One Synth Challenge #174: InfernalSynth by sjoerdvankreel
-
- KVRist
- 174 posts since 3 May, 2021
-
- KVRAF
- 2483 posts since 22 Sep, 2016
My track is not part of this round. My submission was too late. Not a big thing ... next time I'm going to be a little earlier. So please don't hesitate to vote, it's the 20 tracks that are currently in.silverpants wrote: Sat Sep 02, 2023 9:29 am Is Peter H part of the official entries or not? He's not on the SC playlist or voting website currently. We need some clarity on that one.
--
Neverthelesse I'm happy if you find the time to listen and leave some comments on my track. Thanks for the likes that already arrived. Higly appreciated!
-
- KVRian
- 513 posts since 4 Jan, 2022
Understood. Yes I'll listen and comment anyway. It sounds an interesting entry. Shame you missed the deadline.] Peter:H [ wrote: Sun Sep 03, 2023 7:11 amMy track is not part of this round. My submission was too late. Not a big thing ... next time I'm going to be a little earlier. So please don't hesitate to vote, it's the 20 tracks that are currently in.silverpants wrote: Sat Sep 02, 2023 9:29 am Is Peter H part of the official entries or not? He's not on the SC playlist or voting website currently. We need some clarity on that one.
--
Neverthelesse I'm happy if you find the time to listen and leave some comments on my track. Thanks for the likes that already arrived. Higly appreciated!
Captain Silverpants
-
Korg Supporter Korg Supporter https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=386399
- KVRAF
- 1923 posts since 4 Oct, 2016
I finished voting!
-
- KVRist
- 325 posts since 25 Aug, 2016
I'd love to figure out why so many patches are turning out microtonal and pitchbend isn't working when properly mapped to the oscillator, if any one could please offer some insight, thanks.
As far as the thresholds for being disqualified, I don't pretend to know what they are at this point. Nonetheless, the first half of that last submission is masterful.
As far as the thresholds for being disqualified, I don't pretend to know what they are at this point. Nonetheless, the first half of that last submission is masterful.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
quick, _ake what you want in life
-
sjoerdvankreel sjoerdvankreel https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=599076
- KVRist
- 52 posts since 25 Jan, 2023
@574X
<< I'd love to figure out why so many patches are turning out microtonal
All of your microtonal patches have non-zero values for "osc->sync->fm". Once you set them to zero things return back to 12-tet (and you have to up the base pitch a notch to hear something - those patches are low freq!) I honestly don't know what to make of this, i.e. is this a bug or not.
The pitch controls (oct/note/cent/bend) are linear scale in pitch domain so log scale in frequency domain. The fm control is linear scale in frequency domain so inv log scale in pitch domain, so that breaks 12-tet and causes the microtonal behaviour.
<< and pitchbend isn't working when properly mapped to the oscillator
Same problem, if you disable fm pitchbend works as expected. However in this case i would classify this as a bug. The way it works now is "frequency trumps pitch". Both still have an effect but with FM control active then pitchbend "barely does anything". Nobody is going to notice +/- couple dozen Hz when you add 2000 to the base pitch by the FM control. I probably should swap the order of frequency calculations somewhere. But that's a breaking change and i still have to think about what is the "right" behaviour.
Anyway the "FM" control is badly mislabeled - it is not "FM" but just a "frequency" control. It was only meant as an effect control in combination with the hardsync source. I.e. if you sync osc 1 to osc 2, play around with osc 2 FM, 12-tet is kept intact. If you play around with osc 1 fm, or fm for any standalone (not-hard-synced) oscillator, that also breaks 12-tet.
So yeah, i have a feeling there's definately a bug in there somewhere, just trying to wrap my head around the "right" way of doing stuff. Thanks for reporting.
-cheers, sjoerd
<< I'd love to figure out why so many patches are turning out microtonal
All of your microtonal patches have non-zero values for "osc->sync->fm". Once you set them to zero things return back to 12-tet (and you have to up the base pitch a notch to hear something - those patches are low freq!) I honestly don't know what to make of this, i.e. is this a bug or not.
The pitch controls (oct/note/cent/bend) are linear scale in pitch domain so log scale in frequency domain. The fm control is linear scale in frequency domain so inv log scale in pitch domain, so that breaks 12-tet and causes the microtonal behaviour.
<< and pitchbend isn't working when properly mapped to the oscillator
Same problem, if you disable fm pitchbend works as expected. However in this case i would classify this as a bug. The way it works now is "frequency trumps pitch". Both still have an effect but with FM control active then pitchbend "barely does anything". Nobody is going to notice +/- couple dozen Hz when you add 2000 to the base pitch by the FM control. I probably should swap the order of frequency calculations somewhere. But that's a breaking change and i still have to think about what is the "right" behaviour.
