Has Vojtech Covered EVERY plugin??

[Tilly]

Has Vojtech Covered EVERY plugin??

No, but god bless at least there are 9 compressors, 8 eqs and 6 reverbs

[VariKusBrainZ]

Is this something that can be expected to be done in realtime?
On KymaX this sort of thing requires user editing for useful analysis to be done.
Have you had a look at the Composers Desktop Project?
https://www.composersdesktop.com

I believe you're mistaken

Yeah, this is a common misconception, but I can explain. MMorph is not a direct matching tool, it is a spectral level follower.

What's the difference? What MMorph does is takes the side chain input, analyses it and then applies the spectral shape on top of the main input... but it doesn't MATCH them, it doesn't look at the input and 'compares' them. For it to do that, it would need to analyse both the input and the side chain, then see what it needs to do to make them match, e.g. boost here, cut there, etc. MMorph instead 'imprints' the spectral characteristics on to another sound, but isn't aware of what that other sound is doing.

You can confirm this with a simple test in MXXX:
- add two oscillators with the same frequency, one on lane 1, one on lane 2
- make the oscillators on lane 1 really quiet (-50db), the other loud (-3db) so they are different
- add a mmorph module below them and morph one osc into the other
- as you change the ratio knob, you'll see that the signal stays the same volume (set the 'dry range' in advanced settings to 0 so you never hear the dry)... shouldn't it be matching them? It's level following from 0dB with a side chain signal that is at -3dB... meaning it's almost full volume and because it's not comparing to the main input, it's just leaving it as-is
- press the 'swap A and B' buttons, now changing the ratio DOES change the volume, because now morph is level following with the really quiet signal, and so changing the ratio is increasing the intensity of the level follow on this quiet signal.

If it was doing true MATCHING, the ratio control would yield identical results and it wouldn't matter which way around A and B were.

I hope that makes sense, it's a little complicated to explain, but maybe the above steps help explain the issue. With a true spectral matcher, you could get some incredibly interesting 'hybrid' sounds and 'true' morphing in a way that is currently not possible at all.

FYI - vocoding suffers from the same problem, they're both essentially multi-band level followers, just using different tech. Still super cool, but I would LOVE a true matcher!

[XComposer]

Is this something that can be expected to be done in realtime?
On KymaX this sort of thing requires user editing for useful analysis to be done.
Have you had a look at the Composers Desktop Project?
https://www.composersdesktop.com

I believe you're mistaken

Yeah, this is a common misconception, but I can explain. MMorph is not a direct matching tool, it is a spectral level follower.

What's the difference? What MMorph does is takes the side chain input, analyses it and then applies the spectral shape on top of the main input... but it doesn't MATCH them, it doesn't look at the input and 'compares' them. For it to do that, it would need to analyse both the input and the side chain, then see what it needs to do to make them match, e.g. boost here, cut there, etc. MMorph instead 'imprints' the spectral characteristics on to another sound, but isn't aware of what that other sound is doing.

You can confirm this with a simple test in MXXX:
- add two oscillators with the same frequency, one on lane 1, one on lane 2
- make the oscillators on lane 1 really quiet (-50db), the other loud (-3db) so they are different
- add a mmorph module below them and morph one osc into the other
- as you change the ratio knob, you'll see that the signal stays the same volume (set the 'dry range' in advanced settings to 0 so you never hear the dry)... shouldn't it be matching them? It's level following from 0dB with a side chain signal that is at -3dB... meaning it's almost full volume and because it's not comparing to the main input, it's just leaving it as-is
- press the 'swap A and B' buttons, now changing the ratio DOES change the volume, because now morph is level following with the really quiet signal, and so changing the ratio is increasing the intensity of the level follow on this quiet signal.

If it was doing true MATCHING, the ratio control would yield identical results and it wouldn't matter which way around A and B were.

I hope that makes sense, it's a little complicated to explain, but maybe the above steps help explain the issue. With a true spectral matcher, you could get some incredibly interesting 'hybrid' sounds and 'true' morphing in a way that is currently not possible at all.

FYI - vocoding suffers from the same problem, they're both essentially multi-band level followers, just using different tech. Still super cool, but I would LOVE a true matcher!

Now this would really be very interesting and useful! Spectral and morphing software is always my favourite and most used one and I would be very glad to see some new Melda entries of this kind.
And yes, I know the Composer's Desktop project, though I prefer to use other tools for such things.

[VariKusBrainZ]

Hadn't come across this previously but I'm not the software nut I once was
http://www.spectmorph.org/

[XComposer]

Hadn't come across this previously but I'm not the software nut I once was
http://www.spectmorph.org/

Thanks, I really have a lot of spectral morphing software, but didn't know this one. (It's a pity that they don't have Mac AU.)

[VariKusBrainZ]

I really have a lot of spectral morphing software

If you share what you are using we wont recommend what you have

[XComposer]

I really have a lot of spectral morphing software

If you share what you are using we wont recommend what you have

And that's why I will not tell you.

