Tone2 announces Rayblaster 2

[exmatproton]

Out of curiosity, doesn't "enhanced sound quality" contradict "backwards compatible"? Would existing projects still sound the same? Or is it generally accepted that if the sound quality is better, a certain loose interpretation of backwards compatibility is okay?

Or is it simply so that you get to run V1 and V2 next to each other but V2 loads presets of V1 and renders them with better quality?

Ingo, can you post audio examples of the same preset run in V1 and V2?

he can't, i am sure.

[Ingonator]

Ingo, can you post audio examples of the same preset run in V1 and V2?

Not yet. as just mentioned this time i will not provide informations beyond what was alraedy published by Tone2.

[chk071]

Out of curiosity, doesn't "enhanced sound quality" contradict "backwards compatible"? Would existing projects still sound the same? Or is it generally accepted that if the sound quality is better, a certain loose interpretation of backwards compatibility is okay?

Or is it simply so that you get to run V1 and V2 next to each other but V2 loads presets of V1 and renders them with better quality?

Ingo, can you post audio examples of the same preset run in V1 and V2?

he can't, i am sure.

I'm sure he could. But he'd have to kill us all afterwards to not violate his NDA contract.

Anyway, i'm sure there'll be features, and teasers "leaked" soon enough. Usually doesn't take long for Tone2 to release some pictures, or specs, after they announced a synth. I actually wonder why it's Rayblaster 2 though, i wouldn't have expected it to be their "top horse", hence i wouldn't have expected they'd come out with a second version of it.

Regarding the patch compatibility: As far as i remember, Electra2 was also patch compatible with ElectraX, but, due to change in the sound engine, patches didn't sound the same, which was criticized by Computer Music mag e.g., i think. No idea if that also holds true for Rayblaster of course.

[Ingonator]

For those who still not knwo what Rayblaster is about:

The first version of Rayblaster started as a kind of "experiment" which Markus had in mind and always wanted to do and nobody including him had an exact idea what this would really lead to but it turned out to be a really nice synth while it is not very simple to program from scratch.

It was alraedy discussed multiple times that Rayblaster could "mimic" filters of certain synths using specific samples/waveforms created from those synths. Of course this only works within certain limits but is differnt from simpl waveform or sample playback.
Rayblaste rcreates a filter respnse from ANY waveform you load into, no matter if a filter was actually used for that waveform or not. With complex waveforms this could lead to some really interesting results.

FWIW i just createed a bunch of waveforms from the different filter modes in my real analog Novation Bass Station II. As was dicussed in the past to use those proprly they have to be created at a lower Cutoff amount in the original synth (around 25-50% related to the Cutoff knob positiion) and not at full Cutoff like with "normal" samples. For the perfect values you also have to experiment a bit. Same is true when creating waveforms taht involve resonance and with a proper waveform you could create nice resonant sweeps (again within a certain limit).

Of course there are also several other interesting features to do modifications on the waveforms/samples loaded like e.g. harmonic, Osc windows and PW sequences. With the modulation of the "Start Offset" parameter with bigger samples (beyond a single cycle) it is alos possible to emulate wavetable scanning.

The way how Rayblaster could handle waveforms in terms of creating filter responses and also the other advanced waveform modifications is summed up in the term "Impulse Modelling Synthesis" (also called IMS) which is more than just a "buzzword" or "marketing terms".

Using the built-in Resynthesis feature usually leads to granular like sounds and the result of this is usually different to loading waveforms into the oscilators.

You could also have a look at those threads in the official forum taht i created a long time ago and which are "sticky" threads now:
http://www.tone2.org/forum/index.php?topic=1336.0
http://www.tone2.org/forum/index.php?topic=1446.0

[sacer]

I personaly welcome that v2 is backward compatible, I compared electra v1 with v2 and was glad with the new version that opens old projects. On saurus i was able to compare my v1 with demo of v2, and i always prefered the sound of v2, but in this case the update price was to high. For rayblaster I also think the update will cost 90€ so i am not sure if i realy need to update.
The update concept to keep compatible to the previous version is on my opinion bether, than to have installed all the older version for backward compatiblitiy, especialy if you have no difference on sound quality like kontakt, arturia etc, but 3 versions of one plugin which could get incompatible on os updates.

[fluffy_little_something]

To me backward compatibility means being able to load existing patches. I doubt the sound will be so much better that existing projects have to be edited.

One example where that really is the case is Waves' Element 1 and 2. And they know it, which is why one can simply switch back and forth between the two sound engines within v2. Else it would indeed ruin existing projects.