Why that wavetable-mania?

[Ploki]

Anyway back on the topic of Wavs....Yesterday I was working with a synth I just purchased and rediscovered Wavesequencing as opposed to Wavetables.

Wavesequencing being loosely defined as using larger size samples as opposed to single cycle waveforms and scanning through a series of them.

Think Korg's Wavestation and the perennially underrated WusikStation.

There's a form of synthesis that needs more love along with WT's as it opens up a whole new world of synthesis (to synthesists).

So I'll turn the question "Why so many WT synths" into "Why not more Wavesequencing Synths" ?

Where's the line between granular and wavesequencing?

[Teksonik]

My suggestion would be to use such a thing for more analogue variation. Though aren't we simply talking about attaching a modulator/sequencer to the depth of the wavetable?

Not every sound has to be Analog.

The power of Wavesequencing for me is creating incredibly complex evolving sounds. I did patches for Wusikstation that you could play one note and do the backing tracks for a Sci-fi film.

For example start with a shaku sample, morph it into a church choir, morph that into cinema strings and that's just one Osc. Add the other Oscs also doing Wavesequences which can be pitched per slot and you can adjust the fade between them to go from smooth transitions to abrupt changes and you've got some awesome sounds.

It's incredibly powerful Synthesis that I think should get as much or more love than Wavetable synthesis.

Now I understand that not everybody has the need or desire for such complex sounds but isn't it nice that those who do have that power at their fingertips?

There's never be a better time to be a synthesist....

[Teksonik]

Where's the line between granular and wavesequencing?

Two different forms of Synthesis. I enjoyed the Granular synthesis of Alchemy as much as the Wavesequencing of Wusikstation.

Ok boys I'm going to go make some patches and music. Who's with me ?

[Unaspected]

Anyway back on the topic of Wavs....Yesterday I was working with a synth I just purchased and rediscovered Wavesequencing as opposed to Wavetables.

Wavesequencing being loosely defined as using larger size samples as opposed to single cycle waveforms and scanning through a series of them.

Think Korg's Wavestation and the perennially underrated WusikStation.

There's a form of synthesis that needs more love along with WT's as it opens up a whole new world of synthesis (to synthesists).

So I'll turn the question "Why so many WT synths" into "Why not more Wavesequencing Synths" ?

Where's the line between granular and wavesequencing?

They're worlds apart. Granular synthesis involves enveloping or "windowing" sound at a microscopic level.

My suggestion would be to use such a thing for more analogue variation. Though aren't we simply talking about attaching a modulator/sequencer to the depth of the wavetable?

Not every sound has to be Analog.

The power of Wavesequencing for me is creating incredibly complex evolving sounds. I did patches for Wusikstation that you could play one note and do the backing tracks for a Sci-fi film.

For example start with a shaku sample, morph it into a church choir, morph that into cinema strings and that's just one Osc. Add the other Oscs also doing Wavesequences which can be pitched per slot and you can adjust the fade between them to go from smooth transitions to abrupt changes and you've got some awesome sounds.

It's incredibly powerful Synthesis that I think should get as much or more love than Wavetable synthesis.

Now I understand that not everybody has the need or desire for such complex sounds but isn't it nice that those who do have that power at their fingertips?

There's never be a better time to be a synthesist....

Agreed. And indeed, analogue was just a practical suggestion, rather than a creative one. If I follow, then the same could be done with a wavetable synth that allows for loading waveforms into various slots and then applying an LFO that ramps up.

Where's the line between granular and wavesequencing?

Two different forms of Synthesis. I enjoyed the Granular synthesis of Alchemy as much as the Wavesequencing of Wusikstation.

Ok boys I'm going to go make some patches and music. Who's with me ?

I've got audio to mix so, yeah. I'm up for that!

[vurt]

Where's the line between granular and wavesequencing?

Two different forms of Synthesis. I enjoyed the Granular synthesis of Alchemy as much as the Wavesequencing of Wusikstation.

Ok boys I'm going to go make some patches and music. Who's with me ?

patches will happen
music, hmmm, not really/kind of/well noises organised in time, perhaps.

