Waldorf MicroWave as a plugin?

[drsyncenstein]

If you have a sampler where you can set the startpoint and the loop point to a random place in the sample and modulate the loop (with for example an lfo) while the sample is playing, you get the same kind of effect as scanning a wavetable.
Not many samplers can do that.

I've always wondered about this. Why do you think that is? I can't see how being able to modulate the position of the loop to be that hard to do, or eat up too much resources.

Can only guess. First thing that comes to mind is the thing with samplers has always been trying to fit more sound into it and playing it back as good as possible. So the designers did not focus on that sort of stuff. When samplers made it big wavetables where just a niche.

[drsyncenstein]

A similar thing just happened to me just a couple of days ago.

Apart from sounds, the only other thing I have the same level of obsession with is coffee.

I just replaced my old coffee maker with a new more advanced machine. I prepared a blind test for my wife so she could experience the enormous difference in taste. She couldn't taste any difference between the two.

But at least she didn't accuse me of tasting 'pixiedust'

If you're interested in things you often start to learn about the subject and see more details.
Could it be that your solo interest in coffee resulted in lots of training for your tastebuds?
And that before that you would not have tasted those differences yourself?

[mothra]

...is entirely irellevant to the discussion about "special sauce" of PPG/Waldorf sample reproduction which boils down to the difference in playback being dictated by the design where speed of ROM scanning is how we deal with the pitch, versus the more common design of using interpolation and reconstruction which is employed in majority of other samplers and wavetable synths (those that don't use spectral wavetables which is another design completely different from all mentioned).

Umm Waldorf has used interpolation in every wavetable synth they've done..

[gearwatcher]

Umm Waldorf has used interpolation in every wavetable synth they've done..

When I said "interpolation" above I meant resampling + digital reconstruction filter..

I am pretty certain, as I have read it on multiple sources, that the original Microwave does what PPG Wave does, which is, similarly to the Emu II, it uses "pitch dictated EPROM scanning" (it would obviously be RAM on the Emulator) into an analog filter.

Simplified, it's a pulse corresponding to the pitch going into an increment input of an encoder, which goes into lesser significance address bits (higher significance ones selected the table), which effectively scans the ROM in such speed that a full cycle corresponds to the pitch fundamental. The value from the ROM is converted into a voltage in a fairly primitive DAC.

So instead of (comparatively expensive back then) high FLOPS DSP to do all the resampling and interpolation, you use simple(r) digital logic and analog filters to do the heavy lifting.

While I'm sure such DAC still has a reconstruction filter of some sort it would still alias - but aliasing in this case being related to the note fundamental, would arguably be comparatively musical and manifest as rich harmonics, and you'd still filter out most of it in that analog filter.

Later designs using Motorola DSPs and beyond obviously do it all in software.

[Uncle E]

The thing is, you people will moan about differences that are at the level of component tolerances, often the type of difference that is there between serial number 1001 and 1002, and quite often based on some rosy tinted faint memories than actual comparisons. And use hyperbole like "sounds absolutely nothing like" to moan.

If you like, I can upload samples I made of the Microwave 1 REV A. You'll hear the difference immediately if you compare against the DSP version. Anyone can hear it and it's a big enough difference that people will hear it in the mix.

With that said, the DSP version does lots of things the analog can't and is wonderful in its own right. I love them both.

[Uncle E]

I just replaced my old coffee maker with a new more advanced machine. I prepared a blind test for my wife so she could experience the enormous difference in taste. She couldn't taste any difference between the two.

Machine = Digital
French Press = Analog

[El°HYM]

Cheap analog gear that not many even know about = Priceless

[Uncle E]

Drool

[seafire]

Cheap analog gear that not many even know about = Priceless

Trifle?

[mothra]

With that said, the DSP version does lots of things the analog can't and is wonderful in its own right. I love them both.

Sin(x)-LP Filter FTW!!!!!!!

[drsyncenstein]

Umm Waldorf has used interpolation in every wavetable synth they've done..

When I said "interpolation" above I meant resampling + digital reconstruction filter..

I am pretty certain, as I have read it on multiple sources, that the original Microwave does what PPG Wave does, which is, similarly to the Emu II, it uses "pitch dictated EPROM scanning" (it would obviously be RAM on the Emulator) into an analog filter.

Simplified, it's a pulse corresponding to the pitch going into an increment input of an encoder, which goes into lesser significance address bits (higher significance ones selected the table), which effectively scans the ROM in such speed that a full cycle corresponds to the pitch fundamental. The value from the ROM is converted into a voltage in a fairly primitive DAC.

So instead of (comparatively expensive back then) high FLOPS DSP to do all the resampling and interpolation, you use simple(r) digital logic and analog filters to do the heavy lifting.

While I'm sure such DAC still has a reconstruction filter of some sort it would still alias - but aliasing in this case being related to the note fundamental, would arguably be comparatively musical and manifest as rich harmonics, and you'd still filter out most of it in that analog filter.

Later designs using Motorola DSPs and beyond obviously do it all in software.

you probably read a lot about it. It is still conjecture and part truth. However the way you responds seem you are a bit too convinced of your own story. Would be nice if that could be skipped.

[vata44]

That must be the fartiest sounding advertising demo I have heard to date.

Cool to see it though.

[Obineg+]

If you have a sampler where you can set the startpoint and the loop point to a random place in the sample and modulate the loop (with for example an lfo) while the sample is playing, you get the same kind of effect as scanning a wavetable.

there are so many questionable ideas in this comparison that i wouldnt know where to begin.

just as a little example: there is no sampler which would be able to switch the loops points only at phase 0 after a switching command came in. this requires a S/H function between the modulator and the loop point parameters.

it is also quite difficult to have multiple voices exactly in sync in a hardware sampler.

however, there is of course a certain similarity between the MWI and and an akai S-950 in various aspects (though i am not sure if the S-950 had analog VCOs?), and it would be possible to build a sampling instrument which does both things, while using the same architecture for both. (halion does not)

but this similarity is is not enough to use a sampler as wavetable synth in practice.


if it will become a plug-in... as an MWI original owner i expect to get this damn thing for free.

[Obineg+]

yup. that would be also my guess.

keep it up, either way.

[gearwatcher]

you probably read a lot about it. It is still conjecture and part truth. However the way you responds seem you are a bit too convinced of your own story. Would be nice if that could be skipped.

It's based on technical analysis by people who dissected these units with deep engineering understanding of them, and statements of the original designers.

Much more reliable sources than bunch of people swearing their golden ears can somehow infer what is and isn't "completely different".