Tech Preview: Hive Wavetables

[Telematix]

But Bazille too is a bit limited, especially in providing modulation sources.

2 LFO (btw, every osc in Hertz or Clocked mode can be used as a LFO)
4 EG,
2 Mapping generators,
2 Ramp
Mod Sequencer
Stack Voice
Midi sources..
..and an infinite number of combinations of all of the above.

Is it "bit limited"?

[EvilDragon]

Bazille is absolutely far from limited, sounds like nichttuntun didn't even scratch the surface of it properly.

[nichttuntun]

[nichttuntun]

Serious now.

Bazille:
Old rusty dirtbag with a digital sounding edge. Totally love this thing. Can't stretch the surface more than putting any cable anywhere
Wave manipulations and OSC interactions are fantastic and within such a closed semi modular system relatively huge. But in terms of envelopes and LFOs it could have more for me under it's hood.
Nevertheless will ever use this thing. A complete album like Downloads "Charlie's Family" could have been done with that thing.

Few examples for actual unlimited usage of modulators:
- Biotek 2
- Waverazor

Bitwig:
Yes that sounds very interesting. I informed myself already about that system some times before and that might be something for me. But for now I stick with Cubase. I already used it in the 90th. It's not modular but you can use midi LFOs but it's a relatively lame method. The automation options are good but of course it's not the same as working on the fly within a synth itself while improvising on your instrument.
As having more such DAWs as Bitwig or Waveform now I get the feeling some devs think they can tread the modulation part of their synth stepchildish cause the DAW can do it. I think that's not a good nor a customer oriented approach as many still don't use these DAWs.

Modular systems:
I also think this could be the thing for me but hardware is an endless pit of costs and that cable hiding all the knobs- thing is turning me off. The patch area of my Korg MS 20 is already enough for me . I have a closer look on systems like VCV or Cherry but can't finally decide which one would be fitting best.

Any advice is welcome

At the moment I am working myself into MSoundfactory. A deep modular system "without cables". As not coming directly from modular world this system is relatively perfect for me at the moment.

ZEBRA 3:
I really hope this thing will not be a Porsche driven with pulled handbrakes. That would be the biggest synth disappointment for me of the century.

Sorry for being so directly honest.

Have joy and be sound.

[EvilDragon]

Urs did mention that Z3 won't have "unlimited everything". It will still have a finite number of a particular module type, just like Z2 does. I agree that unlimited modulation is absolutely not necessary, and ultimately it makes things feel a lot more complex than they need to be. Especially once you want to decipher a particular patch somebody else did with a bajillion of modulators... it's not fun.

[nichttuntun]

Urs did mention that Z3 won't have "unlimited everything". It will still have a finite number of a particular module type, just like Z2 does. I agree that unlimited modulation is absolutely not necessary, and ultimately it makes things feel a lot more complex than they need to be. Especially once you want to decipher a particular patch somebody else did with a bajillion of modulators... it's not fun.

You don't have to. Do your own. The best patch ever created is "init" anyway.

I am on your side. It doesn't have to have everything endlessly. Serious that's not the thing I am expecting from ZEBRA.

But even when you won't think there is a lot of modulation in a relatively "normal" sounding patch there may be much modulation going on and such a patch will always be catching your attention more than a similar patch without slight movement.
Especially LFOs are very fast used off. Speaking of one OSC only. Pitch drift, filter drift, variations of saturation, maybe very slight tremolo, and then the same for a second OSC and then LFOs for the variation of about of ring modulation, PD and such, noise variations and and and. Plus the LFOs which control other LFOs that the first variation is changing also so that the modulation is not always playing the same. What if a third OSC comes into game?
Okay I give it up.

There has to be no "endless" but at least 4 for each module or OSC would be great. The number of modules is limited anyway.

Have joy and be sound.

[Howard]

I am just not this sequencer/ supersaw/ unison / Rompler guy. That's all.

