In Live 8.3.3 on both OSX 10.5.8 and 10.6.8 the matrix
displays incorrectly. It opens at the top of the Live
window and only shows the bottom half. Also, I found the
Preset names unhelpful and would have preferred them to
be more descriptive. However, I have no regrets in having
bought it at this price and look forward to the few bugs
being worked out and perhaps some more "tips and tricks"
type information being provided.
Cheers,
Scott
MVocoder - new vocoder from MeldaProduction available for a riddiculous introductory price!
-
MeldaProduction MeldaProduction https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=176122 - KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 14325 posts since 15 Mar, 2008 from Czech republic
Perfect! Thank you for letting me know!prodigal_sounds wrote:Thanks for checking, Vojtech. I appreciate the quick response. I'm using all 32-bit plugs in my 32-bit SONAR, running on a 64-bit OS, which gives SONAR a full 4GB RAM to play in, with great success, usually.
The synth I was using for the carrier was esLine String Synthesizer which seemed like a good choice. I will try alternatives. I will also try bouncing the string/synth to audio and take the synth VST out of the equation.
Huh. OK, this is embarrassing. I just tried SONAR X1(d), which is not my primary DAW but I do have it installed.
MVocoder works perfectly. No dropouts, nice vocodered output.
So this is a problem or defect between SONAR 8.5 and MVocoder, which does not exist in SONAR X1.
I don't see any reason why you should spend any effort on this, Vojtech. Clearly I've found a compelling reason to upgrade my DAW
Thanks again.
Regard the synthesizer - strings aren't actually the best choice as the harmonics are not so well spread (well, I'm not claiming that because of some scientific reason, but because I tried as well and it wasn't exactly ideal
).-
MeldaProduction MeldaProduction https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=176122
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 14325 posts since 15 Mar, 2008 from Czech republic
I'll check the matrix. Anyway there has been a bug about all windows like this and shall be fixed in the next version. About intro - hopefully some video tutorials some day.rexlapin wrote:In Live 8.3.3 on both OSX 10.5.8 and 10.6.8 the matrix
displays incorrectly. It opens at the top of the Live
window and only shows the bottom half. Also, I found the
Preset names unhelpful and would have preferred them to
be more descriptive. However, I have no regrets in having
bought it at this price and look forward to the few bugs
being worked out and perhaps some more "tips and tricks"
type information being provided.
Cheers,
Scott
-
- KVRer
- 10 posts since 23 Sep, 2011 from Sweden
This should probably be another thread but..any plans on doing a exciter/enhancer like the BBE stuff ? OR is there already one that I'm not seeing ? Sure,there are already others but Melda stuff ususally has good pricing.
-
MeldaProduction MeldaProduction https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=176122
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 14325 posts since 15 Mar, 2008 from Czech republic
Sure, for example MMultiBandSaturatorbiomekk wrote:This should probably be another thread but..any plans on doing a exciter/enhancer like the BBE stuff ? OR is there already one that I'm not seeing ? Sure,there are already others but Melda stuff ususally has good pricing.
-
- KVRist
- 243 posts since 17 Sep, 2006
I was just about to buy the Lector Vocoder by Waldorf. However, luckily I tried the demo before and although I like the sound, the features and the gui a lot, that thing crashes like no other (something that has never bee an issue with Melda Plugins for me)... In the forum some people also mentioned that Waldorf is not too busy fixing that bugs, so Lector is a no-go for me. That's why I looked around for alternatives and stumbled upon MVocoder. It seems to be quite complete feature wise. Of course it has no built in synth and no "after-effects" but that is something I can easily do in my DAW. However there were some features in the Lector, that I kinda miss in the Mvocoder:
- bandwith parameter, that controls the bandwith of the generated filterbands (or did I miss that?)
- the Lector has a really helpful and cool double-spectrum view. The upper spectrum shows the bands of the modulator the lower spectrum that of the carrier. It also has two handles in both on each side of the spectrum to squeeze or expand the spectrum on either side of it. It is also possible to move the generated bands in the frequency domain in either spectrum (car or mod). I believe I can do something similiar with the matrix an the formant parameter in MVocoder, but the way Waldorf did it is really very conventient and gets you the feel to "see-what-you-get" thus making it more understandable what you do.
Those are just my thoughts, still I hope you would add those in one way or another. The vocoder market for VST is quite thin, I tested a lot and was not happy with any of them, just some examples:
- Orange Vocoder: still cool-sounding, but no sidechain, so difficult to set up, a lot of features missing for a general purpose vocoder
- Vocodex: very nice sounding, but only VST2 so no sidechain either, not sure about 64bit, bad support for the VST version, as I read on the forums
- Lector: as I wrote above, crashes like mad
- TAL: too limited for a general purpose vocoder
Did I miss something important?
- bandwith parameter, that controls the bandwith of the generated filterbands (or did I miss that?)
