Sytrus vs Rhino [6 years dead thread bumped; go to page 21]

[fuego96]

So fuego I guess you don't know then whether all the built-in waveforms are sampled or created from scratch in Rhino.

Just that there are 130 built-in waveforms (nothing more) in Rhino 2. Guess I'll have to dig deeper now.

EDIT: Okay found something that simply confirms quite a few things.

Snippet from the rhino-fm.pdf
"It [Rhino] represents a unique hybrid of various types of synthesis, including additive, subtractive, FM and, with the latest version [version 2], resynthesis, making it capable of producing sounds once restricted to very expensive hardware. The sound recalls the lush soundscapes of classic synths such as the Roland D-50, Waldorf Microwave or even the mighty Kawai K5000. It can produce fat..."

You can read another review "rhino-cm.pdf" both from the same site here:
http://bigtick.pastnotecut.org/index.ph ... &pcode=140

So, Rhino isn't classified as a pure FM synth -- it can do pure FM synthesis, but the product itself -- when put against other purely FM synth products for comparison (such as FM7) -- is considered a hybrid synth.

So what does this all mean to the original poster?

Well it means there will be many realistic sounds that Rhino can do which Sytrus can't do (not that easily because Sytrus is a pure synth by design and has more "pure synthesis" features).

Take a violin sound for example.

Rhino, I could hypothetically (as I don't own it yet) load a bowstroke "attack" wave sample in OSC1, then load or synthesize a sine wave violin sustain loop in OSC2 and voila. Instant REAL sounding violin. Just like a D-50 (from 1987).

The fact of the matter is, the feature is there and counted as a selling point in any review against other synths. So, the conclusion is, Rhino vs Sytrus is not an apples to apples comparison contrary to popular belief.

Personally, everywhere I look only reinforces this fact.

So? Of course they both sound different (even their FM against FM) which is great news because it only means that there is no need to pick one over the other

[Big Tick]

with Rhino, I could hypothetically (as I don't own it yet) load a bowstroke "attack" wave sample in OSC1, then load or synthesize a sine wave violin sustain loop in OSC2 and voila. Instant REAL sounding violin. Just like a D-50 (from 1987).

Exactly. Though probably not real sounding, as you'll need much more to model all the variations and subtleties of a violin.

For those intersted in these 130 waveforms, the "single-cycle", "noise" and "synthesized" ones were initially synthesized (with programs I wrote specifically, or with Angelina and Rainbow). However all of these waveforms as stored as samples (or more accurately, as wavetables - since a wavetable is nothing more than an array of short samples, at least in my book). The additive generator can also be used to build custom waveforms, but again, the associated wavetables are generated once, and are then used by the internal sample-playback engine. Resynthesing the waveforms during playback would be a total waste of cpu, I don't believe Sytrus does it differently - Gol will probably confirm.

'Tick

[Wopelka]

So, the conclusion is, Rhino vs Sytrus is not an apples to apples comparison contrary to popular belief.

i second that.
and i think both are wonderful synths.

my advice: don't choose, buy them both.

[Caleb]

For those intersted in these 130 waveforms, the "single-cycle", "noise" and "synthesized" ones were initially synthesized (with programs I wrote specifically, or with Angelina and Rainbow). However all of these waveforms as stored as samples (or more accurately, as wavetables - since a wavetable is nothing more than an array of short samples, at least in my book). The additive generator can also be used to build custom waveforms, but again, the associated wavetables are generated once, and are then used by the internal sample-playback engine. Resynthesing the waveforms during playback would be a total waste of cpu, I don't believe Sytrus does it differently - Gol will probably confirm.

'Tick

Thanks Mr Big Tick.
I believe earlier in the thread Gol said that Sytrus generates wavetables. So for all intents and purposes I guess it's the same thing.

It's actually an interesting thing in some ways - it makes it sound like alot of these VSTi are really like Romplers or hybrid Rompler/Samplers like Rhino.

It makes me wonder how many synthesisers are not like this?

Is there any intrinsic value in real-time computation over the use of generated wavetables for example? Might remain an interesting marketing point for SE constructions for example..

Personally, I'm not enough of a synth head to argue the need for more than one 6 operator FM synth in my arsenal so I would definitely find that Rhino, Sytrus, FMHeaven, FM7 and Toxic are all comparable in making a purchase.

Some of these can do more than FM, some are interesting hybrids etc. etc. etc. That may certainly influence my choice but it probably wouldn't make me argue the need for more than one of them or make me feel that my comparison is somehow not valid.