Anyway the "FM" control is badly mislabeled - it is not "FM" but just a "frequency" control. It was only meant as an effect control in combination with the hardsync source. I.e. if you sync osc 1 to osc 2, play around with osc 2 FM, 12-tet is kept intact. If you play around with osc 1 fm, or fm for any standalone (not-hard-synced) oscillator, that also breaks 12-tet.
So yeah, i have a feeling there's definately a bug in there somewhere, just trying to wrap my head around the "right" way of doing stuff. Thanks for reporting.
-cheers, sjoerd
-
- KVRist
- 325 posts since 25 Aug, 2016
Thanks Sjoerd!sjoerdvankreel wrote: Sun Sep 03, 2023 9:46 pm @574X
<< I'd love to figure out why so many patches are turning out microtonal
All of your microtonal patches have non-zero values for "osc->sync->fm". Once you set them to zero things return back to 12-tet (and you have to up the base pitch a notch to hear something - those patches are low freq!) I honestly don't know what to make of this, i.e. is this a bug or not.
The pitch controls (oct/note/cent/bend) are linear scale in pitch domain so log scale in frequency domain. The fm control is linear scale in frequency domain so inv log scale in pitch domain, so that breaks 12-tet and causes the microtonal behaviour.
<< and pitchbend isn't working when properly mapped to the oscillator
Same problem, if you disable fm pitchbend works as expected. However in this case i would classify this as a bug. The way it works now is "frequency trumps pitch". Both still have an effect but with FM control active then pitchbend "barely does anything". Nobody is going to notice +/- couple dozen Hz when you add 2000 to the base pitch by the FM control. I probably should swap the order of frequency calculations somewhere. But that's a breaking change and i still have to think about what is the "right" behaviour.
Anyway the "FM" control is badly mislabeled - it is not "FM" but just a "frequency" control. It was only meant as an effect control in combination with the hardsync source. I.e. if you sync osc 1 to osc 2, play around with osc 2 FM, 12-tet is kept intact. If you play around with osc 1 fm, or fm for any standalone (not-hard-synced) oscillator, that also breaks 12-tet.
So yeah, i have a feeling there's definately a bug in there somewhere, just trying to wrap my head around the "right" way of doing stuff. Thanks for reporting.
-cheers, sjoerd
In it's current form, that made it a bit more modular / manual than expected.
quick, _ake what you want in life
-
- KVRist
- 239 posts since 7 Apr, 2017 from Fremont, California
Have voted.
This was one of those rare occasions (for me) where most, if not all, of the tracks in the challenge sounded close to either the 4 or 5-point range (I had a tough time differentiating).
Good luck, everyone!
This was one of those rare occasions (for me) where most, if not all, of the tracks in the challenge sounded close to either the 4 or 5-point range (I had a tough time differentiating).
Good luck, everyone!
-
- KVRist
- 349 posts since 26 Jun, 2018
Voted!
"Some people don't like music created on a PC and declare it as "fake". I don't care. The only thing matters to me is the end result."
SoundCloud YouTube Patreon
SoundCloud YouTube Patreon
-
- KVRian
- 528 posts since 10 Nov, 2018
Voted! Phenomenal job everyone 
I might revisit the voting and do minor adjustments in the remaining time.
I might revisit the voting and do minor adjustments in the remaining time.-
- KVRist
- 182 posts since 10 Jan, 2018
I'm done voting
New tracks: https://linktr.ee/neukatalyst
Discord: neukatalyst (preferred method of contact)
Discord: neukatalyst (preferred method of contact)
-
- KVRAF
- 2398 posts since 7 Mar, 2014
Ditto - DrBob has done his prelim vote - SC being a pain ... laters.MadMcMan wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2023 2:19 pm i've done my first voting pass but am having trouble leaving comments on soundcloud. will try again later.
Its a shame Peter H didn't make it, great track peter.
dB
-
- KVRist
- 220 posts since 23 Apr, 2022 from Embra
I could go through them all again and probably come to the same conclusion so I guess I'm done voting! Uniformly great bunch of tracks this month.
-
BrainBeatMusic BrainBeatMusic https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=561105
- KVRist
- 202 posts since 19 Apr, 2022
Ok, I have done voting. There is some exceptional quality this month with many to a commercial standard. I would say nothing was terrible which at least for me has led to all but 4 (including myself) getting a 4 or higher.