- the Lector has a really helpful and cool double-spectrum view. The upper spectrum shows the bands of the modulator the lower spectrum that of the carrier. It also has two handles in both on each side of the spectrum to squeeze or expand the spectrum on either side of it. It is also possible to move the generated bands in the frequency domain in either spectrum (car or mod). I believe I can do something similiar with the matrix an the formant parameter in MVocoder, but the way Waldorf did it is really very conventient and gets you the feel to "see-what-you-get" thus making it more understandable what you do.
Those are just my thoughts, still I hope you would add those in one way or another. The vocoder market for VST is quite thin, I tested a lot and was not happy with any of them, just some examples:
- Orange Vocoder: still cool-sounding, but no sidechain, so difficult to set up, a lot of features missing for a general purpose vocoder
- Vocodex: very nice sounding, but only VST2 so no sidechain either, not sure about 64bit, bad support for the VST version, as I read on the forums
- Lector: as I wrote above, crashes like mad
- TAL: too limited for a general purpose vocoder
Did I miss something important?
-
- KVRist
- 243 posts since 17 Sep, 2006
Oh I forgot a point that I miss from Lector(and also other vocoders, that I know):
It is usually possible to add either white noise or some of the original signal (or both) back to the processed signal, but only where sibilants occur to get a higher clarity (especially on vocals). There is the whitening parameter, but I think it does something else, right?
It is usually possible to add either white noise or some of the original signal (or both) back to the processed signal, but only where sibilants occur to get a higher clarity (especially on vocals). There is the whitening parameter, but I think it does something else, right?
-
- KVRAF
- 3361 posts since 31 Dec, 2004 from People's Republic of Minnesota
I bought MVocoder during the sale, but hardly ever use it. It's extremely flexible but workflow-wise, it hasn't been the first port of call for me. The fact that there is no built-in synth or effects are a big part of it. Sometimes you just want to vocode a source without having to set up another synth and misc effects. Also, when you increase the bands to 80+, the CPU usage gets quite ridiculous, even without oversampling enabled.
I've been extremely impressed by Xils new 5000 vocoder. It's not as flexible as MVocoder, but the sound quality more than makes up for it. You can even mix the relative gain of individual bands like MVocoder as well as disabling them with the matrix. The new raw mode is pretty awesome. I'd suggest checking it out.
Anyone wants to buy MVocoder cheap just let me know. Thanks.
-Sam
I've been extremely impressed by Xils new 5000 vocoder. It's not as flexible as MVocoder, but the sound quality more than makes up for it. You can even mix the relative gain of individual bands like MVocoder as well as disabling them with the matrix. The new raw mode is pretty awesome. I'd suggest checking it out.
Anyone wants to buy MVocoder cheap just let me know. Thanks.
-Sam
-
- KVRist
- 243 posts since 17 Sep, 2006
Actually I like the "sound" of MVocoder, although I think the sound of a vocoder is alot more influenced by the carrier signal than by the filtering algorithms.
Only downside for me is the gui, it is very fiddly to work with the matrix, maybe some improvements here could help a lot:
Some ideas:
- first of all add some labels so I know which axis affects the mod and which the car
- maybe add 4 handles on the axis. Dragging the "upper" handle down on the car for example would result in collapsing all dots above the handle dots to the same value. A bit like hi-pass and lo-pass handles on both axis, only they just "move" the matrix points to the same value (like you showed in a demo video of MVocoder with the low bands)
Regarding the CPU usage: With a well prepared modulator (filtered, compressed) and rich carrier there is really no need for 100bands, all great classic vocoders do not have any more than 22 bands or such.
Only downside for me is the gui, it is very fiddly to work with the matrix, maybe some improvements here could help a lot:
Some ideas:
- first of all add some labels so I know which axis affects the mod and which the car
- maybe add 4 handles on the axis. Dragging the "upper" handle down on the car for example would result in collapsing all dots above the handle dots to the same value. A bit like hi-pass and lo-pass handles on both axis, only they just "move" the matrix points to the same value (like you showed in a demo video of MVocoder with the low bands)
Regarding the CPU usage: With a well prepared modulator (filtered, compressed) and rich carrier there is really no need for 100bands, all great classic vocoders do not have any more than 22 bands or such.
-
- KVRist
- 243 posts since 17 Sep, 2006
A quick question:
What do the frequeny graphs exactly do? Do they redistribute the given number of bands to a narrower frequency range? For example when I raise the left handle of the carrier frequencies graph to lets say 200Hz and I have selected 11 bands, does that mean the 11 bands of the modulator are mapped to the 11 bands of the carrier but the 11 carrier bands start from 200Hz, involving some form of pitch-shifting?
What do the frequeny graphs exactly do? Do they redistribute the given number of bands to a narrower frequency range? For example when I raise the left handle of the carrier frequencies graph to lets say 200Hz and I have selected 11 bands, does that mean the 11 bands of the modulator are mapped to the 11 bands of the carrier but the 11 carrier bands start from 200Hz, involving some form of pitch-shifting?
