Why that wavetable-mania?

[recursive one]

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?

FM can provide very interesting sounds bit also a lot of garbage.
However you can record the useable results generated with FM and make a wavetable of it

[perpetual3]

Wavetable synthesis is “easier” than more than 2 OP FM. You kind of have to really know what you’re doing with 4+ OP FM otherwise it’s luck or garbage.

[BlackWinny]

Each wavetable works the same as every other. Master one and you have mastered them all.

If we follow your logic let's replace the term "wavetable" with the term "sawtooth synth" and we get this : "Each sawtooth synth works the same as every other. Master one and you have mastered them all.".



Honestly, I think that you never dug the subject of the wavetable synthesis.

[perfumer]

Honestly, I think that you never dug the subject of the wavetable synthesis.

He already said so. Hence, his is THE expert opinion. Listen closely.

[Ohlson_M]

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.

"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"

Based on this quote, you haven´t even fully learned the sonic possibilities of a simple saw wave. Now imagine if you had 100 wavetables at your disposal, each containing 4-250 waveforms (individual tables).

The fact that you think you can learn a wavetable synth´s limitations and sound possibilities just by playing around for an hour or two is indeed laughable. Especially, since you haven´t even used one before. What a joke.

[Ohlson_M]

Honestly, I think that you never dug the subject of the wavetable synthesis.

He already said so. Hence, his is THE expert opinion. Listen closely.

[BlackWinny]

Honestly, I think that you never dug the subject of the wavetable synthesis.

He already said so. Hence, his is THE expert opinion. Listen closely.

I forgot a word between never and dug : the word "even".

[imrae]

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.

I'll have to give it a try! I was quite impressed with the automatic tables in Europa when I fed it sweeps from my Eurorack, but found that for some complex tones it would create multiple frames within one desired 'cycle'. The resulting table is unusably 'steppy' an unlike the source. Can this issue be avoided in Icarus?

[Unaspected]

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..

Well, there is the aforementioned functionality of working with sampled sound in ways unique to wavetable synthesis, which makes them attractive to the user. Resynthesis can be achieved using sine banks but the types of transformations most easily afforded are different. The wavetable can also be a lot cheaper than a naive method which calculates each sample from scratch on the fly - whereas wavetables can already contain data generated by offline calculations.

Though I do get your point about the basic waveforms. They hit in a certain way and are exceptionally useful for electronic music. And it's not as though you cannot transform these waveforms, if they are being generated naively, like you can with wavetables by warping the phase accumulator. After all, the phase accumulator is only a reference to the phase of the waveform being generated. However, plenty of synths that do not tout wavetable functionality might well be using wavetables under the hood to reduce CPU cost.

I definitely understand artistic restriction though. The choice offered by wavetable synthesis could be viewed as unnecessarily overwhelming. I like that Massive, for example, is a closed system as a design choice - it keeps potential preset size down and allows for full compatibility between users.

If you're embracing digital methods then wavetable synthesis is one of DSPs strengths over analogue. What was maybe initially a method to solve CPU cost has been exploited to offer greater functionality and more sound design options.

[Teksonik]

Why Wavetable Synthesis ? The question should be "why not" ?

Why has it become a "mania" and developers are pumping out WT synths? Because some people like them and they sell well. Same reason a certain company is going to emulate yet another obscure feature poor analog synth that has rightfully faded into history. Because somebody will buy it.

If the concept of Wavetables is over a handful of user's heads who cares ?

Many people understand the power of Wavetables, those who don't are simply missing out on an expanded range of sounds over the dead common saw, square, sine, triangle. Sweeping Wavetables yields some very interesting results to those with even a modicum of imagination.

It's all about evolution of sound. Some people are looking for new sounds while some still want to use the same Saw wave patch they did fifteen years ago.

Either method is perfectly acceptable as long as you don't confuse "what's best for me" with "what's best for everybody". Don't like or have any use for Wavetables ? Fine, don't use them....there's the door, have a nice day......

[byllabong]

Does Massive count as a WT synth?

Only one I'd ever need TBH.

[telecode]

Same reason a certain company is going to emulate yet another obscure feature poor analog synth that has rightfully faded into history.

Go Uli !!! Go Behringer!! Make an old wavetable synth. 'nuff of 'dat ole' 70s funky stuff!! Make it go "wub wub" baby!!

[Unaspected]

Does Massive count as a WT synth?

Only one I'd ever need TBH.

Of course. It employs wavetable oscillators.

[byllabong]

Bongo!

[Mushy Mushy]

Does Massive count as a WT synth?

Only one I'd ever need TBH.

Of course. It employs wavetable oscillators.

I heard they were all sacked.