KVR Audio

jbuonacc · Post by **jbuonacc** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:45 pm

off the top of my head, i'd say that Native Instruments 'Driver' is probably the "screamiest" filter (while also one of the "creamiest") i've ever used.

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:56 pm

Massive has a good scream filter.

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:58 pm

jbuonacc wrote:off the top of my head, i'd say that Native Instruments 'Driver' is probably the "screamiest" filter (while also one of the "creamiest") i've ever used.

I always forget about this thing... time to finally install it, the sound demos on the NI site sound great.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 11:05 pm

Architeuthis wrote:Edit: And again, it just comes down to waveshaping/resonance clipping, I don't believe there's some special analog thing happening.

Actually just the shaping/clipping and other effects like how current may determine resistance (... aka a diode or transistor) can be considered "magical" on their own.

If you think about the number of possible elementary functions and combinations you can go with, it isn't quite so trivial when you start to combine something like a transistor which already has on its own a very complex function with tens of additional transistors and other elements!

The real "function" for such a circuit is simply immense to the point that it is likely quite unique and impossible to model exactly in software.

We can approximate it but ultimately the cheapest way to compute that result is to use that circuit and always will be. Currently our processors have billions of transistors in them to barely scratch the surface of what it takes to compute the same result as a five or ten transistor analog circuit.

This is much the same as seeing a leaf as "simple", yet when you zoom in you find it is made up of billions of cells covered in billions more bacteria and others. Zooming further there are countless molecules and atoms, even further sub-atomic particles on and on. The level of complexity is to put it quite simply: ridiculous to attempt to emulate.

To store every bit of information about that leaf as we do in current computer memories you'd need all the matter in the entire universe dedicated to the task.

It's much easier to just grow another leaf.

That all said, I quite like some software because it just like an analog circuit is incredibly complex and unique. You could produce another circuit as the duplicate of one instance of a circuit, or another software as the duplicate of one instance of software.

https://soundcloud.com/xhip/limitar

(There is another filter I've been working on, although it isn't complete and I don't have any very convincing demos of it. It roughly approximates a sallen-key filter such as in the ms-20, though. Sounds as "screamy" as the old state-variable in Xhip, but in a much different way.)

To reproduce software in a circuit, or a circuit in software however incurs a ridiculous amount of overhead to the point that it is essentially impossible to achieve. Approximate yes, fully emulate? Impossible.

Architeuthis · Post by **Architeuthis** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:05 am

aciddose I appreciate your reply and your effort in writing this post, I'm going to reread it a few times (and listen to the demo)... but I can't help but notice how simple the waveforms are that come out of my analog synth. Why do we have to deal with any of the complexity if the final output is so simple? I just can't help but see an analog synth as a Rube Goldberg machine. Of course my opinion has little meaning until I actually attempt to code a filter for myself.

EDIT:

aciddose wrote:Approximate yes, fully emulate? Impossible.

It was never the goal and should not be the goal (IMO) to fully emulate. It should be the goal to simulate and approximate and then from there invent your own details. That's my plan. Analog synths should not be fully emulated because analog synths are not perfect.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:05 am

You're only repeating the same thing I said in my post.

Also, remember you said this:

but so far no filter screams as much as a certain inspirational analog filter.

So you're contradicting yourself a bit here.

My point was to say "yes, they're different." That is all.

Architeuthis · Post by **Architeuthis** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 5:23 am

aciddose wrote:You're only repeating the same thing I said in my post.

Also, remember you said this:
but so far no filter screams as much as a certain inspirational analog filter.
So you're contradicting yourself a bit here.

My point was to say "yes, they're different." That is all.

ill finish that statement "but so far no [digital] filter screams as much as a certain inspirational analog filter."... because I haven't created it yet.

Frantz · Post by **Frantz** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 5:28 am

Architeuthis wrote:Analog synths should not be fully emulated because analog synths are not perfect.

Perfection is boring. Imagine a perfect sine wave -- boring.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 5:54 am

Architeuthis wrote:ill finish that statement "but so far no [digital] filter screams as much as a certain inspirational analog filter."... because I haven't created it yet.

How would you know? You haven't used every bit of software.

Which filter are you talking about?

Also define "screaming", "as much".

No piece of fruit waddles like this peach.

So what is your point? Anyone can make up a bunch of bullshit without making a point.

