Rocket has very Little SysEx support, and the Pulse 2 they are hiding crucial SysEx support from us... I personaly find that to be very frustrating and irritating.

Razmo · Post by **Razmo** » Sun Nov 17, 2013 4:28 pm

By the way... I've got a Pulse 1 & 2, and I have been very currious as to how close the Pulse 2 sound to the Pulse 1... so I made a comparison with some presets from my Pulse 1 that I like a lot to see how close they REALLY are.

My conclusion is that Waldorf made a pretty good job of the converting, but no it's NOT a 100% alike sound... first of, the Pulse 2 has a much brighter (and in my opinion better) resonance, and this sucks some of the bass/volume out of the Pulse 2 when set high... Thus, the output of the Pulse 1 is louder than the Pulse 2 on most converted patches, with a few VERY remarkable differences.

Some converted patches sound extremely louder than Pulse 1, especialy those involving the XOR function, and also these sounds sounds the most radically different between the two units... some presets also had a clear sign of too much resonance, but most of that I found could be remedied by simply turning Down the resonance a bit... on some other presets tweaking the cutoff made the sounds more comparable.

All in all, I think Waldorf did good... The Pulse 1 still has it's character, and especialy it's chaotic and unstable resonance gives it that character in my opinion... it makes it sound more "dusty" in it's sound... more "vintage" like to my ears... Pulse 2 is more "firm" and brighter/clearer... but it still has that "In Your Face!" character that the Pulse 1 have.

I made a "short" demo of my comparison between the two... the first playing is the Pulse 2, then the Pulse 1 right after. I normalized both to get them comparable in loudness, because most people tend to feel that the loudest sound best... a bit of Echo is added, but it's the same on both. Notice how some sounds are practically identical, while others are CLEARLY different.

I'll not start a debate about which is best... I have a hard time deciding that myself, and I really have a hard time with the thoughts of selling my Pulse 1... but featurewise, the Pulse 2 is a sheer Winner!

http://razmo.ziphoid.com/Pulse1&2.mp3

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Sun Nov 17, 2013 4:50 pm

Sweet demo, thanks.

Razmo · Post by **Razmo** » Sun Nov 17, 2013 5:05 pm

The Pulse 1 has always been one of my absolute favourite synths, so of course I was interrested in comparing the new one with the old, to see if I could defend selling my Pulse 1.

My conclusion is basicaly YES... but there is a small feeling in the back of my head, that I'll regret it somehow.... most patches sound close enough, but a few of the presets on the Pulse 1 that I like the most, also seem to be those that sound best on the Pulse 1, and with enough difference to make me worry if it'll be wise to sell it.

But for anyone not having both, and wondering if they should get the older or newer unit, I can firmly say that Pulse 2 is the best choice, especialy if you do not want old presets from Pulse 1 to sound the same on Pulse 2.

You get more features, and when/if that FX bord becomes reality, the decision really should not be that hard I think. Even my Slim Phatty sounds "dull" in comparrison (my view of course).

So my advise is; if you want a Pulse, and you don't care about backward compatibility, go for the Pulse 2... but that said, even the backward compatibility is so good, it would probably satisfy even a feinschmecker Pulse 1 fan (which I consider myself of being really... had this synth since the 90's!)

faun2500 · Post by **faun2500** » Sun Nov 17, 2013 5:15 pm

I listened to the demo BEFORE I read about it and I actually thought that the 2nd version (pulse 1) sounds thicker and more (dare I say it) vintage analogue.

I wonder if the same weight and thickness could be achieved with some more tweaking of the pulse 2??

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Sun Nov 17, 2013 5:23 pm

faun2500 wrote:I listened to the demo BEFORE I read about it and I actually thought that the 2nd version (pulse 1) sounds thicker and more (dare I say it) vintage analogue.

I thought the same, but then i realized it's probably just louder.

Razmo · Post by **Razmo** » Sun Nov 17, 2013 5:33 pm

I can chime in on that... on SOME presets, the Pulse 1 certainly sound fatter, more full, and also a bit more "chaotic" in character... I simply believe this is part of the older components higher instability, but also because of the way the resonance Works... the resonance on Pulse 1 is not as aggressive as the Pulse 2, and I believe this is the reason.

Before normalizing the comparisons, I also found that the Pulse 1 sounded fatter, but to my surprise, when having normalized both, they sounded 100% alike on some presets, telling me, that it's basicaly the volume.

But some presets DOES sound different, and where the Pulse 1 in my ears sound better... especialy the thick detuned trance like sounds in the demo... the Pulse2 could not catch that thickness at all.

I believe some of the reson is that many synths has this quirk, that when resonance is raised, the volume and bass drops... the Pulse 2's resonance is radicaly different than Pulse 1, so I bet this is why the volume drops considerably when raised to levels above what Pulse 1 can do... and even if I normalized the takes, the overall percieved volume is probably a bit lower on the Pulse2.

One thing I found was, that any preset without any resonance, basicaly sound the same, even in character and presence. And any preset using the XOR oscillator makes the Pulse 2 scream in a way that not even the Pulse 1 can follow... it's much more bright, and sounds more detailed than Pulse 1... so much that presets using it on the Pulse 1 sound very different on Pulse 2... you can still hear the preset is the same, but the sound is very different.

This is bad if you want old presets to sound ike the Pulse 1, but it can as well be an advantage for new sounds made for the Pulse 2 only.

Razmo · Post by **Razmo** » Sun Nov 17, 2013 5:40 pm

I have to add, that on my comparison demo, I changed NOTHING after loading the Pulse 1 presets... actualy I used an editor for Pulse 1 (SoundDiver) for sending the presets to the Pulse 2 (the Pulse 2 accepts Pulse 1 SysEx format too)... and I did no tweaking to make the presets more alike.

I tried tweaking after I made the demo, and yes... if you tweak a Little, some presets will sound even more like the Pulse 1, but to expect 100% soundalike is probably a bit naive... It'll never happen.

It's mostly resonance that needs tweaking, and cutoff a Little bit on some old Pulse 1 presets. I bet that Waldorf tried their best, and I also bet that no matter what way you choose to convert the sounds, some will always sound different, and if you change the convertion formulae to fit one sound, another will probably just sound different instead.

zerocrossing · Post by **zerocrossing** » Sun Nov 17, 2013 5:57 pm

faun2500 wrote:

It's really fun to watch this with auto captions turned on with English translation.

Seems like it has a bit of a DSI sound... no?

zerocrossing · Post by **zerocrossing** » Sun Nov 17, 2013 6:10 pm

Razmo wrote:
I'll not start a debate about which is best... I have a hard time deciding that myself, and I really have a hard time with the thoughts of selling my Pulse 1... but featurewise, the Pulse 2 is a sheer Winner!

http://razmo.ziphoid.com/Pulse1&2.mp3

That demo would make me keep the Pulse 1 for sure.

EvilDragon · Post by **EvilDragon** » Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:35 pm

To me Pulse 2 sounded better in that comparison!

Razmo · Post by **Razmo** » Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:43 pm

It's all a matter of taste and preference what sounds "best" I think. I like them both machines a lot, but if I had to chooe one, and could not have them both, I'd take the Pulse 2, mainly because of the added flexibility and features. There is (in my opinion) not enough difference between the two's sound to go for the Pulse 1.

Waldorf Pulse 2: officially released (OS updated to v1.18)