Neither is Hive 2. I get the feeling you haven't dug deep enough to recognize its strengths. Yes, it's superficially a simple synth: THAT is its first strength. There are more…

…Plus the LFOs which control other LFOs that the first variation is changing also so that the modulation is not always playing the same... (etc) ...at least 4 for each module or OSC would be great

I personally dislike throwing separate LFOs at everything. Re-using fewer modulators for various targets tends to keep a sound more "together". If you want extra weirdness, multiply those few modulators with each other, and/or get some recursive modulation going.

BTW I think we're going way off-topic. Back to Wavetables!

[cytospur]

Back to wavetables indeed Howard!

Any ideas?

[knowix]

Did I previously read that the way wavetables work in Hive mean they don't have any particular usefulness for synthesizing singing type sounds?

[KBSoundSmith]

Did I previously read that the way wavetables work in Hive mean they don't have any particular usefulness for synthesizing singing type sounds?

If someone indeed wrote that... well I doubt they dug very deep. Or even surface level. If you're looking for a substitute for something like Plogue Chipspeech then maybe you'd be disappointed, but Hive can do plenty of vocal sounds quite easily.

Here are two quick examples. No effects or filters or anything, just small segments of two different wavetables being modulated by the shape sequencer.

Hive Vox 001.wav
https://bit.ly/2ZvqZqj

Hive FM Vox 001.wav
https://bit.ly/2KmgIcs

[KBSoundSmith]

Back to wavetables indeed Howard!

Any ideas?

Since there was a question regarding Hive and vocals, it got me thinking: can two wave files of me singing different vowels be used as the basis for a .uhm wavetable, complete with interpolation for a smooth transition between vowels? Is something like that possible via the scripting language?

[cytospur]

I'm not sure about using a script for that. I can make wavetables from samples using my own mehods if you'd like to try. There are a couple of new stock wavetables in Hive 2 that are vocally based, that I made, that could be scripted though, I think!

[Urs]

There is an interpolation command which lets you fill the wavetable (or a section thereof) with a smooth transisiton between two single cycles. There is an option that decomposes these two cycles in formants. The results of this interpolation range from spectacular to ouch. You gotta try it, sometimes it's magic

The workflow in the uhm script is like this:

Load first single cycle
Move cycle to last frame of wavetable
Load second single cycle
Interpolate from first frame to last

Repeat with different interpolation settings. Remember that you need to open the script once in Hive and that it automatically reloads the script when you save changes. That makes experimentation with different settings pretty easy.

[nichttuntun]

I am just not this sequencer/ supersaw/ unison / Rompler guy. That's all.

Neither is Hive 2. I get the feeling you haven't dug deep enough to recognize its strengths. Yes, it's superficially a simple synth: THAT is its first strength. There are more…

…Plus the LFOs which control other LFOs that the first variation is changing also so that the modulation is not always playing the same... (etc) ...at least 4 for each module or OSC would be great

I personally dislike throwing separate LFOs at everything. Re-using fewer modulators for various targets tends to keep a sound more "together". If you want extra weirdness, multiply those few modulators with each other, and/or get some recursive modulation going.

BTW I think we're going way off-topic. Back to Wavetables!

Hi Howard. Maybe you're right. Could make sense to rely on the main strength of each synthesizer and be happy with what one got and not unhappy about things which aren't there. I will definitely use your advice and of course dig deeper into HIVE2 as I really love the sound.

I was distracting this thread a lot. I want to say sorry for that.

@Urs
Back to wavetables:
How about writing a GUI for your UHM script so that everybody could easily do some Wavetables? I think that would be a great thing.
My second thought was if there will be a function in HIVE where new wavetables can be submitted by users and downloaded, maybe in a special ""user submitted folder" to try and sort it out and so on.
I think that would be a fantastic addition for HIVE2.
Have joy and be sound.

[EvilDragon]

You can't really make a GUI for generic UHM script making. You can do what, for example, cytospur made, which is GUI that parameterizes a particular way of building a wavetable with a single script. It's not an end-all-be-all solution.


You can already download user created wavetables and place them in the Wavetables folder and use them in Hive, I'm not sure what's your point?