Architeuthis · Post by **Architeuthis** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:17 am

aciddose... I've stated the point many times in this thread and others you've read of mine. Why are you wasting your time responding to my threads?

Edit: I'm just sharing my vision, my weakly-grounded opinions, because I desperately want to create something great but don't have the resources right now, so the best thing I can do is start a thread, which also helps me refine the idea as well as do research, like downloading a whole bunch of VSTs and seeing what people have done in terms of filters.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:29 am

Well, my point is that you're going about it in the wrong way. You seem quite full of yourself to say "because I haven't yet created it."

If you want some directions on how to achieve something you need to be more specific. Why are you using the phrase "a certain inspirational analog filter" ?

I think you are using this intentionally, being intentionally vague to avoid critique of your statements.

Why you would want to make the claim "because I haven't created it yet" is another question. Whatever the reason however I'm here trying to argue on your behalf to convince you that this is not at all a productive way to achieve your goals. At this rate I can assure you, you never will create such a thing.

You need to be far more specific and if you do not yet have the ability to understand the technical terms or describe what you want, your focus should absolutely be on how to do so.

Using weasel words and making hollow and trite assertions followed by an admission you don't really know what you're talking about certainly isn't going to help anyone with anything. Neither you or anyone else will be able to understand what it is you are seeking.

electro · Post by **electro** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:04 pm

VSF from Alex B includes several line amp programs in addition to filters.
http://www.alessandroboschi.eu/html/ale ... ilters.htm

TAL Sampler, Cytomic The Drop, NI Monark, Gforce Imposcar should be able to cover every possible filter need.

Was the NI Driver also done by the Monark team?

fluffy_little_something · Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:33 pm

What are those internal parameters you want to allow users to tweak?
I assume there are not many such parameters whose values can be changed just like that. Else all those experts from the leading companies would have done so by now, I suppose.

Architeuthis · Post by **Architeuthis** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:37 pm

aciddose wrote:Well, my point is that you're going about it in the wrong way. You seem quite full of yourself to say "because I haven't yet created it."

You said I was contradicting myself saying that an inspirational analog filter sounds better than any digital filter available, as if that fact proves that analog is and will always be better. I said "I haven't created it yet" to explain that it's very possible to create a digital simulation of said filter, and it being analog has nothing to do with why I like the sound, it has all to do with the output. I'm saying it's up to me to do something about it.

aciddose wrote:If you want some directions on how to achieve something you need to be more specific. Why are you using the phrase "a certain inspirational analog filter" ?

I plan on giving more specifics for the next iteraion of this thread, I may do a filter shootout and post a lot more details on my vision for a digital filter.

aciddose wrote:I think you are using this intentionally, being intentionally vague to avoid critique of your statements.

fluffy_little_something wrote:What are those internal parameters you want to allow users to tweak?
I assume there are not many such parameters whose values can be changed just like that. Else all those experts from the leading companies would have done so by now, I suppose.

Waveshaping and filtering of waveshape (aka style of clipping) of resonance (HUGE range of possibilities here, this is the heart of the sound of many filters), amplitude envelope of resonance, modulation of filter frequency based on input or arbitrary modulation of filter frequency plus filtering of said modulation, feedback and filtering of said feedback (I don't understand feedback[plugging output into input] quite yet, Monark has it btw), maybe self-modulation? ringing time, self-oscillation threshold, resonance clipping top/bottom limits, all these parameters via curves and over frequency and resonance settings, filter drive settings (does the audio clip or does the resonance get squashed?), number of poles, filter mix settings, different filter shapes, I'm also thinking about looking at vactrols to see if I can get the filter to sound like it's being controlled by a vactrol.

For example one of my analog filters seems to clip the resonance/feedback more as you increase resonance. Another filter does not do that. This requires having curves for all parameters based on resonance and/or filter. By designing your waveshape and your settings over filter/resonance settings, that will allow you to design your filter from the ground up. There's a few more filter behaviors I don't understand yet, but I think I've heard every analog filter behavior recreated in some digital filter so I have the confidence it can be done.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:32 pm

Confidence it can be done? You have not even the very vaguest of ideas about how it is done.

At this rate you will never achieve anything. You need to start asking questions rather than telling everyone else where they went wrong, which just makes you seem like a fool.

Try posting in the dsp forum with a clip of your filter:
"What makes it difficult to reproduce the harmonics generated as in this recording of the ________ VCF from my _________ synthesizer?"

What is your favorite screamy filter? (from a vst)