Anemond Sloom- Extreme time stretcher

[viewero]

additive and spectral are the same thing, they all break down to sine waves

Oh okay, I have no clue about that and just click the different modes and pick what I like soundwise.

Nevertheless: In Sample Alchemy you can slow down things very well. veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell

[WasteLand]

additive and spectral are the same thing, they all break down to sine waves

which is not true. yes all sine waves, but additive, does not do inharmonics (well it can do, but...), but it can't do; unpitched; noise...

you can hear it mainly i think with voices and background.... and other things...

spectral will (or can) represent the sound 1 on 1, additive not. (there are methods in between, they come close, but they stay different synthesis types.)

[martiu]

and all this time i though additive synths can be also called spectral
i was so happy that i have "spectral" synths
now when i know they are not spectral i am sad . .

[WasteLand]

and all this time i though additive synths can be also called spectral
i was so happy that i have "spectral" synths
now when i know they are not spectral i am sad . .

but additive is also great!!

still Sloom is certainly spectral, and not additive...

[kraster]

and all this time i though additive synths can be also called spectral
i was so happy that i have "spectral" synths
now when i know they are not spectral i am sad . .

I think the terminology has become fuzzy but a good base line would be that additive is just using sine waves and spectral uses spectral bins which can "contain" sine waves and filtered noise.

I think a lot of the time the two terms are used to describe resynthesis methods. Often the distinction is pretty blurry.

[kraster]

This is very like Ircam's TS2 in plugin form with a few extra (and fewer) bells & whistles.

The Spectral filter is the star of the show, imho. You can really pick out areas of interest.

It's even really useful as a straight up spectral filter without the time stretching.

It's the best implentation I've seen of such a thing.

The shaping level is also a great target for modulation/automation.

The amount of stretching you can do is ridiculous. I love how the readout has the length and the end date.

I stopped at 10^49. A few trillion years from now.

I settled on 7663 years. A nice tidy single length

[jeremycsf]

They seem to have changed the demo btw, you can try out the spectral shaping now!

[Funky40]

They seem to have changed the demo btw, you can try out the spectral shaping now!

hmm, ...this beeing missed made me buy it.
what a crap.
since i´m completly underwhelmed by the spectral part also.
(and NOT beeing a paulstretch guy anyway. So it was anyway a risk)
for me: 39.- wasted.

What bothers me way more is to see the potential a dev had with such code in his hands.
What attracts people to stretch a sample veeeery loooooong, is anyway behind of what i can comprehend. Can´t see any real musical values in it, beside beeing fun, to have this donne for a few times. But beyond that ?
anyway.....frustrated chap leaves the field. No homerun, haha

[c_voltage]

Looks interesting, liked demo. Did anyone (who grabbed full version) check if it saves recorded buffer together with DAW project ?

[sandandpaint]

They seem to have changed the demo btw, you can try out the spectral shaping now!

hmm, ...this beeing missed made me buy it.
what a crap.
since i´m completly underwhelmed by the spectral part also.
(and NOT beeing a paulstretch guy anyway. So it was anyway a risk)
for me: 39.- wasted.

What bothers me way more is to see the potential a dev had with such code in his hands.
What attracts people to stretch a sample veeeery loooooong, is anyway behind of what i can comprehend. Can´t see any real musical values in it, beside beeing fun, to have this donne for a few times. But beyond that ?
anyway.....frustrated chap leaves the field. No homerun, haha

being able to modulate the drawn spectral curves as say in Tonsturm's SPCTRL would probably be a good thing. I will ask the dev if he can come up with something. But having the randomisation might be more or less the same thing

[Funky40]

being able to modulate the drawn spectral curves as say in Tonsturm's SPCTRL would probably be a good thing.

there is definitly potential to make more out of the spectral part.

i like what i get out from having it set to "env".
I like the sound, don´t get me wrong. But there is not much variation to be had for me vs. its jamm potential. ymmv.
It might has also its advantages, for example vs. production works, cause you´d know upfront what´s to do, and the ballpark what would come out.
It gives a clear vision.
If i was into production work, i in fact would like that.
Thats just not my territory.

[sandandpaint]

being able to modulate the drawn spectral curves as say in Tonsturm's SPCTRL would probably be a good thing.

there is definitly potential to make more out of the spectral part.

i like what i get out from having it set to "env".
I like the sound, don´t get me wrong. But there is not much variation to be had for me vs. its jamm potential. ymmv.
It might has also its advantages, for example vs. production works, cause you´d know upfront what´s to do, and the ballpark what would come out.
It gives a clear vision.
If i was into production work, i in fact would like that.
Thats just not my territory.

I went back to look at a few parameters and I am definitely glad I bought this. The randomisation is very important, I would like more control over it, the jumps that can be made, but using the randomness on complex material, or even designing waves for processing with the random feature in mind makes for a very useful instrument.

[Funky40]

Not tryed to play further with randomness. i mean, i dealt with any knob. But i was not explicitly looking vs. the random thing and waht it brings to the table.
I use these tools different i guess. But i will have a closer look.
Thanks for the pointer

[sandandpaint]

Not tryed to play further with randomness. i mean, i dealt with any knob. But i was not explicitly looking vs. the random thing and waht it brings to the table.
I use these tools different i guess. But i will have a closer look.
Thanks for the pointer

most effective with the 512 window but starting to experiment with larger windows

[Funky40]

most effective with the 512 window but starting to experiment with larger windows

for what i do, 4096 is mostoften best.
But: i would not compare here A vs. B.
I also like 512, but it´s something entierly different to me.

i worked alots with FFT based FX.
with high filter numbers it starts to make sense to also experiment with oversampling/ running higher sample rates. So, there´s also that.