KVR Audio

fmr · Post by **fmr** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:30 pm

Ingonator wrote:I also noticed that only few patches seem to use the "HQ" switch in the filter section. In understodd this as a high-quality mode and used it for all of my patches. Please correct me if i misunderstood this.
Ingo

When I was programming, I tested several times the switch, and never noticed any audible difference between the On and the Off. But maybe my ears are not working at 100%

Do you notice a difference?

2DaT · Post by **2DaT** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:42 pm

fmr wrote:
Ingonator wrote:I also noticed that only few patches seem to use the "HQ" switch in the filter section. In understodd this as a high-quality mode and used it for all of my patches. Please correct me if i misunderstood this.
Ingo
When I was programming, I tested several times the switch, and never noticed any audible difference between the On and the Off. But maybe my ears are not working at 100%
Do you notice a difference?

Very minor difference. Mostly notable when you use 44 khz sample rate and highpass with resonance at high cutoff. Also a bit smoother envelopes.

Ingonator · Post by **Ingonator** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

2DaT wrote:
fmr wrote:
Ingonator wrote:I also noticed that only few patches seem to use the "HQ" switch in the filter section. In understodd this as a high-quality mode and used it for all of my patches. Please correct me if i misunderstood this.
Ingo
When I was programming, I tested several times the switch, and never noticed any audible difference between the On and the Off. But maybe my ears are not working at 100%
Do you notice a difference?
Very minor difference. Mostly notable when you use 44 khz sample rate and highpass with resonance at high cutoff. Also a bit smoother envelopes.

Thanks for the info. I guess i leave it on for the moment. Maybe when i have to correct my pathces i'll check it again. I am mostly using 44.1 kHz with my host.

Ingo

freemobil · Post by **freemobil** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:04 pm

@ Layzer,
What do you think of a slightly more roughened surface and a little more shade by the potis? Similar to this GUI of a Oberheim Multi Effect?

OBFX.jpg

fluffy_little_something · Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:07 pm

freemobil wrote:@ Layzer,
What do you think of a slightly more roughened surface and a little more shade by the potis? Similar to this GUI of a Oberheim Multi Effect?

OBFX.jpg

What for? I am happy there finally is a GUI we all can live with...

I don't like shades on controls...

Breeze · Post by **Breeze** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:22 pm

fluffy_little_something wrote:What for? I am happy there finally is a GUI we all can live with...

I don't like shades on controls...

If it's a "no-cost" change I like the roughened surface because it's easier on the eyes, but the pot shading affects cursor visibility so I agree with FLS there.

By the way, I started matching my presets with the new dll; like I mentioned I renamed the older dll so I could run it in parallel with the new one. Then I "accidentally" left both of them off bypass and wow: some patches sound awesome with the different spread detuning of the two versions at the same time! I have to see if I can repro this effect with 2 versions of the new one... most newer hosts won't allow the two to appear as separate plugins (same ID).

Breeze · Post by **Breeze** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:16 pm

You know, after spending some time with the most recent build today, I've come to the conclusion that the previous build sounds better overall with patches that use detuned oscillators.

The reason for this is simple: with the older build, there's a combination of the OSC2 Detune and the Spread settings where the notes still sound relatively in tune but the two oscillators are never too close in Fq to each other not to be "chorusing"; with the most recent build and the "proper" spread behavior, when you reach the same point with the Spread and OSC2 Detune settings the oscillators occasionally sound too close to each other (almost unison) and if you go beyond that point, they start sounding out of tune. The sweet spot seems to be gone and it seems to me impossible to get the same creamy sound with the new build as with the old with any patches that use detuned oscillators.

So I vote for the old behavior! Or I'm sticking with older dll. I think this was a very happy accident. Opinions?

EnGee · Post by **EnGee** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:08 am

Why not adding the old behaviour as a new feature (like a button can switch between the new and old behaviour)?

DuX · Post by **DuX** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:01 am

Maybe the behaviour of some knobs should be changed to logarithmic instead of linear so the values at the beginning have finer resolution and that will make it easier to find the sweet spot? Envelopes could use logarithmic knobs, too. Especially A, D and R as S is just a level value.

Ingonator · Post by **Ingonator** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:16 am

DuX wrote:Maybe the behaviour of some knobs should be changed to logarithmic instead of linear so the values at the beginning have finer resolution and that will make it easier to find the sweet spot? Envelopes could use logarithmic knobs, too. Especially A, D and R as S is just a level value.

This would mean that amost all existing patches would no longer work as they did before and it would be a PITA to get the patches sounding like they did before. Doing changes especially to the envelopes is one of the most serious changes in any synth.
Anyway it would be OK for me if there would be a switch to change the behavior between linear and logarithmic.

If the behavior would be changed without an option to use the old one i'll be keeping a copy of the old version for sure as i like the synth as it is now.

Ingo

Breeze · Post by **Breeze** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:46 am

I don't think we should be changing the control tapers at this point. To my ears, 2DaT has done a fine job of matching the envelope/filter interaction which is an essential part of the ob sound. I don't have one to compare, but the ease with which we can get to ob-like patches is due to this interaction and it's a fine balance I don't think we want to screw around with.

However the spread/detune issue might be fixed if the spread algorithm and the random pitch selection were revisited and prevented the oscillators from being too close in tune to each other as the spread is increased. This was guaranteed by the "excessive" sharpening of OSC2 in the older version, but there could be other factors; I don't really know.

But what I do know is that we should trust our ears.

@2DaT: is this the only difference between the two versions posted at the top of this thread?

Freaqpeak · Post by **Freaqpeak** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:59 am

Just tried it out. Cool! Not bad.

Wishes:
- Rate should be able to sync to host tempo (extreme values are cool, like 1/128 to 32/1). Or at least show the value of the rate in Hz.

- Display values for knobs (mouse-over?).

fluffy_little_something · Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:20 pm

Since it is possible to fine-tune controls I see no reason why he should start to mess with their scaling. I think he should leave the synth the way it is, only fix bugs if there are any.

One thing I noticed is that as I increase the velocity sensitivity for the amp in mono mode, the clicking increases a lot, regardless of attack times. Sounds ugly with muted sounds...

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:22 pm

Ingonator wrote: This would mean that amost all existing patches would no longer work

Ingo

it probably would have been wiser for people to wait on a finished version before finalising any patch work.

Breeze · Post by **Breeze** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:23 pm

vurt wrote:it probably would have been wiser for people to wait on a finished version before finalising any patch work.

But not as much fun!

Obxd synthesizer