[4damind]

Some developers simply take an old technology in their hands, where they hope for additional sales. Especially since there weren't so many wavetable synthesizers.

But it's surprising that hardly anyone does it right. The really interesting things like a wavetable editor are missing in many synths. Even with simple things like the optical feedback of parameter modulation, synths like Massive X have big problems.
Many wavetable synths are just wannabe wavetable synths that implement only some of the functions that Serum (as a better example) has been able to do for some time.

[Tj Shredder]

Anyway back on the topic of Wavs....Yesterday I was working with a synth I just purchased and rediscovered Wavesequencing as opposed to Wavetables.

Wavesequencing being loosely defined as using larger size samples as opposed to single cycle waveforms and scanning through a series of them.

Think Korg's Wavestation and the perennially underrated WusikStation.

There's a form of synthesis that needs more love along with WT's as it opens up a whole new world of synthesis (to synthesists).

So I'll turn the question "Why so many WT synths" into "Why not more Wavesequencing Synths" ?

Where's the line between granular and wavesequencing?

With proper granular you can mimick wavetable and wavesequencing to your liking. But I have seen proper granular only in my own Max patches...
Love all granular implementations for their variety though... Pigments 2 does both btw... And as it supports MPE now, I fear I can't resist the intro sale...

[zerocrossing]

People, including myself, get tired of the same old wave forms. Sure, there are tricks to mess with them, like osc sync and others, but they’re still pretty limited. Wavetable synths allow you to work with a much broader choice of waves, but not have to deal with the complexity of FM or additive, so it’s more immediate for people used to working with basic subtractive synths.

[e-crooner]

Here's a Wavetable patch from Dune 3's Factory patches....can't do that with a Saw Wave I don't care how you cross mod it. Right there is a perfect example of the power of Wavetables.

You may not need or want that power but it's a blessing that power exists for those who do.......

Synapse Audio

Why do I need any synth for that?

Judging from some of the posts here (little time, so I have not read all 9 pages completely) wavetables might be appealing to the same kind of people that used to use modular synths decades ago, i.e. people that like to play with synthesis for the sake of it, rather than just get the music job done.

Wavetables seem much more dynamic than more static conventional oscillators. I suppose whether that additional degree of dynamics and flexibility is needed depends on the kind of music people make. When synths are to be in the background, subtractive synths should be enough. Would be odd to use wavetables in Country music

[zerocrossing]

Here's a Wavetable patch from Dune 3's Factory patches....can't do that with a Saw Wave I don't care how you cross mod it. Right there is a perfect example of the power of Wavetables.

You may not need or want that power but it's a blessing that power exists for those who do.......

Synapse Audio

Why do I need any synth for that?

Judging from some of the posts here (little time, so I have not read all 9 pages completely) wavetables might be appealing to the same kind of people that used to use modular synths decades ago, i.e. people that like to play with synthesis for the sake of it, rather than just get the music job done.

Wavetables seem much more dynamic than more static conventional oscillators. I suppose whether that additional degree of dynamics and flexibility is needed depends on the kind of music people make. When synths are to be in the background, subtractive synths should be enough. Would be odd to use wavetables in Country music

That’s a silly argument, as country music isn’t a big place to find any synthesizers. I’ll bite anyway, as a wavetable synth is a very good way to mimic a pedal steel or organ sound.

Some people enter electronic music because they want to get the sounds that their favorite artists made. If that was in the 70s or 80s (or now with instruments from the 70s or 80s) then you probably don’t care about wavetable synths, or really anything very adventurous. That’s fine. Most musicians aren’t very adventurous with sound, even if their music is pretty creative. If you got into synthesis for the exploration of sound, then you’re a different animal. You probably have a good complement of basic subtractive (because the classics never go out of style) and want to have a good representation of phase distortion, phase modulation, additive, wavetable, granular and any other type of synthesis that you can get your hands on. Neither way of being is better, it’s just two different strategies.

