Wave tables aren’t versatile?

[Teksonik]

What type of VST synth would be most versatile in sound creation?

One that allows full sample import as opposed to Wavetables made up of short duration waveforms.

Samples open up the entire world of sound......

I disagree. I'd say one like Falcon, who allows to use samples (I agree with you on that), but also has other very important synthesis techniques available, like FM, additive, Physical Modeling, etc.

But if I had to choose just ONE synthesis technique, I would choose a sampling synth, for sure.

Of course a Hybrid synth with multiple synthesis techniques that allows full sample import would yield a wide range of sounds but it's the samples that give it the greatest possibilities.

You can have FM, additive, Physical Modeling etc and still hit a wall. With samples literally any sound that can he heard is possible including samples of FM, additive, and Physical Modeling synths.

[zerocrossing]

I heard a conversation where couple of men were discussing about Vst synths & combated to Virus’s sounds. Their main issue seemed to be how VST Wave Table synths can’t create very versatile sounds.

Do you think that is the case?

No, not at all. Of course, to be able to say whether or not a instrument can create the sounds you want, you have to know which sounds you want.

Wavetable synths can't do granular stuff, that's for sure. But, whenever I hear sounds made with granular instruments or effects, it sounds more like from the test tube, than something someone really wanted to create.

So, yeah, whenever we're talking about versatility, the first thing I would ask, what is it that you want to do? Even a monophonic analog synth can be very versatile, when you exhaust all the possibilities.

Anyway, with further processing and mangling the sound which comes from whatever instrument, you can do anything you want really. I don't really see any limits there.

Actually, several wavetable synths also include a granular mode of some sort, but I get your point. Especially when you can make own wavetables, or even import them... its like you can morph from any waveform to any other. How can that be considered not versatile?

[-Yaz-]

For an example of some cool shit to do with a wavetable synth - try doing that on your Virus (you can't I used to own one):

[Chrisk-K]

For an example of some cool shit to do with a wavetable synth - try doing that on your Virus (you can't I used to own one):

To me, that's not a great example of what a wavetable synth can do. Even a 30 year old rompler like the Korg M1 can do better than Serum when it comes to creating that kind of sound.

[-Yaz-]

For an example of some cool shit to do with a wavetable synth - try doing that on your Virus (you can't I used to own one):

To me, that's not a great example of what a wavetable synth can do. Even a 30 year old rompler like the Korg M1 can do better than Serum when it comes to creating that kind of sound.

Except with the rompler such as an M1 or D50 you're tied to what came with the factory preset samples whereas with Serum or something with custom wavetables you can load any wavetable you like to create hybrids which is the whole point.

You can make tons of sounds in Serum you can't make in an M1 - its not just about creating 'real' sounds and that video isn't about making perfect copies (where physical modelling synths always do better), its about making sounds which a Virus or similar couldn't make hence versatility.

[SebAV]

Wavetable and sample-based synthesis methods aren’t really synthesis methods since the sound is not created but read, with several ways. The versatility comes with the apparent « endless » choices of sources waves or samples. But the end results of reading the source in several ways doesn’t lead to sounds so different from the source or very different but in this case of extreme transformation one has to wonder if the source is really of such importance.
Additive synthesis is the most versatile, but not in practice because of CPU and ease of use. FM certainly is certainly to date the most versatile method. Just consider the numerous different sounds you can obtain with 4 or 6 sine waves !

[DrEntropy]

Wavetable and sample-based synthesis methods aren’t really synthesis methods since the sound is not created but read, with several ways. The versatility comes with the apparent « endless » choices of sources waves or samples.

Wavetables are often generated via mathematical expressions (Hive 2) or even drawing waveforms or harmonic content (Zebra, Serum, others). These wavetable sources are modulated both in wavetable position, but also in how the wavetable is read back (warping the phase for example). Finally these rich, dynamic sources are then subject to the signal path of a subtractive synthesis, with all the modulation that you might expect. This is synthesis!

[BONES]

I think what those guys you were eavesdropping on probably meant is that a lot of wavetables end up sounding very similar to each other. I am yet to exhaust the possibilities of the humble sawtooth wave so the thought that a wavetable synth might lack versatility says a lot more about the idiot thinking that than it does about wavetable synths.

