So the demand on Wave Seq'ing vst is that low ?

[cowby]

Hi,

Correct me if I am wrong, I could only see a handful of Vst out there which have decent wave seq'ing features.

1) Blue II and Sub-boom Bass
2) Wavestation
3) Synthmaster
4) Zebra
5) Kubik

Why are there so few for me to consider? I know there will be some more and which one are you currently using?

Regards!
Piggy915

[Gucky]

The Tubeohm Gamma Ray can also do wave-sequencing:
http://www.tubeohm.com/TubeOhm/GAMMA-RAY-V2.html

It is cheap and sounds very good!

[cowby]

thanks! Always overlook this kind of nice plug.

[fmr]

Dont' know what you mean by "Wave Seq'ing", but I think that Largo, PPG wave 2V and PPG Wave 3V, from Waldorf, as well as the synths from Wolfgang Palm also apply. And Wusikstation certainly does it, too. And Camel Audio Alchemy, in a way (more like Vector Synthesis). These just from memory, if you do some research you'll likely find others.

[EvilDragon]

Wave sequencing is slightly different from wavetable sequencing, fmr.

[ENV1]

Arturias prophet-5 / VS combi could be added to that list.

[fmr]

Wave sequencing is slightly different from wavetable sequencing, fmr.

To me they seem close enough to allow confusion - that's why I said "I don't know what you mean by Wave Seq'ing". EG - look at what Zebra does: Is it wave sequencing or wavetable sequencing? And Kubik is defnitely wavetable sequencing.
If he means sequencing samples, then it narrows the field, but even so, Wusikstation still applies.

[fmr]

DELETED: double post (these damn buttons now are confusing me )

[fluffy_little_something]

What is that technology good for, anyway? What is the purpose of it in terms of resulting sounds?

[whyterabbyt]

What is that technology good for, anyway? What is the purpose of it in terms of resulting sounds?

Its a technology that's good for the category of sounds it produces, and the purpose is in producing that category of sounds. Of course the aesthetic judgment of such sounds is entirely subjective, so there's no real point in trying to describe it, you'd have to judge that for yourself.
Just like any other synthesis method, in fact.

If you're unaware of what wavesequenced sounds actually sound like, you should maybe go find out, and judge for yourelf.

[fluffy_little_something]

What is that technology good for, anyway? What is the purpose of it in terms of resulting sounds?

Its a technology that's good for the category of sounds it produces, and the purpose is in producing that category of sounds. Of course the aesthetic judgment of such sounds is entirely subjective, so there's no real point in trying to describe it, you'd have to judge that for yourself.
Just like any other synthesis method, in fact.

If you're unaware of what wavesequenced sounds actually sound like, you should maybe go find out, and judge for yourelf.

7 lines without relevant content, amazing

[ENV1]

What is that technology good for, anyway? What is the purpose of it in terms of resulting sounds?

In my opinion, and im sure a lot of people will agree here, wavesequencings greatest strenght is slowly evolving sounds with changing textures. Explaining something like this in words is always a bit awkward, so perhaps you should get yourself the demo of Arturias pro-5/VS and do some fooling around with the VS as it applies the principle in a thinkably simple and thus easy to understand manner.

A couple of tips to get you started, in case you decide to go for it:

- Defeat the filter and all modulations

- Select a sufficiently different wave for each osc, e.g. A-33, B-34, C-35, D-38

- Under the Envelopes tab, set the mixer 1-West, 2-North, 3-East, 4-South, NoNumber-Center

- Put some Release on the amp

Now you can use the Mixer Envelope to set the from->to timings. Knob 1 is for the time it takes to go from the un-numbered mixer-point to mixer-point-1. Knob 2 specifies the time from point-1 to point-2, knob 3 from point-2 to point-3. Knob 4 specifies the time from point-3 to point-4 but the segment is only triggered on key-release.

If you keep experimenting with different waves, transition timings and mixer-point positions, im sure the appeal of wavesequencing will become clear very fast. Bring in the filter and modulations as appropriate.

[whyterabbyt]

What is that technology good for, anyway? What is the purpose of it in terms of resulting sounds?

Its a technology that's good for the category of sounds it produces, and the purpose is in producing that category of sounds. Of course the aesthetic judgment of such sounds is entirely subjective, so there's no real point in trying to describe it, you'd have to judge that for yourself.
Just like any other synthesis method, in fact.

If you're unaware of what wavesequenced sounds actually sound like, you should maybe go find out, and judge for yourelf.

7 lines without relevant content, amazing

In which world is advising someone to get first-hand knowledge of something they're asking about not relevant, out of interest?

[fluffy_little_something]

In which world is advising someone to get first-hand knowledge of something they're asking about not relevant, out of interest?

Of course I could do that, but if I were willing to do that, I would have done it.
I was just curious regarding the basic nature of sounds made with that technology. ENV1 explained in his or her first sentence, what I wanted to know. Case closed as far as I am concerned as I am not into dynamic sounds, changing textures, etc.

[Vectorman]

The term was coined for the Korg Wavestation as far as I recall, and referred to its ability to string not only single-cycle waveforms but also longer samples like attack transients in a list. The Wavestation also crossfades between sustaining waveforms, whereas it seems that wavetable scanning synths usually interpolate/morph between waves. Obviously these aren't miles apart conceptually and the resulting timbral animation can often sound rather similar (if you leave the longer samples out of the picture). But synths like Zebra, Massive and Kubik are not "wave sequencing" synths by the Wavestation definition...which is the one we should probably stick to, since it's the synth that introduced the term. If wavetable scanning synths start to become interchangeably referred to as wave sequencing synths, it's only going to confuse things.