Oh well - personally I think Sytrus and Rhino both look pretty cool. If I were to choose generally I would say Rhino simply because it costs less and still remains very impressive in terms of features. However, given that Sytrus is lower in price during a Group Buy......tough decision.

Caleb

[Big Tick]

It makes me wonder how many synthesisers are not like this?

On the top of my head... The muon synths... the iblit ones... Bojo impulse... Probably more.

Is there any intrinsic value in real-time computation over the use of generated wavetables for example?

real-time computation is typically more cpu-intensive, but requires much less memory so it may be a worthwhile tradeoff in some cases. It is also the best way to get true alias-free waveforms.

'Tick

[jens]

with Rhino, I could hypothetically (as I don't own it yet) load a bowstroke "attack" wave sample in OSC1, then load or synthesize a sine wave violin sustain loop in OSC2 and voila. Instant REAL sounding violin. Just like a D-50 (from 1987).

Exactly. Though probably not real sounding, as you'll need much more to model all the variations and subtleties of a violin.

For those intersted in these 130 waveforms, the "single-cycle", "noise" and "synthesized" ones were initially synthesized (with programs I wrote specifically, or with Angelina and Rainbow). However all of these waveforms as stored as samples (or more accurately, as wavetables - since a wavetable is nothing more than an array of short samples, at least in my book). The additive generator can also be used to build custom waveforms, but again, the associated wavetables are generated once, and are then used by the internal sample-playback engine. Resynthesing the waveforms during playback would be a total waste of cpu, I don't believe Sytrus does it differently - Gol will probably confirm.

'Tick

thanks - so if Rhino1 included a 'sample-set'and is considered to be a 'rompler' then e.g. Z3ta+' and probably Sytrus are as well, right?

And that's what I meant when I wrote that Gol tells lies or at least half-truths - he turns logic and truth completely upside down in his way of arguing but nonetheless he writes that he's presenting nothing else but 'facts' and that's what upsets me so much - he should have become a politician - they use the same technique and he's very good at it!

[Forever Sun]

Well it means there will be many realistic sounds that Rhino can do which Sytrus can't do (not that easily because Sytrus is a pure synth by design and has more "pure synthesis" features).

What are you on about ? Rhino is a pure synth, it is designed to synthesise sounds after all !


Just becouse it has the facility to use samples for its osc stage doesn't stop it from being a pure (?) synth. What features do you need to make it 'pure' as you say?

Bit Tick, can you release a more 'clean' version of Rhino, we need to make its synthesis engine more 'pure'.

[jens]

Well it means there will be many realistic sounds that Rhino can do which Sytrus can't do (not that easily because Sytrus is a pure synth by design and has more "pure synthesis" features).

What are you on about ? Rhino is a pure synth, it is designed to synthesise sounds after all !


Just because it has the facility to use samples for its osc stage doesn't stop it from being a pure (?) synth. What features do you need to make it 'pure' as you say?

that's exactly the 'myth' which annoys me since page 1

features are similar, but the goals aren't.

I wanted not to base Sytrus on soundbanks, everything you will get out of it will be synthesized. So our presets are totally different, because none in Sytrus will use recorded waveforms. You won't find unsynchronized drumloops or vocals in Sytrus presets.

So you decide what matters for you in presets, it's a tradeoff between flexibility & realism. If you want soundbanks, Sytrus won't have that. But if you want to craft 100% synthesized sounds, you'll have to consider it has features to enhance and make synthesis easier, through its unison & envelopes/LFO's on about everything.

[fuego96]

For those intersted in these 130 waveforms, the "single-cycle", "noise" and "synthesized" ones were initially synthesized (with programs I wrote specifically, or with Angelina and Rainbow). However all of these waveforms as stored as samples (or more accurately, as wavetables - since a wavetable is nothing more than an array of short samples, at least in my book).

Like, wavetables such as drumloop1 and fithloop are short. They're rather long for a primitive oscillator waveform no?

Let's make it easy, just tell me they are short by Rhino standards and I'll stop asking

The additive generator can also be used to build custom waveforms, but again, the associated wavetables are generated once, and are then used by the internal sample-playback engine. Resynthesing the waveforms during playback would be a total waste of cpu, I don't believe Sytrus does it differently - Gol will probably confirm.

But other synths don't do it differently either -- hardware included. So this statement only brings back the argument that both "A" and "B" synths' oscillators have the same wavetable sample-length (or allocated memory for wavetable lookup, whichever way people might like to call it) and are therefore the same???