[schpaeckulum]

I think what those guys you were eavesdropping on probably meant is that a lot of wavetables end up sounding very similar to each other. I am yet to exhaust the possibilities of the humble sawtooth wave so the thought that a wavetable synth might lack versatility says a lot more about the idiot thinking that than it does about wavetable synths.

A saw wave is a saw wave and sounds exactly as a saw wave until you twist its shape with oscillator functions, filters, modulation, etc. Then it does not sound like a saw wave anymore because it is not a saw wave anymore, so what you're 'exhausting' is something else, that's why you still haven't reached the end of it.

And wavetables are limited - try to make Michael Jackson's voice with a wavetable. I'd say also unnatural, digital and hard to work with. I'd take an analog oscillator in 10 of 10 cases, esp. if it's more versatile, like Aalto or something.

[BONES]

I don't quite see what you are trying to say because you can't make Michael Jackson's voice with a sawtooth wave, either. As for sounding digital, how do you think most hardware V/A synths, all the way back to the 1980s, used to do PWM? When a wavetable sounds digital, it's because it is meant to sound digital. SO in your post you have proven that wavetable synths are versatile because they can sound like a V/A and they can also sound very digital.

Don't get me wrong, I am no big fan of wavetable synths, I think it's just a fad that will die out like it did in the late 80s, but I'm not so completely stupid as to not see how versatile they can be.

[Ingonator]

I think what those guys you were eavesdropping on probably meant is that a lot of wavetables end up sounding very similar to each other. I am yet to exhaust the possibilities of the humble sawtooth wave so the thought that a wavetable synth might lack versatility says a lot more about the idiot thinking that than it does about wavetable synths.

And wavetables are limited - try to make Michael Jackson's voice with a wavetable. I'd say also unnatural, digital and hard to work with. I'd take an analog oscillator in 10 of 10 cases, esp. if it's more versatile, like Aalto or something.

Not exactly Michael Jacksons voice but Waldorf Nave has a text to speech feature where you can create a new vocal wavetable from typing in a text.

Using a sample of a real voice and import it with resynthesis like that in e.g. Tone2 Icarus could lead to a comparable result.

This might not sound very "natural" but when you want a natural sounding voice you can use a sample...

[Ingonator]

Some years ago i had recorded real glass vessels being struck with a spoon or other objects to create a sound.
I then imported those samples into Tone2 Icarus with resynthesis. I had also used them with patches in e.g. DUNE 3 and Avenger after having loaded/imported the wavetables there.

The most interesting results i did not get with the full version of the imported sample but when cutting out certain waveforms and creating a new wavetable from those or even sarrting to edit certain waveforms with the additive sytle waveform editor. The original sample has a fastly decaying volume but in the imported wavetable you can normalize all waveforms which could lead to a quite different result as in teh original sample.

[schpaeckulum]

I don't quite see what you are trying to say because you can't make Michael Jackson's voice with a sawtooth wave, either. As for sounding digital, how do you think most hardware V/A synths, all the way back to the 1980s, used to do PWM? When a wavetable sounds digital, it's because it is meant to sound digital. SO in your post you have proven that wavetable synths are versatile because they can sound like a V/A and they can also sound very digital.

Don't get me wrong, I am no big fan of wavetable synths, I think it's just a fad that will die out like it did in the late 80s, but I'm not so completely stupid as to not see how versatile they can be.

My fisrst paragraph was addressed to you, the second was on topic - wavetables. No, wavetables are not versatile. Just read Ingo's posts. Aint that a hassle?! Michael Jackson takes the microphone, sings the song from start to finish - and that's it. His job is done and the take goes to the mixing engineer.
But a saw wave is not versatile either, I wasn't trying to argue the obvious.

Yes, they are a fad, and a banal one at this point. The continued interest doesn't stop to amaze me.

[FapFilter]

Agreed. From now on we're just using Michael Jackson's voice for everything from drums to strings, as it's clearly the most versatile method to create instruments.

Are you still using synthesizers, or do you Michael Jacksonize?

[vurt]

Agreed. From now on we're just using Michael Jackson's voice for everything from drums to strings, as it's clearly the most versatile method to create instruments.

Are you still using synthesizers, or do you Michael Jacksonize?

hed be a bit moist by now surely.