Oh, I work on Mac and for morphing and spectral works I'm mainly using Melda MMorph, MSpectralDynamics, MVocoder, GRM Tools Evolution Grinder, Apple Alchemy, Ircam-Flux Trax (CS and SF), Cecilia (http://ajaxsoundstudio.com/software/cecilia/), Metasynth, Ircam AudioSculpt, Photosounder (https://photosounder.com), some convolution reverbs (FOG Convolver, LiquidSonics Reverberate 3), lmdsp Superchord, Tritik Moodal, Michael Norris Sound Magic (https://www.michaelnorris.info/software ... c-spectral), Unfiltered Audio SpecOps, Zynaptiq Morph, Andrew Reeman Stepwise Spectral Suite (http://andrewreeman.com/spectralsuite/). (I wrote the links to some free or cheap software in this list, but you should be able to find each of them by searching.)

[Nspace]

Oh, I work on Mac and for morphing and spectral works I'm mainly using Melda MMorph, MSpectralDynamics, MVocoder, GRM Tools Evolution Grinder, Apple Alchemy, Ircam-Flux Trax (CS and SF), Cecilia (http://ajaxsoundstudio.com/software/cecilia/), Metasynth, Ircam AudioSculpt, Photosounder (https://photosounder.com), some convolution reverbs (FOG Convolver, LiquidSonics Reverberate 3), lmdsp Superchord, Tritik Moodal, Michael Norris Sound Magic (https://www.michaelnorris.info/software ... c-spectral), Unfiltered Audio SpecOps, Zynaptiq Morph, Andrew Reeman Stepwise Spectral Suite (http://andrewreeman.com/spectralsuite/). (I wrote the links to some free or cheap software in this list, but you should be able to find each of them by searching.)

Most excellent list, some new entries in there for me. Strangely you don't include Spectralayers that with version 7 has reached a new level of maturity for Spectral works. Also miss iZotope's RX lineage...
Dear to comment why these are not present?, or why you have decided to let them out of your tool list?

[vectorwarrior]

Is this something that can be expected to be done in realtime?
On KymaX this sort of thing requires user editing for useful analysis to be done.
Have you had a look at the Composers Desktop Project?
https://www.composersdesktop.com

Realtime? Well, it doesn't need to be done 'offline', it can be done in realtime but would require a lot of latency though, as the analysis needs to be run on two inputs, so would be double the latency of MMorph. For what it would be used for it's fine to have large latency though, a bit like how you don't monitor a linear phase effect while recording.

Yeah, I've got CDP on my machine, I don't use it much as it's pretty clunky and I find melda stuff is better sounding and more flexible, but there's some fun stuff in there. Still not able to do what I'm talking about. Kyma definitely has the best morphing out there, but it's not really accessible, cheap or intuitive.

[XComposer]

Oh, I work on Mac and for morphing and spectral works I'm mainly using Melda MMorph, MSpectralDynamics, MVocoder, GRM Tools Evolution Grinder, Apple Alchemy, Ircam-Flux Trax (CS and SF), Cecilia (http://ajaxsoundstudio.com/software/cecilia/), Metasynth, Ircam AudioSculpt, Photosounder (https://photosounder.com), some convolution reverbs (FOG Convolver, LiquidSonics Reverberate 3), lmdsp Superchord, Tritik Moodal, Michael Norris Sound Magic (https://www.michaelnorris.info/software ... c-spectral), Unfiltered Audio SpecOps, Zynaptiq Morph, Andrew Reeman Stepwise Spectral Suite (http://andrewreeman.com/spectralsuite/). (I wrote the links to some free or cheap software in this list, but you should be able to find each of them by searching.)

Most excellent list, some new entries in there for me. Strangely you don't include Spectralayers that with version 7 has reached a new level of maturity for Spectral works. Also miss iZotope's RX lineage...
Dear to comment why these are not present?, or why you have decided to let them out of your tool list?

Oh, yes, I have also Izotope RX 7 Elements (including the Audio Editor, which is spectral).
With regard to Spectralayers, I have never bought it yet, partly for budget reasons and partly because I wonder what it would really add, considering what I already have.

I forgot to include in my list another very interesting tool, which works only if one has Java installed (and a way to run VST plug-ins also in an AU-based DAW like Logic, when needed) (I use DDMF Metaplugin for that): the PitchTech plug-ins: http://www.pitchtech.ch/Plugins/

[steve2KVR]

...and there is native spectral editing in Reaper.../s~

[magmagwa]

There's one domain that won't be there I think, it's the modelisation of real instruments. Demands a lot of research. But imagine if this was available in Melda plugins ... like MUnison, MCharacter, a capability to realistically alter output, shape input sounds using modeling techniques.

Totally agree, it's very specialized. I have AAS, Modo, Swam, Respiro

[XComposer]

There's one domain that won't be there I think, it's the modelisation of real instruments. Demands a lot of research. But imagine if this was available in Melda plugins ... like MUnison, MCharacter, a capability to realistically alter output, shape input sounds using modeling techniques.

Totally agree, it's very specialized. I have AAS, Modo, Swam, Respiro

Melda has actually explored Physical modelling in MSoundFactory:

viewtopic.php?t=522295

viewtopic.php?t=517886

viewtopic.php?t=523508

[VariKusBrainZ]

Nothing new mentioned yet, I guess were all using the same software.

SpectrumWorx is a favourite of mine and the more recent Spexx (now Venom)

[VariKusBrainZ]

Kyma definitely has the best morphing out there, but it's not really accessible, cheap or intuitive.

I disagree, I paid around 4500 EUR for the basic Capybara 20ish years ago and picked up extra DSP cards over the years. Whereas a current basic Pacarana is less than half that and wipes the Capy's ass in terms of DSP. Sure there's a learning curve but its easier than MaxMsp or Reactor Core.