-
MeldaProduction MeldaProduction https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=176122
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 14325 posts since 15 Mar, 2008 from Czech republic
There are several graphs, that control behaviour for each band. For frequency distribution graphs you probably mean basically at which frequencies the bands are located. You can for example have one band at 100Hz, another at 1kHz and put the rest from 10khz higher, no idea what that would be forAlphacodex wrote:A quick question:
What do the frequeny graphs exactly do? Do they redistribute the given number of bands to a narrower frequency range? For example when I raise the left handle of the carrier frequencies graph to lets say 200Hz and I have selected 11 bands, does that mean the 11 bands of the modulator are mapped to the 11 bands of the carrier but the 11 carrier bands start from 200Hz, involving some form of pitch-shifting?
, but it's kind of an extreme example. You can also select different attack/release times for each band etc...About CPU usage - filtering is an expensive process, so if you have 100 bands, it will obviously take about 5x more CPU than when 20 bands is used
.-
- KVRAF
- 2048 posts since 13 May, 2004 from Germany
I think it is the best Vocoder (Melda). For tha classic use with voice as modulator, no other vocoder has that speech intelligibility of the Melda one. Also the fact that it is vst3 makes setup in Cubase dead-easy.
-
- KVRist
- 243 posts since 17 Sep, 2006
I agree, also I dont understand the criticism concerning MVocoder having no internal synth. As MVocoder is meant to be put on the carrier (usually the synth), it is very quick and easy to select any VSTi you might have and add MVocoder to that channel. Any DAW built in synth will probably be better than every built in vocoder synth out there, so what is the point? Is it about 2 more clicks?
However I agree that the gui could a bit easier to use and to understand:
e.g. why are there no labels on the matrix so we know which axis affect mod and which the car?
Why are the axes in the graph view not labeled?
On the third video about MVocoder while explaining how the frequency graph affects the spreading of the bands you show a explanatory graph with red frequncy bands, why dont you add exactly that graph (maybe a bit simplified, with only bars) in an extra window? It would make understanding what I am doing so much more easy...
Some easy suggestions that would make MVocoder much more accessible...
However I agree that the gui could a bit easier to use and to understand:
e.g. why are there no labels on the matrix so we know which axis affect mod and which the car?
Why are the axes in the graph view not labeled?
On the third video about MVocoder while explaining how the frequency graph affects the spreading of the bands you show a explanatory graph with red frequncy bands, why dont you add exactly that graph (maybe a bit simplified, with only bars) in an extra window? It would make understanding what I am doing so much more easy...
Some easy suggestions that would make MVocoder much more accessible...
-
- KVRer
- 16 posts since 16 Dec, 2013
What is it with ppl thinking a vocoder needs a built in synth? If 1 of the gripes of this powerful vocoder is the lack of a cheap built in synth engine then I'll definitely take it and run.
Aren't their enough vocoders out there that are either synths with limited vocoding power or vocoders that ONLY allow u to use the inbuilt synth. If u own Reaktor u have abunch of "Vocoders" like this at ur fingertips on the user created page.
The point is why do u need a built in synth in MVocoder when u can use ANY 2 synths or sound sources as the carrier & modulator? In built synths in vocoder plugins aren't exactly the cream of the crop in sound design. Thats putting it mildly. Not when u can use Massive, Kontakt, Sylenth, Ultrabeat, FM8, Nexus, Gladiator, Synthmaster, Omnisphere, etc...instead. Wouldn't u rather use 1 of those synths as ur carrier than a POS bandaid synth inside a vocoder?
Vocoders with built in synths made much more sense in the analog world. Back when Vocoders had to be an entire instrument all in one like the Novation MiniNova....but with plugins how is it even remotely a advantage considering how quick and easy it is to use whatever u want. That is the most basic of modular power at ur fingertips.
Aren't their enough vocoders out there that are either synths with limited vocoding power or vocoders that ONLY allow u to use the inbuilt synth. If u own Reaktor u have abunch of "Vocoders" like this at ur fingertips on the user created page.
The point is why do u need a built in synth in MVocoder when u can use ANY 2 synths or sound sources as the carrier & modulator? In built synths in vocoder plugins aren't exactly the cream of the crop in sound design. Thats putting it mildly. Not when u can use Massive, Kontakt, Sylenth, Ultrabeat, FM8, Nexus, Gladiator, Synthmaster, Omnisphere, etc...instead. Wouldn't u rather use 1 of those synths as ur carrier than a POS bandaid synth inside a vocoder?
Vocoders with built in synths made much more sense in the analog world. Back when Vocoders had to be an entire instrument all in one like the Novation MiniNova....but with plugins how is it even remotely a advantage considering how quick and easy it is to use whatever u want. That is the most basic of modular power at ur fingertips.