Why that wavetable-mania?

[BONES]

It's no more a trend or fad than analog synthesis........

No but it is every bit as much a trend, which was the point the OP was trying to clarify.

Mastering a wavetable synth which comes shipped with some 100+ wavetables can take a life time.

How do you figure that? Each wavetable works the same as every other. Master one and you have mastered them all.

8. No one asks why there is subtractive-mania because it's normalized.

That's because it's always been with us, from the very earliest softsynths and VST instruments. It's not a mania so much as a staple. OTOH, even though wavetable synths have been around for nearly 40 years in hardware, they have only become popular in the software realm in recent times. That makes it an interesting and completely valid question to ask, don't you think? Why haven't they been with us since the early days of softsynths and VSTi when most other forms of synthesis have? Why the sudden explosion, seemingly out of nowhere?

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...

Hmmm... perhaps ignorance has a part to play here? Because anyone who thinks a "simple subtractive synth can generate one waveform" clearly knows very little about simple subtractive synthesis.

[tony10000]

That's because it's always been with us, from the very earliest softsynths and VST instruments. It's not a mania so much as a staple. OTOH, even though wavetable synths have been around for nearly 40 years in hardware, they have only become popular in the software realm in recent times. That makes it an interesting and completely valid question to ask, don't you think? Why haven't they been with us since the early days of softsynths and VSTi when most other forms of synthesis have? Why the sudden explosion, seemingly out of nowhere?

Huh? I bought this one almost 20 years ago!

https://waldorfmusic.com/en/archive/ppg-wave-2v
https://www.kvraudio.com/product/waldor ... by-waldorf

Also, Massive has been out for more than a decade...

[pdxindy]

Zebra has been around well over a decade

[ricowave202]

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.

I guess they're too complicated for you, then. They certainly aren't for me and many others.

[imrae]

There is a distinction to be made here between a) a synth using wavetable oacillators b) a synth which allows the user to scan or morph wavetable oscillators c) a synth that allows the user to import their own wavetables and scan them.

I suspect a large chunk of the "virtual analog" synths use wavetable oscillators because it's a simple and efficient way of matching hardware waveforms. Wavetable scanning might be hidden from the end-user and used to implement anti-aliasing. (Switching to increasingly band-limited waveforms as pitch increases.)

Sweepable fixed wavetables have also been around for ages (go Waldorf!) and Massive has certainly played a big role - but it was predated a few years by "stock plugin" ES2 in Logic. (I think it was originally an add-on then rolled into Logic Pro 6?) Probably missing some more stuff from that time, so I'd suggest that early 2000s is when software sweepable wavetable synths became mainstream.

The main progress I see now is that it is getting easier to load your own wavetables - but there is room for improvement when it comes to making new tables from user audio.

[DJ Warmonger]

It seems to me that most modern synths sport wavetables

Well, you can get more with wavetables than with simple saw / square / sine oscillators, don't you?

Some analog synths also go in direction of wavefolding / bending / mangling. Because users want more variety.

Plus, you can use wavetables as a samples for specific sound sources, such as PWM, FM and sync, but also bells, formant or noises. Or just favourites from other synths. This is just another dimension of control over sound timbre, this is imminent.

Note that some synths combine wavetable osc with FFT engine and procedural waveform generation. Serum and Avenger have it.

[metaside]

The main progress I see now is that it is getting easier to load your own wavetables - but there is room for improvement when it comes to making new tables from user audio.

How so? Have you tried Icarus, for instance? It has very flexible and easy-to-use resynthesis options, one of the main reasons I'm using it all the time.

[perpetual3]

I’ve been making music for over twenty years and only this year decided to go wavetable. Absolutely, there are more sonic possibilities.

[Ohlson_M]

Mastering a wavetable synth which comes shipped with some 100+ wavetables can take a life time.

How do you figure that? Each wavetable works the same as every other. Master one and you have mastered them all.

They work the same, yes, but when I say ”master” I obviously do not mean learning how to scan through a wavetable or similar. I mean mastering the sonic character of each and every wavetable (and how they sound when combined) and the endless sonic possibilities that 100+ wavetables gives you. You don’t master a synth by reading the manual. It’s more about learning the ins and outs of what it can do sonically. Therefore, wavetable synths will take a tremendous amount of time to fully explore.

