Why that wavetable-mania?

[SmartCat]

The magic in using wavetables to me is that you can never run out of sound sources

+1

Because customers apparently want it. Why? Endless sound design possibilities. Mastering a wavetable synth which comes shipped with some 100+ wavetables can take a life time. And that is before, if possible, you start adding 3rd party wavetables or creating your own.

+1

[pekbro]

You can implement granular via wavetable pretty easily. Just use grain tables.

[telecode]

Because customers apparently want it. Why? Endless sound design possibilities. Mastering a wavetable synth which comes shipped with some 100+ wavetables can take a life time. And that is before, if possible, you start adding 3rd party wavetables or creating your own.

The question is for how much longer this trend will persist. The market is a bit saturated now but it is complicated since different programmers have different preferences and skills regarding synth programming, so even if two synths have the same wavetables, they can have a different sound because of different FX, filters, modulation possibilties and so on.

I guess what I am curious about is, are all the wavetable synths on the market using the same approach or are different companies approaching (or implementing the concepts behind wavetable synthesis) it differently?

[Benedict]

Because it is easier to do those ugly ripping, garbled sounds that were de-rigeur last month with wavetables than simple analog.

That is not to say that a wavetable is technically that different from an analog or even sample playback synth but you can get some interesting morphing sounds from the wavetable/grain approach (which often hides an Additive synth engine under a cool Joy Division record cover graphic). A wavetable/grain lets you put any combo of raw sounds you could want in the OSC slot.

[Ohlson_M]

I guess what I am curious about is, are all the wavetable synths on the market using the same approach or are different companies approaching (or implementing the concepts behind wavetable synthesis) it differently?

Short answer, Yes. To simplify, although different synths have different wavetables (which may be the most distinguishing factor), there are different ways to generate the same waveform(s) digitally, and also different ways to morph between them within a wavetable. Giving each synth its unique sound. And this is before the different routing possibilities, filters etc. that exist in each synth, which help them distinguish themselves from each other even further.

[telecode]

Because it is easier to do those ugly ripping, garbled sounds that were de-rigeur last month with wavetables than simple analog.

Which sounds? Wub Wub bass? I have grown to like the wub wub sounds of the new young generation of artists.

[FapFilter]

I like me some wub wub too, when done right. It's always what's the artist makes out of the sounds.
The lead sound in Yazoo's Don't Go sounds like garb... i mean, nothing special in isolation for instance when simply holding down a key, despite coming from one of the holy grails of analogheads synths.
The magic only happenened because a gifted composer knew how to use this sound correctly in the context of the song.
I also think Vangelis once said something in the line of that the CS80 didn't really have such a great sound, it was more about how expressively it could be played compared to many other synths

[highkoo]

Its maybe a chicken/egg thing, but yea Massive, Dubstep, and specifically that Carbon table get at least some of the "blame" for it being huge in the vst world now.

[yellowmix]

1. Many of the patents expired so developers can now innovate with it. You can do a basic implementation where the tables instantly switch, or they can smoothly morph in various ways. For instance, Hive 2 does the smoothest morphing, which lets it do FM sounds entirely with wavetables. Like other users said, there is movement in granular too; people go to where the action is.
2. Synths are competing with each other and developers add features in the arms race. Adding a wavetable oscillator is a way to introduce a much broader timbral palette without disrupting the architecture of an existing product.
3. Ginuwine — Pony. Timbaland using wavetables with Z-Plane filters, sounding like nothing else in 1996 and hitting the top of the charts.
4. Education about this type of synthesis is widespread.
5. It is relatively easy to understand.
6. You can get good results for little effort.
7. There are many available wavetables for use and it has more or less standardized (on Serum wavetables).
8. No one asks why there is subtractive-mania because it's normalized.
9. Technology has improved where it is easier to implement than ever before.
10. Like any form of oscillator, they can make interesting and useful sounds.

[ricowave202]

The magic in using wavetables to me is that you can never run out of sound sources

I'd say the same about a sawtooth wave. It's not a compelling argument IMO.

To answer the OP's question - yes, wavetables are the new analogue, the latest fad for all the sheeple to clamour for..

What a moronic post. With a wavetable synth you can use any specific saw shape you want and even morph smoothly between them.

[tony10000]

Versatility.

[highkoo]

The magic in using wavetables to me is that you can never run out of sound sources

I'd say the same about a sawtooth wave. It's not a compelling argument IMO.

To answer the OP's question - yes, wavetables are the new analogue, the latest fad for all the sheeple to clamour for..

What a moronic post. With a wavetable synth you can use any specific saw shape you want and even morph smoothly between them.

BONES once built a published Phd robot lazer unicorn priest using only basic waveforms.

[BONES]

What a moronic post. With a wavetable synth you can use any specific saw shape you want and even morph smoothly between them.

To achieve what, exactly? I've been doing this for 38 years and I am nowhere near exhausting the sonic possibilities of the simple saw wave. If the time ever comes, maybe I'll see some merit in using wavetables but, until then, they are just a needless complication.

[dune_rave]

this is not 'mania'. This is an advanced way of synthesis. while a simple subtractive synth can generate one waveform, a wavetable synth can use more. on the other hand i think still fm is the best synthesis method...

[Spencer Maddox]

this is not 'mania'. This is an advanced way of synthesis. while a simple subtractive synth can generate one waveform, a wavetable synth can use more. on the other hand i think still fm is the best synthesis method...

Most likely yes.
But FM can be confusing as HELL.
The genius of many of these modern wavetable plugins. And for the sake of the argument let’s specifically mention Serum here, as it is the posterboy of this generation, Is it made making advances syntheses easy and intuitive to the average musician.

I doubt it'll become as mainstream (it's not as versatile as WT), but granular seems to be getting some momentum now.

Honestly Grandular is the only type of synthesis I don’t actively do. I should try it some time. I own Falcon and apparently it does that really well.