KVR Audio

7angram · Post by **7angram** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 11:28 pm

.jon wrote:Sweet, an actually good synth for a change

3 minutes into my submission, so easy to make stuff sound good wih xhip.

You are so right! I really struggled with last month's entry as I just couldn't pull a pleasing sound from Crisalis. Whereas this month (even though was getting lost in the GUI) the sounds just rolled out and the composition virtually wrote itself

Dragonsongz · Post by **Dragonsongz** » Fri Mar 18, 2016 11:47 pm

I finally finished my piece. It's nothing to drop your jaw about, but it's something (and my first OSC submission).

https://soundcloud.com/real_skylake/dra ... ke-level-1

Here's all the interesting bits:

DAW: FL 12
Instances:
10 Xhip (only used 9 tho)
6 Spectrum Analyzers (name/publisher I can't remember XD)
3 Fruity Limiters (only 1 is in use)
10 Fnequalizers
4 Fruity Reeverb 2s

Here's the flp: http://www.mediafire.com/download/v5n9j ... ATE%29.flp

I'll be around for any questions/critiques.

J.Ruegg · Post by **J.Ruegg** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:31 am

Xhip sounds superb

, I like it a lot.

https://soundcloud.com/jruegg/xhip-bass-test-gain

bjporter · Post by **bjporter** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:00 am

J.Ruegg wrote:Xhip sounds superb , I like it a lot.

https://soundcloud.com/jruegg/xhip-bass-test-gain

That's impressive

Dragonsongz · Post by **Dragonsongz** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:33 am

J.Ruegg wrote:Xhip sounds superb , I like it a lot.

https://soundcloud.com/jruegg/xhip-bass-test-gain

Whoa, that's pretty good.

Mutant · Post by **Mutant** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:39 pm

J.Ruegg wrote:Xhip sounds superb , I like it a lot.

https://soundcloud.com/jruegg/xhip-bass-test-gain

Wow, that sounds so "hardware'ish".
Can you share the patch ?

H-man · Post by **H-man** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:54 pm

Mutant wrote:
J.Ruegg wrote:Xhip sounds superb , I like it a lot.

https://soundcloud.com/jruegg/xhip-bass-test-gain
Wow, that sounds so "hardware'ish".
Can you share the patch ?

Patches

There are at least a couple of layers in there, plus all the automation. J is a monster when it comes to building tracks.

J.Ruegg · Post by **J.Ruegg** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 1:00 pm

Mutant wrote: Wow, that sounds so "hardware'ish".
Can you share the patch ?

Yes, I could, but the patch itself sounds too static, what I have made was layer 3 instances, and go mad with automation.

Try automating:
- Xmod.
- Filter cuttof & reso.
- Waveshaper symmetri & depth.
- Notch filter (in the waveshaper).
- And the pitch bend.

Presets HERE.

Good luck,

J.Ruegg · Post by **J.Ruegg** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 1:23 pm

Here an example of how much automated one layer was.

Mutant · Post by **Mutant** » Sat Mar 19, 2016 1:36 pm

Haha thx.

Got something similar in timbre, but had to use Simulanalog JCM900 on it.
Now i'll check your patch.

loris16148 · Post by **loris16148** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:22 am

aciddose wrote:
loris16148 wrote:Hey Acid, well like you said there are multiple ways ...
The issue still exists with trying to produce uneven times between the triplet at the start of the clap. The original circuit in the 808 is quite interesting, if I recall correctly it actually has the timings for each pulse (#2, #3, #4) set directly.

I suppose when we get this complex it becomes more a modular sort of thing rather than the place for a simple synthesizer like Xhip aims to be.

Certain trackers and other systems from long ago used preset patterns which contained a sequence of parameter changes that could be played back to create this kind of sequenced sound, although I never bothered with this idea myself.

Using the MIDI input to do so directly is definitely a solution if you can manage with copy&paste

Add some multistage envelopes, or is that going too far

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 10:09 am

Definitely

We'd end up with a completely different synthesizer then if the envelopes were replaced.

One key feature of Xhip is that every parameter is available for automation. If the envelopes were replaced with graph envelopes (draw points + curves + loops) it would eliminate 100% of the current envelope parameters and none of the graph stuff could be automated.

ere2learn · Post by **ere2learn** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 11:31 am

Stereo spread would be icing on the cake for xhip or am I not seeing it?

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 12:28 pm

Alpha already has it since years ago.

What you can do instead is use two instances. Set up half the unison you'd otherwise use, then pan the two instances.

Xhip is 100% mono so thinking in terms of stereo doesn't make any sense at all.

If you wanted stereo you'd need two voices... internally Xhip would work as pairs of voices to be stereo. The most important factors would of course be the shared phase and states including of envelopes and modulators between these voices... although to be honest if you want that, use some other synthesizer.

With independent voices all the implementation required in Xhip would just save you from having to save a .fxb file and load it into another instance while adjusting a pan control. I'm a programmer, so I understand automation. I am pretty much all about automation. That said there are some things which just go too far. The extra seconds of effort probably won't hurt.

ere2learn · Post by **ere2learn** » Sun Mar 20, 2016 12:39 pm

Thanks AD

One Synth Challenge #85: Xhip (J.Ruegg wins!)