The problem with samples is that they are static recordings. Synthesis can bend and morph in ways and with a nuance and beauty that samples cannot.Teksonik wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:29 pmOf 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.fmr wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2020 8:33 amI 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.Teksonik wrote: Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:37 pmOne that allows full sample import as opposed to Wavetables made up of short duration waveforms.Tannaliini wrote: Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:11 pm What type of VST synth would be most versatile in sound creation?
Samples open up the entire world of sound......![]()
But if I had to choose just ONE synthesis technique, I would choose a sampling synth, for sure.
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.![]()
Wave tables aren’t versatile?
- KVRAF
- 26926 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
- KVRAF
- 9542 posts since 6 Jan, 2017 from Outer Space
Unless you go granular... Or morph it into a wave table...pdxindy wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:15 pm The problem with samples is that they are static recordings. Synthesis can bend and morph in ways and with a nuance and beauty that samples cannot.
-
excuse me please excuse me please https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=427648
- KVRAF
- 1631 posts since 10 Oct, 2018
All recordings are static, which is the point of recording 
- KVRAF
- 26926 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
doesn't work in regards to my pointTj Shredder wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:19 pmUnless you go granular... Or morph it into a wave table...pdxindy wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:15 pm The problem with samples is that they are static recordings. Synthesis can bend and morph in ways and with a nuance and beauty that samples cannot.
- addled muppet weed
- 111238 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
doesnt sound much like michael jackson either.pdxindy wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:58 pmdoesn't work in regards to my pointTj Shredder wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:19 pmUnless you go granular... Or morph it into a wave table...pdxindy wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:15 pm The problem with samples is that they are static recordings. Synthesis can bend and morph in ways and with a nuance and beauty that samples cannot.
-
excuse me please excuse me please https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=427648
- KVRAF
- 1631 posts since 10 Oct, 2018
Remember the time when analog was old hat.
- addled muppet weed
- 111238 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
all my hats are analog.
-
excuse me please excuse me please https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=427648
- KVRAF
- 1631 posts since 10 Oct, 2018
-
- KVRian
- 1189 posts since 11 Jun, 2019
That is the Problem today. Control over the Frequency Bands is still in the Beginning, but we face a Revolution here.pdxindy wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:15 pm
The problem with samples is that they are static recordings. Synthesis can bend and morph in ways and with a nuance and beauty that samples cannot.
- KVRAF
- 19778 posts since 16 Sep, 2001 from Las Vegas,USA
You're forgetting that Samples can be used a source for Oscillators than can then be sent through filters etc. Not every sound has to start with a generated Saw wave.pdxindy wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:15 pm The problem with samples is that they are static recordings. Synthesis can bend and morph in ways and with a nuance and beauty that samples cannot.
You're also showing a pretty myopic definition of synthesis. Again not every sound has to be a Saw, Square, or Sine wave. FM only goes so far, Additive while theoretically should be able to reproduce any sound falls short.
There are so many sounds that are possible with samples as the basis that have a nuance and beauty that generated waves simply can not reproduce.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
- KVRAF
- 26926 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
Good that there are sample based synths for you... and synthesis based synths for me.Teksonik wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 4:26 pmYou're forgetting that Samples can be used a source for Oscillators than can then be sent through filters etc. Not every sound has to start with a generated Saw wave.pdxindy wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:15 pm The problem with samples is that they are static recordings. Synthesis can bend and morph in ways and with a nuance and beauty that samples cannot.![]()
You're also showing a pretty myopic definition of synthesis. Again not every sound has to be a Saw, Square, or Sine wave. FM only goes so far, Additive while theoretically should be able to reproduce any sound falls short.
There are so many sounds that are possible with samples as the basis that have a nuance and beauty that generated waves simply can not reproduce.![]()
Zebra is one of my favorite synths. I can start with a vast array of waveshapes (your saw wave comment aside). I can craft complex sounds and then that sound can be transformed across velocity, time, keyrange, via aftertouch and pitchbent etc. Because all aspects of the sound are generated, it morphs really well.
Samples you cannot do much with if you are dependent on the character of the sample to create the sound. Filter or some distortion, volume changes. I prefer pure synthesis in its various forms
- KVRAF
- 19778 posts since 16 Sep, 2001 from Las Vegas,USA
Now try doing a completely realistic Cathedral Choir or Full Orchestra or.....with "pure synthesis".pdxindy wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 7:50 pm Samples you cannot do much with if you are dependent on the character of the sample to create the sound. Filter or some distortion, volume changes. I prefer pure synthesis in its various forms
There are a whole range of sounds that don't have anything to do single waves or wavetables.
I know this board is not focused on those sounds, like I said myopic and that is a true shame.
I enjoy "pure synthesis" as well but I do enjoy the incredible range of sounds that samples bring.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
- KVRAF
- 26926 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
You're the one myopic and blind, which is such a shame... there, we can both do that.Teksonik wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:37 pmNow try doing a completely realistic Cathedral Choir or Full Orchestra or.....with "pure synthesis".pdxindy wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 7:50 pm Samples you cannot do much with if you are dependent on the character of the sample to create the sound. Filter or some distortion, volume changes. I prefer pure synthesis in its various forms![]()
There are a whole range of sounds that don't have anything to do single waves or wavetables.
I know this board is not focused on those sounds, like I said myopic and that is a true shame.
I enjoy "pure synthesis" as well but I do enjoy the incredible range of sounds that samples bring.
I enjoy samples, but I even more enjoy the incredible range of synthesis sounds no samples can ever touch... especially when it comes to dynamic playability.
Oh, and for the most part, samples of actual instruments and voices do not sound completely realistic... they sound mechanical and dull in comparison to the real thing. Plus they are stuck as what they were recorded as.
-
- KVRer
- 7 posts since 9 Jun, 2020
As far as I know wavetable just tells about the oscillator types. Actually I run a wavetable oscillator trough analog eurorack filters, vca and modulated with envelopes, lfos, etc. and it doesn't sound anything like a serum preset.