Again, let's make this easy, just report the sample length of the aforementioned two "wavetables" to begin with.

Are they in the region of 1000 to 3000 samples?
Wouldn't be surprised if it were more

And comparitively, what is the average sample length of the single-cycle oscillator shape, say, a sine or "batman1"?

Just curious.

[tony tony chopper]

Actually I use 1 wave buffer per oscillator, for which I compute an FFT that allows me to compute 1 bandlimited (or not, because it doesn't make much sense to bandlimit a FM modulator) version of it on the fly for each voice (I can do that since they're single-cycle) - I have no keyboard zones (so no big change in sound at specific keys).

But it's not the point. I never said that a synth using buffers or whatever was a bad synth - it's the synth's own shit and you don't need to know about it. Rhino fed with single-cycle (or let's say short) waveforms is a synth just like Sytrus, and since the thread is about comparison, it's what can be compared.

My point was: let's say you put - as an example again - the drumloop that's in Rhino 2, in your preset. What can you do with it? Well, not much than playing it. It's a sample, it's not flexible. You might get, in some cases, some interesting noise using it with AM, maybe..
You won't modify its timbre, you won't stretch it very well, all of the con's of a sampler.

So now let's say that what you're looking for is real, 100% tweakable synthesis, and you decide not to use (long) samples in Rhino. NOW you're using Rhino as a synthesizer, and now you can start comparing the synthesis features with Sytrus.

Because if you're using Rhino with samples, then:
1. you don't mind playing more impressive presets and not be able to tweak much more than envelopes
2. you will rely entirely on other people's soundbanks in the future
3. you don't need Sytrus
4. you might also look for a sampler

And that's what I meant when I wrote that Gol tells lies or at least half-truths

You're still there arguing? I thought that you'd have gone hide under a table after Big Tick confirmed about Rhino using samples.

[tony tony chopper]

Are they in the region of 1000 to 3000 samples?
Wouldn't be surprised if it were more

And comparitively, what is the average sample length of the single-cycle oscillator shape, say, a sine or "batman1"?

let's not fight about sample lengths, my shapes are much more than that as well.

The point is that a tweakable single-cycle (whatever the length - more is better) waveforms allows you to build a tweakable timbre, that can also be very suitable for FM & RM.
After some point, the sample goes from a timbre to a looped sample, and this has the many con's I described:
-you can't do much with it but playing it back
-it won't stretch well
-if not done well, its looping will be noticable
-if not enough keyzones, you'll get noticable keyboard split 'jumps'

..all of the con's of a sampler. While you could use one of the sampler/soundbanks that have workaround for these (some (giga) are made to stream huge soundbanks (huge enough not to get noticable kb jumps and looping), some (kontakt) are made to really stretch samples in a better way). And then you also have additive re-synthesizers that will allow you to do more out of your samples.

[jens]

You're still there arguing? I thought that you'd have gone hide under a table after Big Tick confirmed about Rhino using samples.

he confirmed that Rhino is using samples in the form of pre-generated wavetables... - that's imo hardly the same as a 'sample bank'

[Big Tick]

Because if you're using Rhino with samples, then:
1. you don't mind playing more impressive presets and not be able to tweak much more than envelopes
2. you will rely entirely on other people's soundbanks in the future
3. you don't need Sytrus
4. you might also look for a sampler

Not exactly. Rhino won't stream 50 Mb samples from disk, for instance. But on the other hand, it'll allow you to waveshape that drumloop with a velocity-sensitive shaper, and process that through with FM controlled by aftertouch.

'Tick

[tony tony chopper]

he confirmed that Rhino is using samples in the form of pre-generated wavetables... - that's imo hardly the same as a 'sample bank'

lol, what's a sample bank if not a pre-generated wavetable? In fact, what would a non pre-generated wavetable be exactly?
In fact, what do you really know about all this?

[gbles]

he confirmed that Rhino is using samples in the form of pre-generated wavetables... - that's imo hardly the same as a 'sample bank'

Call it what you will. Is Rhino playing samples, yes or no? Tick said yes. Argument over, therefore, Jens, Gol didn't lie about that. It wasn't a half-lie, half-truth, misleading statement or whatever. Forget it.
He simply said that Rhino contained samples from version 1, which you took great offence to. These were sounds that Rhino cannot 'generate' through synthesis. For the record, I'm not saying that this is bad. I think its a neat feature. Not something I need, but there you go.