Anything like Zynaptiq Morph?

[MeldaProduction]

It hasn't been released yet, just for betatesters . But soon!

[joule]

I'm really hyped since I've had my eyes on the zynaptiq plug for a long time. Very curious about the effect..

Is it usable as a way to "re-synthesize" instruments by blending them, or is it something to mostly use on specific audio segments and for weird effects?

Does it 'require' carefully selected sources, or will you easily get a more or less interesting and predictable sound?

What's your initial impression in general?

PS. Looking forward to the release! I think melda production is totally underappreciated, but this might hopefully be a plug that will put the brand on the spot a little bit more.

[vectorwarrior]

I've been testing it extensively over the last 3 or 4 days. Given that it's dropping very soon I thought I'd give my thoughts.

It serves a similar purpose to zynaptiqs morph, so if you've used the demo of that you'll know what general direction to expect. That is, the results are largely dependent on the two inputs.

Its goal is to find similar frequencies in both signals, so you're best off using two signals that contain at least some frequencies in common. As an example, I've been trying to get interesting sounds from a low roar with a high scream, but it doesn't work best in this example because they cover such different frequencies. Switching the scream to a walrus or tiger produces way more usable results to my ears.

The above 'limitation' exists in all these morphing plugins. However, I'd say that the melda plug is my favorite sounding by a large margin. It has its own 'sound' and I prefer it to zynaptiqs. It is also has considerably more control that the pretty bare bones controls in the competition, this makes getting a usable sound more likely too, although the biggest deciding factor is still the input signals, not the parameter settings. In addition, using morph in MXXX has been a dream for me, doing side chained gating and then spectral dynamics on the B channel before morphing, followed by spectral dynamics on the morph output helps tailor the output further and I've got some killer sounds out of it.

With the above said though, be aware that it's not some magic box that spits out rainbows from morphing two random signals. Getting good results takes time, experimentation and a bit of patience... but I'm happy to do that for some unique sounds. It's a very welcome addition to the melda line.

[Igor Amos]

I've been testing it extensively over the last 3 or 4 days. Given that it's dropping very soon I thought I'd give my thoughts.

It serves a similar purpose to zynaptiqs morph, so if you've used the demo of that you'll know what general direction to expect. That is, the results are largely dependent on the two inputs.

Its goal is to find similar frequencies in both signals, so you're best off using two signals that contain at least some frequencies in common. As an example, I've been trying to get interesting sounds from a low roar with a high scream, but it doesn't work best in this example because they cover such different frequencies. Switching the scream to a walrus or tiger produces way more usable results to my ears.

The above 'limitation' exists in all these morphing plugins. However, I'd say that the melda plug is my favorite sounding by a large margin. It has its own 'sound' and I prefer it to zynaptiqs. It is also has considerably more control that the pretty bare bones controls in the competition, this makes getting a usable sound more likely too, although the biggest deciding factor is still the input signals, not the parameter settings. In addition, using morph in MXXX has been a dream for me, doing side chained gating and then spectral dynamics on the B channel before morphing, followed by spectral dynamics on the morph output helps tailor the output further and I've got some killer sounds out of it.

With the above said though, be aware that it's not some magic box that spits out rainbows from morphing two random signals. Getting good results takes time, experimentation and a bit of patience... but I'm happy to do that for some unique sounds. It's a very welcome addition to the melda line.

Thank you! this is extremely helpful.

[Tagirijus]

I've been testing it extensively over the last 3 or 4 days. Given that it's dropping very soon I thought I'd give my thoughts.

It serves a similar purpose to zynaptiqs morph, so if you've used the demo of that you'll know what general direction to expect. That is, the results are largely dependent on the two inputs.

Its goal is to find similar frequencies in both signals, so you're best off using two signals that contain at least some frequencies in common. As an example, I've been trying to get interesting sounds from a low roar with a high scream, but it doesn't work best in this example because they cover such different frequencies. Switching the scream to a walrus or tiger produces way more usable results to my ears.

The above 'limitation' exists in all these morphing plugins. However, I'd say that the melda plug is my favorite sounding by a large margin. It has its own 'sound' and I prefer it to zynaptiqs. It is also has considerably more control that the pretty bare bones controls in the competition, this makes getting a usable sound more likely too, although the biggest deciding factor is still the input signals, not the parameter settings. In addition, using morph in MXXX has been a dream for me, doing side chained gating and then spectral dynamics on the B channel before morphing, followed by spectral dynamics on the morph output helps tailor the output further and I've got some killer sounds out of it.

With the above said though, be aware that it's not some magic box that spits out rainbows from morphing two random signals. Getting good results takes time, experimentation and a bit of patience... but I'm happy to do that for some unique sounds. It's a very welcome addition to the melda line.

I am just here to fully endorse this post! *flies away*

[MeldaProduction]

Thank you folks! Just a few more days .

[Batty]

...thank you for all the great things you do, Vojtech!

[jackmazzotti]

Thank you folks! Just a few more days .

[Jedinhopy]

I have found this on youtube:

[Igor Amos]

I have found this on youtube:

nice to hear. gives ideas!! thanks.

[Krakatau]

I have found this on youtube:

interesting...

... obviously, it would have been more effective if both instruments have shared the same melody at the same rate !

[steve2KVR]

...processing latency?...c++ is not the quickest cat in the box.../s~

[MeldaProduction]

...processing latency?...c++ is not the quickest cat in the box.../s~

Adjustable, 256 to 16k samples, we may extend it even higher, but there doesn't seem to be a use for that.
As for C++ - what??? That IS the quickest cat, not for development though .

[ErikH]

quote: As for C++ - what??? That IS the quickest cat, not for development though .

If I code it, be shure it ain't!

--------------------------------------------------

This said: there are many uses for this, think two same melodies with a bit of fake natural difference and played by same or two different instruments and then led into the morph horrorhouse; or a mono signal that is, say, stereo phased; or a woooo background on one channel, a lead on another and a morph channel that tortures both. Handy of course when you have three hands to manipulate the sliders...

[Nspace]

there are many uses for this, (...) Handy of course when you have three hands to manipulate the sliders...

Or when you have a nice shinny motorized fadered board/automation, where you may record a pass, then have a calm listen to it, and go back and edit those fader moves all the times you want until it is perfect for your ears. Luckily multi-hand mixing was solved at the 80s, and made accessible at the 00s, more so nowadays.