[yellowmix]

8. No one asks why there is subtractive-mania because it's normalized.

That's because it's always been with us, from the very earliest softsynths and VST instruments. It's not a mania so much as a staple. OTOH, even though wavetable synths have been around for nearly 40 years in hardware, they have only become popular in the software realm in recent times. That makes it an interesting and completely valid question to ask, don't you think? Why haven't they been with us since the early days of softsynths and VSTi when most other forms of synthesis have? Why the sudden explosion, seemingly out of nowhere?

Congrats, you turned my one sentence into a paragraph saying the same thing. Did you misread it?

[BONES]

Huh? I bought this one almost 20 years ago!
https://waldorfmusic.com/en/archive/ppg-wave-2v
https://www.kvraudio.com/product/waldor ... by-waldorf
Also, Massive has been out for more than a decade...

Exactly! And Orion had Wavedream/Wavefusion for 20 years, too. All that says is that a few years ago there were only a handful, one of which was a hardware emulation, today there are dozens with more being added all the time. So if NI, Synapse and Waldorf could manage it 10-20 years ago, why is it only now that everyone else is falling over themselves to catch up? If you can't see the validity in the question, there is something wrong with your mental processes.

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.

I guess they're too complicated for you, then. They certainly aren't for me and many others.

Care to explain how that logic works? You're talking as though there was anything to learn about them, there is not. The concept couldn't be simpler and the execution is very straightforward. I'm sure even you can get your head around it. The thing is, if you need to wade through dozens, maybe hundreds, of wavetables to find decent sounds, that kind of indicate you can't do it with a more conventional set-up. I can so which of us, exactly, do you think is really the one who doesn't know what he's doing? The fact you responded in the way you have tells me you don't even have the knowledge to understand what I was saying.

[recursive one]

Wavetables are the way to provide huge tonal variety with very simple set of controls, that's it. You can source wavetables from FM, additive, analog synths, acoustic instruments, whatever. Basically, it's more advanced from of sampling. What's not to like?

[BONES]

It seems to me that most modern synths sport wavetables

Well, you can get more with wavetables than with simple saw / square / sine oscillators, don't you?

Maybe sometimes but not always. e.g. one simple sine wave modulating another, FM, is capable of a very wide range of timbres.

Some analog synths also go in direction of wavefolding / bending / mangling. Because users want more variety.

That's not the reason. The reason is that adding more and more features gives them marketing leverage over their rivals.

Plus, you can use wavetables as a samples for specific sound sources, such as PWM, FM and sync, but also bells, formant or noises. Or just favourites from other synths. This is just another dimension of control over sound timbre, this is imminent.

Given that you can do all of that without wavetables, surely you can see that their value is somewhat overstated? Just look at what can be done with a DX7 from 1983, for instance. So why go bananas for wavetables and not FM?

Note that some synths combine wavetable osc with FFT engine and procedural waveform generation. Serum and Avenger have it.

Doesn't that tell you that even the biggest names in wavetables acknowledge that they aren't all that good and sometimes you need other ways of generating timbres?

I mean mastering the sonic character of each and every wavetable (and how they sound when combined) and the endless sonic possibilities that 100+ wavetables gives you.

That's hardly "mastering", it's more like memorising a bunch of rubbish when you could be making music.

You don’t master a synth by reading the manual. It’s more about learning the ins and outs of what it can do sonically.

If you know how synths work, you can learn any of them in an hour or two. It's not rocket science, they are all pretty much variations on a very limited number of themes. It's laughable that you talk about it like it's some kind of dark art.

Therefore, wavetable synths will take a tremendous amount of time to fully explore.

Exactly, which is a massive waste of time that could be better used making music. Or have you forgotten that that is what all this stuff is for?

Congrats, you turned my one sentence into a paragraph saying the same thing. Did you misread it?

I wasn't trying to disagree, simply providing elucidation where you had delivered vagueness.

[ricowave202]

So Wavetable synthesis is "a needless complication" (your words) but you're recommending FM instead. What a joke, just pure snobbery.

[telecode]

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...

Just curios, what is it about FM that make you think that FM is the best synthesis method over WTs?