[Ploki]

With proper granular you can mimick wavetable and wavesequencing to your liking. But I have seen proper granular only in my own Max patches...
Love all granular implementations for their variety though... Pigments 2 does both btw... And as it supports MPE now, I fear I can't resist the intro sale...

oooh, MPE. i was never a fan of arturia's modelled things so i avoided it - but this is not one so i might not

[Sinisterbr]

Some developers simply take an old technology in their hands, where they hope for additional sales. Especially since there weren't so many wavetable synthesizers.

But it's surprising that hardly anyone does it right. The really interesting things like a wavetable editor are missing in many synths. Even with simple things like the optical feedback of parameter modulation, synths like Massive X have big problems.
Many wavetable synths are just wannabe wavetable synths that implement only some of the functions that Serum (as a better example) has been able to do for some time.

I'm no expert on the matter, but I don't think you should downplay a synth quality only because it's not as flexible or full featured as the others. I'd choose MX over Serum anyday.

[e-crooner]

Here's a Wavetable patch from Dune 3's Factory patches....can't do that with a Saw Wave I don't care how you cross mod it. Right there is a perfect example of the power of Wavetables.

You may not need or want that power but it's a blessing that power exists for those who do.......

Synapse Audio

Why do I need any synth for that?

Judging from some of the posts here (little time, so I have not read all 9 pages completely) wavetables might be appealing to the same kind of people that used to use modular synths decades ago, i.e. people that like to play with synthesis for the sake of it, rather than just get the music job done.

Wavetables seem much more dynamic than more static conventional oscillators. I suppose whether that additional degree of dynamics and flexibility is needed depends on the kind of music people make. When synths are to be in the background, subtractive synths should be enough. Would be odd to use wavetables in Country music

That’s a silly argument, as country music isn’t a big place to find any synthesizers. I’ll bite anyway, as a wavetable synth is a very good way to mimic a pedal steel or organ sound.

Some people enter electronic music because they want to get the sounds that their favorite artists made. If that was in the 70s or 80s (or now with instruments from the 70s or 80s) then you probably don’t care about wavetable synths, or really anything very adventurous. That’s fine. Most musicians aren’t very adventurous with sound, even if their music is pretty creative. If you got into synthesis for the exploration of sound, then you’re a different animal. You probably have a good complement of basic subtractive (because the classics never go out of style) and want to have a good representation of phase distortion, phase modulation, additive, wavetable, granular and any other type of synthesis that you can get your hands on. Neither way of being is better, it’s just two different strategies.

A little synth usage could make Country music much more appealing. It did with Rock music (Foreigner, Van Halen etc.)

[pdxindy]

Anyway back on the topic of Wavs....Yesterday I was working with a synth I just purchased and rediscovered Wavesequencing as opposed to Wavetables.

Wavesequencing being loosely defined as using larger size samples as opposed to single cycle waveforms and scanning through a series of them.

Think Korg's Wavestation and the perennially underrated WusikStation.

There's a form of synthesis that needs more love along with WT's as it opens up a whole new world of synthesis (to synthesists).

So I'll turn the question "Why so many WT synths" into "Why not more Wavesequencing Synths" ?

I’d like to see a fresh new take on wave sequencing... agreed that it needs more love!

[Kalamata Kid]

My suggestion would be to use such a thing for more analogue variation. Though aren't we simply talking about attaching a modulator/sequencer to the depth of the wavetable?

Not every sound has to be Analog.

The power of Wavesequencing for me is creating incredibly complex evolving sounds. I did patches for Wusikstation that you could play one note and do the backing tracks for a Sci-fi film.

For example start with a shaku sample, morph it into a church choir, morph that into cinema strings and that's just one Osc. Add the other Oscs also doing Wavesequences which can be pitched per slot and you can adjust the fade between them to go from smooth transitions to abrupt changes and you've got some awesome sounds.

It's incredibly powerful Synthesis that I think should get as much or more love than Wavetable synthesis.

Now I understand that not everybody has the need or desire for such complex sounds but isn't it nice that those who do have that power at their fingertips?

There's never be a better time to be a synthesist....

You have re-awakened my interest in wave sequencing!
For me key is able to work with longer samples.

I posted your quote here:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=349894&p=7612296#p7612296